Case LXX: An Ignorant Penitent

Case.—Father Caius hears Bertha’s confession, and from the very beginning discovers that she is extremely ignorant about her religion. To the question, “Are there more Gods than one?” she answers correctly. She knows also of God’s justice, of the existence of Heaven and hell. But that is all. When asked how many Divine Persons there are, she becomes confused, saying first seven, then one, then three. The question, “Who died for us upon the cross?” she is unable to answer.

Question.—What should be done with such a penitent?

Solution.—Father Caius should admonish this ignorant penitent of her obligation to receive religious instruction, and the administration of the Sacrament should be postponed until due instruction has been imparted. If the confessor foresees that on account of shyness or other obstacles she would not come to be instructed, or if perhaps he will not be able later to instruct her himself, for instance, if he is a missionary, then he must not dismiss her, saying that he can do nothing with her, that she must seek instruction, but he must then and there teach her the most necessary truths (S. Alph. L. VI. 608).

Indispensably necessary for the validity of absolution is the knowledge of the existence of one God and of His justice (Heb., II. 6). Whether the knowledge of the Divine Trinity and of the Incarnation is indispensably necessary (necessitate medii) is a matter of dispute among theologians. A list of literature on this point we find in S. Alphonsus L. II. n. 2. Since probably the confessor is pressed for time he may content himself by making Bertha acquainted hic et nunc with the last-mentioned two articles of faith; then, in regard to knowledge of the mysteries of the faith, she is capable of receiving absolution. It is not necessary to impart instruction strictly according to the catechism. Caius may say: “You know that there is but one God. But there are three Divine Persons. How many Divine Persons are there? They are called Father, Son, Holy Ghost. What are they?” In the same way he should instruct and question her concerning the Incarnation.

In the event of Bertha having gone to confession often before, it may be presumed that the confessors did their duty as doctores. What, however, is to be done if it becomes apparent that Bertha has not been questioned by any confessor, much less instructed? Ballerini is of opinion that, according to the principles of probability, the ignorance of the mysteries in question would not necessitate a repetition of previous confessions, and in support of his decision he quotes St. Alphonsus L. VI. n. 505: “It must be noted that penitents are not to be compelled to repeat confessions unless it is morally certain that they were invalid.” The Saint, however, does not seem to allow the application of this procedure to a case like ours, because he calls the view of the necessity (necessitate medii) of the distinct knowledge of both mysteries communior et (videtur) probabilior, and concludes his investigation with the following words: “Therefore, when he has recognized that his confession, because of ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity or of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, was probably valid but also probably null, he is bound, after he has been instructed concerning those mysteries, to repeat the confession.” In these two points made by St. Alphonsus there is no contradiction, they are in perfect accord. In L. VI. 505, he treats of certain acts which the penitent positively performed and in regard to them applies the principle “in dubio praesumitur rite factum, quod factum est” as also “in dubio standum est pro valore actus.” The teaching of St. Alphonsus on the point referred to is strictly in accordance with this principle. In L. II. 2, namely, in our case, he treats of something quite different, namely of a subjectum capax or incapax Sacramenti. Here there can be no presumption of validity. Here comes into consideration the proposition condemned by Innocent XI. “It is not unlawful, in conferring the Sacraments, to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the Sacrament while leaving aside the safer opinion.’ Therefore the Saint insists upon the iteratio confessionis (cf. L. I. 48. H. A. I. 25). Moreover, probably every conscientious confessor, guided by Ballerini, would cause Bertha to repeat her confessions, as this course evidently would present no particular difficulty and in praxi one prefers to choose the safer way.