path: root/77819-0.txt

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77819 ***




THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL




                          THEORY AND PRACTICE OF
                             THE CONFESSIONAL

                      _A GUIDE IN THE ADMINISTRATION
                            OF THE SACRAMENT OF
                                 PENANCE_

                                    BY
                      PROF. CASPAR E. SCHIELER, D.D.

                                 EDITED BY
                          REV. H. J. HEUSER, D.D.
                PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT OVERBROOK SEMINARY

                            INTRODUCTION BY THE
                   MOST REV. S. G. MESSMER, D.D., D.C.L.
                          ARCHBISHOP OF MILWAUKEE

                              SECOND EDITION

                       NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO
                             BENZIGER BROTHERS

                              PRINTERS TO THE
                            HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE

                               PUBLISHERS OF
                            BENZIGER’S MAGAZINE




                    Nihil obstat.

                                               REMIGIUS LAFORT,
                                              _Censor Librorum_

                    Imprimatur.

                                             ✠ JOHN M. FARLEY,
                                              _Archbishop of New York_

                         NEW YORK, AUG. 31, 1905

                  COPYRIGHT, 1905, BY BENZIGER BROTHERS.




INTRODUCTION


“There is nothing more excellent or more useful for the Church of God and
the welfare of souls than the office of Confessor. By his sacred ministry
the sinner is lightened of the burden of sin, freed from the yoke of
Satan and concupiscence, and clothed again with the robe of innocence
previously lost. Weak knees are confirmed (Is. xxxv. 3); that is, men
weak and idle in mind receive new vigor, and lastly the just are aroused
and enkindled to persevere in goodness and to reach with freshly spurred
zeal for the crown of justice laid up for them (2 Tim. iv. 8).

“How great and arduous is the office of Confessor appears clearly from
the fact that by it he is made a judge in the place of Christ and that
of his judgment he must some day render a strict account to the Supreme
Judge. To him, therefore, apply the words with which the pious king of
Israel charged the judges appointed by him, ‘Take heed what you do: for
you exercise not the judgment of man, but of the Lord God; and whatever
you judge, it shall redound to you’ (2 Paral. xix. 6). In this tribunal,
however, the priest may not consider himself to be only a _Judge_ to
hear the culprit’s confession, to correct him, and then, having imposed
sentence, to send him away. He must also act the part of the _Shepherd_
and, following the example of the Good Shepherd, must know his sheep,
bring back to the fold those that strayed away and fell among thorns,
and finally lead them unto wholesome pastures and the waters of eternal
refreshment. He must be a _Physician_ giving suitable remedies to the
sick, and treating and healing with anxious and skillful hand the
wounds of the soul. Lastly he must be a _Father_, and like the father in
the Gospel cheerfully receive with the kiss of peace the prodigal son
returning from exile, where he had been lost and consumed by hunger and
filth; he must vest the son found again with the first robe, refresh him
with the fatted calf and delicious dishes, and restore him to the former
place and dignity of heir and son.

“Therefore let the priest who goes to hear confession seriously ponder
over these offices of judge, shepherd, physician, and father, and
endeavor, as far as in him lies, to fulfill them in deed and work. Above
all let him remember that he acts in the place of Christ and as an
ambassador for God, as the Apostle often tells us” (Conc. Balt. Pl. II.
nn. 278, 279, 280).

The present volume is a practical commentary upon these weighty words
of the Fathers of the Baltimore Council. The tremendous responsibility
of the Catholic priest exercising the ministry of the Sacrament of
Penance must appear in a truly dazzling light to the mind of every one
who but glances over the following pages. Human intelligence can never
fully grasp the true significance of this divine sacrament, which works
at the same time forgiveness of sin and sanctification by grace; which
is for poor fallen man at once the judgment of God’s infinite hatred
of sin and the manifestation of His infinite mercy for the repentant
sinner; which brings humiliation and punishment while it fills the soul
returning to God with unspeakable joy and comfort. Who can tell the
number of souls troubled by sin and sinful temptations who have found
peace and consolation, strength and holy courage in this sacrament? the
number of souls kept not only for days, but for years in the bondage
of evil passion and Satan who were, by the words of absolution, freed
from that ignominious slavery and led again to enjoy the freedom of the
children of God? the number of souls snatched from the brink of perdition
by the strong hand of God extended to them through His minister in the
confessional? the number of souls buried in spiritual death by grievous
sin who were brought out from their tombs to supernatural life and the
sunshine of heavenly grace by the power of sacramental confession? Only
the book of life reveals them all.

To be the minister of such a sacrament is, indeed, a glorious calling.
Most excellent in itself and most useful for the Christian people is
the office of Confessor. But the Fathers of the Council tell us it is
also a most arduous office. In very truth, the faithful administration
of the Sacrament of Penance demands a great deal more of the personal
coöperation of the minister with the recipient than any other sacrament.
Not to mention the fact that in the other sacraments, marriage alone
excepted, the acts of the recipient desirous to receive the sacrament
have nothing directly to do with the substance and validity of the
sacrament, while in confession these acts are not a mere condition,
but form the _materia ex qua_ the sacrament arises, there is not the
slightest doubt whatever of the most serious and grave duty of the
confessor to assist the penitent as far as possible towards a worthy and
profitable confession. He is not only bound, as in all other sacraments,
to insure the validity of the sacrament and to assure himself of the
required disposition of the recipient, but here more than elsewhere he
must himself effect and bring forth, as well as he can, the worthy and
right disposition of the penitent. Nor is this all. Confession is not
merely to free the sinner from sin for a few passing moments; it must so
strengthen his will and direct his heart that he will avoid the coming
danger and resist the future temptation. Herein lies the difficult and
arduous task of the confessor. It is in the discharge of this duty that
the priest needs all the love and charity, patience and meekness, of the
spiritual father; all the prudence and close attention, the knowledge
and experience of the spiritual physician; all the understanding of the
holy law and the firmness, impartiality, and discretion of the spiritual
judge; the watchful care and patient search of the spiritual shepherd;
the holy knowledge and wisdom of the spiritual teacher; the fervid
prayer, saintly life, and burning zeal for souls necessary to him who
is to be the minister of Jesus Christ unto sinful man redeemed by His
precious blood.

Even this is not all. Confession is not only a means of cleansing the
sinner from the stain of sin and vice, and of giving him strength and
courage in the battle against temptation; but it is also to help the
just and holy man to rise continually higher on the ladder of Christian
perfection. It is the sacrament for saint and sinner. The greatest saints
of God in holy Church had the greatest reverence and desire for holy
confession. St. Charles Borromeo went to confession every day. Hence
the tender care of the flowers and fruits of Christian virtue in the
heart of his penitent is another important duty of the father confessor.
How is he to fulfill it in a manner profitable to the penitent and to
himself, unless he is well acquainted with the principles and facts of
the spiritual life by a thorough study of Christian ascetics and the
earnest practice of Christian perfection? What a responsibility when a
soul called by God to the higher walks of Christian life, and willing to
follow the call, be it in the world or in the cloister, falls into the
hands of an ignorant, neglectful, or heedless confessor! But what glory
to God, what happiness of soul, what merit for heaven, when by holy zeal
and skillful effort the minister of God in holy confession leads the
Christian soul, panting after God as the hart panteth after the fountains
of water (Ps. xlii. 2), into the sanctuary of God’s love, grace, and
mercy! What a glorious ministry!

We can only hope and pray that Catholic priests will carefully read the
beautiful and instructive lessons that Dr. Schieler’s book offers, and
ponder over them day and night. There is no greater blessing for Church
and State, society and individual, than an army of priests who are
confessors according to the spirit of Christ; for they are in a fuller
sense than others “good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Petr.
iv. 10).

                                                          ✠ S. G. MESSMER.




EDITOR’S PREFACE


An English translation of Dr. Schieler’s exhaustive work on “The
Sacrament of Penance,” for the use of theological students and missionary
priests, had been advised by some of our bishops and professors of
theology. It was felt that, under present conditions, a work in the
vernacular on a subject which involved to a very large extent the
practical direction of souls was an actual necessity for many to whom the
Latin texts dealing with the important questions of the Confessional were
for one reason or another insufficient.

There was one serious objection to the publication of a work in English,
which, since it deals with most delicate subjects, might for this reason
cause an unqualified or prejudiced reader to misunderstand or pervert its
statements, so as to effect the very opposite of what is intended by the
Church in her teaching of Moral and Pastoral Theology. Between the two
dangers of a lack of sufficiently practical means to inform and direct
the confessor and pastoral guide of souls in so difficult and broad a
field as is presented by the missions in English-speaking countries, and
the fear that a manual from which the priest derives his helpful material
of direction may fall into the hand of the ill-advised, for whom it was
not intended, the latter seems the lesser evil, albeit it may leave its
deeper impression upon certain minds that see no difficulty in using the
sources of information in which the Latin libraries abound.

One proof of both the necessity and the superior advantage of having
a vernacular expression of this branch of theological literature, for
the use of students and priests in non-Latin countries, is readily
found in the fact that authorized scholarship and pastoral industry in
Germany have long ago seen fit to supply this need for students in its
theological faculties, and for priests on the mission, and that the
benefit of such a course has shown itself far to overlap the accidental
danger of an unprofessional use of the source of Moral Theology in the
hands of a lay-reader, or one hostile to the Catholic Church who might
pervert its doctrine and arouse the zeal of the prudish.

The work was, therefore, not undertaken without serious weighing of the
reasons for and against its expediency from the prudential as well as
moral point of view. As a competent translator of it, the name of the
Rev. Richard F. Clarke, S.J., of the English Province, whose editions of
Spirago’s catechetical volumes had given him the advantage of special
experience in kindred work, suggested itself to the publishers. Father
Clarke actually undertook the translation, and had fairly completed it
when death overtook him. The manuscript was placed in my hands with
a request to prepare it for publication. After much delay, due to a
multiplicity of other professional duties, I found it possible, with
the coöperation of the Rev. Dr. Charles Bruehl, who kindly consented to
undertake the principal work of revision, to complete the volume which is
now placed at the disposal of our clergy. There is probably room for some
criticism in parts wherein I have undertaken to alter the expressions of
the author and of the original translator, with a view of accommodating
the matter to the temperament of the English reader. In this I may have
sinned at times both by excess and by deficiency; but these blemishes
can, I trust, be eliminated in future editions of a work which, for
the rest, contains so much of instructive material as to prove itself
permanently useful to the theologian and pastor.

In some cases I would not wish to be understood as sharing the author’s
views, nor should I have deemed an insistence upon the often-cited
opinions of casuists quite so essential in a work of this kind as it
seemed to the learned author. But in this I did not feel authorized to
depart from his text, even if I had not fully appreciated the advantage
of his ample references and quotations in matters of detail. Whatever we
think of the author’s personal views, his citations of the masters in
the science of morals give to his book certain advantages entitled to
recognition.

With these restrictions borne in mind, it would be difficult to
exaggerate the usefulness of a work such as this, which directs the
priest in the sacramental ministry of Penance as indicated by the laws
and practice of the Church.

The aim of every pastor must in the first place be to rouse the
consciences of the individual members of his flock to motives of
pure and right living. The Gospel of Christ furnishes the model of
such living, and the Church is the practical operator under whose
direction and authority the principles of the Gospel are actively
carried into society, from the lowest to the highest strata. The
sacramental discipline of the Confessional is the directest and most
powerful instrument by which the maxims and precepts of the Gospel are
made operative and fruitful in the individual conscience. A prominent
non-Catholic writer of our day has characterized the Catholic Church
as the _Empire of the Confessional_. So she is, and her empire is the
strongest, the most penetrating, permanent, and effective rule for the
good conduct of the individual and the peace and prosperity of the
community that can be conceived.

On the proper operation, therefore, of the Sacrament of Penance depends
in the first place all that we can look for of satisfaction and peace
upon earth. But the administration of the Sacrament of Penance is solely
in the hands of the priest or confessor. If he knows what to do, if he
is wisely diligent in doing what the discipline of the Confessional
instructs him to do, he will rule his people with order and ease, he
will gain their gratitude and their love, he will reap all the fruits of
a happy ministry, and his name will be in benediction among men of good
will within and without the fold.

The Confessional is a tribunal. It demands a certain knowledge of the
law, exercise of discretion and prudence in the application of the law,
and the wisdom of kindly counsel to greater perfection. As the lawyer,
the judge, the physician, learn their rules of diagnosis and prescription
in the first instance from books and then from practice, so the future
confessor, for three or four years a student of theology, deems it his
first and most important duty to study Moral Theology, and this with
the single and almost exclusive purpose of making use of it in the
Confessional. Moral Theology gives him the principles of law and right,
the rules to apply them to concrete cases, and certain precedents by
way of illustration, in order to render him familiar with actual and
practical conditions. But the young priest learns much more during the
first few months and years of his actual ministry by sitting in the
Confessional and dealing with the consciences of those who individually
seek his direction.

There is some danger that the practical aspect, with all the distracting
circumstances of sin’s work in the soul, may in time obscure the
clear view of principles and make the confessor what the criminal
judge is apt to become during long years of incumbency, oversevere or
overindulgent, as his temper dictates. He may thus lose that fine sense
of discrimination, that balanced use of fatherly indulgence and needful
correction, which the position of the representative of eternal justice
and mercy demands.

To obviate this result, which renders the Confessional a mere work of
routine and absolution, instead of being, as it should be, a means of
correction and reform, the priest, like the judge, needs to read his
books of law and to refurbish his knowledge of theory and practice and
his sense of discernment. But the theological texts with which he was
familiar under the Seminary discipline, where nothing distracted him from
the attentive use of them, are not now so readily at hand. Their Latin
forms are a speech which, if not more strange and difficult than during
his Seminary course, seems more distant and uninviting. The priest, even
the young priest, would rather review his Moral Theology in the familiar
language in which he is now to express his judgments to his penitents.

This fact alone suggests the pertinent use of the book before us. There
the confessor, the director of the conscience, finds all that he was
taught in his Moral Theology. He finds much more; for the author has
made the subject a specialty of treatment which leads him to light up
every phase of the confessor’s task. He has himself studied all the
great masters in the direction of souls from the Fathers of the Church
down to the Scholastics of the thirteenth century; and more especially
those that follow, who have entered into the theory and art of psychical
anatomy—Guilelmus Paris, Cardinal Segusio, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure,
Gerson, St. Charles Borromeo, Toletus, De Ponte, St. Francis of Sales,
Lugo, Lacroix, Concina, Cajetan, and Bergamo, St. Alphonsus, Reuter, and
finally those many doctors of the last century who have written upon the
duties of the confessor in the light of modern necessities and special
canon law.

It is hardly necessary to explain to the priest who has passed over
the ground of the sacramental discipline as found in his theological
text-books, how the subject is here presented in the detail of analysis
and application to concrete conditions. Penance is a Virtue and it is a
Sacrament. To understand the full value of the latter we must examine
its constituent elements, the matter, form, conditions, the dispositions
and acts of the penitent, sorrow for sin, purpose of amendment, actual
accusation of faults in the tribunal—requisites which are dealt with by
Professor Schieler in the traditional manner, but with clearness and
attention to detail.

Of special importance are the suggestions in the third chapter, touching
the integrity of the Confession: the number, circumstances certain
and doubtful, of the sins, and the reasons which excuse the penitent
from making a complete confession; likewise the treatment of invalid
confessions, of general confessions, their purpose, necessity, or danger
as the case may be; satisfaction, its acceptance or commutation.

The main object of the treatise lies, however, as might be supposed, in
the exposition of the confessor’s powers and jurisdiction, and of the
reservation and abuse of faculties. These matters are in the first place
discussed from the theoretical standpoint. Then follows the application,
which takes up the second principal part of the work. Here we have the
confessor in the act of administering the Sacrament. He is told how
he is to diagnose the sinner’s condition by the proposal of questions
and by ascertaining his motives—how far and to what end this probing
is lawful and wise. Next the qualities of the confessor, his duties
and responsibilities, are set forth in so far as they must lead him to
benefit his penitent both in and out of the tribunal of penance. The
obligation of absolute secrecy or the _sigillum_ is the subject of an
extended chapter.

From the general viewpoint which the confessor must take of his
penitent’s condition and the safeguards by which he is to protect the
penitent both as accused and accuser, our author leads us into the
various aspects of the judge’s duties toward penitents in particular
conditions. Thus the sinner who is in the constant occasion of relapse
into his former sin, the sinner who finds himself too weak to resist
temptation, the penitent who aims at extraordinary sanctity, the
scrupulous, the convert, form separate topics of detailed discussion.
The last part of the volume deals with the subjects of confessions of
children, of young men and young women, of those who are engaged to be
married, of persons living in mixed marriage, of men, religious women, of
priests, and of the sick and dying.

Some of our readers may recall that we have protested against too
implicit a reliance on an artificial code of weights and measures
in the matter of sin; and to them it may seem that in seconding the
translation of such a work as this we go contrary to the principles
advocated, because our author presents the same application of canon law
and judicial decision which has been sanctioned by the great moralists
and canonists of the schools. But let the reader remember that in the
text-books of the Seminary, we have as a rule the principles and precepts
presented in their skeleton form so as to leave the impression of fixed
maxims, which cannot be altered, although they are in many cases only
the coined convictions of individual authors, to whose authority the
student is taught to swear allegiance. In the present volume principles
and precepts are so discussed that they admit of an all-sided view, and
as a result do not hinder that freedom of judgment which is so essential
a requisite in a good judge and, therefore, in a confessor. For the rest
we felt it, of course, to be our duty toward the author to preserve his
train of thought and reasoning, and if anything is needed to make his
exposition especially applicable to our missionary conditions of time
and place, it will be easily supplied by any one who shall have read and
studied the present work.

                                                             H. J. HEUSER.




CONTENTS


                                                                      PAGE

                                  PART I
                 _PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT_

   1. The Virtue of Penance                                             17

   2. The Sacrament of Penance                                          20

   3. Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance                             22

   4. Forgiveness of Venial Sin                                         29

   5. The Constituent Parts of the Sacrament of Penance in General      37

   6. The Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance in Particular       39

   7. The Form of the Sacrament                                         50

   8. Conditional Absolution                                            59

                                 PART II
               _THE RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE,
                       OR THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT_

   9. Who can Receive the Sacrament of Penance                          70

                                CHAPTER I
                                CONTRITION

  10. Extent and Efficacy of Contrition                                 71

  11. The Essential Features of Perfect Contrition                      76

  12. The Effects of Perfect Contrition and the Obligation of
        Procuring it                                                    81

  13. Imperfect Contrition                                              88

  14. The Necessary Qualities of Contrition                             98

  15. The Relation of Contrition to the Sacrament                      111

                                CHAPTER II
                         THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT

  16. Necessity and Nature of the Purpose of Amendment                 121

  17. Properties of the Purpose of Amendment                           126

  18. The Purpose of Amendment with regard to Venial Sin               133

                               CHAPTER III
                                CONFESSION

      _Article I. Essence, Necessity, and Properties of Confession_

  19. Essence and Necessity of Confession                              137

  20. Properties of Confession                                         138

              _Article II. The Integrity of the Confession_

  21. Necessity of the Integrity of Confession                         153

  22. Extent of the Integrity of Confession                            157

  23. The Number of Sins in Confession                                 163

  24. The Confession of the Circumstances of Sins                      166

  25. The Confession of Doubtful Sins                                  180

  26. Sins omitted through Forgetfulness or Other Causes not
        Blameworthy                                                    193

  27. Reasons Excusing from Complete Accusation                        198

         _Article III. The Means to be employed in Order to make
                          a Perfect Confession_

  28. The Examination of Conscience                                    215

  29. Invalid Confessions                                              222

  30. General Confession                                               228

  31. The Manner of Hearing General Confession                         238

  32. Plan for making a General Confession                             245

                                CHAPTER IV
                               SATISFACTION

  33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor                       256

  34. The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent    271

  35. The Commutation of the Penance                                   274

                                 PART III
                     _THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT_

                 =Section I. The Powers of the Confessor=

  36. Orders, Jurisdiction, Approbation                                279

                                 CHAPTER I
                               JURISDICTION

  37. The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction         284

  38. The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction
        or Approbation                                                 288

  39. _Jurisdictio Delegata Extraordinaria_, or, the Supplying of
        Deficient Jurisdiction by the Church                           300

  40. The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members
        of Religious Orders                                            307

  41. Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns         311

                                CHAPTER II
               LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION OR RESERVED CASES

  42. Reserved Cases in General                                        316

  43. The Papal Reserved Cases                                         326

  44. Absolution of Reserved Sins                                      340

                               CHAPTER III
             ABUSE OF POWER BY THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT

  45. Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin                351

  46. The Absolution of the _Complex in Peccato Turpi_                 354

  47. _Sollicitatio Proprii Pœnitentis ad Turpia_                      364

                =Section II. The Office of the Confessor=

                                CHAPTER I
       THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS
       OFFICE; OR, THE CONFESSOR CONSIDERED IN HIS OFFICE OF JUDGE

  48. The Knowledge of the Sins                                        379

  49. The Nature of the Questions to be put to the Penitent            382

  50. The Examination of the Dispositions of the Penitent              398

  51. The Confessor’s Duty in Disposing his Penitents                  402

  52. The Duty of the Confessor to administer, to defer, or to
        refuse Absolution                                              407

                                CHAPTER II
                  THE ACCESSORY DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR

                       _Article I. The Preparation_

  53. The Virtues which the Confessor must Possess                     416

  54. The Scientific Equipment of the Confessor                        424

  55. The Prudence of the Confessor                                    434

         _Article II. Duties of the Confessor during Confession_

  56. The Duty of instructing and exhorting the Penitent (_Munus
        Doctoris_)                                                     438

  57. The Duty of suggesting Remedies against Relapse (the
        Confessor as Physician)                                        448

                               CHAPTER III
             THE DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR AFTER THE CONFESSION

  58. The Duty of correcting Errors occurring in the Confession        460

  59. The Duty of preserving the Seal of Confession                    466

  60. The Subject of the Seal of Confession                            471

  61. The Object or Matter of the Seal of Confession                   473

  62. Violations of the Seal                                           476

       =Section III. The Duties of the Confessor toward Different
                           Classes of Penitents=

                                CHAPTER I
       THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS

                      _Article I. The Occasionarii_

  63. Sinful Occasions and the Duty of avoiding them                   487

  64. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in
        _Occasione Proxima Voluntaria_                                 493

  65. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in
        _Occasione Necessaria_                                         496

  66. Some Commonly Occurring Occasions of Sin                         501

               _Article II. Habitual and Relapsing Sinners_

  67. Definition and Treatment of Habitual Sinners                     518

  68. Relapse, and the Treatment of Relapsing Sinners                  521

  69. Relapsing Sinners requiring Special Care                         530

  70. Penitents aiming at Perfection                                   536

  71. Hypocritical Penitents                                           543

  72. Scrupulous Penitents                                             545

  73. Converts                                                         555

                                CHAPTER II
             THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT EXTERNAL
                              CIRCUMSTANCES

  74. The Confession of Children                                       561

  75. The Confession of Young Unmarried People                         575

  76. The Confessor as Adviser in the Choice of a State of Life        583

  77. Betrothal and Marriage                                           592

  78. The Confessor’s Attitude toward Mixed Marriages                  600

  79. How to deal with Penitents joined in “Civil” Marriage only       607

  80. The Confessor’s Conduct toward Women                             608

  81. The Confessions of Men                                           614

  82. The Confession of Nuns                                           618

  83. The Confession of Priests                                        624

                               CHAPTER III
                       PENITENTS IN EXTREME DANGER

  84. The Importance of the Priest’s Ministry at the Bedside of
        the Sick and the Dying                                         630

  85. The Confessions of the Sick                                      632

  86. Absolution of the Dying                                          645

  TOPICAL INDEX      655




THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL




PART I

_PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT_


1. The Virtue of Penance.

At all times penance has been the necessary means (_necessitate medii ad
salutem_) of obtaining pardon for those who had committed mortal sin.
“If we do not do penance, we shall fall into the hands of the Lord,” is
the warning of the Old Testament (Ecclus. ii. 22). And when God sent
His prophets, it was to arouse men to repentance by the announcement
of His wrath, and threatening punishments. The forerunner of Our Lord
solemnly exhorts the assembled crowds, “Do penance; the kingdom of heaven
is at hand.” Our Lord Himself insists on the same point with awful
determination, “Unless you do penance you shall all likewise perish”
(Luke xiii. 3). He proclaims as the task of His own public ministry and
the great mission of His Church, “to call sinners to repentance” (Luke v.
32). Accordingly, the burden of the Apostles’ preaching was, “Do penance”
(Acts ii. 38), for “God hath also to the gentiles given repentance unto
life” (Acts xi. 18).

Thus penance is indispensable to the sinner by divine ordinance, as the
Council of Trent expressly teaches (Sess. xiv. c. 1). It is not less
clearly dictated by natural law. “For reason prompts man to do penance
for the sins which he has committed; but divine command determines the
manner according to which it is to be performed.”[1]

Taken in its widest sense, penance may be defined as a regret for some
past action. Such a regret is not necessarily virtuous, for a morally
indifferent or even a good action may be to us a source of displeasure
and grief. But even in its restricted meaning, denoting grief, on account
of some bad action, penance does not yet include the idea of virtue.
Grief is caused by the perception of anything we look upon as an evil.
Now sin may be regarded as an evil in more than one way. Then only does
our penance rise to the height of a virtue, if we feel sorry for our
sins, not by reason of some temporal disadvantage we have incurred, but
for God’s sake, whose holy law we have transgressed and whose majesty we
have outraged. In other words, the virtue of penance requires that we
detest sin as an evil of a higher, supernatural order.

Penance is not a virtue of its own and specifically distinct from other
virtues. St. Thomas considers it as belonging to the virtue of justice,
because by it we perform an act of justice toward God, since we restore
to Him the honor of which sin has deprived Him, and make reparation for
our wrongdoings.[2] Apparently, it springs from the virtue of religion,
as an effect thereof; for to detest one’s sin as an injustice done to God
implies an acknowledgment of His sovereign goodness and majesty. This
submission to God is an act of the virtue of religion.[3] Furthermore,
Lehmkuhl[4] is right in attaching the act of penance to virtues of
different species. For sin, being in many ways an evil and opposed to
holiness and duty, may be deplored from different reasons; and so our
penance belongs to that virtue which supplies the motive of sorrow. Thus,
a sinner may loathe his impurity from a love of purity, his intemperance
from a love of temperance, his pride from a love of humility; he may also
abhor sins because they are repugnant to more general virtues, such as
the love of God and gratitude toward God.[5]

The virtue of penance, thus being a complete destruction of all affection
to sin, has an intimate bearing on the Sacrament of Penance. It is the
disposition required on the part of the sinner, not only for the worthy,
but also for the valid reception of the Sacrament. It represents, so to
speak, the matter of the Sacrament, so that without it the Sacrament is
null and void. Consequently, it enters as a constituent part into the
very essence of the Sacrament.

The most important act of the virtue of penance is an act of the will
and is called contrition. It is contrition that gives birth to penance,
vivifies and animates it. Without contrition, there is no remission
of sin; for it alone leads to a sincere avowal of our guilt and a
meritorious satisfaction.

The second act of penance is the confession of sin: it is penance
exercised by speech. Justice exacts that the guilty should acknowledge
their wickedness, and also make amends for the sins committed by words.
The third act of penance is satisfaction in expiation of our misdeeds.
The bad deed is compensated by some good action, which we are not bound
to do, but which we perform in order to supply for our past deficiencies.
This is penance in deed.

These three acts of penance are most intimately connected with the
Sacrament, and this union imparts to them a special efficacy and
strength; for the imperfect virtue, which of itself is unable to effect
justification, by its elevation to sacramental dignity acquires the power
of conferring sanctifying grace.[6]


2. The Sacrament of Penance.

The arguments for the existence of the Sacrament of Penance do not form
part of our task; they come within the scope of dogmatic theology.
We shall only point out some theological propositions on which our
subsequent dissertations are based.

1. Jesus Christ gave to His apostles and their successors in the holy
ministry the power of forgiving and retaining sins committed after
Baptism.

2. This power is judicial and is exercised in the form of a judicial
process. On this evident deduction from the words of the institution is
based the entire Catholic teaching concerning the Sacrament of Penance.

3. The exercise of this judicial power constitutes a Sacrament, the
object of which is to reconcile the sinner to his God.

4. The outward sign of the Sacrament is the exercise of the judicial
functions; this comprises, on the one hand, the acts of the
penitent,—contrition, confession, and satisfaction; and on the other, the
priestly absolution, being the sentence delivered by the representative
of God.

5. The grace conferred by the Sacrament is the remission of all sins,
embracing the effacement of the guilt, the obliteration of the eternal
punishment, and the condonation of, at least, a portion of the temporal
punishment. This remission of sin is accomplished by the infusion of
sanctifying grace, which, moreover, constitutes a title to certain actual
graces, helping the penitent to bring forth worthy fruits of penance, to
overcome temptation, to avoid relapse, and to amend his life.

At the same time the infused virtues are restored and the merits of
former good works lost by sin are regained.

On zealous penitents, besides, special gifts are bestowed, such as peace
of heart, cheerfulness of mind, and great spiritual consolation.

Though the Sacrament of Penance is administered after the fashion of a
judicial trial, still its administration deviates in many points from
the customs of forensic practice. The chief points of divergence are the
following:—

1. The aim which the secular judge has in view is to convict the
criminal, and by the infliction of a penalty, proportioned to the nature
and the greatness of the crime, to restore the order of justice violated
by the offense; the acquittal of the innocent is only a secondary
consideration. The sacramental judge, on the contrary, reestablishes the
relations between God and man, destroyed by sin, not so much by imposing
a punishment, as by effecting a reconciliation. His chief preoccupation
is the individual welfare of the penitent; the verdict, therefore, is a
sentence of absolution and release from guilt; however, the sinner must
perform a certain penance, to be determined by the confessor.

2. It follows from this that the final sentence in the tribunal of
penance, by which the case is decided, is always one of acquittal. Any
other sentence passed in the sacramental court is only intermediate,
amounting to a temporary postponement of absolution.

3. In the ordinary session of justice, besides the judge and the accused,
we find a prosecutor, witnesses, and pleaders. In the sacramental court
there are only the judge and the sinner, who is his own prosecutor,
pleading guilty. The proceedings are shrouded in perfect secrecy. The
bench cites the criminal against his will, and holds him by force; at
the confessional, the sinner presents himself of his own free will.
The spiritual judge must credit the account of the penitent, be it in
his favor or disfavor, since he alone can bear witness to the state of
his conscience. Only when there is moral certainty of the opposite,
may the priest distrust the statements of the sinner. On the contrary,
the ordinary judge has the right to reject any plea advanced by the
criminal.[7]


3. Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance.

The Council of Trent declared in its fourteenth session, with regard to
this point: “The Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to those who have
incurred mortal sin after baptism, as baptism itself is to those who are
not yet regenerated.”[8] It follows from this teaching of the Council
that, since Baptism is indispensable to eternal salvation, penance is
equally necessary. To use the exact language of theologians, it is
necessary _in re vel saltem in voto_. Which means that those who can
actually receive the Sacrament are bound to have recourse to it in order
to be freed from their sins; but that those for whom the reception of
this Sacrament is for any reason impossible, will be cleansed from their
sins by the desire of receiving it. This desire is always included in
perfect contrition.[9]

For when Our Lord granted to His apostles the power of forgiving or
retaining sins, and thereby instituted the Sacrament of Penance for the
remission of grievous sin, committed after Baptism, He evidently asserted
it to be His will that the sinner should be subjected to the power of
the keys by the reception of this Sacrament, the latter thus becoming
a necessary means of obtaining pardon for grievous sin committed after
baptismal regeneration. The power of the keys vested in the apostles
and their successors would be a useless gift if the faithful, without
submitting to that power, could be released from their sins and gain the
heavenly kingdom. The more so, as the priest possesses also the power of
retaining sins; a power unfavorable to the sinner; but which the sinner
could elude if the Sacrament of Penance had not been made a necessary
means of forgiveness. Nor would the sinner undergo the inconveniences
connected with the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, if he were
not persuaded of Christ’s precept, imposing the Sacrament of Penance as
a means of reconciliation. Venial sins, however, are forgiven without
reference to the Sacrament of Penance, as we shall show in another
place.[10]

Thus, by divine precept, all who have incurred mortal sin after Baptism
are bound to receive this Sacrament. The obligation is absolute (_per
se_) in danger of death; for, in this case, the reception is necessary.
Hence those are bound who are suffering of a dangerous disease; a mother
before her first confinement, or before any subsequent birth, if her
travails are of an especially alarming nature; a criminal sentenced to
death, before his execution; and any one foreseeing the lack of another
opportunity for his whole life of making a confession.

There are other times in the course of our life when the obligation of
confession becomes actual and pressing; the Church, acting according
to the intentions of Christ, has specified these occasions more
particularly. For the Sacrament was not instituted merely to dispose
man for his passage from this life, but also to heal his spiritual
infirmities, to shield him against relapse into sin, and to strengthen
him to lead a virtuous life. Consequently, we would frustrate the object
of the Sacrament if we were to postpone its reception to the hour of
death.

_Per accidens_ it is obligatory to receive this Sacrament: (1) for a
person who desires or is bound to receive holy Communion, and who happens
to be in a state of mortal sin; (2) when the Sacrament of Penance is
the only means for overcoming a temptation or avoiding grievous sin;
(3) when any one feels himself incapable of making an act of perfect
contrition, and yet is by his duties required to be in a state of grace;
for instance, if one has to administer a Sacrament, or simply because one
realizes that it is wrong to remain in a state of enmity with God for any
considerable period.[11]

The divine precept of approaching the Sacrament of Penance does not
urge immediately that a mortal sin has been committed, for it is an
affirmative command, and affirmative precepts do not press of their own
accord, but only at certain times and under given circumstances. Besides,
the Church’s precept of an annual confession for all the faithful, who
have fallen into mortal sin, proves sufficiently that divine law does not
enforce confession immediately after committing mortal sin.

The precept of the Church concerning the Sacrament of Penance binds
only those who have sinned mortally. For the Church’s intention is
merely to define more clearly the extent of the divine command; so the
ecclesiastical precept does not exceed the limits of the divine precept,
and Christ commanded only that mortal sin should be confessed. Hence one
who has committed no mortal sin is not subject to the law of the Church
prescribing yearly confession. In practice, however, the question has no
import; for which of the faithful, guilty only of venial sin, would omit
to go to confession at least once a year, or would think of receiving
holy Communion without previously having confessed?[12]

He who has committed a mortal sin, but, forgetting all about it,
confesses only venial sins, and some days later remembers again the
mortal sin, is, according to a probable opinion, no longer subject to the
precept of yearly confession; for, since the confession was valid, the
mortal sin omitted by sheer forgetfulness is forgiven; and there only
remains the obligation of submitting the forgotten sin to the power of
the keys in the next confession.[13]

For the same reason alleged above, the law of the Church extends
only to those who have reached the age of discernment, and whose
minds are sufficiently developed to render them capable of sin. It is
impossible[14] to fix any definite limit of age in this matter. Much
depends on the child’s personal gifts, its training and education. In
each individual case the moral maturity of the child must be gauged by
its general accomplishments and its ways of acting. During the ordinary
course of religious instruction, the pastor will find ample material on
which to base a decision; in case of doubt, the testimony of the parents
and the teachers may be taken into account.[15] Seven years is usually
assigned as the age at which children of average ability and proper
training have arrived at the period of discretion which enables them to
understand the malice of mortal sin.

Hence it becomes a duty to instruct the children for confession when
they have reached about the seventh or eighth year, or, according to
circumstances, even earlier. But even children of an inferior age, if
they seem to have sufficient understanding, should not be allowed to
die without absolution, though it be pronounced only conditionally.
Of course, the priest will help them to elicit the necessary acts of
contrition and purpose of amendment. This should be done though it be
doubtful that the child has committed a sin or if it has forgotten the
sin committed.

It is not a good practice, therefore, to defer the instruction of
children on this Sacrament to their ninth year or later; since it does
an injustice to the more intelligent children. Moreover, in the case of
those children who are sick, this lack of early preparation is apt to
deprive them of both the Sacrament of Penance and Extreme Unction, which
is a serious matter, if they have been capable of committing mortal
sin.[16]

The precept of the Church imposes annual confession, _saltem semel in
anno_. Beyond this, time and season are not specified. Theologians
interpret the law in general as follows: all who are conscious of mortal
sin are bound to confess within the period between January 1 and December
31, or, what practically amounts to the same, within the time comprised
between the Easter of one year and the Easter of the following year.
For, whoever makes his confession with a view to his Easter Communion,
certainly does confess within the limits of a civil year, though the
earlier or later date of Easter may make the interval elapsing between
the confessions more than a year.

Since the precept of yearly confession refers only to mortal sins, the
common teaching of theologians is that, whosoever has accused himself at
Easter time of venial sin only, but falls into mortal sin before the year
has expired, must go to confession again before the end of the year, in
order to fulfill the ecclesiastical precept.[17]

The faithful, however, adds Lehmkuhl, should be exhorted never to put off
the reception of the Sacrament, or at least the eliciting of an act of
perfect contrition, when they have had the misfortune of offending God
grievously; for a soul in the state of mortal sin is in a most deplorable
and dangerous condition. Still we are not authorized to insist on this
as being an obligation imposed by the Church, since some distinguished
theologians maintain the contrary.[18]

He who one year, whether by his own fault or not, fails to make his
confession, but during the next confesses all his sins, satisfies thereby
the obligations with respect to both years, in the case, at least, when,
during the current year, he has committed a mortal sin which he includes
in his confession; for he has fulfilled the precept which enjoins
reconciliation with God. If, on the contrary, the penitent has committed
only venial sins in the current year, and confessed them along with the
mortal sins of the previous year, and later on falls into grievous sin,
he is obliged to make another confession in order to comply with the law
of the Church.[19]

He who has not confessed for a whole year, must, according to the more
common and probable opinion, confess as soon as possible; because the
Church has defined the period for fulfilling the precept, not for the
purpose of limiting the obligation to a determinate date, but to incite
men to perform their duty in proper time (_non ad finiendam sed ad
urgendam obligationem_). Hence, a man would sin against the precept as
often as he shirked an opportunity of making the neglected confession,
thereby renewing the intention not to obey the law.[20]

He who has sinned grievously, and foresees that in the course of the year
he shall be prevented from going to confession, must avail himself of the
presently occurring opportunity, for in these circumstances the duty of
confessing is actually pressing.

The precept of the Church prescribes, moreover, that the faithful confess
their sins sincerely (_fideliter_). By a bad confession we cannot
discharge our duty. This was distinctly confirmed by Alexander VII,
condemning a proposition to the contrary. (Prop. 14.)

A further provision of the Lateran decree, to confess _proprio
sacerdoti_, which formerly obliged the faithful to make their annual
confession to their own parish priest, bishop, vicar-general, or the
Pope, has long been abrogated by a recognized universal contrary
practice. Confession may, therefore, be made to any priest duly
authorized by the bishop.[21]

The excommunication for the violation of the Church’s precept of annual
confession, as of Paschal Communion, is not a _pœna latæ_, but a _pœna
ferendæ sententiæ_.

The ardent wish of the Church is that her children should confess
frequently during the year. This is apparent from the wording of the
law. Frequent confession is of the greatest usefulness to all without
exception, to the sinner as well as the just. It destroys the evil
inclinations born by sin and averts its terrible consequences.

1. Although, absolutely considered, a single confession made worthily
and with due preparation is able to arrest us in the downward career of
vice, to extinguish the long-nourished flame of passion, to correct our
evil inclinations and habits, to confirm us in grace, and to insure us
against relapse; yet this is not the ordinary course of things. When we
are cleansed from our sins by the Sacrament, we have yet to face a long
struggle with the remains of sin; for the wounds inflicted by sin, though
closed by the grace of absolution, leave us in a weakened condition, and
may easily reopen. To effect a perfect cure of the soul, and to purify
its inclinations and habits, there exists no more efficacious means than
frequent confession. It leads us to greater watchfulness over ourselves,
constitutes an act of humility, forces us to renew our good resolutions;
it equips us with many special graces, intended to assist us in our
spiritual warfare, and to enable us to persevere in the paths of virtue
in spite of the manifold difficulties which we encounter.

2. Frequent confession is also the most powerful means to counteract the
disastrous consequences of sin. The most fatal of these are: blindness of
the soul, hardening of the heart and final impenitence. As often as we
go to confession, the great salutary truths of our religion are recalled
to our mind. We reflect on God and our last end, on Jesus Christ and His
love and mercy, on the wickedness and the dreadful punishments of sin,
on our august duties, and on God’s holy law. Frequent confession is an
antidote against the hardening of the heart, since it arouses in us a
profound hatred of sin, love for God, fear of His wrath, and the desire
of accomplishing His will. Finally, as at every confession we again
banish sin from our hearts, frequent confession is the best preparation
for a penitent life and a happy death.

Also the just derives great benefits from frequent confession; he is more
and more cleansed from the lesser faults, committed daily; the grace and
love of God are increased in his heart, and special helps to overcome
his failings and weakness are granted to him. The oftener the just man
approaches this holy Sacrament, the more fully does he partake of its
peculiar graces.[22]


4. Forgiveness of Venial Sin.

By divine and ecclesiastical precept we are bound only to confess
mortal sins; there is no obligation to confess venial sins; these may
be forgiven without receiving the Sacrament of Penance. “Venial sins,
by which we are not shut out from the grace of God and into which we
fall more frequently, though they be rightly and profitably declared in
confession, as the practice of pious people demonstrates, may be omitted
without guilt, and be expiated by many other methods.” Such is the
teaching of the Council of Trent.[23]

Before enumerating the methods by which venial sins can be remitted we
wish to observe:—

1. The most necessary condition for the remission of any sin, and
therefore also of venial sin, is _contrition_. So long as a man is
attached to sin and does not detest it, God cannot forgive it, for He
is infinitely holy and just. It is not, however, absolutely necessary
to specify the sins and make a formal act of sorrow for them, otherwise
David’s prayer _Ab occultis meis munda me_ (Ps. xviii. 13) would be
useless and the remission of forgotten sins impossible. _Virtual_
contrition is sufficient, _i.e._ the sinner must be actually contrite
for all his sins, and from universal motives which apply even to those
sins of which he is unconscious or which he has forgotten. He must also
have the intention of including in that contrition all the sins by
which he has offended God. Although venial sin is more easily forgiven
than mortal, yet this forgiveness is impossible without at least a
virtual contrition for it. For when a man falls into venial sin he turns
inordinately to creatures, not, however, as in mortal sin, by entirely
abandoning God, his last end, and unreservedly giving himself up to
creatures. This attachment to creatures, however, makes it necessary
that he should, if not formally and explicitly, at least virtually and
implicitly, turn away from them and combat this guilty affection for
creatures by a contrary act of the will. A work done to please God, or a
mere act of love without abhorrence of sin, does not remit that sin. As
venial sin may coexist with the general habit of the love of God, so it
may coexist with a particular act of that love; for a man can make an
act of perfect love or even an act of perfect contrition and still retain
a leaning toward some particular venial sin.[24]

2. Since the presence of venial sin is compatible with that of
sanctifying grace, and since a man can be sorry for one venial sin
without being necessarily sorry for another, it follows that one venial
sin may be forgiven and others left unforgiven.

3. A penitent who is burdened with both mortal and venial sins may by
perfect contrition or the Sacrament of Penance be freed from his mortal
sins and yet be left with his venial sins still upon him because he is
not sorry for these.

4. Hence, if a man is in the state of mortal sin, his venial sins cannot
be remitted without the mortal sin being at the same time forgiven; for
God cannot forgive one who will not acknowledge and love Him as Lord and
God; and, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, just as mortal sin is
forgiven by the influx of sanctifying grace, so the remission of venial
sin is dependent on a movement of grace or love, which therefore must be
actually present.[25]

Venial sins are forgiven:—

1. By the Sacrament of Penance, and that directly and _ex opere operato_,
when they are submitted in confession to the power of the keys with
_formal_ contrition and purpose of amendment.

2. “By many other means,”[26] such as:—

(_a_) All the Sacraments; they remit sins _ex opere operato_, and
especially those sins which are opposed to the particular end of the
Sacrament. For the object of every Sacrament is the sanctification of
souls, and hence the removal of all that hinders this sanctification.
Now venial sins in particular, by hindering the conferring of richer
graces, are an obstacle in the way of attaining sanctity. Cardinal
Lugo, in treating this subject, illustrates it by the attitude of two
friends: “Even where, in the strict nature of things, we cannot expect
that the influx of grace should cause the remission of sins, yet it is
in accordance with good feeling that where fresh and closer ties of
friendship have been formed, little offences should be condoned. If,
then, the influx or increase of grace is a new bond of friendship between
God and the just man, uniting him more intimately with God, an embrace of
love, so to speak, and a kiss of peace, it is probable and reasonable to
suppose that there is granted also a remission of the smaller sins which
have been retracted.”[27]

It is always, however, necessary and sufficient to elicit at least a
virtual or implicit contrition, contained in a pious and supernatural
affection toward God, which is opposed to venial sins, and is
consequently a virtual horror and retraction of the same.[28]

Not all the Sacraments, however, effect this forgiveness in the same
manner. Next to the Sacrament of Penance, Baptism and Extreme Unction
have a peculiar power, because they were instituted by Christ for the
very purpose of forgiving sins. If an adult who had been purified of
original sin and of his mortal sins by perfect love and contrition (the
Baptism of desire), but, on account of his attachment to venial sins,
was not yet freed of these, were to receive Baptism, all his venial sins
for which he had at least virtual contrition would be forgiven through
this Sacrament. For, according to the teaching of the Council of Trent,
Baptism effects a new birth, and in consequence the remission of sins,
with the exception, of course, of those venial sins which the newly
baptized person has not yet renounced.[29]

Of Extreme Unction the Council of Trent, referring to James v. 15,
teaches that it forgives the sins which defile the soul, and removes the
remains of sin.[30]

With respect to the Holy Eucharist the same Council[31] declares that
although the forgiveness of sin is certainly not the principal fruit of
this Sacrament, yet, in accordance with our Lord’s commands, we should
receive it in order thereby to be freed from our daily trespasses and
strengthened against mortal sin.

Hence there is no doubt that the Holy Eucharist removes venial sins.
But theologians do not agree how it produces this effect—whether, as
in the case of the three preceding Sacraments, immediately, _ex opere
operato_, or only mediately, _ex opere operantis_. The champions of both
views appeal to St. Thomas, who on the one hand teaches that the Holy
Eucharist acts after the manner of bodily food, repairing what in the
heat of concupiscence we have lost by venial sin, and on the other hand
declares the peculiar grace (_res sacramenti_) of this Sacrament to be
_caritas_, and that not only _quantum ad habitum sed etiam quantum ad
actum_; in other words charity is elicited in this Sacrament, and through
its operation venial sins are forgiven.[32]

Suarez interprets St. Thomas as teaching that the Holy Eucharist effects
the remission of venial sins _ex opere operato_, and this interpretation
would seem to have the preference over that of theologians who, with St.
Alphonsus, insisting on the words just quoted, hold that the Sacrament of
the Eucharist works _ex opere operantis_.[33]

The three remaining Sacraments, of Confirmation, Orders, and Marriage, do
not so directly imply forgiveness of venial sin; still they pour into the
soul of the recipient a new grace, and so they, too, must be considered
as remitting venial sins when no obstacle is put in the way.[34] The
range of this power varies according as the grace conferred in the
Sacrament is more or less opposed to some particular sin or kind of sins.
The most efficacious of the last-named Sacraments in eliminating venial
sin is that of Confirmation, because its influence extends to the whole
life of faith and grace, strengthening and bringing it to perfection.[35]
Holy Orders give grace to the recipient, so that he may attain the
holiness and perfection that befit his state, and in consequence they
also purify from sin.[36] Finally, Matrimony remits venial sins because
it confers the grace by which concupiscence is curbed and restrained,
and by which the recipients are enabled to fulfil their duties of mutual
sanctification.

(_b_) Venial sins are likewise removed by the holy sacrifice of the Mass,
which of its own nature is a sacrifice of atonement, a _sacrificium vere
propitiatorium_.[37] It works this forgiveness, as theologians teach,
_per modum impetrationis_, therefore mediately, by obtaining for the
sinner from God the grace of contrition or other virtues, excluding
affection for sin.[38]

(_c_) The sacramentals also destroy venial sins. “By the use of the
sacramentals the faithful confess and awaken their faith, hope, reverence
for God, a longing for interior holiness and sinlessness, or a horror
of sin, and sorrow for past offences. The symbols blessed or used by
the Church confer a grace which produces or strengthens desires and
acts of different virtues, which in turn destroy venial sin and atone
for it.”[39] Hence a sacramental possesses power of remitting sin in
proportion as its character and the blessing of the Church cause it to
excite or strengthen acts of virtue in the faithful. The Church has a
sacramental especially designed for the remission of venial sins, and
makes use of it on those occasions when the faithful need greatest purity
of heart. It consists of the two prayers: _Misereatur vestri_, etc., and
_Indulgentiam, absolutionem_, etc.[40] To these we may add the use of
holy water, which, in accordance with the intention and prayers of the
Church when she blesses it, is designed to ward off the devil’s influence
from animate and inanimate creatures and to protect them from impurity,
sickness, and harm.[41] The effect of the other sacramentals in procuring
remission of venial sins is not so direct. The more they are of their own
nature suited to awaken contrition, and the more directly the intention
in the use of them is directed to the cleansing from sin, so much the
more effectual are they in this respect.[42]

(_d_) Contrition by itself also procures the remission of venial sins,
and more especially when it is perfect (_contritio_), since, then, it
destroys mortal sin and is, therefore, still more efficacious in the case
of venial. Perfect contrition removes all venial sins if it is universal,
that is to say if it extends to all venial sins, or if a man is disposed
never more to commit venial sin and would be sorry for all his past sins,
if they were present to his mind. On the other hand, an act of perfect
contrition does not remit all venial sins, if it extends only to this or
that particular venial sin, or if a person is disposed to avoid only one
or other of his venial sins.[43]

According to the teaching of the more numerous and distinguished
theologians, even imperfect contrition remits venial sins; this imperfect
contrition (_attritio_) must spring from some supernatural motive
referring to God—such for instance as the thought that venial sin is a
violation of the obedience or reverence due to God.[44] By _attritio_ the
affection toward sin is entirely uprooted and the will is withdrawn from
the sin, man turns again to God as his last end, and expiates his fault
by his sorrow.[45]

(_e_) Moreover, the “love of God above all things” remits venial sins if
it is actual and formally or virtually opposed to venial sin.[46]

(_f_) Lastly, venial sins are forgiven by good works done from a
motive of penance (_ex affectu pœnitentiæ_), especially those to which
Holy Scripture assigns the virtue of destroying venial sin. Such are:
prayer[47] (John xiv. 13 s.; xvi. 23), almsgiving and fasting, especially
the works of mercy and mortification (Ecclus. iii. 33; iv. 1-11; Tob.
iv. 11; Dan. iv. 24; Matt. v. 7; John iii. 5-10; 1 Reg. vii. 5, etc.; 1
Esdras viii. 21, etc.). Cf. S. Thom. II. II. Q. 147, art. 1 _et_ 3.[48]


5. The Constituent Parts of the Sacrament of Penance in General.

As in the other Sacraments a distinction is made between the _matter_
and the _form_, so too in the Sacrament of Penance; but with a certain
difference, which appears from the fact that the Council of Trent speaks
of the matter of this Sacrament as a _quasi-materia_. The _Catechismus
Romanus_[49] states this more fully when it says: This Sacrament is
distinguished from the other Sacraments especially in this, that the
matter of the other Sacraments is a substance produced by nature or
art, while in the Sacrament of Penance it is the acts of the penitent,
especially the contrition, confession, and satisfaction; yet it is not
because these acts are not to be considered as truly matter of the
Sacrament that the Holy Council calls them _quasi-materia_ (“as it were
the matter”), but because they are not materially or externally applied,
like water in Baptism and chrism in Confirmation. These three acts of the
penitent are styled by the Council of Trent the parts (_partes_) of the
Sacrament of Penance “in so far as they are required by God’s ordinance
in the penitent for the completeness of the Sacrament and for the entire
and perfect remission of sin.”[50] To these must be added the absolution
of the priest, which constitutes the form. Hence we have to consider as
parts of the Sacrament: (1) contrition, (2) confession, (3) satisfaction,
and (4) absolution.[51]

The three acts of the penitent have not all, however, the same
importance. The satisfaction belongs to the Sacrament only in so far as
its integrity and its complete efficacy are concerned; hence it is not an
essential, but only an integral part of the Sacrament. It is true that
the power of imposing on the penitent a suitable satisfaction belongs
essentially to the administration of this Sacrament; hence also the
penitent is obliged to accept this penance and to declare himself willing
to perform it. The actual performance of the penance, however, is not
necessary in order that the Sacrament should produce its effect.[52]

The confession or self-accusation of the penitent in presence of the
priest is the principal matter of this Sacrament, for this is necessary
_in se_ and _per se_, in order that the confessor may form a judgment and
administer the Sacrament.

Contrition is a necessary constituent of the Sacrament but merely _in se_
not _per se ipsum_, and only as contained in the accusation, which is an
outward manifestation of the contrition; for contrition is not _per se_
subject to the senses, but must be outwardly shown in some way in order
to become manifest.[53] “The contrite accusation, therefore, realizes all
the conditions of the matter in the Sacraments.”[54]

Theologians draw a further distinction in this Sacrament between the
proximate and the remote matter (_materia proxima et remota_). _Proxima
materia_ consists of the acts which the penitent has to perform, and
_remota materia_ of the sins committed after Baptism which the penitent
has repented of and confessed and for which he must do satisfaction.[55]


6. Of the Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance in Particular.

The remote matter of this Sacrament are, as we have already seen, the
sins committed after Baptism. Those committed before Baptism are forgiven
entirely in Baptism, wherefore they are not, properly speaking, subject
to the Sacrament of Penance. Again, a man is not under the Church’s
jurisdiction till he is baptized, and this Sacrament of Penance is
administered by virtue of the jurisdiction which the Church exercises
over her members. The sins which are confessed are not, however, _materia
ex qua_, as is water in the Sacrament of Baptism, by means of which the
Sacrament is conferred, but _materia circa quam_, with regard to which
the penitent performs the necessary acts and receives absolution. As, for
example, in a lawsuit the matter proposed for decision and the sentence
are called the matter of the case, so here the sins which form the
object of the sacramental process instituted for the remission of sins
are regarded as the remote matter of penance.[56] This remote matter is
divided into:—

1. _Necessary_ and _free_ matter (_necessaria et libera_), _i.e._
necessary _as a consequence of the divine command_, by which definite
sins (a definite _materia remota_) must be submitted to the sacramental
tribunal and the power of the keys, so that the penitent who wilfully
neglects this course cannot receive the Sacrament validly. By free matter
we understand those sins which the penitent voluntarily confesses whilst
not bound to do so by divine law.

2. _Certain_ and _doubtful_ (_certa et dubia_), _i.e._ matter which
in the judgment of the confessor is a certain and valid object of
absolution; or matter regarding which absolution cannot be pronounced
without misgiving.

3. Finally, _sufficient_ and _insufficient_ (_sufficiens et
insufficiens_), _i.e._ such matter as suffices for the administering
of the Sacrament and the granting of absolution, whether the matter be
necessary or free, and such over which sacramental absolution cannot be
pronounced.

_Necessary matter_ comprises all grievous sins committed after Baptism
and not at any former time submitted directly to the power of the keys;
of all and each of them the penitent is obliged to accuse himself.

Sins are remitted _directly_ when they have been remitted _per se_
quite independently of other sins. This is the case when they have been
explicitly confessed to a priest having the required jurisdiction.
Sins are forgiven _indirectly_ when they are remitted in conjunction
with other sins, and not _per se_. This happens when a penitent omits
a sin through invincible ignorance or forgetfulness or inability; or
if a confessor without proper jurisdiction, for serious reasons, gives
absolution. In both cases such sins are remitted in conjunction with the
other sins which have been explicitly confessed and over which the priest
had jurisdiction. This must be so, for a penitent cannot at the same
time experience God’s mercy by the remission of the sins which he has
confessed and also be an object of God’s wrath with respect to his other
sins; moreover, the inpouring grace, through the remission of the sins
that have been confessed, is not compatible with the presence of mortal
sin remaining in the soul.

It is in consequence of Christ’s institution that all the sins committed
after Baptism and not yet directly forgiven, and also the sins only
indirectly forgiven, must of necessity be revealed to the priest; for in
appointing the priest to be His representative, Christ made him the judge
before whom all mortal sins must be brought, that, in virtue of the power
of the keys, he might pass sentence of loosing or binding.[57] Over sins
which have not yet been directly remitted the confessor has pronounced
no judgment, for they were unknown to him; hence, in accordance with
Christ’s command, even sins indirectly forgiven must be submitted by
confession to the power of the keys in order that they may obtain direct
forgiveness.[58]

The following classes of sins are _sufficient_ and _free_ matter for
confession:—

(_a_) The _venial sins_ committed after Baptism. These are matter
sufficient because Christ gave His priests power to forgive _all_
sins, therefore also venial sin; and the Council of Trent teaches that
it is good and wholesome to confess venial sins. Since, however, the
recommendation of the Council imposes no obligation to confess them, as
they may be remitted by other means, they are free matter.

(_b_) _Sins already directly forgiven_ are also _free_ matter. Since they
have already been remitted by sacramental absolution they may be said
to exist no longer. Nevertheless, though they have been forgiven, one
may renew his sorrow for them, and on that account the absolution may be
given again validly, even if no other sins be presented. This is proved
by the general practice of the faithful and the unanimous teaching of
theologians, who declare that contrite confession of a past sin is always
_materia proxima_ of the Sacrament; a sin which has received forgiveness
remains always a sin of the past and so can be made the object of sorrow
and of sacramental accusation.[59]

Moreover the highest authority in the Church favors this view; for
Benedict XI teaches[60]: “Though it be not necessary, yet we consider it
very wholesome to repeat the confession of special sins on account of
the humiliation which they cause.” Although, in these words, the Holy
Father speaks of humiliation only as the advantage to be drawn from the
confession of previously forgiven sin, it is quite evident that he does
not intend to exclude the great benefits which the absolution pronounced
over these sins must bring, for the confessions of which the Pope speaks
are made only in order to obtain absolution.[61]

Thus, besides this salutary humiliation, the confession of forgiven
sins and the absolution again pronounced over them cause an increase of
sanctifying grace and a remission of temporal punishment, augment the
hatred for sin, and dispose the penitent, who has only human shortcomings
or venial sins of less moment to disclose, better toward a sincere
contrition. How in this case the true notion of “absolution,” which is
in fact identical with the influx of sanctifying grace, is preserved,
remains for the dogmatic theologian to settle; for our purpose it is
enough to indicate briefly Lugo’s explanation. “As,” says the learned
Cardinal, “after making a vow I can bind myself afresh to its observance
by renewing the vow in a manner which binds me independently of the
former promise, so God may again waive His right of punishing sin, by a
renewal of the compact with man to pardon past sins, and this repeated
renunciation of the divine right is as efficacious as the first, and is
made by a new infusion of sanctifying grace.”[62]

Since venial sins and mortal sins already directly remitted are _free
matter_, it is not necessary to accuse one’s self of them with such
accuracy and perfection regarding number and species as in the case of
necessary matter, even if there be nothing else to confess. In this case
we cannot urge the two reasons for which the accusation of mortal sins
not yet confessed must include the details of species and number, for
neither has God ordered it, nor is it required in order that the judicial
power may be properly exercised with regard to them. Hence it suffices to
accuse one’s self in such a way as to enable the priest to form _some_
sort of judgment. That this is possible if the sin is confessed at least
_generically_ (_generice_) is seen from other cases. For instance, a
man who knows that on one occasion he sinned gravely against the sixth
commandment but has forgotten the exact specific nature of the sin, or
that he has sinned gravely but has quite forgotten what the sin was, is
obliged, as all theologians teach, to confess that he has sinned gravely
against purity, or, in the latter instance, that he had committed a
mortal sin. Many extend this obligation to a sin which is only doubtfully
mortal, of which the penitent cannot any longer remember the species, and
which moreover is the only sin weighing upon his conscience.[63]

We have viewed our subject with respect to the validity of the Sacrament.
Let us see how in practice a general accusation may be made, and how far
such general accusations are valid and permissible matter for absolution.

1. A penitent may accuse himself thus: “I have sinned and I accuse
myself of the sins of my whole life,” and if the confessor has no other
knowledge of these sins, such an accusation is general in the widest
sense; to this class belongs also an accusation conveyed by an expression
of sorrow without any explicit avowal of sin.

2. A more particular but still general accusation is: “I accuse myself of
all the mortal sins which I have committed.”

3. Yet more precise is the accusation: “I accuse myself of all the
lies I have told, or of all the sins I have committed against purity,
or justice, or this or that particular virtue,” thus pointing out the
virtue or the command against which he has sinned, but without giving the
ultimate specific character (_infima species_) of the sin.

4. Finally, the penitent may declare the ultimate species (_infima
species_) of the sin without determining the precise act and without the
specific circumstances and their number; _e.g._ I accuse myself of all
profanations of the name of God, of all sinful looks dangerous to purity,
of all deception in my dealings with my neighbor, etc.

When there is question in the confession of _materia libera_:—

1. The last two methods of general accusation are sufficient for the
valid and licit administration of the Sacrament, whether the whole
confession consist of such a general accusation or whether this general
accusation be added to a confession of venial sins to make sure of
contrition. The second method of accusation might perhaps be allowed;
but if any one wished to make the _whole_ confession by this _second_
method of general accusation, embracing in this manner sins already
confessed without some sort of a special mention of venial sins lately
committed, the confessor might well object and could not easily give
absolution unless in case of some pressing necessity. If, however, sins
not yet explicitly confessed are declared, and a general accusation is
added of the second kind for the sake of security, this may be considered
as sufficient both _quoad valorem_ and _quoad liceitatem_. For the
accusation, “I have sinned mortally,” is not quite vague, as it expresses
a certain degree of sinfulness which may very well be (and at times is
all that can be obtained) the object of a judicial sentence.

2. An entirely vague accusation, although there be necessary matter,
may be accepted as being sufficient in cases of extreme necessity—when
a detailed accusation is impossible and absolution must be given. For
instance:—

(_a_) At the time of death, when the dying man can no longer speak or is
unconscious, and has already shown signs of a desire for absolution; for,
according to the Roman Ritual, such a man is to be absolved (_absolvendus
est_), and this official book of the Church suggests nothing about making
the absolution conditional.

(_b_) In other cases of impending death, when the desire for absolution
is expressed by any sort of sign; _e.g._ in a shipwreck where there is
not time to make a full accusation.

(_c_) If a penitent is too ignorant or too weak-headed, even with the
help of the confessor’s questions, to render an accurate account, at
least absolution may at times be given to such a penitent if he has not
had it for a long period.[64]

3. When it is a question of venial sins only (on the supposition that
these either alone or in conjunction with other doubtful matter have
been confessed), the confessor may not give absolution for an accusation
which is quite vague, for such an accusation offers no _entirely certain_
matter for absolution, and from what is allowed in danger of death we may
not conclude that the same will suffice for the validity of absolution in
cases where there is no urgency. A confession, for instance, delivered by
a messenger is permissible only in the case of imminent death where no
other means can be devised; this is clear from the propositions condemned
by Clement VIII and Paul V. In any other case, the unanimous voice of
theologians declares such a confession invalid. Hence if valid matter can
be presented, it must be done if absolution is to be given.

This is clear, too, on the merits of the case itself. One may always
presume that the desire which a dying man expresses for absolution is at
least a hesitating, if not definite, acknowledgement of having committed
mortal sin by the fact that he considers absolution necessary and
desirable; but if a man, though able, accuses himself of no definite sins
to his confessor, it is tantamount to a declaration that he has committed
only venial sins. Now the confession of mortal sin in general contains
something definite; whereas an accusation of venial sin in general is
altogether vague; hence the _causa judicialis_ in this case is quite
unknown, and no sentence can be passed where the charge is unknown and
undetermined.

Finally, it is quite foreign to the practice of the Church to make a
confession by the formula, “I have no mortal sins; I am sorry for my
venial sins, and I ask absolution.” He who evades, therefore, a fuller
accusation of his venial sins, when he could make one, is unworthy of
absolution, which is intended to be given by the Church only to those
who make a definite accusation.[65] Though, adds Laymann,[66] no one is
bound by any law to confess venial sins, yet whoever wishes to receive
sacramental absolution must accuse himself at least of some venial sin,
_in specie_.[67] Suarez says, and rightly, that the validity of such an
accusation may be defended speculatively, but that practically it is to
be condemned on account of the uncertainty of the matter. “I declare,
then,” he continues, “that, though we are not strictly bound to confess
the species of the venial sins, yet, supposing that we wish absolution,
we are bound to offer certain and definite matter. But in case of
necessity or where it is impossible to make a more definite accusation
(as might happen in the case of a man who is dying) such matter would
doubtlessly be sufficient.”[68]

“Since, then,” concludes Lehmkuhl, “outside the cases of necessity or
impossibility a vague confession of only venial sins does not supply
definite matter, it is not sufficient to add it to the particular
confession in order to have a more secure ground for a valid absolution
than by the accusation of the smaller sins committed since the last
confession, unless the confessor from previous knowledge of the penitent
can decide whether sufficiently definite matter is presented to him in
this vague general assertion.”[69]

In consequence the following rules are recommended in practice:—

1. If, in order to secure unquestionably definite matter from the past
life of the penitent, some sin or other is confessed in addition to those
committed since the last confession, it ought to be done by mentioning
the virtue or the commandment which was violated.

2. Some really grave sin ought to be mentioned.

3. It should not be mentioned out of mere routine, but with real sorrow
of heart.

4. Since of late a number of writers defend the mere vague accusation
on this free matter as valid and permissible[70] even outside cases of
necessity, the confessor when unable to get more definite matter may
acquiesce and grant absolution.

5. If one desires to derive real spiritual profit from the confession of
venial sins, too great minuteness as well as too great vagueness must be
avoided; some particular venial sin which causes more uneasiness than the
rest might be made a subject of more especial sorrow and more careful
accusation, otherwise in many cases the sorrow as well as the accusation
and purpose of amendment are likely to be too vague, if not completely
absent. It has been pointed out previously that gross ignorance on the
part of the penitent is a reason for taking a very general accusation as
valid for absolution.

In practice the confessor should attend to the following rules:—

In the case of a penitent who accuses himself of no sin in particular,
let the priest inquire whether this be due to the fact that the penitent
has really not committed any mortal sin, or to invincible ignorance, or
to a rooted habit of sin which has produced in the penitent a darkening
of the intellect and a recklessness with regard to his salvation. If the
penitent accuses himself of no sin in particular because he is really
quite unconscious of grave trespass, the confessor might suggest to
him a few lesser sins such as are usually committed by people in the
same station of life, and ask if, since the last confession or in his
past life, he has ever given way to such sins—if, for instance, he has
offended his neighbor, or been violent, angry, disobedient, careless
in prayer, etc. If the penitent answers in the affirmative to one or
other of these questions, the confessor should excite him to repentance
and purpose of amendment, so far as he sees it necessary, and then
absolve him. If, however, the penitent answers all questions with a No,
and cannot be induced to acknowledge any sin of his past life, further
questioning should be avoided, and the penitent urged to make an act of
sorrow for all the sins of his whole life, especially those committed
against his neighbor, or against obedience, etc. If the penitent accede
to this, as often happens, in spite of his former declaration that he is
not conscious of any sin even in his past life, the priest should arouse
him to sorrow and a firm resolution, and absolve him conditionally if the
penitent has not received absolution for a long time.

With such penitents there will be reason to suspect that their
disposition comes from want of knowledge of the most necessary truths
of salvation. If the priest discover this to be the case—as he may by a
few judicious questions—he may not absolve him till after instruction in
these necessary truths. Ordinarily it will be well to instruct him at
once before leaving the confessional, for fear that he should neglect
approaching the Sacraments—a consequence much to be apprehended—or take
no pains to get instructed. If, however, the priest finds out that the
cause of the ignorance is a rooted habit of sin, or the insensibility
following on certain sins which have so fatal an effect in this
matter—as, for instance, impurity or drunkenness—he must exercise great
patience, putting before the penitent earnestly the awful consequences of
his sinful life, instruct him, and in every possible way prepare him with
true apostolic zeal to receive worthily the sacrament, either immediately
or later, if the absolution be deferred, and to fulfill his resolutions
of making an earnest amendment.[71]


7. The Form of the Sacrament.

The form of the Sacrament, “in which its power principally lies,”[72]
consists of the words which the priest utters over the penitent: _Ego te
absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti,
Amen_. To these words the custom of the Church has added others which
have become fixed in the ritual and are prescribed, though “they do
not belong to the _essence_ of the form and are not necessary for the
conferring of the Sacrament.”[73]

There is no doubt that the words _Ego te absolvo_, or _te absolvo_ simply
(since the pronoun _Ego_ is contained in the verb _absolvo_), belong to
the _essence_ of the form. These words are _de essentia formæ_, because,
as St. Thomas says,[74] they signify the _virtus clavium et totum
Sacramenti effectum_.

According to most theologians the words _a peccatis tuis_ do not belong
to the essence and the validity of the Sacrament; for this view we
may quote St. Thomas and the authority of the Roman catechism, which
says: “The form is: _Ego te absolvo_.” The words _a peccatis tuis_ are
sufficiently indicated by the accusation of the penitent and the act of
the priest who gives absolution. Other theologians, however, maintain
that these words are essential, arguing that since Christ in instituting
the Sacrament used the words, “Whose sins you shall forgive,” the
remission of sins ought to be expressly mentioned. Though the first view
is the more probable, the words ought not to be omitted in practice,
since in the conferring of the Sacraments the safer opinion should be
followed.[75]

If the words _absolvo a peccatis tuis_ were used, omitting the word
_te_, the form would still be probably valid, since _te_ is sufficiently
implied in the word _tuis_; in practice, however, this view ought not
to be taken, but the safer opinion followed.[76] The absolution would
certainly be invalid if the priest said only _absolvo_, because the
object of the absolution is not indicated and the sense is indefinite.[77]

The words _In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen_, are
certainly not of the essence of the form, since Christ in instituting the
Sacrament made no reference to the Blessed Trinity; they are, however,
most appropriately added to express that the priest absolves from sin by
the authority and power of God.[78]

In cases of necessity absolution may be given by the same priest to many
persons at the same time, while he says, _Ego vos absolvo a peccatis
vestris_; thus, for instance, soldiers may be absolved at the beginning
of a battle. As many Sacraments are conferred as there are persons
absolved, if they give any token of sorrow and in some way confess their
sinfulness.[79]

The _Rituale Romanum_ prescribes how a priest should give absolution,
and, as it is the official book of the Church, he is bound to follow its
directions. Any unauthorized change would be a sin because it is a breach
of the commands of the Church; indeed the confessor would sin grievously
if he wished to introduce any change into the form of absolution.

“When the priest is about to give absolution,” is the direction of the
Ritual, “after imposing a penance on the penitent and the latter having
accepted it, let him say: _Misereatur tui omnipotens Deus et dimissis
peccatis tuis perducat te ad vitam æternam. Amen._ Then he raises his
right hand over the penitent and says: _Indulgentiam, absolutionem et
remissionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi omnipotens et misericors
Dominus. Amen._

“_Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius
te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis_ (_suspensionis_) _et
interdicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a
peccatis tuis in nomine Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen._

“If the penitent is not a cleric, the word _suspensionis_ is omitted.”
Then follows the prayer: “_Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita
beatæ Mariæ Virginis et omnium Sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris et mali
sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratiæ et
præmium vitæ æternæ. Amen._”

If there are many penitents to be heard and in urgent confessions, the
_Misereatur_ and _Indulgentiam_ may be omitted and simply the _Dominus
noster_, etc., said. The prayer _Passio Domini_, etc., may also be left
out.[80] It is recommended, however, not to omit this last prayer,
because by virtue of it (so teaches St. Thomas) the good works of the
penitent acquire the character of sacramental satisfaction, and a share
in the merits of Christ as well as those of our blessed Lady and of the
saints.[81]

“In cases of pressing necessity, in danger of death, the priest may
simply say: _Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis in nomine
Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen._”

Such is the form of absolution according to the prescription of the
Roman Ritual. The confessor is at liberty to make use of the above
abbreviations under the circumstances mentioned. It would be very wrong
to attempt to put in all the prayers, if there were danger of a man
dying without receiving absolution; in this case the priest must use the
shorter form given by the Ritual.[82]

The priest will be more eager to carry out the directions of the Church
if he reflects on the meaning of the prayers which precede and follow
the absolution; the former constitute an admirable preparation for that
great act of mercy, the latter a most appropriate crowning of the same;
all secure a special help for the penitent. Even the blessing which,
according to some rituals, the priest is enjoined to give with the words:
_Dominus sit in corde tuo et in labiis tuis ut digne et competenter_ (or
_rite_) _confitearis peccata tua. In nomine Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti. Amen_, is important. The accusation of so many sins is a heavy
burden to the penitent; false shame and the devil will unite to deter him
from a sincere accusation; and so the priest prays that the Lord with
His grace may so act on the heart of the penitent that with sincerity
and contrition he accuses himself of what burdens his conscience. In the
_Misereatur_ the priest prays that God may grant in His mercy remission
of the sins which the penitent confesses, and give him eternal life
(_anticipando_ by sanctifying grace, and perfectly in the next world).
The _Indulgentiam_ contains the same petition for “grace, absolution,
and remission,” of sins confessed and of all others; it is not meant as
a mere repetition, as a sort of compliance with Our Lord’s counsel of
insisting on the first petition; but in the repetition of the synonyms
the priest is no doubt intended to plead for God’s mercy and power
that the penitent may have _complete_ forgiveness of sin. This perfect
forgiveness includes also the remission of the temporal penalties, since
these, as the _reliquiæ peccatorum_, are so intimately connected with
the sin itself that in early Christian times they were briefly included
under the category of _peccata_, and the Church, in the so-called general
absolution given on the occasion of a plenary indulgence of temporal
punishment, still uses the formula _indulgentiam plenariam et remissionem
omnium peccatorum tibi concedo_.

Then the priest goes on to reconcile the penitent to the Church by
the removal of all censures which close the door to the Sacraments
and other means of grace. This absolution from censure should always
precede that of the sins as a measure of precaution even when no sins
involving censure have been confessed. The Church insists on this, and
many moralists teach that the confessor by omitting this _absolutio a
censuris_ would commit a venial sin by his disobedience to the command of
the Church. Even in cases of the most pressing urgency the priest should
use the form: _Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis in nomine
Patris_, etc.[83] St. Alphonsus does not regard this omission as a sin if
the priest uses the formula of absolution with the intention of absolving
from censure as well as sin, and he argues from the words of the Council
of Trent, which says only that this clause is added _laudabiliter_.[84]
If, however, a penitent has incurred a censure and the priest first
absolves from the sin and afterwards from the censure, such inversion
of the order would be matter of grievous sin when the censure is
excommunication debarring from the reception of the Sacraments; not,
however, in the case of suspension or interdict. This inversion would
also be a grievous sin even if the priest intended to absolve from both
sins and censures, although in this case the words _absolvo te a peccatis
tuis_ can be understood of the absolution from censures on account of the
intimate connection between the two.[85] Such an absolution, therefore,
would be valid though given in defiance of the Church’s prescription, for
the censure does not affect the validity but only the lawfulness of the
absolution.[86]

The penitent must be present and the absolution pronounced over him by
the confessor if it is to be valid. This is abundantly clear from the
divine institution of the Sacrament, from the practice of the Church, and
from a decree of the Head of the Church. Hence the absolution cannot be
given in writing nor by signs. According to the teaching of the Councils
of Florence and Trent the form of this Sacrament, as of all the others
(except that of matrimony, where a mere sign of consent is sufficient),
is in the words which the priest must pronounce and articulate over the
penitent. The Sacraments owe their institution to Christ; for, though
matrimony existed as a divine institution before His coming, it was
sanctified by Him and raised to the dignity of a means of grace in His
Church. The essential rites of the Sacraments were defined by Christ,
and we learn them from Scripture or tradition. We know from a uniform
tradition that the form of all the Sacraments except matrimony consists
essentially in words articulated by the lips; as for the Sacrament of
Penance, the evidence is clear as well from the actual use prescribed in
all penitentials and from the teaching of the Fathers, as from the decree
of Eugenius IV to the Armenians.

It is not, however, necessary that the words of absolution should be
heard by the penitent or others; in fact it is recommended to say them in
a low voice, so that, in case absolution is for some reason withheld from
a penitent, others may not know of it.

The fact that the absolution should be pronounced in words requires as
its complement that the penitent should be present, for the words _Ego te
absolvo_ are not such as we would address to a person when absent, but
thus we speak to one who is nigh. The form must certainly be applied to
the matter actually present; moreover, according to the Council of Trent
the sinner should present himself before the tribunal as the accused.
This is quite clear, too, from the constant tradition of the Church, in
which all penitentials contain a form which is pronounced over one who
is present, and either explicitly require the immediate presence of the
penitent before the confessor or evidently suppose it; nor do we find in
the whole of antiquity any clear instance of a sacramental absolution
pronounced over an absent person.

A confession, therefore, made to a priest by writing or by messenger
is invalid if the absolution is given to the penitent in his absence.
Moreover, the absolution is illicit and invalid if given to an absent
penitent even though the confession has been made by him in person to
the priest. Further, too, the absolution is illicit and invalid which
is given to a present penitent who has not confessed in person to the
priest—if, for instance, the confession has been by letter; exception is
made for the case where the penitent presents himself to the priest and
for some good reason accuses himself only in general of sins about which
he has informed the confessor by letter, if the latter at the time of the
confession retains a knowledge of the sins in particular.[87]

The _præsentia moralis_ of the penitent is sufficient for absolution.
This condition is satisfied if the priest and the penitent are
sufficiently near to hear one another when they speak in an ordinary
tone of voice, though cases may occur where the voice must be exerted a
little more than is usual.[88] In general greater proximity is required
for valid absolution than is demanded for hearing a preacher or for
satisfying the obligation of hearing Mass.[89]

St. Alphonsus declares with respect to this subject that Tamburini is
justified in rejecting the view of Leander, who holds that the moral
presence is secured if the priest sees the penitent or is sensibly aware
of his presence.[90] A man may be seen at a distance at which it would
be impossible to hold speech with him in the usual manner or even by
raising the voice. If in case of necessity absolution must be given at a
distance, it should be given _sub conditione_.

Hence to secure the validity of the absolution it is required (1) that
the confessor and the penitent should not be in rooms which are in no
way connected; and if (2) they are in the same room, they should not be
too far apart, certainly not more than twenty paces; if the distance
is notably less, there need be no misgiving about the validity of the
absolution; finally (3) the required proximity is secured if the priest
knows that the penitent is present.

(_a_) If the penitent has already left the confessional but is still
close by the confessor, he may and ought to be absolved, even, according
to Lugo, Tamburini, and others, if he be so merged in the crowd that he
cannot be seen; the confessor must, however, be certain that he is not
or cannot be far off; for the penitent is still morally present and has
the desire of receiving absolution. The penitent ought, however, to be
recalled if this can be done without causing disturbance or remark.

(_b_) If, through fear of infection or for other reasons, the priest
cannot enter a sick-room, he may validly absolve the penitent from the
window or the door.[91]

(_c_) If at a distance a priest sees some one falling from a height or
into the water, or if he knows that some one is buried under the ruins
of a building, etc., he should give absolution conditionally.[92]

Absolution must, under ordinary circumstances, be given absolutely; for
weighty reasons it may and ought to be given conditionally (_conditione_).


8. Conditional Absolution.

It is the unanimous teaching of all theologians that in certain cases,
for weighty reasons, the Sacraments may be administered conditionally,
and, what is more, must be so administered. With regard to Baptism and
Extreme Unction this is prescribed by the Roman Ritual, with regard to
Confirmation by Benedict XIV, with regard to the Holy Eucharist, where a
doubt exists as to the validity of the consecration, by the Rubrics of
the Mass, and with regard to Orders by the S. Congregatio Concilii.[93]

The question now under consideration is whether the Sacrament of Penance
given conditionally is valid.

Many theologians were of opinion that a conditional absolution was
opposed to the judicial character of this Sacrament. They argued that
the conditional form was not judicial, and in particular would not
admit a _condition with regard to law_ (_conditio juris_), on which the
confessor was bound to pronounce judgment (_e.g._ if thou art prepared,
disposed, etc.), whereas they permitted a _condition with regard to the
fact_ (_conditio facti_) (_e.g._ if thou art alive). This distinction
is, however, irrelevant; for even though the question of the penitent’s
disposition be left undecided, still the priest judges (1) of the sins
which have been confessed, and (2) gives his sentence on the apparent
worthiness and preparation of the penitent and the penance to be imposed;
and (3) judges on the advisability of conferring conditional absolution
or not, according to the effect it will have on the penitent. In any
case, the argument from the difference which a conditional sentence would
create between a human court and the sacramental tribunal proves nothing,
since the two courts differ in many points.[94] It is to be particularly
noted that the sentence of an earthly court is always carried out; while
the effect of the sentence which the priest pronounces in the divine
tribunal always depends on conditions known only to God, so that the
priest’s sentence is always conditional even when it is pronounced in an
absolute form. A conditional sentence is in no way inconsistent with the
nature of a judicial judgment either in general or in the Sacrament of
Penance.

Lehmkuhl enlarges on this point:[95] “It is not repugnant in a civil
tribunal for a judge to give sentence with a condition like the
following, for instance: ‘If payment be not made by a certain date,’ or
to grant a hearing to a plaintiff ‘provided that such or such document
be found among his papers,’ which document, of course, he will order to
be searched for by trustworthy men. Indeed, every sentence of a human
tribunal, whether in civil or in criminal causes, is seldom pronounced
without the implicit condition ‘if the evidence of the witnesses be
true’; for unless it rested upon this supposition and condition, the
sentence would be unjust and consequently null, more especially if
pronounced by any but the supreme authority.”

Thus the sacramental sentence always presupposes that the penitent is
telling the truth and has real sorrow; under such circumstances the
confessor may be mistaking even when he thinks he is certain, all the
more so as the sacramental sentence is pronounced always ministerially,
and, in order to be efficacious, must be in accordance with the sentence
of God. This, however, is no impediment to the absolution being for the
most part pronounced absolutely both as to form and intention. This the
confessor must observe as long as he has no solid ground for thinking
that his judgment is not in accordance with God’s; for a condition which
rests only on a possibility or on a groundless suspicion is practically
not worth considering and ought not to be acted upon; in reality it is
quite sufficiently implied in the nature of the case.

If, however, for some good reason it is to be feared that the judgment of
the confessor is different from that of God, while the pressing necessity
of the case, or the good of the penitent requires that absolution be
given even though doubtful, reverence for the Sacrament demands that
the condition be added _explicitly_ in word, or at least in the mind, so
that it amounts to a protest on the part of the priest that where the
condition is in default he withdraws his intention of pronouncing the
sacred words of absolution in the person of Christ.

The opponents of conditional absolution urge in favor of their view the
proposition that in doubt about the validity of the Sacraments the safer
opinion must be followed. With regard to the validity of conditional
absolution there is no doubt, since the views of its opponents have no
probability either intrinsic or extrinsic. Moreover, it is not true
that the safer opinion with regard to the validity of the Sacraments is
always to be followed; for, since the Sacraments were instituted for
man’s benefit, cases occur in which the Sacraments must be exposed to
the danger of nullity, in order to help one who is in extreme spiritual
necessity. An instance in point would be the case of a dying man whose
dispositions are doubtful. To let him die without absolution would surely
expose him to the certain danger of damnation. Supposing he were in good
dispositions, whatever misgivings I might have on the subject, should I
not be responsible for his damnation? I might have opened the gates of
heaven to him and I have not done it! Am I then to absolve him without
any condition? But supposing he is not disposed; even if the Sacrament
were not nullified, I should be guilty of having exposed it to the
danger of invalidity. From such a dilemma the only escape is the use of
conditional absolution; by it I can help the dying man if he is in good
dispositions, and I insure the Sacrament against nullity when I have the
intention of not conferring it unless the man be disposed.[96]

Hence theologians teach that absolution given _sub conditione_ is valid
if the condition be fulfilled; the condition, however, must be _de
præsenti_ or _de præterito_; absolution given under a _conditio de
futuro_ would be invalid, for in a _conditio de futuro_ the minister
of the Sacrament has no intention of conferring the Sacrament _hic et
nunc_; his intention would rather be to confer the Sacrament when the
condition will have been fulfilled; by that time, however, the matter is
no longer present which for the validity of the Sacrament must be joined
to the form. On the other hand, the Sacrament may be validly given under
a condition _de præsenti_ or _de præterito_, because the intention is
absolute if the condition is fulfilled; if not fulfilled, the intention
of administering the Sacrament is wanting, so that the Sacrament is not
exposed to irreverence. In this case the conditional intention passes
into an unconditional one, _i.e._ becomes absolute. But the conditional
intention is efficacious for validity only if the condition is completed
or satisfied at the moment when the matter and form of the Sacrament are
brought together. The absolution would also be valid if it were given
with the condition: “if you are alive, if you are baptized, if you are
present, if you really intend to make restitution”; while an absolution
would be invalid if given under conditions such as, “if you are
predestined, if it be in the mind of God that you will make restitution
this year,” since such knowledge is withheld from men. Finally, an
absolution given with the condition, “if you are going to improve,” would
also be invalid.[97]

It is also _allowed_ to give absolution _sub conditione_ when there is
just reason for so doing; and in case of necessity the priest is bound
under mortal sin to give conditional absolution.[98]

The view of some theologians is to be condemned who hold that one may
impart conditional absolution for _any insignificant reason_, or without
urgent need, or in _any doubt of the requisite dispositions_ even in a
penitent burdened with mortal sin. This is a doctrine which bears too
openly the stamp of laxity, and it is pernicious to souls. What a number
of sacrileges would follow from such a practice! The confessor would be
no longer a faithful and prudent minister of the Sacrament, he would be
casting pearls before swine, and by his too easy compliance in giving
absolution he would imperil the souls of his penitents.[99]

On the other hand, we cannot admit the teaching of those theologians[100]
who hold that absolution _sub conditione_ is permitted only in extreme
necessity or in great danger.

A sufficient reason for imparting absolution under condition would be in
the case where unconditional absolution would expose the Sacrament to
danger of nullity on account of a reasonable doubt of the existence of
some one or other of the requisites for the validity of the Sacrament,
and where at the same time by putting off the absolution the penitent
would be exposed to danger of real spiritual harm.

From what has been said we gather that in the following cases absolution
may be given _sub conditione_:—

1. If the priest doubt whether he has absolved a penitent who has
confessed a mortal sin.

2. In doubt whether the penitent in question is morally present.

3. In doubt whether the penitent is alive or already dead.

4. If the priest doubt (_dubio facti_) whether he has jurisdiction, and
the confession must be made; in such a case the confessor must tell the
penitent that he has given absolution only _sub conditione_, so that if
proof be forthcoming later on that jurisdiction was wanting, the penitent
will know that he has not been absolved and must accuse himself again of
the mortal sins mentioned in that confession. If the doubt turn on the
question of law (_dubium juris_), _i.e._ on a point where theologians do
not agree whether absolution can be given in such a case, the absolution
may be pronounced without any condition.[101]

5. In doubt whether the matter be sufficient: this may happen (_a_) when
an adult is baptized _sub conditione_ and is to be absolved at the same
time; and (_b_) when a penitent declares only some imperfections, and
there is doubt whether they are really venial sins, and when the same
penitent can offer no certain sins of his past life. To such a penitent
absolution may, according to a probable view, be given at intervals, so
that he may not be deprived for long of the benefits of the Sacrament of
Penance; absolution in such cases ought not to be given more than once
a month. For the same reason absolution can be given _sub conditione_
when the penitent, unable to present certain matter from his past life,
has only sins of less moment to confess and there is doubt as to the
existence of sorrow for such sins.[102] Moreover, if the penitent offer
no certain matter, the confessor is not _bound_ to inquire for it in
order to give absolution, and after making vain inquiry he is not obliged
to give absolution _sub conditione_, since the penitent in such case has
no sure claim to it.

If, however, any doubt exists as to the presence of necessary matter, or
whether a sin confessed along with the imperfections be mortal or not,
for which, however, the penitent is certainly contrite, then absolution
under condition must be given.

6. In doubt whether the necessary dispositions with regard to mortal sin
are present conditional absolution may sometimes, though not always, be
given; it must be given when urgent reasons counsel such a step. For
instance:—

(_a_) To those who are in danger of death, from whatever cause.

(_b_) When the penitent honestly thinks he is well disposed, and when the
confessor fears that if absolution be refused or put off, the penitent
may fall into worse ways or be frightened away from the Sacraments, or
that he will certainly receive some other Sacrament, as, for instance,
Marriage or Confirmation, in an _unworthy_ state.

Finally, conditional absolution may be given to children and others of
whom it is doubtful whether they possess sufficient use of reason or the
necessary knowledge of the truths of faith. These may receive conditional
absolution not only when in danger of death, but also when they have to
fulfill the law of the Church, and especially if they have confessed a
sin which is doubtfully or probably mortal; they must be so absolved even
if they are relapsing sinners, for while in doubtfully disposed penitents
who have the full use of reason absolution must be delayed, since hopes
may be entertained that they will return better disposed later, in the
case of children or feeble minded no such hope can be well entertained.
Indeed, according to a probable view such penitents may receive
conditional absolution at intervals of two or three months, when they
confess only venial sins, that they may not go for any considerable time
without the grace of the Sacrament. The confessor is, however, obliged
to instruct children and feeble-minded persons and to dispose them for
absolution.[103]

We answer some objections urged against the doctrine that in the cases
mentioned absolution may be given conditionally.

1. This practice is full of danger and is the cause of many sins.

The practice is full of danger, it is true, if absolution is given
indiscriminately without necessity or some special reason; if, however,
the rules given above are observed, it is no longer dangerous or harmful.

2. It is further objected that a penitent conditionally absolved will
approach the altar and make a sacrilegious communion, a risk not to be
incurred lightly.

The confession of such a penitent is not sacrilegious, hence the
communion is not; for, by supposition, the penitent is in good faith. At
the worst the communion would be without fruit or profit; nor can we say
that the communion is quite useless, for its reception is an occasion
for eliciting different acts of virtue. Indeed, according to the common
teaching on this subject, the communicant who receives in mortal sin and
with imperfect contrition, yet in good faith, is placed thereby in a
state of grace. To make an act of imperfect contrition should not be a
great difficulty, since holy communion usually arouses pious emotions of
love and sorrow in those who approach in good faith.

3. It is likewise objected that a conditionally absolved penitent will
never confess his sins again, and if he is not rightly disposed will die
in his sins.

It may be replied that doubtfully absolved sins are remitted (_a_)
by the reception of holy communion, as we have already shown; (_b_)
indirectly in the following confession along with the other sins which
he confesses, even if he were never again to submit them to the keys. If
it be urged here that the penitent might never come to confession again,
we should reply that such a case is extremely rare and to be treated
as quite improbable. On the contrary, the penitent would be exposed to
much graver risk of his salvation if, in a situation of such necessity
as we postulate for the giving of conditional absolution, he were to be
dismissed without it.

4. Another objection is drawn from the first of the propositions
condemned by Innocent XI, whence it appears that no one may presume to
follow a probable opinion in dispensing the Sacraments. The conclusion
drawn is that no one may give an absolution which is doubtfully valid.

This practice is absolutely forbidden where the validity of the
Sacrament and the welfare of the individual are endangered by such
administration of the Sacrament; if, however, necessity or solid reasons
demand such practice, it is allowed.[104] Moreover, the proposition
condemned by Innocent is concerned only with the essential portions of
the Sacrament, the validity of matter and form in so far as these depend
on the minister of the Sacrament. In our case the matter is presented
by the penitent and is outside the control of the minister. Otherwise,
indeed, penitents might often enough be dismissed without absolution, for
frequently no certainty can be had as to their dispositions, but at most
a greater or lesser probability.

5. Finally some would limit the use of conditional absolution to cases of
the greatest rarity and of most pressing necessity—when, for instance,
a dying man is quite unconscious or already in his agony; for in any
other case it is entirely his own fault if he be doubtfully disposed.
This is the view of the anonymous author of the Letters against the
distinguished work of Cardinal Gousset: _Justification de la doctrine de
Saint Liguori_.[105]

This objection is based on several false premises:—

1. It is untrue that one who is doubtfully disposed is certainly
indisposed; it is at least _per se_ untrue, for it is a contradiction in
terms.

2. It is untrue that the penitent is always responsible for not seeming
certainly disposed; for he can be quite prepared without the confessor
knowing about it; again, as long as he is not certainly unprepared, he
may be actually in the proper dispositions.

3. Many considerations respecting the penitent’s salvation may, as we
have seen, urge the confessor to decide on giving rather than refusing
absolution. At times the priest would be guilty of the gravest imprudence
by putting off the absolution till extreme need should arise, when the
penitent might be unable to avail himself of the Sacrament. “Do you
wish to put off the reconciliation of the dying man to his God till the
moment when he can no longer express his wishes? Will you, in order to
make the absolution certain, wait till the penitent is at the last gasp,
so that it is doubtful if he is capable of receiving the Sacrament?...
I repeat, the Sacraments are made for men, not men for the Sacraments.
By pursuing such a course you would act in opposition to Him who out of
His mercy gave us the Sacrament; you would depart from the spirit of the
Church which, like a tender mother, administers the Sacraments, when you
maintain that we can only apply the principle of _sacramenta propter
homines_ in cases where the dying sinner cannot even by signs express
what is going on in the recesses of his soul.”[106]




PART II

_THE RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, OR THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT_


9. Who can Receive the Sacrament of Penance.

Every man who has fallen into formal sin after Baptism is capable of
receiving the Sacrament of Penance. Whoever, therefore, has not yet
been baptized, or, having been baptized, has committed no sin since
Baptism, is incapable of sacramental absolution. All children who have
not attained to the use of reason are unable to receive this Sacrament;
to these we may add such adults as cannot make that use of their reason
which is necessary for disposing them to receive this Sacrament.

In order that a baptized person may make a valid and fruitful use of this
Sacrament, he must elicit those acts which we have mentioned before;
he must be genuinely sorry for his sins, be ready to do penance, and
submit his sins to the power of the keys vested in the Church. These acts
form not only the essential and necessary dispositions for receiving
the Sacrament, but—and this is a peculiar feature of the Sacrament of
Penance—they are also the _materia proxima_. The following sections will
be devoted to the consideration of these acts in their double aspect.




CHAPTER I

CONTRITION


10. Extent and Efficacy of Contrition.

The most prominent position among the acts of the penitent belongs to
contrition.

According to the teaching of the Council of Trent contrition is a hearty
sorrow and detestation for past sin together with a firm resolution to
sin no more.[107]

We must investigate more closely the _essence_ of this contrition.
Contrition is a hearty _sorrow_; this sorrow is interior; hence the
prophet speaks of a rending of the heart (_scindite corda vestra_!—Joel
ii. 13), and so contrition is called _contritio cordis_, a grinding of
the heart. A merely external show of sorrow, the mere recital of an act
of contrition, is therefore not a true sorrow. Moreover, since sorrow is
a moral act and all moral acts proceed from the will, sorrow must have
its roots in the will.

Many very different things may cause us great grief; for instance, the
death of a dear relation, the loss of earthly goods, the failure of our
plans and undertakings, the suffering of wrongs and affronts, experience
of ingratitude and unkindness, a thoughtless word which one has uttered,
a mere breach of etiquette that one has committed. Contrition, however,
is grief of the soul for _past sin_.

The sins of others may cause us real and deep feelings of pain. What
fervent Christian is unconcerned at the many sins which are daily
committed and the many affronts offered to God? We are pained by them,
but we cannot be contrite for them. We can have contrition only for the
_sins which we have ourselves committed_—_de peccato commisso_, as the
Council of Trent expresses it.

This being the case, sorrow as understood in this connection is not to be
confused with:—

(_a_) Merely speculative sorrow (_dolor intellectivus_), _i.e._, the mere
knowledge of the hatefulness and horror of sin. Reason when not blinded
can recognize and must recognize clearly the hatefulness and wickedness
of sin; yet in spite of this knowledge the will may cling to it and love
it; indeed such cases are of frequent occurrence.

(_b_) Or the feeling of guilt or the remorse of conscience (_terrores
conscientiæ_) which Luther taught to be of the essence of true sorrow.
The feeling of guilt may be present without the help of our will, and
even against our will. Remorse of conscience may be roused in us without
our wishing it, and it may happen that we cannot allay it even when we
wish to do so.

(_c_) Finally, the resolve to amend, the _resipiscentia_, and even the
giving up of the sin is not of itself true sorrow; a man may forsake his
sin merely because he has indulged in it to excess, because it has no
longer any attraction for him, or because he has become tired of it.

True sorrow is not merely a pain and bitterness of heart; it is also a
real hatred and horror of sin; but hatred and horror are acts of the
will, for it is the will which hates and loves, shrinks from an object
or embraces it. The will may shrink from sin at the same time that
sensuality makes us crave for the sin; the will, however, must not give
way to the craving.

Sorrow and detestation of sin are in themselves distinct, yet they are
so bound up in man’s nature, that, where there is detestation there is
necessarily also sorrow, so that true and efficacious sorrow for sin, as
sin, cannot exist without detestation of the same.[108]

As to the question whether contrition lies more in sorrow for sin
or in detestation of it—in other words, in dislike, hatred, and
aversion—theologians answer that contrition is founded principally on
detestation for sin, and with reason, for:—

(_a_) By this detestation the sinner retracts his evil will and turns
towards God; this detestation is, moreover, the cause of sorrow. When,
therefore, it is asserted that the sinner should above all have sorrow
for his sins, and when by this is understood a sorrowful hatred of
sin, this is correct, for in this case horror of sin is there with
its complement. Moreover, we must not lose sight of St. Alphonsus’
dictum[109] that there is no reason to doubt that one sentiment includes
the other; he who has a horror of his sins is sorry for them, and whoever
is supernaturally sorry for them detests them.

Since contrition is the most important element in the disposition of
the sinner, it is proper to give in detail the acts which belong to
contrition, and to show how the sinner may attain to perfect contrition.

First and foremost, a preliminary act of faith and hope of obtaining
pardon by the merits of Christ should be made. How can he repent of his
sins who does not believe that there is a God and that God is offended
by sin, who does not believe that God is faithful to His promises and
merciful to sinners, and who does not hope that God will pardon him?
These acts of faith and hope, though they need not be made _explicitly_,
are the foundations of contrition; on them are built up the remaining
elements which go to form the perfect act. These are:—

1. The knowledge of the hatefulness of sin as an offense against God,
and of the awful punishments which the sinner incurs. This knowledge is
necessary in order to acquire contrition, for the law of man’s nature
makes him love and strive for what his reason proposes to him under the
appearance of good, and hate and avoid what it presents as evil.

2. An act of the will, which desires to avoid the evil now known as such;
on this follows:—

3. The hatred of past sins which have caused that evil, and the desire
of undoing the sin committed. This desire, in the abstract, is only
a velleity and quite inefficacious, for that which is done cannot be
undone; but it is of efficacy in so far as it means a wish to undo, if
it were possible, the sin by which God has been offended and punishment
incurred.

4. From this hatred there arises in the rational appetite or in the will
a sorrow and real distress that the sins have been committed; hence also
follows:—

5. In the sensitive appetite, by picturing to ourselves the horror and
evil consequences of sin, a certain hatred and sorrow, which may become
so keen as to produce sighs and tears.

6. The resolve and firm determination never more to sin and offend God,
or, what comes to the same thing, a resolution to observe faithfully and
perfectly God’s commands.

7. Finally, there appears in the truly repentant sinner a willingness to
render satisfaction to God for past sins, to chastise and punish himself,
and to repair God’s honor.[110]

Contrition is either _perfect_ or _imperfect_[111] according as the
sorrow and hatred arise from a motive of perfect love or of some
supernatural motive which is inferior to perfect love. Since we
understand here by love (_caritas_) the _amor benevolentiæ_, by which
we love God above all things for His own sake, _i.e._ on account of His
infinite perfections, we may define perfect contrition (_contritio_) as a
sorrow and hatred for past sins together with a firm purpose never more
to sin, because sin is an injury to God, who is loved above all things
for His own sake.

Imperfect contrition (_attritio_) may be founded on many other
supernatural motives; these are usually, as the Council of Trent
declares, the fear of hell or punishment and the hatefulness of sin.[112]
Thus imperfect contrition may be defined: sorrow and detestation of past
sin with the determination never more to sin, because sin is an offense
against God, who utterly abhors it on account of its hatefulness and
avenges it with punishment. The thought of God, the supreme Lord of all,
infinitely holy, to whom sin is detestable by its shamefulness, fills the
sinner with confusion; the thought of God, who punishes sin with infinite
justice, fills him with fear of the punishments of sin, and, impelled by
this fear, he repents of having offended God by his sin.

Perfect and imperfect contrition coincide in this respect, that they
are both a supernatural sorrow and hatred for sin regarded as an injury
to God; they differ, however, specifically in this, that perfect
contrition proceeds from perfect love of God, and imperfect contrition
from a variety of other less noble motives; they also differ in their
efficacy.[113]


11. The Essential Features of Perfect Contrition.

According to the unanimous teaching of theologians, which is based on
the Council of Trent, perfect contrition proceeds from perfect love. The
Council declares that contrition founded on _caritas_ is perfect; that,
in consequence, its perfection depends on _caritas_; hence in order to
acquire a complete grasp of the nature of perfect contrition we must
investigate the nature of love, its degrees and kinds.

The love of God, of which only there is question here, has for its
object God alone, and the motive of this love is similarly always God
Himself. There are many aspects under which God may be presented to us
as an object of love, and these aspects determine the different degrees
of love. First of all there are two kinds of this love: _pure_ or
_disinterested_ love, _amor benevolentiæ_ (_amicitiæ_), and selfish or
_interested_ love (_amor concupiscentiæ_). God can be loved because He
is most worthy of love, because He is good, because He is the highest
good. If we love God for His own sake because He is most lovable _in
Himself_ (_prout est in se summum bonum_), we have the first kind of
love, the pure love of God; if we love Him on our own account because He
is _for us_ the highest good (_prout nobis est summum bonum_), we have
the second kind of love. The pure love of God is called perfect love,
the other imperfect. If now we consider more closely the imperfect love
of God, we find two degrees. God is here the object of love in as much
as He is good to man, _i.e._ on the one hand God confers His benefits
on man on earth and His everlasting possession in heaven completes the
happiness of man hereafter, and on the other hand the loss of God means
to man on earth unhappiness and suffering and in the next life the
eternal punishment of hell. If a man disregards totally the idea of God
as a person to be loved and keeps in view only his own selfish interests,
he evidently loves only himself, thinking merely of his own present
and future well-being, his own joys and sufferings, his own reward and
punishment. Such a love, which hardly deserves the name, is downright
selfishness and is rightly called a mercenary love (_amor mercenarius_).
This love corresponds to the fear which is called _purely servile_,
_timor serviliter servilis_, that fear which hates only the punishment
and not the sin, which cherishes the inclination to sin, so that a man
would sin if he did not fear punishment. Both love and fear of this kind
belong to the lowest degree and destroy all supernatural merit and reward.

But there is an imperfect love of God in which man’s heart really turns
to God simply because God is good to him, it is true, yet so that he
loves Him efficaciously and really and regards the loss of God as the
loss of all good and the greatest of misfortunes. Since in such a love of
God there is mingled a great deal of the love of self, so that one love
is not present without the other, it cannot yet be called the pure love
of God, but receives a special name, the _love of chaste concupiscence_,
_amor castæ concupiscentiæ_. To this love corresponds that fear of
eternal punishment, which does not exclude the thought of God, which
fears the punishment of hell because it is the loss of the vision of
God, _i.e._ the _pœna damni_. This love is called also the _amor spei_,
because in it the hope of possessing God in heaven, the highest reward of
all pure souls, is an essential element.

A higher grade of love, midway between this perfect and imperfect love,
is called the _love of gratitude_, _amor gratitudinis_, in which we love
God for the benefits which He has conferred. When this love is prompted
more by the thought of the gifts than the giver, more by the benefit than
by the love of the benefactor, it approaches in quality to the love of
hope (_amor spei_); one reflects on the past, the other on the future.
If, however, the motive of this love of gratitude directly regards the
giver and his good will towards mankind, then God is loved with a pure
love, for God’s benevolence and love towards men are intimately united
with His perfections. This kind of love of gratitude may well be classed
with pure love or _caritas_. It is a perfect love (1) because God is
loved for His own sake, on account of His infinite goodness and love
and generosity, which are identical with God Himself; (2) because it is
a benevolent love. All love in respect of its object is either selfish
or benevolent; _now this love of gratitude is not selfish because it
does not regard its own profit, nor does it strive to gain anything for
itself_; (3) because it is a love of friendship, for it is a love which
wishes well to Him who loves us and makes a return of love for love.[114]

A great number of distinguished theologians assert that the love of
gratitude is perfect love, and the contrition based on it perfect
contrition.[115] The Council of Trent might be adduced in favor of this
view, since in Sess. 14, cp. 5, can. 4, it enumerates among the motives
of imperfect contrition merely the hatefulness of sin and its punishment
without the least reference to the motive of gratitude. It is of
considerable moment to settle this point exactly, for, as Deharbe says,
“a man might never know how to elicit an act of perfect contrition if he
were to form a false notion of perfect love. Who can deny that in many
cases salvation depends on an act of perfect contrition, and that even
where it is possible to receive the Sacrament of Penance it is always
advisable to make at least an effort to arouse not only imperfect but
also perfect contrition?”[116]

We should be loath to omit the remark that the love of Christ crucified
is an eminent incentive to perfect love, and that the sorrow for sin
which is founded on the thought that sin was the cause of the awful
sufferings and shameful death of Our Saviour, belongs to perfect
contrition. A man who is well disposed towards Christ, believing Him
to be God, has all that is required to arouse perfect love; and if,
influenced by this love, he detests and determines to avoid all that
brought such great suffering on Christ, he is exercising an act of
perfect love and contrition.[117]

This love is most intimately connected with the love of gratitude, since
“for our sins was He wounded and for our iniquities was He stricken.”
Indeed nothing is so calculated to fill us with gratitude towards God
as the thought of all that the Son of God has done and suffered for us.
The crib, the cross, and the Sacraments are the three great monuments of
His enduring love towards us, and at the same time they are the three
inexhaustible founts of motives of our love for Him. Hence it is that
the Church recalls to us so frequently these benefits of Christ. “When
we meditate upon her ceremonies and practices, the spirit of her feasts
and solemnities, her altars and temples, her prayers, the sense of the
liturgies and the object of her devotions, our thoughts are compelled
to consider the marvelous love of God and what Our Saviour has done and
suffered for us, and we are reminded to be thankful to the Lord and to
requite His love with our love.”[118]

From this love of gratitude, as the first stage on the way to pure
love, we may ascend yet higher and attain to that entirely pure love
by which we seek God as the highest good in Himself, as infinite
beauty, as complete perfection, as the source of all goodness, beauty,
and perfection, without reference, so far as that is possible, to our
own profit. This love is shown by joy in God’s perfections (_amor
complacentiæ_); the soul which has this love forgets itself and is lost
in the object of its love for which alone it lives; its sole desire is
God’s happiness (_amor benevolentiæ_), and it would willingly add to it
(_amor desiderii_) but since such increase is impossible it rejoices in
things as they are (_amor gaudii_).

It cannot be disputed that such a disinterested love is possible on
earth, since many pious souls have had it in an eminent degree; still it
must be observed that although the higher stages of love surpass and in
surpassing absorb the lower, they do not eliminate them entirely; on the
contrary, this pure love does not and cannot exclude the love of hope.
It is the explicit teaching of the Church that love for God on earth
cannot be so disinterested as to exclude all thought of ourselves and our
eternal welfare.

This stage of love answers to filial fear (_timor filialis_) when one
thinks no longer about punishment nor fears it, but dreads to give
displeasure or offense to the beloved one and carefully avoids all that
arouses the anger of God.

The sorrow arising from perfect love is therefore perfect sorrow,
_contritio_. This, like unselfish love, may have varying stages of
intensity[119] and may be more or less perfect; no special degree of
intensity, however, is required, and the lowest is sufficient. It is only
right and desirable, however, that we should have the greatest sorrow
possible for our sins, penetrating soul and body, so that the whole man
may repent of his faults and the tools of sin become again instruments
of love.[120] This, however, is not always in our power, and, being a
grace, we must ask for it.

We may now sum up our conclusions: Perfect contrition, _contritio_,
is the hatred of sin proceeding from a pure love of God with a firm
resolution of amendment, a disposition which includes filial fear, and,
so far from excluding the hope of salvation and fear of punishment, tends
rather to develop them.[121]


12. The Effects of Perfect Contrition and the Obligation of Procuring it.

Perfect contrition restores the sinner to grace at once, even before he
has approached the Sacrament of Penance, though the desire of receiving
the Sacrament is necessary; it removes the eternal punishment and in part
the temporal punishment.

The first part of this statement is _fidei proxima_, for the Council of
Trent teaches[122] that perfect contrition reconciles man to God before
the Sacrament is received, but that this reconciliation by perfect
contrition is not effected without the desire, which is included in
the act of contrition, of receiving the Sacrament. This doctrine was
confirmed by the condemnation pronounced by Gregory XIII and Urban VIII
on the twenty-first and thirty-second of the propositions of Baius.
Baius and Jansenius taught among other things that perfect contrition
without the Sacrament cannot restore to grace unless in exceptional
circumstances, _e.g._ in martyrdom, at the hour of death, when there is
no possibility of confessing, or when it is _summe intensa_.

Finally, this doctrine of the efficacy of perfect contrition is clearly
expressed in Holy Scripture and in the monuments of tradition; the
proofs belong to the domain of dogmatic theology.[123] We add only a
single consideration which springs from a well-known principle: Perfect
contrition arises from love and is in its essence nothing but an act of
love. Now perfect love unites us to God, so that we live in Him and He in
us.[124] This perfect union with God overcomes all separation from Him
which arose through sin.

Such, then, is the effect of perfect contrition, however poor and weak
it may be, for in spite of this it is a sorrow which is inspired and
informed by perfect love. Nor does a greater or less degree change
the species; the Council of Trent is positive in its declaration that
perfect contrition reconciles us to God, and assigns no limit which must
be attained before producing this effect. Such, too, is the unanimous
teaching of St. Thomas,[125] St. Alphonsus,[126] and the other great
theologians.

The sinner is restored to grace by perfect contrition without the
Sacrament only when he has the intention of receiving it, for the actual,
or at least intentional, reception of the Sacrament is the one single
means ordained by Christ for the removal of mortal sin. This intention
is included in the act of perfect contrition, as the Council of Trent
goes on to teach; hence all theologians hold that the implicit desire
(_votum implicitum_) is sufficient, for whoever has true contrition has
the wish to fulfill all the commands of God, and hence the command of
Christ enjoining the confession of sin.[127] Perfect contrition is an act
of perfect love, and this urges man to fulfill the commands of God in
accordance with Christ’s words: “He who loves Me will keep My word.”[128]
Hence it may happen that a sinner is justified by an act of perfect
contrition without any actual confession; it is sufficient that he does
not exclude the purpose of confessing his sin.[129]

The resolution to confess the sin does not include the resolution to
confess it _as soon as possible_ (_quam primum_). It is enough to confess
when a precept of God or of the Church urges.[130]

The other effect of perfect contrition, the remission of eternal
punishment, follows from what we have been already considering;
moreover the condemnation of Baius’ seventieth proposition makes this
doctrine _proxima fidei_. This, too, is the teaching of all Catholic
theologians.[131] The guilt is removed by sanctifying grace; but one who
has sanctifying grace is a child of God, and has as his heritage a claim
to heaven.

Finally, we gather from the Council of Trent[132] and the common doctrine
of theologians[133] that a part also of the temporal punishment of sin,
in proportion to the intensity of contrition, is remitted, so that a very
great and perfect contrition may blot out all the temporal punishment.

Two very _practical_ remarks, applicable both to confessor and to
penitent, may find their place here.

Mortal sin is not forgiven, and the sinner is not reconciled to God,
till he has made good the injury done to God; in other words, till he
has done penance. This is a truth of faith.[134] It follows, then, that
he who has the misfortune to fall into sin is obliged to repent of it,
and in such wise as to obtain forgiveness; to adopt any other course is
to frustrate the whole end of his existence. He must therefore make an
act of perfect contrition, or supplement the imperfect contrition by the
Sacrament of Penance.

This obligation is certainly pressing when there is danger of death,
because it is the necessary means for salvation, and every man is bound
by love of God and of himself to take precautions against being forever
an enemy of God and of being involved in eternal damnation.

The question now arises whether on other grounds there is a strict
obligation of making an act of perfect contrition, for instance, from the
consideration of God who has been offended, or for our own interests,
since we may die at any moment, and because one who is in a state of
mortal sin is but little capable of avoiding other mortal sins.

The following answer may be given:—

1. God might have insisted that the sinner should make good at once after
his sin the evil committed, and the injury done to God by mortal sin
would be quite motive enough for such legislation. As a matter of fact
God does not make any such demand; instead of insisting on His rights, He
is long-suffering and permits the sinner to heap offense on offense.

On the other hand, a man cannot remain long in mortal sin without
offending God again and once more incurring sin; for it is an insult to
the love we owe to God to remain long a slave of the devil and an enemy
of God, and such behavior on the part of the sinner makes him guilty of
contempt of God’s friendship and rights. To incur, however, grievous sin
in this way, the neglect to make an act of perfect contrition must have
extended over a considerable time. As to what constitutes a considerable
time, it is not easy to define a hard-and-fast limit; a period of
several years would certainly be considerable, and it would be a grave
sin to remain so long a time in the state of mortal sin; but a man who
reconciles himself to God within the limits of the time prescribed by
the Church for confession would certainly not incur a new sin _per se_,
special circumstances, of course, being excluded which might demand that
an act of perfect contrition be made at once.[135]

The possibility of dying before being reconciled to God is certainly a
very strong motive to induce a man to consult the safety of his soul and
to free it as soon as possible from the state of mortal sin; for at any
moment death may surprise a man without warning. If, however, there be
no pressing danger of death, that possibility is not sufficient to make
delay of reconciliation a new sin; hence one who dies a sudden death may
be plunged into hell by sins for which he had not atoned, but he would
not be guilty of a new sin by having put off his repentance.

But there is an obligation to avoid putting off for a long time one’s
conversion, and hence an act of perfect contrition after mortal sin,
because a man in the state of mortal sin is in the greatest danger
of falling into other mortal sins, since he has not strength enough
to vanquish severe temptations and to withstand the violence of his
passions, and since, as St. Gregory the Great[136] says, the unrepented
mortal sins which burden his soul draw him by their weight into other
worse sins. “Without sanctifying grace it is not possible to refrain long
from mortal sin,” says St. Thomas;[137] the sinner might, if he wished,
have the necessary moral strength to overcome temptation and to resist
his passions; he might curb them by the divine power of grace; but there
is the law of the distribution of God’s graces, that God gives only to
those who love Him efficacious grace, and while a man persists of his
own free will in the state of sin and enmity with God, he equivalently
expresses his contempt of grace and so makes himself unworthy of it. As
God is ever pouring richer and richer graces on those who make good use
of them and coöperate with them, so He withdraws them from those who
neglect and resist them. Hence we may adopt the well-founded teaching of
St. Alphonsus,[138] who states that the sinner ought not to put off for
longer than a month his reconciliation with God; in other words, that the
act of perfect contrition should not be delayed beyond that time. By such
delay he would incur a new sin. This subject, moreover, is intimately
connected with the duty of eliciting the act of love; for according to
a very probable opinion of many theologians, of whom the authority is
recognized and approved by St. Alphonsus, we are bound to elicit at least
once a month an act of love, because we should keep God’s commands either
not at all or at least with great difficulty if we failed for so long a
time to elicit such an act, and if we were so little solicitous about
our duty of loving God. It is impossible to make an act of perfect love
without bewailing one’s sins by which a God so infinitely worthy of love
has been offended. Hence St. Alphonsus in his practical directions to
confessors says:[139] “The duty of making an act of contrition is urgent
when one is obliged to make an act of love.”[140]

Since the faithful for the most part are ignorant of any obligation of
making an act of perfect contrition within a given time after falling
into mortal sin, and, therefore, incur no sin by the non-fulfillment of
it, the confessor need not trouble himself to make inquiries about it in
the past life of his penitents; indeed he may abstain from instructing
them on the existence of such obligation. But he should not fail—without,
however, mentioning that neglect means a new sin—to urge his penitents
by other motives to return to a state of grace, for the future, as
quickly as possible after falling into mortal sin, at least by an act of
perfect contrition, and, if occasion offer, by going to confession. Sad
experience shows that one fall into mortal sin is very soon followed by
others.[141]

Finally, there is an obligation (_per accidens_) to awaken perfect
contrition when one has to exercise some act for which a state of grace
is required and the Sacrament of Penance is not accessible. A priest, for
instance, is in a state of mortal sin and is called upon to administer
one of the Sacraments, or one of the faithful has to receive one of
the Sacraments of the living and cannot get absolution beforehand. This
also holds true if an act of perfect love has to be made; in this case
every one is obliged, when there occurs to his mind a mortal sin not yet
repented of, to detest the same and to be sorry for it from the motive of
the love of God. According to the general opinion of theologians an act
of love should be made in the hour of death, whence St. Alphonsus teaches
that a dying man who has confessed with only imperfect sorrow should be
recommended to elicit an act of perfect contrition, for it is impossible
to make an act of love without bewailing the sins from the same motive of
love.[142] Finally, this duty is pressing when one is exposed to severe
temptations which cannot be overcome while one is in a state of enmity
with God.

We would add another observation: Since perfect contrition is so
pleasing to God and so helpful to those sinners especially who have
fallen seriously, the pastor of souls should seize every opportunity of
instructing the faithful and urging them to elicit such acts frequently,
especially when they are in danger of death and have no opportunity
of approaching the Sacrament of Penance. Children particularly should
be taught on this subject, and a good form of the act given to them.
They may have need of it themselves in order to be saved from eternal
damnation, and they may come to the assistance of their elders at the
hour of death; indeed experience teaches that well-instructed children
more than once have reminded people in such straits of the act of perfect
contrition, and have persuaded those persons to make it with them;
finally, what has been learned in childhood will turn out useful to many
in their old age.


13. Imperfect Contrition.

The effects of imperfect contrition (_attrition_) are not so great as
those of perfect contrition. Imperfect contrition, which excludes the
desire of sinning and includes the hope of pardon (this belongs to
the sorrow necessary for the Sacrament of Penance), is the proximate
disposition which the sinner must have if he is to be justified in the
Sacrament of Penance. This is of faith.[143]

Passages almost innumerable of the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers,
decrees of Councils and theologians, present this doctrine as revealed by
God.[144]

Consequently it is the common and certain teaching of theologians that
to receive the grace of the Sacrament of Penance imperfect contrition
is sufficient, and that perfect contrition is not of necessity. The
Council of Trent declares expressly: “Although imperfect contrition
without the Sacrament of Penance is not able _per se_ to restore the
sinner to justifying grace, yet it disposes him for the reception of
grace in this Sacrament.” The Council is speaking here of the ultimate or
proximate disposition which, in union with the Sacrament, suffices for
the remission of sin; for it opposes the efficacy of imperfect contrition
with the Sacrament to its inefficacy without the Sacrament. Without the
Sacrament it cannot produce justification, but disposes towards its
reception in the Sacrament; it must therefore produce in the Sacrament
this justification, and the disposition of which the Council speaks must
be understood of the proximate disposition which is immediately followed
by grace; otherwise the contrast drawn between the two would have no
meaning.

This conclusion is confirmed when we consider the institution of the
Sacrament. Christ’s object in instituting this Sacrament was to restore
the baptized to the life of grace; if it did not really confer the grace
of justification, it would have been a means frustrated of its end, and
would not have the power which it was intended to have; it could not be
expected to call for dispositions which of themselves would atone for
sin, and this would be the case if perfect contrition were the required
disposition. A remedy for a disease would be a poor gift if it could
not cure the disease until the latter was already removed. Finally,
the Church received the power of the keys in order that it might loose
or retain sins; if perfect contrition were required as the necessary
condition, the sins would not be remitted by the power of the keys, but
by the dispositions of the penitent. Therefore imperfect contrition is
sufficient for justification in the Sacrament of Penance.[145]

Since imperfect contrition in union with the Sacrament has the same
effects as perfect contrition without the Sacrament, theologians say
that the penitent becomes in the Sacrament _ex attrito contritus_; this
expression is not to be understood of the act, as though _attritio_
became _contritio_.

Imperfect contrition, as we have already seen, arises from the thought of
the hideousness of sin and from the _fear_ of the punishment which God in
His justice inflicts on the sinner. The following are the classes into
which, according to St. Thomas,[146] fear is divided:—

1. Worldly fear, _timor mundanus_, when man is feared more than God, or
when one offends God in order to avoid suffering.

2. Natural fear, _timor naturalis_, the fear of temporal misfortunes.

3. Slavish fear, _timor serviliter servilis_, when one shrinks from sin
merely from fear of punishment, and when one is ready to sin again if
there were no punishment. Theologians say of such a man: _solum manum
cohibet, voluntatem autem non retrahit a peccato_.

Quite distinct from this fear is:—

4. Servile fear, _timor servilis_, when a man fears the punishments which
God inflicts on sin, and on that account really avoids and detests sin:
_qui non solum manum sed etiam voluntatem cohibet a peccato_, as the
schoolmen express it.

5. Filial fear, _timor filialis seu castus_, is the fear of a man who
honors and loves God as his Lord and Father, and from that motive avoids
sin and loves the law of God. The last two kinds of fear conjoined form:—

6. Mixed fear, _timor mixtus seu initialis_, which is the disposition
of a man who fears sin because it offends God and also because it is
punished. Hence St. Thomas gives a clear and short account of these last
three kinds of fear: Sometimes man turns to God and clings to Him because
he is afraid of evil. This evil may be twofold, the evil of punishment
and the evil of guilt. If a man turn and cling to God from fear of
punishment, this is servile fear; and when it is done from fear of guilt
it is filial fear, for children are afraid of offending their father; if,
however, it is done from the fear of the punishment and of the guilt,
it is then _timor initialis_, which is intermediate between servile and
filial fear.[147]

The sorrow proceeding from servile fear is _attritio_, that imperfect
sorrow which, when it excludes the desire of sinning and is joined to the
hope of pardon, disposes the sinner to receive the grace of justification
in the Sacrament of Penance. It may now be asked whether, along with
this imperfect sorrow based on fear as its only motive, there may not
be required besides, in order to dispose the sinner _proxime_ for the
receiving of grace, some sort of love, at least initial, or whether this
love be included in that sorrow. On this subject the Council has given no
direct answer. In the seventeenth century this question was debated with
such heat that Alexander VII (June, 1667), in order to establish peace,
forbade, in the strongest terms and under pain of excommunication _latæ
sententiæ_, that any of the disputants in this matter should accuse their
opponents of heresy. Four distinct views were proposed and defended on
this subject:—

1. The first view teaches that sorrow from the motive of fear, as long
as it is true sorrow, is quite sufficient of itself for obtaining
sanctifying grace in the Sacrament. This sorrow produces hatred and
detestation of sin and a return to God’s law, and is inseparable from
the hope of pardon. Hence the sinner becomes capable of receiving
the grace of the Sacrament. Melchior Canus is the most famous of the
defenders of this view, who are called Attritionists because they hold
that mere attrition from the fear of the punishments inflicted on sin
is a sufficient disposition. They thought that every sort of love was
excluded from this contrition based on fear, a position which seems
impossible both psychologically and in view of the action of grace; as
was evidently the general opinion of the Fathers at the Council of Trent.
Instead of the present clause in cap. 4: _attritio eum ad gratiam in
sacramento pœnitentiæ impetrandam disponit_, another had been presented
to them: _ad constitutionem sacramenti sufficit, ac donum Dei esse ac
Spiritus S. impulsum verissimum non adhuc quidem inhabitantis sed tantum
moventis quo pœnitens adjutus_ (_cum sine aliquo dilectionis in Deum motu
esse vix queat_) _viam sibi ad justitiam munit et per eam ad Dei gratiam
facilius impetrandum disponitur_. Since it was urged that men of eminent
learning made a distinction between such sorrow and love, the present
form of the clause was chosen in order to avoid defining a scholastic
question on which the Doctors were not of one mind; by using the word
_disponit_ the Council did not wish to mean a sufficient disposition,
and to indicate this more clearly it purposely avoided the use of the
word _sufficit_.[148]

2. The second opinion holds that the sorrow based on fear is sufficient
only when there is joined with it some beginning of the love of God, as
our highest good. This view supported by the most eminent theologians
rests on solid foundations, and is now the more usual opinion among
theologians. That there is nothing in this view opposed to the Council of
Trent is clear from what has been said above on this point. In another
place in the Sixth Session (cap. 6) there is indirect authority for it,
where the Council, in describing the progress towards preparation for
the first grace, teaches that the sinner who is disposing his soul for
justification must begin to love God as the source of all justice.[149]

Hence as preparation for the first justification of adults a beginning
at least of love is required. Now what is required for their first
justification in Baptism, that, at the very least, is demanded for the
second justification by Penance, since, as the Fathers express it,
Penance is a toilsome Baptism, _baptismus laboriosus_; consequently
if a distinction is to be made in terms of greater or less, greater
dispositions are required for Penance than for Baptism. Moreover,
the Council is unmistakably clear in its declaration that what it
teaches with regard to the first justification applies equally to the
justification by penance.[150]

In the place where the Council treats of the sorrow required as a
preparation for the Sacrament of Penance, it speaks of it plainly as the
beginning of a new life;[151] such it could not be if it did not include
love, or at least the beginnings of love; for since the new life consists
in the love of God, the beginning of the new life must of necessity
include the beginning of the love of God.[152]

A third reason may be found in the very nature of the subject. According
to the Church’s teaching, the justification of an adult means a real
conversion, and this of itself includes a beginning of love. By mortal
sin man turns from God to the creature; if the conversion is to be real,
he must not only turn away from the creature, but also return to God, and
that cannot happen without some initial love. Moreover, it is in the very
nature of man ever to desire and love something as his highest good, be
it the creature, as happens in mortal sin, or the Creator; since by his
conversion he ceases to make the creature his sole object and aim, he
must direct his desires to God the uncreated good, and so must love God
at least as his highest good.

But this love which is required to accompany imperfect contrition in
order to make it a sufficient disposition for obtaining grace in the
Sacrament, is not the beginning of the _amor benevolentiæ_ or the
_caritas perfecta_ or perfect love; for, as has been seen above, any
act of contrition proceeding from perfect love in any degree at once
restores a man to grace without the reception of the Sacrament; similarly
the beginning of perfect love, joined with imperfect contrition, would
justify the sinner without the Sacrament.[153] Penance would thus be
a meaningless institution. It is rather the beginning of the _amor
concupiscentiæ_ or of the _caritas imperfecta_, in which we love God
because He is good to us. This beginning of love is included in imperfect
contrition, which arises chiefly from the fear of God’s punishments; for
Holy Scripture (Ecclus. xxv. 16) calls the fear of God the beginning
of love. Hope of eternal happiness is another motive, for, as St.
Thomas of Aquin says, when we hope to obtain a benefit from any one
we are drawn towards him and begin to love him. Whoever, then, has
imperfect contrition and receives the Sacrament in the hope of pardon,
already begins to love God as his liberator, his champion, his Lord.
No special intensity is required in this love; it need only be the
beginning of love, as long as the love is real—and this is called _amor
initialis_.[154]

3. A third opinion demands, not a beginning of imperfect love, but
perfect love in its first stages, that is, _caritas initialis_. It need
not, however, be so strong as to suffice to remove sin of itself, nor
need it be independent of other motives, such as servile fear. Such
sorrow, however, would be no longer _attritio_, but _contritio_, which in
any degree by itself justifies the sinner apart from the Sacrament.

4. The fourth opinion goes yet further and requires that along with
_attritio_ there should be not only pure love, but in such measure that
of itself it should move the sinner to bewail his sins and give them up.
This is of its nature _contritio_, whence the defenders of this last
opinion are called contritionists.[155]

This question is not one of mere theoretical interest, but is of highly
practical application; for if the acts of the penitent are the _materia
proxima_ of the Sacrament, and if it is the confessor’s duty to make
certain of the presence of these acts before giving absolution, he must
do so also with respect to contrition; for this reason he must study the
nature and properties of contrition in order to secure the integrity of
the Sacrament.

From this it is at once apparent that the contritionist must proceed
differently from the attritionist. The former will, if he is true to his
principles, not only investigate whether the penitent’s sorrow for sin
be joined with belief and hope of pardon, but also whether that sorrow
proceed from the love of God, or at least the beginning of it, which love
must be a love of God above all things. This investigation, however, is
very difficult, and wearisome to confessor and penitent, at least if
the latter be uninstructed. The attritionist, on the contrary, merely
inquires whether his penitent has sorrow springing from a motive of faith
and the hope of forgiveness; this inquiry offers no difficulty to either
confessor or penitent. Once it is established that the sorrow comes from
a motive of faith and is joined to the hope of pardon, one may fairly
presume and conclude that there is _amor initialis_, so that further
investigation is superfluous; for if we hope for good from any one, we
have already at least a beginning of love for him.

Moreover, the confessor will observe that since the view requiring a
beginning of love with imperfect contrition is more probable than the
opposite, _probabilitate externa et interna_, it is also the safer;
since, however, in giving and receiving the Sacraments an explicit papal
decision enjoins the adoption of the safer view, it is not only of
counsel but of precept, strongly binding, to elicit before receiving the
Sacrament of Penance together with contrition an act of love, if only
initial love. Though the initial love which is comprised in the imperfect
contrition is not the love of benevolence or _caritas_, but the _amor
concupiscentiæ_, yet _caritas_ is in no way excluded from it, and cannot
be excluded without grievous sin on the part of the penitent. Would it
not be the sign of a bad disposition if a man were expressly unwilling to
avoid sin if it did not deprive him of heaven or lead him to hell? “I do
not say,” says St. Francis de Sales on this subject, “that this sorrow
excludes the perfect love of God; I say only that it does not of its
own nature include it; it neither rejects it nor embraces it; it is not
opposed to love, but it can exist without it.”

Thus imperfect contrition disposes the penitent towards perfect love.
Any one who desires and hopes to attain so great a boon as the grace of
God, all unmerited as it is, will certainly be unable to refrain from
meditating on the infinite love which procures him this great grace, and
from that he will rise to the love of God for His own sake as infinitely
good and lovable. Hence St. Thomas says that whenever a man hopes to get
a benefit from God he is led to love God for His own sake only.[156]

We add one more practical observation: The imperfect contrition arising
from fear of hell, which excludes the desire of sin, and in which is
contained at least virtually the hope of pardon, is quite sufficient to
secure the fruit of the Sacrament of Penance; yet we ought to take pains
that we have, as far as possible, perfect contrition, not only because
this is more pleasing to God, but also because in this way the grace is
made more certain and more grace is obtained and a greater measure of the
temporal punishment remitted; because we are thus more sure of attaining
true and necessary attrition, and finally, because we fulfill in this
manner the precept which binds us to make, from time to time during our
lives, an act of love. Indeed if a penitent chose to dwell only on the
lowest motives of contrition, it would be a sign that his heart was not
sufficiently fixed upon God, and there would be occasion for suspecting
that there still lurked in his soul an undue affection for sin, curbed
only by fear of punishment.[157]


14. The Necessary Qualities of Contrition.

If the Sacrament of Penance is to be received validly and with fruit, the
contrition must be real, formal, supernatural, universal, supreme, and
sacramental.[158]

1. First of all, the contrition must be real or genuine. Now contrition
is, according to the Council of Trent, a grief of the soul and a horror
of sin. A sorrow expressed only in words would be a sham sorrow; that
would not do: a real sorrow is required. A sorrow merely imaginary,
even without guilt on the part of the penitent, in which case his good
faith would certainly save him from the guilt of a sacrilege, could not
possibly supply for the want of a necessary and essential part of the
Sacrament.[159] Hence God’s command by the prophet Joel: _Scindite corda
vestra et non vestimenta vestra_—Rend your hearts and not your garments
(the sign of mourning; Joel ii. 3). And truly it is meet that sorrow
should begin there where sin had its origin, namely, in the heart; for
from the heart, as the Scripture tells us, come forth evil thoughts,
murders, adulteries, etc.[160]

The contrition must be formal, _i.e._ explicit; a virtual or implicit
contrition, such as is contained in another act, say in an act of love
or the resolution to confess and receive absolution, is not enough even
though it excludes the affection towards sin.

Thus a penitent might conceivably elicit an act of perfect love without
making any act of contrition, and then, after confessing his sins, be
justified in virtue of the act of perfect love, though he would not
validly receive absolution if he confined himself to the act of love. The
contrition must be quite explicit, for it is the essential matter of the
Sacrament, and virtual matter here would be about as practical as virtual
bread and wine in the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Hence it is not enough
to say: “I love thee, O my God, above all things, because thou art the
sovereign good; forgive me my sins.” Such words are only an act of love
and a prayer for pardon, not a formal act of sorrow. The words must be
explicit: “I am sorry for my sins.”[161]

Hence we see the error in the opinion held by several of the older
theologians, who called attrition any kind of sorrow which did not come
up to the standard of perfect contrition by want of an adequate motive of
sorrow, or through deficiency of resolution of amendment, or because sin
was not shunned as the greatest of evils.

Others besides have conjectured that it was necessary and sufficient for
absolution in the Sacrament that the penitent believes he had contrition,
_i.e._ that he ought to make efforts to be contrite and to believe that
he has perfect contrition; such a putative sorrow, according to them,
was sufficient, however distinct it might be from the sorrow of perfect
contrition.

Both views are false. If imperfect contrition were only a velleity,
instead of being a real horror of sin, it would not be sufficient for
the Sacrament, and such sorrow could never be called genuine attrition.
On the contrary, any sorrow which has the properties enumerated above
is sufficient even if the penitent knowingly confine his efforts to
imperfect contrition without aspiring to perfect it.[162]

There were also some theologians who maintained as a probable opinion
that the virtual sorrow included in a formal act of love or in a
resolution of amendment was sufficient. This view is stigmatized by
Suarez as rash, by Vasquez as false. Other theologians, however, consider
that this condemnation is too severe.

On this question Reuter[163] remarks that a penitent need not be worried
about the formal act of sorrow if he has elicited an act of perfect love
while reflecting on his sins (_memor peccatorum_), for it is morally
impossible for any one with his sins before his eyes to elicit an act
of perfect love of God without detesting his sins. The same may be said
with regard to the purpose of amendment, for it is morally impossible
to form it without having formal sorrow. This is made clear from the
consideration of any practical resolution which is based on supernatural
motives; for if the hatred of sin is not yet a formal detestation and
sorrow of past sin, it becomes so in any one who reflects that he has
been guilty of sin.[164]

2. The sorrow which disposes for the worthy reception of the Sacrament
must on the one hand be prompted by divine supernatural grace which
begins, accompanies, and perfects the whole work of salvation, and on the
other must proceed from some supernatural motive based on faith; for the
dispositions required for a supernatural gift must be supernatural. The
second condition is more important, for God will certainly give grace to
a man to do that which he is obliged to do. Merely natural or worldly
love or fear will give rise to natural sorrow; supernatural sorrow
springs from a supernatural fear or love of God. The distinction between
the two is not merely quantitative but qualitative; they have nothing in
common, and no amount of natural sorrow will ever rise to the dignity
of supernatural sorrow. Natural sorrow is of no efficacy in the work of
conversion. When the prophets exhort to repentance they do not confine
themselves to exhort the sinner, “Be converted,” but, “Be ye converted
to the Lord your God.” A true penitent was, in their eyes, not one who
turned from his sins; they required that he should also turn to God.
Sorrow, then, must have a religious character, must be prompted by divine
grace, must spring either from fear or love of God.

If sorrow is to have this supernatural character, it must be based on
supernatural motives suggested by faith. Faith is the first condition
for justification which the Council of Trent demands of the sinner; in
addition to this other conditions are laid down, especially the act of
hope. These acts need not be formally elicited, but it is required that
the motive of sorrow for sin should proceed from faith if it is to be of
use for salvation.

We may thus approach the question which, as Lehmkuhl says, many
moralists treat with a certain scrupulosity—whether before the Sacrament
is received explicit acts of faith and hope must be made, or whether
implicit acts are sufficient. Lehmkuhl himself answers the question as
follows:[165] To require that the penitent should elicit an act of faith
with its formal object explicitly and with deliberation before or apart
from the act of contrition is unreasonable; there would be reason for it
only in the case of a penitent who had lost his faith by sinning against
it. But an act of faith meaning the assent to a proposition of faith
which springs from the habit of faith (_assensum in aliquam veritatem
ut fide notam ab habitu fidei oriundum_), is rightly demanded since
it is otherwise impossible to derive contrition from a supernatural
motive. Thus there is no doubt that a formal and explicit act of faith is
necessary; but this is certainly present if the necessary contrition be
there.

Accordingly St. Alphonsus is quite justified in believing that he can
reconcile the divergent views of the theologians by teaching that formal
faith is certainly necessary, but not reflex faith: that is a separate
and distinct consideration of the grounds of faith. It is just the same
with regard to hope; for if a man receive the Sacrament in a genuine
spirit of penance in order to get forgiveness of his sins, he is making
an act of hope _explicite_ (though not yet _reflexe_, still _exercite_)
that God will grant him pardon in the Sacrament through the merits of
Christ.[166] All this, however, holds good only for the faithful who are
instructed in the things necessary for salvation.

Our faith presents to our consideration many motives for contrition,
which, as has been shown above, are reduced to two by the Council of
Trent: fear of punishment and hatefulness of sin. This hatefulness may
have many forms: the general malice which belongs to every sin (in so far
as it is an injury to God our highest good, and rebellion against Him, or
ingratitude to God our Father and Benefactor, or infamous unfaithfulness
to Jesus our loving Redeemer), or the particular malice which is proper
to each sin, since every sin has its own peculiar wickedness and is
the opposite to some special virtue. A further motive is found in the
sufferings and death of Christ, which may be considered a motive
of _caritas_, and the loathsome state of the soul when deprived of
sanctifying grace.

Among the punishments which excite us to salutary contrition are first of
all the fire of hell, and then purgatory.

All these motives may be called eternal; the pains of purgatory may be
numbered among the eternal motives because they begin only when a man has
passed from this life into eternity.

It is to be observed that any one of these motives is sufficient to
awaken in us true contrition; nor is it necessary that we should choose
a motive with which we made acquaintance first by revelation; we know
many of these motives as well by reason as by faith; we must only take
care that the motive which impels us to sorrow appeals to us not merely
from the point of view of reason, but as proposed by faith. If, however,
one is moved to contrition by a particular motive, namely, the peculiar
malice of some sin even when this malice is made known to us by faith,
it is better to add a universal motive either of fear or of the malice
residing in all sin, so that the sorrow may not be insufficient or
doubtful for any sin which, having escaped observation, was not repented
of.

The sorrow which comes from the thought of the temporal sufferings of
this life may be regarded as supernatural if these sufferings are looked
upon as inflicted by God, as being signs of His anger, and as a sort of
foretaste of His eternal punishments if we do not amend. Hence the sorrow
which comes from the thought of earthly pains cannot be set down at once
and absolutely as supernatural sorrow; the supernatural aspect must be
kept in view, and then the sorrow may be regarded as supernatural and
sufficient for approaching the Sacrament. Not only reason, but faith
also, teaches us that in God’s providence sin has many evil consequences,
and that on account of sin God strikes mankind with pains and calamities
both private and public. Moreover, the Council of Trent enumerates among
the motives of attrition “the fear of hell and of punishment,” and in the
punishment we are to understand the pains of this life, for the Council
mentions as an example the Ninivites who repented of their sins, moved
by fear of the destruction of their city, which had been prophesied by
Jonas, unless they did penance; nor are the Ninivites the only instance
where God has threatened temporal punishment in order to frighten sinners
and move them to penance. Not all theologians, however, admit temporal
punishments as motives of supernatural sorrow (among them Vasquez and
Toletus); they try to weaken the argument drawn from the Council of
Trent by asserting that the Council does not speak of two motives, which
apart from one another can give rise to sufficient contrition, but that
the words are to be taken conjunctively, so that the fear of earthly
punishments must be joined to fear of the pains of hell, since the latter
only are made known to us by faith. Our proof is in no way invalidated
by this argument; besides, many theologians, and those the most famous,
stand by the first view, so that it may be considered as the _sententia
communis_. The words of one of them, the eminent Suarez, may be quoted
here. He writes:[167] “Hence I infer that such sorrow [as is required
for the valid reception of the Sacrament of Penance] must proceed from
a divine and supernatural motive. That a temporal and human sorrow is
not sufficient is plain from the words of the Council of Trent, and the
reason is not to be misunderstood, for such a motive does not deprive
the will of the affection towards sin.” And in another place he writes:
“Vega (l. 13 in Trid. c. 14) concedes that sorrow based on the fear of
other punishment apart from hell-fire is sufficient for attrition. This
view is correct if we suppose that the fear is not merely human and
natural. Granted that the pains be only temporal, if they are considered
as inflicted by God, as proclaiming God’s anger, as being a foretaste in
some way of the divine punishments in the next life if we do not reform,
they can move us to a supernatural sorrow which may fairly be classed
with the sorrow which is based on the fear of hell; thus we exercise the
virtue of Christian hope when we look to God for temporal benefits in so
far as they affect in any way our eternal life or fall under the special
and supernatural providence of God.”

Since, however, the negative proposition denying the efficacy of sorrow
springing from fear of earthly punishments for reception of the Sacrament
is the safer one and is not altogether improbable, it is the view which
must be adopted in practice; so a penitent should not confine himself
to the thought of the temporal penalties, but use it to proceed to the
consideration of the divine justice as revealed in eternal penalties,
“for,” as Lugo expresses it, “this consideration will create the fear
of God, who can inflict both one and the other penalty.” This last
reflection will certainly move him to a determined resolution to avoid
sin as the greatest of evils, and to avoid it even if that involves other
suffering. If, however, a man dwell on the thought of the suffering
which his sins have drawn upon him, or on the suffering which usually
follows in the train of sin, he will not necessarily be induced thereby
to resolve steadfastly to shun sin more than any other evil; for it is
possible that the avoiding of sin may involve him in greater misfortunes
in this life than those which would come from committing the sin; and
it is impossible that the fear of a less evil will effectually nerve a
man to endure the worse evil. Nevertheless the sorrow and purpose of
amendment, if they are to be of any use for justification, must be such
as to determine the man _implicite_ to endure all the evils of this
life rather than commit sin; and though the penitent is not obliged to
reflect _explicite_ on the matter, yet the motive of his sorrow and
amendment must be so powerful that, as long as this motive is present,
it would compel him to choose any suffering rather than sin. Finally, it
may be mentioned that the consideration of the temporal suffering is a
powerful weapon in the hands of the confessor to move an obstinate and
unrepentant sinner to contrition, and thence to lead him to higher and
safer motives.[168]

3. The sorrow must be universal (_universalis_), _i.e._ it must extend to
all past sins, at least to those which are mortal. No single mortal sin
can be forgiven unless it is repented of, nor without other mortal sins
of which one has been guilty being forgiven, for none can be forgiven
without sanctifying grace; but sanctifying grace is incompatible with
mortal sin, for it is impossible that any one should be at the same time
a child of God and the slave of the devil, worthy of everlasting reward
and deserving eternal punishment; because “there is no condemnation to
them that are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. viii. 1). Hence it is promised in
Holy Scripture: “If the wicked do penance for all the sins which he hath
committed, and keep all My commandments, ... living he shall live”;[169]
and the second Lateran Council says, that a repentance would evidently be
useless in which a man left out several sins and repented only of one;
for it is written: “Whosoever shall keep the whole law, but offend in one
point, is become guilty of all.” He who is attached to one sin shall no
more cross the threshold of eternal life than one who is addicted to all
possible sins.[170]

There are only two ways of attaining universal contrition; one way is to
apply special motives of sorrow to each particular sin, the other is to
repent of all sins, both the known and the unknown, through a universal
motive. This universality does not require that one should reflect on
all his sins so as to elicit an act of contrition for each particular
sin; this is necessary only if a man confines himself to those motives
which of their own nature do not apply to all mortal sins. In practice,
however, it is strongly recommended to base the sorrow on universal
motives. If, then, a man is sorry for his sins, his mortal sins at
least, from a universal motive, and afterwards recalls other sins, he
may confess them along with the rest and receive absolution for them
without having to make a new act of contrition; this fresh act would be
required if his repentance had proceeded from motives peculiar to each
sin. Besides there arises at the fresh recollections of his other sins in
a repentant sinner a renewal of his sorrow; this renewal is useful, for
it insures a more perfect preparation, but it is not necessary.

We must distinguish between the universality of the sorrow and the
universality of the purpose of amendment. The sorrow is general when it
extends to all sins committed, at least to those which are mortal; the
resolution, however, must be to avoid all mortal sins whether they have
been committed or not.

If a penitent has only venial sins to confess, the sorrow need not be
universal; it must have, however, the other properties.[171] Since venial
sin may coexist in the soul along with sanctifying grace, the love of God
is not lost, and since one venial sin may be forgiven apart from others,
it is enough in preparing for confession to make an act of sorrow for one
or other of the venial sins. Of course in such a case only those sins are
forgiven which are repented of; nor is it incompatible with the essence
of venial sin that a man should be really sorry for one, especially if it
be peculiarly vile, without being sorry for the rest.

