Canon 977 questions: Deliberate vs inadvertent absolution of an accomplice

[Digitonomy]

I was reading Cathy Caridi’s recent blog post, Granting Absolution to an Accomplice in Sin, and it got me thinking about Canon 977:

The absolution of an accomplice in a sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is invalid except in danger of death.

The canon seems to assume that a priest, and his accomplice, will be aware that the other person in the confessional is the accomplice. I’ll grant that this would probably be true in most cases. However, it is surely not always true. For instance, if the two had never heard each other speak prior to the confession.

If the penitent and the accomplice priest do not recognize each other in the confessional, is it fair to read Canon 977 strictly, and thus the absolution is invalid? Or does the canon assume an intent to absolve the accomplice - since the priest intends only to absolve a random penitent, and is ignorant that it is his accomplice, perhaps the absolution is not invalid?

Further along this path, what if only one party recognized the other? It seems to me that if the priest recognized the penitent, Canon 977 would surely apply, to the misfortune of both parties if the priest attempted absolution. The penitent would unknowingly have his sins retained, and the priest would incur excommunication latae sententiae per Canon 1378.1.

On the other hand, if only the penitent recognized the priest, the priest would have no reason not to attempt absolution. I don’t think the penitent is bound to any knowledge of canon law, and so if he is ignorant of canon law, perhaps the absolution would be valid? If that is true, I think it would also be valid for a more knowledgeable penitent who understands the canon - except that penitent would be committing a new sin by not alerting the priest.

Also, if the priest thinks a penitent might be his accomplice, how much prying into the penitent’s identity or past is he required to pursue, to assure himself that the penitent is not his accomplice?

Is there any similar burden on the penitent?

 

[Tim_D]

I think that this applies to a scenario akin to where a priest has an adulterous affair with a married woman and then turns around to absolve her of her sin. It doesn’t work like that

 

[FrDavid96]

I was reading Cathy Caridi’s recent blog post, Granting Absolution to an Accomplice in Sin, and it got me thinking about Canon 977: The canon seems to assume that a priest, and his accomplice, will be aware that the other person in the confessional is the accomplice. I’ll grant that this would probably be true in most cases. However, it is surely not always true. For instance, if the two had never heard each other speak prior to the confession.

If the penitent and the accomplice priest do not recognize each other in the confessional, is it fair to read Canon 977 strictly, and thus the absolution is invalid? Or does the canon assume an intent to absolve the accomplice - since the priest intends only to absolve a random penitent, and is ignorant that it is his accomplice, perhaps the absolution is not invalid?

Further along this path, what if only one party recognized the other? It seems to me that if the priest recognized the penitent, Canon 977 would surely apply, to the misfortune of both parties if the priest attempted absolution. The penitent would unknowingly have his sins retained, and the priest would incur excommunication latae sententiae per Canon 1378.1.

On the other hand, if only the penitent recognized the priest, the priest would have no reason not to attempt absolution. I don’t think the penitent is bound to any knowledge of canon law, and so if he is ignorant of canon law, perhaps the absolution would be valid? If that is true, I think it would also be valid for a more knowledgeable penitent who understands the canon - except that penitent would be committing a new sin by not alerting the priest.

Also, if the priest thinks a penitent might be his accomplice, how much prying into the penitent’s identity or past is he required to pursue, to assure himself that the penitent is not his accomplice?

Is there any similar burden on the penitent?

There are 2 questions here. One is about whether the attempted absolution is valid, the other is about the penalty incurred.

Validity of the attempted absolution
In all those examples, the attempt at absolution would be invalid.

Canon 15

Can. 15 §1. Ignorance or error about invalidating or disqualifying laws does not impede their effect unless it is expressly established otherwise.

First, canon 977 is an “invalidating law”—it means that an act which might otherwise be valid is made invalid by the law.

So canon 977 applies even if one or both parties are ignorant of canon 977.

Such an attempt at absolution is always invalid (except danger of death).

I know that some members here will turn to canons dealing with ignorance; ignorance of fact, or ignorance of law. Those don’t apply because they deal with penalties. Canon 977 is not a penal law.

When dealing with canon 977, it is a question of whether or not an attempt at a sacrament is valid. To be valid, the priest must have faculties to absolve. To start with, it doesn’t matter what the sin might be; the priest either has faculties or he does not. A priest is specifically denied faculties to absolve an accomplice. Even further: this is not really a question about faculties (power of governance in the internal forum). The Code does not say “a priest is denied faculties to absolve an accomplice” but instead says that such an attempt is invalid–and yes, there is a difference. Perhaps that wording was chosen on purpose.

In order to say that canon 977 does-not-apply, there would have to be some provision in the Code which would cause that to happen.

