COMPLICE IN PECCATO TURPE. — He is one who knowingly and voluntarily participates with others in the commission of a grave and external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. In canon law, the figure of the c. in p. t. assumes particular importance with regard to the validity and liceity of the absolution that a priest might impart to one who has participated with him — whether before or after his ordination is immaterial — in a sinful act contra sextum.
Until the middle of the eighteenth century, the absolution of the accomplice was generally considered valid and licit, although certain diocesan synods (e.g., Liège 1662, Velletri 1698) had declared it null. But Benedict XIV, by the constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of 1 June 1741 (followed in 1746 and 1749 by Apostolici muneris and Inter praeteritas), prohibited the absolution of the c. in p. t. for evident reasons, declared it invalid, removing in this case jurisdiction from the accomplice-confessor, and moreover imposing excommunication on transgressors. This provision was retained by Pius IX in the constitution Apostolicae Sedis and is reproduced, with few variations, in the CIC.
According to can. 884, the absolution of the c. in p. t., both with regard to the sin of complicity and with regard to the other sins confessed at the same time, is invalid whenever the penitent is not in danger of death; and even in this case it is gravely illicit on the part of the confessor unless he is compelled to grant it by reasons of urgent necessity. Even if the confessor is in good faith and grants absolution either through ignorance, not knowing that he lacks jurisdiction, or through inadvertence, not having recognized the penitent, some authors hold that he would absolve invalidly, while others consider absolution valid in such cases, because the deprivation of jurisdiction here has the character of a penalty, and ignorance excuses from II. Finally, some hold that the absolution of the c. in p. t. would be invalid even if the penitent were to accuse the accomplice-confessor of the sin committed together as free matter, whereas others, more reasonably, hold that once the sin has been remitted, confession of the same sin may validly be repeated, either alone or together with other sins, before the accomplice-confessor, since the reservation has ceased after the first absolution. Consistently with the principles set forth, can. 2367 § 1 imposes excommunication latae sententiae, specially reserved to the Apostolic See, upon a priest who absolves or pretends to absolve the c. in p. t., even if this occurs « in articulo mortis ». In the latter case, however, the offense ceases to exist if one of the following two conditions is present: a) it is not possible, without danger of scandal or infamy, to have the confession heard by another priest, even if he lacks jurisdiction; b) the dying person refuses to confess to another.
The same penalty is incurred (can. 2367 § 2) by anyone who absolves or pretends to absolve the accomplice who does not confess the sin because he was directly or indirectly induced by the same confessor not to mention II. In this regard, the response of 16 November 1934 from the S. Congregation of the S. Office should be recalled; according to it, the provision of can. 2367 § 2 is applicable also to a confessor who, whether inside or outside sacramental confession, has convinced someone that the obscene acts they were about to commit together were not sinful or only slightly sinful, and who then, hearing that person's confession concerning other sins, absolves or pretends to absolve him (AAS, 26 [1934], p. 634).