Appendix I. On the Examination of Conscience

507. Principles. - I. A penitent, speaking per se, is bound under grave sin to make a diligent examination of mortal sins before confession. This follows from the precept of procuring, insofar as it can be done, even the material integrity of confession. For since he is bound to confess the number and species of sins, by that very fact he is bound to recall them to memory insofar as he can with moral diligence, and therefore to make a diligent examination; because he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means necessary for it. This is established also from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 5, where it is said that all mortal sins of which penitents have consciousness AFTER A DILIGENT EXAMINATION OF THEMSELVES must be recounted in confession....

II. Diligence in the examination must be serious, or as great as is customarily employed in serious matters of great importance ¹. The reason is evident; for there is question of the grave precept of confession. This is established also from the words of the Council of Trent just cited: after a diligent examination of themselves.

¹ As regards those who are accustomed to be excessively anxious about the sufficiency of their examination, the things which Lugo has from the common doctrine are pertinent (De Poenit., disp. 16, no. 590): It is certain, he says, that the penitent himself is not bound to a most exact examination of his sins, but to a human one, that is, one of such a kind that this sacrament is not rendered too grave and burdensome.... Hence it is not a good rule if you say...: if this man were to think for another hour about his sins, he would remember some sin which he does not remember, or could calculate the number of sins better; therefore, he is bound to think for another hour still. But the reason is the same, because attention must not be given only to an exact and integral confession of sins, but very great attention must also be given to the human condition, lest on that account the Sacrament be rendered grave and odious, or cause be given to shameless and ignorant heretics to call it the torture chamber of conscience.

III. Nevertheless, equal diligence is not required of all. For those who confess frequently need a lesser examination than those who confess rarely ²; but those who are involved in worldly affairs need a greater examination than those who lead a private life. Likewise, country people and the uneducated cannot employ that accurate diligence which the intelligent and learned can. - Billuart, ibid., and others commonly.

² Concerning these things, however, note the wise admonition of Cardinal De Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 16, no. 594): Finally, it must also be noted that he who has more sins is to be questioned more lightly and less exactly concerning each than he who has fewer. The reason is gathered from what has been said; because, since only human diligence and examination is required, and this is that which does not of itself generate disgust and weariness with this Sacrament, it follows that less distinct knowledge is required from one who, because of... the multitude of sins... could with greater difficulty render an exact account. For to one who must confess the sins of his whole life, which he spent in every kind of sin, that examination would be most difficult and of itself apt to render confession odious and excessively grave to him, which would not be difficult but easy for another making a monthly confession. And this is the reason why from a prostitute, a concubinary, and similar persons we seek the number of sins less exactly and distinctly than if, for example, he had persisted in that sin only for a month or a week; because, namely, the diligence which would suffice for distinctly confessing the sins of one week, if the same were employed for examining a long time, would introduce such difficulty and trouble as the precept of integral confession does not oblige one to, because it would render the precept itself and confession excessively troublesome and grave.

508. Resolutions. - 1. He who, from grave negligence in the examination of conscience, omits some mortal sin, sins mortally per se ³ and is bound to repeat the confession as invalid. Yet in a defect of examination there can be slightness of matter, even if a grave sin is thereby omitted, for example, because of some inadvertence; and then the confession is certainly valid.

³ Note the words of itself; because grave negligence in this matter, considered in itself, truly cannot be excused from grave guilt. But it must also be recalled here that which all teach: advertence to the gravity of the fault is required for a grave sin. It is therefore necessary that someone have known that at that time he was sinning gravely by negligence. Since this is not very frequent, because that would be equivalent to advertently consenting to a sacrilegious confession, it can be gathered therefrom that the necessity of repeating confessions for this reason rarely occurs.

2. He who is morally certain that he has not committed mortal sins since the last confession is not bound to a rigorous examination before confession, except insofar as is required for supplying sufficient matter for the Sacrament. In practice, however, pious penitents are to be counseled to devote themselves to an examination of conscience for at least five minutes, or about half a quarter-hour, namely, for recognizing and uprooting venial defects.

3. Entirely moderate diligence in examination is required in the timorous, because the conscience would not remain silent if anything gravely culpable lay hidden within; indeed, in the scrupulous an inquiry is to be omitted and sometimes altogether forbidden as useless and often harmful; for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes. - Thus commonly.

4. Generally, he satisfies who reflects upon where he was on each day, what affairs he transacted, in what he failed amid those circumstances by thought, affection, word and deed, or omission; how he conducted himself at home, in church, and in conversation with his neighbor ⁴. Nor is it necessary that, retracing the same footsteps, he search them again and again. - Reuter.

⁴ This manner of examining the conscience can rightly seem not merely sufficient but rather exquisite and most diligent.

5. An examination as accurate as for the healthy is not required for the sick; indeed, sometimes none is to be exacted from them because of weakness of the head. Nor should they readily be indulged when they say that they defer confession from day to day as though they had not yet sufficiently examined their conscience; but, insofar as their condition permits, they are to be examined briefly by the Confessor himself through the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church; for it is better to restore even those who have confessed imperfectly to the state of grace by absolution than, by deferring the Sacraments of the Church, to expose them to the danger of damnation. - Elbel, no. 153.

509. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is a penitent who fears that sins may fall from his memory bound to write them down and read what has been written?

Reply. Negative. The reason is that no one is bound to procure the integrity of confession through extraordinary means and through such exquisite diligence. Moreover, this is foreign to the common practice of the timorous. - St. Lig., no. 471, etc. ⁵.

⁵ Add the danger, by no means infrequent as experience testifies, of losing papers of this kind, and hence also scandals by no means light and contempt of the Sacrament.

QUESTION 2. What order is to be followed in the examination of conscience?

Reply 1. With respect to the matter: if someone has not confessed for a long time, it is expedient that he run through in order the precepts of God and the Church, the capital sins ⁶, and the special obligations of his state; otherwise, it suffices to attend to evil habits, to the more customary sins, or summarily to sins against God, one's neighbor, and oneself.

⁶ Whenever the order of the precepts of God and the Church is observed, an examination according to the order of the capital sins, or better, capital vices, will scarcely furnish any further necessary matter for confession; and unless there is question of penitents diligently instructed, an examination of this kind is accustomed to produce no moderate confusion rather than utility, and to induce useless repetitions; for the capital vices scarcely ever introduce sins which do not bear before them a transgression of divine or human law.

Reply 2. With respect to the manner: 1. divine light is humbly to be sought; 2. an examination of conscience is to be made; 3. then the baseness of sins and the gravity of the divine offense are to be considered especially, and thus one must devote oneself to eliciting sorrow and a purpose of amendment.

510. • QUESTION 3. What is to be done by the Confessor if penitents approach without having sufficiently examined their conscience?

Reply 1. If they are instructed, they can kindly be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience more accurately and return, at least if there is question of lengthy and involved confessions. The reason is that it is almost impossible for someone suddenly questioned to remember everything. - St. Lig., no. 471, and others commonly. Except, however, unless the circumstances counsel otherwise.

Reply 2. If they are uneducated or little instructed in spiritual matters, they are not readily to be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience, at least if they have employed some diligence. The reason is that the Confessor will easily supply for these persons. For by a few questions he himself will obtain more than they, left to themselves, would accomplish by a long examination, although they tried to recall all their sins to memory. Moreover, it is to be feared that perhaps, terrified by the difficulty, they will not return again to confess ⁷.

⁷ Thus the Roman Catechism (De Poenit., no. 60): There are others who, either because they are accustomed to confess their sins rarely or because they have employed no care and thought

into searching out their crimes, and when they have come to confession they know neither how to proceed nor sufficiently where the beginning of this duty is to be taken. These certainly must be rebuked more sharply, where the circumstances permit, and first of all taught that, before anyone approaches the priest, every effort must be made that he be moved by contrition for his sins; but that this can in no way be accomplished unless, by remembering them, he endeavors to recognize them individually. Wherefore, if the priest recognizes men of this kind as wholly unprepared, let him dismiss them from himself with most humane words, and exhort them to take some time for thinking about their sins and then to return. But if perhaps they affirm that they have devoted every effort to this matter, since the priest must greatly fear lest, once dismissed, they no longer return, they are to be heard, especially if they display some desire of amending their life and can be induced to accuse their negligence, which they promise to compensate for at another time by accurate meditation. And most worthy of attention are the things which immediately follow: In this, however, great caution must be employed. For if, after hearing the confession, he judges that neither diligence in enumerating sins nor sorrow in detesting them was wholly lacking in the penitent, he can be absolved; but if he notices that both are wanting in him, he shall be his adviser and counselor that he employ greater care, as was said before, in examining his conscience; and having treated the man as kindly as he can, he shall dismiss him.