Still, the penitent should exert himself to be sorry for all the venial
sins of which he accuses himself. It is no sin to confess venial sins for
which one is not sorry, so long as _materia sufficiens_ for which there
is actual sorrow is offered to the power of the keys. It may be assumed
that the penitent, confessing venial sins for which he is not sorry,
does not care to be absolved from them; from these the confessor does
not intend to absolve. Reasons may exist for confessing venial sins for
which there is no real sorrow, _e.g._ in order to practice humility, to
be better known and guided by one’s confessor, etc.[172]

4. The sorrow must be a sorrow surpassing all other sorrow (_sovereign_,
_supreme_) which shrinks from past sin as a greater evil than any in
the world, so that a man is prepared to forego every good and suffer
any evil rather than fall into sin again. This sorrow must be supreme
_appretiative_. Yet it is not required that the sensible feeling of pain
should be infinitely great or surpassing all other pain; nor is it
necessary that the heart should feel more keenly, or be more disturbed,
or be more cast down than it would be by some earthly suffering or loss
which should appeal more immediately to the sensitive faculties. Thus a
man may experience a more intense and lively sorrow for temporal losses,
such as the death of a dear friend or relation, and yet his contrition
may be appreciatively much greater. Of this he would give ample proof
if he were disposed to avoid sin, even though the sin could make good
his losses. Hence it is not by the acuteness of the sensible suffering
that sorrow for sin must surpass other pain, but by the displeasure
at past sin and the determination of the will to endure all kinds of
suffering and every temporal calamity and evil rather than consent to a
single mortal sin. The sorrow for sin must therefore be appreciatively
sovereign, not necessarily intensively so. The intensity makes no change
whatever in the substance of an act. Though contrition is usually the
more perfect the more intense it is, yet the intensity ought not to be
aimed at, for it would only prepare the way for scruples; moreover, there
is no proof that such intensity is necessary.[173]

Though the penitent must have a greater horror of sin than of any other
evil, it is not necessary that he should make a deliberate comparison
of it with other evils, and make a vivid picture of each particular
misfortune, putting to himself the question whether he is ready to endure
it in preference to committing sin. Indeed such a course would be highly
imprudent and dangerous and likely to destroy the real contrition and
purpose of amendment which he had, as well as to excite an inclination
for the sin which he detested. Hence when such comparisons obtrude
themselves on the mind of the penitent, he should positively reject them
and cling to the absolute and unconditional general resolution of never
sinning again, helping himself by the reflection that God’s grace will
never be wanting at the right moment, and resolving with the help of that
grace never more to sin.[174]

The question whether the sorrow can ever be excessive is already answered
from the foregoing. The sorrow which is of the essence of contrition,
_i.e._ displeasure at our past sins in so far as they are an injury to
God, can never be excessive; the greater our love, the greater must
be our displeasure, and love cannot be too great. As to the sensible
feeling of sorrow which is not at all necessary for true contrition,
this should never be carried so far as to interfere with the duty of
self-preservation, though as a matter of course there is little occasion
to fear that sensible sorrow will go so far. For the sensible sorrow over
a spiritual evil is always somewhat remote and cannot easily be so acute
as direct physical suffering or as the pain which comes from a misfortune
appealing directly to the senses.[175]

As in contrition there is no definite intensity required, neither is any
certain duration; for a man may in one moment elicit an act of perfect or
imperfect contrition; it may be quite suddenly aroused by divine grace,
as in the case of David when he exclaimed in his sorrow, “I have sinned
against the Lord,” or as in the case of St. Peter, who at one glance of
Jesus was melted into bitter tears. The moment contrition becomes actual
it is sufficient for absolution. In practice, however, the faithful
should be urged to spend some time before confession in rousing a genuine
sorrow that will answer all demands, by reflecting with the help of God’s
grace on the nature of sin and its consequences; moreover, they should
be cautioned not to be satisfied with a mechanical repetition of an act
of contrition, otherwise the sorrow may be wanting, or at its best be
very weak. Yet sorrow is of the highest importance because it is the most
essential of the _actus pœnitentis_, the very soul of confession.[176]


15. The Relation of Contrition to the Sacrament.

Finally, the sorrow must be sacramental, _i.e._ in connection with the
Sacrament of Penance. For instance, in order that attrition along with
the Sacrament may be able to restore a man to sanctifying grace, it
must be joined with at least the implicit intention of receiving the
Sacrament, and coexist virtually with the absolution.

A man who in preparing for confession bewails the sins which he has
discovered in examining his conscience, makes an act of contrition _ex
intentione implicita_ of receiving the Sacrament. If, however, his sorrow
is expressed without any intention of receiving the Sacrament or without
any thought of confession, he must renew his act of sorrow in order to be
sure of receiving absolution validly, unless he afterwards decides to go
to confession in consequence of the still virtually enduring contrition,
so that his confession proceeds from his sorrow. Hence the following
conclusions are drawn:—

I. An act of contrition made without reference to the receiving of
absolution makes the validity of the absolution doubtful.

II. It is not necessary, however, that the penitent should make the act
of contrition in consequence of his resolution to go to confession. This
is the usual practice, it is true, and certainly a very good one, but
it is enough if by his contrition he be moved to make his confession,
and if he thus unite his sorrow, still persevering, with the sacramental
act. It is also sufficient if the penitent makes an act of sorrow in
the interval between the confession of his sins and the giving of the
absolution.[177]

The reason for making these demands upon the penitent is that the acts
of the penitent are not only an interior preparation for, but they are
the _materia ex qua_ of, the Sacrament. The sorrow, therefore, must
be brought into relation to the Sacrament; and since this doctrine is
probable and is the common teaching, this relation must be established in
practice at least _ante factum_, _i.e._ the confessor must before giving
absolution take care that the penitent makes his act of sorrow with a
view to the Sacrament.

Hence the question amounts really to this: What relation is demanded
between the act of sorrow and the Sacrament? not whether such a relation
be necessary; for, on the one hand, it cannot be defended with any
probability that such relation is unnecessary, and, on the other hand,
it is not in accordance with either truth or prudence that the penitent,
before making the act of contrition, should establish its relation to the
confession or be obliged to have the intention of receiving the Sacrament.

Some sort of bond, however, must exist between the contrition and the
Sacrament. It is false to infer from the Catholic teaching of the Council
of Trent that the eliciting of the act of sorrow or _dolor in fieri_, as
it is called, is the _materia proxima_ of the Sacrament; it is rather
the sorrow already elicited or the _dolor in facto esse_, which is the
matter of the Sacrament; it is not in or by itself _proxima materia_: it
becomes so by means of the confession and in union with the confession.
That sorrow is sufficient which coexists in any way with the will of
receiving the Sacrament. In other words, the sorrow must _inform_
the confession, _i.e._ make the accusation a penitent or sorrowful
confession, and apt to effect a reconciliation with God. If then the
sorrow coexists in any way with the confession and is referred to it,
that sorrow constitutes _proxime_ the matter of the Sacrament and there
is no necessity for the penitent to have the intention of confessing
before making the act of contrition. In a similar way water is the matter
of Baptism; it is not necessary that the water should be procured with
the intention of conferring the Sacrament; it is quite enough to take the
water which comes to hand and to apply it to the sacramental use. Now
there can be no doubt that the sorrow also, though not elicited with a
view to the Sacrament, can remain present in some way in the soul, and
while so present may later on be brought into contact with and applied
to the Sacrament. A man, for instance, who under the influence of his
contrition seeks an opportunity of going to confession, or makes use of
the opportunity of going which presents itself, has certainly not lost
his contrition; he has it rather in greater abundance, though he reflects
no more on his sorrow, nor even retains any certain recollection of it
afterwards.

Lacroix has no sufficient reason for demanding that sorrow must be
aroused with the view of going to confession, saying that otherwise the
sorrow would not be a sacramental act, just as the pouring of water
made without the intention of baptizing, though referred immediately
afterwards to the baptismal act and the form added, is not a sacramental
function. The comparison, we answer, is not to the point, for the sorrow
is not _in et per se materia proxima_ as is the pouring of the water
in Baptism. If, however, a man poured out the water with some other
intention, and then still in the act of pouring formed the intention
of baptizing, the Baptism would be valid. The same argument holds for
penance; hence that sorrow is sufficient which coexists in any way with
the wish to receive the Sacrament.

In the case quoted above where the penitent first confesses his sins and
then makes his act of sorrow before receiving the Sacrament, or when he
is moved to contrition by the words of his confessor, a difficulty may
arise, since the confession must be a sorrowful one. Such an enumeration
of the sins cannot, of course, be considered as informed by sorrow; the
humble demand for absolution, however, takes up the accusation again and
perfects it; and makes it _materia proxima_ of the Sacrament.

If, on the contrary, the sorrow has been elicited with no idea at all
of confessing the sin, there is reason for doubting whether an act so
completely independent of the confession will become _materia_ of the
Sacrament. Absolution cannot be demanded in face of the probability of
such an essential defect; yet one can hardly acquire sufficient certainty
of the existence of such defect to make the repetition of the confession
obligatory.[178]

III. The sorrow must coexist at least virtually with the absolution if it
is to be sacramental. This virtual coexistence is secured if the sorrow
is excited immediately before the accusation or the absolution, or even
one, two, or four hours before confession; and St. Alphonsus admits
that real sorrow may last one or two days and still be sufficient for
absolution, when it comes from the desire of being reconciled with God,
or when it urges a man to go to confession in order to avoid the sins
along with the occasion of them. On the other hand, a sorrow removed by
so long an interval would not be sufficient for valid absolution if the
confession were made out of mere devotion, or in fulfilment of a vow,
or for some similar reason. In these latter instances one or two hours
is the widest limit which could be assigned for the virtual duration of
the contrition. Hence we must condemn the teaching of some moralists
that the act of sorrow endures over an unlimited time, and that it is
quite sufficient if it is not retracted in the interval. Of course the
act of contrition loses completely all its value for absolution by any
retraction; and sorrow is retracted expressly by any new complacency in
the sin or by any fresh mortal sin.

The reasons for the doctrine just given have already been laid down
in the preceding paragraphs on the relation between contrition and
absolution. The theologians fall back in particular on the analogy
between the civil and sacramental tribunals. As in a civil process some
time may elapse between the hearing of the case and the passing of the
sentence without invalidating the sentence, so some interval may elapse
between the sorrow and the absolution by which sentence is pronounced;
this delay, however, must not be too long.[179]

In practice the priest must teach the faithful and insist on their
renewing the act of sorrow immediately before confession, if it is some
time since they made it, and also on a due amount of time being given to
eliciting contrition, since the fruit of the Sacrament is more abundant
in proportion to the care taken in preparing for it.

In the case, however, where confession has been made with genuine sorrow
but without the necessary reference to the Sacrament, the penitent
should not be obliged to repeat the confession, for the other view with
regard to the sorrow, that it is not _materia sacramenti_, but only
a disposition on the part of the penitent, is not altogether without
probability; besides it is scarcely probable that the former act of
contrition has not been renewed when the man intended to confess, and
that it has no sufficient coexistence with the confession, or at least
with the intention to confess. Only when there is danger of death or any
risk of the penitent dying before receiving absolution again, the safer
course, as far as possible, should be adopted; for on such important
occasions prudence counsels us to guard against even slight doubts, so as
not to jeopardize our eternal salvation.

It is certain, as we remarked above, that the act of contrition is
retracted by a fresh mortal sin, and its effect, in consequence, no
longer endures. It is not so easy to settle the question, with regard to
venial sins, as to whether the sorrow for venial sin based on a universal
motive is revoked by a fresh venial sin, or whether the sorrow continues.
If it is conceded that the sorrow is revoked, scruples may easily arise
if the sorrow has not been renewed immediately before confession. This
practice is very good; but not necessary, if the fresh venial sin is less
grievous than those which the penitent intended to confess when he made
his act of sorrow.[180]

There is still another question to consider. An act of contrition is
made, extending to all past sins, those which are forgotten as well
as those which are remembered; must this be renewed if the penitent
afterwards confesses the forgotten sins and desires a second absolution?

A renewal of the sorrow in this case does not seem necessary, provided
that the sorrow in the first confession extended to all past sins,
even those which by chance had escaped the memory; for in this case
the process was not objectively complete. The sorrow and the implicit
intention of receiving absolution were applied to all sins, even those
inculpably forgotten; and as the renewal of the sorrow would not be at
all necessary if the penitent, after making an act of contrition on
universal grounds, recalls just before the absolution some sins forgotten
and confesses them before the absolution is pronounced, so it is not
necessary in the case mentioned, since it is much the same whether one
receives many particular absolutions or a general one embracing all the
sins. Such is the view of the greater number of the moralists. Lugo, St.
Alphonsus, and Reuter may be mentioned particularly as favoring it; St.
Alphonsus calls this teaching _communis_, Roncaglia _moraliter certa_,
Sporer, Elbel, and many others _probabilissima_; it has been declared
even _indubitata apud omnes_; _pro ea stat_, says Lugo, _communis
praxis_. If in this case one or two confessors perhaps insist on the
renewal of the sorrow, the greater number agree in acting differently or
in suggesting it merely as a piece of advice.

The champions of the other view urge that the case is closed by the first
absolution; if then absolution is to be given again, a new _materia
proxima_ is required, and even if the sorrow continue, it has no relation
to the second absolution. It is easily seen that this is not a strong
reason.[181] Yet though the renewal of the sorrow be not necessary for
the validity of the absolution, it is advisable to make again the act
of sorrow, which is easy to do and certainly increases the grace. The
confessor deals prudently with a penitent under such circumstances when
he requires him to make a short renewal of his act of contrition.[182]

The doctrine just developed is not only adopted _ex communi sententia_
in the case more or less frequent, where a mortal sin which had been
forgotten is confessed immediately after or very soon after absolution,
but also in two other cases. For instance, a penitent in immediate danger
of death must be absolved after one or two sins have been confessed;
after this, if he be still alive, the confession is continued and
completed. The other example is when a penitent (a very rare case)
is absolved by his superior from the reserved sins only, and from the
remaining sins by another confessor.[183]

The result of this doctrine ought not to be, however, that confessors
and penitents become less solicitous about contrition for sins already
remitted by the Sacrament. It may, however, as Ballerini remarks, be very
useful in quieting scruples, especially of those who accuse themselves of
venial sins and in addition tell some mortal sin already confessed and
absolved; for if there is little ground for doubting the sorrow for past
mortal sins in a penitent who has usually only venial sins to confess,
and shows by his constant victories over temptation his aversion to
mortal sin, yet certain anxious penitents are frequently troubled with
scruples about their want of contrition, especially if they happen to
hear a preacher who, with a zeal sometimes devoid of prudence, condemns
the repeated confession of past sins made without true contrition. Such
scruples may be overcome by various means, but especially by the doctrine
just given.[184]

To conclude with a few practical questions:—

1. How must the confessor deal with a penitent who thinks he has only
very slight contrition? He must first of all not be too hasty in deciding
that this penitent is indisposed and without the necessary contrition;
there are men whose hearts are so hard and inaccessible to sensible
impressions that it is only with difficulty and at rare intervals that
they are moved to a sensible sorrow, and such are easily inclined to
think that they have not the proper dispositions. The confessor must
remember that the feeling of sorrow is not at all required, but that
a real grief over the past life and an earnest desire to amend are
sufficient; he must satisfy himself that these dispositions are present
and cannot demand more. He may, moreover, reasonably assume the presence
of these dispositions in the penitent if the latter be willing to listen
to warning and instruction, if he has at any time really endeavored to
amend, if he is ready to perform the penance imposed, and to carry out
other prescriptions of a like nature.[185]

2. When with regard to former confessions the priest wishes to ascertain
whether the penitent has had real sorrow, the following points may serve
as indications:—

(_a_) If the penitent has made use of the means suggested to him for
overcoming the sin.

(_b_) If he has avoided at least the proximate occasions of sin.

(_c_) If the number of sins has become less.

(_d_) If the penitent is convinced that he had real sorrow and purpose of
amendment; for it is a first principle in the Sacrament of Penance that
the penitent’s word is to be taken, since he is there his own accuser and
witness.[186]

The priest must act here with great prudence so as not to frighten away
the penitent, and at the same time not to indulge in an indiscreet
leniency by which he would himself commit sin and involve both the
penitent and himself in ruin.

3. It is not easy for the confessor to discover when the penitent has not
real contrition; the following directions, which Cardinal Denoff in his
pastoral brought to the notice of all the confessors of his diocese, may
be of use:—

(_a_) If the penitent approaches with a proud bearing as though despising
the minister of Christ.

(_b_) If he answers with impatience and anger the questions which the
confessor is bound to put.

(_c_) If in the course of his confession he constantly makes excuses and
accuses others more than himself.

(_d_) If he mentions the gravest sins as though they were ordinary
occurrences.

(_e_) If it is evident that he is trying to conceal a mortal sin which
the confessor in the course of his examination has detected.

(_f_) If he refuses to accept a penance proportioned to the number
and gravity of his sins, and given with all consideration for his
circumstances.

(_g_) If he is unwilling to employ the necessary means to reform.

(_h_) If, finally, he belongs to the number of those unhappy sinners who
seek ignorant or easy-going confessors, with a view of getting absolution
only, without any intention of reforming.[187]

4. If the priest has to deal with an obstinate sinner, he must discreetly
unite mildness and severity, but above all pray to God for him, since
every good gift comes from the Father of light. He may picture to him
God’s great mercy and the love of Jesus to give him courage; or he may
try to soften the hardness of his heart by reminding him of God’s justice
(cf. S. Alph. Praxis Confessar. cp. I).




CHAPTER II

THE PURPOSE OF AMENDMENT


16. Necessity and Nature of the Purpose of Amendment.

According to the decision of the Council of Trent, as we have seen
above, the resolution to amend as well as contrition is required for the
valid reception of the Sacrament. With a true sorrow for sin is always
conjoined the resolution to avoid it, so that we may say with regard to
past sins sorrow means grief and horror, with regard to the future it
means the resolution to amend. For instance, a man who hates the sin
he has committed, because it is sin and in so far as it is sin, _i.e._
because it is an offense against God and the greatest misfortune which
can befall a mortal, naturally extends that sorrow to everything which
involves sin, and so to the sins of the future, since they offer the same
grounds for hatred as the rest.

Now amendment is effected by the deliberate intention never to sin again
for the future. A distinction is drawn between the express or formal
resolve (_propositum explicitum seu formale_), as when, for example, a
man thinks upon his future life and resolves to sin no more, and the
implicit resolve contained in the sorrow (_propositum implicitum seu
virtuale_); the latter is present when a man, without thinking upon his
future life, repents of his sin in such wise that, if asked whether he
intends for the future to avoid sin, he would most certainly answer in
the affirmative.

It is a disputed point among theologians whether for the validity of
confession an express (formal) resolve is necessary or one included in
the act of contrition (a virtual resolve) is sufficient. Some teach
absolutely (very few, however) that an express resolve is necessary, and
appeal to the Council of Trent as requiring this condition, since, after
defining the act of contrition, it adds the words: _Cum proposito non
peccandi de cætero_.[188]

This argument is successfully invalidated by Cardinal Lugo,[189] who, in
addition, brings convincing testimony that the very opposite conclusion
may be drawn from the teaching of the Council. Since, moreover, as
Ballerini shows in his notes on Gury’s text, only a very few theologians
adopt that view, it can hardly lay any claim to probability.[190]

Other theologians teach absolutely that an express purpose of amendment
is not necessary if the contrition proceed from a universal motive;[191]
an implicit resolution is sufficient, and Lugo calls this opinion
_communis inter recentiores_. Indeed most of the theologians endorse it.
Ballerini cites seventy-three by name, with the passages in which they
express their views.[192] It is also founded on solid intrinsic grounds,
for, according to the doctrine of the Council (_loco citato_), attrition
which excludes the desire of sinning is sufficient for the valid
reception of the Sacrament; but, as we have seen, attrition excludes the
desire of sinning, even when there is no formal purpose of amendment, for
it detaches the heart of man from sin, and not only from past sin but
from all sin.[193]

Finally, there are theologians who distinguish and say: If a penitent
advert to the future, he must make a formal resolution to amend; if,
however, as in the case of the dying, no thought of the future occurs to
him, a formal resolution is not necessary; for it is hardly possible that
a penitent who is really sorry for his sins and thinks upon the future
should fail to make an express and formal resolve to amend. Yet this may
very well happen, as Ballerini observes, to pious people, especially to
such as are careful to avoid even slight deliberate venial sins, and are
accustomed to make acts of sorrow for defects and to start afresh on the
right way; for in them the resolution to avoid sin is not made just for
the time when they prepare for confession, but it is rather an enduring
habit of mind. Hence it is not matter of surprise that they should not
think of renewing and confirming their resolution. Suarez makes this
clear when, in speaking of perfect contrition, he asks whether an act of
perfect love suffices for justification, or whether also an act of sorrow
for sin be necessary; he replies that _per se_ both are required, but
that _per accidens_ the act of perfect love suffices, for whoever makes
an act of perfect love is undoubtedly restored to grace; but that if a
man be conscious of sin, he is in duty bound to reëstablish his right
relation to God and to make a formal and explicit act of displeasure and
hatred with regard to the sin; to neglect this duty would prove that he
had no real love. In a similar way the sinner who mourns for his past
sins is naturally prompted to make a resolution of avoiding sin; hence
the voluntary neglect of the purpose of amendment renders the act of
contrition very suspicious.[194]

After exposing the three views which have divided theologians on this
point, St. Alphonsus concludes: The last two views are certainly the more
probable; but since the first has also a certain probability, it must
in practice be followed _ante factum_. He holds that a penitent would
be obliged to repeat his confession if he had confessed in good faith
without an express purpose of amendment, though with real contrition
such as would include a virtual purpose; his argument being that, since
the first opinion is sufficiently probable, a penitent who had certainly
incurred mortal sin is bound to avow the same in a confession that was
certainly and not merely probably valid.[195] Now, as we have shown
above, the first opinion can hardly lay claim to any probability, though
the holy Doctor concedes it as such mainly because he was misled by
Lacroix into believing that he had distinguished authorities on his side.
Besides, St. Alphonsus teaches in another part of his Moral Theology
(l. c. n. 505) that the penitent should not be obliged to repeat his
confession unless there be a moral certainty of its invalidity—a doctrine
quite in accordance with the _sententia communis_ and with excellent
reason maintained by Lacroix, Gobat, etc., in opposition to Antoine, one
of the most conspicuous rigorists of his time.

In the case under consideration it may be decided with moral certainty
that a confession made with a virtual purpose of amendment is rather
valid than invalid, especially since, according to St. Alphonsus himself,
the champions of all these opinions unite in declaring that a confession
made without an express resolution of amendment need not be repeated,
for they would certainly have decided for the repetition if they had
thought such a confession invalid. Hence theologians deny _communissima
sententia_ that a formal purpose of amendment (if the contrition is based
on a universal motive) is necessary _necessitate sacramenti_; they admit
that confessions are valid without the express purpose of amendment.
Add to this that St. Alphonsus in his _Homo Apostolicus_ taught that
confessions made with only a virtual purpose of amendment need not be
repeated.[196]

We conclude with the following principles:—

1. In order to receive the Sacrament validly and to share in its
essential effects, a virtual or implicit purpose of amendment is
sufficient if the sorrow proceed from a universal motive.

2. If confession has been made without a formal and express purpose of
amendment, there is no obligation to repeat the confession as though it
had been invalid.

3. The faithful should be taught and urged to make a formal resolution of
amendment in the course of their preparation for confession.

The reason of this last prescription is not so much to be found in any
doubt with regard to confessions made without the express purpose of
amendment, but to secure a more abundant fruit from the Sacrament. We
shall certainly with the grace of God make more earnest endeavors to
avoid sin and to reform if we expressly, deliberately, and with all our
heart resolve to avoid sin. Indeed, as Lehmkuhl justly observes, apart
from the grace of the Sacrament and the instruction and advice of our
confessor, the frequent reception of this Sacrament serves to secure us
against relapse, for our wills need a frequent stimulus to remain firm in
the hatred of sin. Not infrequently one cause of our relapses is a weak
purpose of amendment.[197]


17. Properties of the Purpose of Amendment.

The purpose of amendment must have the three following properties: it
must be absolute or firm, efficacious, and universal. We shall consider
these properties in detail.

The purpose of amendment must, first of all, be _firm_, answering to the
contrition which detests sin above all other evils; so that a man under
no circumstances, neither through fear of any evil or love of any good
will think of swerving from his resolve. Thus the purpose of amendment
is not a velleity, not a mere wish or a vague desire; it must be an
absolute, fixed determination never to sin again; otherwise the penitent
would not really detest sin nor really and thoroughly turn to God.

The resolution must then be so fixed that the penitent is resolved
to overcome all the difficulties which may oppose its execution. The
confessor will prudently refrain from placing before the penitent all
the difficulties which will have to be faced in keeping the resolution
or from revealing to the penitent all his obligations, if the latter be
_bona fide_ ignorant of them; “for,” says Suarez, “he might expose the
penitent to the obvious danger of making no resolution, but rather of
sinning again.” It is enough, continues the great theologian, if the
confessor pictures to the penitent in general terms the hatefulness of
sin, the goodness of God, the danger of eternal damnation, etc., and that
the penitent in consequence of the exhortation forms a general resolution
never to fall again into mortal sin.[198] The advice which Cardinal
Cajetan gives to confessors is in much the same strain: They should not,
he says, lead their penitents into temptation by their excessive and
imprudent zeal in asking whether they are resolved to avoid sin even at
the risk of suffering the greatest misfortunes, loss of goods, of health,
or even of life itself; for questions of this kind would prove a snare to
many penitents. His office should be rather to persuade them to love God
above all things, and in consequence of this love to repent of their sins
and avoid them for the future. In this way he will inflame the hearts of
his penitents, without leading them into danger.[199]

The celebrated Lugo reminds us of the weakness of the human heart;
the confessor is to take this weakness into account in dealing with
the penitent, and not put before him singly and explicitly enormous
difficulties which he should be ready to overcome rather than commit
sin. In another place, treating of penitents given to ambition and
sensuality, who have renounced their sins in confession though without
great sorrow, but, conquered by the strength of their passion which
they have only resisted feebly, have relapsed easily when occasion
offered, he says: “Indeed we do not dare to represent clearly in detail
the temptations or occasions of sinning which may occur, in order that
the penitent may make his resolutions on each point, for there is good
reason to fear that he will fail to retract his former sins even _in
confuso_.”[200]

It is then sufficient _per se_ that the penitent resolve _in confuso_ to
sin no more; a resolution of this kind, however, may be easily defeated
by the contemplation of a peculiar difficulty. For this reason the
penitent should renew frequently and earnestly his resolution never to
sin again; if he do this and also pray, there is reason to hope that he
will be victorious in the actual moment of trial. Men of strong will and
steadfast heart may put before themselves and contemplate with their eyes
open the difficulties in the way of avoiding sin and reforming their
lives, and such conduct is helpful in the spiritual struggle, unless the
subject be one in which the heart is vehemently carried away or where
victory consists in flight. To conjure up difficulties and to review
temptations which might disturb weak minds and lead them into danger[201]
serves no good purpose and is not to be recommended.

From the foregoing it is abundantly evident:—

1. That the Jansenists and rigorists are wrong in maintaining that
relapse into sin is a sign of a want of purpose. The resolution depends
on the present frame of mind which, however strong it is, may easily
waver. “The fact of a man sinning again does not prevent his former
sorrow from having been real; as a man may be now seated who has been
running, so a man may fall into sin who has been truly repentant; the
nature of a former act is not changed by a subsequent act.”[202] And the
Rituale Romanum[203] directs, as of great utility, to advise those who
easily relapse into sin to confess often, once a month, or on certain
feasts, and also to communicate; it presumes that such people in spite
of their relapses have made good confessions; otherwise the penitent
would be obliged to repeat his confessions as being invalid every time
that he relapsed, which would certainly be opposed to the practice and
universal belief of the faithful. If, however, a penitent relapse without
any effort to overcome himself, it may be taken as a sign that he had no
fixed determination, or there is ground for a suspicion, at least, of its
absence; any one who is really determined to avoid sin will not easily
forget his purpose; he will resist for some time at least, and will fall
less easily and less often.[204]

2. Even if a penitent is conscious of his own weakness and knows that he
will relapse in spite of his resolution and in spite of earnest effort,
he cannot be considered as giving undoubted signs of weakness of purpose.
It is only the rigorists who demand a firm conviction of not falling
again.

If, however, a penitent is so afraid that he will fall again, or so
convinced that he will repeat his sin as to despair of reforming, he
cannot be absolved; not only does he fail in resolution—there is a fair
suspicion at least that he has no fixed determination—but he distrusts
God’s grace which is ever at hand, and, as experience proves, is always
efficacious in helping men of good will to overcome difficulties and
obstacles. Before giving such a penitent absolution he must be taught
the fatal error of his ways, moved to sorrow for his despair, for such
despair is sinful, and exhorted to great confidence in God’s grace. This
is the doctrine of St. Alphonsus,[205] in which, as he himself confesses,
he follows Busenbaum,[206] Concina, and Lacroix.[207]

If, finally, the penitent has misgivings from his previous experience
of relapses, but not so strong as to deprive him of all confidence, he
is not to be classed at once as indisposed; the confessor must persuade
him to make a firm resolution against sin and encourage him to have
confidence in God’s grace. If he succeed in arousing hope in him, and the
penitent promise to have recourse to prayer in temptation, it is better
to give absolution at once than to put it off. This class of penitents
should be encouraged to confess frequently, for there is reason to hope
that they have a fixed determination to improve; there is no presumption
for the opposite view, since a strong resolution to avoid sin is quite
compatible with the fear of a possible relapse.[208]

Still less would it be a sign of want of the requisite dispositions if
the confessor were persuaded that the penitent could hardly be saved
from a relapse; this conclusion may be drawn with moral certainty, or,
at least, on strong presumption, from the ordinary occurrences of life;
hence the necessary disposition on the part of the penitent can always be
secured.

In practice it is not of infrequent occurrence that a penitent, otherwise
of good will, alarmed by the difficulties of some undertaking, declares
that he cannot avoid a certain sin, or refuses to make a promise for fear
of breaking his word, or says he cannot trust himself. This happens in
the case of those who are given to some evil habit, as, for instance,
taking the name of God in vain, swearing, flying into a rage, etc. Such
a penitent must not only be encouraged to trust to the help of divine
grace, but be taught that all required of him is to have at the present
moment (_hic et nunc_) the determination not to relapse, that he should
not look too far ahead but make his resolution day by day. The confessor
must take particular care that the penitent understands that that only is
demanded of him which he freely acknowledges to be within his power. This
end is obtained by suggesting methods to the penitent to be used when he
is free from temptation as well as when he is attacked, and by impressing
upon him that all demanded of him is to guard against committing sins
knowingly and with full advertence.[209]

The resolution must, moreover, be _efficacious_, _i.e._ the penitent must
be ready not only to avoid sin, but also to take the necessary means for
avoiding it, especially by avoiding the proximate occasions; for whoever
effectually desires some end must, of necessity, as far as lies in him,
remove all impediments to it, and employ all the means which will lead
to it. Hence theologians teach that the resolution must be _efficax
affectu_; in the case, however, where it is not _executione efficax_,
_i.e._ where the penitent fails to accomplish his purpose, it is not
reasonable to conclude at once that a real and sufficient resolve was
absent, though some presumption against the fixity of the purpose may be
entertained. What has been said with respect to the steadfastness of
the purpose of amendment may be applied to its efficaciousness, seeing
that the two subjects are so intimately connected. Though it is undoubted
that for valid confession the purpose of amendment must be fixed and
efficacious, yet we are not to understand thereby that a man may never
fail in his resolution. It is quite certain that men are so fickle that
they will fall away frequently from determined and fixed resolutions,
as we see, for instance, in the case of St. Peter, who, as we know, was
sincerely pledged not to betray his Lord, and, yet, denied Him soon
after, at the mere word of a maid servant.

The purpose of amendment, then, is fixed and efficacious when a man
is determined really to carry out what he has proposed, though he
may afterwards fail through fear of an obstacle or in the stress of
temptation; this happens often enough even in the case of those who
are aiming at Christian perfection. Hence, for valid reception of the
Sacrament, the purpose of amendment is sufficiently efficacious if it
keep a man from sin during the time that his resolution lasts.[210]

In order to be reasonably free from misgivings with regard to his
resolution, the penitent should be morally certain that he desires to
avoid sin at any cost for the rest of his life, despite all grounds he
may have for believing that his resolution may become weak in course of
time.

Finally, the resolution must be _universal_, _i.e._ it must extend to
all mortal sins at least, not only those which have been committed, but
also those which are possible. Here lies the distinction between the
universality of the contrition and that of the purpose of amendment;
for while the sorrow is universal which includes all the sins that have
been committed, the resolution, in order to be valid, must embrace all
possible mortal sins. If there remained but a single mortal sin which the
penitent was unwilling to shun, his resolution would be vain and useless
even with regard to his other sins, because it could not be founded on
a universal motive, such as hatred of sin considered in the light of an
offense against God. A resolution which is based on this motive extends
to all mortal sins without reserve, because they are all an offense
against God; and if but one be excepted, such a motive could not have
influenced the purpose of amendment, which in consequence cannot be real
and genuine.[211]


18. The Purpose of Amendment with regard to Venial Sin.

The purpose of amendment, as we have said, must extend at least to
all mortal sins. With regard to venial sins it must be constant and
efficacious, but not necessarily universal; for, since venial sin is
consistent with the friendship and grace of God in the soul, one is not
obliged to resolve on avoiding all of them: indeed no one _sine speciali
privilegio gratiæ_ can avoid all venial sins, and no one is called upon
to resolve to accomplish the impossible; still there is an obligation to
resolve to avoid them as much as possible, or at least to diminish their
number. The following points will present the matter in detail:—

1. It is sufficient with respect to any venial sin to make an act of
contrition and a purpose of amendment, even though these acts do not
extend to all lighter venial sins of the same species; for the greater
the sin the greater is the offense against God and the punishment due
to it; and a man may well shrink from displeasing God beyond a certain
point, though below that point he may be careless.

2. It is sufficient to make an act of sorrow and purpose of amendment
with regard to some particular species of sin, or some vice, or some sins
opposed to a particular virtue, especially if the penitent keeps before
his mind those particular sins which have been committed with greater
malice and deliberation.[212]

3. With much more reason may it be considered sufficient to make acts of
sorrow and purpose of amendment for all perfectly deliberate venial sins
on account of their greater guilt; such a universal sorrow must, however,
include a fixed and efficacious resolution of amendment. With respect
to venial sins which are not quite deliberate, the resolution to take
more pains to avoid them is a sufficient purpose of amendment. In order
that such a universal resolve may be of avail, a particular species of
sin should be singled out and made the special object of contrition and
amendment.

4. Moreover, it is the general teaching of moralists that it is enough to
make acts of sorrow and amendment with regard to the frequency of venial
sin if the penitent really resolve to reduce the number; it is necessary
here, however, to guard against a very lax practice. Though such doctrine
is possible in theory and such a purpose of amendment may be defended
as sufficient for the Sacrament, yet it is not free from risk; hence
St. Alphonsus in his book _Praxis Confessarii_ distinctly states that a
resolution founded only on the great number of venial sins without any
sorrow for any particular venial sin is not sufficient for receiving the
Sacrament, while in his Moral Theology he grants that such a resolution
is permissible, and founds it on the doctrine of St. Thomas; for it is
impossible, he says, to be sorry on account of the number of the venial
sins without repenting at least of those that have been last incurred and
which have raised the number.[213]

The above doctrine may be useful to the priest in appeasing scruples
about past confessions, if the penitent is not in the habit of falling
into grave sin, and fears that he may have confessed without sufficient
sorrow and purpose of amendment. _Ante factum_, _i.e._ before confession
or, at least, before absolution is given, this doctrine should be
confined _in praxi_ to the sorrow and amendment of sins not quite
deliberate and incurred through carelessness; for the guilt of such sins
lies chiefly in the carelessness by which a man fails to watch himself
and his evil inclinations, so far as possible to repress and overcome
them.

It is impossible for a man to preserve himself entirely from all these
sins, hence it is enough to be resolved to use great vigilance in
reducing the number.

Moreover, it may be observed that a man who keeps his conscience so pure
that he has only indeliberate venial sins to confess will easily make a
sufficient act of sorrow for past sins; but if a man always falls into
the same sin, it is a fairly clear sign that he has no true contrition
and no firm purpose of amendment; hence it is a useful practice to make
more careful acts of sorrow and amendment with regard to some particular
sin, or to add some grave sin of the past life with respect to which real
sorrow and a firm purpose of amendment can be aroused.




CHAPTER III

CONFESSION


ARTICLE I

ESSENCE, NECESSITY, AND PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION


19. Essence and Necessity of Confession.

Though contrition is the most important of the dispositions which a
penitent must bring to the Sacrament, the confessing of the sins is
the most prominent feature to ordinary observers; hence the Sacrament
is often simply called confession, as in the very earliest ages of the
Church it was known simply as _confessio_ (in Greek _exomologesis_).

Sacramental confession is the self-accusation of sins committed after
Baptism and not yet remitted in the Sacrament, and it is made by the
penitent to a priest having the necessary faculties and with the object
of obtaining absolution.

Hence it is not a sacramental confession when the sins are told
_enarratione mere historica_; such a recital would not be an accusation,
nor would it be done with the view of acknowledging one’s self a sinner
or of obtaining absolution. Moreover, it is not a sacramental confession
if sins are revealed to a priest to obtain counsel or help from him,
or if they are told to the priest merely in derision, for there would
be no accusation in this, at least it would not be done with a view of
obtaining absolution. On the contrary, a confession invalid through any
defect whatever would be sacramental if it was made in order to obtain
absolution.

If, however, a man began by simply relating his sins to an authorized
priest without any idea of making a sacramental confession, and then in
order to obtain absolution accuses himself in general terms to the same
priest of those same sins, the confession would be sacramental, for then
a formal accusation would be made of those sins to the priest as judge,
in order that absolution might be given.

The necessity of this confession for all mortal sins committed after
Baptism is a dogma of the Church, and rests on the divine institution of
the Sacrament. The proof is to be sought in dogmatic treatises. In the
divine institution of this Sacrament, as a necessary means for obtaining
forgiveness of sin by confession to a priest, is included the divine
command of confessing sin, which binds all who have committed mortal sin
after Baptism. We have already spoken of this in treating of the duty of
approaching the Sacrament, since confession is one of the acts required
of the penitent on receiving this Sacrament.[214]

There remains yet another point which shows the necessity of confession.
Perfect contrition, as we have seen above, remits sin apart even from the
Sacrament, but it does not remove the obligation of mentioning the sins
so remitted to a duly authorized priest. The obligation remains, because
by Christ’s command every mortal sin committed after Baptism must be
submitted by confession to the power of the keys. This follows from the
words of Our Lord (John xx. 23); hence the Council of Trent teaches that
for those who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism confession is as
necessary as Baptism is to those who have not been baptized.[215]


20. The Properties of Confession.

The necessary properties of confession have their origin in its nature
and object. The primary object of the confession is to put the confessor,
who is bound to act in his office as a judge, not as a despot, in a
position to form a judicial sentence, so that he may be able to decide
whether the sinner be worthy or unworthy of absolution, and also that
he may be able to impose a suitable penance. To succeed in this the
confession must be such as to allow the confessor a view of the whole
moral state of the penitent, hence it must be complete. This property,
however, being of very great importance, will be treated in a separate
division. The other necessary feature, the contrition, has been already
dealt with. The remaining properties are of secondary importance and not
essential; they turn partly on the integrity and partly on the contrition
and have been summarized in the following verses:—

    Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis
    Atque frequens, nuda et discreta, libens, verecunda,
    Integra, secreta et lacrimabilis, accelerata,
    Fortis et accusans et sit parere parata.

Though these properties are not so essential that the want of any one of
them nullifies the confession, they are all useful in their several ways
to instruct a penitent how to make a good confession. For this reason we
will treat of them:—

1. _Simplex._ The confession should be simple, straightforward, short,
and clear; the penitent will therefore avoid all unnecessary, superfluous
words, all prolix narrations and remarks which have no connection with
the matter; at the same time he will avoid the use of all unintelligible
expressions or such as are misleading and ambiguous; let his accusation
be so worded that he may take it for granted that the priest will
understand both the number and species of the sins. Thus, too, he must
not accuse himself in a vague and general manner, as, “I have had bad
thoughts”; for the confessor cannot judge from this whether a mortal or
a venial sin, or indeed any sin at all, has been incurred; let him use
such words as describe clearly the sins he has committed, making use
of the proper and specific terms. Finally, he should avoid unnecessary
repetitions of sins which differ only in number, not recounting them
separately because they were committed at different times or on
different occasions; all the sins should be grouped under their specific
names and the number given. It is the duty of the priest, in the case of
penitents who fail in this respect, to instruct them, at the same time
taking into account the peculiarities of the penitent and showing great
patience. St. Antoninus gives a very useful piece of advice on this
subject. Penitents, says he, who need consolation in their trials or
advice in their doubts should defer their difficulties till after they
have confessed and received absolution; otherwise, if they dilate on
these subjects during the confession of their sins, there is danger of
their contrition being weakened.

2. _Humilis._ Let the confession be humble, for a man approaches the
tribunal as a penitent, as one guilty of crime, as one accusing himself
to his judge and seeking grace and mercy; of such a one humility and
lowliness are to be expected. Surely the knowledge of one’s sins and
sinfulness revealed by an honest examination of the conscience, the
remembrance of repeated unfaithfulness and ingratitude to God, are reason
enough for being humble. Let this humility fill the heart, pervade the
accusation, be manifested in the whole exterior; then let the penitent go
into the confessional, kneeling, with head uncovered, like the publican
in the Gospel, who remained by the door of the Temple and dared not to
raise his eyes to heaven, but struck his breast and prayed: “God, be
merciful to me a sinner.” The words used by some are very appropriate
as an introduction to the confession: “I, a poor sinner, confess and
acknowledge to God, and to you, reverend father, in God’s place, that I
have sinned often and grievously by thought, word, deed, and omission,”
etc. Others, again, use the words of the Confiteor: “I confess to
almighty God, to Blessed Mary, ever a virgin, ... that I have sinned
exceedingly in thought, word, and deed,” etc.

3. _Pura._ The confession should be made with the object of gaining
pardon of sin and the grace of the Sacrament. If it were made with any
wicked and gravely sinful intention, it would be a sacrilegious and
invalid confession; if the penitent had any venially sinful object in
view, _e.g._ to gain esteem, the confession would be valid though the
penitent would incur the guilt of venial sin by it. If the penitent’s
principal intention is to be reconciled to God, though at the same time
there be present other motives not altogether forbidden, the confession
is unimpaired; the same may easily happen in other good works, and
secondary motives do not exclude the principal one.

4. _Fidelis (seu verax)._ The confession should be truthful and candid,
without lies and deceit. Hence the penitent must not conceal the sins
he has committed, nor confess those which he has not committed; neither
may he confess as certain what is doubtful, nor what is doubtful as
certain. It is disputed whether every lie in confession is a mortal
sin and renders the confession null. There are indeed theologians who
maintain that every lie told in confession is a mortal sin, because of
the sin being committed in the very act of receiving a Sacrament. This
view, however, is wrong. It is true that any lie told in confession is
more sinful than the same lie told under other circumstances would be,
on account of the irreverence to the Sacrament; but mortal sin would be
incurred only by a lie in confession when the lie concerns the _materia
necessaria_ of confession; in such a case the confession is invalid, for
the judge is deceived about the case, and that is gravely wrong. If the
penitent lies to the confessor in a matter which does not pertain to the
Sacrament, there is no mortal sin, for such a lie does not mislead the
judge nor imply a grave irreverence to the Sacrament, since still there
is real matter for the Sacrament and a sufficient disposition to obtain
the grace of the Sacrament. Accordingly, if the lie told in confession
has nothing to do with the confession itself, it is mortal or venial on
its own merits quite apart from the circumstances of its being told in
confession.

From what has been said it follows that a penitent incurs venial sin by a
lie told in confession when (1) he accuses himself falsely of a venial
sin or denies having committed a venial sin; except where this venial
sin forms the sole matter of confession, for then he would sin mortally,
not on account of the lie, but on account of the grave irreverence done
to the Sacrament in offering to the priest insufficient matter, for sins
falsely stated can never be matter for absolution.

(2) Moreover, it is only a venial sin if the penitent denies having
committed a mortal sin which he is not bound _hic et nunc_ to disclose,
either because he has already revealed it in a valid confession or
because he has pressing reasons for not disclosing it _hic et nunc_.
Indeed it is possible that there is no sin at all when a penitent makes
use of mental reservation. The confessor has no right to put questions
which have no connection with the _materia necessaria_, and the penitent
is not bound to answer such questions; to avoid a lie he may use a mental
reservation by choosing an ambiguous expression which contains the truth,
leaving the confessor to judge for himself. If, on the contrary, the
priest has a right to inquire of the penitent whether he has committed
some grave sin which has been already confessed, and the penitent denies
the charge, he would sin mortally.[216]

(3) If the penitent is questioned by the priest as to his home, his
condition, or his relatives or friends, and answers not according to the
truth, knowing that these questions have no bearing on the nature of his
sins, such untruths are only venial; for if a lie told in confession
with respect to venial sins, although these may be matter of confession,
be only a venial sin, a lie with respect to other things which have no
connection with the accusation of the sins is still less likely to be
mortal.

On the other hand, a mortal sin is incurred (1) when a penitent accuses
himself of having committed a mortal sin which he has never committed,
or denies having fallen into a mortal sin which he has incurred and
which has never been validly confessed, and which besides he has no valid
reason for concealing, or if he conceals a mortal sin which he is bound
to mention.

(2) When he gives the number of his mortal sins as greater than is
really the case. Here, however, ignorant and untaught penitents may be
excused, because they honestly think it better to give a large number in
preference to a small one. Besides,—

(3) A penitent sins mortally who confesses mortal sin as doubtful which
he is certain of having committed, or confesses as certain mortal sins of
which he has doubts. In such cases the penitent would be unsettling the
judgment of the confessor in a very grave matter.

(4) Moreover, it would be a mortal sin if the penitent confesses a
recent mortal sin, either explicitly or equivalently, as an old one
already confessed, for the priest is thus prevented from giving a correct
sentence and imposing the proper penance. It is another case when the
accusation leaves it doubtful whether the sin is an old or recent one, or
whether it has been already confessed or not, even if the penitent intend
that the confessor be persuaded that the sin is an old one.

(5) Finally, the penitent incurs a mortal sin if he denies the existence
of a habit of sin, or of a relapse or the existence of an occasion of
sin, or if he avoids any avowal on the subject so as to mislead the
confessor. It would accordingly be a mortal sin for a penitent to accuse
himself of a recent mortal sin at the end of his confession by using
a formula of this kind: “I accuse myself of the sins of my past life,
in particular of this sin ...”; for this formula by universal consent
implies only past sins already confessed. On the other hand, it would
not be a mortal sin in a general confession to mingle old with recent
sins, as long as the confessor knows that not all the mortal sins have
been already confessed; if the priest is persuaded that he ought to
gain a clearer knowledge, he may ask; if he believe that he may let the
matter rest there, it is his affair (and perhaps in many cases this
may be the prudent course). Still less is it a mortal sin, indeed it
may be counselled or obligatory in certain cases, for a penitent to say
that such or such sin has not yet been confessed, making the accusation
in such a way that the confessor does not suspect that the sin has
been recent. Such an expedient may be necessary when a priest himself
confesses sins committed in hearing confessions, not wishing to violate
the seal of confession.[217]

In addition, the confessor must remember that the faithful in general are
persuaded that a lie in confession is a very grave sin, so that he must
judge of its gravity according to the conscience of the penitent.[218]

5. _Frequens._ Confession ought to be frequently made (see above, § 3).
This includes also the repeated confession of sins already confessed and
absolved (see above, § 6).

6. _Nuda._ The penitent ought not to hide his sins by ambiguous words
or expressions which veil the hatefulness of the sin, in order to make
them appear less in the eyes of the confessor. A penitent who thus veils
his sins cannot have real contrition; there still remains in his heart
that false shame which confuses the intellect, and his soul is not
yet released from sin. Such conduct is in reality no less sinful than
concealing the sin entirely, for what is the difference between total
silence and answering so obscurely that the questioner is left in doubt?
Just as a penitent makes a bad confession who conceals what he ought to
tell, so does he who answers his confessor in such obscure terms that the
latter does not understand or is led to take a view which the penitent
knows to be wrong.

The conditional accusation is no better, as when, for example, a penitent
says: “If I have given way to impure thoughts, I accuse myself of them,”
etc. Such a confession is not an accusation of sins, nor is it a sign of
absolute aversion from them.

7. _Discreta._ The confession should be prudent, _i.e._ so worded that
the reputations of others do not suffer; hence the sins of others ought
not to be revealed except in so far as is necessary for the declaration
of one’s own sins. Not a few penitents prefer to tell the sins of others
rather than their own: wives, for instance, tell the sins of their
husbands, servants the sins of their masters. Such penitents must be
seriously admonished by their confessor for the future not to reveal the
sins of others lest they incur the guilt of detraction and God’s anger in
the very tribunal of His mercy. The question as to the partner in sin,
whether and under what circumstances he is to be revealed in confession,
is relegated to a later portion of the treatise.

The penitent’s own good sense will tell him to be as discreet and
decorous as possible in confessing his sins, especially those against
purity, without detracting from the completeness of the confession,
without being gross, and at the same time without failing in the
reverence due to the Sacrament; hence he should tell only what is
necessary for the integrity of the confession, and that as cautiously
and becomingly as is possible, quite briefly, in clear and intelligible
language; the confession must be perfect and at the same time chaste.
The confessor also must exercise great discretion and prudence in this
dangerous matter.[219]

Finally, a prudent penitent will choose a suitable and virtuous confessor
who unites real piety and prudent zeal to solid knowledge and a wide
experience.

Not only is it advisable and wholesome to have a regular confessor,
but it is absolutely necessary. Of course as far as the absolution is
concerned it is always valid, provided that the priest who gives it
has the requisite faculties; but as for the spiritual direction of the
penitent, it is by no means an indifferent matter who the confessor is;
if ever there is an occasion in which there is need of a trusty, reliable
friend, guide, and adviser, it is in making a confession. On this point
St. Francis of Sales writes: “When Tobias was about to send his son to
Rages, and the latter explained that he did not know the way, ‘Go, then,’
said his father, ‘and seek a man who knows the way, that he may guide
you.’ This is my advice to you, Philothea; if you really desire to tread
the way of perfection, seek out above all things a man of experience to
guide you and show you the way: this is the most important lesson of
all.”[220] And after treating the subject in his usual way, he quotes
the remarkable words which the great St. Louis shortly before his death
addressed to his son: “Confess often, and choose for your confessor a
man of experience, who has not only wisdom and science, but also zeal
for souls, and learn from him what you ought to do.” The priest as
God’s vicar is not a judge only, he is a physician, and it is not hard
to understand how one physician can differ from another. For a soul
which is anxious to get rid of sin, to be established in virtue, and
to make progress in Christian perfection, as all Christians are bound
to do, there is required not only the application of the Sacrament,
but guidance as well. The direction of souls goes much farther than
a mere dispensing of the Sacrament. There are many things in which a
soul eager for salvation must be anxious for further instruction; the
methods of combating with success different evil inclinations, the
methods of prayer, the performance of certain good works, the way of
carrying out the duties of one’s state of life with more zeal and merit,
and the attainment of perfection. An approved confessor and director is
undoubtedly very useful, nay, necessary, and the penitent should pick
out such a one. In a choice of this kind he should have no other object
but his salvation and spiritual progress, and hence he should choose a
well-instructed, experienced, and holy man to lead him in the way of God
in the interior life, one who knows the penitent’s condition, one whose
heart is full of love, one who is as far removed from a feeble indulgence
as from a repelling strictness. Firmness and gentleness should be united
in him, a firmness which does not crush and a gentleness which will not
allow presumption; he should inspire confidence so that the penitent
has no difficulty in unfolding his heart to him. To seek an ignorant
and inexperienced confessor is, as theologians express it, to choose a
sure guide to hell; and, according to the teaching of Suarez, etc., it
is a mortal sin when done with the intention of obtaining absolution by
fraud.[221] But a good confessor is a “faithful friend, a strong defense;
and he that hath found him hath found a treasure; ... and they that fear
the Lord shall find him.”[222] St. Francis of Sales directs Philothea to
make choice of a confessor after constant prayer, and assures her that
God will grant her this most important of petitions and send her a man
after his own heart.

When the penitent has made choice of his confessor in accordance with
those rules of common sense which great spiritual writers enjoin, his
duty is then to love him as his spiritual father, to fear him as the
judge of his conscience, to follow him as his guide in the path of
virtue, to take his advice as his physician in the maladies, affections,
and sufferings of his soul. He should follow him, as though he were an
angel leading the way to heaven; give him his whole confidence; deal
with him in all openness and frankness; disclose to him all the good
and evil in his soul without dissembling or reserve, and at the same
time entertain a respect for him which does not weaken his confidence in
him.[223]

Having once chosen a good confessor, the penitent should cling to him and
not change about from one to another; nothing is more harmful or more
foolish than such conduct; unstable and wandering penitents of this kind
give sufficient proof that all they want is to be absolved and not to be
helped and guided, and there is reason to suspect that their purpose of
amendment is by no means sincere. Should a penitent, however, be in such
a condition that to confess to his regular confessor would be too great a
difficulty and involve risk of making sacrilegious confession, it would
be better to look out for some other priest and confess to him.

The penitent ought not at the same time be so dependent on his confessor
as to be quite bewildered when a change becomes necessary. Discouragement
or sadness on this account, or a less frequent use of the Sacraments
would be a sign that this dependence was due to some undesirable cause
and could not be any longer regarded as confidence in the director.

What is to be thought of those penitents who have two confessors, one to
whom they are well known and whose good opinion they enjoy, and another
to whom they are not well known, using the former to tell him their more
frequent and smaller sins, and the latter for the confession of graver
faults, in order that they may thereby keep up their good reputation with
the first? Such conduct is certainly not _per se_ forbidden when there is
good reason for it, as may happen when any one is unwilling or does not
dare to reveal to his ordinary confessor some very shameful fall.

Still the practice is not without danger and so cannot be unconditionally
recommended, for it is a sign that a penitent is more anxious about his
good name than his progress in the spiritual life; indeed he might incur
grievous sin if such conduct exposed him to the danger of falling into
mortal sin, as would be the case if in pursuing this course he never
intended seriously to give up his sin. Such is the predicament of those
penitents who seek out inexperienced or easy-going confessors, or of
those who habitually fall into mortal sins, confessing them only to a
priest who, they know, will take the matter very quietly, while they
reveal their less grievous sins to some pious and strict confessor. On
the other hand, the case above quoted presents quite another aspect when
a penitent has on rare occasions fallen into a grave and shameful sin and
shrinks from revealing it to his ordinary confessor.[224]

8. _Libens._ The confession ought to be voluntary; the penitent should
approach the sacred tribunal spontaneously, not prompted by prayers or
threats, nor prevailed upon by promises, nor driven by fear of temporal
losses; he should willingly acknowledge his sins to the priest as the
minister of Christ Our Lord appointed to forgive sin and distribute
His graces. A man might of course be influenced by those exterior
motives to receive the Sacrament; and if he made an earnest act of
contrition and carried out the other requisites, he would make a valid
confession. There is, however, as Laymann observes, a real danger for
a man who goes to the Sacrament under compulsion that he will make his
confession invalid through want of contrition or through a deficient
accusation of his sins. It frequently happens that such penitents,
giving way to external pressure, perform their Easter confession, doing
it only to keep up appearances; they make no act of contrition, they
are unwilling to tell all that lies on their conscience, they are ready
to make a bad confession and communion. A prudent confessor may detect
their insincerity and sometimes will prevail upon them to make a good
confession.

9. _Verecunda._ The penitent should make his confession with confusion
at the number and greatness of his sins, his ingratitude and infidelity
to God his Lord and Father; this confusion should fill his soul and
reveal itself even in the self-accusation and in the whole bearing of
the penitent. Between this real shame of every good penitent and the
false shame which arises from pride and self-love is a great gulf; the
latter, unless overcome, will cause the penitent to be dishonest in his
accusation and to make a sacrilegious confession. The confessor should
be very considerate of the weakness of such penitents and encourage
them, helping them to make a candid avowal if he suspects false shame,
and he should be careful not to frighten and shock them by hard words or
untimely threats.

10. The other property of the confession, its integrity, will, on account
of its great importance, be reserved for a thorough discussion in another
paragraph.

11. _Secreta._ The accusation should be in secret. It should be made
so as to be heard only by the priest and not by others. Christ did not
institute public confession; and if in the early Church those who had
committed grave public sin and given public scandal were compelled
after private confession to make a public avowal of their offenses,
this was only part of the then existing discipline. As a matter of fact
the practice was productive of as much harm as good, and so the Church
put an end to it.[225] Confession by an interpreter would, however, be
valid, as well as a confession which had been overheard by others. There
is no obligation to confess through an interpreter if one happens to be
in a country of which he does not know the language, supposing there
is no priest to whom one can make himself understood, for the Lateran
Council[226] prescribes _confessio secreta_ made to a priest only (_soli
sacerdoti facienda_), and to employ an interpreter for confession would
be very onerous.[227] Such an obligation would exist only if a dying
man had doubts as to the perfection of his contrition, for the wish to
save our souls obliges us to avoid all risk. Then, however, it would be
sufficient to name one or two sins and make a general accusation of the
rest.[228]

Moreover, a sufficiently perfect confession may be made even through an
interpreter without the latter acquiring any knowledge of the sins. The
confessor, for example, in the case of the sick, may arrange through
the interpreter a system of signs, such as pressure of the hand, motion
of the head or eyes, by which the invalid may answer the questions put
by the priest through the interpreter, who may be placed with his back
to the priest and penitent; by a method of this kind even the number of
sins may be ascertained. Of course in a case like this the confessor must
be careful not to betray the penitent’s replies by the nature of his
questions. If a male penitent express a wish to confess in this manner,
he may be allowed to do so.[229]

A confession made in writing is _per se_ valid; on the other hand, as we
have already seen, absolution conveyed _per literas_ is null. The custom,
however, of making the confession by word of mouth must be strictly
adhered to (hence many theologians add to the other properties of a good
confession that it should be _vocalis_), and unless there are pressing
reasons for the contrary practice the confession should not be made by
writing or by any other system of signs; a sufficiently good reason for
allowing it would be great shame in mentioning certain sins or a defect
in speech. In such cases the priest would read the writing and the
penitent make some acknowledgment by word of mouth, such as, “I accuse
myself of all contained in the paper.” If the whole confession without
any good reason were made by writing or by signs, it would be invalid,
for the penitent would have sinned gravely by such an action unless he
had acted _bona fide_.[230]

A dumb penitent who can write and has no other way of making his
confession is, according to the _sententia communis et probabilior_,
obliged to make his confession in writing, for this would not be
burdensome to him. The opponents of this view insist on the danger of
the confession being revealed and, in consequence, deny the obligation
of making the confession in writing. Such a risk, as experience shows,
is not usually to be feared and may easily be avoided. There are indeed
not a few penitents who to secure their own peace of mind always write
their confessions and read them off to the priest. If, however, in a
particular case there is danger of revelation or any other serious
inconvenience to the penitent in consequence of his writing, there is no
obligation. So teaches St. Thomas, and with him are Suarez, Lugo, Sporer,
Salmanticenses, etc.[231]

12. _Lacrimabilis._ The confession should be made with real sorrow. It is
not necessary that it be accompanied by tears or sighs and other external
signs of the kind, but it is required that there be a real sorrow and
horror of sin. The internal sorrow should become _sensibilis_ or evident
by the confession so as to form _materia sacramenti_. The sentiment of
contrition can always be roused by grace, while tears are not in our
power.

13. _Accelerata._ The confession should be prompt; there should be no
delay in making it after mortal sin has been committed. This is not of
precept, but it is a counsel which should be readily followed by any one
who realizes the horror of sin and its consequences.

14. _Fortis._ The confession should be made with great courage, all
hindrances to a candid avowal of one’s sins being put aside, especially
false shame and the fear of losing the good esteem of the priest. It is
the delight of the devil, not before, but after entrapping a soul into
sin, to work upon the feeling of shame so vehemently that the penitent
is tempted to conceal sins which are particularly shameful. In this case
the penitent must use all his courage, and by reflecting on God’s command
and the awful consequences of a bad confession get the victory over this
false shame. He must put into practice Tertullian’s maxim, _Pereat pudor,
ne pereat anima_.

15. _Accusans._ The confession should be an accusation and not a series
of excuses. Thus the penitent ought to impute the sins to himself and
not to other causes, temptations of the devil, the passions, natural
weakness, etc., nor to the companions by whose advice or orders he has
gone astray. There may be of course occasions where what is objectively
a mortal sin may become only venial or perhaps no sin at all, through
inculpable forgetfulness or absent-mindedness or inadvertence.

16. _Parere paratus._ The penitent should be disposed to obey the
priest’s advice and commands; hence he should be ready to adopt the means
suggested for his improvement, to follow out the advice given, to avoid
the occasions of sin which are pointed out to him, and to accept the
penance which is imposed on him.


ARTICLE II

THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONFESSION


21. Necessity of the Integrity of Confession.

The confession is complete when the penitent reveals all the sins
which he is bound to tell. A distinction is drawn between material and
formal integrity. A confession is materially complete when a penitent
discloses all the mortal sins committed since Baptism which have not yet
been submitted to the keys, together with their number and species. On
the other hand, the confession is formally complete when he confesses
all the mortal sins which he is morally able and bound to reveal _hic
et nunc_.[232] From this definition it is clear that where there is
material integrity there is also formal integrity; a confession, however,
which is formally complete need not on this account be materially so.

With respect to the obligation of the integrity of confession we may lay
down the following propositions:—

I. It is of divine precept to confess all mortal sins committed after
Baptism. 1. This follows from the words by which Christ instituted the
Sacrament; by them He gave the Sacrament a judicial character. So teaches
the Council of Trent.[233] From the institution of the Sacrament of
Penance “the universal Church has always recognized that the complete
confession of sins was also instituted by Our Lord, and is necessary
_jure divino_ for all who have sinned after Baptism. For Our Lord Jesus
Christ when about to ascend into heaven left the priests as His vicars
and judges, by whom all mortal sins into which the faithful had fallen
were to be judged, that in virtue of the power of the keys they might
pronounce sentence of forgiveness or retention.” The priest is therefore
a judge, and as judge should pronounce the absolution. But the sentence
of a judge is valid only when it turns on the facts of the case; hence
a knowledge of the latter is required on the part of the judge. In
consequence the confessor, in order to pronounce a valid sentence, must
know intimately the facts of the case, the state of the sinner. Now
the facts of the case are the mortal sins of the penitent; hence the
confessor must be made acquainted with these; and as he can only learn
them from the penitent himself, the latter is bound to make a complete
statement of them.

2. The essential object of this Sacrament is the forgiveness of sins that
have been confessed. But one mortal sin cannot be forgiven apart from the
rest, since forgiveness is the result of the influx of sanctifying grace,
which does not remove sin as stains might be rubbed from a metal surface,
but at once raises man from a state of sin to a state of grace, from
being an enemy of God to being His friend. Moreover, sanctifying grace
and mortal sin cannot exist together in the soul. From this it follows
that all sins must be told without exception, in order that they may all
be remitted.

3. Add to this the essential connection between the judicial power of
the priest in the Sacrament and his power of punishing sin or imposing
a penance for it; but since the penance must be proportioned to the
misdeeds, the priest cannot exercise his powers properly unless, at
least, the mortal sins have been fully confessed. If, as must happen
at times, it is inopportune or, in fact, quite impossible to assign a
penance bearing any proportion to the number and magnitude of the sins,
that is quite _per accidens_ and the decision of the question is the
affair of the judge, not of the penitent. That Christ gave His Church the
power of punishing sin is abundantly proved by the practice of so many
centuries during which definite penances were assigned to certain sins.
Since, therefore, the Church of divine right can mete out just punishment
for sin, the penitent is bound by divine precept to submit himself to the
Church by an entire confession of all mortal sins. From the fact that
the confessor must pronounce sentence and impose a suitable penance, the
Council of Trent concludes “that all mortal sins of which the penitent
is conscious after diligent search must be confessed, even though they
be quite secret sins and only against the last two commandments of the
decalogue.”

4. Finally, the Sacrament of Penance has of its very nature another end
in view, that of preventing relapse. Thus the confessor is at the same
time the physician of the soul, empowered and obliged to prescribe the
means of reform. This duty can be effectually carried out only when he
knows intimately the penitent’s state of soul, so that the latter is
obliged to submit to his healing art all the mortal wounds of the soul.

Hence the Council of Trent anathematizes all who teach “that for
remission of sins in the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary _jure
divino_ that all and every mortal sin be confessed of which a man is
conscious after faithful and diligent search.”[234]

II. The material integrity, however, is not always necessary for the
validity of confession and for obtaining its benefits. At times it
is morally and even physically impossible, either through inculpable
forgetfulness or for other reasons. Now God does not command
impossibilities. Hence the Council of Trent teaches: “The remaining sins
which escape the diligent inquiry of the penitent are considered as
included in the same accusation,” and so are forgiven, as though they had
been confessed. Hence it is abundantly clear that the material integrity
of the confession is not always necessary.

III. The formal integrity is, on the other hand, always necessary for
the validity of the Sacrament, and belongs to its essence. A penitent,
for instance, who out of shame conceals a mortal sin, transgresses
Christ’s command which obliges us to submit all mortal sins by a sincere
confession to the power of the keys, incurring at the same time a mortal
sin by his bad confession; such a confession cannot be valid nor have
any good effect. This is also taught by the Council of Trent[235] in the
following words: “While the faithful earnestly endeavor to confess all
the sins of which they are conscious, they present them to the Divine
Mercy that they may all be forgiven; those, however, who do otherwise and
knowingly conceal sins, present nothing to God’s goodness to be forgiven
through the priest. If the sick man is ashamed to show his wounds to the
physician, the latter cannot cure what is unknown to him.”[236]

To have a perfect understanding of the preceding, we must distinguish
between what is of the essence of the Sacrament and that which flows as
a consequence of the divine command. When anything is wanting to the
essence of the Sacrament, though the defect may be due to no fault on
the part of the person, the Sacrament is invalid; if, on the contrary,
there be wanting some requirement of divine precept, making the defect
culpable, the Sacrament is indirectly invalid because contrition is
wanting, since contrition cannot exist in any one who is in the very
act of sin; if, however, the defect be inculpable, the result of
forgetfulness or ignorance, the Sacrament is valid; the sins which were
omitted through no fault of the penitent are indirectly forgiven by the
infusion of sanctifying grace. There remains, however, the obligation of
making good the defect afterwards, as we shall see later.


22. Extent of the Integrity of Confession.

For a complete confession it is necessary to state clearly and precisely
not only all mortal sins, but their number and species and the
circumstances which change the species. This is the doctrine of the
Council of Trent when it enjoins the confession of each and every sin;
to do this a man must give the number of the mortal sins committed.
One who has missed Mass ten times and merely confesses, “I have missed
Mass,” has not confessed each and every sin, for an indeterminate number,
by the very fact of being undetermined, does not necessarily mean the
number ten; it may mean ten, but that possibility does not indicate
the number. With regard to the confession of the species and of the
circumstances changing the species, the Council teaches expressly that
the circumstances which change the kind (_species_) of sin ought to be
confessed. Since those circumstances are to be expressed which change the
kind of sin, nothing can be clearer than that, in accordance with the
decision of the Council, the sins are to be confessed according to their
species.[237]

The reasons which the Council[238] gives for insisting on the duty of
confessing the species of sin are that otherwise the sins would not
be perfectly revealed by the penitent or understood by the judge, and
that without a knowledge of the species of the sin the judge would be
unable to pronounce on the gravity of the sin and to inflict a suitable
punishment for it.

Thus the reasons which hold for the completeness of the confession
require also the species and number of the sins; without them the
confession has not the completeness which is demanded for it. The
confessor is a judge who must have the most accurate knowledge of
his penitent in order to pronounce sentence and inflict the necessary
penalty. Now he cannot know the state of his penitent unless he is
acquainted with the number and species of his sins, for it is the
species which determines the nature or essence of the sin. Besides,
the sins ought to be confessed according to their malice, but this can
be estimated only from the kind of sin and the number of times it has
been committed. Not all sins against the sixth commandment have the
same malice or belong to the same species, for to the special malice
of impurity may be added that of sacrilege or adultery if the sinner
be consecrated by vow to God or in the married state. And there is no
doubt that one who has committed a crime ten times is more deserving of
punishment than he who has fallen only once.

The penitent must confess the _species infima_, the ultimate species of
his sin, for this is what is ordinarily understood by the species, and
the Council of Trent insists upon this obligation. Hence it is not enough
to say, “I have sinned in thought, word, and deed,” or, “I have broken
the commandments of the Church”; the penitent must add the species, the
particular commandment broken, the observance of Sunday, fasting, yearly
confession, etc., and in addition the penitent must give the _species
infima_, whether he has missed Mass or broken his fast or abstinence. Nor
is the following accusation sufficient: “I have sinned against the sixth
commandment,” “I have been wanting in purity,” or the like; the species
must be given, defining whether the sin be incest or adultery, etc.,
or whether by thoughts, words, etc. So, too, when a penitent accuses
himself of sin against faith, it is not sufficient; he should state the
particular act by which he has sinned, whether by heresy, by unbelief, by
indifference, etc.

Supposing the penitent cannot remember the _species infima_ of a sin
which he has committed, he must state against what virtue he has sinned;
or if he cannot remember this, but has only a recollection of having
sinned mortally, he must confess this. This is the opinion of all
theologians (_communis et certa doctrina_).

To indicate fully the species of the sin, one must also tell whether
the sinful acts were external and whether the evil effects have been
retracted.

Since the sins themselves are the particular matter of the sacramental
tribunal, they must, as Lehmkuhl shows, be confessed _secundum specificam
distinctionem_, _i.e._ according to their specific differences. This is
not at all the same thing as the obligation of confessing the specific
malice (_specifica malitia_). Sins are human acts (_actus humanus_), and
so they may be classed _in specie actus_ as well as _in specie malitiæ_;
to desire to steal and to steal are acts having the same specific malice,
but they are not specifically the same act. Indeed no one would maintain
that one might confound the two sins in confession by merely confessing
the specific malice.[239] Hence the _actus externus_ which completes the
internal act[240] as a sin and on that account is _in se_ opposed to
right order and morality must be mentioned expressly in confession. The
_actus externus_ is either _commissio_ or _omissio_ (sin of commission
or omission). Thus, for example, the absence from Mass on a Sunday or
a holyday of obligation must be confessed, whether it happen through
indifference or love of study or idleness, because the absence from Mass
is what is objectively opposed to the law and what has been voluntarily
incurred. The wounding and killing of a man are external actions which
_in ratione peccati_ complete the sinful act of the will, and so it is
not enough to confess, “I had the desire to wound.” If he has inflicted
a wound, it is enough to say, “I have dealt a wound,” for he has
sufficiently indicated by that avowal the internal act. If, again, a man
wounded another intending to kill, it is not enough to say, “I intended
to kill,” but he must add, “and I wounded the man.”[241]

With regard to the obligation of confessing the effect[242] of a mortal
sin theologians are not of one mind, since it is not always clear whether
the evil effect flowing from a cause voluntarily chosen is _in sese_ a
sin or not. It is certain that the _malus effectus_ of a sinful action
must be confessed if such effect fall under a reservation, or under a
censure, or if the question of restitution is to be settled. However, it
is certain that if such effects were not at all foreseen, there is no
obligation to confess them. Thus a murder committed under the influence
of drink need not be confessed, supposing that such a consequence had
been altogether unforeseen.

As to the other cases, those theologians who deny that the _malus
effectus voluntarius in causa_ is a sin, because the effect is no longer
_in se_ voluntary or, being beyond the control of the will, is desired
only in its cause (_voluntarius in causa est_), maintain that such an
effect need not be confessed. Other theologians, as St. Thomas, Suarez,
Soto, Sanchez, etc., make a distinction, teaching that the _malus
effectus_ is no sin, when the evil will has been retracted by contrition
and repentance before the act has taken place whose effect cannot be
hindered; if, however, the evil will lasts, the effect is a sin. Hence a
priest who, to escape saying his office, would throw his breviary into
the sea, but repent of his act immediately after, is not obliged to
confess the omission of his office, since the omission was not a sin, but
only the evil effect of a sin already repented of. So, too, a man who
has given another poison and, before death takes place, confesses his
crime with sorrow is not obliged, after death has taken place, to accuse
himself again of murder. On the other hand, the evil effects which take
place when the will did not retract must be confessed, since they are
at least the completion of the external sin and share in the malice of
the cause. Mazzotta makes a distinction here which is very apt. He says:
if an effect follows from a sinful act, and though it may be prevented,
is not so prevented, the penitent must confess the effect because it
completes his neglect in so far as this is an external sin; if the
effect cannot be hindered, there is no obligation _per se loquendo_ to
confess the _malus effectus_, for it is neither a sin _in se_ nor does it
externally complete the sin.[243]

To the preceding we add two observations:—

1. Since the duty of making a complete confession rests on a command,
we are not obliged _per se_ to confess what is _probabiliter_ not
enjoined by the precept, for, in accordance with sound principles of
probabilism, a doubtful law has no binding force. To this we may add,
that a confession is valid in which the penitent omits nothing through
any grievous fault of his own, that is, knowingly or through culpable
ignorance and carelessness. Now the principles of probability furnish a
practically safe conscience with regard to the limits of a command; hence
in this case the confession is entire, at least formally entire, and that
is sufficient for the validity and grace of the Sacrament.

2. If the penitent, through forgetfulness or for some lawful reason,
without any blame attaching to him, omits to mention something which is
necessary for the integrity of the confession, he is bound to disclose
it on the next occasion; for, by the decision of the Council of Trent,
each and every mortal sin of which one is conscious must be mentioned,
that it may be directly remitted; hence if sins occur to the mind which
have not yet been confessed, they must be submitted to the power of the
keys. Thus Alexander VII condemned the proposition: Sins which have been
forgotten or omitted in confession on account of instant danger to life
or for any other reason, need not be mentioned in the next confession
(cf. Prop. 11 damn.).


23. The Number of Sins in Confession.

The declaration of the number of sins is another feature completing the
Sacrament. The penitent must give the number of his mortal sins so far as
he can; if he knows exactly how often he has fallen into a mortal sin, he
must state that number of times, neither increasing nor diminishing; if,
despite careful examination and reflection he cannot arrive at the real
number, he must give it as near as possible, adding the words “about”
or “at least”; in so doing he fulfills his obligation, for he has done
what he could, which is sufficient to enable a judgment to be pronounced
_humano modo_. Should the penitent, after having thus confessed in all
good faith, discover later on a more accurate number than that confessed,
he is not obliged to make another confession to supply this number; nor
should he disquiet himself, for the round numbers given in the first
confession included everything; it is only when the newly discovered
number is considerably greater than the vague estimate of his first
confession that he is obliged to confess again, because the number, and,
in consequence, the sin, was not perfectly confessed, since a far greater
number cannot be considered as included in his former round estimate.[244]

The question naturally arises what the confessor is to understand by a
numeral qualified by “about” or “at least.” As a general rule the greater
the number expressed, the greater is the number that may be understood
as implied; for instance, “about three times” would mean from two to
four times; “about five times,” from four to six times; “about ten
times,” from eight to twelve times; “about one hundred times,” at most
from ninety to one hundred and ten times. It is clear from this general
appreciation of theologians that the numbers implied by the term “about”
increase in proportion to the actual number mentioned. If the penitent
discovers that he has mentioned a number considerably less than the
truth, he must remedy the defect; if he has erred by giving too large
a number, he need not correct the mistake, because the larger number
includes the less. Moreover, it is advisable, instead of using high
numbers, to state how often the sin has been committed in the course of
a week or a month, etc., especially with regard to frequent or interior
sins. Indeed with habitual sinners it suffices to state how long they
have indulged the evil habit, and that they have given willful consent
more or less daily whenever occasion offered; this is enough, when the
actual number of sins is so doubtful that there would always be a grave
risk of a mistake in trying to determine it. “The confessor, when he
knows the period over which the accusation extends, may easily and safely
form his opinion in the case of a penitent whose will is habitually
inclined to sin, that the penitent has sinned as often as there were
necessary interruptions to his sin.”[245] This method in determining
the number of sins is as well founded as the other, for in this case,
too, all is done that is morally possible. Hence the confessor should
never force his penitent to give a determinate number, for this is in
most cases impossible. On the other hand, the confessor should help the
penitent to state the number in the way we have indicated.[246]

Hence a prostitute makes a sufficient statement in confessing how often
she has been accustomed to sin each day or week, at the same time telling
the species, or at least the more general species, of the sins so far
as possible; she would make a perfect confession by an accusation such
as follows: “I have spent so many years in this state of sin, and as
occasion offered I sinned with all who came, married and unmarried, and
also with those who were bound by vow.” Penitents must always give at
least the more general specific characters of their sins, and the number
of times per day or week they have sinned.[247]

A similar difficulty is presented in the case of those who have a
deeply rooted habit of sin—those, for example, who constantly entertain
impure desires with regard to women whom they chance to meet; it is
very difficult in such a case to give any number. Such people make a
perfect confession by stating that they are given to this habit, adding
whether they indulge frequently in the day or week; besides this they
should mention at least the more general specific characters, whether
they indulge these desires with regard to married people or relations or
persons consecrated to God.[248]

The same difficulty arises with regard to uneducated and ignorant people
who have to accuse themselves of impure conversations carried on at their
work during the whole day, on all sorts of subjects and before all kinds
of companions. They, too, may confess the number and species of their
sins as we have indicated above.[249]

Lugo and Sporer would also admit the confession as valid and give
absolution to a thief who accuses himself as follows: “Since I was ten
years old I have been so addicted to stealing that whenever a chance was
offered—and that happened very frequently—I stole what I could; besides I
have stolen sacred objects of considerable value on five occasions or, if
I mistake not, six.”[250]

Though the accusation of the species in confession usually offers more
difficulty than that of the number, yet Lugo advises the more learned
confessors in particular to refrain from being too exacting in demanding
the classification from their penitents. As the less-trained confessor
may fail in this respect by defect, the more learned confessor is exposed
to the danger of excess. The penitent must give the species of the sin,
and the confessor is bound to inquire with due regard to the penitent’s
ability and the knowledge which he had at the time of sinning; for a man
cannot do evil of which he is ignorant; moreover, it is sufficient to
have a general consciousness of grave malice.


24. The Confession of the Circumstances of Sins.

The circumstances under which sins are committed (_conditiones quæ
actus substantiam circumstant atque in ejus moralitatem influunt_) are
of different kinds: 1. Some change the species of the sin (_speciem
mutantes_); for example, the circumstance of a vow or of marriage adds
to the sin of impurity that of sacrilege or that of adultery. 2. Other
circumstances are aggravating (_aggravantes_) in greater or less degree
and _gradum moralitatis mutantes_ or _moralitatem augentes_—such, for
instance, as increase the malice within the limits of the same species;
they are the duration of the act, its intensity, its degree, the manner
of carrying it out, the particular occasion, etc. 3. Other circumstances
are mitigating (_minuentes_, _moralitatem minuentes_), because they
palliate the malice of the act; as, for example, want of advertence, etc.

The circumstances must be confessed:—

I. If they change the species of the sin. This is the express teaching
of the Council of Trent. Hence it is not enough to confess to stealing
if the property of the Church has been taken; for the stealing of a _res
sacra_ is not merely a sin of injustice but a theft from God and so a new
sin. If a child curses its parents, it is not enough to mention that it
cursed, for, since special reverence is due to parents, the violation of
that special reverence is a new sin.

The following circumstances call for particular mention:—

1. The circumstance of the person _who commits the sin_, when with regard
to the matter of the sin he is consecrated to God or bound by vow, as in
sins against purity, or when he sins against the chastity of the married
state, or when he stands in special spiritual relations towards those
with whom he sins.

If a man is consecrated to God by Holy Orders or the religious state and
has to confess a sin against purity, he must mention the circumstance of
his state of life, since he has committed a double sin, one of impurity
and another of sacrilege. Now those who are consecrated to God by Holy
Orders or the religious state incur the special sin of sacrilege when
they fall into impurity; the mere circumstance of the vow being simple
or solemn does not constitute a new species, nor the fact of being
bound to chastity by vows of religion as well as by Orders; these added
details need not be confessed. Many moralists teach also that those incur
sacrilege who are bound by a private vow of chastity, and St. Alphonsus
admits this opinion as probable. Hence all those who have sinned against
purity make a full confession when they confess the circumstance of the
vow by which they are bound, without distinguishing whether the vow
be private, solemn, simple, or that of Orders (_votum solemne ordinis
sacri_).

This is the doctrine of Lugo[251] and Lacroix;[252] Sanchez,[253] too,
defends this view on the ground that the solemn vow is in substance or
_in se_ not distinct from the simple vow. His authority seems to have won
over many theologians to the same opinion. Gury also holds this view; but
the Ratisbon[254] and Roman[255] editions of his valuable manual reject
it in the notes. Lehmkuhl,[256] moreover, opposes it and teaches that to
incur a personal sacrilege (and this is the question under discussion)
the person sinning (or with whom the sin has been committed) must be
consecrated to God _publica auctoritate_, _i.e._ by Holy Orders or by
vows of religion. Hence by the violation of a private vow of chastity
a sacrilege in its strict and proper sense is not incurred, though a
sin is committed against religion by the breach of fidelity to God.
Sacrilege is incurred by the abuse of a sacred object. Now that cannot
be called a sacred object which is privately consecrated to God without
any recognition on the part of the properly constituted authorities. A
private vow cannot produce this effect, for the common teaching of all
theologians, a few excepted, maintains that the breach of such a vow is a
violation of fidelity, not of the reverence due to God, at least not in
such a degree as to constitute a sacrilege strictly so called.[257] Thus
the more correct view is that of those who hold that, in confessing sins
against purity, the circumstance of Holy Orders and of the religious vow
is to be given; for whoever confesses as doubtful a circumstance which
certainly changes the species of the sin does not fulfill the precept of
confession. Such may be the case, for instance, where a priest conceals
the circumstance of Holy Orders and mentions only the violation of the
vow of chastity; for the violation of this vow is certainly a sacrilege
for those in whom it has been solemnized by the reception of “Holy
Orders,” while that of the simple vow is only doubtfully so.[258]

Parish priests by scandalizing their flock, parents their children,
teachers the scholars under their instruction, incur a special sin
against charity. Such persons have in virtue of their office the
strictest obligation to edify those intrusted to them and to keep them
away from harm. The case of a confessor who gives scandal to a person who
happens to be his penitent is different; but he is obliged to mention the
circumstance of this relationship when he has given scandal in connection
with the administration of the Sacrament; his office as confessor only
imposes on him the strict duty of guiding the penitent safely in the
Sacrament of Penance, and is only transitory, ending _per se_ with each
confession, while that of the parish priest and of the others mentioned
above demands a constant spiritual care of those intrusted to them. Other
offices involving authority do not change the species of the scandal
given to subjects, though they may increase its malice, if, for example,
a master leads his servant into sin. The dignity of a person does not of
itself change the species of the sin of scandal given to his subjects,
though it increases the gravity of a sin. If, however, a master has
taken upon himself the duties of a parent, for instance, towards his
servant-girl, he most certainly incurs a new and distinct sin by scandal
given to her, and must mention his special relation to the girl.

2. The circumstance of the person _with whom the sin has been committed_,
if God’s honor has suffered in any way, or if the rights of a third
person or the particular respect or love which is due to the said person
have been violated.

If the person with whom sin has been committed or who has been led
into sin is consecrated to God or bound by a vow referring to the
matter of the sin, a new and special sin is incurred against the
virtue of religion (_i.e._ a sin either of sacrilege or at least of
a violation of the vow). If any one commit a sin of impurity with a
relation, it is no longer merely a sin against purity, it is incest. It
is a probable opinion that the penitent is not obliged to mention the
exact degree of relationship whether by blood or marriage, since that
does not change the species _ratione incestus_, except in the first
degree either of blood-relationship or marriage connection; thus sin
committed between father and daughter, mother and son, father-in-law and
daughter-in-law, mother-in-law and son-in-law, must be mentioned along
with the relationship; yet there is no doubt that _ratione superioritatis
vel pietatis_ sin incurred by a father with his own daughter or his
daughter-in-law, bears a different character from the sin of a son with
his mother or mother-in-law.

The sin of hatred acquires a new species of sinfulness when the hatred is
directed against those more closely connected, _e.g._ parents, children,
grandparents, grandchildren, and against those connected by marriage
in the first degree of the direct line, such as wife, godparents, and
brothers. Hatred of those most nearly related may much more easily become
a grievous sin than hatred of other people.[259]

3. The circumstance of _place_, if a sacrilege is thereby committed;
thus (_a_) if a sacred object or something belonging to the property
of the Church is stolen and taken out from a sacred building, a double
sacrilege, real and local, is committed. The circumstance of the local
sacrilege, that is, the fact that sin has been committed in the Church is
not of itself gravely sinful; hence when a profane object which is merely
accidentally in the Church is stolen, a sacrilege, though not a gravely
sinful one, is added to the sin of theft.[260] (_b_) If the immunity of
a church is violated; (_c_) if anything is done in a church by which it
is polluted in the sense of the canon law; (_d_) if profane occupations
gravely at variance with the holiness of the place are carried on in the
church, whether those occupations be in themselves sinful or not.

4. The circumstance of _time_; if, for instance, the time at which
the sin took place was the reason why the action in question has been
forbidden, and if by the action done at some particular time a special
offence is given to God. This circumstance might involve grave sin
(_a_) if Good Friday were chosen for the performance of an obscene
play; (_b_) if during the forbidden time a marriage were celebrated
with great pomp; (_c_) if during the celebration of Mass or immediately
after holy communion, before the sacred species had time to be altered,
the communicant were to commit some outrage greatly dishonoring to the
Blessed Sacrament. These are circumstances which moralists generally
enumerate as constituting a new species of sinfulness. On the other
hand, a sin committed on a Sunday or feast-day or on a communion-day
is not _per se_ invested with the particular malice of a sacrilege;
nevertheless the fact that a man relapses into his old sins on a
confession or communion day gives ground for the suspicion that his last
confession was devoid of real contrition and in consequence invalid and
sacrilegious.[261]

5. Finally, the circumstance of _the end_ in view is to be confessed if
it is _in se_ mortally sinful; for instance, a man who steals with the
object of getting drunk is guilty of drunkenness as well as theft, and on
that account must confess the purpose for which he stole.[262]

Now there are many penitents who cannot judge of the circumstances
which change the nature of the sin; such must be taught to mention in
confession whatever increases or diminishes the malice of the sin; the
rest will be supplied by the confessor, for he has the duty of asking the
penitent not only about the circumstances which affect the species of
sin, but everything which he considers necessary to aid him in forming
a correct judgment on the spiritual state of the penitent. This right
implies a duty on the part of the penitent to answer the questions
put to him; these questions turn for the most part on habits of sin,
relapses, and proximate occasions of sinning. Hence Innocent XI condemned
the proposition[263] which denies the obligation of answering when the
confessor makes inquiries about habits of sin. The knowledge of a habit
of sin, or of relapses, or of proximate occasions is very important in
settling whether absolution should be given or deferred;[264] besides
it is of supreme importance to the confessor in his office as physician
that he be in a position to suggest the necessary and proper means for
amendment. The penitent must, therefore, if asked, mention former sins
though already confessed. No one need take offense because he is thus
obliged _per accidens_ to repeat sins which have already been duly
forgiven; the purpose is not to pronounce a new sentence upon them, but
to enable the priest to form a correct judgment with regard to the sins
just confessed by noting their relation to former sins, and thus to
prescribe suitable means of correction and provide as much as possible
against relapses.[265]

II. Those circumstances are also to be mentioned by which sins of their
own nature venial become mortal (_C. aggravantes_). Intemperance is not
always a mortal sin, but it becomes so when it deprives a man of the use
of reason; to steal a cheap tool might of itself be only a venial sin,
but if the loss of it deprives a poor artisan of the means of doing a
day’s work, it becomes mortal. In the same way one ought to mention the
mitigating circumstances which make a mortal sin only venial or even no
sin at all.

Moralists give seven cases in which circumstances may change a venial
into a mortal sin:—

1. _Ratione conscientiæ erroneæ_, when a man through ignorance thinks a
venial sin to be mortal. 2. _Ratione scandali vel gravis damni_, when
grave scandal is given to one’s neighbor, doing spiritual or temporal
harm; as, for instance, if a priest were to speak lightly of sacred
things—thus St. Bernard[266] says: _Nugæ inter sæculares nugæ, in ore
sacerdotis blasphemiæ sunt_; or, again, if a priest behaved lightly with
a woman or were seen the worse for drink; or if one were to address a
person rather insultingly, foreseeing that he would break out into a
great rage and blasphemy; or if a woman dress vainly and foresee that
some young man at the sight of her will sin mortally by impious desires.
3. _Ratione pravi finis graviter mali_, when, for example, a small lie is
told to lead a girl into sin. The evil intention may not only increase
the guilt of a sinful action, but it will make an otherwise innocent
action sinful. 4. _Ratione formalis contemptus legis vel superioris_,
when a venial sin is committed out of formal contempt for the law or
lawgiver, or superior, as when a Catholic on an abstinence day, and
quite aware of the duty of abstaining, eats ostentatiously a little
flesh-meat to show the slight regard in which he holds the law.[267]
5. _Ratione pravi affectus in rem alioqui leviter malam_, when a man
is so attached to a venial sin that he would commit it even if it were
mortal, or in consequence of this attachment would be ready to commit
other mortal sins,[268] as, for instance, if a man chose rather to steal
than to overcome his vanity or intemperance. 6. _Ratione periculi seu
occasionis proximæ in peccatum mortale labendi_, when the venial sin is
known, or can be known, as a proximate occasion of mortal sin; a man, for
example, looks at a person of the other sex or entertains rather familiar
relations with her though he knows that such conduct in his case is a
proximate occasion of gravely sinful desires or actions. Even actions
otherwise neutral or indifferent may for this reason become gravely
sinful. 7. _Ratione cujuscunque circumstantiæ quæ mortalem in se malitiam
contineat_; thus insults, proceeding from envy and desire of revenge, may
be mortal sins.[269] Hence these circumstances must be confessed.

The following circumstances may make sins venial which are of their own
nature mortal: 1. Smallness of matter; 2. Want of full advertence; 3.
Want of consent; 4. A false conscience.[270]

These circumstances must be told in confession not in order to secure its
integrity, but that the confessor may be able to form a correct judgment.

III. Circumstances which make but little difference in the gravity of the
sin need not be confessed.

IV. Circumstances which aggravate a mortal sin within its own species to
a notable degree (_circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes intra eamdem
speciem_) need not _per se loquendo_ be confessed; this is the common and
most approved teaching of theologians; other reasons may exist which make
it expedient to mention these circumstances.

At the same time theologians are not unanimous on this subject. Three
opinions are current, and each one of them has its own probability
and its champions of no mean repute. We may as well observe that the
probability of the negative proposition (that there is no obligation) is
conceded even by its opponents; hence all grant (_ex omnium sententia_)
as probable that no one is bound to confess these circumstances, so that
a penitent cannot be forced to disclose them unless some exceptional case
should call for their mention.[271]

Those who maintain the affirmative proposition (_i.e._ the duty of
confessing the _circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_) fall back on
the reasons to which the Council of Trent appeals for the necessity of
confessing _circumstantias speciem mutantes_, viz. in order that the
confessor may make a correct judgment, impose a suitable penance, and
suggest the proper means of help; for, they add, the _circumstantiæ
notabiliter aggravantes_ exercise a great influence on the view of the
case taken by the confessor, and on that account ought to be confessed.
The fact of the Council defining that only the _circumstantiæ speciem
mutantes_ need be disclosed might be easily explained by supposing
that the Council defined only what was certain, and left theological
views where they were, neither approving nor condemning them. The last
conclusion, however, is not justified, for the Council prescribes that
_circumstantiæ speciem mutantes_ should be confessed without determining
any precept for the _aggravantes_, and if equally cogent reason had
existed for confessing both classes of circumstances, there could have
been no reason for restricting the doctrine to those which change the
species; for, says Lugo,[272] it ought to have made the decree to embrace
both classes without imposing any limiting clause.

Further demonstration is taken from the Rituale Romanum, which directs:
“If a penitent has not confessed the number, species, and circumstances
which ought to be given, the confessor must ask him.” By the word species
should be understood the _circumstantiæ speciem mutantes_, and by the
rest the _circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_. This distinction,
however, is unfounded, for by species is meant _species ex parte
objecti_, such as stealing, impurity, etc., and under _circumstantiæ
necessariæ_ the _circumstantiæ speciem mutantes_ or the _species ex parte
circumstantiarum_, as when theft becomes a sacrilege, etc.[273]

Appeal is made also to the Catechismus Romanus, which directs that those
circumstances should be confessed “which greatly increase or diminish
the malice.”[274] It may be objected to this, however, that the context
makes it clear that there is no necessity to interpret the passage as
referring to circumstances which merely increase the degree, not the
kind, of the guilt; for the Catechism continues thus: Many circumstances
are so serious that in them alone lies the whole gravity of the sin, so
that they ought to be confessed; but the only circumstances which can
make a sin grave are those that change the moral or theological species.
This is confirmed by the fact that the Ritual prescribes also that
circumstances very notably diminishing the gravity of the sin should be
revealed; for even the opponents grant that this has force only when the
mitigating circumstances change the species.[275] Moreover, the Catechism
illustrates its doctrine by declaring the necessity of mentioning the
circumstance of “a person consecrated to God” in a case of murder,
and the circumstance of “marriage” in the case of impurity; and these
belong to the circumstances which change the moral species. Finally,
if the Catechism adduces the example of a theft, it is no proof that
the question is not of circumstances which change the species, and when
it declares that one who has stolen one gold piece is less guilty than
another who has stolen a hundred pieces this may easily be understood of
a circumstance which (with regard to the absolute quantity) constitutes
a venial guilt and so introduces a distinct theological species.[276]

This view is held, among others, by Suarez, Sanchez, Gonet, Lacroix.

Other theologians teach that there is no necessity of confessing
_circumstantias notabiliter aggravantes_, but they make an exception
with regard to the circumstance of quantity in cases of theft. St.
Alphonsus, along with other theologians, however, is of opinion that
this exception ought not to be granted if the quantity is described as
being large; for from that the confessor can _per se_ make a sufficiently
accurate judgment. Ballerini remarks very justly that the exception
should be worded thus: Except when some additional reason exists, _e.g._
a reservation directed against a certain kind of incest or against the
theft of some given amount.

The third opinion denies absolutely the necessity of confessing
_circumstantias notabiliter aggravantes_, and this is the more common and
probable view, for which there are many and weighty reasons.

(_a_) The Council of Trent by positively limiting its decision to those
circumstances which change the species seems to exclude positively the
obligation of confessing others. It teaches that circumstances must be
mentioned because without them the sins would not be properly confessed
by the penitents nor properly understood by the judge, so that he would
be incapable of estimating correctly the gravity of the sins and of
imposing a becoming penance. From these words of the Council it is fair
to conclude that the penitent has done all that is necessary when he
confesses those circumstances.

(_b_) Moreover, we are bound only to declare mortal sin; now the
_circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_ within the same species evidently
add no new species of a mortal sin, hence they need not be confessed.
To confess them is an act of perfection, good, of course, and wholesome,
just as is the practice of confessing venial sins.

(_c_) Moreover, many consequences of no small importance follow from
the opposite doctrine. While the present opinion is calculated to set
at rest the minds of both penitent and confessor, the other has quite
the opposite tendency, for who could even approximately gauge how far
circumstances have a notable effect upon the sin? Imagine the difficult
and often fruitless inquiries a confessor would have to make with
many of his penitents in order to come to a satisfactory decision.
It follows, besides, from the opposite view that the _circumstantiæ
notabiliter minuentes_ would have to be confessed or else the confessor
would consider some sin more serious than it actually was, and even our
opponents grant that this is not necessary.

(_d_) Finally, the Church could not in the General Council deduce this
obligation from the words of Christ, otherwise she would not have
given that definite limit to the obligation; the law of confessing
_circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_ is, therefore, at least doubtful,
and a doubtful law has no binding force. Hence this opinion may be
adopted _in praxi_ with a safe conscience even though its opposite be
probable, and whoever follows it does not expose the Sacrament to any
danger of nullity, for to secure validity a formally entire confession is
sufficient, and of that there is no doubt.

This view is taught by St. Thomas (in 4 Sentent. d. 16, Q. 3, art. 2
et Opusc. 7, Q. 6), St. Antoninus, St. Bonaventura, St. Bernardine,
Lugo, Vasquez, Bonacina, Salmanticenses, and the greater number of
the older theologians. Among the more recent it is quite the common
doctrine; compare Gury and the different editors of his text-book, among
whom Ballerini is strongly in favor of this opinion, Müller, Lehmkuhl,
Aertnys, Mark, Konings, Simar, Kenrick, Gousset, Pruner, Ninzatti, etc.

It is, however, advisable to mention these circumstances, and it is
necessary:—

(_a_) When they affect the jurisdiction of the confessor, as in the case
of a censure or reservation. If one has struck a cleric, for instance,
it should be mentioned whether the assault was notorious or not; in
the former case it would be reserved to the Pope, in the latter to the
bishop; also if the person struck were a cardinal, a bishop, apostolic
nuncio, or other cleric, since the excommunication is reserved in a
special manner to the Pope.

(_b_) When they affect the character, in law or justice, of important
acts, as espousals, various contracts, restitution, etc., in order that
the penitent may receive proper instruction; this is most important in
cases of theft.

(_c_) When, finally, the confessor without a knowledge of these
circumstances is unable to direct his penitent as required for his
salvation.

Since these circumstances must be confessed, not because they are
_circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_, but on the grounds alleged, the
confessor has a right to question about them and the penitent is obliged
to answer as we have already observed.

Moreover, the faithful usually add these circumstances in confession
because it gives greater peace of heart and more abundant fruit; besides,
a better and safer guidance is thus secured and an opportunity of
practicing humility.

As to the utility and advisability of confessing circumstances all
theologians agree in making an exception with regard to sins against the
sixth commandment; for beyond what is necessary to determine the species
of the sin the confessor ought not to ask the penitent any further
question nor allow him to make any further statement. Even with regard to
the species theologians all teach with one accord that in so dangerous a
matter where scandal may so easily be given one may at times refrain from
inquiring into the species.[277]

Cedreno gives useful advice for the confession of the circumstances
attending sin: “If the person with whom you have sinned, the place where
the sin was committed, or the manner of its accomplishment, or any other
detail, gives you special remorse, then mention that point, for it will
then be the confessor’s duty to decide from these indications how far
they affect the species of the sin or only increase its gravity.”


25. The Confession of Doubtful Sins.

There are three points of view from which a sin may be regarded as
doubtful:—

1. With regard to the existence of the sinful action, as when a man
doubts whether he really committed the action.

2. With regard to the quality of the sin, as when a man knows he has
sinned, but doubts whether it is a mortal or a venial sin.

3. With regard to the confession of a sin, as when a man knows he sinned
grievously but doubts whether he ever confessed his sin.

The doubt may be positive or negative. A negative doubt exists when no
solid reason can be given either _pro_ or _con_, but only insignificant
arguments for both sides, so that no decision can be arrived at. A
positive doubt exists where two contradictory propositions have each
solid reasons in their support.

Armed with these premises we are now in a position to set forth the
doctrine with regard to the confession of doubtful sins.

I. A sin need not be confessed when there is no positive reason to
suspect its existence or gravity, or when there is positive ground
against believing its existence or gravity, even where there is a solid
reason on the other side. In other words, a sin negatively doubtful from
both points of view, or positively doubtful from both points of view, or
negatively doubtful on the side affirming guilt is not necessary matter
of confession; but a sin positively doubtful on the side affirming guilt
and only negatively doubtful on the side denying guilt, must be confessed.

With the exception of a few rigorists, theologians are unanimous in
teaching that a sin positively doubtful from both sides need not be
confessed; for if there is a _dubium facti_ which establishes the
obligation of a law, liberty is in possession, _i.e._ there is no
obligation. But in our case the fact of the sin is doubtful, thus we
are not obliged to confess it. Moreover, when the existence of a law is
doubtful we are not bound by it; but the law of confessing doubtful sins
is uncertain; hence we are not bound by it.

If, however, a man in danger of death doubted whether he had committed
a grievous sin, knowing that he had never been to confession since
that doubtful act, he would be obliged, in order to avoid the risk of
damnation, not indeed to confess that sin, but either to receive the
Sacrament of Penance, in which he confesses other sins, that thus he
might receive at least indirect absolution if his doubtful sins were
really mortal, or he should at least make an act of perfect contrition.
In such a case the act of perfect contrition _sine voto confitendi_ would
be sufficient, since no obligation binds him to confess the _peccata
dubia_.[278] So much for sins which are positively doubtful on both sides.

If, however, a very strong argument affirms our guilt with only very
slight reason to deny it, we are obliged, according to the unanimous
teaching of theologians, to confess those doubtful sins, for in such a
case the conviction of our innocence does not rest on solid grounds. Of
course our guilt is not conclusively proved; but in these things where
evidence is often wanting we must be led by principles of sound moral
certainty, even when they are unfavorable to us, since confession is
not only a burden, but a Sacrament, and as such a means for greater
sanctification.[279] In this case one cannot argue that _in dubio
facti_ (and this undoubtedly exists) the opposing arguments cancel one
another, as might two opposing witnesses; for this only takes place when
the two arguments are of the same kind and quite similar, as in the case
of two opposing eye-witnesses, when it is certain that one of the two
is mistaken and neither can be believed since it is not known where the
mistake lies. It is quite different, however, when the opposing reasons
are of distinct classes and unlike, as in the case of two witnesses
who do not recount what they themselves have seen, but bear witness to
various conjectures _pro_ and _con_; then they both deserve reasonable
attention, since the conjectures on either side rest on different motives.

If a penitent doubts positively whether he has sinned in some action, and
it is probable that advertence or consent, etc., was wanting, or that
full deliberation or consent was absent, he is not obliged to accuse
himself of this action in confession.

On the other hand, theologians are not so clear as to the obligation of
confessing sins which are doubtful _dubio negativo pro utraque parte_.
The older theologians, among whom St. Thomas and other eminent doctors
are to be found (Sanchez enumerates forty), insist on the duty of
confessing this class of doubtful sins. This opinion is founded on the
decree of the Council of Trent declaring that all grave sins _quorum
conscientiam habent_ (_sc._ _pœnitentes_) must be confessed; thus the
penitent must confess the sins as they are in themselves, those which are
certain as certain and those which are doubtful as doubtful. This is the
general and constant practice of the faithful, and by that fact we may
consider it as proceeding from Christ’s institution.[280]

Other theologians, of no small weight both by their number and authority,
do not impose the obligation of confessing these doubtful sins. St.
Alphonsus also defended this view in a very convincing manner on
internal grounds. The Council of Trent binds penitents only to reveal
those sins _quorum conscientiam habent_; it says nothing about _uti
sunt in conscientia_, or telling undoubted sins as certain and doubtful
as doubtful, but only _quorum conscientiam habent_, which means those
of which they have certain knowledge; for, according to St. Bernard,
_conscientia_ is nothing more than _cordis scientia_ and _judicium
practicum_ on the sins incurred. Now doubtful knowledge is neither
knowledge (_scientia_) nor a judgment (_judicium_), but a _suspensio
judicii_; hence no one can have a _conscientia peccati_ who has no proof
that he has incurred sin. This is the answer to the arguments of the
first opinion. Weight is added to this answer by the very words of the
same Council: “It is well known that in the Church of God nothing more is
demanded of the penitents but that each one after diligent examination
... confess those sins by which he is conscious to himself of having
grievously offended his Lord and God; the remaining sins, however,
which do not occur to him after diligent examination are considered as
included generally in the same confession.” Since, therefore, concludes
the holy Doctor, the penitent is not bound to confess his venial sins,
he is not bound to confess the doubtful ones, for the Council says
he is not obliged to confess any but the mortal sins of which he has
knowledge; but to doubt is not “to have knowledge,” it is rather “to
be wanting in knowledge.” Moreover, an _onus certum_ ought not to be
inflicted for a _delictum dubium_, and in the doubt whether the law
exists there is no obligation to observe the law. Finally, he who doubts
without good foundation should not heed the doubt. The faithful, it is
true, do confess these doubtful sins in order to gain peace and ease of
conscience, but not because they are bound to do so; it is also customary
and general for them to confess those which are positively dubious, and
no one holds that this is of obligation, not even our opponents.

The grounds for this opinion, and the objections to the opposite view,
are so convincing that it may be regarded as the more probable and be
followed _tuta conscientia_.[281] The following objection has no weight.
Since confession is a necessary means for salvation, and since in such
a case a man must take the safer means rather than trust to a probable
opinion, he is thus obliged to confess _peccata dubia_. A distinction
must be made. The Sacrament of Penance, and particularly the absolution
in which its efficacy for the most part consists, may certainly be called
a necessary means for salvation _in re vel in voto_ with regard to those
who have committed mortal sin after Baptism; besides, if a man doubt
whether he has sinned grievously, either perfect contrition or absolution
are necessary, and for that reason confession also in so far as this is
required to obtain valid absolution or sanctifying grace through the
absolution; but the integrity of confession can be regarded as necessary
only in so far as it is proved to be the prescribed means of obtaining
absolution _licite et valide_. The proof, however, for the necessity of
confessing doubtful sins is so little substantiated that, as we have
shown, the very opposite is proved from the words of the Council and the
explanation of St. Alphonsus.[282]

When one considers the teaching of those older theologians who maintained
the necessity of confessing _mortalia negative dubia_, it is not
difficult to see that, while their mode of expression comprises more,
yet, they really meant to say that a penitent is not to consider himself
free from all obligation of confessing his sin for some paltry reason
which is in his favor, though knowing at the same time that there are
weighty reasons to be urged against him and his freedom from mortal
sin.[283]

From this teaching it follows that he who has a negative doubt as to
whether he sinned is not _stricte loquendo_ obliged to confess before
communicating; but in order to make sure of the required dispositions he
ought either to make an act of perfect contrition or receive sacramental
absolution after confessing something which is included under _materia
certa_.[284]

For the rest it is in practice generally recommended to the faithful,
in order to secure peace of soul, to mention even their doubtful mortal
sins, though there is no obligation to do so, and the confession without
the accusation of these sins is complete; they must, however, be
instructed to confess these sins as doubtful and not as certain. If a
penitent have only sins of this sort to accuse himself of, he has a right
to conditional absolution on the first accusation of them. It is better,
however, to add other certain matter as the sins of one’s past life; this
is required if the absolution is to be unconditional.

In practice the following rules might be profitably observed:—

1. If there be a doubt as to whether the matter of a sin be grave,
ill-instructed penitents (_pœnitentes rudes_) should confess their doubts
because (_a_) they cannot guide their own consciences, or they do so
with great difficulty, and because (_b_) for the most part they do not
know how to distinguish between mortal and venial sin. Exception, of
course, is made for the scrupulous who are not in the habit of frequently
committing mortal sin. Well-instructed penitents are certainly not
obliged to confess doubtful mortal sins, since they are in a position
to guide their own consciences; yet they are advised to do so, for then
their confessor is informed of the dangers to which his penitent is
exposed and can warn, instruct, and free him from them.

2. If the doubt turns on the free consent of the will or full advertence,
(_a_) penitents of timorous consciences, who do not ordinarily sin
mortally, are in no way obliged to confess doubtful sins, for the
presumption is in their favor: _ex communiter contingentibus fit prudens
præsumptio_. Since they are not in the habit of sinning mortally, it is
fair to presume that their doubtful sins are not mortal; indeed they
ought not infrequently to be deterred from confessing them if they are
inclined to scrupulosity. “A man of approved virtue who is worried as to
whether he has consented to an impure temptation may be morally certain
that he has not consented; for it is morally impossible that a will so
constant in good resolutions should change without giving unmistakable
signs.”[285] (_b_) Penitents who, though not timorous, are not lax are
certainly not obliged to confess a doubtful consent, though they may be
advised to do so to secure peace of conscience and the other benefits
which follow from the practice. (_c_) If, however, the penitent has a
lax conscience, he is obliged to confess his doubtful sins, for the
presumption is against him.[286]

If, then, a pious person who often renews his resolution never to sin
mortally is not certain that he has ever revoked that resolution; if
he is startled when he perceives the evil and promptly repels the
temptation, and doubts whether he has given way; if he remembers that he
was in an excited state of mind; if he cannot tell whether the thought or
action took place in sleep or in waking moments, the presumption is that
there was no full consent.

The presumption, however, is against those who are accustomed to fall
easily into grave sin; had they withstood the temptation they would
remember what effort they made to overcome it. Hence Lacroix[287] very
justly concludes that such people never have a real negative doubt, since
the presumption determines the probability of consent or resistance to
the temptation.

Now comes the question as to what the penitent ought to do who has
confessed a mortal sin as doubtful and afterwards discovers that he has
certainly committed it; is he obliged to confess the sin anew or may he
consider the case closed? The sin has undoubtedly been remitted directly
by the power of the keys, since the conditional sentence “if thou hast
really sinned” becomes absolute where the condition has been verified.
St. Alphonsus[288] teaches that sins confessed as doubtful should be
mentioned again as certain if it turns out that they are certain; and
this doctrine he affirms to be the common opinion. The defenders of this
view maintain as their great argument that the sin was not confessed
as it was in the conscience at the moment when it was committed; then
it was a _peccatum certum_; moreover, they argue, the sentence passed
on a doubtful sin is quite different from that passed on a sin which
is certain. Yet in the case of sins which have been confessed in round
numbers St. Alphonsus himself teaches that even when the penitent
afterwards recalls the exact number, he is not obliged to confess
again; why, then, should this obligation be imposed on the penitent who
has confessed his sin as doubtful when he discovers later that it was
certain? A man who has confessed that he has committed a mortal sin about
ten times and later discovers that the number was twelve must either
confess as certain the two or more sins which were previously confessed
as doubtful, or, if this obligation is denied, he cannot be obliged to
confess a sin again which he has discovered to be certain after having
already confessed it as doubtful. That in the first instance the
penitent is free of all obligation to confess again, is the _sententia
communissima_, and it is borne out by the practice of the faithful; hence
in the other case the same freedom must be granted, for both decisions
rest on the same grounds. Nor can it be objected that the number of the
sins is merely a circumstance, while the sin itself is a substantial
fact, for the number belongs to the very substance, since it indicates so
many substantial acts.[289]

It is true that St. Alphonsus calls the affirmative opinion _communis_;
but since Lugo (though even he gave his adhesion practically to the view
of St. Alphonsus in consideration of the great number of theologians
who favored it) has combated the view with strong arguments, later
theologians adopted his side, so that the affirmative proposition
maintaining the duty of confessing again can no longer be considered as
_communis_. At present, as Ballerini aptly shows, the other view is the
_communior sententia_ and is established on good external and internal
probability, and may be unhesitatingly considered as _probabilior et
communior_.[290]

II. If a man is certain that he has committed a grave sin but doubts upon
slight grounds whether he has confessed it, he must accuse himself of it;
but if he has a sufficient probability that it has been confessed, he is
under no obligation.

In this case some positive reason is required to show that he has
complied with the obligation of confessing the sin, for an undoubted
command is not satisfied by a doubtful fulfilment; but where there is
really good reason to suppose that the sin has been confessed, that is,
a reason which, though open to some doubts, offers some probability,
the obligation may, in accordance with the principles of probability, be
regarded as not binding. “For if we are to avoid making laws and duties
odious, we ought to concede something to human probability taken in a
broad sense; thus presumption in a case of this kind often presents proof
of sufficient probability and security.”[291]

Hence a man who is accustomed to make his confessions with care, and
later on is unable to remember whether he has confessed this or that sin,
may presume that he has confessed it, and he is not obliged to confess it
again. This is the teaching of many eminent theologians.[292] Although
St. Alphonsus affirms that a man is obliged to mention again a sin which
has probably been already confessed, he does not condemn the contrary
opinion. If, again, a man who has been converted from a habit of sin, and
for a long period has been leading a good life, begins to doubt whether,
in the confessions either general or particular which have been made with
suitable care, some sin or circumstance has been withheld, he may be
forbidden to mention that sin or circumstance, or even to think of the
past at all. Finally, scrupulous people ought only to confess their past
sins when they are quite certain that they have never confessed them;
this is the _sententia communissima_.[293]

On the whole it is recommended in practice to mention doubtfully
confessed sins, because their confession helps much to peace of soul and
allays all anxieties.

Quite distinct from the preceding question is the case in which a man
fully confesses as certain some sin which he has committed, but which
neither he nor the confessor considered at the time as a mortal sin; if
afterwards, in consequence of better instruction or advice, he discovers
that the sin was mortal _ex genere suo_, he is not obliged to repeat it,
for it was already perfectly confessed and it is not necessary for the
validity of confession that the penitent or confessor should know that
the matter of a sin is grave, and it is the matter only that is involved
in this case.[294]

III. The sins which have been incurred after a doubtfully valid Baptism
must be confessed when Baptism is given conditionally. Lehmkuhl treats
very fully of this question and remarks that on this point there can be
no doubt after the late decisions of the Apostolic See. Many theologians
were inclined to free converts from the obligation of making a confession
of their sins on the ground that, their Baptism by a heretical minister
being doubtful, the sins committed after Baptism were doubtful matter for
confession; hence they thought that to such converts, if they confessed
matter sufficient in any way for receiving validly the Sacrament or the
grace of sanctification through the Sacrament, absolution might be given
conditionally; this, they maintained, was the practice to be recommended
in order that converts might not be obliged in the beginning of their
conversion to undergo this often very severe ordeal of a confession of a
lifetime.

In answer to repeated questions the Apostolic See (in the years 1715 and
1868) explicitly declared that converts who receive conditional Baptism
must after receiving this conditional Baptism confess the sins of their
past life and be absolved from them _sub conditione_. This decision
was given of course as an answer to a particular case laid before the
tribunal; but the intention of the Holy Office, as is quite clear, was
to pass a sentence and give a universal decision which might apply to
all cases falling under this head and which might be regarded in future
as the law on the matter, for this decree can be regarded only as an
authentic interpretation of the divine law by the Head of the Church,
and not as a local law of the Church or a part of her discipline. Nor
need any one be surprised that a decree, though particular in form,
has a universal application; for a command of the Church will never
prescribe anything as necessary matter of confession which is not in
accordance with the divine law.[295] In order, then, to recognize the
possibility that such a precept is contained in the decree of 1715 it
must be granted that, in accordance with divine right, the sins incurred
after doubtfully valid Baptism must be submitted to the keys. Such is
what we learn from that positive declaration; moreover, reason confirms
it, for, though one who is doubtfully baptized has not a certainty but
only a probability of receiving sacramental absolution of his sins, it in
no way follows that the obligation to confess them is only probable and
practically to be disregarded; for the duty of confessing and performing
the assigned penance is for all more certain than that probability of
receiving the effects of the Sacrament. This does not go beyond a moral
certainty taken in the wider sense, since it rests ultimately on the
validity of the Baptism and other conditions, so that doubts can always
be entertained about it. But the duty of confessing and performing the
assigned penance permits no such doubt, since every obligation though
it be based on grounds only morally certain is sufficiently evident;
otherwise there would be an end of anything like obligation in human
affairs.

Now with regard to confession and absolution of sins in the tribunal
of penance Christ has handed over all power to the jurisdiction of the
Church, and it is by Baptism that men come under this jurisdiction; this
is the external rite by which men are admitted as members. But no one
doubts that a man remains subject to the jurisdiction of a social body
into which he has been admitted by the acknowledged external rites till
that reception is proved to be invalid. All, therefore, who have in any
way received Baptism (which they were desirous of receiving validly,
though its validity admits of doubt) are as a general rule undeniably
and certainly subject to the Church’s jurisdiction and laws and are
bound to comply with the divine precept which ordains that their sins
should be told in confession and sentence passed upon them. In other
words, the doubt with regard to Baptism has this effect, that the Baptism
can be regarded as invalid in the sense that it can and ought to be
repeated conditionally lest the man should risk his eternal salvation,
but nowise in the sense that one who is doubtfully baptized may consider
himself free from the observance of these precepts and obligations which
are binding on the baptized by the ordinance of God or the Church;
among these duties the precept of confessing sins holds the principal
place.[296]

As to the ceremonies to be observed in receiving a convert into the
Church, there is nothing to prevent the confession being made first,
followed by the conditional Baptism, then a summary repetition of
the accusation along with an act of contrition and the conditional
absolution. This order is allowed by the Holy Office in a Rescript
of November, 1875. The American Ritual, on the other hand, gives the
following order: 1. Renunciation of heresy and profession of faith; 2.
Conditional Baptism; 3. Confession with conditional absolution. This
order was prescribed by the instruction of the Holy Office for North
America.[297]


26. Sins Omitted through Forgetfulness or other Causes not Blameworthy.

In order that the principles to be applied here may be understood, it
must first be observed that all grievous sins committed after Baptism
must be confessed; hence what has been said of the material and formal
integrity of confession as well as upon the distinction between sins
directly and indirectly remitted must be carefully borne in mind.

Since the formal or subjective integrity of confession consists in this,
that all mortal sins are mentioned which the penitent can recall after
a diligent examination of conscience, and of which the enumeration is
possible _hic et nunc_, it does not suffer by inculpable forgetfulness
on the part of the penitent; and the same holds true of all other
legitimate reasons which at any time excuse the penitent from objective
integrity.[298]

Sins which are required for objective though not for subjective integrity
are considered as included in the confession and are really remitted by
the absolution, not directly, however, but only indirectly.

Hence are derived the following principles:—

I. Mortal sins omitted without fault are and remain _materia necessaria_
of confession, or the objective duty of confessing them remains binding
as before.

These sins are, of course, really forgiven, but, as we have already
observed, only indirectly or _per concomitantiam_ through their
connection with the other mortal sins which have been confessed and
directly remitted. In the Sacrament of Penance the remission of sins
is effected by the absolution; but sins which have not been mentioned
do not directly fall under the absolution since, properly speaking,
they are unaffected by the sentence pronounced by a judge who knew
nothing about them. Nevertheless the absolution pronounced _rite et
valide_ over certain sins is effectual because it is sacramental and
because in God’s providence no remission of sin takes place without an
influx of sanctifying grace into the soul which presents no _obex_. Now
sanctifying grace removes the whole _reatus culpæ mortalis_ and restores
a man to perfect friendship with God and to his claim in the heavenly
kingdom. Thus valid absolution produces sanctifying grace in the soul and
consequently the remission of all mortal sins staining the soul, even
those inculpably forgotten.

There remains now the precept of Our Lord to submit all mortal sins to
the power of the keys in the Sacrament of Penance; these forgotten sins
have not been confessed as yet, nor has the priest pronounced any direct
sentence upon them. Though these sins have been remitted indirectly,
there still remains the obligation _ex jure divino_ of confessing them
directly to the judge in the tribunal of penance when they occur to
the mind again, not because these sins have been revived, but because
the neglect of God’s command in the matter would involve a new sin.
This holds of all mortal sins inculpably omitted, of their species,
of all circumstances changing the species, as well as of mortal sins,
confessed indeed, but to a priest without jurisdiction who either _bona
fide_ or for reasonable motives gave direct absolution of the sins for
which he had faculties, thereby remitting the others indirectly. Hence
Alexander VII condemned the proposition: “Sins which have been omitted in
confession either from an imminent danger to life or for any other motive
need not be mentioned in the following confession.” (Prop. XI. damn.) It
is different, however, in the case of reservation or censure for a sin
remitted indirectly if confession be made to a priest equipped with the
necessary faculties; for in general absolution is given from reservation
and censure, and the penitent is probably freed from the reservation
or censure attached to the sin forgotten; so that if the sin occur
again to his mind, he may be directly absolved by any confessor, even a
_confessarius simplex_.[299]

II. The obligation of confessing these forgotten sins does not urge
_ratione sui_ “as soon as possible” (_quam primum_), not even before
receiving holy communion.

Of course many distinguished theologians[300] teach that whoever
remembers a grave sin, even though not committed since the last
confession but forgotten, must confess that sin and receive absolution
before going to communion. The only reason urged is that he is conscious
of this sin; and, according to the Council of Trent, no one who is
conscious of grave sin may receive communion before having confessed
where there is an opportunity of making the confession. The defenders of
this view maintain that the Tridentine decree[301] is so expounded and
understood by the whole Church; they make an exception, however, for the
case where confession cannot be made without risk of scandal or infamy,
as, for example, when a priest is already celebrating Mass or a layman
has approached the communion-rail and cannot retire without exciting
remark.

It is permissible, however, with St. Alphonsus and other theologians (in
less number) to follow the other “very probable opinion” which denies
the obligation of confessing; for in reality confession has preceded
communion and the penitent has confessed all the sins of which he was
conscious, so that neither the Council of Trent nor the divine law seems
to demand more; moreover, the forgotten sin has been remitted indirectly,
the penitent is in the state of grace, not merely by an act of contrition
but in virtue of the valid confession. The practice of the faithful which
is appealed to for the opposite side is not to be regarded as of binding
force, but rather a pious and praiseworthy custom.

Though one may follow _tuta conscientia_ the opinion which denies the
obligation, it is good to recommend to the faithful to confess before
communion the sins which have been forgotten, unless the extremely
sensitive conscience of the penitent should require another course to be
adopted; the practice should not, however, be imposed as binding.[302]

The view held by some, though a very few, modern theologians, that it is
quite sufficient to mention these sins without receiving absolution, is
not at all in harmony with the divine institution of the Sacrament, for
confession is not made with the view of acquainting the priest with the
sins committed, but in order that they may be remitted by his judicial
sentence. Hence a serious argument for the necessity of confession can be
drawn only from the supposition that absolution is necessary. Accordingly
a penitent who confesses a new mortal sin immediately after absolution
must be absolved again. Of course this absolution may be put off to the
next confession if the penitent comes again to the same confessor to whom
he told the sin. Such delay, however, would hardly be recommended, since
it would involve the penitent in the following dilemma: Either he is not
free to choose his confessor on the next occasion on which he approaches
the Sacrament, or if he goes to some other priest he must confess the
same sin again.

III. The duty of confessing sins inculpably omitted must be fulfilled
either when there is danger of death or at the next confession, whether
it be a confession of duty or of choice.

Hence these omitted sins must be confessed, even if no new mortal sin has
been incurred, _ratione sui_ when there is grave danger of death and at
the time which the Church prescribes for the yearly confession; for the
annual confession is prescribed not only in order to obtain sanctifying
grace, but also to fulfill the divine law, more clearly defined by the
law of the Church. In this case the precept would be binding under grave
sin because of the presence of _materia necessaria_, for a mortal sin
omitted even without fault is _materia necessaria_.

If, however, a confession be made before that time, either of _materia
necessaria_ or _materia libera_, the confession must include the
previously omitted sin. This is so evident that no theologian ever
dreamt of disputing or doubting it. Every confession must be complete
subjectively or formally, and by the declaration of the Council of Trent
this confession is not complete unless it includes the sins previously
omitted. For this subjective integrity it is required that all mortal
sins not yet subjected to the keys which occur to the penitent should
be confessed unless some legitimate obstacle stands in the way. If
these omitted sins are kept back in the next confession following, that
confession is incomplete and sacrilegious. It cannot be argued that these
sins had been already indirectly forgiven, for, to speak of no other
objection, the same might be urged of sins already condoned by an act of
perfect contrition.[303]


27. Reasons Excusing from Complete Accusation.

In the preceding paragraph we said that sins may be omitted by the
penitent without the confession becoming sacrilegious. As there are
reasons which can justify such silence, and release the penitent from the
obligation of confessing the sins of which he is conscious, we devote
this paragraph to the consideration of these reasons.

I. No difficulty in the confession itself or internally connected with it
ever excuses from making a complete accusation; for when Christ gave the
precept that all grievous sins should be confessed to His representatives
in the tribunal of penance, He intended that we should submit to the
difficulties inherent in such an accusation and bear them as a penance
for our sins, and this discipline is very wholesome for the penitent.

A difficulty of this kind would be, for instance, the great shame felt
in confessing a sin, even if it came only from the fact of mentioning
it to this or that particular priest; the course then to be adopted
is to put off the confession, or to go to another confessor, or to be
brave and overcome the shame. This difficulty was recognized in the
Council of Trent, and hence it was declared that the difficulty of such
a (perfect and candid) confession and the shame of declaring one’s sins
might well seem great obstacles, but that they were counterbalanced by
the consolation and profit accruing to those who received the Sacrament
worthily.[304] The same may be said of the other difficulties, such
as the fear of losing the esteem of one’s confessor or of receiving a
rebuke from him. If such reasons as these could be held to justify a want
of integrity in the accusation, the faithful for the most part would
consider themselves at liberty to make incomplete confessions, and the
great object for which this Sacrament had been instituted would to a
great extent be frustrated.[305]

Likewise, a large gathering of penitents (_concursus magnus pœnitentium_)
on the occasion of a great feast or indulgence is never a reason for want
of integrity in confession, for this is not a case of necessity and it
would expose the priest to the risk of giving absolution to ill-disposed
subjects. Nor can exception be made to the rule of integrity because
people might conjecture from the time taken in the confessional that the
penitent had committed very many sins.[306]

II. Besides the case of physical impossibility, however, there are others
which justify an incomplete avowal of sin; they are in general such
external or accidental difficulties in connection with the confession
which render a complete accusation morally impossible, or involve grave
harm to the penitent or the confessor. When the impediment no longer
exists the law of God comes again into force; the moral impossibility
of making a complete confession does not altogether cancel the duty of
making it, but only suspends it, since the precept of confession is
not one that is confined to any fixed time or state, but extends over
one’s lifetime; hence mortal sins which have not been confessed must be
mentioned later when opportunity offers.

III. In order that the excuse of moral impossibility may be pleaded it
is necessary, 1, that there should be a real or probable risk of great
harm; 2, that it is impossible to find another confessor to whom a full
disclosure may be made without fear of this particular harm; 3, that only
those sins or circumstances be kept back of which the avowal would cause
harm; and finally, 4, that the confession cannot be put off.

IV. Physical impossibility might result from, 1, inculpable forgetfulness
or inculpable ignorance, or only venially culpable ignorance and
forgetfulness. A man who is ignorant _invincibiliter et inculpabiliter_
that the particular act which he calls to mind is sinful, or does
not know that his sin must be confessed with its number and species
and circumstances changing the species, is not bound to integrity
in confession; there is still less obligation on an uneducated and
weak-minded penitent.

If, again, a man in examining his conscience cannot recall a past sin,
or, having recalled it, forgets about it in the confessional, he is
physically incapable of making a complete confession. (On this point
see the preceding paragraph.) It is to be noticed, however, that in the
case of gravely culpable negligence or carelessness in examining the
conscience an imperfect confession is invalid; if, for example, a man
through his own fault is ignorant how confession ought to be made, or
was unwilling to make a careful examination of his conscience. On the
other hand, one is not obliged to go to confession sooner in order not to
forget past sins, though frequent confession is much to be recommended;
for we are bound only to accuse ourselves of the sins of which we are
conscious at the time of confession after making a diligent examination
of conscience.

2. There is, moreover, physical inability when there is imminent danger
of death (_a_) on account of the penitent’s condition being such that if
he should try to make a complete confession he may die before receiving
absolution; (_b_) in a common danger, such as shipwreck, before a battle,
during a violent epidemic or a swift conflagration. If in such a case
there is no time to hear the confession of each individual, it is enough
for all to make a general confession of their sins in order to receive
absolution, and the priest may give it, using for all the one formula:
_Ego vos absolvo_.... Finally, (_c_) when the confessor himself is near
death and no other priest is at hand.

The following instructions may be observed by confessors in actual
practice:—

(_a_) In case of extreme necessity the accusation of some specific sin
must be made so far as it is possible, but in the case of a dying man
who is still conscious the confessor should be more solicitous about
exciting contrition than about securing a complete confession; in the
case, however, of a penitent deprived of consciousness, especially if he
gave no previous sign of repentance, the confessor may give absolution
conditionally and then devote his care to the administration of Extreme
Unction, which in such a case is more certainly valid and efficacious
than the absolution itself; meanwhile, however, there would be no reason
for not giving the absolution beforehand.

(_b_) If only one confession has to be heard and there is imminent
danger, say, from an attack by an enemy, the confessor should get the
penitent to mention some one sin, to make an act of contrition, and he
should then absolve him, when under the circumstances the absolution is
a matter of necessity. If there are several who wish to make their peace
with God, as before a battle or in a shipwreck, the following points are
to be observed:—

([Greek: a]) If the danger is very pressing, the confessor must exhort
all to make acts of contrition and purpose of amendment, or, still
better, himself make along with them acts of contrition and amendment,
and get them to give some sign of their sorrow and their self-accusation,
as by raising their hands or striking their breasts; then he may give
them absolution in a body.[307]

([Greek: b]) If there is time enough for each one to approach the
confessor, though not for making a complete confession, they should be
admitted singly in order the better to secure the salvation of each one,
in such numbers as the time will permit; and in order that as many as
possible, if not all, may be heard, the accusation may be as short as
possible; thus contrition will be more genuine. Of course the penitents
will be told that in the event of their lives being spared they must make
up what was wanting to the integrity of the confession.[308]

3. Physical inability may also arise from the _defectus loquelæ_ of the
dumb who cannot make a complete confession either by writing or by signs.
For them it is sufficient if they confess one or other sin by signs.
If the defect be only a stutter, the penitent must confess as best he
can.[309]

4. The _defectus auditus_ of the deaf who cannot express themselves
nor hear the questions which the confessor must put in order that the
confession may be complete, can be reckoned as a physical inability.
They are obliged to make a perfect confession _ex sua parte_, _i.e._
to mention all that so far as they know is required for a perfect
confession, and thus they may not keep back anything. Those who are
merely hard of hearing are not on the same footing with the deaf; their
confession should be made in a place where the voice may be raised
without others overhearing what is said. If, however, the confessor
should find out only in the course of the confession that the penitent is
hard of hearing, and he cannot take him to a more retired place without
fear of causing the bystanders to suspect that some grave sin has been
confessed and so violating the seal, he may resign himself to permitting
an imperfect confession and may refrain from putting questions. With
women the confessor must be particularly on his guard not to give grounds
for evil interpretation, since many people are quick to suspect wrong.
Thus it would be imprudent for him to admit women penitents to confession
at times when the church is less frequented; since absolute security for
the seal of confession would even then not be attainable, and suspicion
would in all likelihood be easily aroused.

If the confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of deaf people in the
church and he has doubts as to the integrity of the accusation, he must
be more solicitous for the seal than for the integrity of the confession;
hence he must refrain from questions as to the number or circumstances
of the sins and must give a very slight and ordinary penance, so that
those who overhear his words may not be led to conclude that the penitent
has been confessing mortal sins.[310]

5. Finally, ignorance of the language constitutes a physical
impossibility for those unable to find a confessor understanding them;
for such people it is sufficient if they manifest their contrition and
their sins as far as they can by signs. The confessor, in default of any
other priest knowing the language, must admit them to confession and
_aliquoties_ absolve them even if he can barely make out the most general
accusation.

V. A moral impossibility exists, as before remarked, when great harm
ensuing to the penitent or to the confessor or to some third person is to
be feared from the completeness of the confession; the harm to be feared
must preponderate over the material integrity of the confession.

Therefore exception is made to the demand of integrity (completeness) in
confession:—

1. When there is risk of infamy (_periculum infamiæ_), if the penitent
is exposed to lose the esteem he is held in not only by the confessor
but also by others. This may happen in various ways, particularly if the
penitent is so placed that a perfect confession would be overheard by
others, or if the time required for a complete confession were so long
that it would give rise to unfavorable suspicions. Such a case is most
likely to happen when others know that the penitent has been in the habit
of confessing, and the latter, on account of those confessions being
invalid, is obliged to repeat them, while the time for a communion which
he cannot postpone without exciting comment, is quite close.

A sick man, for instance, has confessed and is about to receive the
viaticum; he reveals to the priest that he has made several sacrilegious
confessions. To repeat these in full would excite suspicions on the
part of the bystanders who thought that he was prepared to receive holy
communion.

Or, to use another illustration, on the occasion of some solemn and
public communion in common one of the communicants goes to the priest a
short time before communion and reveals that he has made a sacrilegious
confession; since there is no time to repeat it, it is enough if he makes
an act of sorrow, mentions the sacrilegious confession and perhaps one
or two of his other sins; he must then be absolved and later, of course,
make a full confession.

Or, a priest is already at the altar, about to offer the holy sacrifice,
but remembers that he has mortal sins on his soul not yet confessed; he
makes a short act of contrition and confesses his sins to an assisting
priest who is standing close by him; the latter will then give absolution
secretly. Outside the case of necessity where a priest must celebrate
Mass or a person is to receive communion, the penitent is in nowise
excused from making a full confession on the ground that others, noticing
the length of time spent in the confessional, should suspect him of being
guilty of many grave sins.[311]

2. When there is danger of breach of the seal of confession (_periculum
læsionis sigilli_), as when, which is a very rare case, it should be
foreseen that the confessor would break the seal, or in the case where
a confessor could not reveal his own sins without at the same time
revealing the sins of his penitent and so breaking the seal.

The first case, _i.e._ where the confessor breaks the seal—without, of
course, intending to do so—might happen when the priest speaks so loud
that he can be overheard by those in the neighborhood, and in spite of
representations still fails to subdue his voice, either because he is
deaf, or because his zeal runs away with him, or because he is afflicted
with some defect of voice which prevents him talking in a lower tone.
This would be only an indirect breach of the seal, certainly not to be
sanctioned but rather to be severely blamed as wrong and sinful. If,
then, the confessor speaks too loud, and continues to do so even after
the penitent has reminded him of the fault, the latter is justified in
keeping back part of his confession so that the confessor may not in the
course of his questions reveal to the bystanders the sins confessed.

If, however, the penitent has an exaggerated dread that his confessor may
break the seal by making revelations outside the confessional, he is not
justified in withholding his confession in full, for he imagines a sin so
horrible that the suspicion of it could only be entertained in the case
of heretics. This holds true at least as far as a direct breach of the
seal is concerned. A penitent could hardly ever be dispensed from a full
confession on account of such a fear, and if he were to reveal to another
confessor that such a motive had prompted him to keep back some of his
sins, the confessor could not receive this as an excuse without further
inquiry.

On the other hand, the danger of a breach of the seal on the part of a
priest who confesses the sins he has incurred in hearing confessions is
not beyond the bounds of possibility; in this case he must pass over in
silence those sins which would involve such a risk.[312]

3. When danger of scandal (_periculum scandali_) is to be feared either
with respect to the priest or the penitent. Such a case might occur where
the penitent is afraid of sinning by taking pleasure in thoughts against
charity and especially against purity when examining his conscience; his
duty then would be to avoid dwelling upon the number and circumstances
even at the risk of making an incomplete confession, for the natural
law of avoiding the danger of grave sin prevails over the positive law
of making a complete confession. The same reason may be a motive to the
confessor to be very prudent in questioning such penitents so as not to
expose them to commit new offenses against God in the very Sacrament of
reconciliation.

If a penitent have well-grounded fears of the confessor’s weakness and
that the latter will, if he hear a _peccatum turpe_, give way to bad
thoughts or cause him to sin, he is bound to avoid such a confessor; if,
however, in a case of necessity, he requires his help and cannot find
another confessor _hic et nunc_, he may omit those sins of which the
avowal would be dangerous.

A priest who knows that his weakness exposes him to great risks in
hearing confessions must withdraw from the confessional if it be at
all possible, unless there be good reasons to suppose that the fear
arises from some unforeseen and exceptional incident; in such a case the
confessor must omit the questions which ordinarily would have to be put
to secure the completeness of the accusation.

“Dangers of this kind are not to be lightly and unreasonably supposed,
but only on solid grounds; and if it be a question of danger to the
confessor, only after very unmistakable indications.”[313]

4. When a scrupulous penitent is always tortured with the thought that
his previous confessions have not been valid and believes that his
sins have never been properly confessed.[314] Such penitents are to
be forbidden to make detailed examination of conscience even though
in consequence their confessions should fall short of the necessary
completeness.

5. When there is danger of bodily harm (_damnum corporale_ or _periculum
vitæ_). If, for instance, a long confession exposed the priest to danger
of infection, even though by other precautions he might lessen the danger
or perhaps quite reduce it, in order to avoid the risk he may allow the
penitent to state quite briefly a few sins, thus contenting himself
with an imperfect confession, and may then give absolution; moreover,
if the penitent is so weak and exhausted by the illness as to be unable
without grave harm, or great increase of suffering and weakening of
his condition, to examine his conscience carefully and so make a
perfect confession, the priest ought not to annoy him by questions, but
rather try to awaken contrition and then give absolution even after an
incomplete confession.[315]

It was observed above (n. 4) that moral inability to make a complete
confession can only be admitted when the confession cannot be put off and
is urgent _hic et nunc_.

The confession may be regarded as urgent, 1, when the penitent is in
danger of death; 2, when the precept of annual confession and communion
is instant; 3, if the reception of holy communion or the celebration of
Mass cannot be put off without confusion or scandal; and, 4, if otherwise
the penitent could not again approach confession for a long period.
Reuter[316] and Lugo consider a delay of more than three days long enough
for a man in mortal sin to regard the case as urgent; indeed one may
consider the _impotentia moralis_ as justified if a man were compelled to
remain in mortal sin one or two days.

There is a special difficulty in solving the question whether a sin can
or ought to be confessed which cannot be disclosed without damaging
the reputation of the partner of the sin in the eyes of the confessor.
Theologians do not agree in their opinions, but are all unanimous in
teaching, 1, that a penitent is obliged to seek, if possible, another
confessor to whom he can make a complete confession and to whom the
accomplice is unknown, and in this way save his neighbor’s reputation;
and, 2, that if the sin which cannot be confessed without injury to the
character of the accomplice is not necessary matter of confession, it
ought not to be revealed unless the sin of the accomplice be only slight
and the confession of that particular sin be of peculiar benefit to the
penitent.

If, nevertheless, the accomplice be revealed to the confessor, such
revelation, in accordance with a very probable opinion, is not to be
regarded as a grave sin; for according to the teaching of a number of
theologians, whom St. Alphonsus approves and with whom St. Thomas seems
to agree, it is not a gravely sinful defamation to reveal the sins
of another to one or other trustworthy and upright man. Though many
theologians declare this to be gravely sinful if done without reason, the
opposite opinion is so well founded that it may be followed in practice
as quite probable.[317] But if it is at all probable, it is much more
so when the sin of another is revealed to a priest who is bound to the
most inviolable secrecy by the highest and holiest ties. Hence it follows
that the revelation of the accomplice is certainly no sin when there is
reasonable ground for it; such would be, for instance, if the confession
made to a priest who knows the accomplice were useful or necessary to the
penitent, supposing that no other confessor, to whom the accomplice is
unknown, were available; furthermore, the penitent is not bound to seek
another confessor unacquainted with the accomplice if the search involves
great trouble or loss.

With these premises we approach the question: May a penitent, or ought
he, confess a mortal sin which cannot be revealed without at the
same time revealing the accomplice to the confessor, or may he omit
the mention of that sin and so detract from the completeness of his
confession?

The greater number of theologians and those of most weight teach
that the revelation of the _complex_ is not a reason excusing from an
entire accusation, since it is no violation of the _jus naturale_ which
safeguards the reputation of another to reveal the secret sins of one’s
neighbor for good reasons to a prudent and upright man, and the law of
charity only forbids defamation of one’s neighbor without reason; in this
case, however, there is a _causa justa_, and a very urgent reason, viz.,
the making of a perfect confession and the guidance of the conscience.
The precept of making a sincere accusation is _potioris juris_ than
the precept of not defaming the neighbor, so that such defamation in
face of the need of making a complete confession is to be regarded as
of no account. Lugo rejects, as involving a _petitio principii_, the
other argument advanced by the defenders of this view, namely, that the
penitent is simply making use of his right to confess his sin, and that
the accomplice by participating in the sin has surrendered his claim to
his reputation so far as it is affected by the confession of the sins;
he adduces another argument: that since the benefits resulting from
confession are so immense that Christ has bound the penitent to endure
the shame of revealing his own sins, it is a natural consequence that to
obtain such benefits one may be allowed to reveal another’s sin.[318] The
same is taught by St. Thomas,[319] St. Bonaventure, St. Antoninus, St.
Bernard, Gerson, Cajetan, Henriquez, Suarez,[320] Lugo,[321] Laymann,
Vasquez,[322] Toletus, Reginald Lessius, Tamburini, Salmanticenses,[323]
Reuter.[324] St. Alphonsus[325] also holds this view. At the same time
they teach that the penitent is bound, if he can manage it _commode_, to
spare the reputation of his accomplice by going to a confessor to whom
the accomplice is unknown; and St. Alphonsus expressly condemns the view
that this is matter of counsel and not of precept. Thus the penitent is
freed from the obligation of seeking out another confessor only (_a_)
when there is danger of death or when the annual confession can no longer
be put off; (_b_) when the penitent by refraining from communion or from
the celebration of Mass would be exposed to misinterpretation and shame;
(_c_) when a penitent is in a state of mortal sin, and would be obliged
to remain in that condition one or two days (_per biduum imo etiam per
diem_) till he could find another confessor; (_d_) when the _complex_
may be presumed to have given up his claim to his good reputation, as
in the case of a brother who having sinned with his sister knows that
she will not go to another confessor without her mother; (_e_) when a
priest being accustomed to celebrate every day, and a lay person being
accustomed to communicate daily, would find much difficulty in omitting
these pious acts; (_f_) when a person finds great repugnance in revealing
his or her state of soul to another confessor; (_g_) when otherwise
the penitent would be deprived of a jubilee or other indulgence; (_h_)
mothers or husbands may be excused when through a wish to have counsel
or sympathy they reveal the sins of their children, etc., to a confessor
who knows the latter, especially when they find it hard to approach
another confessor; (_i_) when the seeking of another confessor involves
a privation of consolation and peace for the penitent accustomed to a
wise and helpful spiritual director. Hence it is evident that a penitent
is rarely, if ever, obliged to seek another confessor under the given
circumstances.[326]

The other opinion, that it is not allowed to reveal the accomplice, and
in consequence that one is not bound to mention a mortal sin which cannot
be confessed without revealing the accomplice, is taught, among others,
by Canus, Petrus Soto, Ledesma, Navarrus, Valentia, Banez, etc. Busenbaum
and Mazzotta deemed the opinion probable.[327] These theologians urge
that it is a violation of the natural law to injure the good name of
another, and hence that the obligation of not inflicting such injury is
_potioris juris_ than the duty of making a complete confession, since
this is founded on a positive law.

It need not be imagined, however, that this opinion is the _benignior_,
because it releases from the duty of making a perfect confession;
considered closely the case takes on quite another aspect, for:—

1. It requires the penitent to seek out another confessor to whom the
accomplice is unknown even when this involves great trouble to the
penitent, for as all will concede, the integrity of the confession must
be preserved so far as it is possible, and only the damage and hardship
to the penitent which makes the confession morally impossible excuse from
making a complete confession. Hence this _incommodum_ must be grave and
much greater than that which in the other view allows the defamation of
the accomplice.

2. If, however, a man cannot confess to another confessor and is
resolved to conceal the sin or its circumstances in order to save his
neighbor’s reputation, there arises a greater difficulty, the obligation
of confessing the same sin again; for in order to save his neighbor’s
good name a man may only conceal that circumstance which affects the
reputation of his neighbor, and this is the unanimous teaching of all
theologians; for example, if a man has committed incest, and has no
other means of confessing it, he must mention in his first confession
that he has fallen into a sin of impurity, passing over in silence the
circumstances which make it incest. He must, however, when opportunity is
presented of going to another confessor, mention the circumstance of the
incest, and this cannot be done without repeating his former accusation
of having fallen into a sin against purity.

3. It is also to be observed that if defamation of one’s neighbor excuses
from a complete confession, and if in consequence a particular sin _may_
not be revealed (for such is the foundation of this opinion), the
confessor is not allowed to put questions which may cause an indirect
revelation of the accomplice, especially to ill-instructed penitents who
would have no idea of how to parry the questions. Now if these questions
are to be avoided by the confessor, he may not inquire into the occasions
of sin, or he must leave to the judgment and discretion of the penitent
how far the latter is bound to answer the questions put to him. The
consequences, as any one may see, implicate the direction of penitents in
great difficulties, and on that account no one can admit either of these
methods of action.

Now the confessor, in order to be faithful to his important duty of
withdrawing his penitents from the occasions of sin, and in order not
to be deceived by a penitent who, left to his own judgment, will not
realize the danger of the occasions, must question his penitent with
perfect liberty and undeterred by the fear of obtaining any knowledge
of the accomplice in sin, if it is probable though not certain that
such defamation of the accomplice is not a reason dispensing from the
integrity of the confession. This opinion is certainly probable.

The champions of this view are far from denying that the natural law
forbids the injuring of another’s good name, but, they maintain, such
injury is forbidden only when there are no reasonable grounds for
inflicting it; it must be proved that the precept of making a complete
confession is a sufficient reason, since such defamation to a confessor
is certainly not objectively grave. That this ground is a reasonable one
is evident from many weighty considerations:—

1. Good reasons have been already offered in the difficulties which are
presented when perfect liberty is not allowed in confessing or asking the
circumstances and occasions of sins.

2. Further examples may be easily imagined in which the defamation of
another resulting from the penitent’s confession is not to be considered;
for no one would dream, for example, of releasing a son from the
obligation of making a perfect confession because it might be concluded
from the gravity and nature of his sins that his parents had brought him
up very badly; nor would a religious be excused for fear his confessor
should entertain the suspicion that his superiors were neglecting their
duty towards him. For such defamation may well be considered as of little
moment, since the confessor is bound to the most stringent silence and
can make absolutely no use of what he hears in confession.

