ABSOLUTION. - It is the act of absolving. Absolvere in Latin is used in the sense of completing, finishing, e.g., absolvere opus, and in the sense of loosening 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 dissolution brings about the absolutionem not only of the debtor but also of the creditor and even of the thing; b) in relation to a sentence (opposite of condemnare), whether civil or criminal. The word absolutio takes on analogous meanings in Roman law, in the sense of perfecting, of liberation also from a nexu or from a moral bond; and also in the judicial sense.
In the current CIC we find absolvere in the procedural sense, both civil and criminal (cann. 1850, § 3, 1873, § 1, n. 1); in the sacramental sense absolvere a peccatis (can. 881) as well as in the penal sense (can. 2241, § 1), indeed in both of these latter taken together absolvere poenitentes a peccatis aut censuris (can. 882), or more generically a casibus reservatis (can. 274, n. 5), or more specifically absolvere complicem in peccato turpi. But we also find the same verb used in the meaning of finishing, completing, carrying out, e.g., the canonical visitation (248, § 3), a council (can. 288), publications (can. 1031, § 2, n. 1), a trial (cann. 2095; 1700) and so on. In the same way the noun absolutio is used in the sense of sacramental a. (cann. 884; 885; 886; 2250; 2284), in the penal sense (cann. 2250; 2314, § 2) and even in the administrative sense as release from an accounting (can. 244, § 1), as well as in the liturgical sense for the a. ad tumulum in funerals and more generically in the funeral office. The Roman Ritual (tit. III) gives us the rite for a. in the internal forum (cap. 2), for the extrasacramental a. of an excommunicated person (cap. 3) and of a suspended or interdicted person (cap. 5), indeed even of a dead excommunicated person (cap. 4); it further gives us the rite (tit. VIII, v. 33) for general absolution for certain regular Orders and for tertiaries belonging to them. The Italian words assolvere and a. are used in the same acceptations. We shall speak here of a. in the sacramental sense only, referring elsewhere for the procedural sense (v. PROCESSO) and the penal sense (v. CENSURA; PENA).
I. 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 accused and, where applicable, from ecclesiastical penalties. And since the Sacrament of penance was instituted by Jesus Christ in the form of a judgment (Jn 20:22), such absolution is in the penitential judgment (v. PENANCE) the pronouncement of the judge at the conclusion of the trial, a true and proper sentence. It is well to observe here at once that if the priest, while pronouncing the ritual formula, absolves first from ecclesiastical penalties and then from sins, this does not mean that the one absolution is the same thing as the other or that the one brings about the other: they are instead two absolutions to be duly kept distinct. Since absolution from sins is the true and only sacramental absolution, an essential element of the Sacrament of penance and therefore inconceivable even outside confession; the other, on the other hand, strictly speaking can be absent in the sacrament of penance and can also occur outside it: the one presupposes in the minister the power of the priestly Order in addition to at least delegated power of jurisdiction; the other strictly speaking does not require ad valorem in the active subject the priestly Order, but only the power of jurisdiction, which can be delegated even to a minor cleric, indeed, strictly speaking and according to a well-founded opinion, even to a lay judge. Absolution from penalties has a purely juridical value; absolution from sins, on the other hand, has, beyond and before its juridical value, a sacramental value and works 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 « res et effectus Sacramenti, quantum ad eius vim et efficaciam pertinet, reconciliatio est cum Deo » (Council of Trent, sess. XIV, cap. 10).
