Last week’s post examined the direct and indirect violation of the sacramental seal and the offence of recording or divulging confession. Today’s post focuses on the absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment – another more grave delict against the sacrament of penance reserved to the judgement of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The delict reads: “A priest who acts against the prescription of can. 977 incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See” (Can. 1384). The delict, an immoral and anti-juridical behaviour, stems from canon 977, which provides that the “absolution of a partner in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid, except in danger of death”. Various points are to be considered to ascertain the delict.
First, the delict only concerns the external offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. The sixth commandment of the Decalogue says: «You shall not commit adultery» [Ex 20,14]. Although the commandment speaks only about adultery, it has long been interpreted to mean all sins that involve sexual gratification. Hence, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith affirms that the external offence against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is broad, and includes “sexual relations (consensual or non-consensual), physical contact for sexual gratification, exhibitionism, masturbation, the production of pornography, inducement to prostitution, conversations and/or propositions of a sexual nature, which can also occur through various means of communication” (Vademecum on treating cases of sexual abuse of minors committed by clerics, 2). It also includes inducing one to pornography (Can. 1398 §1).
This leads to the second point that the libidinal act directly occurs between the confessor and the penitent. It is irrelevant who introduces the act. Third, the confessor and his accomplice must act freely and intentionally in completing the act. This is important to prevent undermining the materiality of the situation, which can come from substance abuse and a psychological state of mind which eliminates moral responsibility or reduces the gravity of the sin.
Fourth, the confessor must attempt an absolution of the accomplice. This means the delict does not happen if the confessor only listens to the sin of the accomplice. An attempted absolution of an accomplice is invalid except in the danger of death. Since the sacrament of penance is considered integrally, the absolution of a penitent is indivisible (principle of indivisibility of sacramental absolution). Hence, the absolution of other sins (other than that of the sixth commandment completed with the confessor) confessed is also invalid. The term ‘attempted’ is used because, except in the danger of death, the confessor merely attempted an absolution. The danger of death must be real and not imagined or simulated.
The invalidity of the absolution is based on the legal principle: Nemo est iudex in causa propria or Nemo iudex in causa sua, which means that “No one is a judge in their own case.” A priest who attempts to absolve an accomplice incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See.
If the case is in the external forum, the Dicastery for the Doctrine of Faith is competent to remit (free one from) the penalty. However, if the case is occult, the Apostolic Penitentiary is competent. A priest who pretends to absolve an accomplice does not complete this offence of attempted absolution of an accomplice but is guilty of the delict of simulation of the sacrament of penance. This will be discussed in the coming weeks.
An inevitable question is the validity of the unintentional absolution of an accomplice without the priest recognising that the penitent is his accomplice in the sin against the sixth commandment. Understanding two categories of imputability (how one becomes guilty) in delicts is essential to clarifying this. Canon 1321 states: §1 Any person is considered innocent until the contrary is proved. §2 No one can be punished unless the commission by him or her of an external violation of a law or precept is gravely imputable by reason of malice or of culpability.”
From paragraph two, one is imputable by reason of malice (wilful intent) and culpability (negligence). All delicts fall into one of these. The absolution of an accomplice is a delict done with malice, and it only binds the priest, who knows that the absolution of an accomplice is prohibited but still attempts to do it. The accomplice’s decision to go to the priest for confession is irrelevant in the delict, except the priest encouraged the accomplice to come to him for confession. Here, another delict of abuse of ecclesiastical power may be present (cf. Can. 1378).
The Catechism teaches that “unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offence” (CCC, 1860). Hence, if the priest does not in any way suspect that a penitent is an accomplice, then the absolution is valid. However, if there is a little chance that the priest suspects that the voice is a familiar one in the completion of a sexual act, he should tutioristically (Tutiorism is the doctrine that in cases of moral doubt, it is best to follow the safer course or that in agreement with the law) ascertain if the penitent is an accomplice. This is to avoid committing the delict and to prevent the accomplice from receiving an invalid sacramental absolution.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️