23. On the Specific Distinction of Sins

1. Pauperius, pressed by grave misery and a large family, burned with anger against God, because He had enriched other evil men with many riches, but had oppressed him, an honest man, with most grave poverty. Hence he proposed that thereafter he would no longer avoid any occasion of sinning, nor observe any precept, which he carried out for many years.

Q. 1. How are sins specifically distinguished? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 298 seqq. To the second: Pauperius, burning with anger against God, sinned most gravely against the charity of God. He also sinned most gravely by efficaciously proposing that thereafter he would avoid no occasion of sinning and no sin. But this sin is not a sin of some certain species, but of an unnamed species, which implicitly embraces all species of sins. Elbel, De Act. hum., 71; I. M. 318.

2. Confundius accuses himself, in sacramental confession, of evil thoughts had, to which he consented, saying: I had evil thoughts three times against chastity, four times against charity, five times against justice, and to these I always gave consent. But he omits explaining other circumstances. He is accustomed to do the same in his confessions where there is question not of simple delectation, but of inefficacious desire.

3. Dominicus, in confessing, says that he had the thing with a woman, and once detracted from the reputation of his neighbor. But as regards the first sin he omits saying that he sinned with his maidservant, who was at the same time consanguineous with him in the third degree, and on a Sunday, on which in the morning he had approached the sacred synaxis. As regards the other sin, he omits saying that he detracted from the reputation of a priest, and did this in church while he was hearing Mass.

Q. What as to the various cases?

R. 1. Confundius, speaking in itself, does not accuse himself rightly. For delectation is specified by the object thought, and by the apprehended circumstances of the same object. Wherefore the nature of an object of this sort and of the apprehended circumstances must of itself be declared, so that the lowest species of those evil thoughts and of the delectations in them may be declared. Likewise the nature of the object of an inefficacious desire, and of the circumstances changing its species, must be declared. And the desires themselves, although inefficacious, must be declared. For desires, although inefficacious, or although they lack the purpose of applying means to their execution, nevertheless differ essentially from simple evil delectation, and introduce a different species. Indeed, not otherwise than efficacious desires, they are clothed with all the species of the object toward which they tend. G. 158.

But Fr. Gury 160 notes: "The object specifically different of evil delectation must indeed of itself be declared, because complacency in a representation, for example, of a shameful look, differs in species from the representation of forni- cation, etc. But in practice it would be more difficult for the confessor to ask about these in particular, and this would induce most grave inconveniences, which are altogether to be avoided. Furthermore, those who easily give consent to evil thoughts are easily also judged to have adhered to whatever representations." Yet there is often no need of questioning. For first, penitents themselves, declaring other sins, or returning to what has already been accused, often explain the nature and lowest species of internal sins; without there being need on any part of the confessor for direct questioning, but only patience and due attention to an integral confession. Besides, often penitents in good faith from ignorance do not apprehend, in the object or in the interior act, a different specific malice, and therefore then, since they have not contracted such malice, they are not held to explain it. Finally, if there is inconvenience and danger in making an interrogation, the confessor can stand by the general rule, namely of judging concerning the sins heard in the obvious and natural sense, with attention to the matter of which there is question and to the condition of the penitent; nor then is there need of a subtler and troublesome inquiry. - I. M. 291; La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1028 seqq.; Reuter, p. 2, n. 209.

1. The omission of the circumstance of the maidservant does not render the confession defective, because, speaking in itself, and excluding a special contract of committing the young woman to the special custody of the master, the sin of the master with the maidservant does not introduce a new species. Yet a circumstance of this sort can be asked by the confessor, so that the confessor may know the nature of the occasion in which the penitent is found. 2. The omission of the circumstance of consanguinity, on the contrary, renders the confession defective; since that circumstance introduces the species of incest. 3. The circumstance of Sunday and of Communion does not introduce the grave species of sacrilege, and therefore it did not have to be declared necessarily. Yet grave sacrilege would be had if someone immediately after Communion should perpetrate a shameful sin. 4. Detraction made from the reputation of a priest and in a sacred place and at the time of Mass does not constitute grave sacrilege, nor consequently must circumstances of this sort necessarily be declared. G. 146, 147, 148; I. M. 493, 502, 507, 798, 806-808; v. 2, n. 711-714.