Such sacramental absolution therefore does not have a merely demonstrative or declarative value in the sense that it shows the sinner reconciled with God, as the Protestants condemned by the Council of Trent thought, but a causal value, inasmuch as it works and seals that reconciliation through Grace: nor does it have the value of absolution from the penalty merited by sins, as some scholastic before Trent seems to have explained it, but that of remitting sins, as is moreover clear from the words of Jesus to the apostles at the very moment in which he institutes this Sacrament (Jn 20:22): nor that of absolution from the obligation of submitting one's sins to a new absolution, as St. Bonaventure seems to have thought (IV sent., dist. 18, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1): and still less the sense of a bestowal of a guarantee that on its own remits sins, as Suárez expresses it (De poenit., disp. 19, sent. 2, n. 13-20); but that which is the obvious sense of the words ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, namely that of working through sacramental Grace the remission of sin, integrally as regards what they call the reatus culpae and at least partially as regards the so-called reatus poenae: which is as much as to say to express and work a sacramental act whose value directly reaches sin and destroys it as guilt: "I confer upon you the sacrament of absolution, that is, of the remission of your sins." Concerning this sacramental absolution in its strict acceptation, it is necessary to specify the presuppositions both as regards the minister and as regards the subject, and the essential, legitimate and ritual form.
II. THE MINISTER
The minister of this Sacrament is called confessor; therefore he, and he alone, can give sacramental a. from sins; for this purpose he must be invested with the priestly Order (Council of Trent, XIV, can. 10; CIC, can. 870) and with jurisdiction at least of the internal forum, ordinary or delegated, except in cases of jurisdiction supplied by the Church in accordance with can. 209 (v. PENANCE). Before the CIC, the "approval" of the local ordinary was also said to be necessary in the minister, that is, the act by which the ordinary juridically judged a particular priest fit for this office; but the CIC makes no mention of it, whence it is to be held that it is contained in the facultative act of jurisdiction (can. 874). Furthermore, a necessary prerequisite in the minister for a valid a. is the intention, that is, at least the virtual will to absolve that particular penitent from the sins submitted at least implicitly to the sacramental judgment; for moral liceity, moreover, he must be in a state of Grace at the moment in which he absolves and must have formed as exact an understanding as possible of the penitent's moral state. — A necessary prerequisite, ad valorem, in the penitent is not only that he be capable, that is, baptized and of sound mind, but also that he have the intention of receiving the a. and that for this purpose he have duly made the accusation (v. CONFESSION) and that he be duly repentant and disposed to accept and perform the legitimate satisfactory penance (v. PENANCE). Since the a. is an act of jurisdiction, the penitent must come 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 the restrictions concerning the a. of the accomplice in a shameful sin (can. 884; v. ACCOMPLICE) and the a. from reserved cases (cann. 893-900; v.), and except also for the precautions established by Benedict XIV and still in force concerning the a. of one solicited ad turpia (can. 904). Furthermore, for the liceity of the a. in the penitent nothing else special is required; and the law in force, while it recommends that paschal communion be made in the parish (can. 859, § 3), for confession leaves the penitent the widest freedom to confess to any priest legitimately furnished with jurisdiction (can. 905), a freedom which naturally must be extended also to the annual confession, to which, by the following canon (906), every faithful who has reached the use of reason is bound when he has grave sins not yet absolved.
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 really the form of the Sacrament, in order to be valid must first of all express the essential elements of a judicial sentence, namely the person of the judge, the person of the judged, the object of the judgment and therefore the sentence, the act of sentencing, that is, in our case, of absolving from the moral bond of sin. 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 very idea of the absolutory act, that is, 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 cannot be said to be necessary for the sacramental validity. To determine the passive subject of the absolution the word te serves, which therefore must be called indispensable at least if the word tuis is missing. The object of the judgment and of the absolutory sentence is expressed by the words a peccatis tuis.
