[Question:]{.underline} Can traditional priests absolve from censures in the internal forum?
[Answer:]{.underline} Censures are canonical punishments that are imposed upon Catholics who have committed grave crimes against God or the Church. There are much fewer censures in the 1983 Code than in 1917 Code. However, some still remain, such as the automatic excommunication for any Catholic who would perform or in any way cooperate in an abortion (Canon 1398). Normally such a censure, that prevents a Catholic from receiving any of the sacraments, is to be remitted by the Ordinary of the diocese. However, both codes foresee the possibility of remission in the confessional, either with delegation from the Ordinary, or in the usual situation in which it is spiritually urgent to receive the absolution from the censure so that the sacraments can be received (Canon 2254 of the 1917 Code and Canon 1357 of the 1983 Code).
There are some minor differences between the two Codes on secondary questions. One such difference, that concerns the priests of the Society, is the 1983 Code’s omission of the possibility of remission of censures by the confessor in the internal forum in the exceptional case of moral impossibility of recourse to the proper superior, as provided for by anon 2254, §3 of the 1917 Code. Canon 1357 of the 1983 Code is otherwise very similar, permitting priests to absolve from censures in the internal forum, but simply does not speak of the exceptional case of moral impossibility of recourse. Our priests are certainly in this case, given that the bishops and the Sacred Penitentiary regularly refuse to grant the jurisdiction to absolve in such cases. However, it is perfectly understandable that the law could not foresee the case of our priests having to absolve with supplied jurisdiction. Nor need it for that matter, for nobody can be bound to have recourse when it is impossible, nor does the Church refuse the sacraments in such cases. To the contrary it always grants the priest the right to absolve from sins, as, for example, in case of danger of death (Canon 882 of the 1917 Code and Canon 976 of the 1983 Code).
The laws concerning correct interpretation are to be followed in such cases, as described in Canons 17 & 19 of the 1983 Code. The interpretation is to be made according to laws in similar circumstances (i.e. the absolution from sins by a priest without jurisdiction in case of danger of death), the general principles of law, and the common practice of the Roman Curia. This interpretation is precisely what is contained explicitly in the 1917 Code. This particular precision is not opposed to the new law, but is simply not mentioned in it.
In such cases the 1917 Code helps us to interpret the 1983 Code. The 1983 Code, Canon 6, §2 points out that canons that refer to the old law (this is the case) are to be judged according to canonical Tradition, and that customs that are not against the law are to be maintained (Canon 5, §2). Also Canon 20 of the 1983 Code states that a later law only abrogates an earlier law if it explicitly states so, or if it is directly contrary to it, or if it regulates the whole matter treated by the law. This is not the case with the moral impossibility of recourse, for it is simply not treated. Consequently, this particular detail is not abrogated.
The 1917 Code is more explicit when it states the canonical principle that in case of doubt the prescriptions of the old law are to be retained (Canon 6, §4). Consequently in such cases there is really no opposition between the Codes, but it is simply an application of the more general principles of interpretation and supplied jurisdiction admitted by both Codes
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.