Scotus Academicus, Tomus decimus: De Baptismo, De Poenitentia, De Extrema Unctione

NOTE 1. Since the sacraments of the New Law must consist of matter and form, whether these terms are understood strictly or less properly, it follows that, although the essence of the sacrament of penance, formally considered, consists in priestly absolution, nevertheless the penitent’s acts also contribute to it in the manner of matter. Hence the words of this absolution are called the form of this sacrament, because through absolution the penitent’s acts are determined toward effecting the sacrament. Thus the Council of Florence defines it in the decree of Eugenius, saying: The form of this sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest utters when he says: I absolve you. etc. The Council of Trent says likewise, sess. XIV, ch. 3: The holy Synod teaches that the form of the sacrament of penance... consists in those words of the minister: I absolve you; to which, in accordance with the custom of the holy Church, certain prayers are laudably added, although they by no means pertain to the essence of the form itself, nor are they necessary for the administration of the sacrament itself. Those prayers are: May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, bring you to eternal life. Amen. May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, etc. These prayers are indeed said before the essential words; after them, however, are said: May the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of all the Saints, whatever good you have done and whatever evil you have endured, be for you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and the reward of eternal life. Amen.

NOTE 2. I agree with the Subtle Doctor, In V¹ Sent., d. 11, q. 4, n. 4, that in the sacrament of penance words need not be so precise and determinate for its confection as in baptism and the Eucharist: “For,” says the Doctor, “this sacrament was instituted in the manner of a judgment. A judge, however, may deliver a sentence in any words, provided that they express the judge’s intention. Therefore,” says the Doctor, “words need not be so precise in this sacrament as in baptism or the Eucharist, because it suffices for the act of the absolving sentence to be expressed; nor need words be fixed in a public court. One judge said of the martyr Theodore, I order him to be given to the flames; another said of Saint Cyprian, It pleases me that he be punished by the sword. Commonly, however, these words are suitable: I absolve you; whatever other words may precede or follow them according to the differing custom of different Churches.” By these words the Doctor means that any form or words by which it is signified and explained that the remission of sins is effected with authority and in the manner of a judgment and sentence will be a sufficient form of this sacrament, in which the minister performs the office of a judge and authoritatively pronounces the sentence of absolution. Nevertheless, those words are to be preferred which the Church commonly prescribes and utters, namely: I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Whether, however, every part of this absolution must be uttered so necessarily that omitting any part would make the absolution invalid will be determined below.

NOTE 3. Theologians hold various opinions about the meaning and proper signification of the words I absolve you. First, Abulensis, Defensorium, part I, chs. 5 and 6, says that the verb “I absolve” is used improperly: “For,” he says, “properly speaking, neither a priest nor even God absolves from guilt or from the punishment of sin. First, Scripture nowhere says that sins are loosed, but that they are forgiven, blotted out, etc. Again, sins are not literally bonds, and consequently a person is not bound by them or loosed from them. Again, a person cannot be absolved from guilt, which has already occurred, or from punishment, which has not yet come; rather, he is absolved only from the debt of punishment to which he is bound on account of sin.” But all theologians rightly reject this opinion, first because it contradicts Scripture, which describes the remission of sins as a loosing: thus Isaiah 58 says, Loose the bonds of wickedness, etc.; and Matthew 16: Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Again, it seems to teach that after sin has passed only the debt of punishment remains, and that a person is absolved only from that. — Second, the opinion of the Nominalists, especially Gabriel, is likewise not to be approved. He asserts that I absolve you means: “I release you from the obligation of submitting your sins to the keys of the Church.” For to remit sin is not merely to release the obligation to confess sin. He adds that this absolution would be null when someone confesses only venial sins, or other sins already confessed and remitted, since even before absolution the penitent was free from the obligation to confess those sins. — Third, the explanation of Hugh of Saint Victor is also unconvincing. He maintains that I absolve you means, “I remit to you the eternal punishment due for guilt.” For this absolution twists the words of Christ our Lord and of the form of absolution into an improper sense, since punishment is not sin, although it arises from sin; hence to remit sin is not merely to release the punishment due for sins. Nor do the words I absolve you signify release from the temporal punishment due for sins, as the Alensis and Saint Bonaventure maintain: first, because, as just said, properly to remit sin is not merely to release the punishment due for it; second, because someone may approach the sacrament of penance with such great contrition that the whole temporal punishment is remitted by the power of that contrition. — Likewise, the explanation given by Saint Thomas, III, q. 84, a. 3, ad 5, is not convincing. Rejecting the explanation of the Master of the Sentences, he adds: A more perfect explanation would be: I absolve you, that is, I confer on you the sacrament of absolution. For this explanation seems pointless, since it signifies the same by the same; moreover, in the other sacraments the words of the form do not signify the conferral of the sacrament, but the application of the matter or something else. Again, sacramental words must be used with the same signification that they have in human speech by human convention: they can signify only what they were instituted to signify. Thus the words I and you mean the same within and outside a sacrament. But by human convention the words I absolve you are not instituted to signify themselves by reflexive signification, but something distinct from them. Therefore sacraments do not directly signify themselves, but something else. This is especially clear from the forms of the other sacraments: none signifies itself reflexively, but each signifies either matter or effect. For the form of baptism does not mean, “I confer on you the sacrament of baptism,” but “I apply to you water, which is the symbol of the soul’s interior cleansing from sin.” — I would therefore judge that the words I absolve you mean the same as “I remit to you sins and offenses.” This applies to all sins whatsoever, not only mortal and venial sins which are actually remitted, but also sins already confessed and remitted. For, as we shall say when treating of the confession of sins already remitted, however fully sins may have been forgiven the penitent, some debt of unworthiness always remains in him; this is diminished by repeated absolution, because by frequently repeating the sacrament of penance a person becomes less unworthy of God’s benefits and friendship.

