Chapter X — The conditions of the purpose necessary for Confession

I. That you may be able, Christian reader, to form the true image of that justification which certain younger casuists depict, recall to mind that they teach that for the sacrament a servile attrition conceived from fear of eternal punishment is enough. And here advert a little, that those things which are done from fear are not firm and stable, since fear brings in a certain violence. For those things which we dread we desire to blot out of our mind.

II. Secondly I would have you recall that those Doctors go further, teaching that a fear conceived from dread of hell or of eternal flames is not necessary, but that it is enough that grief be conceived from some temporal evil inflicted, or to be inflicted, by God as a supernatural author — suppose from infamy, from prison, from sickness. Passing then to the purpose, which Trent defined to be necessary, they teach that an express one is not required, but that it is enough that it be implicit, contained in that grief conceived from a temporal evil, as has been said. Hear now what they teach concerning this purpose, and you will straightway form the true image of the new justification brought in by men.

III. The prerogatives, or conditions, of a true purpose are three: first, that it be universal; second, that it be stable, constant, firm; third, that it be efficacious. A confessor nevertheless ought not to propose, nor a penitent to form, these hypotheses: What should I do if a most cruel death were threatened by a tyrant, if a vast patrimony were held out to me, that I should sin again? and so forth. These hypotheses can disturb the minds of some penitents: therefore they are to be abstained from. It is enough that they firmly purpose to abstain from all sins, and that they renew the purpose chiefly against those sins to which they are greatly addicted. It is enough that in general they purpose that they will rather die and lose all their goods than gravely offend God, without its being necessary to descend to this or that most bitter torment. Those three conditions theologians commonly teach to be necessary for a true purpose. Let us hear what very many casuists teach. For readers are not so much to be taught as to be untaught, that they may abstain from, or lay aside, false opinings.

IV. QUESTION I. What is to be said of the opinion which teaches that a purpose suffices for Confession, although the penitent certainly know that he will relapse? ANSWER. Lest they say that I impose upon the casuists, Sporer writes these things, part 3, chapter 1, section 4, no. 310, page 204: “For a man can truly grieve for and detest sin, and truly and absolutely purpose that he will not sin thereafter, or conceive a firm and sufficient purpose of abstaining hereafter; although he greatly fear, or even reckon, nay certainly BELIEVE that on account of the experienced inconstancy of his own will and his own frailty he will relapse anew: that he will not avoid all mortal sins, or this certain kind of sin. Whence if a penitent say: I altogether indeed grieve, and firmly purpose to abstain hereafter; yet meanwhile I KNOW, I shall do it again, I shall fall again, I have already so often experienced it — he is to be ABSOLVED as WELL DISPOSED, a due confirmation and consolation being sent before: because the sense of the words I shall do it again is only indicative, or enunciative on the part of the intellect.”

V. Against the transcribed doctrine St. Augustine cries out, Book 8 of the Confessions, chapter 9: Whence this monstrous thing? The will commands itself, and it is not done what it commands? Therefore it does not command with its whole heart. If that penitent certainly reckons that he will relapse, then he does not hope from God the grace by which he may be able to resist temptation: and if he does not hope, he is unworthy of absolution. Either that penitent is justified through absolution, or not. If you deny it, then the penitent perpetrates a sacrilege. If he is justified, then he in fact has the grace by which he can abstain from sin. Do you deny it? Then you are a Jansenist. Alas, how many Jansenistic propositions are in the Ethics of certain men, where, invincible ignorance being everywhere vaunted and the infirmity of sinners, several mandates of the Decalogue are traduced as impossible! And yet these same men cry out that divine grace is always present to the blind and the hardened. But because this grace is versatile, therefore they teach that a penitent certainly believes that he will relapse. That penitent described by Fr. Sporer is at least sincere, though sacrilegious. He knows that his past Confessions were sacrilegious, from the defect of a true purpose; and therefore, taught by experience, he sincerely confesses that he believes and knows that he will relapse: because he knows that he will not leave his mistress, his usuries, his perjuries, and like crimes. But at the same time penitents know that they will find casuists and confessors from whom they may receive absolution and the sacred Eucharist. Fr. Sporer subjoins: otherwise if the sense were optative. Good heavens! This alone was wanting, that he should wish for sin.