Meanwhile it is worth noting here that the formula, in order to be valid, must be pronounced in the proper manner. And first of all, although it is not repugnant to the nature of a judicial sentence that it be given in writing — indeed in the external forum this is the usual form — nevertheless for sacramental absolution theologians are agreed that it must be oral, nor would it be valid if given in writing or by signs. This conclusion is founded on the obvious sense of the words of Jesus cited above, on the constant tradition and practice of the Church, which for twenty centuries has never used anything but the oral form, as well as on the obvious sense of the words of Eugene IV, who in the decree for the Armenians teaches that the words are, as it were, the form of the sacrament, and that in penance the form is the words of absolution which the priest pronounces when he says: ego te absolvo...; from this they deduce the groundlessness of the contrary opinion, even if it were a case of extreme necessity. As for the case of absolution given to an absent person by letter or by telegram or through a messenger, the question debated by the classical Thomists and maintained in various senses with every kind of argument, was decided by Clement VIII with the well-known decree of the Holy Office dated 20 June 1602, where it is sanctioned: «Sanctissimus... propositionem, scilicet licere per litteras seu internuntium confessario absenti absolutionem obtinere, ad minus uti falsam, temerariam et scandalosam damnavit ac prohibuit, praecepitque ne deinceps ista proposito publicis privatisve lectionibus, concionibus et congressibus doceatur, neve umquam tamquam aliquo casu probabilis defendatur, imprimatur aut ad praxim quovis modo deducatur» (Denz-U, 1088). If even in a case of extreme necessity such an absolution in absentem is not lawful, it must be said that it is altogether invalid; and consequently that absolution, in order to be valid, must be given orally and to a person who is present. Suárez held that the decree of the Holy Office was to be taken in a composite sense, that is, in the sense that the absolution is null if requested by an absent person and given to him while absent; but not if, having been requested by an absent person, it were then given to him while present without repeating the accusation; but a decree of the Holy Office issued on 14 July 1605 by mandate of Paul V declared: «Sanctissimus decrevit dictam interpretationem P. Suárez ad supradictum decretum (scil. de sensu diviso) non subsistere» (Denz-U, 1089). But the case of a dying man who had asked for a confessor and given manifest signs of penance and who then in extremis was absolved by the priest who arrived at the last moment, had already been declared quite distinct and quite different from the preceding one; wherefore the same Holy Office on 24 Jan. 1622 declared: «ex casu illius segreti, cui iamiam morturo super petitionem confessionis et signis detis poenitentiae relatisque sacerdoti advenienti, datur absolutio, cum diversam contineat rationem, non potest oriri aliqua controversia circa dictum Clementis VIII decretum» (Denz-U, loc. cit.). The principle therefore stands firm that absolution, in order to be valid, requires that the subject to whom it is imparted be present. It is clear that here presence is to be taken in a moral sense, that is, within a distance from which one speaking in a normal tone of voice can be heard.
Finally, absolution, in order to be valid, must be given as a sentence, as the decision of a judgment, therefore in asseverative form, which is to say neither in optative or deprecative form, nor in a conditional form suspending into the future. The optative or deprecative form therefore substantially vitiates the sacramental form and renders the sacrament null, unless it is only apparently optative or deprecative while in reality it is asseverative, as: «May the Lord absolve you from your sins», where the priest did not intend positively to exclude the operative efficacy ex opere operato of the sacramental absolution. Formulas of this kind, that is, apparently deprecative, are not lacking in the most ancient sacramentaries; but from the 12th century they become ever rarer until they disappear entirely or almost entirely. Likewise the condition suspending into the future substantially vitiates the absolution for the reason that the Sacrament is and operates immediately, once the matter and the form are validly posited, nor is it in the power of the minister to hold its efficacy or its formation in suspense.
