Question IV: Concerning Customary Sinners and Recidivists

I. A customary sinner, or one habituated in sin, is said to be one who has contracted a habit, or a constant internal propensity and facility of committing the same sin, from custom, or from acts frequently repeated.¹ This habit is therefore distinguished

¹ Concerning these, Billuart, de Poen., diss. 6, a. 10, § 6; Reuter, o. c., nn. 175-188; St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, nn. 459-564; Pr. conf., nn. 70-77; Berardi, opusc. de Recidivis et Occasionariis; Tanquerey, de Poen., nn. 537-547; Aertnijs, Th. M., II, nn. 310-314; Theol. Mechl., de Poen. (4), nn. 86-87; Prummer, Th. M., III, nn. 452-453; Ter Haar, de Occasionariis et Recidivis, a work very much to be commended, can be compared.

a) from the mere occasion of sin: for this is external to the sinner, while the habit is intrinsic; yet the habit is often connected with occasion, insofar as not rarely it arises from this or is greatly increased by it;

b) from a habitual affection for sin, by which one clings to sin with a continual deliberate will: for this is a sin and must absolutely be laid aside in confession, while a habit does not necessarily render one indisposed, since it can remain even involuntarily after it has been retracted.

A habit is acquired by repeated acts. Hence three things are required for contracting it:

1. Frequency or number of falls; but how many acts are required and suffice cannot be determined absolutely, but depends on various circumstances: namely on the disposition of the one sinning, on his greater or lesser fragility or predisposition; on the nature of the sin, more or less alluring, since in certain matters, such as drunkenness or lust, depraved habits are acquired more easily and quickly; on the difficulty or facility of committing the sin; on the manner in which it is committed, with greater or lesser deliberation or adhesion of the will, etc.

2. Duration of time: for he who sins more often on the same day and afterward abstains for a long time does not so easily contract a habit as he who regularly once or again daily, or every week, commits the same sin.

3. Uninterrupted continuation: for just as a habit is lost by cessation from acts, so, if the acts are too distant, it cannot be contracted. Hence:

a) The more easily some sin is committed, the more acts are required for contracting a habit: thus more acts are required for merely internal sins, which are more easily completed, than for external sins; more for sins of the mouth than for sins of deed; more for external sins begun than for consummated ones; and for those which are perpetrated alone than for those which require an accomplice. Thus, according to St. Alphonsus, Pr. Conf., n. 70, to commit an external sin of deed five times in a month can suffice for contracting a habit, provided that some interval intervenes among the various acts, as if someone falls into drunkenness or seminal emission each week for some months; while if it is a question of a sin of the heart or mouth, a much greater number is required, namely twice or three times in a week; but if of external sins which can be perpetrated only with an accomplice, a smaller number is required, so that one who for a year fornicates once a month, or commits sodomy, can be called habituated.

b) One custom is contracted from mere fragility, and another is contracted deliberately from a perfect choice of the will. For there are incontinent customary sinners, who sin only from fragility, or from the impulse of a passing passion that is, as it were, extrinsic to the will, so that habitually their will is opposed to sin, and after the sin has passed they abhor it and easily repent and desire to be freed from the habit, as sometimes happens in those who consent to passions of the flesh, intemperance, or anger, and easily happens in blasphemies, imprecations, and seminal emission. On the contrary, there are intemperate customary sinners, or those habituated in the will of sinning, who sin from a true habit and therefore from malice of the will, or from a permanent evil inclination, as it were intrinsic, and habitual affection for sin, even without the impulse of passion; hence they do not easily detest sin or are moved to penance.² This easily happens in shameful love, constant hatred, conjugal onanism, the injustice of theft, and transgression of the precepts of the Church from sloth or human fear, or even in sins of the flesh, for those who rejoice in them or seek them from inveterate custom.

² "It is difficult to act against that to which habit inclines." St. Thomas, de Malo, q. 3, a. 13, ad 6. "Free choice can use habit or not use it. Whence it is not necessary that someone always act according to habit, but he can sometimes act against habit, although with difficulty. Nevertheless, while the habit remains, it cannot happen that he remain for a long time doing nothing according to the habit." De Ver., q. 24, a. 12, ad 13. Hence "the intemperate man is not penitent," because "his healing is more difficult... on the part of the inclination of appetite which in the intemperate man is from habit, which is removed with difficulty" (II-II, q. 156, a. 3 and ad 2). "Whence those who sin thus persevere in the will of sinning and do not easily repent." De Malo, q. 3, a. 13. For indeed "he who sins from habit always rejoices in this, that he works from habit, as long as he uses the habit. But because he can not use the habit, but meditate by reason, which is not totally corrupted, on something else, it can happen that, not using the habit, he grieves concerning what he has committed through habit. And thus for the most part such persons repent of sin, not because sin according to itself displeases them, but because of some inconvenience which they incur from sin" (I-II, q. 78, a. 2, ad 3). Cf. Q. De Ver., 24, a. 10 and a. 11, ad 4; de Malo, q. 3, a. 10.

