Chapter III — Several questions concerning absolution to be imparted or deferred to relapsing sinners, and to those engaged in an occasion of sinning

I. Concerning the occasion of sinning some things have been said above, where I set forth the purpose of not sinning. But because the argument is of the highest moment, the knowledge of it must be more widely explained: for this is the reason why Christians do not abstain from sins, because they refuse to leave behind the sweet enticements and fuels of sinning. Very many casuists fashion for themselves arbitrary definitions of a proximate occasion, of a near one, of a nearer one, of one proximate of itself, of one proximate by accident, of a probable occasion, of a more probable occasion: and finally they reason concerning dangers and occasions as they feel concerning probable opinions.

II. The most wise Jesuit Fr. Michael de Elizalde rubs down the thoughts of these men, Book 8, question 15, § 3. For there are (he says) who most unskilfully philosophize concerning dangers as concerning probable opinions, by saying that some are more, others less, others equally probable. Those they call equally probable in which as often as one sins more or less, so often one does not; those dangers more probable in which one sins more often, those less in which one does not sin so often, but nevertheless often offends. They resolve nevertheless according to the way of probable opinions that we are bound to avoid none of these dangers, because in all of them the opposite is at once probable — namely that I am not about to sin. Therefore, they say, there is a grave foundation, therefore it is probable; I follow it, and thus I prudently commit myself to the danger. This is the best logical consequence from the way of PROBABILISTS, but one which alone would overturn the way of paradise and fill up hell. For who, being fully consistent with himself, would confess that it is lawful for a young man to enter that house in which either he himself, or men like him, or better than himself, entering, so often or even more often slip and fall? It is plain that this cannot be said from principles, and that it is to commit one's soul to fortune or chance: which is a crime. Lastly, that we may not delay in confuting absurdities, the matter comes to this one word, that there is no danger at all to be avoided, but that we are obliged only to avoid the necessity of sinning: for after those probable dangers there follows a necessity; and those which exist beneath necessity, they say, are probable on either side. But I am bound to avoid no probables: therefore no dangers, but only necessity. But necessity is not danger. And of the proper character of danger is some contingency in the opposite; and everyone seeing fire applied to tow says that there is a danger lest it burn: so in other necessary things. O men!

I. Alexander VII condemned the following proposition, which is the 41st: A concubinary is not bound to cast out his concubine, if she were exceedingly useful for the delight of the concubinary — commonly called regalo — when, she being lacking, he would live too wretchedly, and other foods would affect the concubinary with great weariness, and another maidservant would be found with difficulty.

The Venerable Innocent XI the following. Absolution is not to be denied nor deferred to a penitent having a habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appear, provided he bring forth with his mouth that he grieves and purposes amendment. This is no. 60.

Someone can sometimes be absolved who is engaged in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and will not dismiss, nay which he directly and of set purpose seeks, or thrusts himself into. This is 61.

A proximate occasion of sinning is not to be fled when some useful or honourable cause of not fleeing occurs. This is 62.

It is lawful to seek directly a proximate occasion of sinning for the spiritual or temporal good of ourselves or of a neighbour. This is 63.

II. From the recounted proscribed opinions, flatly fighting with the Gospel of Christ crying out If thy eye, and so forth, gather of what sort is the theology of those who maintained them. And yet those very men taught these things, whose books very many confessors use. They disapprove indeed the condemned theses; but they absorb with a poisonous straw the corollaries which follow thence; nay, certain casuists either elude or extenuate with arbitrary figments the very proscribed theses. Lest this seem to be asserted by me gratuitously, I subjoin an example.

III. Fr. Viva in his Treatise on proposition 41 of Alexander VII, no. 16, writes these things: “It is doubted here whether he can be absolved who has been engaged in a proximate occasion of sinning before he take it away, especially if in another confession he promised it, and then did not stand by his promises. Some, with Coninck, disputation 8 On Penance, no. 133, Filliucci, Azor, Sánchez, think that he cannot be absolved outside the case of necessity. Nay Cardenas, difficulty 40, chapter 5, article 4, no. 108, thinks that this is gathered from proposition 61 of Innocent XI, where it is condemned that he can be absolved who is engaged in a proximate occasion of sinning which he can and will not omit. And the reason seems to be, because he who approaches the sacrament of Penance before he take away that occasion is reckoned to be unwilling to cast it out, and consequently to approach without the due efficacious purpose of not sinning thereafter; since in this very thing, that the occasion of sinning is not taken away when it can be taken away, he sins. Nor does it stand in the way that he says he has the purpose of taking it away. For he only purposes to take it away in the future; and if he do not take it away at once, by that very fact he wills to remain for the present in that occasion, and consequently sins; just as he who, when a lion is approaching, purposes to flee and does not flee at once, is reckoned to will to remain in the danger of death. More commonly nevertheless, with Suárez, disputation 32, section 3, Tabiena, and others, they think that a penitent of this kind can be absolved once and again, if here and now there appear true signs of grief and of an efficacious purpose of taking away at once the proximate occasion. Nay Córdoba, Cajetan, and others think that he can be absolved even a third and a fourth time, although it be often expedient to defer absolution until that proximate occasion be taken away. He ought nevertheless altogether to be absolved even before the separation from it, both if a danger of death threaten, and if, absolution being deferred, it be believed that he will not have the opportunity of returning, or from another cause will not return. And the reason why he seems able to be absolved the first and second time is because the penitent could, either immediately before, or by hearing a sermon, or by hearing the admonitions of the confessor himself, be excited to a true and efficacious purpose of not sinning; in which case he is sufficiently disposed. Thus everywhere penitents are absolved by this, that they purpose to restore, although before confession they had not restored as they could: because from the admonitions of the confessor there can here and now arise a true purpose of restoring, which before confession was either weak, or was thought sufficient; although for some opportune time the restitution would have to be deferred: therefore this same thing can be done in him who is bound to take away a proximate occasion. Nor from that proposition 61 of Innocent XI is it drawn that he cannot be absolved. For he who purposes to take away the occasion at once cannot be said to will it for the present, just as neither is he said to will the danger of death who, when a lion is approaching, purposes to flee as soon as he can. Cautiously nevertheless is one to proceed in this, because everywhere a purpose of this kind is not efficacious in him who could antecedently have taken away the occasion of sinning and has not yet taken it away.”

IV. That the author may prove that a concubinary can be absolved once and again — concerning whom the discourse is in the thesis proscribed by Alexander VII — he opposes the parity of debtors, who everywhere, he says, are absolved by this, that they purpose to restore, although before confession they had not restored as they could. Everywhere assuredly, and would that not everywhere, debtors are absolved, although before confession they had not restored as they could, by confessors forestalled with false doctrines. Is it validly? Is it not sacrilegiously? Let us hear the doctrine of St. Francis Xavier, Apostle of the Indies, related in Book 6, chapter 17, by Turselline: Let absolution forthwith follow confession. … If they owe anything, let them restore it. … If they have any quarrels, let them lay them aside, let them return into favour with their enemies, and let them be disentangled from the lust and habit and from the outrages in which they are implicated. Let all these things run before absolution. Is not the doctrine of this Apostle of the East, drawn from the divine Scriptures and the Fathers, of more account than the interpretations of Leander, Tamburini, Busembaum, Escobar, Diana, Bonacina, Viva, and others? But let us hear another Apostle of our Italy, St. Charles Borromeo, who in the First Council of Milan prescribes these things: Let confessors beware lest before due satisfaction they absolve those to whom, when the faculty is present of restoring another's goods, or of paying out the legacies which have been made for pious causes, and when it has been most cautiously enjoined upon them by their superior that they do it, they have nevertheless neglected to perform it. What of this, that holy Scripture itself, Tobias 4, cries out: If any man hath done any work for thee, IMMEDIATELY pay him his hire?

V. The doctrine of Fr. Viva, as it seems to me, is included in this thesis condemned by Innocent XI: Someone can SOMETIMES be absolved who is engaged in a proximate occasion of sinning, and so forth. This proscribed thesis does not assert that one engaged in a proximate occasion is to be absolved as often as it happens, or twice, or thrice, or four times; but sometimes. Therefore according to the pontifical decree such a man is never to be absolved, unless first, when he can, he forsake the occasion. And the cited author teaches that this man can be absolved the first and second time. Why this? Because, he says, he who purposes to take away the occasion at once cannot be said to will it for the present. And who among Catholics has been so mad as to teach that he is to be absolved who wills the occasion of sin for the present? Did the authors of the condemned theses not require a purpose of dismissing the occasion for the present? Cautiously nevertheless, subjoins Fr. Viva, is one to proceed in this. This alone was lacking, that absolution should be imparted to such sinners even incautiously and indiscriminately. It is false that the eminent Doctor Suárez, and Cajetan, whom the author alleges as his own safeguard, teach this false doctrine. Fr. Suárez I have vindicated from this lax doctrine in Vol. IX, Book 2, disputation 5, chapter 4, § 3, no. 7 and following, as also Cajetan — that it may be known to all that I am immune from party zeal.

I. QUESTION I. Whether a concubinary can be absolved before he expel the concubine? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, tract 5, disputation 7, question 35, writes these things: “I answer more probably that a concubinary can lawfully be absolved once and again before he cast out the concubine, provided he anew firmly purpose to the confessor to cast her out of the house. … The reason is, because from a second, nay from a third or fourth promise made concerning the casting out of a concubine, or another proximate occasion, there is not taken a grave judgment concerning a DEFECT OF THE DISPOSITION OF THE PENITENT. Therefore he can lawfully be absolved.” Weigh, reader, the reason which this most kindly probabilist here brings forth; and gather thence the character of the recent kindly theology. From this author Fr. Viva transcribed his own opinion, not adverting that this author wrote before the condemned theses.

II. QUESTION II. Whether a concubinary can be absolved, the concubine not being cast out of the house, because he cannot do it without great detriment to his life, his honour, or his money? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 36: “I answer more probably that he can be absolved, nay ought to be, as often as he shall have truly repented — not only when there is present some amendment, but even when NO PROGRESS APPEARS; provided, as we have said, such a concubinary have grief for his sins, and a true purpose of guarding against them in the future, and so forth. … Our answer is proved: because even after that experience of no progress there can stand a true grief and the requisite purpose, without a will of taking away that occasion with so great a detriment. Therefore the penitent can be absolved. … So Vivaldus, Sánchez, Diana, and most recently and MOST LEARNEDLY (as he is wont) de Lugo, disputation 14, nos. 155 and 156, Hurtado, Candidus, Bonacina, Sá, Layman, Brunius, and so forth.” Do you see how these probabilists reconcile with the retention of the occasion the purpose of amendment? Do you see how the leading probabilists maintain it most learnedly? But it is condemned, and anti-evangelical.

III. QUESTION III. Whether a concubinary can be absolved, the concubine not being cast out of the house, because he would lose his reputation if he expelled the concubine? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 38: “I answer more probably that he himself can be absolved, nay she herself also, if by the same a mark of infamy would be incurred, or if he could not cast her out without grave loss or scandal. … So Sánchez, de Lugo, Bonacina, Candidus.” This opinion is the daughter of the preceding, and false, and condemned by the Church.

IV. QUESTION IV. Whether a concubinary can be absolved, the concubine not being cast out, who lent to the said woman, for example, a hundred gold pieces, and believes that he will lose them if he expel her from the house? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 39: “I answer more probably that he himself can be absolved, and likewise the woman herself, in the case in which he would not recover the hundred gold pieces owed to him, if he should cast her out of the house — provided he purpose not to sin any more. Because no one is bound to avoid a proximate occasion with great detriment to himself, even temporal.” So Sánchez, de Lugo, Bonacina. The Gospel of Christ cries out: What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? And the younger casuists cited defend that for the avoiding of the loss of a hundred gold pieces the concubine is not to be dismissed.

V. QUESTION V. Whether a penitent can be absolved who even after repeated admonition fornicates now with one, now with another? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 44: “I answer that he can, as often as he approaches confession with grief and a purpose of not sinning, provided he retain or maintain no woman elsewhere. So Bonacina, Sá, Lublinus, Trullench.” A concubinary is bound to feed a concubine at his own expense at home or elsewhere, and sins with the same one alone. But this sinner without so many inconveniences can lie now with one, now with another — that is, multiply scandals and seduce several women; and nevertheless as often as he approaches confession with grief he will have to be absolved. This grief is chimerical. This doctrine is contained in the proscribed theses, and is to be disapproved by all.

VI. QUESTION VI. Whether a confessor can be absolved who out of devotion receives confessions in the hearing of which he is frequently and voluntarily polluted? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 46: “Joseph ab Horto affirms it, and Castropalao, in his Mirror of Parish Priests, chapter 10, in Diana, teaching that such a confessor can be absolved, provided he approach with grief and a purpose of not sinning.” This opinion is false, lax, and full of scandal. The addition of grief and purpose is a mere chimera, as is also the other, the devotion of receiving confessions in which that confessor is voluntarily and indeed frequently polluted.

VII. QUESTION VII. Whether a physician or a surgeon can be absolved who in healing women often sin, if they have no purpose of ceasing from the cure? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 48: “I answer more probably that they can be absolved, however much they cannot forsake their own office, provided they repent and purpose not to consent any more. It is plain from what has been said.” From what has been said, namely, is plain the falsity and laxity of this poisonous antecedent. Either physicians and surgeons ought to amend themselves or to relinquish their arts; and the same would be of advocates, judges, and the rest, when their own professions were to them a proximate occasion of sinning.

VIII. QUESTION VIII. Whether a hostess can be absolved without a purpose of not receiving a guest with whom she has sinned several times, when without great scandal or detriment she could not forbid him her lodging? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 55: “I answer more probably that she can be absolved, provided she promise and purpose that she will never be alone with him alone in any separate chamber, and that she repents of the past from her soul, even if she had confessed and purposed that she would never sin with him any more. So Navarrus and other Doctors, to whom add Stephen Baum thus speaking: It follows from what has been said that a woman can be absolved who receives at home without a husband a man with whom she often sins, if she cannot honourably cast him out thence, or has a cause of retaining him, provided she firmly purpose that she will not sin with him any more.”

IX. Very many other like and unheard-of figments I pass over, and having transcribed them I set down nothing; but I submit the same to the judgment of readers, nothing doubting but that all who shall read them ought to disapprove and detest them.

X. QUESTION IX. Are dancing-women, mime-women, singing-women, and comic actresses to be absolved? ANSWER. Unless they first relinquish their art, which, all things being regarded, is in fact vicious and evil, they are not to be absolved. The Fathers of the Church and the Councils of all ages detested theatrical representations as the iniquitous relics of pagan superstition. Some prate that the ancient Fathers condemned theatres because they were most base and stained with superstition. These men have never read the Fathers. The Fathers condemn that men put on a woman's garment, as being forbidden by God; they condemn harlot-like music and fornicating song; they condemn the meeting of men and women, being seen and seeing. All these things are done today. Nay our theatres are for the most part baser than those which were represented in the time of the Fathers: for then women did not act as mimes, as in our age, unless you except the theatres of the goddess Flora and the Floralia, at which not even honourable pagans assisted.

XI. Certain men are not ashamed to oppose the authority of St. Thomas. Elsewhere of set purpose I have proved more clearly than the noonday light that those opponents labour under a supine ignorance. In Book 4, distinction 16, question 4, article 2, question 2, he says that if spectacles be of base things provoking to sin, the studious inspection of them is a sin, and sometimes so great a lust can be employed in them that it be even mortal. Whence all ought to keep themselves from such inspection. All therefore according to St. Thomas ought to keep themselves. Sometimes therefore, not always, it is mortal. A most inept opposition. Assuredly a man can sometimes behold base things without being mortally delighted. But if he shall have done it frequently, he will sin mortally, because he exposes himself to the danger of sinning mortally. For the rest, that the ignorance of the objectors may be more evidently plain, the Angelic subjoins what must be brought into the midst from 2-2, question 168, article 3. Although those beholding base things should experience no delight, they sin the sin of cooperation. For here St. Thomas adds in the same place: But if any men bestow superfluous things upon such, or even SUPPORT (N.B.) those actors who use unlawful games, they sin, as it were fostering them in sin. Whence Augustine says on John, tract 100, that to give one's goods to actors is a monstrous vice. All who frequent theatres, although they were immune from lust, sin mortally, because they foster actors in mortal sin by paying them a wage. In the time of St. Thomas there were actors, or jesters, commonly called saltimbanchi, who exercised lawful games. That their art was not of itself unlawful he says in the place cited — which holds true if the games be lawful, as in the time of St. Thomas they were. Which I prove by an evident demonstration. St. Thomas in the place cited, II-II, q. 169, art. 2, reply 3, teaches this: Of itself it is vicious that a woman use a man's garment, or conversely; and especially because this can be a cause of lasciviousness, it is specially forbidden in the law. Therefore when in the preceding question, article 3, reply 3, the Angelic says that the office of actors is not of itself unlawful, he does not speak of actors of whom one puts on a man's garment and another a woman's garment, as is done in our age. For this is of itself vicious, says St. Thomas. Therefore it is clearer than the noonday light that St. Thomas disapproves as vicious the theatres of our time, in which either emasculated men put on a woman's garment, or women themselves shamelessly come forth upon the stage — which no one would deny to be a grave sin.

XII. QUESTION X. Whether it be lawful to approach an occasion in which it is probable that you will fall? ANSWER. Fr. George Gobat answers, tract 7, case 16, no. 349, page 594: “For when it is only probable that you will succumb to temptation, it is certainly also probable that you will not succumb. But just as in very many other matters it is lawful for you to deduce a conclusion pleasing to yourself from either of two speculatively probable opinions, so it will be lawful here to argue: There occur to me grave temptations, on account of which a prudent man can wisely judge that I shall fall into a new mortal crime if I shall have approached this house. Conversely there are other reasons, also grave, on account of which another and equally prudent man would pronounce that I shall not fall. Therefore I can, without the note of rashness and imprudence, commit myself to that occasion — I who certainly would not commit myself if I clearly knew that I should admit that grave sin. And so it is lawful, speaking of itself, to commit oneself to a probable danger of sinning mortally.”

