Point III. On the Office of Teacher

In order that the Confessor may rightly fulfill the office of teacher, he must have sufficient knowledge to instruct penitents suitably.

606. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound under grave sin to know all those things which are required for the proper fulfillment of his office. - Thus all teach with St. Ligorius in the Practice of the Confessor and in the Apostolic Homilies, where he speaks thus: I affirm that a Confessor who exposes himself to hearing confessions without sufficient knowledge is in a state of damnation. The reason is that otherwise a Confessor of this kind exposes himself to the evident danger of performing so grave an office badly, with injury to the Sacrament and great harm to souls.

Therefore God requires special knowledge from His Ministers, as is evident from various words of Sacred Scripture: The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth. Mal. 2:7. - Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not perform the office of priesthood to Me. Osee 4:6. - If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. Matt. 15:14. - Woe to you, blind guides! Matt. 23:16. - It is also evident from innumerable testimonies of the Holy Fathers: No art is presumed to be taught unless it is first learned by attentive meditation. The pastoral magisterium is therefore undertaken with great temerity by the unskilled, since the government of souls is the art of arts. - St. Gregory, Pastoral Rule, part 1, chapter 1.

607. • II. The Confessor, however, is not bound to have such perfect knowledge that he can always immediately and by himself solve every doubt which occurs; rather, it is sufficient that he can do this in cases which commonly occur and that, concerning more difficult cases, he at least know how to doubt ¹. For greater knowledge can be had only with greater difficulty, since not even the more learned can immediately resolve every case. Nor is the Confessor bound to discern concerning each sin accused whether it is mortal or not, since this is often impossible; rather, it is sufficient that he hear each one as it was committed and judge concerning it ², both according to common principles and according to the circumstances of the matters explained by the penitent, and that he know how to apply a suitable remedy. - St. Ligorius, no. 627.

¹ St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 627), with the Salmanticenses, Suarez, and the common opinion, judges it sufficient if the Confessor understands the things which more frequently occur and knows how to doubt concerning the others.

And Cardinal De Lugo: It is not necessary that, in the doubts which occur, he himself be able to resolve everything; it is sufficient if he knows common cases and at least knows how to doubt concerning the more difficult ones, so that he may consult books or more skilled men (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70).

² Cardinal De Lugo confirms these things (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70): This knowledge need not be so great that he can discern concerning everything which the penitent says whether it is mortal or venial; for often not even the most learned can do this, partly because they cannot know the fact itself perfectly, whether the penitent consented with full deliberation or not, and partly because even the law itself cannot be known in every matter. It is therefore sufficient if, in those things which commonly occur, he knows whether they are mortal or venial.... And immediately afterward (ibid., no. 71): Hence I infer that it is not required that the confessor judge concerning everything which he hears from the penitent whether it is grave or light, indeed not even whether it is a sin; but concerning common things. Let him hear and understand the rest, and afterward absolve with the due intention.

Nor ought it then to disturb the Confessor that afterward he knows with certainty what was uncertain to him during confession. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 627), with Suarez, admonishes to the point that, although in some case the Confessor does not discern which things are grave or light, nevertheless, if the penitent in good faith declares his sin, the confession is valid; and although it is afterward noticed that it was mortal, there is no reason for it to be repeated in another confession.

608. Resolutions. - 1. Every Confessor is bound to know all those things which pertain to the validity, substance, integrity, and effect of the Sacrament of Penance, and which are required for its licit administration both on his part and on the part of the penitent.

2. He must also know the common obligations and those proper to states of life, the various species of sins, their circumstances changing the species ³, the principles for discerning between mortal and venial sins, and which things are mortal and venial in the individual precepts, at least according to the general principles and the common opinion of Theologians. Likewise, which acts are valid and licit ⁴. The reason is evident, because he must know that concerning which he is to judge; otherwise he will not be able to render an equitable judgment.

