Article 4: Questioning and Instructing Penitents

1. THE DUTY OF THE CONFESSOR TO QUESTION THE PENITENT (Interrogatio). —This duty arises from the nature of the Sacrament. Penance is a tribunal of justice. When the penitent's self-accusation is defective, so that the confessor cannot judge of the completeness of the avowal or the disposition of the sinner, prudent questioning becomes a duty.¹ Generally speaking, the presumption is in favor of the penitent. One who voluntarily comes to confession may be presumed to have the right disposition and to tell the truth. Hence no penitent should be interro- gated unless there is a well-founded doubt as to the integrity of his avowal or the absence of some element that is essential for the valid and worthy reception of the Sacrament.

¹ Conc. Lat. IV., c. 21: "Let the priest be discerning and cautious, so that, after the manner of a skilled physician, he may pour wine and oil upon the wounds of the injured man, diligently inquiring into the circumstances both of the sinner and of the sin, by which he may prudently understand what counsel he ought to offer him and what kind of remedy to apply, using various trials to save the sick man." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437). — Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 15: "If the penitent has not stated the number, species, and circumstances of the sins that must be explained, let the priest question him prudently." —Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 461: "The confessor is bound to question penitents about the species and number of sins, the circumstances that change their species, and their causes, and about habits and proximate occasions, whenever he reasonably presumes or doubts that these are not sufficiently declared. The reason is that the confessor, as minister of the Sacrament, must procure its integrity, and as judge must acquire for himself the knowledge necessary to render an equitable judgment."

When it becomes necessary to ask questions, these will in the nature of the case deal with one of the following subjects: the number and specific character of one or more of the mortal sins confessed; necessary circumstances; causes and occasions; sinful habits; relapses, or the duty of restitution. Occasionally it may also be necessary to question the penitent in regard to his profession or occupation, his state of life, the time or validity of his last confession, etc.²

² Gury (Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 463): "The confessor is not bound to question penitents who, although uneducated, seem sufficiently instructed for their condition and diligent in confessing sins with their circumstances according to their state and capacity. All the more, it is not ordinarily necessary to examine those who confess often and rarely sin gravely, such as devout persons, religious, and clerics, unless something that must be explained seems to be omitted by them."

To perform his duty effectively, the confessor, in questioning a penitent, should proceed with caution,³ prudence,⁴ and discretion, especially in matters pertaining to the sixth and ninth commandments.⁵ Besides the questions he is in duty bound to ask, others may suggest themselves, and here especially great prudence is necessary. By working upon the emotions of a well disposed penitent the confessor can often prepare the way for grace.⁶

³ Op. cit., n. 462: "The confessor is not bound to question the penitent except with ordinary solicitude. The reason is that the penitent himself is not bound to examine himself with the highest diligence, but only with moderate, that is, ordinary diligence. The confessor’s obligation cannot be graver than the penitent’s, since the confessor is bound to examine the penitent only secondarily, that is, because of the penitent’s deficiency."

⁴ Conc. Lat. IV., c. 21; Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 15.

⁵ Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 219.

⁶ Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 46: "Let the priest beware of detaining anyone with curious or useless questions, especially younger persons of either sex, or of imprudently questioning others about what they do not know, lest they suffer scandal and thereby learn to sin." —Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 629: "Let the examination not be curious about unnecessary matters, whereby the confessor’s reputation, the dignity of the Sacrament, and the penitent’s progress may be diminished; let it not be indiscreet—for example, about things which it is morally certain such a person is not accustomed to commit, or from which the penitent may learn to sin, or immodestly about immodest matters, or too anxiously about number." (Ed. Gaudé, III, 653).— Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 463: "Questioning must always be moderate, discreet, opportune, and suited to all the circumstances of the penitent’s character, age, and condition. Reverence for the Sacrament, natural decency, charity, and prudence toward penitents seem to require this." —P. A. Kirsch, Zur Geschichte der kath. Beichte, pp. 212 sq.

2. THE CONFESSOR'S DUTY OF ADMONISHING AND INSTRUCTING THE PENITENT (Monitio). —This duty arises from the office of teacher, which a priest is bound to exercise whenever he finds a penitent to be ignorant of what is necessary for the integrity of confession or of the disposition required for the worthy reception of the Sacrament. a) Hence the confessor is in duty bound to instruct every penitent who is either vincibly and culpably or invincibly ignorant of the truths necessary for salvation and the more important duties of life. When a penitent is invincibly ignorant in regard to some of these duties, the confessor should not instruct him unless he has good reason to think that his advice will be heeded, lest what was purely a material sin should be- come a formal sin. The same rule holds good whenever there is reason to apprehend that instruction of the penitent would result in quarrels, enmity, scandal, or other serious evil.

When a confessor has reason to doubt whether instruction is likely to prove useful, he had better say nothing.⁷ b) If the penitent asks for instruction, it should always be given regardless of its probable effect. However, in such cases the confessor had better not go beyond the question asked, unless additional instruction is sure to prove beneficial. For instance, if a penitent has married in spite of the vow of chastity, and asks whether the marriage is valid and whether he is allowed to render the debitum, the confessor should reply in the affirmative, without informing the penitent that he has no right to demand that which he may render. c) The confessor is obliged to remove invincible ignorance by instruction whenever failure to do so would result in injury to the common good, or whenever it can reasonably be expected that the penitent will obey, either now or later; or if the penitent would otherwise remain in proximate danger of formal sin, or his ignorance would result in spiritual injury to himself, e. g., by regarding as sinful something which is permitted.

⁷ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor.t 1. VI, n. 616: "But is an admonition to be given when it is doubtful whether it will profit or harm? The reply is: if no harm is feared, it certainly must be given; but if there is doubt both about the harm and about the fruit to follow, then the confessor ought to weigh the harm and the benefit, likewise the degree of fear of harm and of hope of benefit, and choose what he judges to prevail. Besides, in doubt it seems to me that it should regularly be said that formal evils are to be avoided in preference to material ones." (Ed. Gaude, III, 641).

In applying these rules it is necessary to proceed with caution. "Some theologians assume," says Linsenmann, "that there is a species of error in moral matters which the confessor had better leave untouched, in other words, that the penitent runs less danger of committing formal sin if he transgresses a moral law ignorantly and in good faith, than if he is instructed with regard to his error. This assumption is scarcely ever founded in fact. An error that involves no moral danger either to the penitent or to others, cannot possibly have reference to the substance of the moral law, but will invariably pertain to purely human precepts of minor importance. If the penitent were unwilling to accept instruction in a matter involving mortal sin, —and only in such a case would it be the confessor's duty to instruct him, —he would be incapable of receiving absolution." ⁸ READINGS.—St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 1. VI, n. 607-616 (ed. Gaude, Vol. III, pp. 631 sqq.).—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 462 sqq. —A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Past., Vol. I, pp. 195 sqq. —F. A. Gopfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. III, 5th ed., pp. 234 sqq. —J. E. Primer, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 247 sqq., 255 sqq. —F. P. Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Vol. II, 2nd ed., Malines 1861, pp. 256 sqq. —Al. Sabetti, SJ., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 22nd ed. (by T. Barrett, SJ.), New York 1915, pp. 745 sqq.

⁸ Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der der Moraltheologie, p. 219. THE SEAL OF