AD AUDIENDAS CONFESSIONES

On the Hearing of Confessions

Canonical Perspectives

Fr. Enrico C. Eusebio, S.J.

Loyola School of Theology

First Semester, School Year 2020-2021

I. Canonical norms and principles............................................................................................... 2

1. Ordinary form of celebration ............................................................................................................. 2

2. Requirements concerning the minister .............................................................................................. 2
2.1 Holy Orders and faculty ............................................................................................................... 2
2.2 Ways of receiving the faculty........................................................................................................ 2
2.3 Extension of the concession .......................................................................................................... 3
2.4 Cessation of the faculty ................................................................................................................ 3
3. Duties and limits of ministers ............................................................................................................ 3
3.1 Minister of justice and mercy ....................................................................................................... 3
3.2 Safeguarding the sacramental seal .............................................................................................. 3
4. Rights and role of the penitent ........................................................................................................... 4
4.1 Right to receive the sacraments.................................................................................................... 4
4.2 Contrition and conversion ............................................................................................................ 4

II. Some pastoral situations .......................................................................................................... 5

1. Communicatio in sacris ..................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 With Eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church ................................... 5
1.2 With other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church...................................... 5
2. Confession of excommunicated or interdicted persons ..................................................................... 6
2.1 Three kinds of censures ................................................................................................................ 6
2.2 Latae sententiae penalties ............................................................................................................ 6
2.3 Remission of censures outside the confession .............................................................................. 6
2.4 Remission of censures during confession (c. 1357) ..................................................................... 7
2.5 New Faculty of Confessors to Absolve Granted by Pope Francis ............................................... 9
3. Backsliding penitents ....................................................................................................................... 10
3.1 The condition .............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Pastoral approach ...................................................................................................................... 10
4. Persons in irregular unions .............................................................................................................. 10
4.1 A common dilemma in the Church ............................................................................................. 10
4.2 Solutions available in the Church .............................................................................................. 11

III. Addendum: The limits of “ecclesia supplet” ...................................................................... 12

1. Proper Understanding ................................................................................................................... 12

2. Cases Not Covered ........................................................................................................................ 13
 Page |2

I. Canonical norms and principles

1. Ordinary form of celebration

- Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the sole ordinary means by
which a member of the faithful who is conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and
with the Church. Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession, in
which case reconciliation, i.e., forgiveness of these grave sins, may be attained by other
means also (c. 960).
- Forgiveness of grave sins “by other means also” is dependent upon the condition and re-
quirement that there is at the moment “physical or moral impossibility”1, in which case
the person is to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to con-
fession as soon as possible (c. 916).
- Hence, one may not just decide to abandon individual confession and absolution, since c.
988 §1 states: “The faithful are bound to confess all grave sins […] which have not yet
been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in
an individual confession”. Divine forgiveness for the grave sin may already have taken
place through the penitent’s perfect contrition. But the obligation remains to submit one-
self to the power and ministry of the Church in the sacrament. All grave sins committed
after baptism must at some point be confessed.
- The forgiveness of less grave or venial sins may be sought and obtained in many non-
sacramental ways, aside from the Eucharist, through both individual and communal acts,
which are not excluded by the exhortation of c. 988 §2 to confess also these venial sins.

2. Requirements concerning the minister

2.1 Holy Orders and faculty

- Validity requires that the minister must have the sacramental power of Holy Orders (c.
965), as well as the faculty to exercise this power in the giving of absolution (c. 966 §1).

2.2 Ways of receiving the faculty

2.2.1 By virtue of their office

- Bishops; the Parish Priest (territorial and personal); parochial vicar who substitutes for the
parish priest when impeded or absent (c. 541); various kinds of chaplains (c. 566 § 1) for
those under their care; Rector of the Seminary (c. 262 and 985); and the Superiors of reli-
gious institutes only regarding their subjects and those who stay in their house overnight (cc.
966§2; 967§§1 and 3; 968; 566§1)

2.2.2 By concession
- The faculty is given to diocesans and religious by the Ordinary of the place of incardina-
tion or of residence of each priest (c. 966 §2).