With these points established beforehand, two matters must be determined in this question: first, whether, and which, words are necessary for the form of the sacrament of penance; second, whether that form must be uttered in words so necessarily that, if it were given in writing to someone absent or present, it would be invalid.

First conclusion. — THE WORDS “I ABSOLVE YOU” ALONE SUFFICE FOR THE ESSENCE OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. This is the more common opinion, shared by the Subtle Doctor in the place cited in the second Note and by the Angelic Doctor, q. 21, a. 3. It is supported by the Councils of Trent and Florence cited in the first Note, which specify only these words as the form of the sacrament of penance: I absolve you. The fact that they wrote “etc.” does not stand in the way. Apart from the fact that this particle is absent from some editions of the Council of Florence, the Councils append it not to indicate that the other words customarily added to the formula of absolution are necessary to its essence, but because they contribute to its perfect signification and explanation and must be uttered, at least by the Church’s precept. Add that even if they specify all those parts, namely from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, just as they specified I absolve you, it would still not follow that all are necessary to the sacrament. For the Council of Florence expressed the form of the sacrament of confirmation in these words: I sign you with the sign of the cross and confirm you with the chrism of salvation, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. It likewise declared the form of priesthood in these words: Receive the power to offer sacrifice in the Church for the living and the dead, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Yet in the disputation on the sacraments of confirmation and order we shall show that an explicit invocation of the most holy Trinity is not absolutely necessary to the form of such sacraments.

This truth is also supported by the Catechism of Saint Pius V, published by decree of the Council of Trent. In setting forth the form of the sacrament of penance, it says, n. 19: The form is, “I absolve you,” which may be inferred not only from those words, “Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven,” but also from the very teaching of Christ our Lord which we received as handed down by the Apostles. — Nor is it an objection that both the Councils and the Catechism prefix the word I: the common opinion of the Doctors is that it does not belong to the essence of the form, since when it is omitted the sense intended by Christ and the Church is sufficiently understood in the word absolve, which is equivalent to “I absolve,” as we said similarly of the same word, which may be omitted from the form of baptism.

Moreover, the Doctor expresses an apt reason for this truth in the words cited in the second Note: the sacrament of penance is administered in the manner of a judgment. In a human judgment, however, it suffices for the act of the absolving sentence to be expressed. There is no need to state the kind of offense from which the accused is absolved or for which he is condemned; nor is it necessary to express the authority by which the judge absolves or condemns, whether ordinary or delegated, principal or secondary, or by commission. Therefore, by the same reasoning, in a sacramental judgment it will suffice to express the act of the absolving sentence; there is no need to state the offense from which the penitent is absolved or the authority by which this is done. Accordingly, it is not necessary to add to the essence of this form the words from your sins, in the name of the Father, etc. — This is confirmed: by a similar example, in the Lord’s Prayer we say, As we forgive our debtors, without adding what we forgive them; and in John 11, speaking to the Apostles about Lazarus, Christ our Lord says only, Unbind him, and let him go, nor did he think it necessary to add “from the bonds by which he is bound.” Likewise, in ordinary speech, when someone who has suffered an offense wishes to remit it, it suffices for him to say, “I pardon you” or “I forgive you,” because those words sufficiently signify the remission and pardon of the offense. In like manner, a priest speaking in God’s name, when he says, “I forgive you” or “I absolve you,” sufficiently signifies the remission of the offense or debt arising from sin. — Finally, those words suffice for the essence of the form of sacramental absolution which signify the sacrament’s principal effect. But the words I absolve you alone signify the principal effect of the sacrament of penance, namely, the remission of sins; therefore, etc. The major premise is established: it belongs to the essence of the sacraments of the New Law to effect what they signify; accordingly, those words suffice for the essence of the sacrament of penance which sufficiently declare its effect. The minor premise is supported as follows: the words of the sacraments receive their determinate signification from the circumstances that accompany them. Thus, although the words I absolve you may seem indeterminate and open to signifying absolution from any offense, whether in a civil or a sacramental court, nevertheless, when they are spoken over a penitent who has laid his sins before a priest, they are determined to signify absolution from such sins, performed by the priest as judge in the place of Christ. This is the principal effect of this sacrament.

YOU WILL SAY 1: Those words do not suffice for the essence of the sacramental form which do not determinately and explicitly express the sacrament’s effect. But the words I absolve you do not determine the effect of the sacrament of penance, since they can signify indifferently absolution from sins or from excommunication and other censures. Therefore, they must be determined by the following words, from your sins. — I DENY THE MINOR: for, as we just said, although these words in themselves may seem equally open to signifying absolution from censures and from sins, especially when a penitent is bound at once by several bonds, such as excommunication or another censure as well as the debt of guilt and punishment, nevertheless, when they are spoken over a penitent who has sacramentally confessed his sin, that is, in order to obtain absolution from the bond of the debt of guilt and punishment—and sacramental absolution properly applies only to the remission of this debt, since the effect of this sacrament is not properly release from the bond of excommunication or another censure, but only from the bond of the debt of guilt and punishment—then, precisely because the priest, after hearing the penitent’s confession, administers the sacrament of penance with the words I absolve you, he signifies perfectly and determinately that he absolves from sins as regards guilt and punishment, not from the bond of excommunication or another censure. Therefore, from the prior sacramental confession and the priest’s intention, the signification of the word absolve is sufficiently determined to absolution from the bond of guilt and punishment.

