§ 2. On The Obligation Of Questioning The Penitent

1804. "The priest ought to search out the conscience of the sinner in confession, as a physician the wound, and a judge the cause." Thus St. Thomas.¹ - Wherefore hold the following:

Principles. I. The confessor is bound, sometimes under grave obligation, TO QUESTION the penitent. Thus all Theologians; and it is proved:

1. By the authority of the Church, especially from cap. Omnis utriusque, de Poenit., in which one reads: "But let the priest be discreet and prudent... diligently inquiring both the circumstances of the sinner and of the sin." And from the ROMAN RITUAL: "If the penitent has not expressed the number, species, and circumstances of sins necessary to be explained, let the priest prudently question him."

2. By manifold reason. - The first is that omission of opportune questions redounds TO THE DAMAGE OF SOULS: for, 1) it can furnish occasion for many sacrilegious confessions, because there are many penitents who, unless they are questioned, pass over more grave sins in silence. "Frequently," says St. Thomas,² "things which one confessing would keep silent out of confusion, when questioned he reveals." 2) Many penitents will lack opportune remedies; for the confessor, not questioning about habit, occasions, causes of sins, diligence used or not used for amendment (all of which things are usually kept silent), cannot indicate remedies by which new falls are prevented. - 3) Damage will very easily be brought also upon others; for things which turn to the detriment of others are usually passed over in accusation: such are scandals, neglect in fulfilling the very grave duties of one's own state, e.g. in the education and custody of children. Hence, unless penitents are questioned and suitably admonished, no amendment will be able to follow.

The other reason is because the omission of questions redounds TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE SACRAMENT; for, 1) it frequently prejudices its integrity: for, questions being omitted, the accusation will be made in this or a similar way: "Father, I have blasphemed, I have committed base things, I have had quarrels, etc.," with species and number not explained; - 2) it also frequently prejudices its validity: for unless the penitent is questioned, e.g. whether he has used any care not to fall again, whether he has used the prescribed remedies, etc., it will not be possible prudently to judge whether he is disposed, or whether he needs a more ardent exhortation, so that he may be rightly disposed. Hence it can most easily happen that absolutions are given which are wholly invalid.³

We said, 1. under grave obligation; for there is question of a grave matter, which regards the salvation of the penitent and the reverence of the Sacrament. - Nevertheless there can be negligence lightly culpable, as is plain.

We said, 2. he is bound sometimes; for if the penitent explains his sins and his state as much as there is need, it is clear that the confessor is held to no further questions.⁴

1805. II. The confessor is bound to question AS MUCH AS this is NECESSARY for procuring the validity of the Sacrament, the integrity of confession, and the healing of the penitent. - The reason is because these three things must be cared for by him, insofar as he is minister of the Sacrament. Hence, as often as he reasonably presumes, or prudently thinks, that something of those things which are required for the aforesaid has not been sufficiently declared, so often he is bound to inquire.⁵ (See also n. 1809.)

Therefore: 1. For procuring the VALIDITY of the Sacrament, it may be necessary, by questioning, to investigate: whether sufficient matter is present, e.g. if there is question of imperfections, or of light faults which are often committed without advertence; - whether the penitent is keeping something back out of shame, as happens especially in boys and girls; - whether sufficient disposition is present: for knowing this, it will often be necessary to question the penitent, e.g. whether and how, after confession, he abstained from faults; whether and how he fulfilled the prescribed means.

2. For the INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION it may be necessary to question the penitent - about the number of sins; - about their species; - about circumstances changing the species (whether objective or theological); - about certain sins which he is accustomed, from inconsideration, wholly to keep back, e.g. sins of thought, and sins of omission concerning the obligations of his own state (cf. n. 1810, Rule 32).

3. For the HEALING OF THE PENITENT, questions can be necessary by which it becomes known, e.g., what the causes of his sins are, namely whether they proceed from some occasion, or habit, from lack of custody of the senses, from impure thoughts, etc.

Hence, the PRACTICE of certain confessors is especially to be disapproved, who not only do not question penitents, but do not even allow them to bring their confession to an end, and who, having heard one or another sin, interrupt the accusation, saying: "Come now, that is enough, I absolve you from all your sins." Nor can such a practice be used with that penitent who declares only venial sins (unless he is scrupulous); for often penitents begin from venial sins, being about to confess mortal sins only toward the end, which therefore, on account of the fear injected by the confessor, are easily kept back. For the rest, confession made so very hastily and cursorily usually disturbs them exceedingly, far from calming their mind.⁶

1806. III. Questions, where they must be made, should be MODERATE, DISCREET, and TIMELY, namely such that no greater inconvenience stands in the way than would be the defect itself of the integrity of confession.