3. Moreover, the precept of making a complete confession is so severe
that the penitent may never transgress it in order to safeguard his
own good name, and is obliged to overcome the fear of losing it. But,
according to the universal teaching, a man is justified in self-defense
to do a lawful act even if thereby he injure the character of his
neighbor if there is no other way of shielding his own or regaining it
when lost; hence it must be allowable to injure the reputation of another
if the end in view is to make a perfect confession; or the same cause
(the integrity of the confession) which binds me to injure my own good
name gives me the right of disregarding any infamy that may accrue to
others in discharging this duty.[328]

4. Finally, since it was in early days the practice of confessing to
one’s parish priest, and he was generally acquainted with all his
subjects, the precept of making a complete confession would have had no
meaning if the other opinion were tenable in respect to sins which were
difficult to confess. Is it possible that Christ should give a command
which in practice turned out so nugatory?[329]

From what has been already said on this subject it follows that the
confessor, if he thinks fit, is quite at liberty to put questions on the
circumstances or occasions of sin; moreover, that penitents ought not to
be instructed to conceal circumstances which may injure the reputation of
the accomplice with the confessor; they ought rather to be encouraged to
make a complete confession to their regular confessor if they are unable
to find another.

If, however, some one acting upon the undoubted authority of theologians
who teach the other view wishes to make his confession accordingly, he
cannot be blamed if he has formed a _dictamen conscientiæ_, and he cannot
be forced to renounce his opinion.

Again, if a confessor remarks that a penitent is familiar with his
theology and makes his accusation in accordance with the other opinion,
and if he is satisfied that said penitent is capable of forming a
judgment about his obligations, he may more easily omit certain questions
and leave the penitent free to follow his own opinion.

What has been said with respect to the accomplice’s reputation applies
equally to those who have been in any way an occasion of sin to the
penitent. There are cases in which the penitent cannot give the specific
character of his sin without at the same time disclosing the sin of
another which has been the object or occasion of his own sin. A man,
for instance, discovers his unmarried sister to be in confinement and
maltreats her so that _abortus_ follows; he cannot explain the nature
of his crime fully in the confessional without revealing his sister’s
sin and so destroying her reputation in the mind of the priest. Although
some even of those who teach that the integrity of the confession may
take precedence of the accomplice’s character are unwilling to grant it
in this particular case, yet there is at least a probability that the
obligation of integrity prevails in any case.[330]


ARTICLE III

THE MEANS TO BE EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT CONFESSION


28. The Examination of Conscience.

Since the penitent is obliged to make a complete confession of his mortal
sins, as far as lies in his power, there naturally devolves upon him the
duty of examining his conscience. Regarding the examination of conscience
the following points are to be noted:—

I. The penitent is bound under pain of mortal sin to prepare for
confession by a serious and careful examination of conscience, and he
must devote to this examination such diligence as a prudent man would
ordinarily devote to any important business; hence in order that the
omission of mortal sins in the accusation may not be attributed to sinful
neglect, _diligentia mediocris_, as it is called, or _diligentia moralis_
is required, not such as would make the practice of confession hateful or
unduly burdensome.

The proof for this is supplied by the Council of Trent,[331] and it is
clear that if mortal sins are to be confessed they must be recalled to
the mind. Theologians observe, however, that when a man has examined
his conscience with moral diligence, but still believes that further
examination would reveal more sins, he is not obliged to spend more time
in examining his conscience; otherwise a penitent who had neglected
confession for many years would have to examine his conscience for days
and still fail to do his duty; such a conclusion is obviously wrong.[332]

Sporer[333] even goes so far as to teach that a man who has used moral
diligence in examining his conscience and has made his confession, and
afterwards cannot recall whether he mentioned or not some particular
sin, is not bound to confess it, because the presumption is that he has
confessed it along with the other sins. If, however, he have strong
misgivings on other grounds and cannot settle his doubt as to whether he
has confessed the sin or not, he is always obliged to mention that sin,
if there is no doubt of its having been committed, in the next confession.

II. The care which ought to be employed in this examination is not
the same for all classes of penitents; it varies according to the
circumstances of the penitents: more especially according to—(1) the
state of conscience and the habitual purity of life; (2) the time elapsed
since the last valid confession; (3) the education, the knowledge (in
religious matters especially), the intelligence of the penitent; (4) the
state of health.[334]

1. One who seldom falls into mortal sin may satisfy himself with a less
strict examination of conscience, especially if he be in the habit of
making a daily examination of conscience; for if a penitent of this kind
falls into mortal sin, he will immediately recall it; and one who is
morally certain that he has not sinned mortally is, strictly speaking,
not bound to any examination of conscience, but he must be careful to
offer sufficient matter for confession. Though this is quite correct in
theory, in practice the penitent is strongly advised to make a careful
examination of conscience in order to rid himself of his smaller faults
and to reap greater fruit from the Sacrament.

2. The longer the period over which the examination is to extend the more
time and care must be expended in this preparation, but it is not to be
laid down as a principle that a man who has not confessed for a year is
bound to be twelve times as long in his preparation as the man whose last
confession was a month before.

3. Less instructed or quite uneducated people are not obliged to so
careful and searching an examination as the better instructed; they are
quite incapable of examining their conscience, _ad impossibilia nemo
tenetur_. If an educated penitent comes to the Sacrament unprepared,
the confessor should with all proper consideration send him away again
to prepare himself by a careful examination of conscience, unless there
should be solid grounds for supposing such a step inopportune; but only
grave reasons justify such toleration, for, though the sins committed
might be ascertained by questions, there is no moral certainty that such
a confession is a perfect one. A penitent who has not been to confession
for a long time and is leading a worldly life cannot without preparation
answer at once and correctly whether he has committed such or such sins.
If the penitent is uneducated, or, although educated, yet ignorant in
religion, and has taken absolutely no pains to acquire a knowledge of his
sins, he must be treated in the same way; if, however, he has taken some
pains in the matter, the confessor may supply the defect by questions;
for an uneducated man left to himself will, even after a long examination
of conscience, never succeed so well as when guided by the prudent
questioning of an experienced and skillful confessor who will do the work
in a much shorter time. If, then, the confessor sees that he can procure
by questioning a perfect confession such as the penitent left to his
own resources could hardly make after long examination, he should help
him, all the more if there is reason to fear that the penitent would be
frightened by the postponement of his confession, and might be deterred
from confession, at least for a time, by the difficulties attending a
careful examination of conscience. This method, the result of great
experience, is confirmed by the Catechismus Romanus:[335] “If a priest
remarks that such penitents are quite unprepared, he should dismiss them
with very gentle words and advise them to come again after spending
some time in thinking over their sins. If they maintain that they have
already exercised all diligence in examining their conscience, he should
hear them, since there is reason to fear that if sent away they might
not return, and he may with more reason hear their confessions if they
show any signs of wishing to reform their life; then they may be urged
to accuse themselves of their carelessness and promise for the future to
make up for their faults by a careful examination.”

Reuter[336] observes on this subject: “Besides, experience teaches,
as is well remarked by Vasquez and Lugo, that a prudent confessor can
accomplish more with most penitents and uneducated people by a few
questions than they can themselves after a long examination. Hence such
penitents when they give any signs of fervor ought not to be easily
dismissed, in order to examine themselves again, even when defects are
noticed.” Sporer[337] writes: “Uneducated and inexperienced penitents
are unable to make such an exact examination as the more educated; hence
they should be helped by the confessor.” Segneri,[338] too, warns the
priest not to send away ignorant penitents to make a fresh examination
of conscience, unless for the most urgent reasons, since, on the one
hand, they may be frightened away and never come to confession again,
and, on the other hand, the confessor himself can easily supply for their
deficiency by his zeal.

Although a penitent knows that he will be questioned by his confessor,
he is none the less bound to examine his conscience, since otherwise he
would be exposed to the danger of giving wrong and insufficient answers
or of omitting a great deal; he may, however, permit himself a little
less care, especially with regard to the sins common to people in his
state of life.[339]

No one is bound to write his sins even if he should be afraid of
forgetting them; nor, if sin has been committed with another, is there
any obligation to consult with the accomplice in sin to determine
the number of sins; so, too, one who has missed Mass the whole year
is not bound to count up the feasts in the calendar, for this would
be _diligentia extraordinaria_ such as the Council of Trent does not
demand.[340]

4. Those who are prostrated by illness and through weakness or pain
cannot review their past life are not obliged to make an exact
examination of conscience; indeed the confessor should only put to them
a few questions according to their condition. If, however, they regain
their health, they must supply what was wanting in their accusation;
if, after receiving absolution, other mortal sins occur to their mind,
they should confess them and get absolution. In general the sick are not
required to make so careful an examination as others; hence the priest
should not yield when they wish to put off confession from one day to
another on the plea of examining their conscience better; usually this
is only a pretext for putting off the confession, and does not arise
from anxiety or eagerness to prepare well, but from fear; such persons
must be prepared by the priest himself for absolution and the other
Sacraments.[341]

III. A penitent who is guilty of gross neglect in the examination of
conscience makes _per se_ an invalid and sacrilegious confession; he
must, of course, be sufficiently conscious of such neglect in order
to incur this sin. The malice of the offense consists in the risk of
omitting some mortal sin, and so, though none may have been actually left
out, the penitent has sinned gravely by consciously exposing himself to
the danger.

IV. In order to make a good examination of conscience the penitent
should adopt some system; the simplest and easiest method is to go
through the commandments of God and of the Church, the various kinds
of sins (especially the Seven Capital Sins), and the nine ways of
participating in sin; it is also recommended to call to mind particular
hours and days. Theologians give many other methods besides for this
examination. Reuter recommends the penitent to recall where he was each
day, what was done, and what sins were committed by thoughts, wishes,
and desires, words, and works; how he has conducted himself at home,
in church, with his neighbors; the author considers that by this means
repetition will be avoided. To examine the conscience according to this
method would be to exercise not only _diligentia sufficiens but magna
omnino diligentia_.[342] Sporer, approving the method recommended by
Gobat, offers a compendious system for penitents who lead a fairly
uniform existence and for whom the examination of conscience extends
over a longer time, some months or half a year. The penitent should
consider three periods: (1) an ordinary working-day; (2) a Sunday; (3) an
exceptional day in which he has traveled, done some particular business,
been present at a wedding or a dinner, etc.[343] One who has only to
examine a short interval may call to mind how he has sinned against God,
his neighbor, and himself, by thoughts, words, and deeds.

V. The following directions are given by approved moralists to determine
whether any carelessness in the examination of conscience is a mortal or
venial sin and whether in consequence the confession has been valid or
not.

1. Those may rest in perfect security who, being neither too strict nor
too lax, experience no misgiving or anxiety on the care which they have
devoted to the examination of their conscience.

2. If a man doubts whether he has been guilty of more or less
carelessness and discovers after confession that he has omitted more
sins than he has confessed, he must acknowledge himself guilty of
gravely sinful neglect; if, however, he has confessed more sins than
he has omitted, it may be assumed that he has not been guilty of great
carelessness.

3. If a penitent’s last confession was made one or two weeks before and
he accuses himself of mortal sins, giving the number of times in quite a
vague and doubtful fashion, _e.g._, I have committed sins against holy
purity three or four times, there is a strong suspicion that he has been
gravely careless in the examination of his conscience.[344]

It should be noticed that if a penitent, from experience of his own
weakness, is afraid that by a prolonged examination of his sins he will
again consent to them, he may confine himself to a rapid glance at
them, though he knows that for want of further examination many will be
omitted, since in any case the risk of committing sin must be avoided. A
confessor must observe the same guardedness in putting questions on sins
against the angelic virtue, as we shall see later.

If the penitent is troubled with scruples, it is better for him not to go
so thoroughly into his examination of conscience, otherwise confession
would become too burdensome, and experience shows that such penitents
become only more confused, the more they examine themselves; indeed they
should be forbidden any long and anxious attention to themselves.

Let the confessor impress upon worrying souls that the great thing
for them is to have the wish to confess all, that God recognizes the
good will, and that this is shown by praying for grace to make a good
examination of conscience, and that even if a sin be forgotten without
any fault it is remitted, and that the time between confession and
communion should not be occupied with the recalling of one’s past sins,
but that the mind should be fixed on the future.[345]


29. Invalid Confessions.

Confessions may be either invalid or merely defective. If only defective
but not invalid, the defect should be supplied, but there is no need
to repeat the confession; if, however, they are invalid, they must be
repeated. This repetition need not always be made in the same manner.

A confession may be invalid through the fault of the penitent or through
that of the confessor.

A confession may be invalid through the penitent’s fault:—

1. By a gravely sinful defect in the examination of conscience.

2. By culpable and deliberate concealment of anything which ought to be
confessed, or by a gravely sinful lie in confession.

3. By the want of contrition and purpose of amendment; and this defect is
to be found among _recidivi_ as well as those who refuse restitution or
reconciliation with their enemies.

4. By want of good will to carry out the penance imposed, and to
undertake other duties which bind under pain of grievous sin, if the good
will is wanting at the time of receiving absolution.

5. By ignorance of those truths which must be known _necessitate medii_
in order to gain salvation.

6. By receiving absolution while still under a sentence of
excommunication. Among the principal effects of such a sentence must
be counted _privatio sacramentorum_, so that any one receiving the
Sacraments in this condition incurs a mortal sin by breaking the law of
the Church. One may be saved, however, from grievous sin in this matter
by inculpable ignorance, fear of death or mutilation, great disgrace or
serious loss of fortune, etc., as well as by the necessity of obeying
the law of yearly confession and communion when there is no priest with
faculties for absolving from censures, for the law of the Church is not
so severe as to bind its subjects to suffer grievous damage.

It is illicit and even sacrilegious for an excommunicated person to
receive the Sacraments, though the reception is valid except in the
case of the Sacrament of Penance. But when the excommunicated person
is in good faith and thinks he may receive absolution, such absolution
is valid, it being presumed of course that he goes to confession with
the necessary dispositions. Such a case might occur when, through
invincible ignorance or forgetfulness, he omits to mention the censure of
excommunication, or when the priest does not know of it or forgets for
the moment that such a censure is attached to certain sins, or, again,
even where the priest knowingly absolves the penitent, though unprovided
with faculties for the case, because the penitent is in one of the cases
of necessity mentioned above and the priest feels it his duty to give
absolution, or even if _ex malitia_ he absolves a penitent who believes
him to have faculties.[346]

On the part of the confessor the confession may be made invalid if
he has not the necessary jurisdiction or intention, or if he omits
something essential in the formula of absolution, or if through deafness
or inattention or the indistinctness of the penitent’s utterance he has
not understood any sin. If, however, through no fault of the penitent
the priest missed some sins, even mortal sins, the confession would,
according to the probable opinion, be valid if he heard part of the
accusation; those sins, however, which had not been understood ought to
be repeated. If in the course of confession the penitent observes that
the confessor does not understand because he is asleep or distracted, the
penitent must repeat what the priest has failed to hear; if, in spite
of this, the penitent were to continue the confession (_mala fide_), it
would be sinful and invalid and ought to be repeated. If at the end of
the confession the penitent sees that the confessor has been sleepy or
distracted and so has missed some of the sins, though he does not know
which have been missed, he must begin again unless the accusation has
been a long one, in which case it is enough if the penitent repeat what
he thinks the confessor may have missed, for it may be presumed that
Christ never intended to prescribe perfect confession when attended with
such inconvenience.[347]

With respect to repeating confessions the following principles are
accepted:—

I. If a confession is invalid, the sins mentioned in it must be repeated;
otherwise, the ensuing confession is invalid, for those sins were never
remitted by the power of the keys, and in consequence they must be again
submitted to the tribunal.

II. The duty of repeating a confession urges as soon as there is a moral
certainty that said confession was null; if, however, the confession
has certainly been made and there is doubt only as to its validity, the
presumption is in favor of its validity. It is, however, advisable to
repeat a doubtfully valid confession.

There is no difficulty where the penitent has willfully concealed or
never intended to give up a mortal sin or never avoided a voluntary
occasion of sin, and in other such cases, for the confession was
unquestionably invalid and sacrilegious. It is more difficult, however,
to determine at times on the validity of a confession when the penitent
has frequently relapsed without being voluntarily and continually in
the occasion of sin. If a penitent shortly after confession falls
frequently into sin on the first occasion that offers, without making any
resistance, the presumption is that the confession was deficient in the
required contrition and purpose of amendment, and that in consequence it
was invalid. If, however, after confession he usually makes some effort,
the nullity of the confession is not certain, and the confessor may not
force him to repeat the confession, but he will do well to counsel him to
do so when his dispositions improve and he is earnest in his contrition
and in his efforts to make a permanent reform.[348]

III. Invalid confessions must be repeated in their entirety when new
confession is made to another priest who has no knowledge of the sins
contained in the preceding invalid confessions, for this knowledge is
necessary in order to pronounce judgment; hence it is not enough for a
penitent to accuse himself merely of having made one or more invalid
confessions.

IV. If the confession is made to a priest who has heard the invalid
confessions, and in consequence has already passed sentence on the
individual sins and has at least a knowledge _in confuso_ of the
penitent’s state, it is sufficient to summarize the accusation of
previously confessed sins in the form, “I accuse myself of the sins
already mentioned in ... confession,” mentioning if the previous
confessions were invalid through want of integrity, and supplying
this want by a distinct and separate accusation of the sin or sins
omitted.[349] The previous confessions were sacramental, since they
were made with a view to obtain absolution, though deprived of their
sacramental efficacy through the fault of the penitent; hence a general
repetition of them in connection with the knowledge which the confessor
had of the individual sins may be considered as sufficient to form
a judgment. If a penitent wishes to make a general confession, the
distinction between the usual confessor and any other is not of so great
moment, except where the confessor or the penitent is intent upon the
_minimum necessarium_; the usual confessor of the penitent may, however,
be satisfied with less care, since he knows already the previous sins
of his penitent. In this case, however, he must have _notitiam saltem
confusam status pœnitentis_; for this it is not necessary that he should
be able to recall the number and circumstances of the sins in question:
a remembrance of the different species and their number in general
suffices.

The confessor will have acquired this _notitia confusa_ from previous
confessions and from the questions which he puts to the penitent. Such
knowledge is sufficient in so far as it is connected with a knowledge of
previous sins, and that will be the case where the general confession is
made to the same priest.

If, however, the priest can only vaguely call to mind his past treatment
of the penitent, he should put some questions to him in order to form
an idea of the state of his conscience; but he may absolve without this
precaution, if from the penances which he has been in the habit of giving
to his penitent he can form a judgment as to the state of his soul.[350]

The same plan may be adopted in the case in which a man after making his
confession is sent away without absolution, and afterwards returns to
receive it, the confessor in the meantime retaining no recollection of
the sins. Undoubtedly in such a case a _notitia confusa_ is sufficient,
and on the strength of it absolution may be given. Nay, more: if the
penitent’s absolution had been delayed for some reason not connected with
want of necessary dispositions, the confessor might be satisfied with the
remembrance that the penitent was in right dispositions for absolution
and had received a penance in proportion to the sin. Of course it is
always understood that no fresh mortal sin has been committed in the
interval between the confessions; otherwise it must be confessed and a
new act of sorrow and resolution of amendment must be made.[351]

On the same principles we may answer the question already discussed as
to whether a man who recounts his sins (_mere historice_) to a priest
(_qua amico_)—to obtain advice, for instance—is bound to retail them
explicitly if in consequence of the priest’s advice he desires to
receive absolution; or the question might be put thus: What knowledge or
recollection of the sins must the priest have so that on the strength of
a perfunctory accusation couched in general terms he may give absolution?
Many theologians, among them Lacroix and St. Alphonsus, require a
_distincta memoria_ of all the sins, because the preceding confession
was not made to the priest as a judge in the Sacrament, and so cannot
be a sacramental confession; but a sacramental confession is made only
when the confessor has a _distincta memoria_ of the sins narrated at the
time when the summary of the accusation is made; if the priest remembers
them only _in confuso_ or _ex parte_, the penitent must once more make a
distinct accusation of his sins _in ordine ad absolutionem_. The opposite
view is taught by Lugo, who maintains that it is _communis_, for almost
all theologians teach that the _memoria confusa_ is sufficient whatever
may have caused the defect in the previous confession. He grants that the
mere narration of the sins is in no way sacramental, that no judicial
accusation has been made, that it is merely a friendly confidence; this
previous, though not sacramental, narration which still remains _memoria
non omnino distincta_, may become in a certain manner sacramental by the
ensuing (_summarized_) accusation, sufficient for the purposes of the
Sacrament; not because the previous narration was sacramental in itself,
for it was not so, but in so far as the later accusation, joined with the
recollection which the confessor has of the sins previously mentioned,
supplies the priest with the knowledge necessary for the Sacrament.[352]
Thus Lugo combats successfully the objections and reasons of his
opponents.

Still in Lugo’s proof and that of his supporters the difficulty must
not be overlooked that the narration has no sort of relation to the
Sacrament of Penance, either in the mind of the narrator or that of
the priest, and that in consequence the reasons brought forward in the
case above mentioned are not quite convincing. Aertnys consents to
Lugo’s decision—that is, he considers the repetition of the accusation
as unnecessary only when the confessor at the time when the summary of
the sins is made has a _distincta memoria eorum_, since the general
accusation of the penitent along with the _notitia distincta_ of
the confessor is equivalent to a _distincta confessio_.[353] And
Lehmkuhl regards Lugo’s view as quite probable only when the priest is
entertaining hopes as he listens to the narration of getting the man to
make a sacramental confession, though such a thought may be very far from
the man’s mind at the time. The accusation of the penitent may not be
intentionally sacramental, while the attention of the priest has already
begun to assume a judicial and sacramental form and is _inchoative_, at
least, a distinctly judicial investigation such as would seem sufficient
when the penitent on his part gives his consent to carry out the distinct
judicial act. If, however, the penitent in the course of his narration
never hinted at the idea of a sacramental accusation and the priest never
adverted to it, the teaching of St. Alphonsus would seem to prevail, for
in such a case a _distincta notitia judicialis_ never existed, unless
a _distincta memoria_ were retained by the priest; but the sacramental
sentence which has to be pronounced over every mortal sin is based solely
on a judicial knowledge of them.[354]


30. General Confession.

The repetition of former confessions, whether of all the confessions of
a lifetime or of those last made, is called a general confession. It is
necessary for many penitents, useful to others; to a few only it may be
said to be harmful.

1. General confession is necessary for all who have made invalid
confessions. St. Alphonsus remarks on this subject that it is a frequent
experience in missions that bad confessions have to be set right; hence
he advises missioners that since the good of missions consists mainly in
setting right bad confessions, they should in all their discourses be
urgent in explaining the heinousness of sacrilege and how many souls are
lost by concealing mortal sins in confession. Experience teaches that
many people are overcome by false shame so as to conceal their sins even
in the confessions which they make to the fathers giving the mission. If
at so solemn a time as a mission such people fail to set right their bad
confessions, what hope is there of their salvation? If in the confession
which they make to the missioner they cannot overcome their shame, how
will they do it when they confess to the local priest? There is indeed
good reason for ever and again insisting on the general confession.[355]
Hence it is very desirable that the local priests at the time of a
mission should refrain from hearing confessions, and surrender their
confessionals to the fathers who give the mission (or to some strange
priests called in for the special work of hearing the confessions), for
some of the faithful, if they see their usual confessor in attendance,
may be deterred from going to a strange priest and continue to make
sacrilegious confessions. It not unfrequently happens that people whom we
would never suspect have most need of freedom in this respect.[356]

It frequently happens that a confessor thinks a general confession
necessary when the penitent is not at all convinced of its necessity.
Whether the penitent is to be advised in such a case to make a general
confession will be determined by the rules which are given as to the duty
of instructing the penitent or leaving him to himself (§ 55); for if the
penitent suspects nothing of the nullity of his previous confessions,
the confession which he now makes in good faith and proper dispositions
is valid, and by virtue of it the sins mentioned in former invalid
confessions are indirectly remitted and need only be repeated when the
conscience awakes to the fact. Moreover, a prudent confessor, if he fails
to persuade a penitent of the necessity of a general confession, may
succeed by a few questions in making the confession practically a general
one. Indeed, unless the penitent takes it in bad part the priest may by
a little adroitness elicit a general confession; then he must, before
giving absolution, let the penitent know that he has made a general
confession. The case may also occur where the penitent has made one or
more sacrilegious confessions and, quite forgetful of this circumstance,
has begun to make valid confessions without ever setting right the bad
ones; this not unfrequently happens to children. In this case the general
confession need only extend over the sacrilegious confessions.[357]

2. Of the great usefulness of general confession, popes, saintly bishops,
founders of orders, and the great doctors of the Church all speak in most
unmistakable terms. The learned Benedict XIV, in his instructions on the
preparation of the faithful for a fruitful celebration of the Jubilee,
directs priests who give the missions to impress on the people again
and again the great profit of general confession. They are to urge them
to penance, and to instruct them how to receive the Sacrament validly
and profitably; they are to proclaim that it is absolutely necessary to
repeat former bad confessions, and they should take all possible pains to
excite to a general confession even those who do not feel any necessity
for repeating their sins again. “For if it is not necessary to mention
again our former sins, we regard such repetition as very profitable
on account of the confusion connected with such avowal, which is an
important part of penance, as our predecessor, Benedict XI, teaches in
this Decretal _Inter Cunctas_.” He also appeals to St. Charles Borromeo,
who in his _Monita ad Confessarios_ proclaims the usefulness of general
confession and recommends it. “Confessors,” says the saint, “ought, with
due regard to persons, times, and places, urge their penitents to make a
general confession, that thus by a thorough examination of their lives
they may turn to God with greater peace of mind and repair all faults
which have been committed in former confessions.” As another witness
for the usefulness of this practice, Benedict XIV adduces St. Francis
of Sales who, in many places in his works, insists strongly on the
practice. Thus he writes to a widow concerning her father: The counsels
which I give him I reduce to two points: the first one is that he should
institute a careful examination of his whole life with a view to making
a general confession and performing a corresponding penance,—this is a
means which no sensible man will despise in presence of death; the other
is that he should continually endeavor to wean his mind from the vanities
of the world.[358] Benedict then refers to the rules which St. Vincent de
Paul gave to his mission-priests, in which he exhorts them to encourage
general confessions. In the life of the holy founder it is recorded what
great fruits were reaped from the general confessions which were made
during the missions held by those priests.[359]

The advantages of general confession are thus briefly enumerated
by St. Ignatius in his Book of the Exercises: (1) We gain greater
fruit and merit on account of the deeper contrition with which we
approach the Sacrament; (2) we are better able to realize the malice
of sins committed; (3) we are in better dispositions for receiving
holy communion, and we are more disposed to shun sin. Moreover, the
Directorium of the Exercises, a work composed by a member of the Society
of Jesus and edited by the General Claudius Aquaviva, adds the following
observation: If the general confession offered no other advantage, the
following fact would sufficiently recommend it; experience proves that
men for the most part go to confession either without proper examination,
or without the required contrition, or with but a weak purpose of
amendment; the general confession comes in most opportunely to give peace
of mind, to remove scruples, which sooner or later, or at least at the
hour of death, come to torture the soul and expose it to the danger of
losing eternal salvation.

Segneri also very earnestly recommends general confession. It is a very
safe and useful plan to examine one’s life thoroughly at least once, and
to set it right by a general confession, and to keep up the practice
at fixed intervals of a year, or even oftener, of making a general
confession beginning from the last. The advantage of this practice is
that, seeing all our faults and sins at a glance, we are filled with
greater confusion and sorrow and are impelled to be more humble; besides
the fear of God’s justice will grow in us when we see our sins, past and
present, hanging like a great mountain over us, so that we are compelled
to cry out with Esdras—“Our sins are grown up even unto heaven.”
(Esdr. ix. 6.) And who does not see how difficult it is without such a
confession to obtain that most priceless of blessings, peace of mind, at
least if the frequent relapses into sin are due to a want of preparation?
Oh, how many confessions are thought to be valid and are not so in
reality![360]

Finally, the words of St. Alphonsus deserve a place here: “I advise
every one who has not yet done so to confess all the sins which he has
ever committed in his life, and I advise not only those who have made
sacrilegious confessions by concealing mortal sins, or whose confessions
have been invalid through want of previous examination of conscience or
of true contrition, but those also who are anxious to begin a new life;
for this purpose a general confession is very useful.”[361]

Hence, general confession is useful: (1) for adults who have not already
made one; (2) especially for such as have reasonable misgivings about the
validity of past confessions; (3) for those who wish to start a new and
better life; (4) before entering on a new state of life, hence before
marriage, before receiving Orders or making the profession in a religious
community; (5) at the time of a jubilee or mission, or of the spiritual
exercises, for these are special occasions of grace and penance; (6) for
persons who are in danger of death, while their strength permits, and for
those who have to expose their lives to any danger.

Those who have once made a good general confession, especially if they
are of mature age, may set their minds at ease on that portion of their
existence, and such people should not be easily allowed to repeat their
general confession unless for very weighty and exceptional reasons. These
frequent repetitions do more harm than good. The desire of repeating
the general confession is usually a sign of a certain want of trust in
God and of scrupulosity. If a penitent of this kind, after his general
confession, is uneasy about some important point in his former life,
because he thinks he has not confessed something or failed to confess
it properly, he may be allowed to mention it in one of his ordinary
confessions.

A repetition of the confession of his whole life may be allowed to a
penitent who is free from scruples and is full of zeal to enter on
a perfect life. On the other hand, it is well to advise and even to
urge as a very useful means the practice of general confession at
fixed intervals, say of a year, or a half year, or when the occasions
mentioned above afford an opportunity. If the confessor has to deal with
a penitent who has already once or oftener made a general confession,
he should ask when the last confession was made and why the penitent
is anxious to make it again. The answer will suggest the course to be
pursued by the confessor: (_a_) If the penitent can give no definite
reason, but speaks of a general feeling of unrest, the confessor may ask
what the cause of this unrest is, and whether in the preceding general
confession the penitent has honestly said all he knew and as he knew it,
whether he answered the questions put by the priest in all truth, whether
he was sorry for his sins, and whether there was a real improvement in
his way of living, or, on the other hand, whether he fell again into sin,
and when. If a defect is discovered in the preceding general confession
it must be repeated; otherwise the penitent must be shown how groundless
his fears are and encouraged to trust in God. The repetition of the
general confession must be strictly forbidden, especially in the case of
those troubled with scruples. At the most, the accusation of one or other
sin which gives most uneasiness may be permitted, and the penitent must
be engaged to think no more about the matter, but only to make acts of
sorrow when these sins occur to his mind. (_b_) If, however, the penitent
wishes to make a general confession because the last one was made a long
time ago, and many mortal sins have been committed in the interval,
he should be permitted to make it. The period which has been already
comprised in a general confession may be treated with less detail, or
quite omitted. A short repetition is, however, as a rule, recommended
since the earlier life of the penitent throws light on his present
condition, and he is always more content if the confessor has, at least,
some general perception of the former state of his soul. (_c_) If the
penitent wishes to make a general confession for ascetic reasons, _e.g._
for the sake of humility, of greater purity of heart, etc., the question
is to be settled as follows: If the penitent is a stranger, he must be
referred to his usual confessor; if he has none, he must be recommended
to choose one. If the penitent asks the confessor to undertake his
direction, and on the strength of this to receive his general confession,
the request is not to be granted at once. A simple confession may be made
so that the priest may decide whether a general confession be necessary
to gain the knowledge required for guiding the penitent, or at least
useful, or on the contrary harmful where there exists a tendency to
scruple. With one’s ordinary penitents, this procedure is not required in
order to find out whether a general confession is or is not advantageous;
the ascetical object may be obtained by mentioning some of the more
humiliating sins or by well-prepared annual general confessions.

In the special case of penitents who have been living in impurity the
confessor should allow them only one general confession on that period
of their lives lest by reflecting on those sins in their examination
of conscience sinful promptings should arise in their imagination, the
conscience thus incurring fresh stains where the object was to purify it;
after one perfect confession of these sins the penitent should not be
allowed, or rather he should be forbidden, to make any further accusation
of them; a general accusation may, however, be made in subsequent
confessions in these or other words of similar form: “I accuse myself of
all sins committed against the sixth commandment.” Moreover, it is not
recommended to advise such penitents to make a general confession till
they have combated that vice with success, unless some other pressing
need exist for making a general confession.[362]

On the other hand, the confessor should not omit to advise those who are
dangerously ill to make a general confession, or at least a summary of
one; he may do this by asking whether anything in their past life gives
uneasiness, whether they have always made good confessions and made good
acts of contrition, whether they have been living in proximate occasions
of sin, etc.; he will thus have many opportunities of righting at the
last moment sacrilegious confessions and communions and rescuing souls
from hell.

Since general confession is so profitable, the confessor may, according
to the advice of St. Alphonsus,[363] with the exception of the above
case, receive penitents who wish to make a general confession of their
whole life or of part of it and that at once if they are prepared; he
should be most willing to help them in it unless some obstacle, as, for
instance, the number of penitents still waiting, or shortness of time,
should prevent him from devoting more time to one penitent. He will
sometimes find that a general confession which seemed to be only useful
turns out to have been necessary. On the other hand, the confessor should
refrain from forcing on a penitent a general confession which is not
dictated by necessity.[364]

3. General confession is harmful to scrupulous and even to overanxious
people; to such it brings not peace of mind but only more scruples; hence
they should be dissuaded from making a general confession; it can only
be allowed when there is complete certainty of the invalidity of past
confessions. “Scrupulous penitents,” says St. Alphonsus, “would go on
making and repeating general confessions forever in the hope of laying
aside their anxiety, but the evil only grows, for after every general
confession they fall again into new anxieties and scruples, thinking they
have omitted some sin or failed to confess it properly, so that their
uneasiness increases the oftener they repeat their confessions.”[365]
The confessor, in consequence, must be on his guard against such people
and not allow himself to be deceived by them; he may permit them only
to mention some sin which causes them very great trouble, and he
must instruct them to atone for their defects by an act of sorrow.
If, however, the priest is convinced of the invalidity of the former
confessions of such people, he should help them through their general
confession and after that forbid any further examination. Moreover, only
an experienced, prudent, and skillful confessor should undertake the
direction of such persons, and a young confessor should recommend them
to some holy man of greater age. Moreover, the general confession, as
we have already mentioned, is a danger to all those for whom reflection
on their past sins is a source of new temptations. It is dangerous for
those who live in the voluntary and unnecessary occasion of sin and are
always relapsing, who are not really in good dispositions, and who make a
general confession merely with a view of getting absolution more easily;
they may be recognized by the sins committed since their last confession,
and they may be admitted to a general confession after being exhorted
to give up the occasions of sin and to combat their sinful habits.[366]
St. Leonard of Port Maurice says on this subject: “If the penitent is
living in the proximate occasion of sin without making a firm resolution
to reform, or without giving signs of contrition, you must give him no
encouragement to make a general confession, for the proximate occasion
must first be removed and the habit overcome at least for a time. It
would else be but labor lost, for general confession is not merely an
institution for setting right past confessions, but also for reforming
one’s life. If no purpose of the sort is in the mind of the penitent,
there cannot even be a reasonable certainty that he will persevere in
his reform, and there is no foundation upon which to build up virtue.
Exhort him, and suggest means for avoiding the occasions of evil and
for overcoming sin; show him the utter impossibility of reform unless
the occasions are given up, or, if this cannot be, unless they are made
remote; urge him to pray and put off the general confession to another
time. Only on quite special occasions, _e.g._ missions, or where there
are extraordinary signs of penitence may any fruit be expected from the
general confessions of those who live in occasions of sin and show no
signs of improvement.”[367]

The practice of many confessors is to be deprecated, who, after hearing
one or two confessions of a penitent, urge him to make a general
confession, moved by imprudent zeal or in order to obtain better
knowledge for the guidance of the penitent. Equally reprehensible is the
conduct of many priests who give way to their penitents, allowing them
to make often a general confession, or, at least, whenever they choose a
new confessor. Such general confessions are quite useless and are a mere
waste of time.[368]


31. The Manner of Hearing General Confession.

As to the method of hearing general confessions, the following rules, the
outcome of the long experience of learned confessors, should be observed:—

1. In order to be fit for this office a confessor should be well
instructed and already experienced in hearing confessions; he must have
great patience and zeal for souls, and during the whole course of the
confession be very sympathetic and encouraging towards the penitent.

2. If a penitent expresses his desire to make a general confession, the
priest should first inquire whether it be necessary or useful. In order
to discover this it is not recommended to ask the penitent bluntly if
he has ever concealed a sin in his former confessions, or any question
of the kind, for it is quite possible that the penitent, though guilty
of the sin, may in his bewilderment deny it and never again dare to
confess it; it is much better if the confessor ask the penitent why he
wishes to make a general confession, whether he feels uneasy, etc. By
such questions or the like he may try to discover if there have been
sacrilegious confessions. He will often receive one or other of the
following answers: (_a_) “Because I have kept sins back;” he will then
encourage his penitent, showing himself very kind towards him and urging
him to be perfectly sincere. (_b_) “I have never yet made a general
confession;” he may then find out if it be necessary or only useful.
(_c_) “I have made a general confession before, but it was not a good
one.” He may then ask why the last general confession was not a good one;
if the penitent can give no other reason, except his own fears, there is
a fair presumption that he has to deal with an overanxious or scrupulous
penitent. (_d_) “I heard in a sermon that my confessions were bad;” here
again the reason must be asked. (_e_) The following reason may also be
given especially during a mission: “I want to begin a better life;” in
such a case the general confession will be at least very useful.

3. If the general confession is necessary in consequence of former
confessions having been sacrilegious or invalid, it must be made with
great accuracy and the number and species must be given, so far as
possible, just as though the sins had never been confessed before. It
may easily happen, however, that the confessor, though convinced of the
necessity of a general confession, cannot at once hear it for want of
time or on account of the great number of penitents kept waiting; while
the penitent frequently cannot return again and is quite uninstructed or
of weak intellect, or is really anxious to receive absolution or must
receive it in order to fulfill the obligation of going to communion.
In such a case, and especially when the penitent discloses at once to
his confessor that his previous confessions have been bad by reason of
not giving the number of the sins, and when the confessor can, from the
account of sins committed in the past year, form a fair estimate of the
past life of the sinner, St. Alphonsus recommends that absolution should
be given without any repetition of previous confessions. He assumes that
the confessor is able to form a gross estimate as to the whole life from
what he hears concerning one year, and that he further inquires whether
the penitent, besides his ordinary sins, is conscious of any special
ones in the course of his life. The detailed general confession may be
put off to some more opportune occasion which can be arranged at once
with the penitent. The holy Doctor adds another instance to those just
mentioned—when the confessor after hearing the confession discovers
that the penitent has failed in former confessions to give the number
of his sins and when, at the same time, he has a _distincta notitia_
of the sins and can form upon them a _distinctum judicium_ on the past
career of the penitent; if, however, he have only a _notitia confusa_ of
the sins confessed, he is obliged to form a _notitia distincta_ of the
former mortal sins imperfectly confessed. With only a _notitia confusa_
of the penitent’s previous condition he may not give absolution, for the
penitent is obliged to confess each single sin once, and the confessor
is obliged to pronounce once a distinct judgment on the sins.[369] In
the case, however, where the general confession is not of necessity,
these precautions in putting questions need not be adopted; if the
concourse of penitents is very large, and if, as frequently occurs, in
missions or on similar occasions the general confession cannot be put
off to a more convenient time, the confessor may at least make a summary
examination, asking only for the species of the sins and the time of
duration of the habits of sin without laying stress on the exact number
and circumstances of each particular sin. The priest must, of course,
give the penitent sufficient time to unburden his conscience and to say
all he wants to accuse himself of, even though such accusation be not
necessary in this voluntary general confession, so that the penitent may
leave the confessional with his mind quite at ease; thus he may ask him
in general: “Do you accuse yourself of all sinful thoughts, words, etc.?”
On this account it is recommended to impress upon the penitent that in a
voluntary general confession he is not bound to accuse himself of each
particular sin; indeed this instruction is very useful, for a penitent
may, in the course of his confession, incur sacrilege through false shame
and an erroneous conscience by keeping back a sin which he imagines he is
obliged to tell in general confession. It is an invariable rule to avoid
too great haste or abruptness, otherwise the penitent is not put at his
ease; hence it not infrequently happens that a penitent accuses himself
of not having said all he wanted to say because the priest had been too
quick.

“The greatest difficulty in general confessions,” says Blessed Leonard of
Port Maurice, “is the accusation of the number of sins.” To meet this the
following rules will be of service:—

(_a_) If the confessor can get at the precise number of sins, he is
obliged to do so.

(_b_) If the penitent cannot give the exact number, he must be asked to
give about the number, as near as possible. For this purpose the priest
will suggest numbers, and if the penitent choose the largest number, a
still larger one may be suggested to see if the penitent will accuse
himself also of that.

(_c_) In the case of frequently recurring sins or habits of sin it is
necessary to find out whether they have been of daily, weekly, or monthly
occurrence. As to which of these periods will apply to the penitent
depends on his state as learnt from his last confession, and on the
nature of the sin itself. In mentioning the period the confessor should
always add a number, _e.g._ how often each week, three, four, or five
times? and as we said under (_b_), the whole time during which the sin or
habit of sin lasted must be found out. Finally it is useful in order to
ascertain the state of the penitent’s soul to find out whether there has
at any time been improvement and how long it lasted.

(_d_) It is the _sententia communis_ and the teaching of St. Alphonsus
that by one and the same internal and external act a number of sins
may be committed, when, for instance, the object aimed at in the sin
includes several ends. A man, for instance, spreads a calumny about a
community,—by so doing he incurs as many sins as there are persons in the
community; this occurs usually in cases of enmity, scandal, etc. When,
therefore, there is a _diversitas objectorum totalium_, questions must be
put concerning the number of these objects.

(_e_) In putting questions as to the number and species of the sin, care
must be taken not to bewilder the penitent with questions; if two or
three questions do not effect the desired result, no more need be put;
for St. Alphonsus teaches: The priest, who, after two or three questions,
fails to obtain any definite result, need not worry even if he cannot
come to any clear decision, _nam ex conscientiis implicatis et confusis
moraliter impossibile est majorem claritatem sperare_.[370]

In conclusion, St. Leonard[371] remarks: If the confessor cannot get at
the exact or probable number, or even the more frequent repetitions, it
is in my opinion sufficient to find out the evil habit and the time of
its duration. By this means the confessor, so far as is possible, will
gain an idea of the state of his penitent and be able to form a judgment
about him. The greater or less frequency of repetition must not, however,
involve other consequences, as in the case of stealing. Here great care
must be used to find out the number of the sins and, in particular, the
value of the sum stolen.

4. If the general confession is a voluntary one and the penitent
unprepared, it is not advisable to receive it, but to give the penitent
some days to prepare by examining his conscience, making acts of
contrition, and praying with more than usual fervor,—a method which will
insure greater fruit in the general confession. At the same time the
confessor might show the penitent that a general confession is not such
a difficult matter once it is undertaken courageously. If, however, the
penitent will be prevented from returning to the priest to whom he wishes
to make his general confession, the confession may be made at once. If
the general confession is one of necessity, there is all the more reason
for a good preparation. If, however, as frequently happens, there is
reason to fear that the penitent will not return, the confessor should
not send him away to make his preparation, but receive the confession at
once.

As to the preparation required on the part of the penitent, especially
with regard to the examination of conscience, the confessor will be
careful not to exact a written accusation; such a process, as a rule,
only causes confusion and adds to the burdens of the confessor. If the
penitent is afraid of not being able to retain in his memory the results
of his examination of conscience, he may confine himself to a quiet
examination according to his powers, and the confessor will help him.
It may be permitted to the penitent to make notes of the more necessary
points. If the confession is voluntary, the confessor may take the notes
and read them for himself; if it be a general confession of necessity,
the penitent himself should read them.

5. It is not _per se_ required that a penitent declare first the
sins committed since the last confession before repeating his former
confessions, nor is he obliged to make a distinction between the sins
committed since the last confession and those told in former confessions,
since the sin is the same whether confessed or not, and it makes no
difference that the former sins have been remitted because the sin is not
the object of confession in so far as it is habitual or leaves enduring
stain, but in so far as it has been actually committed.[372] Still it
is recommended to make the general confession precede the particular
confession of the sins committed since the last time, in order that the
priest may better ascertain the state of his penitent and assure himself
that there is no obstacle to his giving absolution.

6. If the penitent is a well-instructed person and prepared, and is
really desirous of confessing, the priest may allow him first to make
his confession, and then he can put any questions that may be necessary,
for many persons feel the need to reveal what is on their mind and have
no peace until they do it. If, however, the penitent is persuaded that
confession consists in the priest putting questions and the penitent
answering, or if he wishes to make his confession in this manner, the
confessor may adopt this mode. With ignorant penitents it is recommended
and is indeed preferable. The confessor must then give the penitent time
and opportunity to mention anything that disturbs his peace of mind.

7. If the confessor receives a general confession by way of question and
answer, he must adopt some method, going through the Ten Commandments,
the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and the duties of
the state of life.

For the sake of greater clearness and to avoid repetitions he might
indeed bring all sins under the Ten Commandments, those even which are
against the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and other
varieties of sins, for the Decalogue, as the Roman Catechism teaches, is
the sum of all the Commandments.

It is not, however, recommended to divide the confession into parts
answering to the different periods of one’s life, for such a practice
protracts the confession and involves many burdensome repetitions; still
in the case of the sixth Commandment it has its advantages, and questions
might be put as to sins committed before marriage, during the married
state, and after the death of the other party. Finally penitents who can
be questioned as to the _actus consummati_ should be asked according to
the different species of the act as well as on the _actus imperfecti_,
internal and external, with regard to the species.

8. The priest should not omit to exhort the penitent to acknowledge
honestly his sins, and not to conceal from false shame anything which
he is obliged to tell.[373] The confessor should never give any sign of
astonishment or anger, no matter how numerous or atrocious the sins may
be. Let him show rather that he would not be surprised at hearing even
worse sins; let him come to the help of the penitent and even praise
him for having succeeded in confessing some one or other of the more
difficult sins. He may congratulate the penitent on winning a victory
over himself and the devil, and encourage him again to complete candor
and to make the confession as perfect as though it were to be the last of
his life.


32. Plan for making a General Confession.

In this paragraph we present a plan of questions suitable for a
general confession and offer it especially for the guidance of younger
confessors. A few preliminary remarks, however, are necessary to secure
clearness.

This plan need not contain all the sins which are treated of in moral
theology, but only such as may or do actually occur. Nevertheless, if
a confessor adhere to this schedule in his questions he may be quite
satisfied as to the integrity of the confession.

Such a schedule should be as short as possible so that the confessor may
easily retain it in his head; hence the subdivisions, which he should
know from his moral theology, may be omitted.

Since in a general confession venial sins ought not to be lost sight
of on account of their close connection with mortal sins and because
they are of great moment in determining the state of the penitent’s
soul, some of the more serious venial sins will find a place in the
catalogue. The confessor should know, in addition, how a sin in itself
and objectively venial may become mortal _per accidens_, and, on the
other hand, how a sin _grave ex genere suo_ may _per accidens_ become
venial.[374]

Moreover, the priest should be careful not to examine all penitents on
every sin; a single question to which a negative answer is given will
show that a whole series of other questions may be omitted, and thus
he will only inquire after those sins which are likely to have been
committed. In putting his questions he should pay due regard both to the
physical and the spiritual condition of the penitent. From sins already
confessed an indication may easily be drawn as to the further inquiries
to be made, and while he omits many questions in the catalogue he may
deem it advisable to add others. If he discovers in the penitent a habit
of sin, he must inquire how long it lasted, when it began, and when it
was broken off.

In all his questions he will observe the rules which hold on this
subject in every confession;[375] in particular he should bear in mind
the words of St. Leonard of Port Maurice: “Treat your penitent,” he
says, “as you would like to be treated yourself if you were in the same
painful situation; receive him in a friendly manner and with affectionate
kindness; encourage him to have confidence in you and to open his heart
to you. Refrain from harsh and blunt forms of address which serve rather
to irritate and embitter the penitent than to make him docile, obedient,
and pliant; and even when he is gross and ignorant, rebellious to all
advice and unwilling to fulfill his duties, do not, on that account,
treat him harshly or frighten him by a display of overbearing rigor.
Remember that in the confessional you must be a martyr of patience,
seeking always to win the penitent by the gentleness of your manners,
and that your duty is to incline rather to mildness than strictness. If
your words are to have the power of gentle persuasiveness, you must deal
with him in the spirit of our holy faith, and he will become humble and
convinced of the truth of your words.”[376]

If the penitent is not already well known to the confessor, the latter
must by a few questions at the beginning of the confession inform himself
as to the age, position, calling, and other circumstances of his penitent
since such knowledge is necessary for the choice and arrangement of the
questions to be put.

If in the course of the confession some question must be asked on some
rarely occurring and horrible sin, it should be pleaded by way of excuse
that a special advantage of a general confession is to secure a thorough
examination of conscience; and that this explains the unusual questions.

If during the confession the discovery is made that the penitent lies
under some special obligation to avoid occasions of sin, to make
restitution or some such burden, he should be told of it and disposed
for it at once without waiting for the end of the confession for fear
of forgetting it or of giving a wrong judgment. All other directions,
however, in the way of advice or instruction should only be given at the
end for fear of annoying and repelling the penitent, and also in order to
avoid prolixity and repetition. If on general principles the absolution
ought to be put off and the penitent fails to show necessary dispositions
by signs of extraordinary sorrow and penitence, the confession should
be interrupted and not resumed till a decided improvement is seen. If
the penitent is judged to be in good dispositions, the confession may go
on after the promise of performing the necessary obligations has been
exacted, and the penitent should be reminded that if he is not sincerely
determined to stand by his promises, his trouble is all in vain and his
confession invalid, and that he is putting a seal on his condemnation by
a new offense against God. In longer confessions it is a good practice
even during the accusation (especially if some particularly grave sin
be mentioned) to remind the penitent of the greatness of his crimes, of
God’s goodness and grace by which he has been freed from all these great
sins, and then to encourage him to make a thoroughly good confession.
The penitent should also be reminded of all his bad confessions and
communions, of his neglect of his Easter duties, etc.

If it be observed that the penitent is unusually disturbed, the cause
of it should be found out; if it be the avowal of some one sin, the
confessor should seek to obtain some hint about it and then push the
questions so that the penitent has only to answer yes or no; thus a
penitent may be consoled who is troubled because he has not sufficiently
examined himself, or cannot express his meaning correctly or has
forgotten what he wished to say. If no definite cause can be assigned,
the confessor should encourage him in a general way, telling him that the
confession is made to God, reminding him of the sacredness of the seal,
recalling to him that the priest is also but a man, subject to faults
and weaknesses; impressing upon him that the priest is ordained in order
to sympathize with others, to help them by his kindness and patience,
etc. Furthermore the way of beginning a general confession depends on
the circumstances of the penitent, and these must be inquired into at
once.[377]

Having laid down these principles we enter into details:—

I. _Preliminary Questions._

1. The penitent should be asked his age, his condition of life, and his
calling.

2. Then he may be asked if his previous confessions have been valid
(the uninstructed should be assisted to form a correct judgment in the
matter), whether he has ever intentionally concealed a grave sin or a
notable circumstance in confession—given intentionally the wrong number
of his sins—examined his conscience carefully—tried to be really contrite
at least for all graver sins. Then he may be asked if he has always
faithfully performed the penance imposed. If the confessor discovers
any sacrilegious confessions, he must at once ascertain their number as
closely as possible, asking when the first bad confession was made, how
long the habit lasted, whether any of them were set right, how often the
penitent in this condition was accustomed to confess or communicate,
whether the Easter duties were neglected by reason of such confessions
and communions, whether in making such confessions and communions the
penitent was conscious of committing sacrilege; whether during that
period other Sacraments were received such as Confirmation, Matrimony,
Extreme Unction. If the penitent is persuaded that his confessions were
not sacrilegious, but some grounds of suspicion remain, the confessor
might on occasion of some accusation against the sixth Commandment,
make inquiry if the sin has been confessed before; or he might even ask
plainly, “You have never yet confessed this sin?” or, “You have never had
the courage to confess this sin?”

II. _Sins against the Sixth and Ninth and the Other Commandments._[378]

The confessor may next, in order to learn the general state of the
penitent, ask quite generally: “Were you ever led astray when young? at
what age? Did you indulge in any impure habits?” If the priest discovers
that the penitent is quite innocent of such sins, he should go on at
once to the other Commandments. He might perhaps ask further: “Were you
troubled with temptations against holy purity? Had you to listen to bad
conversation? Has any one ever taken liberties with you?”

Sins of _luxuria consummata_ may be reduced to four species, _pollutio_,
_fornicatio_, _sodomia_, and _bestialitas_. These species have their
_actus imperfectos_, external, for instance _tactus_, and internal,
namely, _delectatio morosa_ and _desideria_, and in addition may have
three circumstances which change the nature of the sin, _adulterium_,
_incestus_, _sacrilegium_. The questions may be modeled on these four
species, and in the case of each sin the circumstances inquired into
which affect the species of the sin. Any compendium of Moral Theology
will suggest the necessary detail.[379]

He may add: “Have you confessed all the sins you have committed against
holy purity? Does anything else disturb your mind with regard to
the sixth Commandment? Perhaps you can manage now to make a general
confession and to set in order your past life.”


_Against the First Commandment._

1. _Against Faith._ The confessor may ask whether the penitent has been
troubled by doubts against faith, or really doubted of the truths of
faith and suggested such doubts to others; whether he has denied any
truth of faith; whether he has acted or spoken against faith and before
how many persons; whether he has induced others to jeer or mock at faith;
has he spoken against religion and priests? has he listened to speeches
of others directed against faith and applauded or encouraged them? has
he read, sold, given or recommended to others the reading of books and
articles against faith? has he himself written for such publications?
has he frequented the society of men who mocked at religion or were
enemies of the faith? has he taken part in the religious services of
non-Catholics? has he joined any society which is hostile to religion?

2. _Against Hope._ Has he doubted of his salvation or of God’s mercy? or
of the possibility of reforming? has he presumed on God’s mercy and put
off his conversion?

3. _Against Charity._ Has he under stress of suffering hated God?
indulged feelings of indifference or resentment against God and holy
things? has he murmured against God in his sufferings and crosses? has he
banished God from his mind for long periods, neglected prayer?

4. _Against the Reverence due to God._ Has he believed in superstitious
practices and employed them? has he used sacred objects without reverence
or for wrong purposes? has he received any of the Sacraments (Penance,
Holy Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction) unworthily? has
he desecrated holy places? has he injured persons consecrated to God?


_Against the Second Commandment._

Has he blasphemed? before children? Has he a habit of swearing? Has he
ever sworn to what was false, or to anything of which he was doubtful? in
a court of justice? to the injury of others? Has he been accustomed to
use rash oaths?


_Against the Third Commandment and the Commandments of the Church._

Has he by his own fault missed Mass on Sundays and holidays of
obligation? has he absented himself by his own fault from a considerable
portion of the services? Has his behavior during the services been
irreverent and scandalous? Has he done servile work without necessity
on Sundays or holidays of obligation? for how long? before others? or
has he required such work from others? Has he broken the law of fasting
without cause, or eaten meat on forbidden days without a dispensation?
Has he neglected his Easter duties?


_Against the Fourth Commandment._

Are the parents still living? Has he deliberately offended them by
frequent disobedience in matters of moment (_e.g._ frequenting certain
company against their will, staying late in public houses, by not giving
up bad companions, by neglecting religious duties or important business
at home)? Has he despised them in his heart? treated them with contempt
or given them great trouble? used harsh and contemptuous language to
them? wished them harm seriously? in the presence of others? Has he been
ashamed of them? neglected them in their necessities, treated them badly,
not carried out their last wishes?

Servants, etc., should be asked whether they are faithful to their
master’s services: have they offended him by contempt or rudeness?
damaged his reputation with his neighbors? obeyed him in things
forbidden? Have they given scandal to others in the house, particularly
children?

Masters, etc., should be asked whether they take due care of those under
them. Have they treated them unjustly? permitted evil practices? have
they kept their servants to the practice of their religious duties and
given them time for it? have they given their servants bad example or led
them into sin?

Parents and Superiors should be asked if they take proper care of their
charges, or have squandered the family property. Do they correct and
punish the children with prudence and without anger? have they ever
wished evil to befall them? Do they watch over their children, keeping
them from bad companions, from sinful connections? Have they instructed
the children in their religious duties? have they sent their children
to irreligious schools? Have they given their children bad example? Have
they said or done anything sinful in presence of the children?

Married people should be asked if they live together in peace? have their
quarrels given scandal to the children?


_Against the Fifth Commandment._

Has the penitent let himself be carried away by anger? broken out into
curses or wished grave damage to betide his neighbor? Has he rejoiced
in his neighbor’s misfortunes, entertained hatred, and inflicted harm
or intended to inflict it? Has he fostered enmities or refused to make
satisfaction to those whom he has injured? Has he lived in enmity with
others, with how many and for how long? Has he promised to make peace and
kept his promise? Has he ever seriously damaged his health or attempted
his life, or seriously thought of doing so? Has he been in the habit of
drinking, and been quite overcome by drink? Has this been the occasion
of quarrels or other sins? Is it a habit? Has he neglected his duties to
his wife and children in consequence, or ill treated them and destroyed
the peace of the family? (The confessor must not forget his studies on
_occasio_ and _consuetudo_ when dealing with cases of this sort.)

It might also be well to ask if the penitent has been hard in dealing
with the poor in their grave needs and refused assistance.


_Against the Seventh and Tenth Commandments._

Has he entertained desires of stealing or of cheating his neighbor? Has
he actually committed theft, or cheated his neighbor in doing business?
Has he inflicted losses on any one? Has he paid his debts or put off for
a long time the paying of them? Has he made restitution and repaired the
losses inflicted? Is he at least willing to make reparation? If not, why
not?


_Against the Eighth Commandment._

Has he told lies to the grave injury of his neighbor? Has he ever given
false witness in a court of justice? Has he ever betrayed an important
secret? Has he ever injured the reputation of his neighbor by revealing
his faults without sufficient reason? to how many people was this
communication made? Has he ever falsely accused his neighbor of a fault?
to how many people? Did he restore the good name of the injured person?
and did he make good to him the losses resulting from the calumny? Has he
made rash judgments in things of great moment, and has he communicated
them to others?

With respect to the Seven Capital Sins the confessor may ask:—

Has the penitent behaved in a proud, overbearing manner towards others?
Has he devoted himself to inordinate amassing of wealth and coveted the
same? Has he omitted to give the alms which he ought? Has he helped
his neighbor when he ought? Has he indulged in envy of his neighbor on
account of his fortune, his wealth, his graces, his virtues, etc.? Has
he rejoiced in his neighbor’s misfortune, caused it or wished it? Has he
neglected his work and duties through idleness, and injured his neighbor
thereby?

With regard to the nine ways of participating in the sin of another the
confessor might ask: Has he boasted of his sins? which? Has he advised
others to commit sin, or praised the sin of others, or commanded others
to sin? Has he failed to prevent the sins of others when he could do so
easily?

After the priest has put all the questions which he thinks necessary he
should proceed to advise the penitent to reflect if there is anything
else disturbing his conscience about which no questions have been put;
and he should also remind him that this confession may be his last. He
may then try to move the penitent to contrition and to a firm purpose of
amendment by the consideration of some effectual motives presented in
a kind and fatherly manner. He might conclude with some words to this
purpose:—

“Now thank God with all your heart for the great mercy He has shown you;
if death had overtaken you while you were burdened with so many grave
sins, you would certainly be at the present moment in hell, but now make
your mind quite easy and don’t worry any more about these sins; I am now
going to absolve you in God’s name from them all and your soul will be as
pure as when it came from the baptismal font; but beware of sinning again
and do not return God’s mercy with ingratitude.” The confessor will then
give the penitent some directions how to reform his life; he must point
out one or other of his sins that should be especially combated; and if
at the same time he shows an interest in the penitent and promises to
pray for him, the latter will go away consoled and encouraged to begin a
new life in the Lord.[380]




CHAPTER IV

SATISFACTION


33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor.

There is no question here of satisfaction in the wider sense which
includes the restitution to be made for the infliction of spiritual or
temporal loss. The subject which we propose to treat of is satisfaction
in its restricted meaning (_satisfactio_). It consists in the performance
of those works of penance which according to the Council of Trent[381]
are designed to preserve the new life acquired in the Sacrament, to
repair the languor which remains as a relic of past sin, and at the same
time to serve as a punishment for sin. As after the recovery from a
severe illness the body is weakened, so after a spiritual cure the soul
retains a weakness and an inclination to fall back into sin; moreover, as
the Church teaches, the remission of guilt and eternal punishment does
not always include the remission of all temporal punishment. The penance
is imposed with a view of removing the last traces of weakness and of
paying the debt of temporal punishment; under its first aspect it is
called _pœna medicinalis_, under the second, _pœna vindicativa_.

This satisfaction is partly sacramental, partly extra-sacramental. The
sacramental portion consists in the works which the confessor imposes
in virtue of the power of the keys; the extra-sacramental in the works
freely undertaken by the penitent, as well as in the patient submission
to the sufferings and crosses of this life. We are dealing at present
with sacramental satisfaction, which is an integral part of the
Sacrament, as it is immediately connected with the power of the keys, and
which is more efficacious as atonement in consequence of the application
of the merits of Jesus Christ.[382]

Both confessor and penitent have obligations with respect to this
satisfaction. We will first consider the duty of the confessor in the
matter.

I. The confessor is bound to impose some penance on every penitent who
receives absolution and who is capable of doing penance.

The tradition of the Fathers, the constant practice of the Church, and
the express declaration of the Council of Trent agree in maintaining
that the penance is an integral part of the Sacrament. The text of the
Council[383] runs as follows: “It is therefore the duty of priests to
impose, as reason and prudence may suggest, wholesome and appropriate
penances with due regard for the nature of the sin and the strength of
the penitent, lest, by being indulgent towards sin and treating the
penitent too tenderly in giving the very lightest penance for grave sins
they become themselves participators in the sins of others. Let them
keep in view that the satisfaction which they impose is designed not
only to preserve the new life and to heal infirmity but also to punish
and destroy past sin; for the power of the keys was given not only to
loose but also to bind.” The confessor must impose a penance not only
when mortal sins, but also when venial sins, or mortal sins already
absolved, are confessed. As often as absolution is given a penance must
be imposed—(_a_) because the penance belongs to the integrity of the
Sacrament, (_b_) that the penitent may not be deprived of the sacramental
fruits of satisfaction, (_c_) that justice and right may be done.

II. This duty of imposing a penance urges _per se sub peccato mortali_
when there is question of mortal sins not yet remitted by the power of
the keys; where the matter is only venial sin or _materia libera_, the
obligation is binding only _sub levi_.

Hence a priest sins mortally by failing to give a penance to a penitent
who confesses sins not yet directly forgiven; in the case of a penitent
who presents only _materia libera_, the confessor sins venially
(_probabiliter_) _ob parvitatem materiæ_.

III. At times there may be no sin in failing to give a penance. This can
happen:—

(_a_) When absolution is given to a penitent _in articulo mortis_,
especially if he be unconscious. St. Alphonsus, however, recommends,
and laudably, that even a dying penitent should receive some light and
easy penance, if there be time to do it and the penitent can perform it,
_e.g._ to kiss the crucifix, to pronounce the names of Jesus and Mary,
or to make at least an internal act of love in order that the Sacrament
may have its due complement and the dying person gain some fruit from the
sacramental satisfaction. The confessor might himself help the penitent
by reciting the prayers for him, holding the crucifix to him; this will
also be a means of comforting and consoling the dying man.[384]

(_b_) If a perplexed or scrupulous penitent returns frequently to confess
sins that he had forgotten, and if nearly every time there is reason
for giving absolution, the confessor satisfies his obligations by again
imposing the previous penance without adding another or by prescribing it
as sufficient for _all_ the sins mentioned in confession.[385]

IV. The confessor is bound to give a suitable and wholesome penance,
punitive as well as medicinal, proportioned to the number and gravity
of the sins and adapted to the individual penitent. This is the express
teaching of the Council of Trent.[386]

The choice of the penance is not left to the caprice of the confessor.
Special directions are laid down for him by the Church, and these he
must follow _sub gravi_. The Council draws a distinction between _pœnæ
vindicativæ_ and _medicinales_, and the confessor has to inflict these in
his capacity of judge and healer of souls. But to avoid misunderstanding
it must be borne in mind that the whole power and authority of inflicting
penances or of binding the faithful is vested in the confessor as judge.

As physician the great object of the confessor must be to heal the wounds
of the soul and to provide against relapses, but here he can only insist
on the necessary means, and that simply because he expresses what the
penitent is bound to do already by natural and divine law.

The case is quite different when we regard the confessor as judge; in
this capacity he has power to punish and bind the penitent. In the choice
of the works of penance which he imposes in his quality of judge, he may
use his knowledge as physician, and it is a course to be commended if
he imposes such penances as will help to salvation, heal the spiritual
maladies and safeguard the penitent against relapses.[387] In this way
the confessor falls in with the prescriptions of the Council by giving
penances which are in part punitive, in part medicinal; they are punitive
if in any way they oppose our sensuality or our pride; and they are
medicinal when they are of a kind to cut away the causes and roots of
sin, to mortify our irregular inclinations, to strengthen the will, to
remove occasions of sin, to save us from relapses and to confirm us in
virtue. In accordance with the maxim “_contraria contrariis curantur_”
those good works are generally prescribed which are directly contrary
to the sins committed, hence the prescription of the Roman ritual to
impose as penances almsgiving upon the avaricious, fasting or other
bodily mortifications upon the sensual, humiliating works upon the proud,
exercises of devotion for the tepid.[388]

All works of satisfaction or penance may be reduced to the three heads of
Prayer, Fasting, Almsdeeds. Under prayer, for instance, may be grouped
all works of piety and devotion, particularly everything that may be
understood as related to the knowledge of God; more frequent prayer,
daily examination of conscience, daily Mass, meditation (especially on
the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ and the four last things),
spiritual reading, more frequent confession, frequent repetition of acts
of the theological virtues, thought of the presence of God, devotion to
our Blessed Lady—all of which are irksome and contrary to our corrupt
nature and partake in consequence of the nature of a penance. Under
the head of fasting may be included not only abstention from meat and
drink, but every kind of mortification, hence the denial of even lawful
pleasures, early rising in the morning, the cutting down of little
comforts, kneeling at prayer, etc. And under almsgiving we may comprise
all works of corporal and spiritual mercy.

These three classes of good works correspond to the three roots of
sin,—the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and
the pride of life; for fasting is directed against the concupiscence of
the flesh, almsgiving against the concupiscence of the eyes, and prayer
against the pride of life.[389]

Even purely interior acts (_opera mere interiora_) may be imposed: some
theologians contradict this statement on the plea that human authority
is not empowered to enjoin such acts, but here the question is not about
human authority but of divine power given to men.[390]

The confessor may also give as a penance works to be done for the souls
in purgatory, for though this satisfaction _in se_ is directed to the
benefit of the holy souls it is a good work, and by its union with the
Sacrament has power _ex opere operato_ to lessen the temporal debt of the
penitent.[391]

Indeed the confessor may impose as penance some good work which has
already been started, not precisely as a good work but so far as it
expresses under the new circumstances obedience, humility, and the denial
of one’s own will. It may be observed, however, what St. Alphonsus
remarks, that it is rarely advisable to impose such a penance even with
another good work attached.

A work which one is already bound to do may be imposed as a penance
since it may be _ex natura sua_ satisfactory and is capable of acquiring
a greater satisfactory effect; but such work can be considered as a
sacramental penance only when the confessor has expressly declared so,
nor is it advisable that such works should be so imposed, unless indeed
there exist some urgent reason for it on the part of the penitent,—his
weakness, for example. If such work (_aliunde debitum_) be imposed, its
omission is a double sin.[392]

A penance may be given to be performed in case of a relapse, according
to the opinion of eminent theologians such as Suarez, Laymann, and
St. Alphonsus Liguori; so that if the condition be fulfilled, _i.e._
if the sinner relapse, the penance must be carried out. A confessor
giving only a penance of that kind would be very far from satisfying his
obligations.[393]

A public penance, _i.e._, a penance to be done before others, of such
a nature that bystanders could infer that the penitent had incurred
grave sin, cannot be imposed by a confessor for secret sins, for such
an infliction would be an indirect violation of the seal, and besides
it is expressly forbidden by the Roman Ritual. For public sins a public
penance may be inflicted, and the Council of Trent insists upon it as a
way of repairing scandal. Here there is no breach of the seal, for it is
question of notorious sin. The confessor should only insist, however, on
a public penance when he is convinced of the necessity of that step for
repairing scandal. If the confessor feels called upon to impose such a
penance, and the penitent declines to do it, absolution cannot be given.
In general, any scandal given may be set right by an evident reform in
the life of the penitent, if, for instance, he approach the Sacraments
more frequently, visit the Church, hear Mass, join a sodality, etc.[394]
Moreover, not everything done in the presence of others, which the
penitent could easily undertake of his own free will, need be regarded
as a public penance. It need be no matter of anxiety to the confessor if
the penitent reveals to others that such or such a practice is a penance
imposed by the priest.

Finally the confessor must carefully avoid enjoining any practices which
are needlessly repugnant to the penitent and which there is reason to
fear he will shirk. For instance, telling the children to beg pardon
of their parents, or the penitent to pray in the Church with the arms
stretched out in the form of a cross. Lehmkuhl justly remarks that such
penances are a clear sign of a confessor’s want of prudence and may give
occasion to many sacrileges.[395]

There is left a large choice for the confessor in the matter of penances.
He is bound, however, by the prescriptions of the Council of Trent to
impose works of penance _quantum spiritus et prudentia suggesserit_, but
also to consider the _qualitas criminum_ and the _facultas pœnitentium_.
Thus he must bear in mind the gravity of the sin and the condition of
the penitent; in this way a prudent mean may be kept between too great
mildness and excessive strictness. The priest should avoid being too
easy, for fear, as the Council says, of participating in the guilt of
others and sacrificing God’s cause to an indulgence which may be easily
attributed to human respect or other unworthy causes. To avoid this
danger the Roman Catechism recommends the study of the old penitential
canons where each sin has its own fixed punishment. It is true that the
discipline has been altered since then but its spirit remains, and the
zeal of the priest for the cause of his Lord should be no less fervent
than that of the first ages of the Church. On the other hand, however,
undue rigor is to be avoided. The strictness should not be founded on
self-love, prejudice, ostentation, nor on a naturally stern temperament,
nor on want of common sense, etc., otherwise the penitent may be driven
to despair, and souls lost instead of being won. The tribunal of penance
should resemble as closely as possible God’s own tribunal, and as God is
not only just but merciful, so the priest should never separate these two
attributes. It is often a good thing to let the penitent know that he
has deserved a severer penance, but that the ever gentle spirit of the
Church imposes only a light one, leaving the penitent free to undertake
other works of satisfaction if his zeal prompt him thereto. It is matter
of experience that penances extended over too long a period do not always
succeed in their object, for since they are frequently not performed they
may easily prove a snare to the penitent instead of being a help. If the
priest is in doubt whether to adopt a strict or a mild line of conduct
in any particular case, he may recall the beautiful words of St. John
Chrysostom:[396] “Is it not easier to render an account of excessive
mercy than of excessive severity? Can the steward be close-handed where
the master is so liberal? If, then, God is so good why should His
minister be severe? If your object is to pose as a saint, be austere
towards yourself and mild towards others.”[397]

V. For mortal sin a _pœnitentia simpliciter gravis_ should be given, for
venial sin a _pœnitentia levis_; and a confessor would sin gravely if
without sufficient reason he should impose for mortal sin a _pœnitentia
in se levis_, for he would neither punish the sin nor give his penitent
the means of salvation. In the case of sins doubtfully mortal, whether
considered subjectively or objectively, he is not obliged to impose a
severe penance.[398]

Whatever in the present discipline of the Church is imposed _sub gravi_
is considered as _materia gravis_ for a penance. The following, for
instance: five decades of the Rosary, the Litany of the Saints with the
accompanying prayers; while as _materia levis_ are reckoned: one psalm
(of moderate length), the Litany of Loretto, five Our Fathers and five
Hail Mary’s, etc. Any prayer corresponding in length to a little hour
of the Breviary counts for _materia levis_, for though the omission of
one of these little hours is a mortal sin, this is not in virtue of the
prayer itself, but because the recitation of the Breviary is a public and
official act and done in the name of the whole Church.

If the penitent has committed many mortal sins, the penance can hardly
be increased in a strict proportion. In this case the imposition of a
penance corresponding to one mortal sin is not sufficient unless special
reasons exist for not giving a heavier penalty.

VI. There are many reasons for which a confessor may be justified in
giving a smaller penance than is due to the number and gravity of the
sins, and this diminution may be absolute as well as relative. For
instance:—

1. A penitent is prostrated by a severe illness and unable to perform a
longer penance. The priest should exhort him to offer up his sufferings
as satisfaction for his sins, and if the sins have been very grave the
priest ought to be willing to take upon himself part of the penance.[399]

2. When there is extraordinary sorrow. This _in se_ is sufficient reason
for diminishing the penance, for the greater such sorrow the greater is
the remission of temporal punishment. On the other hand, such a penitent
is willing to accept a very severe penance; and if we read of certain
holy men imposing only a slight penance, we must remember that they
either made up for it in their own person or induced the penitent to
practice of his own free will some austerity.

3. A confessor may see that his penitent is very weak spiritually and not
willing to carry out a severe penance, although he may have no doubt as
to his contrition and resolution of amendment. Such a case may call for
the expedient of adding to a small penance some other practices which the
penitent must fulfill on other accounts, _e.g._ to hear Mass on Sunday,
etc., and the confessor would do well to choose such practices as the
penitent has been in the habit of neglecting.[400]

We will now mention the occasions in which a confessor may impose a
penance in accordance, indeed, with the Church’s precepts as to _materia
gravis_, but less than what seems proportioned to the number and gravity
of the sins:—

1. When there is great, though not quite extraordinary, contrition.

2. On the occasion of a jubilee or some other plenary indulgence; but to
refrain for such a reason from giving any penance at all would be quite
wrong and against the distinct declaration of Benedict XIV, Constit.
“_Inter præteritos._”

3. When there is fear that the penitent, through spiritual weakness, may
fail to perform the penance which would correspond to his sins.

4. When there is hope that a smaller penance will induce the penitent
to receive the Sacraments oftener and with greater spiritual benefit;
indeed, this seems to be the chief reason why the Church has tempered in
our days the severity of her penitential discipline.

5. When the confessor intends to do the penance which he believes he
dare not lay upon his penitent, as, for instance, when St. Francis
Xavier disciplined himself to satisfy for the sins of his penitents. The
sufficiency of this vicarious penance rests on the Catholic doctrine
of the Communion of Saints. On the other hand, the proposition that a
penitent can, of his own authority, appoint another to do the penance for
him has been condemned by Alexander VII.

6. When there is hope of inducing the penitent by means of a smaller
penance to do other good works on his own account.

7. When the penitent has already done penance and is in the habit of
practicing good works.

It is, however, always recommended to tell the penitent that the penance
is very much less than he deserves.[401]

VII. For venial sins or _materia libera_ the confessor may impose a heavy
or a light penance but not _sub gravi_; but if he imposes a light penance
for mortal sin such penance may bind only _sub levi_, but the very fact
of imposing a heavy penance for mortal sin means that the obligation
is _sub gravi_, unless he expressly declares his intention of not so
binding.[402]

In treating the question of the obligation on the penitent of carrying
out the penance and the intention of the confessor in the matter, we
must keep in mind the parallel instances of the binding force of laws.
The legislator cannot bind the conscience _sub gravi_ in a matter which,
regarded objectively, is of small moment; while grave matter when
prescribed _ex gravi causa_ induces a strict obligation _per se_, though
the legislator may have the power only to enforce it under pain of venial
sin. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus with the _sententia communior
et valde probabilis_ as regards the obligation of laws and the lawgiver.
When, then, the confessor imposes a penance, he is at the same time
passing a law which must be obeyed.

Many theologians deny that the confessor can impose for mortal sin a
heavy penance only _sub levi_ because he is simply God’s minister,
and in consequence must act in accordance with the institution of the
Sacrament without attempting to diminish its rigor.[403] On the other
hand, the _sententia communior et valde probabilis_ gives the confessor
the right because, though he is the vicar of God, he is appointed by
Christ as actual judge and legislator who, in virtue of his powers,
looses by forgiving sin and binds by imposing penance; so that the
obligation of the penance is not a consequence of the Sacrament but of
the precept of the confessor.[404] Still the confessor would not be
justified in practically disregarding the first opinion, for, as St.
Alphonsus teaches, he must obey the Council of Trent in its decision
that ordinarily a _grave opus_ is to be imposed _sub gravi_ even though
the penance be slight in comparison to the number and heinousness of the
sins. The opinion may, however, be used in this way. The confessor, after
giving a severe penance _sub gravi_, may add a still more severe penance
_sub levi_; if this latter be fulfilled by the penitent, he makes full
sacramental satisfaction; if he neglect it, there is at least no great
responsibility. St. Alphonsus notices that this is a very good way of
dealing with weak penitents, for all good works have a satisfactory power
and a weak penitent is thus not exposed to occasion of grave sin; at the
same time what Aertnys observes is also to be borne in mind, namely, that
in our days, owing to the decay of fervor, such a method is seldom to be
recommended.[405]

The confessor may give the penance immediately after the absolution,
but it is more correct to give it beforehand, as that is the custom in
the Church, and the proper order of justice requires that the penitent
should show himself disposed to undertake his penance before absolution
is given.[406]

In concluding this article we give a list of penances which may be
imposed according to the principles already given:—

Attendance at holy Mass, the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross (these
should not be given to people who are not accustomed to the devotions,
and in regard to the Stations of the Cross, the embarrassment that many
experience in performing public devotions should be taken into account),
the Seven Penitential Psalms, the Litany of the Saints, the Litany of
Loretto or some other litany, the Prayer to the Five Wounds, to commend
one’s self to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary morning and evening
while reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary, to say every day a
certain number (not too many) of short prayers—_e.g._ to say the Hail
Mary three times morning and evening (St. Alphonsus used to give his
penitents this penance, adding the invocation “My Mother, preserve me
from offending God this day,” and when the penitents were not accustomed
to this form of devotion he used at least to recommend it), to examine
the conscience daily and to excite acts of contrition, to read some
short extracts from a pious book approved by the confessor, such as the
Imitation of Christ, to make a meditation, or after reading carefully
some subject such as the Four Last Things or the Sufferings of Christ to
reflect upon it for a short while, to devote a short time every day to
eliciting acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, to hear sermons, to receive
the Sacraments on certain fixed days, to renew the resolutions made at
the last confession, not thoughtlessly but with all earnestness, and to
hold to them steadfastly now in honor of the Sacred Heart, at another
time in honor of the Blessed Virgin, and again in honor of some one
among the saints with a petition for their help, to make some fervent
ejaculation every time the clock strikes (when the confessor gives this
or similar practices as a penance he might remind the penitents to make
up the number of times missed if by chance they forget it).

Fasting (though this should be very seldom given and then only with great
caution) or an occasional mortification at meal time; to refrain from
some particular dish, or from wine or other intoxicating liquor, either
for a fixed period or a certain number of times; still more prudence
is to be exercised in imposing other bodily mortifications—indeed they
should be permitted only with great reserve—praying with arms extended
(unseen, of course, by others), to pray on bended knees, to rise at a
fixed hour in the morning, to avoid unprofitable conversation, etc., to
give alms, to visit the poor and the sick, to help them, and to do lowly
offices for them, etc.[407]

Which of these penances should be imposed is a matter depending on the
sins and disposition of the penitent. The choice of penance is an affair
of considerable moment with regard to the well-being and reformation of
the penitent, and it is a neglect of duty to impose on every occasion
without distinction the recital of a prayer.

In addition, the confessor should observe the wholesome advice which has
been given by men distinguished alike for sanctity and learning.

St. Antoninus writes:[408] “The priest should give such a penance as he
thinks the penitent will perform. If a man, after accusing himself of
grave sin, declares that he cannot do a severe penance, the confessor
must reason with him, pointing out the gravity of his offenses and the
severe punishments he has deserved, and after that give him some penance
such as he can be persuaded to undertake; and if the priest does not
obtain perfect success, he may rejoice, at least, that he has rescued
a soul from hell if not from purgatory; hence, on no account, should he
send a penitent away in despair or discouragement. It is better to give
him a _Pater Noster_ or some other slight penance and make the good works
which he does or his sufferings supply for the rest. A man who shows real
sorrow and is ready to do all that he ought, but declares that a heavy
penance is beyond him should never, no matter how he may have sinned, be
sent away without absolution lest he fall into despair.”

St. Charles Borromeo recommends the confessor to impose such penance as
he thinks the man will do; hence he may occasionally ask the penitent
if he can perform the penance given; and if the latter expresses his
doubts about fulfilling it, the confessor may change the penance or make
it easier.[409] The saint also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, who warns
the confessor not to burden his penitents with heavy penances,[410] for
as a smouldering fire may be put out by heaping too much fuel upon it,
so the feeble contrition which has only just been excited in the heart
of the penitent may be crushed out by a severe penance, and despair may
be the consequence. Hence it is better to point out to the penitent what
a big penance he deserves and to give him a smaller one such as he will
be ready to fulfill, by which he will accustom himself to the bigger one
which the confessor would not have ventured to impose.

Finally St. Alphonsus[411] may be heard on this subject: “How imprudent
is the conduct of those priests who give penances which they foresee
will never be done. Oh, how many ignorant confessors there are who
thoughtlessly absolve penitents living in the proximate occasion of sin
or in bad dispositions; and yet such confessors are persuaded for some
incomprehensible reason that they are ministering to the health of souls
by imposing heavy penances. The result is that the penitents, having
agreed to the penance for fear of being refused absolution, relapse
again, after a short time, because they were never taught to adopt any
safeguards against sin, omit the penance, and, terrified by its severity,
keep away from the Sacrament so as to spend a great portion of their
lives in sin.”


34. The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent.

I. The penitent is obliged to accept willingly the penance imposed and to
perform it exactly; for as the duty devolves on the priest of securing
the integrity of the Sacrament by giving the penance, the penitent is, in
turn, bound to accept it and carry it out.

The duty is of strict obligation _ex genere suo_, so that the penitent
would sin gravely by omitting a grave penance imposed _sub gravi_, or a
considerable portion of it. We have already seen what is to be considered
grave in this matter.[412]

II. The penitent is obliged to perform the penance enjoined by the
confessor, but no limit of time is determined within which it must be
done. An unreasonably long delay, however, might easily become a grave
matter.

To determine how far delay may involve grave sin we must take into
consideration whether time is a substantial element in the penance. For
example: (1) whether the confessor has fixed a day and of set purpose,
for the appointing of a day does not always imply a fixed intention on
the confessor’s part; indeed, generally speaking, it is not a mortal sin
to postpone a fast appointed for Friday to the following Saturday.[413]
(2) If some work has been prescribed to be done within a given time after
the confession, and it is the intention of the confessor that there
should be no interruption, its omission, even for one day if it amount
to a _materia gravis_, may be a mortal sin, unless the confessor has
given leave to substitute one day for another or where his consent to
a change may be fairly presumed. (3) If the postponement of the work
imposed reduced the penance to little or nothing, as, for example, if the
confessor enjoined on the penitent to approach the Sacraments in a week
and the penitent put it off for a month; to delay the weekly communion
for a day or two or the monthly communion to a period not longer than
a week would, apart from other considerations, amount only to a venial
sin.[414]

There is no mortal sin in putting off the penance even for a considerable
time as long as the time fixed for its performance is not a substantial
part of the work imposed. A delay of six months would, according to
St. Alphonsus, certainly constitute a mortal sin; the great factor in
determining the gravity of the offense will be the danger of forgetting
the penance or of being unable to carry it out.[415]

If a penance is enjoined which has to be performed daily for a
considerable period, and which is also a work prescribed by the
commandments of the Church, it may be presumed that the confessor never
intended a double performance of the work unless he expressly declared
such an intention. On the other hand, if it is enjoined once or twice
or even oftener without indicating any special day, the penitent cannot
satisfy the double obligation by the one act; for example, a man who
is told to hear Mass three times cannot satisfy by making one of the
Masses the Sunday Mass of obligation, unless this be expressly granted
by his confessor, nor would he fulfill his duty by hearing three Masses
simultaneously, because such would never be the intention of the
confessor. If, however, a man is enjoined to hear Mass daily, he is not
obliged to hear two Masses on Sundays.[416] If the penitent has certain
prayers to say for his penance, they may be recited during a Mass of
obligation, for the two duties may be fulfilled at the same time unless
the confessor rule it otherwise. It is a useful and excellent practice to
remind the penitent that he may say his penance during the time of Mass,
especially if his circumstances be such that he can hardly command other
available time.[417]

If the penitent fails to perform his penance within the prescribed time,
he is not on that account freed from the obligation of accomplishing it;
for the confessor intends first the penance, then the time-limit, and the
latter is fixed _non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam obligationem_.

Even when the penitent has fallen into mortal sin, he may still perform
his penance and so satisfy his obligation in that matter, but he does
not obtain the fruits of satisfaction. When the penitent does what he
has been told he fulfills substantially his duty; the manner or mode of
fulfilling it (namely, in the state of grace) does not come under the
command. By the fact, however, of not being in the state of grace his
works cannot be _de condigno_ satisfactory, and so cannot merit for him
the release from temporal punishment. It is certain that no new mortal
sin is contracted by a penitent who performs his penance in a state of
mortal sin, though, according to a probable opinion supported by St.
Alphonsus,[418] there is a venial sin in consequence of the hindrance
offered to the effects of the Sacrament. Some theologians[419] also teach
that when such a penitent regains the state of grace (_obice remoto_) the
penance effects satisfaction and remission of temporal punishment _ex
opere operato_, and this doctrine is _valde probabilis_.

In addition to the sacramental satisfaction the penitent should
undertake some penance on his own initiative, especially where that
enjoined by the priest is small with regard to the gravity of the sin.
This extra-sacramental satisfaction will be supplemented by the prayer
in which the Church, in virtue of the merits of Christ and His saints,
confers on extra-sacramental works the power of reducing the debt of
temporal punishment.


35. The Commutation of the Penance.

If, for some good reason, the penitent discovers that the penance is too
severe, he should mention the circumstance to his confessor that he may
change it; and if the penitent has undertaken a penance which later on
presents great difficulties in its fulfilment, he should consult some
priest equipped with the necessary powers for a commutation.

But there should be a good reason, and not mere weakness, sensuality,
or laziness, which usually counsel avoidance of all severity and
self-conquest or sacrifice for God and the good of one’s soul. Self-love
and self-indulgence easily persuade us that what is difficult is
impossible, and we have seen that the very aim of penance is to punish
in the strict sense of the word; it ought to be both a chastisement and
a means of salvation. If the penitent shrinks from the penance and asks
for a mitigation, the confessor should in all kindness consider the
motive and act accordingly. If he can find no sufficient reason but only
a pretext of self-love and self-indulgence, he must tell the penitent
so and endeavor to persuade him to undertake the penance, otherwise
absolution cannot be given. When the petition is reasonable the penance
may be changed.

A reasonable penance cannot be declined by the penitent without his
incurring thereby grave sin, for when once he has submitted his case to
the confessor he ought to abide by the latter’s decision, since the law
of God requires that the confessor should inflict a suitable penance and
that the penitent should accept it.[420] There is, however, a great
difference between refusing a penance and asking for its mitigation.
Under no circumstances may the penitent himself change the penance, even
for a work objectively more perfect, for the sacramental satisfaction
must be imposed by the minister of the Sacrament, and the penitent has no
right to annul or commute on his own authority the sentence pronounced by
the judge.

If, now, the penitent is convinced on sufficient grounds that the penance
is exorbitant and he cannot persuade the confessor to make it easier,
he is at liberty to go away without absolution and present his case to
another priest, repeating, of course, his confession.[421] If, however,
his grounds are defective, he may easily incur a venial sin by such
procedure.[422] A really well-disposed penitent, therefore, will hardly
incur grave sin if, conscious of his weakness, he objects to a penance as
too hard and seeks absolution from another confessor, so long, of course,
as he does not seek out one who is known for his criminal laxity.

If a man after absolution finds the penance too difficult of performance,
he may get it changed either by the same priest or by another.

This commutation can be made only in confession, in virtue of the
absolution which has been already given or is to be given, for it is only
the absolution by which an effect _ex opere operato_ can be produced
in the penitent, and it is the absolution which gives the satisfactory
efficacy _ex opere operato_ to the penance which has been or is to be
imposed.[423]

Hence the confessor immediately after the absolution can certainly change
the penance because, morally speaking, the judicial action is still in
progress. Though some theologians extend this power (of changing the
penance in virtue of the absolution imparted) over two or three days,
the preference is to be given to the opinion of St. Alphonsus,[424] who
restricts the period to the time immediately after the absolution, for,
as a matter of fact, the _judicium sacramentale_ is then completed. If,
however, the penitent and confessor are of the other opinion, which is
not devoid of extrinsic probability, they may act upon it, since it is
not a question of an essential part of the Sacrament; if there were
question of the essence of the Sacrament, an injury would be done both to
the Sacrament and its recipient by following a doubtful opinion.[425]

Any other priest can commute the penance only in virtue of a new
absolution which he himself gives.

The question now arises whether the penitent ought to repeat his
confession with a view to obtain another penance. If he applies to the
same confessor, he is certainly not obliged if the latter retain some
notion _in confuso_ of the penitent’s conscience; if the penitent goes
to another priest, according to an opinion considered as probable by
Laymann, Lugo, Sporer, he is exempt from the obligation of repeating
his confession, because it is not upon the sins that judgment is to be
passed, but upon the reasons for changing the penance, whether, for
instance, the penitent is unable to perform it or whether the penance
itself is too severe. Moreover, the confessor may follow this method
with a safe conscience, though it is more advisable for him to adopt the
practice advocated by other theologians, notably Suarez, Lugo, Laymann,
Sporer, and Lacroix, of getting the penitent to give at least an outline
of the previous confession in order to have an approximate knowledge of
the state of his soul.[426]

The view held by many theologians is also probable, that when a confessor
sees that a penance has not been performed by a penitent, and that no
likelihood exists of its performance, he may commute it for something
else, though unasked by the penitent.

When, however, a penance has been inflicted for some reserved sin by
a constitutional Superior, no inferior may commute it, for authority
in such cases is withdrawn from the inferior tribunal. Exception is
made where the penitent would have great difficulty in approaching
the Superior and when urgent reasons call for a commutation. This is
the teaching of St. Alphonsus and some other theologians against the
supporters of the stricter doctrine.[427]

There still remains the question what the penitent is to do when he
has forgotten the penance. According to the common, and perhaps also
the more probable, opinion, he is not obliged to repeat the confession
of even the graver sins, and the duty of performing the penance simply
lapses (_ad impossibile enim nemo tenetur_); nor is there any obligation
to confess again sins already directly remitted with a view of securing
the integrity of the Sacrament, for that would be a grievous burden.
If, however, the penitent thinks that the confessor remembers the
penance, and he can reach him without difficulty, he is, as theologians
rightly affirm, obliged to ask his confessor to give him his penance,
for there is no grave impediment in this case to the performance of the
penance.[428]

In this connection we must note that: 1. When a man forgets the penance
enjoined, and has a conviction that the penance was a certain work, he
is bound to do that work, for whoever is certain about his obligation is
obliged to do what is probably of obligation if he cannot fulfill what is
certainly of obligation.[429]

2. When a penitent confesses that he has not performed the penance but
has said the prayers prescribed out of devotion without thinking of the
penance, he has satisfied his obligation, and the confessor cannot insist
on the performance of another penance; for a man is supposed to do first
that to which he is bound.[430]




PART III

_THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT_


In the preceding chapters which dealt with the _actus pœnitentis_, we
have already had occasion to consider the office of the minister of the
Sacrament. The functions of the confessor consist mainly in absolving
according to the intention of Christ. In treating of this important
and difficult subject, we shall follow the most approved theologians,
distinguished alike for learning and sanctity, so as to avoid on the
one hand an extensive mildness and on the other a severity fatal to the
salvation of souls.




SECTION I

THE POWERS OF THE CONFESSOR


36. Orders, Jurisdiction, Approbation.

1. The proper minister of the Sacrament of Penance is the priest. Penance
being a Sacrament, it is self-evident on Catholic principles that
its minister must have the sacerdotal character, the power of Orders
(_potestas ordinis_). This power springs from the priestly character
and consists in the capacity of _valide_ performing the sacred rites
instituted by Christ, so that they are an efficacious means of grace.[431]

The Sacrament of Penance is, moreover, in its dispensation essentially
judicial. The minister of the Sacrament is judge over the soul; hence he
must have in addition to Holy Orders the power of spiritual jurisdiction
(_potestas jurisdictionis_).

Thus for a valid absolution there are required both _potestas ordinis_
and _potestas jurisdictionis_.

Jurisdiction in general is public authority in its completest sense, and
thus includes the power of directing subjects. In its more restricted
sense it is the power of judging right and wrong and of pronouncing
sentence. It answers perfectly to the power exercised in the Sacrament of
Penance (_in foro interno_). Hence jurisdiction _in foro sacramentali_ is
the power by which a priest can pronounce sentence on those subject to
him by remitting or retaining sins.

What, then, is the relation existing between the _potestas ordinis_
and the _potestas jurisdictionis_? The priestly character conveys no
jurisdiction with it; it may exist without any jurisdiction.[432]

2. It is a peculiarity of this _potestas ordinis_ that the exercise of
it without the Church’s commission is not illicit only, but invalid.
Hence, while in the other Sacraments jurisdiction is extrinsic to the
exercise of power and only regulates it, in the Sacrament of Penance
the jurisdiction is an intrinsic condition, because the exercise of the
power of this Sacrament is essentially a judicial act and involving
jurisdiction.

3. Jurisdiction, though not conveyed by Orders, is derived from God, but
through the hands of the Church, _i.e._ by delegation from those who are
invested with that jurisdiction. Hence all priests besides the Pope, who
receives it immediately from God, owe their jurisdiction to the Church;
thus priests receive their jurisdiction from the bishops, the bishops
from the Pope.

4. We may, therefore, say that the _potestas ordinis_ renders its
subject capable of jurisdiction _in foro interno_, and of conferring
the Sacrament after jurisdiction has been given, so that the _potestas
ordinis_ is the disposition for administering the Sacrament of
Penance.[433] Thus it is not so much that the power of remitting sins
judicially is given to the priest in his ordination as rather this, that
the ordained person, when he is appointed judge by proper authority to
take cognizance of sins, is enabled to remit these sins _sacramentally_;
in other words, he receives power to remit sins by a special grace.

From the preceding it follows: (1) that the doctrine which teaches that
jurisdiction is conveyed by ordination merely is false; (2) that it is
also false to teach that ordination confers _ipso facto_ jurisdiction,
but that the Church can restrain its exercise and that in granting
jurisdiction she does no more than remove her own prohibition; (3) that
it is the same thing to say: the Church confers jurisdiction to a priest,
as to say, the Church assigns _in foro interno_ certain subjects to the
priest; (4) that one may say, the _potestas ordinis_ which is acquired by
the character of the priesthood is the _potestas inchoata_ to absolve,
while it is incorrect to say that the _potestas ordinis_ is the _potestas
jurisdictionis inchoata_ or _habitualis_; (5) that jurisdiction differs
from the powers of Orders both in its essence and in the mode by which it
is acquired; in its essence, since jurisdiction is the power of judging
and binding subjects, while ordination only confers the power _ex jure
divino_ of acquiring jurisdiction and is the necessary condition that the
absolution be sacramental; in its mode, since jurisdiction is imparted by
the concession of the Church, while the power of Orders comes from the
consecration to the priesthood.[434]

Jurisdiction is either ordinary or delegated (_ordinaria vel delegata_).
Christ appointed judges to preside over visible tribunals in His place
and in His name, with authority, vicarious, it is true, but ordinary
(_auctoritate quidem vicaria at ordinaria_), that is, an authority
emanating from the office to which they were appointed by Christ. These
judges are the Apostles and their successors, the Pope, therefore, and
the bishops, and these can appoint others to help them.

Thus whoever in virtue of a public, ecclesiastical office existing of
divine right has subjects over whom he rules and is judge, exercises
jurisdiction in the Sacrament of Penance _potestate ordinaria_; others
exercise this function _potestate delegata vel a proprie dictis
Superioribus communicata_; hence the latter are dependent on their
Superiors in the exercise of their powers _quoad liceitatem et quoad
valorem_.

Although any one with _potestas ordinaria_ can impart it to another,
the Supreme Authority of the Church on which depends all valid exercise
of jurisdiction has so ordered it that no one may exercise delegated
jurisdiction in the tribunal of penance—at least with regard to lay
people—without having previously received episcopal approbation; hence
the delegation by those who are subject to the bishop and have powers
of delegation is as a rule quite useless. Indeed, it is now the custom
generally to give approbation and jurisdiction at the same time;
nevertheless, cases might occur in which the distinction must be observed.

Approbation _in se_ is nothing more than a formal declaration that
a priest is a suitable person (_aptus_) to exercise sacramental
jurisdiction; his fitness or capacity for the work is judged by his
science and morals. Approbation cannot be given licitly unless the
fitness of the subject is ascertained or reasonably presumed, though
its validity is not affected by the want of this fitness; but the
Superior ought to withdraw his approbation when the subject is unfit. The
Council of Trent interprets the phrase Public Approbation not only as a
_testimonium auctoritativum_ that the priest is a fit subject to exercise
jurisdiction, but also as the _facultas audiendi confessiones_ which the
bishop grants to a priest who is considered fit for the office;[435] for
the Council declares that he only can hear confessions who has been given
charge of a parish or who has received approbation. Beyond that nothing
else is demanded for the exercise of jurisdiction, hence approbation or
the appointment to a parish is the only condition required for hearing
confessions. Moreover, in papal constitutions the approbation is called
_licentia_ or _facultas audiendi confessiones_, and in common speech an
approved priest is one who has jurisdiction.[436] All this is in perfect
agreement with the practice of bishops, who usually grant jurisdiction
along with approbation.[437]




CHAPTER I

JURISDICTION


37. The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction.

I. The Pope has _jurisdictio ordinaria_ over the whole Church. This
requires no proof. The Vatican Council decreed that the jurisdiction of
the Pope is a real episcopal jurisdiction, immediate and extending to
all the faithful. Theologians discuss at length—and it is a question not
to be omitted here—how it is that the Pope can give power to another to
absolve himself (the Pope). Lugo discusses at length that there is no
contradiction in the Pope delegating to another such jurisdiction over
himself, and still less contradiction appears when we reflect that that
jurisdiction _in foro sacramentali_, though exercised and delegated by
the pastor of the Church, is always exercised in the name of Christ; nor
is there anything absurd in the fact of the Pope as a private individual
being subject to his own jurisdiction in his capacity as a public person.
Though he cannot bind and punish himself, he may subject himself to
another and share in the graces and privileges of the Church, otherwise
he could not obtain absolution at all.[438]

II. By divine right, the bishops exercise _potestas ordinaria_ in
their own dioceses, even _in foro interno_, subject, of course, to the
authority of the Pope. Although every bishop receives his jurisdiction
from the Holy See, the episcopal office is one of divine right and
confers a definite jurisdiction, a very important section of which is
the jurisdiction _in foro sacramentali_. As long as a bishop remains in
office and in the exercise of it, he cannot be deprived of the power of
absolving his subjects, though this power may be limited by reservations
imposed by the Pope. A bishop may also, for grave reasons, be deprived of
his office, or the exercise of it may be forbidden, or his jurisdiction
taken away; and such is the effect of certain ecclesiastical censures.

III. By ecclesiastical law, all vicars-general, and _sede vacante_
vicars-capitular, have the same jurisdiction as the bishop over
his diocese _in foro interno_. The jurisdiction, however, of the
vicar-general is wholly dependent on that of the bishop, hence the
saying: _Episcopi morte moritur Vicarius generalis_; and he has no other
faculties than those which the bishop has attached to his office. If,
for instance, a bishop by a special privilege of the Holy See has more
extended faculties, these do not pass to the vicar-general unless the
bishop transfers them to him with leave from the Holy See. During the
vacancy of the episcopal see, the whole of the bishop’s faculties, with a
few exceptions, are transferred to the vicar-capitular or administrator.

IV. By the law of the Church, parish priests have _jurisdictio ordinaria_
over their parishioners, and their power is measured by what the
Church imparts to them as the constituted assistants of the bishop. In
relation to their own parish they are _pastores proprii_, having only
administrative power _in foro externo_, but _in foro interno plena
jurisdictio subject_, of course, to such limitations as may be imposed
by the Pope or their bishop. By his appointment (_collatione_) to a
parish a priest acquires the right of hearing the confessions of his
subjects. Nevertheless, the bishop has the right of examining his clergy
periodically to make sure of their fitness to hear confessions.[439]

V. The Cathedral Penitentiary has also _ordinaria jurisdictio_ for the
whole diocese in places where the office is established, and he may
absolve all belonging to the diocese, even outside the boundaries of the
diocese;[440] and this power is secured to him, not by any concession
from the bishop, but by a law passed by the Council of Trent.[441]

VI. Others may, also, in virtue of the Church’s law, acquire _jurisdictio
ordinaria_, and as a matter of fact it is enjoyed by _Prelati regulares_
with respect to their subjects, by Legates over their province. That of
Cardinals over their churches is confined to very narrow limits. Those
are regarded as subjects who have domicile or quasi-domicile within the
parish or diocese; hence the jurisdiction of bishops and parish priests
is primarily local and secondarily personal; that is, it extends to those
who have their dwelling in a definite place. On the other hand, the
jurisdiction of Regular Prelates is chiefly personal, and is confined to
definite local limits only secondarily.

Since the Council of Trent excepts from the further approbation of the
bishops only those priests who are in charge of a parish, a difficulty
may occur as to the jurisdiction of priests who have no parish, but who
exercise a definite _cura spiritualis_ over certain subjects. We must
inquire first of all into the faculties which the Holy See has annexed
to such offices, for since the Council emanated from the Holy See the
latter is empowered to make exceptions. The question is of peculiar
interest with regard to military chaplains, as to whether they can hear
the confessions of soldiers in garrison without the approbation of the
bishop of the diocese. No general rule can be laid down for all cases.
Wherever a regularly appointed army-bishop or even a _Capellanus major_
exists, he generally receives the fullest faculties, not only for hearing
the confessions of the soldiers himself, but also for appointing other
priests or chaplains to that duty without consulting the bishop of the
diocese;[442] otherwise no military chaplain may hear the confessions
of soldiers in garrison without special powers from the Pope or the
permission and approbation of the Ordinary.[443] Thus their faculties are
confined to the soldiers when on the march or in camp.

All who have _jurisdictio ordinaria_ can receive the confessions of
their subjects and absolve them wherever they happen to be, for such
jurisdiction belongs to their office and accompanies them everywhere.
Thus a parish priest can always hear the confessions of his parishioners
whether he be within or beyond the bounds of his parish and diocese
or not. A curate, chaplain, or other assistant priest cannot receive
confessions outside the diocese, even if he have faculties for the whole
diocese; to do so he would have to apply to the bishop of the diocese in
which the penitent happens to be.

_De jure_ a parish priest is approved only for the territory of his
benefice “_pro suo tantum oppido ubi sita sit parochialis ecclesia_,”
according to the decrees of the S. C. C.[444] He may not, therefore,
when in another diocese, hear the confessions of strangers (who are not
his own subjects) without leave of the bishop of that diocese. Indeed,
_per se_, he may not hear the confessions of strangers in another parish
even of his own diocese. At the present day, however, it is the practice
sanctioned either by law or by custom that parish priests and their
curates may hear confessions anywhere within the diocese.[445]

In his own parish a parish priest may hear the confessions of any one who
approaches him, even strangers, since he is the approved confessor in his
own parish.

_Jurisdictio ordinaria_ is lost: (_a_) by loss of the office or benefice
to which it is attached; (_b_) by excommunication or suspension if the
censure carries the stigma “_vitandus_.” Other excommunications or
suspensions impede only the licit exercise (_licitus usus_) of the powers.


38. The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction or
Approbation.

I. All priests who have not _jurisdictio ordinaria_, but act only _ex
jurisdictione delegata_, require for the licit and valid exercise of
their office the approbation of the bishop of the place where they hear
confessions, unless they enjoy some special privilege from the Holy See.
The Constitution of Innocent XII, 9 Apr., 1700, “Cum Sicut,” is very
explicit in this matter, as is also that of Innocent XIII, 23 Sept.,
1723, “Apostolici muneris,” which was confirmed by Benedict XIV in his
Constitution, 5 Aug., 1744, “Apostolica indulta,” in the following words:
“No priest, whether secular or regular, may hear confessions without the
approbation of the Ordinary of the diocese where the penitent dwells or
sojourns, and it is expressly decreed that all privileges to choose a
confessor from the clergy approved by the bishop are to be understood
only as giving powers to choose any one approved by the bishop of the
place where the confession is made.”[446]

Since the conferring of approbation is not an act of the _Ordo
episcopalis_ but of episcopal jurisdiction, all who have ordinary
episcopal jurisdiction can grant approbation, thus: (1) the bishop elect
and confirmed, though not yet ordained; (2) the vicar-general since he
exercises the jurisdiction of the bishop; (3) the vicar-capitular _sede
vacante_, since he succeeds to the jurisdiction of the bishop; (4)
vicars-apostolic who are appointed by the Pope in place of bishops; and
(5) abbots who are not affiliated to a diocese.

The bishop may insist on an examination before granting approbation,
though he may dispense with it since there are other means of
ascertaining the fitness of a priest for hearing confessions.[447] Any
priest whether secular or regular may be called on again for examination
by the bishop, if the latter has not approved the candidate himself,
although a former bishop may have done so. A confessor even approved by
his own Ordinary may be examined if he has received approbation without
undergoing examination. Those, however, whom the bishop has approved
after an examination may not be reëxamined without a _justa causa_.[448]
A bishop sins by refusing approbation to a competent priest, for all
priests have a claim to approbation in virtue of their sacerdotal
character, so that to deny it to a suitable candidate would be an
infringement of his rights.

The approbation which is necessary for a valid absolution may not be
presumed; it must be actually conferred and made known to the priest; for
since there is question of the _validity_ of an act, only the faculties
which the bishop has really conferred, not those which he will grant,
can be considered. Hence when a priest applies for faculties he cannot
hear confessions till he has received them, even when from his knowledge
of the bishop he feels confident of receiving the faculties and knows
that they are already on the way. The faculties may be acted upon when
conveyed verbally by any trustworthy person.[449]

Approbation is required even before absolving from venial sins already
confessed; after the decree of Innocent XI, 1679, we cannot any longer
assume that the Church here supplies jurisdiction to the priest.[450]

A bishop in traveling may take with him any of his priests to accompany
him as confessor; but if the priest is not a subject of said bishop
(whether by domicile or quasi-domicile), he may not receive the
confession of the bishop unless he be approved, as St. Alphonsus adds,
by the bishop of the priest’s domicile (Fagnani and Lugo) or, as Scavini
remarks, by the bishop of the place; the Congregation S. C. C. decreed so
early as 1609 that a bishop outside his own diocese might confess only to
a priest approved _ab ordinario loci_ (except, of course, when the priest
is a subject of the bishop), so that Scavini’s decision is the norm to be
observed in practice.[451]

Cardinals, papal domestic prelates, and royalty may choose any approved
confessor and be absolved by him anywhere. Even in Rome itself Cardinals
and bishops may choose for themselves and for their household any
suitable priest as confessor and retain him with them for that purpose
also when they leave the city.[452]

A bishop can give faculties for hearing confessions in his own diocese to
a priest belonging to another diocese, for the latter _in ordine ad hoc
opus_ is subject to the bishop of the diocese where the confessions are
heard. This is the universal practice in the Church.

A parish priest cannot of his own authority give faculties to a priest of
another diocese to hear the confessions of his own parishioners because
the _jurisdictio ordinaria_ which goes along with the benefice extends
only to the parish in his own charge. There is a custom, however, in
many places among parish priests in outlying districts of the diocese to
authorize the priest of a neighboring diocese to assist them in hearing
confessions. This custom, which is recognized by the bishops, confers
jurisdiction _ex tacita episcoporum approbatione_.[453] Thus many bishops
have an explicit agreement by which approved priests of neighboring
dioceses may assist one another in the confessional. Those who supply in
another diocese, however, must pay attention to the cases reserved to the
bishop in that diocese, since for the time being they are subject to him
_in ordine ad hoc munus_.

II. Approbation may be granted without any limitations; the bishop may,
if he wish, limit the approbation according to time, place, and persons,
most certainly if the approbation include jurisdiction, for the whole
subject is one of delegation and all delegation is regulated by the
intention of the Superior. Even when approbation in the strict sense only
is conferred the bishop may _ex rationabili causa_ confine it within a
given time, a fixed place, or over a certain class of persons (children,
men). The grounds for such a limitation might be, for instance, defects
of ability, care, or study.

III. The bishop may not only impose limits in his approbation, but he
may also recall it entirely, for all delegated authority exists only at
the pleasure of the Superior; reasonable grounds must exist for such
withdrawal if it is to be licit. It is a debated point among theologians
whether withdrawal without any grounds is valid or not. The view that
such withdrawal is invalid because it is an unjust deprivation of rights
conferred, is certainly probable and maintained, among others, by Suarez,
Lugo, and St. Alphonsus; but since it is not easy to establish the
want of just grounds the view is of but little practical application;
the bishop may be acting upon reasons which are unknown to his clergy,
and while doubts remain, the presumption is always in favor of the
bishop.[454]

IV. When the approbation is granted for a fixed length of time it ceases
after that period; otherwise only by withdrawal; when given without any
limitations it does not cease with the death of the giver, nor even when
the recipient changes his domicile. This may be considered quite certain
with regard to Regulars who have once received unlimited approbation.[455]

Regulars, on account of their privileges and dependence on the Holy See,
are distinguished in many details from the secular priesthood with regard
to jurisdiction.

V. The secular clergy receive jurisdiction and approbation either from
their own bishop or from the bishop in whose diocese they are hearing
confessions. Regulars receive jurisdiction from the Sovereign Pontiff
through their Superiors, who must confer the jurisdiction as from the
Pope, not like the bishops granting it on their own authority, but only
as representatives of the Apostolic See. Besides this jurisdiction they
must also have the approbation of the _Episcopus loci_; then as far as
jurisdiction is considered they may absolve any one.[456]

Though all Regulars have jurisdiction from the Pope they cannot hear
confessions without the approbation of the bishop, which may not be
refused without just and reasonable motives; of these, however, the
Regular is not the judge, and if he be refused approbation, he is
effectually debarred from hearing confessions.[457]

Clement X imposed certain limitations on bishops with regard to
the granting or refusing of approbation to the Regular clergy. He
decreed:[458]—

1. That Religious who were proved capable of hearing confessions, should
be permitted by the bishop to hear confessions anywhere in the diocese
without restriction of time, place, or person; with regard, however, to
those who were not so well prepared the bishop should be left to his own
judgment in the matter of imposing restrictions.

2. Those who had once received approbation might hear the confessions
of any of the faithful, even of the sick, without leave of the parish
priest or even of the bishop, at any time of the year, including even
Easter, within the diocese of the bishop who conferred the approbation;
in cases where they had heard the confessions of the sick they should
inform the parish priest, at least by a letter left with the sick person;
the penalty for neglect in this matter being suspension from the right of
hearing confessions. (The latter obligation is not enforced in missionary
countries, where by general consent any approved priest may hear the
confessions of the sick.)

3. Any Regular who has been approved by the bishop after examination
and without any restriction cannot be called again for examination by
his bishop (this does not hold when the faculties have been obtained
from the vicar-general or the predecessor of the bishop), nor can he be
suspended from hearing confessions; moreover he cannot even be deprived
of his faculties unless for reasons connected with the Sacrament itself;
the reasons for such objection need not be judicially proved, nor is the
bishop obliged to communicate them himself to the Regular in question,
but he must reveal them to the Pope if the latter insists on being
informed of them. Hence in the whole process the Regular must act in
submission to the bishop, and if he be convinced that he is treated
unjustly, he may have recourse to the Holy See; in the meantime, however,
his attitude must be one of submission.

4. Though a blameless life and unspotted morals are of the greatest
moment in the ministers of this Sacrament ... no bishop can deprive a
whole community of faculties on the ground of general unfitness, without
consulting the Holy See.

Hence we conclude:—

1. Approbation is justly limited in the case of Religious who have not
passed an examination.

2. Approved Regulars may be recalled for examination: (_a_) when
they have received approbation without examination, (_b_) when after
examination they have received only limited approbation; (_c_) when this
approbation has been received from the vicar-general or the bishop’s
predecessor, and this though the examination has been passed and
unlimited approbation conferred; (_d_) when any reason is presented
connected with the Sacrament itself; and this holds for those who after
examination even have received the fullest approbation from the bishop
himself.[459]

Except in the case of special legislation to the contrary on the part of
the Holy See any Religious may receive both jurisdiction and approbation
_ab Episcopo loci_, and at the present day that is the way in which
bishops understand the conferring of approbation. This view solves the
question of the validity of absolution given by a Religious without the
knowledge or even against the will of his Superior.[460]

Moreover, Religious Superiors may receive from the bishop the power
of imparting faculties to their subjects; the extent of the faculties
must, of course, be ascertained. When, for example, the bishop gives
general faculties, reserved cases are not included even when they are not
expressly excepted.[461] When the bishop gives more extended faculties,
as, for instance, on the occasion of a mission, and a Religious Superior
imparts to his subjects these faculties for the mission, he is supposed
to give _all the faculties_ which he has received from the bishop,
because he is then acting only as the bishop’s mouthpiece unless, of
course, he states the contrary. When, again, the bishop gives faculties
for a special object they are not to be used for anything beyond that
object; it is another question when some special work is seized upon only
as an occasion for asking and giving faculties.[462]

VI. Strangers (_peregrini_), _i.e._ those who are not in the diocese
of their domicile or quasi-domicile, may be absolved by a Religious
without any difficulty as subjects of the Pope (from whom the Religious
presumably receives _jurisdictio delegata_); they may also in virtue
of an old and approved custom in the Church be absolved by any other
confessor. This is the unanimous verdict of all theologians, though there
is diversity of opinion as to the theory which justifies the practice
of secular priests in this matter, nor is the manner of solving the
question an indifferent matter; if, for instance, a stranger is absolved
in virtue of the jurisdiction which _his own_ bishop confers on the
priest, the bishop can absolutely forbid him to seek absolution from a
strange priest by declaring such absolution invalid; (this, of course,
applies to secular priests; with regard to Religious confessors there
is no difficulty).[463] Thus on the solution of this question depends
the power over cases reserved in another diocese. Some theologians now
maintain that the jurisdiction of a priest over a stranger is based on
the tacit consent[464] of all the bishops, while others hold that it is a
universal custom of the Church having the force of law.[465] But neither
the _consensus Episcoporum_, nor _consuetudo_, even when the latter
has the force of law, can convey jurisdiction if we are to follow the
teaching of the Church; we must suppose, then, that the propounders of
such a view meant to state it thus: the Church, _i.e._ the Pope, either
makes the _Episcopus loci_ an _Episcopus peregrinorum_, or he delegates
_his own_ jurisdiction to all confessors. Since the first view is hardly
possible, they are forced to the conclusion that the Pope, either by
express or legal consent to the universal custom, grants to all approved
confessors a delegated jurisdiction to absolve strangers. It is beyond
all doubt that this view is probable especially when we add the weight of
St. Alphonsus’ authority. The case, however, is not quite certain, for
the existence of the custom seems to prove no more than that the _bishops
themselves_ as a rule give a tacit consent to the arrangement, and it
does not prove that the bishops are obliged to agree _in every case_ to
this arrangement, or that their power over a subject is withdrawn by the
fact of his occasionally leaving the diocese; and it still remains to be
proved that the Pope so entirely approves of the practice as to consent
to break through the natural order of things by which all authority
is communicated through immediate Superiors, not directly from the
fountainhead; at the same time it is beyond all question that the Pope
can if he so wishes empower any secular priest to hear the confessions of
_peregrini_; and if a bishop were without any pressing reason to forbid
his subjects to confess outside their own diocese, the Holy See could
always be petitioned to apply a suitable remedy for such a prohibition,
since under the present condition of things there must always be many
people living outside of their own diocese.[466]

Other theologians teach that _peregrini_ by the very fact of presenting
themselves at the tribunal of penance in another diocese become subjects
of the _Episcopus loci_ or of the priest who derives his faculties
from him, and this _ex universali consensu quem P. M. Eugenius IV
approbavit_.[467] But does the wish to receive the Sacrament make the
_peregrinus_ a subject of the bishop or the bishop his superior? Whoever
maintains this and grants that the _Episcopus loci_ is not the bishop
of the _peregrinus_, states in other words that one who is not actually
a superior may be judge _in foro interno_. But is such a statement in
accordance with divine right? In any case the _peregrinus_ remains
the subject of the bishop of the diocese in which he has domicile or
quasi-domicile, and no proof can be adduced that the bishop of the place
in which the _peregrinus_ makes his confession has, by virtue of his
office, power to absolve him; he can do that only when he is superior
in right of his office, and he can be superior only when he is the
bishop of the _peregrinus_, since human and divine law recognize no
other ecclesiastical superior than Pope, bishop, parish priest, or their
substitutes. But no one would maintain that the _Episcopus loci_ is the
true bishop of the _peregrinus_.

Finally, other theologians explain the jurisdiction of the secular priest
over _peregrini_ in this manner: that the bishop of the _peregrinus_
grants tacitly the faculties to every approved priest and is generally
obliged to do so.[468] The ecumenical synods of Florence, Trent, and
the Lateran declare that the absolution granted by any other than one’s
own Ordinary is invalid unless leave be obtained from him. Now such a
permission is either a direct or indirect imparting of jurisdiction;
hence every absolution is invalid which is given without jurisdiction
from the bishop of the penitent. It is on this ground that theologians
and canonists alike, whether of the older or more recent school,
insist upon the necessity of a consent on the part of the Superior or
bishop of the penitent in the case of confessions made outside his own
diocese. Ballerini (l. c. Dissert. n. 33 ss) concludes his learned
investigation of this question in answer to the objections of the
_Vindiciæ Alphonsianæ_ with the following propositions, which are not
mere speculative conclusions, but are in fact the teaching of the Church,
resting as they do on the very essence and nature of the Sacrament as
solemnly explained and defined by the Holy See and ecumenical councils:
(1) in order to absolve a _peregrinus_, faculties must be granted by one
who has ordinary jurisdiction over the penitent; (2) the existence of the
custom of absolving _peregrini_ outside their diocese neither conveys
nor can convey the necessary jurisdiction; (3) jurisdiction is given by
approbation or consent (express or tacit) or leave (implicit or explicit)
of the Ordinary or of the particular pastor of the _peregrinus_; (4)
this approbation or consent includes the imparting of jurisdiction to
the confessor chosen by the _peregrinus_; (5) a sufficient indication of
this consent exists in the tolerance of a custom with the knowledge of
the bishop and without any remonstrance on his part; (6) the delegation
of jurisdiction depends on this consent in such wise that the pastor of
souls may, at his own option, retract his consent, thus abolishing the
custom and withdrawing entirely the power to absolve his subjects. All
these statements are incontrovertible.

Hence since a penitent can be absolved by his own bishop or by the
delegate of the latter, since the bishop of the _peregrinus_ remains his
superior in spite of the penitent being in another diocese transitorily,
the latter can be absolved only in virtue of power granted tacitly by his
own bishop.[469]

VII. As _Vagi_ have no fixed domicile, their spiritual superior is the
Pope, and by virtue of his express or tacit delegation they may be
absolved by any approved confessor wherever they happen to be; but they
cannot be absolved by any but those approved for the place where the
confession is made.

It will be asked: Who is to give approbation for absolving travelers on
the sea? This point has been settled in a very simple manner by a recent
decree of the Congregation of the Inquisition. Any priest, approved by
his Ordinary, may hear the confession of his fellow-travelers while the
voyage is in process, though they pass through or stop off for a time in
the territory of another bishop.[470]


39. Jurisdictio Delegata Extraordinaria, or, the Supplying of Deficient
Jurisdiction by the Church.

There is another kind of jurisdiction, viz.: when the Church makes good
the deficiency of delegation; here jurisdiction is conveyed “_supplente
Ecclesia_.”

Let it be remarked at the outset that it is by no means permissible to
perform any act for which jurisdiction is necessary—therefore to give
absolution—when the absence of jurisdiction is certain, even if the
Church should supply to insure validity of the act. When jurisdiction
is doubtful, it may be allowable to perform the act, especially if the
Church really does supply. Before discussing the matter itself we must
explain what is meant by the axiom: “The Church makes good deficient
jurisdiction.” The meaning of it is this: the Church, or the highest
judicial authority of the Church, confers, in an exceptional manner,
jurisdiction for individual acts, and the Church does this for the
general welfare _in ipso actu_, that is, in the performance of the act
itself.[471] There is, accordingly, a great difference between the
jurisdiction which a man actually possesses, and that which he exercises
“_supplente Ecclesia_.” In the first case I possess the jurisdiction
before I begin the act, before I hear the confession, or perform any
other act for which jurisdiction is required; indeed, I possess it in
most cases _habitualiter_. I possess it also when the act is completed.
But he who absolves or performs any other function _supplente Ecclesia_
receives the jurisdiction only when the action has already begun—in this
case when he is about to pronounce absolution—in order that he may carry
to its end the confession which has begun; the action once completed,—in
this case the absolution being pronounced,—he has no further
jurisdiction. When, therefore, previous to an action, a priest already
_probabiliter_ possesses jurisdiction, the Church, if she supplies, must
do so only conditionally, upon the presumption that he possessed no
jurisdiction; that is, when that jurisdiction which he was believed to
have was as a matter of fact not existing.

The Church supplies deficiency of jurisdiction:—

1. When one who exercises a power possesses a _titulus coloratus_ for
this power, and when, at the same time, the error is general amongst the
faithful, in such sort that the absence of real power is mostly unknown.
A _titulus coloratus_ (apparent title) is one that is in itself false,
but yet really exists; that is, one which has been conferred by lawful
authority and, therefore, bears the appearance and outward form of a true
title, even when, for some cause or other, it is void by an essential
defect.[472] The supplying action of the Church in this case is based
upon the right itself which she has conferred and ratified; this is the
teaching of all theologians.[473] The Church, they say, supplies as a
good mother in the interest of the welfare of souls.[474]

2. When there is no _titulus coloratus_ but only _error communis_,[475]
many theologians are of opinion that the Church supplies in this case
also for the general welfare.

St. Alphonsus adopts this opinion as probable, because the Church
supplies for defective jurisdiction more with a view to the common
good than out of consideration for the title.[476] It will scarcely,
however, be possible to assign to this opinion a real and substantial
probability; a number of theologians are indeed in favor of it, but not
a few of considerable repute are opposed to it (Lugo, Sanchez, Lessius,
and others). It is, therefore, canon law which must decide the question,
the more so, as we have not to do directly with what may be allowed
or not, but with the positive conferring of, possibly, non-existent
jurisdiction. Now what is to be gathered from the canon law on this point
seems plainly opposed to the more lenient view given in a decision of
the S. C. Conc. of 11 December, 1683, which Benedict XIV[477] cites to
settle the question. The matter remains, therefore, doubtful. The harm,
however, which can result from the negative opinion is not very great, as
a confessor cannot long exercise his office without title, and such harm
is made good by subsequent communion or confession. Several theologians,
moreover, rightly maintain that the faithful are not bound in this case
to repeat those confessions which they have, _bona fide_, made to a
priest, who, _ex communi errore_, passed for a confessor.

3. But when there is question not of _error communis_ but only of _error
privatus_ in a few persons, the Church certainly does not supply the
defective jurisdiction, because here the _bonum commune_ is not at
stake.[478]

From this it follows:—

1. That it is not allowed knowingly to make use of a power arising only
from an “apparent” title, although the Church should positively supply;
but he who is not aware of the defect of his title—this title being in
reality only an apparent title—has nothing to rectify subsequently, as
his actions were valid (_supplente Ecclesia_).

2. Still less is it allowable for one who knows that he possesses neither
power nor title to act on the ground of general error; in the first
place, because he assumes a power which he does not possess, and because,
moreover, he exposes to danger those who are most interested in the
validity of his actions.

Connected with the above is the question: does _jurisdictio probabilis_
or _dubia_ suffice for the valid and lawful administration of absolution.
The question turns only on _probabilitas juris_, a solidly probable,
though not necessarily certain, interpretation of the law declaring that
jurisdiction is possessed. This may occur with regard to the questions:
whether the jurisdiction possessed extends to this or that case, to this
or that person? or, whether the jurisdiction once possessed has been
revoked?

But a jurisdiction is doubtful when the uncertainty of it rests upon
a doubt or a probable _fact_. Upon this distinction between probable
and doubtful jurisdiction we must insist. St. Alphonsus[479] does
so, and that chiefly in order to show that, in the case of a _dubium
facti_,—thus, doubtful jurisdiction,—the faculty for the exercise and the
validity of the act (here of absolution) _always_ remains _doubtful_,
whereas, in the case of _probabilitas juris_, the validity of the action
after it has been performed is morally certain. When such probable
jurisdiction (_probabilitas juris_) is in question, it is, as St.
Alphonsus teaches, morally certain that the Church confers jurisdiction,
if it has previously (_antecedenter_) been wanting. The saint calls this
teaching _communissima_, and demonstrates it by the fact that the Church,
in the person of her chief pastor, tacitly tolerates the old custom of
absolving with such jurisdiction, and thus sufficiently expresses her
consent.

With regard to the _jurisdictio dubia_, however, the contentions of many
authors are not of this nature.[480] If many are of opinion that the
Church supplies in this case also, and base their opinion upon the fact
that the Church supplies when there is only _error communis_ and not
_titulus coloratus_, we need but refer to what has been previously said
upon this head.[481]

According to this it is morally certain that the Church, in the case
of previous _juris probabilitas_, supplies _jurisdiction_. But if the
jurisdiction is doubtful on account of a _dubium facti_, the Church does
not supply if the error exists only with a few; as the error is usually
general, it remains doubtful whether the Church supplies. It is not
always wrong to use doubtful jurisdiction in administering the Sacrament
of Penance, particularly when the reason for it is pressing, when
absolution is urgently necessary, and when it would be better to absolve
with doubtful validity than not to absolve at all. But in this case it
would always be necessary to instruct the penitent as to the value of the
absolution administered.

According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus, absolution may be
administered with a doubtful jurisdiction in the following cases: (1)
When the obligation of yearly confession must be fulfilled exactly at
that time; (2) when the penitent must say Mass or communicate, and this
cannot be omitted without bringing upon himself disgrace; (3) when the
priest must say Mass in fulfilment of his duty. In these cases a priest
possessing only doubtful jurisdiction may absolve conditionally when no
other confessor is at hand.[482] But the saintly Doctor[483] remarks
that, in this case, the confessor would be bound to inform the penitent
who had accused himself of mortal sin that he had been only conditionally
absolved, so that if afterwards it should become manifest that the
confessor really possessed no jurisdiction, the penitent might fulfill
his duty of confessing his sins again.[484]

In order to absolve with probable jurisdiction, a legitimate reason is
necessary and this exists: (1) When the penitent stands in special need
of the help of this particular priest; (2) when the accomplice of the
penitent is known to the confessor who possesses certain jurisdiction,
but unknown to him who possesses only probable jurisdiction; (3) if the
penitent were under an urgent obligation of confessing, if a particular
indulgence were to be gained, if the penitent would not be able to
confess for a long time, and a priest with certain jurisdiction were not
at hand.[485]

A special case in which the Church supplies deficient jurisdiction is _in
articulo mortis_.

The necessary jurisdiction for the absolution of dying persons is
conferred by the Church upon any priest, when no approved confessor is at
hand, so that any priest may absolve dying persons from all sins.[486]

An approved priest is considered not to be present, not only when he
is bodily but also morally out of reach; that is, in the following
cases: (1) When the approved priest who is present does not wish to
hear the confession of the dying person or cannot hear it, for in such
a case he would be practically absent; (2) when he is excommunicated
or suspended;[487] (3) if an approved priest should arrive when the
confession to the unapproved priest has already begun; (4) if an approved
priest were _complex_ of the dying person _in peccato turpi_;[488] (5) if
this priest is so displeasing to the sick person that the latter would be
in danger of sacrilegious confession; there would then be danger of the
soul of the sick person being lost, a risk which it was the intention of
the Council of Trent to obviate.[489]

What has been said above concerning the administration of absolution _in
articulo mortis_ stands good also for its administration _in quolibet
gravi periculo mortis_.[490] For the two situations are generally
considered as identical; moreover, the Ritual says: “When danger of death
threatens;” besides there is a divine precept to confess when there is
danger of death also, and thus there arises a case of necessity.

A grave _periculum mortis_ is considered to exist: (1) In a dangerous
illness; (2) in times of plague; (3) at a difficult birth; (4) before a
very difficult surgical operation; (5) in battle, or shortly before it;
(6) before a very dangerous sea voyage, etc.[491]


40. The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members of
Religious Orders.

Hitherto we have treated of the powers necessary to the ministers of the
Sacrament of Penance—secular and regular priests—in order that they may
validly and lawfully hear the confessions of lay people (_seculares_). It
remains now to discuss the regulations laid down by the Church concerning
the jurisdiction over men and women belonging to Religious Orders
emitting _vota solemnia_.

I. The Superiors of Religious Orders, or the local Superiors, although
they possess full jurisdiction over their subjects _in foro interno_,
are bound to appoint others as confessors, so that the subjects may not
be obliged to confess to their own Superiors; it is only in certain
definite cases that a subject is bound to go to confession to his
Superior. The inmates of a religious house may indeed confess to their
Superiors, and the latter must hear their confessions; but this must
be left to the option of the subordinates. One or more confessors may,
however, be nominated in the individual houses, so that no religious
can validly confess to any other but these; unless a confessor has
received special powers for this purpose from the Holy See or from the
Roman Penitentiary.[492] Only when a Jubilee occurs and usually once
may Regulars choose as confessor a priest out of those approved by the
_Ordinarius_, in order to gain the Jubilee indulgence. Several confessors
are generally nominated so that the subjects may have a choice from among
them.[493]

II. Confessors for Regulars receive their jurisdiction from the Superiors
of the latter. Not only priests belonging to Religious Orders, but also
secular priests (even those who have not been approved by their bishops),
may be empowered by Superiors to act as confessors to their subjects,
unless this be forbidden by the constitutions of the Order.[494]

This faculty belongs to Superiors of Religious Orders by common law,
since, by virtue of their exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, they
possess _quasi-episcopalem jurisdictionem_ over their subordinates. The
Council of Trent has altered nothing in this matter, as it speaks only
of the jurisdiction or approbation necessary for the confessions of
lay people; moreover, Clement VIII has expressly granted this faculty
to Superiors of Orders. The confessor of Regulars can absolve those
for whom he is appointed confessor, even outside the monastery, as
this jurisdiction is not limited to a definite place, and no further
approbation of the bishop is necessary.

Regulars who are on a journey or staying outside their monastery must
confess to a member of their Order who is near them, even when the latter
is not otherwise appointed for confessions; if, however, they have no
opportunity of confessing to one of their Order, they may do so to any
other regular or secular priest. This priest (according to the _sententia
communissima_, which St. Alphonsus considers the more probable) need not
even be approved by the _Episcopus loci_,[495] as it is presumed that
the Order, or its Superior, confers in such a case delegated jurisdiction
upon any priest whom the religious has chosen for his confessor.[496]

III. Those who can be validly absolved only by a priest authorized by a
Superior of an Order are: not only the religious and their novices, but
also lay persons, who, as really belonging to the monastic community,
live in the monastery or college; servants, for example, and others who
regularly live and take their meals in the monastery.[497]

IV. As regards the question whether priests of an Order, by virtue of
the authorization of the Superiors of their Order, may also hear the
confessions of the inmates of their monasteries intrusted to them for
education, theologians do not agree. Some, amongst whom are Gury (n.
564), Lehmkuhl (n. 394), Marc (n. 1763, Q. 2), and Aertnys (n. 232),
admit it, pointing out certain Orders to which this has been expressly
permitted, and in this privilege (these authorities maintain) the
other Orders participate. St. Alphonsus is also of this opinion (583),
appealing to Bordone; also Mazzotta (l. c.), Lugo, Schmalzgrueber, and
others. Lehmkuhl calls this opinion probable and says: We may, therefore,
act according to the principles discussed above concerning probable
jurisdiction. However, this does not seem to be generally admissible.
For no law accords to Regular priests a general privilege of this kind.
The extension to all other Orders of a privilege granted to some is
not allowable here, for this privilege derogates from the rights of a
third party, in this instance the bishop and the parish priests; and it
is clear from the decisions of the sacred congregations that unlimited
jurisdiction over their students does not belong to Regulars.[498]

On the other hand, Regulars possess jurisdiction over their students:
(1) When this jurisdiction is explicitly conferred upon an Order or
educational establishment; (2) when the religious have acquired it by
legitimate custom; (3) when there is question of religious in the sense
that, according to the ordinances of the Council of Trent, the students
can be designated as belonging to the household. This latter, however,
is not the case when the house in which the educational establishment is
situated is not actually the monastic building, or when the members of
the Order and the students do not form an association of the nature of a
family. Nor can those pupils be regarded as belonging to the household
who pay for their board, and are yearly received into the educational
establishment or seminary. But as the matter is a difficult one and
difference of opinion prevails amongst theologians, Bouix suggests as
a practical solution the removal of such boys or girls from parochial
control.[499]


41. Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns.

What we are about to say concerning nuns refers to nuns in the strict
sense of the word, namely, to such as have taken solemn vows and are
bound by the regulations of the inclosure, but not to the religious
congregations which have no inclosure, nor, in general to such nuns as,
with permission of their Superiors, are living outside the convent.[500]

The bishop can except from the general approbation any religious female
congregation, and if he has done so, the confessors must act conformably.
In most dioceses the regulations of the Church concerning confessors
of nuns—both ordinary and extraordinary confessors—are extended to the
female congregations also which take only simple vows, and are not bound
to strict inclosure. This discipline is, in fact, very good, and quite in
conformity with the intention of the Holy See.[501]

The following regulations are in force with regard to the confessors of
nuns:—

I. Not every priest approved by a bishop can hear the confessions of
nuns, but only one who has received special approbation and jurisdiction
for the purpose from the _Episcopus loci_. Indeed, the priest approved
for one convent cannot _valide_ hear the confessions of the nuns of
another convent, unless he be generally appointed for the confessions of
nuns.[502]

II. The confessors of exempted nuns also require the approbation of the
bishop, but they are chosen and appointed by the Superiors of the Orders
to whom they (the exempted nuns) are subject; and if these Superiors
themselves wish to hear the confessions of the nuns who are subject to
them, they must likewise obtain the approbation of the bishop. It is only
when the nuns obey Superiors with _quasi episcopal_ jurisdiction that
their confessor does not require the approbation of the bishop.[503]

III. According to the declaration of Clement XI the confessors of nuns
should not only be learned, prudent, and pious, but also of mature
years.[504] The bishop must, therefore, take care that a confessor be
chosen in whom the nuns may have confidence.

Without Papal authorization vicars-general, canons, and others who are
bound to observe choir in virtue of a benefice, also parish priests (when
the care of souls would materially suffer thereby), cannot discharge
the office of an ordinary confessor. This applies also to priests of a
Religious Order with regard to nuns who are immediately subject to the
bishop. The former may, however, exercise the office of extraordinary
confessors. The ordinary confessor must hear the confessions of nuns as
often as it is reasonably demanded of him. Moreover, he must not conduct
himself as a Superior of the convent, since, according to the decree of
the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 7 Sept., 1797, such authority does not belong to
him.[505]

The confessor appointed for nuns shall not discharge his office longer
than three years, and cannot, at the expiration of this period, hear
confessions in the same convent without permission of the S. C. Ep. et
Reg.[506] Several authorities, however (St. Alphonsus, Bouvier, Gury,
Scavini), remark that the bishop may allow the confessor to exercise his
office longer than three years when other suitable priests are wanting.

At the time of a Jubilee, nuns, like Regulars, may, in order to gain
the Jubilee indulgence, _once_ choose for themselves any confessor
from amongst priests approved by the _Episcopus loci_ for hearing the
confessions of nuns either in general or for a particular convent.[507]

IV. The bishops, or Superiors of Orders, who are authorized to
appoint and choose the ordinary confessor, are bound to appoint an
_extraordinary_ confessor for the nuns subject to them two or three times
a year.

Although the nuns are not bound to confess to this extraordinary
confessor, they must, nevertheless, all repair to him, be it either
to make a sacramental confession or to receive from him wholesome
exhortation.[508]

The following is to be observed regarding the _Confessarius
extraordinarius_:—

1. Although the Tridentine Session here speaks of inclosed nuns only
(_moniales claustrales_), Benedict XIV wishes the appointment of the
extraordinary confessor to be extended to all communities of nuns who
have only an ordinary confessor appointed by the Superiors.

2. The choice of the extraordinary confessor belongs to the _Ordinarius
loci_ for those convents which are under him, and to the Superior of the
Order for those for which the latter appoints the ordinary confessor;
every extraordinary confessor must have special approbation as such from
the bishop. The Superiors of Regulars, however, cannot always appoint
a priest of their own Order, but must at least, once a year, choose a
secular priest or one of another Order. If the Superior of the Order
neglects to choose an extraordinary confessor, the bishop must do so;
should the bishop neglect this duty, the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary must
act.

3. During the time when the extraordinary confessor is exercising his
office in a community, the ordinary confessor may not remain in the
community to hear confessions.

4. The extraordinary confessor may not be refused to individual nuns in
case of serious illness or invincible reluctance towards the ordinary
confessor. The case of a nun in danger of death being refused an
extraordinary confessor is provided for in the decree of the Tridentine
Session, XIV. cp. 7: _in articulo mortis omnes sacerdotes quoslibet
pœnitentes ... absolvere posse_. But should a nun wish to confess
occasionally to a particular confessor, not out of fickleness, or
imprudent preference, but truly on account of her spiritual advancement,
it is advisable that the Superiors should not oppose such wish.[509]

Extraordinary confessors, nominated by the bishop for _a single
occasion_, can only discharge this office once. They must be approved by
the bishop as often as they have to discharge the office of extraordinary
confessor,[510] unless they have a general approbation for the confession
of nuns.




CHAPTER II

LIMITATION OF JURISDICTION OR RESERVED CASES


42. Reserved Cases in General.

The Church has received from Christ the power to remit or to retain all
sins without exception. No sin is withheld from the cognizance of its
judicial authority or the power of its keys. This unlimited power of
chief justice and plenipotentiary resides in the hands of the Supreme
Head of the Church; it is in the possession of the Vicegerent of Him
who has said of Himself: “To Me is given all power in heaven and on
earth.” In the exercise of the judicial power _in foro interno_, the
pastors of the Church are dependent upon and subject to him. This
relation between the Pope and the pastors of the Church is expressed
in the reservations;[511] that is, by the ecclesiastical discipline in
virtue of which the Pope reserves certain sins in order to absolve from
them himself, and places a limit upon the jurisdiction of the bishops
by withholding from them the power to absolve from certain sins. And as
the Pope proceeds with regard to the bishops, so can the bishop, and the
Superiors of Orders, and those possessing quasi-episcopal jurisdiction,
proceed with regard to their respective subordinates.

This competence to declare certain sins reserved, which existed in the
earliest times of the Church as is proved by numberless memorials, is
promulgated by the Council of Trent,[512] which also emphasizes the
_reason_ of this practice: “It has seemed conducive to the morality of
the Christian people that certain particularly horrible and grave sins
should not be absolved by every priest, but only by those of the highest
authority. It is, therefore, reasonable that the Popes, by virtue of the
power invested in them over the whole Church, should reserve certain
grave sins for their own tribunal.” Having then assigned this power to
the bishops also, the Council declares that this reservation of sins has
validity not only in the outward administration of the Church, but also
before God.

From this it follows that:—

I. The motives for the reservations, apart from the maintenance of
authority, are: (_a_) the necessity of deterring the faithful from the
commission of these great sins by thus making it more difficult to obtain
absolution; (_b_) the necessity of applying a special remedy, so that
those who have been guilty of such crimes may be the more efficaciously
preserved from relapse. In order that the former object may be the more
perfectly attained, it is necessary in an appropriate manner to make
known to the people what sins are reserved.

II. We distinguish: (1) Reservation by the Pope, by a bishop, and by
the Superior of an Order; (2) reserved sins, when the sin itself is
directly reserved, and reserved censures, when the censure attached to a
sin is reserved, and the sin itself is reserved only in consequence of
the censure. If the reserved censure is only the means by which the sin
is reserved, upon removal of the censure the sin is no longer reserved.
In the papal reserved cases the censure only is directly reserved; in
episcopal and other reserved cases generally the sin only is reserved,
not the censure. Two Papal cases, in which the sin without the censure
is reserved, form exceptions to this rule, namely: (_a_) Falsely
accusing an innocent confessor of solicitation, either by denouncing
the confessor to the ecclesiastical judge one’s self, or by effecting
such denunciation through another person;[513] (_b_) the receiving of
considerable presents exceeding the value of ten francs on the part of
members of Religious Orders (emitting solemn vows) of both sexes, till
restitution has taken place (_munera prorsus liberalia_ are meant; hence
presents of medicaments and devotional objects, as also those presents
which were given out of gratitude and benevolence or for the purpose of
securing the good-will of a person, are excepted).[514] If the presents
amount to a higher sum, and if the penitent can make restitution, he
is not to be absolved till he has done so. If, however, he cannot make
restitution at the time, but promises faithfully to do so as soon as
possible, the confessor can absolve him.

III. The power to reserve is possessed by the Pope in the whole Church;
by the bishops in their dioceses; by the heads of Orders who possess
quasi-episcopal jurisdiction in their Orders—the General of the Order
for the whole Order, the Provincial in his province, the local head in
his house—but apart from specified sins mentioned by Clement VIII, these
religious Superiors may not reserve any others without consent of the
general chapter.[515]

IV. There must be valid ground for making the reservation, otherwise its
effect would tend to ruin rather than to edification. Hence the undue
multiplication of reserved cases is not allowed; for many people, on
account of the difficulty of getting absolution, are likely to remain for
a long time in a state of mortal sin, and are deterred from receiving the
Sacraments. Clement VIII, therefore, exhorted the bishops to reserve only
a few sins, and only those of which the reservation would be conducive to
the maintenance of Christian morality amongst the faithful.[516]

V. As reservation is a limitation of jurisdiction, it concerns the
confessor directly, and the penitent indirectly.

From this it follows that:—

1. In the matter of reservation, strangers are not to be treated
according to the reservation of the place where they confess, but
according to that in force at their place of residence, exactly in
accordance with the principles concerning the jurisdiction of the
confessors of strangers which we have stated above. It is, therefore,
more correct to say that they are absolved by virtue of the jurisdiction
which the bishop of the penitent gives, and it is reasonable to assume
that the latter does not wish to limit the jurisdiction of confessors
outside his diocese to whom members of his own diocese confess, unless
he has reserved a sin in his own diocese. If, therefore, the stranger
confesses a sin which is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses,—a
diocese which is not his own,—the confessor can absolve him, _quia
absolvit vi jurisdictionis delegatæ ab Episcopo, qui peccatum illud non
reservat_.[517]

In practice the rule can be laid down that it is always allowed to
absolve a stranger from reserved sins, except when: (1) the sin is
reserved in both the dioceses, that of the confessor and that of the
stranger, or (2) when the stranger leaves his diocese in order to
confess “_in fraudem legis_,” that is, to evade the judgment of his
Superior,[518] which may be assumed to be the case when the sin is of
such a nature that it may easily be brought before the _forum externum_,
or may already, in some form, be before it, so that absolution could not
be administered even _in foro interno_ without the permission of the
bishop.[519]

2. Although Regulars do not necessarily receive delegated jurisdiction
from the bishop but from the Pope, they cannot absolve penitents from
sins reserved in the respective dioceses, without having received special
faculties from the bishop; the Popes have distinctly so decreed.[520] The
episcopal reservation is binding also for non-exempted nuns; whether it
is so for the exempted, is a matter of controversy. St. Alphonsus[521]
declares both opinions, affirmative and negative, probable. But should a
bishop refuse to the confessor of nuns jurisdiction over reserved cases,
the absolution of the latter for such sins would undoubtedly be invalid;
for the bishop gives jurisdiction for the exempted nuns also, as is plain
from the words of Gregory XV.[522]

Whether the _familiares_ of Regulars may be absolved without faculties
from the bishop depends in general upon the fact whether they are
absolved by virtue of episcopal or of Regular jurisdiction. When they are
absolved by confessors appointed by the Superior of the Order, they are
not subject to episcopal reservation; but if they are absolved by other
confessors (secular priests), it seems that they are subject to episcopal
reservation. If, however, it is a question of sins to which the bishop
has attached censure, they do not, as a rule, incur this censure, since
they must be treated as strangers.[523]

VI. In order that the objects of the reservation may be attained, and
this is only possible by a moderate use of the power of reservation,
grave sins only are as a rule reserved. Such is the decision of the
Council of Trent.[524] The following conditions are necessary for the
valid reservation of a sin:[525] (1) It must be (and that _ex natura
rei_, in order that it be reserved _pleno sensu_) a mortal sin, both as
regards the internal and the external act; (2) it must have been carried
out completely, not merely attempted, wished, begun; and (3) it must be
reserved in definite terms. These conditions are by common custom deemed
necessary. A Superior who reserves is, therefore, supposed to be guided
by them unless he has expressly declared himself to the contrary. But
Superiors generally attach particular conditions and exceptions to their
reservations, which must be gathered from their instructions.

