SOLLECITAZIONE. — S. in the generic sense, in the ethical sphere, seduction (v.) or incitement (v.), cooperation (v.) in evil therefore apply. In the specific sense, in moral theology and canon law, it is the abuse of the sacrament of Penance, consisting in provoking the chastity (v.) on the part of the priest-confessor.
The holiness of the sacrament of Penance demands profound respect; for this reason the Church has issued a long series of severe provisions intended to regulate its proper administration and to prevent abuses on the part both of the minister and of the penitent. Among the other possible dangers are: 1) on the part of the priest-confessor, the grave abuse of his authority, transforming the Sacrament into an instrument of perdition, especially in matters of chastity; 2) on the part of the penitent, the abuse of the sacramental secret, in order to bring against the priest-confessor, through ignorance or malice, one of the gravest calumnies, namely that of abusing the Sacrament in matters of chastity. Such abuses constitute extremely grave sins against religion, chastity, etc., and in canon law they are also specific offenses: the offense of s. and the offense of false accusation of s.
I. HISTORICAL NOTES
The Church has promulgated many laws against solicitation; the first of which there is record is that of the Council of Trier of 1221 (chap. 8). On 16 Apr. 1561, Pius IV (constitution Cum sicut) ordered the general Inquisition of Spain to investigate those who provoked ad turpia in actu sacramentali. Paul V extended this discipline to Portugal (1608) and perfected it (16 Nov. 1612). On 30 Aug. 1622, Gregory XV issued the bull Universi, in which he ordered that soliciting priests be punished and denounced (P. Gasparri, CIC, Fontes, no. 734). This was the first law on the matter to have binding force throughout the Church. The S. Congregation of the Holy Office also intervened on several occasions (v. soprattutto the responses of 11 Feb. 1661 and the Instruction to Bishops of 9 Feb. 1867). Alexander VII condemned (24 Sept. 1667) two propositions pertaining to this matter (props. 6–7: Denz-U, 1106–1107). The entire doctrine and scope of solicitation were subsequently determined by the constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV (1 June 1741: CIC, Appendix, doc. V), which remains relevant even today (can. 904). In a subsequent constitution, Etui pastoralis (26 March 1742, § 9, no. 5), he declared that the laws pertaining to this matter also bound Eastern Christians. The penalties imposed against solicitors were retained in the constitution of Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis, § 4, no. 4 (12 Oct. 1869). These severe measures were inspired less by the frequency of the offense, which is rather exceptional, than by the dangerous nature of the crime.II. SIN AND CRIME
According to the bull Sacramentum Poenitentiae, confirmed by can. 904, priests commit s. who, either during the act of sacramental confession or before or immediately after confession, ortaking occasion or pretext from confession, but in the confessional or in another place intended or chosen for hearing confessions, have attempted to solicit or incite some penitent (whoever the person may be) to immodest and shameful acts, whether by words, signs, gestures, touches, or writings to be read immediately or later; or who have rashly engaged with them in illicit and indecent conversations. Whoever acts in this way, in addition to the sin against chastity, naturally sins against religion and charity, and, if he is a parish priest, against justice. For the crime to be constituted, it is necessary: 1) that there be an incitement (gravely culpable in the person who makes it, from the standpoint of lust) of a woman or man, made explicitly or implicitly, to internal or external acts that are gravely contrary to chastity; 2) that the solicitor be a priest in the act of confession; 3) that he solicit immediately before or after, or during confession, and under the pretext of confession. Solicitation in the strict sense exists even if the person solicited does not consent; nor is it necessary that the direct object of the solicitation be the penitent, since it may also be a third person to whom the penitent is to be introduced. The corresponding penalties are suspension from celebrating Holy Mass and from hearing confessions; in the more serious cases, incapacity for the office of confessor, deprivation of benefices, offices and dignities, of active and passive voice, and a declaration of incapacity for the same offices and benefices; in the gravest cases, degradation. All these are ferendae sententiae penalties, given the necessity of assessing the gravity of the crime (can. 2368 § 1) before they can be imposed. Cardinals are exempt from these penal sanctions; the exemption of bishops, advocated by some, does not appear to be defensible.
The determination of the conditions for establishing the crime has given rise to an abundant casuistry, which is not the place here to examine or discuss. The practical interpretation given by the S. Congregation of the S. Office (can. 247 § 2), which is competent in the matter, is rather restrictive and severe.