1
Examples of physical impossibility are: physical weakness because of illness; deafness: a totally deaf person is not
obliged to write out his/her sins for this would be an extraordinary means; inability to speak a language known by the
confessor. Examples of moral impossibility are: there must be no other confessor available to whom the individual can
go without serious inconvenience or difficulty; the only available confessor is a relative; others may overhear the con-
fession; confessor talks too loud; not enough time for very long confession and people would suspect something; danger
of catching an infectious disease; penitent reasonably fears unjust treatment from confessor.
 Page |3

- The faculty must be given in writing (c. 973), and only to one who has been found suitable
through an exam or some other means (c. 970). It may be conceded for a determinate or in-
determinate period of time (c. 972).

2.3 Extension of the concession

- A priest who receives the faculty to hear confessions from the local ordinary, including the
Vicar General and the Episcopal Vicar, can then exercise this faculty everywhere, unless
the Ordinary of a particular place regulates the exercise of faculties there (c. 967 §2; eg.
Cubao requires annual renewal of faculties).

2.4 Cessation of the faculty

- Cessation of the faculty to hear confession can occur through revocation, loss of office,
excardination or loss of domicile (c. 975). When one changes domicile, one must ask for the
faculties anew from the new Ordinary who should confer with the Ordinary of the priest in
question (c. 971).

3. Duties and limits of ministers

3.1 Minister of justice and mercy

- The priest must have the integrity of confession in his heart and must act with prudence
and discretion. He must take account of the condition and age of the penitent and may nev-
er ask for the names of accomplices whatever sins are being dealt with (c. 979).
- The penance to be given to the penitent should be proportionate and “do-able”, that which
would help the penitent spiritually, like attending Mass, praying, or helping one’s neighbor.
To a person coming back to confession after many years and has been distant from the
Church, it might be imprudent to give penances which are complicated and tiring2.
- If the penitent asks for absolution, as long as the priest has no doubts about his desire to re-
pent and as long as the penitent has all the good intentions not to fall again into sin, it may
not be deferred or delayed (c. 980). Even if the confessor is not quite sure for how long the
penitent might be able to sustain such good intentions, absolution may not be denied3.

3.2 Safeguarding the sacramental seal

3.2.1 Elements of the seal

- The essential objects are all sins, grave or light, confessed in order to obtain absolution,
even if this is refused or deferred. It covers the circumstances of the sin, the names of ac-
complices, the fact of the refusal or deferral of absolution, the penance imposed, etc. The ac-
cidental objects are all other secondary elements such as physical or mental defects of the
penitent. Not even these are to be revealed.
- A direct violation is committed when the name of the sin and the sinner are revealed, or
when the identity of the person is revealed in another way. An indirect violation is commit-
ted when the identity of the sinner and the sin itself are revealed in such a way that there is a
risk of identification. Not even the death of the penitent can break the seal.
- The subject of the sacramental seal is solely the confessor. All others who come to the
knowledge of the content of confession are bound by the “secret” (e.g. eavesdroppers, inter-

2
Cf. GIANFRANCO GIROTTI, O.F.M. CONV.., “The Sacrament of Penance: Concerns and Implications in the Different
Levels of Competence”, in Course on the Internal Forum, 9-14 March 2009, Apostolic Penitentiary, Chancery Build-
ing, 13 (= GIROTTI, “The Sacrament of Penance”, 13).
3
Cf. GIROTTI, “The Sacrament of Penance”, 15.
 Page |4

preters – cc. 983 § 2; 990). In fact, different penalties are accorded to violators of the seal
and the secret. In the case of a direct violation by the confessor, a latae sententiae excom-
munication reserved to the Holy See is incurred. For an indirect violation by the confessor, a
just penalty shall be imposed (c. 1388 §1). For others, a just penalty, not excluding excom-
munication (c. 1388) is prescribed.
- According to the learned opinion of the Apostolic Penitentiary4, the priest is analogously
bound by the seal towards the penitent himself. For example, in another occasion outside of
confession, the priest may not talk with the penitent about the sins confessed by the penitent
himself without asking the latter’s permission, unless this happens immediately after the
moment of confession, which can be considered to be the moral continuation of confession
or unless the penitent takes the initiative.

3.2.2 A serious violation: use of media

- To uphold the sanctity of the confessional and the rights of the minister and the penitent, an-
yone who attempts to record or listen to what is said in the confessional or who divulges this
information through the media incurs latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith5. This is a post-CIC/83 norm.

