ABSOLUTION. – It is the act of absolving. *Absolvere* in Latin is used in the sense of completing or finishing something, e.g., *absolvere opus*, and in the sense of dissolving a physical, moral, or juridical bond or of freeing a person from such a bond. In particular, it is said: a) in relation to an obligatory nexus, whose resolution entails the *absolutio* not only of the debt but also of the creditor and even of the thing itself; b) in relation to a judgment (contrary to *condemnare*), whether civil or criminal. Similar meanings are assumed by the word *absolutio* in Roman law, in the sense of completion or liberation from a nexus or moral bond, and also in the juridical sense.
In the current *Codex Iuris Canonici* (*CIC*), *absolvere* is found in the procedural sense, whether civil or criminal (canons 1850, §3; 1873, §1, n. 1); in the sacramental sense of absolving from sins (*absolvere a peccatis*) (canons 881), as well as in the penal sense (canon 2241, §1), and indeed in both of these last senses taken together: *absolvere poenitentes a peccatis aut censuris* (canon 882), or more generally from reserved cases (canon 274, n. 5), or more specifically to absolve accomplices in a shameful sin. But the same verb is also used in the sense of completing or carrying out, e.g., a canonical visitation (canon 248, §3), a council (canons 288), publications (canon 1031, §2, n. 1), a process (canons 2095; 1700), and so on. In the same way, the noun *absolutio* is used in the sense of sacramental absolution (canons 884; 885; 886; 2250; 2284), in the penal sense (canons 2250; 2314, §2), and even in the administrative sense as a release from an account (canon 244, §1), as well as in the liturgical sense for the absolution at the bier in funeral rites and more generally in the office of the dead. The *Rituale Romanum* (tit. III) provides the rite for absolution in the internal forum (cap. 2), for the extrasacramental absolution of an excommunicated person (cap. 3) and of a suspended or interdicted person (cap. 5), and indeed even of a deceased excommunicated person (cap. 4); it also provides the rite (tit. VIII, V. 33) for general absolution for certain religious orders and for tertiaries belonging to them. The Italian words *assolvere* and *assoluzione* are used in the same senses. Here we shall speak only of absolution in the sacramental sense, referring elsewhere for the procedural (v. PROCESSO) and penal senses (v. CENSURA; PENA).
1. SACRAMENTAL ABSOLUTION IN GENERAL
Sacramental absolution is the act by which the confessor, in the name of Jesus Christ and of the Church, constitutes and declares the penitent absolved from the sins confessed and, if necessary, from ecclesiastical penalties. And since the Sacrament of Penance was instituted by Jesus Christ in the form of a judgment (John 20:22), such absolution is, in the penitential judgment (v. PENITENZA), the pronouncement of the judge at the conclusion of the trial, a veritable sentence. It is well to observe here that although the priest, while pronouncing the ritual formula, first absolves from ecclesiastical penalties and then from sins, this does not mean that one absolution is the same as the other or that one entails the other: they are rather two distinct absolutions that must be duly distinguished. For absolution from sins is the true and sole sacramental absolution, an essential element of the Sacrament of Penance and therefore inconceivable outside of confession; the other, strictly speaking, may be absent in the Sacrament of Penance and may also occur outside of II. The former presupposes in the minister the power of Orders as well as at least delegated jurisdiction; the latter, strictly speaking, does not require in the active subject the power of Orders *ad valorem*, but only the power of jurisdiction, which may be delegated even to a minor cleric, and, strictly speaking and according to a well-founded opinion, even to a lay judge. Absolution from penalties has merely juridical value; absolution from sins, on the other hand, has, beyond and before its juridical value, a sacramental value and produces in the penitent, besides juridical and moral effects, truly ontological effects, such as habitual grace, sacramental grace, and the configuration of the penitent with Christ, since it is, as regards its force and efficacy, “a reconciliation with God” (*res et effectus Sacramenti... reconciliatio est cum Deo*) (Council of Trent, sess. XIV, cap. 10).This sacramental absolution does not, therefore, have a merely demonstrative or declarative value in the sense that it merely shows the sinner as reconciled with God, as the Protestants held and as was condemned by the Council of Trent; rather, it has a causal value, inasmuch as it effects and seals such reconciliation through grace. Nor does it have the value of absolution from the penalty deserved for sins, as some scholastics before Trent seem to have held, but rather that of remitting sins, as is clear from the words of Jesus to the apostles at the very institution of this Sacrament (John 20:22). Nor does it have the sense of absolution from the obligation to submit sins to a new absolution, as St. Bonaventure seems to have thought (*In IV Sent.*, dist. 18, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1). Still less does it mean the granting of a guarantee that, on its own account, remits sins, as Suárez expresses it (*De poenit.*, disp. 19, sent. 2, n. 13-20). Rather, it has the obvious sense of the words *et/absolvo te a peccatis tuis*: that is, it operates through sacramental grace the remission of sin, in its entirety as regards what they call the guilt of the offense and at least partially as regards what is called the penalty of the offense. This is tantamount to saying that it expresses and effects a sacramental act whose value directly touches the sin and destroys it as an offense: “I grant you the sacrament of absolution, that is, the remission of your sins.” Of this sacramental absolution in its strict sense, it is necessary to specify the presuppositions both with regard to the minister and with regard to the subject, as well as the essential, legitimate, and ritual form.