IV. CANONICAL AND RITUAL PROVISIONS
Regarding the ritual formula to be used in sacramental absolution, it is perhaps not out of place to recall the general provision of can. 733 CIC, namely that in the administration of the Sacraments the rites and ceremonies "quae in libris ritualibus ab Ecclesia probatis praecipiuntur" must be carefully observed; since this provision also gives juridical force to the liturgical norms to which it refers. Therefore, what the Roman Ritual prescribes on this matter in its latest edition (10 June 1625) at tit. III, cap. 2, must be kept in mind here: Absolutionis forma communis: 1. Cum sacerdos poenitentem absolvere velit iniuncta ei prius et ab eo acceptata salutari poenitentia, primo dicit: "Misereatur tui omnipotens Deus, et dimissis peccatis tuis, perducat te ad vitam aeternam. Amen". — 2. Deinde dextera versus poenitentem elevato, dicit: "Indulgentiam, absolutionem et remissionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen. — Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat: et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis, suspensionis et interdicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii † et Spiritus Sancti. Amen". Si poenitens sit laicus omittitur verbum suspensionis. Episcopus autem in absolvendis fidelibus ter signum crucis facit. — 3. "Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita beatae Mariae Virginis et omnium Sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris et mali sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratiae et praemium vitae aeternae. Amen". — 4. Justa de causa omitti potest Misereatur etc., et satis est dicere: "Dominus noster Jesus Christus etc., ut supra, usque ad illud: "Passio Domini nostri etc.". — Urgente vero aliqua gravi necessitate in periculo mortis sacerdos breviter dicere poterit: "Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis, in nomine Patris et Filii † et Spiritus Sancti. Amen". It is not difficult to recognize in this short form, provided for urgent cases, all the elements qualified above as essential; it is therefore valid in every case; nevertheless it is not lawful to use it except "urgente aliqua gravi necessitate in periculo mortis", that is, when one is faced with a true danger (even if not present) of death and with an urgent necessity that would not permit the use of the ordinary formula, as in the case of one who sees someone falling from a roof or being led to the gallows by impious persecutors or mortally wounded by assassins who refuse him a priest.
The common formula that we have examined for urgent and for ordinary cases is not obligatory for all, nor even for all priests of the Latin rite, but only for those who are bound to the Roman Ritual, and these are the majority among the Latins. Our observations hold, however, in principle, also for secular priests of another rite, e.g. of the Ambrosian rite, as well as for those religious, e.g. the Dominicans, who have their own ritual and a particular formula of absolution, indeed even for the priests of the various Eastern rites. For these, the Holy Office declared on 6 September 1865 that in the confessions of the faithful of the Latin rite they must use the form and language of their own rite, unless the Holy See has provided otherwise by indult or decree. We cannot linger to analyze these various formulas; we note only that some among them have a deprecative tone, but in substance they have assertive or indicative value, for the reasons we have already given; moreover, as regards the indicative form, it is worth noting that it is used by the Greeks, the Romanians, the Ruthenians, the Maronites, the Syrians and the Catholic Armenians; furthermore, many ritual forms do not expressly mention absolution from the censures that prevent the reception of absolution, but it is the common opinion that this is implicit in the absolution from sins.
For the historical part: v. PENITENZA.
BIBL. See the general works of moral theology and of CIC. In particular: I. D'Annibale, Summula theologiae moralis, I, 3rd ed. Milan 1888, pp. 319-20, 337-50; III, 317, 326-28; A. Balterini-D. Palmieri, Opus theologicum morale, V, 3rd ed., Prato 1901, pp. 20-25, 235-37, 412-28 and passim; F.M. Cappello, De Sacramentis, II, part 1: De poenitentia, 3rd ed., Turin 1935, passim; S. Romani, Institutiones iuris canonici, II: Ius administrativum de Sacramentis, I, Rome 1940.
Silvio Romani
v. THE ABSOLUTION IN THE OFFICE. - It is a brief formula of prayer found in the breviary at the end of each nocturn, before the lessons, and it varies for each of them. According to some liturgists, in this case the word absolutio (from absolvere) would have the meaning of ending, bringing to a close (Macri, Hierolexicon, Rome 1677), but this supposition has no foundation, both because the office does not end with the end of the Psalms, and because, especially in the third nocturn, the formula used indicates precisely absolution from sins: A vinculis peccatorum nostrorum absolvat nos omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Their origin goes back, according to Pleithner, to Cassian, according to Bäumer to no earlier than the 13th century. The absolution of the first nocturn: Exaudi, Domine Iesu Christe, preces servorum tuorum, et miserere nobis, is found for the first time in a lectionary of the Library of Brussels of the 13th-14th century. On the 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; that of the third, on Wednesday and Saturday.
VI. THE A OF HOLY THURSDAY
In part 3 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 it is described to us in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary.
VII. THE A. AT THE TOMB, v. ESEQUIE.