SOLICITATION. — In its generic sense, in the ethical sphere, *solicitation* is synonymous with seduction (v.) or instigation (v.), and the principles of cooperation (v.) in evil apply. In a specific sense, in moral theology and canon law, it is the abuse of the sacrament of Penance, which occurs when a priest confessor provokes a penitent to commit a grave sin against chastity (v.).
The holiness of the sacrament of Penance demands profound respect; for this reason, the Church has issued a long series of strict provisions aimed at regulating its proper administration and preventing abuses by both the minister and the penitent. Among the possible dangers are: 1) the priest confessor’s grave abuse of his authority, transforming the sacrament into an instrument of perdition, especially in matters of chastity; 2) the penitent’s abuse of sacramental seal to bring against the priest confessor, whether out of ignorance or malice, one of the gravest calumnies, namely, the abuse of the sacrament in matters of chastity. Such abuses constitute very grave sins against religion, chastity, etc., and in canon law they are also specific crimes: the crime of solicitation and the crime of false accusation of solicitation.
I. Historical Notes
The Church has issued many laws against solicitation; the earliest of which we have record is from the Council of Trier of 1221 (cap. 8). On 16 April 1561, Pius IV (const. *Cum sicut*) ordered the Spanish Inquisition to investigate those who provoked to shameful acts in the sacramental act. Paul V extended this discipline to Portugal (1608) and refined it (16 November 1612). On 30 August 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 Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office also intervened repeatedly (v. especially the responses of 11 February 1661 and the Instruction to Bishops of 9 February 1867). Alexander VII condemned (24 September 1667) two propositions pertaining to this matter (prop. 6–7: Denz.-U., 1106–1107). The entire doctrine and scope of solicitation were then defined by the constitution *Sacramentum Poenitentiae* of Benedict XIV (1 June 1741: *CIC*, Appendix, doc. V), which remains relevant even today (can. 904). With the subsequent constitution *Etsi pastoralis* (26 March 1742, § 9, no. 5), he declared that the laws pertaining to this matter also bound the Easterners. The penalties imposed on soliciting priests were retained in the constitution of Pius IX, *Apostolicae Sedis*, § 4, no. 4 (12 October 1869). These severe measures were inspired less by the frequency of the crime—which is rather exceptional—than by the dangerous nature of the offense.II. SIN AND CRIME
According to the bull *Sacramentum Poenitentiae*, confirmed by can. 904, priests commit solicitation who, either in the act of sacramental confession or immediately before or after confession, or taking occasion or pretext from confession—whether in confession or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions—have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent (of whatever status) to dishonest and shameful matters, whether by words, signs, gestures, touches, or by writings to be read immediately or later; or who have recklessly engaged in illicit and dishonest conversations with them. Whoever acts thus, in addition to the sin against chastity, naturally sins against religion, charity, and, if a parish priest, against justice. To constitute the crime, the following are required: 1) that there be an incitement (gravely culpable in the perpetrator, under the aspect of lust) of a man or woman, made explicitly or implicitly, to internal or external but grave acts against chastity; 2) that the solicitor be a priest in the act of confession; 3) that the solicitation occur immediately before, during, or after confession and under the pretext of confession. Proper solicitation exists even if the solicited person does not consent; nor is it necessary that the direct solicitor be the penitent, for it may also be a third party to be approached by the penitent. The corresponding penalties are: suspension from celebrating the Holy Mass and from hearing confessions; in more serious cases, inability to exercise the office of confessor, deprivation of benefices, offices, and dignities, loss of active and passive voice, and declaration of ineligibility for the same offices and benefices; in the most serious cases, degradation. All these are *ferendae sententiae* penalties, given the need for an assessment of the gravity of the crime (can. 2368 § 1) before they can be imposed. Cardinals are exempt from these penalties; the exemption of bishops, advocated by some, does not appear to be sustained.The determination of the conditions for the configuration of the crime has given rise to abundant casuistry, which it is not the place here to examine or discuss. The practical interpretation given by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office (can. 247 § 2), which is competent in the matter, is rather restrictive and severe.
