10. On the Circumstances of Human Acts

1. Henricus confesses thus: 1. I committed carnal sins. 2. I performed gravely immodest acts. 3. I had evil thoughts. 4. I injured the reputation of my neighbor. 5. Besides homicide, I committed all other sins.

2. Paschalis, a priest, confesses thus: I am a priest and once sinned with a woman; omitting that he has care of souls, and that he had previously solicited his own parishioner in confession.

Q. 1. Is the morality of human acts derived from circumstances? 2. Do Henricus and Paschalis confess rightly?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 88. To the second: Henricus by no means confesses rightly. For first, besides the number, he ought to declare the various species of carnal sins, for example whether he sinned by himself alone, or with another person; and if with this person, whether unmarried, or bound in marriage, etc. But, speaking in itself, it is not necessary that he say whether he committed fornication twice, three times, etc., with the same person or with different persons. - Elbel 103; La-Croix l. c. p. 2, n. 1040; I. M. V. 2, n. 708.

In the second case, acts even gravely immodest, unless they are acts consummated, must be declared by their proper number and proper species. For acts of this sort also differ in species, as for example if someone mixes in filthy conversations, or looks upon himself; or touches a woman or himself shamefully, etc. I. M. 307, 310, 783.

In the third case it is also necessary to declare, besides the number of internal acts, the objects of desires or of delights, varying in species. For desires and morose delights take their species from their objects, Elbel 80, 102; and those evil thoughts, voluntary and deliberate, appear from the context of the case. For Henricus does not seem to be a man who is accustomed to resist temptations of this sort.

In the fourth case he ought to explain whether he gravely injured the reputation of his neighbor; and, if gravely, how many times he injured the reputation of his neighbor, and whether any other damage followed thence for the neighbor. But, speaking in itself, he is not held to declare whether he injured the reputation of his neighbor by simple detraction or by calumny. I. M. 1486.

Finally, in the fifth case it is clear that the confession of Henricus is very imperfect; and so he must be directly questioned by the confessor concerning other special sins against the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, and against the obligations of his proper state, which Henricus could probably have committed. Cf. Elbel 96.

Nor has Paschalis confessed rightly. For he ought to have explained the circumstance of solicitation in confession, which adds the malice of real sacrilege, and the circumstance of the care of souls, which made the sin specially repugnant to the virtue of justice. Elbel 97, 98. - G. 31, 32.