Whence St. Thomas says: whoever sins from habit sins from certain malice (I-II, q. 78, a. 2), and more gravely than from passion: sin from passion is likened to an intermittent disease, sin from habit to a continuous disease (a. 4, and II-II, q. 156, a. 3).

II. Those habituated in sin can for the most part be judged, with Ter Haar, o. c., n. 216:

1. In the matter of lust: those who everywhere yield to morose delights and depraved desires; those who daily, almost, indulge in gravely shameful conversations; those who frequently fall into the sin of seminal emission, say once and again in a week according to each one's constitution; those who ruinously love a person of the other or even of the same sex, often visit that person and gravely sin with that person; those who are accustomed to frequent brothels, likewise theatres or cinematographs that are very shameful; those who are greatly addicted to reading obscene or erotic books in which they find impure nourishment; those who are accustomed to live onanistically in marriage, etc.

2. In the matter of injustice: those who think almost solely about increasing riches by whatever means, licit or illicit, provided that they do not fall into the hands of the civil judge, e.g., in contracts, in business affairs, in stock-exchange operations, etc.; those who culpably neglect for a long time to restore things unjustly acquired or to pay debts; those who often commit smaller thefts coalescing into grave matter; those who, in the function of an office accepted under the title of justice, e.g., physicians, advocates, notaries, stewards, are frequently gravely injurious, etc.

3. In the matter of enmity: those who for a long time pursue their neighbor with constant grave hatred, seek vengeance concerning an injury inflicted by him, and strive to harm his reputation or temporal goods, etc.

4. In matter opposed to faith: those who often voluntarily cling to doubts concerning the truths of faith; those who are accustomed to read books, periodicals, newspapers gravely dangerous without a just and proportionate cause; those who frequent assemblies of heretics, socialists, and other men of this kind, or have familiar intercourse of friendship with them, and often speak against the Church and its ministers with danger of perversion, etc.

5. In the matter of blasphemy: those who are accustomed in simple conversation to intermingle formulas that are truly blasphemous, or even frequently, if they are carried away by anger, belch forth blasphemies, and use no care to leave behind this custom.

6. In the matter of intemperance: those who are accustomed to visit taverns and there, or even at home, often, say several times in a month, give themselves to drunkenness.

7. In the matter of the precepts of the Church: those who scarcely care for the law of abstinence; those who again and again, e.g., once and again in a month, from a light or no cause do not hear the prescribed Mass; those who on prohibited days are accustomed without grave reason to perform servile works.

8. In the matter of duties of state: those who gravely neglect these, e.g., parents who omit the religious education of children or do not strive to turn them away from dangers of faith and morals, especially mothers of families who permit daughters to make love alone with young men; masters and teachers who are in no way solicitous concerning the honesty of domestics or workers in workshops or pupils in schools; children and subjects who are accustomed to contemn the precepts of parents and masters in a grave matter; ecclesiastical and civil superiors who care little for the particular laws of their community or society, and neither admonish nor punish transgressors, with grave common harm; confessors who neglect to acquire by study the necessary knowledge, so that they are often gravely mistaken in the solution of cases, who question almost nothing, neglect to admonish those not sufficiently disposed, absolve all sinners without distinction, or contrariwise, everywhere deny absolution to recidivists without grave reason or too harshly; priests who, not dispensed, often do not recite the divine office, who by their light manner of acting, words, games, excessive haste of Mass, furnish grave scandal to the faithful; religious of either sex who often wound vows in grave matter, e.g., of poverty, who are accustomed to transgress rules of greater moment, say of silence, enclosure, spiritual exercises, reverence toward superiors, etc., with notable harm to the community and danger of relaxation, etc.

