Article — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Article Three. Concerning the Obligation of Questioning Penitents.
386. Concerning the Obligation Itself. 1. The confessor per se is bound under grave sin to question penitents:
a. About those things which are required for the integral confession of sins, whether they have omitted these culpably or inculpably; for since he is bound to procure the legitimate administration of the sacrament, he cannot absolve penitents unless he has judged them to have confessed integrally (as to species and number).
b. About those things which are necessary to be known so that he can judge concerning the gravity of sins; for the confessor, so far as can morally be done, ought to judge whether the sins of the penitent are grave or slight (n. 388).
c. About those things which are necessary to be known so that he can know the disposition of the penitent and prescribe suitable remedies. For since he is bound to procure a worthy administration of the sacrament, he cannot absolve the penitent unless he has judged him to be disposed (n. 389).
a. Since by force of his office the confessor ought to procure the integral confession of sins, he is bound to question not only penitents who, from grave fault, but also those who, inculpably, on account of ignorance or forgetfulness, fail in integrity.1 Nevertheless, the obligation of questioning penitents who culpably omit sins is graver than the obligation of questioning those who omit sins inculpably. But since it belongs per se to the penitent to accuse sins and to the confessor to hear the accusation, the obligation of questioning in the confessor is conditional and secondary, namely if the penitent fails; therefore the obligation of questioning is not greater, but rather less than the obligation of the penitent to examine and accuse himself.
b. In a long series of confessions, to omit one or another question about the species and number of sins which the penitent conceals from grave fault, or several questions about the number and species of sins which the penitent conceals in good faith, is not a grave sin because of smallness of matter, even if the penitent would be bound under grave sin to manifest them; for, considering the office of the confessor, by which he is bound to hear and help as many penitents as possible, such an omission is rightly considered slight.2
- The confessor ought not to question all penitents at once, but only those whom he probably judges to be deficient in the integrity of confession; but those whom, either from the manner of confessing or from the condition of the person, he prudently judges to have confessed integrally, he is not bound to question.
Defects in the integrity of confession chiefly arise from a threefold cause: from negligence in examination, from shame, and from ignorance of religious matters. Hence ordinarily those must be questioned who rarely (once or twice a year) receive the sacraments, who seem little instructed, who either from the manner of confessing or from the condition of the person are judged to be concealing sins. But priests, religious, pious persons, and persons sufficiently instructed according to their condition are not to be questioned, nor penitents who from the manner of confessing can prudently be judged not to be deficient in integrity.
- In making questions, the confessor is not bound to employ anything except ordinary diligence, and that different according to the different capacity of the penitent. The reason for the first is that the obligation of the penitent to examine himself requires only ordinary and moderate diligence. The reason for the second is that the confessor is bound only to help the penitent and supply for his defects; therefore, since penitents ought to employ different diligence in examining conscience according to their different capacity, the confessor also can employ different diligence.
a. Hence even if the confessor, after moral diligence has already been employed, thinks that by further questions he can fish out more sins or know more accurately, as to species and number, the things declared, he is no longer bound to question. Indeed, neither is it expedient to torture the penitent with many questions, even if some defect in integrity is committed, lest confession be rendered odious.
b. Therefore since the confessor ought to take care only that the penitent confess sins as he himself knows them according to his capacity, a rude and uncultivated man is to be examined more lightly than a civil and instructed man; a sick person, who because of weakness can attend with more difficulty, more lightly than one healthy and robust; one who has more sins, more lightly than one who has fewer.3
- Questions ought to be moderate, lest confession be rendered burdensome and odious to penitents.
Therefore above all the confessor should not question about all things in which the penitent could have sinned, but only about those things in which, by reason of his state and condition, he probably has in fact sinned. Then also with respect to necessary questions, especially about shameful matters, he should attend lest penitents be offended and deterred from making confession in the future; for it is better to fail in the integrity of confession than to render confession odious to the penitent.
1 Cf. Suarez, disp. 32, sect. 3, n. 7 s. Lugo, disp. 22, n. 17 ss. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 584.
2 Cf. Gury, Casus consc. II, n. 669.
3 Lugo, disp. 16, n. 594.
387. What a Confessor Ought to Do Who Doubts the Sincerity of the Penitent. The axiom received in the forum of penance must be noted: the penitent speaking both for himself and against himself is to be believed; for in the tribunal of penance he is at once the accused and the witness, his own accuser and advocate, and besides he must be presumed truthful unless something else is proved. Therefore the confessor can always absolve the penitent unless he knows certainly that he is sacrilegiously denying a sin. In particular, however, one can distinguish as follows:
a. If the confessor certainly knows that the penitent has committed a sin which he conceals and which, when prudently questioned, he denies, he should first consider whether it can be supposed that the penitent does not hold the matter at issue as a sin, or that he has forgotten this sin, or that he has already confessed it to another, or that he has a just cause for omitting that sin. If any of these can be presumed, the penitent must be absolved, from whatever source the confessor has received knowledge of the matter; for the penitent must be believed.
b. If none of these can be presumed, the penitent must be treated in a different way according to the different source from which the confessor received knowledge of the sin:
a. If he knows this outside confession, and indeed from the report of others, the penitent must be diligently questioned; and if he denies it, the confessor ought to absolve him, for the penitent must be believed rather than others, whom he ought to suppose to have been deceived.1
Since St. Alphonsus (n. 631) writes that he would not dare to absolve such a penitent in a case in which witnesses so grave had related his crime that moral certitude concerning it was had, a confessor, following the opinion of the holy doctor, can deny absolution to a penitent of this kind. For the holy doctor thinks that that rule, namely that the penitent must be believed, holds only in a doubtful matter, but not in a morally certain matter.
b. If he knows this outside confession, and indeed by his own experience and that infallible, because, e.g., he saw him killing, he ought to convict the penitent; and if nevertheless he constantly denies it, to dismiss him without absolution, for he lacks disposition.
g. If finally he knows this from the confession of an accomplice, he can question him only in general, lest the seal be violated, or even particularly about the same sin, if he would otherwise also have questioned about it, because it is customary for it to be committed by such a person. But if he does not confess the matter and it is plainly established that the penitent conceals a sin committed, it is licit to omit absolution and to recite some prayers to hide its omission; but it is also licit to absolve the penitent either absolutely or conditionally.
a. That absolution can be omitted is clear from this: on the one hand absolution would be null, and therefore the form of absolution would be pronounced in vain, which inconvenience is avoided by omitting absolution; on the other hand, by its omission the seal is not violated, since neither is the sin manifested, nor does a burden of penitents arise from it.2
b. Nevertheless it cannot be demonstrated that absolution is illicit: for on the one hand, the confessor who omits absolution does not prevent the sacrilegious reception of the sacraments; on the other hand, he is not bound to use the knowledge drawn from the confession of the accomplice, but from the common rule can act as if he had not heard that confession; yet to this extent he can use it, that he absolves only conditionally.3
Article Four.. Concerning the Obligation of Absolving Penitents in General.
This obligation, which concerns the sacramental judgment to be instituted by the confessor, comprises several particular obligations, namely the obligation of knowing the cause, the obligation of judging the disposition, and of rendering sentence, or of granting, deferring, or denying absolution.
1 Lugo, disp. 22, n. 22. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 586.
2 St. Alphonsus, n. 631.
3 Cf. Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. II, n. 40 ss. Elbel-Bierbaum III, pr. 8, n. 44. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 587.