YOU WILL INSIST: If the words of the form must be determined by a prior sacramental confession, it follows that this confession is an essential part of the sacrament, since it contributes to determining the form and absolution, in which the principal power of this sacrament consists. But this is contrary to what was asserted in the preceding question, where we said that the penitent’s acts are not essential parts of this sacrament. Therefore one of our assertions is false. — I DENY THE MAJOR’S CONSEQUENT, and I distinguish its reason: “The prior confession contributes to determining the form as something intrinsic, as if it were part of the utterance by which the sacramental form is expressed”—I deny; “it contributes as something extrinsic, a circumstance, or rather matter, through which the sacramental words have sacramental signification”—I grant. For although the words of the forms of the sacraments must designate the matter determinately, it sometimes happens that the matter itself contributes to determining the words. For example, the word I baptize in the form of baptism does not of itself signify that the washing takes place in natural water, although this is required for the essence of the sacrament of baptism; it acquires this signification solely from the determination of the matter itself, which is not wine or another liquid, but only natural water. Thus, although the form determines the matter more than the matter determines the form, this does not entirely exclude the matter’s determining the form, even though the principal determination belongs to the form. The same occurs in this sacrament, in which the form, if not exclusively, at least chiefly signifies and causes the remission of sins.

YOU WILL PRESS: If the words I absolve you suffice for the form and essential signification of this sacrament, it follows that, once they have been uttered, no matter what words are omitted or added afterward, the sacrament and its effect, namely the loosing of sins, are infallibly effected. But this seems false: for if, after uttering I absolve you, the priest immediately added “from the sins of another,” the meaning would be wholly different, and consequently the sacrament would have no effect. Therefore, the essence of absolution does not consist in the words I absolve you alone; the words from your sins must necessarily be added. — I DENY THE MINOR, and to its proof I say that if the priest speaks the words I absolve you over a penitent with the proper intention of absolving him from the sins he committed, the absolution is valid, even if, after uttering those words, he changes his intention and adds, “from the sins of another.” If, however, from the beginning of the utterance he intended to say the complete sentence, “I absolve you from the sins of another,” the absolution is altogether invalid, since this is contrary to the rite and form of this sacrament.

YOU WILL SAY 2: Those words belong to the essence of this sacrament which Christ uttered when instituting it. But when instituting the sacrament of penance Christ mentioned sins; therefore, etc. The major premise is established: for this reason the Church holds the invocation of the Trinity to be necessarily and essentially required for the form of baptism: when Christ commissioned the Apostles to baptize, he said, Baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc. The minor premise is also established by the words of John 20, for Christ says, Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them. — I DENY THE MAJOR: not all the words Christ our Lord uttered when instituting the sacraments belong to the essence of their forms. Otherwise, when a priest absolves a penitent he would have to utter those words, Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them, and could not use the word I absolve, but would have to say, I forgive you your sins, since Christ our Lord did not mention the word absolve, but only forgive. — As for its proof, I deny the parity. Since a profession of faith must be made in baptism, the invocation of the most holy Trinity had to be explicit and distinct, for it is certainly not understood in the word I baptize. Therefore, that explicit invocation had to be used in the very words in which Christ our Lord had expressed it. The case is different in the sacrament of penance: as we said, after a confession of sins, the word I absolve signifies those previously confessed sins sufficiently and determinately, so there is no need to mention them expressly. Christ our Lord mentioned the remission of sins when instituting this sacrament in order to show the Apostles what its matter would be; otherwise, if he had said only, “Whose you forgive,” without adding the word sins, they might have thought he had given them power to loose any bonds, just as he seemed to promise when he said, “Whatever you loose on earth.” There is no apparent reason why he expressly mentioned the names of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in baptism except that he wished to indicate that those words had to be used in the form of baptism. — From this it follows that the teaching of Durandus, In IV Sent., d. 22, q. 2, and with him Gerson, Alphabetum 33, as well as the Council of Cologne in its Enchiridion, on penance, is not true: namely, that all these words, I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, etc., belong to the essence of the form of absolution. Nor is Gabriel’s opinion, d. 11, q. 2, to be approved: he asserts that the words I absolve you from all your sins are necessary for the form of absolution. The opinion of those who say, with Peter Soto, lecture 4 on confession, that at least the words I absolve you from your sins belong to its essence must likewise not be admitted. Finally, the teaching of those who hold with the same Soto, In IV Sent., d. 22, q. 1, a. 1, that in a case of necessity it would suffice to utter the word I absolve without identifying the person absolving must not be approved. For, as we said, since the word I absolve is indeterminate, it must necessarily be determined to sacramental signification by reference to the penitent who has confessed his sins.

It is also clear, as the second part, that this form of the sacrament of penance may be expressed in any words that signify the juridical act of priestly absolution. For, as the Doctor said in the first Note, in this sacrament it suffices for the act of the absolving sentence to be expressed; and in a public court words need not be fixed, etc. Since only an essential change that produces an altogether different meaning makes a sacrament invalid, and since the essence of the sacrament of penance requires only that it be uttered as a judicial act, it follows that whatever words the priest uses in the form of absolution to express a judicial sentence, the sacrament will be valid. Thus absolution would be valid if the priest said, I loose you from your sins, or I pardon, or I forgive you your sins. This is confirmed especially by the example of Christ, who used such words when speaking of the sacrament of penance. For in John 20 he says, Whose you forgive, they are forgiven them; and in Matthew 18, Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven; and to Peter in Matthew 10², Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Moreover, when Christ foreshadowed in Mark 2, Matthew 9, and Luke 5 what he would do in the sacrament of penance, he afterward said to the paralytic, Son, your sins are forgiven you, that is, “I forgive you your sins.” For the Pharisees and scribes said among themselves, “This man blasphemes; who can forgive sins except God alone?” When Jesus saw their thoughts, he did not rebuke them, but confirmed his action by healing the paralytic. “So that you may know,” he said, “that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins,” then he said to the paralytic, “Rise, take up your bed, and go to your house.” And immediately he rose and went away to his house before them all. Priests, acting in the person of Christ, can likewise say and ministerly and instrumentally confer what Christ said and conferred by his authority as the one possessing it supremely. Nevertheless, as the Doctor observes in the place cited above, the formula prescribed by the Church must be used, in these words: I absolve you, etc.; it may not be changed without sin.

YOU WILL ASK: Whether the priest’s laying on of hands over the penitent is necessary in this sacrament?

I ANSWER that it is not absolutely necessary, both because this necessity is inferred neither from Scripture nor Tradition nor any reason. It is not inferred from Scripture, since whenever Christ our Lord mentioned this sacrament he made no mention at all of this laying on of hands, as appears from all the passages already cited. Nor from Tradition, since neither the holy Fathers nor the Councils mentioned this as necessary, except when public penitents were to be reconciled with the Church and released from further public penance; in that case the laying on of hands was indeed performed. But this absolution was not sacramental, only reconciling. This is well gathered from the First Council of Orange, ch. 3, where we read: It has been decreed that those who depart this life after receiving penance are to receive the laying on of hands without reconciliation; this suffices for the reconciliation of the dying. If he survives, let him remain in the order of penitents, so that, after fulfilling the necessary penances, he may receive legitimate communion with the reconciling laying on of hands. Likewise, at the Fourth Council of Carthage, can. 79: Penitents who have received viaticum during an illness must not consider themselves absolved by the Eucharist without the laying on of hands, if they survive. These Councils therefore hold that this laying on of hands is not absolutely necessary for the lawful and valid administration of this sacrament, since the dying can be absolved without it.

Finally, theological reasoning militates against it, since the laying on of hands is performed in the Church’s sacraments to signify the abundant effect of grace needed by those upon whom hands are laid for the duties they are to undertake. Thus in the sacrament of confirmation hands are laid on so that a person may receive the fullness of the Holy Spirit, by which he is strengthened and invigorated to confess the faith steadfastly and courageously; this certainly requires an abundance of grace. Hence in Acts 8 we read that the Apostles laid their hands on the recently baptized faithful, and they received the Holy Spirit. Similarly, in the sacrament of order, which confers a certain eminence of power for performing the divine mysteries, this laying on of hands is also performed to signify that a fullness of grace is conferred for fulfilling these duties worthily and properly. Thus Saint Paul admonished Timothy, 2 Timothy 1: I remind you to stir up the grace of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands. But the sacrament of penance is ordered only to the remission of sins, not to undertaking any duties or obtaining any special excellence of grace. Therefore, the laying on of hands is not required for this sacrament. Add that the laying on of hands is performed only in sacraments by which the recipient is deputed to perform some solemn act, because the hand is above all the organ of action. Thus it is performed in two sacraments: confirmation, by which the faithful person is constituted as it were a soldier of Christ, to defend and profess his name and religion boldly before tyrants and unbelievers; and order, by which a person is set apart from the common body of the faithful, to be specially devoted to the worship of God and the ministry of religion. By receiving the other sacraments, namely the Eucharist, penance, etc., a person is not specially deputed to perform any act with courage and prudence; accordingly, this designation of an act by the laying on of hands does not seem necessary in them.

YOU WILL SAY 1: The Fathers call the sacrament of penance “the laying on of hands.” Thus Saint Clement, Apostolic Constitutions, bk. 2, ch. 41, says: “As you admit a Gentile washed by baptism after instruction, so restore this man, cleansed by penance, to the ancient pastures through the laying on of hands; for him the laying on of hands will take the place of washing.” And the Fourth Council of Carthage, ch. 76, speaking of a penitent at the point of death, says: “If he is believed to be about to die at once, let him be reconciled by the laying on of hands.” Hence Saint Leo writes, ep. 92: “Those who have partaken of food offered to idols may be cleansed by fasting and the laying on of hands.” Therefore, just as baptism is called “washing” and confirmation “chrism” because washing is absolutely necessary for baptism and anointing for confirmation, by the same reasoning the laying on of hands must be necessary for the sacrament of penance. — I DENY THE CONSEQUENT: it is called the laying on of hands only from the ceremony customarily performed in this sacrament, when the priest blesses the penitent while imparting absolution. This ceremony is entirely accidental, not essential, since it can be omitted without sin, at least without mortal sin. Add that most often, when the holy Fathers and Councils mention the laying on of hands performed when absolution is granted, they are not speaking of sacramental absolution, but of reconciliation.