³ Concerning this point several things should be observed. 1. Where there is disagreement among the Doctors whether some circumstance induces a diversity of species, just as the penitent is not bound to confess it, neither is the confessor bound to inquire about it; on this matter the little work of Thomas Tamburini entitled Method of Expeditious Confession will be read with profit. 2. Even if this diversity of species is present, nevertheless, when it appears that the penitent did not advert at all to that special malice, there will be no need for the confessor to inquire about it. 3. Furthermore, it will pertain to the prudence of the confessor whether he ought to admonish the penitent concerning that special malice according to the rules which will be given below concerning admonishing a penitent. Hence St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 150): Moreover, it is not always expedient to admonish an uneducated penitent of this kind concerning the gravity of perjury if the admonition is foreseen as not readily profitable.

⁴ When the Confessor must judge concerning these things as regards what is to be done in the future, but he himself remains doubtful, and it is not convenient either here and now to employ means for dispelling the doubt or afterward to speak to the penitent again, this admonition of Cardinal De Lugo will be useful (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 71): When counsel must be given for the future, or restitution imposed, or a doubtful contract prohibited, or something similar, if the confessor himself cannot resolve it by himself, it will be good counsel to ask the penitent whether he is prepared to consult skilled men and to abide by their judgment concerning that doubt. If the penitent promises, let him absolve, declaring to him the obligation which he has of consulting one or more persons concerning that doubt.

3. He must know reserved cases ⁵ and censures in force, impediments of matrimony, the conditions of contracts, the various causes of restitution, the roots and occasions of sins, the remedies to be applied to them, the salutary and suitable satisfactions to be imposed, etc.

⁵ Cardinal De Lugo wisely admonishes (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70) that those who have the faculty of absolving from reserved cases by a Bull or another privilege are in a better condition. For he experiences less difficulty who can remember from a brief catalogue the sins from which he cannot absolve penitents.

4. Therefore a Confessor sins who knows that he lacks the aforesaid knowledge, even if he hears confessions solely from charity and obedience. Nor does the approval of the Bishop excuse him of itself; for this does not give the knowledge due from the nature of the matter, nor supply its defect ⁶. - St. Ligorius, Apostolic Homilies, no. 100.

⁶ Nevertheless, this must be limited if the subject does not indeed know with certainty that he is ignorant of necessary things, but is troubled by doubts concerning his own sufficiency, by which even more skilled men of a timid disposition are not rarely distressed. De Lugo speaks aptly (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 72): I infer, secondly, that one sins gravely who without the knowledge respectively required exposes himself to hearing confessions; in this there is no difference, formally speaking, between a regular and a secular confessor, since each is bound by a precept of natural law. Nevertheless, there can be a material difference insofar as a Religious who doubts his fitness and sufficiency for that ministry can more easily lay aside that doubt when the Prelate, who knows him well, judges him fit and imposes such an office upon him.

Although De Lugo says these things only of a Religious, they nevertheless have place also as regards a secular priest if in like manner the Bishop knows the subject well and constrains him to the ministry.

Furthermore, the case of necessity must be excepted; in it, as De Lugo says (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 73), although a priest is ignorant and unlearned, he ought to hear the confession and absolve, because the knowledge of the confessor is required for the integrity of the confession; but since in that danger material integrity is not required, but it is sufficient to perceive some sin, or even sin in general, the ignorance of the confessor will not be an obstacle in that case. Hence the same must be said when Christians who are held in servitude among unbelievers have only one ignorant and unlearned priest, as Suarez teaches (On Penance, disputation 28, section 2, no. 6), because this too is reputed a morally extreme necessity.

609. • 5. The Superior also sins who gives an ignorant Confessor permission to hear Confessions, because he consents to and cooperates in his sin ⁷.

⁷ Nevertheless, the Doctors admonish that necessity sometimes brings it about that this ministry must be committed even to the less learned. Hence St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 628), after saying that necessity excuses in this matter if otherwise penitents would have to lack confession for a long time, as happens among captives, then adds: And the Doctors say the same concerning small towns or galleys, where, as they say, if learned priests cannot be had, less learned ones can be appointed; they are nevertheless to be admonished of the obligation of learning.