All these, if not by some motion of passion which quickly passes, so that in a short time they recover themselves, but from a will constantly inclined to evil, frequently, easily, and promptly admit these sins, must be called habituated sinners. For although several from these things enumerated commit only sins of omission, nevertheless they truly sin from a depraved habit, say from the vice of sloth or neglect; this vice indeed is in them a permanent quality, by which they are inclined as if naturally, either so that they bring almost no force to bear upon themselves for fulfilling those duties and precepts, or so that they easily, frequently, and with almost no resistance yield to fear or human respect.

III. In general a recidivist is said to be one who falls again into sin; therefore a recidivist penitent is one who, having confessed a sin and been admonished concerning it, falls back into it even once. Whence, strictly speaking and of itself, there can be a customary sinner who is not a recidivist, as one who has never confessed the sin in whose custom he perseveres; and there can be a recidivist who is not a customary sinner, as one who after confession falls back into sin several times. Nevertheless, in present theological usage, a recidivist is commonly said to be one who, after he has confessed some sin, often falls back into the same without amendment, or into the same habit of sin (whether from an internal cause or from an external cause). Hence with such a customary recidivist there must not be confused a recidivist into a sin without habit or custom, or a recidivist into the occasion of sin alone, such as one who does not keep the promise concerning removing the occasion and approaches the occasion again or has not expelled it.

Hence one recidivist is formal, another material. Formally he is a recidivist if the relapse is supposed to proceed from defect of firm will. For this, three conditions are required together: a) frequent relapse after several confessions, after, namely, the penitent has been admonished by the confessor concerning the gravity of the fault and concerning the means necessary for avoiding it; b) relapse into the same sin, but not into others of a different genus; c) defect of every amendment, even begun, so that in almost the same manner, with the same facility, immediately or shortly after confession, without serious effort (whether to repel temptations or to use the means of amendment), he has fallen back. Thus if someone after individual confessions has frequently and deliberately relapsed, beginning from one or another day after confession.

Materially he is a recidivist if the relapse is supposed to proceed from mere infirmity, inconstancy, or fragility of the will. Such is one who 1) had not been seriously admonished by the confessor; or 2) though admonished, did not relapse into the same sins but into others of a different genus; or 3) although admonished and relapsed, exhibits some amendment or diminution of sin, because he did not sin so often, or for a sufficiently notable time seriously tried to resist temptations, or used some one of the means assigned, even if, because of greater vehemence or frequency of temptation, he sinned as often as before.

IV. Practical rules. - Concerning customary sinners and recidivists, three practical rules are commonly enunciated:

A. Simple customary sinners who are not recidivists can regularly be absolved, as often as they are found truly and sincerely prepared to use the means necessary for overcoming the custom.

This is explained: For their disposition it is required and suffices that they retract the custom and do not voluntarily retain the cause and danger of sin. But it is retracted by the will of sinning no more and of extirpating the depraved habit by means. The means are both general or common, such as prayer, meditation, remembrance of the presence of God, reception of the sacraments, etc., and particular, which are directly opposed to the depraved custom, e.g., mortification of the senses against impurity, abstinence from drink against intemperance.

It is proved: A confession rightly made and the declaration of the penitent asserting that he grieves and proposes amendment are sufficient signs of sorrow and disposition, if a presumption to the contrary does not stand in the way.

But the depraved habit alone of itself does not give such a presumption: for it is not a sign of indisposition, but of greater facility and probability toward sin. "Although a depraved habit," says St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 459, "renders the sinner more prone to sin, nevertheless it does not give a presumption of his infirm will."

Therefore the simple customary sinner who is truly and sincerely prepared to use the means is judged sufficiently disposed, and consequently can be absolved.

This is confirmed: a) certainly it is not required that he has already extirpated the custom; b) moreover, by using the prescribed means, he will lessen the force of the custom and little by little extinguish it: for custom is conquered by contrary custom.

Hence: 1) he who for the first time confesses a depraved habit must be absolved, although no amendment has preceded, provided that he seriously promises it: for since he has not violated promises, he is to be supposed sincere, and can and must be believed;

2. he who has already several times confessed a depraved custom, but had not been admonished concerning remedies to be used, can be absolved if, better instructed, he promises to use them. For the fact that he has not used means is to be attributed to ignorance rather than malice;

3. he who, admonished, did not use the necessary means sufficiently and relapsed, is a recidivist and is to be treated as such.

B. Material or incontinent recidivists, who relapse from fragility and infirmity of the will, can regularly be absolved if they seriously propose amendment and furnish the ordinary signs of the sincerity of their disposition.