YOU WILL SAY 2: In the other sacraments, besides the words, the priest performs some external act toward the recipient; therefore, one must also be performed in this sacrament. But the only such act can be the laying on of hands; therefore, etc. — I DENY THE MAJOR’S CONSEQUENT. The reason for the difference is that all the other sacraments, except the Eucharist, consist in the application of matter; hence an external act is required in them. Penance and the Eucharist are different: just as in the Eucharist the priest effects the sacrament by speaking the words over the matter alone, so the words of the priest absolving over the penitent alone effect the sacrament of absolution. Add that if some external act were required of the minister in penance, it could be the signing of the cross, by which it would be signified that the penitent receives remission of sin through the blood and merit of Christ’s Passion and cross.

Second conclusion. — SACRAMENTAL ABSOLUTION MUST NECESSARILY BE VOCAL, THAT IS, EXPRESSED BY THE VOICE.

This is inferred, first, from the decree of Eugenius, where we read of the sacrament of penance: “The form of this sacrament is the words of absolution which the priest utters: I absolve you.” And from the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 6, where we read: Although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of another’s benefit, nevertheless it is not merely the bare ministry of announcing the Gospel or declaring sins to have been remitted; rather, it is in the manner of a judicial act, in which a sentence is pronounced by him as if by a judge, etc. But these statements mean that absolution in penance must be vocal or verbal; therefore, etc.

This is confirmed by the Church’s constant practice: from the time of the Apostles until the present day she has administered this sacrament, like the others, in no other way than by words uttered with the human voice. Thus, although Christ our Lord did not explicitly say that certain words must be pronounced when penitents are absolved from sins, any more than he did when other sacraments are administered, he is nevertheless understood to have indicated this implicitly when, On Baptism, he said, Teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, etc.; and regarding the Eucharist, when he said, Do this in remembrance of me. Hence the perpetual practice of the Fathers and the Church has always implied that these words are to be pronounced in baptism, I baptize you, and in the Eucharist, This is my body; baptism and the Eucharist have never been effected by gestures or writing. The same judgment therefore applies to penance, and with greater reason, since the form of the sacrament of penance must not only express its effect, namely, the remission of sins, but must also signify that this effect is wrought by a priest, that is, that the minister here and now effects the remission of sins by the power conferred on him by Christ our Lord.

YOU WILL SAY 1: Absolution may be granted in whatever way an accusation of sins may be made through confession. But confession can be valid even if it is not made by vocal speech, but only in writing, by a gesture, or by some external sign. Therefore, by the same reasoning, it is not essential to absolution that it be uttered in a human voice. — I DENY THE MAJOR. The reason for the difference is, first, that in the sacraments the form must be more distinct and explicit than the matter. Since absolution functions as the form, whereas confession functions as the matter, it was fitting that absolution be uttered in a human voice, so that its signification might be more distinct. Second, several causes may prevent the penitent from making a vocal confession more readily than they may prevent a priest from giving vocal absolution. It is clear that all people who are mute or do not know the language cannot express their sins in words; but a priest can utter in words what he conceives in his mind, and scarcely any causes can arise that would prevent him from uttering the form vocally.

YOU WILL INSIST: If vocal words are necessarily required for valid absolution, it must be either because it is absolution or because it is sacramental. But neither can be said. Not the first, because not every absolution expressed in writing is invalid: absolution from excommunication and censure can be granted by a kiss, gesture, or writing, at least by the supreme Pontiff, as is clear from the Clementine On the Sentence of Excommunication, final chapter. Nor the second, since otherwise no sacrament could be celebrated in any way other than by voice, which is false. For matrimony, which is a true sacrament, is validly effected by gestures, signs, and writings that testify to interior consent. Therefore, etc. — I DENY THE MINOR in both parts. As to the first, I say that there is a difference between absolution from sins and absolution from censures: just as the latter does not require a determinate form of words, so it does not require words properly speaking, because it does not operate as an instrument of Christ for producing some supernatural effect, but only as an instrument of the one absolving and reconciling a person to the Church, to which Christ granted authority to impose and remit censures. Hence it is for the Church to prescribe the manner in which excommunication and other such censures are incurred and remitted. The form of the sacraments, however, is not of this kind, since the Church cannot change it at will. As to the second, I say that matrimony is not judged in the same way as the other sacraments. Since matrimony is effected by the parties’ mutual consent, anything capable of expressing this mutual consent can also suffice for the validity of this sacrament. The case is different with the sacrament of penance, as with the other sacraments, whose form is determinate.

YOU WILL SAY 2: Whatever is essentially required for a judgment in an external court suffices for the sacrament of penance, since, as we said, Christ our Lord instituted this sacrament by analogy with a judgment in an external court. But it is not essential to a judgment in an external court that the judge pronounce a sentence aloud; therefore, neither is this required in penance. — I DENY THE MAJOR. For Christ instituted the sacrament of penance only with respect to certain essentials common to every judgment, namely, the accused person’s accusation, the examination of the crimes, and the pronouncement of a sentence; not with respect to matters that seem necessary only at the rulers’ discretion, such as whether judgments issued in writing are invalid or valid, and whether a sentence pronounced upon an absent person is valid or invalid. For Christ our Lord willed that his judgment in penance be vocal and be delivered to a person who is present: first, so that judicial authority might be expressed more clearly; second, so that the judge might know with greater certainty the present state and disposition of the person to be absolved or condemned. Therefore, let it be

Third conclusion. — ABSOLUTION RECORDED IN WRITING OR DIRECTED TO SOMEONE ABSENT WOULD BE INVALID.