Thus Cardinal De Lugo also observes (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 74) that Prelates who place unlearned and uneducated men over the ministry in these circumstances are to be excused. "I add," he says, "that on this ground Prelates who in some small and remote towns place unlearned and uneducated men over them as Pastors are often excused; for they generally do this because, on account of the small stipend, scarcity of provisions, and poverty of the inhabitants, no learned man is found who wishes to undertake that care. Hence, since those sheep cannot be assisted otherwise, as I suppose, it is better that in such necessity they have an unlearned confessor than that they be left entirely without every remedy. Nevertheless, the Prelate ought to admonish the pastor concerning the defect of knowledge from which he suffers and the obligation which he has of acquiring, if he can, the doctrine necessary for fulfilling his ministry. For the pastor and confessor always has this obligation, although the Prelate is sometimes excused by the necessity of the sheep when he sends a less sufficient minister."

6. The penitent himself also sins who deliberately chooses an unfit Confessor. If, however, anyone is in good faith, the confession will be valid, because on the part of the penitent there is an integral declaration of sins and the due disposition of soul; on the part of the Confessor there is at least knowledge of the sins under the confused character of sin, which suffices for the matter of the Sacrament ⁸.

⁸ Cardinal De Lugo nevertheless intimates an exception in this manner (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 72): Likewise, one who chooses an unfit person for this office sins; and not only the Prelate, but also a penitent who has the faculty of choosing a Confessor and knows that he is not fit, although approved, sins by choosing him, unless the penitent is such that by his own learning he can supply the ignorance of the confessor, as was said.

7. Experience cannot supply knowledge, but can only assist it; but where it is deprived of the aid of knowledge, it will impel the rash confessor into very many and very grave errors.

8. Therefore every Confessor is bound to apply himself diligently to the study of Moral Theology; and, as St. Ligorius asserts, Apostolic Homilies, no. 100: He ought never to interrupt that study, because among so many diverse and mutually dissimilar matters which pertain to this science, many, although read, fall from the mind with the passage of time because they occur more rarely; therefore it is necessary always to recall them to mind by frequent study.

9. Hence it is evident how gravely those err who regard the science of Moral Theology as easy and scarcely worthy of any attention, repeatedly saying that nearly all cases can be resolved by some common sense together with a knowledge of general principles. - The same St. Ligorius speaks aptly, book 6, no. 628: Those who desire this office of hearing confessions should not easily persuade themselves that they can render themselves sufficiently fit for so great an office without long study of moral science, for which it certainly does not suffice to run through some little summary of those which circulate; nor is it sufficient to know the general principles of this faculty, as some who despise casuists suppose. For moral science is not only very necessary to the Christian commonwealth, since the good government of souls depends upon it, but also exceedingly difficult: both because it requires a general knowledge of all other sciences, duties, and arts ⁹; because it embraces so many diverse matters remote from one another; and because in great part it consists of so many positive laws which are found cited only among casuists, and especially among more recent ones, since laws of this kind appear daily. Finally, it becomes most difficult on account of the innumerable circumstances of cases upon which the variety of resolutions depends; for according to the diversity of circumstances different principles must be applied, and in this the difficulty consists, since it cannot be done without great discussion or an accurate reading of several books which examine and elucidate the matters.

⁹ Cardinal De Lugo wisely admonishes with others (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70) that the knowledge required in a Confessor is not the same for all. For less suffices for some to hear the confessions of children or rustics; in others more is required for hearing merchants, judges, etc., who have more difficult cases. But for the confessions of a learned man much less is required, because the Confessor can be instructed by the penitent himself.

610. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound to instruct penitents in all those things which pertain to receiving the Sacrament rightly here and now. The reason is that, since the Priest is the minister of the Sacrament, he must procure its valid and licit reception and therefore impart the instruction necessary here and now.

II. He must instruct penitents when he notices that someone is ignorant of any of those things which are necessary for living as a Christian, such as, for example, his own obligations. - St. Ligorius, no. 607 ff.

III. Nevertheless, of itself and strictly, he is not bound to instruct them concerning all the things which they themselves ought to know and can learn elsewhere. The reason is that the office of teacher in the Confessor pertains of itself only to the right administration of the Sacrament of Penance. Per accidens, however, an obligation from charity could be present when the penitent could acquire this knowledge for himself, either by himself or through another, only with very great difficulty ¹⁰. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

¹⁰ This obligation of charity is not special to Confessors, but common to all who know the necessity of their neighbor and can provide for him without grave inconvenience. A special obligation belongs to pastors, who owe it from their office.

