Section — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Section 1. On Examination of Conscience.
288. On the necessity of examination. Examination of conscience is required of itself under grave obligation: for he who is bound to the end is also bound to employ the means necessary for obtaining the end.1 But accidentally it can happen that examination is not necessary, namely when there is no danger that, with examination omitted, a grave sin will be omitted.
a. Therefore those who confess frequently and indeed only venials are not strictly bound to examination of conscience: for they have moral certitude that they have not committed mortal sin, and if they had committed it, it would not escape them even without examination. Wherefore, for valid reception of the sacrament on this part, nothing else is required of them except that they subject certain and determined matter to the keys. Nevertheless a brief examination of conscience must be recommended also to these, so that they may know their venial defects better and perceive more abundant fruits from confession.
b. When the penitent, from gravely culpable negligence in performing the examination, omits one or several mortal sins, the confession is invalid and must be wholly repeated, and at the same time the sacrilege of that grave negligence must be accused; but if the negligence was light and only venial, the confession is not invalid (n. 283, 4). But so that it can be discerned whether negligence in examining was grave or light, this rule is to be attended to: he who after instituted confession finds that he omitted more mortal sins than he said must be held guilty of grave negligence; he who confessed many more than he omitted must be judged not to have committed grave negligence.2
1 The Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5, says that penitents must recount in confession all mortal sins of which, after diligent examination of themselves, they have consciousness.
2 Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 3, n. 367.
289. On diligence in examination. 1. It is not required that the diligence in examining conscience be the highest, such as any most cautious person is accustomed to employ in a matter of the highest importance: for this would be too difficult and would render so necessary a sacrament odious; but it suffices that it be moderate and ordinary, such as prudent men are accustomed to employ in a matter of great importance. For the examination must be instituted in a human manner, i.e., in a manner accommodated to the infirmity of men, lest the sacrament be rendered too grave and burdensome.
a. No one is bound to note his sins in writing, even if on account of weak memory he forgets some of them in the act of confession; in like manner no one is bound to confess immediately after sins have been committed, even if by lapse of time certain sins slip from memory: for these are extraordinary things, which the precept of confessing integrally does not oblige one to employ.
b. He who after diligent examination thinks that perhaps several mortal sins would occur to him if he were to inquire longer and more diligently is not bound to inquire further: for if he were bound to greater diligence, he could never be at rest and would be driven to the highest diligence. And if, after confession instituted with serious and good will, sins omitted in confession occur to someone, he can and must judge that they were omitted inculpably. Therefore it suffices to accuse these alone in the next confession, nor is the whole confession to be repeated.
c. From these things it also follows that there is no obligation of thinking further about past life; but he who has made his confessions with good will should be persuaded that he has satisfied in confession; and if a sin occurs concerning which he doubts whether it was expressed in confession, he can and must presume that it was already accused with the others, and only where it is certain that satisfaction has not yet been made to the law of confession is he bound to accuse it.
- The same diligence in examination of conscience is not required from all, but greater or lesser according to the diverse quality of penitents. a. He who has not confessed for a long time must examine himself more diligently than he who confessed a short time before; b. learned and instructed men must examine themselves more accurately than the rude and little cultivated; c. those who are exposed to many dangers of sinning must examine themselves more diligently than those who lead a uniform life more remote from dangers.
If penitents who are sufficiently instructed come to confession unprepared, they can be dismissed so that, after examining their conscience, they return, especially if it is a matter of a longer confession: for it is impossible that someone suddenly interrogated should immediately remember all things. Moreover, penitents are of themselves bound to examination of conscience; only the judgment concerning the sufficiency of the examination pertains to the confessor. Nevertheless, if the circumstances suggest otherwise, especially if it is to be feared that, once dismissed, they will not return to the confessor, it is better to help them at once in examining conscience. But if the penitents are rude, they are not easily to be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience themselves; rather the confessor should take upon himself the burden of examining them. For by a few interrogations the confessor will obtain more than they themselves, if left to themselves, could furnish by a long examination. But the confessor should notice that he is not bound to procure greater integrity than they themselves could obtain by examining themselves.