Article Fourth. On the Authority of St. Alphonsus.

251. His authority. 1. The moral works of the holy doctor are:

a. Moral Theology, which he himself published nine times, often corrected;¹ b. The Apostolic Man, a compendium of moral theology; c. Practice of the Confessor for Receiving Confessions Well; d. Dissertations, some of which were afterward inserted into the work of moral theology.

2. The internal authority of the moral doctrine of St. Alphonsus depends on the author's knowledge and prudence and on the arguments by which he fortified his doctrine. Now indeed it cannot be denied that there are moral theologians not inferior to St. Alphonsus in genius, keenness of mind, and abundance of doctrine; nevertheless his moral theology excels by these prerogatives: by the sureness by which he reduces the more difficult questions about morals to genuine principles and resolves them from these, by the prudent judgment by which, after weighing the moments of reasons on this side and that, he chooses opinions, and finally by the erudition by which he surveys the works of almost all authors and examines their arguments. To these is added the singular wisdom by which, teaching the middle way, he overcame on the one hand Jansenian rigorism, and on the other the contrary laxism.

3. External authority is established especially by the judgment which the Church has rendered concerning his moral doctrine. The public judgments of the Holy See which refer either to the works of St. Alphonsus generally or to moral theology in particular are these:

a. Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Rites for the effect of canonization, 25 May 1802: Nothing worthy of censure was found.

b. Response of the Sacred Penitentiary to doubts proposed by the archbishop of Besancon, 5 July 1831:

1. "Whether a professor of sacred theology can safely follow and profess the opinions which Blessed Alphonsus a Ligorio professes in his moral theology.

2. Whether a confessor is to be disturbed who follows all the opinions of Blessed Alphonsus a Ligorio in the practice of the tribunal of sacred penance for this reason alone, that by the apostolic see nothing worthy of censure was found in his works.

The confessor about whom there is question in the doubt reads the works of the blessed doctor only in order to know his doctrine accurately, not weighing the moments or reasons by which the various opinions are supported, but judges that he acts safely by this very fact, that he can prudently judge a doctrine which contains nothing worthy of censure to be sound, safe, and in no way contrary to evangelical holiness.

To 1. In the affirmative, yet without those being judged reprehensible who follow opinions handed down by other approved authors.

To 2. In the negative, having regard to the mind of the Holy See concerning the approval of the writings of servants of God for the effect of canonization.

c. Conferral of the title Doctor of the Church (1871), by which the saint, on account of his eminent doctrine, is declared "an outstanding teacher divinely given to the Church."

d. To these are added several encomia, which are found in letters given by the supreme pontiffs to various theologians who either published the works of the holy doctor or translated them into another language.² Worthy of mention is the response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 19 December 1855, to a certain professor who, when he obtained academic degrees, had bound himself by oath to defend probabiliorism, namely that he, notwithstanding the oath, could follow and publicly hand down the doctrine of St. Alphonsus and did not need dispensation from the oath.

¹ Cf. Elenchus quaestionum reformatarum at the end of the work; 99 reformed questions were added to the second, 25 to the sixth, 3 to the ninth edition.

² These are gathered in Clement Marc, Institutiones morales Alphonsianae^13 (Romae. Cuggiani. 1906) I. p. VII-XII.

252. Corollaries. From all these things, as regards the authority of St. Alphonsus in moral matters, the following are gathered:

a. The opinions of St. Alphonsus are not by these things all declared true, but nevertheless in general they can be had as probable, not indeed always internally, yet at least externally, and indeed on account of the authority alone of the holy doctor.

The judgment of the Church concerning the works of St. Alphonsus does not refer to the truth of the doctrine, but to the conditions required for canonization; but for obtaining this end the examination of works investigates only this: whether anything is contained in them which is opposed to right faith and good morals, or, what comes back to the same thing, whether anything is contained in them which is worthy of (theological) censure.

b. Therefore in practice any confessor can safely follow (with some exceptions) the opinions of St. Alphonsus, so that according to them he may direct his own and others' manner of acting, but not so that from them he may impose obligations on the penitent. Nevertheless no one is held to follow them, but to each one it is free to embrace the opinions of other authors, provided they are truly and solidly probable; wherefore the confessor cannot require from his penitents that they follow the opinions of the holy doctor.

Those opinions must be excepted which a. either before or after the published works of the holy doctor were reprobated by the Church, as concerning a Catholic sponsor in baptism conferred by a heretical minister; concerning the absolution of a dying person which a simple priest grants in the presence of an approved one; concerning a regular bishop, whom St. Alphonsus had thought not obliged either to vows emitted in religion or to the rule of his order;¹ which b. are opposed to custom legitimately introduced either before or after the times of the holy doctor, e.g. concerning fasting, concerning servile works; which c. suppose the circumstances of the time of St. Alphonsus, circumstances which afterward were changed, as the grave quantity in theft; which d. by evident or certain reason are demonstrated to be false: for it is impossible to form for oneself a practically certain conscience according to an opinion which is known to be false.

¹ Cf. resolution S. C. Ep. et Reg. 6 May 1864 and Acta s. sed. I. 449. ss.

253. Whether a confessor ought to absolve a penitent who wishes to follow an opinion opposed to the opinion of the confessor.

a. If there is question of opinions which regard the administration of the sacrament, manifestly the confessor must proceed according to the opinions which he himself holds: for the opinions which he follows must be probable to the agent.

b. If there is question of opinions which turn about the obligations of the penitent, the confessor is held to absolve the disposed penitent, however much he may wish to follow opinions opposed to those which the confessor holds, provided they are truly probable: for the penitent has the right of following truly probable opinions, but the confessor does not have the right of using an opinion only probable for imposing an obligation. Indeed even where an uneducated penitent does not know that he has the right of following the opposite opinion, it is not lawful for the confessor to impose upon him an obligation which is not imposed by God the legislator.

c. But if the confessor judges false the opinion which the penitent wishes to follow, a distinction must be made: if the opinion is such that theologians commonly hold it as probable and it appears false only to the confessor, the latter can counsel the penitent to abandon it and to follow his opinion; but he cannot compel him by denying absolution. But if the opinion which is approved by the penitent is such that theologians commonly reject it as false, the confessor must teach him and exhort him to abandon his opinion, and if he is unwilling to do this, he must deny him absolution, unless perhaps the penitent is in good faith and no fruit is hoped for from admonition.¹

¹ Cf. Lehmkuhl I. n. 116 ss.