VI. QUESTION II. What is to be said of the censure which Fr. Francolino burns upon Bishop Gennet, because he wills that the purpose be firm and constant? ANSWER. Fr. Francolino in his Roman Clergy, Book 2, column 10, disputation 10, no. 26, page 99 of the last Venice edition, writes these things: “Francis Gennet in his most recent Moral Theology published at Paris in the year 1705. Out of several examples of his MOST RIGID doctrine, whence grave absurdities follow, I shall bring forward one from Vol. IV, tract 6, On the Sacrament of Penance, where, chapter 5, question 9, he teaches that for true contrition in this sacrament there is required as necessary a CONSTANT purpose: he does not say a purpose, but a constant purpose; and that this must be made known to the confessor before he absolve.”

VII. Fr. Francolino besides reproves in the same place Bishop Gennet for asserting that credence is not often to be given to the tears of sinners. Then Fr. Francolino concludes there at no. 27: Who ever heard doctrines so ABSURD, so SEVERE?

VIII. Who ever heard a Catholic writer rising up so openly against the Apostle Paul himself, let alone against Bishop Gennet? For the doctrine of Gennet is the very doctrine of St. Paul saying: For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance STEADFAST. And again Paul teaches: If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable. And St. Paul wills penitents to be constant, stable, and immoveable, and Gennet with him. But Fr. Francolino cries out to the contrary: Who ever heard doctrines so absurd? Did the most holy Apostle Paul teach absurd things?

IX. The doctrine of Francolino Fr. La Croix transcribed, Book 6, part 2, no. 1824. I ask: ought a penitent to have a constant or an inconstant will? If the first, then you teach a most rigid doctrine, says Francolino with Fr. La Croix. Therefore it suffices to have an inconstant will. But who will not openly convict this consequence, adverse to St. Paul, of falsity? Say, reader: would you entrust moneys on loan to those who had a will not constant but inconstant of restoring them?

X. QUESTION III. What is to be said concerning the universal purpose of avoiding all mortal sins? ANSWER. The second condition of the purpose required for confession is a universal will of abstaining from all and each of the mortal sins. This doctrine is certain and manifest, and St. Thomas teaches it, III, q. 87, art. 1, reply 1. Penance, he says, for mortal sins requires that a man purpose to abstain from all and each of the mortal sins. All the ancient theologians teach the same. The contrary opining is maintained by Aversa, Hurtado, Piatelli, and Dicastillo, who calls the former doctrine singular. The opinion of these writers I judge false and contrary to the divine Scriptures. Not enough did Fr. La Croix consult the peril of his readers, writing, Book 6, part 2, no. 898: “It seems MORE PROBABLE that for absolution from mortal sins there is required a universal purpose of guarding hereafter against all mortal sins.” For if it is only more probable, according to him the opposite opinion of Piatelli, Hurtado, and others is still probable; which therefore anyone can follow according to the probabilists. But who would dare to assert that one approaching the sacrament of Penance without a universal purpose of avoiding all mortal sins is justified?

XI. What kind of penance is that which has been devised by these Doctors? There suffices, according to some, a servile grief conceived even from fear of a temporal evil to be inflicted by God. An explicit purpose is not required. It is not required that it be constant. It is not required that it be universal. Is this the penance which Christ and the Evangelists teach?

XII. The third condition of the purpose required for confession is that it be efficacious, that is, that what is purposed be carried into effect, as St. Thomas wisely declares on Psalm 48. A purpose is best manifested by operation. Moreover, that a purpose may be called efficacious, penitents must have a will of abstaining not only from sins, but also from the dangers and occasions which impel to sins.

XIII. QUESTION IV. What occasions ought a penitent to avoid, that his purpose may be called efficacious? ANSWER. There is a twofold kind of occasions. Some remote, which occur almost everywhere; others proximate, which by their own nature, all things regarded, induce to sin: or in which a man constituted either rarely or never abstains from sin. Of these occasions some are free, others necessary. Occasions of the first kind a man freely seeks or retains. Of the second kind are those from which a man cannot withdraw, as sons of a family and others subject to servitude. Besides, one occasion is proximate absolutely, as concubinage, cohabitation with a mistress, and so forth. Another occasion is proximate relatively, as familiar conversation with such a girl or woman: to Titius it will be a proximate occasion, but not to Sempronius.