The following remarks may serve for more explicit explanation: (1) As
venial sins are not _materia necessaria_ of absolution, they cannot
be reserved in the strict and full sense. Even if it be _per se_
possible that the Superior can withdraw from a priest the power to
absolve sacramentally with regard to a venial sin, he cannot oblige
the penitent to procure sacramental absolution from this venial sin.
This applies also (2) to really and positively doubtful sins. Indeed,
as St. Alphonsus teaches,[526] a sin which is in any respect doubtful
is, according to ecclesiastical custom and the concurrent teaching of
the authorities, regarded as not reserved. For, even if any sin which
is _materia necessaria_ of confession might from the very nature of the
case be reserved, yet this is not so in practice, and as reservation is
a _lex odiosa_, it must be interpreted _stricte_. A sin is, therefore,
regarded as not reserved: (_a_) when there is doubt as to its subjective
gravity, and (_b_) when there is doubt as to its objective gravity
(unless the Superior, for particular motives, has declared as _gravis a
materia_ which, _ex se_, is not positively _gravis_, in which case it
would be necessary to stand by his decision); moreover (_c_), there is
no reservation when doubt exists as to whether a positively reserved sin
has been committed, or whether it has been committed with the necessary
conditions, nor is there reservation when doubt exists as to whether
a sin really committed is a reserved sin. But in this case (_in dubio
juris_) the sin would be reserved if the confessor merely _privato
errore_ doubted the reservation, or if he did not know the sin was
actually reserved. But in some dioceses the bishops have declared that
the confession in such a case is valid, and that they do not regard a sin
as reserved if the confessor _privato errore_ or _ex ignorantia_ does not
believe a sin to be reserved.[527]

If, therefore, the confessor supposes a sin to be reserved, he must
carefully examine if the sin be _interne grave_, if it has been committed
with full advertence, and with full consent of the will _in materia
gravi_, and if it is also _grave quoad actum externum_; for if the
external act were not of a grave nature, it would not be reserved
although it might be inwardly a great sin. For instance, should a person
in a heretical frame of mind have said something which neither contained
heresy _in se_, nor, on account of the circumstances, showed an heretical
tendency, his sin would not be reserved.[528] The Church is, in fact,
accustomed to reserve only _peccata externa_, although it cannot be
doubted that she can also reserve _peccata mere interna_, as this class
of grave sins is, by divine law, subject to the absolving power of the
Church _in foro interno_.[529]

3. That a sin should be reserved it must be _completum_, completed; that
is, completed in the manner implied by the reservation. When, therefore,
in the words of the (reserving) law, an external, completed action is
specified,—murder, for instance,—and the outward completion is wanting
(in this case, the death of the victim), there is no reservation. If, on
the other hand, attempting crime, or advising it, are _per se_ reserved,
it suffices to have done these acts to make the sin reserved, though the
project has not been executed or the sinful advice failed to produce any
effect. Frequently such incomplete actions are, however, reserved as
accessory only to the principal action. If this latter has been certainly
completed, then these accessory actions are reserved.

VII. The question: “Must the penitent be aware that his sin is a reserved
one in order that it should be reserved?” is a subject of animated
controversy among the theologians.[530] It is beyond all doubt that
bishops can so reserve the sins of their subjects that the reservation
holds even when the penitent knows nothing about it. Whether they do
reserve in this manner without a formal declaration to that effect, is
a debatable question. St. Alphonsus and not a few other theologians
teach that a sin is reserved even when the penitent did not know of
the reservation, assigning as sole, or at least chief, reason that the
reservation restricts the power of the confessor.[531] The fear that
Christian and religious discipline might thereby be relaxed is alleged
as a second reason.[532] On the other hand, a very great number of
theologians[533] teach that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved
if the penitent did not know that it was so, when the reservation is
_pœnalis_, that is, when it is of a punitive character; but that it _is_
to be regarded as reserved when the reservation is _medicinalis_, imposed
as a deterrent; that is, when it is not a _pœna medicinalis_, which,
like the censure, is intended to break the stubbornness of the sinner
and deter him from sin, but a _lex disciplinaris_, by which the Superior
himself, or through a specially delegated confessor, wishes to provide a
remedy for sin committed. When, therefore, Lugo denies that reservation
is chiefly of a punitive character, and, therefore, holds good even if
the sinner did not know of the reservation when he was sinning, we agree
with him and with Lehmkuhl.[534]

If, however, it is a question of reserved censures, the censure
is considered not reserved when the penitent did not know of the
reservation, as only he incurs a censure who knew of it and yet committed
the act to which it is attached. Concerning the Papal reservations, at
least, unanimity upon this point prevails among the theologians, as these
reservations exist chiefly on account of the censure. With regard to
episcopal cases no unanimity exists. Here, as Suarez rightly teaches, we
must have regard for the circumstances; that is, for the terms of the
reservation, for custom, and for the power of the person who reserves,
etc.[535] But if the penitent knew of the censure and did not know of the
reservation, the theory of some few theologians that, in this case, also
the censure is not reserved, is rightly regarded as lax and altogether
improbable.


43. The Papal Reserved Cases.

In the year 1869 Pius IX issued his celebrated Bull “_Apostolicæ Sedis
moderationi_,” the object of which was _to reduce_ the number of censures
imposed at different times, _to explain_ them, and to bring their wording
to such form that uncertainty and doubt on the part of the faithful and
of confessors might cease. By virtue of his apostolical power he therein
decreed that of all the censures ever imposed, whether excommunication
or suspension or interdict, only those should henceforth legally
remain in force which were explicitly introduced into or quoted in his
constitution; that they should derive their validity not only from the
authority of the ancient canons, but also from this constitution itself,
just as though they were there for the first time imposed. This Bull
possesses force and validity for the whole Church from the moment when it
was promulgated _ad valvas Ecclesiæ S. Salvatoris_.[536] The Bull deals
with censures[537] only, and these are either Excommunications,[538]
Suspensions, or Interdicts.[539]

_I. Excommunicationes speciali modo Romano Pontifici reservatæ._ The
excommunication _spec. modo_ reserved to the Pope is incurred by:[540]

1. All who have fallen from the Christian faith (apostates) and all
heretics, of whatever name and sect they may be, as well as their
adherents, supporters, and all their defenders in general.

As the expression “_Omnes a christiana fide apostatas_” is of general
application, not only are all those Christians who have embraced Judaism
or heathenism comprised in it, but also the so-called freethinkers who
wholly give themselves up to unbelief, and have openly renounced all
religion; also rationalists, spiritualists, materialists, pantheists,
deists, atheists, illuminati, those who profess indifferentism in
religion or a merely natural religion, and other unbelievers of similar
character, who belong to the order of Freemasons or adopt the principles
of that order, even when, here and there, some of its members surround
themselves with a halo of religion.[541]

In order that the confessor may know who incurs excommunication under
the expression _Omnes et singulos hæreticos_ he must form an accurate
conception of heresy, which demands: (_a_) _error formalis_, a conscious
and voluntary denial joined to _pertinacia_, (_b_) the denial of an
article of faith promulgated by the Church, (_c_) the external expression
of such denial, (_d_) a knowledge of the penalty incurred.[542] If any
one of these marks is absent, there is no excommunication. In connection
with this, Renninger remarks:[543] “At a time when, in our social life,
the waves of unbelief run so high, prudence, deliberation, and knowledge
are in an especial manner necessary to him who has the care of souls,
that hasty judgment may be avoided. However mindful he may be of his
office as teacher, he must never forget the demands of Christian charity;
he should never let himself be drawn into disputes which lead to nothing,
still less should he provoke them; he should never be carried away by
violence. Positive assent to a dogma he should only demand when his
office forces him to do so. He should, especially in the confessional,
take for granted that he who believes in the Church, believes also in
her dogmas. He should not put tempting questions. He should remember
that many howl with the wolves without really knowing what the howling
is about, being merely anxious not to lose the nimbus of liberalism. He
should make the way of those who are returning as smooth as is possible
without violating the laws of the Church. The retractation _extra
confessionale_, which cannot be dispensed with, may often be clothed in a
form which is not wounding to self-respect, and is yet valid. Intimations
to this effect have been forwarded in a confidential manner to their
clergy by different Ordinaries, who were moved by a judicious zeal for
the salvation of souls.” To this class belong also the “_Credentes_,”
that is, those who give credence and who—without formally professing
heretical doctrine, without _pertinacia_, or without sufficient
knowledge, pose as heretics—openly profess assent to a heretical doctrine
by word, sign, or action explicitly or implicitly, in a general way. To
these also belong the “_Receptores_,” those who afford to apostates or
heretics, but only as apostates and heretics (_quatenus hæretici et non
ex. gr. qua fures sunt_) shelter and receive or conceal them in order
to protect them from punishment for heresy; to these also belong the
_fautores_, those who in any way render assistance (_per omissionem_ or
_per commissionem_) to apostates or heretics. Finally, we may mention the
_defensores_, those who, in any way, by force or by cunning, by word or
by writing, protect heretics as such, or their doctrines or their books.

2. All those who, without permission of the Holy See, knowingly read,
print, keep, or in any way defend the books of the above-mentioned
apostates and heretics, if the defense of heresy is the subject-matter of
these books; as, also, the readers, printers, possessors, or defenders of
those books which, by a Papal document (Encyclical, Brief, or Bull) are,
by name (that is, by statement of the title of the book), forbidden.

(_a_) The Readers. Reading here must be understood as a moral not merely
a physical act, when, for example, the reader understands nothing of
the language;[544] in this kind of reading must be included causing
a book to be read to one (not merely listening, however sinful the
latter may be) since, where there is _eadem ratio_ also _eadem est
juris dispositio_.[545] Moreover, in order to incur the censure, it
is necessary that a part sufficient to constitute a mortal sin, about
a page, be read;[546] that the reading should take place _scienter_,
that is, with knowledge that the book has been written by an apostate
or heretic; finally, it is requisite that it should defend heresy and
that the reading or keeping should take place without authorization from
the Holy See. (_b_) The readers of _books_ in the proper sense of the
word, be they written[547] or printed, not of merely printed matter,
as brochures, pamphlets, newspapers, periodical sheets, etc., although
the reading of such products of the day may often be, and very often
is, more dangerous to faith and morals than the reading of a bad book,
and there is no doubt that the reading and keeping of such literature
is always a great sin, being an offense against the natural law.[548]
(_c_) The _Retinentes_, that is, all those who knowingly retain in their
possession for some time, either in their own homes or in that of a
stranger, in their own name or in that of another, a book forbidden in
the manner above specified. (_d_) _The Imprimentes_, that is, all those
who directly coöperate or assist, as _causæ morales_ or _physicæ_, in
printing: authors, publishers, printers. (_e_) The _Defendentes_, that
is, those who defend books which are forbidden in the sense specified
above.[549] Accordingly he does not incur this excommunication: (1) who
only reads or keeps a few separate leaves of such a book or periodicals,
etc.; (2) who reads perfunctorily; (3) who reads from necessity, to be
able to refute a heretic, and was not able previously to procure the
necessary permission; (4) if his reading is only a physical act, without
his being able to understand anything; (5) if he keeps a book for a short
time only, for example, a day or two, or only till he has obtained the
permission requested, or if he has no opportunity of giving the book to
the Superior.[550]

3. Schismatics and all who obstinately refuse obedience to the reigning
Pope.

4. All those who, whatever their position may be, or the dignity they may
hold, appeal from the injunctions or orders of the reigning Popes to a
future general Council; moreover the aiders, advisers, and favorers of
such.

5. All those who kill, maim, strike, take prisoner, or keep prisoner, or
persecute in hostile manner cardinals, patriarchs, archbishops, bishops,
Papal legates, or nuncios; those who expel them from their dioceses, or
lands belonging to them, or estates in their possession; as those also
who order or sanction such acts, or give help, advice, or encouragement
in their execution.

6. Those who directly or indirectly hinder the execution of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction and who, for this purpose (_ad hoc_),[551]
apply to the secular power, as well as those who cause or publish
the commands of such persons, or afford help, advice, or countenance
in such proceeding. The ecclesiastical juridical power is the lawful
competence of the Church to govern her subjects in respect to everything
that belongs to their eternal welfare. This power is exercised _in
foro externo_ and _interno_. The _Exercitium ordinis_ (_consecrare_,
_benedicere_, etc.) is to be distinguished from the _Exercitium
jurisdictionis_.

7. Those who directly or indirectly compel secular judges to cite
ecclesiastical persons before their tribunal contrary to canonical
regulations (unless it should be the case that ecclesiastical
regulations, either general or particular (Concordats) allow this), as
well as those who issue laws or regulations against the freedom or rights
of the Church. This canon refers to conditions which, though still extant
in certain parts of Europe, have hardly any force in the United States
and other missionary countries; it protects the _privilegium fori_ of
clerics, and in a general way the freedom and rights of the Church.[552]

8. Those who apply to the secular power to prevent the execution of
decrees or of any acts proceeding from the Holy See or its legates or
delegates, as also those who directly or indirectly actually prevent the
promulgation or execution of such, or who, on account of these decrees or
acts, injure or threaten others (agents, mandatories).

9. The forgers of Papal documents, the promulgators or subscribers of
such forged Papal documents (_litterarum Apostolicarum etiam in forma
Brevis ac supplicationum gratiam vel justitiam concernentium_).

10. _Absolventes complices in peccato turpi_, etc.; see § 46.

11. Those who usurp or sequestrate (_jurisdictionem_) rights of
jurisdiction (secular rights appertaining to the Church by virtue of any
legal titles, for instance, fiscal rights, etc.), the goods or revenues
of ecclesiastics, which belong to them _ratione suarum ecclesiarum aut
beneficiorum_ (that is by virtue of their ecclesiastical position).

Mere thieves and even robbers of Church property, accordingly, do not
come under the censure here pronounced, as they cannot be classed under
the definition either of _usurpantes_ or _sequestrantes_ (cf. S. C. Inq.
9 March, 1870), nor does the purchasing by contract of such goods from
usurpers come under it. But the latter is subject to the Tridentine
censure, the censure reserved simply to the Pope (cf. S. C. Off. 8 July,
1874). Whether the property of monasteries is included, is a matter
of controversy; the property of pious foundations is not included. The
estates of monasteries fall under the Tridentine censure.

12. All those who, themselves or through others, attack towns,
territories, or villages, belonging to the Roman Church, destroy
or occupy them; as also those who arrogate to themselves supreme
administrative power in these places, disturb or stop the execution of
such power, and those who afford help, advice, and countenance in such
work.

13. Accordingly, the canons and dignitaries of vacant cathedral churches,
and, in the absence of a Chapter, all those who are competent to appoint
a vicar-capitular, or to govern the bereaved diocese themselves, incur
the excommunication specially reserved to the Pope, as well as suspension
of the revenues of their benefices, if they presume to admit a bishop
elected by the Chapter, or one presented by the secular power, for the
government and administration of the vacant church before these persons
have accredited themselves by submitting the Papal documents bearing
upon their appointments,—and that for so long as the Apostolic See may
think proper to keep this suspension in force; moreover, those chosen
or nominated and presented for vacant churches who presume to undertake
the government and administration of these churches _ex concessione
et translatione, de qua supra_ (that is, before this submitting of
credentials), as well as all those who have obeyed, or given help,
advice, or countenance to such acts, _cujuscumque status, conditionis,
præ-eminentiæ et dignitatis fuerint_. To this is added: When any one of
the above-named persons is invested with the dignity of a bishop, he
incurs the penalty of suspension _ab exercitio Pontificalium_ and of the
Interdict _ab ingressu Ecclesiæ_, which overtakes him _ipso facto absque
ulla declaratione_, and is reserved to the Apostolic See.[553]

14. The so-called “civil government pastors,” appointed by the State,
_qui suffragante populo ad parochi sive vicarii officium electi
audeant sive ecclesiæ sive jurium ac bonorum prætensam possessionem
arripere atque obire munia ecclesiastici ministerii_, incur the same
excommunication, in accordance with a solemn decree of the Sacred
Congregation of the Council (13 May, 1874).[554]

_II. Excommunicationes latæ sententiæ Romano Pontifici simpliciter
reservatæ._

There are eighteen of these, to which are added one of the Council of
Trent, and another _ex declaratione S. C. Inq._:—

1. All who publicly or privately teach or defend tenets which are
condemned by the Holy See under pain of _excommunicatio latæ sententiæ_,
as also those who teach and uphold that the practice of asking the
penitent the name of the accomplice is allowed.

To the propositions, the teaching and defending of which involves the
above censure, do not belong such tenets as are simply condemned by
the Pope, as those included in the Syllabus, for example, or which are
interdicted under other censures and penalties.

2. Those who, incited by the devil (_suadente diabolo_), lay violent
hands on clerics, or religious, unless the power of absolution is
accorded to the bishops or others, either _jure_ or _privilegio_. The
words _suadente diabolo_ imply that there is question of a grave sin.
This censure is, accordingly, not incurred if the _percussio_ take
place either _ob legitimam sui defensionem, vel ob justam subditi
Clerici correptionem, vel ex joco aut casu fortuito vel ex subita ira,
vel ex ignorantia_ that the person struck is a cleric. On the other
hand, the censure extends also to _impuberes_ and the _efficaciter
cooperantes_.[555]

3. Duellists, even when they only challenge to a duel, or accept the
challenge, and all accomplices and abettors. The censures attached to the
duel are, therefore, incurred by:—

(1) the duellists themselves, whether the duel takes place with or
without witnesses, whether wounding follows or not; (2) the challengers
to a duel, even when the challenge is not accepted; (3) he who accepts
the challenge, even when no duel takes place, and when the parties to
the proposed duel do not meet; (4) the seconds, those who accompany the
duellists, and in fact all those who afford countenance and assistance
to them, and who, by advice, or in any other way, make themselves
accomplices; (5) the spectators who to that end, and of set purpose,
repair to the scene of the encounter, as such onlooking is a further
incitement to the encounter; (6) the persons in authority who permit
this, and, as far as in them lies, do not forbid it.

4. Those who belong to the sect of the Freemasons or Carbonari or to
other sects of the kind (Fenians in America and Ireland)[556] who agitate
either openly or in secret against the Church or the lawful government,
as well as all who in any way countenance these sects, or do not denounce
their secret heads and leaders (to the local ecclesiastical superiors)
when they clearly realize their duty of denouncing. Political partisans,
so long as they employ only the means which modern public law places at
their disposal in their endeavors to realize their ideal of the future
social state, do not incur this censure.

5. The violators of the rights of the sanctuary.

6 and 7. The violators of the inclosure in monasteries and convents. Only
the violation of the so-called Papal inclosure, that is, the inclosure
prescribed by general ecclesiastical law to the Orders with solemn vows,
brings with it the excommunication here mentioned; not the violation of
that inclosure which is observed in the more recent Congregations of men
or women either on account of their rules, or of a particular vow, or
also in consequence of a regulation of the local bishop. Not only do the
violators of the inclosure incur the excommunication, but all, Superiors
or others, who, without lawful reasons, permit entrance.

8, 9, and 10 refer to simony: real (8); confidential (9); in the bestowal
of benefices, and real on entering a Religious Order (10).

11 and 12 are directed against the abuse of spiritual favors for the
purpose of unworthy gain, which may take place by procuring for one’s
self: (11) material profit in the dispensing of indulgences and other
spiritual graces, or (12) by collecting Mass stipends at a higher price,
and having these Masses said in places where a lower fee is customary.
While number 11 concerns only the “_inferiores Episcopis_,” number
12 applies to all collectors (_colligentes_) who procure profit to
themselves by the above-mentioned proceedings.

13. Those who alienate and mortgage lands belonging to the Roman Church.

14. Members of Religious Orders who, without permission of the local
parish priest, presume to administer to clerics or laymen the Sacrament
of Extreme Unction, or the Eucharist as viaticum; except in case of
necessity.

15. Those who, without lawful permission, remove from the holy cemeteries
and catacombs of the city of Rome and its territories, relics (therefore,
only remains of saints, _corpora vel partes corporis, etiam in minima
particula, quibus indubia martyrii signa adjuncta sunt_; cf. S. R. C. 10
Dec., 1863), and those who help and countenance them.

16. Those who are associated in _crimine criminoso_ with a person whom
the Pope has, by name, excommunicated, that is, who, by helping or
countenancing, take part in the crime on account of which the originator
was, by mention of name, excommunicated by the Pope.

17. Clerics who knowingly and without compulsion associate _in divinis_
(that is, in the Church’s offices) with one by name excommunicated by the
Pope, and permit such to participate in divine service.

In order, therefore, that this excommunication be incurred, the
_communicatio_ must be: (_a_) with a person by name excommunicated by the
Pope; (_b_) knowingly and (_c_) voluntarily. According to the general
and unanimous explanation the _et_ is not to be taken as disjunctive but
conjunctive, so that the “_communicantes in divinis_,” with a person by
name excommunicated, and the “_ipsos in officiis recipientes_” are to be
interpreted as members of a sentence which necessarily belong to each
other.[557] “_Divina_” and “_officia_” are merely synonymous terms.

18. Those who presume, without proper permission, _etiam quovis
prætextu_, to absolve from the excommunications reserved _speciali modo_
to the Pope—that is, _extra casum legitimi impedimenti eundi Romam_.

19. Missionaries who _quocunque modo sive per se sive per alios_ engage
in commerce in _Indiis Orientalibus et America_, and those Superiors who
have not censured their subordinates offending on this head. _Ex authent.
Declarat._ S. C. Inq. 4 Dec., 1872, a Pio IX _approbata_.

20. Refers to clerics and laymen _quacunque dignitate etiam imperiali
aut regali_ who unlawfully appropriate jurisdictions, interests, rights,
also fiefs and hereditary tenures, incomes, usufruct, or revenues from
any church or benefice, from the _montes pietatis_ and other _pia loca_.
(This is an extension of the number 11 above, in section I of the
Censures.)[558]

_III. Excommunicationes Ordinariis Reservatæ._[559]

1. Clerics in major Orders, monks, and nuns, who, after having taken the
solemn vow of chastity (not the simple) dare to contract marriage, as
also all who attempt to perform the marriage rite over the above-named
persons—such marriage being of itself invalid.

2. All who cause abortion.[560]

3. Those who knowingly make use of forged Papal documents, or lend
assistance in this crime.

_IV. Excommunicationes non Reservatæ._

1. Those who order or insist with force that notorious heretics or those
by name excommunicated, or by name interdicted, should be buried with the
rites of the Church.

2. All those who injure or threaten the inquisitors, accusers, witnesses,
or other servants of the Holy Office in the performance of their duty, or
who steal or destroy the official documents of this Office, or who afford
help, advice, or countenance in any one of these actions.

3. This excommunication falls upon the vendors (_alienantes_) or
receivers (_recipere præsumentes_) of Church property who have not
obtained permission of the Pope in the prescribed form.

4. Those who omit to denounce a soliciting confessor (§ 45). False
denunciation constitutes a Papal reservation without censure.

To these excommunications are added Suspensions and Interdicts:—

The Suspensions _latæ sententiæ_ simply reserved to the Pope, refer to
Ordination which takes place by infraction of definite ecclesiastical
regulations, and to religious who are expelled from their Orders.

The Interdicts _latæ sententiæ_ affect universities, colleges, and
chapters, whatever name they may bear, who appeal to a future general
Council from the regulations or orders of the ruling Pope of the time, or
who knowingly cause religious service to be held in interdicted places,
as also those who admit persons excommunicated by name to religious
service, to the holy Sacraments, or to burial with Church service, and
that till the ecclesiastical Superior whose orders have been disregarded
has received satisfaction.


44. Absolution of Reserved Sins.

I. All those who can reserve sins may, of their ordinary power
(_ordinaria potestate_), also absolve from them; therefore: (1) those who
have reserved, (2) their successors in the same office, and (3) their
Superiors.

With delegated authority (_potestate delegata_) those can absolve who
have received a special faculty from the person reserving, or his
successor or Superior, and that only within the limits comprised in the
power conferred.

II. The bishops and their delegates can, according to common law, absolve
(1) all penitents from the _secret_ Papal reserves, with the exception
of those which are, _speciali modo_, reserved to the Pope;[561] and (2)
according to the general teaching of theologians, which is based upon the
ecclesiastical law itself, those penitents who are prevented from going
to the Pope, from _all_ Papal reserves, secret or public.[562]

According to the general interpretation of the Council of Trent, and
general custom, the bishop can transfer to another, by free choice
(_vicarius ad id specialiter deputandus_), his powers of absolving
from the Papal reserves under the specified conditions. Some bishops,
especially those in distant parts, not infrequently receive, through the
quinquennial or triennial faculties, greater powers over cases which are,
_speciali modo_, reserved to the Pope. But whether they can also transfer
these powers and how,—whether generally or only in separate cases,—must
be gathered from the document by which these privileges are conferred.

Formerly Regulars could, by virtue of a perpetual privilege, absolve from
all cases reserved, _ordinario modo_, to the Pope; this privilege has
been withdrawn by the constitution “_Apostolicæ Sedis_.”[563]

III. If a priest who is not empowered to absolve from reserved cases
hears a reserved sin in the confessional, he must, as a rule, refer the
penitent to the Superior, or to another priest delegated by him. But
if the confession must of necessity be made just at that time, and if
there is any obstacle in the way of going to another, the unauthorized
confessor can absolve directly from the non-reserved, and, consequently,
indirectly from the reserved sins. But the penitent must confess, in
addition to reserved sins, others which are not reserved, or confess
again a sin already confessed, in order that the _materia Sacramenti_ may
not be wanting. It is, however, afterwards the duty of the penitent—if it
is possible to him—to confess the reserved sin to the Superior, or to a
priest designated by him, or, as the case may be, to the same confessor
after the latter has received power to absolve from the sin in question,
in order that he may be directly absolved from the reserved sins.[564]

But the confessor can also apply to the Superior and from him obtain
powers for this special case to absolve the penitent from the reserved
sin; this must, of course, be done with the most careful and strict
observance of the secrecy of the confessional. Indeed, it is highly
to be recommended in our days that the confessor should not refer the
penitent to the Superior or to another priest with the requisite powers,
but should rather himself procure from the Superior the necessary powers
to absolve the penitent, even when the latter has no long or difficult
journey to make in order to reach the Superior. For, if the penitent
goes himself, the duty of confessing his sins again is incumbent upon
him, and to confess such a sin again requires from most penitents great
self-command: and there would be fear of his changing his mind and not
going to the Superior at all. Let the confessor, therefore, regard it
as a duty of charity,[565] which in most cases he must undertake for
his penitent, to obtain from the lawful Superior the necessary power
to absolve from the sin or censure confessed to him. But if it is a
question of Papal reserves, and if the confessor, in a case of really
urgent necessity, has given absolution, he must, in the name of the
person absolved, apply by letter to Rome, in order that the matter may
be finally set in order. If the Superior refuses “unjustly” to grant the
faculties for a reserved sin, such refusal is unlawful; indeed, he sins
if, without any valid reason, he makes difficulties about imparting the
faculty, and when great detriment to the subject is to be feared from
the refusal, he sins against charity and justice. But if the penitent
could without difficulty confess to a delegated priest, and if there were
lawful ground[566] for obliging the subject to confess to the Superior,
the Superior could without doing wrong refuse the faculty. As a general
rule it is to be observed: that the confessor who seeks faculties for the
absolution of reserved cases, and the Superior who imparts them, should
be guided only by consideration for the greater welfare of the soul of
the penitent; all vain, unworthy motives should be out of question.[567]
In case of refusal of faculties for absolving, another confessor cannot
directly absolve from the reserved sin.[568]

In requesting power to absolve from reserved sins, the name of the
penitent, his character, position, or parentage must not be mentioned,
and everything must be avoided that might betray him. Without naming the
person the reserved sin is indicated, or else the number only which the
sin in question bears on the official list of reserved cases, followed
by the request for faculties to absolve. Instead of this, one can, for
the special case, request the power to absolve from all the reserved sins
among which the one in question is contained. The instructions given by
the Superior upon application are to be accurately followed; the document
containing them is to be carefully sealed and afterwards burnt. The
priest who dispatches it, of course, gives his name and address, writing
on the envelope the superscription “_Pro foro interno_.” The envelope,
with the request thus sealed, is inclosed in a second envelope, which
must likewise be sealed, and this one is addressed to the Ordinary or
vicar-general.[569]

In order that the object of the reservations may be attained, the
Superior and his delegate must admonish the penitent with greater
earnestness, impose a more severe penance than ordinary upon him, and
prescribe special remedies, in order that he may be preserved from
relapse.

To the above we add:—

1. The difference between direct and simply indirect absolution is the
following: he who is only indirectly absolved cannot as he pleases
receive holy communion or say Mass (at least not when he remains under
the censure), but only when, in individual cases, there is urgent
necessity for the reception of communion or for saying Mass.

2. The duty of appearing before the Superior is undoubtedly binding under
grave sin; and when it is a question of a censure from which one has been
absolved with the obligation of presenting himself before the Superior
the duty remains in force, under pain of falling again under the same
censure.

3. When there is question of the duty of applying to the Pope, the Sacred
Penitentiary, or the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary is understood, as this
tribunal acts instead of the Pope in matters of conscience, after the
manner of a _munus perpetuum_, the Pope being neither accustomed to, nor
able personally to, receive all petitions.

4. “_Casus urgentiores, in quibus absolutio differri nequit absque
periculo gravis scandali vel infamiæ_,” are the following: (_a_) when
the penitent cannot stay away from holy communion or, as the case may
be, omit the celebration of holy Mass, without causing scandal, or
without giving rise to grave suspicion against himself; (_b_) when the
duty of yearly confession is to be fulfilled, or when the penitent would
otherwise remain a long time in grave sin.[570]

5. According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus,[571] the following
persons are considered as prevented, or, as the case may be, exempted
forever, from going to Rome: (_a_) those who are not able of their own
right to undertake a journey to Rome; (_b_) those who are too poor to
provide the requisites for such a journey; and (_c_) those who are in
weak health, and unequal to the exertions of the journey. It is true
traveling conditions are different now, and the obstacles which St.
Alphonsus considered valid in his day can no longer be allowed to hold
altogether good, but it is easy to gather from what the holy Doctor[572]
says upon the point when an obstacle may still be regarded as legitimate.
Accordingly, the following are to be considered as laboring under a
perpetual impediment of appearing before this Superior for absolution,
always with the understanding that their circumstances remain unchanged
for a period of five years or more: (_a_) children who are still under
paternal authority; (_b_) members of Religious Orders (except when they
have been guilty of some extraordinarily grave crime); (_c_) old people
of more than sixty years; (_d_) those who are in the position of servants
or in similar situations; (_e_) poor persons, who are not accustomed to
gain their maintenance by begging; (_f_) prisoners; (_g_) sick persons
and weak persons; (_h_) those who hold a public office, or provide for
a family, and cannot be replaced by a substitute; (_i_) women, except
those who, in a special case, have incurred a reserved censure, as, for
instance, the violation of the inclosure, in which case application by
letter must always be made to the Pope; (_k_) those not of age; and,
finally, (_l_) all those who cannot undertake this journey without great
moral or bodily harm, either to themselves or to those belonging to them.
The questions as to whether one who has committed reserved sins must, in
the absence of an authorized confessor, confess to a simple one, in the
case of his having to say Mass or communicate, or whether it suffices
to elicit contrition,—and whether the penitent who has committed both
reserved and unreserved sins must accuse himself in the confessional
of the reserved sins as well,—formerly discussed by theologians, are
solved by present usage. As the penitent under existing legislation can
be directly absolved from censures and sins (though with the duty of
applying to the Roman tribunal), the rule now is that the penitent must
immediately confess all his sins.[573]

IV. In the hour of death every reservation ceases, and any confessor
may then administer absolution. And a simple, that is, unauthorized,
confessor, can absolve a penitent in _articulo mortis_ from reserved sins
even when the Superior is present or is easily accessible, since the
Council of Trent has expressly declared that _in articulo mortis_ there
is no reservation. Moreover, no obligation must be imposed upon the dying
person in case of his restoration to health, unless perhaps he should owe
to some other person a debt of satisfaction or restitution. If, however,
it is a question of reserved censures, the confessor who possesses no
power to absolve from these must impose the duty, in case of recovery,
of appearing before the Superior; in this case it would, of course, be
advisable to set the matter in order at once with the Superior if he be
present or easily accessible.

With regard to the absolution of reserved cases the following questions
remain to be discussed:—

1. Is the reservation of sins removed by an invalid absolution which the
Superior, or a priest authorized by him, has administered? In answering
this question theologians set up the following distinctions: (_a_) If
the absolution was invalid without fault on the part of the penitent,
and if the latter confessed all his reserved sins, the reservation is
removed according to the usual, and intrinsically well-founded, opinion
of theologians: in this case the penitent has fulfilled the object of
the reservation if not that of the Sacrament, by submitting the reserved
sins to the judgment of the Superior, or, as the case may be, of the
authorized priest. (_b_) And even if the confession were sacrilegious,
the reservation is, according to the not improbable teaching of many
theologians, removed, and that on the ground just alleged. This teaching,
however, cannot be extended to the confessor who absolves from reserved
sins _virtute jubilæi_, as, at the time of a Jubilee indulgence, the
confessor does not possess the faculty to absolve all penitents from
reserved cases, but only the _vere pœnitentes_, who wish to gain
the Jubilee indulgence; but those who, of their own fault, make the
confession invalid, are certainly not of that class.

2. When the penitent through forgetfulness has omitted to confess a
reserved sin, the reservation is removed, according to an opinion which
St. Alphonsus, following Lugo, characterized as the most common among
theologians and as probable, so that _any_ confessor could, afterwards,
directly absolve from these reserved sins, and this is presumed to be
the intention of the Superior as regards the properly disposed penitent.
On the other hand, not a few theologians, among them Suarez,[574]
teach that in the above case the reservation is not removed, and St.
Alphonsus designates this opinion as the more probable, and for the very
strong reason that (as he says) a reservation is only removed by being
submitted to the judgment of the Superior, in order that the object of
the reservation may be attained. This latter opinion certainly deserves
the preference in view of the argument alleged; but the following cases
are excepted: (1) when one may assume from any positive sign that the
Superior wished to remove the reservation; (2) when the penitent went to
the Superior or to an authorized priest for the purpose of being absolved
from all reserved sins, and declared this wish to the confessor; (3)
when a privilege was granted in favor of the penitent, such as either
expires with an official act, or is limited to a definite period, as, for
example, at Jubilee time. To these Suarez adds a fourth exception—when
(4) the reservation refers only to the censure, “because in order to
absolve from a censure, it is not necessary _per se et directe_, to know
the matter in question accurately in detail, but the general intention
of absolving from all sins, reserved included, to the extent of the
confessor’s power and the penitent’s necessity is sufficient for the
purpose.”[575] But if the penitent has, through his own fault, failed to
confess the reserved sin, the reservation is certainly not removed, as
one cannot here assume that the Superior annuls it.[576]

3. It is not allowed to absolve a penitent only from the reserved sins
and for the rest to send him to another confessor. Nothing can justify
such a proceeding.[577]

4. If a penitent has confessed a sin as to the reservation of which
a doubt exists, the latter is directly absolved by the absolution
administered by a simple confessor. This need not be afterwards
confessed if it should prove that the sin was undoubtedly reserved.[578]

5. A confessor has applied for powers to absolve the penitent from
reserved sins; in the meantime, however, after these powers have been
granted, and before they have been exercised, the penitent has again
committed the reserved sin or committed it several times, or committed
other reserved sins—do the powers applied for suffice in order to be able
to absolve? If the powers are conferred in a general way, say in the
following or a similar manner: “_Facultatem tibi concedimus pœnitentem
hac vice absolvendi a reservatis_,” the confessor can, according to a
very probable and general opinion, absolve the penitent from all reserved
sins committed before and after; only the interval between the powers
conferred and the new reserved sins incurred must be no longer than
one month, and the powers must not have been conferred on account of a
festival which is already past. If, however, the faculties have been
conferred for a definite class of reserved sins only without specifying
the number, these faculties suffice to absolve the penitent (but only to
absolve him once) from all cases of this kind.[579]




CHAPTER III

ABUSE OF POWER BY THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT


An exalted, indeed a divine, power has God conferred upon priests, in
authorizing them, as judges of souls in His stead, to remit or to retain
sins. This power has been conferred upon them for the salvation and
welfare of souls. It is, therefore, greatly to be regretted that we must
here speak of an abuse of this power. The Church has, alas! found herself
obliged to adopt severe measures against this abuse, in order to prevent
it, but in her severity she shows her zeal for the faithful, and proves
herself the faithful dispenser of the Mysteries of Christ. There are
three ways in which the priest may abuse his power in the Sacrament of
Penance.


45. Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin.

In a former paragraph (§ 27) we have laid down that it may be permissible
to reveal indirectly the accomplice of the sin (_complex peccati_) in so
far as the complete confession of one’s own sin may render this avowal
necessary, and that, accordingly, the confessor is also allowed, in order
to make the penitent’s confession entire, to ask the circumstances which
alter the nature of the sin, or to put questions which are necessary
in order to provide the better for the penitent’s spiritual welfare,
questions through which the _complex peccati_ might also become known
to the confessor. Here we treat of a totally different case, viz. the
illicit attempt of detecting the name of the _complex peccati_ without
necessity, and of demanding its revelation under threat of refusing
absolution.

On this point Benedict XIV issued several constitutions[580] which Pius
IX confirmed in his Constitution “_Apostolicæ Sedis_” (see § 43, p. 326).
The motives of the legislation are stated thus: many confessors, led
astray by false zeal, have introduced a perverse and pernicious practice
in hearing the confessions of the faithful ... that when penitents come
to them who had an accomplice in their sin, they ask these penitents
indiscriminately for the name of the accomplice. Nor do they do this in
a kindly manner, by advice; but they force and compel them to reveal the
name by threats of refusing absolution; indeed, not content with this,
they even go so far as to demand from their penitents that they should
mention the dwelling-place of the accomplice. This absolutely intolerable
imprudence they justify by the pretext of care for the amendment of
the accomplice, and do not hesitate to defend it by certain opinions
borrowed from theologians, whereas they only falsely apply true and
sound teachings to their own and their penitent’s ruin, and, moreover,
are guilty before God, the eternal Judge, of many and great evils which
follow from their work, as they should easily have apprehended. Nor could
malicious talk and scandal fail to arise from this conduct, nor any other
result be expected than that not only the dispensers of the Sacrament,
but the sacred Ministry itself, become odious, and the faithful perplexed.

In the second constitution the Pope decrees:—

1. The excommunication _latæ sententiæ_, which is reserved to the Pope,
against all who in future presume to teach that this practice is allowed,
and against all who orally or in writing dare to defend it, or attack, or
presumptuously expound otherwise, or distort, what was said against this
practice in the first Brief.

2. The suspension from hearing confessions _ferendæ sententiæ_, and
other heavy penalties against those who, after the manner of the
above-described and condemned practice, dare to ask penitents the name
of the _complex peccati_, or the dwelling-place, or other circumstances
imparting a closer or more individual designation of this _complex_,
threatening at the same time the refusal of the sacramental absolution to
the penitent who refuses to give information on these points.

3. The Sacred Office was advised rigorously to proceed against those
who taught that this practice was allowed, defended it, etc. (as above
indicated), and against the confessors who applied this pernicious
teaching, when their conduct excited suspicion that they adhered to
the false doctrine. The Pope, therefore, laid upon all (except the
penitents _in propria causa_) who knew that a confessor was guilty of
this teaching, or of practices which excited suspicion—an obligation of
bringing the matter before the notice of the Sacred Office within a month
(under pain of excommunication, which is now, however, removed).[581]

The Constitutions of Benedict XIV, however, as is clear from the
foregoing, are leveled against the practice of asking penitents,
_passim_, indiscriminately, who have an accomplice in their sin, for the
name of the accomplice. The prohibition is, therefore, not an absolute
one, for there may be circumstances in which it is allowed to demand from
the penitent even under threat of withholding absolution, the naming of
the partner in sin. This is the case when the confessor holds at the
same time another office, such as that of a Superior, by virtue of which
he can oblige the penitent to reveal to him the authors and accomplices
of the sin, in order to punish them as pernicious to the general weal.
If this is the case, the confessor does not ask for the name of the
accomplice as confessor but as Superior, and as Superior he rightfully
demands to know who the accomplice is.

When, again, the confessor sees that by the concealment of the partner
in guilt there would arise grave evil which the penitent is bound
to prevent, the latter must, out of regard for the general welfare,
make known the accomplice in his sin to the proper person; but if
the confessor is at once convinced that the penitent cannot himself
communicate it directly to the Superior, and also that he has no other
more suitable person through whom he could do so than the confessor
himself, the penitent is bound to accept this sole remaining expedient,
and inform the confessor of the accomplice, and the confessor may force
him to do so under pain of withholding absolution; for, if the penitent
were not willing to obey, he would not be worthy to receive absolution.
“However,” Lugo warns us, “the confessor must proceed in this matter with
great caution, that scandal may not arise in making use of information
obtained in the confessional. It is, therefore, better to request the
penitent to speak to him upon the subject outside the confessional.”
Indeed, it is necessary to require that the information should not be
given him under the seal of the confessional.[582]


46. The Absolution of the Complex in Peccato Turpi.

To preserve the sanctity of the institution of Penance, to protect the
Sacraments from contempt, and save souls from ruin, the Church has laid
down the following very salutary regulations:[583]

I. No priest, whether secular or regular, possesses jurisdiction over his
_complex in peccato turpi_ against the sixth commandment, till another
confessor has absolved the _complex_ from this sin.

According to this, jurisdiction is withdrawn from the confessor only
in respect to the sin against the sixth commandment which he himself
has committed with the penitent.[584] Nevertheless, this withdrawal of
jurisdiction has also the effect that he cannot validly absolve from
other mortal sins which the penitent (_complex_) confessed at the same
time with that sin. For the Pope has declared absolutely invalid and void
the absolution administered by a priest who possesses no jurisdiction
over such a sin and such a penitent.[585] But after the sin of the
_complex_ has been remitted by another priest, the jurisdiction of
the unhappy priest over this penitent revives, even with respect to
this directly remitted sin. The _Sacerdos complex_ could, therefore,
afterwards absolve his _complex_ from sins which the latter had
subsequently committed—not with him. Such a proceeding is, however, to be
discouraged, for the sense of shame is thereby lost, the reverence due
to the Sacrament dies away, and the danger of relapse, or, at least, of
great temptation, is imminent. Such unhappy penitents must, therefore,
be admonished never more to confess to the _confessarius complex_.[586]
But what is the _confessarius complex_ to do if the penitent again
confesses that sin in which the confessor has been _complex_, although
it has already been remitted by another confessor? If he only confessed
this sin, the case would be just as if a penitent confessed a reserved
sin only to a priest not empowered for reserved sins; the latter could
not absolve, because there would be (for him) no proper _materia
sacramenti_.[587] But if the penitent (_complex_) confessed other sins
(in addition to that in which the confessor had been his _complex_)
absolution could be given,[588] since a priest who is not authorized for
reserved sins can administer absolution when reserved and unreserved
sins have been confessed. But then the absolution is, both by the nature
of the case and the intention of the person absolving, applied to the
unreserved sins only. There is, moreover, a great difference between
the two cases,—the confession of the sin in which the confessor was an
accomplice, and the confession of reserved and unreserved sins,—namely,
that to absolve a penitent who has confessed reserved and unreserved
sins, a _causa ab integritate confessionis excusans_ must be present,
whereas no such reason is here necessary in order to submit again to the
power of the keys a sin already remitted.[589]

In some dioceses it was _de jure particulari_ forbidden that a priest
should ever hear the confession of a _complex, saltem copula consummata_.
This prohibition, however, the S. Congr. Concil. repeatedly rejected,
and when the resolutions of a synod containing such a prohibition were
submitted to it the Congregation returned the answer: _Tale decretum
deleatur_, although the defenders of the decree adduced much in its
justification, and emphatically denied the danger of scandal which many
maintained would easily arise in little places. Thus, most wisely did the
Congregation curb undue zeal.[590]

But here another and much more difficult question forces itself upon
us: What is to be done, _si alicubi mulier, quæ misere in ejusmodi
peccatum cum sacerdote lapsa fuerit, nullum alium, quocum peccatum
illud sacramentaliter confiteatur, sacerdotem ibi habeat_, but the
circumstances of the person and of the place, etc., are such that she
cannot go elsewhere to confess to another confessor, and there is no
hope of her being able to confess to another priest at the place in
question (at a mission, for example). Ballerini declares that it was not
the intention of Benedict XIV, when he gave his Constitution, that such
persons, in the above circumstances, should be deprived of the Sacraments
of the Church their whole life, till in the hour of their death they
could at last be absolved _a sacerdote peccati complice_. And might not
such a person die suddenly without illness preceding? What then is she to
do when the time for the yearly confession and Easter communion has come?
May we say that she can always receive holy communion with _contritio_
alone, indeed, that she must receive it? And what if scandal arises among
the people, and the woman loses her good reputation by its becoming
known that she has not received holy communion for several years? If any
one objects that, in this extremity, such a penitent might be proceeded
with exactly as if she had a reserved sin to confess, and, therefore,
omitting that sin (over which the confessor has no jurisdiction), the
other sins could be submitted to absolution, by which that sin also
would be indirectly remitted, we ask: How and when will this sin be
finally submitted to the power of the keys? Great difficulties beset
this question, and we dare not make a decision supported only by our own
judgment.

Two things are, however, clear enough: one is that when Benedict XIV
withdrew from the _confessario criminis complici_ the jurisdiction to
administer absolution to the _complex ab eodem crimine_, he certainly
removed the occasion of very great scandal, but he by no means wished to
close to the sinner the way of reconciliation opened by Christ to him
and to all the faithful; indeed, it was precisely in order that this
reconciliation might be the more certainly and better accomplished by
the agency of another priest, that he wished to make the _confessarius
criminis complex_ incapable of accomplishing it. He, therefore,
presupposed, what generally is the case, that other priests would not
be wanting, from whom the penitent, by confession and sacramental
absolution, might obtain remission of her sin. It has never been the
intention and practice of the Church, by restricting jurisdiction for the
remission of certain sins and reserving absolution for them, to set aside
the ordinary means of forgiveness, the sacramental confession of sin, and
to supply for this by perfect contrition or indirect remission. However
ample these extraordinary means for obtaining eternal salvation may be,
yet the Church does not allow that the ordinary dispensation set up by
Christ for our welfare should be disregarded. The Church, therefore,
removed all restrictions upon absolution for the hour of death, so that
all priests can absolve every penitent from all sins and censures. We are
not, however, to suppose that the Church has made this provision solely
for the moment and the danger of death; she makes other exceptions.[591]
It is, therefore, very far from the intention and the custom of the
Church so to limit the jurisdiction necessary to the administration
of the Sacrament of Confession that it remains restricted even when a
sinner, during a long time, and still less if during his whole lifetime,
is unable to have access to a priest whose power is not limited. And
who, out of fear of an abuse, would forbid a priest the dispensing of a
Sacrament, or one of the faithful the reception of a Sacrament, when the
reception of such Sacrament appears necessary? When, therefore, necessity
demands the reception of the Sacrament, it is not to be refused by the
priest nor to be neglected by the faithful. If abuse takes place, let the
blame fall upon those who would not make good use of the benefit.[592]

_A pari_ Ballerini teaches that the _confessarius complex_ may administer
absolution from the _crimen, in quo ipse complex fuit_, to the penitent
who has no other confessor, and who, if he were not absolved by the
_confessarius complex_, would be obliged to abstain for a long time from
holy communion with possible scandal to others, and this teaching is in
the Commentaries of the _Acta S. Sedis_ extended to other extraordinary
cases, when, _during a long time_, no opportunity presents itself to the
_persona complex_ of confessing _without evident danger of sacrilege_,
and when, at the same time, evident danger of disgrace or even of
suspicion arises from the long abstention from the holy Sacraments.[593]

II. To incur this penalty it is necessary:—

1. That the sin in which the confessor was an accomplice should be a
mortal sin, both internally and in the external act. Purely internal
mortal sins, and those not completed externally, are, therefore, excluded;

2. That _both_ confessor and penitent should have sinned and have been
guilty of the _peccatum turpe_;

3. That the two preceding conditions should be certainly fulfilled; hence
the sin must certainly have been mortal internally and externally, and on
the part of both the confessor and the penitent, on the principle that
_odia restringenda sunt_.[594]

Accordingly, it is indifferent if the _complex_ be a person of the male
or female sex. Benedict XIV expressly says: “_Qualemcumque personam_”;
moreover, it is not necessary that the sin should be completed, as the
Constitution says generally and indefinitely: “a sin against the sixth
commandment,” and the object of the law is—_occasiones non tantum copulæ
sed omnis turpitudinis a sanctitate tribunali pœnitentiæ removere.
Casum complicis ergo constituunt: tactus impudicus, osculum, amplexus,
colloquium uti et aspectus, dummodo complicitatem important ac tam
interne, tum externe sint graviter mali._[595]

But when one party has either not gravely sinned or only by an internal
act, there is no _casus complicis_ in question.

III. The _confessarius_ can absolve his _complex_, when the latter is
_in articulo mortis_ and when another priest, who may also be without
faculties, cannot be called in without greater danger of defamation or
of scandal, or when another priest is, indeed, present, but declines to
hear the confession of the dying person. In the latter case this priest
is regarded as absent. The _sacerdos complex_ is, however, bound to
take all care that no suspicion or scandal arises from the presence of
another priest; he may, for example, upon some pretext or another, absent
himself, having previously induced the dying person to send for another
confessor. If he fail to do this, and so is under the necessity of
administering absolution to the dying person, he sins gravely and incurs
the penalty decreed; but the absolution administered by him, “_etiam
directa hujus peccati_” would be valid, that the dying person might not
be lost.[596]

All authors teach that a priest can also absolve his _complex_ who is
_in articulo mortis_, when the latter, without fault on the part of
the _confessarius complex_, refuses to confess to another priest. This
penitent, however, must be _in bona fide_ as regards the commandment
of the Church. Here the eternal salvation of the poor penitent is in
question, and frequently scandal would result if the priest should refuse
to hear the confession of the dying person.[597]

IV. The confessor who, apart from the specified cases of necessity,
absolves his _complex in peccato turpi_ from this _peccatum turpe_
incurs, _ipso facto_, the excommunication specially reserved to
the Pope.[598] If a priest absolves his _complex ex ignorantia_ or
_inadvertentia_, and thus remains free from grave sin, he does not incur
the censure. But it is doubtful whether the absolution administered
is valid. The _sententia communis_ rejects the absolution as invalid,
since the Pope has only excepted the absolution administered in the
hour of death; but several later theologians hold the absolution to be
valid, because the Pope, as they point out, speaks only of the _sacerdos
sacrilegus_, who knowingly and intentionally absolves his _complex_.[599]

Further, a priest does not incur the excommunication who hears the
confession of his _complex_, but does not absolve him, seeing that,
according to the Constitution of Pius IX, only the _sacerdotes
absolventes_ fall under the excommunication. If, however, the confessor
pretends to absolve his _complex_ (_fingere absolutionem_) while, in
reality, he does not absolve him,—for instance, saying some prayer in
place of the usual form of absolution,—he incurs excommunication. So the
S. C. Inq. declared on December 10, 1883, with the approbation of Leo
XIII.[600]

If the penitent confesses to the _sacerdos complex_ and conceals the
sin against the sixth commandment, which the confessor has committed
with him, and the confessor absolves him, the latter does not incur the
excommunication, according to a declaration of the S. Pœnitent. on May
16, 1887. “For this penalty falls only on the priest who absolves his
_complex_ from that _peccatum turpe_ in which the priest has been the
_complex_ of the penitent.” Nevertheless, according to the declaration
of the Penitentiary, the confessor of the priest who has absolved
his _complex_ (even when he has not absolved him from the _peccatum
complicitatis_) is bound to remind him with the greatest zeal that he has
been guilty of a very grave sin, and an abominable abuse of the Sacrament
of Confession, and he may only absolve this priest after exhorting him
in the most forcible manner to relinquish his office as confessor, and
after imposing on him the obligation of refraining from hearing the
confessions of his _complex_ in the future; and that if the _persona
complex_ appears in the confessional again, he should exhort this person
to accuse himself to another confessor in a valid confession both of
the _peccatum complicitatis_ and of the sins invalidly confessed. The
concession of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV. cap. 6, “Liceat”) does
not empower a bishop to absolve a priest who has absolved his _complex_.
The Sacred Penitentiary has expressly declared this on July 18, 1860, and
it results from the Constitution “_Apostolicæ Sedis_,” in which all the
_casus papales_ reserved _speciali modo_ to the Pope are excepted from
the powers granted to bishops in the cap. “Liceat.”[601]

But if, “_in casibus urgentioribus_,” absolution cannot be deferred
without danger of great scandal and disgrace, a bishop, or another
priest, can administer absolution _injunctis de jure injungendis_ on the
confessor who has unlawfully absolved his _complex in peccato turpi_,
but under penalty of “reincidence” if within the space of a month, the
absolved priest has not recourse by letter, and through the confessor, to
the Holy See.[602]

If a confessor in such a case is obliged to apply to the Holy See, he
must address his petition to the Sacred Penitentiary. In this petition he
must adopt a fictitious name, set forth the case concisely and clearly,
with all the circumstances appertaining to the matter, as: _quot personas
complices et quoties Sacerdos absolvere attentaverit; an unam vel plures
irregularitates contraxerit ex violatione censuræ per celebrationem missæ
vel exercitium solemne Ordinis Sacri; an alias jam acceperit Rescriptum
gratiæ pro absolutione ab hujusmodi crimine_.[603]


47. Sollicitatio Proprii Pœnitentis ad Turpia.

The minister of the Sacrament of Penance is a man, and remains a man;
even when he is administering this Sacrament he is subject to the
weaknesses of human nature, and hence he bears within him the inclination
to evil and is exposed to the temptations of the devil; and it is there
where he destroys the work of Satan that he must experience the hostility
of the evil one more, perhaps, than elsewhere. In addition to this, the
confessor holds such intimate intercourse with the penitent, and must,
alas! so often deal with dangerous matter; he must listen to certain
sins, investigate them and give them his attention in order to discharge
his duty rightly. Thus may be explained the dreadful abuse of the
Sacrament of Confession of which we now treat,—an abuse, however, which
is very rare,—the _Sollicitatio proprii pœnitentis ad turpia_.[604]

There is question only of an _abusus Sacramenti Pœnitentiæ ad turpia_,
but not of an _abusus aliorum Sacramentorum ad turpia_, and also not
of an _abusus ejusdem Pœnitentiæ Sacramenti ad alia peccata, quamvis
gravissima_.

_Jam quæritur_:—

I. _Quid intelligatur per turpia vel inhonesta, ad quæ fit sollicitatio?_

II. _Quo actu sollicitatio perficiatur?_

III. _Qualis nexus inter sollicitationem et Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ
intervenire oporteat, ut revera et ex mente legislatoris sollicitatio
abusus Sacramenti sit?_

Ad I. _Per peccata turpia, ad quæ fit sollicitatio, intelliguntur omnes
actus externi libidinosi seu actus luxuriæ, quo spectant etiam actus
vel ex sua natura vel ex particulari dispositione complicis vel ex
intentione operantis aliunde satis manifestata_ (_v.g._ _signo_, _verbo_)
_inductivi ad vehementem commotionem spirituum genitalium; intelligantur
ergo: quilibet tractatus turpis, sermo obscænus vel actio obscæna.
Sollicitatio ex mente legislatoris non perpetratur actibus tantum
venialiter inhonestis adeoque non veneriis (nam in his non est parvitas
materiæ). Excipe, si ex circumstantiis certe conjiceretur, sacerdotem
actu de se leviter malo (v.g. verbo blandiori) animum habuisse procedendi
ad gravia.[605] Confessarius consentiens tantum mulieri sollicitanti
in confessione nullo modo eximitur a peccato sollicitationis_, i.e.
_inhonesti tractatus in confessionali, idque licet statim desierit
de illa turpi materia loqui, differendo illius complementum ad aliud
tempus et non præbendo absolutionem pœnitenti; item licet inductus metu
consenserit sollicitationi[606] et a fortiori, quando confessarius et
pœnitens invicem se sollicitarunt, puta quando confessarius ad unam
turpitudinis speciem sollicitatus ad aliam sollicitavit pœnitentem. Juxta
Decreta sollicitaret etiam confessarius, qui diceret pœnitenti: “Si
sæcularis essem, te uxorem ducerem”; vel “Expecta me hodie domi tuæ, quia
tecum loqui cupio” et postea domi sollicitaret; vel “Hisce peccatis tuis
pollutionem passus sum”; item, si feminæ petenti confessionem responderet
in confessionali: “Nolo tuam audire confessionem, ne quid mihi contingat;
quia amore tui captus sum”; item “Totum me commoveri sentio ex affectu,
quo te prosequor”; vel “Domum tuam veniam et promitte mihi, te facturum
esse quod voluero.”_[607]

Ad II. _Crimen sollicitationis ad turpia adest, si confessarius,
qualiscunque sit, tam sæcularis quant regularis (vel etiam sacerdos
carens jurisdictione at hic in confessione)[608] sollicitat pœnitentem
sive marem sive feminam ad peccandum sive secum sive cum alio; nec
refert, utrum ipsum pœnitentem sollicitet, an mediante pœnitente aliam
quampiam personam. Præterea sollicitatio hujusmodi ex parte confessarii
fieri potest vel_ immediate _(v.g. verbis obscænis) vel_ mediate,
_puta per chartam postmodum a pœnitente legendam;[609] et habenda
est_ completa, _sive pœnitens reapse ad peccatum pertrahatur, sive
resistat, dummodo ponatur medium aptum alliciendi ad actus inhonestos;
nec refert, medium adhibitum in se malum sit an indifferens, dummodo ex
circumstantiis postea cognoscatur, id ad sollicitandum adhibitum esse,
puta, si confessarius mulieri hoc animo intimet, ut expectet eum domi,
vel eam eodem animo interroget, ubi habitet_.

Ad III. _Ut vero sollicitatio ejusmodi sit abusus Sacramenti oportet,
ut, modo a lege determinato, relatio aliqua intercedat inter ipsam et
confessionem vel inter ipsam et locum ubi confessiones excipiuntur._[610]

(_a_) _Relatio requisita ad confessionem adest, si sollicitatio fit_: (1)
_in actu sacramentalis confessionis incæptæ, licet non perfectæ; vel_ (2)
_immediate ante confessionem; vel_ (3) _immediate post confessionem_,
i.e. _quando inter sollicitationem et confessionem nihil mediat, ita ut
nec confessarius nec pœnitens ad aliud negotium serio se divertant_.[611]

(4) _Occasione confessionis_ (_veræ_) _vid. quando fit invitatio
ad confessionem hic et nunc excipiendam ex parte pœnitentis, aut
quando confessarius invitat pœnitentem ad confessionem hic et nunc
faciendam, et hac occasione data, divertit pœnitentem a proposito et
ad turpia provocat; aut si in confessione, sive immediate ante sive
post, initium sollicitationis fit, quæ postea completur v.g. si dantur
litteræ sollicitantes vel si fit interrogatio de habitatione et postea
sequitur sollicitatio domi, vel si ob fragilitatem mulieris ex ejus
confessione cognitam postea eam domi sollicitaverit, dummodo ex indiciis
sufficienter constat, eum ex ilia scientia non aliis ex causis ad id
motum fuisse.[612] Ejusmodi indicia aderunt si v.g. confessarius auditis
peccatis mulierem interrogaverit, ubi habitet, an sola domi manere soleat
vel alia hisce similia interrogaverit, vel, dum ad peccandum accessit,
verbis aut factis aliqua commemoravit ex iis, quæ ex confessione
accepit._[613]

(5) _Prætextu confessionis_ (_fictæ_), _si confessarius ex pravo fine
invitat mulierem ad confessionem et deinde sollicitat, vel feminæ suadet,
ut fingens se ægrotam eum, confessarium suum, tanquam ad confessionem
faciendam, revera ad peccandum accersat. Secus probabilius dicendum,
si prætextus confessionis non est ordinatus ad sollicitationem sed ad
peccati jam conventi executionem, puta ad avertendum Superiorem vel
familiares domus a scandalo et suspicione mali._[614]

(_b_) _Relatio requisita ad locum, ubi confessiones excipiuntur, aderit,
si actus prohibiti exerceantur_:—

(1) _In confessionali proprie dicto_; (2) _in loco quocunque, ubi
confessiones excipi solent, licet confessionale ibi non inveniatur_; (3)
_in loco quocunque, quem confessarius ad confessiones audiendas pro suo
arbitrio elegit_.

_Ut autem crimen sollicitationis ex mente legislatoris adsit ac
propterea pœna sollicitantibus confessariis inflicta contrahatur, ob
circumstantias sub_ (_b_) _enarratas enascatur simulatio confessionis
accedat necesse est_, i.e. _confessarius et pœnitens ita se gerant
oportet, ut confessionem ille audire_ (_v.g._ _aures applicando_), _hic
peragere videatur. Hæc tamen simulatio non requiritur, si sollicitat
in confessionali personam, quæ pariter in eo invenitur; sufficit enim,
ut sacerdos in confessionali de rebus turpibus agat, quin simulet
confessionem audire._[615]

The _sollicitatio_ described in the foregoing is a very grave mortal sin
of impurity, of sacrilege, and of scandal. For it is a dreadful abuse
of the Sacrament of Penance, when, as Gregory XV expresses himself, the
confessor thus offers the penitent poison instead of a remedy, instead of
bread a scorpion, from a spiritual father becoming a wretched betrayer of
souls.

IV. All penitents are bound under pain of mortal sin to denounce to
the _Ordinarius loci_, or to the Holy See through the Penitentiary or
Inquisition, the confessors who have been guilty of solicitation.[616]

The object of this denunciation is the following:—

1. If the person who denounces is known as honorable and truthful, if
no evil intention, such as revenge, enmity, or calumny is to be imputed
to him, whilst on the other hand, the denounced priest is already
known to be not very conscientious, the denunciation effects that the
_suspected_ confessor will be _watched_ by the _Ordinarius_.[617] And
if stronger grounds of suspicion against the denounced priest accumulate
from other quarters (for example, suspicious intercourse), this supplies
the _Ordinarius_ with a motive for administering to him, in the first
place, a fatherly warning, in doing which, the _Ordinarius_ does not
yet impute to him the _crimen sollicitationis_, but rather exhorts
him to be conscientious; in this, however, the _Ordinarius_ must so
proceed as not to excite the suspicion of the denounced against the
denouncer. “_Ut plurimum enim nonnisi a tertia denuntiatione ad judicium
procedi debet._”[618] The precise object of the law is to safeguard
the Church and to inspire confessors with a just dread of the enormity
of the crime which abuses the sacred tribunal of penance; or, as Amort
expresses it: _finis non est emendatio personæ particularis sed securitas
publica Sacramenti et animarum ex castigatione certa tam abominandi
sceleris, et ex metu indeclinabili omnium confessariorum incurrendi
gravissima supplicia etiam actu unico aut, semel tantum iterato; imo
etiam indemnitas Ecclesiæ ne scil. ejusmodi pestes ad officia publica
subrepant, quo nihil est nocentius communi Ecclesiæ bono_.[619] Every
solicited person is, therefore, strictly bound to denounce, and is not
released from this duty because another has denounced; this duty never
ceases to bind, though it is sometimes suspended for a time; in case
of repetition a confessor must be again denounced, even if he has been
already punished on account of the first transgression, or has not been
fully convicted of solicitation;[620] again, the penitent is bound to
denounce, even when, in consequence of _correctio fraterna_, he believes
that he may confidently hope for amendment, indeed, as St. Alphonsus
teaches, even when the fault has been atoned for;[621] denunciation must
be made if the fact is certain though it cannot be judicially proved, or
when the crime is secret, or was committed a long time before. It must
not be supposed that belated information of this kind can be of no use;
it may perhaps serve to complete previous information respecting the same
confessor, or, in conjunction with other grounds of suspicion to close to
a hypocrite the road to ecclesiastical dignities, or at least, to inspire
the confessor with lasting fear of filling up the measure of iniquity
by repeated solicitation, seeing that even solicitations committed a
long time before may be brought into court. If, however, the person who
solicited is dead, the denunciation need not take place, because then the
full object of the law can no longer be realized.[622]

2. The duty of denouncing is not incumbent upon the person who solicits,
nor is he bound to admonish the penitent solicited by him to make the
denunciation. All solicited penitents, however, without exception, male
and female, seculars and regulars, high and low, to whatever class
they may belong, are bound to denounce. Denunciation is also incumbent
(but now no longer _sub excommunicatione_)[623] upon all witnesses of
this crime, eye-witnesses or ear-witnesses, and whoever has received
information of the solicitation outside confession, directly or
indirectly, from words of the person soliciting himself, or the solicited
person, if the latter be trustworthy.[624] The penitent must denounce
in any case whether he has consented to, or rejected, the solicitation,
but he need not make known his consent; he must also denounce when the
solicitation has been mutual between confessor and penitent, or when the
penitent has solicited, and the confessor has consented.[625]

A young girl, who, at the time of being solicited, was ignorant of any
evil design, must, according to a decree of the Sacred Inquisition (May
11, 1707) denounce the confessor as soon as she has attained to an
understanding of the solicitation which took place.

The solicited person, or whoever has certain knowledge of the
solicitation, is not released from the obligation to denounce on account
of the general difficulties attaching to the denunciation itself, as, for
example, shame at having been solicited; fear that the judge might become
suspicious of her; the danger of harm or detriment to the denouncing
person; any such damage must be considered as trifling compared with the
possibility of scandal to the Church and to souls; the use of _Epikeia_
(_i.e._, a benign interpretation of the law) is not justifiable in this
case.

3. Every priest who has been guilty of the crime of solicitation,
including him who possesses no jurisdiction, is liable to denunciation,
be he secular or regular, or in any way exempted, whatever dignity he may
hold; whether he has himself solicited, or consented to the solicitation
of the penitent, and even when he has already amended.[626]

V. The confessor’s dealing with solicited persons is regulated in
accordance with the following ordinances of the Papal Constitutions and
Instructions of the Sacred Congregation.

1. All confessors are bound _sub gravi_ to instruct those of their
penitents whom they know to have been solicited in the specified manner,
that it is their duty to denounce the persons soliciting. This duty of
instructing remains imperative even when the solicited penitents are _in
bona fide_.

The confessors who do not instruct their solicited penitents must be
punished.[627]

They must instruct their penitents concerning: (_a_) the strict duty of
denouncing; (_b_) the time within which the denunciation must be made;
(_c_) the penalty attached to the neglect of this duty; and (_d_) the
manner of making the denunciation.

2. Let the confessor proceed in the following manner:—

(_a_) If he is in doubt as to whether the act or the word of the person
in question really constituted a true solicitation, he must not oblige
the penitent to denounce, except when strong grounds for suspecting
solicitation are superadded, or when the words, _de se_, are soliciting,
and doubt exists only as to whether the confessor uttered them with a bad
intention.[628]

(_b_) Before the confessor binds the solicited person to denounce (and
only on condition that she denounce may absolution be administered) he
must seriously consider whether this person be deserving of credit, or if
there is weighty, just, and very probable suspicion, supported by other
indications, that she is influenced by revenge and wishes to calumniate
the priest. In this latter case the confessor must remind her that she
commits a very great sin, and one reserved to the Pope, in falsely
denouncing a priest for solicitation.

(_c_) The confessor must not seek to know the name of the person
soliciting, though he must question the penitent as to the necessary
circumstances.

(_d_) And when the confessor knows positively that the penitent has been
solicited, he must seriously impress upon her (even when she is in good
faith) the duty of denouncing the person who solicited, and the confessor
is bound to do so, even when he foresees that the penitent will not
denounce.[629] After which he must indicate an appropriate method of
making the denunciation. In this the following rules are to be observed:—

(_a_) In order that the object of the denunciation may be obtained,
the Ordinary must be informed of the crime and all its circumstances;
the name of the confessor who solicited is to be given, that he may
be summoned before the Ordinary, and, if found guilty, be punished;
if the denouncer does not know the baptismal and family name of the
confessor, she must describe him as accurately as she can, so that he
may be recognized; finally, the name and dwelling-place of the denouncer
must be given, that the Ordinary may make inquiries concerning her
trustworthiness, and, if it should be necessary, summon her as a witness.

(_b_) The denunciation may be effected in one of the following ways: If
the bishop or the vicar-general (_loci in quo moratur pœnitens_)[630]
is near at hand, so that the solicited person can easily have access
to him, the latter is bound to make the denunciation in person, and to
declare that N. N., priest, parish priest, religious, etc., has solicited
her _ad turpia_ in the holy Sacrament of Confession. If, on account of
distance, the solicited person cannot easily reach the Ordinary, she must
make the denunciation in writing; that is, she informs the Ordinary by
this document that she has to make a denunciation to him, which should
come before the ecclesiastical tribunal, and she begs the Ordinary, at
the same time, to authorize a priest to receive this denunciation.[631]
The denunciation itself may be effected by letter, or through any other
person—_hoc tantum valet quoad præceptum denuntiationis naturale et
quatenus tale præceptum obligat in casu particulari. Nam si sermo sit
de præcepto denuntiationis positivo, in ipsa Instr. cit. dicitur, quod
onus personale est._[632] The denunciatory document must, however, be
dispatched with such precaution that no reasonable fear of its loss need
be entertained. And if the solicited person cannot make the denunciation
by writing, she should repair to the dean, or to some other prudent and
experienced man, who then writes in her name to the Ordinary, or to the
Sacred Penitentiary, or to the Holy Office.[633] As a rule it is not
advisable that the confessor should take upon himself the burden of
making the denunciation for the penitent. But it is not to be denied that
there are cases when the confessor is bound by the precept of charity to
do this, namely, when the well-being of the community is threatened, and
no other way appears of meeting the emergency.[634] The denunciation must
never be made anonymously, and is always to be addressed to the bishop or
to the vicar-general in person, not to the office of the Ordinary.[635]

3. Confessors cannot absolve penitents who know that they have been
solicited till they have denounced the delinquent, or, at least, till
they have promised that they will do so as soon as they can. This is laid
down in the Constitutions of Benedict XIV and in the Instruction of the
S. C. Inquis.

From this it follows that:—

(_a_) The confessor cannot absolve penitents who refuse to denounce. If
a solicited person refuses, the confessor must investigate the cause
of the refusal, and endeavor to remove it. If he finds the cause to
be fear of disgrace, he may, in order to remove it, tell her that she
stands before the ecclesiastical judge not as _persona complex_, but as
a _testis_, that she is not bound to make known her consent; indeed,
that she cannot even be questioned concerning her consent, and that if
she has, _ex simplicitate_, declared her consent, it cannot be taken
down in the official deeds.[636] Nor is any danger whatever of disgrace
to be feared. If the penitent says that in gratitude for benefits
received, or to be received, for presents, etc., she is unable to make
the denunciation, or alleges other insufficient grounds for the refusal,
the confessor must explain to the penitent the sacrilege, and her duty
to obey the laws of the Church, which have been made for the purpose of
warding off great scandal and detriment, and remind her of the penalty of
excommunication which the solicited person _ipso facto_ incurs, by not
denouncing the soliciting priest within a month. Moreover, the confessor
must not lightly admit what such persons are accustomed to bring forward
in order to escape from the burden of denunciation. If the solicited
person refuses to perform her duty out of false shame or irreligious
pity, absolution is to be refused her as not being properly disposed. The
confessor must, however, out of a true zeal for souls, exert himself by
all means to induce such an unhappy penitent to make the denunciation; he
should prevail upon her to come again at another convenient time, and,
meanwhile, inform the Ordinary or the Holy See through the Penitentiary,
or the Inquisition, of the matter without mentioning the name of the
penitent.

(_b_) If, however, the confessor perceives that a solicited person
otherwise well-disposed for the Sacrament of Penance has a lawful ground
for refusing the denunciation, as, for example, a probable, well-founded
danger of suffering appreciable injury in honor, property, or
person,[637] or that, on account of fear or excessive timidity, she can
by no means be brought to denounce the soliciting person at that time,
either personally or through the confessor, but yet promises faithfully
to make the denunciation later on, as soon as she can, he may absolve
her, and that at once _stante nempe gravi difficultate denuntiationis
faciendæ, si necessitas urgeat_, that is, when the penitent has to
receive holy communion, in order to avoid scandal, or to gain a Jubilee
indulgence. If there is no _necessitas urgens_, the confessor must defer
the absolution, and appoint another time for the penitent to come to
him; meanwhile, he must address himself to the bishop, and lay the whole
case before him, concealing the name of the penitent, adding also the
grounds which make it advisable to dispense the penitent from the duty
of denouncing. The bishop then may himself decide what is to be done or
apply to the Sacred Penitentiary;[638] for the Holy See occasionally
confers upon the confessor authority to dispense the penitent _pro ea
vice_ from the duty of denouncing, especially when the soliciting person
has amended, and done penance. Solicited persons can also be absolved
who “_in partibus schismaticorum, hæreticorum et mahometanorum degunt_,”
although these regions are subject to the Constitutions leveled against
those who solicit; such a case may occur when the circumstances indicate
that no hope of punishing the soliciting person can be entertained and
the _mulieres sollicitatæ_ cannot denounce without danger and disgrace,
while those denounced can easily escape punishment by having recourse
either to schismatic bishops or to unbelieving lay judges.[639]

VI. Solicited penitents who neglect, or, through their own fault, omit,
to denounce the _Confessarios, sive Sacerdotes, a quibus sollicitati
fuerint_, within a month, incur, _ipso facto_, the excommunication which
is not reserved.[640] They incur this penalty, therefore, _infra mensem_,
that is, reckoning from the day on which they were warned of their
duty. If they give information later on, they can be absolved from the
excommunication by any priest.[641]

In conclusion, we enumerate the penalties which are to be imposed upon
priests soliciting, according to the nature of the offense, and according
to the circumstances:—

(1) Suspension from the exercise of the sacerdotal powers; (2)
deprivation of benefices, dignities, and offices, with perpetual
disability to acquire such again; (3) deprivation of active and passive
vote, when Regulars are in question; and, (4) continual disability to
celebrate Mass. But all these penalties are _pœnæferendæ sententiæ_;
degradation, and delivering the delinquent to the _brachium sæculare_,
are not resorted to nowadays. Gregory XV appointed this punishment, but,
as the Instruction says, we must regard it more as imposed _ad terrorem_
than for the purpose of being actually carried out.[642]




SECTION II

THE OFFICE OF THE CONFESSOR


When the priest who is _rite_ authorized to administer the Sacrament
of Penance makes use of the power intrusted to him and exercises the
office of a confessor, he performs a threefold office: that of Judge,
that of Physician of the Soul, and that of Teacher. The most important
of these is the first, the office of Judge; this is his essential office
by the institution of the Sacrament; while the other two are only of an
accessory character, not because they are of inferior significance,—they
are, indeed, very important offices, upon the faithful discharge of which
much depends,—but because they “dispose to the right exercise of the
judicial office” and their faithful and zealous execution is necessary to
the better, more fruitful, and more salutary discharge of the former. If,
in the administration of this Sacrament, the priest officiated merely as
judge, without, at the same time, proving himself to be a physician and
teacher also, he would discharge his office unfruitfully, and weaken the
efficacy of the Sacrament to which Christ has attached great effects.




CHAPTER I

THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE; OR,
THE CONFESSOR CONSIDERED IN HIS OFFICE OF JUDGE


As a judge, it is the priest’s duty rightly to understand the matter—that
is the sin—upon which he has to pass a sentence, to investigate the
dispositions of the penitent, and to pronounce judgment. These three
duties are the essential duties of the confessor in his office as judge.


48. The Knowledge of the Sins.

Christ has declared that we should confess to His ministers, _i.e._, we
shall make declaration of all grave sins, with their number and kind.
By means of this self-accusation, the minister of the Sacrament of
Confession is informed of the sins of the penitent upon which he must
pass judgment. As the priest is mediator between God and the penitent,
and is thus bound, on the one hand, to protect the rights of God and
preserve the order of divine Justice, and, on the other hand, to support
the penitent and lead him to reconciliation with God, he must take care
that all that belongs to a complete confession is performed by the
penitent and where it falls short of completeness to supply the defect by
questions.

The following principles are to be observed with regard to the duty of
questioning:—

I. The confessor is not bound to question the penitent, however
uneducated the latter may be, if he seems to be sufficiently
instructed in his Christian duties, and has, according to his power
of understanding, carefully confessed his sins. The questioning would
otherwise become troublesome and useless. Still less is he, as a rule,
bound to question those who often confess, and seldom sin gravely, such
as pious persons, members of Religious Orders, priests, etc., unless
it is clear from their accusation, or suspicion arises, that they have
failed to confess something which it is necessary to confess. If this is
the case, questioning is the more necessary with Regulars and priests,
because there is danger that they might adopt, when hearing confessions
themselves, the example of the superficial practice tolerated by their
own confessors.

II. The confessor is bound to put questions to the penitent if he clearly
recognizes or conjectures that the penitent has not declared all that
appertains to the completeness of the confession, and what the confessor
ought to know in order to perform his duty as judge and physician. As
minister of the Sacrament, he must take care that the confession is a
complete one, and, as it belongs to his office as judge, to investigate
thoroughly the matter on which he has to pronounce judgment, and, as
it is the duty of the physician to probe the wounds of the patient, so
must the confessor sound the conscience of the penitent, by questioning
about the sins which he supposes the penitent to have committed, and to
have kept back out of ignorance, or forgetfulness, or false shame; by
determining more exactly the specified number of the sins, when it has
been stated too inexactly or indefinitely, or by asking it, if it has not
been mentioned at all, and by investigating the necessary circumstances
of the sins. Moreover, the confessor must find out the condition of the
sinner himself, by which he may learn what advice is to be given, and
what remedies employed to bring about the cure of the penitent.[643]

The duty of the confessor in this regard is undoubted, and _ex genere
suo gravis_. Therefore Benedict XIV did not hesitate to teach in his
Constitution “_Apostolica_” (26 June, 1749): “Above all, confessors
should bear in mind that they do not discharge the duties of the office
which they have undertaken—indeed, that all those are guilty of a great
sin, who, while exercising the office of judge in the sacred tribunal
of penance, unconcernedly listen to the penitents, do not exhort them,
do not question them, but, when they have heard their sins, forthwith
pronounce the words of absolution. This is certainly not the conduct of
the zealous physician who pours oil and wine into the wound. And yet
every one who administers the Sacrament of Penance holds the office of
a physician; he must, therefore, carefully investigate not only the
circumstances of the sins, but the moral condition of the person who has
fallen into them, in order that he may provide for him suitable remedies,
by the use of which the cure of his soul may be effected.”[644]

Although this duty is one _in se gravis_, yet _parvitas materiæ_ may be
more easily admitted in it than in the duty of the penitent to examine
himself, even in those things which he must _per se_ confess under the
head of grave sin, or in _materia necessaria confessionis_. As the
confessor must give account to God of the confessions which he has
heard, there rests upon him, because of the great number of confessions
which he hears, a much greater burden with respect to their integrity
than upon the individual penitent. Billuart, however, rightly teaches:
If the confessor, through slight negligence, inattention, weakness of
memory, absence of mind, weariness of spirit, etc., has forgotten to put
a question, even on necessary matter, such omission would be no sin, or
only a venial one; for no one is bound, in such great difficulty and
moral impossibility, to remedy the defects of others. What Gury says
seems also to be quite reasonable, viz. that the omission of one or other
_per se_ necessary question, in a great number of confessions which a
priest has heard, is, _ex ipsa materiæ parvitate_, no grave sin.[645]

III. As regards the completeness of the confession, the confessor is
not bound to question the penitent with scrupulous exactitude; on the
contrary, he must act with moderation and prudence according to the
position, age, and power of comprehension of the penitent. The confessor
need not, therefore, employ greater care in questioning than the penitent
himself must employ in the examination of his conscience; but the
latter is only bound to a _mediocris diligentia_ in the examination of
conscience. Moreover, the penitent is bound, in the first place, to know
his sins; in order to make a complete confession, the confessor is only
bound to assist him. The duty of the latter to push inquiry is merely a
secondary one; that is, it must come into operation _defectu pœnitentis_.
The extent of the confessor’s obligation in this matter is, therefore,
regarded strictly in accordance with the situation, station, and
intelligence of the penitent, so that the confessor is not bound to ask
more than the penitent (by virtue of his situation, station, and power of
apprehension) is bound to confess. When, therefore, it is certain that
the penitent does not know, or has not noticed that certain circumstances
add a new sinfulness to an act, the confessor is not bound to ask about
them.[646]


49. The Nature of the Questions to be put to the Penitent.

If the confessor is obliged to address questions to penitents, they must
always be moderate, discreet, modest, and proper.

(_a_) The questions must be moderate; that is, he should not question
the penitents concerning sins which, having regard to their station,
their age, their circumstances in life and their moral condition, they
have probably not committed. He must not put questions about all possible
sins; he should rather ask first if the penitent has committed the
sins which are generally committed by people of such age, education,
and position. If the answers of the penitent give occasion for further
questioning, he must proceed in his inquiry; if they do not give such
occasion, the confessor should ask, quite in a general way, if there is
anything else which troubles his conscience, and when, after a short
reflection (for which the necessary time must always be allowed him)
he answers that he has nothing more to say, there is no reason for
further questioning. As for the rest, it would seem useful to drop, at
a seasonable moment, an appropriately tactful exhortation concerning
sincere confessions.[647]

The questions of the confessor must be (_b_) discreet; that is, he must
use the necessary discrimination in his questions; he must question
with great prudence and caution. He must bear in mind the rule of the
Roman Ritual: “The confessor should detain no one with inquisitive and
profitless questions, and, above all, let him not ask young people of
what they are ignorant, lest they be scandalized, and made familiar
with new sins.”[648] Let him, therefore, never address to penitents
a question by which a sin of which they were ignorant might be made
known to them. Especially should he be discreet in his questioning of
children and young people, and in questions concerning sins of impurity
(here special caution is necessary with regard to women), lest he awaken
their curiosity and cause them to investigate further, lest he teach the
penitent sins, and lest he expose himself and the penitent to the danger
of sin. When harm of this kind is to be feared, it is preferable that
there should be some lack of material completeness in the confession,
in conformity with the rule: _melius est in multis deficere_ (_sc._
_relate ad integritatem_) _quam in uno abundare_ (i.e. _in probabilem
ruinam pœnitentis_). Two probable dangers here confront each other, a
detriment to the soul of the penitent, and (material) incompleteness of
the confession. Of the two the welfare of the soul is certainly to be
preferred.

The questions of the confessor must, moreover, be (_c_) modest. If the
confessor is obliged to put to the penitent a question concerning _res
inhonestæ_, let him do this as modestly and prudently as he possibly
can, and quite shortly. Of course he will often be obliged to put
questions concerning the sins against purity, because penitents accuse
themselves of these unwillingly, and very many do not properly confess
their sins unless the confessor helps them. The confessor has, therefore,
need of great prudence, in order, on the one hand, to elicit from the
penitents what they conceal, and, on the other hand, not to teach them
(especially the young) what they did not know before. He must here
observe the following rules: (1) Let him avoid all curiosity, even the
appearance of it, and all superfluous questions. When he fears that,
out of anxiety of conscience, the penitent thinks that he has not fully
confessed something, because he has not told all the circumstances,
it is advisable to say to him at the end of the confession: “I have
perfectly well understood your sins; do not, therefore, be anxious about
not having fully declared the manner in which you sinned.” And if the
penitent himself, out of ignorance or anxiety, wishes to describe the
manner in which the sins were committed, the confessor must admonish
him that this is not necessary. On the other hand, if the confessor has
to question the penitent, he can inform him that these questions are
necessary in order to learn the species of the sin. (2) In putting these
questions let him make use of only perfectly modest expressions; when
he speaks of the virtue of purity, let him always call it the angelic
virtue, holy purity, in order to preserve the esteem and love of this
virtue in himself, and inspire the penitent with it. And if the penitent
should make use of improper, coarse expressions in confessing these
sins, the confessor should gently admonish him, and teach him to express
himself more becomingly. As long as it is doubtful whether the penitent
has sinned against purity, the confessor should make use of general terms
only, so that if the penitent has sinned, he may know it, and if he has
not, may learn nothing new and dangerous. The confessor should generally
begin with the lesser sins, and gradually proceed to the greater ones.
He should begin with impure thoughts, wishes, listening to, or uttering,
impure words, and ask if he has had temptations against holy purity,
etc., and proceed thus to questions about acts. If the penitent denies
having willingly entertained impure thoughts, he must not ask if he has
sinned by impure actions; if the penitent confesses interior sins of
impurity, let the confessor ask if he has listened to impure talk, or
uttered such himself, if he has been guilty of immodesty by looking or
touching. If he answers this also in the affirmative, he should ask (if
the penitent is an adult) if he has committed any immodest act, or wished
to do so; for there are penitents who, if they are not asked, conceal
such sins, believing that they satisfy their duty if, by some remark,
they give the confessor opportunity to question them. The confessor must
sometimes deviate from this order, when, for instance, the penitent has
already, of himself, confessed that he has committed grave sins against
purity, or when he is ill informed. For the common people often do not
consider the _delectationes morosas_ and the _desideria_ as sins, at
least when they did not wish to proceed to acts; it is the same with
immodest talk, which they call joking. Such penitents must, as a rule, be
questioned, and, in the first place, if they have done anything immodest,
then if they have carried on talk of this kind, and lastly concerning
the interior sins. The confessor will sometimes observe that those who
accuse themselves of sins of thought only, have also sinned by impure
talk and actions, either because they scarcely distinguish the thoughts
from the actions, and believe that they confessed the actions also by
accusing themselves of the sinful thoughts, or that they wish to give the
confessor an opportunity of questioning them about the actions of which
they do not venture to accuse themselves, unless they are helped by the
confessor.[649]

But with all these questions let the confessor be prudent and cautious.
An imprudent confessor who neglects the necessary measures of precaution,
may easily draw upon himself a denunciation, _ac si sollicitationis reus
sit_.

On this account he must not ask married people bluntly and without
preliminary question if they have rendered to each other the _debitum
conjugale_, unless a valid reason or grounded suspicion justifies such
question. He can, perhaps, in quite a general way, ask a wife if she
has been obedient to her husband in all her duties, or if they have
lived their married lives in a truly Christian manner. If anything _in
conjugali debito_ that troubles the conscience has really taken place,
opportunity is given to the penitent of saying so himself, and then it is
for the confessor either to investigate further, or to instruct, which
should, however, be generally done in only a few words.[650] Finally,
the questions must be asked at (_d_) the right time. Some questions are,
as a rule, to be put before the accusation begins, for example (if the
penitent does not say it of himself), when he last confessed; for this
question contributes much towards a better knowledge of the number of
the sins, and as to whether the penitent seldom or often receives the
holy Sacraments, and whether greater or less care is necessary with
him; this is, too, the almost general practice of confessors. Questions
concerning the position, age, etc., of the penitent are more expediently
asked in the course of the confession, when, on account of some sin,
occasion offers itself, or, which seems to be preferable, at the end of
the accusation. Other questions which appear necessary for the completion
of the confession or for better understanding the state of the penitent’s
soul, the confessor would best put when the accusation is finished.
Penitents are often confused by being interrupted with questions, and
cannot properly complete their confession. Let the confessor, therefore,
keep in his mind the individual sins concerning which he must ask
questions for the purpose of completeness. Let it be, therefore, the
rule, not to interrupt the penitent in his confession, unless a question
should be immediately necessary.[651]

After the confession the confessor should ask the penitent if anything
still weighs upon his conscience; especially let him ask illiterate
people who seldom confess, if they are heartily sorry for their sins, and
if they purpose firmly to avoid sin.

On all occasions let the confessor avoid putting many questions, and
confine himself to necessary ones. In an especial manner let him avoid
all that does not appertain to the confession. He must remember that
there are many penitents, especially men of some position, to whom much
questioning by the confessor is irritating.

Moreover, let the confessor ask clearly, according to the intelligence
of the penitents, so that these may perfectly understand and be able
to answer correctly and shortly; the questions should, therefore, as
a rule, not be of a general nature, but concrete, brief, and simple.
Sometimes, when the penitents are of very limited mental capacity, the
questions must be repeated in different words. He must ask in good order,
proceeding from the beginnings of sin to the completed acts, from the
lighter to the more grievous; from the usual to the extraordinary; before
asking about the species and the number, he must satisfy himself as to
whether there was consent. The confessor must ask kindly and gently, so
that the penitent may feel that the confessor is treating him with truly
paternal love. His special pattern must be the love and gentleness of
Jesus towards sinners of which the Gospel furnishes so many examples;
in this way the confessor wins for himself that confidence which is so
necessary, and induces the penitent to confess all his sins sincerely,
whereas harshness intimidates the penitent and seals his mouth. The
insincerity of the penitent, and consequently the incompleteness of the
confession, would thus be the fault of the confessor, who has to see
that there is integrity. Let the confessor, therefore, refrain from
every harsh word, make the penitent no reproach before the confession is
complete, show no sign of displeasure or surprise. Illiterate penitents,
those who have not confessed for a long time, and find confession hard,
should be encouraged in a kindly manner to accuse themselves sincerely of
all their known sins, before the confession begins.[652]

As to questions in particular, some refer to the object, others to the
circumstances, and others to the number of the sins. With regard to the
object, it is advisable that the confessor, keeping in view the different
classes in life, should arrange questions for himself in the order of
the Commandments, and impress them upon his memory, so that he may make
a right use of them when necessary. But whether the penitent is likely
to have committed other sins besides those which he has confessed,
touching which the confessor may be bound to put questions to him, must
be inferred from the penitent’s occupation and manner of life, as also
from the circumstances by which certain sins become the motives, or
concomitants, of other sins (for example, drunkenness is generally the
cause of quarreling, blasphemy, impure thoughts, words, etc.). Moreover,
it may happen that the penitent has a false conscience, a thing from
which illiterate penitents not seldom suffer, and, in consequence,
confesses as grave sins, what, upon questioning, prove to be only venial
sins. On the other hand, in order to form a sure judgment as to the
gravity of the sins, the confessor should not ask uneducated people
whether they regarded the sins as venial or mortal, for such people say
just what comes into their heads, as St. Alphonsus testifies (“_ut ego
millies observavi_”), and if the confessor repeats the same question in a
different way afterwards, they will answer the exact opposite.[653]

As to the circumstances the confessor must see that the accusation of
the penitent and his own questions are confined to those which ought of
necessity to be mentioned; nor should he ask about such circumstances as
are unlikely to occur in the case of his penitents.[654]

As to the number of the sins, the confessor must inquire if the penitent
does not mention it when confessing mortal sins, and it is beneficial
to admonish him to give in future the number, when he believes the sins
to be mortal.[655] If interior sins, such as hatred, impurity, etc.,
have become habitual, the confessor has, in most cases, performed his
duty when he has found out the greater or less frequency in the day
or the week, because a more exact enumeration of these sins is hardly
possible. And if some one confesses _multa desideria erga quaslibet
feminas obvias_, the number is sufficiently indicated by the penitent
confessing, _se modo nuptas modo innuptas concupivisse_. Moreover, when,
with habitual sinners, the confessor himself suggests a number, in order
to obtain an estimate of the real number, let him choose a number higher
than he expects to hear, so that the penitent may be able to reduce it,
or to add only slightly to it, according to circumstances; if he merely
assent to the number, the confessor can then propose a higher one. In
addition, the confessor must, where it is necessary, inquire into the
dispositions of the penitent—as a necessary preparation for absolution;
if he is willing, for instance, to make restitution, to remove the
immediate occasion of sin, if he is willing to forgive, etc. He must ask
a relapsing sinner, during what length of time, from the last confession,
he refrained from sin, how long he resisted temptation, employed the
remedies, etc., for the guilt is not the same if the penitent overcame
himself for a considerable time, or if he did not sin because the
occasion was wanting, or he was not assailed by great temptation.[656]

For younger and inexperienced confessors we would suggest that penitents
not seldom[657] conceal sins. This generally happens: (1) from false
shame in confessing certain sins of impurity, sacrilegious confessions
and communions, and acts of injustice; this shame is greatly increased by
a certain natural shyness, especially in young women; (2) from fear of
losing the respect of the confessor, and (3) from fear of reproof or of
refusal of absolution.

The confessor must devote special care to these unhappy penitents. “It
cannot be described how much the zeal of an experienced confessor can
effect with them,” says the venerable Paul Segneri, and entering into
the practical treatment of these penitents, he writes: “Through a little
opening, that is, after the penitent has confessed some lesser fault,
let the confessor procure for himself further access to his heart, and,
having gained entrance, seek what hidden sins there are to be found.”
And, giving an example, he proceeds: “When a youth comes to you to
confess, and accuses himself of carrying on love affairs, indulging in
frivolous talk, allowing his eyes too much liberty, and adds nothing
more to this, let the confessor proceed skillfully from the talk and the
looks, and examine into the impure thoughts, and the consent given to
them; from these to the immodest acts which the penitent has committed
with himself or with others. But prudence is necessary that mistakes may
not be made. For here a wound is to be cleansed, there care to be taken
that the healthy, uncontaminated part be not infected, that evil still
unknown may not be learnt. Doubt not that light from heaven, which you
must invoke, and experience constantly increasing with practice, will
show you the safe way between these two rocks.... It is scarcely to be
believed how useful it is to so formulate the questions yourself that
the penitent has nothing to say but, ‘Yes,’ or ‘No.’ What a comfort it
was to the Samaritan woman to be able to declare: ‘I have found some
one who has told me all that I have done.’ If she had been called upon
to confess her sins herself, who knows if she could ever have been
brought to do so? But when she saw herself with such gentleness probed
and fathomed by Christ, it was no longer difficult for her to confess.”
... “But in such confessions,” adds Segneri, “refrain from every sign by
which the penitent could infer that the sins confessed to you seem very
grave. Remind him of the joy in heaven over the conversion of a single
sinner, and of the peace of mind with which he can go home, blessing a
thousand times the day on which he delivered his conscience from such a
burden.”[658]

Whilst the confessor cannot always prevent the concealment of sins;
yet in many cases he will by prudent inquiry succeed in procuring
sincere confessions. To this end, he must receive penitents with
cordial friendliness, benevolence, and gentleness, reminding them that
a confession which is not made with full sincerity is invalid and
sacrilegious; and that Satan, crafty and envious, awakens false shame in
penitents, in order to rob them of the effects of grace in this Sacrament.

Let the confessor also observe the following special remedies: 1. In
order to remove false shame, let the penitent understand that a priest
often hears much more shameful and serious sins; that the penitent
is not known to him; let the priest encourage the penitent and defer
reproof till the end of the confession; remind him of the seal of the
confessional to which the confessor is most strictly bound, but also of
the certain disclosing of the concealed sins before the whole world at
the Last Judgment. 2. In order to remove fear of losing the esteem of the
confessor, the confessor should avoid familiarity with his penitents, not
visit them at their homes without urgent necessity, and not permit them
to come to his house to speak about matters of conscience, as such things
are to be treated in the confessional. Moreover, he must not object to
his usual penitents occasionally confessing to another confessor; and
if they have done so, he should commend them for it; an exception is to
be made here in the case of scrupulous persons, who, by so doing, might
only become the more confused, because another confessor would not know
them as scrupulous persons.—“_Caveat Confessarius, ne motiva naturalia
et humana adhibeat ad fiduciam pœnitentium, mulierum præcipue, sibi
conciliandam; id quippe periculosum est._”[659]

It follows from the above, that the confessor, at the end of the
confession, may, and should, kindly ask unknown penitents (whose
sincerity he justly doubts) if anything in their past lives still
troubles their conscience, and encourage them to confess everything. By
such questions not a few persons, especially of the uneducated class, and
women, and children, are saved from sacrilege,—that is to say, they are
induced to confess sins hitherto concealed; or the confessor may take
occasion, from the silence or a confused answer, prudently to investigate
the matter further. If, however, he discovers some defect in former
confessions, he must admonish the penitent to repeat these invalid
confessions by a general confession and assist him in doing so.[660]

If the penitent declares that he has nothing more of which to accuse
himself, absolution must be given him—if he is, in other respects, worthy
of it; for in cases of doubt as to the honesty of a penitent, there is
no other means of arriving at the truth than by the testimony of the
penitent himself, as he, himself, is defendant and witness.[661]

But what is the confessor to do if he knows _positively_ that the
penitent has concealed or denied a sin?

1. If he has obtained this knowledge outside of the confessional, and
that (_a_) by his own observation (_ex propria experientia_), having
himself seen or heard the sin of the penitent, he cannot absolve him as
long as, on the one hand, the latter, when questioned, obstinately denies
having committed the sin, and while, on the other hand, the confessor
knows positively that the sin in question has not in the meantime been
confessed to another priest. For then defect in formal integrity has
been demonstrated. If the confessor has obtained his knowledge (_b_)
on the statement of another, he must, as a rule, absolve the penitent,
even if he when carefully questioned denies, for here the declaration
of the penitent himself is to be preferred to the testimony of others;
these latter may have been in error. Moreover, the confessor can assume
that the penitent, if he really committed the sin, has forgotten it, or
confessed it to another priest, or has some lawful ground for concealing
it now. But if the witnesses were so trustworthy that no doubt could be
entertained as to their statements, and if the confessor knew positively
that since committing the sin the penitent had not confessed to another
priest, and also that he could not have forgotten it, he cannot, as long
as the penitent denies the sin, absolve him, because, in this case, a
lie on the part of the penitent, quite inconsistent with the integrity of
the confession, has been demonstrated; this case, however, will seldom
occur.

2. If the confessor has obtained his knowledge from the confession of
the accomplice (_complex_) he is not allowed specially to question the
penitent concerning this sin, if he has not received from the accomplice
express permission to do so, or if this sin does not generally occur with
people in that station, or in those circumstances; otherwise he may only
ask the penitent in a general way, as he would in any case have done, or
should have done,—for example, if anything more troubles his conscience;
and he can, in a general way, without letting his knowledge be suspected,
exhort him to confess his sins sincerely; but the danger of breaking the
seal of the confessional—by, perhaps, asking the penitent the same thing
several times—must be carefully avoided. As to whether he can absolve
such a penitent is a controverted point. After quoting the opinion of
others on the subject, St. Alphonsus teaches: “In my judgment the opinion
of Lacroix is to be preferred, that is, the confessor should not absolve,
not even _sub conditione_, but should say a prayer, to conceal the fact
that absolution is refused, because, in this manner, he, on the one hand,
saves the seal—revealing nothing and inconveniencing no one—and, on the
other hand, he has regard for the reverence due to the Sacrament by
preventing its frustration.”[662]

Other theologians teach with Suarez that absolution may only be
refused when it is quite evident that the penitent is telling a lie to
the prejudice of the integrity of the confession. Indeed, not a few
teach that absolution must, in every case, be given to the penitent
who denies his sin, when the knowledge of this sin was obtained only
from the confession of another, as this knowledge is to be regarded
as not existing. This opinion is sufficiently probable, and deserves
the preference, especially as it safeguards the _sigillum_. We must,
moreover, consider that we can scarcely have a certainty that the
penitent is confessing sacrilegiously, quite apart from the consideration
that it is not lawful to make use of knowledge gained in the confessional
for the spiritual guidance of another. Absolution _sub conditione_ can
also be given in this case, as this course preserves the reverence due to
the Sacrament.[663]

But it is the confessor’s duty not only to understand the sins and to
supplement the confession; he must also form for himself a judgment
concerning the gravity of sins which he has heard. Although he must
hear and understand all the sins of the penitent, and would sin if he
absolved, and had failed through his own fault to take cognizance of a
mortal sin, it is not necessary for him to pass judgment on everything
he hears from the penitent. It is sufficient if he is able to do this in
regard to the sins which usually occur; for the rest let him hear, take
note, and then absolve. Thus St. Alphonsus,[664] and other theologians.
Lehmkuhl remarks, that this necessary judgment is formed as soon as the
confessor hears the sins, provided that he has an habitual knowledge
which enables him to distinguish objectively grave and venial sins, and
to apprehend their specific sinfulness. Whether the subjective malice
has any proportion to the sin considered objectively cannot always be
ascertained, though it may generally be presumed; nor is it always
possible to discover it. Such questions, therefore, should not be asked
(unless, perhaps, in the case of well-instructed penitents), for they
are quite useless. It is a different matter with questions regarding the
advertence and the consent of the will, and the objective gravity of the
sins, in so far as it depends upon the circumstances. Such questions
the confessor must ask _per se_, when the confession of the penitent
leaves it doubtful if the _materia_ has been _gravis_ or _levis_, and
no penitent, be he who he may, can be offended by such questions;
nevertheless, it is not always necessary to put these questions, as,
sometimes, a confessor may content himself with a presumption based
upon the conscience of the penitent well known to him, or other
indications.[665] The priest must pronounce judgment, as we have said,
on the gravity of the sins, and have in his memory the sins confessed by
the penitent, not as Suarez states, in order to absolve, but in order to
form a correct judgment of the moral state of the penitent, and of his
dispositions for the reception of absolution, and in order to impose a
suitable penance.[666]


50. The Examination of the Dispositions of the Penitent.

The dispositions of the penitent consist in true sorrow and firm purpose
of amendment. They are at the same time the _quasi materia_ of this
Sacrament, so that if they are wanting the absolution is invalid. The
minister of the Sacrament of Penance must, therefore, make it a point
to determine whether the penitent is properly disposed. But as this
disposition is an interior matter, there arises for the confessor the
great difficulty of knowing by what sign he may recognize it.

Hence the following principles:—

I. It is the duty of the confessor diligently to examine whether the
penitent is properly disposed. This is evident from our introductory
remarks, also from the fact that the confessor is a judge, and it is the
duty of a judge to form an opinion of the worthiness or unworthiness of
the accused. Finally, it results from the fact that he has to discharge
his important office as a _dispensator fidelis_, and, as such, may
not give _Sanctum canibus_.[667] Therefore, Suarez says: “Before the
confessor absolves he must _prudenter et probabiliter judicare_, if
the penitent is disposed, because he would otherwise expose himself
to the danger of making mistakes, and would act without sufficient
knowledge.”[668]

II. The confessor must arrive at a _certitudo moralis_, that is, a
reasonable and probable judgment, that the penitent is disposed. This
_judicium prudens et probabile_ is necessary, as it is not allowed
(except in case of necessity) to administer the Sacrament _cum prudenti
dubio_ as to its validity; but, on the other hand, it is also sufficient
because the disposition of the soul is an interior matter, the exterior
signs and indications of which produce, generally, only a moral
certainty, a probability. The proper disposition of the penitent must,
therefore, be presumed, unless circumstances directly suggest suspicion
of the contrary.[669]

III. The confessor may regard as indicating proper dispositions the
fact that the penitent comes to confession of his own accord, and
not on account of the law of the Church, or with a view to receiving
some other Sacrament, or under compulsion from parents or others;
voluntary confession (_confessio libera_) alone, or in connection with
a protestation of sorrow and a purpose of amendment, is the usual
sign (_signum ordinarium_) of good dispositions, except when this
protestation is rendered suspicious by some other circumstance. The
confession itself affords ground for the presumption that the penitent is
disposed, sorrow being made manifest by the confession and the principle
holding good: _nemo malus præsumendus est_. We may not, therefore,
presume that a penitent comes to confession indisposed; there must
first be ground for such presumption. Therefore, the Roman Catechism
teaches:[670] _Si audita confessione, judicaverit_ (_Sacerdos_) _neque
in enumerandis peccatis diligentiam nec in detestandis dolorem omnino
defuisse_, which means that the penitent can be absolved when _dolor tam
contritionis quam attritionis_ is not wanting in him, for if neither
is present there is no sorrow at all.[671] When the priest has heard
the confession, and assured himself that the penitent has carefully
examined his conscience and confessed his sins, and that he is sorry
for them, he must absolve him.[672] When, therefore, the penitent
shows by the manner of his self-accusation that he has contrition, and
when his demeanor is worthy of the Sacrament and becoming a penitent,
and his confession is sincere, the confessor must not doubt as to his
dispositions, unless, as before said, there is positive presumption
for the contrary. The presumption in favor of his dispositions derived
from the confession will be neutralized by the opposite presumption
which well-founded indications of indisposition produce. That in the
case of contrary presumption the confessor may again decide in favor
of the penitent and credit his assertion, “certain other, more or less
weighty, arguments must be superadded” which tend to weaken the first
suspicion or to destroy it totally. These arguments are called “_signa
doloris extraordinaria_.”[673] But the confessor must not attach too
much importance to these extraordinary signs, and must bear in mind that
no one of those usually given by the theologians supplies, under all
circumstances, complete proof of the penitent’s disposition. As such
signs (which, when necessary, may furnish a stronger and special proof
of the penitent’s sorrow and purpose of amendment) St. Alphonsus,[674]
Reuter,[675] and other authors enumerate the following: (1) any
striving after amendment which the penitent has shown; (2) any special
manifestation of sorrow on the part of the penitent himself, or due
to the exhortation of the confessor (for instance, tears, sighs, etc.,
although tears and sighs are not always to be trusted); (3) that the
penitent was induced to confess by some special, extraordinary motive;
(4) that, upon the exhortation of the confessor, he has attained to a
better apprehension of sin, and an abhorrence of it; (5) that he has
now ultimately confessed to the confessor long concealed sins; (6)
that the number of the sins has become considerably less, although the
circumstances remained the same (for if the penitent had been prevented
from sinning by illness, or a similar circumstance, this would be no
_signum extraordinarium_); (7) that restitution has been really made, the
habit overcome, or some other difficult duty fulfilled; (8) that, in view
of the confession which he wishes to make, he has increased prayer, given
alms, undertaken fasting or other good works; (9) that he has voluntarily
sought the means of amendment at the hands of the confessor, gladly
adopted those proposed to him, or sincerely promised to adopt them;
(10) that he willingly undertakes a severe penance, and offers to make
satisfaction to God; (11) voluntary, spontaneous confession may often be
a sufficient sign.

IV. The question for us now is: in what cases a serious “_præjudicium_”
against the disposition of the penitent arises. According to the teaching
of St. Leonard of Port Maurice, they are the following: (1) when the
penitent always relapses in the same sins, and there is no visible trace
or hope of amendment; (2) when the penitent answers coldly that he is
sorry, especially when he has often relapsed; (3) when he has not applied
the remedies given by the confessor; (4) when the penitent has made
constant and unusual efforts for the gratification of his passions; (5)
when the penitent receives the holy Sacraments only if commanded to do
so by parents or teachers, or out of mere custom on feast-days, or out
of human considerations; (6) when the penitent presumptuously excuses
his sins, or enters into dispute with his confessor, _a fortiori_ if he
should even boast of his sins; (7) when the penitent refuses to accept
a reasonable penance, for punishment or for amendment; (8) when the
penitent shows a great inclination to sin, or covets the profit or great
pleasure obtained from the sin.[676]

V. A penitent is to be regarded as _completely indisposed_ who positively
has no supernatural sorrow, and no real purpose of amendment, especially
one who refuses to undertake a difficult obligation; one, for example:
(l) who does not remove the immediate and willful occasion of sin;[677]
(2) who will not lay aside enmity and hatred, and will not be reconciled;
(3) who will not make restitution and repair injury; (4) who will not
give up sinful occupations; (5) who will not promise to exert himself to
lay aside a bad habit; (6) who does not employ the necessary means of
amendment; (7) who is not willing to remove scandal that he has given or
still gives to others.

VI. That penitent is _doubtfully disposed_ against whom there
is a well-founded “_præjudicium_,”—one arising from positive
indications,—which _præjudicium_ he has not wholly removed, so that
there is still valid ground for considering him as not yet sufficiently
disposed.


51. The Confessor’s Duty in Disposing his Penitents.

The confessor must, with fatherly love and care, to the best of his
ability, dispose those penitents whom, after instruction and exhortation,
he sees to be insufficiently disposed; and he is bound to this _ex
rigoroso religionis et charitatis officio_. Magnificent is the discourse
on this subject which Leo XII in his Encyclical letter of Dec. 25, 1825,
extending the Jubilee to the whole Church, addressed to all the bishops.
In § 5 the Pope writes: “You know well how necessary and salutary the
labor of those priests is to whom the faithful must confess their sins,
in order that they may be able to perform with fruit what they have
been taught. Therefore it must be your zealous care that those priests
appointed by you to hear confessions do not forget what our predecessor
Innocent III prescribed with regard to the minister of the Sacrament of
Penance; namely, that he should be _discretus et cautus_, in order to
pour wine and oil, like the experienced physician, into the wounds of the
stricken one, to give him good advice, and to prescribe what means of
improvement he must employ.” And, after remarking (with a reference to
the words of the Roman Ritual) that the priest must exercise great care
as to whom he administers absolution, to whom he refuses it, and when
he postpones it, especially emphasizing to whom it may not be given, he
goes on to say that every one can easily see how totally different from
this the procedure of those priests is, “who, as soon as they perceive
that a person is burdened with many sins, at once declare that they
cannot give him absolution, thus refusing to heal those for whose healing
they were in a special manner appointed by Him who said: ‘Those who are
whole need not the physician, but those who are sick,’ or to whom the
least effort in eliciting sorrow and good purpose seems sufficient, and
only then believe that they have taken a safe decision when they send
the penitent away, to absolve him at some other time. For if ever the
golden mean is to be observed, it is eminently in this case, so that
too great ease of obtaining absolution may not engender carelessness in
committing sin, and that too great difficulty may not estrange souls
from the confessional and plunge them into despair of salvation. For
many present themselves before the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance
who are quite unprepared, but are in such dispositions that they might
become prepared if only the priest, equipped with the compassion of
Jesus Christ, who came to call not the just but sinners, understood how
to treat them with zeal, patience, and gentleness. Those are not to be
regarded as unprepared who have committed very grave offenses, or who
have not confessed for very many years—for the mercy of the Lord knows
no bounds, and inexhaustible is the treasure of His goodness—or who,
ignorant, of humble condition, and slow of perception, have not duly
examined themselves, for without the help of the priest they are unable
to do this; but only those who, after being questioned by the confessor
concerning their sins with necessary care (but not with a minuteness
immoderately troublesome to them), and after the confessor has exhausted
all the zeal which love can inspire, accompanied with fervent prayer, to
move them to sorrow for their sins, are found to be wholly and entirely
devoid of that sorrow by which they should at least become disposed to
obtain grace in the Sacrament. In whatever dispositions those may be who
approach the minister of the Sacrament of Penance, they should not be
allowed to despair on account of their guilt, and to go away estranged
from the goodness of God or the Sacrament of reconciliation.... St.
Raymond of Pennafort, whom the Church calls the eminent minister of
the Sacrament of Penance, may serve as a fitting example of this love.
‘After the confessor has heard the sins,’ he says, ‘let him comfort
the sinner and bear his burden with him, let him be tender of heart,
forbearing towards the penitent in his sins, let him distinguish with
prudence, assist the person confessing with his prayers, give alms, and
perform other good works for him, ever aid him with gentle exhortation,
suggesting grounds for consolation, encouraging him to hope and also
remonstrating with him when necessary.’” With these golden words, born
of love for sinners and burning zeal for souls, the Pope admonishes
confessors to take most benevolent interest in their penitents in order
to dispose them. This is, indeed, a strict duty of love; love of God and
of the poor sinner must move the confessor to use every exertion in his
power to rescue him from his unhappy situation, and reconcile him with
God. The confessor must thus act as the attorney of God and the father
of the penitent; and as physician of the soul he is bound, after the
example of the good Samaritan, to apply promptly for the sick soul of
the penitent a suitable remedy, and the only suitable remedy here is the
valid reception of absolution.[678]

It is true, as Segneri[679] says, that the heart of the sinner not seldom
becomes as hard as stone (Job xli. 15); nevertheless, we must try to
soften it, and to arouse in these wretched men—the more unhappy as their
wretched state is of their own choice—sorrow for past sin, and a sincere
determination never more to return to it. But in order to move them to
sorrow and penance, powerful motives for sorrow must be proposed, and
it is well to support these by one or more passages from Scripture, or
utterances of a saint. These generally refer to the nature, the effects,
and the consequences of sin—sin as the most terrible wrong done to the
majesty of God (Jer. ii. 2); as the blackest ingratitude towards God, our
best Father, and most generous benefactor (Deut. xxxii. 5, 18; Is. i. 3;
v. 4; 2 Kings xii. 7); as the most execrable faithlessness towards Jesus,
our most loving Redeemer (Heb. vi. 6; John x. 22); as an evil which
brings with it the loss of grace and of the happiness of heaven (Wis.
vii. 14; 2 Cor. ii. 9); leading to hell (Is. xxxiii. 14; Matt. xxvi.
26); and preparing a terrible death (Prov. vi. 34; Heb. x. 31); which is
most hateful and disgraceful in itself; making the sinner an abomination
before God and a slave of the devil (Ps. v. 6; Wis. xiv. 9). The peculiar
hatefulness, the evil consequences, and danger of special sins may be
described, as, for example, impurity, robbing man of innocence, ruining
him in body and soul, surrendering him to disgrace and shame, making
him the object of God’s especial abhorrence, and exposing him to severe
punishment. But, in a particular manner, let the confessor seek to deter
the penitent from relapse, impressing upon him the great truth that the
difficulty of effecting his salvation increases in the same proportion
as the number of his sins; that bad habits always become stronger, the
mind more darkened, the will weaker, also that he is always becoming
more unworthy of divine grace, that the evil one obtains more power over
a man as the sinner’s resistance grows less. It is, however, neither
necessary nor useful to set forth these motives indiscriminately; they
must be chosen with a view to suit the penitent,[680] and not only stored
in the memory, but, by meditation, deeply imprinted on the heart of the
confessor, that he may bring them home to the penitent with the warmth of
conviction and a persuasive unction.

The confessor must not be concerned at the fact that other penitents have
to wait a long time and end by going away; for, in this case, he must not
look to the welfare of others, but solely to that of the penitent with
whom he is dealing at the moment. It is of his welfare and not that of
the rest that he has to render account, and, as St. Francis Xavier used
to say, it is better to hear the confessions of a few penitents well,
than those of many hastily and without fruit. The confessor must very
often dispose illiterate penitents (_pœn. rudes_) and children[681] by
moving them to sorrow and purpose of amendment, because these latter do
not sufficiently consider the necessity of these acts, and therefore
neglect them. He must also frequently dispose penitents who have relapsed
into sinful habits without endeavoring to amend, as with such people
there is ground for the presumption that they are not truly disposed.
“How many penitents have come to me not disposed, and I have endeavored,
with the help of divine grace to dispose them, and I have certainly done
so, and, to my very great comfort, dismissed them with absolution,”
cries out St. Alphonsus.[682] Justly, therefore, does this sainted doctor
and zealous guide of souls, blame those “indolent confessors” who send
away a penitent without having shown any zeal in preparing him.[683]

If the confessor judges that the penitent is well disposed, he has no
obligation with regard to his dispositions. For the rest, he will do
well to exhort penitents who are unknown to him again to elicit sorrow
and purpose of amendment aroused by his words, or at least to ask them
if they heartily detest their sins. If they answer in the affirmative,
the confessor can set his mind at rest, unless circumstances suggest
otherwise.[684]


52. The Duty of the Confessor to administer, to defer, or to refuse
Absolution.

After examining the dispositions of the penitent, and after endeavoring
to make sure of them, the confessor, as we have seen in the last section,
will find three classes of penitents: those who are certainly disposed,
those who are doubtfully disposed, those who are not disposed.

His duty with regard to these different classes will form the
subject-matter of this section.

I. Absolution must, in justice, be given to the penitent who is certainly
disposed, so that the confessor would, generally speaking, _sin gravely_
and against justice if he should refuse to absolve such a penitent.
After hearing a case (_causa_), the judge must pronounce sentence on
the accused, and in the tribunal of penance (the worthiness of the
penitent being presupposed) the sentence can only be one of acquittal.
Accordingly, if the penitent is worthy of acquittal, in other words,
certainly disposed, absolution must be given him. This results also from
the character of the confessor as representative of God; but God acquits
the sinner who does worthy penance, therefore God’s representative must
do likewise. This follows, further, from the aim of the institution
of the Sacrament. It was instituted for the faithful and for their
spiritual benefit; now, if the faithful are well disposed, they have a
right to this Sacrament, and it would be injustice to withhold it from
them. Finally, the confessor binds himself by admitting a penitent to
confession, _ex quasi-contractu_, to pronounce judgment in accordance
with the injunctions of Christ.[685] Absolution must also be given to a
certainly disposed penitent when he has accused himself of venial sins
only. In the latter case, however, it is, _ex se_, no great injustice
not always to give absolution, but only the blessing, and if there is
reasonable ground for this proceeding it is no sin at all.

II. Absolution must always be _refused_ to penitents who are _certainly
not disposed_. The confessor would be guilty of sacrilege if he
administered absolution to penitents whose indisposition was certain,
in whatever state of need the penitent might be; for, in this case, the
confessor would utter the sacramental formula in vain, and such abuse
is sinful. What penitents are certainly not disposed we have learnt
above.[686] The strict duty of the confessor to dispose those penitents
whom he has recognized as not disposed has also been treated of (§ 51).
Not till all his pains and zeal have proved vain may he dismiss them as
indisposed; and even then the confessor must not treat them harshly and
reject and repel them, but clearly and eloquently lay before them their
sad state, and the very great danger of incurring eternal damnation, and
assure them that it would always afford him the greatest joy if they
should at last do real penance, and that he would be ready at all times
to receive them in the confessional as soon as they should be willing to
obey the divine precepts.[687]

III. Absolution must, as a rule, be deferred in the case of those
penitents who are altogether doubtfully disposed (_plane dubie
dispositi_). For the confessor must take care that he does not
presumptuously expose the Sacrament to the danger of nullity and commit
a great sacrilege. Penitents are to be regarded as doubtfully disposed
who, having a duty to fulfill _sub gravi_, such, for example, as removing
an immediate occasion of sin, laying aside a vicious habit, making
restitution, giving up an enmity, have promised to do their duty and
failed to keep the promise. Failure to comply with the obligation does
not point infallibly to a lack of proper dispositions, but it necessarily
gives rise to well-founded doubts.

As a rule, absolution must be deferred in the case of such penitents, but
if there is a _causa gravis_, it _may_ be given to them _sub conditione_,
or, according to circumstances, it _must_ be so given to them.

For the Sacraments were instituted for men. When, therefore, more evil
than good results from postponement of absolution, the welfare of the
penitent demands that the Sacrament should be administered to him, even
with the danger of nullity; regard for the Sacrament being preserved by
the subjoined condition.

If dying persons are doubtfully disposed, they must be absolved _sub
conditione_; on this point there can be no controversy.

It is universally admitted and also approved by St. Alphonsus that a
doubtfully disposed penitent can be absolved, _sub conditione_, of
course, when he himself, _bona fide_, believes that he is sufficiently
disposed, and when there is a _causa gravis_ for believing that the
refusal or postponement of absolution would cause him to fall into a
worse state; for example, commit another sacrilege, or become totally
estranged from the Sacraments. In this case the confessor must use every
means in prudence, and with holy, enlightened zeal, to dispose the
penitent fittingly, and then—mindful of the mercy of Him whose place he
fills, and who does not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking
flax (Is. xlii. 3)—administer the absolution.

But in other cases where such evils are not to be feared, the confessor
must defer absolution for doubtfully disposed penitents till they have
shown themselves to be better disposed. This applies especially to
relapsing sinners and to _occasionarii_. “Do not refuse absolution to the
penitent, but postpone it,” is the exhortation of Segneri to confessors.
“He must come again within a fixed time. In the meanwhile he may make
himself more worthy and then give more trustworthy signs of sorrow.” Let
it not be objected that the penitents would not return. “If they do not
come to you, they will go to others, and will be better prepared and
absolved with greater profit. If they neither come back to you nor go
to another, you need not be concerned about it, for it is a clear sign
that they are quite obdurate in sin, that they were not disposed, and had
not the will to render themselves disposed. And yet, even in such cases
the deferring of absolution is not without benefit; since a germ of holy
fear remains in their hearts, which in time will bring forth fruits of
penance. For, as the learned Aversa assures us, a wise postponement is of
the greatest profit to the sinner, and experience itself proves that this
postponement is mostly beneficial.”[688]

IV. Even in the case of a well-disposed penitent, absolution can,
and sometimes must be, deferred, when this appears necessary to, or
profitable for, his improvement. Although the well-disposed penitent
has a right to absolution, yet the confessor, as a physician, must have
regard for the cure of the penitent, nor has the penitent always a right
to _immediate_ absolution. The deferring of absolution is a grave duty
when postponement is a necessary measure; it is not so imperative when it
serves only as a measure of utility.

1. Postponement of absolution is _necessary_:—

(_a_) With penitents who have to remove a _public scandal_. This duty
must be done before they are admitted to holy communion, and generally
also before absolution. (_b_) With penitents who have been, in any
respect, public sinners,—till they have publicly shown themselves to have
amended; except, perhaps, when it is advisable to give absolution at once
for their greater comfort and spiritual profit; yet with postponement of
holy communion. (_c_) With penitents who are under some great obligation,
who have to make considerable restitution, to be reconciled to an enemy,
or to remove an occasion of sin, and of whom it is to be feared that they
may not be true to their resolution on account of its great difficulties.
(_d_) With a penitent who has not confessed for a long time, has often
fallen back into the old sins, and has not so far employed any diligence
in the examination of his conscience; for, in this case, he runs great
risk (as, by his own fault, the declaration of his sins is incomplete)
of being invalidly absolved. But if such a penitent does not know how to
examine his conscience better, the confessor must aid him, and absolve
him if he considers him otherwise capable and worthy of it.

For the cases cited Lehmkuhl and Reuter give this good rule: If it is
more difficult for the penitent to come to the confessor again than to
fulfill his heavy obligation, let him be at once absolved, unless he has
already promised to fulfill his obligation and has not kept his promise;
but if it is more difficult for him to fulfill the obligation than to
come again, let the absolution be deferred. Here, however, the confessor
must have regard for the relative or subjective difficulty which his
penitent finds in removing the occasion of sin, on account of rooted
habit, or the strength of a violent passion. That he may overcome this,
the penitent must be stimulated by postponement of absolution; otherwise
he will easily forget his purpose and his promise.[689]

2. Postponement of absolution, even when it is not necessary, may
sometimes be profitable to the penitent. Between the _certa_ and the
_plane dubia dispositio_ there are degrees, and the case may thus occur
that the disposition of the penitent is not so certain that absolution
must be given at once; on the other hand, it may not be so doubtful
that absolution ought to be refused or postponed.[690] This applies to
penitents to whom, in view of their dispositions and other circumstances,
absolution, strictly speaking, may be given, but to whom postponement
is useful in helping them to recognize more clearly the enormity of
sin and the necessity of improvement. Thus they are more effectually
strengthened against relapse, their sorrow for sin becomes deeper,
their purpose of amendment firmer. Here the confessor, as physician
before God, must consider whether it is more profitable for the penitent
to give him absolution or to defer it. In determining this, he must
consider the character of the penitent, and the circumstances of time and
place in which we live. “When faith has become cold, and the penitent
can scarcely be moved to make a confession, it is dangerous to defer
absolution; this itself, indeed, may be a ground for giving absolution
to a doubtfully disposed penitent. Thus it is that the confessor in
our times must be more inclined to give absolution than in former times
when faith was lively.”[691] The confessor must not postpone absolution
when postponement is hurtful to the penitent, and this is the case
when holy communion cannot be omitted without exciting remark; or when
an indulgence can be gained at that time; when the danger is foreseen
that the penitent would be obliged to confess the same sins to another
confessor, which would be an unfair burden; or when the penitent, by this
proceeding, would be exposed to the risk of dying without absolution; or
if he could not come again for a long time.

But absolution should be deferred only for a short time—three, five, or
eight days. For a sufficiently disposed penitent the postponement should
never be long, especially when it is uncertain whether he has perfect
contrition, or whether he would gain real profit from it.[692] St.
Alphonsus is of this opinion also in the case when relapse is interior,
for instance, a bad habit. But if it be exterior, for example, an
immediate occasion of sin, whether voluntary, or necessary, absolution
is always to be deferred till the immediate voluntary occasion has
been removed or the necessary occasion become remote. For the exterior
cause has greater influence on the will than the evil habit or interior
weakness.[693] Moreover, the interior cause is not so easily removed,
simply because it is interior, and clings to a man.[694] Hence St.
Alphonsus also gives this advice: “One should not, I think, deviate from
the usual view, according to which absolution is not to be deferred in
the case of a penitent who relapses from interior weakness, because for
him more profit is to be hoped from the sacramental grace than from
postponement of absolution.”

Finally the postponement _must not be very irksome_ to the penitent. For,
on the one hand, the penitent, as sufficiently disposed, has a right to
absolution, and, on the other, the postponement, if very displeasing
to him, would, _per se loquendo_, not help him, or certainly not help
him more than the absolution given to him at once. If, therefore, the
penitent has a desire to receive absolution, he will be offended by
the postponement. This desire manifests a very good will, which, when
supported by the grace of the Sacrament, allows better things to be
hoped for than would be the case if he were deprived of the sacramental
grace. But that, _absolute_, absolution may be deferred in the case
of a sufficiently disposed penitent, _even without his consent_, is
demonstrated by the unanimous teaching of theologians[695] as also by the
recommendations and practice of the saints.[696]

Moreover, the frequent awakening of love and sorrow is to be earnestly
recommended to the penitent if absolution has been deferred, that he may
thus be strengthened against temptation, and later, when better prepared,
acquire more abundant graces. A penance is also to be imposed upon the
penitent, and he must be reminded that it is not necessary for him to
confess again the sins already confessed when he comes back to the same
confessor. The latter can absolve, though not remembering the sins, if
he has imposed a suitable penance previously and adds a new one.[697]

In conclusion, we may remark that the postponement of absolution depends
entirely upon the judgment of the confessor, that neither general nor
special rules can be laid down concerning it. Everything should be left
to the discretion of the confessor, who is to be guided neither by the
suggestions of his own private judgment nor by the example of others, but
only by the unction of the Holy Ghost, imparted to the priest by study
and prayer.[698]

Concerning postponement of absolution, Segneri remarks: “This remedy,
when employed at the right time, produces great effects; like a burning
coal it rouses the soul from that lethargy which threatened to become
the sleep of death. Shamed and startled, the penitent recognizes the
greatness of his misfortune, is placed upon his guard, and reflects upon
his condition; if it finds him repentant, it increases his repentance in
an indescribable manner, so that his sorrow, which before was transient
and weak, and might easily have yielded to the simple allurements of some
present object, now becomes strong and powerful and is able to withstand
violent assault. And so this wholesome remedy is generally prescribed by
the masters of asceticism,[699] and employed by circumspect confessors
with much benefit, especially in those cases in which other remedies have
proved ineffectual.”[700]




CHAPTER II

THE ACCESSORY DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR


The essential office of the confessor is the judicial office. It is of
the highest significance. Connected with it are other supplementary
duties of equal importance. They refer to the preparation of the
confessor for his responsible office, the exercise of the office itself,
and his conduct after its completion.


ARTICLE I

THE PREPARATION


53. The Virtues which the Confessor must possess.

1. As in the administration of other Sacraments, the confessor must
first of all be in a state of grace. If he hears confessions in a
state of mortal sin, he commits as many sacrileges as he administers
absolutions.[701] And what a dishonor to God, what a calamity for the
priest is one single sacrilege! St. Alphonsus admonishes confessors,
who have been so unhappy as to commit a grave sin, to cleanse their
own consciences by confession before administering the Sacrament, or,
if they cannot confess, but must hear confessions, to elicit perfect
contrition. Whoever absolves in mortal sin dishonors the holy Sacrament
intrusted to him by God, and while he delivers others from the chains
of sin, reconciles them to God, and opens the gates of heaven to them,
his own soul becomes more and more entangled in sin, displeasing to
God and exposed to perdition, and will he be able to discharge his
holy office in a proper manner? Will he who is himself given to sin
effectively destroy the kingdom of sin by his admonition, instruction,
and exhortation? The right administration of the Sacrament of Penance
demands of the priest a deep hatred and personal abhorrence of sin.

2. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance must, therefore, _be
confirmed in virtue_. He who will lead others to virtue (and that is
surely also a duty of the confessor) must first be virtuous himself. _Qui
sibi nequam est, cui alii bonus erit_, exclaims the wise man in the Old
Testament (Eccli. xiv. 5). Nothing exercises such great power over the
minds of the people as the good example of a priest, and only then do
they believe firmly when they see him practice what he teaches. “That
voice penetrates deeper into the heart which the life of the speaker
confirms,” says Gregory the Great (Reg. Past.). St. Antoninus recalls the
words of St. Augustine: “The priest to whom every malady is to be exposed
must not fail in any one of the points which he is to judge in others;
else he condemns himself while sitting in judgment over others. When the
adulterous woman was taken before the Lord, He said to the Pharisees,
‘Let him amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone upon her.’
But as none seemed free from sin, they all withdrew, and did not care to
condemn the woman.” “Therefore,” adds St. Augustine, “priests are more
culpable than the Pharisees if they, though guilty themselves, dare to
condemn others.”[702] It is an irrefutable maxim of the Angelic Doctor
that, in the administration of this divine Sacrament, the Confessor
coöperates in a personal way with God. It is not sufficient for him to
live in a state of grace in order to be a useful servant in the work
of saving sinners; he must be solicitous about the practice of all the
virtues, for a lukewarm confessor, without interest in his work, who does
not exercise himself in prayer and mortification, can only discharge
this divine office carelessly. His words will not be inflamed by love,
nor his warnings animated by zeal, nor his counsels beget confidence.[703]

3. Amongst the virtues which the confessor must possess, charity occupies
the first place. As St. Alphonsus says emphatically, _the confessor must
have a heart full of love_, in order to discharge his office properly.
This love of the confessor, as Louis de Ponte says, must have all the
dimensions which the Apostle in his letter to the Ephesians demands;
the love of the confessor must be _so broad_ that he embraces in his
heart all the sinners of the whole world, excluding no one that will do
penance, and, like the father in the Gospel, hastening with open arms to
meet and receive every prodigal son who returns home; _so long-suffering_
that he does not grow weary if he has to wait a long time for the sinner,
and has often (seventy times seven) to deplore his relapse if only he
will return repentant; _so highly spiritual_ that he readily incites
sinners to a greater perfection; _so humble_ that he stoops to the most
abandoned criminal to lend him a helping hand, however low he may have
fallen by repeated indulgence in the most shameful sins. “Remember,”
writes St. Francis of Sales, “that penitents address you all as ‘father.’
You must, therefore, have a fatherly heart for them; receive them with
love, listen to them with patience; do not grow tired of their unmannerly
behavior, their ignorance, their fickleness; do not cease helping them,
that you may at any cost save their souls. Defiled though they be, they
are not on that account less precious; like pearls, they lose nothing by
the dirt into which they have fallen. Only try to cleanse them in the
Precious Blood of the innocent Lamb, and unite them to God, that they
may become heirs of eternal glory, and may one day eclipse the stars
by their splendor.”[704] And St. Alphonsus teaches: “When an unhappy
sinner comes, good confessors receive him with cordial love, and rejoice
like a conqueror who has made booty, reflecting that it has been given
to them to snatch a soul from the hands of Satan. They know that this
Sacrament was really instituted not for the just, but for sinners ...
that Jesus Christ said: ‘I am not come to call the just, but sinners’
(Mark ii. 17). Therefore are they filled with love, and the deeper they
see the soul sunk in the filth of sin, the greater love do they show
in order to win it for God.”[705] The good confessor exercises in his
office all the works of mercy by which charity manifests itself, as
Louis de Ponte so beautifully says: “Hearing confessions and absolving
penitents is a _truly heroic act_, and unspeakably well pleasing to
the divine Majesty; because in a special manner he exercises here the
corporal and spiritual works of mercy. He teaches the ignorant, guides
the erring, repairs injuries, comforts the sorrowful and the downcast,
imparts salutary counsel to the doubting, makes effectual intercession
with God for those whose salvation is endangered. He breaks the cruel
chains of the captive and liberates him from shameful slavery, clothes
the clean with the garment of grace, offers to the needy and to the
weary spiritual food and drink. Therefore I am convinced that God
shows mercy to the good and zealous confessor: since ‘Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.’”[706] Therefore, the office of
the confessor is very _meritorious_. But in order that he may gain from
it undiminished merit, let him administer it out of love, pure love for
God and for souls. And that he may always do so Lehmkuhl recommends him
frequently to consider: (1) who He is whose office he discharges; (2) who
he is who discharges it; and (3) who he is for whom he discharges it.
For the priest represents in this holy tribunal the person of Christ as
Redeemer, who gave Himself as ransom for souls, who had this individual
soul before His eyes when He suffered, when He instituted the Sacrament
of Penance, who as God from all eternity, as Man, from the first moment
of His incarnation, chose this hour of His special love, in which, by
the influence of grace, the sinner would be brought to the feet of the
priest, by whose help and endeavor he might be sanctified and saved.
But the confessor who discharges this divine office and coöperates with
Christ in the divine work of the salvation of sinners, must recognize
that it is without any merit on his part that he has been raised to such
an exalted dignity. The confessor has, perhaps, himself grievously failed
and in no way can he better atone for his faults than by zeal in blotting
out and preventing the sins of others; and if he should have no sins of
his own to expiate, he should not forget that he owes this singular favor
to Christ and His grace.

The confessor must see in the penitent a brother of Christ, sprinkled
with the Blood of Christ, who now, to the shame of Christ, has fallen
into the most wretched captivity and slavery of the devil; who,
nevertheless, is dearly loved by God and Christ, and is called to eternal
and blissful union with Him; who will, perhaps, one day be a great
saint in heaven, and, if he dies before the confessor, will there be an
intercessor for him; or will certainly, out of gratitude, pray for him
here on earth.[707] The confessor should often read what St. Alphonsus
writes in his _Homo apostolicus_ about the love of the confessor:[708]
“This love must be chiefly exercised in receiving all, especially the
poor, the ignorant, and sinners in a friendly manner.... A still greater
love must the confessor exercise in hearing the confession itself.... And
at the end of the confession the confessor should, with much zeal, show
to the sinner the heinousness of his sins. This is the way by which you
may gain sinners if you employ the very greatest love in dealing with
them.” This love of the confessor produces in him that zeal for souls
which should especially animate him. When the confessor discharges his
office with zeal, souls (as experience shows) are not less effectually
led to God than by preaching. “Be certain,” exclaims St. Leonard of Port
Maurice, “that in a single morning which you have dedicated to God in the
confessional for the purpose of helping poor sinners, you acquire more
merit than if you were to perform other good and holy works for a whole
year. Indeed, I venture to say that it is sometimes better to interrupt
meditation, reading, the Breviary, or any other pious exercise in order
to hear confessions.... We should be content to sacrifice for a time even
the contemplation of God in order to comfort poor sinners. St. Ignatius
declared that he would very gladly submit to a postponement of the bliss
of heaven in order to be able to work for the salvation of a poor soul.
Does not that passage in the Gospel terrify you where the servant is
damned because he had not used the talent which he had received? And
you, who have received from the Lord not _one_, but three and four, and
perhaps ten talents, you will let them lie unused!”[709]

The most beautiful, the most efficacious pattern of true, wise,
indefatigable zeal for souls is He whose place the confessor occupies,
who in His boundless love shunned no trouble, effort, persecution, or
suffering, in seeking sinners, teaching them, moving them to sorrow and
penance, and pardoning them, and who for them gave up His life in shame
and agony.

Under the influence of this love, the confessor will also avoid certain
mistakes which are very injurious to his ministry, and by no means
becoming in a representative of Christ.

(_a_) He will not prefer the rich and the high-placed to the poor and the
unfortunate, but, after the example of our Saviour, will embrace the poor
and the unfortunate with special love.[710]

(_b_) He will not, in this love for penitents, be influenced by any
natural inclination, still less by any sinful affection; hence he will
not regard himself as fortunate if his confessional is besieged by
a great number _devotarum mulierum_, nor will he detain them in the
confessional longer than is necessary, nor treat them with too great
familiarity, but rather with a paternal severity, so that, in this holy
service, he may not incur temptation and ruin.

(_c_) He will not allow himself to be influenced by the rank of the
penitent, but rather remind high and low, rich and poor, of their duties
and obligations, and thus be all to all.[711]

(_d_) He will employ special diligence with those who are stained with
many sins, who have long lived in evil habit, and have often relapsed,
that they may be lifted out of the slough of sin, and led to God and a
new life. He will ponder the celebrated words of St. John Chrysostom:
“When you see one whose soul needs cure, do not say to yourself: why did
not this one or that one cure him? Cure him of his illness, and ask not
why others have been negligent. If you see gold lying on the ground, do
you say to yourself: why did not this one or that one pick it up? Do you
not hasten to pick it up before others? Even so, think of your fallen
brothers, that you have found a treasure in them.”[712]

(_e_) In hearing confessions he will increase his love and show it by
kindness and gentleness; he will manifest no sign of impatience or
wonder, even when the penitent confesses very great sins, or shows a
hardened unrepentant heart, or is uncouth and tires the confessor by
wrong answers and confused statements.

(_f_) And if the penitent is poorly prepared and badly disposed,
the confessor must use every endeavor, especially at the end of the
confession, to render him perfectly disposed by instructing him,
admonishing him, and (as the penitent’s condition may suggest) by blaming
or reproving, by recalling the thought of God’s justice, yet so as
rather to inspire confidence and to open the door of love and mercy.[713]

(_g_) Nor let the priest be sad, despondent, and dejected if he perceives
no progress, or only a little, and very slow progress in those on whom he
has expended so much trouble. Zeal for souls will guard him against this
dangerous rock.[714]

4. The confessor must, moreover, be eminently pure. He hears so many sins
of impurity; the saddest lapses from virtue are disclosed to him; he
must put questions in order to draw out and complete the confession of
these sins; some penitents express themselves very awkwardly, and, alas!
by most lamentable abuse of the holy Sacrament, snares are laid to the
chastity of the confessor. In order to escape these dangers and that he
may not be defiled while cleansing and healing others, the confessor must
have a great love for holy purity, and be confirmed in this virtue so as
to suppress resolutely and at once all rising temptations and sensual
emotions. Let him arm himself with a pure and holy intention, seeking
only the honor of God and the salvation of souls; let him avoid all
familiarity with female penitents, ever having as witnesses of his words
and actions God and his own and his penitent’s guardian angels; finally,
let him shield himself by frequent prayer, especially to Mary, the purest
of Virgins.

5. Lastly, the confessor must be equipped with _inexhaustible patience_.
Intrusive, scrupulous, melancholy, distrustful, rough, obstinate
penitents, will easily rouse to impatience and anger a confessor who is
vehement and excitable. Great patience is, therefore, necessary that,
while correcting the faults of others and giving peace to souls, he may
not fall into faults himself, become perplexed in heart, and lose his
peace of mind. He who will take away the sins of the world must be as
_meek_ as a lamb.


54. The Scientific Equipment of the Confessor.

St. Alphonsus teaches[715] that the confessor who hears confessions
without sufficient knowledge is in danger of eternal reprobation. And
justly does the sainted teacher express himself so seriously. If the
Lord demanded from the priests of the Old Testament that their lips
should keep knowledge, and that the law should be sought at their mouths
(Malach. ii. 17), and if He threatens the priest of the Old Testament
by the mouth of the prophet: (Os. iv. 6) “Because thou hast rejected
knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of
priesthood to me,” this applies in a much higher degree to the priest
of the New Law, who, as representative of God, discharges the office of
judge of souls, and holds in his power their eternal welfare or their
eternal ruin. An ignorant priest, one not equipped with the knowledge
necessary for so responsible and important a Sacrament, exposes himself
to the danger of pernicious error, the Sacrament to the danger of
dishonor, and the penitent to the danger of damnation. _An ignorant
confessor works much ruin._

How great the knowledge of the confessor must be is shown by the
consideration that he discharges the office of teacher, physician, and
judge, to people in the most diverse positions and circumstances of
life and the most unequal conditions of soul and mind. He is appointed
for them all; they all, without exception, come to him, and he must
instruct them upon the most important matters; he must know all diseases
and wounds, must examine and cure them; upon all sins he must pronounce
judgment, a just judgment, and one as much as possible in accordance with
the judgment of God! Truly, if any one who undertakes an office ought to
be provided with the knowledge requisite for its fitting discharge, it
is the priest, for upon the fitting discharge of his office depends,
not some temporary good or evil, but eternal salvation—his own and that
of his penitent! St. Teresa was moved to the following utterance in
her biography (chap. 5): “Half-instructed confessors have done my soul
great harm; for I could not always have such learned ones as I would
have desired. They certainly did not wish to deceive me, but the fact
was that they knew no better. Of something which was a venial sin, they
said it was no sin, and out of a very grave mortal sin they made a venial
sin. This has done me such harm, that my speaking here of so great an
evil, as a warning to others, will be readily understood.” The following
principles are to be laid down respecting the scientific outfit of the
confessor:—

I. The confessor is bound _sub gravi_, to possess all the knowledge which
is necessary to discharge his office without committing serious errors.

(1) Generally speaking, the confessor must, therefore, know his moral
theology thoroughly. He must know particularly what he has to do in order
to administer the Sacrament rightly; he must know upon what subject he
has to instruct the penitents, what he may permit, and what he must
forbid; he must especially understand how to dispose penitents who are
not disposed; how, and through what motives, acts of faith, of hope,
of love, and contrition (both _attritio_ and _contritio_) are to be
awakened; for he must very often rouse the penitents to such acts, and
even in many cases recite them for his penitents.

(2) Moreover, he must know accurately which of the sins that usually
occur are mortal, and which venial, at least _ex genere suo_; “he must
understand how to distinguish them _secundum principia communia_, though
not _in causis difficillimis_,” or, as Lugo says: “This knowledge need
not be of such a kind that in all cases he is able to distinguish
between mortal or venial sins, but only in those of frequent occurrence;
as for the rest, let him hear and understand, and then absolve with
the necessary intention.”[716] He must know: (3) the _species_ and
_circumstantiæ_ and how the number is expressed; (4) what is usually
necessary for the validity of documents, for valid contracts, for a valid
marriage, and what circumstances invalidate contracts and marriages,
etc.; (5) when restitution in matters of property and of honor must take
place; the duties of individuals according to their different stations,
occupations, and obligations; (6) what powers belong to him, what limits
there are to these powers, the _casus reservati_, and ecclesiastical
censures; (7) how the disposition of the penitent may be recognized, what
means of amendment he should and must prescribe, what penance he can or
must impose.[717]

II. The confessor, however, is not obliged to possess a _scientia
eminens_ (or _exquisita_) so as to be able to pronounce the right
decision at once in every question which occurs. What the theologians
call a _scientia mediocris_ suffices; that is, he must know, but know
thoroughly and well, cases of more usual occurrence, and in more
difficult things _saltem prudenter dubitare_; that is, he must know,
in a given case, that a difficulty exists and what the difficulty is,
and that he should obtain information before he decides. He must also
be acquainted with good books which he may consult, and, finally, he
must, when necessary, seek guidance from well-informed men. What Lacroix
writes (l. c.) upon this point is worthy of attention: “However well
informed a confessor may seem to be, it is not well to solve intricate
questions at once, especially in cases of obstacles to marriage, simony,
or restitution; in such cases you must rather tell the penitent that you
do not dare to decide the matter at once, in view of its difficulty,
and request him to wait a little while. By doing so, the confessor will
not lose the esteem of the penitent; on the contrary, the latter will
understand that he takes the matter conscientiously and seriously,
and will place all the more confidence in the confessor’s decision,
whereas scruples frequently remain when a decision is given quickly
and without specifying the grounds for it. In this way errors will be
avoided. This exhortation applies especially to confessors who are not
very well instructed, but who absolve and give dispensations in all
possible directions, the more confidently the less their ignorance
permits them to entertain a doubt.” And to this the learned author adds
the following remark: “Moreover, a _mediocris_, but _solida doctrina_,
is more useful than a _summa et exquisita cognitio_ when the latter
is not united to prudence and discretion. For those who have no sober
judgment treat everything with such theological subtlety that they often
involve themselves and others in scruples and other difficulties; it is,
therefore, better to adapt one’s self in such questions to the usage of
the Church and of prudent confessors.”

The confessor must obtain this knowledge and conserve it (_a_) by serious
study of moral theology. _Continuous_ study is necessary; for as moral
theology embraces such various matters, they would in time be forgotten
unless recalled to memory by repeated study.[718] The Roman Ritual
admonishes confessors to acquire the greatest possible knowledge and
wisdom, by zealous prayer to God, as well as by the study of approved
authors and the prudent counsel of experienced men.[719] And Benedict XIV
says in his Constitution “Apostolica” (26 June, 1749), n. 21: “It were,
indeed, to be desired that every confessor should possess that degree
of knowledge which is called _eminens_, but as this is the gift of a
few only, it is absolutely necessary that each one should be furnished
with at least competent knowledge.” St. Alphonsus gives the reason for
this when he says:[720] “We know well that the sacramental confessions
will not produce the fruit which we expect and desire, if they are not
heard by blameless, learned priests, and priests well instructed in the
salutary doctrines of the Church.”

(_b_) The confessor would err if, as confessor, he should wish to
dispense with the study of dogmatic theology. For the confessional is
the place in which he who is wavering in faith must be instructed and
confirmed; it is precisely in the guidance of souls that the Christian
moral law is shown to be the outcome of the doctrine of faith; the dogmas
of the Church supply the strongest motives for amendment and a holy life;
it is in the minds that have grasped with full and enthusiastic hold the
Church’s doctrines in whom we find that masterly authority and certainty
to which the soul gladly submits; and, without this, a ministry is
exposed to thousands and thousands of errors in the decision of questions
of conscience. “Give me a soul thoroughly firm in faith, and in that
faith the soul finds, as if spontaneously, its rule of life: _Justus ex
fide vivit_. A priest imbued with his Church’s teaching is as a bright
star leading others on the right road.”[721]

(_c_) In addition to dogma and moral the confessor needs a third
science—and this we may call the science of the saints, the doctrine of
Christian virtues or perfection. It is not foreign to moral theology;
it properly belongs to it as a part to the whole. At the Synod of
Westminster, in the year 1873, Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham spoke of
this science as follows: “Moral theology has two branches: the first
is occupied with the right _judgment of sins_; the second aims at the
_practice of virtue_. As a science, the former is much more developed
than the latter; the former enables the priest to become a judge; it
deals with the Commandments of God, the duties of individual classes; it
draws the boundary line between what is sin and what is not sin, what is
of obligation and what is not of obligation. This is moral theology;
if its rules are applied to individual cases, we have casuistry. The
second science is called the science of the saints, asceticism, and it
makes the priest a guide of souls on _the road to perfection_. While
the first is more cultivated in the schools, the latter is left more to
the individual’s zeal and devotion. Yet the science of perfection is
necessary; for that which is known in scientific form makes a deeper
impression. There is great danger in cultivating the former without the
latter. If, in the discharge of his office as judge, a man does not cast
his eyes upward, he judges of sin and duty according to the standards of
lawfulness and not according to the light of perfection which must guide
us.”

