ASSOLUZIONE. – It is the act of absolving. In Latin, absolvere is used in the sense of completing, finishing, for example, absolvere opus, and in the sense of loosening a physical, moral, or juridical bond, or freeing a person from such a bond: in particular, it is said: a) with reference to the obligatory nexus, the resolution of which entails the absolutionem not only of the debtor but also of the creditor and even of the thing; b) with reference to a sentence (as opposed to condemnare), whether civil or criminal. The word absolutio has analogous meanings in Roman law, in the sense of completion and of liberation also a nexu or from a moral bond; and also in the judicial sense.
In the currently effective 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, with both of the latter meanings taken together, absolvere poenientes a peccatis aut centuris (can. 882), or more generally a caxibus reservatis (can. 274, n. 5), or more specifically absolvere complicem in peccato turpi. But we also find the same verb used in the sense of ending, completing, or carrying out, for example, the canonical visitation (248, § 3), a council (can. 288),
the publications (can. 1031, § 2, n. 1), a trial (cann. 2095; 1700), and so forth. The noun absolutio is used in the same way in the sense of sacramental absolution (cann. 884; 885; 886; 2250; 2284), in the penal sense (cann. 2250; 2314, § 2), and even in the administrative sense, as exemption from rendering an account (can. 244, § 1), in addition to the liturgical sense of absolution al tumulo at funerals and, more generally, in the funeral office. The Roman Ritual (tit. III) gives us the rite for absolution in the internal forum (chap. 2), for the extrasacramental absolution of an excommunicated person (chap. 3) and of a suspended or interdicted person (chap. 5), and even of a deceased excommunicated person (chap. 4); it also gives the rite (tit. VIII, V. 33) for general absolution for certain religious Orders and for tertiaries belonging to them. The Italian words assolvere and a. are used with the same meanings. Here we shall discuss absolution only in the sacramental sense, referring elsewhere for the procedural sense (v. PROCESSO) and the penal sense (v. CENSURA; PENA).
I. SACRAMENTAL A. IN GENERAL. — Sacramental a. is the act by which the confessor, in the name of Jesus Christ and of the Church, constitutes and declares the penitent released from the sins confessed and, where applicable, from ecclesiastical penalties. And since the Sacrament of penance was instituted by Jesus Christ in the form of a judgment (Io. 20, 22), such a. is, in the penitential judgment (v. PENITENZA), the judge’s pronouncement at the conclusion of the trial, a genuine sentence. It is useful to observe immediately that if, while pronouncing the ritual formula, the priest absolves first from ecclesiastical penalties and then from sins, this does not mean that one a. is the same thing as the other, or that one entails the other: they are instead two a. that must be duly distinguished. For a. from sins is the true and sole sacramental a., an essential element of the Sacrament of penance and therefore not even conceivable outside confession; the other, strictly speaking, may be absent in the sacrament of penance and may also be given outside it: the former presupposes in the minister the power of priestly Orders, in addition to at least delegated jurisdictional power; the latter, strictly speaking, does not require ad valorem in the active subject the priestly Order, but only jurisdictional power, which may also be delegated to a minor cleric, and indeed, strictly speaking and according to a well-founded opinion, even to a lay judge. A. from penalties has a purely juridical value; a. from sins, on the other hand, has, in addition and prior to 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 same person to Christ, since « res et effectus Sacramenti, quantum ad eius vim et efficaciam pertinet, reconciliatio est cum Deo » (Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, cap. 10).