This is proved from the Council of Trent, can. 31, ch. 2, where it says that Christ willed that those who after baptism have defiled themselves by some crime, instead of being washed again by baptism, should be brought before this tribunal (of penance) as accused persons, so that whenever penitents flee to him from the sins they have committed, they might be freed through the sentence of priests. But to flee to a tribunal and appear before it means nothing other than to disclose one’s sins to a priest who is present, in order to receive absolution from him. Therefore, according to the Council of Trent, it was Christ our Lord’s will that confession be made to a priest who is present and that absolution be granted to an accused person who is present.

This is proved likewise from the book On True and False Penance, ch. 10. Using the example of the lepers who were cleansed and whom Christ commanded in Luke 17 to present themselves to the priests so that they might judge them cleansed of leprosy, it concludes that penitents must present themselves before a priest-confessor and receive absolution in his presence as they lay down their sins. It says: The Lord commands those to be cleansed to show their faces to the priests, teaching that sins must be confessed in person, not disclosed through a messenger or in writing. For he said, “Show your faces,” and all of you, not one person on behalf of all; do not appoint another as a messenger to present the offering prescribed by Moses for you. Rather, you who sinned must yourselves blush, for blushing itself has a part in remission. For when a person speaks to the priest himself and overcomes his shame through fear of the one he has offended, he obtains pardon for his crime. Thus Augustine.

The Subtle Doctor teaches the same, In IV Sent., d. 17. In answering the eighth argument he says: “To the other point, it seems that confession should sometimes be made in writing, as we read of Thomas of Canterbury, who sent to the Curia for absolution. But this seems contrary to the nature of confession, because every writing by its nature is liable to become public. However secretly someone may keep a writing with him, once he sends it, it can be made public either through the messenger or through the person to whom it is sent, and by its nature it is always open to anyone who reads it, revealing what it contains. Anyone, therefore, who writes something does something contrary to the nature of a suitable sign in confession. This writing also removes the shame which is a great penalty in confession; this is so unless the penitent is present when he confesses in writing. Therefore, when it is said in 30, q. 5, Qualis debeat, that someone can confess in writing, John explains that this is when the penitent is present, because an absent person cannot do so lawfully. Therefore, let the absent person wait until he is present, intending to confess then.” By these words he plainly signifies that no confession is made in writing and, consequently, that no absolution is given to someone absent. He proves this from the nature of confession, which must not turn to the penitent’s harm and must carry shame with it. He confirms it from the gloss of John Andreae on In IV Decretals, q. 5, ch. 4, at the end, where he denies that anyone can confess or be absolved from sins in absentia. Nor is it an objection that the same chapter does not deal with penance or sacramental confession: the Doctor draws his conclusion not from the chapter’s words, but from John Andreae’s own explanation. — Moreover, that confession and therefore absolution given to someone absent is invalid is clear from the decree of Clement VIII, who condemned the former opinion by this decree in the famous controversy over the validity of absolution and confession made in writing to someone absent, defended by some theologians of the Society of Jesus, and their nullity, asserted by other theologians: On the twentieth day of June, in the year of the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ 1602, in a general assembly of the Holy Roman and Universal Inquisition, held in the Apostolic Palace on the Quirinal Hill in the presence of our most holy Lord Clement VIII, Pope by divine providence, the question was proposed whether it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letter or messenger to a confessor who is absent and to obtain absolution from him while he is absent. After hearing the opinions of the theological Fathers and maturely and carefully considering the matter with the most illustrious and most reverend lords, the Cardinals, inquisitors general against heretical depravity, our most holy Lord condemned this proposition—namely, that it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letter or messenger to an absent confessor and obtain absolution from him while absent—as at least false, rash, and scandalous, and prohibited it; he ordered that this proposition henceforth be taught neither in public nor private lectures, sermons, or assemblies, and that it never be defended, published, or in any way put into practice as probable in any case. If anyone teaches or defends it, causes it to be printed, even debates it except in order to refute it, or puts it into practice either directly or indirectly, then, besides incurring the excommunication imposed by the law itself, from which no one may absolve him except the Roman Pontiff then reigning, even another person of any dignity, including the Major Penitentiary of the Holy Roman Church, except at the point of death, he shall also be subject to other penalties to be imposed at discretion.