III. An extensive knowledge is not necessary to all confessors; the
necessary knowledge must rather be _relative_; that is, adapted to the
condition of the penitents who come to confess. He, therefore, who
hears confessions at a place to which penitents of various stations,
professions, and circumstances, with various degrees of education resort,
must possess much greater, more comprehensive, knowledge, than another
priest who only hears the confessions of illiterate, simple people.
Although a priest who is conscious of his ignorance, or of his defective
knowledge of moral theology, and yet hears confessions, is, as St.
Alphonsus says, _in statu damnationis_, there may be cases in which an
ignorant confessor can and must hear confessions, namely, in cases of
extreme necessity, and when no other priest is present, thus:—

(_a_) In _the hour of death_, when a better-informed confessor is
wanting; (_b_) in any similar case of necessity, for instance, when
Christians are the captives of infidels and can only obtain an ignorant,
unlearned confessor—this situation being rightly regarded as “_necessitas
moraliter extrema_.”[722] “On these grounds Superiors may frequently be
excused who appoint priests not well instructed to little parishes in the
country; this they generally do because they have none better instructed
to send to these parishes. As provision cannot be otherwise made for
such places, it is better that they should have a confessor who is not
well instructed than none at all. The bishop, however, must remind such
a priest of his lack of knowledge, and admonish him to acquire, as his
duty strictly requires him to do, better knowledge, in order that he may
well discharge his office as confessor. _This duty is always incumbent
on the parish priest_, even when, in view of the necessitous state of a
flock, a bishop may be forced to intrust a parish to a priest who is not
sufficiently instructed. The same applies to other priests in charge of
souls.”[723] Nevertheless, it must be the most serious concern of every
bishop to procure well-trained and educated priests.

IV. If a priest is in doubt as to whether he possesses the requisite
knowledge for discharging the office of confessor, he can rest content
with the judgment of his Superior, if the latter is sufficiently
informed of his education and capacity by means of the examination
for approbation, or some other theological test, or in consequence of
long intercourse with him, or has been informed concerning it by some
other prudent man. Of itself, _the approbation which he has received
cannot satisfy a priest, nor excuse the confessor who is conscious of
his defective knowledge_; for the approbation presupposes the necessary
knowledge but does not impart it. St. Alphonsus teaches—in agreement with
all authors: “A confessor who is not conscious of being quite incapable
of hearing confessions, is justified in contenting himself with the
judgment of his Superior, and, indeed, must be so; to rely upon the
approbation of the bishop, and then believe that one is freed from study,
is presumption.”[724] Moreover, the Church has never tired of admonishing
confessors in the strongest terms, of their strict duty to acquire and
maintain the knowledge requisite for the administration of the Sacrament
of Penance; for an ignorant confessor causes terrible ruin and burdens
himself with a dreadful responsibility.

V. The knowledge of the confessor must be _practical_ in order to further
the salvation of souls and solve the _casus conscientiæ_ which occur. On
this point St. Alphonsus expresses himself in the following manner: “Many
who pride themselves on being instructed and distinguished theologians
disdain to read the moralists; they call them casuists, an opprobrious
name in their estimation. They say that, in order to hear confessions
properly, it is sufficient to know the general moral principles by which
all individual cases can be solved. Who denies that all cases must be
solved by principles? The difficulty lies in applying the principles to
individual cases complicated with so many circumstances. This cannot
be done without carefully weighing the grounds on both sides. Here the
moralists step in to solve the difficulty; they seek to explain by what
principles the many particular cases must be solved. Moreover, there are
in our days so many positive laws, Bulls, and decrees, with which we
can only become acquainted through the study of the casuists who have
collected and classified them, as the different subjects require. The
more recent the moralists are, therefore, the more useful are they in
comparison with the earlier ones (in this respect, of course). The author
of the work _Instructio pro novis Confessariis_ (p. 1, n. 18) rightly
says that with regard to many theologians the more deeply versed they are
in the speculative science, the more ignorant they are of moral, which,
as Gerson writes, is the most difficult of all; and however familiar any
one may be with it, he will always be obliged to add to his information.
The learned Sperelli[725] likewise says, that those confessors who wholly
give themselves up to the study of scholastic theology, in the belief
that time devoted to the study of moral is wasted, are in great error,
for they can no longer distinguish sin from sin; and this, he says, is
an error which involves confessors and penitents in eternal ruin.”[726]

With these words, the sainted teacher demonstrates the necessity of the
study of theological casuistry. At the same time he shows also (and that
_a fortiori_) the necessity of practical instruction concerning the
administration of the Sacrament of Penance, as in this the confessor
learns the method of hearing confessions rightly and with fruit.

VI. Nothing can supply the defect of learning in the confessor. 1. It
is true that tact and a natural sagacity greatly assist the confessor,
but without solid knowledge this natural capacity profits him nothing,
but rather often exposes him to the danger of lightly deciding a
matter against all principles of sound doctrine. But he who does not
possess this innate sagacity must the more study how casuists decide
cases, in order to sharpen his judgment and learn the application of
principles.[727]

2. Nor can experience or long years of practice in the confessional
supply the place of learning. By experience alone one cannot learn what
is allowed and what is not allowed, still less how consciences are to
be guided; “for experience which is not based upon knowledge is nothing
else than a long custom of erring,”[728] and worse than the condition
of a still inexperienced but well-instructed confessor is that of a
gray-haired, unlearned one, who, trusting in his experience, errs in
his own judgment. Solid knowledge and experience must, therefore, be
united in an able confessor. A long practice without erudition in the
confessional is rather a danger than a help.

As an excuse for not studying moral theology, many confessors contend
that: Practice and theory are different things. If by this is meant
that it is far more difficult to put in practice the rules for the
administration of the Sacrament of Penance than to learn them, this
contention is right and just, and the deduction is that even a very
well-informed confessor must not trust to his own insight, but must
unceasingly implore light from on high. But if the above argument is to
be understood (as ignorant confessors use it) to mean that something
which is true in theory is in practice not always true, and that it is
impossible always to observe the rules taught by theology, this would
be a very pernicious error. If this were true, souls would be no longer
led by the doctrine approved in the Church, but by the intelligence or
the arbitrary will of the individual confessors. Practice is nothing
else than the application of certain rules. How could a confessor
understand the practical art of hearing confessions without possessing
the theoretical science which consists in a knowledge of the rules? Right
practice in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance is nothing
else than right application of rules.[729]

St. Alphonsus puts the question: Must a simple priest qualify himself
for hearing confessions by the study of moral theology, if he sees that
(in his diocese) there is a great want of confessors? And he answers in
the affirmative, “as Christ appointed priests expressly for the purpose
of saving souls, and the salvation of souls is chiefly effected by the
holy Sacrament of Penance. Accordingly, how can a priest be pronounced
free from sin who, out of negligence, does not hear confessions, or does
not qualify himself to do so when he sees great need for it—how will
such a one avoid the reproaches of the Lord, or escape the punishments
with which He threatens the idle servant? Such priests must not say that
they did their duty if they helped souls in another way, by instruction,
by prayer, by exhortation; that, I say, is not enough, because they
must help their neighbor in that which is necessary to his salvation.
Nor must it be said that hearing confessions is a duty of charity, and
that charity does not bind under such great difficulty as is involved in
undertaking the labor which the acquirement of the knowledge necessary
for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance entails. For it may be
answered that even if hearing confessions is a duty of charity, it is of
the essence of the sacerdotal office, and incumbent on every priest when
necessity requires it.”[730]


55. The Prudence of the Confessor.

In addition to knowledge the confessor must possess great prudence, as
his office is beset with difficulties and dangers.

The necessity for prudence in the confessor is shown in the very meaning
of the word; for prudence is nothing else than the good use and the right
application of principles and rules in any business, or, according to
the Angelic Doctor, the right application of general principles to the
individual case.[731] It is, therefore, called the right way of acting.
It is not, of course, the prudence of the world and the flesh which we
have here in view, that prudence which, before God, is folly (1 Cor. iii.
19), which sacrifices higher things for earthly profit; nor is it human
respect, which in weakness and fear, abandons principles for a momentary
success (_prudentia diabolica_, Jac. iii. 15), but the _supernatural
virtue_ of prudence,[732] which springs like a flower from sanctifying
grace and the love of God; which, in Confirmation, the Holy Ghost
bestows for individual use, and which is renewed for the public good in
the ordination of the priest: this is that prudence which our divine
Saviour recommended to His disciples, when He said to them: “_Estote
prudentes sicut serpentes._”[733] Now the office of the confessor is of
a thoroughly practical nature, difficult, and of the highest importance,
as, in the exercise of it, he may benefit or injure both himself and
others, according as his conduct is prudent or imprudent. Prudence,
therefore, not less than knowledge, is necessary to the confessor.
Prudence is the queen of the virtues, which counsels well, judges
rightly, and effectually conducts to the goal proposed.[734]

The confessor must be prudent both towards the _penitent_ and towards
_himself_, that he may injure neither the penitent nor himself, nor
administer his office to the detriment of religion and the scandal of
others.

According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus,[735] the confessor must
conduct himself prudently towards the penitent, especially in the
following points:—

(1) _In the questions_ which he puts to the penitent, so as only to ask
what is suited to the station, age, and condition of the penitent, and so
as not to teach him sins which he did not know; as already remarked, very
special care is necessary in questions concerning the sixth commandment;
(2) _in the instructions_ which he gives the penitent; instructing him
or preserving a discreet silence and leaving him in his good faith,
as the welfare of the penitent may demand (Praxis, n. 8, 9); (3) _in
prescribing the means of amendment_, so that these latter may be adapted
to the state of the penitent’s soul and to his circumstances (Praxis, n.
15); (4) _in imposing sacramental penance_, so that, as above stated,
it may correspond with the penitent’s sins and his station (Praxis, n.
11, 12); (5) _in giving, deferring, or refusing absolution_ (Praxis, n.
10, 63-77); (6) _in the choice of opinions_, in case of the existence of
probable opinions for and against a point, whether he must choose the
severer or the milder decision for the penitent in question[736] (Praxis,
n. 114); (7) _in preserving the seal of the confessional_, so as to
avoid every danger of breaking it either directly or indirectly (Praxis,
n. 117); (8) _in the treatment of very difficult and complicated
questions_, carefully weighing all the circumstances, and, when
necessary, asking the penitent for time, in order to seek advice from
books or learned men (Praxis, n. 194).

The confessor must be prudent with regard to himself, that: (1) He may
not prepare for himself temptation against holy purity in questioning
and investigating the circumstances of sins, that he may not injure his
good name, may not bring the office of the confessor into disrepute, may
not render the institution of the confessional odious; (2) _in vitando
aspectu fœminarum, juniorum præcipue et, nisi crates interfecta sit,
manus certe cum sudario intercedat_ (Praxis, n. 119); and (3), by being
_especially careful with regard to women_, being particular to avoid all
superfluous talk, all familiarity, accepting no presents from them, not
visiting them without necessity at their homes, treating younger ones
with severity rather than leniency. These measures of precaution the
confessor must adopt in the case of pious persons especially, _quibuscum
est periculum majoris adhæsionis_ (Praxis, n. 119-120).[737] But how
shall he obtain this prudence from which so many of the good effects of
the Sacrament depend? By study, by circumspection, by experience, by
docility, and purity of intention, the confessor can acquire for himself
the necessary prudence, assisted, of course, by divine grace. 1. By
study, for prudence derives its decisions and its opportune remedies from
science. 2. By circumspection, by considering the different circumstances
of the person and the case. This circumspection will enable the confessor
to reveal the deceptive motives of passion and vice, to suggest means
for the removal of obstacles in the way of amendment, to foresee and
provide against the detriment which may ensue. The gift of right judgment
is conferred upon us by God; maturity of judgment is acquired with age;
but those who have not been richly endowed by nature can sharpen their
judgment by the study of moral and pastoral theology and by taking
counsel of wiser men. 3. By experience, which teaches the confessor what
commonly occurs in practice, shows him how he must question, when he
must instruct the penitent or leave him _in bona fide_, how he finds his
way to the heart of the penitent, when he must show special indulgence,
how to judge rightly of the penitent’s disposition and to find the
proper remedies. Practical experience is thus an excellent school. 4. By
docility, which is especially necessary for young confessors; it teaches
them to mistrust themselves and to apply often to learned and experienced
confessors for advice, thus profiting by the experience of others. Hence
Benedict XIV advises confessors to beware of answering _divinando_ when
a more difficult or a new case is brought before them. On the contrary,
they should not decide the matter till after mature consideration;
moreover, they should consult the theologians whose teaching is solid and
sound.[738] 5. Purity of intention, that is the sole desire to please
God, and to lead men to salvation. “It is certain that the Christian
prudence of a confessor will be the greater, the greater is his love,
and that, in general, the mind is stimulated by the intention or the
desire to attain the end. The more a man is inflamed with the desire
of a certain good, the more zealous is he in his search for the means
of obtaining it, the more careful will he be in choosing the more
suitable means, the more cautious will he be to omit anything that may
be useful for his purpose, the more determined will he be in overcoming
all difficulties, so as to gain that on which he has set his mind. A
confessor who, with pure intention, seeks only God and the salvation of
souls, will labor with fruit.”[739]


ARTICLE II

DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR DURING CONFESSION


56. The Duty of instructing and exhorting the Penitent—Munus Doctoris.

The confessor will find many penitents either ignorant or under the
influence of error. This ignorance may refer to some point connected
with the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, the general duties of
a Christian life, or some particular duty. The duty of the confessor
to instruct the ignorant penitent varies with the subject on which
the ignorance exists. Hence: I. The confessor is _always_ obliged at
once to instruct the penitent who is ignorant of something which he
must _hic et nunc_ know in order to receive validly the Sacrament of
Penance, or to receive _licite_ the Holy Eucharist. 1. The confessor
must therefore instruct penitents who are ignorant of the truths which
they, _necessitate medii sive certo sive probabiliter_, ought to know and
believe, and this instruction must be given before the administration of
absolution.[740]

Moreover, the confessor must, before giving absolution, instruct the
penitent if he does not know how to make an act of contrition and purpose
of amendment. These instructions must also, of course, be imparted when
the penitent is not responsible for his ignorance; therefore, in every
case, because the penitent is incapable of receiving the Sacrament
in such a state of ignorance.[741] The confessor might send away a
penitent ignorant of these truths, imposing upon him the duty of first
obtaining instruction from some competent person or the parish priest;
but if there is no good reason to hope that he would fulfill this duty,
the instruction must be given concisely in the confessional, and this
should nowadays be done in most cases of the kind. 2. If the penitent is
ignorant concerning the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the confessor must
certainly instruct him upon this point before allowing him to receive
holy communion.

It is, however, not necessary to the valid reception of absolution
that the penitent should retain all these truths in his memory; it
is sufficient that he substantially understands them and makes an
act of faith which the confessor recites to him. The confessor must
impose upon such penitents the duty of subsequently obtaining fuller
instruction.[742] It is also the duty of the confessor to ascertain
whether they know these truths. Whenever he thinks it probable that
a penitent does not know them, he must ask. He need not, as a rule,
ask those who were brought up as children in a pious and Christian
fashion. But others, who received Christian instruction in their
youth, and have subsequently neglected sermons and instructions, must
certainly be questioned, and this especially applies to our times,
when so many Christians, particularly men (but also not a few women),
absent themselves for a long time from sermons and neglect every other
kind of Christian instruction; such people, even when well educated
and instructed in worldly matters, are ignorant, _admodum rudes_, in
religion, having forgotten nearly all they had formerly learnt. In the
cares, labors, and pleasures of life, and frequently under the influence
of pernicious and irreligious literature, they have perhaps become
strongly infected with irreligion or heresy. If the penitents are such
that one could not ask if they are ignorant of these truths without
causing them confusion, the confessor might of his own accord explain
what is most essential, and, in some way, move the penitents to an act of
faith.[743]

II. If the penitent is ignorant of the truths of Christian doctrine and
the precepts of Christian life, especially of those truths which the
Christian must know and believe _necessitate præcepti_, the confessor
must first of all inquire if the penitent is responsible for this
ignorance or not. If he is, he can be absolved, but he must be sorry
for, and confess, his neglect, and make a firm resolution to learn these
truths; and if he does not keep his promise, absolution must, as a rule,
be refused to him till he has performed his duty. If he is ignorant by
no fault of his own, he can be absolved, but he must promise to obtain
instruction.[744] If the confessor is, at the same time, the pastor of
such penitents, he is bound, _ex officio_, or in justice, to provide them
with opportunities for acquiring better instruction; if he is not their
parish priest, he is not strictly bound in duty to do so, though he may
be bound _ex charitate_, but he is always bound to inform the penitent
as to his duty of becoming better instructed, and as to the sin of
negligence of which he is guilty if the ignorance is culpable, and which
he must confess.

III. If the penitent is ignorant of particular duties, the confessor must
primarily consider the spiritual welfare of the penitent in deciding
whether he shall instruct him or not; but this spiritual welfare must be
taken in its full sense as comprising, therefore, the individual welfare
of the penitent himself, and also the general welfare for which he has to
provide. This instruction must, however, be given with prudence, for fear
of causing more harm than good to the penitent. The following obligations
of the penitent are here chiefly in question: the duties of his station
in life, the duty of making restitution (honor, good name, property), of
avoiding dangerous occasions, of reconciliation, of removing scandal,
and of practicing almsgiving.[745] When he considers it necessary and
appropriate, the confessor must, with special prudence, instruct persons
engaged to be married concerning their conduct in that state. It may also
be opportune to inform a penitent that he is not bound to fast or to
abstain, so that he may not, from ignorance, believe that he commits sin
where there is no sin at all. This duty of instructing the penitent must
now be somewhat more clearly considered and particularized.

The confessor must instruct or exhort:—

1. When the ignorance of the penitent is not invincible, or when he is
responsible for it (_vincibilis seu culpabilis_); when the penitent is
in such a state of doubt concerning some duty that there can no longer
be a question of _bona fides_. When a person is in such ignorance, he is
already in a state of sin, or in immediate danger of formal sin, because
he acts under reasonable doubt or culpable ignorance. The exhortation,
therefore, so far from doing harm, can only result in good, as it will
afterwards produce the desired fruit. When, therefore, the penitent,
not out of mere scrupulosity, but in consequence of a serious doubt,
questions the confessor about some duty, the latter must instruct him.
In this case where the penitent has a substantial doubt and he is bound
to remove it, the confessor’s duty is to tell him the truth; moreover,
it is plain that the penitent is disposed to act in accordance with the
confessor’s answer. If, however, the confessor thinks, in an exceptional
case, that the penitent should not know the whole truth, he need say
nothing more in reply to the penitent than what is necessary.[746] If,
for instance, a person bound by a vow of chastity asks if the marriage
which he has contracted without a dispensation is invalid on account of
the vow, let him answer in the negative, but be silent about the _debitum
conjugale_; if he asks whether he may render the _debitum_, let the
confessor answer in the affirmative, and be silent about demanding the
_debitum_.

2. When the penitent is ignorant of things which cannot long escape his
knowledge, and when his ignorance, still _invincibilis et inculpabilis_,
will soon cease to be so and become _culpabilis_, especially where a
vice is growing with the lapse of time and its extirpation becomes more
difficult—in such case the confessor must, _as a rule_, instruct and
exhort the penitent at once; for instance, when young people who have
not yet attained to puberty, begin to contract a _habitus pollutionis_,
they must be seriously warned to desist from their dangerous and sinful
practice, even when they are perhaps in _bona fide_. But in this the
confessor must weigh well the circumstances, considering whether,
perhaps, for the time being, a very heavy burden is not being imposed
upon the penitent, which he will scarcely be able to bear, but which will
very soon cease. In this case silence would be preferable.

3. If the ignorance is _invincibilis_, but a good result may be hoped
from the exhortation, in this case the confessor must exhort even when in
consequence a difficulty arises for the penitent, or when it is foreseen
that the exhortation will certainly not do harm. For a material violation
of a law must also be avoided, when this can be done without danger of
a greater evil. The confessor must not fail, therefore, to admonish,
although he foresees that the penitent will not immediately obey, if he
has hopes that he will soon do so. For it may happen that a penitent,
when he has learnt the truth, does not at first obey, but when he has
become calmer, after serious reflection, amends his life.[747] If the
confessor sees that the penitent does not receive the exhortation well
at the time, but that he will receive it better at some more seasonable
moment, he must defer it to a later occasion. If there is no likelihood
of good resulting from the exhortation, the confessor, according to the
general and approved teaching of theologians, is bound, _per se loquendo_
(that is, unless there is some other motive, such as regard for the
_bonum publicum_), to omit the exhortation, and to leave the penitent in
his _bona fide_.

When, therefore, the confessor learns in the course of the confession
that the penitent has contracted an invalid marriage through some secret
impediment, and danger of disgrace, scandal, or incontinence is to be
feared from disclosing to him the nullity of the marriage, he must be
silent on the subject of the invalidity, and leave the penitent _in
bona fide_ until he has obtained a dispensation. And in the case where
he could not disclose the nullity of the marriage at all without being
obliged to face these difficulties, he should ask for a _sanatio in
radice_, and conceal everything from the penitent. In such a case the
confessor can even bind in duty the putative husband (or wife) who
refuses the _debitum conjugale_, to render it; for if the husband (or
wife) is convinced that he (or she) is living in lawful matrimony, he (or
she) is bound in conscience to render the _debitum_. But the confessor
will act more safely by telling the penitent quite in a general way that
married people are bound to render the _debitum_, and that they cannot be
absolved if they do not perform their duty.[748]

The confessor must not admonish the penitent to make restitution when
he foresees that the penitent (who believes, _bona fide_, that he is
not bound to make restitution) will not obey; for such admonition would
injure the penitent, and not benefit the person to whom he is bound to
make the restitution; indeed, the confessor must be more concerned to
avert spiritual injury from the penitent than temporal injury from
another. Nevertheless, the confessor must not lightly presume that his
admonition will not be obeyed.[749]

Instruction or admonition must also be omitted if there is reasonable
fear that scandal, disgrace, quarrels, and other serious inconvenience
will arise; for it is better to provide against formal sins in others
than material sins in the penitent. For instance, if a marriage is
invalid, and the parties are not aware of the fact, the confessor could
inform the wife of it without danger, whereas serious difficulties might
be caused by disclosing it to the husband.

If a marriage is to be contracted, and, through the confession of the
penitent, the confessor discovers an _impedimentum dirimens_, but of
which the penitent is _invincibiliter_ ignorant, the confessor is, as
a rule, bound to instruct the penitent concerning it, and to admonish
him either to refrain from contracting the marriage, or to obtain a
dispensation before contracting it. Great inconveniences frequently arise
from an invalid marriage, for the invalidity is often disclosed later
on, and in such a case the penitent is exposed to no small danger of
committing actual sin. If, however, no good result can be expected from
revealing the defect, the confessor would be obliged to abstain from
admonishing till he himself has obtained a dispensation, for it is better
to permit a material sin than to furnish occasion for formal sin.[750]
If, on the day before the marriage, or on the day itself, when everything
is prepared, and the wedding could not be stopped without scandal and
disgrace, the bride or bridegroom reveals to the confessor a secret
impediment, a dispensation must be obtained from the bishop, if there
is time to do so, and the bishop can, according to the _communissima
et probabilissima sententia_, dispense in such a case, as from other
laws, when recourse to the Pope is impossible, and there is danger in
delay. Indeed, according to the probable opinion of many theologians,
the bishop can also delegate this power universally as a _potestas
ordinaria_, to others, for all cases that occur. But if the confessor
cannot apply to the bishop, the parish priest or the confessor may, as
some teach (and St. Alphonsus adds: “not without ground”), declare _ex
Epikeia_, that the law of the impediment in question does not bind in the
particular case, because it is detrimental; but, in order to be safe,
and to preserve the reverence due to the commandment of the Church,
application to the Sacred Penitentiary, or to the Ordinary, must be made
as soon as possible to obtain a dispensation.[751]

In cases of doubt as to whether the admonition will do good or harm, it
should be omitted, because it is better to guard against formal sins than
material. But if it is more probable that the admonition will benefit,
it must be given, and Viva and Roncaglia rightly remark that we must not
easily conclude that the penitent would not obey after having learnt the
truth.[752]

The objection might be raised that the penitent who should refuse to
obey the exhortation of his confessor would not be in good disposition,
and, therefore, could not receive absolution. St. Alphonsus disposes
of this objection by pointing out that the confessor must consider the
disposition in which the penitent actually is while he is still ignorant
of his obligation, and not the state of mind in which it is presumed
that he would be after he had been admonished about it. As it is not
allowable to expose one’s neighbor to a danger to which it is anticipated
that he will succumb, so the confessor must not expose a penitent to the
danger of refusing to fulfill a duty by instructing him about it; he must
rather leave the penitent in material sin, because a _peccatum formale_
outweighs all _peccata materialia_.[753]

4. The confessor must speak when the ignorance of the penitent concerns
the _prima principia moralia_ or the _proximas conclusiones_ deduced from
them; for such ignorance is either not actually existent, or will not
be for long _invincibilis_, and is generally hurtful to the penitent.
Especially urgent is the duty of admonishing the penitent when omitting
to do so would confirm him in a sinful habit which he would probably find
great difficulty in overcoming later.

5. Moreover, admonition must be given when the ignorance touches the duty
of giving up a gravely sinful immediate occasion, as such ignorance tends
to the ruin of the penitent, by rendering easier the fall into formal sin.

6. The penitent must be admonished even when he is not disposed, if the
confessor’s silence were to bring harm to the community, by scandal, for
instance, to the faithful. For if the confessor is bound to be chiefly
concerned about the salvation of the penitent, he is also bound, as
a member of Christian society and its servant, to prefer the _bonum
commune_ to the _bonum privatum_ of the penitent.[754] The fact that
the admonition is _hic et nunc_ fruitless or that the penitent takes
offense at it is not a valid objection, for such a penitent will amend
the more easily when he sees that no other priest will absolve him,
and in the meantime the scandal will cease, for the faithful will see
that the penitent in question is not admitted to the Sacraments. Hence
princes, officials, bishops, prelates, parish priests, employers, who
neglect their duties towards their subordinates, must be instructed
and exhorted. For we may not lightly presume that their ignorance is
_invincibilis_, since everybody ought to know the duties of his office,
and ignorance of them, even when _invincibilis_, always tends to the
injury of the community, as others may easily think they are justified
in imitating what they see their superiors doing. Therefore, as Benedict
XIV teaches,[755] those are to be instructed concerning their duties who
frequently receive the holy Sacraments, in order that others may not be
led to believe that wrongdoing is allowable, because they see it done by
these and done with impunity. And Lugo adds that when the confessor has
reasonable doubts as to whether such penitents perform their duties, he
is bound to ask them if they are faithful to them.[756]

7. The confessor must admonish when, on account of special circumstances,
his silence would be equivalent to a positively false answer.

8. A penitent must always be admonished when, in consequence of a false
conscience, he believes something to be a sin which is none, or believes
it to be a greater sin than is really the case. Moreover, instruction
ought not to be withheld even though it afford an occasion to the
penitent of sinning more frequently, as might happen when he learns
that a sin which he believed _conscientia erronea_ to be mortal is only
venial. Nevertheless, the confessor must consider whether something
which _per se_ is a venial sin, may not, in view of the circumstances of
scandal, danger, etc., become a grave sin.

In conclusion we will add a remark of St. Alphonsus, namely, that
confessors act imprudently by instructing _uneducated_ penitents
concerning the special and greater sinfulness imparted by circumstances
to wicked acts; for instance, that adultery is a greater sin than
impurity among unmarried persons, that incest is committed when relatives
are guilty of impurity with each other. But this instruction must be
given when there is reason for believing that the knowledge of the
greater sinfulness will effectually prevent the sin.[757]

Sometimes the confessor is asked by his penitents for instruction and
advice in matters affecting the welfare of the soul. Although the
confessor must be careful not to advise and help in all possible worldly
matters, he must not refuse to be the adviser and helper of his penitent
in matters pertaining to the salvation of souls. This is a part of his
duty. And to whom should a penitent turn in such circumstances if not
to the confessor who knows the state of his soul and his entire life?
But if the confessor has to give advice and instruction, let him judge
the matter in the light of faith, and in accordance with the principles
of Christian morality, not according to a certain empirical wisdom
and worldly prudence, and not according to his subjective opinion. In
important matters let him, therefore, deliberate thoroughly, ask help of
God through the Mother of Good Counsel, and, when necessary, seek advice
at the hands of experienced and prudent men. Then let him pronounce his
decision clearly and definitely.


57. The Duty of suggesting Remedies against Relapse (the Confessor as
Physician).

Sins are justly described as wounds of the soul, the cure of which is
to be sought in the Sacrament of Penance. It is certainly the first
and highest function of the minister of the Sacrament to reconcile the
sinner to God by canceling his sins; but there remains another task of
great significance, viz. to keep the penitent—the sinner now reconciled
to God—faithful to his duty and to his promises, and to preserve him
from new sins. For the confessor is also the spiritual physician of the
penitent. And as it is the duty of the bodily physician to study the
malady and its causes, and then to prescribe remedies, so the physician
of the soul must first know the sins of the penitent, their causes and
gravity, and then provide the remedies, by the conscientious application
of which relapse into sin may be prevented. In order to discharge his
duty as physician of the soul, the confessor must, therefore, first
ascertain if the penitent has a habit of sinning, if he lives in
immediate occasion of sin, he must question him as to the time and the
place of the sin, the persons with whom he has sinned, and under what
circumstances he has usually been led into sin. “Herein many confessors
fail,” says St. Alphonsus, “and the ruin of many souls results from it;
for by omitting such questions, the confessor is unable to find out if
the penitent is a relapsing sinner, and, therefore, cannot prescribe
suitable means for eradicating the sinful habit and avoiding the
occasion.”[758]

Those confessors are gravely wanting in their duty who content themselves
with remitting the sins confessed, but do not trouble about the
preservation of the converted sinner, the new life and the cure of the
penitent’s sickness; hence it happens that persons who are enslaved by
a sinful habit very soon fall from the new life of grace, and, in the
words of Our Saviour, the state of the relapsing sinner is worse than his
former state, and the confessor thus shares in his guilt.[759]

The confessor’s work as a judge of the sins and disposition of the
penitent places him in a position of peculiar advantage for discharging
his duty as physician. But in order to effect a thorough cure of these
wounds of the soul, he must, as we have seen above, be acquainted with
the whole moral state of the penitent; hence he must not confine himself
to know if the sin was mortal or venial, a sin of some special occasion,
an habitual sin, or one of relapse; he must also ascertain if his
penitent, in matters of religion, is instructed or ignorant, if he is on
the way of improvement, if his good will has become strengthened by the
grace of God and by resistance to evil, or is still weak and vacillating.

The confessor must make it his special business to learn the penitent’s
predominant passion, and the prevailing vices connected with it. The
predominant passion is an habitual tendency, more or less violent, to
some sin, which exercises a certain mastery over the soul, and has other
evil inclinations in its service. Such predominant passions are: the lust
of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and pride; also the seven capital
sins. They have their root partly in original sin, partly in perverse
education, partly in repeated sinning, partly in exterior influences.
Now it will not avail much to combat the individual sins; their root—the
sinful passion—must be torn out. It is like a poisonous growth which is
always striking deeper roots into the human soul, and ever putting forth
fresh shoots in the individual sins. This baneful root must be removed,
and with it its noxious growth of sin will also be removed.

To this end the predominant passion must first be diagnosed, and this
is generally a very difficult matter. There are passions, such as
avarice, covetousness, pride, intemperance, sloth, which are seldom
recognized as sins by the penitent, and even take the appearance of
virtue. In acquiring this knowledge, which is as necessary as it is
difficult, the confessor must help his penitent by suggesting _careful,
serious examination of conscience_, especially the use of the particular
examination of conscience; _the observation of the causes, the motives,
and the occasions of sin_. Finally, he should point out the necessity
of _illuminating grace_, which the penitent obtains by earnest prayer.
The confessor himself must try to discover this predominant passion by
suitable questions, by examining the sins which have been confessed, and
the moral condition of the penitent. The difficulty of his task must
not deter him, for its successful accomplishment will greatly effect
the amendment and cure of the penitent. Earnest prayer for light, the
intention only of advancing the glory of God and the salvation of the
penitent, joined to true zeal for souls, will assuredly lead the man of
prayer and of interior life to the desired knowledge. Having learnt the
state of the penitent’s disease, let the confessor proceed to the cure
of it; this will primarily be effected by the abundant graces obtained
in the worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance. It must be the
confessor’s next care to dispose the penitent well, or to perfect his
dispositions, by endeavoring to move him to greater sorrow for his sins,
and to a firmer purpose of amendment. The deeper the sorrow and the more
earnest the purpose of amendment, the more lasting will be the effect of
the Sacrament for the improvement of the sinner.

The confessor must then reprove (_reprehendere_) the sinner; that is,
he must in strong and forcible language emphasize the shamefulness and
perniciousness of his sin. And St. Alphonsus teaches that the confessor
must discharge this duty of reprehension even when the penitent is one in
high position; the confessor, he says, must reflect that his words are
more efficacious than sermons.[760] This reprehension is particularly
necessary for those who seldom confess, who come burdened with many sins,
or who, from weakness of faith or attachment to creatures, manifest
little sorrow. It is _very salutary_, because the words of the confessor,
specially adapted to the penitent, are much more efficacious than those
of the preacher.[761] But let the confessor administer it with _much
prudence_, that it may really prove an effective medicine for the sick
soul—not with indignation, violence, and anger, but in sympathy and love,
in the spirit of meekness, with due regard for the penitent’s condition
and the gravity of his sins. Despondent and scrupulous penitents must be
encouraged and not cast into despair. Those who are crushed by sorrow
should be treated as Christ treated the penitent Magdalen, and as the
father treated the prodigal son.[762]

Finally, the confessor must provide the penitent with remedies against
relapse. Of such there are _general_ ones, useful against all sins, and
for all penitents; and _special_ ones applicable to special sins. The
following are general means:—

1. The most excellent general means of eradicating vice and implanting
virtue is _regular, devout, and humble prayer_. The confessor should,
therefore, earnestly admonish the penitent regularly to recite the daily
prayers of a Christian, to implore the divine grace in temptation, and if
possible, hear Mass daily. Pious penitents, who seriously aim at virtue,
should be recommended to add special devotions to the usual prayers;
such as visits to the Blessed Sacrament, a portion of the Rosary, etc.;
especially spiritual reading every day, at a fixed hour, from a suitable
book, which the confessor may specify, short ejaculatory prayers,
frequent renewal of good intention, and recollection of the presence of
God, as also a short meditation in the morning, when possible.

2. _Frequent renewal of purpose and regular examination of conscience_
are very beneficial. Therefore, the penitent should renew his good
resolutions every morning at his prayers and also during the day; to his
night prayers he should add an examination of conscience, at the same
time awakening true sorrow for all sins of the past. The confessor should
also instruct the penitent in the exercise of the special resolution, and
the _examen particulare_, and induce him to adopt these exercises, as
they are so well calculated to root out particular faults, to bring about
general improvement, and to confirm him in his striving after virtue.

3. _Frequent confession_, and the confessor should fix the time for the
penitent’s next confession; or he should determine how often he must
confess in the future, not, however, making too great demands upon him,
but requiring only what he will probably be able to perform. Let him
particularly recommend the penitent to confess as soon as possible after
relapse into mortal sin. Frequent confession must be imposed as a duty
on those who, from interior weakness, are always relapsing into the same
sins, in proportion as this proves itself to be the only efficient means
of insuring perseverance in virtue. This applies to those who have become
addicted to the _peccatum pollutionis_.

4. _Frequent reception of the holy communion_, with due preparation and
thanksgiving. True, it is not necessary to receive holy communion as
often as one confesses in order to rid one’s self of habitual sin; but
frequent, even weekly communion, is permitted for the cure of a soul much
weakened by sin, if the penitent desires it, receives it with an earnest
wish to amend, and is really, although but slowly, being converted by
this means from a life of sin. For holy communion is not only a help to
virtue, but also a remedy against sin. By increasing sanctifying grace
and holy love, by the intimate union with God which it effects, by the
wealth of grace which it brings to the soul, it effectually preserves
men from mortal sin, destroys evil inclinations, excites the desire for
virtue, and gives the strength to practice it. For penitents who already
walk in the paths of virtue, frequent communion is an aid to progress
in perfection, and assuredly _communio frequens_ eminently conduces to
perseverance and advancement in good; the confessor should, therefore,
most earnestly recommend this remedy to his penitents.

But he must not demand too much. The reception of holy communion every
three months is generally regarded as the _minimum_; but the confessor
will often be obliged to content himself with longer intervals,
especially when youths and men (and in many cases, even women also) are
concerned. When received _every month_, or at least every six or eight
weeks, holy communion is a means of keeping alive zeal for eternal
salvation and of remaining firm in a Christian life.

More frequent reception of holy communion, every fortnight, every week,
or several times during the week, is to be allowed or recommended when
the following conditions exist:—

(_a_) For weekly communion, and, if a feast occur, two communions in
the week, it is necessary that mortal sin should generally be avoided;
but if such penitents are in the habit of committing venial sins with
deliberation, and if no improvement or serious endeavor to improve
manifests itself, it is well occasionally to forbid communion to such
persons, in order to inspire them with greater fear of venial sin, and to
show them with what reverence this Sacrament must be received.

(_b_) More frequent communion in the week may be permitted and
recommended to those who are free from affection to venial sins, who do
not generally commit deliberate venial sins, who practice meditation,
mortify their senses and passions,—who, in other words, are striving
after perfection.

(_c_) Daily communion may be allowed to those who not only do not
entertain voluntary attachment to any venial sin, but who steadfastly
endeavor to advance in virtue, who gladly and diligently devote
themselves to interior prayer, who have, to a great extent, suppressed
their evil passions, and who are filled with a great longing for holy
communion. The confessor must not be too indulgent, nor, on the other
hand, too rigorous. Before permitting frequent communion to any one,
it is necessary to consider if the person is so situated as to be able
to prepare properly and to make suitable thanksgiving. It is also
recommended (1) on one day in every week, as a rule, not to receive
communion, in accordance with the practice of experienced confessors, and
(2) sometimes to forbid communion on some particular day, for some just
motive—as a trial, a mortification, or a punishment. If, later on, the
confessor perceives that, in spite of frequent communion, the penitent
makes no progress in the way of perfection, and that he cherishes in his
heart a voluntary attachment to sin, the confessor must reduce the number
of his communions.[763]

5. _Avoiding bad company and associating with good, religious men._ The
confessor must, of course, most earnestly exhort the penitent to avoid
_every_ occasion and danger of sin, especially every immediate, and more
serious, danger of sin even when it is a remote one, in so far as it is
morally possible to avoid it. The special occasions and dangers which
exist in some particular place, the confessor will learn from his own
observation, from the advice of experienced men, or the counsel of his
superiors.

6. _The reading of good books, the lives of the saints._

7. _Reflection on the eternal truths, the Life and Passion of Jesus._

8. _Frequent thought of the presence of God._

9. _Voluntary works of penance_ in punishment of relapse, which the
penitent should determine in advance. This remedy is much to be
recommended, not only against grave sins, but also against slight
defects, when one is aiming at perfection.

10. _Special devotion to the divine Heart of Jesus, to Mary, and to the
Guardian Angel._ It is better to do a little regularly, than much without
perseverance and order, according to the humor and mood of the moment.

11. _Confidence and perseverance_, even when a relapse occurs; for
nothing is more harmful than to lose courage and regard amendment as
too difficult and impossible on account of frequent relapses. This mood
generally arises from wrong application of remedies, and from a certain
secret pride. Therefore, wholly distrusting his own powers, the penitent
must put all his confidence in God.[764]

The confessor should not content himself with indicating remedies for the
penitent; he must choose and impose them with reference to the latter’s
moral sickness, his temptations and occasions of sinning, and his station
in life; if necessary he must also instruct him as to their application.

Moreover, there are special remedies for different vices.

1. _Against pride_, the confessor should recommend:—

(_a_) The following considerations—what man is of himself, that he has
received all from God, that he has already committed so many sins; his
poverty and weakness, his inconstancy, his ingratitude and infidelity
towards God.

(_b_) The example of Christ, who so deeply humbled Himself for love of
us, who expressly and earnestly invites us to imitate His humility; on
the other hand, that pride is the sin of Satan.

(_c_) The promises held out to humility, and the punishment of the proud.
“God resists the proud, and gives His grace to the humble.” (St. James
iv. 6.) “The prayer of the humble man pierceth the clouds.” (Eccl. xxxv.
21.)

(_d_) Finally, he should remind him that, to obtain humility, he must
humble himself, hence he must avoid rather than seek the praise of men,
and, so far as his position allows, forego outward marks of distinction,
etc.

2. _Against avarice_ (_covetousness_):—

(_a_) The utterances of Holy Writ against the avaricious and the
covetous. (Eccl. x. 9.) “There is not a more wicked thing than to love
money, for such a one setteth even his own soul for sale.” The parable
of the rich man. (St. Luke xviii. 25.) “It is easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven.”

(_b_) Earthly goods can never fully satisfy a man, nor make him really
happy.

(_c_) All our earthly possessions we must leave behind to heirs, who,
perhaps, will soon forget us, and neither thank us nor pray for us.
Better it is, therefore, with our earthly goods to procure for ourselves
heavenly treasures, of which we cannot be robbed. (See St. Matthew vi.
19, 20; St. Luke xvi. 9.)

(_d_) The menace of the Apostle: “They that will become rich, fall into
the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim. vi. 9.)

(_e_) The example of Jesus, of Mary, of St. Joseph, and of so many saints.

3. _Against impurity_:—

(_a_) Serious consideration of the disgrace into which this vice throws
a man; a vice in which he makes himself the tool and slave of the vilest
desires and passions.

(_b_) Flight from those persons and things, the sight of whom, or
intercourse with whom, excites to sinful thoughts and desires; avoidance
of every dangerous intimacy.

(_c_) Avoidance of idleness; constant useful occupation.

(_d_) Watchfulness over the senses.

(_e_) Energetic suppression of temptation in its first beginnings, as
soon as one is conscious of it. _Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur._

(_f_) Humble prayer is here preëminently necessary—especially devotion to
the most blessed Virgin in her Immaculate Conception. Instant appeal to
her in temptation; the prayer: “_O Domina mea, O mater mea_,” etc., every
morning and evening has always proved very efficacious.

(_g_) Mortification of the flesh; at least avoidance of all luxuriousness
and effeminacy.

4. _Against intemperance_:—

(_a_) Consideration of the disgrace peculiar to this vice.

(_b_) Avoidance of everything which excites to it, especially convivial
occasions and gatherings.

(_c_) Slight mortifications.

(_d_) Determining a fixed measure, with the firm resolve never to exceed
it without due reason.

5. _Against envy_:—

(_a_) The envious man tortures himself; this is the most foolish of vices.

(_b_) Envying others is copying the devil, rejoicing at the happiness of
others is imitating the angels.

(_c_) Through God and Christ all men stand in close relationship to each
other, are all brothers.

(_d_) Consequences of envy. Cain, the Pharisees.

(_e_) When feelings of envy rise in the heart, the penitent should
endeavor to be well disposed towards the particular person, should meet
him in a friendly manner, should be ready to help him if necessary,
should at least pray for him there and then.

6. _Against anger_:—

(_a_) Our duty to strive after meekness and patience, in imitation of
Jesus.

(_b_) The ruinous effects of anger—robbing a man—either partially or
wholly—of the use of reason, hurrying him into unconsidered, shameful,
and most sinful actions; destroying peace, stirring up enmities.

(_c_) Prevention of the outward inducements to anger: certain games,
drinking—and if they cannot be prevented, the penitent should lessen them
by prudent precautionary measures.

(_d_) God has every reason for being angry with us, and for taking
vengeance upon us, on account of the many insults which we offer to Him.
But He forgives us, and it is, therefore, but just that we should harbor
no anger towards our neighbor.

(_e_) If we do not forgive, we have no right to hope for forgiveness at
the hands of God, and there is a dreadful significance in the mouth of
the Christian who prays in the “Our Father” “forgive us our trespasses as
we forgive them who trespass against us.”

(_f_) When anger is aroused, a man must refrain from every word and act
until he has mastered it.

7. _Against sloth_:—

(_a_) God’s abhorrence of spiritual sloth: “I would that thou wert cold
or hot,” etc. (Apoc. iii. 15, 16.)

(_b_) Consideration of the shortness and importance of human life; and,
on the other hand, the tireless zeal of the man of the world in his
pursuit of earthly things.

(_c_) The great injustice done to God by neglect of the service due to
Him—for man is the servant of God!

(_d_) Regular order in life: establishing an order of the day; in
the morning renewal of the determination to avoid all idleness; in
the evening, rendering account to one’s self of how the day has been
spent.[765]

In his efforts on behalf of the penitent let the confessor keep in mind
that the conversion of a sinner is more the operation of divine grace
than the fruit of any human activity. Let him, therefore, pray often for
his penitents; and let him not despair and despond if the conversion of
a sinner inured to vice does not immediately follow. For such conversion
does not usually take place suddenly; generally not for a long time, nor
till after a hard struggle and earnest prayer. Moreover, God rewards his
laborers according to their work, and not according to their success.




CHAPTER III

THE DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR AFTER THE CONFESSION


The confessor has certain duties to perform after the confession. These
are principally two, one of which is always and _per se_ incumbent upon
him, viz.: the _preservation of the seal of the confessional_; while
the other, the _correcting of errors which may have occurred in the
confession_, may arise _per accidens_.


58. The Duty of correcting Errors occurring in the Confession.

The confessor more easily and more seriously errs in the administration
of the Sacrament of Penance (by reason of the variety of the duties
which this office imposes upon him) than in the other Sacraments. The
errors here committed may, moreover, have grave consequences. It is,
therefore, necessary to treat of them in detail and to show how they may
be corrected.

The errors which the confessor (even the instructed and conscientious
confessor) may commit in the confessional are classified under three
heads: (1) _Those which affect the validity of the Sacrament_: when the
confessor has forgotten to give absolution, or has given it without
due jurisdiction, or to a penitent insufficiently prepared; (2) _those
which refer to the integrity of the confession_: when the confessor
has not asked concerning the number or circumstances when he was bound
to ask; and (3) _those relating to the duties of the penitent_: when
the confessor has not admonished the penitent to avoid some immediate
occasion of sin, or to make restitution, or where he has obliged him to
restore when there was no obligation.[766]

Now an error may entail great injury to the penitent, or to a third
person, or again no great harm may result. Moreover, the error may have
been committed through great culpability on the part of the confessor, or
without such culpability, at least without great culpability. Finally,
the error may be _positive_, the confessor _doing_ something wrong; or it
may be _negative_, the confessor neglecting something he should have done.

As regards the duty of rectifying these errors, the following principles
are to be observed:—

I. An error touching the validity of the Sacrament, resulting from _grave
fault_ on the part of the confessor, and causing great harm to the
penitent, must, _ex justitia_, be made good by the confessor, even when
such reparation involves serious trouble.

Even if the confessor is not bound in justice to hear confessions, as
soon as he does so, he enters into a kind of agreement with the penitent
to administer the Sacrament properly; if he administers it invalidly,
he is a _damnificator injustus_, and must, _ex justitia_, and _secundum
justitiæ regulas_, make good the injury he has caused. But if the fault
of the confessor was only a slight one, he is, as regards the correction
of the error, in the position of one who has, _inculpabiliter_, caused
some temporal harm. In this case, he would be bound to make good the
error only when he could do so without relatively great inconvenience to
himself. And if the confessor sinned gravely in committing the error, he
would also be excused from remedying it, if his own _incommodum_ much
exceeded the detriment and danger resulting from it to his penitent.
But if, in consequence of the confessor’s error, the penitent’s eternal
salvation has been seriously endangered—for instance, if he has invalidly
absolved a dying person, or one who will probably not confess again
before his death, he must remedy this injury under all circumstances,
even _cum suo damno relative gravi_, or _gravissimo_; for this is also
a duty of charity. Likewise when the confessor is the pastor of the
penitent, and, therefore, _ratione stipendii_, the more strictly bound to
avert from those committed to him great spiritual injury, he must _cum
gravi incommodo_ make good an error committed _cum levi culpa_. If the
penitent has subsequently confessed to another priest, or received holy
communion or Extreme Unction, the injury done to the penitent is thereby
already made good, and the confessor has no further obligations.[767]

II. If the error touches the integrity of the confession, the confessor
is not bound to remedy it outside the confessional, if his action in the
matter has been of a _negative_ character; this error he must make good
_ex charitate_, and _secundum regulas charitatis_, whether the error was
culpable on his part or not. But if his action was _positive cum gravi
sua culpa_, he must remedy the error even outside the confessional,
for he is bound to do so _ex justitia_ and, in consequence, even with
grave inconvenience to himself. Only when this could not be done
without causing scandal and much embarrassment to the penitent would
the confessor be justified in not doing it. But it should be carefully
observed that an intentional silence must, under circumstances, be
regarded as a _positive_ influence upon the penitent.

That in the case of an omission the confessor is bound only _ex
charitate_ to remedy the defect is explained by the fact that he failed
in his accessory duties, not doing that which he ought to have done—the
obligation here arises, as the theologians say, not so much _ex officio_,
as _occasione officii_, or not on account of a duty which he owes to God,
but rather on account of a duty which he, _titulo justitiæ et muneris_,
always owes to men. For these accessory duties towards our fellow-men, in
so far as they are duties of office or of _quasi-justitia_, do not extend
beyond the act of confession itself.[768]

It follows from this that such defects or errors are hardly ever to
be corrected outside the Sacrament of Penance, for the penitent will,
presumably, receive this Sacrament again. But if, by not being informed
of the error, so great injury, especially spiritual injury, should
result to the penitent that charity demanded reparation of even this
negative defect, the confessor must make the reparation even outside the
confessional. For any other person—not a confessor—would, under like
circumstances, be similarly bound towards his neighbor.

That a confessor should be bound _ex justitia_ to make good an error
committed through a _positive_ action and _cum gravi sua culpa_, is based
upon the fact that he has caused the penitent to infringe an important
commandment (the integrity of the confession). Even if this infringement
had been for the penitent only a material one,—therefore, not sinful,—the
confessor would be obliged to prevent such material infringement for the
future by correcting the error caused by himself. But if the fault of
the confessor in committing the error was only a slight one, a lesser
ground would release him from the duty of correcting the fault; and
if he acted _bona fide_, he is entirely released from it, seeing that
subsequent instruction concerning the fault committed can never take
place without embarrassment and difficulty.[769]

III. A defect having reference to a duty of the penitent, which causes
the latter, or a third person injury, must be made good by the confessor
_cum gravi suo incommodo_, if _cum gravi sua culpa_ he has instructed the
penitent falsely; if he committed the error without great fault on his
part, he is not bound to correct it _cum gravi_, although he is bound
_cum aliquo incommodo_. The confessor is, in this case, _causa injusta
damni_, and has, therefore, the obligations of a _damnificator injustus_.

The injury caused by the confessor may be spiritual, in consequence of
wrong instruction, or temporal, by imposing restitution, or some similar
burden to which the penitent was not bound. With reference to others than
the penitent, the question will generally be one of temporal loss in
consequence of the penitent having been released from his duties to them.
The question of injury to the community at large should be remembered in
this connection.

If, therefore, the confessor committed the error _cum gravi culpa_, for
instance, caused some great temporal harm, he must repair it himself
if it cannot be otherwise repaired, and prevent injury which has not
yet ensued, but which may ensue. If the error took place without his
fault, he is not bound to repair any harm which ensues before he knew
of the error, and which could not be repaired without great detriment
to himself. He must, however, avert injury which is still threatening,
and repair that which already exists if it can be done without
relatively great detriment to himself. If he neglects this _ex gravi
negligentia_, he is guilty of a great injustice, and is responsible
for all harm which he did not prevent. So, if he has wrongly bound any
one to make restitution, he must advise the penitent (after obtaining
from him permission to speak about matters of confession) not to make
the restitution, or if he has already made it, to indemnify himself
_compensatione occulta_, if this be possible. If he omits, _ex gravi
negligentia_, so to instruct the penitent, he is bound to make good the
injury out of his own means, in case his warning, or the retractation
of his error, is no longer effectual in preventing the injury, or
compensating for it. But if, after becoming aware of his error, the
confessor can no longer warn the penitent, or if the warning or
retractation must be regarded as useless, he is free from all obligation.
If from the first the confessor’s error was fraught with great guilt, he
is bound, if it is any way possible, to see that justice is done to the
injured person.[770] The same principles hold good if a third person has
suffered injury, or been exposed to the risk of it by the fault of the
confessor. If the evil consequences are sufficiently remote and the case
admits of delay, the error may be set right in the next confession of
the penitent; for generally it is no easy matter to speak about anything
connected with a confession outside the confessional. In cases of
necessity, however, the confessor must brave this difficulty and do his
duty.

Gobat[771] gives confessors (especially young ones) the following
excellent rules which they should always keep in view in order to acquire
the necessary prudence and dexterity in their office:—

1. After he has heard a confession, the confessor should always reflect
if, and in what, he has erred, so that he may avoid these faults in
future.

2. In giving or refusing absolution, in imposing a penance, the
confessor’s first consideration should always be the welfare of the
penitent and his greater spiritual advantage.

3. Let him be careful not to pronounce a sin mortal without being certain
that it is so.

4. In doubt as to whether restitution or a similar duty is to be imposed,
let him adopt the more lenient opinion of the theologians if this is
really probable.

5. The confessor of a penitent must presume that the former confessor
discharged his duty properly, unless he sees plainly the contrary.

6. The confessor must know the different opinions of theologians upon
one and the same matter when such exist and are practically probable,
in order to make use of one or the other, according to the different
dispositions of the penitents and their requirements.


59. The Duty of preserving the Seal of Confession.

By the seal of confession, or _sigillum confessionis sive sacramentale_,
we understand the duty of preserving silence concerning everything which
has been learnt in sacramental confession.

I. The duty of preserving the seal of the confessional is based upon
natural and divine law and upon the strict precept of the Church.
It is true, God has not laid down any formal and express demand to
preserve the seal of confession, but that this is His will results
(_naturaliter_) from the divine institution of confession, and especially
from the _commandment_ which _obliges_ all the faithful to confess all
their mortal sins, but which binds them only to confess their sins _in
secret_ (_secreto_). Now this general law to confess all, even the
gravest and most secret sins, would assuredly be too burdensome to the
faithful; indeed, its observance would become simply morally impossible
if confessors were not bound by the strictest obligation to preserve
the seal of the confessional. Danger to human life and the social
order, would, in fact, be inevitable if this duty did not exist. Thus
the seal of the confessional seems to be an indispensable condition
of the observance of the commandment to make full confession of sins.
But he who prescribes an end must also prescribe the means necessary
to that end. And if every man is bound to preserve a secret confided
to him, a confessor is still more bound, under all circumstances, to
maintain silence concerning sins which have been confessed to him as
_secretum_, seeing that so much depends upon his fidelity in this
respect,—the sanctity, the usefulness, and the blessings of the holy
Sacrament of Penance.[772] Moreover, the duty of preserving the seal of
the confessional is imposed by an express law of the Church, which has
existed in constant tradition, and is thus expressed by the IV. Council
of the Lateran:[773] Let the confessor beware of betraying the sinner in
any way, by a word, or a sign, or by any other means; but if he should
stand in need of wiser counsel let him ask for it without, in any way,
indicating the person.

II. It results also from the above that the obligation of the seal
belongs _to the virtue of religion_. Breaking it is an abuse of a
Sacrament, therefore, rightly regarded as a kind of sacrilege; however,
it must not be confessed under the general designation of a sacrilege,
but as a breach of the seal of confession, in order that the ultimate and
full species of the sin may be recognized.

Inasmuch as the confessor, _ex officio_, listens to the confession of the
penitent, he is bound, _ex fidelitate_, to silence concerning everything
which the interest of the penitent demands that he should keep secret.
Finally, breaking the seal of confession would, in many cases, be a
defamation of the penitent, and would, therefore, be an _injustice_. It
is thus of its nature a very grave sin, a sacrilege, which is generally
accompanied by injury to reputation and breach of faith.[774]

III. The obligation of the seal is a very strict one, admitting neither
_parvitas materia per se_, nor any exception: only when the penitent
has expressly and voluntarily given permission would it be allowable
to disclose anything heard in confession, and even then prudence will
generally dissuade the confessor from making use of the permission.[775]

St. Alphonsus teaches,[776] as _sententia certissima_, that never, and in
no case, is the slightest disclosure of the secrets of the confessional
permitted, not even to save one’s life, to save the state, or to remedy
the greatest spiritual necessity. The reason for this most stringent
obligation is clear. If there were only one exception made, people would
always be in a state of fear that this or that sin might be sufficient
ground for lawfully breaking the seal, and the Sacrament would thereby
become odious.[777]

When, therefore, the confessor is asked concerning anything which he has
learnt in the confessional, he must, _per se_, reprimand the questioner,
reminding him that such questions are quite inadmissible. If, however,
he can see no other effectual way of evading the question or of averting
suspicion from the penitent, he can and must declare, even upon oath,
that the penitent has not confessed to him what is in question, that
he knows nothing at all about it. Such a statement is not a lie nor is
it, in consequence, a perjury if made upon oath, for it is a case of
lawful use of the implicit reservation that the confessor, as a private
individual,—the only capacity in which he can be expected to answer,—has
no knowledge of a subject revealed to him as a representative of God.[778]

And should the confessor be asked if he has given absolution to a
penitent, let him answer, “I did what it was my duty to do,” or, still
better, dismiss the questioner with the answer, “Such questions are not
allowed.” If he had not given the absolution and was asked by a priest
or other cleric if the penitent might receive holy communion, he must
answer, “Ask him yourself.”[779]

Concerning the penitent’s permission to speak about the confession, St.
Alphonsus teaches as follows: 1. This permission must be given in words,
or by facts which convey it, as, for instance, when the penitent himself
begins to talk to the confessor about something said in the confessional.
This permission may not be presumed even if it were for the penitent’s
own welfare.[780]

2. Permission obtained by threats or _metus reverentialis_ does not
suffice; for instance, if the confessor has obtained it through repeated
requests, the penitent having at first refused it.[781] 3. The penitent
can recall the permission which he has given at his pleasure.[782] 4.
When the confessor has obtained the permission let him be very careful
not to overstep the limits laid down by the penitent.[783]

IV. The duty of preserving the seal of the confessional thus differs from
that of preserving any other secret in the following points: (_a_) It
does not admit _parvitas materiæ_; (_b_) it exists even with regard to
the person who has confessed, or whom the secret concerns; (_c_) it never
admits of any exception.[784]

V. The duty of secrecy attaches to _every_ really sacramental confession;
that is, confession made with the intention of accusing one’s self and
of obtaining absolution. Therefore, (_a_) confession _knowingly_ made
to a cleric or a priest without jurisdiction does not impose the duty
of silence, but only the obligation of the natural secret, excepting,
however, the case where the penitent intended that the priest should
obtain jurisdiction, and afterwards give him absolution. The duty of
the seal would also come into effect if the penitent believed that the
priest to whom he confessed had jurisdiction. (_b_) If a person informs
a confessor of the state of his conscience not with the intention
of receiving absolution, but for the purpose of obtaining advice or
instruction for his spiritual life, or for some other object, there
is no obligation of the seal, but only of the _secretum naturale_ and
_commissum_; though of this class of secrets it is unquestionably the
most binding. The same principles would apply if a person said that he
made the disclosures concerning himself only _sub sigillo_. But there
is always this difference between the case mentioned and the seal of
the confessional, that here _parvitas materiæ_ is admissible, and that
the secret is, of itself, not violated by any reference to the person
concerned.[785] (_c_) A pretended confession, made for the purpose of
deceiving, or seducing, or ridiculing the priest, does not impose the
duty of the seal and the priest might, at the call of circumstances,
make use of knowledge thus obtained, in his defense. On the other hand,
a confession begun with the honest intention of receiving the Sacrament,
but during which the penitent allowed himself to be carried away and
influenced by some sinful purpose, would impose the duty of the seal,
since such confession was, at least in part, sacramental.[786] (_d_)
Finally, a confession, or relation of sins made for some other purpose
would not impose it, though, under circumstances, the duty of the
strictest _secretum naturale et commissum_ may ensue. The confessor is
also forbidden to make use of a probable opinion in matters which come
under the seal, whether the _probabilitas_ be _facti_ or _juris_. The
_probabilitas facti_ would turn on the question whether it is probable
that the confession made was sacramental or not; in neither case have I
any right to say or do anything which might possibly amount to a breach
of the seal. The _probabilitas juris_ exists when authors disagree as to
what constitutes an infraction of the seal; here I may not adopt any form
of action or speech which on solid probable grounds would mean a breach
of the seal, or tend to make the Sacrament odious to the faithful. On
the contrary, it must be morally certain that the utterance or action
in question excludes all danger of disclosure and of aversion to the
Sacrament.[787]


60. The Subject of the Seal of Confession.

The duty of preserving the seal of confession binds, in the first place,
the confessor who hears the confession. It devolves also upon all who,
by lawful or unlawful means, have acquired knowledge of that which
falls under the seal; otherwise the penitent would not be sufficiently
protected, and might be deterred from approaching the Sacrament. This
extension of the duty of the seal was certainly in the intention of Our
Saviour.[788]

In addition to the confessor, therefore, the following are bound by the
seal of the confessional: (_a_) the Superior to whom the penitent or the
confessor (with permission of the penitent) had recourse either verbally
or by writing, in a reserved case, or a similar matter; (_b_) any one
employed as an interpreter in a confession; (_c_) the theologian whom the
confessor consulted, either verbally or by writing, in a difficult case,
and especially any person to whom the confessor in any way communicated
matter learnt in the confessional—whether that communication was made
_sacrilege vel imprudentur_, or in a lawful manner—excepting when the
penitent has, perhaps, widened the limits of his permission.[789] If,
therefore (for example), the confessor, in behalf of the penitent, should
ask for a remission of debts, and, in doing so, with the penitent’s
permission, discloses to the injured person the sin of theft, etc.,
the latter possesses the knowledge of this theft under the seal of the
confessional; for it is in the penitent’s power to give permission to
propagate information received by the confessor in the confessional,
either under the same seal, that is, in the same manner as the confessor
possesses it, or in some less stringent manner.[790] (_d_) He who,
either accidentally or purposely, has heard the confession of another,
and those who, through him, have obtained knowledge of a sin so heard.
Deliberately to overhear the confession of another is, of itself, a
breach of the seal. (_e_) Whoever reads a piece of paper upon which the
penitent has written his sins may be bound either under the seal, or to
the natural secret only. He is bound under the seal: (1) if he should
read the written confession _in actu confessionis_, especially, if it is
already handed to the confessor for the purpose of confession; (2) if he
found it in the confessional, having been left there by the confessor,
“for this knowledge is none other than that of the confessor”; (3) if
he snatched it from the hand of the confessor to whom the penitent had
handed it; (4) if it had been snatched from the hands of the penitent
while he was confessing, or had fallen from his hands; (5) if writing the
confession is, for the penitent, the necessary means of making a complete
confession, reading this writing before the confession also imposes the
obligation of the seal; (6) this holds good _in every case_ after the
confession, _before_ the document has so far returned to the penitent’s
possession that he has voluntarily preserved it when he might have
destroyed it; (7) whosoever reads the letter in which permission is asked
of a Superior to absolve from a reserved case, as this belongs to the
confession.

On the other hand, whoever reads the written enumeration of the sins of
others is bound to the natural secret only: (1) if the penitent, after
completing his confession, had voluntarily left the document behind, had
thrown it away, had not destroyed it; and (2) if the penitent, without
exactly intending to make his confession, had written down his sins,
and this document is read prior to the confession. Though in this case
the obligation of the natural secret only comes into force, it is the
strictest of its kind.[791] The penitent is not bound by the seal to
be silent about what the confessor has said to him; but he is bound to
natural secrecy concerning everything the revelation of which might
injure the confessor or the Sacrament; indeed the penitent is more
strictly bound to silence, because the confessor, unlike other men, does
not impart advice and instruction spontaneously but in virtue of his
office.[792]


61. The Object or Matter of the Seal of Confession.

The object of the seal of confession is, in general, everything the
revealing of which would make confession odious. This is a natural
deduction from the end of the law and from a decision of the S. C.
Inquis. given under the authority of Innocent XI, Nov. 18, 1682, by which
a proposition was rejected permitting the use of all information obtained
in the confessional, as long as no direct or indirect revelation takes
place.[793]

Objects of the seal are:—

1. _All sins_; mortal and venial sins both of the penitent and of his
accomplice (_complex_);[794] indeed, notoriously public sins, also, in so
far as they are known through the medium of confession. Not only mortal
and venial sins _in individuo_, but also _omnino in genere_. It would be
no breach of the seal to say, in a general way, that the penitent had
committed venial sins or only venial sins, especially as the penitent
himself, by going to confession, practically tells every one that he
has committed _some sin_, at least a venial sin; and it is, moreover, a
matter of faith that no man can remain free from all venial sin, unless
he has received a special privilege from God, and the Blessed Virgin
alone is known positively to have possessed such a privilege.

2. _The objects and circumstances of the sins_, and not only that which
it is of precept to confess, but also that which the penitent believed
necessary for the better explanation of his sins. For example, if a son
confesses that he hates his father because the latter has committed
adultery, the adultery of the father, although not a necessary part of
the confession of the son, is, nevertheless, an object of the seal; or
when the penitent confesses a murder at which he has rejoiced, a duel
which he has witnessed, etc.[795]

3. _The penance imposed_, except when this is a small one such as is
generally imposed for the slightest sins; for a more severe penance
indicates that graver sins have been committed.

4. _Temptations_, because they stand in relation to sins, in so far as
the penitent doubts if he has consented to them, or asks advice of the
confessor in order not to yield to them.

5. _Defects_, which are confessed in explanation of a sin; for example,
illegitimacy, where a penitent has received Orders, in opposition to the
law of the Church. _Natural_ defects of the penitent also, in so far as
they are known through the confessional, and tend to his disgrace (for
instance, defective education, stupidity, etc.), are objects of the seal.
But if these do not stand in any relation to the confession, or if the
penitent would not resent their being made known, and if they are matter
of general knowledge already, they are not objects of the seal.[796]

6. _The penitent’s position in life_ may be, _ex se_, an object of the
seal, in so far as information about it is necessary in order to explain
the sins according to their ultimate species. Nevertheless, it may be
assumed that this information, even when thus necessary, is not given to
the confessor _sub sigillo_, but rather _prævie_. If it is a question of
a position known to every one (though perhaps not known to the confessor)
the penitent does not intend to include this knowledge under the seal.
But it is a different matter when, on account of certain circumstances,
the penitent attaches importance to his incognito. It is certainly not
allowed so to speak of the position and circumstances of the penitent so
as to indicate thereby that he had sinned against individual duties of
his position.[797]

7. _Scruples_, or the scrupulosity of the penitent, may be an object
either of the seal, or of the natural secret. (_a_) The scruples
themselves which the penitent confesses are, of course, _direct_ objects
of the seal, in so far as they are considered by him to be sins. (_b_)
The scrupulosity which the penitent confesses as a circumstance of his
sins—or in order to give a better idea of his spiritual state—is likewise
an object of the seal. (_c_) To say in a general way that the penitent
has confessed many scruples, violates the seal in the same way as to
disclose that he has confessed _several_ venial sins, real or supposed.
(_d_) On the other hand, the scrupulosity which is only perceived in the
manner of expression is not matter of the seal, but, _per se_, of the
natural secret which obliges the more strictly as the knowledge obtained
is more intimately connected with the confession itself.[798]

8. _Sins committed in the confession itself_, for example, impatience,
not showing the confessor due reverence, etc., are, _per se_, not
objects of the _sigillum_, because the penitent does not confess them;
nevertheless, making them known might easily, and generally will, involve
danger to the seal; for these sins suggest a severe reprehension or a
refusal of absolution.[799]

9. _Virtues or supernatural gifts_ which the penitent discloses in order
that the confessor may learn the state of his soul, are not, _per se_,
objects of the seal; but if they are disclosed inasmuch as they have
reference to a sin, they are matter of the _sigillum_.[800]


62. Violations of the Seal.

The seal of confession is, in the first place, violated by every
communication of those things which are matter of the seal if the
penitent is recognized, or if there is a danger of his being recognized.
Moreover, every _use_ of things falling under the seal which is
calculated to make confession odious, or to cause the penitent annoyance
and detriment, is also a breach of the seal.

A distinction is, accordingly, to be made between _direct_ and _indirect_
violation of the seal; it is _directly_ violated when any matter of
the seal itself is directly disclosed and the person of the penitent
indicated; it is _indirectly_ violated when revelation of matter of the
seal involves only risk of discovery of the penitent or danger of harm to
him. In the indirect violation there may be _parvitas materiæ_; that is,
when, through the _communication_ or the _use_ of that which was learnt
under the seal only very slight danger of recognition would be incurred,
as when the confessor speaks of the sins prevalent in some particular
town or place without the inhabitants of the place becoming, thereby,
appreciably prejudiced against the institution of the confessional, or
any particular defamation resulting. But if there is doubt as to whether
the consequences are really so slight, such a proceeding must be regarded
as a great sin.

For a violation of the seal, it is not necessary that the person with
whom the confessor speaks knows that he is making use of knowledge gained
in the confessional; it is enough that the confessor should speak from
this knowledge. Nor is it necessary that the person of the penitent
should actually be recognized by him with whom the confessor speaks; it
suffices that the circumstances should be such that the identity of the
penitent emerges sufficiently distinct from what the confessor says,
or that the person of the penitent may possibly be recognized, or that
well-founded suspicion _could_ arise. As the faithful preservation of
the seal is of the highest importance, the confessor must always be
very careful that penitents do not become averse or disinclined to the
confessional. Nevertheless he is not bound to avoid every trivial danger,
and to anticipate every idle conjecture of malicious people.[801] In view
of their supreme importance, we here subjoin a few cases of violation of
the seal, as discussed by eminent theologians.

1. A priest indirectly violates the seal: (_a_) if he says or intimates
that he refused or deferred absolution to a certain penitent, because he,
thereby, implies that the penitent had confessed a grave sin, or had not
been disposed; or if he says that a certain penitent’s confession had
not been finished—unless it were generally known that this confession
was a general one, or one concerning a long space of time, so that there
can be no embarrassment on the part of the penitent. Indeed, Lugo adds
that even if the penitent himself were to say that he had not been
absolved, the confessor must not take the liberty of repeating it.[802]
(_b_) If he said of a notorious thief that the latter had confessed
his thefts to him with great sorrow. The case would be different if
without entering into detail he were to remark that the same thief had
made his confession to him.[803] (_c_) If he praises excessively some
penitent in comparison with others whom he heard at the same time, or
says that he committed venial sins only, suspicion being thus easily
excited that the others had confessed grave sins. An exception would be
if there were some particular ground for so speaking, without offense
to the other penitents, and without danger of injurious suspicion.[804]
(_d_) If two confessors, to whom the same penitent had confessed, talk
together concerning his sins. (_e_) If he reproves the penitent aloud,
questions him concerning circumstances of the sins, so that bystanders
can hear it. (_f_) If, after having heard the confessions of some few
penitents, he should say that he had heard a particular sin—for the
individual penitents fall under suspicion of having committed this sin.
(_g_) If he speaks of sins which he has heard in the confessional in such
a way that those who hear him can infer or conjecture the identity of
those who committed them. (_h_) If he speaks of sins learnt outside the
confessional, but adds a circumstance learnt only in the confessional,
or makes use of knowledge gathered in the confessional for the purpose
of specifying or corroborating some statement. (_i_) If, without the
penitent’s permission, he speaks to him outside the confessional about
his sins heard in the confessional. Where the penitent himself begins,
the confessor may only speak about the particular subject to which
the penitent confines himself. Likewise if, after the confession, the
priest’s demeanor shows that he remembers his sins and esteems him less
highly than before. (_k_) If he should intimate that the penitent had
_not_ confessed a particular sin, because, thereby, suspicion might
easily arise that he had actually concealed a sin.[805]

2. As a general rule it is allowed to speak vaguely of sins heard in the
confessional in such a manner that there is no danger of recognizing
the person, and no suspicion is aroused against any persons. In this,
however, scandal to lay people is to be carefully avoided, for they
readily believe that speech of this kind is a violation of the seal, and
may, thereby, be deterred from approaching the confessional; nor should
one be too easily persuaded that there is no fear of any danger in the
matter. Confessors, therefore, should not be too ready to talk much about
what they have heard in the confessional; for such talk, when often
indulged in, is not quite free from the danger of a slip beyond what is
permissible and of awakening suspicions in the hearers. Indeed, before
laymen such talk must be altogether avoided.[806]

No violation of the seal is, therefore, in question: (_a_) when the
confessor says that “Titus confessed to him”; only Titus must not
then have come to him secretly, for from this circumstance it might
be inferred that he had a bad conscience; (_b_) when he praises the
conscience of a penitent; but he must not, on account of possible
circumstances, awaken thereby the suspicion that others, who confessed
to him at the same time, have bad consciences; for it might be that if
he were questioned concerning another penitent, he could not maintain
the same tone of praise.[807] (_c_) If, immediately after absolution,
before the penitent leaves the confessional, he speaks to him of what he
has then and there heard, for though the Sacrament has been administered,
the judicial act still morally continues.[808] (_d_) If he speaks to
the penitent during confession of his sins of another confession, for,
_in actu confessionis_, the penitent has no right to the preservation
of the seal; but even this the confessor should not do without reason,
for it is troublesome to many penitents. (_e_) When he prays for a
penitent, even if he only knows him through the confessional, or treats
him more leniently (or otherwise) on account of the state of his soul
learnt in the confessional; when he makes use of knowledge acquired in
the confessional in order to ask learned and experienced confessors for
advice,[809] or to perfect his own work in the confessional, to be able
to question better, to instruct better, and more efficaciously to watch
over those committed to his charge.

The confessor does not violate the seal by saying that a certain vice is
prevalent in some place, town, or parish when this place or parish is of
considerable size (St. Alphonsus assumes three thousand Catholics as the
population) and when it is a question of vices which are public, and no
new defamation arises. On the other hand, it would be a violation of the
seal if (_a_) by this statement concerning the sins, or by the manner of
it, the parish, etc., were defamed, and (_b_), in any case, if the place
were small. Hard and fast limits cannot be laid down to determine when a
serious breach of the seal takes place, and when such revelations would
be quite permissible; each case must be carefully considered and weighed,
in order to learn if any, or a grave, or only a slight, violation is
in question. A preacher, therefore, has a right to speak against vices
which are secretly very prevalent in a parish, and if he has obtained his
knowledge of them outside the confessional, he can speak of them with
still greater freedom; but he should always employ a wise caution, so as
not to awaken suspicions injurious to those who confess to him.[810]

In deciding whether violation of the seal of the confession is committed
when a confessor says that he has heard a grave sin in the confessional
from a religious of some particular Order, without designating the
individual, the following circumstances must be considered: (_a_)
whether, from the nature of the sin referred to, defamation of the Order
results or not; (_b_) before what persons the statement was made, as this
circumstance usually determines the quality of the defamation; (_c_)
whether, from the statement itself, or from the circumstances, suspicion
falls upon the occupants of a few houses. From this it can be inferred
if a grave violation of the seal, or a slight one, or none at all, has
taken place; but it is very unlikely that no violation of the seal at all
has been committed by such a communication. The confessor of a convent
would, accordingly, break the seal, if, while preaching in the convent,
he should signalize a particular sin of a nun, or of that convent, which
he knew only through the confessional. On the other hand, he would not
break it if he were to speak generally of defects which usually occur,
or may occur, in all convents; otherwise a priest who heard confessions
in a convent could never preach there, and such a prohibition would be
contrary to the general usage.[811] If the confessor knows through the
confessional that snares are being prepared for him, he may, under some
pretext, go away, or provide for his safety, if by so doing the sin
confessed does not become known, nor any detriment ensues to the penitent
by which the confessional would be rendered odious; if, however, he
cannot, without breaking the seal, escape or evade the snares prepared
for him, nor avoid an objective sacrilege, he must rather endure or
permit his death and the sacrilege than break the seal. Nevertheless, he
can, and must, exhort and bind the penitent in the confessional to give
him permission to make use of this knowledge.[812]

It is not allowed to Superiors to make use of knowledge gained in the
confessional in the external government of those under them, or to adopt
any course of action which is in any way odious to the penitent, or
which would make the confessional odious. Hence it is not allowed to a
Superior, in consequence of knowledge obtained through the confessional,
to alter an arrangement which he has once made, or which he had
determined upon only in his mind; but the case may occur in which he may
inform the penitent in the confessional that he had intended to make
certain arrangements, but that he now begs his permission to recede from
this intention.[813]

Accordingly, it is never allowed to a confessor to remove from his
office a subordinate whom he knows through the confessional to be unfit
for it, to deprive him of his vote at an election, to forbid him the
Sacraments, to withdraw from him any tokens of good-will formerly shown,
to look at him askance, to take from him keys which he formerly held or
to hide those which he was in the habit of leaving about, etc. But if the
confessor obtained this information otherwise than in the confessional,
he may make use of the knowledge otherwise obtained; but then this
information must really move him to his course of action just as if he
had had no knowledge of the unworthiness of the subordinate through the
confessional.[814]

Where it is customary to give a ticket to testify that confession has
been made, the confessor must confine himself to stating merely that
he has heard the confession, and he must not state that he has given
absolution to the penitent; for if he invariably attested that the
penitent had been absolved, he would be committing himself to a lie,
in cases where he had not absolved; if, again, he testified to having
absolved those whom he had absolved, and to not having absolved others to
whom he had refused absolution, he would, indirectly, violate the seal of
the confessional.

And if the confessor should refuse the ticket to an ill-disposed penitent
who had made a sacramental confession, he would also violate the seal
in the following cases: (_a_) where the penitent asks for this ticket
outside the confessional, and (_b_) when it is given to all penitents,
or when it is demanded by the penitent’s Superior, as at Easter time,
for example. But if the penitent had no intention at all of making a
sacramental confession, but only made pretense of confession in order
to procure his ticket, for instance, in order to escape punishment from
a teacher, or to contract a marriage, the ticket must be refused to
him.[815]

If a confessor knows only through the confessional the bad state of
a man’s conscience, he must not on that account refuse to hear his
confession; he would only be allowed to do so if he had previously, from
another motive, resolved never to hear his confession again, because such
a refusal would make the confessional odious both to the penitent and to
others who should come to hear of the confessor’s behavior.[816]

But how is a confessor to behave who learns from the confession of an
unmarried woman who is near death that she is pregnant, this fact being
quite unknown to others? Here may be question of the Baptism of the
child after the death of the mother, before it is born. If a month has
passed since conception, the confessor must induce the penitent to make
known her condition, after confession, to some other person, to her
mother, perhaps, or to the doctor (if the latter is a good Catholic, or
a believer) in order that, after her death, the child may be at once
brought into the world and baptized; for she must prefer the Baptism of
the child, as a higher good, to her own reputation. If she refuses to
disclose the matter, the confessor should induce her to communicate it to
him outside confession, in order that he may inform her parents and the
doctor of it after her death. But here great caution is necessary, lest
others should be led to believe that he is breaking the seal. Hence he
should persuade the sick person to make a written statement of the case,
if she is able to do so, or he can do it for her; she should then give it
sealed to a third person who is to open it immediately after her death.

If she will not consent to this plan, the confessor should abstain from
pressing her great responsibility in case she should be _invincibiliter_
ignorant of it, or, perhaps, be persuaded that the fœtus will not survive
her; for otherwise, in his endeavor to save the soul of the fœtus, he
would incur the risk of ruining both souls, that of the mother and that
of the child. But absolution can be given to the sick person unless she
is undoubtedly ill disposed—which will seldom be the case. Finally, if
the confessor knows the condition of the sick person only through the
confessional and cannot obtain her permission to make it known, he must
maintain perpetual silence, come what may. For the duty of the seal does
not cease with the life of the penitent.[817]

As the binding force of the seal exists only for the benefit of the
penitent, the penitent may cancel or modify this obligation, but he
alone has this power. This permission must, however, be given quite
voluntarily. If the penitent has thus given permission to break the seal
in some point, this permission does not extend to the revelation of his
accomplices and others; the law of universal charity and of justice (for
instance, preservation of a good name) still remains intact, and binds
the more strictly the more probability there is of the Sacrament being
made odious by any suspicion.




SECTION III

THE DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR TOWARD DIFFERENT CLASSES OF PENITENTS


Having considered in the foregoing sections the essential and accidental
duties of the confessor in general, it remains to be shown how these
duties are to be performed in concrete cases. Penitents, not being of
one type, require treatment according to their intellectual development,
their moral constitution, and their natural dispositions, their station
and circumstances of life. On account of the difficulties which beset
confessors in dealing with these different classes of penitents, we
propose to give some practical suggestions. We shall treat of persons
placed in peculiar spiritual conditions, persons in different external
circumstances, and persons who on account of the great danger of their
salvation call for special care.




CHAPTER I

THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS


Sinful habits, and the immediate occasions of sin, are the nets with
which the arch-enemy of mankind ensnares and holds innumerable souls.
Especially in our own times have the occasions of sin become more
numerous and dangerous, and carelessness with regard to them has
increased. Many souls are thus lost! The more alarming this condition
proves, the more should the priest be animated by zeal to prevent its
fatal consequences. This requires great prudence and sound knowledge.
For this prudence the priest must continually pray and consult wise and
approved teachers. St. Alphonsus is recognized by all as a most safe
guide amongst these teachers; for this eminent Doctor has been given to
the Church by divine Providence in our days, that he might show us the
middle path between opinions which are either too lax or too strict.[818]


ARTICLE I


63. Sinful Occasions and the Duty of avoiding them.

By “occasion of sin” (_occasio peccandi_) we mean, in general, a person,
or some external object constituting for any one a danger of sinning. It
comprises two elements: an external object which incites to sin, and an
internal inclination to sin.

For a right understanding, we must distinguish between the _danger_ and
the _occasion_ of sinning.[819]

Danger is the impulse to sin, and if this impulse proceeds from a person
or an external object, this person, or this external object, is called
an _occasion_ of sin; but if the impulse to sin comes from within only,
namely from the devil or in consequence of a sinful habit, it is called
simply _danger_.[820] There is a danger in every occasion but not every
danger proceeds from an external occasion of sin.

1. The occasion of sin is either _immediate_ (_proxima_) or _remote_
(_remota_), according as the danger of sinning is great and probable,
or slight. The immediate occasion is “absolutely immediate,” when for
the generality of mankind it presents a serious and probable danger of
sinning; or it is “relatively immediate” when the danger exists for some
individual person on account of his particular disposition. A _per se
proxima occasio_ may, therefore, be _remota_ for a very pious and prudent
man, whereas an occasion _per se remota_ may be for a weak person and one
much inclined to sin _proxima_.

The existence of an _occasio proxima_ may be inferred: (1) _a posteriori_
from a sad experience that the person did, in fact, generally, or at
least often, fall into sin whenever the occasion presented itself. If,
however, his trespasses were notably less numerous than his victories,
the occasion cannot be called an _immediate_ one.[821] (2) _A priori_,
from the attraction of the object, from the weakness of the person, from
his passion, from a sinful habit, from the violence of the temptation
to which he is exposed in this occasion. Although sin has not yet been
committed, there is always great danger in _presumptuously_ exposing
one’s self to violent temptation.[822]

It may be assumed that an _occasio proximo_ has become _remota_: (1)
when it is known from experience that the sins have become less, and are
no longer frequent; (2) when some circumstance has supervened which has
caused the danger to be no longer a great one, such as a marriage, a
quarrel, etc.

2. Furthermore, the occasion is _continua_, continual, _seu in esse_,
or, with interruptions, _interrupta_, _non continua_, _non in esse_. It
is present interruptedly, when one is not always exposed to it, but only
occasionally, for instance in visits to dancing rooms, inns, etc.; it is
present continuously when one is always, uninterruptedly exposed to it;
for instance, in the case of a concubine or a servant living in the same
house and with whom one is accustomed to sin; an obscene statue in one’s
room.

3. Again, the immediate occasion is _voluntary_ (_voluntaria_), which
can easily, and without much detriment, be given up; and necessary
(_necessaria_) which the person cannot, even if he will, remove or
relinquish. The necessary occasion is either physically or morally
necessary; physically, when the person absolutely cannot remove it;
morally, when it cannot be abandoned or avoided without sin, or great
scandal, or great detriment to honor, or property, or without placing
one’s self in a similar or worse danger of sin.

The following principles are to be laid down respecting the duty of
avoiding the occasions of sin:—

I. The duty of avoiding mortal sin imposes upon us the strict duty of
avoiding also the immediate danger of mortal sin.

He who is bound under grave sin to reach a certain end is also bound
under grave sin to employ the means without which this end cannot be
reached; but flight from the immediate occasion of sin is the morally
necessary means of avoiding sin, consequently this immediate danger must
be avoided. Further, as a man is bound by love for his own person not
to expose his bodily life voluntarily to the danger of death, he is, _a
fortiori_, bound by the law of charity not to expose his supernatural
life voluntarily to the danger of death, that is, the danger of mortal
sin. It is, therefore, _in re morali_, a sin of the same kind to place
one’s self in an immediate occasion of sin, or to desire and commit the
sin. It follows from this that a man sins grievously as often as he
exposes himself without necessity to the immediate occasion of sin, even
if he does not actually sin in this occasion. On the other hand, it is
no sin to expose one’s self to a remote danger of sinning if there is a
reason for so doing, or if precautionary measures are taken. For such
danger can be easily overcome.[823]

II. It is allowed, in case of moral necessity, to expose one’s self to
the immediate occasion of sin; only suitable means must then be employed
to protect one’s self against the danger. In this case one does not love
the danger, but incurs it unwillingly, and if a man strengthens himself
by firm resolutions, prayer, etc., God will not suffer him to fall into
sin, and in this manner the danger becomes a remote one. From this it
results that a man is always bound to avoid _formal_ danger either by
flight or by precautionary measures.[824]

III. From the duty to avoid the risk of sinning results _the duty to
avoid the immediate occasions of sinning_ as these imply an immediate
danger of sinning. This same conclusion, moreover, follows from two
propositions condemned by Innocent XI: “The immediate occasion of sinning
is not to be avoided when there is any _causa utilis aut honesta_ for
not avoiding it” (Prop. 62). “It is permissible to seek directly an
immediate occasion of sinning _pro bono spirituali vel temporali nostro
vel proximi_” (Prop. 3).

On the other hand, this obligation is not incumbent in respect to
_remote_ occasions, because they do not present an immediate danger
of sinning, and because it is, for the most part, morally impossible
to avoid all these occasions; we should be obliged simply to leave
the world, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. v. 10), for they occur in all
circumstances.

But it must here be observed that the occasions of sin may be avoided
in two ways, according to the nature of the occasion. As this consists
in an external object and an interior inclination to sin, occasions can
be avoided: (1) _physically_ or _materially_ by separation from the
external object, and (2) _morally_, or _formally_, when the danger is
neutralized by other means which weaken the interior inclination without
physical separation. The first method must come into operation in cases
of _voluntary_ occasion, for he who _wishes_ to remain in immediate
occasion of sin has no real intention of avoiding sin. And when it
is a question of a really voluntary immediate occasion, where there
is frequent sinning, or violent passion, or a sinful habit, or great
incitement to sin, no success is to be hoped without separation, nor will
the use of remedies convert the immediate into a remote occasion. For
a great temptation cannot be overcome without the help of God’s grace,
but God does not assist those who presumptuously expose themselves to
temptation—as experience often shows. This is especially true of the
immediate voluntary occasions of sin against purity.[825] The second
method suffices in the case of the necessary occasion, for he who through
_necessity_ remains in a danger of sin, may hope for the divine help to
avoid sin.

From this consideration we deduce the following rules:—

1. An _occasio proxima libera_ of grave sin, whether _absolute_ or
_relative proxima_, must absolutely be avoided; to remain voluntarily in
such occasion or to seek it is itself a grave sin.

2. It is absolutely necessary to avoid or remove an _occasio proxima
necessaria_; but for him who finds himself in it there exists a
disjunctive duty, either of employing suitable means of reducing it to
a remote occasion, or of removing it in spite of all difficulties and
obstacles.

3. Not to remove a _remote occasion_, even when there is no particular
reason for exposing one’s self to it, is, of itself, no grave sin; but
this occasion must remain a _remote_ one, and he who finds himself
exposed to it must be resolved to avoid the temptations possibly arising
from it. For it is sometimes possible to foresee that what is now a
remote danger will very soon become a grave and immediate danger; in
this case it is the confessor’s duty to cut off such an occasion and to
forbid it to the penitent lest he fall into formal sin. And when, on the
contrary, the danger of a certain sin is _very remote_ and, in addition,
there is a steadfast intention not to sin, the virtue to which that sin
is opposed does not seem to suffer, even when this risk is incurred
without cause. If the danger is in any way considerable, and it is
incurred without cause, the virtue suffers; in a case of immediate danger
of sin this is certainly the case.[826] But the venial sin which a man
commits who is careless about keeping from a remote occasion increases
in gravity in proportion to the danger. If a man exposes himself to the
danger which such an occasion offers from a more or less weighty motive,
he commits no sin at all, provided his resolution not to sin remains firm.

4. If danger of venial sin is to be apprehended, he who presumptuously
exposes himself to it commits a venial sin; but if the danger of venial
sin proceeds from an action _in se_ commendable and useful, this
character of the action is sufficient ground for lawfully undertaking
it; indeed, we ought to disregard the danger in a case of this kind, at
the same time insuring ourselves against sin by employing preventive
measures. If we did not adopt this counsel, innumerable actions which
are useful would remain unperformed out of fear of sin, and this would
bespeak timidity rather than prudence and conscientiousness. On the other
hand, it is a mark of wisdom and zeal for perfection to avoid useless
actions which, _ex se_, cannot be done without venial sin, and to avoid
them the more because they may lead to other venial sins.[827]


64. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione
Proxima Voluntaria.

Upon the foregoing explanations are based the following rules, according
to which the confessor has to proceed with penitents _in occasione
proxima libera_:—

I. Penitents who are _in occasione continua_ cannot, as a rule, be
absolved, even the first time, before they have given up that which
constitutes the occasion, however much they may promise to do so. For
so long as a penitent remains under the influence of this occasion, he
is in immediate danger of breaking his resolution to abandon it, as its
removal, after an attachment to it has been formed and its fascination
experienced, is very difficult and demands great self-command; so that
there is reason for fearing that the presence of the sinful object will
again enslave the penitent. Hence, the penitent who knows this and would,
nevertheless, expose himself to the danger of breaking his resolution,
must be regarded as not disposed, and the confessor who indulges him sins
against his duty as judge by absolving an ill-disposed penitent, and also
against his duty as physician of the soul by not applying the necessary
means of amendment.[828]

To this rule there are, however, some exceptions, though in every case
the penitent must faithfully promise to remove the occasion as soon as
possible:—

1. When the penitent shows signs of extraordinary sorrow and firmness
of purpose, thus giving hope that he will carry out his resolutions
faithfully.

2. When the occasion is such that the penitent can give it up without
doing great violence to himself.

3. When there is a solid reason for administering absolution at once; for
it is allowed, where such reason exists, and if the necessary cautions
are employed, to expose one’s self and another to a danger which then
becomes a remote one; and if the penitent must receive absolution before
he can remove the occasion, he is to be regarded as one _in occasione
necessaria_, and he has a right, therefore, to immediate absolution. The
following are held to be sufficient reasons: (_a_) _Danger of death_;
that is, when the penitent is in danger of death and the occasion cannot
be removed at once for want of time, or because great disgrace or
scandal is to be feared. (_b_) _Difficulty in going to the same confessor
again_; if this is the case, or if the penitent could not return till
after a long time, nor repeat the confession to another confessor except
under great difficulties, he may also be absolved before giving up the
occasion. This holds good when the penitent confesses at a place far
removed from his own domicile, so that it would be very difficult for
him to go to the confessor again. (_c_) _Danger of disgrace_, if, on the
same day or the following, he were obliged to contract a marriage, or
receive holy communion, and could not withdraw without great disgrace.
The case is similar if one confesses during the time of a mission, and
cannot during this time remove the occasion without incurring infamy, as
is frequently the case. Here the confessor may content himself with the
removal of the occasion some weeks after the mission, but he must demand
that the penitent should take the preliminary steps towards this at once
if it can be done. (_d_) _Danger of spiritual injury_; that is, when the
confessor has grounds for fearing that, on account of the postponement
of absolution, the penitent would be estranged from the confessional and
perish in his sins; in this case, postponement of absolution would rather
increase the danger of not being faithful to his resolution.

In the above-named cases the confessor would be obliged to explain to the
penitent that he must not hope to receive absolution in the future if he
does not keep his promise.[829]

II. Those penitents who are _in occasione interrupta_ can be absolved
_aliquoties_ (two or three times) before they have abandoned the occasion
if they seriously promise to do so. They do not live _actu_ in the
occasion, and their resolution not to seek the occasion may, therefore,
be regarded as a firm one; but the confessor must urge them to abandon
the occasion.

If the penitent does not subsequently amend, absolution must be deferred
till he has really abandoned the occasion. As he could easily give up
the occasion, and does not do so, according to his promise, doubts as
to the firmness of his resolution arise; extraordinary signs of good
dispositions would, however, remove these doubts.

If the penitent shows some improvement, although he has not yet
completely given up the occasion, and if it is to be feared that
deferring absolution would do more harm than good to the penitent, he may
be absolved, seeing that his improvement indicates a firm resolve and
preludes complete amendment.[830]

III. Penitents who have relapsed into an _occasio continua_, that is,
those who have not kept their promise to remove the occasion, cannot
be absolved unless they prove their worthiness by some extraordinary
sign. But even in the latter case, that is, when these penitents give
extraordinary signs of their good dispositions, the confessor where it
seems feasible and useful may defer their absolution _ex officio medici_
till they have removed the occasion.[831]


65. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione
Necessaria.

The following are the rules for the treatment of this very numerous class
of penitents:—

I. Penitents who are _in occasione proximo necessaria_ can be absolved
without giving up the occasion if they are disposed and _are willing_ to
adopt _means of amendment_. “For,” as St. Alphonsus says, “an opportunity
of sinning is really, _in se_, no sin, and induces no necessity of
sinning; true sorrow and a firm purpose not to relapse may, therefore,
be quite consistent with an occasion; and although it is right that every
one should be bound to remove the immediate occasion of sin, this simply
means that no one may expose himself voluntarily to such risks. But if
the occasion is necessary, the danger becomes, by the application of
remedies, a remote one, and God does not withdraw the helps of His grace
from him who is firmly resolved not to offend Him.”[832]

II. If penitents who live _in occasione proxima necessaria_ have
relapsed, that is, have not employed the means prescribed by the
confessor, absolution must be deferred till they have amended, unless
they remove all doubts about their disposition by some extraordinary
sign.[833] But how are penitents to be dealt with who have employed the
means prescribed but yet have relapsed in the same way?

While many theologians believe that such persons can be absolved (and
that _toties quoties_) if they seriously promise amendment, St. Alphonsus
teaches (maintaining that this is the _sententia verior et communis_)
that they must give up the occasion before they can be absolved, even
if they suffer thereby great injury or detriment (_etiam, si opus sit,
cum jactura vitæ_), provided that, _after many attempts, there is no
improvement and no probable hope of improvement_. For in this case (he
says) the danger of sin remains a formal one and cannot be separated
from a sin. Physical separation from the occasion is, therefore (he
continues), the only means of salvation, and the words of Christ are
binding: “If thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee; for it is better to enter into life with one eye than in possession
of both eyes, to be cast into hell fire.” (Matt, xviii. 9.) “What doth
it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of
his own soul?” (Matt. xvi. 26.) The holy Doctor excepts the case in
which the penitent gives such extraordinary signs of repentance that
improvement can be reasonably hoped for.[834] Ballerini, however, urges
the possibility of supposing that in the case of such penitents there is
something more in question than the want of the necessary dispositions,
namely, that the means prescribed and employed were not the right ones,
and, therefore, that others should be prescribed. This, he says, is not
to be understood of the general means simply, such as prayer and other
pious exercises, almsgiving, and abstinence, and frequent reception of
the holy Sacraments, etc., but much more of the special means which
are adapted to overcome temptations and dangers, and which are to be
determined according to circumstances; for if these were faithfully
employed, they would make relapse morally impossible, especially when
external sins were in question; for instance, avoiding of intercourse
_solius cum sola_.

Ballerini urges, moreover, that, _ex lege naturæ_, the penitent is,
indeed, bound to avoid the immediate danger, but this can be done in two
ways, by employing suitable means by which the danger becomes a remote
one, or by removing or avoiding the occasion; but the penitent, he says,
is bound to only one of the two _ex lege naturæ_; with what right,
therefore, can the confessor bind the penitent to the one more than to
the other? Nor must we impose upon the penitent what is too difficult,
indeed, in many cases morally impossible. Moreover, if the confessor is
obliged to choose that course which removes the penitent from the danger
of sinning, he will certainly never choose that means through which the
penitent will certainly sin by refusing to make use of it. Another way
is also open to the confessor, without insisting on this indiscreet
obligation, namely, to defer absolution sometimes till the penitent has
employed the suitable remedies with successful results. But in this
case it is to be observed that complete amendment is not necessary in
order that absolution may be given. It suffices that the number of sins
should indicate that it can be truly said that the occasion is no longer
immediate.[835]

“To put it in a few words, there is no need to deal with these penitents
otherwise than with those who have contracted sinful habits. I will
only add one remark, that if the confessor is harsh, strictly demanding
the more difficult step, the only result will be that the penitent will
become more entangled in sin; on the other hand, mildness and patience
will at least save him from complete ruin; thus theologians speak of the
confessions of a _meretrix_, a usurer, or of any other penitent who is
not sufficiently disposed, but has a desire to amend.”[836]

As to the remedies for penitents _in occasione necessaria_, the confessor
must endeavor:—

1. _To lessen the power of the sinful occasion._ A few resolute and
boldly spoken words, a serious threat, or rebuke, a cry for help, a
complaint at the proper place, will often suffice to discourage an
insolent tempter and prevent any further annoyance. The confessor must,
moreover, require that the penitent should no longer associate _solus
cum sola_, that he should shun all intimacy, and, as far as is possible,
avoid even the sight of the _complex_ and give up speaking and thinking
of her, etc.

2. _To lessen the power of the passion_,—by work, fasting, and exercises
of penance.

3. _To increase spiritual strength_,—by prayer, frequent reception of the
Sacraments, meditation upon the eternal truths.[837]

It is, however, to be carefully observed that the penitent is bound
to employ the means which he is able to employ; otherwise, though the
occasion would be necessary, the danger would be voluntary. Let the
confessor instruct the penitent as to this duty, select the means
corresponding to the danger, the character, and the circumstances of the
penitent, and also show him how to apply them.[838]

In the treatment of the _occasionarius_ the confessor must be very
prudent. P. Segneri calls attention to a double trick by which
penitents try to deceive themselves and the confessor. (_a_) They are
wont generally so to represent the occasion that it seems to be only
a remote one, or they pretend that shunning it would cause them great
difficulties, whereas there is frequently no other difficulty than that
their passion finds it hard to break chains that have become dear to
them. When, therefore, penitents speak of the scandal or the great injury
which removing or avoiding the occasion would cause, the confessor must
not be too ready to believe them, but must carefully weigh the matter,
for it is one of great importance. (_b_) The second, not less dangerous,
deception, is that they declare themselves ready to leave the _occasio in
esse_; but in reality this is only in words; when the confession is over
they do not perform what they have promised to perform. “I know well that
many teach that the penitent can be absolved the first time, if he has
made the promise to discharge his duty as soon as possible. But I repeat
what I have said: as a rule do not do so, for ... experience shows that
penitents who have obtained absolution in this manner do not subsequently
endeavor to break through the net of sin; they find a hundred evasions,
and before the occasion has been removed the sins have been multiplied,
till, at the expiration of the year, Easter approaches, when they proceed
to another confessor, who is equally imprudent. If a penitent has already
deceived you or other confessors, I declare to you that on no account
may you or can you give him absolution. For he is not disposed. If you,
nevertheless, should believe that the present words of the penitent
ought to be esteemed as of more value than his former deeds, and if,
without just grounds, you hold him sufficiently disposed and worthy of
absolution, listen, at least, to what I say to you: you do not act like
a good confessor, and even if you fulfill the duties of the judge, you
neglect the duties of the physician which are also incumbent upon you.
Even if the penitent is contrite, as he seems to you to be, it is not
fair to leave him in the jaws of the dragon when you can snatch him from
the terrible danger of relapse by means of that remedy which is the only
one against this evil, namely, by forcing him first to do that which he
is bound to do, and by deferring absolution till he has done it. This
just severity is still more necessary in the case of public sinners, for
with these scandal is added to the sin of occasion.”[839]


66. Some Commonly Occurring Occasions of Sin.

The application of the principles developed in the foregoing to many
occasions of sin—such as concubinage, dancing, the theater, bad reading,
and intimacies—presents to the young confessor at times no small
difficulty. These occasions are, moreover, so numerous nowadays that they
form a large part of the confessor’s work. We will, therefore, devote a
short discussion to them.

I. _Concubinage._ That is, _frequentatus concubitus cum eadem femina,
quam quis instar uxoris in propria vel aliena domo retinet_. It
generally occurs with unmarried people, but also in any other species of
unchastity. The confessor must devote a very special attention to this
occasion, for public scandal usually accompanies it. Those who practice
it are exposed to immediate danger of eternal damnation and are with
great difficulty brought to amend and separate.[840]

As _remedy_, the confessor may (1) sometimes _recommend marriage_ when
this is practicable. Marriage is often the only remedy for such unhappy
people, as the occasion of sin is, in this way, removed. The confessor
should especially encourage it in the following cases: (_a_) when the
concubine lives in the house of her accomplice, is supported by him,
and cannot otherwise procure her livelihood; (_b_) when the two parties
love each other very much, and especially (_c_) when the concubinage has
lasted a long time, is legalized, as regards the state, by a so-called
civil marriage, when children have resulted from this sinful connection;
and, finally (_d_), when one of the parties is in danger of death. On the
other hand, separation will be preferable to marriage when the concubine
lives in another house, and when not love but sensual passion is the
motive of their sinful life.

But if marriage cannot be at once contracted, the confessor must urge
separation if this is any way feasible, so that the occasion of sin
may, in the meanwhile, be removed; if separation is impracticable, the
confessor must prescribe suitable measures for diminishing the danger of
sin.[841]

On the other hand, confessors and parish priests should not have recourse
to a _matrimonium secretum_ or _conscientiæ_,[842] unless one of the two
living in a state of concubinage is in danger of death, or when they are
publicly regarded as married; for in other cases, _divortium_ is to be
feared, and if the concubinage _is secret_, scandal will arise as soon
as children are born, or there will be danger of a continued state of
onanistic cohabitation in order that no scandal may arise.

2. If marriage is either morally impossible, or if an unhappy marriage
is to be feared, the confessor must impose separation upon the parties,
where separation can take place, as it is the necessary means of
removing the occasion of sin. If immediate separation is impossible,
let him prescribe the remedies given above for penitents _in occasione
necessaria_. If, for instance, the concubine lives with the accomplice as
a servant or in any other capacity, she must, in order to avoid sin in
the meantime, tell the man plainly that she does not wish to live such
a life any longer, and resist him in every possible way, lock the door
of her bedroom at night, and apply the other remedies referred to above.
If she is dismissed from her service on this account and left houseless
and without sustenance, let the confessor (preserving his own honor and
avoiding scandal) procure her admission into a house of refuge for women,
or in some other way make provision for her need. If the parties live in
separate houses, let the confessor forbid the man to visit his accomplice
and have further intercourse with her. The woman must, in addition to
the remedies already prescribed, employ the following: (_a_) never again
to admit the accomplice to her dwelling; (_b_) to take rooms with some
respectable woman, so as not to be found alone; and (_c_) to change her
place of residence.

3. But if very weighty and insurmountable reasons prevent both marriage
and separation, the confessor must have recourse to such measures as
will remove the formal danger of sin; for in this case the occasion is a
necessary one, and he must act accordingly.

4. If one of the parties living in concubinage is seriously ill or in
danger of death, marriage must take place at once. If they cannot marry,
and if the concubinage is _public_, the man must dismiss his accomplice
and engage another respectable servant to wait upon him. If the woman
is dangerously ill, she must, her illness and circumstances permitting,
take steps to obtain admission into a public hospital if one is
accessible. Where the concubinage is _not publicly_ known, a separation
will present difficulties on account of the danger of disgrace. If it
is not practicable, the confessor must take care that the danger of
sin be removed as much as possible, and to this end prescribe the
aforesaid remedies. The following measures are also to be recommended:
removal of the portrait of the accomplice from the room; if such removal
is not possible, the sick person should, either personally or through
the confessor, beg pardon of the accomplice for the scandal given, and
advise the latter to provide for his (or her) soul’s salvation by true
repentance.[843]

5. As to the absolution of those living in concubinage, the following
rules will be serviceable to the confessor: if a _public_ concubinage and
a _voluntary occasion_ are in question, the parties cannot be absolved
till they have really separated. To the reasons already given above is
to be added the fact that it would cause scandal if the man who kept
a concubine in his house or who often visited her at her house, or
the woman who still lived with her accomplice or received him at her
house, were seen approaching holy communion. A _peccator publicus_ also
cannot be absolved till he has _publice_ done penance and atoned for his
scandal.[844]

If it is a question of a _necessary_ occasion with a _public
concubinage_, absolution must be deferred till the penitent has refrained
from sin for some considerable time and has repaired the scandal
given.[845] The confessor, however, must not readily believe that the
occasion is a necessary one, for the attachment to sin of these unhappy
people causes them to exaggerate the difficulties of separation, or,
indeed, to suppose difficulties where they do not exist.[846] An occasion
is only to be regarded as necessary when the penitent would suffer great
injury by leaving it, when it might mean the surrender of the social
position which he held at the time.[847] The public scandal might be
regarded as atoned for if the parties caused it to be made known (if it
were not already known) that they could not separate; furthermore, if
they publicly gave signs of their conversion by attending divine service,
receiving the Sacraments, etc., and, finally, if they marry, in case this
were possible. An exception to the above rule could only be made in the
following cases, certainly very rare ones: if the sinful intercourse had
long ceased but was still a subject of talk and the scandal could not at
once be removed, but the penitent were willing to atone for it as soon as
possible, he might then be absolved before the scandal was made good if
he promises not to go to holy communion, at least not in the place where
his former sinful career was a matter of notoriety.[848]

When a man living publicly in concubinage falls seriously ill, or is in
danger of death, he must be absolved _sub conditione_, if he is already
unconscious, and Extreme Unction must also be given to him; for it cannot
be maintained that he persists in manifest mortal sin, unless he had
expressly refused the holy Sacraments before unconsciousness set in.
If he is still conscious, but dying, and there is no time either for a
marriage or for arranging a separation, he must be helped to make an
act of contrition and absolved, and the other Sacraments should then be
administered to him. But care must be taken that the accomplice does not
come near him, and that, if it is still possible, the dying person asks
pardon before witnesses in atonement for the scandal, either personally,
or through the priest. If this form of atonement is not practicable,
the priest should provide for it in some other way.[849] But if there
is still sufficient time to atone for the scandal, and to remove the
occasion of relapse (exterior and interior), either by marriage or
separation, absolution must not be given till the scandal is atoned for
and the occasion removed. If neither expedient is practicable, this
impossibility must be declared before witnesses, so that it may become
known, and the sick person must promise to bring about the separation as
soon as he recovers.[850]

If the concubinage is not publicly known and the occasion is voluntary,
the parties may not as a rule be absolved till they have actually
separated, even if they give signs of great sorrow. An exception might be
made to this rule when a prompt dismissal would be impossible, and the
penitent would be under an urgent necessity of receiving holy communion
in order to avoid great infamy or some equivalent injury, supposing also
that the penitent were in very contrite dispositions in consequence of
some external occurrence—the death of a friend, deliverance from death,
etc., or if he and the accomplice did not live in the same house, or if
there were well-grounded fear that, on account of the postponement of
absolution, the penitent might become estranged from the confessional and
perish in his sins.[851]

If, with secret concubinage, the occasion is a necessary one, the
properly disposed penitent may be absolved, but absolution could be
postponed in accordance with the rules here applicable (§ 52).[852] Let
it be added that if the penitent maintains that the occasion is necessary
to avoid scandal or disgrace, he should not, as a rule, be believed.

II. _Dancing._[853]

Dancing with persons of different sex, when there is no question of
sinful circumstances, is, of itself, not forbidden, as it is not
_ex se actus libidinis_.[854] But it may become very sinful: (_a_)
through sinful intention; (_b_) through the danger of sinning; (_c_)
by the scandal given, and (_d_) by the prohibition of parents or of an
ecclesiastical law.[855]

Dancing is very sinful when those engaged in it have the intention of
exciting _venereas delectationes_, of employing _tactus malitiosos_,
or of indulging in _turpes sermones_. In this respect the so-called
masked balls (_choreæ larvatæ_, _bals masqués_) are a source of great
danger.[856]

Dancing may give rise to the following sins: (_a_) _malitiosæ manuum
constrictiones affectu nempe impudico_, differing from the simple, and,
of itself, not dangerous _manuum apprehensio_;[857] (_b_) _amplexus
pressi_; (_c_) _tactus obscæni_ (especially, _extra actum saltandi_)
before or after; (_d_) _amatorii et turpes sermones_; _aspectus
malitiosi_ (in the _obscænæ choreæ_); (_e_) _delectationes morosæ et
desideria turpia_. The confessor will, however, observe that the external
sins referred to occur less frequently in respectable dancing assemblies.

If dancing is a _periculum proximum_ to those engaging in it, and if
there is no _causa gravis_ for doing so, it must be avoided under grave
sin; if it constitutes only a _periculum remotum_ or is excused by some
_causa gravis_, it would be a venial sin only, or none at all. The
confessor must, therefore, take into consideration the danger and its
nature, as also the existence of a _causa gravis_.

He can judge if such danger is in question: (1) _from experience_,—that
is, when the penitent has taken part in dancing, and has often
(_frequenter_) sinned in consequence of it, and when the circumstances
are the same in some given case; (2) from other circumstances,—especially
the nature of the dance, too great frequency, the time of night, the
moral character of the other persons present at the dance, _indecens
feminarum pectoris nudatio_. General rules, applicable for all places and
persons, cannot be given here. _Public_ dances to which all have access
are, generally speaking, more dangerous than private ones.

If there is only _periculum remotum_ in question, any _causa
rationabilis_ excuses from sin, certainly from grievous sin; for
instance, to recreate one’s self, to have a little amusement (once and
again in the year), to find more easily an opportunity of marrying, to
show courtesy towards those who give invitations to the dance, to avoid
the talk and ridicule of others, etc. If, however, there is question of
_periculum proximum_, the _causa_ must be a _gravis_ to constitute an
excuse; for instance, to avoid giving serious offense to wife, husband,
parents, brothers and sisters, or to avoid family quarrels. But then
there must be no other way of escaping these quarrels, and the penitent
who exposes himself to these dangers must protect himself by suitable
means.[858]

With reference to the confessor’s conduct in this matter, we may add
the following remarks: (1) Let him equally avoid excess and deficiency
of zeal; (2) let him estimate the danger to which dancing exposes his
penitent, by asking him if he has committed sin at other dances, or
been subjected to great temptation. If it results from this examination
that the penitent is strictly bound to avoid these pleasures, let the
confessor forbid them to him even under threat of refusing absolution;
if no such obligation is evident, let him not show himself too ready in
permitting indulgence in this dangerous and doubtful pleasure, and let
him tell the penitent how he should conduct himself.[859]

III. _Frequenting theaters._

Theatrical performances (in the wider sense of the term) are, according
to the teaching of St. Thomas,[860] _secundum se_, not sinful, but may
become gravely so, by offending against religion and good morals, in
the matter represented or in the manner of representing it. Very many
modern dramas are of the latter kind, and full of dangers, treating as
they do of anti-religious subjects or of such as are hostile to faith,
or lascivious; degrading the Catholic faith, distorting historical
facts to its detriment, extolling the enemies of the Church, holding
up holy rites and even the Sacraments of the Church to mockery and
contempt, calumniating priests, making vices, such as adultery, revenge,
suicide, and sins of the flesh, appear lawful or even glorifying them;
characterizing religion in general as ridiculous, superstitious, etc.,
treating not only of obscene and dangerous subjects, but also offending
decency in the manner of representation.

If, therefore, the dramas in question are _Religioni notabiliter
contraria_, or if the subject-matter or the manner of representing it are
_nimis turpia_, attendance is certainly a grave sin. For what may not be
seen, or heard, or read, _extra theatrum_, without great sin, cannot be,
as the Angelic Master expresses himself, _ratione theatri leviora_.[861]

If they are _notabiliter_, but not _nimis turpia_, they may be _occasio
relativa_, and frequenting them out of curiosity or for amusement (if
there is no danger of consenting _in turpem delectationem_) may be free
from grave sin. But this danger will, in the case of young people, be
absent only when they have very tender consciences, conduct themselves
very prudently, and when, after being repeatedly present at such
performances, they are able to say that they have not committed mortal
sin.[862] Performances, however, which are _non notabiliter turpia_,
may be an _occasio proxima_ for those who know by experience their own
weakness, the more so as nowadays doubtful attractions are introduced
even into otherwise good or harmless plays.

The so-called _choreæ scenicæ_ (ballet), _quæ inter actus miscentur,
utpote in quibus ob vestitum saltatricum, obscænos saltandi modos aut
lascivas gesticulationes, maxima apparere solet turpitudo_, will probably
be for many theatergoers an _occasio proximo_.

When, therefore, one goes to a theater without exercising any
discrimination as to the choice of the play or the manner of its
performance, he exposes himself to a probable danger of sin, _ex
communiter contingentibus fit prudens præsumptio_. Some, however,
maintain that they attend chiefly to the music, not to the plot and its
representation; this, of course, would materially reduce the danger, but
not wholly remove it.

Frequenting the theater may also become sinful on account of the _sinful
intention_ connected with it, and by the scandal thereby given. Besides
the actors and actresses in a bad play, those also give scandal who
coöperate _in spectacula notabiliter turpia aut Religioni graviter
adversa_, positively, by money or applause, and, negatively, by not
preventing them when _ex officio_ they were bound to do so, or at least
could have prevented them by some other means; for example, by refusing
to coöperate, etc.[863] Moreover, parents and other superiors give
scandal who do not effectually prevent their children and those under
their care from being present at improper representations, or when they
give permission to go there, without having previously ascertained the
character of the play. Finally, those give scandal who encourage others
(especially young people) by their example to attend theaters, also
clerics and religious who, contrary to ecclesiastical regulations, are
present at secular performances.[864]

If, therefore, by going to the theater, a person exposes himself to only
_slight danger_, and only gives _slight scandal_, he is free from grave
sin if he takes the necessary precautions.

But if he suffers great danger, or gives great scandal, only a _causa
gravis_ would excuse him from grave sin if he takes the necessary
precautions, and tries to the best of his power to make good the scandal.
Such _causa gravis_ would be, for instance, a well-founded fear of great
detriment, continued irritation of parents, of husband or wife, etc.;
the loss of the subscription fee would not be a _causa sufficiens_.
But even when there is a _causa_, and, in spite of precautions, faith
is endangered, or if the person often succumbs to temptation, he is
absolutely bound to avoid the occasion. Hence no _causa_ will excuse
frequentation of a very immoral or godless performance, because it will
not be possible to avoid the formal danger which accompanies it.

In cases where it is necessary, the penitent must be strictly bound to
avoid the theater or certain plays; even where this obligation is not
strictly binding, he must still be persuaded to avoid the theater, and if
this is not possible or opportune, the priest must at least instruct the
penitent cautiously to conduct himself.

The actors in immoral and godless plays cannot, of course, be admitted
to the Sacraments till they have either given up their profession, or no
longer take part in such performances, for they are _peccatores publici,
publicum scandalum præbentes_.[865]

IV. _Bad reading._

The reading of bad books is a source of great danger, and this occasion
of sin is very common, unceasingly estranging countless numbers from
faith and robbing them of innocence.

We must distinguish between: (1) books which, _ex professo_, are written
against religion and faith (defending the errors of heretics and
infidels) and those which are not, _ex professo_, directed against it
(only here and there attacking religion); (2) books which, _ex professo_,
are obscene (which, if not wholly, yet to a great extent, treat of
obscene things) and such as are _subobscæni_ (in which a good deal of
obscenity is to be found).

Books _ex professo impii_ are very dangerous and pernicious.

Few persons who are not learned and pious theologians can read them
without injury to their faith. Hence the Church (in the second rule of
the Index) has strictly prohibited the reading of such books, and if
they _hæresim propugnant_, reading them consciously entails censure of
excommunication reserved to the Pope.[866] Books which are hostile to
religion, but not so _ex professo_, are also a source of danger, and,
therefore, reading them is permitted to no one without necessity. The
degree of the danger depends upon the object which the reader has in
view, upon his age, his religious sentiments, and knowledge.

Books _ex professo_ obscene are certainly dangerous, for they excite
violent temptations, and they are still worse when, as is often the case,
they are illustrated with obscene pictures. Reading such is strictly
forbidden by the seventh rule of the Index.

The _libri erotici_ (_de amoribus agentes_), for instance many comedies,
tragedies, dramas, novels, and romances, are sources of relative danger;
the reading of them is, in many respects, injurious, especially to young
people.

_Bad newspapers and periodicals_ must be classified in the same way as
books, and what has been said above concerning the reading of bad books
holds good as to newspapers and periodicals. If they are written _ex
professo_ against faith and morals, they are even more dangerous than
such books.

Accordingly, the confessor is bound: (1) when there is ground for
suspicion that the penitent has sinned by such reading and has been
silent about it, to ask him on the matter; omitting to do so would be
very injurious to the penitent, as it would be leaving him in great
danger, and if he had purposely concealed it, he would have confessed
sacrilegiously.

The confessor is bound (2) to admonish penitents who have read bad books,
etc., to refrain entirely from such reading, to buy no more books,
etc., of the kind, not to borrow them, nor in future to have them in
their possession. He must especially instruct parents and superiors on
this head, and incite them to watchfulness. He is bound (3) to refuse
absolution to those who will not refrain from such reading.[867] (4) To
prescribe for the penitent who reads infidel writings _ex necessitate_
suitable safeguards in order that the poison may not injure him,
such remedies as reading good books and newspapers, praying for the
preservation of faith, frequent reception of the Sacraments, etc. (5) To
do his best to keep young people from novel reading.[868]

The confessor must, to the best of his ability, endeavor to prevent
the reading of so-called “liberal” books, newspapers, and periodicals,
which are, indeed, bad, though not, _ex professo_, godless or obscene;
especially (_a_) when the penitent is conscious of his duty to refrain
from such reading, or is in doubt about it; (_b_) when, although not
aware of this duty, good results are to be expected from exhortation;
and (_c_) when the confessor perceives that such reading is beginning
to harm the penitent. On the other hand, the confessor must be silent
concerning the duty of avoiding such reading (_a_) when the penitent
is _invincibiliter_ ignorant of this duty; (_b_) when the confessor
could not hope that his admonition would be acted upon, or when, on
the contrary, he would have to fear still greater evils; but he must
then inspire his penitent with distrust of these newspapers, etc., and
endeavor by exhortation and request to wean him from such dangerous
reading.[869] A man of business might be permitted to keep and to read
bad newspapers on account of the advertisements, when such advertisements
are not to be found (or not so fully) in a good paper, but he must
be admonished to subscribe for this end only, and not to leave the
newspaper about for others, especially children, to read. It is not
allowed to inn-keepers to have bad newspapers in their establishments
in order to attract customers by such reading, for that would be an
_actio ex se ordinata ad malum_. Under the heading of “bad newspapers”
are not included those producing here and there incorrect judgments upon
religion.[870]

V. _Intimacies_ (_procationes_).[871]

1. If this intimacy is begun with a view to matrimony it is not, _de se_,
forbidden, for none is bound to marry a person who is unknown to him; he
may, during a certain time, study the character and morals of the person
by means of lawful intimacy.[872]

But such intimacies, _in praxi_, very easily become an _occasio proxima_
of grave sin amongst young people and those who have not much conscience,
especially when greater familiarity and freedom of intercourse sets
in, and the time of marriage approaches.[873] That an intimacy may not
degenerate into an _occasio proxima_, or, having become such, may cease
to be so, the following rules must be observed: Only such as wish,
and are able, to contract marriage within a reasonable time (_tempus
rationabile_) should be allowed this kind of intimacy. They must,
therefore, be of proper age, so that the intimacy may not be too much
prolonged; there must be no impediment in the way of their marriage, that
is, they must possess the necessary liberty, being free from bondage of
any kind; the parents must not (from just motives) be opposed to their
child’s marriage, or to marriage with the particular person in question.
Moreover, there must be a firm intention of marrying. This intention may
be presumed to be wanting in the case of a rich young man who enters into
such relationship with a poor girl, or one who, at the very outset of the
acquaintance, induces her to sin, or neglects the necessary precautions,
or who, at the expiration of a suitable time, shows no disposition
whatever to contract marriage, etc. How long such intimacy may last
(_rationabile tempus_) cannot be determined by hard and fast rules
applicable to all cases; it must be left to the intelligent discretion of
the persons in question; half a year, or a whole year, may generally be
regarded as not too long. Let the confessor, therefore, take care that
the intimacy is not prolonged for years with danger of sin, and if it has
already lasted too long, let him provide that it should either be broken
off, or interrupted for a time, or that marriage should take place as
soon as possible.

2. In order that the intimacy may proceed honorably, the persons must
adopt suitable measures of precaution. Those therefore, between whom such
intimacy exists, _must not live in the same house_; they must, as soon
as possible, obtain the consent of the parents or their representatives,
for if they frequently meet without the knowledge, or against the will of
their parents, they will do it secretly, and in this lies a great danger.
If the parents are opposed to the marriage without just reason, the
confessor must suggest some other means for their honorable intercourse.
They must not associate solus cum sola, especially secretly in retired
places at night time—“_id quippe, si non fortuito sed consulto fiat,
nonnisi ex fine libidinis aut cum summo periculo libidinis fiet_,”
remarks Aertnys,[874] and Ballerini[875] says: “Those especially who have
care of the persons in question must pay attention to this. Parents,
and particularly mothers, must be very earnestly appealed to, and their
strict duty of watchfulness and care most forcibly insisted upon. And
in this they must be influenced not only by conscience, but by the
fear that the daughters ‘_semel corruptæ in paterna domo dehonestatæ
consenescant_.’” Moreover, their visits must not be too frequent nor too
long; and if they should be alone, they must not offend against the rules
of morality, but conduct themselves honorably in every respect; and,
lastly, they must procure for themselves the necessary graces in this
dangerous time by prayer and the reception of the Sacraments.[876]

3. Still greater prudence is necessary after engagement, as the danger of
sin becomes greater, _cum sponsus respiciat sponsam tanquam suam, magna
familiaritas sit quasi inevitabilis, imaginatio copulæ conjugalis brevi
secuturæ libidinem commoveat et timor prægnationis evanescat_, etc.[877]
Therefore, let the confessor, to the best of his ability, bring about
that the time of betrothal may not be deferred too long.[878]

4. If they have fallen into sin _ob causam amoris_, the intimacy assumes
the character of an _occasio proxima_, and it must be dealt with
according to the principles applicable to it.[879] They must, therefore,
_break off_ the intimacy if they can, without great detriment, forego
the intended marriage, and wait for the occasion of contracting another,
or they must set their relations with each other on a _better footing_ if
they cannot forego the marriage without sin and without great detriment.

It results from the foregoing that all “intimacies” are to be regarded as
sinful and as _occasiones proximæ_, which: (1) are entered upon without
any intention of marriage, but only for the sake of pleasure, sensuality,
and sin; (2) which are begun without hope of speedy marriage,[880] or
(3) in spite of the justifiable opposition of parents, (4) which are
secretly carried on,[881] and (5) which exist between persons who live in
the same house. Persons who maintain such relations, and will not break
them off, or refuse to amend, may not be absolved. Even if it happens
that they do not at first sin grievously, they will not, later on, remain
free from sin. And if they maintain that they have done nothing wrong,
the confessor must not at once trust their assurances, but instruct them
in their duty with the necessary circumspection and prudence.[882] “We
admonish all confessors,” writes Gaume, “not to absolve those who are
carrying on love affairs, when such things are for them gravely sinful,
when after three warnings from their own or other confessors (concerning
which penitents are always to be questioned) they have not really
amended. They must be given plainly to understand that, until they have
really amended, they cannot expect absolution from their own confessors,
nor claim it from others.”[883]


ARTICLE II

HABITUAL AND RELAPSING SINNERS


67. Definition and Treatment of Habitual Sinners.

An habitual sinner is one who, in consequence of a disposition or
tendency which he has acquired by oft-repeated sinful acts of a definite
kind,—such as blasphemy, cursing, perjury, impurity,—frequently falls
into that sin.[884]

How many acts suffice to constitute a sinful habit (_habitus seu
consuetudo_) depends upon the nature of the sin which has been often
committed and upon the manner in which it is committed, for instance, by
thought, word, or action; also upon the difficulty or ease with which
the sin is committed—so that the more easily a sin is committed the more
acts are required to constitute a habit. Sins of thought and speech
are more easily committed than sins of act, those which are incomplete
than those which are completed; and in completed acts, those which are
committed alone are more easily committed than those which have an
accomplice. Moreover, we must take into consideration the length of time
which elapses between the separate sinful acts of the same kind, as also
the disposition and temperament of the person, and the greater or less
intentness of the will in committing the sin.

Thus, according to the words of St. Alphonsus, the repetition of an
external sin five times in a month, if between the separate acts there
is any interval, may produce a habit. In sins of _luxuria consummata_,
with a _complex_, for instance, _fornicatio_, _sodomia_, a much smaller
number of repetitions of the same sin are enough to constitute a habit
of this sin. A much greater number is necessary in sins of speech and
thought. He must undoubtedly be regarded as an habitual sinner, who,
during a considerable time, has not resisted but yielded to temptation
of a definite kind. “However, when the administration or postponement of
absolution is in question,” remarks Lehmkuhl, “it does not so very much
depend upon the more or less accurate definition of a habit,” seeing that
there is no reason for excluding a penitent from absolution on account of
a sinful habit if he has a real wish to resist it or lay it aside.[885]
Nevertheless, this habit—like the occasion of sin—often excites a
_suspicion that the penitent is not disposed_ and inspires apprehensions
of relapse. The confessor must, therefore, be cautious in administering
absolution.

As a rule, the habitual sinner who is not in immediate occasion of sin,
must receive absolution if there is reason to believe that he has the
necessary dispositions. In this case absolution is to be given when
there has been no previous improvement, but the penitent must faithfully
promise to adopt the measures prescribed for his amendment.

In the case of such a penitent we must not presume at once that he
intends to receive the holy Sacrament in bad dispositions; we may
infer from the fact of his confessing his sins that he is disposed, as
spontaneous confession is a sign of repentance, unless there is positive
ground to presume the contrary. Nor may we say that the sinful habit is
a sign of indisposition, for although the sinful _habitus_ may make the
sinner more inclined to sin, it does not justify the supposition that he
has no firm wish to amend.[886]

But if (1) the habit is already _deeply rooted_ (as it generally is with
those who are habitual sinners _ex mala voluntate_, and always with
those who have been addicted to any vice—especially that of lust—for a
long time), the confessor could defer absolution for a short time, in
accordance with the principles guiding such postponement, unless some
other circumstance demands the immediate administration of absolution;
this he could do, both in order to learn how the penitent applies the
prescribed means of amendment, as also that the penitent himself may
conceive a greater horror of sin.[887]

(2) If the habitual sinner (_in peccato mortali habituatus_) is a cleric
who will soon receive Holy Orders, absolution must also be postponed;
for _positive_ goodness is necessary in such a penitent. An habitual
sinner who _refuses_ to confess _several_ times in the year, cannot, _per
se_, be refused absolution on that account; for, on the one hand, there
is no command to confess several times in the year, and, on the other
hand, there are other means which could be prescribed for uprooting the
habit and which are very suitable and efficacious for that purpose. A
different course, however, would have to be taken if the other remedies
were inefficacious; for many penitents can only find a suitable remedy in
frequent confession. Hence Toletus says very justly (in speaking of those
who habitually practice pollution), “I believe that there is scarcely
any other efficacious remedy for these than frequent confession, as
this Sacrament is the strongest curb.”[888] And still more clearly and
decisively does St. Alphonsus express himself,[889] saying, “He to whom
a grave sin, especially pollution, has become a habit, and who does not
frequently confess, may expect amendment only through a miracle.”


68. Relapse, and the Treatment of Relapsing Sinners.

Relapse into sin signifies literally the repeated commission of a sin
already confessed. In the theological sense, those are called relapsing
sinners, who, after several confessions, fall into the same sins again.
From this it results that a relapsing sinner is also an habitual sinner,
but not every habitual sinner is a relapsing sinner.[890]

In order that a confessor may arrive at a correct judgment concerning a
penitent who seems to be a relapsing sinner, he must investigate: (1)
if the sinful habit already exists; (2) if the penitent has already
been admonished by another confessor, and if he has known the means of
amendment; (3) if he has applied them and how; (4) how often, and under
what circumstances he has relapsed, if as often, or more often, or
less often, than before; if immediately, or almost immediately, after
the confession, if in severe temptation, or after long resistance, and
when he sinned last. From the answers he receives to these questions he
will recognize if he has to deal with a relapsing sinner, and, at the
same time, if the relapse is a sign of want of proper dispositions.
The relapsing sinner in the specified theological sense is not to be
confounded with one who relapses into a _single sin_ without habit, or
into an _occasio peccati_, that is, one who has not kept a promise to
give up an occasion of sin, has not removed the occasion, or has again
sought it (§ 64, III), whether he now has a habit of sinning or not. Here
we are only considering the _recidivi consuetudinarii_; those, therefore,
who have relapsed into the habit of sin, either from internal weakness,
or in consequence of external occasion.

Another distinction between relapsing sinners is not to be overlooked:
those who sin only in consequence of the force of passion, or of
weakness, in such sort that their will is generally opposed to sin, and,
therefore, when the storm of passion is over, immediately regret having
committed the sin, as it generally happens with blasphemies, curses, and
often with pollution,—these are _incontinentes seu habituati in peccato
tantum_; whilst those who sin in consequence of an habitual attachment
to sin, or from malice, and therefore without the preceding violent
impulse of passion,—these are the _intemperati seu habituati in voluntate
peccandi_ who are not so easily led to contrition.

The following principles are to be observed in absolving relapsing
sinners:—

I. The confessor must carefully examine the actual dispositions of
a relapsing sinner who has already been instructed and admonished
sufficiently, and who again returns, burdened with the same sinful
habit, without having made any attempt at amendment, or applied any of
the remedies prescribed for him by the confessor. Relapse under the
specified circumstances is, of course, no _direct_ argument against the
actual disposition of the sinner, though it is a direct argument against
the sorrow and purpose of amendment of preceding confessions. He who is
_truly_ sorry, and firmly purposes to avoid a sin, will refrain from it
at least for a time, and will not allow himself to be overcome in the
very first struggle with the enemy. It is, as Lehmkuhl rightly says,
legitimate to draw an indirect conclusion against the actual disposition
if the penitent gives only the same signs of sorrow as before.[891] His
disposition is, therefore, doubtful, and he must give better proofs of
it, although no definite rule can be laid down as to how, and to what
extent, this proof must be forthcoming.[892]

If, however, the confessor can form a _probabile et prudens judicium_
concerning the actual disposition of the relapsing penitent, he may
absolve him even if he has often relapsed, unless perhaps the duty of
giving up an occasion or making a restitution has to be previously
fulfilled. For even if the contrition of the penitent is only
_momentary_, not _persistent_, it is yet _true_ contrition. Because this
contrition is not persistent, it is not sufficient with respect to its
final operation,—namely, the attainment of eternal salvation; but because
it is true sorrow it is sufficient with respect to its immediate effect,
namely, that of procuring for the penitent absolution. As absolution
conveys sacramental grace, it increases the strength of the penitent,
enabling him to persevere; moreover, it remits mortal sin, so that if
the penitent died before he relapsed, he would be saved, and if he
died after relapse, _in statu impœnitentiæ_, he would be at least less
guilty in God’s sight, as his former sins would have been effaced by
absolution. Moreover, a sinner of this kind—accustomed to the reception
of the Sacraments, frequently instructed by his confessor, and admonished
concerning the danger of dying in mortal sin, the punishments of hell and
their eternal duration, the divine mercy and goodness, and the frequent
eliciting of sorrow and firm purpose—will, in the hour of death, if no
priest can help him, be more easily able to save himself from eternal
damnation by an act of perfect contrition. Hence the confessor must be
careful to exercise, with relapsing sinners, that great prudence spoken
of in the Roman Catechism, lest, having been accustomed to receive
the Sacraments, they be debarred from them by refusal of absolution,
or by imprudent postponement, to the great danger of their eternal
salvation.[893]

But if, as remarked above, the duty of abandoning some occasion of sin
or of making restitution, etc., be incumbent on the penitent, it may
be made a rule, for the first time, to put off absolution till he has
performed this duty, if it is easier for him to come to confession again
than to perform it; and this procedure will be still more in place if
the penitent had already once failed to keep his promise; indeed, in
this latter case, the penitent should only rarely be trusted before he
has really accomplished his duty. He may occasionally and by the way of
exception be trusted if, for instance, he shows special signs of a firmer
resolution, and if, on the other hand, it would be very difficult for him
to come again—having, perhaps, made a long journey, or for some other
similar reason.

II. Relapsing sinners whom the confessor sees to be insufficiently
disposed must, to the best of his ability, be helped to a proper
state of mind by his fatherly and zealous admonitions. He should not,
therefore, dismiss such penitents by at once postponing absolution, still
less by a prompt refusal of it. He should rather put before them the
hideousness of sin, the value of divine grace, and the danger of eternal
damnation.[894] Such admonition will, if imparted in the proper manner,
have the desired effect, at least if the sinner is not too much addicted
to sin.[895]

If the penitent should respond to these exhortations of the confessor
with some _unusual_ utterance, such as: “Now I see the greatness of my
misfortune,” “Give me a severe penance,” “This time I am very sorry for
my sins,” the confessor may hope that success has attended them. On the
other hand, he would have to fear that he had labored in vain if the
penitent should answer nothing more than that he is sorry, that he wished
to avoid sin, or if to the confessor’s questions he only gave cold and
indifferent answers. But here also the character and education of the
penitent are to be considered, and there is room for deception.[896]

III. If, in spite of the exhortation, the penitent remains indisposed,
the confessor must postpone absolution till he has received satisfactory
proof of amendment. This he must do as judge in order to preserve the
Sacrament from nullity, and also as physician in order to move the
penitent to an effectual amendment.

If the confessor finds himself obliged to postpone absolution, he must
inform the penitent of it in the gentlest manner, for the good physician
endeavors to make bitter medicine taste pleasant.[897] If, however, there
is a solid reason, absolution may be given to a doubtfully disposed
relapsing sinner _sub conditione_. For if more harm than benefit is to be
anticipated from the postponement, the salvation of the penitent demands,
as St. Alphonsus says,[898] that the Sacrament be exposed even to the
risk of nullity.

The confessor may act in accordance with the above principles in the
following cases:—

1. In danger of death, that the penitent may not be lost.

2. On account of imperfect use of reason, when the penitent is weak in
mind, or is a child not yet arrived at an adequate use of reason, and
has relapsed into doubtfully grave sins; for such penitents require
absolution in order not to remain in a state of mortal sin, and on the
other hand postponement would have no effect with them.

3. When the confessor fears that the penitent will not return. This is
much to be dreaded by reason of the weak faith of many people and their
scanty zeal for the welfare of their souls.

4. On account of the urgency of contracting a marriage on the same or
the following day, or of receiving holy communion, in order to avoid
great scandal; and even if a doubtfully disposed person ought not to
communicate, prudence will often suggest to the confessor not to inform
him of this.

5. On account of the difficulty of going to confession again, that is,
if the penitent would not be able to confess again for a long time,
as a prolonged postponement of absolution would remain without fruit,
and leave the penitent during that time in a state of mortal sin. This
reason, however, does not suffice in the case of relapsing sinners who
have neglected to make restitution, to terminate an enmity, or to give up
some occasion of sin.[899]

IV. Relapsing sinners, as to whose dispositions the confessor has
satisfied himself, may be, _toties quoties_, absolved, inasmuch as he is
judge.

It is to be remarked, however, that (_a_) a relapsing sinner who returns
for the first time can be more easily absolved than if he comes a second
and a third time to confession after having relapsed. The more numerous
the relapses after confession, the stronger is the presumption against
dispositions. (_b_) If some external occasion is the cause of this
relapse, the confessor must the more seriously consider if it would not
be better to postpone absolution, in order to test the sincerity of one
who has so often broken his promise to remove or abandon this occasion;
and he must not give credit to mere promises, or even to tears. For
the obligation is rather to remove an external occasion of sin than to
reduce it to a remote occasion, because experience proves abundantly that
this latter course is very difficult, and it is in many cases easier to
abandon the occasion.[900]

If, however, the relapse is the result of internal weakness, and the
penitent does not seem sufficiently disposed for the reception of
absolution, the confessor should employ all his zeal and charity in
preparing him for absolution. For the grace of the holy Sacraments is
very necessary to such penitents, and postponement of absolution would
not be helpful in their case. These are the penitents who yield to
violent temptations, or the stress of passion, in consequence of internal
weakness (we have designated them above _recidivi incontinentes_).
Nevertheless, there may be cases in this class of penitents also, in
which severity is to be used, or in which holy communion at least must
be forbidden, when it is evident, or to be presumed, from the frequent
relapses accompanying the frequent reception of the Sacraments, that
detestation of sin and firm resolution have been or are wanting. But if
it is to be presumed that the relapse takes place rather in consequence
of the Sacraments being seldom received, the penitent must be encouraged
to more frequent reception.[901]

V. Even if the relapsing sinner could absolutely be absolved, the
confessor may sometimes postpone absolution for a short time as a remedy,
if he believes that such postponement is necessary, or will be useful.
For, of two suitable remedies, the physician must choose that one from
which the better effect may be expected. Now it is universally admitted
and proved by experience that an occasional postponement of absolution
for a short time contributes much to the improvement of the habitual
sinner by increasing his detestation of sin and exciting his zeal in the
work of amendment. But great prudence is demanded in venturing upon this
experiment, especially in our times, when difficulty of any kind induces
weak people to absent themselves from the holy Sacraments.[902]

The postponement of absolution in the case of a sufficiently disposed
relapsing sinner without his consent is certainly not allowable, if it
either failed to benefit his soul, or if it were to bring disgrace, or
even the danger of it, to his reputation. Except in these two cases,
postponement of absolution is left to the discretion of the confessor.
St. Alphonsus[903] distinguishes here between those who relapse in
consequence of _internal weakness_, and those who relapse on account of
an _occasion_,[904] and teaches that postponement is seldom beneficial
with the first class; for here a better result is to be anticipated from
the graces of the Sacrament than from postponement. For those especially
who relapse into the sin of pollution there is no more efficacious means
of amendment than frequent confession; indeed, without this, improvement
is scarcely to be hoped for. But an opportune threat of deferring
absolution will always prove beneficial. With sinners of the second
class postponement is useful because the external occasion is a stronger
incitement to sin, and a more powerful remedy must be opposed to a more
powerful agency of seduction; moreover, the removal of the occasion is
more under the control of the will than the uprooting of a sinful habit.
With relapsing sinners of the first class a postponement of from eight
to ten days generally suffices; from two to three weeks would be the
longest period during which absolution should be deferred. With those of
the second class a postponement of ten to fifteen days will generally not
suffice, but the experience obtained within the space of a month will
always be sufficient. The postponement should not extend over a month,
if the penitent cannot come under the influence of the occasion during
the course of this time, because delay under the circumstances would be
useless.


69. Relapsing Sinners requiring Special Care.

There are two classes of relapsing sinners to whom the confessor must
devote special care: those who are _despondent_, and those who are always
relapsing into the sin of pollution.

I. As to the first, he must endeavor to find out the cause of their
despondency. If this proceeds (1) from the strength of the sinful habit,
the confessor must take care not to excite fear in one whose will is
good but who makes little progress; on the contrary, he must praise him
even if he sees only a slight improvement, and inspire him with hope
of finally achieving complete amendment with the help of divine grace.
Courage, hope of victory, and perseverance are necessary to such a
penitent. If he falls a hundred times, he must rise a hundred times and
renew the struggle; victory will not fail him who perseveres. But if (2)
an effeminate disposition accompanies these relapses, the confessor must
stimulate the penitent. He must teach him that everything is possible
to us with the help of divine grace, if we earnestly _will and wish_ to
succeed; for so St. Augustine encouraged himself in his struggle against
the flesh. “When,” he writes,[905] “the rooted habit said: Do you think
you can live without these things? Hope spoke encouragingly: Can you
not do what these young men and women do? And are they able to do it of
their own strength, and not in the Lord, their God?” The confessor should
urge the penitent, not in temptation only, but in all his doings, to act
bravely and manfully; he should seek to divert him from everything that
enervates the mind. If the despondency has its origin in carelessness,
let the confessor point to the terrible punishments of sin and endeavor
thus to arouse salutary fear.[906]

II. Pollution is a truly murderous vice, and, according to the testimony
of all confessors and physicians, appallingly prevalent. Its consequences
are as ruinous as its cure is difficult.

If the confessor purposes to terrify unhappy penitents by depicting the
dreadful consequences of this vice, let him proceed with caution, for not
all who are addicted to it experience them in full measure, and those who
do not would give him the lie. Some of these consequences are: nervous
prostration, consumption, epilepsy, spinal diseases; excess saps physical
vigor, dulls the understanding, impairs the memory, and hastens death.
Depression of spirits is also a characteristic of such people, a result
partly of nervous exhaustion and partly of remorse. Rarely, indeed, is
the conversion of such a man effected without the higher motives of
religion. That he must be treated with extreme prudence is evident.
Earnest but loving admonition instilling moral strength will soonest
attain to the desired end. The origin of the evil and the causes which
form the occasions of the individual sins (which must be investigated)
will suggest appropriate precautions.[907]

Here are some rules for the confessor of such penitents:—

1. Let him excite in them a great longing to be freed from the vice, and
inspire them with courage for the struggle and hope of ultimate victory;
otherwise his remedies will be fruitless. To this end, let him point out
the danger of eternal damnation; for the more the sins accumulate the
more difficult salvation becomes, and the stronger the habit the weaker
the will. To inspire courage let the priest reawaken in him a feeling and
sense of his dignity as a man and a Christian, which is outraged by this
vice.

2. The penitent must shun all dangerous occasions, avoid idleness and
solitude; take no part in improper amusements, theaters, and dancing, as
they excite impure fancies and enfeeble the mind.

3. Further remedies are: frequent prayer—especially the “Hail Mary” in
honor of the most pure Virgin, each time renewing before her picture the
resolution to sin no more. Meditation on the eternal truths will always
prove very efficacious.

4. When temptation arises the penitent should turn away his mind from it
at once; and if it persists, confidently pray, pronouncing the names of
Jesus and Mary. He may also reflect upon the sufferings of Our Savior,
on the eternal flames of hell, the presence of God. Very useful also is
a fervent act of love, accompanied by a resolution rather to die than to
sin.

5. One of the surest remedies is, undoubtedly, marriage—as the Apostle
also teaches (1 Cor. vii. 2, 9). Add to these other natural remedies
in support of the supernatural ones, such as: moderation in eating and
drinking—especially abstinence from wine and stimulating food in the
evening; moderation in sleep; physical exercise; early rising; at night,
prayer till sleep sets in.

But in order that the confessor may select suitable remedies, he must
know the physical constitution of the penitent and the circumstances of
his sins; namely, when, where, and under what conditions he generally
sins. The confessor should not omit to prescribe or recommend such of the
above-mentioned remedies as are adapted to the penitent.[908]

III. From the rule given above, according to which relapsing habitual
sinners can be absolved when they are sufficiently disposed, clerics,
who wish to receive Holy Orders immediately after absolution, form an
exception. They may not, as a rule, be absolved till satisfactory proof
be given of their self-restraint. Such a penitent must first have laid
aside his bad habit during a considerable time, at least during several
months. For a sacred minister would be unworthy to assist at the altar if
he did not possess the virtue of confirmed purity, seeing that the higher
Orders demand perfection in those who enter them, both on account of the
sacredness of the duties connected with the Orders, as also on account
of the good example which they are bound to give to the faithful. “As
those,” says St. Thomas, “who receive Orders, are, by virtue of their
dignity, placed above the people, so must they be conspicuous also by
the merit of holiness.”[909] And in another place he enforces this still
more, saying: “As the minister is by his ordination set apart for the
highest office, in which he serves Christ Himself in the Sacrament of the
Altar, a greater interior holiness is demanded for this than even the
religious state requires.”[910] Therefore, it by no means suffices for
the worthy reception of Holy Orders to be in a state of grace; _positive_
and _habitual_ holiness is required. St. Alphonsus establishes this
abundantly from Holy Writ, from the definitions of the Church, and from
the teaching of the holy Fathers.