3.2.3 Guidelines concerning the internal and external forum

- The basic principle: To uphold the difference between the internal and external forum and
thus safeguard the sanctity of the confessional and the rights of the penitent, a confessor may
make no use of knowledge gained in the confessional, i.e., the internal sacramental forum.
He who is in authority may not therefore use anything that he heard in confession in the ex-
ternal forum, i.e., his external governance (c. 984). Hence:
- Superiors are not to hear the confessions of their subjects unless the members spontaneously
request them to do so (c. 630 § 4). Novice-masters and rectors may not hear the confessions
of their subjects unless they have spontaneously requested it in a particular case (c. 985).
Even if the Code allows such possibility, the clear inclination, in the light of c. 984, is to
discourage such practice, even if spontaneously requested.
- The opinion of seminary confessors and spiritual directors may never be sought in deciding
about the suitability of seminarians for admission to Holy Orders or their possible dismissal
(c. 240 §2).

4. Rights and role of the penitent

4.1 Right to receive the sacraments

- Sacred ministers may not deny the sacraments to those who opportunely ask for them, are
properly disposed and are not prohibited by law from receiving them (c. 843 §1). If the peni-
tent has the required dispositions then he has the right to absolution and this may not be re-
fused or deferred (c. 980).

4.2 Contrition and conversion

- The internal act of contrition is the fundamental act required to obtain pardon. This is a true
conversion, a repudiation of sin and a purpose of amendment (cc. 959; 987).

4
Cf. GIROTTI, “The Sacrament of Penance”, 16-17.
5
“The delicts against the sanctity of the Sacrament of Penance reserved to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the
Faith for judgement are: […] 4º the recording by any technical instrument and the broadcast/transmission by means of
instruments of social communication of that which is said in sacramental confession by the confessor or the penitent
[…]”. Cf. JOHN PAUL II, Mp. Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, art. 3, in AAS 93 (2001) 737-739.
 Page |5

- The penitent, after an examination of conscience, confesses each and every grave sin accord-
ing to kind and number (at least approximately) and must mention circumstances which
would change the nature or gravity. All sins committed after Baptism and which have not
yet been confessed are mentioned (c. 988 §1). If someone comes to confession and has not
confessed any grave or venial sins, the absolution, if imparted, is radically null for lack of
matter. The confessor should simply guide the penitent in an examination of one’s life to be
able to identify at least some matter for absolution.
- Having received absolution, the penitent is required to personally fulfill the penance imposed
(c. 981). This requirement, however, does not affect the validity of the absolution received.

II. Some pastoral situations

1. Communicatio in sacris
- There are certain conditions under which Catholic ministers may “share in the sacred
things”, i.e., lawfully administer the sacraments of Penance, Eucharist and Anointing of the
Sick, with other Christian Churches.

1.1 With Eastern Churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church
- As well as with members of other Churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the
same position as the Eastern Churches so far as the sacraments are concerned (c. 844
§3).
- The sacraments in question are considered to be valid in these churches essentially be-
cause they have valid orders. The canon recognizes the special relationship between the
Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches: while separated from the Catholic Church,
they possess true sacraments, above all by apostolic succession, the priesthood and the
Eucharist.
- Conditions: They spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed.

1.2 With other Christians not in full communion with the Catholic Church
- The sacraments in question in these churches are not considered valid by the Catholic
Church. When the unity of sacramental faith is deficient, the participation of the separated
brethren with Catholics is forbidden. Insofar as they lack especially valid orders, sacramen-
tal reciprocity is more difficult and exceptional. However, since the sacraments are both
signs of unity and sources of grace, the Church can, for adequate reasons, allow access to
those sacraments to a separated brother or sister6. Conditions:
 They cannot approach a minister of their own community
 They spontaneously ask for the sacrament(s)
 There is danger of death, or in the judgement of the diocesan Bishop or of the Epis-
copal Conference, there is some other grave and pressing need
 They demonstrate the Catholic faith in respect of these sacraments
 They are properly disposed (c. 844 § 4).
- The judgment as to whether the reasons are adequate to justify the giving of the sacraments
to this category of Christians must be made by the diocesan bishop, not by the individual
priest. Among such circumstances are: those suffering from persecution, migration of non-
Catholic Christians to Catholic regions; other situations where they are deprived of the help

6
Cf. Decree Ad totam Ecclesiam art. 55, in Canon Law Digest VI, 732. Ad totam Ecclesiam is the implementing decree of
the Vatican II document on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio.
 Page |6

of their own churches and unable to get in touch with their pastors except at great trouble
and expense7.