XIV. QUESTION V. What do very many probabilists teach concerning the purpose of avoiding proximate occasions? ANSWER. I should fill a volume if I wished to recount all the opinions which seem to me false: in passing I shall touch upon a few. First, they teach that women are to be absolved who do not purpose modestly to cover their bared breasts. Second, who do not purpose to moderate superfluous ornament and luxury. Third, who are unwilling to dismiss paints, artificial colours of the face. Fourth, they teach that some servants can serve a concubine, and hold out to her hot foods provoking to venery. Fifth, that they can spread a bed for their master and his mistress without venial fault, and strew it with flowers without mortal. Sixth, that they can conduct a concubine into the house of their master, even if they foresee that they will sin. Seventh, that they can carry little gifts, incitements of base love, to a mistress. Eighth, that it is lawful to let a house to one asking it for fornicating. Ninth, that it is lawful to give a gift to a judge's concubine, that she may intercede with him. There would be no end of writing, if I wished to recount all these paradoxes.

XV. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the rule which Frs. Sporer, Gobat, Caramuel, and others propose concerning the purpose of avoiding an occasion into which you probably know you will fall? ANSWER. In this matter Probabilism puts forth its strength. These things Fr. Sporer teaches, part 3, chapter 2, section 4, question 2, § 1, no. 314: “For when it is only probable that you will succumb to temptation in such an occasion, it is certainly also PROBABLE that you will not succumb: for there occur grave reasons on account of which a prudent man judges that you will not fall. Certainly, following this his judgment, without the note of rashness, for a reasonable cause you will be able to commit yourself to this occasion — you who certainly would not commit yourself if you knew, or certainly believed, that you would fall. Wherefore a confessor will not judge him to be in a proximate occasion of sinning — for example, of getting drunk, of fornicating, and so forth — who in such a place, being tempted ten times, has succumbed only three or four times; but otherwise if eight or seven times, and has avoided sin only twice or thrice, and come off superior. Wherefore to this man, not to that, unwilling to leave this occasion, absolution will have to be denied. For John Caramuel, Theologia Regularis, disputation 20, no. 1036, wills that absolution be given even to him who was victor as often as he was conquered, Fr. Gobat relating it, case 16, and not contradicting.”

XVI. Animated by this probabilistic doctrine, the lustful, the drunken, and the rest will approach their mistress, the tavern, or another occasion four or three times a day, or in two days, or in three days; twice or thrice they will abstain, twice or thrice they will sin. Nay, that they may be absolved more securely, if they visit their mistress eight times a day, they will sin only once or twice. For then, not only according to Gobat and Caramuel, but also according to other more cautious probabilists, they will be able to be absolved and to be nourished with the eucharistic food. If you inquire of these why those who sin twice or four times in an occasion can be absolved, but not those who sin six times, they answer: So the Doctors teach.

XVII. QUESTION VII. What is a near occasion, and ought a penitent to have a purpose of avoiding it? ANSWER. That is called a near occasion which, the whole complex of circumstances being regarded, gravely allures to fault, so that without great difficulty and caution men are not wont to abstain from fault. These occasions, which by very many are called near, are more often occasions proximate relatively.

XVIII. QUESTION VIII. What is to be said of the opinion of Frs. Sporer, Layman, and others concerning the duty of forsaking near occasions? ANSWER. Fr. Patrick Sporer in the place cited, no. 311, writes these things: “Whence there are to be absolved soldiers, merchants, maidservants, and so forth, to whom from their office, business, house, and so forth, a near danger of sinning threatens, by which they were wont more often to sin; if without great difficulty or notable loss they cannot dismiss it, provided they seriously purpose to avoid sin hereafter. From the common opinion. Layman, chapter 4, no. 9.”