If, therefore, a cleric sincerely promises that he will not receive Holy
Orders while addicted to such bad habit, he may be absolved; still
it would be preferable, if no obstacle presented itself, to postpone
absolution for a time. If, however, he should persist in his purpose of
receiving Holy Orders, he would thereby make himself unworthy of both
Sacraments. An exception is to be made in the case of a person favored by
God with such extraordinary compunction that he is quite transformed by
it and delivered from the old weakness,—such a one the confessor _can_
absolve and admit without any further probation to Holy Orders. But in
this case also the confessor should endeavor by every means to induce
the penitent to postpone the reception of Holy Orders, so that he may
better purify himself from the bad habit and carry out the resolutions
he has made. Indeed, if the penitent will not postpone the reception
of Holy Orders, the confessor, as physician, may, for this purpose and
for his spiritual profit, delay absolution so as to force the former to
put off his ordination. This applies when no danger of disgrace arises
from such postponement, for, otherwise, the penitent who gives signs of
_extraordinary_ sorrow is entitled to immediate absolution. “_Ceterum
Confessarii debent esse difficiles, quantum fieri potest, in absolvendis
hujusmodi ordinandis, qui postmodum ordinarie pessimi evadunt presbyteri
et sic populis et Ecclesiæ perniciem magnam afferunt._”

The above holds good not only with respect to the _vitium luxuriæ_, but
also with regard to any other vice.

A confessor administering absolution according to the above principles
provides for the interests of the Church, as well as for those of the
faithful and for those of the persons to be ordained.[911] If it is
objected that the person to be ordained would be brought into evil
repute by such proceeding, it may be answered, in denial of this, that
ordination may be postponed for many reasons and that pious youths not
infrequently desire such postponement. And if the consequences stated in
the objection were really to supervene, the evils resulting from hasty
ordination are by far more fatal. Nor is the want of priests, which
prevails nearly everywhere in our days, reason for rejecting the above
teaching, which is entirely based upon the principles of the saints and
of the Church. It would be a dangerous remedy to apply to the evil of
scarcity of priests. Moreover, experience of centuries proves that the
number of priests increases when and where the discipline of the Church
is strictly enforced. St. Thomas remarks, “God never so abandons His
Church that worthy servants of the altar in sufficient numbers are not to
be found, if only the worthy are ordained and the unworthy debarred from
ordination.”[912]

To conclude this very important section, we will call the attention of
the confessor to two Instructions given by the Congregation de Propag.
Fide. In these the practice of “_indiscriminatim_” absolving relapsing
sinners, adopted by some confessors, is strongly rebuked and condemned.
One Instruction (Aug. 1827) appeals first to the twofold power of
absolving and remitting sin to which this practice is entirely opposed,
and then to the teaching of the Rituale Roman. (Tit. De Sacram. Pœnit.):
“But let the priest take heed when and to whom absolution is to be
administered or refused.” Now this would not be prescribed if absolution
were to be given to all without distinction, including relapsing sinners
and penitents living in a habit of sin. The penitents being divided (as
above specified) into three classes, to whom absolution is to be given,
or postponed, or refused, respectively, the Instruction concludes: “Thus
teach prudent theologians, the Instructions given to confessors by St.
Charles Borromeo, and by St. Francis of Sales. Confessors must reflect
that, from too great ease in obtaining absolution, there results a great
ease in sinning.” In the other Instruction (April, 1784) the confessor
is reminded of his duty to examine into the gravity of the sins, the
obstinacy of the malady, and the dispositions of the penitent. He must,
therefore, carefully inquire if the penitent has true sorrow; if he has
entered upon a new life, detesting the former; if he promises amendment
with the heart, and not with the mouth alone; if he has abandoned the
occasions of sin; if he has applied the remedies previously recommended
to him; if he has laid aside the habit of sinning; if, having previously
received absolution, he has relapsed into the same sins in consequence
of his depravity; if he is ready to repair injury inflicted. These, and
many other things, the confessor must examine before he confers upon the
penitent the blessing of absolution.[913]


70. Penitents aiming at Perfection.

As we have seen in previous sections, the confessor must treat with great
care and zeal those penitents who are stained with grave sins and vices;
but he must not, on that account, neglect those who are striving after
virtue and perfection. A penitent who has preserved himself free from
grave sin and is capable of perfection claims, as St. Alphonsus teaches,
all the confessor’s care as guide along the path to perfection and divine
love.[914]

But as this is no light and easy matter, and as it involves
responsibility on the part of the confessor, he must pray to God for
light and endeavor to learn the natural disposition of the penitent and
the operation of the Holy Ghost in his soul. _For all are not to be led
in the same manner._ The phlegmatic, the choleric, the melancholy, and
the sanguine must all be differently treated. While the phlegmatic must
be spurred on that they may not become lukewarm, the choleric must be
restrained that they may not go too far, whilst they are guided to the
nobler and more exalted works and exercises in the service of God. With
the melancholy, care must be exercised that they do not give way to
sadness, do not isolate themselves, and imagine everything more difficult
than it is in reality; the sanguine must be prevented from allowing
themselves to be hurried by natural impulse into what exceeds their
strength; the confessor must insist upon their weighing everything well,
and then acting with firmness.[915] The guide of souls seeks to recognize
the operation of the Holy Ghost in his penitents, and he will carefully
follow up this operation. For the Holy Ghost dwells in the soul of the
just man; He is the teacher of the interior life and the invisible guide
to perfection. The confessor’s duty is to coöperate with the Holy Ghost.
St. Ignatius remarks wisely: “To wish to lead all to perfection by the
same road is full of danger; such a one does not understand how manifold
and abundant the gifts of the Holy Ghost are.”

Nevertheless, there are certain general principles and rules which are
useful to all in obtaining Christian perfection. As the saints, approved
theologians, and masters of the spiritual life have laid them down, we
reproduce them here in brief:—

1. Perfection consists for each one in performing well his ordinary work;
and he does it well who does it because, and when, and as God wishes—His
most holy Will being the source and rule of all perfection.

2. Penitents must be led gradually and regularly (_non per saltum_) to
perfection; for example, they must first act with the right purpose
and intention and learn to imitate the actions of Christ before they
contemplate higher things; they should first learn to bear easier trials
patiently before demanding more difficult ones.

3. The confessor should admonish them constantly to cherish the desire
for greater perfection, even if in certain instances they never seem to
attain to it; for such a desire will have this effect, that they will
at least reach that perfection of which they are capable and they will
acquire greater merit.

4. He must instruct them to confess every week, and induce them to avoid
even venial sins which are voluntary and deliberate, also to give up any
attachment to these sins. Those who confess venial sins which they have
_not committed with deliberation, but from human weakness_, must always
be absolved; those who have committed _venial sins with deliberation_,
but not from habitual attachment to them, must be absolved, but, at the
same time, helped and incited earnestly and zealously to endeavor, by
employing the means recommended by the confessor, to avoid them; those
who are accustomed to confess venial sins which they have committed
without any resistance, from _habitual attachment or custom_, give rise
to the suspicion that they are not properly disposed; the confessor,
therefore, must dispose them to true sorrow for at least _one_ venial
sin, and to a firm purpose of amendment, in order that they may be
absolved without sacrilege. Occasionally, however, as in the case of
other relapsing sinners, absolution may be postponed. The confessor
should not easily forbid them to confess their imperfections,—for
example, that they have not consecrated their actions of the day to
God, nor said the prayers of a confraternity, etc.,—because such
self-accusations contribute to a better knowledge of the penitent’s
spiritual state, exercise humility, and produce tenderness of conscience;
besides these imperfections often go along with some venial sin.[916]
The same applies to the transgression of those rules in a Religious
Order which do not bind under sin. And if the penitent confesses only
imperfections which do not positively amount to venial sins, or other
doubtful sins, let the confessor observe what we have said above (§ 6).
Let him see that they always go to holy communion well prepared and not
from mere custom; for a single communion after good preparation is worth
more than many communions received in a state of tepidity. The confessor,
however, must distinguish carefully true zeal and fervor from sensible
devotion.

5. The confessor should teach them _to master their passions_; especially
their predominant ones, for which purpose the particular examination is
eminently adapted. He should induce them to _practice virtues_, and that
in the right order, namely: (_a_) first the virtues demanded by their
position and profession; he should not, therefore, permit young women to
hurry from one Church to another, or to remain there longer than is right
and necessary, thus neglecting important duties, their families, etc. He
should exhort them rather to perform their household work faithfully and
zealously; (_b_) they should be instructed to practice more zealously
_those virtues against which they are tempted_; finally (_c_), he should
exhort them not to prefer those virtues which are more conspicuous and
more esteemed by men, but to strive after those which are in themselves
more excellent and useful and more pleasing to God, such as humility,
obedience, meekness, patience.[917] (_d_) He should also urge them to be
_faithful in small things_; for God does not generally ask great things
from us.[918]

6. He should not impose upon them extraordinary exercises; indeed,
he should not even permit them easily. At the same time he must not
prevent mortifications and practices of penance, even exterior ones;
but they must be proportioned to the corporal and spiritual powers of
the penitent. What saints have sometimes done, or allowed others to do,
cannot serve as a rule, but is more to be admired than imitated.

The confessor must also have regard for the special dangers and
temptations which may attend those who are striving after perfection:—

1. Those who at first were, by God’s grace, cheered with spiritual
consolation easily lose courage and relax in their zeal when He, for
their trial, and to lead them to higher things, withdraws from them
sensible devotion. If the confessor observes this, he must instruct them
in what true progress and true virtue consist; but penitents must be
warned in advance of this state of the soul.

2. The devil seeks to make those who are progressing in virtue believe
that they have advanced far enough, and endeavors to produce within them
the beginnings of lukewarmness. They become negligent in their accustomed
pious exercises, lay aside first one and then another mortification,
and begin to disregard slight faults. In this there is a great danger
lest, gradually relaxing in zeal, they at length fall into grave sin at
the first temptation, which the devil prepares for them when they have
become sufficiently tepid. It is difficult to perceive the beginning of
lukewarmness, but not its progress, and when the evil shows itself, the
confessor must endeavor with zeal and prudence to check it and prevent it
from becoming worse. To this end the penitent may be ordered to resume
all the pious exercises which he has neglected; he should be reminded
of the loss of grace, of its value, the dangers of lukewarmness. If the
penitent, before his relapse, had made considerable progress in virtue,
he should be admonished to make a retreat. The confessor should not
abandon hope even if the penitent has seriously failed. He must receive
him in a friendly manner and show compassion, for in this case severity
would be poison. He should remind him of Peter and Magdalen, who obtained
so many graces by their tears of sorrow and rendered themselves worthy
of the special love of Our Savior. On the other hand, the confessor must
urge the penitent to love God more, to develop greater zeal in His
service, and to repair his shortcomings by redoubled obedience, to adore
the divine Justice, to humble himself deeply, and to live more carefully
in the future.

If the penitent informs the priest that he has had extraordinary
consolations, and that his methods of prayer are unusual, the latter
should not show himself altogether incredulous in these matters; but
should calmly and carefully examine if any signs of hallucination are
present.[919]

Whilst there would be danger in promoting the deceptions of Satan by
imprudent credulity, very great injury might be done, on the other hand,
by incredulity and contempt. That he may not be taken unawares, the
confessor should familiarize himself with treatises on spiritual life;
for even in the humblest station of life God may manifest His special
graces.[920]

We give a few general rules:—

1. We must be more careful when the sense of spiritual consolation in a
penitent has been preceded by some external cause, or when some object
which, in the natural course of things might produce such consolation,
has been presented to the senses, than in the case of consolation by
which suddenly, and without any previously existing cause, the higher
powers of the soul seem filled with great light. The cause of the latter
can only be God (St. Ignatius). For only God can directly influence the
higher faculties of the soul—the understanding and the will. The devil
can only do so indirectly; he can cause sensible devotion, excite tears
and other effects which depend upon the bodily powers (Reuter).

2. The good Spirit suggests nothing which is opposed to truth, to Holy
Writ, the doctrines of the Church, the practices of the saints, the life
of Christ; nor anything frivolous, idle, inappropriate.

3. The good Spirit incites to self-denial, to mortification, endurance
of adversity, imitation of Christ, resignation to the will of God,
submission of private judgment, perfect obedience, humility.

4. The good Spirit is modest, and, therefore, proceeds to all its work
in an orderly manner; it incites, as a rule, only to what is usual and
ordinary and adapted to each one’s powers, without the intervention of
miracles. For the ordinary road to heaven is God’s own design; and if,
nevertheless, He sometimes inspires extraordinary things, it is almost
exclusively in the case of souls who are already rooted in humility and
do not strive after empty honors.

5. It is a sign of the operations of the Holy Spirit when the penitent
is humble of heart, not desiring extraordinary things, not aspiring
to astonishing exercises, making his holiness consist in the faithful
performance of the ordinary duties of life, holding himself unworthy of
the gifts of God, not exalting himself above others on account of these
gifts, rejoicing to be despised if the confessor treats his lights as
pure illusions, maintaining secrecy about his gifts.

6. But even when an emotion does come from God, a temptation from the
devil or some inordinate natural affection may intrude itself, so that
one might conclude that the consolation or the light which the penitent
has received is not from God; as, for instance, would be the case where
signs of pride were visible.

But whatever be the origin of these interior emotions and illuminations,
the individual must always employ them for the purpose of increasing
his contempt of self, both in his own eyes and those of others, in
intensifying his longing to imitate Christ in His poverty, humility, and
suffering; and if he zealously pursues this object, the purposes of the
devil will be defeated if the inspirations emanated from him.

7. Obedience, even against the proper judgment, is a good sign, and
absolutely necessary. Gladly and readily revealing what seems to redound
to one’s credit, seeking praise by means of extraordinary gifts,
displeasure if the confessor hesitates, are bad signs.

The confessor should not wish to have as penitents persons who lay claim
to extraordinary gifts, nor, prompted by vanity, should he take pleasure
in the flatteries which such persons offer to him. If he is so foolish
and vain, he can only ascribe it to a just judgment of God if he at last
discovers that, in punishment of his vanity and imprudence, persons who
suffered from illusions have deluded him also.[921]


71. Hypocritical Penitents.

The confessor must be able to distinguish penitents who seriously strive
after perfection, truly pious penitents, from those whose piety is
merely a cloak. The piety of these latter consists entirely in outward
practices; they visit churches a great deal, say many prayers, go to
confession often, and receive holy communion several times in the week.
And yet they neither know anything of true and solid virtue, nor strive
after it, but, on the contrary, are full of faults. They remain longer in
church than is necessary, with the result that parents, husband, or wife
are inconvenienced, and household duties are neglected. They receive the
Sacraments often—to be seen and praised by men; and if the confessor does
not allow them to approach holy communion as often as they wish, they
are angry with him. In the confessional they wish to talk much to the
confessor when there is neither use nor necessity for it. The spirit of
mortification is utterly wanting in them; they are, therefore, attached
to the pleasures of the table, dislike work, and are loquacious. They are
neither humble nor obedient; they do not submit to the guidance of their
confessor, but act as though he should rather obey them; they deceive him
by confessing trivial sins and concealing grave ones. They seek praise
and honor, are impatient under correction, despise others, and blame them
arrogantly. They are wanting in charity, and, consequently, cause trouble
among their familiars; they envy others, are given to anger, have no
care for the honor and good name of others, etc. With these hypocritical
persons must be classed those, particularly women, who wish to unite
piety to a worldly life.

But there is another class of women who adorn themselves with a show of
piety; namely, those _quæ sunt captæ amore Confessarii. Malum profecto,
quo non ipsæ tantum in perniciem ruunt, sed etiam Confessarium, nisi eos
dimittat, ruinæ participem reddunt. Persona talis nullam habet requiem;
torquet eam desiderium colloquendi cum Confessario unde, quoties facultas
ipsi est, ad Confessarium redit; torquet eam sollicitudo, qua illi
placere gestit, diffidentia et metus ne ab ipso deseratur, zelotypia ne
aliæ apud ilium gratia magis polleant._ The confessor must reprimand
them in season or out of season, that they may enter into themselves,
and strive after true and solid piety. If he is not successful, he must
endeavor to rid himself of them, or dispatch their confessions quickly.
There are, moreover, _extraordinary_ possibilities of _hypocrisy_ in some
women. “All malice is short compared to the malice of a woman,” according
to Jesus Sirach (25, 26). _Inde contigit, ut feminæ falso devotæ
finxerint se infirmas, postea miraculo sanatas atque publicas gratiarum
actiones impetrarint pro valetudine sic recuperata; aliæ finxerunt
vexationes et verbera a dæmone ipsis illata; aliæ ementitæ sunt visiones
et revelationes, necnon extases simularunt aliaque portenta fabricatæ
sunt._ By such cunning contrivances these persons wish to draw the
attention of others towards themselves, and to be honored and admired, or
to excite the pity of priests, _vel, quod pejus est, castitati alicujus
Sacerdotis insidias struere volunt_. The best remedy against all this is
not to believe such things, and to ignore the persons in question.[922]


72. Scrupulous Penitents.

No little trouble is caused to confessors by scrupulous persons. The word
“scruple,” in its real and primary sense, means a little stone which
inconveniences the wayfarer. Similarly, in its transferred sense, it
means some little spiritual obstacle which prevents a man from performing
an action because, for some vain and worthless reason, he fears that
he will commit sin. A scruple is, therefore, fear of sinning, where no
ground for fear exists. The confessor must know the signs of scruples,
their causes, and their remedies.

I. Marks of scrupulosity:—

We will premise that: (1) a person is not scrupulous because he has a
scruple occasionally, but only when he is habitually subject to them;
(2) frequently a man himself cannot tell if he is scrupulous or only of
an anxious conscience; he must, therefore, rely upon the judgment of a
prudent confessor; (3) the confessor himself cannot always positively
decide when he first treats a penitent if he is scrupulous or not; he
must, therefore, abide and observe till he knows the penitent better,
for as it is dangerous to treat a scrupulous person according to general
rules, it is injurious to guide others by the rules applicable only to
the scrupulous; (4) the confessor must use very great discretion and
prudence in dealing with penitents who are scrupulous on one point but
lax as regards other things.

The characteristic signs of a scrupulous person show themselves in this:
(_a_) that, upon slight grounds, or none at all, he changes his judgment,
holding the same thing to be allowable one moment, and forbidden the
next; (_b_) that he fears to commit sin by doing something which a
competent confessor has already told him to be allowed, and which he
sees other conscientious men do and which he himself would, in his own
judgment, consider to be allowed if he were not obliged or did not wish
to do it at that time; (_c_) that he is agitated for fear he should sin,
and cannot account to himself for this anxiety; (_d_) that he clings
obstinately to his own judgment, placing no confidence in the decisions
of learned men, or the confessor; (_e_) that he repeatedly asks whether
a thing is allowed, although he has several times received an answer
on the point; (_f_) that he ponders over circumstances connected with
an act which exercise no influence at all upon the moral value of the
action, and which other men generally disregard altogether; (_g_) that
he holds for a sin that which the most conscientious men commonly do
without thinking of sin; (_h_) that he is perpetually anxious about
his confessions, lest they should be invalid, although the confessor
has declared them to be valid, even after a careful repetition of the
confessions has already taken place.[923]

From these indications the confessor is able to judge if his penitent
is scrupulous. We must not mistake them, however, for the following
circumstances, which would be of little assistance in recognizing the
malady, as they are found not only with the scrupulous, but also with
those who have tender consciences.

1. If the penitent is concerned, and reasonably anxious, not to offend
God even in the slightest degree or to atone immediately for a sin
committed, he is not on this account a scrupulous person.

2. If some one after living a long time in grave sin is converted, makes
a good confession to the best of his ability, and, within a moderate
period, say half a year, for example, still thinks he cannot do enough
and wishes two or three times to reconfess his sins, he must not be at
once set down as scrupulous. After that time, however, the penitent must
be forbidden to say anything about former sins, or even to investigate
whether he has confessed everything correctly. Only if the penitent was
accustomed to conceal sins in the confessional might he be allowed to
continue during a longer time to confess sins which might occur to his
mind after the general confession.[924]

3. If a person doubts whether he has sinned in some particular instance
we are not to conclude that he is scrupulous; for a doubt may be
absolutely, or relatively, reasonable.[925]

If the confessor tells the penitent that he is scrupulous, the latter
must certainly believe him; but it is often very difficult to convince
the penitent. He is rather disposed to consider others thoughtless and
less conscientious, not excluding the confessor, or to think that the
latter does not properly know him or has misunderstood him. Here the
cunning of the devil is seen, who is wont to instill into perplexed
souls a peculiar presumption and obstinacy of judgment. This error is
very pernicious; it springs from pride and makes the penitent scorn the
remedies which are offered to him.

II. The causes of scruples:—

Scruples may proceed from God, from the devil, and from a natural
disposition.

1. God sometimes permits scruples (_permissive_), withdrawing from just
motives His supernatural light. If the trials thus proceed from God, they
are, _per se_, useful, produce a profounder contrition, humility, and
detachment from the world.

2. Scruples proceed from the devil also (_effective_), who has a peculiar
skill in producing them by confusing the imagination with false shows
and suggestions. He does not plague great sinners with scruples, because
he is content to leave them in their state of presumption, and so cast
them ever deeper and deeper into ruin. Nor are great saints troubled by
him, because in them fear has been conquered by perfect love. It is only
those who have begun to give themselves to God, and chiefly those who
have abandoned great sins and entered upon the right road. His object is
to perplex and hamper them in their spiritual progress, to plunge them
into despair, or, at least, to disturb their interior peace. Scruples
emanating from Satan must, therefore, be combated with all energy, _for
they tend to evil_.

3. Scruples may also be traced to natural causes (_dispositive_), the
individual having a keener and more sensitive perception of evil, or a
wavering, unsettled judgment.

These natural causes are partly physical and partly moral: (_a_)
Bodily constitution: a melancholy temperament may incline an otherwise
sagacious man to suspicion, obstinacy and scrupulosity. Others who in
consequence of a physical disposition are low-spirited, despondent, and
timid, readily conceive an unreasonable fear of sin, and if they do
not quickly banish this fear, they frequently fall a prey to scruples.
(_b_) Nervousness and disease of the brain: the imagination becomes
excited and perplexed, so that vivid conceptions of the imagination
are not sufficiently distinguished from the judgments of reason. This
affection may be hereditary, or it may arise from overwork, late hours,
or immoderate fasting. (_c_) Dullness of mind, which cannot adequately
distinguish real from seeming motives; but acuteness of intellect, if the
judgment is not well balanced, may produce the same result. (_d_) Hidden
pride and obstinacy of private judgment: a man subject to these moral
defects becomes easily entangled in doubts and scruples. (_e_) Too great
anxiety to avoid everything—I will not say in any way evil, for that we
must avoid, but which has even the appearance of evil; thus is formed the
habit of adopting the stricter and the speculatively more certain view,
a proceeding which in practice does not by any means tend to the safer
course.[926] (_f_) Intercourse with scrupulous people, reading books in
which only the stricter opinions are advanced, confessing to a scrupulous
confessor.[927]

III. The following considerations will show when the scruples proceed
from God: (1) when they excite sincere detestation of sin; (2) when they
do not last long and end in great calm of mind; (3) when they are called
forth by hatred of sin.

Scruples may be recognized as proceeding from the evil one: (1) when they
produce lukewarmness and despair of salvation; (2) when the scruples
occur in connection with the holiest actions, especially where a man is
otherwise not accustomed to be much troubled with them; (3) when a man
detests only this or that kind of sin—others not so much; God detests all
sin; (4) when a man yields to grave temptations while at the same time he
is anxious about trifles.[928]

But when, without apparent reason, the heart becomes uneasy and the head
affected, when a sudden tremor takes possession of the limbs and the mind
is filled with scruples, we may justly assume that the latter proceed
from natural causes, and this sign is the more certain if in all places
and in all actions the penitent is molested by them.

IV. Scruples are _very pernicious_, causing perplexity and dejection of
spirit, placing obstacles in the way of the soul’s progress towards
virtue, closing the heart to the consolation of the Holy Ghost, producing
dryness of spirit, aversion to prayer, and neglect of the ordinary
duties. Scruples frequently undermine health, not seldom exposing the
subject of them to the danger either of becoming insane or of falling
into great sins of impurity, despair, blasphemy, or suicide.[929]

St. Alphonsus distinguishes three kinds of scruples, and theologians
universally follow him in this division: (_a_) scruples concerning
former confessions, the person being always uneasy about them, although
they have been made properly and completely; this kind of scruple is
not so difficult to overcome; (_b_) scruples concerning the consent to
sinful thoughts about different matters; here the scruple as a rule
comes after the action—these scruples may be a heavy burden; (_c_)
scruples concerning all actions, or at least innumerable things about
which other men do not at all trouble themselves. These are the worst
scruples. The remedies which the confessor has to employ for the cure
of scruples are the following: (1) He must find out if the penitent is
scrupulous about everything, or only some things, and what is the cause
of the scruples. (2) He must convince the penitent that, where sin is not
evident, the safest course for him is obedience to his confessor; and
that, on the other hand, it is very dangerous not to obey his confessor.
(3) He must, therefore, ask the penitent if he has confidence in him,
and if he will obey him even against his own judgment; the confessor
must undertake to guide the penitent only after these questions have
been answered in the affirmative, otherwise he must tell him plainly
to apply to another confessor in whom he has confidence and whom he is
willing to obey. If this is not done, the confessor’s pains would be
simply thrown away. (4) The confessor in most cases ought to be kind
to the scrupulous penitent, though severity is sometimes necessary,
especially where obstinacy in private judgment is manifested, or when
the penitent presses for repetition of a confession against the advice
of the confessor. Under no pretext whatever, not even when tears are
added, should the confessor allow this. This extreme severity is a
kindness; but it should be tempered with gentleness. (5) To doubts, let
the confessor answer _without hesitation_ and _without much questioning_,
and interpret everything according to the more lenient view. He should,
in most cases, give no reasons for his answers, lest the penitent might
think that after all his scruples were not to be despised, and because
the latter will weigh these reasons, and make them doubtful by opposing
to them his futile objections. Nor should he listen to new doubts and
scruples, but when he is morally certain that a scruple is in question,
he should sometimes without listening to the penitent order him to lay
aside all anxiety and quickly to receive holy communion. (6) He should
give the penitent some general rules to follow; the more general and
the easier the application of these rules and the more comprehensive of
individual circumstances, the better they are.[930] Such general rules to
be given to the penitent are the following: (1) He must be convinced that
he really is scrupulous—but that scruples by no means lead to holiness;
he should, therefore, firmly resolve to combat them. (2) He should pray
with great humility, confidence, and resignation to the divine Will for
light and peace of conscience. (3) He should cling to one and the same
confessor in whose learning and goodness he trusts, and whom he must obey
most strictly, as the representative of God. The confessor’s decisions
must be regarded as final by the penitent. Never should the penitent
seek a solution of his doubts elsewhere than from his confessor. He
should abide with this decision even if doubts again arise. (4) He must
accustom himself to consider God as infinitely good, and occupy himself
with thoughts which awaken confidence in God, avoiding any which have
the opposite effect. (5) He should flee idleness, so that the devil may
always find him busy. He should avoid intercourse with scrupulous people,
as also reading about things which excite scruples. (6) As soon as a
scruple arises, he should banish it, and think of something else, as if
it were a temptation to evil. He should not allow his mind to dwell upon
his scruples by opposing reasons to them, but energetically lay aside all
doubt. (7) He must not give way to a scruple by obeying its suggestions;
on the contrary, he must act boldly in opposition to the scruple, and
not fear that he will sin, even when his conscience does not seem to him
to be very clear about the matter. For a scrupulous person it should
suffice to know that he must despise his scruples, and that in spite
of them, he may do any act of which he cannot say _positively at first
sight_ that it is a sin; and that, in order to commit a mortal sin, it
is necessary for him to be able to say at once, without hesitation and
without examination, that the thing in question is forbidden under mortal
sin. (8) Let him be assured that he is by no means obliged to confess
his doubts; indeed, that this is not even useful and must be forbidden.
_Doubtful sins_ a scrupulous person is _certainly_ not bound to confess.
Speculative doubts the scrupulous person is not bound to regard; for what
for others is a reasonable motive for investigation, is not so for the
scrupulous. From this results:—

(1) For a scrupulous person an act which he does not recognize at once as
a sin is not a sin; (2) he may do that which he sees other conscientious
people do without scruple, even when it is contrary to his own judgment
or his own opinion; (3) scruples are, for him, no reasonable ground for
doing or for not doing an action, or for hesitating; and this applies to
the doubt as to whether a scruple or a valid reason is in question.[931]

With regard to different kinds of scruples Reuter gives the following
good rules:—

1. He who is troubled with doubts _as to whether he has consented to
interior temptations_, and is otherwise conscientious, may regulate his
conduct according to the following principles: (_a_) He is never to
believe that he has consented to a mortal sin if he does not positively
know that he fully recognized the gravity of the sin, and fully consented
to it. (_b_) If the person tempted is seized with fear, abhors the object
of the temptation as he considers it more closely and remains determined
not to offend God, he has not completely consented. This applies to
non-scrupulous persons also; and theologians maintain that he who has
a God-fearing conscience, and is not accustomed to consent to sin with
full attention, may believe, in a case of doubt, that consent has not
been complete, for _ex communiter contingentibus fit prudens præsumptio_.
(_c_) Nor may we conclude that he has fully consented because the
temptation lasted a long time, or because the sensual excitement was
violent, for this is material and involuntary, and sometimes appears more
considerable than it really was.

2. If the penitent is tempted against _faith_, or against _hope_, let him
ignore the temptation, turn his mind to other things, especially to God,
but let him not be perplexed by trying to awaken a positive act of these
virtues. And if he thinks that he has had blasphemous thoughts, let him
proceed in the same manner, despising them, and disbelieving that he has
consented to them, although he may have felt a certain pleasure in these
thoughts and emotions; indeed, the devil can create in the imagination a
certain semblance of consent, while the individual himself and his will
are far removed from the criminal act. When the soul has been calmed it
is always useful to make an act of the love of God.

3. If the temptation refers to conditional events in the future, for
instance, “what would you do if you were obliged either to sin or to
endure this or that evil?” let him turn away energetically from such
thoughts, not answering directly or positively but rather indirectly, “I
will not offend God now; and should I ever be so situated, the grace of
God will help me to do His will.” With this answer let him calm himself,
and not rashly entangle himself in difficulties, lest he suffer the
punishment of presumption, like the Apostle Peter.

4. If, _when looking at perfectly innocent things, impure images and
emotions_ arise, let him look at them boldly if they are objects and
pictures (for example, holy pictures), modestly and transiently if human
beings; let him act as other conscientious men do in these things and
despise the emotions or thoughts. He should proceed in the same manner if
these things happen when he is saying certain prayers; let him not omit
the prayers on this account, but devoutly proceed with them.

5. The _Divine Office_ may be a source of scruples. The penitent may
doubt whether he had the intention of reciting it; this scruple is
ridiculous, for the very fact of his saying it shows that the intention
is there. He may doubt that he has recited it properly, having mutilated
words, or been voluntarily distracted; in this case he should not repeat
anything at all, for since he honestly wished to perform his duty, it is
to be presumed that he did it properly. While he is saying his Office
he must not stop, but proceed according to previous intention without
hesitation, without straining the mind, without hurry, without anxiety.
As the requisite attention is not prevented by any action which, of its
nature, is consistent with interior attention, the person should not be
troubled if he has done such an action, unless it were of a kind which
conscientious men would, during prayer, be careful to avoid. After the
completion of the Office, an anxious person should repeat nothing, even
if he fears that he has said it badly. If he is very scrupulous, and
requires too much time for saying his Office, his Superior or confessor
can fix a certain time in which conscientious clerics are accustomed
to say it conveniently, and if, after devoting this time to it, he has
not quite finished it, he shall omit the part still remaining. Indeed,
according to the same author, and Gobat, whom St. Alphonsus quotes (in
approval of his opinion), the Office could even be absolutely _forbidden_
to such a person till it could be assumed that he was able to recite it
without such worry; for grave inconvenience releases from obedience to
the commandments of the Church.[932]


73. Converts.

As it is not every belief that saves, but only the true faith taught by
Christ, the zealous priest will be anxious to contribute, as much as he
is able, to the conversion of heretics. He will, therefore, in continued
prayer, implore for them the light of grace, that they may recognize
their error and seek the truth; he will, when occasion presents itself,
exhort them to avoid sin, “because error does not produce sins, but sins
produce error,” and “darkness does not comprehend the light.” He will
also, in a judicious manner, encourage them to attend our religious
services, to hear sermons, to read books in which the Catholic doctrine
is exposed and explained; he will not object to friendly intercourse
with them, in order to lead them gradually to a recognition of their
errors, as they begin to doubt of the truth of their teachings, and
salutary scruples arise in them. When a heretic wishes to accept the
Catholic faith and be instructed, he should: I. Be received with great
love and kindness and be asked discreetly why he wishes to change his
religion and embrace the Catholic faith. Whatever motive he assigns,
caution is necessary,—because there are designing people who, under the
cloak of piety, seek, not the salvation of their souls, nor the truth,
but temporal advantages, such as marriage, sustenance, etc., and,
having obtained these, live bad lives, and return to their old vices, as
examples both amongst Jews and heretics teach us. He has, therefore, to
be taught that, in returning to the true Church, he must seek simply and
solely the kingdom of God, and the salvation of his soul. If, however,
he should say that he is poor and deprived of the means of sustenance,
he should not be promised assistance till there is proof of his good
intentions. But, in order that the priest may not be deceived, he should,
if he does not already know the man sufficiently, examine him by various
questions at different times, and only when he finds him sincere,
recommend him to others. The priest should not show familiarity, nor do
or say anything in private intercourse, which he would regret if the
catechumen should, perchance, return to heresy.

Moreover, he should endeavor to acquire the confidence of the convert,
so that the latter may gladly unfold to him all his errors, doubts, and
wounds.

The convert must be admonished to attach great importance to the business
of his conversion, as upon it depends his eternal salvation; he should,
therefore, often and fervently pray for its happy issue, and perform good
works; the priest himself should also most zealously pray and induce
others to pray for him.

II. Having convinced himself of the good dispositions and steadfastness
of the convert, the priest should readily offer to supply him with the
necessary instruction, or, if he is really prevented from doing so,
provide for his instruction at the hands of some other reliable person.

In the matter of the instruction the following points must be observed:—

1. First of all it must be ascertained if the convert is a material
or a formal heretic. He is a formal heretic if he has knowingly and
voluntarily adhered to any error against the truth of the Catholic
faith, after that truth had been adequately exposed to him, and he
had recognized it as truth. A material heretic is one who professes
error through ignorance, or in consequence of perverse instruction or
education. Perhaps most of the non-Catholics of the lower classes belong
to the latter kind; seeing that, from childhood, they have been reared
in every prejudice and calumny against our religion. But when reasonable
doubts arise in them, they are bound to investigate, to pray for divine
light, to search for the truth, and as soon as they recognize it to adopt
it. Otherwise they become formal heretics, because they adhere with
obstinacy to error.

2. Then we must investigate to what extent the convert has been
instructed in the tenets of his sect, and what doubts trouble him with
regard to the Catholic doctrine. For there are mainly two classes of
heretics who become converts; the first consists of simple uneducated
people, who require sound instruction in Christian truth, but who should
be informed of points of controversy with great caution, in order that
they may not learn new errors and hence new doubts. The other class is
formed of educated people whom one must instruct especially on all points
of divergence, so that their doubts are dispelled.

3. But as faith must be the rational and invincible assent to all
revealed truths, the credibility of our dogmas must first be demonstrated
to the heretic; and these are to be accepted if the Catholic Church
alone is the true Church of Christ. He should, therefore, be taught that
the true faith is necessary to salvation, and that there is only _one_
true religion, and only _one_ Church of Christ, as the true religion
must come from God, and God who is truth itself cannot reveal what
is self-contradictory. He should then be shown that the true Church
of Christ must have definite marks which distinguish her from every
false sect, and that these marks of the true Church of Christ are only
possessed by the Catholic Church. After this we may expose particular
doctrines, especially those articles in which Catholics differ from
heretics, namely: the Sacraments, the Real Presence of Christ in the
Holy Eucharist, purgatory, veneration of the saints, the infallibility of
the Pope.

III. When the convert has been (according to his intelligence) fully
instructed, he must be prepared for the reception of Baptism, if he be
not baptized, of the Sacrament of Penance, and holy communion, and for a
profession of faith. As converts generally dread confession, the priest
must endeavor to remove their fear by reminding them of the seal of
confession, the peace of mind following upon a good confession, and by
lessening the difficulties of the examination of conscience. The manner
of making a good preparation and thanksgiving for holy communion should
be well explained. Finally, give him a formula of confession of faith in
his native language, and explain it to him.

IV. Not till the priest is satisfied as to the convert’s knowledge and
constancy should he receive him into the communion of the Church. _The
reception itself_ may take place in three different ways, according to
the circumstances of the convert:—

1. If he has not been baptized, or if the nullity of his Baptism is
certain, Baptism is administered to him _absolutely_; but then no
abjuration of heresy on the part of the convert takes place, nor is
absolution given to him, because the Sacrament of Regeneration cleanses
from all sins.

2. If Baptism has to be repeated _sub conditione_, the _abjuratio
hæresis_, or the _professio fidei_ takes place in the vernacular, then
Baptism is administered _sub conditione_, after which the convert
confesses and receives absolution _sub conditione_.

3. If the Baptism which the convert formerly received is regarded as
valid, he abjures his heresy by pronouncing the profession of faith, and
is then absolved from the ecclesiastical censures.[933]

An _abjuratio hæresis_ is not to be demanded from children who have not
arrived at the age of puberty, _i.e._ about their fourteenth year; nor
is absolution from the censures to be administered, as they have not
incurred any; they need only make the _professio fidei catholicæ_ before
they are admitted to the Sacraments. For these young converts the Symbol
of the Apostles seems to suffice. But from such as have passed this age,
a formal abjuration of the sect to which they have hitherto belonged is
to be demanded.[934] Although a _material_ heretic can be absolved by
every confessor _pro foro interno_, it is more advisable and safer to
procure from the bishop the _facultas absolvendi ab hæresi_, as there are
difficulties in the matter, and the confessor may easily be deceived in
his judgment. This faculty is always to be requested _pro foro externo_.
If, at his conversion, a heretic must be baptized, his admission to the
Church belongs to the right of the _parochus loci_. The bishop must be
consulted as to the repetition of Baptism _sub conditione_.

V. After his reception into the bosom of the Church the convert, if his
former Baptism was valid, or if he was rebaptized _sub conditione_,
must make a complete confession of the sins of his former life. Let
the confessor treat him with all charity, assist him with questions,
being careful, however, not to institute a rigid examination. The
confessor may ask him if he has uttered blasphemies or insults against
the Catholic Church, or induced others to do so; if he has entertained
doubts concerning his religion and how long he despised or neglected the
truth. If the penitent has committed many grave sins, the confessor must
be careful not to reprove him severely or harshly, rather praise his
good disposition in confessing them, exhort him kindly but earnestly,
henceforth to lead a truly Christian and good life. No great penance
should be imposed at first, so as not to dispirit the penitent. Finally,
the confessor administers absolution, _absolute_ or _sub conditione_,
according as Baptism was either not repeated or was again administered
_sub conditione_.

If a non-Catholic in the hour of death wishes to embrace the Catholic
faith, he must make the _professio fidei_ before two witnesses, at least
with regard to the doctrines which must be believed _necessitate medii
et præcepti_. To avoid difficulties later this act should be taken down
in writing, and the document signed. After which the dying person may be
prepared by acts of faith, hope, and charity, contrition, and purpose of
amendment; he should then confess; absolution from excommunication and
from sin should be given him; after this the viaticum and Extreme Unction.

But if the dying person shows no disposition to accept the Catholic
faith, the priest should seek to gain his confidence, and then gradually
approach the question of his salvation. Let the priest endeavor first to
awaken in the dying man an act of faith in all that God has revealed,
especially in all that must be believed _necessitate medii_, then an
act of hope, of perfect contrition, and resignation. In such a case it
is not prudent to ask the man bluntly to join the true Church, for fear
of exposing him to a great temptation. In order, however, to be able to
administer to him the conditional absolution, he should be induced to
acknowledge himself a sinner before God, and, having elicited contrition,
to declare also that he wished to be assisted as much as possible by the
services of the priest the better to obtain eternal life.[935] Absolution
_sub conditione_ can then be administered to the dying man, by secretly
pronouncing the form of words, without making the sign of the cross.




CHAPTER II

THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES


74. The Confession of Children.

The confessor must devote special care to the confessions of children,
for this is a matter of much importance.[936] As with adults, so with
children, confession exercises a great influence upon the spiritual life,
and forms a factor in their education which cannot be estimated too
highly. For even a child can commit sins with full advertence or malice,
and hence requires the Sacrament of Penance in order to recover the lost
life of grace, and to obtain the necessary assistance in preserving
itself from future sin. The child also has its temptations; evil
inclinations and passions awaken in the child’s soul. Who does not know
that many a child is entangled in a net of evil habits and occasions of
the worst kind? In truth, the child stands much in need of supernatural
strength in order to preserve its most precious treasure of innocence.
This strength conferred by grace is more necessary to the child than all
exhortations and instructions. A good confession will eradicate obstinate
faults and evil habits which have long defied all the arts and wisdom
of educational systems. Confession is in many cases the sole means of
discovering in the child hidden and ruinous habits and of correcting
them, thus safeguarding its innocence and purity. Even when parents
and the other agencies of education, home influence and the school,
fail in their duty, attaching importance only to the cultivation of the
intelligence and to outward morality and propriety, the confessional can
still be the child’s salvation by shielding its heart from evil. This
great and fundamental significance of the confessional for the child and
its education must be realized by the confessor. He will then readily
undergo the labor involved in the preparation of children for confession,
and the confessions themselves. Here, preëminently, he will scatter the
good seed from which he may expect an abundant harvest. Here he is the
true representative of the divine Friend of children, of Him who suffered
the little children to come unto Him, of Him who uttered the momentous
words: “He that shall receive one such little child in My name, receiveth
Me” (Matt. xviii. 5; xix. 13-15).

I. The first consideration is the admission and the preparation of the
children for confession.

In the admission to confession, age must certainly be considered, but
not chiefly; the mental capacities and development must be taken into
account. The declaration of the IV. Council of the Lateran that a child
is bound to receive the Sacrament of Penance as soon as it has reached
the years of discretion (_anni discretionis_) is based on the nature of
the case. But when this period arrives cannot be precisely stated in
years and days; it depends much on individual circumstances. The seventh
year is generally regarded by theologians as the limit, and they teach
that a child who has completed the seventh year is bound to receive the
Sacrament of Penance. And if a child has average mental capacity, has
received religious training at home, and from the sixth year regular
religious instruction at school, it _can_, and generally _should_, go to
confession when it is seven years old, or even before this, as would be
desirable if such a child were seriously ill, or if there were reasons
for supposing that it had committed grave sin. In the latter event the
child would be bound, in order to comply with the precept of the Church,
to confess within a year.[937] But as it happens that very many children
are not sufficiently developed and instructed so early, it follows that
the regular admission is left to the judgment of the priest. St. Charles
Borromeo gave his clergy the following precept on this head: _Qui ad
septem aut octo annos pervenerint, pro modulo de necessitate et virtute
sacramenti illudque frequentandi instruentur_.[938] And the Cologne
Provincial Council of the year 1860 decrees that the first confession of
children _shall not be put off longer than the ninth year_. The priest
should certainly not delay the preparation of a child for his first
confession any longer, unless its incapacity is demonstrated. With the
seventh or eighth year the children should be admitted to instruction
for confession, and if a child shows in the course of this instruction
that it has arrived at a sufficient understanding of the Sacrament of
Penance, it should be immediately prepared for it. But those children
who are not qualified should take part in the preparation for the next
(second) confession of the course, in order that they may be admitted
then, or later, in any case as soon as possible, to this holy Sacrament.
For the zealous priest will not only instruct the children concerning the
Sacrament at the beginning of every school year, as is the regulation
in many dioceses, but each reception (at least in the children’s first
years) will be preceded by a solid preparation consisting in a general
repetition of the essential truths. If the less gifted children are
present at these instructions and preparations, and if special attention
is given to them, they will soon be in a condition to make a good
confession. The final decision concerning the capacity or incapacity
of a child to receive absolution, or, in other words, concerning its
dispositions, must be left to the confessor, who will and must arrive at
some settled judgment on this point, and give absolution conditionally or
unconditionally, or postpone it, as he shall find necessary.

The special instruction which precedes the children’s confession must
be given according to a definite and practical plan, and with great
care and prudence.[939] At the outset the children must be solemnly
admonished that they are shortly to be admitted to their first
confession, and that for this purpose they are to receive a special
instruction. The importance of this instruction must be impressed upon
them as an initiatory preparation for the reception of the Sacrament,
thus encouraging them to diligent application and attention. There
is probably no religious instruction which more attracts little ones
and more wins their interest, than the instruction for confession, on
account of the exceedingly beautiful truths which are here discussed.
It must be emphasized and brought home to the children that it is a
great happiness, an unmerited favor to be cleansed from sin in the holy
Sacrament of Penance; it would be ill timed to represent confession
as something hard or difficult or as a kind of punishment. One must
rather awaken enthusiasm within them, so that they may take pleasure in
preparing themselves for it carefully, and they must be assured that the
confessor will make easy everything which they think will be difficult
in the confessional if only they show good will. Admission to confession
must also be represented to them in the light of a distinction, and as a
reward of diligence and attention.

As to the matter of the instruction,—the doctrine of the Sacrament
of Penance must be treated thoroughly, clearly, attractively, and in
a manner adapted to a child’s intelligence. Then the most important
doctrines of the catechism with reference to confession must be repeated,
especially the doctrine of God and His attributes; furthermore, the
doctrine of sin and the Redemption. These truths are to be set forth
in a manner at once easily intelligible to the mind and stimulating to
the feelings. Particular care must be taken that the children learn to
say correctly and with understanding the usual prayers before and after
confession. It is very useful at the end of this instruction (of the
remote preparation) and shortly before the confession, to make with
the children an examination of conscience. In this manner as complete
a confession as possible will result, and many abuses be prevented;
especially will children not accuse themselves of things which they do
not in the least understand and which they have not committed; while, at
the same time, the suitable, intelligible, and becoming expressions for
the different sins will be put into their mouths.[940] Furthermore, it is
much to be recommended that the children should, in common, be incited
to contrition and purpose of amendment (say in the Church, immediately
before confession) by laying before them the motives for contrition,
and this slowly, intelligibly, and in a manner adapted to children;
afterwards repeating to them a short and forcible formula of contrition
and purpose of amendment, concluding with another short exhortation to
sincerity in confession and to gratitude to God after the confession.[941]

II. Treatment of children in the confessional.

If the children have been well prepared, the confessor’s work is much
facilitated. But he must, nevertheless, always bear in mind the words of
St. Alphonsus de Liguori: “_The confessor must expend all his love on the
children, and treat them in the gentlest manner possible_.”[942]

But even when there has been careful preparation the confessor must:
(1) see that the confession is a complete one, and supply any possible
defects in it; (2) instruct the child, and, if necessary, dispose it
for absolution; (3) judge of his disposition, and, according to this
judgment, give absolution conditionally or unconditionally or defer it.

In addition to the rules already laid down and discussed, the following
special remarks will be serviceable:—

1. If the confession of the child is _incomplete_ or vague, the confessor
can easily discover the principal sins or at least sufficient matter by
means of questions if the child has some little intelligence. He may ask
the child if it has neglected daily prayers, if it has through his own
fault missed Mass on Sundays or holidays (especially during vacation
time); if it has behaved disrespectfully in Church, by laughing, talking,
looking about, and disturbing others; if it has been disobedient and
naughty towards his parents and superiors; if it has quarreled with his
brothers and sisters and other children; if it has been angry or cursed
in anger; if it has taken dainties by stealth or stolen; if it has lied
and said untrue things of other children.[943] Where there are grave
sins, he must, of course, ask the number, if it was not stated; and he
must insist upon the child’s examining itself concerning the number,
and stating it as precisely as possible. Everything connected with
children’s confessions must claim the confessor’s attention, but he must
be especially careful that they learn to confess well. Children will have
great difficulty in giving account of their thoughts, desires, and the
intentions by which they have been influenced, and the confessor may thus
find himself obliged to put questions on these matters.

2. If the child has made a definite confession, but the confessor still
believes that there has been insincerity,—from false shame or fear, or,
perhaps, from inability to make the sin known, it often requires great
prudence to detect the sin omitted.[944] It is mostly sins against the
sixth and seventh commandments which, for the above reasons, children
conceal. If the confessor therefore, suspects that a sin against the
sixth commandment has been omitted, he must exercise prudence in two
ways: first, that he does not, by unsuitable questions, make the child
acquainted with sins of which it knows nothing, and that he does not put
the questions in such a general way that they fail to disclose the sin.
If the child confesses that it spoke immodest words, or did something
immodest, or permitted it, the confessor must not at once conclude that
he has to do with real sins against the sixth commandment; for sometimes
children take unbecoming words, which are no sin against holy purity,
for immodest words and confess them as sins; they also regard certain
things as immodest actions which are by no means sinful,[945] but on
the contrary necessary. There is ground for this supposition especially
when an otherwise good child accuses itself of having very frequently
committed such sins.... The confessor may also ask the child if it knows
what impurity is. As he must not investigate the matter further he must
form his judgment in accordance with the whole confession or suspend a
definite judgment; and he should not forget that it is better to leave
a confession doubtfully complete than to expose innocence to danger by
asking questions. But if he discovers that the case is really so, and
that the child suffers from _conscientia erronea_ on this point, he must
suitably instruct it. If, however, it is clear the child has accused
itself of sins against holy purity, and the confessor believes that real
sins are in question,[946] let him not fail to investigate what led up to
them—a sinful, necessary, or voluntary occasion, or a vicious habit. Not
infrequently the confessor will discover the distressing fact that home
and school, instead of being nurseries of that flower of the virtues,
the child’s innocence, are the cause of its destruction, either with or
without the fault of parents or superiors; and this through sleeping
together, the bad example or open seduction of corrupted brothers and
sisters, some imprudence on the part of parents, or the talk, buffoonery,
and doings of some tainted child at school. Such circumstances will
not only awaken deep and painful regret in the confessor, but also his
endeavors as physician of the soul, to help and heal, and save the
poor child from complete ruin. He must here apply with special care
and prudence the rules concerning occasions and sinful habits. If the
confessor perceives that a child suffers from _false shame_, or that it
is immoderately timid, he must seek to induce it to candor and confidence
by kind persuasion, affectionate encouragement, or also by serious
exhortation.

In the preparatory instruction the confessor must specially accentuate
the seal of the confession, and not fail to represent the confessor to
the child as the substitute of Christ, who, like our divine Savior,
receives children (and children who have sinned also) as a loving father,
and as the Good Shepherd rejoices over the return of the child by a
sincere confession.

3. If a child has concealed a sin against the seventh commandment, it
is easier for the confessor to discover the insincerity. He must ask
what was stolen, where and from whom it was stolen, if other things than
eatables were stolen, what was done with them, etc. Stealing and eating
dainties by stealth generally go together, as the longing for these
dainties often makes the child a thief. Another form of theft is keeping
back money when parents or others have sent the child to make purchases.
Study and experience, especially in the cure of souls, and light from
above, for which the confessor must always pray before confessions and
during them in more difficult cases, will enable him to discover other
points which cannot be here discussed.

The next task of the confessor is _to instruct the child, to prescribe
remedies, and to dispose it for the absolution_. The sins which have
been confessed will furnish the occasion for the instruction; but
instruction concerning the necessary truths of faith may also be
required, especially when absolution cannot be deferred. The confessor
must particularly inform the child concerning the malice and hatefulness
and evil consequences of its sins; then also concerning the beauty and
rewards of virtue and the duties of its station. Nor should he fail to
remind the children of their sublime pattern, the divine Child Jesus. The
confessor should inspire them with love and confidence in the Blessed
Virgin, their heavenly Mother, and teach them devotional practices in
her honor and service. Finally, he should recommend to them, as a means
of obtaining virtue, zealous and regular prayer, recollection of the
presence of God, and avoidance of bad companions; and let him not tire
of telling the children all this over and over again, and implanting it
in their hearts. It will remain there, and in due time bring forth good
fruit. Though he has imparted these precepts and exhortations during
the religious instruction, he should repeat them at the confession in
suitable form; they will be more effective there; but they must be
adapted to the intelligence of the child and be short and forcible.

With the performance of this duty he must combine another, the
healing of the wounds of the child’s soul. This healing begins with
the acknowledgment of the evil in the examination of conscience and
confession, is carried on by the sorrow, and completed by the absolution,
through which grace is poured into the soul. By means of the instruction
which the confessor gives the child, he will seek to move it to real
sorrow and firm purpose of amendment. This is a principal task of the
confessor in children’s confessions. How often and how easily the latter
become invalid, or doubtfully valid, from the child’s having been too
superficial and thoughtless in awakening sorrow and firm purpose, not
having been properly attentive during the preparation, and having
repeated an act of contrition and purpose of amendment more with the
mouth than with the heart. The confessor must have due regard for this,
and employ the necessary care for warding off such evil. If the immediate
preparation for confession was a good one, he may set his mind at rest
as regards most of the children; nevertheless he will here, once more,
seek to move the child to sorrow and renewal of purpose in a few forcible
words. But if the immediate preparation above described was entirely left
to the individual children, and if the confessor has misgivings about it,
he must supply what is wanting by short but earnest admonitions.

Let the confessor be persuaded that his endeavors are not in vain, and
even if it should be his experience that the child has turned to no
advantage these preparations for confession, let him not be disheartened.
The child will recognize the representative of Christ in him better
in the confessional than at the instruction, and if he speaks as such,
inspired by a pure intention and a holy zeal for the love of Jesus, he
may confidently expect that his words, aided by the grace of God, will
make their way to the child’s heart, and there find fruitful soil. The
child’s heart, though fickle and thoughtless, is not so insensible to
contrition; the feeling of gratitude and love is there, and the love
of God is more easily excited in it. Still easier will it be for the
confessor to move the child to a firm purpose of amendment. In this
work of healing he must pay special attention to certain sins, which
often occur with children, and are particularly ruinous in them—lying,
stealing, and impurity.

(_a_) If the child shows a tendency to lying, the confessor must first of
all emphasize the sinfulness of lying, as it is often scarcely regarded
as a sin and confessed as a matter of custom, in many cases, it must be
feared, without due sorrow and purpose of amendment. He should point out
to the child the particular hatefulness of lying, as expressed by the
Holy Ghost in Holy Writ: “Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord”
(Proverbs xii. 22), and that “a lie is a foul blot in a man” (Eccles.
xx. 26); that God, as the eternal truth, especially hates, detests, and
punishes lying (Eccles. vii. 14); that men also detest a liar, for one
who has once lied is not trusted again; that lying brings a child no
good, as everything comes to light sooner or later.

(_b_) If the child has stolen something, the confessor must inquire
concerning the cause of the theft. Causes of theft may be: _Want_, in the
case of very poor children, who do not receive sufficient food, or who
cannot procure the necessary articles for school use. This cause will be
discovered without much difficulty by the question: “What did you steal?”
“What did you do with the stolen money?” Of course such children must be
treated leniently, but forbidden to steal again; at the same time they
should be told that if they are again in need of anything, to come to
him, the confessor (or the parish priest), and make known their trouble,
and they will be helped. Sensuality may be another cause; inducing them
to pilfer sweets, or buy them with stolen money. These children should
be earnestly admonished, often to think that God sees them. Finally, a
cause of stealing may be _an innate or acquired tendency_. In these cases
the amendment of the child is very difficult, but the confessor should
not give up hope, even when the tendency is deeply rooted. In the first
place, he should point out to the child the sinfulness of stealing,
and suggest the necessary measures (according to the circumstances)
for overcoming and eradicating the evil—daily renewal of purpose and
prayer for grace, recollection of the presence of God. If the children
are induced by their parents to steal, the confessor can only command
them not to obey their parents in future, and to declare that they must
obey God who has forbidden stealing; the rest he must leave to the
grace of God. If the child is led into stealing by others, it must, of
course, give up all intercourse with them at once, and (according to
the circumstances) inform parents and teachers of the fact. The duty of
restitution is not to be imposed upon children, as they are generally
incapable of making restitution,[947] excepting the case where the child
still possessed the stolen object; it should then be admonished to
restore the object, in order effectually to deter it from stealing.[948]

(_c_) The most dangerous and worst sin with children is that of
_impurity_. If a child accuses itself of this, and if the priest
believes that real sins of impurity are in question, he must investigate
if the child has fallen into them through his _own desire_, or through
the _seduction_ of others. If the former is the case, the confessor
should point out clearly and in a manner adapted to its comprehension,
the heinousness of this sin, which ruins body and soul, and makes us,
as does no other sin, an object of horror to an infinitely pure God. He
should remind the child of our divine Redeemer at the pillar, where,
by the dreadful pain and shame which He suffered, He atoned for this
sin. All this he should set before the child in eloquent, impressive
words, so that it may recognize how much his confessor detests these
sins and loves the virtue of purity. Let the confessor take occasion
to glorify this holy virtue, pointing out how much it is loved by God
and man, how much praised by the Holy Ghost, how it ennobles a man,
making him like the angels. This recommendation of holy purity will be
especially fruitful if accompanied by a special devotion to holy and
chaste young saints, especially to the Virgin of virgins, to St. Agnes,
St. Aloysius, St. Stanislaus, and St. John Berchmanns. In this manner
let him bring the child to a detestation of its sins, and to a firm and
determined purpose of resisting wicked desires and all temptations of
Satan, and to adopt the necessary means for this. As means of amendment
he can prescribe according to circumstances: daily renewal of the good
resolutions, daily prayer to the Blessed Virgin, frequent and regular
reception of the holy Sacraments; especially confessions each time the
sin is committed (this latter remedy is particularly to be recommended
if the sin has already become habitual, or has led to pollution). Other
devotional exercises are the honoring of St. Aloysius, especially by
the six Sundays of Aloysius (the celebration of which may very well be
recommended to older children); little mortifications for the purpose of
overcoming sensuality are also very appropriate. If _seduction_ by others
was the cause of the fall, the confessor must direct the child to avoid
intercourse with the evil companion; but if this is morally impossible
(for instance, when older brothers and sisters, or children of the same
school, are the seducers), he must give suitable rules by means of which
the immediate occasion may become a remote one. Whether the child may be
commanded to denounce the seducer to parents or superiors depends upon
circumstances, and the priest must examine into these; a denunciation is
a very efficacious means by which the sins of others also may be checked.
He must then tell the child how it can do this.

The third task devolving upon the confessor is _to judge of the child’s
disposition_, and according to his decision to give absolution or to
defer it. If the child has made a sincere confession, answered candidly
the confessor’s questions, listened attentively to his exhortations,
said the act of contrition devoutly and earnestly, if its behavior
has been generally good (before confession also, in the church, at
the preparation), or if in answer to the confessor’s question it has
declared that it was sorry for its sins, and that it wished to amend, the
confessor may be satisfied as to its dispositions. If he still doubts as
to the child’s dispositions (even after he has taken pains to dispose
it, for, in doubt, the confessor must, as shown above, seek to dispose
the penitent), or if he doubts as to the necessary _usus rationis_, and
if the child will not come again for two or three months (as is mostly
the case) or if it is in danger of death, he should give conditional
absolution. This also is allowed (in a case of doubtful disposition)
when the child has confessed venial sins only, and it is not likely
that it will soon come to confession again. Concerning the postponement
of absolution, see the principles laid down above, which apply here
also.[949]

As to the penance, let the confessor observe the teaching discussed above
(§ 33). Let him be careful not to impose any severe penance upon the
child, though it should be easier at one time, and severer at another,
corresponding to the sins. Moreover the penance should not be extended
over any long period, on account of the forgetfulness of children; nor
be such as the child must perform before others, and thus be exposed to
confusion.

In conclusion, we briefly refer to the question: How often should
children confess? If there are diocesan regulations on this point,—and
there are in most dioceses,—they must, of course, be observed. Where
no such direction exists, the zealous and conscientious priest will—as
confession is of such great importance for children, and as it is one
of the most powerful means of preservation from sin and the practice
of virtue, especially with those who have not yet made their first
communion—assuredly be glad to follow the precept which St. Charles
Borromeo gave to his clergy, namely, to induce children to confess
frequently. Let confession four times a year be the rule, and if he
considers it necessary, on account of particular circumstances, he
will readily grant the children more frequent opportunities; those who
are preparing for their first communion, especially, he will admit to
confession frequently during the last year before the reception; say,
every month, as is the regulation in some dioceses.[950]


75. The Confession of Young Unmarried People.

Youth, the springtime of life, is the most beautiful, but at the same
time the most dangerous, period of existence. The young man and the young
woman, more or less removed from parental care and observation, come into
closer contact with the world; many young people are obliged to leave the
parental roof to learn a business or trade, or to earn money for their
own support or for that of their relations, in factories, workshops, or
in strange houses as servants. And the dangers which, either temporarily
or constantly threaten them in these places, are not slight. Others,
more happily situated, can remain at home, but even here they are not
sheltered from all the dangers which the world, and contact with it,
prepare for them. And youth is so trustful, so easily beguiled, dazzled,
and misled; the youthful heart is so susceptible, the youthful ear so
open, evil often finds its way to the guileless heart in the guise of
what is good or harmless or indifferent; it is excused, or represented as
necessary, whereas virtue is despised as weakness or reviled as folly, or
denied as impossible. In the heart the passions and the sensual impulses
awaken, while the enemy of all good constantly watches to achieve the
ruin of the soul. The greatest dangers are _pleasure, bad company, bad
books, and human respect_. Therefore is it so very important that the
young should have an experienced, wise, circumspect confessor who knows
youth well,—the youthful heart with its inclinations, the youthful mind
with its aspirations and the dangers that beset its path; a confessor
who can admonish, instruct, and guide it, incite it, and awaken its
enthusiasm, restrain and warn it; who will hold fast to right principles,
but enforce them with wise moderation; who will lead his young penitents
into the ways of goodness and virtue without exciting their resistance—a
confessor who has a warm heart for youth. Let him, therefore, gladly
take upon himself the difficult but noble and blessed task of being a
father and guide to youth. Of this labor St. John Chrysostom[951] says
truly: “What is equal to the art of guiding the souls of the young, of
forming their minds and hearts? He who is equipped with the capacity
for it must exercise more care than a painter or a sculptor upon his
work.” That the confessor of young people may work with success it is
necessary _that he should win their hearts_ by the absolute confidence
with which his truly fatherly love inspires them. Let him not repel these
young people by cold, harsh treatment, but make due allowance for their
weakness, their inexperience, their inconstancy; they will then follow
his instructions, admonitions, and counsels with docility and with the
enthusiasm which is peculiar to youth. Moreover, let him make the work of
confessing easy to them so far as may be, in order that they may _gladly_
and _often_ confess and communicate. If it is possible, let him induce
and accustom them to the constant habit of confessing every month, or at
least every two or three months; for frequent confession and communion is
of especial benefit to young people, in order—(1) to preserve them from
sinful _habits_, for they will rise the quicker from sin the oftener they
approach the Sacrament of Penance, and sin cannot settle into a habit
if the heart is quickly cleansed from it. In any case the beginnings
will be easily overcome. If, however, a sinful habit has already taken
root, frequent confession and communion is the most certain, often the
only, remedy. (2) By it _they accustom themselves to pious exercises_,
which are learnt and performed more easily in youth than later on, and
by continued practice they will be confirmed in piety, which is itself a
firm support of weak and vacillating youth, a safe and protecting bulwark
against danger.

(3) _They will then also receive the holy Sacraments frequently in
later life, and will be preserved from that pernicious fear of the
confessional_, from which so many men and women suffer in our days.
For, as the Holy Ghost teaches, and experience proves, a youth will not
forsake easily in old age the path which he trod in early years. But
those who in youth seldom receive the holy Sacraments will, as experience
also proves, shun confession more and more as age advances.[952]

When the confessor has a suspicion that his young penitents have not
confessed sincerely, he may (as it shall seem to him advisable, and
having regard always to the rules applicable to questioning) ask if they
have been much troubled by temptations against holy purity, if they have
had intercourse with corrupt people, if they have read bad books? He may
also ask, especially where the preceding questions were answered in the
affirmative, if they have done anything immodest or permitted it? But
in all these questions let the confessor be modest and careful in his
expressions, lest he wound by awkward questions and teach the penitent
some sin before unknown to him, or excite his curiosity. He will more
easily attain to his end with young men, as these are generally more open
than persons of the other sex. Sometimes young people of both sexes do
not know what a sin of impurity is, although they accuse themselves of
impure thoughts.

_The faults peculiar to youth_ are:—

(_a_) _Disobedience_ to parents and superiors, which results in
much evil. The confessor must find out in what they have been
disobedient—neglecting divine service, religious instructions and the
holy Sacraments, attending forbidden entertainments, frequenting bad
company, keeping up dangerous and sinful connections with persons of
the other sex (familiarities, flirtations). Then let him point out the
evil consequences of their disobedience, the obligation of obeying which
still remains in force when they have become older, are earning money, or
supporting their parents, in fact as long as they remain under parental
control. He should remind them of the promises of the fourth commandment,
and the threats of God against those children who disobey this
commandment. At the same time let him instill in their hearts reverence
and love for their parents and superiors. Then let him lay special
stress upon sincerity toward parents, superiors, and the confessor; and
inculcate a deep abhorrence of dissimulation and lying, which make the
education, protection, and guidance of inexperienced youth impossible,
and expose it to great dangers.

(_b_) _Love of pleasure._ It excites the young man (and also the young
woman) to a craving for enjoyment, withdraws him more or less from useful
pursuits. It leads the young man into dangerous society, the young woman
into ruinous and sinful intimacies, which are secretly and prematurely
carried on, and are fruitful in sins and excesses; it ultimately leads
both of them into disobedience toward their parents, to lying, to
extravagance, to deception and theft practiced on parents, and to still
worse things. Moreover, it takes from them all devotion and fear of God.

(_c_) If love of pleasure appears more in young men, _desire of pleasing_
is characteristic of young women; it induces vanity, levity, distraction,
and sins against chastity. The confessor should combat these passions
with all his zeal and show how they may be suppressed.

He should recommend to young people as excellent means of acquiring and
cultivating the fear of the Lord and true virtue:—

1. _Regular daily prayer, and attendance at divine service_, Mass,
sermons, and Christian instruction. As long as a young man or a young
woman say their daily prayers and attend Mass, it is well with them;
but as soon as they begin to grow negligent in these practices, it is a
certain sign that they are no longer in the path of virtue, and if they
have not yet reached the broad highway of vice, they are certainly on the
road which very soon leads into it. Experience teaches that a man does
not become all at once corrupt and wicked; he usually falls imperceptibly
and by degrees. He no longer confesses and communicates regularly every
four weeks,—first five elapse, then six or seven; morning and night
prayers are no longer said punctually and kneeling,—they are sometimes
omitted, shortened, said in bed, now and then the religious instruction
and the afternoon devotion are missed, and excuses are forthcoming;
at the same time there is no longer the earnest endeavor to resist
temptation, there is no longer the same fear of sin. Upon the lesser
negligences supervene greater ones, and upon the smaller faults greater
sins. This is the usual progress. Let the confessor, therefore, urge
punctual prayer and regular attendance at divine service.

Many young men and women cannot attend at Mass on weekdays; if they
are absent from it on Sundays also, they are not only robbed of many
necessary graces, but they neglect the first duty of man, the service
of God, become more and more estranged from God and holy things, and
in the same measure attached to the world and worldly things, with the
result that sin and passion are more easily and more deeply rooted in
them. If young people come with the excuse that they were obliged to
work on Sunday, and therefore were not able to be present at Mass, the
confessor must investigate the validity of this excuse and give the
necessary directions and instructions. He should not be overready to
admit its validity; in towns especially, by a little good will and zeal,
though at cost of some effort, Mass may be heard before work begins.
These same people will often deprive themselves of necessary rest when it
is a question of pleasure! Work on Sundays is not always inevitable and
absolutely necessary, and other situations are to be found in which it is
not demanded. The confessor must inquire into all this.

2. Great esteem for holy purity and a great horror of impurity. For this
purpose the confessor should encourage (_a_) the reading of good books,
warn his penitents against idleness, and instill in them a love of virtue
(§ 66, IV). He should also (_b_) caution them against sinful talk and
familiar intercourse with persons of the opposite sex, and against bad
company; this warning should be especially addressed to young women,
who should also be admonished to be decent and modest, as becomes
virtuous women, at all times and in all places—at work, at recreation,
in the house, out of the house, in dress, and in manners; (_c_) he
should endeavor, to the best of his ability, to keep them from dangerous
pleasures, especially from theaters, dances, shows (§ 66, II. III), and
certain pleasure trips, which, unfortunately, in our days are so general,
and for which so many opportunities are afforded; indeed, he will be
obliged to forbid many of them to certain penitents as they are for these
penitents _occasio proxima relativa_; (_d_) he should also seek to hinder
young men from joining certain societies, the principal object of which
is pleasure, and which so often give occasion for profanation of Sundays
and holidays and for other scandals, and in which the ruling spirit is
not one favorable to religion and virtue. On the other hand, he should
recommend them, and young women also, to join a well-conducted religious
society or sodality; (_e_) he should induce them confidently to unfold
to their confessors all their temptations, struggles, and difficulties;
(_f_) finally, he should recommend and urge frequent reception of the
holy Sacraments after careful preparation and an earnest endeavor to
sanctify the day of communion.

But only the _regular confessor_ can, in this prescribed manner, produce
permanent effect upon young men and women. Only he who has known and
guided his penitent a long time can effectively warn him against
threatening dangers; and when the latter has gone astray, a confessor
can easily lead him back, and preserve him from future dangers and
relapse. It is, therefore, of the greatest importance that young people
should not change their confessors without a good reason. They should be
advised to choose a regular confessor and to give him their confidence,
ready to submit with docility to his admonitions and precepts. But if
his penitents confess once or twice to another priest, the permanent
confessor must by no means express displeasure or irritation; under
certain circumstances he must even express satisfaction at it, for it
is better that they should confess sincerely to another priest than
sacrilegiously to him. When they return to him he should show even
greater love and concern for them, and resume their guidance with the
accustomed conscientiousness. The priest to whom these penitents come
without the knowledge of their former confessor must receive them kindly,
dispose them, if necessary, and induce them to be sincere after they
return to the former confessor.

The confessor must devote special attention to a vice with which so many
young people are infected—the _vitium pollutionis_—in order to preserve
those who are still untainted by this pest, and to deliver and cure those
who are its victims. In a former section (§ 69, II) we have said what was
necessary on this point, and enumerated the remedies which the confessor
must apply to these unfortunate penitents.[953] If the young penitents
(male or female) are inmates of an educational establishment, the
confessor must not overlook the possibility of _particular friendships_,
as these prove to be very injurious. At first they are merely matters
of fanciful preference, without harm. But later on such friends like
to separate themselves from others when they are able to do so, and by
degrees the relationship between them tends toward sensuality and to
sins against purity. This evil the confessor must judiciously endeavor
to avert; if he observes such friendships, he must demand that they be
broken off, if necessary, under threat of refusing absolution. And if
one of the parties continues to be a cause of temptation, he must be
denounced to the Superior if this is possible. The confessor may be
assured that only by legitimate severity will anything be accomplished in
this matter.[954]


76. The Confessor as Adviser in the Choice of a State of Life.

It will often happen that the confessor is in a position to help young
people in the choice of a state of life; we will, therefore, lay down a
few rules on the point.

1. The confessor is by his calling an adviser to his penitents in this
matter; for he knows the souls of his penitents, their inclinations,
faults, and weaknesses, and the duties of the different states of life.
He is likewise apt to receive a special illumination of divine grace in
the exercise of his office, and he is probably always the most impartial
of those concerned in the decision of this question. Hence the penitent
usually lays this question of his future before his confessor with the
greatest confidence.

2. The right choice of a vocation is of supreme importance for a young
man or young woman; upon it depend not only the temporal and eternal
welfare of the party in question, but also the happiness and unhappiness
of many others. The confessor ought, therefore, to expend very much care
upon this question; he must consider, investigate, pray, and admonish the
penitent to do the same. The decision of such a weighty matter should
never be hasty. _Noli præcipitanter agere; diu considera, magnum est,
quod proponis_, writes St. Bernard.[955] The confessor must inquire
into the abilities of the young man or woman, the moral condition, and
also the exterior circumstances of the person; he must consider the
question of means and foresee difficulties which may arise. He must then
investigate if the intentions of the person in entering upon this state
are pure and acceptable to God. Finally, he must have recourse to God in
earnest prayer, that he may be able to give his penitent the right advice
in so important a matter. _Tria sunt difficilia mihi et quartum penitus
ignoro_, namely: _viam viri in adolescentia_ (Prov. xxx. 18, 19). St.
Philip Neri, the paternal friend and guide of youth, recommends in the
choice of a vocation, _time, prayer, and counsel_.

3. The confessor should not seek to persuade young people to embrace
some particular calling: “_Circa statum ab aliquo adolescente eligendum
non audeat Confessarius illum ei determinare, sed tantum ex indiciis
curet suadere statum illum, ad quem prudenter judicare potest ipsum a
Deo vocari_,” is the admonition of St. Alphonsus to confessors.[956] The
confessor should, therefore, direct the young man to submit the matter
to Almighty God, who determines the station in life of every individual,
and teach him that each one must seek to know the will of God, and be
ready to follow the divine call, whatever it may be, for a man can be
permanently and truly happy only in that state which God has allotted
him. He should admonish him to implore with perseverance light from on
high, and to this end perform some special devotion—a novena to Our Lady
of Good Counsel, or to St. Aloysius, the patron of youth, or to St.
Joseph; to receive the holy Sacraments, and preserve himself from all
grave sin, so as to place no obstacle in the way of the divine light of
grace.

All this being done, the confessor can, trusting to the grace of God,
give an answer which shall be, if possible, decisive. God is wont to make
known to a man the station destined for him in a threefold manner: (_a_)
_by miracles_, as He did in the case of St. John the Baptist, St. Paul,
and many other saints; (_b_) by interior illumination and suggestion,
by means of which the individual is enabled to recognize the will of
God clearly, as we see illustrated in the lives of very many saints in
quite a remarkable manner; (_c_) and generally, by means of outward
circumstances, by pronounced inclination and special capacity for some
state of life; among these circumstances may be reckoned the exterior
providential guidance of men, which the world calls chance, but which the
Christian enlightened by faith recognizes as the providence of God.

Respecting individual callings, the confessor should observe the
following:—

I. Religious Orders.

If a young man or woman shows an inclination to enter a Religious Order
and consults the confessor about the matter, the latter should first
investigate if the penitent has the ordinary abilities for such a life,
if he has sound judgment and a good character, if he is disposed to
obedience, if he possesses relatively sufficient talent and knowledge,
and if he is healthy. For one who is not of sound judgment is subject
to many hallucinations, and St. Teresa used to say, very wisely, that
she did not wish to have either scrupulous or melancholy persons in her
Order, that is, such as were subject to these faults in a considerable
degree, because such persons are a cause of much trouble both to
themselves and the community. Those who have not good health will not
be able to observe the general regulations of the establishment, and,
therefore, will be more of a burden than a benefit to the community,
and will not be able to set a good example. The priest should then
test the penitent’s intention in entering the Order, to see if it is
the right one, namely, to unite himself more intimately and closely to
God, to atone for the errors and sins of his former life, and to avoid
the dangers of the world. If the confessor should discover that the
intention has been influenced by some such motive as the expectation
of leading a life free from cares, or of escaping from the tutelage of
harsh relations, or by desire of complying with the wishes of parents,
he should proceed cautiously, for under the circumstances it may be
suspected that there is no vocation.[957] If, however, the intention
is right, and there is no obstacle in the way, the confessor may not,
and cannot, under grave sin,[958] prevent or dissuade the person from
following his vocation; nor may any one else do so. The confessor must
also investigate if _the purpose_ of the individual in question _is
firm and steadfast_; in order to make sure of this, it is sometimes
advisable to defer for a time the execution of the intention, especially
if the confessor knows the young person to be rather fickle, or when the
resolution to enter the Order was taken during a Mission, or under the
influence of a Retreat, because resolutions are sometimes made on such
occasions, which, when the first zeal has cooled down, are not kept.[959]
The confessor must be especially careful with penitents who, on account
of frequent relapses into sins of impurity, give rise to the suspicion
that they do not lead chaste lives; and also with those who have reached
middle age, because it is to be presumed that, being settled in their
habits and views, they would find obedience too difficult; finally, he
should also be extremely careful with those who have already belonged to
an Order, because these do not generally persevere, or are not adapted to
a life in community.

When the confessor has satisfied himself, as far as possible, concerning
the vocation for a Religious Order, he will have no difficulty in
discovering to what Order the young person is called. Here he must pay
special attention to the inclinations and dispositions of the candidate,
and whether regular observance prevails in the Order under consideration.
But as long as the question of the calling is not quite decided, he must
insist: (1) that the person maintain silence with every one, even his
parents, concerning it, till it is recognized as his vocation, and is
to be carried out; (2) that he should persevere in prayer for guidance,
and frequently receive the holy Sacraments; (3) that he should shun the
distractions, pleasures, and vanities of the world, otherwise he will run
the risk of losing his vocation.

II. The priesthood.[960]

Holy Writ, both in the Old and New Testament, teaches that a vocation
from God (_vocatio divina_) is necessary for receiving Orders (_status
clericalis_). Our Savior Himself expressed this truth very clearly when
He said to the first priests of the New Law: “_Non vos me elegistis, sed
ego elegi vos_,” and His Apostle also, who writes: “_Nec quisquam sumit
sibi honorem, sed qui vocatur a Deo tanquam Aaron_” (Heb. v. 4). The
confessor must, therefore, carefully examine the candidate’s vocation to
the priesthood; indeed, this investigation is even of greater importance
than in the case of the candidature for a Religious Order. For if the
religious takes upon himself greater burdens with regard to obedience
and voluntary poverty, and if the love of community life and a submissive
spirit is not to such a high degree necessary in the secular priest, yet
greater dangers threaten the latter, and fewer safeguards are at his
disposal than are possessed by the religious, who, in the rule of his
Order and the regular life of a monastery, finds a powerful help.[961]

The chief signs, by means of which the confessor may recognize a vocation
for the priesthood, are: (1) right intention—not seeking a comfortable
life, a future free from care, and honor in the eyes of the world, but
only the honor of God, and the salvation of souls; (2) a persistent
inclination to the spiritual state, joy in the spiritual life, and in
the offices of the priesthood; (3) confirmed virtue (“_virtus probata_,”
or _probitas vitæ, positiva nempe, iis virtutibus subnixa, quæ dignum
efficiant altaris ministrum_); especially purity of heart, temperance,
piety, modesty, and zeal;[962] (4) ability to perform the duties of this
station. As, in our days, nearly all who enter the clerical state wish
to become priests also, and by far the greater number of priests have
_cura animarum_, this ability consists in an average mental endowment
and the necessary knowledge, joined to a love of ecclesiastical science,
in prudent judgment and right conscience (very scrupulous youths are
unsuitable). According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus, one who intrudes
himself into the priestly office without a vocation cannot be acquitted
of great presumption, as he exposes himself to the great danger of losing
his own soul and of giving scandal to the faithful. He will, therefore,
not be free from grave sin.[963] But it sometimes happens that those who
were certain of their vocation become doubtful and vacillate; temptations
of the evil one arise and cause confusion; friends and relatives exert
their influences in order to turn them from the spiritual state, joy in
worldly pleasures and diversions makes itself felt; they fear and shrink
from the duties of the office, thinking they will not be able to perform
them, or they believe themselves unworthy to enter such a holy state.
If a confessor finds a penitent tempted in this manner, he must try to
inspire him with courage and confidence, make him understand that every
state in life has its burdens, but that in none is the yoke lighter than
in the one assigned by God. He should point out to him the deceits with
which the enemy of all good and the “father of lies” so often confuses
souls; remind him of the teaching of Jesus, that the kingdom of heaven
suffereth violence and that only the violent carry it away, that he who
will follow Jesus must take up his cross and carry it daily. At the same
time he must recommend prayer and absolute submission to the will of God.

III. The state of virginity (_status virginitatis in sæculo_).

If a woman living in the world has a serious wish to preserve virginal
purity, the confessor must confirm and support her in so good and
salutary a resolution, for it is very pleasing to Jesus, the lover of
pure souls. It offers a safer and easier way to holiness, and the state
of virginity by far exceeds in merit and dignity that of matrimony. The
confessor should, however, only allow those to take the vow of _perpetual
virginity_ whom he knows to be truly steadfast in piety and virtue, and
of firm and decided will. As a rule, he should allow younger persons to
take this vow for a short time only at first,—say for six months,—and
afterwards, when they have proved themselves steadfast, and he sees
that it is beneficial to them, he can extend the period to one or two
years, and only later permit them to bind themselves by vow to perpetual
virginity; or he should permit the perpetual vow under a conditional
resolution, such as: “_nisi Confessarius pro tempore judicaverit
expedire, ut votum desinat_.”[964]

The confessor should give special attention to those penitents who have
really taken the vow of virginity, instructing them not only to be
faithful to their vow, but to lead a perfect life according to their
station and capacity.

IV. The state of _matrimony_.

Although the state of virginity possesses a very exalted dignity, the
state of matrimony has divine sanction. The Church has always esteemed it
highly, faithfully following in this respect the example of her divine
Founder, and has always defended the dignity of Christian marriage
wherever it was called for. God has ordained marriage for most men as
their state of life; and, since upon the faithful performance of the
duties of married people depend, not only their own temporal and eternal
welfare, but also that of the family and of society, let the confessor,
when occasion is offered: (1) direct his endeavors to prevent young
people from entering into the state of matrimony too soon, without
preparation, without knowledge of its duties, or capacity to perform
them, and with an impure motive; (2) oppose most energetically those
forbidden and pernicious intimacies which are the worst imaginable
preparation for marriage, and generally the occasion of grave sins,
and tolerate only the acknowledged and necessary intimacies a short
time before the marriage, with due observance of the necessary measures
of precaution; (3) instruct those penitents who have a vocation for
marriage, and wish to enter that state, concerning its duties;[965] (4)
admonish them to inform their parents of their intention to marry, in
order to obtain their advice and assistance. For, as on the one hand,
parents would sin who deterred their children, _sine justa causa_, from
contracting an honorable marriage, so, on the other hand, children would
sin who wished, against the will of their parents, to contract a marriage
calculated to bring shame and dishonor upon a family, without some valid
ground which would constitute an excuse for so doing.[966]


77. Betrothal and Marriage.

“_Maxima prudentia ac zelo hic opus habet Confessarius_,” justly remarks
Scavini, and continues (quoting the “Méthode pour la direction des
ames”), “Les personnes, qui vont se marier ont besoin de plusieurs avis
pour ne rien omettre de leurs devoirs, ne rien faire contre la sainteté
du mariage.” The confessor should particularly observe the following
points: 1. Betrothed persons should not, as a rule, live in the same
house.[967] Let the confessor insist with unrelenting severity in this
matter.[968]

2. The time of betrothal should be one of preparation for contracting a
marriage well pleasing to God; but it would be a very bad preparation
on the part of the betrothed persons to burden their souls with grave
sins against holy purity. Let the confessor, therefore, admonish them
to preserve themselves free from all sins during this time, especially
from those of impurity; and he has the more reason for giving this
advice because very great dangers threaten their virtue on account of
the intimacy of their relationship, the frequency of their intercourse,
and their mutual inclination; moreover, this time of betrothal is, often
enough, a career of continued sin, and an almost uninterrupted round of
distractions, pleasures, and worldly cares. It often happens that young
women, who before their betrothal led a zealous, religious, and pure
life, become during this time lukewarm and indifferent in the exercises
of piety, in the reception of the holy Sacraments, and even in attendance
at Mass. With this comes carelessness in combating temptation; and moral
perversion, alas! often of the worst kind is the result. Therefore let
the confessor watch, warn, and admonish.

(_a_) He should explain to them that whatever is forbidden by God in the
sixth and ninth commandments is no more allowed to them than to unmarried
people in general; on the contrary, the prospect of a speedy union, their
mutual love and weakness may lead them into greater temptations and
dangers, and that they should, therefore, be more watchful and careful
now, should pray more than before for the necessary grace and strength
to remain pure, and to be able to approach the altar for the nuptial
ceremony with hearts undefiled. He should also call their attention to
the misfortunes in married life with which God, even here on earth, is
wont to punish sins committed against the sanctity of the Sacrament by
the betrothed.

(_b_) He should forbid them any too familiar intercourse with each
other, especially _solius cum sola_, in retired places at night or in
the evening. He must not allow them to meet without some attendance
and supervision. How many have been exposed to the greatest dangers by
merely going to the door in the evening, and tainted a virtue which
had been preserved spotless for years. Frequent visiting of engaged
persons without supervision of parents or relations is, in general, to
be regarded and treated as an _immediate_ occasion of sin, and that,
not _per accidens_, but _per se_.[969] St. Alphonsus inveighs severely
against engaged persons and the parents who permit these visits and
familiarities, and defends his severity by appealing to experience.[970]
Moralists teach (and experience confirms their teaching) that too much
familiarity on the part of persons engaged constitutes the very greatest
danger to chastity.[971] Frassinetti’s words are to the point: “Let
parents see that their sons do not meet with too great familiarity, and,
above all, not alone and without witnesses, the young women whom they
think of marrying. I say ‘with too great familiarity,’ for it would be
useless to preach that betrothed persons should never visit one another.
Such visits are partly necessary, in order that there may be mutual
knowledge of one another, before they are joined by the indissoluble
bond of matrimony. Moreover, they would, in any case, wish to visit one
another, on account of their mutual attachment, which, in view of their
future marriage, is not reprehensible.... But the priest must earnestly
impress upon parents the necessity of exercising great watchfulness over
these visits. _Great watchfulness_, in order that the young people may
observe the strictest propriety in their intercourse with each other.
The parents should, therefore, always have them under their observation.
Such visiting should not be prolonged nor be too frequent. For, in these
cases, it cannot be presumed that divine grace will assist the young
people, as such conduct is neither necessary nor becoming; and, on this
account, there will unfailingly be many dangers.”

(_c_) He should urge speedy marriages, as this will obviate many
temptations and dangers of sin. Protracted engagements are seldom good;
circumstances may supervene which make speedy marriage difficult or
impossible; but if it can take place soon, the confessor must not easily
consent to postponement from slight motives.[972] The cause of the
postponement should be inquired into, and all possible efforts be made
to remove it. Every betrothed person _can_ demand the fulfilment of the
promise of marriage (even in _foro externo_) and the other party is,
_sub gravi_, bound to accede to this demand if he has no valid reason
for refusal or postponement. As postponement of marriage generally
means great moral dangers for the betrothed, it can only be justified
by weighty motives.[973] If one of the parties intends to dissolve the
engagement, the confessor should explain its binding nature. To break off
an engagement out of levity, in momentary anger or on account of some
sudden passion, is wrong, and dishonorable, even if the dissolution be
valid.[974] To make engagements lightly and as lightly to break them is
contrary to the sanctity of matrimony.

(_d_) He should enjoin zealous prayer, frequent reception of the
Sacraments,[975] and especially a general confession (which will be
useful for all and necessary for many)[976] and good works, that they
may receive the Sacrament of Matrimony worthily, thus laying a solid
foundation for a happy life. But it is not well to defer the confession
till the last hours or minutes before the wedding, and the confessor
should energetically dissuade from this practice, which may cause him
and those about to be married difficulties and embarrassment. In order
to avoid this, and also to contribute to a better preparation, he should
recommend confession (general confession) _before or after the_ first
publication of the banns, and then confession again immediately before
the wedding.

For if the confession is not made till shortly before the wedding, the
following difficulties may arise: 1. _The penitent may not be disposed
or cannot be rendered disposed._ The confessor will certainly do
everything which zeal for souls and the light of grace suggest, in order
to dispose the penitent for the worthy reception of absolution. But if
the disposition remains doubtful, despite all his endeavors, he may
absolve the penitent _sub conditione_, as the reception of the Sacrament
of Matrimony is a sufficient reason for administering conditional
absolution.[977] If his efforts to dispose the penitent remain
fruitless,—the bridegroom, perhaps, being bad and wishing only to make a
show of receiving the holy Sacraments, influenced by his better disposed
bride, or by relations; or because he will not satisfy some necessary
condition, such as avoiding some immediate occasion, making restitution,
giving up an enmity,—the confessor must refuse absolution. Of course,
such a person may not receive holy communion, and the confessor must
tell him so. As to the reception of the Sacrament of Matrimony, there
are two possible cases to consider: either he does not know that a state
of grace is necessary for the lawful reception of this Sacrament, or he
does know it. If he does not know it, and if the confessor is obliged to
presume (knowing the penitent’s frame of mind) that he would not respect
his admonition concerning the unlawful reception of the Sacrament of
Matrimony in a state of mortal sin, he must leave him in his state of
ignorance and _bona fides_, in order that he may not formally sin. If
the penitent does know that it is not allowed to receive the Sacrament
of Matrimony in mortal sin, the confessor should lay before him in
forcible terms the enormity of the sacrilege of which he will be guilty,
in order, if possible, to bring him to a better disposition. And if this
is of no avail, he should admonish him with suitable prudence, to make an
act of perfect contrition before the marriage, and to come to confession
as soon as possible after it.[978]

2. Another difficulty arises when the penitent confesses a reserved sin
from which the confessor cannot absolve. As here _gravis causa confitendi
urget_, we are face to face with a case which was discussed earlier
in this work and solved by St. Alphonsus, namely, that any priest can
indirectly absolve from sins reserved to the bishop, and also from those
reserved to the Pope, _si episcopus non possit adiri_; even when the sin
is reserved _cum excommunicatione_.[979]

3. Finally, another difficulty may arise: the confessor may discover
in the confessional an _impedimentum matrim. occultum ex causa
infamante exortum_; the marriage for which all the preparations have
been made cannot be postponed without disgrace and great detriment to
the parties, and dispensation from the impediment cannot be obtained.
Here the following circumstances have to be taken into consideration:
(_a_) If both parties know the impediment, and have concealed it from
a bad motive, they must, if possible, postpone their marriage till the
dispensation has been obtained. If they are not willing to do this,
the confessor must refuse them absolution. But if they are not able
to postpone the marriage on account of the great disgrace or scandal
which would result, and if they are otherwise in good dispositions, he
can give them absolution; but he must instruct them that they have to
be married before the priest, on the supposition that the Pope will
dispense, then to live merely as brother and sister till the dispensation
has been obtained;[980] after that they must repeat before him their
consent to marry. He must tell them how this has to be done, make it
as easy for them as possible, so as not to deter them. (_b_) If both
parties are ignorant of the impediment, and are quite _bona fide_ and
if the confessor cannot assume that they will live continently till the
dispensation is procured, he should leave them in their ignorance, _bona
fide_, and request a dispensation _pro foro interno_, then proceeding
according to the rules for rendering valid an invalid marriage _in foro
interno_; for it is better to let them commit material sins, than to
furnish them with occasion for formal sins. (_c_) If only one of the
two parties is aware of the obstacle, and, on account of the disgrace
attaching to it, cannot reveal it to the other, a “_communissima et
probabilissima sententia_” of the theologians teaches that the bishop can
grant a dispensation in this case,[981] and recourse must, therefore,
be had to him. If the latter is not possible, the confessor (or parish
priest) can, according to what St. Alphonsus calls the “not unfounded”
teaching of many theologians, declare “_ex Epikeia_” that the _lex
impedimenti_ does not bind in this case, because it would be injurious.
But the confessor must _pro securitate et ad salvandam reverentiam
legibus Ecclesiæ debitam, quantocius_ apply to the Roman Penitentiary,
or to the Ordinary who possesses the quinquennial faculties, in order to
obtain a dispensation. But it is to be carefully observed that only a
secret impediment, arising from a sin, is here in question; for in the
case of a public impediment arising from no dishonorable cause, there is
neither scandal nor disgrace, but only the inconvenience of postponing
the marriage.[982] It depends entirely upon circumstances, since it is
the duty of the pastor to instruct those about to marry, whether the
confessor should give special suggestions and admonition in this last
confession on the _usus matrimonii_,[983] explaining what is allowed
to married people, and what is forbidden.[984] He may speak to them of
the intention which, as Christians, they should have in this state;
of matrimonial harmony and mutual love and fidelity. If the confessor
deems it necessary, or advisable and beneficial, he will not fail in
his zeal for souls to instruct his penitents concerning this matter,
and to admonish them to lead a truly Christian family life, where sin
and vice are carefully avoided, whilst God is being faithfully served.
If matrimony is based upon this foundation, the husband and wife may
confidently expect God’s abundant graces: if they depart from these
principles, they will deprive themselves of this blessing.[985]


78. The Confessor’s Attitude toward Mixed Marriages.

The confessor will often have occasion to speak to penitents concerning
mixed marriages, because they either wish to contract such a marriage,
or have already done so. The following principles will serve him in this
equally important and difficult matter.

I. Even if the essence of marriage is not destroyed by the obstacle of
mixed religion, as in _disparitas cultus_, it falls short of the ideal.
For marriage should not only represent the unity of the Church; it
should, as much as is possible, produce this unity; now the Church is,
in a special manner, _one_ through its faith. Conscious of this, and in
view of the many great disadvantages which accrue from mixed marriages,
the Church has always energetically protested against them. She has
always taught that such a marriage is a reprehensible _communicatio in
sacris_, that there is danger to the Catholic party of falling away
from religion or of becoming indifferent to it, and that a proper
education in the Catholic faith of children born from such marriage, if
not exactly impossible, is certainly rendered very difficult, as the
necessary coöperation is wanting, and opposition easily made by word and
example.[986] In 1858 the Apostolic See anew admonished the bishops to
deter the faithful from such mixed marriages.

Only by three conditions will the dangers of mixed marriages be, if not
removed, at least reduced; and only under these three conditions does the
Church, _præsertim ob privatas causas_, permit mixed marriages. These
conditions are: (1) Both parties, especially the non-Catholic, must
promise, ordinarily in writing and before witnesses, to bring up all
their children in the Catholic religion (without distinction of sex). (2)
The non-Catholic party must promise solemnly not to hinder in any way the
Catholic party in the practice of his (or her) religion. (3) The Catholic
must use every lawful means to effect the conversion of the heretical
partner.[987]

From these three conditions the Church cannot recede,[988] for, as
not only the ecclesiastical, but also the natural and the divine law,
absolutely forbid that anybody expose himself or his offspring to
the danger of perversion, it naturally results that these sureties
should be prescribed and demanded, in order that together with the
canonical precepts, the natural and divine law may not be criminally
transgressed.[989] When these conditions are satisfied, and officially
guaranteed[990] by a contract, dispensation from the _impedimentum mixtæ
religionis_ may then be requested from the bishop, and given by him in
virtue of the usual faculties conferred upon him.

II. By these regulations of the Church, his _modus procedendi_ in the
matter of a mixed marriage is mapped out for the priest or the confessor.

1. If the confessor receives information of an intended mixed marriage,
he should emphatically dissuade from it, but with pastoral prudence, and
without offensive words.

2. If his endeavors are of no avail, and if he cannot prevent the
marriage, he must persuade the penitent to fulfill the stipulated
conditions.

3. If the penitent agrees to this, the confessor will do well not to
administer absolution at once unless there is some special reason for
so doing (for example, the fulfilment of a commandment of the Church,
necessity of communicating, to prevent gossip, etc.), but let him urge
that the consent of the non-Catholic party to the three conditions should
first be obtained.

4. When this consent is obtained, there is no obstacle to the absolution
of the penitent.

5. But if the penitent will not consent to the fulfilment of the three
conditions, but still intends to contract the mixed marriage, he purposes
to commit a grave sin, and cannot be absolved. For he who, without
obtaining a dispensation from the _impedimentum mixtæ religionis_,
contracts a mixed marriage before a non-Catholic minister, is guilty of
three grave sins: he disobeys the Church; he endangers the salvation of
the children which God may give him; he is _hæreseos fautor_, guilty of a
_communicatio in sacris_, and incurs ecclesiastical censure.[991]

III. Concerning the reconciliation of those persons who, in disobedience
to their Church, have contracted a mixed marriage before a non-Catholic
minister, the confessor must be guided by the following principles:—

1. It is certain that a Catholic having contracted marriage before a
Protestant clergyman cannot be absolved as long as he remains unwilling
to make good the above-mentioned conditions. Even if the refusal of
absolution does not produce its immediate effect (the fire of passion
obscuring the light of conscience), it, nevertheless, instills salutary
fear. But it would be very wrong on the part of the confessor to wound
such a penitent by harshness and reproaches. The confessor (parish
priest) must take all pains to bring such penitents to a consciousness of
their error.[992]

2. But if the penitent truly repents of his error, and if he is ready to
make good the scandal given, and to take immediate steps towards bringing
up his children as Catholics, he is worthy of absolution and it may not
be refused to him.

3. It is, above all, necessary to find out if the marriage was valid
according to the Decree _Tametsi_. If the marriage has been invalidly
contracted, a dispensation from the _impedimentum mixtæ religionis_ and
from the banns is to be sought; and when this is obtained, according to
the regulations of the Church, the consent is to be renewed. If this
renewal of consent cannot be effected, _sanatio in radice_ must be
requested.[993] If the marriage is valid, dispensation is not necessary.

4. Moreover, the _facultas absolvendi a censuris propter hæresim_ must
be obtained. For the censure reserved _speciali modo_ to the Pope is,
according to an explicit decision of Rome, incurred in _all cases_ by
those _qui matrimonium coram ministro hæretico ineunt_; even when the
existence of censure was not known to the parties, because it is a
question of the _forum externum_, and the contract of marriage is, of
its nature, an external act. By virtue, however, of the quinquennial
faculties, the bishop can absolve from this censure, or confer this power
_subdelegando_ upon others. The confessor must, therefore, refer the
penitent to the parish priest, in order that the latter may procure from
the bishop the _facultas absolvendi a censuris pro foro externo_. Not
till then can the confessor give sacramental absolution.

Only when, from _special reasons_, determined by the circumstances, an
_absolutio in foro externo_ would not be advisable, may the confessor
apply for the _facultas absolvendi a censuris pro foro interno_, and
administer this absolution after he has obtained the faculty. We add that
absolution from the censure _in foro externo_ can take place without
witnesses, and that it is not necessary to make use of definite words at
the absolution _in utroque foro_, but it is always necessary to declare
that the absolution is administered by virtue of special powers from the
Holy See, subdelegated by the bishop.

Married people who were allowed to receive the Sacraments before the
promulgation of the answer of the Holy Office, 18 May, 1892, requiring
the _absolutio a censuris pro foro externo_, are not to be disturbed.

5. The confessor should also help a penitent of this kind to keep his
resolution of bringing up his children as Catholics, by showing him
what steps he must take. He should encourage him to overcome possible
difficulties which may occur. This will be easier for the Catholic father
than the mother. If the children have reached an age when they are
removed from parental authority, the Catholic party must at least promise
to exert its influence by prayer, exhortation and good example, to gain
the children for the Catholic Church.[994]

Of course the confessor must demand that the penitent should inform his
parish priest of his resolution to bring up the children in the Catholic
faith. Only very weighty grounds should induce the confessor to refrain
from exacting this, and then he would be obliged to apply to his Ordinary
for advice.

6. It may also be the case that a woman repents of the step which she
took, but which she cannot now retrace, not being able, in spite of her
good will, to induce her husband to consent to the Catholic education of
the children. It would be hard, in such a case, to leave her unassisted.
The repentance which she has evidenced, the willingness which she has
shown (and which will continue) to repair as far as possible the harm
done; the efforts which she may have already made; the promise to
influence husband and children by the means at her disposal—prayer,
a good life, words of advice—suffice for her to be admitted to the
Sacraments. This satisfies the demands which the Holy Office in Rome
makes in such cases.[995]

7. If the confessor believes that there is reason for doubting the
sincere and earnest will of penitents who are joined by an illicit mixed
marriage, he is free to make inquiry, and, according to the nature of
the case, to postpone absolution for a time. It is always well not to
admit such penitents to the holy Sacraments shortly after contracting
the illicit marriage, unless they have guaranteed the Catholic education
of their children in a manner which satisfies the ecclesiastical
regulations; unless, moreover, they show sorrow for their lapse from
duty, and by faithful performance of their religious obligations,
effectually prove that they wish to be obedient to the Catholic Church
in future. Persons who are dangerously ill, emigrants, etc., of course,
constitute exceptions to this rule.

8. An illicit marriage contracted by a Catholic before a non-Catholic
minister is a public act and causes public scandal; the satisfaction
must, therefore, as a rule, be made publicly. The confessor must not
overlook this, lest he make himself an accomplice in the scandal, and
lest this dreadful evil of our days (for such mixed marriages are in
reality, especially when contracted without dispense) be rendered more
numerous, by want of due severity in the conditions of reconciliation. As
public acts of reparation may be regarded: an oral or written declaration
of sorrow before the parish priest; the promise of bringing up their
children as Catholics made to the pastor. The confessor should follow the
directions which may have been given by his bishop in this matter, and if
there are none, he must proceed with pastoral prudence and charity. It
may happen that, in the place where the Sacraments are to be received,
the scandal given is not known, the parties having changed their place
of residence. In this case the reconciliation may take place in all
privacy. The confessor should not forget in such cases that the salvation
of souls is the highest law.


79. How to deal with Penitents joined in “Civil” Marriage only.

The confessor’s treatment of _penitents living in “civil” matrimony_ must
be essentially different from the above.

Here the chief question is whether there is a real _consensus maritalis_;
that is, whether the persons in question had the consciousness and
intention of entering upon a true matrimonial relationship by the
declaration which they made before the public official, or if they
believed they were concluding an external agreement only and one not
permanently binding upon the conscience. In the second place, the
confessor must investigate if there are any—and what—impediments to
marriage. If there are no diriment impediments, and if there was
a true _consensus maritalis_ in those places where the Tridentine
Decree “_Tametsi_” is not in force (therefore, where the _impedimentum
clandestinitatis_ does not apply), such informal contract of marriage
must be regarded as valid. On the other hand, these informal marriages
are ecclesiastically invalid in all places where the Tridentine Decree
is in force, on account of the “_impedimentum clandestinitatis_.” The
confessor must, however, in every individual case have recourse to the
Ordinary.

Apart from this question of validity, all persons living in mere “civil”
matrimony must be exhorted (if no obstacle from which there is no
dispensation be in the way) to be married in _forma Tridentina_, and to
receive the blessing of the Church. If difficulties arise in connection
with this, the confessor should apply to the bishop, in order to obtain
_sanatio in radice_, according to the circumstances.

A penitent living in “civil” marriage is not to be absolved till he has
promised to be married in the Church and has actually made preparation
for this marriage. Under particular circumstances—if the persons live
apart—absolution can be given, even if the ceremony is postponed.
Admission to holy communion must be deferred till immediately before the
marriage.


80. The Confessor’s Conduct towards Women.

Occasion has already several times[996] presented itself for remarks
concerning the confessor’s conduct when hearing the confessions of
women. The importance of the subject demands for it special treatment.
Amongst penitents women probably form nearly always the majority. However
regrettable it may be that men so seldom, and often reluctantly, approach
the tribunal of confession, it is a source of joy that women should be
zealous in the reception of the holy Sacraments, for this justifies the
hope that their influence upon their husbands and upon those around them
will be the more salutary. The influence which a truly Christian woman
exercises upon her husband, a mother upon her children, the mistress of
a house upon her subordinates, is very great. Truly Christian, pious,
and chaste young women are a real blessing in a family and a household.
Moreover, woman is generally more inclined to the exercise of Christian
piety, and can thus, if properly treated and guided, attain to great
perfection.

Nevertheless, it is not to be overlooked that, owing to certain
weaknesses and faults which are peculiar to their sex, the hopes of the
confessor are not infrequently disappointed and his endeavors rendered
fruitless. “Their piety may easily become a matter of feeling, without
solidity and worth; they are much inclined to form an inordinate
attachment for the confessor, which is perhaps not free from a sensual
element. The practice of piety also easily serves as a means of
gratifying vanity. Many are disposed to dissimulation and hypocrisy.”[997]

Hearing the confessions of women is thus indisputably one of the greatest
and most imminent dangers for the confessor. He must, therefore, be very
circumspect and prudent, reasonably fear this danger, for in this fear
lies his safety; “he who fears this rock runs no danger of suffering
shipwreck.”[998] These shortcomings ought not to mislead us into
condemning the whole sex, as is sometimes wrongly done. This is unjust.
We must help them to overcome their faults, and if no improvement results
from our endeavors, suitable severity is to be employed.

Bearing in mind the exhortation (Eccl. lxi. 15): “_Curam habe de bono
nomine_,” the circumspect and prudent confessor will have regard for his
good name, and seek to preserve and guard it; not only remaining pure
of heart, but preserving himself free from every suspicion of impurity,
herein faithfully following the example of Our Lord, who patiently bore
many an accusation leveled against Him, but never tolerated any on the
subject of purity. For nothing detracts so much from a priest’s authority
and efficiency as the suspicion that he is not absolutely clean of
heart. Let the confessor, therefore, place a guard upon his eyes, let
him never look at those who stand before his confessional, and never
glance at the face of the person whose confession he hears; he should
not try to find out who his female penitents are; it is sufficient for
him to know the state of their souls. He should carefully avoid, as far
as it is possible, all intercourse with them outside the confessional,
not visiting them in their houses, except at times of severe illness;
he should refuse _munuscula_ under whatever name they may be offered to
him; he should confide no secrets to them, and avoid familiarity.[999]
His words should be reserved, serious, respectful, even if the
penitent’s station and circumstances do not actually command respect.
When the priest hears the confessions of young women, and such as are
distinguished by station, beauty, education, etc., he must still more
carefully avoid familiarity. Concerning delicate matters the confessor
should put only few questions, and then only with the greatest prudence,
and content himself with knowing the nature of the sin, or its kind; he
should carefully guard against inquiring after superfluous details.[1000]

The confessor must not lose sight of the dictates of prudence which
have been discussed, when he hears the confessions of “_personæ
spirituales_.” Here, as St. Alphonsus warns us,[1001] prudence is
most necessary, on account of the _periculum majoris adhæsionis_. His
teaching on this point is as follows: “_Dicebat Ven. P. Sertorius
Capotus, diabolum ad conjungendas inter se personas spirituales, ab
initio uti prætextu virtutis, ut deinde affectus a virtute transeat ad
personam_,” and justifies this statement by a word of St. Augustine,
which St. Thomas quotes (Opusc. 64 de Famil. Dom. etc.): “Speech with
these persons must be short and reserved; it is not because they are
more holy that one must be more on his guard, but because the holier
they are, the more attractive they become.” And St. Thomas adds to
these significant words of the holy Bishop of Hippo: “_Licet carnalis
affectio sit omnibus periculosa ipsis tamen magis perniciosa, quando
conversantur cum persona, quæ spiritualis videtur; nam quamvis principium
videatur purum, tamen frequens familiaritas domesticum est periculum;
quæ quidem familiaritas quanto plus crescit, infirmatur principale
motivum et puritas maculatur._” He also adds that such persons do not
observe this at once, _quoniam diabolus ab initio non emittit sagittas
venenatas, sed illas tantummodo, quæ aliquantulum feriunt et augent
affectum. Sed brevi hujusmodi personæ eo deveniunt, ut non amplius agant
secum tanquam angeli, quemadmodum cœperant, sed tanquam carne vestiti;
vicissim se intuentur mentesque sibi feriunt blandis allocutionibus,
quæ adhuc a prima devotione videntur procedere: hinc alter alterius
præsentiam incipit appetere; sicque spiritualis devotio convertitur
in carnalem. Et quidem oh quot sacerdotes, qui antea erant innocentes
ob similes adhæsiones, quæ spiritu cœperant, Deum simul et spiritum
perdiderunt_.[1002]

In order to act with the necessary prudence, the confessor will (1) hear
the confessions of women, as far as possible, only in the Church, or in
some place which is always accessible for hearing confessions; (2) he
will dispatch matters, especially with those who often confess; will not
tolerate talk about subjects which do not belong to the confession, and
will carefully avoid long exhortations and unnecessary questions.

The confessor must observe all this, and take all precautionary
measures,—if he is young, because it is then particularly necessary, but
also in more advanced years, and even in old age, in order to give others
good example, and also because experience shows that even for those who
are mature and old, the danger exists, though it be lessened. “If the
confessor follows these precepts, he realizes in himself a miracle,
which is one of the most beautiful proofs of the truth of the Catholic
religion; the miracle, namely, that priests who preserve their hearts in
the holy fear of God, hear the confessions of women for years without
ever having to accuse themselves that their holy office has been for them
an occasion of sin, even of one single sin.”[1003]

If the penitents are _married women_, let the confessor encourage and
instruct them in the complete fulfilment of their duties towards their
husbands, above all, their duty of matrimonial love, giving a good
example, bearing faults with patience, and not ceasing, though their
husbands have gone astray, to use every endeavor to reform them,
especially by praying for them with indefatigable zeal. How many wives
have saved their husbands by their patience, their loving, prudent
exhortations, and their prayers.

If circumstances appear to call for it, let him admonish them to preserve
matrimonial chastity, and warn against transgressions, pointing out that
complete preservation of this matrimonial chastity is the very condition
and foundation of lasting matrimonial happiness, and of eternal salvation.

He should not permit pious women to devote themselves to the exercises
of piety, especially hearing Mass and frequent reception of the holy
Sacraments, to such an extent that important household duties are thereby
neglected, or members of the family aggrieved and irritated.

Finally, he must not be overready to believe complaints of wives about
their husbands; but if he finds that the complaints are justified, he
will tell the woman how to act and gravely comfort her. If she complains
of the severity and bad temper of her husband, he must advise her to
remain patient and obedient to him, to perform punctually every service
which he desires, to show her love for him by the greatest willingness
and kindness; to be silent when her husband is angry or intoxicated; not
to drive him to still greater violence even when she suffers injustice;
and admonish him affectionately when he has become calm, and sober, and
good-humored, but not till then. She should answer her angry husband with
meekness when she is _obliged_ to answer him, for a gentle answer turns
aside wrath, whereas a harsh one only embitters.

The _mother_ will claim the confessor’s special zeal; he should expose
to her the importance and responsibility of her duties, the obligation
of admonishing and instructing her children in prayer, in attendance at
Mass, reception of the holy Sacraments, and of correcting their faults;
of warning and protecting her children against the dangers which threaten
youth, of daily praying for them, of preventing dangerous intercourse
with other persons, of not allowing children of different sex to sleep
together, etc.

As so much depends upon the loyalty of _teachers, male and female_, to
their duties the confessor will not fail to admonish them at all times
to discharge faithfully these important and exalted duties, reminding
them of their grave responsibility. Teachers should zealously instruct
children in the truths of religion, always assisting the endeavors of
the priest according to their capacity, and working with him; see that
the education of the children is conducted upon Christian principles;
give the children and the parish good example by conscientious discharge
of their religious duties—attendance at Mass, reception of the holy
Sacraments, and by their conduct in general. They must be encouraged to
bear patiently the manifold, and by no means slight, hardships of their
position. The confessor will also show constant interest in their work in
the school.

The mistress of a house must be reminded by the confessor of the duties
of Christian employers—the duty especially of having a watchful eye
on the servants, not allowing them to go out late in the evening; of
preventing male and female servants being together at unseasonable times;
of treating servants in a Christian manner, and of giving them sufficient
time to fulfill their religious obligations.


81. The Confessions of Men.

It is a deplorable fact that men approach the confessional more seldom
than women, and especially since their position in life is more
influential, and consequently a high degree of piety is particularly
desirable in them, in order that this influence may be a salutary one. At
the same time, they are exposed to greater dangers and temptations.[1004]

1. Men must, therefore, be more welcome to the confessor as penitents
than women. St. Alphonsus bewails the fact that so many confessors spend
a good part of the day in hearing the confessions of certain pious
persons (_quas vulgo dicunt Bizocas_), and that when men or married
women, who are weighed down with misery and distress, and who at a great
sacrifice leave their homes and business, approach the confessional,
the priest dismisses them, saying: “Go to some other confessor, I have
too much to do”; and thus it comes to pass that such people live months
and years without the Sacraments. This is not hearing confessions to
please God, but rather to serve self-love. I know, and, in opposition
to others who maintain that the time is wasted which is devoted to the
confessions of these pious persons, I firmly hold that leading souls to
perfection is a work very pleasing to God; but I assert also that good
confessors who hear confessions only to please God (like St. Philip Neri,
St. John of the Cross, and St. Peter of Alcantara) do not hesitate to
prefer to these pious souls one whom they perceive to be in need of their
help.[1005] What St. Alphonsus says in another place is also undoubtedly
true, namely, that a perfect soul is more pleasing to God than a thousand
imperfect ones; but for them there are other times and other occasions,
and even leading souls to perfection does not demand such expenditure of
time and care that others should be neglected. Moreover, such a manner
of administering the Sacrament of Penance may easily give occasion to
malevolent misconstructions and rumors, and thus scandalize the men who
see themselves neglected.[1006] Hence men who come to confession must not
be kept waiting long. The confessor should show himself ready to answer
any call, even when the hour is unseasonable and troublesome to him.
If there are both men and women who wish to confess, Frassinetti[1007]
recommends hearing the men first; they generally have more important
business than women, and are also as a rule more impatient. Women have
more leisure and greater patience.

2. The confessor must always treat men courteously, “indeed with a
certain affability, as if he considered himself particularly fortunate,
and took a special pleasure in hearing their confessions.” Even if they
belong to the lowest classes and are coarse and repulsive, he should
always address them with politeness and kindness. “One can never show
them too much love and friendliness, for it makes the best impression
upon their minds, encourages them to make a good confession, and
in course of time incites them to a more frequent reception of the
Sacraments.”[1008]

3. The confessor must not speak of perfection to those who have no
understanding for it. He must generally be content with instilling into
their hearts hatred and detestation of mortal sin. “This is necessary,
lest they regard him as what they call a ‘saint,’ and be afraid to come
to him again.” But the confessor must not go too far in his indulgence,
nor permit to the men who are his penitents, anything which might become
a great danger for their souls; he must here be particularly careful
concerning circumstances in their lives which are to them _occasiones
proximæ_.

4. The confessor must urge them to fulfill their duties as Christian men
faithfully, punctually, and fervently.

5. He should especially warn them against negligence in prayer, admonish
them to observe Sundays and holy days conscientiously, and particularly
to be present at sermons, as those who seldom or never hear a sermon will
hardly persevere in a truly Christian life.

6. Then if it be opportune, he should enjoin moderation in drinking, in
case they have been guilty of drunkenness.

7. If he has reason to doubt the firmness and integrity of their faith,
in which they may be remiss, he must probe into the matter; perhaps he
will have to censure the reading of bad newspapers, or the frequenting of
doubtful society.

8. Upon husbands he should impress the duty of cultivating a loving and
peaceable disposition towards their wives, and, if there is reason for
it, the duty of avoiding all impropriety in married life. He should,
especially, denounce the evil habit of carrying on improper talk in the
presence of servants, companions, young people, and in the home circle.

9. Fathers should be earnestly admonished to assist their wives as much
as possible in the work of education, and to set their children a good
example in every respect.


82. The Confession of Nuns.[1009]

1. We have already stated that a priest requires special approbation
from the bishop to hear the confession of nuns.[1010] But in order
to discharge this office fruitfully, he must be well instructed and
experienced in spiritual things, prudent, and possessed of great charity
and patience. As already pointed out, proficiency in theology, especially
in moral theology, is indispensable to all confessors; “but greater
knowledge is necessary to the confessors of nuns, since the Church
exercises greater care in selecting them.” Without solid knowledge,
the unusual circumstances which may arise are often mismanaged and not
rarely with fatal results. The confessor of nuns must possess an accurate
knowledge of the spiritual and ascetic life, of the duties of religious
in general,[1011] and of the particular obligations of the Order (or
Congregation) to which the women committed to his care belong. First of
all, distinction is to be made between nuns who lead a contemplative and
those who lead an active life. The former are devoted in a special manner
to the love of God, are far removed from the dangers of the world, and
can more easily sanctify themselves; they also contribute toward the
general welfare by their prayers; but they are tried by temptations and
interior struggles. The others are not wholly withdrawn from the dangers
of the world, as they are inevitably brought into contact with it by the
exercise of the works of charity; society benefits much by their high
merits. Both forms of life are ordained by God, and are of great use in
the Church. Moreover, the separate Orders have their characteristics,
corresponding to the particular object for which they were founded. With
these, and with the constitutions of the Order, the confessor must be
familiar.

But in _rebus spiritualibus_ he must not only possess theoretical
knowledge, he must be _well experienced_ in them, “because _spiritualia_
cannot be rightly and perfectly understood without personal experience.”
If this experience is not possessed, he will be a blind man leading the
blind.[1012]

Supernatural love and patience are necessary to the confessor, in
order that he may zealously further the spiritual progress of those
committed to him, and bear with equanimity their faults, weaknesses,
and deficiencies. And though only a few souls may be confided to his
spiritual care, let him not forget that by the perfection of a few a
greater honor is shown to God than by the imperfect endeavors and virtues
of many. Let him also keep in mind that those who devote themselves to
the service of God have to endure more temptations of every kind than
others, and that he to whom the spiritual care of them is intrusted
must bear no small portion of this burden with them. If, therefore, the
confessor does not possess the supernatural love of God and his neighbor
which enables him to sustain these trials, he is not suited for his
office.

2. It must be his care that the nuns disclose to him the state of their
consciences with full confidence; they must place great trust in their
confessor, as he is almost their only refuge; and, like sheep without a
shepherd, they will be exposed to many anxieties and temptations if this
support fail them. He must, therefore, always show great patience and
gentleness towards all, and if he perceive in a nun a certain shyness in
the confessional which hinders her from making known her interior state,
he must lend her special assistance in laying aside this shyness; but at
the same time there is a certain kind of unnecessary tenderness which he
should avoid in his whole demeanor.

3. It must also be his care that nuns observe their vows faithfully and
perfectly, and adhere to the special rules and regulations of their
institute; moreover, that they perform their exercises of piety with
devotion and zeal, that their daily occupations are executed with a
perfect intention, with frequent recollection of the presence of God.
They must, therefore, be taught a good method of meditation and of the
examination of conscience (_examen generale_ and _particulare_), the
manner of receiving holy communion, making a good confession, hearing
holy Mass, saying the Office, and other vocal prayers. All these things
are generally provided, however, in the religious rule.

4. He must make it his concern that the nuns should advance in virtue.
The following virtues are especially necessary for them: (_a_) the love
of God, not a sensual love, but a strong love, one which urges to the
fulfilment of the will of God, in all things, even the most difficult;
(_b_) humility and modesty; (_c_) obedience to rules and to superiors; a
sacrificing, cheerful, punctual obedience, which does not ask a reason
for the command, but which, when no sin is apparent and certain, blindly
submits itself; (_d_) love of the members of the community, which has
for a practical result that they avoid wounding or grieving others,
that offenses are gladly forgiven, faults patiently borne, and mutual
assistance rendered, as far as is possible; (_e_) chastity, which avoids
every dangerous attachment and familiarity.

5. The confessor should encourage and promote the authority of the
Superioress of the convent, but not to such an extent that, if she should
happen to be in error or to go beyond her powers, he should render
himself inaccessible to the complaints of the subordinates; he should
discourage the spirit of grumbling in the community, because authority is
thereby weakened; but he should prudently weigh complaints which may be
laid before him, to see if they are justified, and so remedy them; others
he must dismiss.

6. In his capacity of confessor, he must observe the following points:
(_a_) to associate with the nuns rather too seldom than too often, and if
he is obliged to speak to them, let it be done as briefly as possible;
(_b_) in answering questions submitted to him, he should not be too
hasty, but in more important matters or cases of doubt, he should request
time for consideration; (_c_) in the confessional he should show no
weariness, no impatience, and no haste, for this lessens confidence in
him; (_d_) he must not be immoderately disturbed, nor take scandal if he
should hear a sin of greater gravity in the confessional, for he must
remember that persons dedicated to God are subject to violent attacks
from the evil one; let him, therefore, rather show pity than agitation,
admonish the erring one with paternal earnestness, encourage her,
reawaken her lost fervor, in order that by greater zeal and mortification
she may atone for her error and avoid sin in the future; (_e_) he should
be very careful to give no ground for any suspicion that he makes use of
knowledge gained in the confessional, in his actions or words outside
the confessional; (_f_) he must not interfere at all in the management
of the house, nor in any matter which concerns the Ordinary or the
Superioress, nor readily give advice in such things, but remain firmly
and strictly within the limits of his office, looking after the spiritual
welfare and the progress of his penitents. For this reason, he should
introduce no innovations, and if, on weighty grounds some change appears
desirable, it should not take place without the advice and consent of the
Superioress and the greater part of the community; otherwise peace in the
community will be destroyed.

7. The confessor must be especially on his guard against the following
abuses, lest they creep in, and establish themselves: (_a_) everything
which is detrimental to community life, or derogatory of the vow of
poverty in any way, even if only in slight measure; (_b_) disobedience
towards the Superioress, murmuring against her, complaining about her
to the other sisters, aversion, etc.; (_c_) offenses against charity,
even if these latter are common and not of grave nature; the confessor
must not tolerate the least offense against charity which is committed
with deliberation, and he must firmly insist upon reconciliation and
suppression of antipathies; (_d_) particular friendship, even if there
be no danger connected with it, is to be avoided, for it divides the
heart, hinders familiar intercourse with God, lessens the love of the
community, and gives occasion to complaints and recriminations; (_e_)
familiarity with, or voluntary intercourse with, persons not belonging to
the house; this causes great dangers, and weakens the religious spirit.
The confessor must, therefore, strictly insist upon the inclosure being
observed, and upon the portress being thoroughly trustworthy. If there
are nuns whose duties oblige them to be in contact with the world, or
who are occupied out of the house attending to the sick, the confessor
must see that danger of sin does not result to any one of them through
this occupation; (_f_) lukewarmness and spiritual sloth; the confessor
must direct his endeavors to prevent drooping of the first ardor, and to
encourage the practice of true piety; he should, therefore, insist that
the prescribed recollections take place regularly and are well observed;
also that there is a Retreat every year, or at least every two years.

8. In order that the Superioress may duly exercise her office, the
confessor should, when occasion offers, admonish her that: (_a_)
she must love all her sisters as her daughters without making any
distinction; and she must, therefore, gladly lend her ear to any one of
them, and help her to the best of her ability; (_b_) she must not at once
credit reports made secretly to her, but carefully investigate them, and
if she has to reprimand, it should generally be done privately; (_c_) she
must take care that the regular Observance is strictly fulfilled, and she
herself must be a model for all; (_d_) if she perceives abuses, she must
rectify them in a prudent manner; (_e_) she must look to it that members
of the Order who are sick are carefully tended and often visited by the
other sisters; (_f_) in the expenses she must avoid both avarice and
extravagance; (_g_) in admitting and dismissing novices she must exercise
great prudence; (_h_) in unusual circumstances she must have timely
recourse to the advice of the _Ordinarius_; (_i_) she must be guided
by the Papal Decree in the matter of the account of conscience. (The
constitutions of many Orders permitted the unfolding of the conscience to
the Superior, in order to obtain help and advice, but “a more intimate
investigation of the conscience, such as is reserved solely to the
Sacrament of Penance,” was wrongly introduced by some. In consequence
of which Pope Leo XIII strictly forbade Superioresses, whatever rank
and eminence they might occupy, to induce persons under them, directly
or indirectly, by command, advice, threats, or kind words, to make such
revelation of conscience to them. On the other hand, the Pope leaves it
to subordinates voluntarily and freely to disclose their interior state
to their Superiors, so that, in doubt and trouble of conscience, they may
receive from their wisdom advice and guidance);[1013] (_k_) finally, she
must never encroach on the rights of the regular confessor by determining
for individual sisters the number of weekly communions.[1014]


83. The Confession of Priests.

A good confessor is very necessary for a priest. The priest instructs,
warns, and guides others; he himself is seldom admonished and warned,
and yet for him, too, reproof, instruction, and warning are sometimes
necessary. And who should give it but his confessor? The latter has a
solemn duty to do so. And does not the priest, too, sometimes require
encouragement and comfort, especially if he finds himself in a difficult
situation, or is troubled with anxiety? And here the confessor must come
to his assistance and comfort him.

Hearing the confessions of priests is a matter of the highest importance,
as priests are appointed by God shepherds, teachers, and guides of souls;
they are the light of the world and the salt of the earth. A worthy
priest effects much good amongst the faithful by a holy, pious, pure,
virtuous, and zealous life! But how harmful is the lukewarmness, the
neglect of duty, the levity of one who by his faults and open sins gives
scandal to the people. What a great and significant task is it for the
confessor to teach, rouse, warn, threaten, and encourage his brother in
the holy priesthood!

Let the confessor treat his penitent with reverence; although the
latter kneels before him to accuse himself as a sinner, he is still a
priest, clothed with exalted dignity. He must also treat him with true,
fraternal, zealous and courageous _love_, which discloses the wounds of
the soul, points out dangers and evil inclinations, blames when blame is
necessary, and punishes when punishment is necessary. It would, indeed,
be rendering bad service to a fellow-priest simply to listen to him, to
give him a few general exhortations, and then to absolve him.

If the penitent is a conscientious, well-instructed priest (which may
without difficulty be inferred from the manner of the confession, if
he is not already known to the confessor), it is not necessary to put
questions to him; if the confessor has doubts as to the gravity of
a sin confessed, he can ask the penitent if he thought that he was
committing a mortal sin. The exhortation, however, should scarcely ever
be omitted; let it be short and appropriate; it may be given in indirect
form, “we priests,” etc. If the penitent is frivolous and superficial,
questions must be put to him, in order to complete his confession. These
questions may turn on the recitation of the Office, the celebration of
Mass, administration of the Sacraments, and other priestly and pastoral
duties.[1015]

Toward such penitents the confessor must be fearless, and administer
to them, whoever they may be, regardless of rank, esteem, and dignity,
reproof, and refuse absolution, if necessary; for example, when they are
_occasionarii_ or relapsing sinners. St. Alphonsus adds: _Potissimum hac
fortidudine agendum est cum sacerdotibus, qui in gravia peccata relapsi,
quin se unquam emendaverint, ausi sunt tamen celebrare, aucupando
absolutionem ab aliquo confessariorum qui hoc funguntur officio et
laborant, ut damnentur. Hi sacerdotes pravis habitibus detenti palam
solent in sacristia confiteri, ut absolutionem, quæ eis denegenda esset,
extorqueant sub prætextu scandali, quod eveniret (quemadmodum illi
exponunt), si a celebrando desistere deberent. Sit constans confessarius
cum hujusmodi sacrilegis in differenda absolutione, eos adstringat ad
repetendas confessiones tanquam irritas, et ad confitendum de omnibus
Sacrificiis celebratis: et interim ad abstinendum a celebratione,
usquedum suæ emendationis perspicua indicia præbebunt. Quod si quis
diceret, ob scandalum a celebrando abstinere non posse, respondeat quod
deesse non possunt justi prætextus, si vellet desistere a celebrando;
ceterum si ipse id facere renuit, dicat quod celebrare potest si est
certus, se habere contritionem, sed quod ipse pro tunc non potest eum
absolvere, dum certus non est, ut oportet, de ejus dispositione; imo
justum habet motivum credendi oppositum, cum observet tot lapsus sine
emendatione. Et hoc modo agendi potest sperari, fore ut recipiscat et
salvetur ille miser sacerdos, secus ambo damnabuntur._[1016]

But the priest (especially a young one) must not be bewildered if an
unfortunate brother priest, burdened with grave sins, approaches him to
make his confession. Let him remember that there was a Judas amongst the
apostles; that the chief of the apostles was guilty of a very grave sin;
let him also bear in mind the words of the Lord: _Necesse est, ut veniant
scandala_ (Matt. xviii. 7).

As to the _exhortations_ which the confessor should give to priest
penitents, they should be chiefly: (1) to remember their calling, their
exalted dignity, their duties, their reward; (2) to devote themselves
wholly to their sublime office, to labor for the salvation of souls,
and for the glory of God by their prayers, their example, and the
exercise of the sacred ministry; to have special care for the sick and
dying, the poor and the young; (3) to avoid, especially, four vices, as
being, above all, unworthy of their spiritual calling and presenting
particular dangers for priests,—sloth, impurity, drunkenness, and
avarice (covetousness). The priest must often renew his purpose of
leading a virtuous life and of striving to obtain perfection. This
resolution always revives the priest’s zeal in the performance of his
sacred functions, gives joy in the exercise of virtue, strength to resist
temptations, and perseverance in his efforts. But that the priest may be
true to this resolution, he must employ various means, especially:—

1. Zeal in prayer; the priest must be a man of prayer; he must practice
mental and vocal prayer. _Sine oratione mentali difficillime bonus
erit Sacerdos; nam sine ea intellectus carebit lumine, quo cognoscat
veritates æternas et mysteria divini amoris, atque inde deerit in
voluntate calor fervoris, quo novatur ad sancte vivendum._[1017] The
priest should, therefore, fix a definite time everyday—at least a quarter
of an hour, if at all possible, half an hour—during which to devote
himself to meditation. Morning is the best time, as one is less exposed
to distractions then than in the midst of the occupations and cares of
the day. Those who answer, however, that they have no time for daily
meditation should consider if their lukewarmness and carelessness are
not much more to blame than want of time. If they gave up superfluous
pleasures, visiting, and other unnecessary things, or at least reduced
them, they would certainly be able to spare a quarter of an hour on most
days for meditation.[1018]

Not less necessary for the priest is oral prayer. _Clama ad me et ego
exaudiam_, says the Lord (Jerem. xxxiii. 3); for if it is certain that
the priest daily requires new graces, it is also certain that he must ask
for them daily. Besides the priest is the mediator between God and His
people, and therefore must supplicate for them. “_Absit a me poc peccatum
in Dominum, ut cessem orare pro vobis_” 1 Kings xii. 23 (Samuel); “_Et
rogante pro eis Sacerdote, propitius erit eis Dominus_” (Lev. iv. 20).

2. Of all the prayers that the priest must say, none is more excellent,
with the exception of the holy Mass, none is more efficacious than the
_Officium divinum_. Let the priest say it punctually, faithfully, with
recollection and with pleasure.

3. The center of the sacred ministry is the celebration of the holy
sacrifice. For this most holy mystery he should prepare himself with
care, celebrate it with the greatest possible purity of heart, interior
devotion, and exterior reverence, and with careful observance of the wise
precepts of the Church which bind under grave sin (_ex genere suo_). The
priest must be on his guard against three chief faults in the celebration
of Mass: celebration in _haste_, out of _custom_, and _in a state of
grave sin_.

4. Another means of sanctification is _frequent confession_. At least
every eight days the priest should make a good confession, and only
on account of great distance from a confessor should he delay it a
fortnight. So St. Charles Borromeo determined in the first provincial
council and in his celebrated Instructions. But the priest should
also observe the other advice of this enlightened Saint (_in Decretis
visitatoris_): _Valde utile esset, ut Sacerdos unusquisque ... certum
ac firmum Confessarium Sacerdotem haberet ex approbatis, a quo nisi in
magna necessitate recederet; si quidem animæ solet non minus obesse
Confessariorum mutatio, quam corpori Medicorum._

5. The good priest loves the _study of wisdom_, and observes the
admonition which St. Paul gave to his pupil, Timothy: _Attende tibi et
doctrinæ; insta in illis. Hoc enim faciens te ipsum salvum facies et
eos qui te audiunt_ (1 Tim. iv. 13, 16). Continual, zealous study of
theology alone enables the priest to do his duty, to be a teacher of the
people in the science of salvation, and to administer the holy Sacrament
of Confession rightly and successfully; at the same time it preserves
him from many evils and dangers, and it is to him a source of exalted
pleasure.

6. Another means which contributes much to sanctification is to be found
in the _Exercitia spiritualia_, which priests should make every year, at
least every two years. Immense is the blessing which results to the whole
Church and to the individual priests who zealously perform them in the
right spirit and in the right manner.[1019]




CHAPTER III

PENITENTS IN EXTREME DANGER


84. The Importance of the Priest’s Ministry at the Bedside of the Sick
and the Dying.

As the grace of perseverance and eternal salvation depends upon a good
death, as a bad death can never be remedied, and as man’s helplessness is
never greater than in that terrible last struggle, in which a thousand
things disturb and confuse him, the bitterest pains afflict and the most
violent temptations beset him, it is a work most pleasing to God, and
most conducive to the salvation of souls, to bring spiritual aid to the
sick and dying. The good, zealous priest is an ardent friend of the sick
and the dying, following in this the example of our divine Savior (Matt.
ix. 35). It was always the glory of Catholic priests that they were to be
found at the bedside of the sick and the dying, making no distinction,
and undeterred by the worst infectious diseases. And when all flee, the
priest remains and is prepared to sacrifice himself in order to save the
sick one. Therefore Dr. Stöhr says most truly in his “Pastoral Medicine”
(p. 241): “The chronicles of epidemic disease record upon each of their
pages the most splendid examples of that joyful self-sacrificing courage
with which the whole secular and Regular clergy have stood faithfully at
their posts in the hour of the greatest need, in the days when a reign
of terror dissolved all ties of society. For the Catholic pastor of
souls this form of courage is just as much a principle of professional
honor, and, therefore, I venture to say, as much a matter of course, as
in an officer bravery before the enemy.” In the moment of greatest need
(_in articulo mortis_) any priest, as already stated, can administer the
consolations of religion; reserved cases and censures do not exist. And
_every_ priest should, therefore, be solicitous to obtain the necessary
knowledge in order to be able to administer the holy Sacraments to a
dying person in case of necessity. As visiting the sick is, of itself,
forbidden to no one, and, as St. Alphonsus remarks,[1020] “_Every_
priest, even he who has no talent for preaching, can engage upon it,
rendering by so doing the greatest service, not only to the sick man
himself, but also to his relations and friends,” _every_ priest should
acquire a facility in comforting the sick according to their special
needs and circumstances.

In order, therefore, that the priest may effectually assist the sick and
the dying, he should, before he betakes himself to the sick-room, observe
the following:—

1. Reflect that he is about to perform a work of the greatest importance,
and that the errors which he commits in it are of the worst kind, and
cannot, as a rule, be remedied.[1021]

2. Remember that in this most important work the help of God is necessary
to him; he should not, therefore, trust in himself, but wholly in God.

3. Endeavor to awaken and preserve the purest and most perfect intention
possible, the intention of saving a soul which Jesus Christ has purchased
by His blood.

4. Earnestly pray for the success of his work.

5. Study well what he has to do and to say. He should consider the
particular manner in which he has to treat the patient to whom he is
going; for he is undertaking a more important work than preaching a
sermon, and yet he must prepare for every sermon.[1022]

6. Learn the character, the habits, the circumstances, and the situation
of the sick person, if he is not already in possession of this
knowledge.[1023]


85. The Confessions of the Sick.

_I. Some preliminary remarks._

1. The confessions of the sick and the dying are of the greatest
importance, as, in many cases, they open the gates of heaven to them,
and prepare them for the worthy reception of the other Sacraments. On
this account parish priests, and priests in general who have the care
of souls, are strictly bound to hear the confessions of those in danger
of death, even in face of great difficulties and of danger to their own
lives. The priest may, in such a case, even interrupt Mass (even during
the Canon) if no other priest is at hand.[1024] Let him, therefore,
before he visits the sick person to hear his confession, earnestly pray
for grace; let him enter upon this important duty with zeal and love, but
also with great prudence and judgment, confiding in God, and where there
is danger, let him face it with apostolic courage. Let him not forget
that the eternal salvation of the sick person is in his hands, that he
can save his soul; but that this soul may also be lost by his fault if
his action is careless, tardy, imprudent, and faulty.

2. In the presence of the sick person, however the latter may be
circumstanced, and, however he may have lived, the confessor must
manifest for him a great love and a sincere sympathy.

3. If he were not called by the sick person to hear his confession,
but by those around him, or if he went unsummoned,[1025] and if there
is no danger of death, he should not mention confession at once during
the first visit, but address the patient in a friendly manner, ask him
sympathetically about his illness, etc., as sick people like to talk
about these things. He should then admonish him to resign himself to the
will of God, to unite his sufferings to the bitter sufferings of Jesus,
and to bear them patiently in satisfaction for sin.[1026] In subsequent
visits, he should gradually prepare him for confession; ask him when he
made his last confession; remark that it is better to confess before the
illness increases, because this will render it more difficult; that the
graces of the holy Sacrament of Penance procure for the soul the peace
which it desires; that they conduce to patience in suffering. Let the
priest awaken in the sick person a hope that God will restore his health,
but at the same time, be careful that he recognizes the gravity of his
illness, and that he does not place undue confidence in doctors and their
skill. In order not to expose the patient to the danger of dying without
the Sacraments by misjudging the gravity of the case, the priest should
ask the doctor whether the condition of the patient is precarious. The
friends may also be privately asked if the sick person wishes to confess
to another priest, adding that there would be no objection whatever to
his doing so.[1027]

4. If the sick person is a _peccator publicus_, living, for example, in
concubinage, or in the so-called “civil marriage,” the confession should
not, as a rule, be heard before amendment and due satisfaction have been
seriously promised; for if the priest hears the confession, and the
person refuses to fulfill the conditions, the priest will, on account of
the seal of the confessional, be obliged to allow viaticum and Extreme
Unction to be administered to one who is unworthy,—indeed, perhaps be
obliged to administer these Sacraments himself.

5. If the sick person begs that the confession may be deferred, and if
danger of death, lethargy, or delirium is not imminent, this postponement
should be granted, but the patient must at once fix a time for the
confession, perhaps on the same or the following day. The priest should
not consent to indefinite postponement. If, however, danger threatens,
he should not consent to postponement at all, but use all his efforts
to induce the patient to confess at once, firmly but kindly, and
considerately removing all his objections; especially pointing out to him
the great danger to which he exposes himself by this postponement; as God
has promised pardon to the penitent sinner, but has not promised to give
him the next day.[1028] The confessor must, therefore, investigate the
patient’s reasons for wishing to postpone his confession. The real reason
is generally either (1) because _his conscience is burdened with sin_,
he has not confessed for a long time, or confessed badly, and therefore
despairs of unburdening his conscience, the task being above his
strength, as he thinks; or (2) because he has an _obdurate heart_, not
caring about his salvation, or he so despairs of his salvation that he
rejects all attempts from outside as useless and troublesome. The priest
may not give up such a patient, nor leave him till the last moment; he
must pray much, and cause others to pray for him, endure humiliations
cheerfully, and exhaust every means that love, zeal for souls, and wisdom
can possibly suggest.

In the first of the two cases, the priest should offer the sick person
his help, and promise him to make the confession quite easy for him,
telling him that with a little good will, he will certainly make a good
confession, and so obtain pardon, grace, and salvation. The inexhaustible
mercy of God should be especially and most earnestly impressed upon him;
he should be reminded of the sufferings and death of Jesus for sinners;
of the parables of the prodigal son, the lost sheep, the joy of the
angels over _one_ sinner doing penance, of the great examples of mercy:
Peter, Mary Magdalen, the thief on the cross, etc.

In the other case the difficulty is greater, for it is indeed difficult
to soften an obdurate heart. Here, fervent, continued prayer is
necessary. Those terrible and consoling truths which our faith supplies
so abundantly should, at suitable intervals, and with eloquence and
_unction_, be laid before him: the misery of the impenitent sinner,
the severity of the divine judgment, the eternity of punishment, the
happiness of the sinner reconciled to God, the peace of the soul adorned
with sanctifying grace, the eternal joys which await him, etc. If all
this does not produce upon the sick person the desired effect, he should
be left to himself for some time, in order that he may reflect upon what
he has heard. In the meantime, pray; then visit him again, and speak to
him again, and proceed in this manner till success results, or till an
impenitent death closes an impenitent life.[1029]

II. _The confession of the sick person._

1. If the sick person shows himself ready to make his confession, the
confessor must help him in every way to fulfill the conditions necessary
for the reception of the Sacrament of Penance; thus he should help him
to examine his conscience, to elicit contrition, to make a complete
confession, and to perform the penance.

And first, as to the completeness of the confession, the penitent’s
condition must be taken into consideration. If the confession can be put
off without danger, he should be admonished to examine his conscience
according to his ability and to prepare for a general confession.[1030]
If it cannot be put off, or if the confessor is under the necessity of
supposing that the patient is not well able to make such an examination
of conscience, he must help him. But he must be careful to avoid worrying
him by asking too many questions.[1031]

The following cases deserve special attention:—

(_a_) If the sick person has lost the power of speech, and can thus only
indicate a few sins by signs, or in some other way. In this case the
priest will be able to elicit the confession of a few sins, and that
suffices.

(_b_) If the sick person is so weak that he can only confess a few sins,
or having confessed a few, faints, or seems about to faint, or when the
patient has not confessed for some considerable time, or invalidly, and
the gravity of the illness or the nearness of death does not permit of
postponing the absolution.

(_c_) When the confessions of many dangerously sick or dying persons are
to be heard, and there is no time for a complete confession.

(_d_) When the priest has arrived at the house of the sick person with
the viaticum, and cannot, without endangering the good name of the
sick person, hear a complete confession.[1032] In this case, let the
priest visit the sick person as soon as possible after administering the
Sacraments and supply what was wanting.

(_e_) When a dangerously sick or a wounded person, or _mulieres
parturientes_, require the assistance of another even during the
confession. In this case, the sick person may confess some sin of which
he is not ashamed to accuse himself before others, or the confessor may
ask him if he accuses himself of all the sins he has committed, and
repents of them, because by them he has offended God, and ask him, in
particular, if he has committed this or that (slight) sin, such as people
of his class are generally guilty of.[1033] Similarly when the priest
does not understand the language of the sick person, and the latter
confesses through an interpreter.[1034]

(_f_) When the sick person has a contagious disease, and, in the opinion
of experts, there would be danger of infection to the priest if the
confession lasted long. Nevertheless, the priest would, in this case, do
well to overcome the fear of infection, trusting in God and making use
of the necessary precautions, and be ready to sacrifice his life in the
service of God and his neighbor.

In all these and similar cases, the patient must duly repent of all grave
sins, and have the will to confess the sins which he has omitted if he
is able to make a new confession. Indeed, there are cases in which a
purely general accusation by word or sign, or a request for absolution,
expressed in any way, suffices for obtaining absolution, that is, when
no other means of confession is available. Even if a wish expressed to
others, or the desire for a priest, can be regarded as confession when
the penitent has become unconscious.[1035]

2. The confessor should question the patient so that he need simply
answer without being obliged to talk much. If he is not well acquainted
with the state of his soul, let him ask the patient if he has always
confessed validly (this question may also be put to all sick penitents),
or if, in his past life, he always wished to confess well, if he ever
voluntarily concealed a grave sin, and has not yet confessed it, if he
has anything else upon his conscience which disturbs him. According to
his character, and the state in which the confessor finds the penitent,
he should, moreover, ask if he still has in his possession anything
belonging to another, or if, for some other reason, he still has
restitution to make of property, or honor and good name; if he harbors
hatred and enmity toward any one; if he has ever lived in a sinful habit,
and if he has expiated these sins in a general confession. If restitution
has to be made, and he can make it at the time, the duty of so doing at
once must be imposed upon him, and he must not be allowed to leave this
duty to his heirs; unless the latter be thoroughly trustworthy, the dying
person believing this to be sufficient and not easily being induced to
another expedient. If the restitution cannot at once take place, he must,
at least, have an actual intention of making it as soon as possible, and
of taking the necessary steps toward insuring its being made—either by a
will, or by an injunction to those belonging to him.[1036]

If the sick person is in a state of invincible ignorance concerning the
duty of restitution, and if it is anticipated that he will not be willing
to make it, or that great difficulties will arise, the confessor ought
not to call his attention to this duty, but leave him in his state of
ignorance. For, by such exhortation, the material sin would become a
formal one, and the confessor’s duty is rather to guard against injury
to the soul of the penitent than to ward off a temporal injury from a
neighbor. If, however, the confessor is questioned by the sick person
concerning such a duty, he must give an answer, but give it with such
caution that neither truth nor justice suffer, and that the salvation of
the sick person be not imperiled.[1037] The confessor should then exhort
the sick person to forgive from his whole heart every one who has ever
offended him, and to beg pardon of those whom he has ever offended, or
injured.

3. If the sick person is in a _voluntary immediate occasion of sin_, he
must remove this at once, or form a firm purpose of doing so as soon as
possible. Without this resolve, even _in articulo mortis_, absolution
could not be given, for the necessary dispositions would be wanting. If
there is no danger in delay, the confessor must insist, with inexorable
severity, upon the removal of this occasion, if it is a public one,
and postpone absolution till it is removed.[1038] Such occasions may
be dangerous objects, or persons whom the sick man hates, or a person
with whom he maintains sinful intercourse. The latter occasion presents
greater difficulty, and it is to be disposed of according to the rules
laid down for those living in concubinage. If the matter has remained
secret, or is only known through confession, and if public scandal is to
be feared from immediate removal of the person, the penitent must form
the firm purpose either of marrying her, if no obstacles which cannot be
removed are in the way, or of dismissing her as soon as possible, and
till then, of keeping her at a distance as much as possible.[1039]

If the person were an _occasio necessaria_, that is, if the sick man had
no one else to wait upon him, the matter becomes still more difficult.
Supposing that the _occasio proxima_ has really lost its character in
this situation, the circumstances might call for some forbearance;
however, if the matter is notorious, some explanation should be made in
order that the scandal caused may be atoned for; that is, the sick man
should be obliged to declare, perhaps before witnesses, that he would
dismiss the person when he had recovered health; but this declaration
would not be necessary if the circumstances which make the dismissal of
the concubine impossible are publicly known.

