Article — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
Article III. On the Manner of Acting with Those in Occasions of Sin, Habitual Sinners, and Recidivists
449. Those in occasions of sin are called those who are situated in an occasion of sinning. Now an occasion of sinning is something extrinsic (a person, thing, book, spectacle, dances, and so forth) which entices to sin and affords an opportunity of sinning.414 Therefore an occasion of sinning is not a disordered passion or the frailty of the penitent, since these are something intrinsic.
Division of occasions:
a) A remote occasion, which carries with it only a light danger of sinning and in which a man is accustomed to sin rarely. Such remote occasions exist everywhere on earth, and a man neither ought nor can flee from them. b) A proximate occasion, which causes a grave and pressing external danger of sinning, in which a man frequently sins mortally in fact; for example, visiting a tavern for a man greatly addicted to the vice of drunkenness.
A proximate occasion is subdivided: alpha) One is absolute, or per se; another is relative, or per accidens. The former is that in which all men generally are accustomed to sin gravely, for example, to look lingeringly without reasonable cause at very shameful things. The latter is that which induces a proximate danger of sinning not for all, but for some determinate man because of his special frailty or an aroused passion, for example, entering a tavern for a drunken man.
beta) One is voluntary; another necessary. The former is said to be that which can easily, or with light inconvenience, be removed, for example, a dangerous courtship between lovers. The latter is that which cannot be removed physically or morally. In a physically necessary occasion there live, for example, in the same house children of a family who sin with one another; men imprisoned who sin with one another. In a morally necessary occasion there live in the same house children of a family who sin with the maid of their own family. For the maid can more easily leave the house than a son of the family. Therefore a necessary occasion is one which cannot be removed without great harm and great external difficulty. But what is truly great harm must be weighed from the diverse circumstances of persons.
gamma) One occasion is continuous, or in esse; another is interrupted, or non in esse. The former is that in which someone is always situated, for example, a concubine living in the house of her master, onanistic spouses; the latter is said to be that in which someone indeed does not always live but which he can easily have, for example, a tavern for a drunken man; a mistress for a lustful man.
414 An occasion of sinning and scandal agree in this, that both entice to sin; but they differ: a) because scandal is always a human act, while an occasion can also be an external physical thing; b) because an occasion affords an opportunity of sinning, but scandal does not always do so.
450. 1. Absolution of Those in Occasions of Sin.
Rule 1. Absolution is not to be denied to a penitent existing in a remote occasion.
The reason is that all of us live in a remote occasion of sinning, which, if we had to avoid it, would require us to go out of the world, which is wholly filled with dangers of sinning. Therefore to avoid remote occasions of sinning is impossible, and consequently is not necessary.
Rule 2. Absolution is not to be denied to a penitent who is situated in a necessary proximate occasion, provided that he is truly contrite and prepared to employ the prescribed means, so that the occasion materially proximate becomes formally remote.
The reason is that the confessor cannot demand from the penitent that which is physically or morally impossible. But, on the other hand, it can safely be hoped that the penitent who employs the prescribed remedies will conquer the temptations with the help of God, "who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able."415 The chief means by which a necessary proximate occasion can be rendered formally remote are: fervent prayer, frequent confession, the flight of every familiarity and solitary conversation with the accomplice, and so forth. - But when the penitent refuses to employ remedies of this kind, or when he indeed promised them but afterward neglected them and consequently always relapsed into the same sins, he is to be treated as a recidivist dwelling in a proximate occasion, namely, he is not to be absolved unless he has given extraordinary signs of contrition and has removed the proximate occasion even with the gravest inconvenience. For Christ prescribed: "If thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee: it is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire."416
You will ask. Can a penitent be absolved who, existing in a necessary occasion, always relapses in the same manner after employing the remedies? The response seems easy to us: Such a case is scarcely ever possible; for then the penitent truly does what lies within him. Moreover, God does not deny grace to one doing what lies within him. It can indeed occur that the penitent relapses several times into the same sins; but if he obeys the commands of the confessor, at length he will become constant. For the rest, if the case should nevertheless occur, the penitent would be treated as a habitual recidivist. - A case of a necessary and continuous proximate occasion is the abuse of marriage between spouses. But if that sin is committed again and again by the spouses without any amendment, absolution is to be deferred or denied, since the due disposition of the penitents is then absent.
