Case XLVI: Imposition in the Confessional

In a place where there is a great gathering of disreputable persons, there appeared one day a suspicious-looking individual in the confessional. Among other things he confessed that about a year ago he had been working in a certain convent, and had there taken part in the theft of a chalice, representing in value several hundred dollars. The chalice had then been pawned for twenty-five dollars. Within three days the pawn-ticket would expire, and unless the loan is repaid by that time the sacred vessel would be abandoned to its uncertain fate. The man states that his accomplices refuse to redeem the chalice, but that he, driven by remorse of conscience, has with great effort saved all but ten dollars towards the sum. He asked the confessor to lend him this sum, which he would surely repay to the last penny, so that he may redeem the chalice and restore it to the owner.

As there were many waiting, and inquiry into this matter would probably take up much time, the penitent was told that such an important matter could not be properly discussed in the confessional, and he was directed to come the following day to the priest’s study, where the matter might be talked over. Absolution was, of course, not given. The following day this man reappeared, not at the rectory, however, but again in the confessional, thus increasing the priest’s suspicions. The latter became even somewhat exasperated and told this supposed swindler just what he thought of him in no uncertain terms. The would-be penitent then became abusive and left confessional and church abruptly and, of course, without absolution.

Father A, the priest in the case, related the facts to his confrater C., and asked his opinion as to whether he acted correctly. Father C. agreed that the man was probably a swindler. But as there was always a possibility that the matter might really be as stated, he thought that Father A. should have given the matter a more thorough investigation. In the confessional where the welfare of a soul is at stake, Father C. pointed out, it is necessary to proceed with greater caution and foresight than perhaps at the door of the rectory. It is certain that the circumstances justified the suspicion that the man was a clever swindler. Had he been what he claimed to be, if he had taken to heart his sacrilegious deed and by deprivation had striven to make good the wrong done, he would not have dreaded that walk to the rectory, unpleasant though it might have been. He feared, probably, that there he would be unmasked and handed over to the police. However, these are only probabilities. Your procedure, said Father C., would be justified only by absolute certainty, which might have been secured in two ways. You might have either directed him to bring the pawn-ticket, or else offered to go with him to the pawnbroker, with the promise that if the matter was found to be as stated, you would give the money. Then, if the man was a swindler, he would not have waited for further developments and would have vanished at short notice. That Father C.’s advice was to the point was confirmed the very next day. He was in the confessional when a seemingly very contrite man came and confessed this very case. When the man had finished Father C. made him his proposition. It happened as foretold—the penitent left confessional and church quite hurriedly and has not shown up since. Father C. was able to assure Father A. that he need have no scruples. The facts in the case may be of value to others exposed to such imposition. Dr. W. A. Engelhardt.