For they have relapsed either because they were insufficiently admonished, or after a serious effort at amendment because of greater vehemence or frequency of temptation, or inconstancy of the will in persevering, or from mere fragility in such a way that sin habitually displeases them. Accordingly, after the fall they immediately detest the sin, but from infirmity of the will or from mobility and vehemence of passion they again succumb. Now ordinarily there is no doubt concerning the disposition of these.

C. Formal and intemperate recidivists regularly cannot be absolved unless by special signs they show that they have true contrition and firm purpose.

Such recidivists are from an evil will, who cling to the object of sin and from this affection are driven into new sins; whence they are suspect concerning disposition. For one who sincerely and strongly proposes a thing morally possible to him, in the case to avoid sin and to use the necessary means, does not so easily nor so suddenly change his mind and will, but perseveres at least for some time and uses the means. Whence frequent relapse from a depraved will, without almost any effort and any amendment, generates a prudent suspicion and a founded presumption that someone's purpose was not sincere and efficacious but only infirm, and that even now it is such if in the same manner as before he proposes under common signs.

But this presumption is not destroyed by a simple assertion, which no longer deserves anything except little faith, but only by special and extraordinary signs.

Therefore such a penitent remains suspect concerning disposition, and accordingly the confessor cannot form for himself a prudent judgment concerning his legitimate disposition.

And therefore such penitents are to be held as doubtfully disposed, and cannot be absolved unless a) they furnish a special disposition or extraordinary signs of disposition, by which they appear morally certainly disposed, so that they can be absolved absolutely; or b) unless there is a proportionately grave reason, sufficient namely that they can be absolved under condition, which is verified in the cases enumerated in the treatise on Penance, where it treats of the Duties of the Minister.

Hence false is both the opinion of the Laxists and of some moderns saying that they can be held as disposed and absolved with ordinary signs, unless from the circumstances there are also positive indications of indisposition (as appears from proposition 60 condemned by Innocent XI);³ and the opinion of the Rigorists who said that they are not to be absolved unless by long experience they have proved amendment.

³ "To a penitent having a custom of sinning against the law of God, nature, or the Church, even if no hope of amendment appears, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred, provided that by mouth he says that he grieves and proposes amendment." But in the case, no hope of amendment appears.

V. Manner of acting in practice. - From this it is evident how one must proceed in practice:

1. The recidivist must be examined, whether he has notably diminished the number of falls, or abstained for a notable time after confession, or fought strenuously even if he has fallen several times more than before. Such a one can be absolved immediately, because he has used a serious zeal of amendment, of which there is a threefold sign: a) use of means, b) rarer, more difficult, or later relapse, c) perseverance for some time not altogether brief.

2. If serious effort is lacking, special or extraordinary signs are to be sought; when these are posited, the recidivist can be absolved immediately. Extraordinary signs, however, are not necessarily extraordinary dispositions, since simple attrition suffices, but more probative, clearer, more numerous signs of sufficient attrition than those which had been given before by the same penitent. Hence they are to be considered relatively to the disposition of the penitent, to the nature of the temptations, and to other circumstances.

The principal extraordinary signs are commonly enumerated: a) sighs and tears poured out not from a human motive (e.g., because of harm following from sin, because the girl has been abandoned by her lover, a man has lost honor or reputation), or because of dejection or softness of soul, or from the intention of deceiving the confessor, but from a supernatural motive, namely because of the offense of God and the ruin of one's own soul; these therefore are not always to be trusted, especially among little women, but easily in a strong man; b) cordial words manifesting a compunct heart and firm will of avoiding sins; c) spontaneous confession, not made from mere custom, persuasion of parents or superiors, or the obligation of the paschal precept, but from the internal impulse of grace, especially when notable difficulties had to be overcome, of a longer journey, great conflict, grave harm to be undergone, or gain lost; d) spontaneous flight from the occasion, e.g., by seeking reconciliation with an enemy, restoring what was taken away, dismissing a concubine; e) manifestation of a firm and generous will exhibited by deeds, e.g., by manifesting sins previously concealed, instituting a general confession, approaching the confessor notwithstanding the mockery of friends, etc.; f) detestation of sin immediately after the fall, because then relapse can be attributed to mere fragility; g) firmness of purpose, which reveals itself by amendment protracted for a sufficiently long time, or by a request for means of amendment freely made; h) unusual fear struck from some event, e.g., the death of a blood-relative or friend, public or private calamity, fear of imminent death; i) reception of more abundant grace, e.g., on the occasion of a mission or spiritual exercises, etc., etc.