415 1 Cor. 10:13.
416 Matt. 18:9.
451. Rule 3. Absolution is to be denied to a penitent who refuses to leave a voluntary proximate occasion of sinning gravely.
The reason is that he who wills voluntarily to remain in a proximate occasion loves the danger of sinning, and consequently has neither true contrition concerning past sins nor a true purpose concerning avoiding future sins. Hence, on March 2, 1679, Innocent XI condemned proposition 61: "He who is situated in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not will to omit, and indeed directly and deliberately seeks or thrusts himself into, can sometimes be absolved"; proposition 62: "A proximate occasion of sinning is not to be fled when some useful or honorable cause for not fleeing it occurs"; proposition 63: "It is lawful directly to seek a proximate occasion of sinning for our own or our neighbor's spiritual or temporal good."417
If someone is situated in a voluntary and continuous proximate occasion, absolution is generally to be deferred until the penitent has actually removed this occasion. Hence, for example, a concubinary is not to be absolved before he has cast the concubine out of the house. The reason is that, although the penitent is here and now sufficiently disposed to receive absolution, nevertheless it is greatly to be feared that afterward, unmindful of the promise given and overcome by vehement passion, he will not remove the occasion. But I said: generally, because if the confessor has moral conviction of the firm purpose made by the penitent, and especially if the penitent is no longer able to return to the same confessor, he can grant absolution immediately. But if the penitent has already again and again promised in preceding confessions to remove the occasion and has not kept his promises, he is now not only one in an occasion of sin but also a recidivist, and consequently is not to be absolved unless he has given extraordinary signs of contrition and an urgent necessity of absolving is present.
But if someone is situated in a proximate non-continuous or interrupted occasion, he can be absolved immediately, provided that he seriously promises to leave this occasion. But if he is not only one in an occasion of sin but also a recidivist, he is not to be absolved unless he has given extraordinary signs of contrition, as will be stated below.
452. 2. Absolution of Habitual Sinners.
A habitual sinner, or one habituated, is said to be one who has contracted the habit of some sin, into which, however, he has not yet relapsed after its confession. But if he has already confessed this sin once or several times and nevertheless has committed it again, he is called a recidivist.418
How many acts are necessary for acquiring an evil habit cannot be determined absolutely. For this depends upon many things, namely, upon weakness of will, upon the nature and manner of the sin, and upon the long or short interval within which the individual sins are committed. Thus, for example, a man weak in will more easily contracts an almost invincible habit of sinning than a strong man. According to St. Alphonsus,419 he is judged to have contracted a habit who is accustomed to commit an external sin five times in a month. But for internal sins a much greater number is required.
A custom of sinning can arise either from external human incitement, that is, from a proximate occasion, and then the habitual sinner is at the same time one in an occasion of sin; or from a diabolical temptation or from a disordered passion, and then he is properly a habitual sinner. Concerning this latter the following rule is valid.
Rule. A habitual sinner can and ought to be absolved when he is truly attrite and sincerely promises to employ the means necessary for conquering the evil custom.
The reason is that an evil custom in no way proves the indisposition of the penitent. Moreover (according to the adage: The penitent is to be believed when speaking both for himself and against himself), a penitent firmly asserting his attrition and his purpose seriously to employ remedies against the evil custom is worthy of belief and capable of absolution. The remedies which are to be employed by the penitent must be determined according to the quality both of the evil custom and of the man sinning. Proposition 60, condemned by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679, is not opposed to this doctrine: "Absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred to a penitent having a custom of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, although no hope of amendment appears, provided that he declares orally that he is sorry and proposes amendment."420 For in this proposition the essence of the error is situated in those words: "although no hope of amendment appears." Moreover, a habitual sinner who confesses a habit of sinning for the first time and seriously promises amendment always offers a true hope of amendment. Certainly, if a habitual sinner has already rather often promised amendment and nevertheless always fell in the same manner into the same sins, he offers little hope of amendment; but then he is now not a simple habitual sinner, but a habitual recidivist, who is to be treated otherwise, as will be stated below. For the rest, it is very rare in practice that someone is a simple habitual sinner and not at the same time a recidivist. A simple habitual sinner would be, for example, a man who has not confessed for ten years and within this time has contracted the habit of polluting himself once a week.