2. Confession of excommunicated or interdicted persons

- Excommunicated or interdicted persons are forbidden to receive the sacraments (c. 1331 §1;
1332). Their offence has to be remitted or removed first and so to allow them to receive the
sacraments. The censure of suspension, which affects clerics, is out of the question here be-
cause it does not prohibit one from receiving the sacraments. What is prohibited is their ad-
ministration by the suspended cleric.

2.1 Three kinds of censures

- The three censures are: excommunication, interdict and suspension. The purpose of censures
or medicinal penalties is not principally to punish. Rather, censures are intended to remind
offenders of the gravity of their act and so facilitate their repentance and conversion. When
such goal is achieved, the reason for the censure thus ceases and likewise emerges the right
of the Christian to be freed from the censure (c. 1358 § 1). In effect, censures are never per-
petual per se8.

2.2 Latae sententiae penalties

- Ferendae sententiae penalties are those that are not binding upon the offender until it has
been imposed after a judicial process or by an administrative decree. Latae sententiae
penalties are those that are incurred automatically upon the commission of an offense when
a law or a precept expressly lays this down (c. 1314).

- Latae sententiae penalties function in an occult way, without requiring the intervention of
any judge or ecclesiastical authority. The conscience, as it were, serves as the judge. How-
ever, when the offense becomes known (e.g. an offender publicly desecrates the consecrated
hosts) and the community needs to be informed about the gravity of the offense lest it be
misled, competent church authorities can issue a public document declaring that such person
is inflicted with a latae sententiae penalty. The penalty is thus declared and brought out in
the external forum. Once declared, the censure becomes more serious and the required ac-
tion more drastic9. E.g. the liturgical action of an excommunicated priest may be suspended
(c. 1331 § 2)10.

2.3 Remission of censures outside the confession

- If someone comes to confession with an imposed (ferendae sententiae) or declared latae
sententiae excommunication or interdict, and the penitent manifests his repentance and de-
sire to receive the Sacrament, the continued existence of the medicinal penalty is probably
not justified anymore. Hence, the priest, who usually does not possess the necessary juris-
diction over the matter, should provide.

7
Cf. Instruction In quibus rerum circumstantiis, 1 June 1972, no. 6, in Canon Law Digest VII, 590.
8
Cf. JUAN IGNACIO ARRIETA, “Censures: Identity and Perspectives Towards a Correct Pastoral Practice”, in Course on
the Internal Forum, 9-14 March 2009, Tribunal of the Apostolic Penitentiary, Palazzo della Cancelleria, Rome, 16 (=
ARRIETA, “Censures”, 16).
9
Cf. Ibid., 16-17.
10
Note, however, that the rather drastic measure contemplated pertains only to those who have a ministerial part in the cele-
bration (c. 1331 § 2, no. 1). Thus, the mere attempt of a lay person – whose excommunication has been declared or imposed
– to receive communion would not call for the drastic measures called for by the canon.
 Page |7

- Normally, the priest can facilitate in removing the canonical hindrance for the penitent to re-
ceive absolution by asking the penitent to see (“to have recourse”) the local ordinary, re-
questing the concession of remission of the censure, appropriate penance, and absolution.

2.4 Remission of censures during confession (c. 1357)

- Apart from the normal non-confessional procedure of remission of censures, under certain
conditions, such remission of censures can be accomplished in the internal sacramental fo-
rum. This will pave the way for penitents to immediately receive the sacrament of penance
by way of c. 1357. It is necessary that the latae sententiae excommunication or interdict has
not yet been declared by the authorities by way of an official act (e.g. a circular letter), and
is thus still in the internal forum (occult).
- The point of this provision precisely is to address in an immediate way that lapse of time be-
tween the recourse to proper authorities for the remission of the censure and the actual
granting of sacramental absolution. It is foreseen in this case that the penitent finds himself
in a difficult state of waiting instead of being reconciled with God. This canon is specifically
designed to provide immediate peace of mind and of conscience, through absolution, to a
repentant penitent.