This tolerance is the more justifiable if the immoral relationship
had not become generally known, but were only learnt through the
confessional, and difficulties stood in the way of contracting the
marriage _in extremis_. But here also the sick man must promise that he
will marry, or dismiss the person who is the occasion of sin to him, etc.
However, in all cases where the concubine cannot be dismissed, the sick
man must take care that she does not sleep near him, that she only goes
to him when it is necessary, in order to avoid dangerous intimacy and
temptation.

4. If the person who is dangerously ill is living in so-called “civil
matrimony,” and there is no canonical impediment, a promise to marry made
before the parish priest and two witnesses suffices, and the marriage
must take place as soon as possible. If there is a canonical impediment,
for which a dispensation can be obtained, let the confessor induce the
sick man to submit himself to the laws of the Church. On this condition
he may be absolved; the confessor should then procure the dispensation
if the patient is not already _in extremis_. If he is already very near
death, the bishop can dispense, in order that the marriage may proceed,
as it may, for many reasons, be desirable. If the impediment cannot be
removed by a dispensation, it suffices that the sick person promises
to submit to the laws of God and the Church, in case he is restored to
health. If he is not aware of the obstacle, he may be left in his _bona
fides_. If the matter is publicly known, the scandal given must be
repaired.

5. If a dying woman has separated from her husband on her own authority,
the confessor must demand that the separation should be revoked as soon
as possible; if the person does not wish this, and there is canonical
ground for separation, she must be left in peace. If the reasons
are futile, she must declare that she will resume married life upon
the restoration of health (if occasion requires, she must make this
declaration before witnesses, in order to remedy the scandal given). If
she had been divorced by the civil court _in bona fide_, she must not
be disturbed. Of course, the conduct of the confessor would be modified
according as he had learnt the matter through the confessional, or
previously, by general report. In the latter case the explanations and
promises in question must be duly given before the administration of the
Sacraments.[1040]

In respect to sick persons who have lived in habitual sin, or have
frequently or generally relapsed into the same grave sin, see §§ 67 and
68.

6. As soon as the confession is completed, the confessor should exhort
the sick person in a few forcible words, and awaken in him true sorrow
and firm purpose of amendment. The thought of death, vividly suggested by
the circumstances, is well calculated to move a man to a holy fear and
repentance. In most cases it is advisable to make an act of contrition
with the sick person.

7. Then, according to the express admonition of the Roman Ritual, a
slight penance should be imposed upon the sick person, which can be
performed at once. The confessor should help persons who are very ill,
and those who are dying, to perform the penance before, or after, the
absolution has been administered.[1041]

8. When the sick person’s spiritual condition has been set in order,
attention must be paid to the regulation of his temporal affairs (Is.
xxxviii. 1). If it is considered necessary or advisable, he should,
therefore, be admonished to put his worldly concerns in good order, if he
has not yet done so, that he may afterwards occupy himself with God in
undisturbed peace. But he must so regulate everything that he may be well
prepared for the account which he will be obliged to render to God.

III. The priest very often finds himself with sick persons who are
altogether uneducated and ignorant; or who, though well informed in
affairs of the world, are very ignorant in religious matters. Whilst he
can openly instruct the former class, he is often obliged to disguise
his instruction of the latter that they hardly observe it, so as not to
offend them and jeopardize the salvation of their souls. In this case
he can give an explanation of the truths of faith which are applicable:
(_a_) in the form of a prayer in which God is invoked; (_b_) in the form
of a thanksgiving; (_c_) in the form of a sacrifice, or (_d_) in the form
of an exhortation. Nevertheless, an explicit act of faith may be added.
The confessor should commit to memory different formulae by means of
which he can, when necessary, instruct ignorant patients in the truths
which they must know, and elicit the acts of the theological virtues with
them; he should also learn by heart short prayers and verses of Holy Writ
which contain acts of the different virtues necessary to the patient.

9. In order to provide more abundantly for the salvation of the sick
person, the zealous priest should not content himself with what is
necessary for a valid and fruitful reception of the Sacrament of Penance,
but should endeavor, in subsequent visits[1042] (which should be repeated
oftener as death approaches): (1) to remove all obstacles to salvation;
(2) to counteract the attacks of the evil one; (3) to suggest remedies
helpful in the dangerous passage to eternity.

(_a_) Such obstacles to salvation are, preëminently: attachment of life,
love of relatives, and care for earthly things. To remove these, it
is especially necessary to inform the sick person, prudently, and at
a suitable time, of the danger of death, at first by hints, but later
on, when death is nearer, openly and plainly.[1043] Then the priest
must explain to him how pleasing to God it is, and what great merits he
acquires for himself before God, if he submits to His will and makes the
sacrifice of his life. He should also be reminded of the miseries of the
life which he is leaving behind, and of the joys of heaven to which he is
passing; impressing upon him, moreover, that God who takes him away from
his own will provide for them.

(_b_) Against the temptations of the devil, which are usually more
violent and numerous in the hour of death than in life, the general
remedies—invocation of the names of Jesus and Mary, the sign of the
cross, and short prayers—are to be used. A crucifix and one or two
religious pictures should be placed near the sick bed. In temptations
_against faith_, the patient may exclaim, “Oh, my God! I believe all that
Thou, the eternal Truth, hast revealed!” or he may thank God for the
grace of the true faith, and protest that he will live and die in this
faith; or, finally,—and this is an excellent proceeding,—reject these
temptations energetically, and direct his attention to other things,
making other acts—acts of sorrow, of confidence, of love of God, etc. And
should the temptations continue to molest the sick person more violently,
the _motiva credibilitatis_ may be explained to him.

If the sick person is tormented by _temptations to despair_, the priest
must not speak to him of the justice of God, nor of the punishments of
the damned, nor of the gravity of sin, but of the exceedingly great mercy
of God, the sufferings of Christ, the divine promises, the intercession
of the most holy Virgin and the saints, and thus inspire him with
confidence.

If, on account of great pain, the sick person is tempted to _impatience_,
remind him of the rewards of patiently borne suffering of Our Savior, who
bore with patience the greatest torments; of the example of the saints,
especially of the Queen of martyrs; of the duty of doing penance for our
sins; of the pains of purgatory, which he may partly expiate by patient
endurance of suffering; also of the fact that patience soothes and
lessens pain. As a remedy against _temptations to hatred_ and _feelings
of hostility_ remind him of the precept of Christ to love all men, and
to exclude no one, not even our enemies, from this love; moreover, of
the offenses we commit against God, who forgives us over and over again;
of God’s promise to forgive us if we forgive others; and, finally, place
before his eyes the glorious example of Jesus.[1044]

(_c_) The confessor must assist the sick person by all the other means
which our holy faith so abundantly possesses, administer to him in
due time the last Sacraments, give him absolution repeatedly,[1045]
and (observing the precepts of the Church) frequently holy communion;
often suggest fervent ejaculatory prayers; say with him the acts of
faith, hope, and charity, and of perfect contrition for all past sins,
also of perfect resignation to God’s holy will; make him participate
in the indulgences of the Church, give him general absolution, let him
kiss the crucifix, sprinkle him with holy water, etc.[1046] And as it
is not certain that a priest will be with the sick person in his last
struggle and equally uncertain that the patient will not again commit
a sin, especially as the evil one continues his temptations till the
last moment, the priest should teach him to elicit acts of love and
contrition; he should also request a trustworthy person among those
around the patient to make frequent acts of perfect love and contrition
with him, especially during his agony.[1047]


86. Absolution of the Dying.

The general principles laid down in the preceding sections apply also
to this particular case. _If it is certain that anything essential
is wanting to the disposition of the moribund, absolution may not be
administered_; but if it is in any way, even _tenuiter_, probable, that
everything essential is present, absolution not only _can_ but _must_ be
given. This, however, is not to be understood as meaning that there may
not be cases in which absolution can be given, but where no obligation
exists under pain of sin of giving it. Most of the cases which occur can
be solved by the rules which follow:—

I. A dying person who, in the presence of the priest, has given a sign
of repentance, and has confessed any sin, or even only _in genere_ has
acknowledged himself to be a sinner, _must be absolved_, and that,
_absolute_, not _conditionate_. In this case the presence of sorrow is
sufficiently ascertained, and besides there is some sort of confession.
This is the express teaching of the Roman Ritual.[1048] The absolution
here bears directe on the sins confessed _generice_ by the signs of
repentance and the desire of absolution, and _indirecte_, on the special
sins, included in that _manifestatio doloris_. These sins, however, the
penitent must confess separately and distinctly when he has been restored
to health.[1049]

II. _A dying person who is unconscious_, and who, _by the testimony
of those present_, before he became unconscious, _expressed a wish to
confess_, and showed signs of repentance, _must_ be absolved. This is
the constant practice of the Church, and the unanimous teaching of
theologians. For the desire of receiving sacramental absolution, whether
this is made known to the priest directly, or indirectly, through
witnesses, includes a _confessio in genere_. Although moralists[1050]
teach that in this case also absolution may be given _absolute_,
and the Roman Ritual directs simply: “_absolvendus est_,” it seems,
nevertheless, safer to follow the opinion of those[1051] who require that
the absolution be given conditionally, at least when it may be prudently
doubted whether any indication of sorrow was really given, especially if
the dying person is a _homo rudis_. Absolution must also be given—but
conditionally—if there is _aliqua probabilitas doloris et desiderii
confessionis_.

III. According to the _sententia communis et probabilis_, absolution _sub
conditione_ _MAY_ be and _MUST_ be given to a dying person who _has shown
no sign of repentance_, and _of whom no witness has reported such sign
to the absent priest_, and in whom the priest, moreover, cannot detect
any such sign; provided the dying person is a _Catholic_. That he should
have lived a pious life is not necessary; it is also applicable to one
who has not lived very piously, and may be extended to all concerning
whose indisposition there is no certainty; for it may be presumed that in
their dangerous condition they would wish to receive the Sacrament.

The whole difficulty in this and the following cases is—how, without
express manifestation of sorrow, and desire of absolution, the essential
elements of the Sacrament of Penance can be supposed with some degree of
probability to exist. I say, with some degree of probability, for it is
not necessary to prove that these essential elements are _certainly and
positively_ present; it suffices to show that some probability (slight
though it be) exists for the supposition that the essential elements of
the Sacrament are realized.

In order that absolution may be administered, there is required: (1) a
probable conjecture that the dying person has interior sorrow; (2) some
outward manifestation which, with some degree of probability, may be
regarded as a manifestation of inward sorrow, and (3) some outward sign,
which, with some probability, can be understood as an accusation, if only
a general one.

The question now is to what extent can we find these three things in
a dying person deprived of the use of his senses, who neither gives
perceptible signs himself, nor has previously given them to others?

Many theologians appeal to such signs as anxious breathing, sighing,
winking of the eyes, various movements of the mouth, by means of which
the dying person “perhaps” wishes to manifest his sorrow and his desire
of absolution. For, frequently, those who appear to be unconscious are
only deprived of the exterior use of their senses; they perceive and
understand everything, think, reflect, are also capable of sorrow, etc.,
as many declare, who have been in a similar state. As a man is more
withdrawn from the outer world, the more active is his inner life.
In the case of dying persons who have led _Christian_ lives, who are
mindful of their sins, and do not easily deceive themselves as to their
situation, who know that the decision of their eternity is near at hand,
as they will soon stand before their Judge—it is readily to be understood
that they should make attempts to reveal outwardly their interior sorrow,
and, therefore (the only conceivable course in a Catholic), their desire
for the absolution of the priest.[1052] Even if such signs are of
themselves no natural indication of repentance, we may assume that the
dying person wishes to make use of them for said purpose (which at the
time is to him of supreme importance), as he cannot reveal himself in
any other way. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, of St. Antonin, of
St. Alphonsus Liguori, of Sporer, Elbel, the Salmanticenses, Tamburini,
Lacroix, Aertnys, Müller, Gury, Konings, and others. The specified signs
may, therefore, be regarded as manifestations of sorrow and desire of
absolution. Now, it is allowed, in _urgente necessitate_, to administer
the Sacraments _sub conditione_, however doubtful the matter may be,
as, on the one hand, the reverence due to the Sacrament is preserved by
the appended condition, and on the other hand the salvation of a soul
is also provided for. When, therefore, the priest _can_ administer the
Sacraments, he is _bound_ to administer them _sub gravi peccato_.[1053]
He must, however, repeat to the dying person in a few words and in a
loud voice a general accusation and an earnest act of contrition, as
experience shows that the sense of hearing generally remains till death.

Other theologians thought to solve the difficulty more satisfactorily by
the doctrine that the _actus pœnitentis_ were not _materia sacramentorum
ex qua_, but _materia circa quam_. But this, of itself, does not
contribute anything to the solution of the difficulty. For even the
theologians who, following the teaching of Scotus, consider the _actus
pœnitentis_ as _materia circa quam_, demand an _outward manifestation_ as
an _essential condition_ of the validity of the Sacrament.

There may, however, be cases in which an _anxia respiratio_, _gemitus_,
etc., is not perceived. Some other probable marks of sorrow and of
accusation must then be sought. Lehmkuhl proposes the following:—

_A._ As far as the interior sorrow is concerned, we can and must presume
that it exists; we shall, at least, never have a certitude that it is
wanting. Persons who seemed to be deprived of their senses, or really
were so, and have afterwards recovered their use, have declared that in
their anxiety they elicited sorrow for their sins, although they could
not give outward expression of it; and there is no reason why this could
not also be true even of those unfortunate ones who have laid violent
hands on themselves, or who in the act of committing any other sin have
lost consciousness. This sorrow must, of course, be awakened after the
last mortal sin, and must extend to all mortal sins not yet remitted. We
must assume that these conditions exist, or are not certainly wanting,
especially as God never refuses sufficient grace to any one, and desires
and wills, not the death of the sinner, but his conversion.

_B._ We need not insist that the manifestation of _sorrow_ should
necessarily be the expression of _that_ sorrow which is an essential
disposition. It seems to be sufficient that the penitent indicates that
he either has had the necessary sorrow, or will have it before the
absolution, or wishes to have it. But this is _implicite_ contained in
the manifestation of a desire for absolution and, in reality, always
coexists with it. This manifestation of the desire for absolution also
contains, equivalently, the third element, a virtual accusation. We can,
therefore, deal with the two requisites at the same time.

_C._ The _accusatio aliqualis_, which is indispensable, is conveyed by
the fact that the man gives outward evidence of his wish to be reconciled
to God in the last moment by the services of the priest, for he thereby
acknowledges to be a sinner, and that in view of the priestly functions
which are to be exercised at the moment of his death.

Moreover, by the fact that the man has lived as a Christian, he seems
to indicate sufficiently his desire of being reconciled to God in the
last hour of his life through the ministry of a priest. He thus, in
truth, makes a general, public confession before the whole Church and
all priests by whom he can be absolved. All the Sacraments which he has
received, all the Christian virtues which he has practiced, could be
regarded as witnesses of his desire for absolution in the hour of death.
Nor is a similar manifestation of this desire altogether wanting in those
whose lives have been considerably below a Christian ideal, or who were
deprived of consciousness in the act of sinning; for, by remaining in the
Church, they show that they hoped and desired to be reconciled at the
hour of death. But it might be objected: is not this desire interrupted
and revoked by the mortal sin? If this were the case, our action would,
of course, be in vain; for, whilst absolution in such case would be valid
for him who does not need it, because he has committed no mortal sin,
yet for him who does need it, it would have no validity. However, we may
answer: The sorrow, in as far as it is a _necessary disposition_, is
revoked and interrupted, but the man’s declaration that he _wishes_ to
have contrition _at this time_ and desires absolution, is not repealed.
We admit that the case is hopeless, unless interior and true sorrow
is present. The validity of the absolution remains, therefore, _very
doubtful_. Nevertheless, that is not the point. That sorrow is “perhaps”
present, we are justified in assuming, and it is, therefore, allowed to
give absolution; it may possibly impart to the man who has only imperfect
sorrow sanctifying grace and eternal life. That the sorrow should coexist
with the absolution is certainly not necessary.[1054]

IV. In accordance with our previous inference, a dying person, who, up to
the moment of his coma, _refused to receive the Sacraments_ and rejected
the priest, may not be absolved, as it cannot be presumed that he had
the will to receive absolution. _To be able_ to absolve such a one we
must discover some sign which we may construe as indicating (according to
Lehmkuhl, n. 515) _a change in his sentiments_; for example, pressure of
the hand, a look, sighing, etc. If there is any indication of the kind,
however doubtful, conditional absolution may be given.

V. A dying person who was _deprived of his senses in actu peccati_,
for example, in adultery, a duel, drunkenness, _can_ be absolved _sub
conditione_, if he is a Catholic, and that on the same grounds as we have
specified above (n. III). For of a Catholic it may be presumed that,
in this utmost danger of eternal damnation, and under the influence
of divine grace, which never will be refused—he desires to secure his
eternal salvation.

A non-Catholic in this situation may not be absolved, even though he has
given signs of sorrow, unless he has expressly asked for absolution;
for it cannot be reasonably supposed that he has given these signs _in
ordine ad confessionem sacram_, as he does not believe in it, and, on
this account, the _materia Sacramenti_ would certainly be wanting. It may
thus be maintained that _to scarcely any dying Catholic MUST absolution
be refused_, and that to all dying Catholics it _MAY_ be given, at least
_sub conditione_.

We arrive at a different decision and must pursue another course with
regard to a Catholic, who, being born and brought up in the Catholic
religion, has apostatized and embraced heresy.

VI. _A heretic_, who is deprived of his senses, but who, while he was in
health, manifested an inclination towards the Catholic religion, may,
in this decisive moment, be absolved _sub conditione_ from censures and
sins if he has already been baptized in his sect; if doubt is entertained
as to the validity of his Baptism, he must, previously, be baptized
_sub conditione_. It may be presumed of such a one that he wishes to
close his life in the community of the true Church of Christ. Indeed, as
Lehmkuhl adds, one might also give conditional absolution to a baptized
non-Catholic of whom it might be presumed, upon any probable ground, that
he is _in bona fide_ and would gladly accept the help of a priest if he
knew it was necessary to him.

In such a case it is, of course, more difficult to produce anything out
of the past life which can, in any way, be construed as a confession,
and a desire for absolution, because he has not _explicite_ thought of
absolution, unless we are to be content with the man’s _bona fides_,
“_quam probabiliter adesse seu adfuisse, externe sit manifestatum_.” For,
if to this _bona fides_, sorrow has been added,—and it is not certain
that it has not been added,—it seems that there is, _implicite_, the
manifested desire to participate in those remedies which are necessary,
and, therefore, in the absolution of the priest.[1055] If we have
here, with Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, and Aertnys, proceeded to the utmost
limits, and if the arguments in favor of this extreme liberality in the
administration of absolution are not always cogent, let us not be accused
of laxity or of any want of reverence for the holy Sacrament of Penance.
Such liberality seems to have been fully intended by Him, “Who came to
seek and to save that which was lost,” and who wishes not the death but
the life of the sinner, who opened the gates of paradise even to the
thief on the cross, and who has placed the keys of heaven in our hands.
We safeguard the sanctity of the holy Sacrament by adding the condition,
and the Lord instituted His Sacraments for man; “_in extremis autem
extrema tentanda sunt_.”

We may _repeatedly_ administer absolution to the dying when the
conditions necessary for its validity are fulfilled. The following rules
are of service:—

1. If the dying person gives to the priest who is present undoubted signs
of a contrite disposition, it is advisable to administer absolution to
him as often as he renews these signs.[1056]

2. If the dying person is unconscious, one may administer conditional
absolution to him two or three times, with an interval of about three
or four hours. For, in order that a Sacrament may be administered
conditionally, a _causa gravis_ is necessary, which could not exist
if the absolution were administered at shorter intervals and more
frequently. If the state of unconsciousness should continue, and there
is actual danger of death, absolution may be frequently repeated; for
example, three or four times in a day.[1057] This proceeding is justified
by the endeavor to give more certain and efficacious assistance to the
dying person.

Such efforts in behalf of the dying person demand great zeal, but, as
Elbel rightly says,[1058] they are _very praiseworthy_, and form part of
our holy office. Our divine Redeemer deposited His graces in the hands of
His priests; faithful to their calling they will, with the greatest zeal,
dispense these graces to those who are worthy and in need of them.

“_Fratres charissimi, munus quod in Ecclesia Dei geritis plane eximium
est; enimvero tantam vobis Christus ad judicandas animas auctoritatem
elargitus est, ut sententiæ a vobis in terris juste prolatæ, ratæ
habeantur in cœlis. Ora vestra canales esse mysticos dico, per quos vera
de cœlo pax in homines bonæ voluntatis descendit. Verba oris vestri tubæ
sunt magni Jesu, quæ muros iniquitatis seu mysticæ Jericho evertunt._”

(_Ex monitis S. Francisci Salesii Ep. et Eccl. Doct. ad Confessarios._)




FOOTNOTES


[1] S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 84, art. 7 ad 7.

[2] S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 85, art. 3 ad 3.

[3] Cf. Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tit. II. § 106.

[4] Theol. Mor. Tom. II. § 1, De Pœnit. n. 251; cf. Palmieri, Tract. de
Pœnit. (Rome, 1879), p. 18 et seq.

[5] While theologians are united in admitting a _virtus generalis
pœnitentiæ_ having its own material and formal object, they fail to
agree on the definition of the formal object. Cf. Suarez, Lugo, and more
especially Palmieri, l. c.

[6] Cf. S. Th. III. Q. 85 et seq. _de pœnitentia secundum quod est
virtus_, Suarez, De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ Disp. per 2 Sectiones, _de
pœnitentia in communi_; Lugo, De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ, P. I. pp. 1-44
(Romæ, 1879); Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Sect. 106; Lehmkuhl, Theol.
Mor. Tom. II. Tract. V. De Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. 1; Aertnys, Theol. Mor.
Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. Pars I.

[7] Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 600 s.;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 255; Müller, l. c. Sect. 107, in fine.

[8] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2.

[9] Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. n. 600 s.
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 255; Müller, l. c. Sect. 107, in fine.

[10] See Sect. 4, p. 29.

[11] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 662, 665; Gury-Ball. II. n. 466; Ballerini,
Ant. S. J. Opus Theol. Mor. Vol. V.; Tract. X. Sect. V. De Sacram. Pœn.
cp. III. n. 1025 ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 229.

[12] Such is the teaching of nearly all the moralists; cf. S. Alph.
Lib. VI. n. 667; Gury, I. n. 478; Scavini, De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 35. St.
Thomas (Suppl. Q. 6. a. 3) teaches that he who has only venial sins to
confess, satisfies the precept of the Church if he presents himself to
the priest and declares that his conscience is free from mortal sin; this
will be counted as a confession. This opinion of St. Thomas is, however,
contradicted by a large number of eminent theologians,—St. Antoninus,
Billuart, Laymann, Lugo, Suarez, etc.,—who appeal to the Tridentine
decree (Sess. 13. cp. 5), which says in respect to the Lateran decree
that it is _determinativum divini præcepti_.

[13] Suarez and Laymann teach the opposite. Cf. Scavini, l. c. n. 35,
nota 1.

[14] Cf. Decretum Lateran. Concilii IV. cp. 21.

[15] See Sect. 74, Children’s Confessions.

[16] Lehmkuhl, I. Tract VI. n. 1202, 3.

[17] S. Alph. l. c. n. 669; Gury, l. c. n. 479; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1204.

[18] S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 8, art. 5 ad 4, and St. Bonaventure, Compend.
Theol. Lib. VI. cp. 25, Confess. necessitas, support this view _saltem
tacite_. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1204.

[19] Cf. Scavini, De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 36, who follows Suarez, Laymann,
Lugo, Salmanticenses, etc. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1202.

[20] Lacroix, De præcepto Confess. n. 2003; S. Alph. l. c. n. 668;
Scavini, l. c. n. 36, Q. 4; Gury, l. c. n. 478, nota 3; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
n. 1206.

[21] Cf. Bened. XIV. De Syn. diœc. 1. II. cp. 14, 1-5. Hence a parish
priest, who would make his parishioners confess to him, is guilty of sin,
since such indiscreet zeal, or unworthy jealousy, might give occasion to
sacrilegious confessions. Compare what St. Thomas (l. c. art. 4 et 5)
wrote even before it was allowed to confess indifferently to any priest
having faculties; that a priest would sin, if he were not ready to give
leave to any individual to make his confession to another priest. It was
distinctly understood before that time that one might confess to any
priest who had been authorized by the _proprius sacerdos_ to hear the
confession. Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 118, n. 6-4; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1205.

[22] Pauli Segneri, S.J., Instructio Pœnitent. cp. XV: _Fructus percepti
ex frequenti confessione_.

[23] Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[24] Cf. S. Th. De Malo, Q. 7, art. 12 ad 4, and Summa Theol. III.
Q. 87, art. 1. St. Thomas demands for the forgiveness of mortal sin
a _perfectior pœnitentia_, that is, that a man actually detest his
mortal sins so far as he can; _sed non hoc requiritur ad remissionem
venialium peccatorum; non tamen sufficit habitualis displicentia quæ
habetur per habitum caritatis, vel pœnitentiæ virtutis, quia, sic caritas
non compateretur peccatum veniale, quod patet esse falsum_.... Hence
follows, continues the holy Doctor, that there is required a _virtualis
displicentia, puta cum aliquis hoc modo fertur secundum affectum in
Deum et res divinas, ut, quidquid sibi occurreret, quod eum ab hoc motu
retardaret, displiceret ei et doleret, se commississe, etiamsi actu
de illo non cogitaret, quod tamen non sufficit ad remissionem peccati
mortalis nisi quantum ad peccata oblita post diligentem inquisitionem_.
III. Q. 87, art. 1. Scavini, l. c. n. 13. There is an apparent
opposition, but it is only apparent, between this teaching of St. Thomas
and that of Suarez (Disp. II. Sect. 3. n. 8 sq. in Sum. III. Q. 87, art.
2) and other theologians, who hold that venial sins can be forgiven
without formal contrition by an act of supreme love of God. For Suarez
distinguishes a twofold perfection in this love, an objective _secundum
extensionem ad venialia peccata_, and an intensive _ex conatu potentiæ_.
Only the objective love which extends to venial sin is, according to this
learned theologian, able to atone for venial sin, because it implies an
aversion of the will from sin in consequence of that love. Hence, it will
effect the remission of all venial sins _quoad culpam_ if it extends
virtually to all, or of some only, in so far as these are affected by the
act of love. This aversion of the will from sin is nothing else than a
_virtualis displicentia_; in other words, contrition.

[25] Cf. III. Q. 87, art. 4 et 2. On the diverging views of Scotus and
Durandus, compare Suarez, De Sacram. Pœnit. Disp. II. Sect. 2, n. 2.

[26] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[27] Disp. IX. Sect. 3, n. 53.

[28] Cf. S. Th. III. Q. 87, art. 1 et 3.

[29] Cf. Trid. Sess. V. Decr. de peccato orig. n. 5; Sess. XIV. de pœn.
cp. 3; S. Th. III. Q. 86, art. 2 ad 1.

[30] Sess. XIV. de Extr. Unct. cp. 2, can. 2.

[31] Sess. XIII. can. 5 et cp. 2.

[32] III. Q. 79, art. 4.

[33] Suarez, Comment, ad III. Thomæ, Q. 79, art. 4. Cf. Disputatio 63,
Sect. 10, n. 1.

[34] Cf. S. Thom. Q. 87, art. 2 et 3.

[35] Cf. S. Thom. Q. 72, art. 7 ad 2.

[36] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 26, art. 1 et 3.

[37] Trid. Sess. XXII. de Sacrif. Missæ, cp. 2.

[38] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 311.

[39] Tappehorn, Die lässliche Sünde, p. 55.

[40] Some theologians attribute to these two prayers an effect _ex opere
operato_. Suarez, Disp. 12, Sect. 2, n. 6.

[41] Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, art. 3.

[42] Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 110, II. n. 4.

[43] Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, a. 2; S. Bonaventure, In IV. Sent. Dist.
20, P. 1, a. 1, Q. 2 ad 3.

[44] Cf. Lugo, De Sacram. Pœnit. Disp. IX. Sect. 2, n. 29 et seq.;
Suarez, Disp. XI. Sect. 3; Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali, Tom. II. Lib.
IV. Disp. 97, Sect. 4 (Ed. nova, Parisiis, 1870).

[45] For the arguments of those who oppose this teaching, see Suarez,
Disp. XI. Sect. 3, n. 5; Gury, I. n. 457; Scavini, l. c. n. 11 ss.

[46] Cf. Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 3, nn. 8-10.

[47] There are three prayers which have quite a special efficacy in
this matter: one has come to us from the Holy Ghost through David, the
other from Our Lord, and the third from the Church; they are the seven
penitential psalms, the Our Father, and the Confiteor. Cf. S. Thom. III.
Q. 87, art. 3; I. II. Q. 74, art. 8 ad 6.

[48] On the remission of venial sins, defiling the faithful who die in
grace see S. Thom. De Malo, Q. 7, a. 11; Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 4;
Disp. 47, Sect. 1; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, p. 190 ss.; Oswald,
Eschatologie, p. 84 ss.; Tappehorn, Die lässliche Sünde, Sect. 11, p. 61
ss.

[49] Cat. Rom. P. II. Cap. V. Q. XII.

[50] Cat. Rom. l. c.

[51] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2, 3 et 4, can. 4; S. Thom. III. Q. 86,
art. 6; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1. n. 2 ss.

[52] Suarez, Disp. 20, Sect. 3, n. 8, and Disp. 58, Sect. 1, n. 3;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. Cap. III. Sect. 1, n. 258; Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. art.
1, n. 174. Without satisfaction the Sacrament is there in its essence,
but it is not quite perfect, as a man without legs is, indeed, a man
essentially, but not a complete and perfect one. For this Sacrament
was instituted for the _complete_ removal of sin, both guilt and
punishment; thus it produces not only remission of the guilt and of the
eternal punishment (in which may be included a portion of the temporal
punishment), in consequence of the absolution, but also remission of the
temporal punishment by the performance of the penance imposed; hence the
satisfaction is a part of the Sacrament which produces these effects. Cf.
Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 12, n. 40.

[53] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 258.

[54] Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. art. 1, n. 174.

[55] Theologians do not agree as to whether the acts of the penitent are
in truth matter belonging to the inner constitution of the Sacrament—in
the same way, for instance, as the washing with water is an intimate
element of Baptism—or whether they belong to the Sacrament only in
a wider sense; in other words, whether the acts of the penitent are
_materia ex qua_ or only _materia circa quam_ of the Sacrament. The
Scotists place the whole essence of the Sacrament in the absolution, and
teach that the acts of the penitent are only _materia circa quam_ and
_conditio sine qua non_, in such a manner, however, that without these
the absolution cannot be sacramental; hence they have no hesitation in
considering these acts essential. The Thomists, and by far the greater
number of theologians, consider the acts of the penitent as _materia ex
qua_, because they do in fact belong essentially to the constitution
of the external act which produces the interior grace. This doctrine
unquestionably carries the day, “unless,” as Lehmkuhl says, “one chooses
to call the acts of the penitent _materia ex qua_, not as having their
origin in the penitent, but as matter presented judicially to the
confessor, a question about which I do not wish to argue, for that acts
of the penitent—sorrow and accusation—are necessary, and should be
elicited, is beyond all doubt.” Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 256. Cf. Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1, n. 14.

[56] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. n. 171.

[57] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[58] Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 595 ss.; Mazzotta, Theol.
Moral. Tr. VI. Disp. l, q. 4, cp. 5. Hence Alexander VII condemned the
proposition (Prop. II. damnata) that sins omitted in confession, whether
they have been forgotten, or not confessed on account of danger of death,
or for any other reason, need not be mentioned again in confession.

[59] S. Alph. l. c. n. 427, dub. 2; Gury (Ed. Rom.), n. 418; Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 17; Müller, l. c. Sect. 111; Aertnys, l. c. n.
172. Q. I.

[60] Extravag. com. l. 5. tit. 7 (de privileg.), c. I. Const. “Inter
cunctas.”

[61] Cf. Ballerini, l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 263.

[62] Lugo, De Pœnit. d. 13, n. 73.

[63] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 263.

[64] Reuter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. Cap. III. Art. IV. n. 117.

[65] _At accusare se de venialibus in genere dicendo v. g. Accuso me de
multis venialibus, nihil aliud exprimendo, probabilius non videtur licere
extra casum necessitatis; tum quia est contra praxim Ecclesiæ, tum quia
hoc Sacramentum est institutum per modum accusationis et judicii, quod
per se loquendo fieri debet circa materiam saltem in specie certam et
determinatam._ Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II. Cf.
Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10; Reuter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. C. III.
Art. 4, n. 117.

[66] De Sacr. Pœnit. c. 5, n. 14.

[67] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II.

[68] Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10.

[69] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 266.

[70] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Moral. II. n. 421.

[71] On this matter see the eminently practical hints of Reuter in his
Neoconfessarius, l. c. n. 117. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 266, 267.

[72] Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 3.

[73] Trident. l. c.

[74] III. Q. 84, a. 3.

[75] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430, Dub. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.
n. 32.

[76] S. Thom. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract.
VI.

[77] The S. C. de Propag. Fid., being asked if a baptism is valid in
which _te_ is omitted from the form, replied (July 5, 1841): _Non valere
baptisma, ideoque iterandum_. The same holds for the Sacrament of Penance.

[78] S. Thom. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract.
VI. Disp. II. Q. IV. c. 1.

[79] Lugo, l. c. Dist. 13, Sect. 7; Lacroix, l. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 645,
etc.

[80] Cf. Decr. S. R. C. Feb. 27, 1847.

[81] Cf. Stotz, Tribunal Pœnitentiæ, L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 268: _etiam in frequentioribus confessionibus expedit
non omittere_. Though Tappehorn in his Anleitung zur Verwaltung des
heiligen Buss-Sakramentes, third edition, p. 67, suggests that when,
in accordance with the permission of the Roman Ritual, the prayer
is omitted, it may be said after the last confession over all those
who have confessed, as at the first absolution (_in confessionibus
frequentioribus_) the prayers _Misereatur_ and _Indulgentiam_ (the
plural _vestri, vestris_, etc., being used) may be said over all who are
present, we must observe that the Roman Ritual mentions nothing about
this practice. Holzmann recommends that the _Passio Domini nostri_, etc.,
should be said as the penitent leaves the box.

[82] It is not _de necessitate_ to raise the hand at the _Indulgentiam_,
to make the sign of the cross at the _in nomine Patris_, etc., or to
uncover the head in giving the absolution; and distinguished authors
maintain that it is not sinful to omit these ceremonies; it is advisable,
however, in this matter to conform to custom. Scavini, Theol. Moral.
Universa, Tom. IV. n. 76.

[83] Rt. Rom. De Sacram. Pœnit.

[84] Sess. XIV. cp. 3. Cf. S. Alph. n. 430, Dub. 4.

[85] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. cp. IV. art. 1; Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract.
VI. Disp. II. Q. IV. cp. I; Stotz, l. c. L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1, n.
215; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. I. cp. III. § 3, n. 270.

[86] The word _Deinde_ which connects the absolution from censures with
that from sins appears, from the latest edition of the Roman Ritual as
revised and approved by the S. R. C., to belong to the form (cf. Edit. I.
post typicam Ratisbon, 1888, specialiter a S. R. C. recognita); formerly
the word was printed in red and regarded as a rubric (cf. Edit. Romæ ex
typogr. Prop. 1876). As to the _forma deprecatoria_ which, according to
Frank (Bussdisciplin), was in use till the twelfth century, see Frank, B.
5, K. 4; Morinus, De Pœnitent.; Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten, Bd. 5, Teil
1, K. 6, § 3; S. Thom. III. Q. 84, a. 3; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 269, nota 2.

[87] With regard to this matter Clement VIII in Const. data d. 20 Jun.
1602 condemned the following proposition: It is permitted to confess
one’s sins to an absent confessor by means of a letter or a messenger,
and to receive absolution from the same confessor though still absent.
Moreover, he forbade under pain of excommunication any one to teach this
doctrine or to make use of it as a probable opinion. The condemnation of
this proposition by the Pope involves evidently an absolute command, and
the conclusion is fairly drawn that the confession made to an absentee,
as well as the absolution given to an absentee, are both illicit and
invalid; otherwise one might in a case of extreme necessity allow the
practice. The Clementine decree is to be taken not only _collectively_,
that is, as legislating for the case where both confession and absolution
are conveyed by absentees, but also _disjunctively_, that is, as
legislating for the case where confession has been made to an absentee,
the absolution being given when the penitent presents himself, and _vice
versa_. This was decreed by Paul V, July 14, 1605. More information may
be found in Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. pp. 141-143 (Rom. 1879). Cf.
Reuter, Neoconfessar. P. l. n. 31; Müller, l. c. L. III. T. II. § 132;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 32 s. Absolution from censure,
apart from the absolution from sin, may be conveyed by writing and the
presence of the penitent is not required; similarly censures may be
inflicted on one who is absent. Without grave necessity, however, the
absolution from censures ought not to be given in the absence of the
penitent. S. Alph. L. VII. n. 117.

[88] S. Alph. l. c. n. 429.

[89] Though all theologians agree in requiring the moral presence of the
penitent for valid absolution, they vary in assigning the limits of that
presence. Many theologians suppose that a penitent stationed at twenty
paces from the priest may be regarded as morally present; this distance
is thought by St. Alphonsus to be too great.

[90] S. Alph. l. c. VI. n. 429.

[91] The priest is, however, strongly advised not to be too nervous
in exercising his office for a penitent struck down by an infectious
disease; confidence in God joined to a little prudent foresight and
courage will be more useful to him than a cowardly nervousness.

[92] Cf. Reuter, Neoconfess. l. c. n. 31; Scavini, Theologia Moralis
Universa, Tom IV. n. 77; Müller, l. c. § 132; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI.
Tom. V. cp. IV. n. 215, Q. 6. In accordance with this teaching we
must solve the question raised whether absolution given by telephone
is valid. (Aloys. Sabetti, S.J., in Collegio SS. Cordis ad Woodstock,
Th. Mor. Prof., Compend. Theol. Moral. Gury ... ad breviorem formam
redactum, etc. Benziger, 1884; Alphons. Eschbach e Cong. S. Spiritus et
Imm. Cord. M. Rectoris Sem. Gall. Romæ, La Confession par téléphone;
Melata, Manuale Theol. Moralis, De Pœnit. cp. II. art. I.) It is certain
that the use of the telephone for giving absolution is _extra casum
necessitatis_ a grave sin because it introduces into the administration
of the Sacraments a practice which is novel and liable to misuse. The
case is limited to the question whether in urgent need the use of
such a method can be tolerated—if, for instance, a member of a secret
society, seized with a dangerous illness and anxious to be reconciled
with the Church, but debarred by his associates from the sight of a
priest, could make use of the telephone placed in his room to call up a
friendly priest and make his confession to him and receive absolution
through the telephone. Eschbach, in his work mentioned above, teaches
that such an absolution is quite invalid. Sabetti acknowledges that the
solution of the question involves many difficulties, and that it ought
to be submitted to the decision of the Holy See; he appears, however, to
incline to an affirmative answer. He says: Though it is true that moral
presence and a connection between matter and form are necessary in every
Sacrament, yet this exigency varies. Since Penance has been instituted
on the lines of an earthly tribunal, in which judge and accused must
be so far present to one another as to be able to speak together, the
absolution in the given case cannot be said for certain to be invalid,
since one might always argue that the priest and the penitent could speak
together. Against this, it may be objected that the illustration of an
earthly tribunal is not quite applicable, since here the presence of the
accused is not necessary, for he may be condemned _in contumaciam_. To
the question whether _in casu extremæ necessitatis dari possit absolutio
per telephonium_? the Pœnitentiaria replied, July 1, 1884: _Nihil esse
respondendum_.—Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale (Romæ, 1887), p. 119.

[93] Scavini, Theologia Moralis Universa, Tom. III. n. 479 (Ed. Par.
1867).

[94] Cf. Gury, II. l. c. n. 432, 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp.
I. n. 27.

[95] Lehmkuhl, P. II. L. I. Tr. V. Sect. I. n. 272.

[96] Cf. Gury, II. n. 434.

[97] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 25; Stotz, l. c. L. II. Q. III. art.
I. § 4.

[98] Cf. Declar. S. Inquis. 17 Juni 1715, 17 Dec. 1868, 20 Jul. 1859.

[99] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432, etc.

[100] Colletus, “_acerrimus probabilismi impugnator_.”

[101] Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 217; Concina, according to the testimony
of St. Alphonsus, _in severas sententias generatim deflectens_.

[102] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 273.

[103] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432; Lacroix, L. VI. p. 2, n. 1797; Mazzotta,
Theol. Moralis, Tract. IV. Disp. II. Q. IV. cp. II.; Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. I. n. 27; Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 217;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 273; Gury, l. c. II. n. 435.

[104] Compare S. Alph. De Sacram. in genere, n. 28, 29, 57, and De
Conscientia, n. 49; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. I. n. 27: “hæc
est _sententia certa_, licere in necessitate administrare sacramenta sub
conditione.”

[105] He says: “Necessity is but very seldom a ground for giving
absolution to one who is doubtfully disposed; for a dying man, with only
an instant to spare, and in the possession of his faculties, has only
himself to blame if he cannot produce an act of perfect contrition; it
is an article of faith that God never refuses the means of salvation if
they are asked with confidence, and for such a soul perfect contrition
is a most necessary condition for salvation. If, therefore, he has only
doubtful contrition, it is his own fault, and in such case he is not
merely doubtfully, but certainly, unworthy, and cannot in consequence
be absolved. There remain, then, only the cases in which the dying man
cannot express his sentiments even by signs, and then the principle
holds: _sacramenta propter homines_.”

[106] Gousset, Lettres à M. le Curé ... Lettre 8. Cf. Gury, l. c. II.
Tract. de Sacram. Pœnit. P. I. n. 430-439; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral.
l. c. cp. I. nn. 27 et 26, where he signalizes these objections as
_inanes objectiones nonnullorum, etiam recentiorum in Gallia, qui antiqua
præjudicia janseniana incaute ebiberunt_.

[107] Sess. XIV. cp. 4.

[108] Compare on this subject the lengthy discussions of Suarez, De
Pœnitentia, Disp. 3, Sect. 2; Lugo, De Pœnitentia, Disp. 4, Sect. 1;
Reuter, Theol. Moral. P. IV. n. 243; and particularly the very lucid
exposition of Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. (Roma, 1879) cap. IV. De act.
pœnit. art. I. § 1, p. 214 sq.

[109] L. c. L. VI. n. 435. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. de
Contritione, n. 14.

[110] Stotz, Tribunal Pœnitent. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. art. II.

[111] This is the distinction given by the Council of Trent in Sess. 14,
cp. 4: Perfect contrition is very aptly and simply called _contritio_ in
its restricted meaning, while imperfect contrition is called _attritio_.
The figure is taken from solid bodies which, when pounded to dust, are
_contrita_, but when broken into fragments are _attrita_. “The heart of
man may be compared to wood for kindling. By contrition (_contritio_
and _attritio_) the heart is rubbed; as the rubbing is increased, the
heart, like wood, becomes drier and warmer, till there bursts forth a
flame; this flame is sanctifying grace; and just as fire consumes wood,
so charity consumes the crushed heart (_cor contritum_) and burns out its
sin.” (Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heilig. Sakramenten, II. Bd.
Fünft. Teil, Zweit. Abschnitt, Erst. Hauptst. § 7, S. 82.)

[112] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disput. V. Sect. 9, n. 132; Palmieri, Tract. de
Pœnit. l. c. th. 21, p. 223.

[113] Since perfect contrition arises from perfect love, it is of great
importance, after considering the infinite goodness and dignity of God,
to make an act of love and then an act of sorrow. The synod assembled in
1725 under Benedict XIII offers a form of contrition which was composed
for the use of children: “My Lord and my God, who art infinitely good
and holy, I love Thee above all things and repent with my whole heart of
having offended Thee so often by my sins. I detest them above all other
evils. I humbly beg Thy forgiveness, and I promise with the help of Thy
grace never more to offend Thee.” (Collect. Lacensis Conc., Tom. I. p.
458, Fribourg, 1870.) Another form is given by St. Alphonsus: “My God,
Thou art infinitely good; therefore I love Thee above all things; and
because I love Thee I am sorry for all the sins which I have committed
against Thee, O infinite Goodness. My God, I will never more sin against
Thee; I will rather die than offend Thee again.” Perfect contrition might
be aroused also in the following manner: “O Heart of Jesus, most worthy
of all love, I love Thee above all things, and therefore I am sorry for
all my sins and detest them above all things, because by them I have
offended Thee and incurred Thy anger. I am firmly resolved never more to
offend Thee.” (Müller, Theol. Moral. l. c. § 112.)

[114] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 106, a. 5.

[115] Compare Deharbe, Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, § 6, pp. 139-179.

[116] See Perfect Contrition by Von den Driesch, translated by Father J.
Slater, S.J.

[117] Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. Lib. I. Tract. I. cp. III. § 1.

[118] Deharbe, Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, p. 158.

[119] Cf. S. Thomas, Supplem. Q. 5. a. 3; S. Alphons. Lib. VI. n. 441;
Gury, II. n. 453; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, Thes. XXIV. p. 262 sq.

[120] Cat. Roman. P. II. cp. 5, n. 27.

[121] Compare Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakramenten,
Fünfter Teil, Zweiter Abschnitt, § 7, III. Aufl. S. 71 ff.; Deharbe,
Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, §§ 2, 3, 6, 8; Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. II.
Sect. 3 et Disp. IV. Sect. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 35-42;
Palmieri, Tract. de Pœn. Thes. IV, V; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. L. I.
Tr. I. n. 318.

[122] Sess. XIV. cp. 4.

[123] The proof is well developed by P. Palmieri, S.J., Tract, de
Pœnitent. Theses XXII et XXIII, p. 224 (Romæ, 1879). Cf. S. Thomas, II.
II. QQ. 23-27.

[124] I. John iv. 16.

[125] Supplem. Q. 5, a. 3. _Quantumcunque parvus sit dolor, dummodo ad
contritionis rationem sufficiat, omnem culpam delet._

[126] Lib. VI. n. 441.

[127] S. Thom. Supplem. Q. 5. a. 2 ad 1. _Contritio vera non fuit, nisi
propositum confitendi habuerit annexum; quod debet ad effectum reduci
etiam propter præceptum quod est de confessione datum._

[128] John xiv. 23.

[129] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 437, Dub. 4.

[130] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 275; Müller, l. c. § 113, 2.

[131] S. Thom. III. Q. 89, a. 4; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. X. Sect. 2.

[132] Sess. VI. c. 14; Sess. XIV. c. 8 et can. 12.

[133] S. Bonavent. Theol. verit. L. VI. c. 24. S. Thomas, Suppl. Q. 5, a.
2. Ballerini, De Pœnit. L. VI. c. 6.

[134] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. l. c., from which we infer that penance is
necessary for salvation _necessitate medii_.

[135] Ballerini deals excellently with this point in his Op. Theol. Mor.
in cp. III. De præc. et oblig. confession, n. 138 ss. Cf. Suarez, De
Pœnit. Disp. 15, Sect. 6, n. 7; Sporer, De Pœn. n. 186.

[136] In Ezechiel, Lib. I. Hom. 11, n. 24.

[137] I. II. Q. 109, a. 8.

[138] Lib. VI. n. 437.

[139] Tract. 16, cp. 2, n. 10.

[140] The question raised by theologians as to whether it is a distinct
sin to put off eliciting the act of perfect contrition and reconciliation
with God, must be answered in the affirmative, for Holy Scripture enjoins
us not to delay our conversion or to put off penance from day to day,
because the anger of God may come upon us when we are so unprepared (cf.
Ecclus. v. 8, 9, where, however, no express command is laid down), and
because the _præceptum caritatis_ which we ought to obey _sæpius in vita_
calls for an act of contrition.

Aertnys reconciles this affirmative opinion of Lugo, Suarez, St.
Alphonsus, etc., with the opposite view of Navarro, Vasquez, Soto,
etc., declaring the latter to be probable _per se loquendo_, while the
former is true _de obligatione per accidens_, so that the sinner who
fails to elicit an act of perfect contrition within a reasonable period
is not to be acquitted of incurring a new mortal sin. Aertnys, l. c.
Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. 3, n. 168. St. Alphonsus expressly condemns the
view of Concina and Roncaglia that a delay of a week is a considerable
period; and similarly he rejects the opinion of Laymann, Lugo, the
Salmanticenses, Elbel, etc., who maintain that sin has been incurred only
by the neglect of contrition for a whole year. This latter view he cannot
accept, even if there were no other reason than the duty of eliciting an
act of love once in the month. Finally, he rejects the opinion of some
theologians that a sinner must elicit acts of contrition on feast-days
in order to fulfill the object of sanctifying the festival; the general
answer is made that the object of any given precept does not fall under
the precept. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. III. n. 1035 ss.

[141] Müller, l. c. Lib. III. I. II. § 115, I; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 278;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 168, Q. I.

[142] H. A. l. c. n. 11, Lib. VI. n. 437, Dub. 2; Suarez, Disp. 15, Sect.
4, n. 19; Lacroix, Lib. II. n. 142, etc.

[143] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5, which is directed against
Luther’s doctrine that all fear of punishment is wicked, and that
imperfect contrition, founded on the fear of hell, by making a man a
hypocrite, makes him a greater sinner. Cf. Bellarmin, De Pœn. Lib. II.
cp. 2; Möhler, Symbolism, § 33. Luther’s error was in part adopted by
Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel. Cf. Prop. 60, 61, 62 et 67 Quesnellii a
P. M. Clem. XI in Bulla “Unigenitus,” proscript; Prop. 15 et 16 damn. ab
Alexandro VIII, in which some of Quesnel’s errors are again condemned.

[144] Cf. Bellarmin, l. c. Lib. II. cp. 17; Perrone, De Pœnitent. n.
46 s.; Ripalda, De Ente supernaturali, Tom. IV. Disp. 22, Sect. 4-11,
et Lib. VI. Disp. ult. n. 458-460; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia,
pp. 280-353 (Rom. 1879); Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. De
sufficientia attritionis, n. 42-50.

[145] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 440; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I.
Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. a. VI; Aertnys,
l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 176; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. Thes. XXV. p.
286 ss.

[146] II. II. Q. 19, a. 2-9.

[147] II. II. Q. 19, a. 2; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I.

[148] Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trid. L. XIII. c. 10. Palmieri tries to
weaken the force of this argument; see Tract. de Pœnit. Thesis XXX. p.
331 ss.

[149] “They [adults] dispose themselves for justification when, being
urged and supported by God’s grace, receiving faith by hearing, they
approach God of their own free will, believing that to be true which
is revealed and promised by God, and especially this, that the sinner
is justified by God through His grace, through the redemption in Jesus
Christ; and while they acknowledge their sins, they are led by fear
of the divine justice, of which they have a wholesome dread, to the
consideration of God’s mercy, and thence are encouraged to hope, so that
they trust that God will be gracious to them for Christ’s sake, and they
will begin to love Him as the source of all justice.” Sess. VI. cp. 6;
cf. can. 3: “If any one say that a man without previous inspiration of
the Holy Ghost and without His help can believe, hope, love, and do
penance as is required in order to attain the grace of justification, a.
s.”

[150] Cf. _Proœmium_ to the Fourth Session _de s. Pœnitent. sacram._:
“Although the œcumenical ... synod in its decisions on justification
(Sess. VI.) has repeatedly spoken in the same urgent manner of the
Sacrament of Penance on account of its intimate connection with the
matter in hand, yet none the less,” etc.

[151] Sess. XIV. cp. IV.

[152] The words at the beginning of the fourth chapter: “_non solum
cessationem a peccato et vitæ novæ propositum et inchoationem et_ ...”
need not of necessity be understood of perfect contrition, which is
discussed later. In this place it is more likely that the question of
contrition in general is under discussion.

[153] Compare § 12.

[154] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 442. Objic. III; Scavini, Theol. Moralis
Universa, T. IV. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. I. n. 23; Mazzotta,
l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Aertnys, l. c. n. 177;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sect. II. cp. I, § 2, n. 288 et
289; Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakrament. II. Bd. Fünfter
Teil, Zweiter Abschn. Erst. Hauptst. § 7, p. 86 ff. III. Aufl.; Müller,
l. c. Lib. III. Tr. II. § 114; Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral. § 243;
Tappehorn, Anleitung zur Verwalt. des Buss-Sakramentes, § 11, p. 89 ff.
This doctrine was adopted by all the schools after the Council of Trent,
as Benedict XIV affirms, De Syn., etc., Lib. VII. c. 13; and Alexander
VII published in a decree of May 5, 1657, that this view _hodie inter
scholasticos communis videtur_.

[155] Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Adnotat. n. 188 et 189.

[156] S. Thom. De Spe, a. 3; and St. Francis de Sales writes: “La
pénitence nait dedans l’amour et plusieurs fois la pénitence venant en
nos esprits l’amour vient en la pénitence.” Theot. L. II. c. 20.

[157] Reuter, S.J., Theol. Moral. P. IV. n. 2, § 3; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n.
442 in fine.

[158] Compare Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5.

[159] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. De attritione existimata,
n. 51 ss.

[160] Matt. xv. 19.

[161] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 449; Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I.
cap. II. art. I. n. 12; Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 666;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. De attritione, n. 77 ss. Cf. Suarez, De
Pœn. Disp. 9, Sect. 1; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 4, n. 93.

[162] Cf. Busenbaum, Theol. Moral. Tract. IV. (de Sacram. pœnit.) c. 1,
d. 11, resolv. 1 et 2; Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sect. II.
§ 2, n. 284; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.

[163] Theol. Mor. p. IV. n. 247.

[164] Cf. Vasquez, De Pœnit. Q. 86, Dub. 4, de proposito; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Tract. V. De Sacram. Pœn Sect. II. § 2, n. 284.

[165] Theol. Moral. l. c. n. 286; similarly Aertnys, l. c. Cf. Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. cp. I. n. 141; Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 4, Sect. 2, n. 7.

[166] S. Alph. l. c. n. 439; Reuter, Theol. Mor. p. II. n. 36 et p. IV.
n. 247.

[167] De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect. 2, n. 10. Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 5, n.
137; S. Alph. L. VI. n. 443; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n.
105-110.

[168] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. (Sacr. Pœnit.) Sect. II. § 2, n. 287;
Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. III. art. 2, n. 179; Scavini, l.
c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. 1; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. Tract. De
Sacram. Pœnit. n. 452, Q. VII; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. 3,
cp. 3, § 1, n. 2.

[169] Ezechiel xviii. 21.

[170] C. 22.

[171] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 449, Dub. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.
cp. I. De dolore venialiam, n. 96-105.

[172] Suarez (De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect. 6, n. 7) and Lugo (Disp. 14, n.
48) teach clearly that a penitent who confesses (venial) sins for which
there is no sorrow, along with others without indicating the known defect
of sorrow, would sin venially by mixing up proper and improper matter.
Their view, however, is singular and is combated by other theologians.
In particular Mazzotta (l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. § 2, v. f.)
gives the correct solution to the objection that to confess venial sins
for which there is no sorrow, is a lie and a nullifying of the Sacrament,
because the act of confessing these sins is _exercite_ a declaration of
sorrow for them. He replies that, even granting the objection, it is in
any case a lie in a matter of less moment, and so at the most a venial
sin, whence there can be no nullifying of the Sacrament. He denies also
that such confession is a lie, for, in accordance with the feeling and
practice of the faithful, the penitent by such confession of venial
sins states _exercite_ that he is sorry for _some_ of them and wishes
to be absolved; with regard to the rest he reveals them for his greater
humiliation and shame, or in order to disclose the state of his soul,
just as he may also reveal his evil inclinations and irregular desires,
though they are not sins. Even when a penitent is sorry only for the
greater sins, and yet says at the end of his confession, “For these and
all my other sins I am sorry,” he tells no lie, for these words have no
other meaning in their ordinary acceptance than this, that he is sorry
for all the sins from which he can and wants to be absolved. It is just
the same when a man confesses many venial sins and is sorry only on
account of their great number, for he can easily see a peculiar malice
in the habit of committing such venial sins, and on that account can
more easily excite himself to sorrow for them. Mazzotta, l. c.; Lugo and
Suarez, l. c.; Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. Lib. I. Pars II. Q. I. art. 4, n. 20;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 290, 291.

[173] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 3, art. 1; Stotz, Tribunal Pœnit. l. c. art.
IV. n. 16, 17; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 110.

[174] S. Thom. Quodlib. 1, art. 9 (_non modo imprudentiæ sed stultitiæ
eum morem arguit_); S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 433; Stotz, l. c.; Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 116 s.

[175] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 3, art. 2; Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral.
§ 243.

[176] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 111; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Tract. V. Sacr. Pœn. Sect. II. cp. I. § 2, n, 285, 3. On the subject of
the _dolor quo non doleas_ see Ballerini, l. c. n. 114 s.

[177] This is in accordance with the Roman Ritual, which, Tit. III. cp.
I (Ordo ministrandi Sacr. Pœnit. n. 17), says: “After the confessor has
heard the confession ... he should try by earnest exhortation to move the
penitent to contrition.”

[178] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 447; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I:
_an dolor ordinandus ad sacramentum_, n. 120-129; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect.
II. cp. I. § 1, n. 280; Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Mor. Tract. de
Sacr. Pœn. art. I. § 1, n. 447, Q. 7; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect.
4, n. 29; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 37-40; Vindic. Alph. p. 935, n.
108 et pp. 411-418; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. III. art. II.
n. 179, Q. 4.

[179] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 446; H. Ap. Tract. 16, n. 20.

[180] Cf. Tamburini, Method. conf. Lib. I. cp. 3, § 4; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Sect. II. cp. I. § 1, n. 281.

[181] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. l. c. n. 448; Baller. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.
cp. I. n. 129 ss.; Aertnys, l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 282; Mazzotta, l.
c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. q. I. § 3.

[182] Müller (l. c. Lib. III. Tract. II. § 116) founds his advice as to
renewing the act of sorrow on the rule _in praxi tutius est sequendum_,
since it is a case of securing the validity of a Sacrament. He is in
error, however, for the other (affirmative) opinion hardly deserves to
be considered probable on account of the very weak grounds on which it
rests. We must at the same time remember that the penitent in this case
is certainly justified, and that he has fulfilled the divine precept of
demanding direct absolution for all his sins when he confesses his sins
in accordance with the first opinion.

[183] Compare § 42; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. This doctrine is pushed still
farther, and it is taught that a man may be absolved several times from
sins, even though he has confessed them or other sins two or three times
without renewing his contrition, so long as he has not revoked the
contrition, and so long as it remains habitual and virtual. This is not
to be understood as though the absolution may be given after the lapse
of weeks and months on the strength of a single act of contrition; this
would be a very doubtful proceeding, since the virtual continuance of the
sorrow which is required is not to be understood of the mere habitual
disposition of the heart, but only of the virtual existence which may
still intentionally unite the sorrow with the absolution. Cf. Tamburini,
l. c. Lib. I. cp. 2, § 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 282.

[184] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 447, Nota a.

[185] Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. I. Adnot.

[186] Cf. Stotz, l. c. art. VI. n. 114.

[187] Cf. Scavini, l. c. Adnotat. n. 191, and Trucchi, Metodo practico
per la facile e sicura amministrat. del Sacr. della Penit.

[188] Sess. XIV. cp. IV.

[189] De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 52 s.

[190] Ballerini points out particularly that the older theologians,
as Petrus Lombardus, St. Thomas, Blessed Albert, Scotus, Durandus,
were quoted without reason as upholders of this view, for, though they
insisted on the necessity of some sort of purpose of amendment, they made
no distinction between a formal and a virtual purpose. Cf. Bellarmin, De
Pœnit. Lib. II. cp. 6. Moreover, Suarez, Cajetan, Bonacina, Henriquez,
and Gregory of Valentia are wrongly quoted in favor of this view; they
taught the very opposite. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ, l. c. ad n. 462.

[191] The purpose of amendment must be universal, and, as we shall show
later, with a universality distinct from that of the contrition. If the
sorrow proceeded from a particular motive which _nec actu nec virtute_
extended to the other sins, it is clear that the resolution to amend
implied in such sorrow could hardly be universal. If, for example, a man
conceived sorrow for the sin of impurity only on account of the peculiar
ugliness of that vice, the purpose of amendment contained in such a
sorrow would suffice indeed so far as it applied to impurity, but not
for other sins, because the motive is a particular one not extending to
other sins. If, then, the sorrow is based on some particular motive, an
explicit purpose of amendment must be made extending to all sins.

If the sorrow proceed from a general motive applicable to all sins (if a
man, for example, is sorry for having committed a serious theft because
it is a grave offense against God), it is impossible that he should be
willing to offend God again by any other grave sin, for in consequence of
his act of contrition he hates and detests whatever offends God. Whoever
heartily detests his sins from a universal motive will be slow ever
to fall into them again; for no man will do that which he hates as an
offense against God. “But when the Council of Trent speaks of the purpose
of amendment, it speaks of it in the same way as of the resolution to go
to confession and make satisfaction, and this need not be explicit. As it
is sufficient that this resolution be virtual, it is also enough to make
a virtual resolution of reforming one’s life and sinning no more; it is
always a real resolution, though it be only a ‘virtual one.’ And since
eminent authorities interpret the Council of Trent in this manner, we may
without misgiving follow their decision.” Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q.
II. art. III n. 88 ss.

[192] Ballerini, Notæ ad n. 462, pp. 348-356 (Ed. Romana, 1887), and Opus
Theolog. Morale, l. c. (_An sufficiat propositum virtuale_), n. 143-155.

[193] This is also the doctrine of the Council held at Rome in 1725 under
Benedict XIII in the Lateran Basilica.

[194] Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 20, Sect. 4, n. 33.

[195] S. Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. n. 450.

[196] The Turin edition of his Moral Theology defends the doctrine
held in the present work, and shows that the holy Doctor was always
expending labor on the text of the Moral Theology and correcting it up
to the end of his life. Aertnys, moreover, declares (appealing to S.
Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. I. n. 53, Lib. III. n. 700, and Lib. VI. n.
505) that there is no obligation of repeating the confession; and Marcus
(Institut. Moral. Alphons. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. cp. I. art. II.
n. 1680) adopts Scavini’s view: _In praxi_ no one need be disturbed in
this matter, since it can hardly happen that a really contrite penitent
will omit the formal purpose of amendment. Müller (l. c. § 117) requires
for the validity of the confession a formal resolution to amend, and
maintains that confessions made without the formal resolution are to be
repeated.

[197] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 298. Cf. Stotz, l. c. n. 92.

[198] Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 32, Sect. 2, n. 2.

[199] Cajetan, Card. Sum. V. Confess. ad 12 qualit.

[200] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 7, n. 238.

[201] Compare Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœnit, Sect. II. cp. I. §
3, n. 295.

[202] S. Thomas, III. Q. 84, a. 10 ad 4. Compare S. Bonaventure in IV.
Sent. Dist. 14, p. 1, d. 4; S. Alph. Praxis Confess. cp. 1, n. 20; Theol.
Mor. Lib. VI. n. 451.

[203] Tit. III. cp. I. De Sacr. Pœn. n. 19.

[204] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459.

[205] Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Pœn. n. 451. Cf. Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 162.

[206] Medulla Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Sacr. Pœn. cp. 1.

[207] Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 1822.

[208] This may be regarded as the _communis theologorum doctrina_;
indeed many theologians (St. Alphonsus mentions among others _loco
citato_ Laymann, Sporer, Suarez, Henriquez) hold that a penitent who
believes (_credat_) that he will fall again can always and absolutely
be considered as being in good disposition. They do not mean by this a
despair of reform, but rather a grave fear which may be consistent with
a firm hope in the aids of grace and a fixed determination of never
sinning. Besides, as Lacroix explains, the phrase _si credat_ must be
taken in a mitigated sense and be understood of the misgiving natural to
a careful person. It is the duty of the penitent to take courage and free
himself from this misgiving. Compare Lacroix, l. c., and Gury-Ballerini,
l. c. Tract. de Pœn. P. II. cp. I. art. II. n. 461, Nota a, and Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 159 ss.

[209] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c.

[210] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 451; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q.
II. art. V. n. 102 s.

[211] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4; S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 451.

[212] The reason for this doctrine is very clearly put in Lugo’s
_Responsa Moralia_, Lib. I. dub. 29, where he answers the difficulty
how a man may make an efficacious and sufficient act of contrition with
respect to one species of sin, excluding other species. The learned
author remarks:—

1. That if a man repent of his sins from a universal and general motive,
he embraces of necessity all his sins in this act of contrition. If,
then, such a motive excite a man to repentance, he is of necessity moved
to shun all sin.

2. Such motives, however,—and this is a point well worth noticing,—may
excite contrition in a more restricted manner; for instance, the graver
the sins, the more they displease and offend God; hence a man may be
led to hate this excess of wickedness. In this case “the motive of the
contrition is not the offense of God as such, but that gravity of the
offense which is not found in other venial sins.”

3. All this being now assumed, the difficulty remains whether a penitent,
for instance, who is contrite for slight lies, must at least virtually
repent of other venial sins of another species, which are graver
than, or at least as grave as, that class of lies, or whether he can
have contrition sufficient for sacramental absolution for those lies
without repenting virtually of venial sins of another species as great
or greater. This may be the case if the formal motive of sorrow is a
particular one; for instance here the hatred which God, the Eternal
Truth, must have for lies. It does not hold if the sorrow proceed from
the motive of penance, for we could not hate anything as offensive
to God and at the same time be ready to offend Him in other matters.
The same holds true if we are really sorry for sin through fear of
hell-fire. “There are occasions, however, when the motive of sorrow may
be particular—when, for instance, a man is sorry for the irreverence done
to God because it is an injury to His divine Majesty (such a motive is
called a motive of religion); he is not obliged even virtually to repent
of graver or equally grave venial sins of another species, except they
involve an irreverence equally incompatible with the virtue of religion.”

Lugo also shows that a similar case happens when a man repents of some
particular species of sin, _e.g._ of lying, not on account of the
disobedience to God which every sin includes, but on account of the
disobedience involved in transgressing a special command of God, or
rather on account of the opposition of these sins to the special law of
God which forbids us to violate the truth.

Moreover, he adds that the same holds true in regard of the special
temporal sufferings which God inflicts for particular species of sins,
_e.g._ disrespect to parents.

[213] S. Alph. Praxis Confessarii, n. 71; Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 449.
Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, a. 1.

[214] Compare above, § 3.

[215] Sess. XIV. cp. 2.

[216] Compare § 46.

[217] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. I. § 2, n. 313,
314; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. art. 3, n. 457.

[218] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 495-497; H. Apost. Tr. 16, n. 28.

[219] See §§ 47, 54.

[220] Philothea, Part I. Chap. 4.

[221] Suarez, Disp. 28; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. I. Q. II. art. II.

[222] Ecclus. vi. 14 ss.

[223] Compare Philothea, _ibid._

[224] Cf. Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. I. Q. II. art. II. n. 116-124.

[225] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[226] Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus.

[227] Cf. Declar. S. C. S. Off. 28 Feb. 1633 et 10 Feb. 1668; item S. C.
Prop. Fid. 1633 in Collectan. S. Sedis, n. 476-478.

[228] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. XV. Sect. V; Aertnys,
l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 196.

[229] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 328.

[230] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 429, 493; Suarez, Opusc., Lugo, Coninck, etc.,
Konings, Theol. Mor. T. II. Tract. De Sacram. Pœn. cp. II. art. II. n.
1358.

[231] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479; H. A. n. 35; Gury-Ballerini (l. c.
II. n. 503) and Lehmkuhl (l. c. n. 328) object to binding the dumb to a
written confession; _a fortiori_ the confessor may refrain from putting
questions in writing with a view of making the confession more complete.
If, however, a dumb person desire to confess in writing, the confessor is
at liberty to comply with his wish.

[232] The following well-known definition is much like the above: the
confession is materially entire in which nothing is wanting which _per se
loquendo_ ought to be confessed, _i.e._ when nothing is wanting which _de
se_ forms the necessary matter of confession; the confession is formally
entire when nothing is wanting in the accusation through the fault of the
penitent. Cf. Konings, l. c. n. 1359.

Moralists are not of one mind on the definition of formal and material
integrity; some understand by material integrity the avowal of all
mortal sins not yet confessed which occur to the mind (after a careful
examination of conscience, as Müller expressly adds, l. c. 120), since
they form the _materia necessaria sacramenti et confessionis_; formal
integrity, on the other hand, consists in the avowal of all mortal sins
which here and now (_hic et nunc_), taking all the circumstances into
consideration, can and ought to be confessed. Thus Gury, l. c. Edit.
Romana (Ballerini) et Edit. Lugd. (Dumas), n. 468 (where, however, the
author is not quite consistent, cf. n. 470); while on the other hand
the Edit. Ratisb. as also Laymann, De Pœnitent. cp. 8, n. 5, and Stotz,
l. c. Lib. I. P. III. Q. II. art. IV; Scavini, l. c. Tom. IV. Tract.
X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. II. n. 38, have the above definition. We give
the preference to it on grounds which will appear in the course of the
treatise; moreover, it is more common and is in harmony with the teaching
of the Council of Trent. The words which St. Alphonsus employs in the
definition of material integrity seem to favor the latter view. Cf. Lib.
VI. n. 465.

[233] Sess. XIV. cp. 5, De Confessione.

[234] Sess. XIV. can. 7.

[235] L. c. cp. 5.

[236] Trid. l. c. cp. 5. Compare Palmieri, l. c. Thes. XXXIII; Gury, l.
c. II. n. 469; Aertnys, l. c. n. 185; Lehmkuhl, l. c. cp. II. (Confessio)
art. I. n. 302.

[237] It is to be noted that in speaking of the classification of sins
we abstract from the _physical_, we confine ourselves to the _moral_
species which indicates the peculiar _malice_ of the sin; for instance,
the ordeal by fire is _physically_ distinct from the ordeal by water, but
_morally_ they are in the same species, because the malice is the same in
both sins. Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, Sect. 2, n. 3.

[238] Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[239] Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp.
II. art. I. § 2, n. 307.

[240] _Cum actu interno a quo procedit facit unum complete individuum
in genere moris, actus enim externus se habet veluti materia, internus
veluti forma unius operationis humanæ._ Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp.
I. Q. IV. cp. III.

[241] Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. Tract. V. De Confess. Q. VI. n. 317;
Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. III.

[242] The effect of a mortal sin is _omne id quod consequitur ad totum
peccatum completum in individuo_; _e.g._ the wish to kill is externally
completed _in esse peccati_ by the giving of poison; the death which
ensues is called the _effectus peccati_.

[243] Mazzotta, l. c. cp. III. with Lugo, Salm., Tamb., etc. Cf. Marc, P.
Cl., Institut. Moral. Alphons. Tom. II. P. III. Tract. V. De Pœnit. n.
1692.

[244] This is _communis theologorum doctrina_. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib.
VI. n. 466; Reuter, l. c. Tract. V. De Confess. n. 312; Lugo, Disp. 16,
Sect. 2.

[245] Lehmk. l. c. cp. II. Confessio, art. I. § 1, n. 305.

[246] S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 20. Compare Casus Bened. XIV, pro anno
1744, mens. Jun. cas. 3. A man confesses that for a month he has
been harboring evil thoughts against his friend, and during the same
time entertaining impure thoughts about a woman; the question is put
whether such a confession is sufficiently complete. The answer is
given _distinguendo_: 1. If the penitent has occasionally recalled his
unfriendly wishes or impure desires, and has not fallen into them very
often, the confession is not sufficient. 2. If he has never retracted
in either case and has fallen frequently into those sins every day, the
statement will suffice as it stands.

[247] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, n. 573; Sporer, Theolog. Moral. Sacram.
P. III. cp. III. Q. IV. n. 452.

[248] Lugo, l. c. n. 574; Sporer, l. c. n. 453; Reuter, l. c. n. 313.

[249] Lugo, l. c. n. 575; Sporer, l. c. n. 453.

[250] Cf. Lugo, l. c., and Sporer, l. c.

[251] Disp. 16, n. 146 et seq.

[252] L. c. 1060, etc.

[253] De matrimon. L. 7, Disp. 27 et seq.

[254] Editio in Germania V (Ratisb. 1874), P. II. Tract. de Confess. n.
492.

[255] Gury-Ballerini, Ed. IX (Romæ, 1887), P. II. Tract. de Confess. n.
492, Q. 12 et P. I. n. 286.

[256] L. c. Tract. V. De Sacram. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confess. art.
I. Sect. 2, n. 310, and P. I. L. I. Tract. II. cp. II. art. II. n. 385,
and cp. III. art. II. n. 455.

[257] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 88, art. 3; Suarez, l. c. n. 1 et seq.,
Tract. VI. l. 5, c. 3, n. 2 et seq.

[258] Cf. Gury, ed. Ratisbon, l. c.

[259] Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 298.

[260] Gury-Ballerini, I. n. 286, and Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 466 sqq.

[261] Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 213 sqq.

[262] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœn. Sect. II. cp. II. Conf.
art. I. § 2, n. 308, and Th. M. Gen. Tract. I. cp. III. § 2, n. 31.

[263] Propos. 58 damn.

[264] See § 48, The Duty of the Confessor with regard to asking
Questions. Compare §§ 64, 65.

[265] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. De Confess, cp. 3;
Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 485.

[266] De considerat. II. 13.

[267] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 186, art. 9 ad 3.

[268] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 2.

[269] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 5; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 59-63;
Gury-Dumas, I. n. 153; Scavini, I. n. 734.

[270] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 1 et 2; S. Alph. l. c. n. 54;
Gury-Dumas, l. c.

[271] On this controversy see, in addition to S. Alph. Lib. VI. n.
468-471 and Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, Sect. 3, Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l.
c. cp. I (de integr. mat.), n. 352-365.

[272] De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 115.

[273] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. P. II. cp. III. art. 3, n. 192.

[274] P. II. De Pœnit. cp. 5, n. 47.

[275] S. Alph. l. c. n. 468 ad prob. 3 ex ratione.

[276] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. P. II. cp. 2, art. II. n. 484; Aertnys, l. c.

[277] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 484, nota c.

[278] S. Alph. l. c. n. 473 and H. A. n. 30; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI.
Disp. 1. Q. IV. de Conf. cp. 4. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. (de
peccatis dubiis) n. 374.

[279] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 58.

[280] Compare in particular Sanchez, Suarez, Lugo, Laymann, Sporer, etc.

[281] Nearly all the later theologians hold this doctrine. Ballerini
(Not. ad Gury et Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 377) calls the opinion that one
is obliged to confess _peccata dubia_ downright false. Cf. Müller, l. c.
Sect. 121; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 317; Gury, l. c. n. 477; Marc, l. c. Tract.
V. De Pœnit. Diss. II. cp. II. art. II. Sect. l, n. 1695, etc.

[282] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 317.

[283] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Mazzotta, l. c. De oris confessione, cp. 4.
St. Alphonsus declares very precisely that St. Thomas’ doctrine on this
matter is not against us: “He does not speak of a penitent who after
diligent examination of conscience comes to the conclusion that his sin
is doubtfully mortal and then lays aside his doubt in accordance with
the rule that there is no certain obligation where it is question of a
doubtful transgression; he is rather considering the case of the penitent
who is certain that he has performed a sinful act but cannot decide
whether it was gravely sinful or not; such a penitent is, of course,
obliged to take pains to remove the doubt, and if he cannot settle he
must submit it to the judgment of his confessor, whose office it is to
distinguish between sin and sin.” S. Alph. l. c. n. 474 (fin.).

[284] S. Alph. l. c. n. 475.

[285] Habert, t. 3 de consc. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 476.

[286] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 476; Reuter, l. c. P. IV. n. 306 ss.

[287] Cf. Lacroix, l. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 612; S. Alph. l. c. n. 476.

[288] S. Alph. l. c. n. 478. Cf. H. A. De Sacr. Pœnit. cp. 3, n. 34.

[289] Lugo, l. c. Disput. 16, n. 52, n. 87, n. 78.

[290] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. n. 480, and Op. Theol. Mor. l.
c. n. 380 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 318; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V.
P. II. cp. 3, art. 3, n. 193, Q. 4; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. T. II Sect.
121, is wrong in calling the affirmative opinion _communissima et vera_.

[291] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 319. Cf. Aertnys: _In praxi, præsumptio amovet
dubitationem_; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 379.

[292] Suarez, Bonacina, Lugo, Salmanticenses, Lacroix, etc.

[293] S. Alph. l. c. n. 477. Thus the holy Doctor does not express a
general obligation of confessing the sins in this case. In the _Quæst.
rec. reform._ n. 16 he appeals from Suarez, Lugo, etc., to Concina,
who, along with others, teaches the obligation of confession _cum dubia
sit confessio et certa sit confessionis obligatio_ (see _Vindiciæ
Alphonsianæ_). Meanwhile, as Ballerini shows, St. Alphonsus in the Roman
edition of his Moral Theology of the year 1757, which is dedicated to
Benedict XIV, releases the penitent from the obligation of repeating the
confession _ut etiam communiter dicunt Suarez, Sanchez, Lugo_, etc.,
etc. And Lugo writes (De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 58): _Communiter docent
omnes non teneri_ (_quempiam_) _ad confitendum illud_ (_peccatum_) _quod
probabiliter judicat se ... confessum jam fuisse_. Cf. n. 59, where the
same subject is treated of: _nihil frequentius apud theologos_, etc.
Hence the _sententia communis_ of theologians is that within the given
limits there is no obligation, so that Ballerini justly exclaims: “Who
would not rather abide by St. Alphonsus when he follows those great
theological luminaries than when he clings to Concina!” “And has Concina
thereby taught anything new? Indeed, since the whole question rests on
a general principle, are we to rate so low the common teaching of such
great theologians as to grant the privilege of clearer intuition to the
judgment of the rigorist Concina?” Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. n. 479.
Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 382 ss.

[294] S. Alph. l. c. n. 478; Sanchez, l. c. Lib. I. c. 10, n. 69; Suarez,
l. c., etc. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 193, Q. 4.

[295] Cf. S. Antonin. Summa, P. III. Tit. 14, c. 19, § 14.

[296] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 321 ss.; Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnitent. Art.
III. Confessio, n. 187, Q. 1, and Acta S. Sedis, Vol. 4, p. 320. Cf. the
note of Fr. Haringer, C.SS.R., to St. Alphonsus’ Moral Theology, Lib.
VI. Tract. IV. De Pœnit. n. 488; Wilmers, Lehrbuch der Religion, Fourth
Edition, 1886, Vol. IV. § 74, p. 674.

[297] Cf. _Appendix ad Concil. plen. Baltim._ II. in _Collect. Lac._ T.
III. col. 550.

[298] See § 27.

[299] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. De Oris Confess. cp. 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 323
s.; Gury-Baller. II. De Pœn. n. 494 s.

[300] Lugo, De Euchar. n. 126; Suarez, Disputat. 66 s. 3; Lacroix, n.
539; Salmanticenses, De Euch. c. 7, p. 3, n. 30, etc.

[301] Sess. XIII. cp. 7.

[302] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. III. De Euchar. cp. II. Dub. II.
n. 257; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 325; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De
Euchar. Art. III. n. 98, Q. II.

[303] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 495; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 326.

[304] Sess. XIII. cp. 5.

[305] Cf. Gury, l. c. n. 497; Aertnys, l. c. n. 104; and Lehmkuhl, l. c.
art. III. n. 327.

[306] S. Alph. l. c. L. VI. n. 485.

[307] Reuter, Theol. Moral. Quadripartita, Tom. IV. Tract. V. Q. IX. n.
331, exempl.

[308] Reuter, l. c. n. 331, exempl. 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 329.

[309] Compare § 20, Confessions of the Dumb who are Able to Write.

[310] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 644; Prax. Conf. n. 104; H. Ap. n. 155;
Gury-Ballerini, l. c. II. n. 503, Not.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q. III.

[311] Aertnys, l. c. n. 195, Q. I; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 330.

[312] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 195, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 332.

[313] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 331; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. III. Q. II. nn. 68
et 69.

[314] S. Alph. l. c. n. 488; Aertnys, l. c.; Elbel, Theol. Moral. Vol.
III. P. IX. De Pœnit. n. 150. See § 72, Treatment of the Scrupulous in
Confession.

[315] S. Alph. l. c.; Stotz and Aertnys, l. c.

[316] L. c. n. 331. Cf. St. Alph. l. c. n. 487.

[317] Cf. Aertnys, Lib. III. Tract. VIII. De octavo Præcepto Decalogi, n.
534, Q. 2.

[318] Lugo, l. c. n. 398.

[319] In IV. dist. 16, Q. 3, a. 2.

[320] Disp. 34, Sect. 2.

[321] Disp. 16, n. 398 sq.

[322] Q. 91, dub. 3, a. 2.

[323] C. 8, n. 128.

[324] P. IV. n. 321.

[325] L. c. n. 489.

[326] S. Alph. l. c. 490; Gury-Baller. II. 500, Q. II.

[327] De Pœnit. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. 7, § 1 _ab initio_.

[328] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, l. c.; Tamburini, Meth. conf. 1. 2, c. 9, § 2.

[329] Thus Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 334 ss.; cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q.
10; Lugo, l. c. Ballerini, however, l. c. n. 499, Q. I, concludes thus
in his notes: Ergo, seclusis aliis incommodis, _integra manere videtur
obligatio_ circumstantiam illam tacendi quando ex ejusdem confessione
alterius infamia consequatur. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. (_de Complicis
manifestat._) n. 439-450.

[330] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 420; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 502; Lehmkuhl,
l. c. n. 338.

[331] Sess. XIV. cp. 5 et can. 7 (examen diligens).

[332] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 590-594; cf. Laym. Lib. V. Tr. 6, 8.

[333] L. c. n. 366.

[334] Mazzotta, l. c. Disput. I. Q. II. cp. I.

[335] Part II. cp. 5, n. 60.

[336] L. c. n. 311.

[337] Theol. Sacram. Tom. III. De Pœnit. n. 365.

[338] Instructio Pœnit. cp. II.

[339] Mazzotta, l. c.; cf. Suarez, Disp. 22.

[340] Mazzotta l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. cp. III. § 2, n. 186.

[341] Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. cp. III. art. III. § 2, n. 186.

[342] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 344.

[343] Cf. Stotz, _Tribunal Pœnitentiæ_, Lib. I. P. I. Q. I. art. 9,
_Praxis examinis pro Confessione_, and Lib. I. P. III. Q. III. art. 1 ss.
_Syllabus peccatorum_.

[344] Mazzotta, l. c. Disp. I. Q. II. cp. I (Lacroix); Reuter, Theol.
Mor. P. IV. n. 311; Sporer, l. c. n. 367.

[345] Compare Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, I Bd. I Tl. § 66.

[346] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. De Censuris, n. 960, Not. 1-4, also n. 430,
Q. 7; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430, in fine; Aertnys, l. c. De Censuris, n.
39.

[347] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 498, 499; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 607; Suarez,
Disp. 28, s. 2, n. 12 (_sententia communis_).

[348] Cf. §§ 63, 64, where the _recidivi_ are treated of, and Lehmkuhl,
l. c. Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. III. § 2, n. 347.

[349] S. Alph. l. c. n. 502; H. A. n. 44; Lacroix, l. c. n. 216; Lugo,
Disp. 16, n. 638; Elbel, n. 253, etc.

[350] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 502, dub. 2; also Suarez, Lugo, Vasquez,
Laymann, and other theologians.

[351] Suarez, Disp. 22, Sect. 6, and Lugo, Disp. 16, Sect. 15, n. 636.

[352] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 637, 638. Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22,
Sect. 6, n. 5; Coninck, Disp. 4, n. 45; Illsung, De Pœnit. Disp. 6, n.
152, etc.

[353] Aertnys, l. c. art. III. Confessio, § 4, n. 203, Q. 2.

[354] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 348.

[355] Silva, part 3, cp. 6.

[356] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. cp. 9. If the confessor is morally certain that
the former confessions were bad, he must unquestionably insist on their
repetition; if he has only doubts, he cannot impose on the penitent an
absolute obligation. _In dubio standum est pro valore actus._ Cf. S.
Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20; Segneri, Instr. pœn. cp. 15; Carol. Borom. Act.
Med. p. 877; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. II. § 70, S. 470, 2. Auflage.

[357] S. Alph. Praxis Confess. n. 22; cf. Aertnys, Theol. Pastor.
complectens Practicam Institut. Confessarii, P. III. cp. VIII. art. II.
n. 245.

[358] S. Franc. Sal. Oper. Ed. Paris 1669. Tom I. p. 914, n. 6.

[359] Benedict XIV. Const. Apostolica, 26 Jun. 1749, nn. 16, 17.

[360] Instruct. pœnit. cp. 16.

[361] Instit. catech. P. II. cp. 5, n. 11.

[362] Cf. Reuter, Neo-confessarim, P. III. cp. 2, n. 191; Müller, Theol.
moral. Lib. III. T. II. § 124.

[363] H. A. app. IV. § 1, n. 15.

[364] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20.

[365] S. Alph. Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 2.

[366] Marc, Instit. Morales, II. T. II. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. n.
1712.

[367] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 90-92.

[368] Cf. Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confess. l. c. art. II. n. 247.

[369] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 504; cf. Lugo l. c. Disput. 16, nn. 600, 640;
Benger, Pastoraltheologie, II. Bd. § 171, S. 479 (2. Aufl.).

[370] Praxis Confess. cp. I. n. 20, 4.

[371] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 64-70.

[372] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 425, H. A. n. 4; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16,
nn. 46-49; Aertnys, l. c. n. 200, Q. 2.

[373] P. Heilig, _Methodus Confess. generales ... excipiendi_;
Gury-Baller. l. c. II. Tract. de Sacr. Pœnit. n. 519; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Sect. II. art. III. nn. 346, 349; Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confessor. P.
III. cp. VIII. art. III.

[374] See § 24.

[375] See § 49.

[376] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 88-90.

[377] Leonard von Port Maur., Anleitung zur Generalbeichte; Benger,
Pastoraltheologie, Bd. III. S. 607-619 (1. Aufl.), Bd. II. S. 475-486 (2.
Aufl.); Schüch, Pastoraltheologie, § 320.

[378] Some experienced confessors advise to begin with these
commandments, because sins against holy purity are frequently the cause
of invalid confessions. Many penitents, however, would be shocked and
disgusted at such a proceeding.

[379] The greatest prudence should be employed in putting these questions
for fear of teaching evil or giving scandal. In this matter it is better
that the completeness of the accusation should suffer. For instance,
Ballerini disapproves of asking directly whether the accomplice is bound
by vows, since such cases are rare, and when they occur the penitent
would be certain to mention the circumstance spontaneously, while to put
such a question would frequently cause astonishment and give scandal.

[380] Aertnys, l. c. cp. 8, art. 4, nn. 251, 252; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 351;
Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 520; Heilig, Methodus Conf. gen. n. 40 ss.

[381] Sess. XIV. De Pœnit. cp. 8.

[382] S. Thom. _Amplius valet ad expiandum peccatum quam si proprio
arbitrio homo faceret idem opus._ Quodl. Lib. 3, Q. 14. Summa Theol.
Supplem. Q. 12-15; Suarez, De Sacr. Pœnit. Disp. 37 per 10 Sectiones,
Disp. 38, Sect. 1 and 2; Lugo, De Sacr. Pœnit. Disp. 24 per 5 Sectiones;
Billuart, Compend. Theol. Tom. VI. De Sacr. Pœnit. Diss. VIII. a. I.
6-8; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. Vol. V. Tract. X. Sect. V. cp. I. n.
478 ss.; Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, II. Tl. § 42, Die
Genugthuung, S. 538 ss.

[383] Sess. XIV. cp. 8.

[384] S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. nn. 506, 507; H. Ap. n. 47.

[385] Busenbaum, Medulla, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. cp. I. De Satisfact. Art.
I; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513; Lugo, Disp. 25, n. 50.

[386] Sess. XIV. cp. 8.

[387] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. II. cp. III. Satisfactio, n. 355.

[388] Rituale Rom. De Sacram. Pœnit.

[389] S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 15, a. 3.

[390] S. Alph. _cum communi sententia_. Lib. VI. l. c.

[391] S. Alph. _ibid._; Scavini, l. c. n. 383; S. Thom. Quodl. 3, a. 28.

[392] This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus _cum innumeris scriptoribus
contra paucos_ (n. 513).

[393] S. Alph. l. c. n. 524.

[394] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 512.

[395] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 356 (8).

[396] Homil. 43 in Matth. c. 23.

[397] Cf. Martin, Moral. S. 591.

[398] S. Alph. l. c. n. 516, H. A. n. 55; Sporer, l. c. n. 588.

[399] Cf. Rit. Roman. tit. III. cp. I. n. 25.

[400] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513.

[401] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 509, 510, 526; H. Ap. nn. 49, 50; Lugo, l. c.
Disp. 25, n. 60; Reuter, l. c. p. 4, nn. 591, 404; Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. nn. 489, 493.

[402] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 517, 518.

[403] Thus, among others, Lugo.

[404] Thus, among others, Suarez, Fillince, Segneri, St. Alphon. l. c. n.
518.

[405] Aertnys, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. cp. III. art.
IV n. 206, Q. 4.

[406] S. Alph. l. c. n. 514 (in fine).

[407] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. Appendix, n. 535. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 200;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 368.

[408] Summa Theol. P. III. tit. 17, s. 20.

[409] Instruct. Confess. cp. 20.

[410] Quodl. 3, a. 28; cf. Opusc. 65, § 4.

[411] Lib. VI. n. 510.

[412] S. Alph. l. c. n. 517.

[413] S. Alph. l. c. n. 521.

[414] S. Alph. l. c. n. 521; H. A. n. 57; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI.
Disp. I. Q. V. cp. 2.

[415] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, Sect. 5, n. 92; Sanchez in decalog. l. 4, c.
10, n. 21; Elbel, de Pœnit. n. 229.

[416] Mazzotta, l. c.; Gury II. n. 535; S. Alph. H. A. n. 57.

[417] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 364.

[418] Lib. VI. n. 523.

[419] Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 38, s. 8, n. 5; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, s. 3,
n. 39; Laymann, Theol. Mor. Lib. V. Tract. VI. cp. 15, n. 15; Lacroix,
Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1245, and many others.

[420] Mazzotta, l. c. Q. 5; cf. 2 Suarez, l. c. Disp. 38, s. 7. Lugo, l.
c. Disp. 25, n. 68, says that this doctrine is _verum et certum_, and is
a direct consequence of the teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV.
cp. 8); cf. Elbel, l. c. n. 227.

[421] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 515, 516; Mazzotta, l. c.

[422] Lugo, l. c. n. 77.

[423] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 25, nn. 107-110. Cf. Disp. 15, n. 107.

[424] L. c. n. 529, dub. III.

[425] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 366.

[426] S. Alph. l. c. n. 529, dub. I; Aertnys, l. c. n. 213, Q. I; Müller,
l. c. § 128.

[427] S. Alph. l. c. n. 529, dub. II; H. A. n. 61.

[428] S. Alph. l. c. n. 520; H. A. n. 59.

[429] H. A. Tr. 6, n. 33, in fine.

[430] S. Alph. H. A. n. 58; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 700, Q. 2.

[431] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. I. n. 369.

[432] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 7.

[433] Suarez, Disp. 16, s. 3.

[434] Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, cp. II. Thes. XVI. p. 172 ss.

[435] Trid. Sess. XXIII. cp. 15, reform.

[436] Ben. XIV. De Syn. Lib. 9, cp. 16, n. 7; Instit. n. 14 ss. et
Instit. 86; S. Carol. Borrom. Conc. Provinc. I. part 2 et VI. part 3, etc.

[437] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 546 ss.

[438] Cf. Palmieri, l. c. Thes. XVI; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. III. cp. I.
art. II. n. 374.

[439] Benedict XIV, Notificatione 9, n. 16; Scavini, l. c. Tract. X.
Disp. I. cp. 4, n. 96, nota 229. Cf. Decr. S. C. Concil. quoted by
Scavini. The same author goes on to observe that by a decision of the
Rota a _causa sufficiens_ for a new examination may be _libitum et sola
quies episcopi_ when there is question of priests who have been examined
by his predecessors; as for those whom he has himself examined, he
is justified in calling them to account again _quando adest vehemens
suspicio de illorum imperitia_, nor is it necessary that judicial proof
of this _imperitia_ be forthcoming. Decr. 15 Jan., 1667 et 22 Sept.,
1668. Cf. Bened. XIV, De Synod. diœc. l. 13, cp. 9, n. 21.

[440] Scavini, l. c. n. 98, nota 230; S. Alph. l. c. nn. 555-558; H. A.
n. 81.

[441] Sess. XXIV. cp. 8 de reform.

[442] Scavini, l. c. n. 231; Benedict XIV, Quoniam, 28 Maj., 1746.

[443] Acta S. Sed. Vol. I. p. 681, Resp. 6 Mart., 1694, 29 Jan., 1707, in
Frising.

[444] Bouix, De Parocho, p. iv. cp. 14.

[445] Gobat, l. c. Tract. 7, n. 45; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. not. ad n. 552.

[446] After the Council of Trent, a lengthy controversy arose among
the theologians as to which bishop ought to give the approbation to
the confessor; many thought it was the confessor’s bishop, others the
penitent’s; with regard to exempted Regulars, it seemed probable that
a single approbation, without restrictions from any bishop at all, was
sufficient, since they are not the subjects of the bishops; this had
been granted by Clement VII and Sixtus V; moreover, Gregory XIII gave
Religious, when on a journey, the power of hearing confessions, provided
they had the sanction of their Superior and approbation from any bishop;
this privilege, however, was not to be made use of in the towns or places
where the bishop was actually residing, without the latter’s permission.
Innocent XII, however, withdrew all privileges contrary to his bull. S.
Alph. l. c. n. 458.

[447] Trid. l. c. and the Constit. “Superna,” Clem. X, etc.

[448] S. Alph. l. c. n. 552; H. A. 75.

[449] S. Alph. l. c. n. 570; H. A. n. 83. Lehmkuhl is of opinion that
a priest who is convinced of the bishop’s consent to his demand for
approbation, may give absolution validly, but not licitly, when the paper
granting the faculties has been signed and sent off, so that it cannot be
reclaimed or changed except by a message directed to the priest himself,
or when the bishop has given the paper containing the approbation to the
priest’s messenger, who has not yet delivered it. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 380,
nota.

[450] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 543, 582; H. A. 76, 132.

[451] Confirmed by Greg. XIII, 1 Dec., 1582.

[452] Cf. S. Alph. and the other authors quoted above. Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c., _Quid sit approbatio et a quo petenda_, n. 546 ss.

[453] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 544; H. A. n. 77.

[454] S. Alph. n. 551; H. A. n. 75.

[455] Whenever both jurisdiction and approbation are granted on account
of the office which the priest exercises as a subject of the bishop, they
lapse on the office being surrendered. Hence a secular priest who has had
faculties to hear confessions in some diocese in virtue of a chaplaincy
or other appointment, is deprived of these faculties on being changed
to another diocese unless the bishop is distinctly understood to wish
to continue them. The same holds true for a Religious who has received
faculties from his local Superior; his faculties lapse when he is removed
to another diocese and do not revive merely by his return to the scene of
his former labors. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 381, nota 1.

[456] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. I. art. III. n. 379. Gury, II De Sacram.
Pœnit. P. III. cp. I. art. II. Append. n. 557. Scavini, Tract. III.
Disp. I. cp. 3, art. 3, 519. Aertnys on Approbation says: _in sensu
quo Concilium Tridentinum usurpat, approbatio dicenda videtur facultas
audiendi confessiones ab Episcopo facta Sacerdoti qui idoneus judicatus
est_—and he supposes that Regulars do not, as many maintain, receive
jurisdiction from the Pope. He appeals to the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar.,
1866, also Extrao. comm. cp. 2 de sepult ex clement., cp. 2 de sepult.
and Extrao. comm. cap. un. de judic., where the Pope gives jurisdiction
to a Regular only when it has been refused by the bishop, whence it would
seem that jurisdiction proceeds from the bishop except in the cases
where he refuses to give it. Still it remains to be proved that Regulars
do not receive jurisdiction from the Pope through their Superiors and
approbation from the bishop. Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V. in Germania, Nota
Editoris ad n. 557.

[457] Cf. Thesis 13 ab Alexand. VII. proscript.

[458] Const. Superna.

[459] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 382; cf. Gury, l. c.; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 583 ss.

[460] The case is solved by Aertnys, who quotes a decree S. C. Ep. et
Reg. 2 Mar., 1866 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. I. p. 683): “_An religiosus non
approbatus juxta leges proprii Ordinis a suo Superiore vel ipso invito
cum sola facultate ordinarii valide excipiat confessiones sæcularium._”
R. “_Affirmative._” It is needless to say, of course, that such conduct
is illicit.

[461] In accordance with the Rule of Boniface VIII, l. 5, tit. 10, cp. 2
in 6ᵒ.

[462] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 383.

[463] Cf. Gury, l. c. n. 555, Q. 13, Edit. Roman. Whether a bishop can
forbid his diocesans to make their confessions outside his diocese under
pain of invalidity.

[464] Gury, cf. l. c. Edit. Ratisb. ad nn. 554, 555, also Nota Edit.

[465] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 569: _spectato consensu Episcoporum et
consuetudine_.

[466] Zeitschrift für kathol. Theol., Innsbruck. 1881; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n.
385.

[467] See Müller, l. c. § 135, n. 5. Müller also appeals to St.
Alphonsus; Lugo, Disp. 20, Sect. 5, nn. 70, 72; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp.
30, Sect. 1, n. 4; and many others.

[468] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. ad n. 555, Q. 14; Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. vol. V. l. c. cp. II. nn. 613-627, _Appendix-Dissertatio_: De
absolutione peregrinorum, pp. 769-855, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 379 et 384.

[469] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf.
nn. 613-627.

[470] Decr. 4 Apr., 1900.

[471] Lessius, De justitia et jure, l. 2, cp. 29, nn. 65 and 68.

[472] A priest, for example, who has obtained a parish by simony, has,
according to canon law, an invalid title. But if he was appointed to the
parish by a lawful bishop, he has an “apparent title.”

[473] Cap. “infamis,” caus. 3, Q. 7 (c. 1).

[474] S. Alph. l. c. n. 572.

[475] In forming a judgment as to whether _error communis_> or _error
paucorum_ is in question, we must not consider if many or few seek
administration of the Sacrament of Penance from one possessing no lawful
power, but if many or few have been aware of the absence of power.

[476] S. Alph. n. 572.

[477] Instit. 84, n. 22.

[478] S. Alph. l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. ad n. 548, Q. II; Aertnys, l.
c. n. 226, Q. III; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 636-639.

[479] Lib. VI. nn. 571, 573.

[480] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 432; Lacroix, l. c. L. VI. P. I. n. 110 ss.;
Lessius, l. c. L. II. cp. 28, nn. 67 et 68; Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. n.
53.

[481] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 572; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 548, Edit.
Ratisb. l. c.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Jurisdict. nn.
628-636.

[482] Lehmkuhl adds the following case: when a priest has, _bona fide_,
began to hear a confession, and a doubt has arisen in his mind as to
whether the period of his approbation has expired, there being no
possibility of satisfying himself upon the point, this confession, begun
and considerably advanced, may be concluded if great inconvenience would
otherwise result to confessor and penitent; the confessor must, however,
inform the penitent that the absolution administered was of doubtful
validity; but if he could, without great inconvenience to either party,
break off the confession, he must do so. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 390, nota 1.

[483] L. c. n. 432.

[484] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 390 and 391.

[485] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 573, 600; H. A. n. 91, with Suarez, Gobat,
Elbel, Sporer, etc.

[486] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. c. 7, where reserved cases are spoken of,
and the following is decreed: “That no one may perish, it has always
been the usage of the Church that there should be no reservation at
the hour of death, and, therefore, that all priests may absolve any
penitent from any sins and censures whatever.” These words of the Council
are variously interpreted, some believing that all priests, without
exception, receive jurisdiction from the Church, others believing that
it is necessary to affix a limitation: when no other approved priest
is at hand to whom the dying person could easily and without danger
confess; these latter, therefore, limit the words “_omnes sacerdotes_”
on account of the intention expressed in the preceding words: “_ne quis
pereat_,” and the other ones: “_ut nulla sit reservatio_,” maintaining
that these words indicate that there is question of priests who otherwise
possessed jurisdiction, namely, “when no otherwise approved priest is
at hand.” According to the first interpretation, and the opinion based
upon it, a _sacerdos simplex_ (therefore _non approbatus_) could _valide_
administer absolution to a dying person in presence of approved priests.
A great number of theologians defend this opinion (Ballerini mentions
twenty-five in his notes to Gury, l. c. ad n. 551, Q. 8, and in his Opus.
Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf. n. 581), and St. Alphonsus
does not venture to reject it, though, in spite of the reasons advanced
by these authorities, he maintains that a _simplex sacerdos_ can only
absolve a dying person when no other approved priest is at hand, and
he is supported in this opinion by the authority of the Roman Ritual,
which (De Sacram. Pœnit. sub init.) teaches that: when danger of death
threatens, and an approved priest is not present, any priest can absolve
from all sins and censures. This opinion of St. Alphonsus is the most
general, though, according to Ballerini and Lehmkuhl, probability is not
to be denied to the other opinion, in view of the authority of so many
theologians, and in accordance with the rules of interpretation.

[487] Such a priest may _valide_ absolve a dying person if no other
priest be present, for the Tridentine says: _quilibet sacerdos_ may
absolve _in articulo mortis_. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 560 circa fin.;
Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 550. But it is not difficult to see why
_deficiente alio sacerdote_ is added here; for the _communicatio in
sacris_ with heretics and with excommunicated persons who are to be
avoided (_excommunicati vitandi_) is a grave sin, unless when excused
by necessity; a penitent, therefore, would himself commit a grave sin
if he should solicit absolution from a heretical priest, or one to be
avoided (a _vitandus_), unless no other priest should be at hand. To ask
the Sacrament of Penance from such an unhappy priest, and to receive it,
even when it is allowed, appears, however, to be in any case a dangerous
proceeding; evil influence at the most important moment of human life,
and also scandal to others, are to be feared.

[488] See § 46.

[489] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 562, 563.

[490] There is _periculum mortis_ when the illness is such as may,
according to the judgment of the physicians, and experience, result in
death, _sive id absolute, idest generatim pro omnibus verificetur, sive
respective propter circumstantias hujus infirmi_. Ballerini, l. c.

[491] S. Alph. l. c. n. 561.

[492] Const. Clem. VIII, Rom. Pontif. 1599.

[493] Decret. Clem. VIII, Sanctissimus.

[494] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. de Pœnit. Disp. 2, Q. 1, cp. 3, § 2.

[495] S. Alph. l. c. n. 575; Aertnys, l. c. n. 232, II. Q.; Lehmkuhl, l.
c. n. 395, ad II. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 640.

[496] This freedom, as Lehmkuhl remarks, exists for the members of the
Society of Jesus, so that they are not obliged, when on a journey, to
seek a priest of their own Order. Certain theologians, however, are
unwilling to concede this to all Orders. Benedict XIV, in the Brief “Quod
communi,” 30 March, 1742, allowed the Capuchins to confess to others not
of their Order, attaching the conditions, however, that the priest to
whom they confessed must be approved; the same condition was laid down
for members of the Augustinian Order on June 3, 1863 (Acta S. Sedis,
vol. 1, p. 677), and the S. Pœnitent., 18 April, 1867, the S. C. Ep. et
Regul., 3 July, 1862 and 27 Aug., 1852 (see Bucceroni, Enchirid. pp.
127 et 128), demand the same condition for the dispersed Regulars. From
which it is to be concluded that the _Sacerdotes idonei_, of whom the
privileges of Sixt. IV and Innoc. VIII speak, must be approved priests.
Cf. Aertnys, l. c. This seems also to hold for the congregations under
_vota simplicia_, who possess the privilege of exemption from episcopal
jurisdiction, as this regulation is based not upon the solemnity of the
vows, but upon the said exemption.

[497] This follows from the Bull Clem. X, Superna, 21 July, 1670,
already mentioned, partly printed in Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. ad n. 559.
According to the Council of Trent, all those lay persons are free from
episcopal jurisdiction who belong to the household of (real and exempted)
Religious Orders. But in order that the servants of a monastery may enjoy
this privilege, the following conditions must concur: (1) they must
really serve the religious of the monastery; (2) they must live within
the inclosure at the expense of the monastery; (3) they must be under
obedience to the religious of the Order; this obedience need not be the
obedience of the religious; it must, however, be such as servants owe to
their masters. Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. II. de ref.; Barbosa, de Parocho
cum animadvers.; Giraldi, p. 2, cp. 20, n. 12; Gury, l. c. ad 562.

[498] Cf. Bouix, de Regul. T. II. p. 5, Sect. 3, c. 2.

[499] Cf. Bouix, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 564, nota.

[500] Although, according to the rules of interpretation, by the word
_Moniales_ in the Papal Bulls, only _Moniales_ in the strict sense are to
be understood, that is, the members of a Religious Order approved by the
Holy See, who observe the Papal inclosure; yet Benedict XIV has expressly
declared, in his Bull “Pastoralis curæ,” that the ordinances of the Trid.
Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. which contain a part of the present
discipline, only apply _claustralibus monialibus_.

[501] This is clear from a note of the S. C. Ep. et Reg. to the
constitutions of the Sisters of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin
(23 July, 1860): “As regards the confessors, the Constit. Bened.
XIV, Pastoralis curæ is to be observed, in accordance with which the
confessors are to be appointed by the respective bishops.” In the
constitutions of the Sisters of Nazareth, who have no inclosure, the
same congregation decreed on 27 Sept., 1861: “As regards the _Confessor.
extraordin._, the ordinances of the Council of Trent are to be observed,
as also the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curæ.” Cf. Müller, l. c. S.
140.

[502] Cf. Const. Inscrutabili, Gregor. XV; Const. Superna, Clem. X (21
June, 1670); Const. Pastoralis Officii et Pastoralis curæ, Bened. XIV.

[503] Cf. Declarat. S. C. C. ad dub. 7 et 8, post Const. Inscrutabili, in
Bullario posita.

[504] Scavini, Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, art. 2, n. 123. Ferraris ad v.
Moniales, art. 5, n. 49.

[505] Gury, Ed. Ratisbon. T. II. l. c. ad n. 565.

[506] Cf. Decret. S. C. Ep. et Reg., 20 Sept., 1642.

[507] Const. Bened. XIV, Benedictus Deus, 25 Dec., 1750.

[508] Cf. Trident. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and Const. Bened.
XIV, Pastoralis curæ, 5 Aug., 1748.

[509] All these precepts are contained in the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de
Regul. et Mon. and the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curæ. Pope Leo
XIII, quoted above, has renewed the same _quoad confessarios ordinarios
et extraordinarios_ by a Decretum S. Congregat. Ep. et Regul. de
conscientiæ ratione Confessariis extraordinariis, etc., d. 17 Dec., 1890,
and exhorts _Præsules_ and _Superiores_, “_ne extraordinarium denegent
subditis Confessarium quoties ut propriæ conscientiæ consulant ad id
subditi adigantur, quin iidem Superiores ullo modo petitionis rationem
inquirant aut ægre id ferre demonstrent. Ac ne evanida tam provida
dispositio fiat, Ordinarios exhortatur_ (_sc._ _Sanctitas sua_), _ut in
locis propriæ Dioeceseos Sacerdotes facultatibus instructos designent, ad
quos pro Sacramento Pœnitentiæ recurrere eæ facile queant_.” This decree
was occasioned by precepts in the constitutions “_plurium Congregationum,
Societatum aut Institutionum sive mulierum, quæ vota simplicia aut
solemnia nuncupant, sive virorum professione ac regimine penitus
laicorum_.”

[510] Cf. Declar. S. C. C. ad dub. I. poss. Const. Inscrutabili et
Constit. Clem. X, Superna.

[511] “Reservatio est: ablatio seu nonconcessio jurisdictionis ad
absolvendum ab aliquo peccato, quamvis circa alia concedatur.” Ballerini,
Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 657.

[512] Sess. XIV. cp. 7, can. II. Cf. Perrone, De Pœn. cp. 5; Zenner,
Instruct. pract. P. 1, cp. II. § 44; Palmieri, Tract. De Pœn. Thes. XVII.
p. 178 ss.

[513] Const. Bened. XIV, Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ, 1 June, 1741.

[514] Const. Clem. VIII, Religiosæ Congregationes, 19 June, 1594, et
Urban VIII, Nuper a Congregat. 16 Oct., 1640. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 580,
693; H. A. Tr. 13, nn. 8, 9; Ferrar, ad v. Regular, art. I. nn. 67-69.

[515] S. Alph. l. c. n. 583; H. A. n. 130. These specified cases are the
following: 1. Apostasy from the Order, even when the habit of the Order
is still retained. 2. Secretly absenting one’s self from the monastery
at night. 3. Three forms of superstition: _Veneficia_, _incantationes_,
_sortilegia_. 4. Possession of property against the vow of poverty,
which constitutes a mortal sin. 5. Theft (to the extent of mortal sin)
of goods belonging to the monastery. 6. _Lapsus carnis voluntarius
opere consummatus._ 7. Perjury before a lawful judge. 8. _Procuratio,
consilium vel auxilium ad abortum fœtus animati._ 9. Killing or wounding
or severely beating any one. 10. Forging the handwriting or the seal of
the officials of the monastery. 11. Maliciously obstructing, delaying,
or opening written communications from Superiors to subordinates, or
subordinates to Superiors. The confessors of Regulars must know these
cases, so that, should one of them occur, they may send the penitent
to the Superior or to a confessor possessing the necessary faculties
for absolution; or that they may, according to circumstances, procure
for themselves the necessary faculties for this case. But if a Regular
priest confesses to a secular priest or to a priest of another Order (for
example, on a journey—see above), it is disputed whether this confessor
possesses the power to absolve from the reserved cases of the monastery.
For Capuchins sojourning out of their monastery the power has been given
by Benedict XIV (30 March, 1742) and confirmed by Pius IX (1852), with
the understanding, however, that the penitent appears before his Superior
or the confessor appointed by him as soon as possible and receives
absolution anew. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 575-583.

[516] S. Alph. n. 579; Bened. XIV, De Synodo, Lib. V. cp. 5. The Pope
says: “Although in this matter no absolute and universal standard can
be established, the general exhortations and decrees which the Sacred
Congregations at Rome have issued upon the subject may serve as a guide:—

“On January 9, 1601, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars
issued the following exhortation to the bishops: In order that the
bishops who are empowered to reserve may not unduly burden their subjects
and confessors with reserved cases, they are all exhorted to reserve
only a few cases, and those only which they believe themselves bound to
reserve in the interests of Christian morality, and for the welfare of
the souls committed to them, according to the condition and character
of each diocese. This exhortation was repeated on Nov. 26. On the same
day, the same Congregation issued a circular letter to the bishops, in
which the following exhortations are addressed to them: The bishops
should take care that they do not indiscriminately reserve those cases
to which the greater excommunication is by law attached, absolution for
which is reserved to no one, except when the special reservation of such
cases appears necessary on account of frequent scandal, or some other
urgent ground; nor those cases in which absolution is granted only when
restitution has been made, or that performed which the penitents are
bound to perform; nor should they reserve those cases which, although
great sins, are yet matters of lesser importance, and of frequent
occurrence amongst uneducated people; such as cases of _damnificatio
injusta_, etc. In reserving sins of the flesh they must proceed with
great circumspection on account of the danger of scandal, especially
when suspicion might fall upon persons either from their going to
extraordinary confessors, or frequently recurring to the bishop. Finally
the bishops are admonished to adopt and adhere to that course of action,
which, after mature consideration of the customs, natural disposition and
tendency of the neighborhood and people appears to them to be the best
before the Lord. The decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council
are couched in a similar strain. This Council ordered a bishop who had
accumulated too many reserved cases to choose ten or at most twelve of
the more considerable offenses, as he thought proper, and to strike out
the rest.”

[517] Reuter, Theol. Mor. De Pœnitent. n. 371. Cf. Stotz, Trib. Pœnit.
Lib. II. Q. 2, § 5, n. 64. Schmalzgrueber, l. c. Lib. I. Tit. 29, n.
31, and many others. This is, in fact, the doctrine which is generally
received as valid amongst the older moralists. Many of the later ones,
it is true, teach that a stranger cannot be absolved from a sin which
is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses, falsely assuming that
the priest who hears the confession of a penitent coming from a strange
diocese is restrained by his own bishop from absolving. See Ballerini,
Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 573, and Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservat.
Casuum, n, 709 ss.

[518] If the strange penitent confesses a sin which is reserved in his
own diocese but not in that in which he confesses, he can undoubtedly be
absolved by a priest of a Religious Order, in virtue of the privilege
granted by the Pope to Regulars, Const. “Superna,” Clem. X. As regards
secular priests, the older theologians maintain that they could not
absolve the stranger in this case (they appeal to the Caput Si Episcop. 2
de Pœnit. in 6ᵒ), while the later theologians unreservedly allow secular
priests to participate in the privileges of the priests of Religious
Orders; for there exists, they say, a general custom that strangers,
in this case also, are absolved by secular priests, and as the bishops
approve of this proceeding, the strangers would be _valide et licite_
absolved. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 573, notæ; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 239, in both cases decides otherwise Princ. III; and
Marc, l. c. n. 1771, Quæsit. III.

[519] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 3, Sect. 2 in fine;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 404; Ballerini adds, “_si Episcopus expresse invitus
sit_.” Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 573, Q. 5, nota II in fine. Cf. S. Alph. n.
589.

[520] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403. Aertnys teaches otherwise, l. c. n. 239.

[521] L. c. n. 602.

[522] Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 570.

[523] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 583; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403; Aertnys, l. c.
III. 2, n. 239.

[524] Sess. XIV. cp. 7. Cf. Decr. S. C. Conc. 26 Nov., 1602.

[525] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservatione
Casuum, n. 661 ss.

[526] L. c. n. 600.

[527] S. Alph. l. c. n. 600; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 405; Aertnys, l. c. n.
242.

[528] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582, with Suarez, Lugo, Tamburini, and others.

[529] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582.

[530] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad n. 571, Q. 1, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c.
cp. II. nn. 724-735.

[531] This reason is plainly not a valid one, since all theologians,
including the opponents of this view, admit that reservation directly
limits jurisdiction; these latter, however, declare that certain
circumstances are required to make a sin reserved, and that it is
questionable if the knowledge of the reservation is such a circumstance
or not.

[532] This is not convincing; for as soon as the penitent confesses a
reserved sin, the confessor will tell him of the reservation, and thus a
check will be put upon the relaxation of morality for the future; for the
sins that have been already committed, neither one opinion nor the other
can offer any preventive remedy.

[533] The Theol. of Salamanca, Tr. 18, cp. 6, n. 12; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp.
20, n. 11; Sanchez, De Matrim. l. 9, Disp. 32, nn. 17, 18; Sporer, De
Pœnit. n. 735; Mazzotta, Tract. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 2, § 2, and many
others; see Gury-Ballerini, l. c.

[534] L. c. n. 407. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. This may at least
constitute a rule for most dioceses. We must, in fact, assume that the
bishop has reserved sins in the manner in which they are generally
understood by the confessor to be reserved, unless it is shown by
positive evidence that the bishop adopts the opinion of those theologians
who teach that a reservation is not incurred by one who is not aware of
its existence. Till the later controversy, however, it was always the
general conviction that reservation was understood to be incurred by
one who did not know of it; this is testified by many authors. We must,
therefore, assume that the legislator so understood his law. But if,
with the knowledge of the bishop and without protest on his part, it be
anywhere taught that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved for one who
does not know of the reservation, this may be considered a sufficiently
valid indication that the bishop does not wish to bind those who are
ignorant of the reservation. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 571.

[535] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 580, 581, dub. 2; Lacroix l. c. n. 1614; Gury,
Ed. Ratisb. V. n. 571.

[536] Cf. Archive für Kirchenrecht (1871), XXV. 148. The other sources of
the Papal reserved cases are the Council of Trent, of which the censures
still remain in force which were directly imposed by this Council and are
not touched by the Bull “Apost. Sed.,” and those Papal decrees which have
been issued for the imposition of censures since the appearance of the
Bull “Apost. Sed.,” that is, after the year 1869.

[537] The two Papal cases spoken of above in which the sin is reserved,
are, therefore, not quoted in it, but are in force.

[538] They are (1) those which, in an especial manner (_speciali modo_)
are reserved to the Pope, (2) those which are _simply_ reserved to the
Pope, (3) those which are reserved to the bishops, and (4) those which
are reserved to no one. The two first classes are to be kept apart from
each other, for a person possessing the faculty to absolve from the Papal
cases does not necessarily possess the faculty to absolve from the cases
which are _speciali modo_ reserved, if this addition is not expressly
made. By virtue of the _jus commune_ (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 6) it
belongs to the bishop to absolve from the second class if the cases are
secret.

[539] Jan. Bucceroni (S.J.), Commentar. de Constitut. Ap. Sed. (Romæ,
1888); Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. Tract. I. II. III.; Lehmkuhl,
Theol. Mor. P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n. 920 ss.; Avanzini, De Constit.
Ap. Sed. Commentarii (Rom., 1872); Heiner, Die Kirchlichen Censuren.
Paderb. 1884, S. 52 ff.; Kirchenlexikon (2. Aufl.) Apost. Sed. Vol. I. 1,
1125 ff.

[540] There are twelve of them in the Bull “Ap. Sed.” which were all,
with the exception of the tenth, contained in the Bull “Cænas,” but not
all _eodem modo_; to these is added the thirteenth ex Constit. Pii IX,
Romanus Pontifex, 28 Aug., 1873.

[541] Cf. Pruner, Moraltheol. p. 121; Heiner, a. a. O. § 53, p. 53.

[542] Cf. S. Thom. II. II. Q. 11, art. 1; Suarez, De virt. Theol. Disp.
19, Sects. 1 and 5.

[543] Pastoral Theology, a. a. O. § 57, p. 158.

[544] Cf. Suarez, De Fide, 20, 2, 18.

[545] Regula juris in VI.

[546] The _gravitas materiæ_ is here to be estimated both _ex re quæ
tractatur_ and _ex quantitate_; if the exposition or defense of a
heretical doctrine is read, the half, or the third, of a page suffices.

[547] Some authors, as d’Annibale and Melata, restrict the censures to
printed books.

[548] But if these lesser publications are parts of a book of the same
contents, they are (subject to the above-mentioned conditions) in the
category of forbidden books, especially if they are bound together in
one volume. Periodical publications, therefore, of which every separate
number is regarded as a part of the whole yearly issue, fall under the
reserved censure; but not newspapers, as with these there is no question
of parts belonging to each other, each separate number being regarded as
complete in itself. (Act. S. Sed. Vol. VI. fasc. 5, p. 9, Append. 3, p.
133.)

[549] It remains to be remarked that the ten rules of the Index itself
are not touched by this ordinance of the Bull, but that the _Excomm.
lat. sent._ attached at the end of the regul. X falls away, as it was
not directly attached by the Council of Trent itself, but by Pius IV.
Consequently the reading and keeping of heretical books, or of such as
are condemned by a decree of the Congregation of the Index remains,
indeed, still forbidden in the future, but the punishment of the now
specially reserved excommunication is incurred only in two cases: (_a_)
when the author of the book is an apostate or a heretic, and the book,
moreover, not only contains heresy, but _ex professo_ defends it,
and (_b_) when the latter, be the author who he may, is, with exact
specification of the title, forbidden by a Papal Brief, or a Bull, or
an Encyclical Letter. Although the Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum
of Leo XIII (25 Jan., 1897) has considerably mitigated the prohibitions
of Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, in regard to the
reading and propagating of noxious literature, nevertheless the warnings
against the intellectual and moral dangers of bad books, which the
Index Congregation addresses to Catholics, retain their full force. The
confessor should of course remember that the censures attached to the
reading of forbidden books are applicable only where there is a conscious
violation of the prohibition; furthermore, that not only ignorance, but
also a general _consuetudo_ lessening the danger to faith or morals,
constitute a mitigating circumstance which demands wise discrimination
on the part of confessors who apply the laws of the Index. Few Catholics
in English-speaking countries know what books are on the Index, and that
fact itself is a reason for moderate judgment.

[550] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. nn. 295, 284, 292.

[551] This does not add a new condition for incurring the censure leveled
against the _impedientes exercitium jurisdictionis_, but only introduces
another class of the same offenders (as Avanzini and Heiner, p. 87,
assume).

[552] As to the disputed question whether one is included amongst the
_cogentes_ who denounces and prosecutes a cleric before the civil court,
so that the judge, in consequence of this denunciation, is officially
compelled to summon the accused cleric, and pronounce sentence upon
him according to the provisions of existing law, we refer the reader
to Heiner, who discusses this point. According to him, the _sententia
communior et fere communis_ teaches that such a one falls under the
censure, while the negative opinion is not improbable. Moreover, a
declaration of the S. C. Inq. 23 Jan., 1886, favors this latter opinion.
Cf. Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VII. Tract. 1, n. 82; d’Annibale (Melata) Manuale
Theol. Mor. p. 260.

[553] Cf. Heiner, a. a. O. S. 124 ff.; Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 973.
Aertnys, l. c. n. 88.

[554] Heiner, a. a. O. S. 127 ff.

[555] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 945. The bishop can _jure_ absolve, if the
_percussio_ was _levis, etiam publica_ (thus the vicars-general also
can absolve), and when the _percussio_, no matter whether _enormis_,
_gravis_, or _levis_, is a _delictum occultum_. The _Prælati regulares_
can, _ex privilegio_, absolve their subordinates from this censure.

[556] By a decree of the S. O. 20 Aug., 1894, the American societies of
Odd Fellows, Good Templars, and Knights of Pythias were condemned; v.
Bucceroni, Supplementum bibliothecæ; Ferraris, s. v. Sectarii; S. C. Inq.
12 Jan., 1870. Cf. Gen. Index _Ecclesiastical Review_.

[557] Heiner, a. a. O. S. 226; Aertnys, l. c. 103.

[558] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXII. cp. 11 de ref.

[559] By the name “_Ordinarii_” are to be understood not only the bishops
and capitular-vicars, but also vicars-general, _Prælati regulares_
and others who possess episcopal jurisdiction. The _confessarii
regulares_ also can absolve from this class of excommunication in _foro
conscientiæ_. Pius IX has only revoked the privileges to absolve _a
casibus R. Pontifci reservatis; ex sententia probabiliori_. Regulars can,
_vi complurium privilegiorum a S. Sede concessorum_, absolve from the
censures reserved by the _common_ law to the bishops. Cf. S. Alph. l.
c. n. 99, and De Privil. n. 100. Those censures are excepted which the
Ordinaries have reserved to themselves.

[560] It is _verus abortus_ which is here punished, that is, _fœtus
immaturi ejectio adeo ut mors ipsius inde secuta sit_, therefore, not the
_partus præmaturus fœtus vitalis_, when procured for just motives. Pius
IX abolished the old distinction between _fœtus animatus et inanimatus_.
It is the _procuratio abortus_, moreover, that is punished, that is, _per
se sive per alias interpositas personas_—_studiose_ or _ex industria_.
The censure is, therefore, not incurred by one who employed the means
without the effect resulting. Compare Heiner, a. a. O. S. 243 ff.;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 109; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 192; Lehmkuhl, Theol.
Mor. P. I. Lib. II Tract. II. n. 840 ss.; P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n.
970.

[561] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. de ref. cp. 6, “Liceat” and the Constit.
Apostolicæ Sedis Pii IX.

[562] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. n. 84. Corpus jur. can. cp. “Eos qui” de
sent. excomm. in 60. Whether bishops and others possess still greater
powers, is to be gathered from the special faculties which the Apostolic
See may have granted them.

[563] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservat. cas. n.
772 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 411, ad II. Concerning the privilege of the
Mendicants as regards the absolution from the _Casus Episcopal._, and
from the _Casus qui Episcopis tantum a jure reservatur_, see Ballerini,
l. c.

[564] Formerly, in accordance with the prescription of the canon law,
the teaching universally held was that (_a_) one who is prevented
during a very long time, or always (five years or longer) from going
to the Superior or his delegate, is absolved by a subordinate priest
without any further obligation, and (_b_) one who is prevented for a
long time (from six months to five years) is absolved, with the duty of
presenting himself before the Superior when the obstacle is removed,
while one who is prevented only for a short time may not be absolved
from reserved sins; but if necessity urges _hic et nunc_, absolution
for the non-reserved sins can be given him, so that the reserved sins
may be indirectly blotted out, the obligation of obtaining absolution
from the reservation or censure from the Superior or delegated priest
remaining in force. This theory was based upon the assumption that he
who was not able to appear before the Pope was not bound to employ any
other means of communication (a letter, for example) unless this were
expressly prescribed by the legislator. Moreover, on July 8, 1860, in
answer to the question: Are penitents who are prevented from going to
Rome in person bound to seek absolution from reserved cases at least
by letter or through the agency of another? the S. C. Officii replied
that the decision of approved authorities, especially of St. Alphonsus
of Liguori, should be adhered to. Now the latter teaches (Lib. VII.
n. 89) as _sententia probabilior et communis_, that one is not bound
to this. On June 23, 1886, another line of conduct in this matter was
prescribed by the S. Officium. The questions there put were: 1. May one
positively adopt and act upon the teaching that the absolution from
reserved sins and censures, also from those _speciali modo_ reserved to
the Pope, devolves upon the bishop, or upon any approved priest, when
the penitent finds himself unable to go to the Pope? 2. If the answer
to this question be in the negative, is one obliged to communicate by
letter with the Prefect of the Penitentiary with regard to all cases
reserved to the Pope, if the bishop has not a special Indult (the hour
of death excepted), in order to receive the faculty to absolve? To
these questions the above-named Congregation returned the following
answer sanctioned and confirmed by the Pope (30 June, 1886): Ad I. With
regard to the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the
appearance of the apostolical constitution of Pius IX which begins with
the words “_Apostolicæ Sedi_,” _Negative_. Ad II. _Affirmative_; but in
the really more urgent cases in which the absolution cannot be deferred
without danger of great scandal or disgrace, as to which the confessor
is answerable to his own conscience, the absolution can be administered,
_injunctis de jure jungendis_, also from the censure _speciali modo_
reserved to the Pope; under pain, however, of “reincidence” in the
same censures (that is, under pain of again incurring the censures) if
the person absolved does not, at least within a month, and through the
confessor, apply to the Holy See. (Linzer Theolog. prakt. Quartalschrift,
1887, S. 380. See Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 410; Müller, l. c. § 145; Bucceroni,
Enchirid. Morale et Supplementum. Compendio Theol. Mor.; Gury-Ballerini,
Commentar. IV. p. 224 ss.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n.
664, Nota p. 356; Aertnys, l. c. De Censuris, n. 27.) On this Lehmkuhl
remarks: “The rule laid down by the Apostolic See is clear. It does not
distinguish between reserved cases with censure and without censure, and
to follow it is now everywhere allowed, without waiting for a further
promulgation, in _all Papal_ reserved cases; indeed it seems to be
becoming a general rule.” (L. c. n. 413.) Ballerini adds the remark:
_Ergo_ (1) _urgente rationabili causa, quilibet confessarius absolv’d a
censura, censuræ autem absolutio non est nisi directa: cessante autem
censura cessat reservatio peccati, a quo proinde Confessarius directe
absolvit. Absolutio proinde, quæ in casibus urgentibus diferri non posse
dicitur, est absolutio directa. Jam vero vides_ (2) _heic de absolutione
indirecta a peccatis reservatis, quia in casibus urgentioribus
succurri potest necessitati pœnitentis ne verbumquidem fieri: Nimirum
cum necessitati pœnitentis succurrendum est, absolutionem directam a
reservatis dandam esse et hunc esse Ecclesiæ sensum supposuerunt Patres._

[565] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 584, Praxis Confess. n. 80. But see
Ballerini on this point. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 664.

[566] Lugo, l. c.; Ballerini, l. c. n. 694.

[567] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 586; II. A. n. 134.

[568] Laymann, L. V. Tr. 6, c. 13; Lugo, Disp. 29, nn. 188 et 20, n. 141;
Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 30, s. 4, n. 8; Busenbaum, l. c. n. 105; Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 688, 689.

[569] Schneider, _Manuale Sacerdotum_ contains formularies for the
request.

[570] S. Alph. l. c. n. 584.

[571] Lib. VII. n. 88.

[572] Cf. Mazzotta, De Pœnit. Q. 3, c. 3, § 1.

[573] See Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 667 ss.; S. Alph.
Lib. VI. n. 265.

[574] Disp. 31, Sect. 4, n. 14, et seq. and n. 16.

[575] Suarez, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. n. 581, Notæ; Aertnys, l. c.
n. 244, Q. II.

[576] Cf. Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 753 ss.; Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 581,
Q. 10, et Vindiciæ Alphons. pp. 572-578.

[577] Cf. Prop. 59 damn. ab Innoc. XI; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 595;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 743.

[578] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 600, Q. 2; Gury, II. n. 581, Q. II.

[579] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 601; Scavini, Tract. X. Adnotationes, 236. Cf.
Bucceroni, Jan. Commentarii De Casibus reservatis, Romæ, 1889.

[580] In the _first_ constitution addressed ad _Episcopos Lusitaniæ_, the
Pope describes and condemns the crime of inquiring after the name of the
_complex_; in the _second_, addressed to the same bishops, he decrees the
punishment for the transgressors of the command, and prescribes the _Ordo
procedendi_ against them; in the _third_ constitution he extends the two
former decrees to the whole Church.

[581] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 500, Notæ.

[582] Lugo, Disput. 16, nn. 432 sq.; Ballerini, Not. ad Gury, II. n. 502;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 340; Aertnys, l. c. 248, Q. I and II. Although St.
Alphonsus (Lib. VI. n. 492) admits that the penitent is sometimes obliged
to make known the _complex_ in order to avert a great evil, yet he dares
not maintain, in view of the strict prohibition of the Pope, that the
confessor is ever allowed to ask the name of the _complex_. He has not
sufficiently considered the word _passim_—and the other words, _doctrinas
veras et sanas male applicando_—in the constitution of Benedict.

[583] Constit. Benedicti XIV, “Sacramentum Pœnit.,” 1 June, 1741, et
Const. “Apostolici muneris,” 8 Feb., 1745; Constit. Pii IX, “Apostolicæ
Sedis,” 12 Oct., 1869. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentarius in Constitutionem
Benedicti XIV, “Sacram. Pœnit.,” Romæ, 1888; Pars altera, pp. 106-141.

[584] Cf. Declar. S. Pœnitent. 16 May, 1877.

[585] Cf. Constit. “Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ,” 1 June, 1741, Benedicti XIV.

[586] St. Thomas, Supplem. Q. 20, Art. 2, ad 1; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 555.
Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad 587; Gury, Edit. Ratisb. Notæ ad n. 587;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 249.

[587] _Cum jurisdictionem in illud crimen nullam sacerdos complex
habeat._ Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.

[588] _Non habita ratione peccati illius_ (_in quo complex fuit_) _cujus
confessio ut quid impertinens consideranda erit._ Ballerini, Opus Theol.
Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absolut. complicis. n. 648.

[589] Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c.

[590] Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absol. compl. n.
654.

[591] Cf. C. Eos qui 22, De Sentent. Excomm. in VI; C. Ea noscitur 13, De
Sent. Excomm., et C. Quamvis 58, eod. tit.

[592] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 655.

[593] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. II. Tr. I. De Censuris, Sect. II.
n. 937.

[594] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 554.

[595] S. Alph. l. c. Cf. Declar. S. C. Inq. 28 May, 1873, in Acta S. Sed.
Vol. 10, append, p. 345. Aertnys, l. c. n. 249. Some wrongly exclude the
_sermones impudici_; the most that can be urged for such a view is that
there might be a doubt, _num fuerit peccatum mortale ex utraque parte_,
and, on account of such a doubt, the _causa complicitatis_ which the law
requires may the more easily be absent. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 935.

[596] This results from the tenor of the Bulls “Sacrament. Pœnitent.” of
Benedict XIV and “Apostolicæ Sedis” of Pius IX. A simple, non-approved
priest is, _per se_, to be preferred to the _sacerdos complex_ (if no
defamation arises), but a _sacerdos publice suspensus, excommunicatus_,
is not to be preferred, as it is not becoming to call such a one to the
dying person, and in this case it will scarcely be possible to avoid
suspicion.

[597] Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absolut. compl. n. 652
ss.

[598] Cf. Constitutio Benedicti XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” and Pii IX,
“Apostolicæ Sedis” (see § 43, p. 326).

[599] Cf. Berardi, Praxis conf. n. 1076.

[600] This question was before decided in the same sense by the S. Pœnit.
9 Jul., 1751, et Mart., 1878. Cf. Linzer Theol. Quartalschrift, 1882, p.
389. Revue theol. 1884, p. 363. St. Alphonsus had already (Lib. VI. n.
556) maintained, _eum, qui fingat absolutionem, non incurrere censuram_,
deducing this from the words of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, and
this interpretation of the Pope’s words was probable; this opinion of
the sainted teacher seems still to coincide with the words of the Bull
of Pius IX, which reads _Absolventes_. But the Sacred Penitentiary
has declared otherwise. The latter evidently here takes the word
_absolventes_ in the wider sense. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c.
n. 656. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 936, Nota.

[601] Cf. Decret. S. C. Inq. 27 June, 1866, and the Instructio S. C. Inq.
20 Feb., 1867. (Gury, Cas. Conscient. T. 2, n. 647.) Revue des sciences
ecclès. Vol. 18, p. 359.

[602] S. C. Inquis. 30 June, 1886, the decision which Leo XIII approved
and confirmed. Cf. Revue theolog. 1886, p. 378.

[603] The Sacred Penitentiary is accustomed to add a few clauses to its
Rescript, and it will be useful to explain them briefly:

1. Before the _confessarius delegatus_ can carry out the Rescript, the
occasion of again sinning against the sixth commandment _cum persona vel
personis complicibus_ must be removed. Hence the voluntary occasion (and
there is generally such in this case) must be physically removed, and a
necessary occasion morally removed. See § 63.

2. The _Confessarius complex_ must inform his _complex_, when he again
comes to him to confess, of the invalidity of the former confessions and
refer him to another confessor.

3. The duty of not again hearing the confessions of the _persona complex_
in the future will be imposed upon the _Confessarius complex_, when this
can be done without great scandal, and he would, therefore, sin gravely
if he should disobey this command. According to the number and gravity
of the cases the Penitentiary subjoins still severer clauses: (_a_)
those who _duas personas complices_ only once, or _unam bis a peccato
in re turpi absolvere attentaverint_ the Sacred Penitentiary orders
to give up their office as confessors. (_b_) But those _qui duas aut
plures personas sive unam ter aut pluries absolvere ausi fuerint_, it
commands to relinquish as soon as possible the office which they have
so misused, and that within the time which is to be determined by the
priest who administers the absolution, and which must not be prolonged
beyond three months, if they are simple priests; if they are parish
priests, the period may be longer, but not beyond six months. And if
within this time the priest is unable, for weighty reason, to give up his
office, the delegated confessor must again address himself to the Sacred
Penitentiary, and lay the whole matter before him; in the meanwhile,
however, the _sacerdos complex_ may not hear the confessions _cujuscunque
personæ complicis_. The Sacred Penitentiary will, for weighty reasons,
extend the period, and when, after a time, the unhappy priest seems to
have amended, will allow him to continue to exercise the duties of a
confessor.

4. The censures must be removed first, then the sins remitted, and
finally the dispensation from the irregularity is given. Cf. Aertnys, l.
c. n. 250.

[604] The Constitutions, “Cum sicut nuper,” of Pius IV, “Dilecte fili,”
of Paul V, “Universi Dominici gregis,” of Gregory XV, and in an especial
manner, “Sacramentum pœnitentiæ,” and “Apostolici muneris,” of Benedict
XIV, cover this matter. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentar. Constit. Benedicti
XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” P. I. pp. 1-150. Romæ, 1888. Ed. altera.

[605] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. IV. n. 564, sub 3.

[606] Cf. Decl. S. C. Inq. 11 Febr., 1661, dub. 2 et 9, et Instruct. 20
Febr., 1867, n. 2.

[607] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 704.

[608] Cf. Resp. S. C. Inq. a. 1661 ad dub. 5, Instruct. a. 1867, sub 2.

[609] Cf. Propos. 6 ab Alex. VII damn.

[610] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 676-680.

[611] Illud immediate (ante vel post) aliqui moraliter intelligi volunt,
ita ut, si physice tantum aliquid intermediat, seu intervallum adeo
breve sit, ut pro nihilo debeat computari, confessarius adhuc vi harum
clausularum sollicitans dicendus, ergo denuntiandus sit. Communis
sententia, quam sequitur St. Alph. (n. 677) illud stricte, _i.e._ physice
accipit. Ex praxi tribunalis S. Officii non censetur confessarius
sollicitasse immediate post confessionem, si sollicitatio post transactum
integrum diem accidet, dummodo nullo modo pravum animum suum in
confessione indicaverit. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 590. Opus Theol.
Mor. l. c. Appendix De Sollicitatione, n. 1094 ss.

[612] Illud: “occasione” duplici hic significatione sumitur: altera
opportunitatis, altera motivi.

[613] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 678; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n.
1098. Ballerini, Not. ad Gury, II. n. 590; Nouv. Rev. Theolog. Tom. 12,
p. 31 ss. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 976.

[614] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 678 and 679. Hinc sollicitans dicendus est
Confessarius, si mulier, nulla conventione præmissa prætextu confessionis
vocet ipsum in domum suam, qui cum accesserit, a muliere sollicitatus
turpiter peccat eum illa; nam juxta decreta S. C. Inq. sollicitatio etiam
a pœnitente emanare potest. Etiam sollicitans dicendus est Confessarius,
qui extra confessionem sollicitat feminam huicque renuenti ob timorem
diffamationis, suadet, ut fingens se ægrotam eum ad peccandum accerseret.
S. Alph. n. 679; vide Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1102.

[615] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 680. Ballerini, Opus. Theol. Mor. l. c. n.
1107.

[616] Compare the above-cited Constitutions of the Popes, and the
Instruction of the S. C. Inquis. 20 Feb., 1867.

[617] Cf. Instr. S. C. Inq. 1867, sub 11.

[618] Cf. Instruct. cit.

[619] Amort. Theol. Mor. De Pœn. Q. 19.

[620] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 687. Cf. Resp. S. C. Inq. a. 1661, ad dub. 13.

[621] Lib. VI. n. 701, II. A. Tr. 16, n. 175. Bucceroni, Commentar. in
Constit. Bened. XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” art. II. Sect. 2, p. 66.

[622] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. p. 66.

[623] Not, be it remarked, _virtute Constitutionum Pontificiarum contra
sollicitantes, but virtute præcepti denuntiandi intra mensem hæreticos et
suspectos de hæresi_. Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 1, p. 56.

[624] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 698. They are not bound to denounce: (_a_)
when the solicited person has already given the information; (_b_) when
they would suffer great detriment by so doing, except in the case of a
priest of great influence who had already solicited many persons; (_c_)
when the person soliciting is related to them within the fourth degree.
Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tr. 2, Disp. 1, Q. 1, cp. 2, Sect. 4; Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1136 ss.

[625] Cf. S. Alph. nn. 700, 697, 695. Bucceroni, l. c. p. 65.

[626] Compare the Constitutions of the Popes and the above-cited Instr.
S. C. Inq. S. Alph. nn. 686, 688.

[627] Cf. Instruct. nn. 3 and 4.

[628] Cf. Instruct. S. C. Inq. a. 1661, ad dub. 12, 16.

[629] Constitutiones cit. et Instruct. Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 615-694,
ratio: _ob vitandum damnum commune_.

[630] The denunciation must be made to the _Episcopus loci_, where the
penitent is staying, even when the _Confessarius sollicitans_ belongs to
another diocese; it is then the duty of this bishop to receive the sworn
denunciation, and to forward it to the bishop of the confessor. Cf. Gury,
Cas. Cons. Tom. II. n. 652; Kenrick, Theol. Moral. Tract. 18, 245.

[631] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 7; Marc, Institut. Alph. Tom. II. n. 1800.

[632] Cf. Bucceroni, Commentar. in Constit. Bened. XIV, “Sacram. Pœnit”,
Romæ, 1888, art. II. § 3, p. 74.

[633] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 7.

[634] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 699.

[635] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 6.

[636] Cf. Instr. 1867, n. 6.

[637] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 2, p. 62 ss.; Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. n. 1141.

[638] Cf. Instruct. 1867, nn. 5 et 7; S. Alph. l. c. n. 693; Bucceroni,
l. c. art. II. § 1, n. 35.

[639] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 2, n. 38; Decr. S. C. S. Off. 21
Febr., 1630, etc.

[640] Const. Pii IX, “Apostolicæ Sedis.”

[641] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. Sect. 1, n. 36, p. 61 s. For the
_Modus recipiendi denuntiationem_, see Instruct. cit. 1867, n. 6 ss. Acta
S. Sedis, Vol. III. pp. 505 seq. The Instr. cit. nn. 9-16 describes the
_Modus procedendi contra Sollicitantes_; cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II.
§ 4, pp. 86-100. In this place the learned Roman professor also treats
the question: can the bishop make a law _denuntiandi sollicitantes extra
confessionem_—or a law _denuntiandi sollicitantes in confessione ad alia
peccata quam ad turpia_? p. 99, etc.

[642] Instruct. 1867, n. 12.

[643] Cf. Rituale Roman. Sacram. Pœnit. tit. 3, cp. 1, n. 15. Concil.
Later. IV. cp. 21, in Cap. 12 de Pœnit. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 607, 629.
H. Ap. n. 102.

[644] Cf. n. 19.

[645] Gury, Casus Conscient. II. n. 669. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sacram.
Pœnit. Sect. III. n. 419.

[646] Moreover, the confessor must not only take care that the confession
be complete; he must also have regard for human weakness, lest through
much questioning the confession become troublesome and odious. Cf.
Lacroix, l. c. n. 1748; Aertnys, l. c. n. 276; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 419, ad
1, 3.

[647] St. Alphonsus teaches: “The confessor should not be too solicitous
in questioning; let him ask the penitent about that which, having
regard to his position, probably concerns him.” And in another place
his advice is: “Let him ask only about the sins which the penitents
might easily commit, considering their station and intelligence.” And
Billuart says: “The confessor must make his investigations in a humane
and temperate way, but not in every imaginable way. For the priest is
not bound to examine the penitent more than the latter is bound to
examine himself.... Nor is it to the point to say that the priest would
perhaps find more if he sought more, for we have not only to consider
the material completeness of the confession, but also that the Sacrament
of Penance must not be made irksome and odious to penitents by overgreat
and exaggerated anxiety in questioning; it, therefore, suffices if the
confessor can be prudently convinced that the penitent is omitting
nothing that he ought to confess.” Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 607; H. Ap.
Tract. 16, n. 102; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. Not. ad n. 615.

[648] Tit. III. cp. 1, De Sacrum. Pœn. n. 16.

[649] Cf. Aertnys, Practic. Inst. Confessar. P. II. Cap. II. art. 1, § 1,
p. 27, n. 30; Theol. Moral. l. c. n. 276; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 420; Gury,
l. c. II. n. 616; Reuter, Neo-Confessar. P. 1, cp. 3. Cf. P. II. cp. II.
art. 1, 2, 3, cp. 3, art. 1; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II.
n. 895 (where also some examples are given); Benger, Pastoraltheologie,
II. Vol. 4 Book, § 162, p. 412 ff. (2 ed.); Zenner, l. c. P. II. Sect.
1, cp. 1, art. II. § 83-96. Segneri’s most appropriate instruction
deserves to be taken to heart by the confessor: _Cupio magnopere, te
parcum, gravemque esse interrogando circa materiam luxuriæ, ne tibi
accidat, quod pictori, qui cum Helenam exquisita diligentia depingeret,
ejusdem cupiditate exardescere cœpit et accendi. Utere proinde verborum
modestia, et quamvis subinde circumstantia maneret tecta, quæ alioquin ad
integritatem materialem spectaret, nihil interest: aliud enim majus bonum
prævalet. Adeo fœtet palus ista, ut consultum non sit, vel a Pœnitente
vel a Confessario ubi opus non sit, moveri: sufficit requirere speciem
patrati sceleris, non vero modum: et si ipsi vel ex irreverecundia vel ex
ignorantia hunc vellent declarare, suaviter mone, necessarium non esse.
Expediret hac in re imitari Philosophum illum, qui veritus, ne loquendo
os conspurcaret, carbone descripsit._ Instruct. Confessar. cap. II. Cf.
Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, Sect. 14, n. 595; Coninck, De Sacram. Disp. 8, dub.
17, n. 121.

[650] Cf. S. Pœnit. 8 June, 1842; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 420.

[651] An exception can be made when the penitent has written his sins,
and reads them, moreover, when the penitent is not able to make known his
sins, and the confessor is obliged from the beginning of the confession
to help by means of questions, he should not in that case proceed to
another point till he is quite clear as to the one in question. When
the penitent wishes to explain something to the confessor, the latter
should not prevent him (unless it is concerning things which are useless,
not to the point, or mere excuses, or which incriminate others), he
should rather allow him time to reveal his misery and his scruples; this
especially applies when the penitent seldom confesses, or has come from
a distance, or is making a general confession; the confessor must then
receive him with all love and kindness, and must see that his conscience
is quite set at rest.

[652] Cf. Monita S. Francisci Salesii ad Confessarios, cp. 1, art. 2, §
7. Aertnys, Instr. pract. Confess. l. c. n. 29, Q. 2.

[653] Praxis Confess. n. 20.

[654] Stang, Pastoral Theology, Book II. c. 4, § 25.

[655] _Ibid._ § 33, n. 3.

[656] Cf. Aertnys, Institut. pract. l. c. n. 30.

[657] Cf. S. Alph. Silva, part 3, cp. 10; Segneri, Instructio Pœnitent.
cp. 16 _et seq._

[658] Instructio Confessar. cp. 2.

[659] Cf. Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. § 1, p. 32 s. Cf. S. Alph. Praxis
Confess. n. 19 ss.

[660] See Stang, Pastoral Theol. l. c. on general confession.

[661] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 631; S. Thom. Opusc. 12, Q. 6, and Quodlib. 1,
a. 12 et 17. Cf. Gury, II. n. 618. Ed. Ratisb.

