8?4 t?BXAXCB.---COm*BOmOW. [BOOr feesions; or if they have used unlawful or vile conversation or touch- inK, let them be severely punished. And let their ordinaries decree their suspension from the execution of their ministerial office, the pt*i. vation of bonerices, dignities, and offices of every description, and 8 perpetual incapacity of filling them, either actively or Iranaively; and if they are regulars, let them be condemned to exile, and to the oats and prisons for ever, without hope of any fayour ..... We command to all confessors, that they should admonish their penitents whom they ]mow to have been solicited by others as above, respectiug the ? tion of reporting '? to the inquisitors or the ordinztties of the place. "o Benindict XIV. confirmed or explained the bull of Gregory, by issuing another in June, 1741. Another bull was issued by Benedict in 1745, repeating and enforcing the former regulations on this point.?* In the same bull severe enactments were made against those who soUcited the confessors to criminal acta. Thus it appeals that the confessional has been a scene of corruption both to penitents and confessors; otherwise these enactments were useless. Indeed, such is the privacy of confession, that no laws, however severe, can reach it; and consequently the popes were compeUed to Permit all the evil practices of the confessional to remain unchecked. The absolution of an accomplice in guilt presents a, very curious case in Roman Catholic casuist? It is briefly th?: thnt a confe? cannot absolve or pardon a femar? penitent who has been l?s accom- pl/ce in crime, except in the article of death.:? But then he can pardon at this solemn hour, though he has lived in sin till that Period*. 10. Notice the arguments by which they support auricular com. feesion. The Council of Trent, in her sixth, seventh, and eighth canons, already quoted at the commencement of this article, declares t.hat sacramental confession was instituted by Christ, is necessary in order to obtain pardon, was always observed in the Catholic Church, and ? no human invention. In accordance with these views, they bring for w? several arguments to support their assumption. The Scripture proof from St. J?mes has been s-?iciently Mist; and all we intend now is to consider those arguments of theirs which have any allow of pro?-
- "Qui personae, qumcu?lUe illin mint, ad inimnesta, sire inter es, sire cure
quotaode h?et perlmtmnda, in ?ctu sacranmntelb confessionis, aJve allte? vel post ?. mediate, seu occ?ione, vel pmtextu conf_,_?__,__,_'onb hujusmodi, etiam ii? ? confemimm non secutA, sive ext? occamonem canfmdo?, in confessionsrio, aut m !oco quoeuu. que ubi eon?emiones sacramentales sudisntur, seu mi confemiouem simulantes ibidem conf? audire, ,mlicit?, vel provocate temtnvetint, sut cure illicitos ..st inlmnes.t? serm?nes, sire tmctatua habuermt... severiesima, ... imniantur. Otdlnarii decen?n_ t m son s?em ab executions ordJnis, privationis bene?ciorum? dignitatum, et ofiicio.? c?uommcumque, ac perpetum intmbilitntis acl fila, necnon vocis .actives et passim, ni regular? ruetint, exil?lmmationis, nd triremes et carceres etiam m ._1,?. urn, Rue .ula. ? sn?i-... arabres o,?!?, eonfms? l?mtenm, quos ?ovennt ? ?b ? ut SUl? solicitous, monesnt d, obli?tbM ?ienunt?ndi soll?cttantes inqumttoribus seu Iocomm ordinar?.*'?Bulla GreRor. XV'., fJ?eerw/ Do?n?, anne 162?. Vide D? da C'?,e? ?_?_-_,?-oa?5, No. 2I?, vol. vi, p. 819. f See Bulbtitan Benedict XIV., Comtitut. XX., mine 1741, vol i, p. 101. Abe Dens, vol. vi, p. 435. $ Dens, d? C?t?d R?fm?d?, N?. Si?, vOL vi, p. 811.
�
