§ 2. On the Duties of the Confessor in the Act of Confession

435. 1. The first duty which is incumbent upon the confessor in the act of confession is to judge rightly both concerning the sins heard and concerning the absolution to be given or refused.

For judging rightly, not only sufficient knowledge of moral theology is required, but also the integrity of the confession. Accordingly, the Roman Ritual admonishes:³⁸⁰ "If the penitent has not expressed the number and species of the sins and the circumstances necessary to be explained, let the priest question him prudently." But questioning must always be: a) Moderate, because excessive questions are accustomed to exasperate the penitent and bring upon the confessor the reproach of curiosity. b) Discreet and prudent, both concerning the matters about which he questions and in the manner of questioning. The confessor must avoid everything by which penitents could justly be scandalized.³⁸¹ c) Opportune. Generally it is not expedient to question the penitent before the accusation has been entirely completed, because otherwise sins are easily omitted through forgetfulness. If, however, the confessor perceives that the penitent accuses himself so imperfectly that as many questions must necessarily be posed as the memory is unable to retain, he can also question the penitent during the accusation.

³⁸⁰ Tit. 3, c. 1, n. 16.

³⁸¹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 888, § 2.

436. 2. The second duty of the confessor is to teach and admonish the penitent.

The confessor must teach the penitent those truths which are necessary for rightly receiving the sacrament; therefore not only the truths which are necessary by a necessity of means, but also all those things which necessarily pertain to contrition, purpose, confession, satisfaction, and so forth.³⁸² It is evident of itself that unlearned penitents do not need an altogether perfect knowledge of these truths, but that it suffices if they know at least the substance according to their capacity. Sometimes the confessor is also bound to instruct penitents concerning the duties of their state, for example, concerning the obligations of spouses.

If the penitent judges from an erroneous conscience that something is a sin which in truth is not such, or a grave sin which in fact is light, he must be instructed; for such an error is very harmful to him. But if the penitent thinks that something is licit which in truth is illicit, or that something is a light sin which in truth is grave, then a distinction must be made. If such ignorance is vincible and culpable, the penitent must be instructed, because he already sins from the fact that he did not expel this ignorance. But if such ignorance is invincible, the penitent must be instructed whenever good fruit is hoped from it; for otherwise the penitent would commit a material sin, which it is not lawful to permit without a grave cause. But whenever greater inconveniences are prudently feared from the instruction, whether for the penitent himself, for a third person, or for the community, the penitent can and must be left in good faith; for otherwise formal sins would be made from material sins. This case sometimes occurs in a putative marriage. For if the putative spouses are in good faith and their union can neither be dissolved nor changed into a legitimate marriage, it is preferable that they be left in good faith.

The confessor must admonish the penitent concerning obligations which must necessarily be fulfilled, for example, concerning restitution to be made, the proximate occasion to be avoided, and so forth.

³⁸² Cf. Roman Ritual, ibid., n. 14.

437. 3. The third duty of the confessor is to dispose the penitent to true contrition and amendment.

Concerning this matter the Roman Ritual admonishes:³⁸³ "And [the confessor] shall endeavor by efficacious words to lead him to sorrow and contrition, and shall induce him to amend his life and institute it better, and shall hand down remedies for sins." If the confessor prudently judges that the penitent is well disposed, he is strictly bound to nothing else except giving absolution, but it is almost always expedient to suggest to all some motive of contrition and good purpose. If the confessor doubts concerning the sufficient contrition of the penitent, he cannot absolve him unless he first rightly disposes him. St. Alphonsus teaches that this obligation is grave,³⁸⁴ saying: "Therefore I do not know how those indolent confessors can be excused from fault who, as soon as they have learned that the penitent is not sufficiently disposed, dismiss him, with no diligence or very little diligence first employed for curing him. For I say that the confessor is bound by a rigorous obligation of charity to dispose him insofar as he is able."

Since the confessor is not only a judge and teacher but also a physician, he must investigate the cause of the spiritual illness and then prescribe suitable remedies for amendment, for example, the frequent reception of the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist, determinate prayers, flight from the occasion, certain mortifications, and so forth.

³⁸³ Tit. 3, c. 1, n. 18.

³⁸⁴ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 608.

438. 4. The fourth duty of the confessor is to give, deny, or defer absolution.