2.4.1 Cases covered in can. 1357

- The offenses covered in this process of remission of penalty and subsequent absolution are:
undeclared latae sententiae excommunication and interdict, including those reserved to
the Apostolic See11. Suspensions and ferendae sententiae censures are not covered. We are
concretely referring to the following offenses:
Latae Sententiae Excommunication Cases:
- Use of physical force against the Roman Pontiff (c. 1370 §1; reserved)
- Throwing away the consecrated species or, for a sacrilegious purpose, taking them
away or keeping them (c. 1367; reserved)
- Direct violation of the sacramental seal by a confessor (c. 1388 §1; reserved)
- Attempting to record, by whatever technical means, what is said in the confessional or
divulging this information through the media (Sacramentorum sanctitatis tutela, art. 3
4; reserved)
- Absolution by a priest of a partner in a sin against chastity (c. 1378 §1; reserved)
- Ordination without a pontifical mandate (c. 1382; reserved)
- Apostasy from the faith, heresy or schism (c. 751; c. 1364; not reserved)
- Actually procuring an abortion (c. 1398; not reserved)
Latae Sententiae Interdict Cases:
- Physical force against a Bishop (c. 1370 §2)
- A person who falsely denounces a confessor to an ecclesiastical superior with regard to
the offence of solicitation (c. 1390)
- A person who, not being an ordained priest, attempts to celebrate Mass (c. 1378 §2)
- A person who, though unable to give valid sacramental absolution, attempts to do so, or
hears a sacramental confession (1378 §2)

Cf. John BEAL – JAMES CORIDEN – THOMAS GREEN (Ed.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law, New York –
11

Mahwah 2000, 1570. Cf. ARRIETA, “Censures”, 27.

 Page |8

- A religious seminarian in perpetual vows but who attempts marriage, even if only civil-
ly (c. 1394 §2)

2.4.2 Conditions and procedure

- Verify the following conditions in the penitent:
 He is manifesting sincere repentance.
 He is ready to promise appropriate reparation of scandal and damage.
 He has a strong desire to receive absolution.
 He is in dire need for peace of mind right at that very moment that can be attained
through absolution (“It would be difficult for the penitent to remain in a state of
grave sin for the time necessary for the competent Superior to provide” can.
1357.1)12.
- The canon precisely gives the confessor the faculty to remit the censure and thus give the
absolution and penance at that very encounter because of the difficulty of the penitent to re-
main in a state of grave sin for a long time. Nevertheless, the confessor still obliges the peni-
tent to have recourse to, or to see, within one month the normal remitting authority (local
Ordinary) and to abide by his instructions, under the pain of recurring again the censure (c.
1357 § 2). After seeing the bishop, the penitent need not go back to the confessor.
- In cases reserved to the Apostolic See, the penitent needs to have a written recourse to the
Roman Curia, i.e., Apostolic Penitentiary, through the Apostolic Nuntiature at Taft Avenue,
Manila (and in the Nuntiatures in your respective countries). The penitent has to indicate
briefly the circumstances of the case, without indication of any name. The name of the con-
fessor and his address can be provided to facilitate communications between him and the
Nuntiature13.

- Nevertheless, the Code accepts the fact that realistically, many penitents may find the
required recourse to the bishop difficult and even stressful. Hence, the Code provides
that “the recourse may be made even through the confessor (himself), without mention of a
name”. Hence, the confessor himself can fulfill the requirement and have recourse (person-
ally or in writing) either to the local ordinary or the Apostolic Nunciature in the external fo-
rum. The confessor simply has to report that he has encountered such an urgent case with-
out mention of any name and that he has lifted the latae sententiate excommunication or in-
terdict, and has granted the absolution.

- The Roman Ritual provides two possibilities in the remission by the priest himself of the
canonical censure and the sacramental absolution of sins. First, the confessor pronounces the
formula of sacramental absolution, with the confessor intending also to absolve from the
censure. Hence, the confessor remits the censure in the very act of absolving from sin. Sec-
ond, the confessor may also distinctly absolve from the censure first, using the following ex-
tra-sacramental formula: “By the power granted to me, I absolve you from the bond of ex-
communication (or interdict). In the name (+) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit”. The penitent answers: “Amen”. Then give the absolution.