XIII. This probabilistic principle being laid down, corollaries worthy of so great a principle Fr. Gobat elicits in the same place, no. 350, page 596: “If a concubinary cannot dismiss his concubine without the loss of a hundred gold pieces or ducats, the confessor will be able, as the matter arises, to embrace the opinion of John Sánchez, or of Oviedo, related a little before.” Another corollary no less to be detested Fr. Gobat deduces in the same place, no. 351. Hear: “If she herself be so brazen that, being dismissed, she is about to publish the occult concubinage, very many of those cited will patronize him who wills to retain her; but he will assuredly have to be fortified with peculiar purposes and other means: just as they patronize him if she be his own maidservant, and he cannot obtain another without peril; since nevertheless he could by no means be without any maidservant at all.”

XIV. QUESTION XI. What is to be said of the opinion which defends that absolution is not to be denied to plebeian young men lying stripped in the same bed with girls, unwilling to purpose separation? ANSWER. Here Fr. George Gobat, tract 5, chapter 31, nos. 19 and 20, page 552 and following, writes: “You will ask perchance whether the actions which we have said suffice for a violent presumption of adultery suffice for a violent presumption of fornication, namely if they be engaged in concerning persons altogether free? I answer that absolutely all and each do not suffice, because it is established that very often among the free actions of this kind are exercised as some disposition toward espousals. I clearly know that it frequently happens, especially among plebeians and rustics, that in the same bed for some hours clothed and stripped they lie, and yet do nothing at all immodest, or nothing save kisses and base handlings.”

“Whence I judge that absolution cannot be denied by a confessor to all those plebeian girls (I feel otherwise of noblewomen, for various considerations) who do not seem to have a purpose of never admitting into their bed their own wooer. But if some one, as sometimes happens, should allege that he lay with her six or eight times in the same bed, but that he sought or did nothing evil, she seems to have to be absolved, although she purpose not to admit him no more. The reason is, because a confessor ought not to deny absolution to a penitent for this cause alone, that he is unwilling to forsake remote occasions of sinning: for a penitent is not bound to avoid them.” These things cannot be heard without horror.

XV. QUESTION XII. Whether one persisting in a near occasion of sinning mortally can be absolved, because without grave inconvenience of body, reputation, or fortune he cannot take it away? ANSWER. Fr. Layman, Book 5, tract 6, chapter 4, no. 9, teaches this: “Except, fifthly, unless the near danger or occasion of sinning mortally cannot be taken away without grave inconvenience of body, reputation, or fortune: then indeed it is a counsel to postpone that lesser loss to the greater good of the soul's security, but not a precept. Wherefore those are to be absolved who are unwilling to depart from an office, a business, or a house in which a danger of sinning nearly threatens, because they cannot without the greatest difficulty, being meanwhile prepared to employ the remedies of sins, especially those which are prescribed to them by the confessor, as Sá, Henríquez, and others teach. … The reason is, because an occasion of sinning is not in itself a sin, nor does it bring in necessity, or take away the liberty of the soul: wherefore with it there can stand a detestation of sins, and an absolute purpose of employing labour and endeavour that hereafter sins be avoided; although meanwhile there be joined a fear or an estimation that the will will sometime be changed, as I have said above. Then I reason thus. Either the precept of declining the occasions of sin is affirmative; then it is manifestly plain that it does not oblige in such necessity. Or if you contend that the precept is negative, of not approaching a danger or not persisting in it, then I answer that the precept is to be understood as forbidding that anyone of his own accord and voluntarily cast himself into a danger of sinning, or persist in it.”

XVI. This is the whole juice of Probabilism, which, as we have seen, creeps through the whole of theology. Nor is the Illustrator of Fr. Layman in the later edition less deceived, unless I myself am deceived, when he says that the doctrine of Layman is not contained in the condemned thesis, because the author requires not any cause whatsoever, but a grave cause of not forsaking the occasion. All paradoxes must be devised, lest it be granted that a casuist erred. To this all things come back. And who, even of the authors of the condemned theses themselves, does not require a grave inconvenience, that an occasion may lawfully be retained? Can the lustful, usurers, tardy debtors, and lovers and mistresses forsake the occasion without a very grave difficulty?

XVII. QUESTION XIII. What is to be said concerning the absolution of the relapsing? ANSWER. Fr. Layman, Book 5, tract 6, chapter 4, no. 2, writes this: “He who is relapsing, if he bring forward some sign of amendment, IS ALWAYS TO BE ABSOLVED. But the signs are either to sin more rarely, or some greater grief conceived from a true mind, or TO CONFESS HIMSELF SPONTANEOUSLY, in those who are not urged by a preceptor, a father, or a tutor, or by the custom of a congregation gathered for confessing, and so forth. For then a sign of amendment is had; otherwise not.” What Layman teaches pleases me, says Tamburini; and the same say La Croix and Viva. It would be a wonder if a kindly doctrine, to me nevertheless false, did not please Tamburini and the other probabilists.

XVIII. Is a spontaneous and voluntary confession a sign of amendment in the relapsing so certain that they ought ALWAYS to be absolved? And in fact there are absolved lovers and mistresses always conversing together, feasting together, wooing one another, kissing, touching, and committing adultery. For they of their own accord, without a tutor or preceptor, approach a spiritual father, and are absolved. Another sign of amendment is that they sin more rarely. So that these penitents may be almost always bondmen of the devil and enemies of God, provided they more rarely crucify Christ, more rarely multiply offences against the divine Majesty, they are to be absolved. Let readers compare this doctrine with the doctrine of Christ, promulgated by the voice of the Evangelists and of Paul, by which it is declared that the true conversion of penitents is stable, firm, immovable, and rarely relapsing; and let them themselves sit as judges whether the transcribed doctrine be false and anti-evangelical or not. For I am unwilling to bring forth sentence. But let us hear prettier things.

XIX. QUESTION XIV. What is to be said of the following opinion of Fr. La Croix? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 1729, says: “That a frequent relapse is a sign that grief or purpose was lacking, the JANSENISTS and RIGORISTS hold, with very many Illustrious Men in the Good Pastor; but it is certain that this is not universally true.”

XX. That some rare and special case is to be excepted from the aforesaid rule, no one of sound mind denies. For the rest, that a frequent relapse is commonly a sign that grief with purpose is lacking, only the LAXISTS can deny. Are the Jansenists and Rigorists the Evangelists and the Apostle Paul, who require a stable conversion? Under this mask of Rigorism does Laxism stalk everywhere? The clearest evangelical truths are noted by certain probabilists with the censure of Jansenism and Rigorism. And this is the most deadly calamity of our age.

XXI. Fr. La Croix objects in the same place: “There is not a greater obligation of avoiding old sins than new: for a purpose ought to extend itself equally to all; nay it is easier to avoid new than old, because vicious custom and habit impel more to the old. But from the fact that a man brings forward NEW sins, no one prudently judges that grief or purpose was lacking in the prior confession: therefore neither from the fact that he brings forward old ones.”

XXII. No one prudently judges! Who are they who do not prudently judge that grief or purpose was lacking in those who bring forward new sins? Assuredly not those who hear the Gospel and have formed the true idea of Christian penance. But this manner being passed over, I ask: Does the gift of justification, the triumphant grace of Jesus Christ infused into a penitent truly converted, not afford strength and fortitude for avoiding all mortal sins, whether new or old? What idea, I ask, is formed of the grace of Christ, healing, vivifying, and sanctifying? Assuredly the efficacious and triumphant grace of Christ affords strength to your nature for avoiding sins whether old or new. Therefore a frequent relapse (for of this now is the discourse), whether into old or into new sins, is an argument that a sincere grief and a constant and stable purpose was lacking. Tell me: does the grace of Christ give strength for avoiding all sins and fulfilling all precepts, or not? If you grant the first, then your recounted doctrine is false. Assuredly, as I have said, any just man from weakness, an unforeseen and sudden occasion pressing, can sometimes after a true confession and justification relapse either into old or into new sins. But now we speak of a frequent relapse. Further, to assert that no one prudently doubts that grief and purpose were lacking, when he sees frequent relapses whether into new or into old mortal sins, is a most open falsity. Nay, all imbued with evangelical doctrine not only doubt, but most prudently judge that these frequent relapsers perpetrate sacrileges. Since if they were truly justified, the grace of Christ, charity, and the other heavenly gifts would bring forth their fruits, would heal their wounds, and would strengthen their infirmity and weakness. If two enemies, after a covenant of reconciliation once and again reintegrated, should frequently relapse into enmities and in turn threaten death to one another, or one to the other, would you say that a sincere and true reconciliation had taken place? And do you dare to say that those sinners enter upon a sincere friendship with God who frequently break the faith given to God, who turn their backs upon God and contract a covenant with the enemy the devil?

XXIII. QUESTION XV. What is to be thought of the doctrine handed down in the theological dissertation On absolution to be given or deferred to the relapsing, published in print this year 1754? ANSWER. In this dissertation in the first place the notion of a relapsing person is set forth from the common opinion of the casuists. For the author says, page 8: “Wherefore three things are required for constituting a relapsing person in this theological acceptation. I. A FREQUENT RELAPSE AFTER SEVERAL CONFESSIONS. II. Then a relapse INTO SINS OF THE SAME SPECIES. III. A DEFECT OF ALL AMENDMENT, EVEN INCHOATE. And first indeed there is required a relapse after several confessions, says Platelius. … There is required then a relapse into sins of the same species which the penitent had before confessed; NOR DOES A RELAPSE INTO NEW AND DIVERSE SINS SUFFICE.” Page 9: “Wherefore for a relapsing person properly such, when theologians inquire whether absolution is to be given or not, there is required a relapse into sins of the same species.”

Page 10: “Lastly there is required A DEFECT OF ALL AMENDMENT, EVEN INCHOATE. For from such a defect theologians doubt whether a relapsing person is to be absolved or not, and so forth. For the rest, if the relapsing person shall have employed SOME endeavour toward amendment, or shall have diminished the number of sins, then theologians commonly reckon that there is present a reasonable foundation for thinking concerning him that here and”… … “now he is rightly disposed and capable of absolution.”

XXIV. Who are those theologians who doubt whether a relapsing person is to be absolved who exhibits no sign even of an inchoate amendment? They are very many casuists, maintainers of a softer Ethics. Behold whom the author of the dissertation cites in his own patronage: Layman, de Lugo, Sánchez, Platelius, Gobat, La Croix, Felix Potestas, Alphonsus Manrique, Navarrus, Azor, Toletus, López, and several others — who, he says at page 12, were well skilled in the Scriptures and the Fathers.

XXV. Platelius most openly maintains the condemned doctrine concerning philosophical sin. Layman, Sánchez, and Gobat defend more or less very many condemned and lax opinions. Fr. Potestas and Manrique are two casuists of a laxer Ethics. López, Azor, and the others who are indicated are more recent probabilists, favourers of a kindlier discipline.

XXVI. Let us see now whether the recounted probabilists were well skilled in the Scriptures and the Fathers. These authors, says the author of the dissertation, first doubt whether those relapsing — that is, frequently falling back into the same sins after several confessions — are to be absolved, who exhibit no sign even of an inchoate amendment. Further, if they doubt, according to the principles of Probabilism not the safer but the kindlier part will have to be chosen; and consequently those are to be absolved who exhibit no argument at all, not even of an inchoate amendment. But the common sense of Christians shudders at such a figment, namely that those relapsing are to be absolved who exhibit no sign of amendment.

XXVII. But let us approach that which is the head of the matter. If a relapsing person shall have employed SOME endeavour toward amendment, if he shall have diminished the number of his sins, then theologians commonly reckon that there is present a reasonable foundation for thinking that he is here and now rightly disposed and capable of absolution. And were those theologians and probabilists well skilled in the Scriptures and the Fathers? Not only were those authors not well skilled in the Scriptures and the Fathers, but in this argument they were utterly ignorant both of the Scriptures and of the Fathers. I prove it. The aforesaid authors require for the true amendment of a relapsing person only some endeavour, some industry, and an inchoate amendment. On the contrary the holy Scriptures and all the Fathers demand not some endeavour but altogether the whole endeavour, the whole industry, for attaining an amendment not inchoate but entire. Therefore the aforesaid authors were utterly ignorant both of the holy Scriptures and of all the Fathers. I show the second proposition.

XXVIII. The holy Scriptures everywhere cry out. Deuteronomy 4: When thou shalt seek the Lord … thou shalt find him: yet so, if thou seek him with ALL thy heart, and ALL the affliction of thy soul. Again, chapter 30: When therefore … thou shalt obey his commandments … with ALL thy heart, and with ALL thy soul, he will bring thee back, and so forth. Again, 3 Kings 8: If they shall be converted to thee with their WHOLE heart, and with ALL their soul … thou shalt hear in heaven. Lastly Joel 2: Be converted to me with ALL your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and so forth. Finally, what is more frequent in the whole of holy Scripture than this oracle: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy WHOLE heart, and with thy WHOLE soul, and with thy WHOLE mind (Matthew 22), with thy WHOLE strength (Deuteronomy 6)? And all the divine Prophets, speaking of the conversion of sinners, say: We shall all roar like bears, and shall lament as mourning doves (Isaias 59); Be in pain, O daughter of Sion, as a woman in travail (Micheas 4). Who is so blind that in these holy Scriptures he does not see and understand that every endeavour, every industry, every fortitude, every effort and all the strength must be employed by a sinner, that he may sincerely be converted to God from the way of iniquity; and consequently that a confessor can gather hence a solid indication of the conversion of the relapsing? Therefore the doctrine of the more recent probabilists, who require in a relapsing sinner not the whole but only some endeavour, that he may appear amended and worthy of absolution, fights in hostile fashion with the holy Scriptures.

XXIX. There is added that the justification of sinners is called stable in the holy Scriptures: For the sorrow that is according to God worketh penance STEADFAST unto salvation, 2 Corinthians 7. The same doctrine St. Paul repeats, 1 Corinthians 15: Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye STEADFAST and UNMOVEABLE. Again to the Colossians 1: If so ye continue in the faith, grounded, STEADFAST, and IMMOVEABLE. The author of the cited dissertation answers at page 27: “I greatly marvel that this more recent writer, in refuting this matter, is more solicitous than is equitable concerning the liberty of indifference, since he himself has taught that Christian justification infused through the sacrament of Penance is firm, constant, and stable, and that consequently it does not commonly come about that one truly justified relapses; and if it should come about, that he rises again forthwith amid groans and penances: which assuredly, whether and how far it coheres with the Scriptures, with Trent, and with the liberty of indifference itself, let the judgment be with others. Certainly the Calvinian error concerning the firmness and the inamissibility of justification is adverse to all these things.”

XXX. Is the doctrine of St. Paul Calvinian, which declares justification to be stable, immovable, and firm? What of this, that I in the book entitled Instruction of Confessors, and so forth, premised these things at page 58: Although Christian justification is by its own nature stable, firm, and immovable, it is nevertheless not inamissible, as the Calvinists contend; but human liberty being regarded, it can be lost at any moment whatsoever. It is likewise true that after innumerable relapses and enormous crimes a sinner can be reconciled with God; and the Church has condemned the opposite error of the innovators. Which doctrine I repeat at page 185, cited by the praised dissertator. But let us weigh the remaining transcribed words of the dissertation. What does not cohere with the Scriptures, with Trent, and with human liberty? That Christian justification is firm, stable, and immovable? But this St. Paul most openly testifies. What therefore does not cohere with the Scriptures, with Trent, and with human liberty? Perchance that the truly justified do not commonly relapse into sins? Does it therefore cohere with the Scriptures, with Trent, and with human liberty that the truly justified commonly, and indeed frequently, relapse into outrages? One or the other we must admit. What lastly does not cohere with the Scriptures, with Trent, and with human liberty? That the truly justified, if they relapse into sin, rise again forthwith amid tears and penances, as St. Peter did, and innumerable others? Does it therefore cohere with the Scriptures, with Trent, and with human liberty that the just, having relapsed into sin, should lie long and for a long time in the bilge-water of vices, and roll therein? Either we must subscribe to the doctrine which I have handed down, drawn from the Scriptures and the Fathers; or absurdities of this kind, which fight with Religion, must be swallowed.

XXXI. Let us weigh another head. If he shall have diminished the number of his sins (he says at page 10), the relapsing person is rightly disposed and capable of absolution, as theologians commonly — namely Layman, Sánchez, Platelius, Gobat, La Croix, and others of this kind — teach. A relapsing person in the prior confession perpetrated twenty fornications, in this confession fifteen, in another confession ten, in another six, in another sixteen. This diminution and variation of outrages, according to the recent casuists, is a sign that the relapsing person is rightly disposed. Hence they lead a most wretched life in a continual circle of outrages. Confessors forestalled by this legion of probabilist books absolve the relapsing. And the relapsing, that they may attain absolution, study to diminish and to vary the number of their sins, and employ some endeavour; but they continually wallow in this vicissitude of crimes, as daily experience lays open.

XXXII. Let a third head come under examination. There is required then (says the dissertator at page 8) a relapse into sins of the same species which the penitent had before confessed; NOR DOES A RELAPSE INTO NEW AND DIVERSE SINS SUFFICE. … There is added that from new and diverse sins there does not result in the confessor a prudent judgment that a true grief and purpose was lacking to the penitent in the prior confession, as La Croix rightly adverts. Therefore according to this doctrine the grief and purpose necessary to the sacrament of Penance do not exclude all mortal sins. Or if all mortal sins are detested and excluded, then he is no less a relapsing person who falls back into one than he who falls back into another mortal sin. Whither do you betake yourself? Theologians teach that he only is a relapsing person who falls back into sins of the same species. Who are these theologians? A handful of casuists of a laxer Ethics. This doctrine is new, and adverse to the Scriptures and the Fathers. Hence the cited casuists infer that Christians relapsing into sins specifically diverse are to be absolved, because they are not relapsing persons. A penitent confesses in this confession thirty pollutions, in another twenty fornications, in another forty adulteries, in another twenty sodomies, in another ten thefts, in another fifteen perjuries, in another ten blasphemies, in another as many calumnies, in another twenty injustices and losses inflicted upon a neighbour. This penitent is not a relapsing person, because he does not fall back into sins of the same species. He ought therefore to be absolved. Which doctrine the dissertator had earlier handed down out of Filliucci in his other book entitled Practice of Confessing, where at page 113 he teaches this: “Just as no difficulty is to be employed in giving absolution to one who brings sins of a diverse species, so no excessive difficulty is to be employed in absolving one who brings several times sins of one and the same species.” This opinion I overthrew in the cited opuscule Instruction of Confessors, and so forth. The dissertator subjoins in the praised book Practice of Confessing, page 114: “Such a remedy, consisting in deferring absolution … I do not believe it good to use universally with one who precisely falls back by force of an evil habit and a bad inclination, but who has done in the past that which he COULD, and at present has a good will to do what he can to abstain from it.”

XXXIII. In this dissertation on giving, denying, or deferring absolution to a relapsing person, at pages 21 and 23 our author endeavours to maintain the described doctrine, but in vain. That he may cast a mist over his readers, he separates two conjoined points which constitute the error, that he may in some way guard himself. For the discourse is of a sinner who precisely by force of a depraved habit and an evil inclination falls back into sin, and who hitherto has done that which he could, that he might tear out the habit, and at present has a good will of correcting himself. If a penitent has in fact executed the remedies which he could, that he might overcome the habit of vices, and nevertheless precisely by force of the habit falls back into sin, one or the other must be admitted: either that the vicious habit is insuperable, or that the penitent has not furnished what he could. You yourself confess that the penitent did what he could to tear out the habit. Therefore the habit overcomes the strength of the penitent. Therefore this penitent lacks the strength by which he may be able to fulfil the divine precepts.

XXXIV. Nor less false is the other doctrine, which teaches that a Christian frequently relapsing into sins of a diverse species is to be absolved: because, he says at page 8, the particle re- seems to be referred to a repeated act of the same species. These are most trifling casuistical subtleties, which can cast a mist over the unskilled, otherwise over the skilled. To return to the vomit, to fall back into sin, includes all mortals. So teach, he says, Carena, Gobat, Sánchez, La Croix, Platelius, Layman, Manriquez, and other more recent men. Be it so. What thence? Will a false doctrine on that account become true? Let us consult the Apostle St. Paul, who in the epistle to the Hebrews, chapter 6, teaches these things: For it is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift … and are fallen away, to be renewed again to penance, crucifying again to themselves the Son of God. It is impossible, that is, difficult, the Fathers explain, that those who after the sacraments received fall away into sins should be renewed to penance. Fallen away, not relapsed, is said in Scripture. Therefore the particle re- is futile, and a vain figment. Do not sinners by any mortal sin whatsoever, whether of this or of another species, crucify the Son of God? The Apostle subjoins in the same place: For the earth that drinketh in the rain which cometh often upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is tilled, receiveth blessing from God. But that which bringeth forth thorns and briers is reprobate, and very near unto a curse, whose end is to be burnt. Are not all mortal sins thorns and briers? A soul therefore which, watered by the blood of Christ and by the reception of the sacraments, and strengthened by the banquet of his most holy body, frequently brings forth thorns and briers, whether of this or of another species, is reprobate and near to a curse, says St. Paul. Again, chapter 10, he subjoins: For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins. … A man making void the law of Moses dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: how much more, do you think, he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? Do the sacraments not adorn a soul truly justified with the sanctifying grace of Christ, and besides fortify and strengthen the same with peculiar graces and gifts, that it may resist temptations and depraved inclinations? Therefore if this soul, after several confessions and communions, frequently falls forward into mortal sins, it was not in fact sanctified, vivified, and strengthened. The Gospel of Christ cries out: By their fruits you shall know them. … A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Matthew 7. Let confessors lend their ears to the Evangelists, not to certain casuists, if they will rightly discern who are worthy of participation in the sacraments. They themselves behold with their eyes the avaricious and the lustful, prodigals, lovers and mistresses, dancing-women, mimes and mime-women, gamesters, the fraudulent, tardy debtors, fornicators, and perjurers approaching the sacraments several times a year. What fruits do these plants bring forth, made fruitful with so great a shower of heavenly gifts? Let them themselves bring forth judgment.

XXXV. Let us hear the Fathers, in whom the dissertator contends that his probabilists were skilled. St. Thomas on Psalm 48 says: A purpose is best manifested by operation. Again, 1-2, question 10, article 4: A will is not perfect unless it be such that, opportunity being given, it operates. St. Augustine, Book 8 of the Confessions, chapter 9, writes these things: Whence this monstrous thing? And why is it? The mind commands the body, and it obeys forthwith; the mind commands itself, and it is resisted. … It commands, I say, that it will, which would not command unless it willed; and yet what it commands is not done. But it does not will with the whole heart; therefore it does not command with the whole. … There are two wills, because one of them is not WHOLE; and this is present to the one which is lacking to the other. The mind of the relapsing person commands, as the dissertator teaches at page 10 with his casuists, namely by employing SOME endeavour; therefore that which it commands is not done, because it does not command with the whole mind and the whole endeavour. A like laxity St. Cyprian bewailed with bitter tears in his own time, in his book On the Lapsed: There has emerged, dearly beloved brethren, a new kind of disaster, and, as though the storm of persecution had raged too little, there has acceded to the heap, under the title of mercy, a deceiving evil and a bland destruction. Against the rigour of the Gospel, against the law of the Lord and God, by the rashness of certain men communion is relaxed to the incautious. Void and false peace, dangerous to the givers, about to profit the receivers nothing. Read innumerable other Fathers in Vol. IX, Book 1, dissertation 5. Meanwhile hear the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 2: Obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins, to which newness and integrity nevertheless we can by no means arrive through the sacrament of Penance without great weepings and labours on our part, the divine justice exacting it; so that Penance has deservedly been called by the holy Fathers a certain laborious Baptism.

XXXVI. Great labours, huge weepings, the WHOLE endeavour in a penitent — chiefly in one relapsing after several confessions and frequently falling forward — all the Fathers and the Councils require. On the contrary the dissertator and the casuists whom he cites exact some endeavour, some industry, some diminution of sins. These two fight with one another in hostile fashion. Therefore the doctrine of the casuists is adverse to the doctrine of the Scriptures, of the Fathers, and of the Councils. The dissertator opposes at page 17 the testimony of Fr. Alphonsus Manriquez of the Order of Preachers. But all Dominicans reject, contemn, and place among the Laxists this casuist as a writer of a laxer Ethics and destitute of all authority.

XXXVII. As my least opinion bears, the disputant in this dissertation of his has compiled the laxer things which casuists are wont to hand down upon this argument. For he writes at page 30: Let him therefore note that the relapsing CAN be absolved AS OFTEN AS they actually truly grieve and purpose. This becomes known to the confessor from SOME endeavour toward amendment, such as certainly is a return to confession at the confessor's prescription; and therefore they give hope of a future and at length stable conversion. Who would approve these things? Is a return to confession at the confessor's prescription an argument of true grief and of a true conversion? Every day fornicators and adulterers will return to confession, provided that as often as it happens they obtain absolution from their adulteries and fornications. SOME endeavour also toward amendment, the dissertator here repeats, they will employ — but not every and the whole endeavour, as the Scriptures and the Fathers exact — that they may be able to enjoy their own lust. The relapsing can be absolved as often as they actually truly grieve and purpose. Excellently. But whence can a confessor know that the relapsing, frequently falling back after several confessions, sincerely grieve and truly purpose? That grief is supernatural, hidden in the bosom of the heart, which a confessor cannot behold. From the fruits alone of amendment and of good works can a confessor gather this true grief and firm purpose. The graver the business is, and the more obnoxious to graver dangers, the stronger the endeavour and the greater the industry required for the attaining of it. The business of avoiding hell and of obtaining eternal glory is the greatest of all. Therefore it requires the whole strength, the whole endeavour, the whole mind, the whole understanding, as the holy Scripture, as all the Fathers and the Councils cry out. On the contrary the praised dissertator in this his dissertation always abstains from this word of God, from inculcating namely that sinners should seek God with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind. But at page 10 he requires some endeavour; at page 13, from some endeavour toward a new life; at page 27, some endeavour toward amendment; at page 30, this becomes known to the confessor from some endeavour toward amendment; at page 33, it would suffice that they employ some labour toward the amendment of life; at page 34, from some amendment of the penitent himself. From this manner of speaking of the Scriptures — Be converted to me with your whole heart, in fasting, and so forth — he abstains as from a phrase of Merbesius and Gennet. And in fact at page 25 he rejects as an error the doctrine concerning a stable, firm, and constant justification, which St. Paul teaches in set words. The whole endeavour, which all the Scriptures require, he passes over in deep silence, and exacts only SOME endeavour, SOME and not the WHOLE industry. Not once in the whole dissertation does he require the whole endeavour, because this whole endeavour he does not find in his own casuists.

XXXVIII. Pretty are the things which the dissertator writes at page 34, saying: Two things now remain, of which I would have each man admonished at the close. The first is that no one easily suffer himself to be snatched away by a certain paint of a purer Ethics, and of an ancient discipline and probity, as some have it in their mouth, to be restored. The flames of Laxism — not to say of a certain Epicureanism — burn at the four corners. To those who frequent theatres, who pass their days and nights among mistresses, who continually give their labour to games, banquets, vanity, and luxury, and whose morals lastly are antichristian — provided they bear before them a grief for past crimes and approach confession — writers teach that the sacraments are to be administered. And to this last heap of evils: Christians are there admonished lest they suffer themselves to be snatched away by a paint of a purer Ethics. But let us transcribe the other paradoxes which the dissertator adds in the same place at page 35: If anyone hears, for example, that those labouring under a depraved habit are not to be absolved, let him see that there be not soon a step thence to feeling that a depraved habit is not only an effect of sin but a sin, while it actually remains in which a penitent without doubt cannot be justified. If he hears that the relapsing are not easily to be absolved but to be rejected by the confessor, let him beware lest he be at length so carried by certain men that they wish it to be persuaded that the sacrament of Penance is as it were the sacrament of Baptism, which cannot be repeated. If these dangers are persuaded to readers as to be guarded against, they must in some way be probable. What Catholic has taught, or does teach, that the sacrament of Penance is as it were the sacrament of Baptism, which cannot be repeated? What Catholic has written anything having even a remote affinity with such an error? Who maintains that a vicious habit is not only an effect of sin but also a sin, while it actually remains, in which a penitent cannot be justified? These therefore are spectres, arbitrary chimeras, and inept figments devised and invented for the defending of the Laxism dominant in the morals of Christians. Who will give water to my head, and a fountain of tears to my eyes? and I will weep day and night for the slain of the daughter of my people! I shall repeat mourning with Jeremias, chapter 9.

XXXIX. “The other is” (he subjoins in the same place) “that no one easily reckon those texts of the holy Fathers to be opportunely alleged for the matter of which we treat.” This counsel the dissertator ought by right to apply to himself. He himself alleges at page 13 St. Thomas in Book 4, distinction 17, question 3, article 5, reply 2, where the holy Doctor, speaking (says the dissertator) of the knowledge by which a confessor ought to know the DISPOSITION of the penitent, has this. And, that I may speak most mildly, here is a most evident falsity, namely that the holy Doctor there speaks of the knowledge by which a confessor ought to know the disposition of the penitent; whereas the Angelic has his discourse concerning the knowledge of the sins which the penitent manifests. These are the words of the holy Doctor: In another way, through the manifestation of the confession. … And as to this knowledge he cannot receive greater certitude than that he should believe the subject: because this is for the succouring of his conscience. Whence in the forum of confession credence is given to a man both for himself and against himself. Clearer than the noonday light it is that the Angelic speaks of the faith which a confessor ought to employ toward a penitent manifesting his own sins. Nor has he a word concerning the knowledge of the grief, or of the dispositions of the penitent. Therefore the dissertator manifestly imposes upon his readers. He adduces in the same place this text of Fr. Suárez concerning a relapsing person: Concerning which purpose credence is to be given to the penitent, notwithstanding any preceding frequency or inconstancy whatsoever. If a confessor is bound to give credence to a penitent testifying from his soul that he grieves and has a purpose of amendment, all approaching the tribunal of penance will have to be absolved. For all who of their own accord approach the sacrament testify that they grieve, and that they have a purpose of abstaining from sins. For they would be foolish, unless they showed these two things — namely grief and purpose — since they know that these two are the matter of the sacrament. Nor is there a presumption to the contrary, says the author of the dissertation in the same place, when it is established from some previous amendment, from some endeavour toward a new life. SOME endeavour, SOME previous amendment penitents always display. Nay, those reading books of these casuists abstain from sins for some days before confession, that they may exhibit to the confessor SOME endeavour toward a new life, SOME previous amendment. And in this fashion they lead their whole life commonly in a circle of sins and a frequenting of the sacraments.

XL. The examples which he obtrudes concerning St. Francis Xavier, St. Philip Neri, St. Francis de Sales, and St. Andrew Avellino are altogether inept and foreign to the constituting of a rule which confessors ought to observe. Read what I have written concerning St. Francis Xavier in Vol. IX, Book 2, dissertation 3, chapter 5, and concerning Cardinal Bellarmine crying out: There would not be so great a facility of sinning, if there were not so great a facility of absolving. All holy men and the wiser theologians deplore this facility of absolving and of administering the sacraments to the relapsing and to those of habit as the extreme calamity of our age. And nevertheless the aim of the cited dissertation tends to this, that it may approve and confirm a lax discipline in administering the sacraments to the relapsing and to those entangled in depraved habits. And, that this lamentable custom may strike deeper roots, monsters are obtruded which neither are, nor is there even a slight danger threatening that they should come about. Evangelical doctrines, which in the conversion of sinners require and more deeply inculcate the whole endeavour, a vehement effort, and all industry, are traduced as doctrines invented by Merbesius, by Opstraet, by Gennet, and by others of this mark and school, says the dissertator. The evangelical school is that which teaches that with the whole, not with some, endeavour, with a vehement, not with some, industry, each man must busy himself and strive to rise from the bilge-water of crimes, and to love God with the whole heart, the whole soul, the whole mind, and all his strength. This doctrine is evangelical, whatever very many probabilists cry out to the contrary, whose false opinions the author diligently heaped up in the cited dissertation.

I. QUESTION I. What ought a confessor above all to observe when he is about to hear confessions? ANSWER. It behoves a confessor among other things to have before his eyes: 1. That the justification of the wicked is the greatest work of God, a laborious Baptism not of cold water, as the first, but of boiling water, which may boil away and flay off the old skin; and this he ought to manifest to penitents. 2. That many are called but few chosen. Men run in crowds to confession, no otherwise than to some solemnity, and seeing that the matter is commonly despatched in a few words, they perform the business only perfunctorily. Diligently therefore, O confessors, instruct your penitents that the work of justification is the greatest fruit of Christian redemption. Few assuredly will you gain; but few are the elect. You ought to pant after the conversion of all; but do not despond in soul if it promise scanty fruits. Let it be enough for you to gain even one sheep. It is God's part to sanctify souls; yours to instruct and dispose them, that they may become apt for receiving the heavenly dew.

II. QUESTION II. What ought a confessor to observe in the questioning of penitents? ANSWER. Let him consider the state of the penitent — master, servant, married man, judge, advocate, magnate, prince, youth, girl, mother of a family. In the examination of carnal sins there is need of great prudence. Let all questions be chaste. Two things can hinder the integrity of confession: malice and shame. These obstacles he will easily overcome if he represent the infinite clemency of God toward sinners; if he set forth the passion of Christ Jesus for the saving of sinners; if he add courage for the vomiting forth of the monsters which torture the soul. But unless a confessor be endowed with natural acumen and dexterity, and supported by God's help, we fill leaves in vain.

III. Let the confessor question especially concerning the first precept of loving God, whether they have studied frequently to fulfil it. If he detect the love of God predominating in their hearts, let him promise himself happy things. On the contrary, if he shall have beheld the love of the world, of carnal pleasures, and of riches reigning, let him fear many absurdities. Let him weigh whether their faith be living and their hope firm. In the exercise of these virtues he will find very many rude. And therefore he ought chiefly to instruct them in these. For these three theological virtues are the foundation and form of the Christian edifice. If the foundations totter, the whole edifice falls down.

IV. QUESTION III. Whether a confessor ought to question concerning the partner of a crime? ANSWER. I have already said above that a penitent is bound to manifest the accomplice, the name and habitation being concealed, when a confessor cannot be found who is ignorant of the accomplice. Therefore also a confessor is bound to question, when a penitent either ignorantly or from another cause conceals the accomplice. Benedict XIV published two diplomas, one on the 7th of July 1745, whose beginning is Suprema omnium, the other on the 4th of the Nones of June 1746, whose beginning is Ubi primum. By these decrees the Pontiff proscribes the abuse of those confessors who are wont either by blandishments or by threats to extort from penitents the name of an accomplice under pretext of correcting him. Therefore in the kingdom of Portugal, at whose bishops' entreaties the decrees emanated, or the constitution confirming the first decree, confessors took care that penitents should manifest the accomplice outside confession, that they might be able to correct him. Which most grave abuse the Pontiff condemned, the doctrine standing entire of laying him open, the name and habitation being concealed, as often as necessity demands it.

V. QUESTION IV. Whether a confessor is bound to admonish penitents of those things of which they are ignorant, whether vincibly or invincibly? ANSWER. With a full pen I have treated this question in Vol. II, Apparatus, dissertation 1, chapter 4. In few words I shall now despatch it. Fr. Viva in his Course, part 6, question 8, article 3, no. 4, teaches these things: “If it be hoped that the penitent, adverting for example that the marriage is invalid, or that a contract which he thinks just is unjust, and so forth, will remove those material sins, the confessor is bound to detect the ignorance for the good of the penitent, lest he sin against the law of God even materially. But if no progress be hoped for, but rather it be feared that the material sin will hereafter be a formal sin — for example, if, knowing the marriage to be invalid, he would not then easily abstain from knowing her whom he thought his wife — in such a case the ignorance is not to be removed, according to that of Augustine in the chapter Si quis, and so forth. And the same Tamburini teaches out of Pellizarius, when someone IS IN GOOD FAITH IN A PROXIMATE OCCASION, and no amendment is hoped for; or when someone in good faith does not restore another's goods. For the revelation of the truth would harm the penitent, if thereafter with formal fault he should remain in the proximate occasion, or retain another's goods. Nor would this profit him to whom another's goods must be restored, because we suppose that there is no hope that they will be restored if the good faith be taken away.”