I cannot find anything in the Code which would cause canon 977 to not-apply to your scenario.

Also, canon 144 would not apply because it says “doubt of law or positive and probable doubt of fact” not “ignorance of fact” which is what this thread is about. And again, canon 144 is about supplying power of governance, but canon 977 is not about denying the power of governance. 977 is about validity of the sacrament, not governance.

As an imperfect analogy, think of the Eucharist. If someone substitutes a wafer made of corn for one made of wheat, and the priest is completely ignorant of the substitution, that does not mean that the corn host is consecrated. It means that the priest is not subject to any penalties. Ignorance of fact does not make it a valid sacrament.

Summary: I do not think any canon (or anything else) would make “ignorance of fact” apply to canon 977.

The Penalty

One thought is to look to canon 1321 and following (those subject to penal sanctions). However, those canons don’t apply. The reason is that canon 977 makes the attempt at absolution invalid, but it does not apply a penalty (the penalty is elsewhere in the code).

Canon 1323.2 would mean that the penalty of c. 1378.1 (excommunication) would not apply to the priest if he acts in the confession out of genuine ignorance.

 

[Digitonomy]

"FrDavid96:

In order to say that canon 977 does-not-apply, there would have to be some provision in the Code which would cause that to happen.

I cannot find anything in the Code which would cause canon 977 to not-apply to your scenario.

Thank you for the well thought out analysis of this issue, which clarifies things a lot.

I am confused by this part, though:

When dealing with canon 977, it is a question of whether or not an attempt at a sacrament is valid. To be valid, the priest must have faculties to absolve. To start with, it doesn’t matter what the sin might be; the priest either has faculties or he does not. A priest is specifically denied faculties to absolve an accomplice. Even further: this is not really a question about faculties (power of governance in the internal forum). The Code does not say “a priest is denied faculties to absolve an accomplice” but instead says that such an attempt is invalid–and yes, there is a difference. Perhaps that wording was chosen on purpose.

First you seem to say it’s a matter of the priest being denied faculties to absolve an accomplice, then you say it’s not worded that way, and that there’s a difference.

Also, can you address the second part of my question, to what extent the priest and the penitent are each required to suspect and (verify or reject) that the other party in a future confession of this sort may have been his accomplice. Is it just a prudential matter on which opinions may vary considerably, or are there guidelines for other matters which could apply here?

 

[FrDavid96]

Thank you for the well thought out analysis of this issue, which clarifies things a lot.

I am confused by this part, though:First you seem to say it’s a matter of the priest being denied faculties to absolve an accomplice, then you say it’s not worded that way, and that there’s a difference.

Yes, I can see how that might not make sense.

I was typing and doing other things at the time. That caused me to go back-and-forth, so what you’re reading there is my own stream-of-thought, and not necessarily in the same order, as I recall going back and adding text in the middle of my own post.

Anyway, forget that I wrote that a priest is denied faculties to absolve an accomplice against the 6th commandment. That’s just not a good way of explaining it. He is not merely “denied the faculties” but instead the attempt is an invalid one, excepting only danger of death. It would be an invalid attempt, and I can find nothing which might change that.

What I was trying to do was to search the Code for some way that might make your scenario work. I could not. I was looking for some king of “exception” (such as ignorance of fact) which would apply----again, none apply. I looked for things such as ignorance of fact (the fact that the priest was a participant in the sin) or ignorance of the person (the priest is ignorant of the penitent’s identity) but I could not make any such exceptions, which might apply in another situation, actually apply to canon 977.

Also, can you address the second part of my question, to what extent the priest and the penitent are each required to suspect and (verify or reject) that the other party in a future confession of this sort may have been his accomplice. Is it just a prudential matter on which opinions may vary considerably, or are there guidelines for other matters which could apply here?

Well, the nature of the sin itself means that it would be rather difficult for either the priest or the penitent to be unaware of the other in Confession–even if a screen is used. This is especially true because the sin would have to be confessed in order for the topic itself to apply.

Also, one needs to know that canon 977 only applies to the actual sin against the 6th commandment. It doesn’t apply to other sins; at least not to sins which are completely unrelated to that particular one (I do think it applies to sins directly related to the act).

Example: priest has inappropriate relations with woman. He cannot absolve her of that sin. I also hold that he cannot absolve her of any sins relating to that sin (such as stealing money in order to pay for the hotel room), since those other sins are part of the broader act of adultery in this case.

However, 10 years later (to make the scenario easy) she goes to confession to confess other sins that have nothing to do with the first one (and I mean truly nothing). He can still absolve her of those unrelated sins, whether either knows the identity of the other or not.

I think that perhaps you might be thinking that a sin against the 6th causes a permanent prohibition against that person ever confessing to that priest again. It doesn’t do that.