The obligation of the Confessor will especially be present when the penitent is ignorant of those things which are necessary to know for salvation by a necessity of means. How this is to be understood, however, is well explained thus by Sporer (On Penance, no. 796): The Confessor who notices this (and it is frequent in children and rustics) is bound to instruct him in the manner of which he is capable here and now, not indeed doctrinally, so that he can comprehend, understand, retain in memory, and recite those things; but for the time it is sufficient that he intimate to him the obligation of learning and supply his ignorance by proposing to him the articles to be believed, so that he may elicit an act of faith concerning each one. For example: Do you believe that God is one in essence and three Persons, etc., as I and the Church believe? I believe.... Do you believe whatever the Holy Roman Church believes, and do you wish to die in her? I believe.... Furthermore: Are you sorry that you are so ignorant and have been negligent, etc.? I am sorry.... Do you firmly propose, when you have obtained a suitable occasion, that you will take care to be instructed and wish diligently to learn those things which are necessary for salvation? Certainly. If he elicits these acts, it suffices for the instruction to be furnished by the Confessor here and now and for sufficient disposition for the sacrament, etc.

611. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must a penitent laboring under ignorance concerning some obligation always be admonished?

Reply 1. Yes, if the ignorance appears vincible, that is, if the Confessor notices that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is already absent. The reason is that no danger threatens in giving the admonition; otherwise, the penitent acting with that doubt is not free from sin. Reply 2. If ignorance of some obligation is invincible, the penitent must be admonished if fruit is hoped for from the admonition; but not, generally speaking, if it is not hoped for. The reason is that on the one hand this admonition would not profit, and on the other it would harm him, since after being admonished he would sin formally in the future. - St. Ligorius, no. 610, and others commonly.

Therefore, the penitent must be admonished: 1. whenever he himself asks about the malice of some matter, because, since he doubts the lawfulness of the matter, he is no longer in invincible ignorance ¹¹; 2. whenever the silence of the Confessor would harden him in the purpose of carrying out an evil matter; 3. whenever his ignorance concerns the primary principles of natural law or their proximate conclusions, because such ignorance, if possible, cannot remain invincible for a long time; 4. whenever, if the admonition is omitted, the penitent would remain in a proximate occasion of sinning formally ¹². - St. Ligorius, no. 615.

¹¹ The reason is, says De Lugo (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 29), that the silence of the Confessor would be an approval of the error, which is never lawful. See St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 616.

Sanchez excepts (On Matrimony, book 2, disputation 38, no. 14) when the penitent is moved to ask by a mere scruple (he calls a scruple a doubt from a false or frivolous reason); for then he judges that, if the admonition is foreseen to be harmful, the confessor can remain silent or reply that he should lay aside a scruple of this kind. The reason is that a scruple does not remove good faith. - De Lugo (loc. cit.), however, admits this only so far as the Confessor can indeed pretend that he did not hear, did not attend, or forgot to reply, so that the penitent may thus remain in the good faith which he previously had, yet not confirmed by the authority of the Confessor himself. - But if the reason for asking is truly frivolous, for example, if he raises a doubt concerning the validity of matrimony because he celebrated it in the state of sin, at a prohibited time, by a fictitious testimony of freedom of state, or contrary to a previously emitted oath or vow, it does not appear why the Confessor (who from another true cause, but one unknown to the penitent, knows that the matrimony is invalid) cannot reply that that reason is empty and the scruple vain.

¹² The hypothesis of a penitent who believes himself bound where there is no obligation, or even thinks that a grave obligation is present where only a light one is present, must not be passed over. This ignorance, as always harmful, must always be removed.

QUESTION 2. Is an admonition to be given in doubt whether it will profit or harm?

Reply 1. Yes, if it will more probably profit; not so if it will more probably harm. - St. Ligorius, no. 916. - De Lugo. - Salmanticenses, etc., against some.

Reply 2. In a doubt equally balanced on either side, generally speaking, formal evils are to be avoided rather than material ones. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others ¹³.