418 Cf. below, n. 453.
419 Praxis confess., n. 70.
420 Denz., n. 1210.
453. 3. Absolution of Recidivists.
In some sense all men are recidivists, for all repeat sins. We are not speaking here of recidivists in this broad material sense. A recidivist in the strict or formal sense is called one who after confessions so falls into the same mortal sins that from this it is rightly permitted to doubt concerning his disposition in the preceding confessions. Therefore a recidivist differs from a habitual sinner, since the latter accuses a habit of sin for the first time. Older authors not rarely confuse the habitual sinner with the recidivist; but modern theologians do not describe the characteristic signs of a recidivist in the same manner. Therefore careful attention must be given to the precise sense in which the individual authors accept the words habitual sinner and recidivist. The quasi-characteristic sign of a recidivist seems to be that after repeated confessions (three or four) he has employed no serious effort to guard against some grave sin, so that his persistence in an evil will can prudently be inferred from this.421
Rule. A recidivist regularly cannot be absolved unless by special signs he has first dispelled the presumption of indisposition existing against him.
I say: regularly, for in a case of necessity the sacrament can be administered even to a man doubtfully disposed. - But the reason for the rule stated is that from a relapse into exactly the same sins without any amendment whatsoever there arises a vehement presumption that the penitent lacks sincere contrition and a firm purpose, since it is scarcely possible that a man, grieving from his inmost heart concerning the sins committed and firmly proposing to employ the means necessary for amendment, should fall in exactly the same manner into the same sins. Therefore this presumption must be destroyed, which assuredly is not done by a simple assertion of the penitent. For if the penitent has already failed again and again to keep his promises, he certainly merits little belief. Therefore he must prove his true contrition and purpose from elsewhere.
The special signs of contrition and a sufficient purpose are diverse according to the diverse character of penitents, nor can anything be determined in particular. Thus, for example, tears shed on account of sins committed show a sufficient disposition in a strong man who weeps very rarely, while, on the contrary, they merit no great belief in certain women who are accustomed frequently to weep at will. Let the general rule be: After weighing all the circumstances, the confessor must have sufficient certitude of the disposition of the penitent. - As special signs showing a sufficient disposition there are adduced, for example, the spontaneous flight from a proximate occasion; firmness in a good purpose at least for some time. Hence, if the penitent after the preceding confession abstained for a month from a sin into which he previously fell every week, he offers a special sign of the good purpose he had. Nevertheless, too much trust is not to be placed in those penitents who for human reasons approach Easter confession and then abstain from sins for some time beforehand with the intention of avoiding the denial of absolution. Other special signs are: a spontaneous confession, especially at an unusual time; a pious pilgrimage for the purpose of making a confession; Spiritual Exercises completed. If a recidivist brings none of these or similar signs, he is not immediately to be dismissed without absolution, but is to be disposed to true contrition and a sincere purpose. This must be done especially whenever there is question of sins committed from frailty, for example, of pollution rather often committed by a young man. But if after a suitable exhortation the recidivist remains doubtfully disposed, in a case of necessity he can be absolved under condition; otherwise absolution is to be deferred for a brief time. A delay of eight days suffices for recidivists who sin from frailty; but for recidivists from occasion, absolution is fittingly deferred for fifteen days. It is evident of itself that the confessor ought to address the penitent not with rough but with most humane words. Let him be mindful of that adage: "Firmly in the matter, gently in the manner." In our days absolution is rarely to be deferred unless it is altogether necessary. For because of the weakness of faith under which many penitents labor, delayed absolution often does more harm than good.
421 Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 2208, § 1.