XIX. If they are wont more often to sin, those occasions are, by the common sense of the probabilists, near, and in fact proximate relatively. This doctrine, which, as Fr. Sporer testifies, is common among the probabilist Doctors, is false on a twofold head. For either they are wont more often to sin from the efficacy of the occasion beating upon their frailty: and then it is proximate, and therefore to be forsaken before absolution by the doctrine of the Church: or they are wont more often to sin from malice: and then they are indisposed and unworthy of absolution. Is this that stable and immoveable penance which holy Scripture teaches? It is difficult to forsake occasions. I confess it. What then? What does the Gospel of Christ teach? Prick up your ears, and hear Christ Jesus: Amen I say to you, that a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Matthew 19. And again Mark, chapter 10: How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! And the disciples were astonished at his words, hearing so much Rigorism. But Christ cries out again — But the disciples, Mark goes on, were astonished at his words. But Jesus again answering, saith to them: Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! What at last do these oracles bear? If thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and so forth. If thy hand scandalize thee, cut it off. Matthew 5. And again Paul, 1 Thessalonians 5, thunders: From all appearance of evil refrain yourselves. So teach the evangelical Doctors. But the probabilist Doctors teach the opposite. If you had before your eyes these oracles alone of Jesus Christ, and those which I have adduced above, O confessors, O ministers of God, would you not know how to resolve for yourselves, the light of the Scriptures going before, all the controversies which the casuists stir up concerning stable penance, concerning the love of God, concerning a constant purpose, and concerning the forsaking of occasions? Would you not detect the petty opinions of like casuists to be most false and adverse to the Gospel of Christ? Read therefore, I cry again, read the Gospel of Christ, read the word of God: since you together with your penitents are to be judged by God according to the Gospel, and not according to casuist Doctors.

XX. QUESTION IX. What is to be said of the opinion teaching that young men are to be absolved who, while working with women, sin by consent, touches, and copulation, because they do not dwell in the same house? ANSWER. This is the doctrine which Fr. Dominic Viva teaches, question 4, article 5, out of his cited casuists: “Whence Perez, Leander, de Lugo, and others infer that those can be absolved who work or converse with women who do not dwell in the same house: because although sometimes in such an occasion they sin mortally by consent, touches, and even copulation, nevertheless that occasion will be reckoned remote. Since indeed men are not wont from such an occasion ALWAYS, or ALMOST ALWAYS, to sin mortally.” Whether this doctrine be anti-evangelical, let the wise judge: for none is more suited to the fostering of carnal sins between lovers and mistresses, who almost never dwell in the same house, but most frequently come together.

XXI. QUESTION X. What is to be said of the opinion of those who do not require in a sinner for justification express acts of faith and hope? ANSWER. Fr. Dominic Viva writes these things, question 3, article 4, no. 11: “I answer with Leander, Sánchez, Bonacina, Filliucci, and Valentia, against Hurtado, Turrianus, and others, that these express acts are not required: for never have the faithful nor confessors been solicitous about them, as they are solicitous about grief. … Or it suffices that a past act of faith and hope, not retracted, or an act of faith or of hope imbibed in the grief itself.”

XXII. The Council of Trent, session 6, chapter 6, teaches: But they are disposed to that justice itself, when, excited and helped by divine grace, conceiving FAITH from hearing … from the divine fear by which they are struck, they are usefully raised into HOPE, and so forth. More clearly it explains these acts — to believe, to hope, to love — in canon 3, as we have seen above. If those acts imbibed in the grief sufficed, as Leander, Sánchez, Bonacina, Viva, and others contend, they would have been superfluously expressed by the Council. Meditate the genius of these authors, by which they are commonly borne to defining, tempering, and lightening the law, whether of the Scriptures or of the Councils.

XXIII. Again I beg my readers that, void of prejudices and of party zeal, they maturely weigh the whole doctrine of this dissertation, which on the one part I have adduced drawn from the holy Scriptures, from the Council of Trent, and from the Fathers, and on the other part excerpted from the casuist Doctors, defenders of fear-born attrition; that they seriously compare and meditate them, and then bring forth judgment. For all things which I have written, and shall write, I submit with the fullest will to the judgment of the wise and of superiors.