This sacramental a. therefore does not have a merely demonstrative or declaratory value, in the sense that it shows the sinner reconciled with God, as the Protestants condemned by the Council of Trent maintained, but a causal value, insofar as it effects and seals that reconciliation through Grace; nor does it have the value of a. from the penalty merited by sins, as some scholastic theologian before Trent seems to have explained it, but that of remitting sins, as is moreover clear from Jesus’ words to the apostles at the very moment in which he instituted this Sacrament (Io. 20, 22); nor that of a. from the obligation to submit sins to a new a., as s. Bonaventura seems to have thought (IV sent., dist. 18, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1); and still less does it mean the granting of a guarantee which, on its own account, remits sins, as Suárez expresses it (De poenit., disp. 19, sent. 2, n. 13-20); rather, it has the obvious meaning of the words ego te absolu a peccatis tuis, namely, to effect through sacramental Grace the remission of sin in its entirety with respect to what they call the reato di colpa, and at least partially with respect to the so-called reato di pena: which amounts to expressing and effecting a sacramental act whose value directly reaches sin and destroys it insofar as it is guilt: « I confer upon you the sacrament of a., that is, of the remission of your sins ». Of this sacramental a., in its strict sense, it is necessary to specify the prerequisites 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, may impart 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 in the internal forum, whether ordinary or delegated, except in cases of jurisdiction supplita by the Church according to can. 209 (v. PENITENZA). Before the CIC, the minister was also said to require the “approval” of the local ordinary, that is, the act by which the ordinary juridically judged a particular priest suitable for this office; but the CIC makes no mention of it, and hence it must be held to be contained in the discretionary act of granting jurisdiction (can. 874). Moreover, a necessary presupposition in the minister for a valid a. is intention, that is, at least the virtual will to absolve that particular penitent from the sins submitted, at least implicitly, to sacramental judgment; for moral liceity, he must also be in a state of Grace at the moment when he absolves and must have formed as accurate a judgment as possible of the penitent’s moral state. — A necessary presupposition, ad valorem, in the penitent is not only that he be capable, that is, baptized and of sound mind, but also that he intend to receive the a., that for this purpose he have duly made his confession (v. CONFESSIONE), and that he be duly contrite and disposed to accept and perform the legitimate penitential satisfaction (v. PENITENZA). Since the a. is an act of jurisdiction, the penitent must fall within its scope, as a subject of the confessor or of the ordinary who delegated jurisdiction to the confessor; except in extraordinary cases (cann. 882-883), and subject to the restrictions concerning the a. of an accomplice in an impure sin (can. 884; V. CALICE) and the a. from reserved cases (cann. 893-900; v.), as well as to the safeguards established by Benedict XIV and still in force concerning the a. of a person solicited ad turpia (can. 904). Moreover, for the liceity of the a. in the penitent, nothing further of a special nature is required; and the law in force, while recommending that the Easter Communion be received in one’s parish (can. 859, § 3), leaves the penitent the broadest freedom to confess to any priest legitimately endowed with jurisdiction (can. 905), a freedom that naturally must also extend to the annual confession, which according to the following canon (906) every member of the faithful who has attained the use of reason is bound to make 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, specifically the form of the Sacrament. The essential formula, that which truly constitutes 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 judged, the object of the judgment and therefore the sentence—the act of passing judgment, that is, in our case, of releasing from the moral bond of sin. Essential elements are readily found in the words of the formula prescribed by the Roman Ritual (tit. III, cap. 2): ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis. In these words, the indispensable term is absolvo, expressed either in Latin or in another language, since without it even the idea of the act of absolution, 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 sacramental validity. The passive subject of absolution is designated by the word te, which must therefore be considered indispensable at least if the word tuis is absent. The object of the judgment and of the absolving sentence is expressed by the words a peccatis tuis.
Here it is useful to note that, in order to be valid, the formula must be pronounced in the prescribed manner. First of all, 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—theologians are unanimous that sacramental absolution must be oral, and it would not be valid if given in writing or by signs. This conclusion is based on the obvious meaning of the words of Jesus referred to above, on the constant tradition and practice of the Church, which for twenty centuries has employed only the oral form, and also on the obvious meaning of the words of Eugene IV, who teaches in the decree for the Armenians that words are almost the form of the sacrament, and that in penance the words of absolution are the form, which the priest pronounces when he says: ego te absolvo...; hence they conclude that the contrary opinion is unfounded, even if a case of extreme necessity were involved. As for absolution given to an absent person by letter or telegram or through a messenger, the question, debated by the classical Thomists and supported in various senses with every kind of argument, was decided by Clement VIII in the well-known decree of the Holy Office dated 20 June 1602, which states: «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 to be altogether invalid; and consequently that, in order to be valid, absolution must be given orally and to a present person. Suárez held that the decree of the Holy Office had to be understood in the composite sense, namely, that the absolution was null if requested by an absent person and given to him while absent, but not if requested by an absent person and subsequently given to him in person without repeating the accusation. However, 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 clear signs of repentance, and who was then absolved in extremis by the priest who arrived at the last moment, had already been declared clearly distinct and different from the preceding case. Thus the same Holy Office declared on 24 January 1622: «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 remains firm that absolution, in order to be valid, requires the person to whom it is imparted to be present. Clearly, presence here must be understood in the moral sense, namely, within a distance from which one who speaks in an ordinary tone of voice can be heard.
