Case LXVII: Questioning a Penitent in the Confessional

Case.—John, on one of his frequent visits to a public inn, drinks to excess, becomes intoxicated and falls asleep there. When he awakens he is sober again, proceeds to use indecent and impure language, and engages in a vicious quarrel with another man. Several days after he goes to confession, but does not mention anything of all this. The confessor, who has been informed by the innkeeper of John’s improper behavior, is surprised that John does not accuse himself of the things that he did at the inn, and begins to question him, in a general way, about intemperance, impure language, etc., but John replies to all these questions that he is not guilty in this respect.

Question.—It is asked whether the confessor is privileged, or obliged, to remind John of the happenings at the inn, and what he will have to do if John denies them.

Solution.—This is a case, first, of the obligation of a confessor to question his penitent, and, secondly, of his privilege or obligation to question the penitent about a sin omitted or denied by the penitent, when, to the certain knowledge of the confessor, he has committed it. The obligation on the part of the confessor, to question the penitent, prevails whenever the confessor doubts, either on account of the confession, or on account of his private knowledge, that the penitent makes a complete confession, and this obligation to question extends to everything, but no more, that the confessor must know to exercise his office. In this case the confessor knows from private information that his penitent has committed mortal sins which he omits in his confession, namely, complete intoxication, impure talk, and vicious quarreling, all of which are objectively mortal sins, though among people of low station they are often not considered of grave nature. The confessor is, therefore, privileged and obliged to inquire about these sins, not only in a general way, but positively and directly. Such a question can always be asked of a man of the station and habits of John, even if the confession itself does not offer a reason for the question. Such information cannot be regarded to have been made sub secreto, hence he may, and must, state that he was informed of these happenings by one of those present at the inn, unless of course harmful consequences are to be feared.

What, however, is the confessor to do if the penitent denies these sins? Evidently the confessor cannot absolve the penitent if he is absolutely convinced that the penitent denies the matter in a sacrilegious way, if he is positive that his information was absolutely reliable, and, on the other hand, that the penitent knowingly and maliciously denies his guilt. Such absolute conviction, however, can hardly ever be secured through the statement of a third person. This is based by authorities of Moral Theology on the fact that the informant may have been mistaken; furthermore, the penitent may be an invincibly ignorant person, and may even have a valid reason to be silent, since perhaps he has already confessed these sins. In this case, for instance, the innkeeper in relating the incident may have exaggerated, etc. It is possible that the patient does not know of his complete intoxication, he may think that he just fell asleep, and as far as the impure talk and the quarrel is concerned, these things may mean so little to him that he forgot all about them. The principle governing here will therefore be: Poenitenti credendum est tam pro se quam contra se dicenti. This penitent will have to be absolved.