III. OBLIGATION OF DENUNCIATION
Every person, whether or not they have yielded to the solicitation, of whatever condition, is bound to denounce the solicitor within a month, under pain of incurring the reserved censure *nemini* (can. 2368 § 2). The time is to be reckoned from the moment one becomes aware of the solicitation. The obligation of denunciation extends to all who know of the fact of solicitation; however, the knowledge must be certain, given that this is a matter fraught with such grave consequences. Can. 904 seems to restrict the obligation of denunciation solely to the person solicited, but despite this, the extension of the obligation to all who have knowledge of it is suggested in the response of the Holy Office of 11 February 1661 and clearly expressed in the response of 3 January 1663. Nevertheless, the soliciting confessor is not bound to denounce himself; but if he does so, he must be treated with lesser rigor (Instruction of the Holy Office of 26 February 1866). One is not yet bound to make a denunciation if there is doubt as to whether proper solicitation actually occurred; but if the external act clearly implies solicitation, and only the intention of the confessor is in doubt, the duty of denunciation remains. The priest who is *graviter onerata eius conscientia* (can. 904) must admonish the faithful of the obligation of denunciation; and he cannot absolve them until they have fulfilled this obligation (can. 2368 § 2). If the penitent shows reluctance to make the denunciation, the confessor, after prudently examining the case, must assist and advise him in the best possible way. The obligation of denunciation is a grave obligation of charity (to prevent the further ruin of souls) and of obedience to ecclesiastical law, which treats of a most grave matter. There are, however, causes that excuse from the obligation of denunciation. These are: 1) impossibility of making the denunciation; 2) the death of the soliciting confessor. However, as long as he is alive, even if the solicitation occurred long ago, the obligation of denunciation remains, unless he has been perfectly reformed for a year; 3) a grave danger of death, infamy, loss of temporal goods, or serious inconvenience to the person solicited; 4) the sacramental seal; 5) a dispensation obtained from the Holy Office or the Sacred Penitentiary. The latter, however, is almost never granted.IV. FORM OF THE DENUNCIATION
The denunciation, according to can. 2368, must be made to the ecclesiastical superiors who have the power to investigate in the matter, namely, the local Ordinaries, according to the extent of can. 198, and the Holy Office. According to common opinion, the Vicar General cannot receive a denunciation of solicitation. Indeed, the words of Benedict XIV’s constitution *Sacramentum Poenitentiae*, 1 June 1741: “inquirant et procedant contra omnes...” require judicial power, which the Vicar General does not possess without a special mandate.Two kinds of denunciation may be distinguished: a simple or extra-judicial form, e.g., by letter; and a judicial form. The simple form is not forbidden, but in itself it is not sufficient to satisfy the obligation of denunciation nor to proceed against the presumed culprit. It may, however, provide occasion for the Holy Office or the local Ordinary to investigate and, if necessary, obtain a fully judicial denunciation.
A judicial denunciation must be made orally to the Holy Office or the bishop or their delegate, with the intervention of an ecclesiastical notary. The Ordinary may, for just reasons, dispense from the notary’s presence. The bishop may delegate a simple priest to receive the denunciation; this priest, however, must transmit all the documents intact to the Ordinary without keeping a copy.
For a denunciation to achieve its full purpose, it must contain a detailed account of the crime with circumstances of time, place, etc., the name of the soliciting confessor, and the domicile and name of the denouncer. Today this is easily done by filling out the form provided by the Holy Office or the local Ordinary. The denouncer, moreover, is bound to answer all questions put to him with the utmost candor; indeed, it is well to begin with an oath on the Gospel to tell the whole truth. The denouncer must also sign all his statements.
V. PROCESS AGAINST SOLICITANTS. The process is to be conducted according to the Instructions of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office of 26 Feb. 1886, 20 July 1890, and 6 Aug. 1897 (P. Gasparri, op. cit., nn. 990, 1123, 1190). It may also be conducted *ex informata conscientia* (can. 2186 ff.; Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 20 Feb. 1866, nn. 10–11). Everything must be carried out with the utmost secrecy. A preliminary inquiry must be made into the veracity of the denouncer, to be ascertained through sworn witnesses (at least two) on credibility. If necessary, the denouncer may be questioned again. The accused is then examined and subsequently admitted to written defense, to be made either by himself or through an advocate (can. 1862 ff.). The sentence must be pronounced by the bishop, not by a delegate, on the existence or non-existence of the crime and, if proven, on the penalties to be imposed in accordance with can. 2368 § 1. Moreover, if the accused confesses the crime during the process, he must make an abjuration (v.) to purge himself of the suspicion of heresy (v.).
The process does not ordinarily follow the first denunciation, but by practice of the Holy Office (Holy Office, 6 July 1835; Instruction, 20 Feb. 1866) proceedings are instituted only after the third denunciation. In the first two cases, the written denunciation is preserved and the confessor priest is placed under surveillance; but it is not excluded that proceedings may be taken even after the first denunciation.
VI. FALSE DENUNCIATION OF SOLICITATION. The denunciation of false solicitation against innocent priests acquires a special malice that the Church justly punishes with a most grave penalty. Before the *Codex Iuris Canonici*, false denunciation of solicitation was a sin reserved to the Holy See in a most special manner. Today, however, as a sin it is reserved to the Holy See *ratione sui*, and as a delict it is punished with excommunication specially reserved, for whose absolution prior retraction, reparation insofar as possible, and grave and continual penance are required (can. 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, i.e., one made according to the norms set out above; 4) that the denouncer have knowledge of the censure. It is unanimously held that ignorance, provided it is not affected, supine, or crass, excuses from incurring the censures; but it does not excuse from the reservation, although some theologians think otherwise.