Finally, in order to be valid, absolution must be given as a sentence, as the decision of a judgment, and therefore in an assertive form—that is, neither in an optative or deprecatory form, nor in a suspensive conditional form referring to the future. An optative or deprecatory form therefore essentially vitiates the sacramental form and renders the sacrament null, unless it 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 positively intend to exclude the operative efficacy ex opere operato of sacramental absolution. Formulas of this kind, that is, apparently deprecatory formulas, are not absent from the more ancient sacramentaries; but from the twelfth century onward they became increasingly rare, until they disappeared altogether or almost so. Likewise, a suspensive condition referring to the future essentially vitiates absolution, because the Sacrament exists and operates immediately once the matter and form have been validly supplied, nor is it within the minister’s power to suspend its efficacy or its formation.
IV. CANONICAL AND RITUAL PROVISIONS
With regard to the ritual formula to be used in sacramental a., it is perhaps not inappropriate 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; for this provision also gives legal force to the liturgical norms to which it refers. Accordingly, what the Roman Ritual prescribes on this matter in its latest edition (10 June 1625), tit. III, chap. 2, Absolutionis forma communis, should be kept in mind: 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.». — In urgent grave necessity, however, in danger of death, the priest may say briefly: «Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis, in nomine Patris et Filii 7 et Spiritus Sancti. Amen». It is not difficult to recognize in this brief form, provided for urgent cases, all the elements previously qualified as essential; it is therefore valid in every case. Nevertheless, it may not be used except « urgente aliqua gravi necessitate in periculo mortis », that is, when there is a genuine danger (even if not an immediate danger) of death together with an urgent necessity that would not permit the ordinary formula to be used, as in the case of someone seen falling from a roof, being led to the gallows by impious persecutors, or mortally wounded by assassins who refuse him a priest.The common formula we have examined for urgent and ordinary cases is not obligatory for everyone, nor even for all priests of the Latin rite, but only for those who are bound to use the Roman Ritual, and these constitute the majority among Latins. Our observations nevertheless apply, broadly speaking, also to secular priests of another rite, for example, of the Ambrosian rite, as well as to those religious, such as the Dominicans, who have their own ritual and a particular formula of a., and indeed also to priests of the various Eastern rites. Regarding these, the Holy Office declared on 6 September 1865 that, in the confession 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 pause to analyze these various formulas; we merely note that some of them have a deprecatory tone, but in substance have an assertive or indicative force, for the reasons already explained. Moreover, regarding the indicative form, it is worth observing that it is used by the Greeks, Romanians, Ruthenians, Maronites, Syrians, and Catholic Armenians. Furthermore, many ritual forms make no express mention of a. from the censures that prevent a. from being received, but it is common opinion that this is implicit in a. from sins.
For the historical aspect: V. PENITENZA.
BIBL. See the general works on moral theology and on CIC. In particular: I. D'Annibale, Summula theologiae moralis, I, 3ª ed. Milano 1888, pp. 319-20, 337-50; III, 317, 326-28; A. Balterini-D. Palmieri, Opus theologicum morale, V, 3ª ed., Prato 1901, pp. 20-25, 235-37, 412-28 and passim; F.M. Cappello, De Sacramentis, II, parte 1: De poenitentia, 3ª ed., Torino 1935, passim; S. Romani, Institutiones iuris canonici, II: Ius administrativum de Sacramentis, I, Roma 1940. Silvio Romani
V. L'A. NELL'UFFICIO. — This is a brief prayer formula found in the breviary at the end of each nocturn, before the lessons, and differing for each one. According to some liturgists, in this case the word absolutio (from absolvere) would mean to finish, to bring to an end (Macri, Hierolexicon, Roma 1677), but this supposition has no basis, both because the office does not end with the conclusion of the Psalms and because, especially in the third nocturn, the formula used precisely indicates a. from sins: A vinculis peccatorum nostrorum absolvat nos omnipotens et misericors Dominus. According to Pleithner, its origin goes back to Cassian; according to Bäumer, to no earlier than the thirteenth century. The a. of the first nocturn: Exaudi, Domine Iesu Christe, preces servorum uorum, et miserere nobis, is first found in a thirteenth- or fourteenth-century lectionary of the Library of Brussels. On days when the office consists of only one nocturn, the a. 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. THE ABSOLUTION 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 therein is nothing other than the discipline (v.), as it is described to us in the ancient Gelasian Sacramentary.
VII. THE ABSOLUTION AT THE TUMULUS, V. ESEQUIE.