III. OBLIGATION TO REPORT
Every person, whether or not he or she has consented to the solicitation, whatever his or her condition, is bound to report the solicitor within one month, under pain of incurring excommunication nemini reserrata (can. 2368 § 2). The period is to be reckoned from the moment at which knowledge of the solicitation is acquired. The obligation to report extends to all persons who know of the fact of the solicitation; however, the knowledge must be certain, since this is a case fraught with such grievous consequences. The canon seems rather to restrict the obligation to report to the person solicited alone, but, nevertheless, the extension of the obligation to all who have knowledge of it is suggested in the reply of the S. Office of 11 February 1661 and clearly expressed in the reply of 3 January 1663. However, the confessing solicitor is not bound to report himself; but if he does so, he must be treated with less severity (instruction of the S. Office of 20 February 1866). One is likewise not bound to report if one has doubts that a true and proper solicitation took place; but if the external action evidently constitutes solicitation, and only the confessor’s intention is in doubt, the duty to report remains. The priest graviter onerata eius conscientia (can. 904) must admonish the faithful person of the obligation to report; and he cannot absolve that person until he or she has fulfilled this obligation (can. 2368 § 2). If the penitent feels repugnance toward making the report, the confessor, after prudently examining the case, must assist and advise the penitent in the best way possible. The obligation to report is a grave obligation of charity (to prevent the further ruin of souls) and of obedience toward ecclesiastical law, which concerns a matter of the utmost gravity. There are, however, causes that excuse one from the obligation to report. They are: 1) the impossibility of making the report; 2) the death of the soliciting confessor. Nevertheless, as long as he is alive, even if the solicitation took place a long time ago, the obligation to report always remains, unless he has been perfectly reformed for a year; 3) a grave danger to life, reputation, the loss of material goods, or serious hardship for the person solicited; 4) the sacramental seal; 5) a dispensation obtained from the S. Office or the S. Penitentiary. Such a dispensation, however, is almost never granted.IV. FORM OF THE DENUNCIATION
According to can. 2363, the denunciation must be made to the ecclesiastical superiors whohave authority to investigate the matter, namely, the Ordinaries of the place, in accordance with the scope of can. 198, and the Holy Office. According to the common opinion, the Vicar General cannot receive a denunciation of solicitation. Indeed, the words of the constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum poenitentiae, 1 June 1741: « inquirant et procedant contra omnes... » require judicial authority, which the Vicar General does not possess without a special mandate.
A twofold kind of denunciation may be distinguished: a simple or extrajudicial form, for example by letter; and a judicial form. The simple form is not prohibited, but in itself it is insufficient to fulfil the obligation of denunciation or to proceed against the presumed offender. It may, however, provide the Holy Office and the Ordinary of the place with an opportunity to investigate and, if necessary, to obtain a fully judicial denunciation. The judicial denunciation must be made orally to the Holy Office or to the bishop or one of their delegates, with the participation of an ecclesiastic acting as notary. For just reasons, the Ordinary may dispense with the presence of the notary. The bishop may delegate even a simple priest to receive the denunciation; that priest, however, must transmit all the documents intact to the Ordinary without retaining a copy.
In order fully to achieve its purpose, the denunciation must contain a detailed account of the offence, with the circumstances of time, place, etc., the name of the soliciting confessor, and the address and name of the complainant. This is now very easy, since it suffices to fill out the form provided by the Holy Office or the Ordinary of the place. The complainant, for his part, is bound to answer with the utmost sincerity the questions put to him; indeed, it is advisable first to take an oath on the Gospel to tell the whole truth. Moreover, the complainant must sign all his statements.
V. PROCESS AGAINST THOSE SOLICITING
The trial is to be conducted according to the Instructions of the S. Congr. of the S. Ufficio of 20 February 1886, 20 July 1890, and 6 August 1897 (P. Gasparri, op. cit., nos. 990, 1123, 1190), but it may also be conducted ex informata conscientia (can. 2186 sqq.; S. Congr. S. Ufficio, 20 February 1866, nos. 10-11). Everything must be carried out under the strictest secrecy. A preliminary investigation must be made into the truthfulness of the complainant, to be established through sworn witnesses (at least two) de credibilitate. If necessary, the complainant may be questioned again. The accused is then questioned and subsequently admitted to a written defense, to be prepared either personally or through a lawyer (can. 1862 sqq.). The sentence must be pronounced by the bishop, not by one of his delegates, concerning whether or not the offense exists and, if so, the penalties to be imposed according to can. 2368 § 1. Moreover, if the accused has confessed the offense during the trial, he must make the abjuration (v.) in order to purge heresy (v.).Ordinarily, the trial does not follow the first denunciation; rather, according to the practice of the S. Ufficio (S. Ufficio, 6 July 1833; Instructio, 20 February 1866), proceedings are initiated only after the third. In the first two cases, the written denunciation is preserved and the priest-confessor is placed under surveillance; but it is not excluded that proceedings may also be initiated after the first denunciation.
VI. FALSE DENUNCIATION OF S
The denunciation of s. against innocent priests acquires a special malice, which the Church rightly punishes with the gravest penalty. Before the CIC, false denunciation of s. was a sin reserved to the Holy See specialissimo modo. Today, however, as a sin it is reserved to the Holy See ratione sui, and as a delict it is punished by excommunication, specially reserved, for absolution from which prior retraction, reparation insofar as possible, and grave and prolonged penance are required (cann. 894, 2363). To incur these penalties, the following are required: 1) that there be a false denunciation of the priest in his capacity as confessor; 2) that the denouncer be aware of its falsity; 3) that there have been a judicial denunciation, that is, one made according to the norms set forth above; 4) that the denouncer have knowledge of the censure. It is commonly held that ignorance, provided it is not affected, supine, or crass, excuses one from incurring the censures; but it does not excuse one from the reservation, although some theologians think otherwise.(from Comte de Saint-Saud, Paul Huet, Marquis de Fayolle, La famille et les origines du vénérable A. de S., Paris 1865)