2.4.3 Exempting circumstances (c. 1323)

There are cases when people, even if they committed the act, are not liable to a penalty,
hence, may not be excommunicated or interdicted and are therefore not covered by c. 1357:
12
Or if the penitent so wishes for whatever reason, he or she can follow the normal external forum procedure for the remis-
sion of his censure from the ordinary remitting authority.
13
Cf. ARRIETA, “Censures”, 26-27.
 Page |9

- have not completed the 16th year of age

- those who habitually lack the use of reason
- ignorant of, and did not wilfully violate, the law or precept (c. 1321 §1)
- acted under physical force
- acted by reason of grave fear, necessity or grave inconvenience, unless, the act is intrin-
sically evil.

2.4.4 Minimizing circumstances (c. 1324 §§ 1 and 3)

In the following cases, the offender cannot be bound by a latae sententiae penalty and is
thus not covered by c. 1357:
- Minors of 16 and 17 years old
- imperfect use of reason
- lack of the use of reason because of drunkenness or other mental disturbance
- acting in the heat of passion not deliberately stimulated, nourished, deliberated and con-
sented
- grave fear or by reason of necessity or grave inconvenience, if the act is intrinsically
evil
- lawful self-defense or defense of another against an unjust aggressor, and did not ob-
serve due moderation
- acting against another person who was gravely and unjustly provocative
- through no personal fault, one was unaware that a penalty was attached to the law or
precept

2.5 New Faculty of Confessors to Absolve Granted by Pope Francis

On 20 November 2016, Pope Francis issued his apostolic letter Misericordia et Misera (“Mer-
cy and Misery”) at the conclusion of the Extraordinary Jubilee Year of Mercy. In his letter,
Pope Francis said he formally was giving all priests permanent permission to grant absolution
to those who confess to having procured an abortion. While many bishops around the world
routinely grant that faculty to all their priests, Pope Francis had made it universal by this new
faculty.
The pope also formally extended the provision he made during the Year of Mercy of recogniz-
ing as valid the sacramental absolution received by "those faithful who, for various reasons,
attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Pius X," the traditional-
ist society founded by the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre.
https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_letters/documents/papa-francesco-lettera-
ap_20161120_misericordia-et-misera.html
Faculty to Absolve Procured Abortion. 12. Given this need, lest any obstacle arise between
the request for reconciliation and God’s forgiveness, I henceforth grant to all priests, in virtue
of their ministry, the faculty to absolve those who have committed the sin of procured abortion.
The provision I had made in this regard, limited to the duration of the Extraordinary Holy
Year, is hereby extended, notwithstanding anything to the contrary. I wish to restate as firmly
as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life. In the same way,
however, I can and must state that there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe
away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father. May every
priest, therefore, be a guide, support and comfort to penitents on this journey of special recon-
ciliation.
 P a g e | 10

Faculty to Absolve Lefebrists. 12. For the Jubilee Year I had also granted that those faithful
who, for various reasons, attend churches officiated by the priests of the Priestly Fraternity of
Saint Pius X, can validly and licitly receive the sacramental absolution of their sins. For the
pastoral benefit of these faithful, and trusting in the good will of their priests to strive with
God’s help for the recovery of full communion in the Catholic Church, I have personally de-
cided to extend this faculty beyond the Jubilee Year, until further provisions are made, lest an-
yone ever be deprived of the sacramental sign of reconciliation through the Church’s pardon.

3. Backsliding penitents

3.1 The condition

- There are people who, after confessing grave sins (e.g. extra-marital affairs), tend to fall
again almost immediately in the same grave sin (backsliding) due to a lack of desire or inner
psycho-spiritual resources to change14. The confessor should always try to verify whether
(1) the penitent is suffering from uncontrollable psychological impulses that can be consid-
ered to be a form of illness (thus making the penitent incapable of moral acts); (2) the peni-
tent is sincere in his resolve but is simply weak that makes him fall back; or (3) the penitent
lacks a minimum of goodwill, is complacent and has no resolve to change behavior.

3.2 Pastoral approach

- If, after a few other confessions, the penitent shows signs of complacency and a lack of de-
sire to change (e.g., an absolutely “happy go lucky” attitude; a philandering husband who
goes to confession regularly as required by their religious organization), it cannot be pre-
sumed anymore that by coming to confession, the person is sufficiently repentant.
- There arises the option for the confessor to withhold, at least delay, absolution for grave
sins15. Such cannot be considered to be a punitive act, but a way to carry out his duty to
arouse a sincere resolve to amend one’s life (c. 987), which is a minimum condition for the
validity of the sacrament. In fact, it can be argued that the granting of absolution in such a
situation would amount to a willful act of simulation of the sacrament by the confessor, and
thus a sacrilegious act, leaving the penitent in a state of sin, leaving him to think that he has
been absolved even without true contrition.
- Those who are recidivist due to weakness but at least show a minimum of sorrow, goodwill
and resolve should be charitably advised on viable ways to face their weakness. They should
not be denied absolution. To do so would be an arbitrary act, a cause of severe discourage-
ment on the part of the penitent.