II. THE MINISTER
The minister of this Sacrament is called the confessor; therefore, he, and he alone, can give sacramental absolution from sins. To this end, he must be invested with the priestly Order (Council of Trent, XIV, can. 10; CIC, can. 870) and with jurisdiction, at least for the internal forum, whether ordinary or delegated, except in cases where jurisdiction is supplied by the Church according to can. 209 (see PENANCE). Before the CIC, it was also said that the minister required the "approval" of the local ordinary, that is, the act by which the ordinary juridically judged a certain priest suitable for this office; but the CIC makes no mention of this, so it must be considered that this approval is contained in the act of conferring jurisdiction (can. 874).
Moreover, a necessary presupposition in the minister for valid absolution is the intention, that is, the will—at least virtual—to absolve that particular penitent from the sins submitted, at least implicitly, to the sacramental sentence. For moral liceity, he must also be in a state of grace at the moment of absolution and must have formed as accurate a concept as possible of the penitent’s moral state.
A necessary presupposition, *ad valorem*, in the penitent is not only that he be capable—i.e., baptized and of sound mind—but also that he have the intention of receiving absolution, that he have duly made his accusation (see CONFESSION), that he be duly repentant, and disposed to accept and fulfill the legitimate satisfactorial penance (see PENANCE). Since absolution is an act of jurisdiction, the penitent must enter within its scope as a subject of the confessor or of the ordinary who has delegated jurisdiction to the confessor; except in extraordinary cases (cann. 882–883) and except for restrictions regarding the absolution of an accomplice in a shameful sin (can. 884; see ACCOMPLICE) and the absolution of reserved cases (cann. 893–900; see), as well as the cautions established by Benedict XIV and still in force regarding the absolution of one who has been solicited to shameful acts (can. 904).
Furthermore, for the liceity of absolution in the penitent, no other special requirement is needed. Current law, while recommending that the paschal communion be received in one’s parish (can. 899, §3), leaves the penitent the widest freedom to confess to any priest lawfully endowed with jurisdiction (can. 905). This freedom naturally extends also to the annual confession, to which every faithful person who has reached the age of reason and has grave sins not yet absolved is bound, according to the following canon (906).
III. THE FORMULA
The formula of absolution is of particular importance, since it must constitute not only an element of the sacred rite but also, and above all, an essential element of the sacramental sign, and precisely the *form* of the Sacrament. The essential formula, that which is truly the form of the Sacrament, must, to be valid, first of all express the essential elements of a judicial sentence, namely: the person of the judge, the person of the one judged, the object of the judgment, and thus the sentence itself—the act of sentencing, that is, in our case, of absolving from the moral bond of sin.
