124. Circumstances of Sins

1. Flavius, a young man, several times stole from his father, from his mother, and from his elder brother the sum of a few lire. He did indeed confess the theft, but omitted that circumstance of father, mother, brother. Hence he thinks that he made a sacrilegious confession.

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

R. Flavius, speaking of itself and excluding an erroneous conscience, did not make a sacrilegious confession by the omission of that circumstance. For injuries in the goods of fortune inflicted on parents or on other relatives by no means change the species of the sin, if the case is excepted in which parents or brothers, on account of the amount of the theft, would lose that which is necessary for their sustenance, and which the son or brothers would be bound by piety to supply to them.

But it would be otherwise if there were question of other injuries, for example, of imprecations, insults, etc., against father, mother, brother, sister, etc.; since injuries of this sort, as they are specifically opposed to piety, which strictly obliges among blood relatives, introduce a grave species of sin against piety. G. 456, 457; I. M. 712.

2. Anatolius, a parish priest, when he had unhappily fallen into a sin of the flesh with Rosaura, his maidservant, who at the same time was a parishioner and a daughter of confession or penitent, and afterward had sacrilegiously celebrated, dressed in lay clothing, goes to a distant place for the sake of confessing, and accuses himself that, being bound by a vow of chastity, he had sinned with some woman and had sacrilegiously communicated. Rosaura, however, since she could not easily go elsewhere and was known to all the confessors of the city, nor dared to open her sins to anyone, dressed in male clothing enters by night an oratory in which only men are admitted, and with a simulated masculine voice confesses her sin, saying that she had sinned with a person of the other sex sacred to God.

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

R. Anatolius confessed integrally by omitting precisely the circumstance of sin committed with a penitent. The reason is that the confessor from his office is strictly bound only to the right direction of the penitent in the sacred tribunal. Nor indeed is there any kinship between confessor and penitent arising from confession. Yet there would be present a new species of sin, namely of sacrilege, if solicitation had preceded in confession or on the occasion of confession. Cf. I. M. 713.

Anatolius also confessed integrally by omitting the circumstance of maidservant. For service does not change the species of the sin, since a contract of this sort extends itself only to temporal things, namely to the price to be paid for yearly or monthly service. Nor indeed does the master, by admitting the maidservant to service, intend to bind himself as if from office to undertake spiritual care of her soul. But it would be otherwise if a younger girl were explicitly entrusted by her parents to the master's guardianship, because then a quasi-contract would intervene.

But Anatolius did not confess integrally by omitting the circumstance of parishioner. For it belongs to the parish priest from his office diligently to guard his sheep and to turn them away from sins.

Nor also did Anatolius satisfy the integrity of confession by passing over the celebration of Mass in the state of mortal sin. For by saying only that he had sacrilegiously communicated, he was silent both about the unworthy celebration of the sacrifice and about the unworthy administration of the Eucharist to himself. But, excluding the circumstance of the celebration of Mass, he probably satisfied by saying that he was bound by a vow of chastity. G. 458-461; I. M. 353, 710, 713.

Rosaura expressed her sin sufficiently. For there was no obligation for her to confess the circumstance of maidservant, parishioner, and penitent. But she fittingly expressed the carnal sin with a priest, who, by a solemn vow of chastity, is a person sacred to God. Nor indeed is it an obstacle to the integrity of confession that she simulates the male sex. "The reason is that the confessor hears and absolves the sinner present, of whatever state, condition, or sex the person may have been. For the error of the minister concerning the sex of the penitent is something merely accidental as to confession and absolution. For the confessor must not pass judgment concerning sex, but concerning sins; but sins do not change species according to the diverse sex. This also holds if a woman, confessing under the appearance of a man, were to accuse sins committed with a different sex, because the judgment of the confessor is not essentially changed." G. 438.

But what if Rosaura had procured abortion in herself? Would it have sufficed to say: I procured abortion? The answer is negative, because thus she would not express that she had brought death upon her own offspring, and therefore would conceal a most grave species of sin against piety. G. 439.

But if a proximate occasion of sin were present, as can easily happen in practice, Anatolius is altogether bound to dismiss that maidservant; and the maidservant likewise is altogether bound to depart from this house. And the same must be said if at least there were scandal of others from their suspicions and public murmurs. Among the Cases of Conscience of the Diocese of Bologna, in the year 1767, in the month of August, the following proposed Case appears under n. 1.º: "A certain priest frequents the house of a certain woman, without any wicked end, but only for the sake of recreation and honorable friendship. Yet neighbors who observe the frequency, but do not know the end, murmur and perhaps suspect something evil. Is that priest, knowing a murmur of this sort among the neighbors, bound to abstain from frequenting that house? The answer is affirmative. The reason is that that priest, knowing the murmur of the neighbors, can prudently doubt both about some grave scandal of theirs, and also lest the reputation and good name of both himself and that woman be endangered; and therefore from charity both proper to himself and toward his neighbor he ought at once to abstain from frequenting the house and from conversation with that woman."