ACCOMPLICE IN A GRAVE SIN.—He is one who knowingly and voluntarily participates with another in the commission of a grave external sin against the sixth precept of the Decalogue. In canon law the figure of the accomplice in a grave sin assumes particular importance with regard to the validity and liceity of the absolution which a priest may impart to one with whom he has—whether before or after his ordination—committed an act of sin against the sixth commandment.
Up to the middle of the 18th century the absolution of an accomplice was generally considered valid and licit, although some diocesan synods (e.g., Liège 1662, Velletri 1698) had decreed its nullity. But Benedict XIV, with the constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of 1 June 1741 (followed in 1746 and 1749 by Apostolici muneris and Inter praeteritos), forbade for evident reasons the absolution of an accomplice in a grave sin, declared it invalid, thereby withdrawing in this case the jurisdiction of the accomplice-confessor, and moreover decreed excommunication upon transgressors. This provision was maintained by Pius IX in the constitution Apostolicae Sedis and is reproduced in the Code of Canon Law with few variations.
According to can. 884, the absolution of an accomplice in a grave sin—whether concerning the sin of complicity or other sins confessed at the same time—is invalid whenever the penitent is not in danger of death; and even in that case it is gravely illicit on the part of the confessor unless he is compelled by urgent necessity. Even if the confessor acts in good faith and absolves either through ignorance, not knowing that he lacks jurisdiction, or through inadvertence, not recognizing the penitent, some authors hold that he absolves invalidly, while others consider the absolution valid in such cases, since the privation of jurisdiction here has the character of a penalty and ignorance excuses from II. Finally, some would hold the absolution of an accomplice in a grave sin to be invalid even if the penitent were to accuse the accomplice-confessor of the sin committed together as a matter of free disclosure, whereas others, more reasonably, hold that once the sin has been remitted, the confession of the same sin—whether alone or with other sins—may be validly repeated before the accomplice-confessor, since the reservation ceases after the first absolution.
In keeping with the principles stated, can. 2367 § 1 decrees the penalty of a latae sententiae excommunication specially reserved to the Apostolic See against a priest who absolves or pretends to absolve an accomplice in a grave sin, even if this occurs “in articulo mortis.” In this last instance, however, the offence ceases if one of the following two conditions obtains: a) that it is not possible, without danger of scandal or infamy, to have the confession heard by another priest, even one lacking jurisdiction; b) that the dying person refuses to confess to another.
The same penalty is incurred (can. 2367 § 2) by one who absolves or pretends to absolve an accomplice who does not confess the sin because he has been directly or indirectly induced by the confessor himself not to mention II. In this connection it is to be recalled that the response of 16 Nov. 1934 of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office held that the provision of can. 2367 § 2 applies also to a confessor who, whether within or outside sacramental confession, has persuaded someone of the absence or slight gravity of the sinful acts which they were about to commit together, and who then, in receiving his confession regarding other sins, absolves him or pretends to do so (AAS, 26 [1934], p. 634).