Concerning these things, the following are to be noted:

a) Absolution must be given to a penitent rightly confessed and disposed, who asks for it here and now, or who does not readily consent to a delay.³⁸⁵

For the confessor, by freely hearing the confession of the penitent, enters into a quasi-contract of giving absolution if the penitent is rightly disposed. Hence, if after hearing the confession of a rightly disposed penitent he denies absolution, he breaks the contract and sins gravely, at least if the penitent is thereby compelled to remain in the state of mortal sin and bears this with difficulty. For a just cause, for example, for the sake of medicine or trial, absolution can sometimes be deferred for a brief time even for one well disposed and consenting, as will be stated below, because this can sometimes be useful to the penitent. Thus also in the ancient Church absolution was sometimes delayed for penitents.

b) Absolution must be denied to those who are certainly unworthy or incapable.

The reason is that otherwise the sacrament would certainly be frustrated, which is not lawful even in extreme necessity. The unworthy or indisposed are those who lack true contrition and a sincere and firm purpose, for example, those who are unwilling to leave a voluntary proximate occasion of sinning; who are unwilling to put aside grave enmities or hatred of their neighbor; who are unwilling to make necessary restitution, although they can do so; who are unwilling to remove the scandal which they give to others; who refuse to leave gravely sinful arts or occupations, and so forth. Those incapable of absolution are, for example, the unbaptized, the dead, the perpetually insane, the absent, and so forth.

Note. Whenever the confessor must deny absolution, let him not employ harsh words, but in a kind and tranquil manner let him manifest to the penitent the reason why absolution cannot be granted. Moreover, let the confessor first endeavor with prudent diligence to dispose unprepared penitents, and only after useless attempts let him deny absolution.

c) Absolution must be deferred if the disposition of the penitent is plainly doubtful and there is no urgent cause for absolving him conditionally; it can be deferred for a brief time for a penitent rightly disposed if alpha) the confessor rightly judges this to be useful for his amendment, and beta) the penitent consents to the delay.

The reason for the first part is that otherwise the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity, which certainly is not lawful except in grave necessity. Furthermore, penitents are judged doubtfully disposed whose contrition seems very suspect, for example, recidivists who always return with the same sins and have not employed the remedies prescribed by the confessor; penitents who narrate grave sins very cursorily and coldly, without any sense of contrition; those who approach the sacrament of penance from custom or from reverential fear of parents or masters; those who refuse to accept a moderate penance proportioned to their strength, and so forth. In practice it is sometimes most difficult to judge concerning the sufficient disposition of the penitent. When the confessor remains in doubt, he can usefully employ this rule: If he prudently judges that the delay of absolution will be useful to the penitent, since after a brief time he will return better disposed, let him defer absolution; but if he seriously fears that the penitent will become worse from the delayed absolution or that he will no longer return to confession, let him impart absolution, at least conditionally, after a diligent exhortation to contrition and firm purpose has first been given. For the rest, discussion will return to this matter below, when recidivists and habitual sinners are treated.

The reason for the other part is that a rightly disposed penitent indeed has a right to absolution, but not that absolution be granted to him immediately. Furthermore, the confessor as physician can employ delayed absolution as an efficacious remedy for curing the tepidity of the penitent. Such a practice of deferring absolution existed in the ancient Church and produced good fruits. Nevertheless, let the delay be brief (that is, ordinarily not beyond a week), especially if the penitent is in the state of mortal sin; for a long delay cannot but harm the penitent, who then lacks many graces. Then let it not be done unless the penitent consents.³⁸⁶ For the Code of Canon Law, c. 886, establishes: "If the confessor cannot doubt concerning the dispositions of the penitent and the latter seeks absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred." The reason is that a delay of absolution which a penitent certainly rightly disposed and burdened with mortal sins accepts not willingly but under compulsion will very rarely produce good fruits; on the contrary, it is sometimes very harmful.

St. Alphonsus wisely admonishes:³⁸⁷ "For the rest, each one in this matter of imparting or deferring absolution must direct himself according to the light given to him by God. This is certain: in this matter those who are more lenient than is right err just as those who are more rigid than is right in absolving. Either extreme is pernicious; for many confessors on account of excessive facility in absolving are the cause that more souls go to perdition, but others on account of excessive rigidity are of no less detriment. Hence I hardly know whether it ought to be a matter of less scruple for the confessor to absolve the indisposed than to dismiss the disposed."

³⁸⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 886. Cf. Cappello, l.c., n. 487.

³⁸⁶ Thus also Noldin-Schmitt (De sacr.¹⁷, n. 392), nor is the contrary efficaciously proved by Ter Haar (De occasionariis et recidivis, thesis 20).

³⁸⁷ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 464.