VI. Those men possess another's goods in good faith; those reckon a usurious contract just; those are in good faith engaged in a proximate occasion; those in good faith defer the payment of debts. And is the minister of Penance, who by his office sustains the person of judge, doctor, and physician, not bound to instruct the penitents approaching his tribunal? And why? Lest the truth revealed harm the penitent. Is divine truth therefore pernicious? The Son of God ought not therefore to have descended to earth, that he might enlighten all men: he ought to have left them in good faith and ignorance, lest from material sinners they should become formal sinners. And yet he himself cries out, John 15: If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin. Their ignorance therefore was invincible. But Christ subjoins: But now they have no excuse for their sin. Let each man judge how the doctrine of Fr. Viva can be composed with the Gospel.

VII. The same doctrine Fr. Thomas Tamburini teaches out of de Lugo, Book 2, Method, chapter 4, no. 3; and therefore I transcribe it, that readers may be able to guard themselves against it. Tamburini therefore says: “THE FIRST RULE, from Sánchez, Book 1 On Morals, disputation 6, no. 53. If such ignorance is against the penitent — for example, if he himself believed that to be mortal which is not such — it ought to be removed by the confessor. … THE SECOND RULE. If an inculpable ignorance of whatever kind, whether of fact or of right, and whether of divine or of human right, is not against the penitent (that is, when the penitent does not think that to be mortal which is such by the law of God), and the penitent asks nothing of the confessor upon this, a distinction must be made. For if the confessor foresees that the penitent, the ignorance being taken away, will not with difficulty forsake that which is in fact a sin, he is bound, from Sánchez in the place cited, no. 6, to open the truth for the good of the penitent, lest the penitent sin against the law of God even materially. But if he foresees that he will not forsake it, let him rather keep silence, lest he cast him into a greater evil. The same is to be said when someone is in a proximate occasion, and no amendment is hoped for, as Pellizarius teaches, On Nuns, chapter 10, section 3, no. 191.”

VIII. QUESTION V. What if a confessor be asked by a penitent to lay open to him the truth of those things of which he is ignorant? ANSWER. De Lugo answers, disputation 22, section 2, no. 29: “But what if the penitent should question the confessor, or the Doctor, upon that matter? It is answered that then he ought to open the truth. … But Sánchez adds with others that when the penitent questions not from doubt but from scruple, THE CONFESSOR CAN KEEP SILENCE, or answer that (N.B.) he lay aside the scruple, because a scruple does not hinder good faith, nor the invincible ignorance which excuses it. This nevertheless does not seem to be said consequently: because even if the penitent question from scruple, the confessor cannot affirm that to be lawful which is unlawful: therefore neither will he be able to keep silence. … The confessor could indeed in that case FEIGN THAT HE HAD NOT HEARD, or had not attended, or answer that he had forgotten, that thus he may remain in the good faith which he had before, not nevertheless confirmed by his own authority.” Can a judge and a doctor therefore feign that he did not hear, or did not attend? And is he who, being questioned, keeps silence not presumed to consent?

IX. I press the cited authors thus. Either you hope that your penitents will restore another's goods, will depart from the proximate occasion, and will forsake unjust contracts, if they be admonished; or you certainly foresee that they will furnish none of these things. If the first, you grant that they are to be admonished. If the second, then these are not penitents, but blind, most wicked, and obstinate in most wicked ways. Therefore they are most unprepared for the sacraments. Therefore those who absolve them lie subject to the tremendous punishment foretold by Christ: If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. The blind, led by a blind guide, says Augustine. It is of faith that penitents ought to have a purpose of keeping all the divine mandates. Those who are so disposed and hardened that they will not the same mandates — have they that purpose? Tell me. And why ought a confessor not to manifest the truth? Out of charity, they say, lest the truth be noxious to the penitents. Therefore Christ the Lord and his Apostles and the Evangelists, who revealed the truths of the divine mandates, violated charity? Do they not consider what absurdities and blasphemies they cast forth in the recounted opinions?

I. The Seraphic Doctor St. Bonaventure, in his book On Confession, chapter 4, exclaims: O unheard-of kind of philosophizing! Is a judge bound to bring forth sentence at the arbitration of the accused? Ought he to obey the accused, and not the judge? These exclamations, say very many of the younger authors, are of Rigorists and Jansenists. For commonly all the probabilists affirm that confessors can and ought to accommodate themselves to the opinions of penitents, their own being forsaken. Which doctrine I have flogged above, and in Vol. I of the Apparatus. Wherefore now in few words I shall refute it.

II. Above I have transcribed the testimonies by which the probabilists prove that a confessor can direct a penitent according to an opinion which the confessor himself persuades himself is certainly false, says Layman, whose words I gave above in Vol. I, book 1 — especially if this opinion be more favourable and more desirable to the penitent. If one opinion should teach (says Fr. Viva, question 7, article 1, no. 6) that a penitent is bound to restitution, to the removing of such an occasion, and to the accepting of such a penance; and another opinion should teach that he is not bound: ABSOLUTION CANNOT BE DENIED, if the penitent follow the opinion FAVOURABLE to himself, provided it be in some way probable, even if the confessor be in the contrary opinion. Hence it is that Fr. La Croix and others advert that a confessor ought not to have one doctrine only, but a purse of several opinions. But if a confessor be not furnished in the purse of his mind with these several opinions, then let penitents present them to him. If they read Diana, Leander, Tamburini, La Croix, Bonacina, and others, in whose books upon almost every matter they will find contrary probable opinions, that they may choose for themselves the more favourable and more desirable — with these safeguards of opinions let them approach a confessor, and set forth to him these opinions, and according to them they ought to be absolved.

III. If an enemy of the Christian Religion should read these things, he would detest them as fables and figments, and would repudiate the Religion of Christ as vain. But we reject these things by the testimonies of Christ himself. Christ the Lord cries out, Matthew 24: Many will come in my name, saying: I am Christ; and they will seduce many. Mark 13: When you shall hear of wars, fear not. For these things must needs be, but the end is not yet. What of this, that in the Old Testament itself God abominated these paradoxes of opposed opinions? Proverbs 20: Weight and weight is an abomination before God. A deceitful balance is not good. Weights of opinions, some greater, some lesser. Weights lesser, that is, less probable, God detests through Micheas 6: Shall I justify wicked balances, and the deceitful weights of the bag? Are these not deceitful weights of opinions, when they are lesser, and when the judge himself judges them false, and yet with those false weights he administers the sacraments and the treasures of God? That you may yourself judge how this system is opposed to reason and to common sense, I would have you hear what follows.

IV. There comes to a confessor Cynthia the mistress, imbued with the light of natural doctrine, which shows her the obligation of separating herself from her lover. She nevertheless shrinks from the separation. She is dismissed without absolution. There comes the lover. He is armed with a contrary casuistical opinion, which does not oblige to separation. The lover is absolved. They meet one another in their accustomed conversation. Little mistress, how did the confessor deal with you? He absolved me. Did he? Assuredly. He denied me absolution. What penance did he give you? Four fasts, alms, and the visiting of hospitals. Were you to accept such a penance? By no means. I was unwilling to accept it. You were unwilling? And did he absolve you? Certainly. Are we not equal in the offence and in the circumstances? Assuredly. What then is the cause of so great a diversity, that you absolved ascend to Paradise, and I, deprived of absolution, fall headlong with him? Reveal the secret to me. Behold: you have not read Diana, Leander, Tamburini, Viva, La Croix; but I have read them. I represented to the confessor an opinion truly probable, more favourable and more desirable to me, because very many and grave authors defend it, such as Lamas, Stoz, Toldet, Burgaber, and others. I thank you. Hereafter, before I approach the tribunal of confession, I will turn over the kindlier casuists, until I find an opinion truly probable and favourable to me. Then I will approach a confessor. And if he impose a troublesome penance upon me, if he urge me to restitution and to separation from the proximate occasion, I will answer undaunted: I am not bound, I will not. Behold an opinion favourable to me, which frees me from so great a burden. But before I commit myself to so great a hazard, I beg and beseech you not to deceive me. Is it in fact as you have narrated? Most true. Behold again the words of Layman, of Viva, and of others: If one opinion should teach that a penitent is bound to restitution, to the removing (N.B.) of such an occasion, to the accepting of such a penance; and another opinion should teach that he is not bound: absolution CANNOT be DENIED, if the penitent (N.B.) follow the favourable opinion, provided it be probable, even if the confessor be in the contrary opinion. Have you understood? I have understood. You have almost made me blessed. Now, now I will go to the bookseller, to buy several casuists, to be read before I approach the confessor. So great a secret was hitherto unknown to me. Now… Lay down your pen. You are writing satire. Would, would that it were satire, and not a simple and genuine history, which I have therefore represented not that I might detract from the authors, but that I might succour the salvation of Christians. The books are of public right: the authors turn it to their own glory that they maintain this system. These are their principles. They in good faith firmly judged them to be true. Adversaries, who mutter that we detract from the casuists when we set forth in the midst the absurdities which necessarily follow from the probabilistic system, either believe that these are absurdities, or not. If the first, let them themselves detest this system, which the authors believed true, and they undergo no mark, even if it were false. Cannot all men err? If the second, namely if they judge that these are not absurdities but truths, let them lay this open and convict me of ignorance. And thus all things are safe and entire.