[662] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 631; H. Ap. n. 120; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P.
II. n. 1969; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. Tr. II. § 152; Scavini, Lib. III.
n. 381; Kenrick, Tract. 18, n. 216; Schneider, Manuale Sacerd. Ed. VI.
pp. 428-429; Konings, etc. This opinion and practice was first introduced
by Illsung (a German Jesuit, who died in 1695), Theol. practica univers.
Tract. 6, Disp. 6, Q. 4, art. 7, § 4, n. 128, erroneously appealing to
the testimony of Suarez, who (De Pœn. Disp. 32, Sect. 3, n. 9), however,
teaches the exact opposite: _Respondetur, regulariter standum esse
confessioni et dicto pœnitentis: unde quantumcunque confessor sciat
peccatum pœnitentis ex aliorum relatione_ (therefore, _in confessione_
also) _tenetur, in hoc judicio magis credere ipsi pœnitenti, propter
rationem factam_. Lacroix took this opinion from Illsung with the alleged
testimony of Suarez, adding, _ex inadvertentia_, Dicastillo as a further
witness, whom Illsung had quoted for another purpose. St. Alphonsus
reckons Viva also among these, who, however, does not adhere to this
opinion. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 619, who finally remarks:
_Ista opinio igitur tota debetur hallucinationi, quæ perperam Suaresii,
Dicastilli et Vivæ auctoritatem adduxit_. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II.
nn. 890-895.

[663] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 22, n. 22; Elbel, De Sacram. in gen. confer. 2,
n. 44 et de Pœnit. n. 453; Laymann, Lib. V. Tract. 6, cp. 14, n. 24;
Mazzotta, Tr. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 2, cp. 2, § 3; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 10,
§ 2; Gury, l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 278. Lehmkuhl (l. c. n. 429) says
that, considered by itself, the confessor may but is not obliged to
adopt the opinion of St. Alphonsus; that there is only this point in its
favor, that without inconveniencing the penitent, or without revealing
the other confession, sacrilege can be avoided. But the penitent commits
a sacrilege whether the confessor gives him absolution or not. On the
other hand, the administration of the absolution by the confessor is only
a material coöperation, and one cannot oblige him, in order to avoid
this, to make use of knowledge gained from the confession of another. Cf.
Gobat, l. c. Tract. 7, n. 875.

[664] L. c. n. 627; H. Ap. n. 104.

[665] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 421. He also cites some examples from
other authors, for instance, Gobat (Tract. 7, n. 338): “_Si religiosus,
a castitate mihi notus, diceret, se semel turpia locutum esse,
præsumerem, hæc esse scurrilia, non contra castitatem_.” _Attamen hæc
potius per exceptionem dicuntur; nam generalis regula est ut, si brevi
interrogatione confessarius dubium de gravi aut levi peccato solvere
possit, hanc instituere debeat._ Mazzotta furnishes a further example (l.
c. Q. II. cp. 2, § 2): “A confessor who (involuntarily or accidentally)
is distracted, and, because knowing the state of the conscience of his
penitent, can presume that what he missed was something unimportant, may
remain silent about it and absolve, if questions would be regarded as
troublesome.” Indeed, Gobat adds: If the confessor knew from experience
that his penitent generally committed no mortal sins, but (_e.g._)
only accused himself of little falsehoods, he can absolve him even
if, on account of distraction, he does not know a single sin of which
the penitent accused himself; but it is advisable in practice to make
the penitent repeat at least a venial sin, perhaps the last, and then
absolve. Lehmkuhl’s caution, however, is to be observed, namely, not to
apply in a more general way that which is prescribed for an extraordinary
case. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 421.

[666] Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, s. 6, n. 7; Mazzotta, l. c.

[667] Cf. S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 117.

[668] De Pœnit. Disp. 32, s. 2.

[669] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 461; Bucceroni, Commentar. III. De absolut.
danda, etc. Edit. alt. Romæ. 1889. § 1, n. 3.

[670] De Pœnit. n. 82.

[671] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279, III. Nota 1.

[672] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459, Prax. Conf. n. 71; Bucceroni, l. c.
n. 4; S. Thom. in 4, Dist. 17, Q. 5, a. 3.

[673] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 424, who remarks on
this: _Attamen in re aliqua “extraordinaria” insistendum non est. Neque
quodlibet horum signorum in quibuslibet adjunctis certam probationem
facit._

[674] Cf. Lib. VI. n. 460.

[675] Neo-Confessar. n. 177. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279 and Append. de
recidivis. n. 314. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 427.

[676] See in Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 624.

[677] See § 63.

[678] It is not enough to say to indisposed penitents something of this
kind: “Well, beg pardon of God for all your sins” (this is no true act
of sorrow), or, “Are you heartily sorry for all your sins?” Effort must,
above all things, be directed towards awakening in penitents (who have
committed grave sins) a real abhorrence of sin; to this end they must
first be prepared by an act of imperfect contrition, and then we must
seek to bring them to perfect contrition.

[679] Instruct. Confess. cp. 8.

[680] Cf. Polancus, Directorium Confessarii, cp. 2.

[681] S. Alph. Praxis conf. cp. 1, nn. 7 et 10. He says, very aptly:
_Perpauci sunt pœnitentes, præsertim rudes et magni peccatores, qui
dolore et proposito prius elicito ad confessionem accedunt. Hos igitur
quoad potest confessarius disponere fortiter et suaviter adlaboret._

[682] H. Ap. Tr. 16, n. 105.

[683] Prax. Conf. cp. 1, n. 7; Lib. VI. n. 608. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. cp. 1, nn. 313-323.

[684] Cf. Reuter, Neo-conf. P. 1, cp. V. n. 11.

[685] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 603; H. Ap. n. 117; Suarez, De Pœn. D. 32,
S. 5, n. 2; cf. Lugo, Disp. 14, n. 166; Marc, Instit. Alph. P. III. Tr.
V. Diss. III. cp. 3, art. 1, n. 1813; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 428; Bucceroni,
Commentar. III. De Absolut danda, etc. § 1, n. 2, § 3, n. 13.

[686] See § 50, V. The confessor, therefore, must not absolve a penitent
who will not fulfill an important duty incumbent upon him, who does not
heartily repent of his past sins, and has not a firm purpose to sin
no more in future. Cf. Bucceroni, l. c § 4, n. 15; Leo XII, Encycl.
Charitate Christi, Kal. Jan. 1826.

[687] Cf. B. Humbertus, General. Mag. Prædicatorum, Instructio, et
Bartholomæus Medina ex Ord. Præd. Instruct. Confessar. Lib. I. cp. 3.

[688] Leonard of P. M., Instructions for Confessors (Regensburg, 1878),
p. 97, etc.

[689] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 430. Cf. Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 34.

[690] Upon the origin of this practice, of which no trace is found in the
works of the older theologians, Ballerini enlarges in his notes on Gury,
II. n. 621. He does not discover it in the practice and teaching of the
Jansenists, but rather in the endeavor of the younger theologians to find
means by which the faithful may be better assisted in laying aside a bad
habit, roused from indolence and negligence, and moved to holy zeal.

[691] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 431. Cf. Marc, l. c. n. 1816; Aertnys, l. c. n.
280. The benefit which the confessor expects from the postponement of
absolution, must, however, always be greater than that which the disposed
penitent receives from actual reception of the holy Sacrament.

[692] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. n. 10, _ad brevissimum tempus. Nam per se
loquendo magis prodest absolutio statim data quam ejus dilatio._ “For,”
so he continues, “it is burdensome to remain in a state of mortal sin
even one or two days: (1) on account of the danger of death, against
which we are never safe, etc., and (2) on account of the priceless
blessings of which we are deprived,—grace and merit. Moreover, the
penitent is better prepared by absolution for again receiving the
Sacrament, than by postponement of absolution, etc.” Gury (II. n. 622)
remarks that, where it can be easily done, absolution may be deferred for
one day or for a few hours.

[693] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 463 and 464.

[694] Cf. Salmant. Tract. 26, cp. 2, p. 2, § 1, n. 37.

[695] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. § 2, n. 8; Suarez, Lugo, Sanchez, Filliucius,
Palaus, Toletus, Gury, II. n. 621.

[696] Cf. Epistol. S. Francisci Xaver. Lib. IV. Epist. IV.

[697] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. P. 1, cp. 8, n. 34.

[698] S. Leonard a P. M., Discorso mistico e morale, § 11.

[699] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. IV. Sect. 10, n. 166; Suarez, l. c. Disp. 32,
Sect. 5, n. 2, who adds: _quod prudenti judicio confessoris relinquendum
est, qui hoc sine gravi causa et magna consideratione facere non debet_;
S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 642.

[700] Segneri, l. c. cp. IV (in fine).

[701] Cf. S. Alph. De Sacrament, n. 36.

[702] Cf. S. Leonard a Port-Maur., Instruction, etc., pp. 15-16.

[703] Instructions for Confessors, n. 3, p. 24 ff.

[704] Monita ad Confessarios, cp. 1. art. 1.

[705] Praxis Conf. n. 3.

[706] Sensa pretiosa, P. 6, n. 17, sqq.

[707] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 432.

[708] Tract. 21, nn. 1, 2, 3.

[709] Instruction, pp. 121-123.

[710] Praxis Conf. n. 3.

[711] Cf. Lugo in Benedict. XIV, Const. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n.
20; S. Alph. Homo Ap. Tr. 21, n. 4.

[712] Orat. 8, advers. Judæos in Migne Ser. græca, T. 48, col. 932.

[713] S. Alph. Praxis, n. 77. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 434; Aertnys,
Instruct. pract. P. I. cp. IV. nn. 18-25.

[714] Cf. S. Bernard. De Considerat. IV; S. Bonavent. De sex alis, cp. 5.

[715] Praxis Confess. n. 18. Cf. Rituale Rom. Tit. III. cp. 1, De Sacram.
Pœnit.

[716] De Pœnit. Disp. 21, n. 70.

[717] Cf. Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1789; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 627;
Marc, l. c. n. 1787; Aertnys, l. c. n. 266; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 439.

[718] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 18.

[719] Rituale Roman. Tit. III. cp. 1, n. 3.

[720] Praxis Confess. n. 18.

[721] Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, I. Buch, I. Tl. § 82, S. 225
f.

[722] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 21, n. 70.

[723] Lugo, l. c.

[724] Praxis Conf. n. 18.

[725] De Episc. p. 3, c. 4.

[726] Praxis Conf. n. 17.

[727] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 438.

[728] Hobert, Praxis Sacra. Pœnit. Tract. 1, cp. 4. Cf. Aertnys, Instr.
pract. P. 1, cp. 1, n. 7.

[729] Cf. Aertnys, Instit. pract. l. c. n. 8.

[730] Homo Apost. Tr. 16, cp. 6, n. 127.

[731] II. II. Q. 14, art. 3.

[732] S. Thom. II. II. Q. 47, art. 4.

[733] Stang, Pastoral Theol. l. c. IV. 28.

[734] Cf. Aertnys, Instit. pract. P. 1, cp. II. n. 9.

[735] Praxis Confessar. Cf. Marc, Instit. Moral. l. c. n. 1788.

[736] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 605; Marc, Inst. Mor. l. c. n. 1789.

[737] Marc, Inst. mor. l. c. n. 1791.

[738] Constit. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n. 21.

[739] Aertnys, Instruct pract. l. c. n. 10.

[740] _Necessitate medii_ the Christian must believe those truths
without the knowledge and express belief of which, justification and,
in consequence, the attainment of everlasting salvation, is never
possible for any one having the use of reason. Certainly necessary is
the explicit belief: (1) in one God; (2) the Rewarder of good and the
Avenger of evil. Although it is quite probable that _fides explicita_ is
necessary in these truths only, it is, nevertheless, not certain that
_fides explicita_ is not also necessary (3) in the mystery of the Blessed
Trinity and (4) in the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption.

[741] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 608-610; Prop. damnat. 64 ab Innoc. XI.

[742] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 22; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. II. Tr.
1, n. 4; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 442.

[743] Cf. S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. II. n. 3, Praxis Conf. n. 22; Salm.
Tract. 21, cp. 2, nn. 62, 63; Aertnys, l. c. n. 4.

[744] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 22.

[745] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 608, 609.

[746] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 616.

[747] Cf. S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. 16, n. 115.

[748] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 611; H. Ap. n. 113.

[749] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 614.

[750] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 612; H. Ap. n. 113.

[751] Cf. Benedict XIV, De Syn. Lib. 9, cp. 2, nn. 2, 3; S. Alph. Lib.
VI. n. 613; H. Ap. n. 114, Prax. Conf. n. 8; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib.
VI. n. 273; Marc, l. c. n. 1810.

[752] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 616 (fin.). Cf. n. 614.

[753] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 610.

[754] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 615. Cf. Praxis Conf. n. 9.

[755] Constit. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n. 20.

[756] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 615, Praxis Conf. n. 9.

[757] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 39.

[758] Praxis Conf. nn. 6, 180.

[759] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 8.

[760] Praxis Conf. n. 7.

[761] Benedict XIV, “Apostolica,” § 22.

[762] Cf. Polancus, l. c.; Segneri, l. c.

[763] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. nn. 148-155; Hom. Ap. App. 1, nn.
28-36; Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 3; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De
Eucharist. nn. 93-95; this author discusses also the difference between
the teaching of St. Alphonsus and that of St. Francis of Sales. Lehmkuhl,
l. c. P. II L. I. Tr. IV. De Euchar. n. 156.

[764] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 15 (Ed. Le Noir, Par. 1880); Lacroix,
Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 1825; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 447; Aertnys, Instruct. pract.
Pars II. cp. 3, art. 1, n. 59.

[765] Reuter, Neo-Confessar. P. II. cp. 1, art. 1-8, nn. 56-99. Cf.
Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 448-455; Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n. 62; Theol.
Mor. Lib. I. nn. 245-261.

[766] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 22, n. 50; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 619 ss.;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 2, De officio et obligat. Confess.
nn. 836-862; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. 4, art. 2, nn.
282-285.

[767] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 619. Lehmkuhl proposes the following
case: If I had invalidly absolved any one—especially from grave sins—and
met him shortly afterwards, I should be bound to absolve him without,
however, intimating it, if I could presume that he had not committed any
other grave sin in the meantime. Whether I should be bound to seek this
person, _cum gravi meo incommodo_, would depend both upon the risk to
the penitent’s salvation, and also upon the error of which I had been
guilty; I should also be obliged to avoid endangering the seal of the
confessional. If some time had elapsed since the confession, I could not
give the absolution till I had exhorted the penitent to dispose himself
by a new act of contrition. To give such an exhortation or to make an
avowal to the penitent of the error made in the confession, would not
of itself be a breach of the seal; for every penitent, whether he has
confessed mortal or venial sins, is entitled to absolution. But if, on
account of circumstances, it might be considered a disclosing of a grave
sin heard in the confessional, the confessor would be obliged previously
to ask the penitent’s permission to speak to him concerning matters of
the confessional; in so doing, he should explain that something very
salutary and profitable to the penitent was in question. Lehmkuhl, l. c.
n. 471; Ballerini, l. c. n. 840.

[768] Cf. Gobat, Theolog. experimental. de VII. Sacram. Tract. VII. n.
298. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 473. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, n. 65 seq. Suarez,
De Pœnit. Disp. 32, s. 6.

[769] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 620.

[770] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 621; H. A. n. 122; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 472;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 284.

[771] L. c. n. 299. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 475.

[772] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 635. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 23, nn. 1-16.

[773] Cap. 21.

[774] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 635. Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 902.

[775] The duty is here considered in so far as it belongs to _virtus
religionis_, for the defamation arising from breaking the seal may be
very slight, or wholly absent, and the breach of confidence may easily
be of small significance. But _levitas periculi_ of breaking the seal is
by no means to be confounded with _parvitas materiæ_; for there exists
no duty to avoid every slight and improbable danger of breaking it; this
would cause too great anxiety of conscience. Nevertheless every confessor
will be very careful to preserve this seal intact. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn.
633, 661.

[776] L. c. n. 634.

[777] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 634, 635, 651; H. Ap. n. 147.

[778] S. Alph. l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 457; Aertnys, l. c. n. 288.

[779] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 148; Lib. III. n. 153.

[780] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 651.

[781] S. Alph. l. c. n. 651; H. Ap. n. 156.

[782] S. Alph. l. c. n. 651.

[783] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 976 ss.

[784] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 455.

[785] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 636; H. A. n. 156.

[786] S. Alph. l. c.

[787] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 633; H. Ap. n. 164; Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad
Gury, II. n. 650; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 458; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l.
c. n. 901 ss.

[788] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. nn. 645, 648.

[789] S. Alph. l. c. n. 647; Stotz, l. c. Lib. II. n. 199.

[790] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disput. 23, n. 29.

[791] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 650. Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 47 ss.
Laymann, De Pœnit. cp. 14, n. 19. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 3,
n. 971 ss.

[792] S. Alph. l. c. n. 647. Cf. Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 33, Sect. 4, n. 2;
Ballerini, l. c. n. 975.

[793] S. Alph. l. c. n. 657.

[794] Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 926 ss.; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 68.

[795] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 947-948; Lugo, l. c. n.
54; Suarez, l. c. Disp. 33, Sect. 3, n. 5.

[796] Cf. Ballerini, l. c. nn. 956-960.

[797] Cf. Reuter, Theol. Mor. Tom. IV. n. 377; Lugo, l. c. n. 57; Sporer,
De Pœnit. n. 833; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 460.

[798] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 644; Lugo, l. c. n. 60; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n.
460; Aertnys, l. c. n. 293; Ballerini, l. c. n. 960.

[799] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 643, 659 (in fine); Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. n. 959.

[800] S. Alph. l. c. n. 641.

[801] S. Alph. l. c. n. 661. Cf. Stotz, l. c. Lib. II. art. V. s. 1-8.

[802] Lugo, l. c. n. 61; Lacroix, Reuter, and Stotz, however, explain
the matter thus: The confessor is not ordinarily allowed to say that the
penitent had not been absolved; but if the penitent were to say casually,
in presence of the confessor and others, that he had not been absolved,
permission would thereby be given to the latter to say it also; but the
confessor is by no means allowed to disclose the reason for refusing the
absolution, if the indisposition of the penitent has been the motive of
it, or if the disclosure is in any way unpleasant to the penitent.

[803] Cf. Lugo, l. c. n. 61; Reuter, l. c. n. 378.

[804] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 156.

[805] S. Alph. l. c. n. 657; Gury, l. c. nn. 665-666; Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 983. Cf. 976 ss.

[806] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 657, 638.

[807] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 156.

[808] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 652.

[809] It is not necessary to tell those whom one consults for advice
that the case occurred in the confessional, nor should the matter be
discussed publicly before many, but only before those who are capable of
giving suitable advice. Mazzotta adds another notable limitation (Tract.
VI. Disp. 2, Q. 5, c. 2): “Therefore, let confessors ask judicious
men everywhere for advice in cases which have come before them in the
confessional, and, in so doing, conceal the name of the penitent. But
they have no right to do so if any suspicion should fall upon the person
in question, or were there even a danger of this.” But what is to be done
in the latter case when the confessor requires advice? Let him either
present the case as an imaginary one, or let him request permission of
the penitent to make use of the knowledge gained in the confessional, or
let him seek a judicious man to whom the penitent is unknown, or let him
send the penitent to another confessor. If none of these methods can be
used without breaking the seal, let him trust to the divine assistance,
employ other suitable means,—such as prayer and study,—and then let him
solve the difficulty himself in the best way he can.

[810] S. Alph. l. c. n. 654; H. Ap. n. 158.

[811] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 654; H. Ap. n. 157. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad
Gury, II. n. 666, et Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 987 ss., et Vindiciæ
Alphons. Par. V. Q. 24; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 469; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q.
II.

[812] S. Alph. l. c. n. 659; H. A. n. 161. Cf. Lugo, l. c.

[813] Cf. Decret. Clementis VIII. 26 May, 1594 et Decr. S. C. Inq. 18
Nov., 1682 (auctor. Innoc. XI). Cf. Gury, II. Ed. Ratisb. n. 670.

[814] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 656-658; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n.
1000; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 93.

[815] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 639 et 661. Cf. Gury, II. Ed. Ratisb. nn. 660,
661; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 916; Laymann, De Pœnit. cp. 14,
n. 8; Sporer, De Pœn. n. 839; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1914.

[816] S. Alph. l. c. n. 659; H. A. n. 160. Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 1012
ss.

[817] Cf. Theol. Mechlin, n. 117, Q. 3; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q. 9.

[818] Cf. Aertnys, Tract. De praxi servanda cum occasionariis et
recidivis Theol. Mor. II. Appendix, nn. 298-350.

[819] Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Append. (ut supra cit.). Ballerini, Opus
Theol. Moral. Tom. V. n. 167 ss.; Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 628 ss.; Lehmkuhl,
l. c. n. 485 ss.; Marc. Inst. Mor. Tract. V. Dissert. III. n. 1818 ss.

[820] Some theologians call that which incites to sin from within the
“interior occasion,” but, generally, only a person or external object is
defined as _occasio_.

[821] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 628, et Opus Theol. Moral. Tom.
V. n. 167. Theologians do not agree in defining the _occasio proxima_.
Departing from the above definition, some teach—and in this they are
in accordance with St. Alphonsus—that, “to constitute the _occasio
proxima_, it is not necessary that a person should, _fere semper aut
frequentius_, sin in that occasion, but that it suffices if he often,
_frequenter_, falls, as _frequens lapsus_ in the past makes a fall in
the future probable.” Aertnys, l. c. n. 302, Q. 1; Marc, l. c. n. 1820;
Berardi, De occas. n. 13. The _frequentia lapsuum_ is either _relativa_
or _absoluta_. Relative frequency is reckoned according to the number of
cases in which the person has been exposed to the occasion; so it would
be, for instance, an _occasio proximo_ if in twelve visits a person has
sinned five or six times. Similarly, if a man should visit a woman only
three or four times in two years, and generally sinned with her; or
when the visit took place only once a year during three years and each
time sin was committed. On the other hand, the frequency is absolute
when the number of cases is, in itself, considerable; for instance,
if two persons meet every Sunday, and sin ten or twelve times in the
year. However, this stricter definition does not seem to be that of St.
Alphonsus; at least he defines the _occasio proximo_ in two passages
of his works (Homo Apost. Tr. ult. n. 1, and Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n.
452) as that in _qua communiter ut plurimum deficiunt_, while into one
definition he also introduces the _frequenter peccare_ in contrast to
_frequentius_. According to Ballerini these conflicting passages may be
reconciled with each other, and Lugo’s definition is, he says, the basis
of the agreement: that constitutes an immediate occasion of which a man
never, or scarcely ever, _consideratis circumstantiis_ makes use without
sinning. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 149. Cf. Vindic. Alph. n. 140, p.
942.

[822] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 168.

[823] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. V. n. 63; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 157;
Sanchez, Decal. Lib. I. cp. 8, n. 4.

[824] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. V. n. 63.

[825] Cf. S. Thomas, Summ. Theol. II. II. Q. 154, art. 3, ad 1.

[826] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 486.

[827] Cf. Lehmkuhl, n. 486, IV; Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. Tom. V.
Tract. X. Sect. V. n. 172.

[828] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 454. Prax. Conf. n. 66.

[829] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 454; Prax. Conf. nn. 67, 68;
Berardi, l. c. nn. 44, 45, 49, 50; S. Leonard a Port-Maur. Disc. mist. n.
22. Cf. Proposit. 61 damn. ab Innoc. XI et Proposit. 41 damn. ab Alex.
VII; Aertnys, l. c. n. 306, III.

[830] S. Alph. l. c. n. 454. Prax. Conf. n. 66.

[831] S. Alph. l. c, nn. 456, 463, 464; Prax. Conf. n. 69; Berardi, l. c.
nn. 53, 54; Aertnys, l. c. n. 306, IV. V.

[832] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 6. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. n.
185.

[833] S. Alph. l. c. n. 456.

[834] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 456, 457; H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 7; Prax. Conf.
n. 69. Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 156 ss.

[835] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 456; Prax. Conf. n. 69.

[836] Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 196, 197. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ
ad Gury, II. n. 631, et Vindiciæ Alph. pp. 603-620.

[837] Cf. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 68; Berardi, l. c. nn. 79-83.

[838] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. V. n. 63; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cap. 5;
Berardi, l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 308, Q. 1.

[839] Segneri, Conf. Instr. cp. 5.

[840] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 8, _ref. matrim._

[841] Compare § 65, Penitents in _occasione necessaria_, for the same
principles apply to this case.

[842] See Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Vol. II. Book 4, § 191, n. 28, p.
665 (2 ed.).

[843] Cf. Berardi, De occas. n. 117 ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. II. Lib.
VI. Tract. V. Append. Part III. n. 315 ss.

[844] Segneri, Instruct. Conf. cp. 5; S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436.

[845] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436.

[846] Cf. Segneri, Instruct. Conf. cp. 5 et 6.

[847] Cf. Gobat, l. c. Tract. VII. cas. 16, n. 530; Sporer, Theol. sacr.
P. III. n. 328; S. Alph. Lib. III. nn. 437, 441, Lib. II. n. 31, Lib. VI.
n. 455.

[848] Segneri, l. c. cp. 5; Berardi, l. c. n. 151.

[849] Cf. Rit. Rom. Tit. IV. cp. 4, n. 1.

[850] Cf. Berardi, l. c. n. 148; Aertnys, l. c. n. 319, Q.

[851] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cp. 5.

[852] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. nn. 437, 441.

[853] “If, considering the present corruption of our society and
the manner in which dancing entertainments are conducted, a priest
publicly protests against them, he may be perfectly justified. But the
place in which he can exercise his influence against this evil is the
confessional. Here he can positively forbid dancing to the young man or
girl for whom it is an _occasio proxima_ of sin, whether the sin consists
in bad thoughts and desires, or in external acts, or he will proceed in
accordance with the principles laid down above (concerning the _occasio
necessaria_).” Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoral Theology, Vol. I. Part I. §
90, p. 265.

[854] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429.

[855] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429; Berardi, l. c. n. 155.

[856] Cf. Berardi, l. c. n. 156.

[857] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429; _certe veniale non excedit_.

[858] Cf. Konings, Theol. Mor. Compend. n. 1441; S. Francisc. Sales.
Instit. vit. devot. P. III. cp. 34; Aertnys, l. c. n. 323, Q. II;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. I. Lib. II. cp. 3, n. 643.

[859] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 112; Franc. Sales. Inst. vit. devot. l.
c. cp. 33; Berardi, l. c. nn. 167-169; Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 324, Q.
1.

[860] II. II. Q. 168, art. 3.

[861] S. Thom. 4 Sent. dist. 16, Q. 4. art 2.

[862] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 427.

[863] _Ibid._

[864] Benedict XIV, De Synod. Lib. II. cp. 10, n. 11. Cf. S. Alph. Lib.
III. n. 427.

[865] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 327; Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. I. L. II. cp. 3, n.
644.

[866] Compare § 43; S. Alph. App. de prohib. libr. cp. 1; cf. Benger,
Pastoraltheologie (2 Ed.), Vol. II. § 129, n. 7, p. 53 ff.; Clement XIII,
Encycl. 1766; Pius IX, “Qui Pluribus,” 20 Nov., 1846; many pastorals of
bishops.

[867] Cf. Propos. 61 damn. ab Innoc. XI.

[868] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429.

[869] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 331, Q. II.

[870] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 330, Q. II; Gury, Tom. I. n. 256; Varceno,
Theol. Mor. Tract. 8, cp. 2, art. 3; Berardi, Praxis Conf. nn. 66 et 240;
Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. II. § 36, n. 6.

[871] By “intimacies” is here understood friendly intercourse established
between two persons of different sex.

[872] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65. Cf. Roncaglia, in S. Alph. _ibid._;
Gousset, Moraltheologie, II. n. 566.

[873] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65; S. Leonard a Port-Maur. Disc. mist.
nn. 23, 24.

[874] Theol. Mor. l. c. Append. P. III. n. 340.

[875] Notæ ad Gury, Tom. I. n. 413.

[876] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 65; S. Leonard, Disc. mist. n. 23 s.;
Berardi, l. c. nn. 233-238; Konings, l. c. n. 1453; Aertnys, l. c.

[877] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 204; H. Ap. Append. IV. n. 6; Benedict
XIV, Inst. 46, nn. 17, 21; Sporer, De Matrim. n. 429.

[878] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. 7, n. 32; Praxis Conf. n. 52.

[879] S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 65; S. Leon. Disc. mist. n. 24.

[880] Therefore, _quando fiunt inter eos, qui sunt disparis conditionis
propter scandalum et periculum mortaliter peccandi; si fiant cum illis,
cum quibus impossible est contrahi matrimonium, ut sunt uxorati,
claustrales et in sacris ordinibus constituti ... si fiat in ecclesia,
tum propter irreverentiam, tum propter periculum audiendi sacrum sine
debita attentione, tum etiam propter scandalum; si adsit præceptum patris
vel matris aut tutoris rationabiliter prohibens talem amorem_.

[881] _Quando clam fiunt et occulte, tempore nocturno, si eo modo fiat,
ut ex se involvat periculum proximum osculorum, tactuum, etc., etiam
si aliunde ille amor esset licite exercitus, quia est inter solutos
et causa matrimonii ... si amator animadvertat, complicem amoris esse
graviter tentatum vel alterum urgere verbis turpibus vel alio modo ad
inhonesta etc., etiamsi alter complex nihil tentetur et nullam sentiat
inclinationem ad peccandum; denique universaliter loquendo, quotiescunque
ob causam amoris amator vel amatrix frequenter labitur in aliquam gravem
noxam; tunc amor induit rationem occasionis proximæ mali et est omnino
illicitus._—From the decree of Cardinal Pico de Mirandola. Cf. Gaume, l.
c.

[882] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65; Aertnys, l. c.; Gousset,
Moraltheologie, II. n. 567.

[883] Handbook for Confessors, chap. III. art. 5, n. 328.

[884] See Ballerini’s Discussion of the definition of St. Alphonsus (Lib.
VI. n. 453) and Gury’s (l. c. n. 632) in his Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1,
n. 214; on the other hand, Aertnys, l. c. Append. P. II. cp. 1, n. 310.

[885] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 490.

[886] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 459.

[887] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 8.

[888] Instr. sacerd. Lib. V. c. 13, n. 6.

[889] Lib. VI. n. 464.

[890] St. Alphonsus distinguishes between _formal_ relapsing sinners
and _material_. A _formal_ relapsing sinner is one who, having been
instructed and having promised amendment, has returned to his former
sin in the same, or nearly the same way, and with the same ease; that
is, without having endeavored to amend, and without having adopted any
one of the prescribed remedies. A _material_ relapsing sinner is one
who was never seriously admonished, or who, in spite of efforts toward
improvement, and in consequence of inconstancy of will, has again fallen
into the sins already confessed. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 9 (cf. Vind. Alph.
P. VI. cp. 1, Tom. II. p. 276). In a word, a relapsing sinner is one who
has contracted a sinful habit, and, after confession, has fallen into the
same sin. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 457. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 310; Ballerini,
Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 632; Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp.
14, n. 166; Salmant. Tr. 17, cp. II. n. 167. According to the concurrent
teaching of theologians, the following elements are included in the
idea of relapse in the theological sense: (1) _frequens relapsus post
plures confessiones_; (2) _relapsus in eadem_ (_specie_) _peccata_; (3)
_defectus omnis, etiam inchoatæ, emendationis_. (Suarez, Tr. V. Lib. III.
c. 8, n. 7.)

[891] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 491.

[892] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 313; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 493. St. Alphonsus
teaches that such penitents can only be absolved when, by extraordinary
signs, they have removed the prejudice against their actual disposition
(as we have learnt above, § 50); and the holy Doctor, whom many later
theologians follow, represents this teaching as _sententia communis_.
Lib. VI. nn. 459 and 505; Prax. Conf. n. 20 in fine. But Ballerini
questions this, remarking that even of the authors cited by St. Alphonsus
not all held this opinion. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. nn.
232-313; Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 636. Only the theologians of Salamanca
teach, indeed, that these extraordinary signs are a help in forming
a judgment as to the penitent’s preparation, or that, when they are
present, postponement is not to be resorted to, while they recommend
this remedy as occasionally profitable and beneficial in uprooting the
evil habit. Moreover, they always teach that to the habitual sinner
the general rule of the Roman Catechism may be applied: “When (the
priest), after hearing the confession, judges that neither diligence
in the confession of the sins nor sorrow in their detestation has been
wholly wanting in the penitent, he can absolve him,” without limiting
(as does St. Alphonsus, n. 459) these and similar expressions to the
habitual sinner who confesses the sinful habit for the first time. The
confessor need not be convinced, they add, that the penitent will keep
his resolution, if only he believes that the latter is, at the time,
really and firmly resolved to amend. But if they sometimes maintain
that habitual sinners cannot be absolved, it is clear from the context
(Ballerini continues) either that only those are meant who are quite
certainly unworthy and not disposed, or that they prescribe this in
order to avoid scandal. Ballerini remarks further that relapse does not
show positively that the purpose of amendment in former confessions was
not sufficiently efficacious; the human will is liable to alteration;
still less can want of sorrow and purpose of amendment in the actual
confession be inferred (at least directly). Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V.
1874. According to Ballerini, the controversy turns upon the question,
When has the confessor obtained a _judicium prudens seu probabile_
concerning the disposition of the relapsing penitent? and declares
(after emphatically rejecting the teaching of St. Alphonsus, who finds
this _judicium_ in the _signis extraordinariis_), that there are two
things indicating the actual disposition of the penitent: _modus
confessionis et confessio seu testimonium pœnitentis_. As to the _signa
extraordinaria_—after having characterized most of them as deceptive and
untrustworthy, and only admitting a few as partly or wholly conducive
to a better knowledge of the disposition of the penitent, Ballerini
observes: “_Hisce indiciis utique utendum esse at neque iis insistendum
adeo esse, ut alia, quæ insita sunt ipsius sacramenti naturæ, negligantur
neque propter eorum defectum debere Confessarium desperare de cognoscenda
pœnitentis dispositione ac multo minus certum de defectu dispositionis
inde judicium ferre._” Cf. n. 310. It is not to be denied that the
relapsing habitual sinner _can_ be truly repentant and firmly resolved
in the actual confession; the confessor must also believe the penitent,
whether he speaks in his own favor or against himself. But, on the other
hand, it is not to be denied that the penitent has shaken belief in his
declaration as to his repentance and resolution, by not amending at all
and by not adopting remedies; that he is, therefore, to be regarded as a
_dubie dispositus_. Finally, the confessor must provide for the reverence
due to the Sacrament and for the salvation of the penitent, and therefore
must not straightway content himself with the latter’s assertion that
he is sorry, etc. According to Gury (Ratisb. edit.) the teaching of St.
Alphonsus may, without difficulty, be reconciled with the general view of
the older theologians. For the signs which he calls extraordinary are not
supposed to be different from those which others call regular and usual.
From all this it is plainly evident that St. Alphonsus and the later
theologians do not demand anything more than what the older theologians
demanded; namely, _sufficient signs of true repentance_; sufficient,
also, making allowance for the circumstances. Gury, II. Edit. Ratisb. n.
640. Appendix. De dilatione absolut., etc.

[893] Cf. Bucceroni, Comment. III. De absolut. danda, etc., § 5, De
absol. consuetud, et recidiv. This author points out, in his excellent
treatise, that this is the teaching of the great theologians, Lugo and
Suarez, and the practice of the saints.

[894] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 608; Const. Leonis XII, “Charitate Christi,”
25 Dec., 1825.

[895] Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 311.

[896] Berardi, l. c. n. 116. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 460.

[897] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459; Praxis Conf. n. 5; Leo XII, Const.
citat.; Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. n. 313 ss. Compare § 52, Postponement
of absolution.

[898] L. c. nn. 431, 28.

[899] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432. Cf. Berardi, De recidivis, etc., n. 119 ss.

[900] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 494.

[901] Cf. § 52, IV.

[902] Cf. S. Alph. n. 459; cf. 432.

[903] L. c. nn. 463, 464; Praxis Conf. nn. 76, 77.

[904] See above, IV.

[905] Confess. Lib. VIII. cp. 11.

[906] Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 181; cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 314, Q. 8.

[907] Compare Capellmann, Pastoral Medicine, B. The sixth commandment I.

[908] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 209, Lib. V. n. 8, Lib. VI. nn. 464, 75;
Prax. Conf. n. 6, nn. 16, 124; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cp. 12; S. Leonard a
Port-Maur. Discors. mist. n. 19; Aertnys, l. c. n. 314, Q. 7.

[909] Suppl. Q. 35, a. 1, ad 3.

[910] II. II. Q. 184, a. 8.

[911] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. nn. 16, 17, Lib. VI. nn. 63-77; Benedict
XIV, De Synod. Lib. XI. c. 2, n. 17.

[912] Suppl. Q. 36, art. 4, ad 1. Cf. Innoc. III. in cap. 14, de act. et
qual.

[913] Cf. Collectanea S. Sedis, nn. 497, 494.

[914] Praxis Conf. cp. 9, n. 121. Compare the excellent treatise in
Benger’s Pastoral Theology, Book 4, § 172. Perfection.

[915] Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 245. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 499; Benger, §
174, n. 5, I.

[916] Cf. Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 16, Sect. 2, n. 103.

[917] Cf. S. Franc. Sales. Philoth. P. III. cp. 1 et 2.

[918] Franc. Sal. _ibid._, cp. 35.

[919] Reuter says: “It is indeed true, as the Apostle remarks in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, that the Spirit of God is wont to
instruct us Himself and through the ministry of His good angels. Not
seldom, however, Satan transforms himself into an angel of light,
deceiving men with the intention of ruining their souls. Those become
easily entangled in these snares who are presumptuous in spiritual
matters.” Neo-Conf. n. 247.

[920] Scaramelli, Directorium mysticum; S. Alph. Praxis Confess. nn.
247-251; St. Ignatius of Loyola, Book of Exercises; Comp. Zenner, Instr.
pract. Confess. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 1, § 261; the Monita S. Philippi
Nerii.

[921] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 505. Compare Benger, Pastoraltheologie, (1 Ed.)
Vol. III. § 174, (2 Ed.) Vol. II. Book 4, § 174.

[922] Cf. Aertnys, Instr. pract. P. III. cp. 6, art. 2, n. 213;
Benger, l. c.; Stöhr, Pastoral Medicine, 2 Ed. p. 334; Kerschbaumer,
Paterfamilias, Part IV. chap. 7, 8.

[923] S. Alph. Lib. I. n. 11; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. I. Tract. II. n. 49;
Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Gener. Tract. II. n. 57; Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. I. P.
V. Q. III. n. 176.

[924] Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 266.

[925] Cf. Lacroix, l. c. Lib. I. n. 519 ss.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Gener.
Tr. II. n. 58.

[926] S. Alph. De Mor. Syst.

[927] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. l. c. Lib. III. § 159; Lehmkuhl, l.
c. n. 55; Aertnys, l. c. n. 50; Müller, l. c. II. § 159; Benger,
Pastoraltheologie, a. a. O. § 174, n. 5; Scaramelli, Direct. ascet. Tom.
III. nn. 433-440; Zenner, Instr. pract. Conf. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 1, §
256.

[928] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. l. c. n. 260; S. Ignat. l. c. Regula 5;
Benger, l. c.; Scaramelli, l. c.; Zenner, Instr. pract. Conf. P. II.
Sect. II cp. 1. § 255.

[929] S. Alph. l. c. n. 13; Reuter, Neo-Conf. l. c. n. 261; Aertnys, l.
c. n. 51.

[930] S. Alph. Lib. I. n. 13; Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 262; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
n. 61; Aertnys, l. c. n. 53.

[931] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 263 ss.; Stotz, l. c. n. 185; Lehmkuhl,
l. c. n. 63; Aertnys, l. c.; Zenner, Instructio pract. Confess. P. II.
Sect. II. cp. 1, § 257.

[932] S. Alph. Lib. IV. n. 177; Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 268; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
n. 64.

[933] Cf. S. Congreg. S. Offic. 20 Jul., 1859 (Coll. Lacens. Concil. Tom.
III. p. 550).

[934] Cf. Instr. S. C. Inq. 20 Jul., 1859 et 20 Nov., 1878; Bucceroni,
Enchirid. p. 84. There is an (abridged) _professio fidei_, which the
S. C. S. Officii, 20 July, 1859 gave for America; the wording of the
Instruction clearly indicates that it may be used in all places where the
diocesan law does not decide to the contrary.

[935] Thus Lehmkuhl. Aertnys, however, does not assent to this teaching,
_quia voluntas conditionalis confitendi non est reapse confessio, atque
adeo prorsus deesse videtur materia_. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 196, Q. 4,
5. Lehmkuhl rejects the opinion that a dying person in this state must
be asked whether he would confess and receive absolution; for here the
question is not what the man would wish, but what he wishes; at most it
might be said of this velleity that it includes a certain will and actual
accusation. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 515.

[936] Zenner, Instr. pract. Confess. l. c. cp. 2, § 263: _Summi momenti
munus subit confessarius, dum puerorum confessionibus se offert
excipiendis_. Dubois, “The Practical Pastor,” Pt. 2, chap. 18, n. 381;
Frassinetti, “Practical Instruction for Young Pastors,” Pt. 2, Chap. 3,
n. 411 (in the Italian); Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, Book 1,
Pt. 1, § 84, p. 240.

[937] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 432, 666; Gury, l. c. I. n. 478; Stang,
Pastoral Theol. Bk. II. 4, § 31. Schulze, Pastoral Theol. Sect. I. 4, n.
3.

[938] Cf. Statut. Leod. n. 344.

[939] Stang, Pastoral Theol. Bk. II. 4, § 31.

[940] The question whether a formula of an Examination of Conscience
should be placed in the hands of children, is treated by Dubois, l. c.
Certainly not in the hands of the younger children; and Examinations,
such as are contained in prayer-books for grown-up people, should not
be given to older ones. Nor are all Examinations for Children to be
recommended. The instruction is the most important thing; an Examination
is a poor substitute for good instruction. Certain it is that these
Examinations are very often misused by children.

[941] Aertnys says in his Institut. practica, cp. 2, art. 1, n. 122, that
the confessor must ask the children if they know the articles of faith
which every Christian is bound to know, and if they do not, he must, if
time allows, patiently instruct them concerning these articles, at least
concerning the doctrines necessary to salvation, etc., but this can only
happen in exceptional cases, scarcely when there has been given a good
course of previous instruction.

[942] Prax. Conf. cp. 6, n. 90.

[943] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 90.

[944] Cf. Catech. Roman. P. III. cp. 7; Renninger, l. c.

[945] Aertnys writes upon this point (Instr. pract. cp. 2, art. 1, n.
127): _Actiones inhonestæ puerorum, qui luxuriæ adhuc ignari sunt,
plerumque non sunt habendæ ut peccata mortalia; quia vel commotionem
veneream non habuerunt vel hujus malitiam nondum apprehendunt_. And
St. Alphonsus teaches (Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 1, n. 14): _Sunt quædam
actiones naturales, quas manifestare puderet, attamen declarare propterea
non tenemur. Sic. e. c. si quis commiserit in pueritia levitates aut
jocos indecentes, quorum malitiam ignorabat, non tenetur ea confiteri.
Neque ex eo, quod actio secreto facta fuerit, concludere licet conscium
quem fuisse ejusdem malitiæ; quasdam namque faciunt pueri actiones
naturales secreto, quamvis non sint peccata._ But there are children,
and in towns especially not a few of them, who are early corrupted, and
in whom wickedness and impure knowledge are in advance of their age,
with reference to whom it must, alas! be said: _Tantillus puer et tantus
peccator!_ Cf. Aertnys, l. c.

[946] Whether immodest acts and jokes which children have practiced be
sins or not, let the confessor admonish them, in accordance with the
principle _principiis obsta_, to avoid carefully for the future these
things and everything impure. But let him do so with fatherly love, in
order that, should they do these things again, the children may not be
afraid to confess them.

[947] The reason which Aertnys (Instr. pract. l. c.) adds to this: _quia
hanc obligationem non intelligunt_, can certainly not be allowed to hold
in the case of older and more educated children.

[948] Tappehorn, l. c., says that _in all cases_ the confessor _must_
insist that the thing stolen should, if possible, in some way or other,
even with the help of the confessor, be restored; but, surely, this is
too severe, even with the limitation “if possible,” and the addition that
absolution might rather be deferred till the restitution had been made,
must be limited to the case of a more considerable theft, when the stolen
object is still in the possession of the penitent, and, perhaps, to the
case of a child who had repeatedly committed thefts.

[949] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 432; Prax. Conf. n. 91; Aertnys, l. c. n.
126.

[950] Tappehorn, Anleitung zur Verwaltung des Buss-Sakramentes, § 48;
Aertnys, Instr. pract. cp. 2, art. 1, nn. 120-128. Dubois, The Practical
Confessor; Frassinetti, The Confession of Children.

[951] Hom. 59 in Matt. xviii, n. 7.

[952] It is good to invite them at stated times to monthly communions in
regular turns, and if a number of the young people of the parish approach
holy communion every Sunday, it will edify, and will induce older persons
to frequent reception of the holy Sacraments. Attendance at the regular
communion should be urged again and again; the latter should also be
celebrated with some exterior solemnity.

[953] Here we will only insert the _Notanda_ from the Instr. pract. P.
III. art. II. § 1, n. 131, by Aertnys: (1) _Animadvertat confessarius,
quod docuit experientia, nempe nullum cœlibem, qui ad provectam
ætatem usque in habitu hujus vitii vixerit, ad frugem redire posse
nisi extraordinaria Dei gratia præveniatur; principiis ergo obstet,
ne malum per multas invaleat moras et sero medicina paretur._ (2)
_Interdum inveniuntur juvenes utriusque sexus, qui habitu pollutionis
antehac irretiti, valde cupiunt hac miseria soluti esse, sed vehementer
tentantur, et, quamvis resistant et orent, pollutio nihilominus sæpe
evenit. Idem aliquando contingit ob corporis complexionem nervosam aut
sanguinosam, quæ vehementes tentationes causat. Qui doceantur pollutionem
omnino involuntariam non esse peccatum._ Nevertheless, the confessor
must be careful, and not _readily_ believe that the penitent had
sufficiently resisted, but duly investigate if this has been the case.
(3) Others resist at the beginning, but lose courage if the temptation
does not cease, wrongly imagining that resistance is in vain. Such must
be encouraged to further resistance; _si tamen pollutio sequitur sua
sponte, involuntaria censenda est utpote præter voluntatem secuta_, and,
therefore, there is no sin. (4) _Alii demum timoratæ conscientiæ, sed
nervosæ complexionis, in lecto vehementes commotiones carnis identidem
patiuntur; si positivam resistentiam opponere pergant, obdormiscere
nequeunt, et, si tandem sopiantur, pollutio in somno evenit._ These
should be admonished to pray for divine help, to make a firm act of
disapproval, and then, with a quiet conscience, to assume a passive
attitude, in accordance with the teaching of St. Alphonsus, Lib. V. _de
peccato_, n. 9.

[954] Aertnys, l. c. art. II. § 1, nn. 128-133; Tappehorn, Anleitung zur
Verwaltung des Buss-Sakramentes, 4 Abschn. § 85.

[955] Serm. super Ecce nos.

[956] Praxis Confess. n. 92.

[957] To deny absolutely the existence of a vocation under such
circumstances is too severe a doctrine; higher and purer motives may
exist along with those of a distinctly lower order, and the aim of the
confessor should then be to foster the higher motives while eliminating
the lower ones. Great caution, unquestionably, should be used where
inferior motives are detected, but we should never lose sight of the
possibility of God’s grace being granted to those whose ideals are not at
first of the very highest order.

[958] Cf. S. Thomas, Quodlib. III. art. 14.

[959] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 92; Aertnys, l. c. n. 134.

[960] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 93; Aertnys, l. c. n. 135; Tappehorn,
Anleitung, etc., § 85; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. VII. nn.
398, 408.

[961] “_Unde concludes, gravissimi momenti esse munus tum Seminarii
directoris, tum alumnorum confessarii, ut mature alumnos dirigant, eorum
animos efforment, defectum aptitudinis aperiant, imo nisi de confessario
confessionisque sigillo vel simili secreto agitur, ineptos etiam
relegendos curent._”—Lehmkuhl, l. c.

[962] Concerning purity of heart, compare § 69. “_De divina vocatione
hic imprimis nota, debere positiva probatione constare de vitæ probitate
tum Superiori, ut ad Ordines, maxime sacros, admittere possit, tum ipsi
candidato, ut sacrum ordinem suscipere sibi liceat._”— Lehmkuhl, l.
c. And very justly Aertnys writes (Instr. pract. l. c. n. 135 fin.):
_Nisi juvenes innocentiam servent, dum in Seminario ad sacerdotales
virtutes efformantur, vix spes est fore, ut illam servent in Sacerdotio
constituti. Unde turpiter seipsos illi decipiunt, qui arbitrantur, se
in Sacerdotii gradu positos emendaturos esse vitia, in quibus laici vel
clerici sorduerunt._

[963] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 802-804; Examen Ord. n. 45.

[964] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 93. Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. III.
Tract. II. n. 112. We may suggest that the following distinctions are to
be made: (1) _votum non nubendi seu cælibatus_; (2) _votum virginitatis_;
(3) _votum_ (_perpetuæ_) _castitatis_. The first prohibits marriage
(_ergo non formaliter sed consequenter tantum inducit obligationem
perfectæ castitatis_); the second, any _peccatum consummatum_, by which
virginity is violated, _i.e. voluntariam seminis effusionem, si de viro
agitur, sive per copulam, sive per pollutionem fit; si de muliere agitur,
copulam aut innaturalem corporalis integritatis læsionem culpabiliter
factam_; the third forbids (_formaliter et per se_) every interior or
exterior act which is contrary to chastity _ex motivo religionis_. Cf.
Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. VIII. n. 719.

[965] See the following section. But he must by no means meddle with
engagements; every pastor, every priest, should be on his guard against
this, “for the zeal of relations in this matter is already great enough,”
remarks Frassinetti, who continues: “In matrimonial matters the world
wishes to act independently; and it is well that it does. Priests who do
not interfere in these matters act well in the eyes of God, and meet with
the approbation of men” (Frassinetti, l. c. VI. chap. On the Sacrament
of Matrimony, § 1, n. 458). On the other hand, it would be no dangerous
interference, and would not be taken ill by any one, if the confessor
endeavored to induce a man who had dishonored a young woman to marry her
as soon as possible. However, one cannot speak of an _absolute_ duty
to marry the woman under these circumstances, nor may one always adopt
this remedy. For if the woman were so immoral that infidelity toward
her husband might be safely presupposed, or if the seducer were such a
dissolute man that he would hear nothing about the bond of marriage, and
it was to be presumed that he would abandon or illtreat his wife if he
were forced into marriage, it would be highly imprudent to bring about
such a marriage. The same applies to all other cases in which it could
be foreseen that the marriage would result in misery. This would be
trying to remedy one misfortune, as seduction certainly is, by a lasting
evil, namely, a wretched marriage. The confessor must, therefore, first
investigate the circumstances.

[966] Theologians teach that, _per se loquendo_, children are not _bound_
to obey their parents in the matter of their vocation (they might,
_per accidens_, be sometimes bound to this, _non vi præcepti, sed ex
charitate_), that children who wish to join a Religious Order are _not_
always bound to obtain the advice and assent of their parents, etc.
Children should, however, take into consideration the objections raised
by their parents against their choice of a partner in life. This duty of
children to ask their parents’ advice and consent is one which ordinarily
binds under grave sin, _quia gravis contemptus est ac signum diffidentiæ,
tantam rem sine eorum consensu aggredi ac nurum aut generum ipsis insciis
adducere_. Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 849; Lib. VII. n. 335; Lib. IV. n.
68; S. Thom. II. Q. 104, art. 5, Suppl. Q. 47, art. 6. Cf. Aertnys,
Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tract. IV. n. 153.

[967] Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 1 de ref. Compare the Ordinances of many
provincial and diocesan synods, many diocesan regulations, and even civil
legislation.

[968] Compare the doctrine of the _occasio proxima, præsens libera_. S.
Alph. H. A. Tract. VII. n. 32; Scavini, Theol. Mor. Univ. Tract. X. n.
262. This is especially necessary when a dispensation for the intended
marriage is sought, as this dispensation generally contains the clause,
_dummodo separate vivant_. Cf. Bangen, Instr. pract. de spousal. et
matrim. I. p. 27 ss.

[969] Cf. Benedict XIV, Inst. pastor. _Sponsos eorumque parentes_
(_parochi_) _admoneant, ne unquam sponsi sine testibus ac præsertim
consanguineis, colloquium simul ineant, si illud aliquando permittendum
videtur; indecorum esse vetitumque eos simul habitare, graviter
puniendos, si de hac re certiores facti fuerimus._

[970] Cf. H. A. Tract. 7, n. 32; Tract, ult. n. 3; Theol. Mor. Lib. VI.
n. 452; Praxis Confess. n. 204. Cf. n. 65.

[971] Cf. Sanchez, De Matrimon. Lib. IX. Disp. 46, n. 52; Salmant. Tr.
26, cp. 3, n. 59; Sporer, De Matrim. n. 429; S. Leonard, Disc. mist.
nn. 23, 24; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Append. _De prax. serv. cum occas. et
recidivis_, P. III. cp. VII. n. 340 ss. The question whether _sponsis
amplexus et oscula honesta in signum amoris_ are allowed is answered by
theologians _affirmative communiter, si fiant honesto modo juxta morem
patriæ sicut solutis permittantur; sunt enim connaturalia signa amoris.
Non licent vero oscula pressa sæpiusque repetita, neque diuturnæ manuum
constrictiones._ Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 854.

[972] Hence, engagements which are entered into without prospect of
speedy marriage are much to be disapproved. See § 66, V.

[973] Cf. Bened. XIV, Instr. 46; S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 846.

[974] Concerning dissolution of betrothal, see S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI.
Tract. VI. De matrim. Dub. III. quomodo dissolvantur sponsalia, n. 855
ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. VIII. De Matrim. n. 433 ss.

[975] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 1, de ref. mat. Rit. Rom. Tit. VII. cp. 1.

[976] “_Optimum et ut plurimum etiam necessarium erit confessionis
generalis consilium, ut sponsi labes suas plenius abluant et sanioribus
instituantur principiis atque impedimenta occulta et defectus, quibus
non raro laborant, quosque alteri parti aperire tenentur, sincere
detegantur._”—Instr. Eyst. p. 352.

[977] Compare § 8; Gury, Casus Conscientiæ, II. nn. 733, 394.

[978] Scavini, l. c. de Matrim. Disp. 4, Q. 3; Gury, Theol. Mor. II. 640.

[979] Compare above, § 44. Absolution from reserved sins, S. Alph. l. c.
Lib. VI. nn. 584, 585; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit.
n. 245; Gury, l. c. II. n. 575.

[980] Or, as is the common custom in many places, not at once to set up
house together, but to wait till the dispensation has been granted.

[981] _Prouti in aliis Legibus, quando aditus ad Papam est impossibilis
et periculum in mora_ (cf. Bened. XIV, De. Syn. Lib. IV. cp. 2, nn. 2,
3); indeed according to the probable opinion of some theologians, the
bishop can delegate this power, as a _potestas ordinaria_, to others,
_etiam generaliter pro omnibus casibus occurrentibus_. S. Alph. Theol.
Mor. Lib. VI. n. 613; Prax. Conf. n. 8.

[982] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. and H. A. n. 114; Scavini, l. c.; Gury, l. c.
II. 771; Cas. Consc. II. n. 1045; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 273.

[983] Benger holds that confession affords the most suitable occasion
for giving the necessary instruction concerning the _sacredness_ of the
matrimonial duties. Dubois (l. c.) urges that persons about to be married
should be well instructed in what concerns that state, in order that they
may never do anything which is against their conscience, or concerning
which they are in doubt, and that they should obtain advice from pious
and judicious people, or _from their confessor_; Aertnys (Theol. Mor. l.
c. n. 515) speaks of an _officium parochi et confessarii_, to instruct
married people concerning _licita et illicita in matrimonio_. The
confessions of married people and the questions which they put to the
confessor, may afford reason and occasion for instructing them concerning
the _debitum conjugale_. The confessor must, therefore, be prepared
for this; he should also be able to impart necessary information in
a becoming manner; and it requires judgment and skill so to instruct
in this difficult matter as to convey the information without giving
offense or saying more than is necessary. We append the wise remark of
Cardinal Gousset (Moral Theology, II. n. 897).... _Sacerdos, qui, ut ait
Apostolus, debet exemplum esse fidelium in castitate, tacebit, etiam
in sacro tribunali, de modo utendi matrimonio, seu de circumstantiis
ad actum conjugalem spectantibus, nisi forte fuerit interrogatus.
Explicare fusius, quæ licita sunt conjugibus aut illicita, ipsis æque ac
confessariis periculosum foret._ Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 41.

[984] Everything is allowed which is necessary, or conducive, to the
furtherance and attainment of the object of matrimony. The chief object
of matrimony is the _procreatio prolis_; the secondary object _remedium
concupiscentiæ_, and _mutuum adjutorium et solatium in vitæ societate_.
All that is necessary, and conducive, to the attainment of the principal
object, or which serves these secondary objects, having regard for the
first, is allowed; whatever _frustrates_ the principal object is mortally
sinful, whatever goes beyond this principal object, without counteracting
it, is venial sin. For further particulars upon this subject, the
confessor should consult the compendiums of moral theology; for example,
Aertnys, De Matrim. P. IV. cp. 2, n. 479 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. De Matrim.
Sect. IV. n. 834 ss.

[985] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 94; Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n.
137; Frassinetti, Practical Instruction for Young Confessors (Lucerne,
1874), 2. Pt. 6 Chap. §§ 4, 5; Dubois, The Practical Confessor, 2 Pt. 19
chap. n. 402, etc.

[986] Benedict XIV, Decl. 4 Nov., 1741; Pius VII, Bull 27 Feb., 1809;
Gregory XVI, Encycl. 27 May, 1832, to the archbishops and bishops of
Bavaria. Finally, Leo XIII, Circular 10 Feb., 1880 declares: “A warning
voice must also be raised against marriage lightly contracted with a
person of another faith; for where the souls are disunited in religion,
union in other matters is scarcely to be expected. It is clear that
such marriages must be particularly shunned, for the reason that they
give occasion for unlawful communication and participation in religious
exercises, that they are a source of danger for the religion of the
Catholic party, an obstacle to the good education of the children and
not infrequently a temptation to hold all religions equally justified,
denying all difference between true and false.” Even Protestant divines
and authorities have frequently expressed themselves decidedly against
mixed marriages, and earnestly warned people against them.

[987] Ex facultat. a Pio. IX. datis. See Bangen, De Sponsalibus et de
Matrimonio, II. p. 161.

[988] Brief of Pius VIII, 25 March, 1830. Instruction of Pius IX, 15
Nov., 1858.

[989] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 715, justifies the dispensation of the Church,
under the conditions laid down, upon the following grounds: 1. _Propter
magnum bonum publicum_, such mixed marriages may be allowed even
when there is some risk, only the Catholic party must have the firm
intention not to yield to this danger (cf. Lugo, De sacr. in gen. Disp.
8, sect. ult., et De Fide Disp. 32, n. 33). 2. But when on account of
circumstances those dangers disappear, or become slight, a _magnum bonum
privatum_, such as the hope of leading the non-Catholic party to the true
faith, can also make such a marriage permissible. 3. When they cannot be
entirely removed, but yet are not really grave; or, on the other hand,
when a _bonum_, though no very great _bonum_, is to be hoped for from the
mixed marriage, it may happen that contracting such a marriage is not a
grave sin against the natural law, but a venial sin.

[990] The Roman Congregation demands _pacta notoria, de quibus spes est
servari_, that is, a documentary declaration made before the parish
priest, or a legal contract at the hand of a notary.

[991] Cf. Instructio. S. Congregat. Inquisit. 17 Febr., 1864; Decret. S.
Congr. Inq. 29 Aug., 1888.

[992] _Si quando connubium sine cautionibus necessariis initum fuerit,
non propterea_ (_parochi_) _conjugem catholicam negligant, sibique ac
suo peccato relinquant, sed studeant earn ad pœnitentiam adducere, ut
suæ obligationi quoad catholicam educationem prolis, quantum potest,
satisfaciat; quod quamdiu non præstiterit aut saltem sincere promiserit,
sacramentis suscipiendis utique imparatus censeri debet._ (_S. Congreg.
Officii 29 Jul., 1880 ad Cardin. Primatum et Archiep. Strigon._)

[993] Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. nn. 637, 654, 664.

[994] Cf. Bangen, Instructio practica, Tit. 4, p. 29. “_Si pater est
catholicus, sane liberorum educatio in ipsius potestate est: Ergo quod
potest facere debet; promittens coram testibus vel jurato vel juramenti
loco, se prolem educaturum in catholica religione; sed id de facto etiam
præstare tenetur. Excipe tamen, si proles jam in ea ætate sit, ut a
patre jam non dependeat; tunc enim sufficit, ut vere sit attritus atque
in hujus doloris signum id quod pro viribus efficere possit, peragere
sit paratus. Si mater est catholica, distinguendum videtur. Aut adducere
potest virum, ut in catholicam prolium educationem consentiat; et tunc
ambo conjuges formaliter expositas cautiones emittant coram parocho;
aut virum ad hoc movere nequit; tum attendatur, an indubitata ediderit
contritionis signa idque præstare pro liberorum educatione sit parata,
quod in ipsius viribus est._”

[995] See above, p. 603, Remark 2.

[996] Compare chiefly § 71 and § 49.

[997] “_Sed est aliud feminarum ingenium, quod considerationem
nostram meretur, nimirum, cum factæ fuerint propter virum, libenter
hujus societate gaudent et ea animi propensio, qua se in virum ferri
sentiunt, et vice versa, laqueus est non minus suæ, quam Confessarii
saluti periculosus. Ideo necesse est, ut Confessariis monita demus
et præcautiones indicemus, quibus pericula evitent in frequentibus
et prolixis mulierum confessionibus latentia. Verum enimvero adhæsio
mulieris personæ Confessarii tantum est malum, ut morte ipsa diligentius
est evitandum._” Aertnys, Instruct. practica, P. III. cp. II. art.
3, n. 139. _Mulier sensibili affectu magis succenditur et instinctu
cordis magis quam rationis usu sese dirigit ... uti debilior astutiâ
finem intentum assequitur ... si cui passioni se dedit, magis insanit,
... tempore menstruorum et prægnationis mulieres obnoxiæ sunt variis
motibus passionum, puta morositatis, iracundiæ, anxietatis, et.... Horum
consideratio juvabit sane Confessarium in directione mulierum._ Aertnys,
l. c.

[998] Frassinetti, Pract. Instr. l. c. § 5, p. 280.

[999] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 119.

[1000] Even those theologians who teach that the _aggravating_
circumstances must also be stated in confession, admit, _in puncto
VI præcepti_, especially in the confessions of women, an exception.
“Heedless questioners! have care for yourselves, have care for weak
souls, respect the holy Sacrament,” exclaims Frassinetti; and the Angel
of the Schools says, “_Potius estis contaminatores quam confessores_.”
Cf. Gousset, Moral Theol. for the use of parish priests and confessors,
II. n. 424; Gury, l. c. n. 1261.

[1001] Praxis Confess. n. 119.

[1002] Cf. Gaume, Handbook for Confessors, Third Chapter, nn. 156-159;
Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n. 141; Ricardi, Dei doveri et dello spirito
degli eccles. 15 a 15 in Le Noir; S. Alph. Praxis Confess. l. c.; Zenner,
Instructio practica Confessor. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 2, §§ 270, 271.

[1003] Frassinetti, l. c. p. 283. We will not leave unnoticed two
special dangers to which Aertnys calls attention: (1) _Siquando
Confessarius, junior præsertim advertat pœnitentem aliquam carnali amore
sibi adhærere asperis verbis eam retundat, et si hoc non sufficiat ad
alium Confessarium remittat, idque tum præcipue faciendum est, cum
et Confessarius sensualem affectum in se sentit; alioquin incautus
Confessarius seipsum et pœnitentem magno periculo exponet._ (2) He
then reminds confessors that the devil especially likes to direct his
efforts against priests, as, at one blow, he ruins not only one, but
many other souls if he succeeds in corrupting a priest. _Inde nonnunquam
contingit, ut procaces feminæ consilium ceperint insidias parandi virtuti
alicujus Sacerdotis, simulando conversionem, infirmitatem, aut quid
aliud excogitando, ut paulatim ad seductionem devenirent. Evenit quoque,
ut salax puella prolixam seriem obscænitatum in Confessione enarret et
inverecunde describat, eo animo, ut turpes commotiones in Confessario
suscitet. Confessarius debere ejusmodi serpentes a se repellere, res ipsa
monet._ And Berardi (Praxis Confess. n. 1099) adds: “_Cavendum quoque
est ab illis puellis, quæ ex curiositate malitiosa cupiunt interrogari a
Confessariis, ut addiscant ea quæ adhuc ignorant et in hunc finem semper
affirmative respondent. Sunt etiam aliæ adhuc magis malitiosæ, quæ, sive
ex libidine, sive ut postea in conversationibus rideant de Confessario,
non solum ad quaslibet interrogationes affirmative respondent, sed etiam
ruborem fingunt et enixe petunt, ut interrogentur. Ab his scopulis
interdum difficile est cavere; sed utile erit, quod Confessarii juniores
sciant, quousque malitia feminæ pertinqere possit._” Cf. Eccle. 25, 26.

[1004] On this account the Provincial Council of Bordeaux (Conc.
Burdigal. 1556, Tit. III. c. 5, in Coll. Lacens. Tom. IV. p. 711)
declares that, in our times especially, solicitude for men constitutes
a principal part of the priest’s work. “_Sane hoc ævi nostri opus
præcipuum reputamus, viros videlicet quam solertissima industria et
quovis indefesso zelo provocare, ut ad meliorem vitæ christianæ rationem
instituendam, ad exequenda integrius cujusque status et conditionis
officia, tandem se recipiant. Non saperet sacerdos, qui laboris
difficultatibus solummodo intentus, de divinis promissionibus et virtute
gratiæ diffidens, hoc opus aggrederetur segniter aut minus strenue
prosequeretur._” This care for men the priest will especially exercise
in the confessional. “The divine authority with which the priest is
invested, the reverence with which the penitent appears before him, the
candor with which he unbosoms himself, the obedience which he shows him,
_give an efficacy to the confessor’s work in the confessional, such as he
is unable to exercise in any other place or occasion_.” Göpfert.

[1005] Praxis Confess. n. 120.

[1006] Cf. Göpfert, l. c. p. 283.

[1007] L. c. p. 278, n. 397; also Dubois, l. c. n. 368, p. 434, and
Göpfert, l. c. p. 284.

[1008] He should not be repelled if the penitent—as is peculiar
to many men, generally less from malice than from awkwardness or
embarrassment—shows a rough, sullen, insolent disposition; if his
expressions are blunt, short, and ill chosen; indeed, the priest should
be impressed favorably by the fact that men generally confess their sins
with a certain honest fearlessness. Cf. Synod vic. Sutchuensis, 1803;
Coll. Lac. Tom. VI. p. 608; and Conc. Aqu. 1850, Tit. VII. c. 5. Coll.
Lac. Tom. IV. p. 992: _Alacri animo et in multa patientia suscipiat
pœnitentes, præsertim viros, qui ad sacrum tribunal summo studio omnique
charitatis industria alliciendi sunt._ Conc. Baltim. 1866, Tit. V. c. 5
(Coll. Lac. Tom. III. p. 40).

[1009] Zenner, Instructio pract. Conf. l. c. §§ 273, 274; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Sacram. Pœn. Sect. III. cp. 4, art. 3, nn. 506-510; Aertnys, Instruct.
pract. l. c. art. II. n. 148; Gaume, Handbook for Confessors, n. 185.

[1010] See § 41.

[1011] For this purpose he should make a diligent study of those ascetic
books which treat of these matters; for example, the works of St.
Alphonsus, Rodriguez, Scaramelli.

[1012] _Idque_, proceeds Lehmkuhl, _adeo verum est, ut in extraordinariis
donis divinis, teste Sancta Theresia, Deus, non raro directorem vel
confessarium experientia instruat, ut alios, qui ejusmodi charismatibus
dotati sint, recte instruere et dirigere possit._ The more, therefore,
the confessor sees himself deprived of the extraordinary gifts, the
more prudent and cautious he must be; if he should have a penitent who
enjoys a special intercourse with God, such penitent must not be lightly
treated. But even in the treatment of ordinary, everyday matters,
the confessor of nuns must proceed with great prudence, in order to
give wholesome advice and correct answers; “_quo enim sagacioris et
suspicacioris indolis sint feminæ et quo majus otium ruminandi et
indagandi monialibus relinquatur, eo cautior et prudentior esse debet
illarum confessarius, ne errorum det ansam_.” Lehmkuhl. It is also a part
of prudence to content himself with what devolves upon him as confessor,
and not to interfere in the temporal affairs of the nuns, lest, by more
familiar intercourse with one or other of them, he expose himself or her
to danger, or give occasion for ill feeling or petty jealousy.

[1013] Decretum 17 Dec., 1890.

[1014] Compare on this point S. R. C. 2 Dec., 1885; S. C. Ep. et
Reg. 4 Aug., 1888; Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, Theol. Mor. II. n. 241;
moreover, S. Rom. et Univ. Inquis. 2 July, 1890; Linzer Theol-prakt.
Quartalschrift, 1889, S. 630; 1893, S. 138 (both articles by W. E.
Hubert). According to these decisions, the right to give permission to
nuns to receive holy communion oftener (than on the days fixed by the
constitutions) belongs, not to their director or their Superioress, but
only to the usual confessor, who, in the exercise of his right, is free
and independent. Only in one case could the Superioress forbid holy
communion, namely, when a nun had _publicly_ committed a _serious_ fault
which had caused _scandal_ to the other sisters (cf. S. C. Ep. et Reg.
27 June, 1876); this prohibition, however, would only hold good till the
next confession. When the _Confessor ordinarius_ has given permission for
special occasions, it need not be referred to the Superiors; but if the
permission is granted once for all, the Superior should be informed; the
penitent herself ought to do so, but only once. Cf. S. Rom. et Univ. Inq.
2 July, 1890.

[1015] St. Alphonsus wishes that such a priest (_conscientiæ parum
meticulosæ_) should be asked: 1. _Si distulerit celebrationem missarum
per mensem, præsertim si sint defunctorum_ (cf. H. A. Append. III.
n. 107). 2. _Si festinanter celebravit_ (H. A. Tract. 15, nn. 84 ad
86). 3. _Si satisfecit obligationi divini officii, præsertim si est
beneficiatus._ H. A. Append. IV. § 1, n. 9; Prax. Conf. n. 183. Cf.
Aertnys. Instr. pract. P. III. cp. 2, 3, art. 3, n. 154 and P. II. cp. 2,
n. 42; Gaume, Handbook, 4. chap. 2. art. §§ 182, 183, 184.

[1016] H. A. Append. IV. § 1, n. 9.

[1017] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 183.

[1018] Prax. Conf. nn. 122, 127, 219. _Contemplatio in ceteris hominibus
quæritur per consilium, in sacerdotibus vero exigitur per præceptum._
Rup. Tuit. Lib. II. in Lev. cp. 40. St. Gregory trembles for those
bishops who admit to the service of the sanctuary men who have neither
reverence nor love for prayer. St. Bernard admonishes Pope Eugenius to
impose hands upon those only who have taste and zeal for meditation. St.
Charles Borromeo objects to ordaining any priest without being certain
that he possesses the science of meditation.... And everything that has
been written upon this subject since the days of St. Vincent de Paul,
St. Francis of Sales, and Olier, may be summed up as follows: “If one
becomes a priest only by ordination, one becomes a good priest only by
meditation.” Compare Chaignon, Meditations, Introduction, p. x ff.

[1019] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 48 ss.; Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n.
156 ss.; Zenner, Instr. pract. Conf. §§ 276, 277.

[1020] The Priest in Solitude, Div. I. chap. ix. n. 30.

[1021] Rit. Rom. Tit. V. cp. 4, n. 1; S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 228.

[1022] Rit. Rom. Tit. V. cp. 4, n. 7.

[1023] Cf. Polancus, Methodus juvandi moribundos (Dilling, 1578);
Scupoli, The Manner of Comforting the Sick, and Preparing Them for a
Good Death (3. Supplement to the Spiritual Combat); Carol. Borrom.
Instructiones de cura et visit. infirm. (Act. Med. pp. 595-608); S. Alph.
Prax. Conf. nn. 227-292; H. A. II. Append.; Hettinger, Herr, den du
liebst, er ist krank. Wurzburg, 1854; Aertnys, Instruct. pract. P. III.
cp. 5, art. 2; Zenner, Instruct. etc. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 2, §§ 301-311;
Schüch, § 317; Frassinetti, a. a. O. 2. Teil. 2. Cap. I. anh. §§ 1-7;
Dubois, The Practical Pastor of Souls, 2. Part, 12. Chap. pp. 317-336,
etc.; Stang, Pastoral Theology.

[1024] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 354; De Herdt, Sacræ Liturg. praxis, Tom. II.
P. III. n. 20, IV.

[1025] Cf. Rit. Rom. l. c. _Quum primum noverit, quempiam ex fidelibus
curæ suæ commissis ægrotare, non expectabit, ut ad eum vocetur: sed ultro
ad illum accedat, idque non semel tantum, ted sæpius, quatenus opus
fuerit: horteturque Parochiales suos, ut ipsum admoneant, quum aliquem
in parochia sua ægrotare contigerit, præcipue si morbus gravior fuerit._
The sick person should, therefore, be visited _early_, the visit should
be repeated, but with _discretion_, so that he may not be in any way
inconvenienced. Various circumstances, however, cause patients or those
belonging to them to conceal the illness from the priest, such as, fear
of troubling him, the erroneous idea that his visit will entail expense,
anxiety lest his appearance might have an injurious effect upon the
patient’s condition; lack of conscientiousness on the part of the doctor,
malice, unbelief. In such cases the priest must endeavor to remove these
objections, and to obtain timely access to the sick person.

[1026] Cf. Rit. Roman. l. c.

[1027] The priest should not forget the exhortation of the Rit. Rom.:
“_Ægrotos visitans ea ex qua Sacerdotes Domini decet honestate et
gravitate se habeat, ut non ægris solum, sed sibi et domesticis verbo
et exemplo prosit ad salutem._” Special care is necessary in visiting
persons of the other sex. The sick-room should not be entered without
due notice, the visits should take place as much as possible during the
day, and not be too frequent nor too long; the priest should avoid being
alone; even when hearing the confession the door should be left open, so
that others can always see from a distance; certainly the door should
not be locked, and he should never remain in the dark, nor alone longer
than is unavoidably necessary. Everything of the nature of tenderness
or sentimentality should be avoided, and holy decorum and gravity be
observed. Comp. Benger, Pastoraltheologie, a. a. O.; Frassinetti,
Practical Instruction, chap. 2, Appendix I. § 3, nn. 353-356.

[1028] S. Aug. Enarrat. in psalm. 144, n. 11.

[1029] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. nn. 231, 232.

[1030] See §§ 30, 31, 32, General Confession.

[1031] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, sect. 14, n. 598.

[1032] Comp. § 27, S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 260; H. Ap. Tract. 15, n. 24;
Tract. 16, n. 39; Gury, l. c. II. n. 498.

[1033] S. Alph. Hom. Ap. Tract, ult. n. 46, Prax. Conf. n. 105.

[1034] Compare § 27; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479.

[1035] See § 86.

[1036] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 682; Prax. Conf. n. 105; Reuter, n. 235.
Cf. 211, 6.

[1037] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 609, 614, 616.

[1038] See § 66, 1. Those living in concubinage.

[1039] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 454; Reuter, n. 211, 6. Cf. 173; Gury, Cas.
consc. II. nn. 722-725; Gaume, Handbook, n. 376.

[1040] Compare Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, § 100; Müller,
Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tract. II. § 167.

[1041] See also § 33, III.

[1042] It would be very wrong to take no further trouble about the sick
after they have received the last Sacraments. Benger, a. a. O. n. 17;
Dubois, n. 264; and others.

[1043] It would be best that the physician should tell the patient of
this danger. But if none else will do it, the priest must perform this
service of love, and that, not only when the patient is in a dangerous
condition as to his soul, but also when he is well prepared.

[1044] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. nn. 237-253.

[1045] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 276, n. 11. See § 86.

[1046] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 234, 235; 267, 368. Rit. Rom. Tit. V. cp. 4,
nn. 6, 13, 14.

[1047] With regard to the Indulgence for the dying we append the
following from the various decrees: The sick person can gain only once
the Plenary Indulgence for the dying _in eodem mortis articulo_. S. C.
Ind. 5 Febr., 1841. And it is forbidden to give the General Absolution
more than once (whether it be by the same or by different priests) _in
eodem mortis articulo_, or to grant the Plenary Indulgence for the dying
repeatedly on the plea that the patient has claims to it from various
titles, for instance, by membership in the confraternities of the Rosary
and of the Scapular. S. C. Ind. 12 Mar., 1855, 22 Mar., 1879. The formula
prescribed by Benedict XIV must be used by all under pain of invalidity,
and according to a declaration of Leo XIII, 1882, even by Regulars
and Tertiaries, yet with mention of the founder of their Order in the
_Confiteor_. Compare Schneider-Beringer, Die Ablässe, 10. Aufl. S. 473 f.

[1048] Ordo ministrandi Sacr. Pœn. n. 24.

[1049] Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 196, Q. 1;
Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. l. c. Sect. III. art. IV. n. 510; Müller, Theol.
Mor. Lib. III. T. II. § 166.

[1050] Lehmkuhl, l. c., who, however, adds: “_Attamen culpandus non est,
qui forte conditionem” si capax es “adjungat, quum possint occurrere
circumstantiæ, quæ absolutionis valorem dubium reddant._”

[1051] Aertnys, l. c., S. Antoninus, Suarez, Bonacina, etc. Müller, also,
recommends the _absol. condit._

[1052] “_Moraliter fieri nequit in hac nostra natura composita, ut
dolor et desiderium, se subjiciendi clavibus Ecclesiæ, quæ interne
habentur, nullo actu sensibili se manifestent, licet ab aliis forte non
animadvertatur, vel quia præsentes non sunt vel quia signa non valent
distinguere. Hinc sicut in moribundo sensibus destituto potest præsumi
pœnitentia, ita pari omnino jure præsumitur pœnitentia manifestata in
ordine ad se subjiciendum clavibus._”—Franzelin, De Sacr. in genere.
Romæ, 1868, p. 39.

[1053] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 482; Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q. 3; Müller, l.
c. § 166, II.

[1054] Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 512-515; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1162;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1, _De absolutione morientium_, nn.
394-420.

[1055] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q. IV et V, Müller, l. c. § 166, II.
_b_ and _c_, and his dissertation upon the sacramental absolution of
the dying in the Linzer Theol-prakt. Quartalschrift, 1884, pp. 259-264;
Kenrick, Theol. Mor. Tract. 18, n. 211; Konings, Theol. Mor. II. n.
1371. Concerning dying non-Catholics who are still conscious, see § 73
(Conclusion).

[1056] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 480.

[1057] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 482; Prax. Conf. n. 276; H. Ap. n. 37;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q. VI; Müller, l. c. § 168.

[1058] De Sacram. Pœnit. Conf. VIII. n. 219. Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n.
276.




TOPICAL INDEX


  A

  Abortionists, excommunicated, 339.

  “About” as a numerical qualification of sin, 163.

  Absence of penitent when absolution is given (note), 57.
    of contrition, how known, 120.

  Absolution, form of, 50-53.
    from censures, 54.
    presence of penitent for, 55.
    in writing, 56.
    conditional, 59-69, 645.
    objections urged against conditional, 66-69.
    given at a distance, 58.
    by telephone (note), 59.
    from reserved sins, 340-350.
    direct and indirect, 345.
    of _complex in peccato turpi_, 354-363.
    of those who refuse to denounce a _sollicitans_, 375.
    postponement of, 529.
    to the dying, 645-654.
    repeated in cases of the dying, 653.

  _Absolventes complicem in peccato turpi_, 333.

  Abuse of the sacrament, 351.

  Apostates, excommunicated, 328.

  _Apostolicæ Sedis_, bull on censures, 326.

  Appeal to secular judge in ecclesiastical cases, 332.

  Appreciative sorrow for sin, 108.

  Approbation of confessors, 279-283.
    for hearing confessions of nuns, 311.

  _Articulus mortis_, removes reservation, 347.

  _Attritio_, 74, 88-98.

  Attritionists, teaching of, 96.

  Avarice, remedies of, 456.


  B

  Bad confessions, 391, 394.

  Banns, dispensation from, 604.

  Baptism, sins before, 39.
    sins after, doubtfully valid, 190.
    of converts, 558.

  Betrothals, 592.

  Blessing before confession, 53.

  _Bona fide_ penitents, 443.

  Books, _ex professo_ bad, 512.
    on the Index (note), 331.
    reading of good, 580.


  C

  Careless examination of conscience, signs of, 220.

  Cases reserved, 316, 327.

  Casuistry, study of, necessary, 432.

  Catholics, dying, as a rule to be absolved, 651.

  Censures, absolution from, 54.
    reserved, 326.

  Certain and doubtful matter for absolution, 40.

  Change of penance, 275.

  Child, age of, for receiving sacraments, 25.

  Children’s confessions, how to be heard, 561.

  Choice of state of life, 583.

  Circumstances of sins to be confessed, 166-180.
    changing venial into mortal, 173.

  _Circumstantiæ aggravantes_, 174.
    _speciem mutantes_, 175.

  Civil government pastors, 335.
    marriages, 607, 640.

  Clandestine marriages, impediment of, 607.

  Classification of sins (note), 158.

  Commerce, missionaries forbidden to engage in, 338.

  _Communicatio in sacris_, by clerics, 338.
    mixed marriages, 600, 603.

  Communion, frequent, 453.

  Communion, frequent, for young unmarried people, 577.

  Commutation of penance, 274-276.

  Company-keeping of young people, 592.

  Complete, sin to be reserved must be, 324.

  Completeness of confession, 158, 198.
    reasons excusing from, 200, 203.

  _Complex absolvens_, excommunicated, 333.

  _Complex in peccato turpi_, absolution of, 354.
    inquiring the name of, unlawful, 351.

  Concealing sins, habit of, 391, 394.

  _Concina_, favors rigorous views (note), 65.

  Concubinage, 501.

  _Conditio de præsenti et de præterito_, 62.

  Conditional absolution, 59-69.

  Conditions placed in mixed marriages, 601.

  _Confessio ficta ex pravo fine_, 367.

  Confession, annual, 24, 26.
    necessity of, 137.
    in writing, 151.
    of children, 561.
    of women, 608.

  Confessor, regular, 145-148.
    of religious, 308, 309.
    of nuns, 311.

  Confirmation, blots out venial sin, 34.

  Conscience, examination of, 215.
    erroneous, 568.

  Constituent parts of penance, 37.

  Contracting marriage before Protestant minister, 603.

  Contrition, 19, 36.
    extent and efficacy of, 71.
    perfect and imperfect, 74, 88-98.
    qualities of, 98-111.
    motives of, 105.
    in children, 570.

  Converts, treatment of, 555.
    baptism of, 558.


  D

  _Damnificator injustus_, confessor as, 464.

  Dancing, 506.

  Danger to life of confessor, 201.

  Dangerous intimacies, 514-518, 592.

  Deaf penitents, 202.

  Death, danger of, 65, 645.

  _Debitum conjugale_, questions concerning, 387, 599.

  Defenders of heretics, 329, 331.

  Deferring absolution, duty of, 407, 411, 413.

  Deficient jurisdiction, 300.

  Definite matter for absolution, 48.

  _Deinde_, in the form of absolution (note), 55.

  Delegated jurisdiction not to be presumed, 288-290.

  Denouncing the _sollicitans_, 372.

  _Deprecatoria forma_, not in use in Latin Church, 55.

  Desire of pleasing in women, 579.

  Despair, temptation to, in the dying, 643.

  Different spiritual conditions, penitents in, 487.

  _Diligentia moralis_, required in examining conscience, 215.

  Direct and indirect absolution, 345.
    remission of sin, 41.

  Discretion in penitent, 145.
    in imposing penance, 270.
    in questioning the penitent, 383.

  _Disparitas cultus_, impediment of, 600.

  Disposition of penitents, 49, 398.

  Distance, absolution given at a, 58.

  Distracted confessor (note), 397.

  _Doctoris munus_ in the sacrament, 438.

  Dogmatic theology, knowledge of, 428.

  _Dolor intellectivus_, not contrition, 72.
    _in fieri et in facto esse_, 112.

  Doubt of jurisdiction, 64.
    disposition, 49, 65, 402, 412.

  Doubtful matter for absolution, 40.
    sins to be confessed, 180.

  Duellists, 336.

  Duty of denouncing the _confessarius sollicitans_, 368-371.
    confessor to dispose penitent, 402.

  Dying penitents doubtfully disposed, 409.
    ministry of confessor to the, 630-632, 645.
    penitents, in the act of sin, 651.


  E

  Effects of perfect contrition, 81.
    sins, evil, 161.

  Efficacious resolution, 131.

  Efficacy of contrition, 71.

  _Efficax affectu_, 131.
    _executione_, 131.

  Engaged people, how to treat, 592.

  Engagements of marriage, pastors not to meddle in (note), 591.

  Envy, remedies of, 457.

  _Epikeia_, 445.

  _Error communis_, about jurisdiction, 302.
    _privatus_, about jurisdiction, 302.

  Errors committed by confessor, 460.

  Essential form of sacrament, 50.

  Eucharist removes venial sin, 33.

  Examination of conscience, 215-221, 452.
    for children, 565.

  Excommunication by neglect of annual confession, 28.
    reserved to the Pope, 327.
    _latæ sententiæ_, 335.
    reserved to the ordinary, 339.

  _Excommunicationes non reservatæ_, 339.

  Excusing, reasons, from complete confession, 198.

  Exempted from going to Rome in reserved cases, 346.

  Exhorting the penitent, duty of, 438.

  Experience not a substitute for science, 432.

  Extraordinary confessors of nuns, 313-315.
    jurisdiction, 300.


  F

  _Facultas absolvendi a censuris_, 604.

  Faith (implicit) essential for contrition, 73, 102.

  Faults peculiar to youth, 578.

  Fear as an element of attrition, 90.
    of relapse, 130.

  Fenians excommunicated, 336.

  _Ficta confessio ex pravo fine_, 367.

  Forbidden books, 512.

  Forgotten penance, 277.
    sins, 116, 195.
    reservation, 348.

  Form of sacrament, 50.
    essential, 50, 51.
    sufficient, 52.

  Formal heresy, 328.

  Freemasons excommunicated, 336.

  Free matter of confession, 45.

  Frequent confession, 28.
    communion, 453.


  G

  General accusation, 44.
    confession, 228-236.
    manner of hearing a, 238.
    plan for making a, 245-255.

  Good works blot out venial sin, 36.

  _Gousset_, Cardinal, defends St. Alphonsus, 68.


  H

  Habitual sinners, 518-520.

  Hearing words of absolution not essential, 56.

  Heretics excommunicated, 328.

  Hypocritical penitents, 543-545.


  I

  Ignorance of reservation, 324.

  Ignorant penitents, 185, 439, 441, 447, 642.

  Impediment, occult, in marriage, 597.

  Imperfect contrition, 88-98.

  Imposition of penance, 256.

  Impurity, remedies against, 457.
    habit of, in children, 572.

  _Index_ of forbidden books (note), 331.

  Indications of true sorrow for sin, 119.

  Indirect violation of the _sigillum_, 477.

  _Indulgentiam_ in the form of absolution, 53.

  Inquiring the name of accomplice, 351.

  Insincere confessions, 394.
    of children, 567.

  Institution of penance, 22.

  Instruction of children, 25, 569.
    penitents, 438.
    those about to be married, 591.

  Integrity of confession, 153.

  Intemperance, remedy against, 457.

  Interdict, 340.

  Intimacies, dangerous, 514.

  Invalid confessions, 222.
    absolution in reserved cases, 348.

  Invincible ignorance, 442.


  J

  Jansenist teaching about amendment, 128.

  Judge, the confessor as, 379.

  Judging of child’s disposition, 574.
    of penitent’s disposition, 398.

  Judicial power and process, 20.

  _Jurisdictio dubia_, 303.
    _in articulo mortis_, 305.

  Jurisdiction of confessors, 279-283.
    delegated, 288.
    directly limited by reservation, 325.


  K

  Knowledge of sins requisite for absolution, 226, 379.
    necessary, of the confessor, 424.


  L

  _Læsio sigilli_, danger of, 204, 466-476.

  _Lex disciplinaris_, reservation a, 325.

  _Libri erotici_, 512.

  _Librorum Index_, 331.

  Lies told in confession, 141, 143, 571.

  Long marriage-engagements, 594.

  Love, degrees of, in contrition, 76.
    of pleasure in youth, 578.


  M

  _Malus effectus peccati_, whether to be confessed, 162.

  Marriage, instruction for, 600.
    secret, 502.
    vocation to, 590.
    mixed, 600.
    before Protestant minister, 603.

  Married people, confessions of young, 599.

  _Materia proxima_, _remota_, _ex qua_, _circa quam_, 39, 40, 112.

  _Matrimonium secretum_, 502.

  Matrimony, destroys venial sin, 34.
    call to, 590.

  Matter of sacrament, 37, 40, 112, 197.

  _Medicinalis pœna_, reservation a, 325.

  Members of religious orders as penitents, 307.

  Men, confessions of, 614.

  Mildness in giving penances, 263.

  Minister of sacrament, 279, 378.
    Protestant, contracting marriage before, 603.

  _Misereatur_ in absolution, 35.

  Mistakes of confessor, 421.

  Mixed marriages, 600, 602.

  _Mixtæ religionis_, impediment, 603.

  Moral theology, study of, 427.

  _Mortalia negative dubia_, 184.

  Mothers, confessor’s care of, 613.

  Motives of contrition, 103.

  _Mulieres devotæ_, 422, 610.
    _parturientes_, 637.

  _Munus doctoris_, 438.


  N

  Name of accomplice not to be asked, 351.

  Natural inclinations to be repressed, 421.

  Necessary matter of penance, 40.
    qualities of contrition, 98-111.

  _Nemo malus præsumendus_, 399.

  _Notitia confusa_ of sins, 226.

  Number of sins to be expressed, 163, 241, 390.

  Nuns, confessors of, 311, 618-623.


  O

  Objections against conditional absolution, 66.

  Obligation to receive the sacrament, 23.
    of annual confession, 24, 26.
    procuring perfect contrition, 81-88.

  _Occasio proximo peccati_, 488.
    _remota_, 488, 492.
    _continua_, 489.
    _immediata_, 491.
    _voluntaria_, 493, 639.
    _interrupta_, 495.
    _necessaria_, 496, 499, 639.

  Occasion of sin, duty of avoiding the, 487.

  “Odd Fellows” condemned, 336.

  Office, divine, as a source of scruples, 554.

  Omission of sins to be confessed, 41.

  Omitted, sins, through forgetfulness, 193.

  Order, vocation to a religious, 585.

  Orders, sacred, blot out venial sin, 34.
    as a requisite for jurisdiction, 278.
    confessors of religious, 307.

  _Ordinarius_, includes vicar-general, 339.

  Ordinary, excommunication reserved to, 339.
    jurisdiction, 284.
    confessor of nuns, 313.


  P

  Papal reservations, 326.

  Parish priest can hear his subjects anywhere, 287.
    has ordinary jurisdiction, 285.
    as confessor, 213.

  “_Passio Domini_,” prayer after absolution, 52.

  Pastors appointed by civil government, 335.

  Patience requisite in confessor, 423.

  _Peccata externa_ reserved, only, 324.

  _Peccator publicus_, 504, 634.

  Penalties imposed on _sollicitans_, 377.

  Penance, virtue of, 17.
    act of the will, 19.
    sacrament, 20.
    imposition of, 256.
    public, 261.

  Penances repugnant to penitent to be avoided, 262.
    for venial sins, 266.
    commutation of, 274.
    object of the _sigillum_, 474.

  Penitents aiming at perfection, 536-543.

  _Percussores clericorum_, 335.

  _Peregrini_ may be absolved, 296.

  Perfect contrition, 76.
    obligation of, 84.

  _Periculum scandali_, 205.
    _læsionis sigilli_, 204.

  Persons prevented from going to Rome, 346.

  Physician, confessor as, 448.

  Pollution, the vice of, 531, 582.

  Pope has universal jurisdiction, 284.

  Postponement of absolution, 411, 415, 529.

  _Potestas jurisdictionis_, 280.
    _ordinis_, 279.

  Practical knowledge required in confessor, 431.

  Precept of confession, 23.

  Predominant passion to be discovered, 450.

  Preparation for making confession, 126.
    for hearing confession, 416.

  Presence, moral, of penitent, 55, 57, 58.

  Preserving the seal of confession, 466-470.

  Pride, remedy against, 456.

  Priesthood, signs of vocation to the, 588.

  Priests, confessions of, 624-629.

  Profession of faith by converts, 558, 560.
    at the hour of death, 560.

  Promises required in mixed marriages, 601.

  Properties of confession, 139.

  _Propositum non peccandi_, 121.

  _Proprio sacerdoti_, meaning of, 28.

  _Proxima materia_, 39.

  Prudence of confessor, 434, 436.

  Public sinners, 504.

  Purpose of amendment, 126, 639.

  Pythias, Knights of, condemned, 336.


  Q

  Qualities of contrition, 98.

  _Quasi-materia_, 37.

  Questions not to be answered by penitent, 142.
    to be put to penitent, 214, 380, 435.
    for general confession, 244, 248.


  R

  Raising the hand at _Indulgentia_ (note), 53.

  Readers of heretical books, 330.

  Reading, bad, 511.
    of good books, 580.

  Reasons excusing from complete confession, 198.

  _Receptores_ of heretics, excommunicated, 329.

  Recipient of penance, 70.

  Refusing absolution, 407.

  Regular confessor advisable for the young, 581.

  Regulars receive jurisdiction from the Pope, 292.
    may receive it conditionally from the ordinary, 295.
    require approbation from ordinary, 293.
    may be deprived of faculties by ordinary, 294.
    confessors of, 308.

  Relapsing sinners, 448-459, 521-536.

  Relation of contrition to the sacrament, 111.

  Religious order, vocation to a, 585.

  Remedies against relapse, 448.
    scruples, 550.

  Remorse of conscience, not contrition, 72.

  Repeating confession, when necessary, 224.

  Reproving penitent, duty of, 451.

  Reservation in case of strangers, 320.
    ceases, when, 347.
    forgotten by confessor, 348.

  Reserved cases, 316.
    not to be multiplied unduly, 319.
    papal, 326.

  _Retinentes libros hæreticos_, 330.

  Retractation of heresy _in foro externo_, 329.

  Revealing the accomplice, 208.

  Rules for confessors, 465.
    scrupulous penitents, 552.


  S

  Sacramental seal, 466-476.

  Sacramentals destroy sin, 35.

  _Sanatio in radice_, 443, 604.

  Satisfaction, 38.

  Schismatics, excommunicated, 332.

  Science of perfection, 428.
    required in confessor, 424.

  Scruples as object of the _sigillum_, 475.
    kinds of, 550.
    remedies against, 550.

  Scrupulosity, causes of, 547.
    marks of, 545.

  Scrupulous penitents, how to treat them, 545-552.

  Seal of confession, 466.

  Sensible contrition, 118.

  Servile fear, 91.

  Sick, confessor’s ministry to the, 630, 632-645.

  _Sigillum sacramentale_, 466.

  Signs of repentance, 20, 645.
    in the dying, 649.
    proper disposition, 400.
    vocation to priesthood, 588.

  Simulation of confession, 368.

  Sincerity in confession, 27.

  Sinful occasions, 487.

  Sins forgiven may be again confessed, 42.

  Sloth, remedies against the sin of, 458.

  Small penances, 264.

  _Sollicitatio proprii pœnitentis_, 364, 368.

  Sorrow for sin, quality of, 72.
    supreme (appreciative), 108.
    test of, 119.

  Special care of relapsing sinners, 530-536.

  _Species infima_, 159.

  State of life, choice of a, 583.

  Stealing relics, 337.
    habit of, in children, 571.

  Striking a cleric _suadente diabolo_, 335.

  Sufficient matter for absolution, 40.

  _Supplet ecclesia_, 300.

  Supplying deficient jurisdiction, 300.

  Suspension, 340.

  _Suspensionis_ in the form of absolution, 52.


  T

  Teacher, the confessor as, 438-448.

  Telephone, absolution by (note), 59.

  Testifying to confession made, 483.

  Theaters, frequenting, 509.

  Tickets, certifying to confession made, 483.

  _Timor mundanus_, _naturalis_, _servilis_, _filialis_, _mixtus seu
        initialis_, 90.

  Timorous conscience, 186.

  _Titulus coloratus_, 300-302.

  Travelers on sea, who absolves, 299.

  Treatment of scrupulous penitents, 545-555.

  Trial, penance a judicial, 21.

  Tribunal, difference between civil and sacramental, 21.

  Trusting statements of penitent, 395.


  U

  Unconscious penitents, at the hour of death, 646.

  Uncouth penitents, 447.

  Universality of purpose of amendment, 132.
    sorrow for sin, 106.

  Unmarried, confessions of young, people, 575.

  Urgent confessions, what to omit in, 52.

  Usurpers of ecclesiastical rights, 333.

  _Usus matrimonii_, instruction regarding the, 599.


  V

  Vagrants (_vagi_) may be absolved anywhere, 299.

  Vague accusations in confession, 44, 48.

  Valid absolution requires pronouncing of words, 56.

  Venial sin, how forgiven, 29, 32.
    purpose of amendment in case of, 183.
    penance for, 266.

  Vicars-general have jurisdiction, 285.

  Violation of the _sigillum_, 476.

  Virginity, state of, in the world, 589.

  Virtual contrition, 30.

  Virtues required in confessor, 416.

  Visits to the sick to be repeated, 642.

  _Vitium pollutionis_, 531, 582.

  Vocation, choice of a, 583.
    to the priesthood, signs of, 588.

  Vow of virginity, 589.

  Vows of nuns, 620.


  W

  Wedding, confessions immediately before, 596.

  Women, conduct of confessor toward, 608.

  Words required for valid absolution, 56.

  Worthy preparation for marriage, 595.

  Writing, absolution by, invalid, 55.
    absolution by, from censures, valid (note), 57.


  Y

  Young men, love of pleasure in, 579.

  Young unmarried people, confessions of, 575.

  Youth, faults peculiar to, 578.




STANDARD CATHOLIC BOOKS


PUBLISHED BY BENZIGER BROTHERS,

CINCINNATI: 343 MAIN ST.

NEW YORK: 36-38 BARCLAY ST.

CHICAGO: 211-213 MADISON ST.

Books marked _net_ are such where ten per cent. must be added for
postage. Thus a book advertised at _net_ $1.00 will be sent postpaid on
receipt of $1.10. Books not marked _net_ will be sent postpaid on receipt
of advertised price.

DOCTRINE, INSTRUCTION, DEVOTION.

  ABANDONMENT. CAUSSADE, S.J.                                  _net_, 0.50
  ADORATION OF BLESSED SACRAMENT. TESNIERE.                    _net_, 1.25
  ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, WORKS OF, ST. 22 vols. Each,              _net_, 1.50
  ANECDOTES ILLUSTRATING THE CATECHISM. SPIRAGO.               _net_, 1.50
  ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS. SEMPLE.                                _net_, 0.35
  ART OF PROFITING BY OUR FAULTS. TISSOT.                      _net_, 0.50
  BIBLE HISTORY.                                                      0.50
  BIBLE HISTORY. EXPLANATION. NASH.                            _net_, 1.60
  BIBLE STORIES. Paper, 0.10; cloth,                                  0.20
  BIBLE, THE HOLY.                                                    1.00
  BOOK OF THE PROFESSED. Vol. I, II & III. Each,               _net_, 0.75
  BOYS’ AND GIRLS’ MISSION BOOK. By the Redemptorist Fathers.         0.35
  BREAD OF LIFE, THE. Complete Communion Book.                 _net_, 0.75
  CATECHISM EXPLAINED, THE. SPIRAGO-CLARKE.                    _net_, 2.50
  CATHOLIC BELIEF. FAA DI BRUNO. Paper, _net_, 0.15; cloth,    _net_, 0.35
  CATHOLIC CEREMONIES. DURAND. Paper, _net_, 0.15; cloth,      _net_, 0.35
  CATHOLIC GIRLS’ GUIDE. LASANCE.                              _net_, 1.00
  CATHOLIC PRACTICE AT CHURCH AND AT HOME. KLAUDER. Paper,
    _net_, 0.20; cloth,                                        _net_, 0.40
  CATHOLIC TEACHING FOR CHILDREN. WRAY.                               0.40
  CATHOLIC WORSHIP. BRENNAN, LL.D. Paper, 0.20; cloth,                0.30
  CEREMONIAL FOR ALTAR BOYS. BRITT, O.S.B.                     _net_, 0.35
  CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUE DEVOTION. GROU, S.J.                 _net_, 0.75
  CHILD OF MARY. Prayer-Book for Children.                            0.60
  CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. DEVIVIER.                             _net_, 2.00
  CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, SPIRAGO’S METHOD OF.                     _net_, 1.50
  CHRISTIAN EDUCATION. O’CONNELL.                              _net_, 0.60
  CHRISTIAN FATHER. CRAMER. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth,         _net_, 0.25
  CHRISTIAN MOTHER. CRAMER. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth,         _net_, 0.25
  CHRISTIAN SCHOOL. MCFAUL. Paper,                                    0.10
  CONFESSION. Paper,                                                  0.05
  CONFESSION AND ITS BENEFITS. GIRARDEY.                              0.25
  CONFIRMATION. Paper,                                                0.05
  COUNSELS OF ST. ANGELA.                                      _net_, 0.25
  DEFENCE OF THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS, HENRY VIII. O’DONOVAN.      _net_, 2.00
  DEVOTION TO SACRED HEART OF JESUS. NOLDIN, S.J.              _net_, 1.25
  DEVOTIONS AND PRAYERS FOR THE SICK-ROOM. KREBS, C.SS.R.
    Cloth,                                                     _net_, 1.25
  DEVOTIONS AND PRAYERS OF ST. ALPHONSUS.                      _net_, 1.25
  DEVOTIONS FOR FIRST FRIDAY. HUGUET.                          _net_, 0.40
  DIGNITY AND DUTIES OF THE PRIEST. LIGUORI.                   _net_, 1.50
  DIVINE GRACE. WIRTH.                                         _net_, 1.60
  DIVINE OFFICE. LIGUORI.                                      _net_, 1.50
  EDUCATION OF OUR GIRLS. SHIELDS.                             _net_, 1.00
  EPISTLES AND GOSPELS. Large print.                           _net_, 0.25
  EUCHARISTIC CHRIST. TESNIERE.                                _net_, 1.25
  EUCHARISTIC SOUL ELEVATIONS. STADELMAN.                      _net_, 0.50
  EXPLANATION OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM. KINKEAD.             _net_, 1.00
  EXPLANATION OF THE GOSPELS. LAMBERT. Paper, _net_, 0.15;
    cloth,                                                     _net_, 0.35
  EXPLANATION OF THE HOLY SACRAMENTS. ILLUSTR.                 _net_, 1.00
  EXPLANATION OF THE MASS. COCHEM.                             _net_, 1.25
  EXPLANATION OF THE OUR FATHER AND THE HAIL MARY. BRENNAN,
    LL.D.                                                      _net_, 0.75
  EXPLANATION OF THE PRAYERS AND CEREMONIES OF THE MASS,
    ILLUSTRATED. LANSLOTS, O.S.B.                              _net_, 1.25
  EXPLANATION OF THE SALVE REGINA. LIGUORI.                    _net_, 0.75
  EXTREME UNCTION. Paper,                                             0.10
  FIRST COMMUNICANT’S MANUAL.                                         0.50
  FLOWERS OF THE PASSION. TH. DE JESUS-AGONISANT.                     0.50
  FOLLOWING OF CHRIST. KEMPIS.
      With Reflections,                                               0.50
      Without Reflections,                                            0.45
      Edition de Luxe,                                                1.25
  FOUR LAST THINGS, THE. Meditations. COCHEM.                  _net_, 0.75
  GARLAND OF PRAYER. With Nuptial Mass. Leather.                      0.90
  GENERAL CONFESSION MADE EASY. KONINGS, C.SS.R. Flexible.            0.15
  GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RELIGIOUS LIFE. VERHEYEN, O.S.B.       _net_, 0.30
  GIFT OF THE KING.                                                   0.60
  GLORIES OF DIVINE GRACE. SCHEEBEN.                           _net_, 1.60
  GLORIES OF MARY. LIGUORI. 2 vols.                            _net_, 3.00
      Popular ed. 1 vol.                                       _net_, 1.25
  GLORIES OF THE SACRED HEART. HAUSHERR, S.J.                  _net_, 1.25
  GOFFINE’S DEVOUT INSTRUCTIONS. 140 Illustrations. Cloth,            1.00
  GOLDEN SANDS. Little Counsels for the Sanctification and
    Happiness of Daily Life. Third, Fourth and Fifth Series.
    Each,                                                      _net_, 0.50
  GREAT ENCYCLICAL LETTERS OF POPE LEO XIII.                   _net_, 2.25
  GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION. LIGUORI.                           _net_, 1.50
  GREAT SUPPER OF GOD, THE. COUBE, S.J.                        _net_, 1.25
  GREETINGS OF THE CHRIST-CHILD—Poems.                                0.60
  GUIDE FOR SACRISTANS.                                        _net_, 0.85
  GUIDE TO CONFESSION AND COMMUNION.                           _net_, 0.50
  HANDBOOK OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. WILMERS, S.J.            _net_, 1.50
  HARMONY OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. HEUSER.                       _net_, 1.25
  HELP FOR THE POOR SOULS IN PURGATORY.                        _net_, 0.50
  HELPS TO A SPIRITUAL LIFE. SCHNEIDER, S.J.                   _net_, 1.25
  HIDDEN TREASURE. ST. LEONARD of Port Maurice.                _net_, 0.50
  HISTORY OF ECONOMICS. DEWE.                                  _net_, 1.50
  HISTORY OF CATHOLIC EDUCATION IN THE U. S. BURNS.            _net_, 1.25
  HISTORY OF THE MASS. O’BRIEN.                                _net_, 1.25
  HOLY EUCHARIST. LIGUORI.                                     _net_, 1.50
  HOLY HOUR OF ADORATION. STANG.                               _net_, 0.50
  HOLY MASS. LIGUORI.                                          _net_, 1.50
  HOW TO COMFORT THE SICK. KREBS, C.SS.R.                      _net_, 1.25
  HOW TO MAKE THE MISSION. By a Dominican Father. Paper,              0.10
  ILLUSTRATED PRAYER-BOOK FOR CHILDREN.                               0.35
  IMITATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. BENNETT-GLADSTONE.
      Plain Edition,                                           _net_, 0.50
      Edition de luxe,                                         _net_, 1.50
  IMITATION OF THE SACRED HEART. ARNOUDT, S.J.                 _net_, 1.25
  IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, THE. LAMBING, LL.D.                          0.35
  INCARNATION, BIRTH, AND INFANCY OF CHRIST. LIGUORI.          _net_, 1.50
  INDULGENCES. A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO. BERNAD, O.M.I.            _net_, 0.75
  IN HEAVEN WE KNOW OUR OWN. BLOT, S.J.                        _net_, 0.60
  INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CATHOLIC FATHER. EGGER.                 _net_, 0.50
  INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CATHOLIC MOTHER. EGGER.                 _net_, 0.50
  INSTRUCTIONS FOR CATHOLIC YOUTH.                             _net_, 0.50
  INSTRUCTIONS FOR FIRST COMMUNICANTS. SCHMITT.                _net_, 0.60
  INSTRUCTIONS ON COMMANDMENTS AND SACRAMENTS. LIGUORI.
    Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth,                                 _net_, 0.25
  INTERIOR OF JESUS AND MARY. GROU. 2 vols.                    _net_, 2.00
  INTRODUCTION TO A DEVOUT LIFE. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES.         _net_, 0.50
  LESSONS OF THE KING.                                                0.60
  LETTERS OF ST. ALPHONSUS DE LIGUORI. 4 vols., each vol.,     _net_, 1.50
  LIGHT FOR NEW TIMES. FLETCHER.                               _net_, 0.60
  LITTLE ALTAR BOYS’ MANUAL.                                          0.25
  LITTLE BOOK OF SUPERIORS.                                    _net_, 0.75
  LITTLE CHILD OF MARY. A Small Prayer-Book.                          0.35
  LITTLE MANUAL OF ST. ANTHONY. LASANCE. Illustrated.                 0.25
  LITTLE MANUAL OF ST. JOSEPH. LINGS.                                 0.25
  LITTLE MONTH OF MAY. MCMAHON. Flexible.                      _net_, 0.25
  LITTLE MONTH OF THE SOULS IN PURGATORY.                      _net_, 0.25
  LITTLE OFFICE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION.                         0.05
  LITTLE PICTORIAL LIVES OF THE SAINTS. New cheap edition.            1.25
  LOVER OF SOULS, THE. BRINKMEYER.                             _net_, 1.00
  MANUAL OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. LASANCE.                       _net_, 0.75
  MANUAL OF THE HOLY FAMILY.                                   _net_, 0.60
  MANUAL OF THE HOLY NAME.                                            0.50
  MANUAL OF THE SACRED HEART, NEW.                                    0.50
  MANUAL OF ST. ANTHONY, NEW.                                  _net_, 0.50
  MANUAL OF THEOLOGY FOR THE LAITY. GEIERMANN. Paper,
    _net_, 0.20; cloth,                                        _net_, 0.40
  MARIAE COROLLA. Poems. HILL.                                 _net_, 1.25
  MARY THE QUEEN.                                                     0.60
  MASS DEVOTIONS AND READINGS ON THE MASS. LASANCE.            _net_, 0.75
  MEDITATIONS FOR ALL DAYS OF YEAR. HAMON, S.S. 5 vols.        _net_, 5.00
  MEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY. BAXTER.                           _net_, 1.50
  MEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY. VERCRUYSSE, S.J. 2 vols.          _net_, 3.50
  MEDITATIONS FOR MONTHLY RETREATS.                            _net_, 1.25
  MEDITATIONS FOR USE OF SECULAR CLERGY. CHAIGNON.             _net_, 4.50
  MEDITATIONS FOR THE USE OF SEMINARIANS AND PRIESTS. Vol.
    I. BRANCHEREAU.                                            _net_, 1.00
  MEDITATIONS FOR RETREATS. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES.              _net_, 0.75
  MEDITATIONS ON THE LIFE, THE TEACHINGS, AND THE PASSION
    OF JESUS CHRIST. ILG-CLARKE. 2 vols.                       _net_, 3.50
  MEDITATIONS ON THE MONTH OF OUR LADY.                        _net_, 0.75
  MEDITATIONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD.                             0.50
  METHOD OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, SPIRAGO’S. MESSMER.            _net_, 1.50
  MIRACLES OF OUR LORD.                                               0.60
  MISCELLANY. LIGUORI.                                         _net_, 1.50
  MISSION BOOK FOR THE MARRIED. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R.                     0.50
  MISSION BOOK FOR THE SINGLE. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R.                      0.50
  MISSION BOOK OF REDEMPTORIST FATHERS. LIGUORI.                      0.50
  MOMENTS BEFORE THE TABERNACLE. RUSSELL, S.J.                 _net_, 0.50
  MONTH, NEW, OF THE HOLY ANGELS. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES.        _net_, 0.25
  MONTH OF MAY. DEBUSSI, S.J.                                  _net_, 0.50
  MONTH OF THE SOULS IN PURGATORY, The Little “Golden Sands.”  _net_, 0.25
  MORAL BRIEFS. STAPLETON.                                     _net_, 1.25
  MORES CATHOLICI; or, Ages of Faith. DIGBY. 4 vols.                 25.00
      (Easy payment plan, $1.00 down; $2.00 a month.)
  MOST HOLY ROSARY. CRAMER, D.D.                               _net_, 0.50
  MY FIRST COMMUNION, the Happiest Day of My Life. BRENNAN.    _net_, 0.75
  MY LITTLE PRAYER-BOOK. Illustrated.                                 0.12
  NEW MONTH OF THE HOLY ANGELS.                                _net_, 0.25
  NEW SUNDAY-SCHOOL COMPANION.                                        0.25
  NEW TESTAMENT. Cheap Edition. 32mo, flexible cloth,          _net_, 0.15
  NEW TESTAMENT. Illustrated Edition. 16mo, printed in two
    colors, with 100 full-page illustrations,                  _net_, 0.60
  NEW TESTAMENT. India Paper Edition. American Seal, limp,
    round corners, gilt edges,                                 _net_, 0.90
  NEW TESTAMENT. Large Print Edition. 12mo, large,             _net_, 0.75
  NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES. CONATY, D.D.                                 0.60
  OFF TO JERUSALEM. BENZIGER.                                  _net_, 1.00
  OFFICE, COMPLETE, OF HOLY WEEK.                                     0.45
      Cheap Edition, cloth, cut flush,                                0.20
  OUR FAVORITE DEVOTIONS. LINGS.                               _net_, 0.75
  OUR FAVORITE NOVENAS. LINGS.                                 _net_, 0.75
  OUR MONTHLY DEVOTIONS. LINGS.                                _net_, 1.25
  OUR OWN WILL. ALLEN, D.D.                                    _net_, 0.75
  PARADISE ON EARTH OPENED TO ALL. NATALE, S.J.                _net_, 0.50
  PARISH PRIEST ON DUTY, THE. HEUSER.                          _net_, 0.60
  PASSION, A FEW SIMPLE AND BUSINESS-LIKE WAYS OF DEVOTION
    TO THE. HILL, C.P.                                                0.25
  PASSION AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST. LIGUORI.                  _net_, 1.50
  PASSION FLOWERS. Poems. HILL.                                _net_, 1.25
  PASSION, THOUGHTS AND AFFECTIONS ON, FOR EVERY DAY OF THE
    YEAR. BERGAMO.                                             _net_, 2.00
  PEARLS FROM FABER. BRUNOWE.                                  _net_, 0.50
  PEARLS OF PRAYER.                                                   0.35
  PERFECT RELIGIOUS, THE. DE LA MOTTE.                         _net_, 1.00
  PIOUS PREPARATION FOR FIRST HOLY COMMUNION. LASANCE. Cloth,  _net_, 0.75
  POCKET MANUAL. A Vest-Pocket Prayer-Book in very large type.        0.25
  POPULAR INSTRUCTIONS ON MARRIAGE. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R. Paper,
    _net_, 0.13; cloth,                                        _net_, 0.25
  POPULAR INSTRUCTIONS ON PRAYER. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R. Paper,
    _net_, 0.13; cloth,                                        _net_, 0.25
  POPULAR INSTRUCTIONS TO PARENTS. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R. Paper,
    _net_, 0.13; cloth,                                        _net_, 0.25
  PRAYER-BOOK FOR RELIGIOUS. LASANCE.                          _net_, 1.50
  PREACHING. Vol. XV. LIGUORI.                                 _net_, 1.50
  PREPARATION FOR DEATH. LIGUORI.                              _net_, 1.50
  QUEEN’S FESTIVALS.                                                  0.60
  RELIGION OF SOCIALISM, THE CHARACTERISTICS AND. MING, S.J.   _net_, 1.50
  RELIGIOUS STATE, THE. LIGUORI.                               _net_, 0.50
  ROSARY, THE CROWN OF MARY. By a Dominican Father.                   0.10
  ROSARY, THE. Scenes and Thoughts. GARESCHE, S.J.             _net_, 0.50
  ROSARY, THE MOST HOLY. Meditations. CRAMER.                  _net_, 0.50
  SACRAMENTALS. LAMBING, D.D. Paper, _net_, 0.15; cloth,       _net_, 0.35
  SACRAMENTALS—Prayer, etc. MÜLLER, C.SS.R.                    _net_, 1.00
  SACRED HEART BOOK, THE. LASANCE.                             _net_, 0.75
  SACRED HEART, DEVOTION TO, FOR FIRST FRIDAY OF EVERY
    MONTH. By PERE HUGUET.                                     _net_, 0.40
  SACRED HEART, NEW MANUAL OF.                                        0.50
  SACRIFICE OF MASS WORTHILY CELEBRATED. CHAIGNON, S.J.        _net_, 1.50
  ST. ANTHONY. KELLER.                                         _net_, 0.75
  ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI. Social Reformer. DUBOIS, S.M.         _net_, 1.00
  SECRET OF SANCTITY. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES.                    _net_, 1.00
  SERAPHIC GUIDE, THE. A Manual for the Members of the Third
    Order of St. Francis. By a Franciscan Father.                     0.60
  SHORT CONFERENCES ON THE LITTLE OFFICE OF THE IMMACULATE
    CONCEPTION. RAINER.                                        _net_, 0.50
  SHORT STORIES ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. From the French
    by MCMAHON.                                                _net_, 1.00
  SHORT VISITS TO THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. LASANCE.                     0.25
  SICK CALLS. MULLIGAN.                                        _net_, 1.00
  SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY. STANG, D.D.                      _net_, 1.00
  SOCIALISM. CATHREIN, S.J.                                    _net_, 1.50
  SODALIST’S VADE MECUM.                                              0.50
  SPIRIT OF SACRIFICE, THE. GIRAUD.                            _net_, 2.00
  SPIRITUAL DESPONDENCY AND TEMPTATIONS. MICHEL, S.J.          _net_, 1.25
  SPIRITUAL EXERCISES FOR TEN DAYS’ RETREAT. SMETANA.          _net_, 1.00
  SPIRITUAL PEPPER AND SALT. STANG. Paper, _net_, 0.20; cloth, _net_, 0.40
  ST. ANTHONY. KELLER.                                         _net_, 0.75
  ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI, Social Reformer. DUBOIS, S.M.         _net_, 1.50
  STORY OF THE FRIENDS OF JESUS.                                      0.60
  STORIES FOR FIRST COMMUNICANTS. KELLER, D.D.                        0.50
  STRIVING AFTER PERFECTION. BAYMA, S.J.                       _net_, 1.00
  SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER’S GUIDE TO SUCCESS.                    _net_, 0.75
  SURE WAY TO A HAPPY MARRIAGE. TAYLOR. Paper, _net_,
    0.13; cloth,                                               _net_, 0.25
  TALKS WITH LITTLE ONES ABOUT APOSTLES’ CREED.                       0.60
  THOUGHTS ON THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. LASANCE.                     _net_, 1.50
  TRUE POLITENESS. DEMORE.                                     _net_, 0.75
  TRUE SPOUSE OF JESUS CHRIST. LIGUORI. 2 vols.                _net_, 3.00
      The same, one-volume edition,                            _net_, 1.25
  VENERATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN. ROHNER, O.S.B.             _net_, 1.25
  VEST-POCKET GEMS OF DEVOTION.                                       0.20
  VICTORIES OF THE MARTYRS. LIGUORI.                           _net_, 1.50
  VISITS, SHORT, TO BLESSED SACRAMENT. LASANCE.                       0.25
  VISITS TO JESUS IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. LASANCE.           _net_, 0.50
  VISITS TO JESUS IN THE TABERNACLE. LASANCE.                  _net_, 1.25
  VISITS TO THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT and to the Blessed
    Virgin Mary. LIGUORI.                                      _net_, 0.50
  VOCATIONS EXPLAINED.                                                0.10
  WAY OF INTERIOR PEACE. DE LEHEN, S.J.                        _net_, 1.50
  WAY OF SALVATION AND PERFECTION. LIGUORI.                    _net_, 1.50
  WAY OF THE CROSS. Paper,                                            0.05
  WAY OF THE CROSS. By a Jesuit Father.                        _net_, 0.15
  WAY OF THE CROSS. According to Method of St. Francis
    Assisi.                                                    _net_, 0.15
  WAY OF THE CROSS. According to Eucharistic Method.           _net_, 0.15
  WAY OF THE CROSS. According to Method of St. Alphonsus
    Liguori.                                                   _net_, 0.15
  WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES. DRURY. Paper, _net_, 0.20; cloth,   _net_, 0.40

JUVENILES.

  ADVENTURE WITH THE APACHES. FERRY.                                  0.45
  ARMORER OF SOLINGEN. HERCHENBACH.                                   0.45
  AS TRUE AS GOLD. MANNIX.                                            0.45
  BELL FOUNDRY, THE. VON SCHACHING.                                   0.45
  BERKELEYS, THE. WIGHT.                                              0.45
  BEARNE, REV. DAVID, S.J.
      SHEER PLUCK.                                                    0.85
      MELOR OF THE SILVER HAND.                                       0.85
      THE GUILD BOYS’ PLAY AT RIDINGDALE.                             0.85
      NEW BOYS AT RIDINGDALE.                                         0.85
      THE WITCH OF RIDINGDALE.                                        0.85
      RIDINGDALE FLOWER SHOW.                                         0.85
      CHARLIE CHITTYWICK.                                             0.85
  BISTOURI. By A. MELANDRI.                                           0.45
  BLACK LADY AND ROBIN RED BREAST. By CANON SCHMID.                   0.25
  BLISSYLVANIA POST-OFFICE. By MARION AMES TAGGART.                   0.45
  BOB O’LINK. WAGGAMAN.                                               0.45
  BOYS IN THE BLOCK. By MAURICE F. EGAN.                              0.25
  BUNT AND BILL. CLARA MULHOLLAND.                                    0.45
  BUZZER’S CHRISTMAS. By MARY T. WAGGAMAN.                            0.25
  BY BRANSCOMBE RIVER. By MARION AMES TAGGART.                        0.45
  CAKE AND THE EASTER EGGS. By CANON SCHMID.                          0.25
  CANARY BIRD. By CANON SCHMID.                                       0.45
  CARROLL DARE. By MARY T. WAGGAMAN.                                  1.25
  THE CHILDREN OF CUPA. MANNIX.                                       0.45
  COLLEGE BOY, A. By ANTHONY YORKE.                                   0.85
  COPUS, REV. J. E., S.J.:
      HARRY RUSSELL.                                                  0.85
      SHADOWS LIFTED.                                                 0.85
      ST. CUTHBERT’S.                                                 0.85
      TOM LOSELY: Boy.                                                0.85
  DADDY DAN. WAGGAMAN.                                                0.45
  DAUGHTER OF KINGS, A. HINKSON.                                      1.25
  DIMPLING’S SUCCESS. By CLARA MULHOLLAND.                            0.45
  DOLLAR HUNT, THE. MARTIN.                                           0.45
  DOUBLE KNOT AND OTHER STORIES, A. WAGGAMAN AND OTHERS.              1.25
  EVERY-DAY GIRL, AN. By MARY C. CROWLEY.                             0.45
  FATAL DIAMONDS. By E. C. DONNELLY.                                  0.25
  FINN, REV. F. J., S.J.
      HIS FIRST AND LAST APPEARANCE. Illustrated.                     1.00
      THE BEST FOOT FORWARD.                                          0.85
      THAT FOOTBALL GAME.                                             0.85
      ETHELRED PRESTON.                                               0.85
      CLAUDE LIGHTFOOT.                                               0.85
      HARRY DEE.                                                      0.85
      TOM PLAYFAIR.                                                   0.85
      PERCY WYNN.                                                     0.85
      MOSTLY BOYS.                                                    0.85
      “BUT THY LOVE AND THY GRACE.”                                   1.00
      MY STRANGE FRIEND.                                              0.25
  FIVE O’CLOCK STORIES; or, The Old Tales Told Again.                 0.75
  FLOWER OF THE FLOCK, THE, and the Badgers of Belmont. EGAN.         0.85
  FOR THE WHITE ROSE. HINKSON.                                        0.45
  FRED’S LITTLE DAUGHTER. SMITH.                                      0.45
  GODFREY THE HERMIT. SCHMID.                                         0.25
  GOLDEN LILY, THE. HINKSON.                                          0.45
  GREAT CAPTAIN, THE. HINKSON.                                        0.45
  HALDEMAN CHILDREN, THE. MANNIX.                                     0.45
  HARMONY FLATS. WHITMIRE.                                            0.85
  HEIR OF DREAMS, AN. O’MALLEY.                                       0.45
  HOP BLOSSOMS. SCHMID.                                               0.25
  HOSTAGE OF WAR, A. BONESTEEL.                                       0.45
  HOW THEY WORKED THEIR WAY. EGAN.                                    0.75
  INUNDATION, THE. SCHMID.                                            0.45
  “JACK.” By a Religious of The Society of The Holy Child Jesus.      0.45
  JACK HILDRETH AMONG THE INDIANS. 2 vols., each,                     0.85
  JACK HILDRETH ON THE NILE. TAGGART. Cloth,                          0.85
  JACK O’LANTERN. WAGGAMAN.                                           0.45
  JUVENILE ROUND TABLE. First, Second, Third Series. Each,            1.00
  KLONDIKE PICNIC. DONNELLY.                                          0.85
  LAMP OF THE SANCTUARY. WISEMAN.                                     0.25
  LEGENDS OF THE HOLY CHILD JESUS from Many Lands. LUTZ.              0.75
  LITTLE MISSY. WAGGAMAN.                                             0.45
  LOYAL BLUE AND ROYAL SCARLET. TAGGART.                              0.85
  MADCAP SET AT ST. ANNE’S. BRUNOWE.                                  0.45
  MARY TRACY’S FORTUNE. SADLIER.                                      0.45
  MASTER FRIDOLIN. GIEHRL.                                            0.25
  MILLY AVELING. SMITH. Cloth.                                        0.85
  MORE FIVE O’CLOCK STORIES. In Prose and Verse. By a Religious
    of The Society of The Holy Child Jesus.                           0.75
  MYSTERIOUS DOORWAY. SADLIER.                                        0.45
  MYSTERY OF CLEVERLY. BARTON.                                        0.85
  MYSTERY OF HORNBY HALL. SADLIER.                                    0.85
  MY STRANGE FRIEND. FINN.                                            0.25
  NAN NOBODY. WAGGAMAN.                                               0.45
  OLD CHARLMONT’S SEED-BED. SMITH.                                    0.45
  OLD ROBBER’S CASTLE. SCHMID.                                        0.25
  ONE AFTERNOON AND OTHER STORIES. TAGGART                            1.25
  OUR BOYS’ AND GIRLS’ LIBRARY. 14 vols., each.                       0.25
  OVERSEER OF MAHLBOURG. SCHMID.                                      0.25
  PANCHO AND PANCHITA. MANNIX                                         0.45
  PAULINE ARCHER. SADLIER.                                            0.45
  PETRONILLA. DONNELLY.                                               0.85
  PICKLE AND PEPPER. DORSEY.                                          0.85
  PILGRIM FROM IRELAND. CARNOT.                                       0.45
  PLAYWATER PLOT, THE. WAGGAMAN.                                      0.60
  QUEEN’S PAGE. HINKSON.                                              0.45
  RECRUIT TOMMY COLLINS. BONESTEEL.                                   0.45
  ROSE BUSH. SCHMID.                                                  0.25
  ROUND THE WORLD. Vols. I, II, III, IV. Each,                        0.85
  SEA-GULL’S ROCK. SANDEAU.                                           0.45
  SHADOWS LIFTED. COPUS, S.J.                                         0.85
  SPALDING, REV. H., S.J.:
      THE MARKS OF THE BEAR CLAWS.                                    0.85
      CAVE BY THE BEECH FORK.                                         0.85
      THE SHERIFF OF THE BEECH FORK.                                  0.85
      THE RACE FOR COPPER ISLAND.                                     0.85
  STRONG-ARM OF AVALON. WAGGAMAN.                                     0.85
  SUMMER AT WOODVILLE. SADLIER.                                       0.45
  TALES AND LEGENDS OF THE MIDDLE AGES. DE CAPELLA.                   0.75
  TALISMAN, THE. SADLIER.                                             0.60
  TAMING OF POLLY. DORSEY.                                            0.85
  THREE GIRLS AND ESPECIALLY ONE. TAGGART.                            0.45
  THREE LITTLE KINGS. GIEHRL.                                         0.25
  TOM’S LUCKPOT. WAGGAMAN.                                            0.45
  TOORALLADY. WALSH.                                                  0.45
  TRANSPLANTING OF TESSIE. WAGGAMAN.                                  0.60
  TREASURE OF NUGGET MOUNTAIN. TAGGART.                               0.85
  TWO LITTLE GIRLS. MACK.                                             0.45
  VIOLIN MAKER, THE. SMITH.                                           0.45
  WAGER OF GERALD O’ROURKE, THE. FINN-THIELE.                  _net_, 0.35
  WAYWARD WINIFRED. SADLIER.                                          0.85
  WHERE THE ROAD LED AND OTHER STORIES. SADLIER and others.           1.25
  WINNETOU, THE APACHE KNIGHT. TAGGART.                               0.85
  WRONGFULLY ACCUSED. HERCHENBACH.                                    0.45
  YOUNG COLOR GUARD, THE. BONESTEEL.                                  0.45

NOVELS AND STORIES.

  “BUT THY LOVE AND THY GRACE.” FINN, S.J.                            1.00
  CARROLL DARE. WAGGAMAN.                                             1.25
  CIRCUS RIDER’S DAUGHTER, THE. BRACKEL.                              1.25
  CONNOR D’ARCY’S STRUGGLES. BERTHOLDS.                               1.25
  CORINNE’S VOW. WAGGAMAN.                                            1.25
  DION AND THE SIBYLS. KEON.                                          1.25
  FABIOLA. WISEMAN. Illustrated.                                      0.90
  FABIOLA’S SISTER. CLARKE.                                           1.25
  FATAL BEACON, THE. BRACKEL.                                         1.25
  HEARTS OF GOLD. EDHOR.                                              1.25
  HEIRESS OF CRONENSTEIN, THE. Countess HAHN-HAHN.                    1.25
  HER BLIND FOLLY. HOLT.                                              1.25
  HER FATHER’S DAUGHTER. HINKSON.                              _net_, 1.25
  IDOLS; or, The Secrets of the Rue Chaussee d’Antin. DE NAVERY.      1.25
  IN THE DAYS OF KING HAL. TAGGART.                            _net_, 1.25
  IN GOD’S GOOD TIME. ROSS.                                           1.25
  “KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS.” HARRISON.                               1.25
  LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER. MARIÉ.                                      1.00
  LINKED LIVES. DOUGLAS.                                              1.50
  MARCELLA GRACE. Mulholland. Illustrated Edition.                    1.25
  MIRROR OF SHALOTT. BENSON.                                   _net_, 1.25
  MISS ERIN. FRANCIS.                                                 1.25
  MONK’S PARDON. THE. DE NAVERY.                                      1.25
  MR. BILLY BUTTONS. LECKY.                                           1.25
  “NOT A JUDGMENT.” KEON.                                             1.25
  OTHER MISS LISLE, THE. MARTIN.                                      1.25
  OUT OF BONDAGE. HOLT.                                               1.25
  OUTLAW OF CAMARGUE, THE. LAMOTHE.                                   1.25
  PASSING SHADOWS. YORKE.                                             1.25
  PERE MONNIER’S WARD. LECKY.                                         1.25
  PILKINGTON HEIR, THE. SADLIER.                                      1.25
  PRODIGAL’S DAUGHTER, THE. By LELIA HARDIN BUGG.                     1.00
  RED INN OF ST. LYPHAR, THE. A Romance of La Vendée. SADLIER.        1.25
  ROMANCE OF A PLAYWRIGHT. By Vte. HENRI DE BORNIER.                  1.00
  ROSE OF THE WORLD. MARTIN.                                          1.25
  ROUND TABLE OF AMERICAN CATHOLIC NOVELISTS. Complete Stories,
    with Biographies, Portraits, etc.                                 1.50
  ROUND TABLE OF FRENCH CATHOLIC NOVELISTS Complete Stories,
    with Biographies, Portraits, etc.                                 1.50
  ROUND TABLE OF GERMAN CATHOLIC NOVELISTS. Illustrated.              1.50
  ROUND TABLE OF IRISH AND ENGLISH CATHOLIC NOVELISTS. Complete
    Stories, Biographies. Portraits, etc. Cloth,                      1.50
  RULER OF THE KINGDOM, THE, and other Phases of Life and
    Character. KEON.                                                  1.25
  SECRET OF THE GREEN VASE. COOKE.                                    1.25
  SENIOR LIEUTENANT’S WAGER.                                          1.25
  SOGGARTH AROON. GUINAN, C.C.                                        1.25
  THAT MAN’S DAUGHTER. ROSS.                                          1.25
  TRAIL OF THE DRAGON.                                                1.25
  TRAINING OF SILAS, THE. DEVINE, S.J.                                1.25
  TRUE STORY OF MASTER GERARD, THE. SADLIE.                           1.25
  UNRAVELING OF A TANGLE, THE. TAGGART.                               1.25
  VOCATION OF EDWARD CONWAY. EGAN.                                    1.25
  WAY THAT LED BEYOND. By J. HARRISON.                                1.25
  WHEN LOVE IS STRONG. KEON.                                          1.25
  WOMAN OF FORTUNE, A. By CHRISTIAN REID.                             1.25
  WORLD WELL LOST. By ESTHER ROBERTSON.                               0.75

LIVES AND HISTORIES.

  AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA. Edited by
    O’CONOR, S.J.                                              _net_, 1.25
  ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS. SEMPLE, S.J.                           _net_, 0.35
  BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. SHAHAN.                          _net_, 2.00
  CHURCH HISTORY. BUSINGER.                                           0.75
  GOLDEN BELLS IN CONVENT TOWERS.                              _net_, 1.00
  HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. BRUECK. 2 vols.,             _net_, 3.00
  HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SHEA.                        _net_, 1.50
  HISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION. COBBETT.              _net_, 0.75
  LIFE OF BLESSED VIRGIN. Illustrated. ROHNER.                 _net_, 1.25
  LIFE OF CHRIST. Illustrated. COCHEM.                         _net_, 1.25
  LIFE OF POPE PIUS X.                                                2.00
  LIFE OF MOST REV. JOHN HUGHES. BRANN.                        _net_, 0.75
  LIFE OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST AND OF HIS
    VIRGIN MOTHER MARY. BRENNAN. 4to.                         _net_, 10.00
      (Easy payment plan, $1.00 down, $1.00 a month.)
  LIFE OF SISTER ANNE KATHERINE EMMERICH. WEGENER, O.S.A.      _net_, 1.75
  LIFE OF VEN. MARY CRESCENTIA HOESS. DEGMAN, O.S.F.           _net_, 1.25
  LITTLE LIVES OF SAINTS FOR CHILDREN. BERTHOLD. Ill. Cloth,          0.60
  LITTLE PICTORIAL LIVES OF SAINTS. New, cheap edition.               1.25
  LOURDES. CLARKE, S.J.                                               1.00
  MIDDLE AGES, THE. SHAHAN.                                    _net_, 2.00
  PATRON SAINTS FOR CATHOLIC YOUTH. 3 vols. Each,                     0.60
  PICTORIAL LIVES OF THE SAINTS.                               _net_, 2.00
  ST. ANTHONY, THE SAINT OF THE WHOLE WORLD. WARD. Cloth.      _net_, 0.75
  STORY OF JESUS. Illustrated.                                 _net_, 0.60
  STORY OF THE DIVINE CHILD. LINGS.                                   0.60
  VICTORIES OF THE MARTYRS. LIGUORI.                           _net_, 1.50

THEOLOGY, LITURGY, SERMONS, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY.

  ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS. SEMPLE, S.J.                                  0.35
  BENEDICENDA. SCHULTE.                                        _net_, 1.50
  BREVE COMPENDIUM THEOLOGIAE. BERTHIER.                       _net_, 2.50
  BUSINESS GUIDE FOR PRIESTS. STANG.                           _net_, 1.30
  CANONICAL PROCEDURE. DOSTE.                                  _net_, 1.50
  CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. DEVIVIER.                             _net_, 2.00
  CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY: God. DRISCOLL.                         _net_, 1.50
  CHRIST IN TYPE AND PROPHECY. MAAS, S.J. 2 vols.,             _net_, 4.00
  CHURCH TREASURER’S PEW COLLECTION AND RECEIPT BOOK.          _net_, 1.00
  COMPENDIUM JURIS CANONICI. SMITH.                            _net_, 2.00
  COMPENDIUM JURIS REGULARIUM. BACHOFEN.                       _net_, 2.50
  COMPENDIUM SACRAE LITURGIAE. WAPELHORST.                     _net_, 2.50
  CONSECRANDA. SCHULTE.                                        _net_, 1.50
  DATA OF MODERN ETHICS EXAMINED. MING, S.J.                          2.00
  DIARY, ORDO AND NOTE-BOOK. Cloth, _net_, 1.00; flexible
    leather,                                                   _net_, 1.50
  ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. SMITH, D.D. 3 vols., each,   _net_, 2.50
  GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES.
    GIGOT, S.S.                                                _net_, 2.50
  GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES.
    Abridged Edition. GIGOT, S.S.                              _net_, 1.50
  GOD KNOWABLE AND KNOWN. RONAYNE, S.J.                        _net_, 1.50
  GOOD CHRISTIAN, THE. ALLEN, D.D. 2 vols.                     _net_, 5.00
  HISTORY OF THE MASS AND ITS CEREMONIES IN THE EASTERN
    AND WESTERN CHURCH. O’BRIEN.                               _net_, 1.25
  HUNOLT’S SERMONS. 12 vols.,                                 _net_, 25.00
  INTRODUCTION TO STUDY OF OLD TESTAMENT. Vol. I and II.
    GIGOT. Each,                                               _net_, 1.50
  JESUS LIVING IN THE PRIEST. MILLET-BYRNE.                    _net_, 2.00
  LIBER STATUS ANIMARUM; or Parish Census Book. _Pocket
    Edition, net_, 0.25; _Large Edition_, half-leather,        _net_, 3.00
  MARRIAGE PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES. SMITH.                _net_, 2.50
  MANUAL OF THEOLOGY FOR THE LAITY. GEIERMANN. Paper,
    _net_, 0.20; cloth,                                        _net_, 0.40
  MEDULLA FUNDAMENTALIS THEOLOGIAE MORALIS. STANG.             _net_, 1.00
  MORAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDICAL PRACTICE. COPPENS, S.J.         _net_, 1.00
  NATURAL LAW AND LEGAL PRACTICE. HOLAIND, S.J.                _net_, 2.00
  OUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. HUNTER, S.J. 3 vols.,         _net_, 1.50
  OUTLINES OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. GIGOT. Cloth.             _net_, 1.50
  OUTLINES OF SERMONS. SCHUEN.                                 _net_, 2.00
  PASTORAL THEOLOGY. STANG, D.D.                               _net_, 1.50
  PHILOSOPHIA MORALI, DE. RUSSO.                               _net_, 2.00
  POLITICAL AND MORAL ESSAYS. RICKABY, S.J.                    _net_, 1.50
  PRAXIS SYNODALIS.                                            _net_, 0.75
  PRIEST IN THE PULPIT. SCHUECH-LUEBBERMANN.                   _net_, 1.50
  REGISTRUM BAPTISMORUM.                                       _net_, 3.50
  REGISTRUM MATRIMONIORUM.                                     _net_, 3.00
  RELATION OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY TO PHILOSOPHY. DE
    MERCIER.                                                   _net_, 0.35
  RIGHTS OF OUR LITTLE ONES. CONWAY, S.J. Paper,                      0.10
  RITUALE COMPENDIOSUM.                                        _net_, 0.90
  SANCTUARY BOYS’ ILLUSTRATED MANUAL. MCCALLEN, S.S.           _net_, 0.50
  SERMONS, ABRIDGED, FOR SUNDAYS. LIGUORI.                     _net_, 1.25
  SERMONS FOR CHILDREN OF MARY. CALLERIO.                      _net_, 1.50
  SERMONS FOR CHILDREN’S MASSES. FRASSINETTI-LINGS.            _net_, 1.50
  SERMONS FOR THE SUNDAYS AND CHIEF FESTIVALS OF THE
    ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR. POTTGEISSER, S.J. 2 vols.             _net_, 2.50
  SERMONS FROM THE LATINS. BAXTER.                             _net_, 2.00
  SERMONS ON DEVOTION TO THE SACRED HEART. BIERBAUM.           _net_, 0.75
  SERMONS ON THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. SCHEUER-LASANCE.           _net_, 1.50
  SERMONS ON THE ROSARY. FRINGS.                               _net_, 1.00
  SHORT SERMONS FOR LOW MASSES. SCHOUPPE, S.J.                 _net_, 1.25
  THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL. SHIELER.                   3.50
  VADE MECUM SACERDOTUM. Cloth, _net_, 0.25; Morocco,          _net_, 0.50

MISCELLANEOUS.

  ACROSS WIDEST AMERICA. DEVINE, S.J.                          _net_, 1.50
  BENZIGER’S MAGAZINE. The Popular Catholic Family Magazine.
    Subscription per year,                                            2.00
  BONE RULES; or, Skeleton of English Grammar. TABB.                  0.50
  CATHOLIC HOME ANNUAL. Stories by Best Writers.                      0.25
  CORRECT THING FOR CATHOLICS. BUGG.                           _net_, 0.75
  ELOCUTION CLASS. O’GRADY.                                    _net_, 0.50
  GENTLEMAN, A. EGAN.                                          _net_, 0.75
  HOW TO GET ON. FEENEY.                                       _net_, 1.00
  HYMN-BOOK.                                                          0.35
  LADY, A. Manners and Usages. BUGG.                           _net_, 0.75
  LITTLE FOLKS’ ANNUAL.                                               0.10
  READINGS AND RECITATIONS FOR JUNIORS. O’GRADY.               _net_, 0.50
  RECORD OF BAPTISMS. 14×10 inches, 3 styles.             3.00, 4.00, 6.00
  RECORD OF MARRIAGES. 14×10 inches, 3 styles.            3.00, 4.00, 6.00
  SELECT RECITATIONS FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES.
    O’GRADY.                                                          1.00
  SONGS AND SONNETS. EGAN.                                            1.00
  SURSUM CORDA. Hymns. Paper, 0.15; cloth,                            0.25
  SURSUM CORDA. With English and German Text.                         0.45
  VISIT TO EUROPE AND THE HOLY LAND. FAIRBANKS.                       1.50
  WHAT CATHOLICS HAVE DONE FOR SCIENCE. BRENNAN.               _net_, 1.25
  PRAYER BOOKS.
      Benziger Brothers publish the most complete line of prayer-books in
      this country, embracing Prayer-books for Children; Prayer-books for
      First Communicants; Prayer-books for Special Devotions; Prayer-books
      for General Use. Catalogue will be sent free on application.
  SCHOOL-BOOKS.
      Benziger Brothers’ school text-books are considered to be the finest
      published. They embrace New Century Catholic Readers (Illustrations
      in Colors); Catholic National Readers; Catechisms; History;
      Grammars; Spellers; Elocution; Charts.


A HOME LIBRARY FOR $1 DOWN.

_Original American Stories for the Young, by the Very Best Catholic
Authors._

20 COPYRIGHTED BOOKS and a YEAR’S SUBSCRIPTION to BENZIGER’S MAGAZINE (in
itself a library of good reading.)

  Regular Price of Books,               $11.70 } Regular Price,
  Regular Price of Benziger’s Magazine,   2.00 }   $13.70
                                        ------

  _Special Net Price, $10.00_      _$1.00 Down._      _$1.00 a Month._

You get the books at once, and have the use of them, while making easy
payments. Send us only $1.00, and we will forward the books at once.
$1.00 entitles you to immediate possession. No further payment need be
made for a month. Afterward you pay $1.00 a month.

THIS IS THE EASY WAY TO GET A LIBRARY.

_And remember these are the Best Books that can be placed in the hands of
Catholic Youth AT ANY PRICE._

ANOTHER EASY WAY OF GETTING BOOKS.

Each year we publish four New Novels by the best Catholic authors. These
novels are interesting beyond the ordinary; not strictly religious, but
Catholic in tone and feeling.

We ask you to give us a Standing Order for these novels. The price is
$1.25 a volume postpaid. The $5.00 is not to be paid at one time, but
$1.25 each time a volume is published.

As a Special Inducement for giving us a standing order for these novels,
we will give you _free_ a subscription to Benziger’s Magazine. This
Magazine is recognized as the best and handsomest Catholic magazine
published. The regular price of the Magazine is $2.00 a year.

Thus for $5.00 a year—paid $1.25 at a time—you will get four good books
and receive in addition _free_ a year’s subscription to Benziger’s
Magazine. The Magazine will be continued from year to year, as long
as the standing order for the novels is in force, which will be till
countermanded.

Send $1.25 for the first novel and get your name placed on the
subscription list of Benziger’s Magazine.


_THE BEST STORIES AND ARTICLES_

1000 ILLUSTRATIONS A YEAR

BENZIGER’S MAGAZINE

_The Popular Catholic Family Monthly_

RECOMMENDED BY 70 ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS

Subscription, $2.00 a Year

What Benziger’s Magazine Gives its Readers:

Three complete novels of absorbing interest—equal to three books selling
at $1.25 each.

Fifty complete stories by the best writers—equal to a book of 300 pages
selling at $1.25.

One thousand beautiful illustrations.

Forty large reproductions of celebrated paintings.

Twenty articles—equal to a book of 150 pages—on travel and adventure; on
the manners, customs and home-life of peoples; on the haunts and habits
of animals.

Twenty articles—equal to a book of 150 pages—on historic events, times,
places, important industries.

Twenty articles—equal to a book of 150 pages—on the fine arts; celebrated
artists and their paintings, sculpture, music, etc., and nature studies.

Twelve pages of games and amusements for in-doors and out-of-doors.

Seventy-two pages of fashions, fads, and fancies, gathered at home
and abroad, helpful hints for home workers, household column, cooking
recipes, etc.

“Current Events,” the important happenings over the whole world,
described with pen and pictures.

Twelve prize competitions, with valuable prizes.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK 77819 ***