3. If extraordinary signs also are lacking, the penitent is not immediately to be dismissed, but is to be disposed to contrition by a fatherly and fervent exhortation, more efficacious remedies also having been proposed. This work will be easier with an incontinent recidivist who has relapsed from ignorance or from mere fragility than with an intemperate one who has relapsed from affection for sin. Nevertheless, if after exhortation he furnishes extraordinary signs of a changed will and promises to use more efficacious remedies, he can be absolved.

4. If, after a fervent exhortation, the recidivist remains doubtfully disposed, he can be absolved under condition (if you are capable) if a special and grave necessity presses, namely danger of death, marriage to be contracted here and now, difficulty of returning (unless restitution must be made or the occasion removed), danger of infamy, a very founded danger of alienation from the sacrament or of its abandonment (that is, that the penitent will not return), or imperfect use of reason. Otherwise absolution is to be deferred, because delay is necessary for exploring the firm purpose of the penitent, and the sacrament cannot be exposed to danger of nullity without urgent necessity.

5. Finally, if it is morally certain that the recidivist remains indisposed, he is to be dismissed without absolution. Yet this should be done a) for a brief time, e.g., 8 or 15 days, not longer, lest he come into despair and sin more often; b) with most humane words, not harsher ones, lest the penitent bid farewell to confession; c) by explaining the reason why absolution is deferred, so that thus the penitent may understand that the confessor acts so not from hatred or anger, but from fatherly solicitude, and as if unwillingly, because his office demands it; d) by assigning the means which must be used to obtain a better disposition, so that thus the penitent may know what must be done in order that he can obtain absolution: for delay of itself does not have power to change the mind, unless at the same time opportune remedies are prescribed to him.

VI. Observations.

1. In the aforesaid cases let the confessor not be too rigid, lest he cast penitents into desperation, nor too kind, lest the negligent remain in filth.

2. The confessor must form for himself a right judgment concerning the recidivist. He will do this by inquiring whether he has already been admonished by a confessor and what remedies were assigned to him; whether he used them; whether he relapsed as often as before; whether a little after confession, or after a struggle and resistance more often offered; when he last sinned. Then let him inspect what the present dispositions of the penitent are. For questioning of this kind, just as in the care of bodily diseases, so in the healing of spiritual diseases, is fundamental. Thus Aertnijs, Theol. Mor., T. II, n. 314, Q. 2.

3. Delay of absolution with an apt admonition of the confessor, especially for younger penitents of a lighter disposition but piously educated, is an excellent means for inculcating greater detestation of sin and for strengthening their weak will. On the contrary, in our times, especially in cities, where faith languishes, delay of absolution is not always of much profit; indeed it rather renders certain sinners offended and indignant, and hardens them more. But if the confessor prudently fears this, let him try to dispose the penitent the more indulgently and absolve at least under condition. Thus Noldin, Theol. Mor., T. III, n. 411. Yet he would interpret these words badly who concluded that one must always act thus and that absolution is never to be deferred.

4. In practice, as regards those who approach only at the paschal time, let the confessor not inquire longer in what degree and for how many years they have existed as recidivists, but, their custom into which they relapse having been known, let him rather with every care dispose them according to the things heard in the present confession, using better means of amendment, especially that they approach the sacraments more frequently, and, unless from this confession itself a special suspicion arises, let him not inquire concerning preceding years. Thus Theol. Mechl., de Poen., n. 87. This again holds not always, but generally and in many cases.

5. As regards recidivists in venial sins, those who fall from fragility and those who fall from deliberate will are to be distinguished. The former are to be absolved; yet it will be opportune that they accuse some sin of their past life, or specially detest some genus of venials into which they are accustomed to fall, and that they propose to impose upon themselves some lighter penance in the evening as often as they advert that they have relapsed into these. As regards the latter, greater prudence will be needed, especially if they accuse no sins of their past life: for it will easily happen that those who are accustomed to commit fully deliberate venial sins do not have sufficient contrition or firm purpose concerning these; it belongs to the confessor to dispose them to these by insistently preaching the great malice of venial sin. (Reuter, o. c., n. 187.)

For this the following motives can be proposed: a) that venial sin is an evil greater than every evil; b) that God punishes it most gravely; c) that the soul with venial sin cannot enter heaven; d) that it disposes to mortal sin; e) that it is an abuse of the help of divine omnipotence and of one's own faculty and of creatures; f) to which can be added the likeness of a son who would not wish so to offend his father that he would deserve to be deprived of the inheritance or cast out of the paternal house, and yet offends him with many light offenses.