YOU WILL REPLY: The Pontiff did not declare that such absolution is invalid, but only unlawful, since he said that he condemned the proposition which asserts, It is lawful to confess to absent persons by letter. But the opposite appears from the words of the decree itself, which prohibits putting it into practice in any way. For if absolution or confession by letter were merely unlawful, it would follow that it was valid at least in a case of necessity, and consequently lawful, since in urgent extreme necessity all valid acts are lawful. It follows that if it were truly only unlawful, but not wholly invalid, to confess to absent persons or to absolve someone absent, no human authority, civil or papal, could prohibit it in a case of necessity, especially one of the greatest necessity. Since, therefore, the supreme Pontiff, under penalty of excommunication reserved to himself, prohibits asserting that it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letter or messenger to a confessor who is absent and to obtain absolution from him while he is absent, it is manifest that he likewise holds such confession and absolution to be invalid. — Some reply, with Suárez, III, disp. 21, sect. 4, that the supreme Pontiff did not condemn each part of the proposition separately, but only the two together as a whole: that it is indeed unlawful to absolve those who are absent, but not prohibited to confess by letter to someone absent on some occasions. — But even if this were the case, we would still have the conclusion we seek. Yet this interpretation of Suárez was wholly rejected by authority of the supreme Pontiff Paul V, as appears from the decree issued in a general Inquisition, in these words: On 14 July 1605, the case of Father Francis Suárez, Jesuit, having been proposed, and what he wrote in volume 4, on the third part of Saint Thomas, section 1, disputation 21, in interpreting the decree of Clement VIII of blessed memory, Pope, dated 10 June 1602, by which he condemned the proposition that it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letter or messenger to an absent confessor and obtain absolution from him while absent, having been considered, and what Father Suárez adduced in defense of his interpretation having also been maturely discussed, and the opinions of the most illustrious lords, the Cardinals, having been heard, His Holiness decreed that the said interpretation does not stand and must therefore be removed from his books, in accordance with the decrees formerly issued by Clement VIII of blessed memory, as recorded in the acts of the Holy Office. Moreover, in the same year, on 20 July, the same Congregation decreed: From the books of Father Francis Suárez, Jesuit, disp. 23, sect. 1, n. 12, let the words written below be removed, namely, “and from this resolution up to this point, in the absence of a confessor.” Father Suárez is to correct his book and, before publishing it, show it to this Sacred Congregation. And again, on 18 August, this decree was issued: His Holiness decreed that from volume 4

Of Father Suárez, Jesuit, on the third part of Saint Thomas, disputation 21, on confession, section 4, whose title is: Whether it is necessary for confession that the person immediately and personally disclose his sins to a priest who is present, the whole section be removed and no other section substituted in its place.

YOU WILL SAY 1: As we said above in conclusion 2, the sacrament of penance was instituted in the manner of a judgment; hence sacramental absolution is a sentence delivered in the court of conscience. But in a civil court a judge can absolve someone who is absent; therefore, in the tribunal of penance also, a priest will be able to absolve an absent penitent from sins. — I DENY THE PARITY. For although the sacrament of penance has some similarity to a civil court, it differs from it in many respects. First, in the tribunal of penance the same person is accuser, witness, and accused, because the judgment is voluntary both on the part of the accused and on the part of the judge. Second, the accused is absolved or condemned according to what he says for or against himself, since this judgment was instituted in the accused’s favor and therefore he must be believed, especially when he confesses his own injustice and crime against himself. Third, a civil judge need not be concerned with the interior state and disposition of the person he absolves. A priest, however, must have moral certainty about the present state and disposition of the person to whom he grants the benefit of absolution. He cannot know this unless the person to be absolved reveals it; but an absent person cannot do so. Since a human being is subject to continual change, however firmly he may have attested to his disposition in writing, he may have changed it by the time the priest grants absolution to him in his absence. Hence, although a civil judge can absolve an absent person, a priest cannot do so in the tribunal of penance.

YOU WILL SAY 2: The Subtle Doctor cited above reports that Saint Thomas of Canterbury, while absent, asked the Apostolic See for absolution. And Saint Cyprian, bk. 3, ep. 17, says that the lapsed, when they sought absolution by letter, could obtain it. Therefore, absolution given to someone absent can be valid. — I DENY THE CONSEQUENT. Regarding the case of Saint Thomas, reported by Baronius, vol. 12, for the year 1164, n. 6, I answer that he did not seek sacramental absolution from the Apostolic See, nor did Alexander III, the supreme Pontiff, give it to him, but only canonical absolution, because he acknowledged that he had not defended the rights of the Church against the King of England and his nobles with all the steadfastness he ought to have shown. Hence he judged himself unworthy of the priesthood, as may be gathered from the supreme Pontiff’s letter, which says: If you recall having committed something for which your own conscience ought to reproach you, whatever it may be, we advise you to confess it through penance to a priest considered discreet and prudent. When you have done this, the merciful Lord, who looks much more to the heart than to deeds, will forgive you in the compassion of his accustomed goodness; and, trusting in the merits of his blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, we absolve you from that which has been committed and by Apostolic authority release you from the same. From this it is clear that he granted him not sacramental, but only canonical absolution, since he urges him to meet a discreet priest, confess to him, and receive sacramental absolution from him. As for Saint Cyprian, I say that the opposite is rather inferred from his words, for he says: If some have been overtaken by the danger of illness, let them not wait for my presence, but they should make an exomologesis with any priest who is present; or, if no priest is found and death is pressing, they should³ do so even before a deacon, so that, with hands laid on them as a sign of penance, they may depart in peace to the Lord. Here he indicates that a priest’s presence is required. Moreover, he is not speaking there of sacramental absolution, but only canonical absolution; otherwise he would not say that it could be imparted in the priest’s absence by a deacon. The peace of which Cyprian speaks was therefore absolution from satisfactions; deacons could grant this, since even today it is customary for archdeacons to absolve from excommunication, although they have only the order of deacon. This is not surprising, since it is clear from bk. 8 of Clement’s Apostolic Constitutions that deacons had authority to excommunicate in the priest’s absence, ch. 34: A deacon excommunicates a subdeacon, a lector, a cantor, or a deaconess, if something of this kind occurs, when the priest is absent. Therefore, in the priest’s absence they also had the power to absolve from excommunication, since it belongs to the same person to absolve as to excommunicate. Pamelius adds in his annotations on that letter of Cyprian: “Perhaps, when the bishop was absent and many priests were confined in prisons, the reconciliation of penitents was granted to deacons by some privilege in cases of necessity, just as we read that Saint Gregory at one time granted priests the administration of the sacrament of confirmation, which otherwise belongs to bishops alone.” So Pamelius.