4. Persons in irregular unions16

4.1 A common dilemma in the Church

- These are cases of people who are validly married in the Church, have separated or have had
their marriage civilly annulled and now live as husband or wife with another partner with or
without being civilly married. In the eyes of the Church, they are “living in” concubinage.
- According to John Paul II in Familiaris consortio (1981), people in these irregular marriages
are not excommunicated or outside of the Church’s communion but rather still belong to it.
Even if the Church cannot tolerate such situations, it should be made clear that she accom-
panies them with pastoral care.

14
Cf. GIROTTI, “The Sacrament of Penance”, 10-11.
15
There is little justification to withhold absolution for backsliding in case of venial sins since even the most persevering of
persons backslide in this aspect.
16
Cf. GIROTTI, “The Sacrament of Penance”, 2-7.
 P a g e | 11

- The Church’s dilemma: To give them Holy Communion is not in keeping with the teaching
of Christ on the indissolubility of marriage. To allow them to receive Holy Communion
would be a betrayal in a public manner of the will and law of Christ, which is cause for
scandal. If one refuses the sacrament, such act is construed as a lack of compassion towards
them. Still, it will be a similar case of betrayal if the Church, the community of salvation,
does not assist people in such situations.
- Pope Francis, Amoris Laetitia 300. “If we consider the immense variety of concrete situa-
tions such as those I have mentioned, it is understandable that neither the Synod nor this
Exhortation could be expected to provide a new set of general rules, canonical in nature and
applicable to all cases. What is possible is simply a renewed encouragement to undertake a
responsible personal and pastoral discernment of particular cases, one which would recog-
nize that, since ‘the degree of responsibility is not equal in all cases’, the consequences or
effects of a rule need not necessarily always be the same. Priests have the duty to ‘accom-
pany [the divorced and remarried] in helping them to understand their situation according
to the teaching of the Church and the guidelines of the bishop”.
- Amoris Laetitia 351. “Because of forms of conditioning and mitigating factors, it is possi-
ble that in an objective situation of sin – which may not be subjectively culpable, or fully
such – a person can be living in God’s grace, can love and can also grow in the life of grace
and charity, while receiving the Church’s help to this end.” Footnote 351: “In certain cas-
es, this can include the help of the sacraments. Hence, “I want to remind priests that the
confessional must not be a torture chamber, but rather an encounter with the Lord’s mercy”
(Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium [24 November 2013], 44: AAS 105 [2013],
1038). I would also point out that the Eucharist “is not a prize for the perfect, but a power-
ful medicine and nourishment for the weak” (ibid., 47: 1039).
- Text of Pope Francis’ in-flight interview from Mexico to Rome (18 Feb. 2016,
www.catholicnewsagency.com):
Pope Francis: … Another interesting thing from the meeting with families in Tuxtla. There
was a couple, married again in second union integrated in the pastoral ministry of the
Church. The key phrase used by the synod, which I’ll take up again, is ‘integrate’ in the life
of the Church the wounded families, remarried families, etcetera. But of this, one mustn’t
forget the children in the middle. They are the first victims, both in the wounds, and in the
conditions of poverty, of work, etcetera.
Thompson: Does that mean they can receive Communion?
Pope Francis: This is the last thing. Integrating in the Church doesn’t mean receiving
communion. I know married Catholics in a second union who go to church, who go to
church once or twice a year and say I want communion, as if joining in Communion were an
award. It’s a work towards integration, all doors are open, but we cannot say, ‘from here on
they can have communion.’ This would be an injury also to marriage, to the couple, because
it wouldn’t allow them to proceed on this path of integration. And those two were happy.
They used a very beautiful expression: we don’t receive Eucharistic communion, but we re-
ceive communion when we visit hospitals and in this and this and this. Their integration is
that. If there is something more, the Lord will tell them, but it’s a path, a road.
- The guidelines for this journey of integration of divorced and remarried Catholics should
ideally be discerned by the Bishops’ Conferences.

