24. Numerical Distinction of Sins

1. Lupinus, making a confession, says that for a year he retained another's property and did not wish to restore it; likewise for a year he nourished hatred in his mind against his brother; but for a month he had the desire of fornicating, and afterwards renounced it; but then for a month he was delighted with lingering thoughts of fornication.

2. Vulpinus efficaciously proposed to himself to corrupt a virgin. For this end over several days, weeks, and months he flatters her, kisses her, and touches her, and at last completes the work itself. Then he confesses, saying that he once fornicated. At another time, wishing also to seduce a girl, he employed various means for this end, namely words not very chaste and flattering, amatory letters, shameful looks, dishonest touches; but, being about to complete the sin of fornication, by a fortuitous event supervening, he could not consummate it. Then he confesses, saying that he wished to fornicate and tried to do it, but could not because of an involuntary obstacle supervening.

Q. 1. How are sins numerically distinguished? 2. What as to the cases?

R. To the first, cf. I. M. 303 seqq. To the second: Lupinus, precisely from this, that he delayed restitution for a whole year, even if he could have restored sooner, committed only one sin. The reason is that, morally speaking, there is judged to be one unjust detention of another's property. Granted even that it be supposed that he repeated this his purpose more often, nevertheless all those repetitions, as united in the same real omission, do not integrate anything except one sin in number; in the same way as an intention, for example, of stealing or killing, although often repeated, does not make many sins, but one sin in number with the theft that finally followed by force of the same intention. It would have to be said otherwise in the case in which he had often interrupted the malicious purpose, or had even retracted it, and then had reassumed it anew; for then purposes of this sort of not restoring would remain sins numerically distinct among themselves, and necessarily to be expressed in the act of confession. In such a case, since for the most part it is at least morally impossible to express the number of internal acts, therefore ordinarily it suffices to express the delay of time, by saying, for example, for a whole year I persisted in the malicious purpose of not restoring, which I renewed often. And in a similar case confessors ought not to be too anxious in themselves, too troublesome to penitents, in investigating the number of interruptions, since it is morally impossible to know it exactly. Elbel 551.

As regards the remaining cases of hatred, desire of fornication, and lingering delectation in evil thoughts, Lupinus did not satisfy the integrity of confession. For here there is question of merely internal sins, which are multiplied more easily by interruption; and perhaps a multiple interruption was present. But again, since the exact number of sins in these matters for the most part cannot be obtained, it will be enough to say whether he renewed sinful acts frequently, whether several times in the day, etc. G. 151.

Vulpinus satisfied the integrity of confession in the first case; for all those acts, as by their nature tending to the same end and repugnant to the same virtue, are judged to be in some way united in the same end, and morally completed. Elbel 555. But in the second case he did not satisfy the integrity of confession; for generally he made as many sins as there are evil means by their nature, and as many as are different in species, which he used. Therefore Vulpinus had to accuse separately the shameful words, the amatory letters written for seducing the girl, the shameful looks, and the dishonest touches. The reason is that, the sin not being consummated, those various means evil in themselves can no longer be referred to the end, and constitute one thing in the consummation of the sin. Wherefore those individual acts must be regarded with their own proper malice, and accused separately in confession. G. 156; Elbel 637, 640; I. M. 310, 783.