These essential elements are easily found in the words of the formula prescribed by the Roman Ritual (tit. III, cap. 2): *“ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis”*, in which the word *absolvo* is indispensable, whether expressed in Latin or in another language, since without it the idea of the act of absolution, i.e., of the sacramental sentence, would be lacking. And since the Latin word *absolvo* also expresses the subject who judges and absolves, strictly speaking the word *ego* is not necessary for sacramental validity. The passive subject of the absolution is served by the word *te*, which therefore must be considered indispensable, at least if the word *tuis* is lacking. The object of the judgment and of the absolving sentence is expressed by the words *a peccatis tuis*.
It is well to note here that for the formula to be valid, it must be pronounced in the proper manner. First, although the nature of a judicial sentence does not preclude its being given in writing—indeed, in the external forum this is the usual form—nevertheless, for sacramental absolution, theologians are unanimous that it must be *oral*, and it would not be valid if given in writing or by signs. This conclusion is based on the obvious sense of Christ’s words cited above, on the constant tradition and practice of the Church, which for twenty centuries has employed only the oral form, and also on the clear sense of Eugene IV’s decree for the Armenians, in which he teaches that the words are, as it were, the form of the sacrament, and that in penance the form is the words of absolution that the priest *proffers* when he *says*: *“ego te absolvo...”*. From this they deduce the unfoundedness of the contrary opinion, even in cases of extreme necessity.
As for the case of absolution given to an absent person by letter, telegraph, or messenger, the question debated by classical theologians and argued in various ways with all manner of arguments, was decided by Clement VIII in the well-known decree of the Holy Office dated June 20, 1602, where it is decreed: *“Sanctissimus... the proposition, namely, that it is licit to obtain absolution through letters or an intermediary from a confessor who is absent, at least as false, temerarious, and scandalous, condemned and prohibited it, and especially that henceforth this proposition not be taught in public or private lectures, sermons, or meetings, nor ever defended as probable in any case, nor printed, nor put into practice in any way”* (Denz.-U., 1088). If even in a case of extreme necessity such an absolution *in absentem* is not licit, it must be said that it is altogether invalid; and consequently that absolution, to be valid, must be given by word of mouth and to a *present* person.
Suárez held that the decree of the Holy Office should be taken in a composite sense, namely, that absolution is null if requested *by* an absent person and *given to* him while absent; but not if requested by an absent person and then given to him in person without repeating the accusation. However, a decree of the Holy Office issued on July 14, 1605, by mandate of Paul V, declared: *“Sanctissimus decreed that the said interpretation of Fr. Suárez does not hold with regard to the aforesaid decree”* (Denz.-U., 1089).
But the case of a dying person who had asked for a confessor and given manifest signs of penitence, and who was then absolved *in extremis* by the priest arriving at the last moment, had already been declared a distinct and different case; so that the same Holy Office, on January 24, 1622, declared: *“from the case of that sick man, who, as he was about to die, upon requesting confession and giving signs of penitence and relating these to the priest who arrived, was given absolution, since it contains a different rationale, no controversy can arise regarding the said decree of Clement VIII”* (Denz.-U., loc. cit.).
The principle therefore stands firm that absolution, to be valid, requires the presence of the subject to whom it is imparted. It is clear that here "presence" is to be understood in a moral sense, i.e., within a distance from which one speaking in a normal tone of voice can be heard.
Finally, the act of absolution, to be valid, must be given as a sentence, as a judicial decision, and therefore in an *assertive* form—meaning neither in an optative or deprecatory form, nor in a suspensive conditional form referring to the future. An optative or deprecatory form, therefore, substantially vitiates the sacramental form and renders the sacrament invalid, unless such a form is only apparently optative or deprecatory while in reality being assertive, as in: “May the Lord absolve you from your sins,” where the priest does not intend to exclude positively the operative efficacy *ex opere operato* of sacramental absolution. Forms of this kind, i.e., apparently deprecatory, are not lacking in the most ancient sacramentaries; but from the 12th century onward they become increasingly rare until they disappear almost entirely. Similarly, a suspensive condition referring to the future substantially vitiates absolution, because the sacrament is and operates immediately once its matter and form are validly applied, and it is not within the minister’s power to suspend its efficacy or its formation.