1. MODERATE; therefore the confessor: 1) should never inquire into matters foreign to confession, nor suffer them to be narrated to himself. - 2) let him remember that he is not held to question the penitent except with ordinary diligence. - 3) Let him remember, moreover, that less distinct knowledge is required from one who, either because of incapacity, or because of sickness, or because of the multitude of sins, or for another reason, could more difficulty render exact knowledge (cf. nn. 1703 and 1705). - Hence the penitent is not to be questioned about sins which he has probably not committed; because, in this case, there is lacking a reasonable presumption and prudent doubt that the things which must be declared are not being sufficiently declared. - But because of the contrary presumption, let him be questioned about sins which usually abound in men of such a condition.⁷

2. DISCREET, especially in those things which regard the sixth precept. For theologians, without any exception, affirm that it is rather to be permitted that material integrity be lacking to confession than that scandal be furnished to the penitent. And the Roman Ritual admonishes concerning the same thing. Wherefore: "Questions, in the matter of chastity, ought to be few and cautious, lest (the confessor) either give occasion for investigating or betraying confession, or teach the ignorant, or offend, or expose himself or the other to danger. And if he fears these things, he ought rather to suffer something to be lacking to material integrity. And indeed, if in this matter thoughts are denied, there is no need to proceed to works. Yet the more rude deny thoughts; when asked, they confess words and works, because they do not equally recognize or advert to those thoughts."⁸ (cf. n. 1694).

3. TIMELY, i.e. made at the time and in the manner in which it is fitting. - Hence: 1) Certain questions are to be made before confession, but few, lest the penitent be offended: e.g. from what time he has not confessed? whether he was absolved? whether he fulfilled the penance? - 2) But questions concerning the condition of life, state, age, etc., if these do not appear from the confession itself, will more fittingly be made when an occasion has been given in the course of confession: for thus, on the one hand, every suspicion of curiosity and levity will be avoided, and on the other, the penitent will more easily respond, since his trust in the confessor has increased more.⁹ - 3) Let the penitent first be allowed to explain himself as much as he can, as is fitting; then let him be helped from time to time by questions.¹⁰ - 4) Toward the end, unless a better occasion has previously offered itself, let it be benignly asked of an unknown penitent whether there is anything which still troubles his conscience, whether he has omitted nothing in prior confessions. "Through these questions many souls are usually freed from sacrileges."¹¹

St. Alphonsus also notes:¹² "1) It is better if the confessor examines the sins one by one, as soon as the penitent exposes them, than that he defer the examination until the end; because either the confessor easily forgets those things which he heard, or the penitent would have to be obliged, with his grave burden, to repeat what had been confessed." 2) "Regularly speaking, it is not expedient that the confessor rebuke the penitent in the course of confession, lest he, being terrified, omit some sin; nevertheless, sometimes it is expedient within confession to set before him the malice of some graver sin, provided courage is immediately furnished to him," according to what was said at n. 1793, 2.

1807. Q. What ought the confessor to do with a penitent concerning whom he KNOWS or SUSPECTS some sin which that one does not confess?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. "If he knows outside confession, and knows from his own knowledge, for example by seeing him stealing, or hearing him blaspheming, without doubt he ought not absolve, if that one denies it: provided there is not present a prudent doubt whether he has confessed to another; or he has a just cause for keeping silent. Thus commonly."¹³

2. "But if the confessor has this from suspicion or from the report of others, the Doctors also commonly say that after diligent inquiry, if the penitent still denies, he must be absolved; for then the confessor is not able to refuse faith to the penitent, nor, on account of a suspicion or another's report, can he deprive him of the right which he has acquired to absolution by confession and by signs of contrition."¹⁴

3. Finally, if the confessor knows the sin from the confession of an accomplice, he certainly will not be able, without violation of the sacramental seal, to question the penitent in a special manner about that sin, unless he has obtained express permission for this (but this permission is not ordinarily to be sought); but only in a general manner, that is, in the manner in which he is accustomed to question other similar penitents. But whether he ought to absolve one denying is disputed. But St. Alphonsus, having brought forward the opinions of others, concludes in this manner: "In my judgment, Croix, etc., thinks better, that in that case he should in no way absolve, but only pray something, to hide the denial of absolution." Nor is the conclusion of the Blessed Doctor supported by a reason of little moment: for the confessor, by using the knowledge of confession in the aforesaid manner, by no means violates the sacramental seal; wherefore he is bound to do this for denying the Sacrament to the unworthy person secretly asking it, according to those things which we said above, nn. 1426 and 1430.¹⁵