VII. Corollaries from Marc, Theol. Mor., T. II, n. 1830:

1. A recidivist returning the first time can more easily be absolved than the second or third time (because lesser signs are required).

2. The incontinent (from passion) can more easily be absolved than the intemperate (from habit), because in the former sufficient signs, indeed extraordinary ones, are chiefly found; in the latter, few.

3. A formal recidivist, unless certainly indisposed, can be absolved under condition only in those cases (six) in which the doubtfully disposed can be absolved.

VIII. Cases. - 1) The first and almost classic case is concerning absolution to be denied to a cleric, or concerning a cleric habituated in shameful sin, to be promoted to sacred orders.

Besides negative sanctity, or immunity from sin and the state of grace, there is required from one to be ordained positive sanctity, conspicuous in chaste morals, which shines forth in the observance of perfect continence. Thus the Council of Trent wills that only those be ordained whose approved age is a life of probity, who hope, with God as author, that they can be continent (sess. 23, c. 12 and 13); indeed, those to be ordained priests are to be so conspicuous by piety and chaste morals that an excellent example of good works and admonitions of life can be expected from them (c. 14). Innocent III had preceded (decr. a multis, 9): "Let no one be permitted to approach sacred Order unless he exists either a virgin or of proved chastity." Now concerning a cleric habituated in shameful sin, and not yet having extirpated the habit, it cannot be said that his life is proved, or that his age is proved, or that hope shines forth that he will be chaste and continent. Hence for a cleric of this sort, not yet amended, approach to sacred orders cannot prudently be permitted, but delay must absolutely be imposed.

Hence it is clear a) that one habituated in shameful sin, who can be absolved with undoubted signs of sincere sorrow and purpose, can no longer be absolved if he wishes rashly to ascend to sacred orders: for since he does not yet exist of proved continence, he is obliged first to furnish a serious trial of continence, and if he does not wish this, he does not have the purpose of fulfilling all grave precepts and avoiding all mortal sins;

b) nor does extraordinary grace of compunction and signs of more fervent penance ordinarily suffice for supplying for such a trial: such extraordinary conversions are rare and scarcely can be known with certitude from external signs; whence the confessor can only with difficulty admit such an exception, and in doubt he must stand by the general rule and require a serious proof of chastity;

c) confessors act imprudently who, against the judgment of the ordinary confessor, grant absolution and ascent to Orders to such a cleric exceptionally approaching them (e.g., on the occasion of spiritual exercises), even if poured out in tears: extraordinary signs can suffice for proving present dispositions, but they are suspect in relation to future proof of chastity;

d) nor can it be done otherwise because of infamy to be avoided, or something worse to be feared. Infamy is not really present, since the true cause can always be hidden by at least some pretext, such as more mature thought; and besides, according to the order of charity, the goods of the soul and of eternal salvation are to be loved more than the goods of reputation and honor. Nor can something worse be feared, since nothing worse is to be feared in the Church than the scandal of an unworthy priest.

Therefore, although certitude that the aforesaid penitent will not relapse cannot be demanded, since we all can sin, it must nevertheless be likely and there must be founded hope that he is not going to relapse, in other words, that by his morals he has sufficiently proved that he can preserve continence in perpetuity.

Concerning this case St. Alphonsus can usefully be seen (in his celebrated dissertation inserted in Theol. Mor., l. VI, n. 63) and his disciples, and recently Revue Eccl. de Liege, t. VIII, Sept. 1912, p. 125.

2. The other case, concerning the drunkard, is thus solved by Noldin, Theol. Mor., III, n. 411:

"Recidivists in drunkenness and as such publicly known, who almost every week or still more often make themselves drunk, are not altogether to be repelled from the sacraments, but ordinarily neither are they immediately to be admitted to them. Not the first, because one must despair of the amendment of no man; not the second, first because he cannot be absolved who is foreseen to be going to violate his purpose after a short time, unless necessity urges: for scandal would have to be feared if immediately after receiving the sacraments he should relapse; then because public scandal must be repaired beforehand. Therefore absolution is to be deferred for a penitent of this kind, until he has at least in some measure amended himself. Indeed even in the case in which, because of an extraordinary sign of penance, he had been immediately absolved, it is better not to admit him immediately to holy communion, both so that public scandal may meanwhile be repaired by real amendment, and so that scandal which might perhaps arise from relapse may be forestalled."