Question II: Concerning the Half-Witted and Deaf-Mutes

I. The perpetually insane cannot receive absolution, of which they are incapable; not so the half-witted (etourdis, demi-sots, simplots):

a) If these certainly can distinguish between moral good and evil, although confusedly, and otherwise seem well disposed, they can be absolved not only once, but several times in a year. But since, because of slowness of mind and weakness of memory, they can scarcely retain in memory even necessary truths, let the confessor take care to dispose them in such a way that they may elicit the necessary acts of faith, hope, and contrition, proceeding thus for example: Do you believe in one God? Do you believe that He punishes the evil and bestows rewards on the good? Do you believe that there are three persons in God, distinct and perfectly equal, and that the Son of God, because of us, was made man and by His blood redeemed us? And so forth for the motives of contrition.

b) If there is doubt concerning sufficient use of reason and whether they can sin gravely or not, they are to be instructed and disposed in the best manner in which this can be done, and absolved under condition in danger of death; indeed several times in life, at least once in a year, and as often as it is probable that they are in the state of mortal sin, lest, namely, they remain in sin if perhaps they have committed any.

c) As Reuter notes (o. c., n. 192), it is not a sufficient sign of discretion that someone reverences the clergy, rightly executes some commands, bends the knees, strikes the breast, because he can do these things because he sees them being done by another. But signs such as were indicated for children suffice.

II. Concerning deaf-mutes. - a) These, of themselves and grave inconvenience being excluded, are bound to write their confession if they can write and cannot otherwise confess integrally. But because this is considered by some as an extraordinary means, let it not be strictly imposed unless they could not confess in any other way at all; but let them be gently induced to do this if they can write (e.g., on a slate tablet), since thus the integrity of confession is better procured. To avoid the danger of harming the seal, the confession having been completed, immediately in the presence of the penitent, the writing should be destroyed.

b) Since today they can be instructed rather easily, the parish priest, or also the confessor, must take care that, as far as can be done, they are sent to those schools where they can learn Christian doctrine, so that they may better confess and detest their sins.

c) But if they have not been instructed by these new methods, let the confessor first inquire from their relatives what sins they more frequently commit and what signs they are accustomed to give; then let him lead them into some hidden place, where by signs they may try to declare certain sins at least in a confused way and to express their contrition. Likewise by certain signs, e.g., by raising the eyes and hands to heaven, by showing the crucifix, let him exhort them to contrition, and let him absolve them absolutely or conditionally according as he will be certain or doubtful concerning their capacity. In a similar manner also he can indicate the penance, e.g., by showing the rosary or a certain decade of it.

III. Observations.

1. If the confessor notices not at the beginning but in the course of confession that the penitent is somewhat deaf, he cannot, generally, lead him before those standing by into a remote place or admonish him to return at another time, when, namely, as easily happens, he would introduce suspicion of mortal sin. On the contrary, he can do this if he notices it altogether at the beginning.

2. In former times they thought that one deaf and at the same time mute and blind from birth should be held as perpetually insane, as incapable of instruction. In our age, however, the more cultivated art of instruction does not exclude even such persons from education, and, although the matter is more difficult, nevertheless it is not judged impossible.

3. "If because of lack of skill in the language the confessor cannot perceive all mortal sins, the penitent is to be sent, if it can conveniently be done, to another skilled in the language; but if he cannot be sent back without grave inconvenience and has indicated at least one certain sin, he can be absolved in a time when precept or necessity urges, such as also the state of mortal sin of a travelling man who for a short time cannot have a confessor; for then formal integrity suffices. Nevertheless the penitent is bound, when an occasion is given, to confess to another the mortal sins which now were not understood by the confessor. Hence also he can be silent about sins which he certainly knows are not understood. But if he has only venial sins, he can approach a confessor less skilled in the language, the other being neglected... Finally, if the confessor plainly does not understand the language of the penitent, the latter can be absolved in necessity, if he accuses himself by signs in general" (Reuter, Neo-conf., n. 196). He can also use an interpreter, but this is not strictly obligatory, as is evident from the response of the Holy Office, 28 Feb. 1633, provided that by signs he can manifest at least sin in general.

For the hearing of those whose language the confessor does not know, a schema of questions in various languages corresponding to one another, edited by D'Herbigny, can be useful: Prudens 16 linguarum confessarius. Nevertheless it does not suffice for every case: for the rude generally do not understand cultivated language, but are accustomed to use a common idiom or special terms, especially for designating certain sins; indeed they are not always able to read.