YOU WILL OBJECT 2: There are various histories from which it appears that sacramental absolution was given by letter to persons who were absent. First, this is inferred from the history of Serapion, described by Saint Dionysius of Alexandria in his Letter to Fabian, as reported by Eusebius, bk. 6 of the Ecclesiastical History, ch. 36: “Serapion, a man of venerable age, during a persecution sacrificed to idols through weakness. Afterward he repeatedly and humbly asked to be received into the Church, but because he had sacrificed to idols no one listened to his request. He fell into a grave illness, and for the next three days lived mute and without awareness. On the fourth day, somewhat revived, he ordered his grandson to summon a priest. The priest, who happened to be ill himself and unable to come to him, gave the boy whom the sick man had sent a particle of the Eucharist and instructed him to moisten it and pour it into the old man’s mouth. He did so, and Serapion immediately breathed his last.” Dionysius adds about him: Now it is sufficiently clear that he had been preserved alive until he had been wholly loosed from the bonds of guilt; and thus, cleansed entirely of the offense with which he had been stained by sacrificing to idols, he could be numbered among the confessors on account of the many good deeds he had performed in life. One may argue from this that before falling ill the old man had not obtained sacramental absolution from idolatry: as Dionysius says, he had not been granted the petition by which he asked to be received among the penitents; nor could he have been admitted to participation in the Eucharist without first receiving absolution, lest it be given to someone unworthy. Next, it is said that he had been preserved until he was wholly loosed from the bonds of guilt. But this effect is not proper to the Eucharist, but to absolution; therefore, he was absolved by a priest before being admitted to participation in the Eucharist. It was not by a priest who was present, since illness kept him in bed; therefore, it was through a messenger. — Second, this is clear from the history of Robert, Bishop of Le Mans, who, during the time of John VIII, in the year 872, while ill, wrote to the bishops residing near the walls of Angers. He confessed his sins to them by letter and asked them to absolve him; the bishops agreed and wrote back to him. Robert’s letter is found in volume 3 of the Councils of Gaul, and contains these words: I do not cease to implore, one by one, the mercy of your goodness, that by the power granted to you from heaven you may untie the bonds of my sins and, through the earnestness of your prayers, expiate my committed offense, so that I may not be led to hell with the reprobate, but rather, through your intervention, may deserve to be raised to the joys of heaven. The bishops replied in this manner in their letter entitled Letter of absolution which those same venerable guardians sent him from the place of siege. Among other things, this letter contains: To you, confessing your sins through the ecclesiastical power of Apostolic authority, which our Lord Jesus Christ gave to his disciples and Apostles when he said, “Receive the Holy Spirit,” etc., and through those same Apostles to their successors, whose office we, though unworthy, hold. And later: By his grace and power, through the virtue of the Holy Spirit, who is the remission of all sins, may he forgive you all your sins, free you from all evil, preserve you in every good work, and lead you to eternal life and the company of the holy priests. Amen. — Third, this is clear from the confession made by Hildebold, Bishop of Soissons, to Hincmar of Reims. Sirmond mentions it in his notes on the preceding letter, where he says that the title of his absolution is found in an old codex: An exhortation of Hincmar, Metropolitan, to Hildebold, Bishop, detained by bodily illness, in which, in response to the request in his letter of confession, he absolved him by his own authority through reconciling him in bodily absence. — Fourth, this is clear from a rescript of Gregory VII to the Bishop of Lincoln, found in bk. 1, ep. 31, in these words: We have thought it proper to send you absolution from your sins, as you have wandered, supported by the authority of the Princes of the Apostles, Peter and Paul, whose office, though unworthy, we claim to hold, provided that you persevere in good works and lament your offenses as much as you wish. — Fifth, it is clear from another rescript of his to the Bishop of Lodi, whose final words are: Since you appear to be at the point of death, moved by brotherly compassion, we absolve you from your sins by the authority of blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, etc. It is found in bk. 2, ep. 6. — I ANSWER that these and similar authorities and testimonies do not indicate that sacramental absolution from sins was lawfully given to persons who were absent. They indicate either only the remission of canonical penances, or the granting of indulgences, or finally some spiritual blessing by way of prayers and petitions, in which the prelates who gave absolution wished and prayed God either to grant the grace of penance to those whom they seemed to absolve, or mercifully to remit the punishment due for their sins. The reason for this answer is clear, since such absolutions are not preceded by distinct accusations of sins, but only by general and indistinct ones. A general and indistinct confession of sins does not suffice to obtain sacramental absolution except in a case of necessity. — This answer is confirmed by the fact that similar absolution was granted to people who do not seem to have made any accusation of sins, even a general and indistinct one. For Gregory VII, in bk. 8 of the Letters, writing ep. 2 to Alfonso, King of Spain, after praising him in various ways, absolved him and his nobles from sins in these words: May almighty God, Creator and Ruler of all things, ineffable disposer of every dignity, who grants salvation to kings, through the merits of the Most High Lady, the Mother of God, Mary, and of all the Saints, and by the authority of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, absolve, through them, though we are unworthy, you and your faithful in Christ from whatever sins have been committed, and grant you victory over your enemies, etc.