122. On Purpose

1. Caelestinus, in making his confession, among other things declares that in his last confession, while he had been intent upon eliciting sorrow, he had by no means thought about the purpose of not sinning henceforth, and that he had thus been absolved; wherefore he labors under great anxiety about this absolution. The confessor, having heard this, decides that the confession had in reality been invalid, and therefore that it must be repeated.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. "Caelestinus made a valid confession, at least much more probably, although his purpose was not explicit. Therefore he ought by no means to repeat the confession, because the obligation of repeating is not established. Therefore the confessor erred in declaring that the confession must be repeated." Thus Fr. Gury 419.

But Caelestinus not only much more probably, but with moral certainty, made a valid confession, from the Instruction for children of Benedict XIII, at the end of the Roman Council, Appendix 29, part 3. I. M. 694.

2. Cornelius, laboring under the habit of a base sin, is asked by the confessor whether he firmly resolves no longer to commit these sins of a wicked habit. - I do resolve, says the penitent, but I foresee that I shall certainly violate this purpose. For at other times I have similarly resolved, and I have always unhappily relapsed. So great is the force of habit in me that it entices and drags me away. But do you resolve to guard against a fall? the confessor replies. Yes, father, says Cornelius, but I am certain about a future relapse. The confessor, entangled by responses of this sort, does not know whether he can absolve this penitent. At length he decides to absolve him.

It is asked: 1. What is to be said of a habitual sinner who, soon after absolution, relapses into the accustomed sin? 2. What is to be said to the Case?

R. To the 1st. "The presumption ought to stand against him. Hence it must be presumed that he was indisposed, or lacked a firm purpose, in the last confession. The reason is that a sinner who soon and easily relapses, making no effort to resist temptation, is not considered to have firmly resolved no longer to sin. See Comp. n. 513.

To the 2nd. Cornelius seems to have made an invalid confession, because he who believes that he will certainly relapse, by that very fact argues that he has lacked firmness of purpose. Therefore the confessor acted badly in absolving a penitent of this sort, unless he recognized in him rather a fear of relapse than a defect of purpose." Thus Fr. Gury 422.

Moreover, as to the first question, Fr. Gury himself has the contrary in the cited place of the Compendium. For there he raises the question: "Whether relapsers are to be compelled to repeat preceding confessions?" And he answers: "Negatively, of itself. The reason is that a new fall of itself is not a certain argument that the relapser previously lacked disposition. Yet sometimes from the circumstances it will be possible to judge prudently that a certain relapser confessed invalidly. St. Lig. n. 505." Nor is this resolution of itself changed precisely by the fact that someone relapses soon after absolution. For the fact that someone afterward sins either by act or by purpose does not exclude that previously there was true penance. For the truth of a prior act is never excluded by a subsequent contrary act. For as he truly ran who afterward sits, so he truly repented who afterward sins. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, a. 10, ad 4. And St. Alphonsus 459 says: "A relapse, although it furnishes some suspicion, nevertheless does not exhibit a certain sign of indisposition. For it can well happen that the penitent truly had a firm will not to relapse, and yet by the force of an evil habit relapsed." These things indeed imply that the holy Doctor suggests that from true preceding penance it can be argued, speaking again of itself, that disposition is not lacking even in the present. And in fact, as the same holy Doctor had premised: "The penitent, on the one hand, is not to be presumed bad, so that he wishes to approach the sacrament indisposed; on the other hand, he is presumed disposed while he confesses his sins, since the spontaneous confession itself is a sign of contrition, unless some positive presumption to the contrary stands in the way." Wherefore the whole matter in practice is to be prudently judged and defined from the circumstances. And that suspicion which repeated relapse into the same sins casts ought to move the confessor, not indeed so that he should decide beforehand that the penitent is indisposed and must be dismissed without absolution, but so that, according to his office, he should inquire more accurately about the present disposition of the penitent, and help him to conceive this disposition, if perhaps he does not have it.

As to the second question, when the case really occurs, the resolution does not seem very difficult in practice. For the whole question is about the sincerity of the sorrow and purpose of Cornelius. If he has sincere sorrow and purpose, beyond doubt his confession is valid. Moreover, when a case of this sort occurs, from all the circumstances of the penitent and of his confession, and from the very manner of the confession, that sincerity of sorrow and purpose easily appears. But considering the Case as it has been proposed, it does not seem that the confession of Cornelius can be affirmed invalid with such facility. For Cornelius responds seriously to the confessor questioning him, and with a certain vehemence and insistence, that he indeed resolves to guard against a fall; and from the response appears his displeasure that at other times also he conceived the same purpose and nevertheless relapsed. Therefore from this an argument cannot be drawn for the invalidity of the confession, but rather for its validity, especially if it is considered that Cornelius after the relapse does not withdraw from the sacraments, but approaches the sacraments; namely, so that at length by the grace of the sacraments he may be efficaciously helped toward amendment; since no other reason can be assigned in the Case why Cornelius confesses again. Nor indeed can an argument for the aforesaid invalidity of the confession be drawn from that foresight of Cornelius concerning a new fall. For this foresight, founded only on his own frailty, can well stand together with present sorrow and purpose resting upon the aid of divine grace. Now indeed, as often as the penitent brings true signs of present sorrow and purpose, so often he can well be absolved, St. Lig., l. 6, n. 459. Nor indeed is the penitent absolved on account of future amendment; if this has thus far disappointed the hope of the penitent and the confessor, perhaps in the future, with divine grace helping, once begun it will no longer cease. "Well," says St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 459, "Lugo teaches, s. 14, n. 166, with Suarez, Sanchez, Reginald, Henriquez, and others commonly, that sufficient disposition is present sorrow and purpose, not future amendment; and thus the penitent can be absolved, although he is judged likely to relapse." But if the confessor, as is fitting, exhorts Cornelius to trust in God, and stirs him to repeat sorrow and purpose, and, dealing with him earnestly, patiently, and gently, more and more strengthens his will, the motives of sorrow having been explained and the due means to be employed having been indicated; if Cornelius consents and signifies his good will, there is surely no reason why the confession of Cornelius should afterward be pronounced invalid. I. M. 694, 809.