¹³ Doctors commonly hold that an admonition which is foreseen as merely harmful is to be omitted, even if the ignorance results in the detriment of a third party. Thus also St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 614). The excellent reason, touched upon by Sanchez and then by De Lugo (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 26), is that the admonition does not even profit the creditor and harms only the penitent.

The case is different, however, when the common good is at issue, as St. Alphonsus observes with others (loc. cit., no. 615), for example, if someone in good faith believed himself to be a priest when he was not; his ignorance, as De Lugo says (disputation 22, no. 30), would redound to the common harm of those who receive a sacrament from him.

And to this pertains the case, which not rarely troubles the mind of the confessor, of a denunciation to be made which is ordered not to the private good of the person sinning but to the prevention of a common harm. This harm could indeed be so grave and so imminent that the obligation of denouncing would bind even with danger to life. Nevertheless, the Confessor, insofar as this can be done, must take care that the matter be carried out with the least danger to the denunciant. For to prevent, for example, a conflagration or treason, it is not always necessary either that the name of the denunciant be known or that he himself disclose the matter.

But when the harm does not appear so imminent, there must be weighed on the one hand the gravity of the harm and on the other the difficulty of denouncing which arises from the circumstances of persons, places, the business, etc. From consideration of these things it will be necessary to determine whether the gravity of the harm ought to impel the Confessor to admonish even with a slight hope of fruit and thus with grave danger of uselessly casting the penitent into bad faith, or whether the absence of every prudent hope of fruit ought rather to bring it about that, after the remedy against the common harm has been despaired of, he does not uselessly add grave harm to the penitent by removing his good faith.

Hence it is that in cases of solicitation, although denunciation is ordered not to the reform of the solicitor but to the common good, nevertheless the Apostolic See has sometimes been accustomed to dispense from denouncing. From this it is also evident that St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 694) established too generally that an admonition can never be omitted when the common harm is at issue.

612. • QUESTION 3. Is a spouse to be admonished of the invalidity of the matrimony on account of an occult impediment which the Confessor discovers?

Reply. No, generally speaking, until the Confessor has obtained a dispensation, unless it can be obtained immediately and easily from the Pope or Bishop. The reason is that very great inconveniences would generally follow from it, for example, danger of infamy, scandal, quarrels, or incontinence, etc., and consequently material fornication would become formal. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 611. - Elbel, no. 471, etc.

But can the Confessor oblige the spouse who is ignorant of the impediment and refuses the debt to render it? Reply. Yes. The reason is that, while the spouse is persuaded that the matrimony is valid, he is bound to render the debt so that he may follow the dictate of conscience. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others commonly ¹⁴.

¹⁴ Sanchez speaks well (On Matrimony, book 2, disputation 38, no. 8) as regards those who would wish the Confessor merely to say generally that spouses are bound to render the debt: I confess that I do not grasp what difference there is between these statements: Render the debt; and, The wife is bound to render the debt; since each manner of speaking tends toward the same end, namely, to induce that spouse to render the debt. And if to induce by direct words were a fault, to induce by indirect words would not be free of it, since on the part of the Confessor the intention is the same in each manner of speaking, and the penitent understands precisely the same thing. Furthermore, because, since the penitent must be left in that ignorance, he sins mortally, supposing it, by not rendering; therefore the confessor is bound not to absolve unless he proposes that he will render it afterward. Therefore he can compel him to render it; and thus the confessor does not command an evil thing, but a thing owed, in view of the circumstances which occur.

613. • QUESTION 4. Is a penitent about to contract matrimony to be admonished of an unknown impediment?

Reply. Generally speaking, the admonition is to be given. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 612. - The reason is that after the matrimony the ignorance can cease without difficulty, for example, because it is discovered that consanguinity, affinity, etc., exists between the spouses; and then, besides the ready danger of sinning formally, other most grave inconveniences can follow, namely, scandals, quarrels, and perhaps even the separation of the spouses, etc. - Nevertheless, probably except the case in which no fruit at all is hoped for from the admonition and the impediment cannot easily be discovered; because it is better to permit material sin until a dispensation is obtained than to furnish the occasion of certain formal sin. - Lacroix, book 6, part 3, no. 540.