V. Tell me. What if in the forum, if in the tribunal where civil suits are resolved, such opinions obtained? What then would become of human society? A judge of temporal matters is bound by the doctrine of the Church to judge according to the more probable doctrine: and can a judge of eternal salvation judge according to a less probable opinion, which he judges absolutely false? Nay, is he bound to accommodate himself to the probable opinions of sinners, which that judge, bearing the place of God, judges false? If these are not unheard-of paradoxes, what will be? So it seems to my weakness: for the rest I subject my judgment to the more learned and to superiors.

I. Many things upon this matter I have written in Vol. IX, Book 2, dissertation 3, chapter 10; in few words I shall now touch upon it. And first I repeat what I have more often said. It behoves a confessor to be singularly endowed with meekness, patience, and clemency, chiefly when absolution is to be deferred. Far be it that he reject penitents harshly and rustically; but with singular kindliness — and this is true kindliness — he ought to persuade the penitent that he is not in such a state capable of absolution. Since this heavenly medicine would be to him not salutary but deadly. Let him represent to him the depth of his wounds, his inveterate disease, and that his past confessions, conjoined with a frequent and almost continual relapse, were void and sacrilegious. Let him lay open the necessity of disposing and preparing himself by fasts, alms, and prayers for so great a sacrament. Let him show him what were the causes of his relapses, what the occasions, what the enticements, from all which he ought to remove himself, and to enter the narrow way. Let him be kindly in deferring absolution until he see arguments of conversion and of a sincere will of changing his life.

II. Let him not absolve those of habit even the first time. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 1820, says: “A confessor can absolve one of habit the first time that he accuses himself of the sin of his habit, although no amendment has yet gone before, provided he seriously purpose it; especially if of his own accord, no one compelling, he has come to confession, as the MOST COMMON opinion holds, against Huygens, Gabriel, Opstraet, and other RIGORISTS. The reason is, because one so disposed is rightly disposed, and gives hope of amendment,” and so forth. Fr. La Croix calls those Rigorists who fulfil the pontifical decrees. Whether Huygens, Gabriel, and Opstraet be Rigorists or not, nothing pertains to me. This I say, that the doctrine of Fr. La Croix differs little or nothing from thesis 60 condemned by Innocent XI: Absolution is not to be denied nor deferred to a penitent having a habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appear, provided he bring forth with his mouth that he grieves and purposes amendment. Fr. La Croix asserts that he who of his own accord and freely confesses is rightly disposed. If this were true, Christians confessing would commonly be justified, because they freely approach confession. See more in Vol. IX, Book 2, dissertation 3, chapter 10; meanwhile beware of this doctrine, which I judge false.

III. Are those who frequently relapse into the sin of voluntary pollution to be absolved? Fr. Sporer, part 3, chapter 2, section 4, § 3, no. 330, answers: To return with the same sins is not of itself a sign that a true grief and purpose of amendment is lacking; certainly no more than if he returned with other and diverse sins, but is only a sign of human frailty in such a man. This doctrine, maintained by Fr. La Croix, I have refuted above. Do those therefore show a sign of amendment who fall into new sins? But what grieves more is that a doctrine of this kind is spread abroad by the disciples of these casuists in little books published in the vulgar tongue, as is plain in the little work entitled Pratica di confessare, and so forth, diretta principalmente a Parrochi e Confessori delle ville, published at Rome in 1737, in which at page 115 the described doctrine is held out to the parish priests and confessors of the villages, according to these authors, so that the relapsing and those of habit may more easily obtain absolution; and if they perpetrate sins of a diverse species, then without difficulty they will be admitted to the sacraments. When, subjoins Fr. Sporer out of Gobat, some progress is noted, or some diminution of sins, patience must be had. For the very diminution of sins is a sign of progress. Patience assuredly must be had. But wherein is that patience set? In an easy granting of absolution? I agree, if that absolution heals them. This patience and mercy increases and does not cure the disease. That sins are sometimes diminished proceeds from something other than a true purpose. All persuade a frequenting of the sacraments for the healing of this wound. But I press. It is of faith that the sacrament of Penance blots out sins and sanctifies the soul; that the Eucharist as a heavenly food fattens and strengthens the Christian, and extinguishes the spirit of impurity. Therefore those who receive these sacraments and nevertheless fall back into the same sins — not by chance, by some unforeseen thing, not by accident, some occasion urging, but frequently — do not experience the effects of these sacraments. Therefore they perpetrate sacrileges. What if such polluted men were priests, who should celebrate daily? Is a frequenting of the sacraments to these an opportune remedy?

IV. By experience I have learned that the kindliness of an easy absolution toward these men is a monstrous savagery. I myself have several times sinned by an excessive kindliness of absolution imparted. That this infirmity is the most difficult of all, all confess. What therefore is to be done? I shall say what I feel, and submit it to the judgment of others.

V. Those of habit, who are engaged in a proximate occasion, are by the doctrine of the Church not cured by a frequenting of the sacraments, but by the forsaking of the occasion. Similarly these are to be healed not by a frequenting of the sacraments, but by the eradication of the habit. This occasion is inward, implanted in nature itself; and therefore it cannot be forsaken in the manner in which an exterior one is. How then? By the crucifixion of the flesh, by fasts, prayers, hair-shirts, lyings on the ground, disciplines, almsgiving, and a segregation from all the enticements of the world. These things are difficult. Most difficult, because the disease is most difficult of cure. Address such a sick man thus: What would you do, wretched man, set in the midst of the sea, with the waves and storms raging, the sky thundering and the tempest lightening, tossing you more often, and a shipwreck now at hand about to swallow you? What, I say, would you do? Wares, moneys, garments, and all things you would cast away, that naked you might seize the harbour. In a more mournful and savage tempest are you engaged. Gehenna is open: you walk by the flanks of hell; the fury of the divine vengeance, which for so long a time has deferred the scourge, is now, now brandishing the thunderbolts. Unless with the whole endeavour of all your strength, which you would use in declining the shipwreck of the body, you use it in expelling this most foul leprosy, cleaving to your very vitals and blood, it is all over with your salvation. Do you therefore strangle me with the noose of desperation? Should I cast you into desperation if, being set in the said shipwreck of the body, I persuaded you that, all things being cast away, you should contend and strive to hold the harbour naked and half alive? Nay, you wretched man despair obstinately of your salvation, who, overwhelmed by so great a deadly plague, refuse to expel it. Do I prescribe most difficult remedies? It is true. But by long experience I have learned that this putrid disease is not cured by other remedies. Tell me: what is more difficult than to cast away wares, treasures, and the very garments, that you may escape the shipwreck of the body? These things are more difficult than those which I prescribe, that you may decline the shipwreck of the soul. Do you wish therefore to be healed? Paradise is open. Christ with outstretched arms awaits you. You can, being helped by his grace, if you will. But there is necessary a deliberation most vehement and strongest beyond what can be explained. There is required a universal, magnanimous, and robust change of the whole life. You ought to employ those endeavours which you would exercise for avoiding the shipwreck of the body and a burning furnace of flames. The efficacious remedy turns upon this, that it be persuaded to these men that they will never amend themselves save by a most difficult and violent labour, by groaning, weeping, fasting, ashes, and hair-shirt. If once you shall have seized the harbour of amendment after an interval of two or three months of severe penance, most happily and triumphantly will you walk the narrow way of our Lord Jesus Christ, no otherwise than he who has escaped the shipwreck of the body. Some temptations you will suffer; but happily will you blow them away and deride them.

VI. These things being performed, then, O confessors, impart absolution, and confirm and strengthen the convalescent with a frequenting of the sacraments and other works of piety. Believe, believe, that by the facility of absolutions this plague is fostered, not healed. Few assuredly will you gain, because few are the elect. But beware lest, while by an excessive and most cruel kindliness you contend to save these swine continually rolling themselves in the mire of lust, you yourselves perish eternally. Advert that these men are crafty and cunning. They are wont to abstain from pollutions for one or another week, that they may snatch absolution from you. Observe therefore all things, lest you be deceived, and lest they themselves be deceived, who from the facility of absolutions snatch a handle for sinning.

VII. To tardy debtors let absolution not be imparted, unless they first pay their debts, when they can, and restore what belongs to others. Pretexts and excuses are to be admitted with the greatest difficulty. Commonly those are burdened with debts who can and will not pay. To the poor no one entrusts his money, nor are wares given to them, unless they pay at once. Rich men are those who oppress merchants and craftsmen, that they may foster luxury, display, and ambition.

VIII. To women also, vain and ambitious, and carrying luxury and pomps to the very tribunal, let absolution be suspended; and chiefly to those shameless ones who display naked breasts, who without necessity converse with men, who receive little gifts and presents from lovers. Hear St. Charles Borromeo in his Instruction to Confessors, where he explains this matter at large: Let them not absolve those who sin mortally in the splendour of their garments or in a superfluous adornment of the body. And because today pomp and vanities have grown to the highest point, chiefly BY THE FAULT OF CONFESSORS, who absolve their penitents from this sin too inconsiderately (N.B.), and perchance move no scruple in them upon this matter. If you desire more, consult Vol. IX, Book 2, dissertation 3, chapter 10.