4.2 Solutions available in the Church

- Pastors of souls and confessors should be concerned about those living in irregular unions,
seeking to provide solutions by utilizing the means available in the Church. The confessor
can assist the penitent by suggesting a re-examination of the validity of the first marriage for
a possible case of nullity, or in cases of concubinage of couples who are free to marry, the
 P a g e | 12

celebration of matrimony. In cases in which a sanation is not possible at all, or not at the
moment possible, one can suggest a separation. But there are situations in which separa-
tion is impossible or even morally irresponsible, as in the case where there are already
children involved, who are in need of a “normal” family life, etc., or in the case of a sick
partner.
- According to the doctrine and constant practice of the Church, persons living in irregular un-
ions can receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist only under the following conditions, taken
altogether17:

4.2.1 Continence

- They need to be sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction
to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that they take on themselves the
duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married
couples.

4.2.2 Avoidance of scandal

- In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to
avoid giving scandal, i.e., the reception of the Eucharist in a church where they are not
known to be living in concubinage18.
Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for the Inte r-
pretation of Legislative Texts: “A member of the faithful finds herself [or himself] in a
non-legitimate situation, and the first marriage is valid and indissoluble. Yet the person is
conscious of the wrongness of the situation, has the desire to change it but can’t because it
would hurt innocent people, such as the children. It is my belief that this situation, with
these elements, allows access to the sacraments”. Such access to the sacraments should be
understood in the light of Pope Francis requirement of ongoing discernment with the person
concerned according to the guidelines by episcopal conferences.

III. Addendum: The limits of “ecclesia supplet”

A Common Misconception

- “The Church provides, out of her treasury of grace, the proper remedy for the defect of the
minister's actions".

1. Proper Understanding
- Ecclesia supplet means the Church supplies an extraordinary delegation of the executive
power of governance or jurisdiction to a minister who would otherwise not have it. It is a
limited matter pertaining to delegation and is not a remedy for each and every ecclesiastical

17
Cf. CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church Concerning the
Reception of Holy Communion by Divorced and Remarried Members of the Faithful, 14 September 1994.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/ rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-
divorced_en.html
18
It is wrong simply to advise a couple in an irregular union to receive Holy Communion in a church where they are not
known and yet without informing them of their obligation, or at least, the resolve to avoid sexual relations. Avoidance
of scandal is not the primary issue here, but the objective fact of the irregular union itself, which is always wrong
whether or not it is publicly known. Nor can the use of one’s conscience be invoked to directly contradict Church teach-
ing.
 P a g e | 13

mistake under the sun committed by the priest and/or the lay faithful. (Otherwise, everything
would be valid in the Church, which can never be true.)
- Ecclesia supplet is a question of delegation. This is confirmed in c. 144 § 2 which states
that Ecclesia supplet remedies the lack of faculty or jurisdiction to administer the Sacra-
ments of Penance (c. 966), Confirmation (c. 883) and Matrimony (c. 1111 §1).

2. Cases Not Covered

- Therefore, when the confessor, instead of the proper formula of the absolution, says: “May
the Lord Jesus absolve you and his Mother Mary guide you. Go in peace”, the absolution is
invalid and the confessor cannot invoke, “Ay mali, ecclesia supplet nalang”. Why?
- The problem in this case is not about the confessor’s lack of delegation of faculty or juris-
diction. The problem is the defective sacramental form, that is, some of the words which
the Church holds to be necessary for validity of the sacrament. Hence, the principle of Ec-
clesia supplet does not apply. The Church does not have the power to supply sacramental
form nor matter to a minister's deficient action. Many historical examples of invalid bap-
tisms or ordinations confirm this (e.g. “I baptize you in the name of the Holy Ghost”; use of
the consecratory prayer for deacons during the presbyteral ordination). To say “OK na yan,
may ecclesia supplet naman” is an abuse of the sacrament and an irresponsible action on the
part of the priest.
- Not even the minister’s intention is relevant at all to make a sacramental action valid. For
example, Coca-Cola can never become the blood of Christ even if the priest, thinking it was
Mass wine, intended to consecrate the liquid matter in the chalice19.

19
The principle ex opere operato has no bearing in this case because it pertains to the built-in efficacy of a sacrament when
properly conferred, regardless of the holiness of the minister.