IV. CANONICAL AND RITUAL PROVISIONS
Regarding the ritual formula to be used in sacramental absolution, it may not be inappropriate to recall the general provision of can. 733 of the *Codex Iuris Canonici*, namely that in the administration of the sacraments the rites and ceremonies “which are prescribed in the liturgical books approved by the Church” must be carefully observed; since this provision also gives juridical value to the liturgical norms to which it refers. Therefore, attention must be paid to what the Roman Ritual prescribes in its latest edition (June 10, 1925), in Title III, Chapter 2: *Common Form of Absolution*:1. When the priest wishes to absolve the penitent after imposing and receiving the salutary penance, he first says: “May Almighty God have mercy on you, forgive you your sins, and bring you to everlasting life. Amen.”
2. Then, raising his right hand toward the penitent, he says: “May our almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen. May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you; and by His authority I absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, and interdict, in so far as I can and you need II. Then I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” If the penitent is a layperson, the word “suspension” is omitted. A bishop, however, when absolving the faithful, makes the sign of the cross three times.
3. “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 to you for the remission of your sins, the increase of grace, and the reward of everlasting life. Amen.”
4. For a just cause, the “May Almighty God...” may be omitted, and it is sufficient to say: “May our Lord Jesus Christ...” as above, up to “May the passion of our Lord...”.
In cases of urgent necessity in danger of death, the priest may briefly say: “I absolve you from all censures and sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” It is not difficult to recognize in this brief form, intended for urgent cases, all the elements previously identified as essential; it is therefore valid in every case. However, it may only be used “in cases of urgent necessity in danger of death,” that is, when there is a real (though not certain) danger of death and an urgent need that would not allow the use of the ordinary formula, as in the case of someone seen falling from a roof, or led to execution by impious persecutors, or mortally wounded by assassins who refuse to allow a priest to attend.
The common formula examined above, for both urgent and ordinary cases, is not obligatory for all, not even for all Latin-rite priests, but only for those who are bound to the Roman Ritual, which includes the majority of Latin priests. Our observations, however, apply in principle also to secular priests of other rites, such as the Ambrosian rite, as well as to religious, for example the Dominicans, who have their own ritual and a particular formula of absolution; and they apply also to priests of the various Eastern rites. For these, the Holy Office declared on September 6, 1865, that in the confessions of Latin-rite faithful, priests must use the form and language of their own rite, unless the Holy See has otherwise provided by indult or decree. We cannot dwell here on an analysis of these various formulas; we merely note that some of them have a deprecatory tone, but in substance they have an assertive or indicative value, in light of the considerations already made. Moreover, regarding the indicative form, it is worth noting that it is used by the Greeks, Romanians, Ruthenians, Maronites, Syrians, and Armenian Catholics. Many ritual forms do not expressly mention absolution from censures that impede the reception of absolution, but it is a common opinion that this is implied in the absolution from sins.
For the historical aspect: V. PENITENZA.
V. ABSOLUTION IN THE DIVINE OFFICE
It is a brief prayer formula found in the Breviary at the end of each nocturn, before the lessons, and it varies for each one. According to some liturgists, in this context the word *absolutio* (from *absolvere*) would mean to conclude, to bring to an end (Macri, *Hierolexicon*, Rome 1677), but this supposition is unfounded, both because the Office does not conclude with the end of the Psalms, and because, especially in the third nocturn, the formula used is precisely an absolution of sins: “May Almighty and merciful God absolve us from the bonds of our sins.” Their origin, according to Pleithner, goes back to Cassian, while Bäumer places it no earlier than the 13th century. The absolution of the first nocturn: “Hear us, O Lord Jesus Christ, the prayers of your servants, and have mercy on us,” is found for the first time in a lectionary from the Library of Brussels dating to the 13th–14th century. On days when the Office consists of a single nocturn, the absolution of the first nocturn is used on Monday and Thursday; that of the second on Tuesday and Friday; and that of the third on Wednesday and Saturday.VI. ABSOLUTION ON HOLY THURSDAY
In the third part of the Roman Pontifical, there still exists a chapter entitled: *De reconciliatione poenitentium quae fit in feria V Coenae Domini*. What is contained there is nothing other than the remnant of the ancient penitential discipline (v.), as described in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary.VII. ABSOLUTION AT THE TOMB, V. ESEQUIE.