§ I. On the Offices of the Confessor in General

Four offices must be performed by the confessor in the very act of confession, namely those of father, physician, teacher, and judge. But when the diverse nature of penitents has been considered, the obligations which flow from these four offices can and must be modified; but if you attend to their substance, assuredly they must always be observed. A few things concerning each, but see more in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, nn. 279 and following.

I say. Every confessor, as such, is truly and properly the spiritual father of penitents. The reason is taken from a twofold head; for the confessor not only through the absolution which he imparts truly furnishes or increases spiritual life, namely grace, although instrumentally, but also bears the place of the best parent of all, namely of Christ himself. There is added the very sense of the faithful, who all and everywhere throughout the world call the priest in the sacred tribunal of Penance father. Hence:

1°. The confessor, while he receives confessions, must both have and show great charity toward penitents; for that which is contained above all in the name of father is distinguished and inexhaustible charity. Therefore Leo XII, in the Bull for the great Jubilee of the year 1825, admonished each confessor that, "clothed with the bowels of mercy of Christ Jesus, who did not come to call the just, but sinners, he should know how to deal earnestly, patiently, and meekly with sinners."

2°. The confessor must show this paternal charity at the beginning, in the course, and at the end of confession. At the beginning indeed, insofar as he receives all kindly and promptly without any distinction, whether they are rich and pious, or whether they are poor, uncultivated, and sinners. Besides, if he sees someone unprepared, let him help him and render him prepared; if he notices someone timid because of shame or entangled because of scruples, let him add courage and say that the whole matter can be arranged with easy business. - In the course of confession let him beware lest he exhibit himself as impatient or affected with weariness, nor let him show that he is struck with wonder at the sins which are narrated. Finally, at the end it is necessary that the confessor perform the office of father with more vehement ardor; for on the one hand he must then briefly indeed, but more severely, place before the eyes of the penitent the multitude and gravity of his sins, especially if the penitent does not appear very disposed; and on the other he must use those words, and act with such meekness, that the penitent can take no offense from it, or be less prompt in the future to return to him. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confess. ch. 1, § 1.

I say. The confessor is a true physician of souls; for just as sinners are often compared in the Scriptures to the sick or even to the dead, indeed are also properly called by these names, so the confessor can not only be compared to a physician, but also is one; for he must rescue the souls of penitents from the various diseases of sin and restore them to divine grace. Hence:

1°. The confessor must know the cause of the disease; for just as a bodily physician must first devote all his diligence and strength to this, that he may investigate the very root of the disease, so also the confessor; otherwise he will supply useless or insufficient, or even harmful, remedies. Therefore good confessors inquire not only about the number and species of sins and about dispositions, but also about habits, occasions, and other circumstances which are connected with the disease, if indeed the disease is present and not only some passing weakness.

2°. He must heal the disease; for it is not enough to know the origin of the disease, but it is necessary besides to place the finger on that part of the wound which flows with the greater corruption, and either by cutting away or by fostering to obtain the cure of it. Therefore the confessor must make due observations, suggest counsels, and declare what is to be done. To the point St. Alphonsus says: "The confessor must not attend to other penitents who surround him. For, as St. Francis Xavier used to say, it is better to hear the confessions of a few rightly made than the disordered confessions of many and without fruit. And it matters little that others wait or depart unconfessed; for the confessor must render an account on the day of judgment only concerning this one who now confesses to him, but not concerning the others." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confessarii, nn. 6, 7 and 10.

3°. He must guard against relapse; which certainly the confessor will perform by assigning to the penitent remedies suited to the disease. But remedies are either general or particular. General ones are reduced to pious prayers, to frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to consideration of the eternal truths, to the evening examination of conscience, and especially to frequency of the sacraments. But particular remedies must necessarily be diverse according to the diversity of penitents and of the circumstances in which they are found; nor will he rightly indicate them unless he uses great prudence. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confessarii, n. 15; and Hom. Ap., tract. 21, nn. 5 and 6.

I say. The confessor deserves the office of teacher for himself by a twofold reason, namely insofar as he must teach penitents all those things which pertain to the sacrament to be rightly received here and now, and insofar as he has already acquired for himself competent knowledge before he begins to receive confessions. The reason of the first is because it pertains essentially to the nature of a Minister divinely instituted to procure the valid and licit reception of the sacrament which is here and now to be administered by him. But the reason of the second is taken above all from the Scriptures; for it is said in Malachi ii, 7: "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth"; and Hosea iv, 6: "Because you have rejected knowledge, I will reject you, lest you perform the priesthood for me." It is also established from the natural law itself; for the confessor entering the sacramental tribunal of Penance without being furnished with competent knowledge exposes himself to the evident danger of gravely erring, with grave injury to the sacrament and to the great detriment of souls. Therefore Christ himself says, Matthew xv, 14: "If the blind man furnishes guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit." And St. Alphonsus did not hesitate to utter these words: "I affirm that that confessor is in the state of damnation who exposes himself to receiving confessions without sufficient knowledge." But according to the mind of St. Alphonsus himself, by the name of sufficient knowledge is not understood that by which the confessor can always, immediately, and by himself solve all doubts which occur, but only that by which he can understand and resolve cases commonly occurring, and in more difficult ones knows at least how to doubt. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 627. - Lugo, disp. 21, n. 70.

From the things just said the following conclusions must be deduced:

1°. Every confessor is held to know all those things which pertain to the value, substance, integrity, and effect of the sacrament of Penance, and which are required for its licit administration, both on his own part and on the part of the penitent.

2°. He must also know the common and proper obligations of states, the various species of sins, their circumstances changing the species, the principles of discerning between mortal and venial sins, and what are mortal and venial in the individual precepts, at least according to general principles and the common opinion of theologians; likewise what acts are valid and licit. The reason is clear, because he must know that concerning which he must judge; otherwise he will not be able to render an equitable judgment.

3°. He must know reserved cases and the censures in force, the impediments of marriage, the conditions of contracts, the various causes of restitution, the roots and occasions of sins, the remedies to be applied to them, salutary and suitable satisfactions to be imposed, etc.

4°. Therefore the confessor sins who knows that the aforesaid knowledge is lacking to him, even if he receives confessions from charity alone and obedience. Nor does the approval of the Bishop excuse him of itself; for this does not give the knowledge due from the nature of the thing, nor does it supply for its defect.

5°. The superior also sins who gives permission to an ignorant confessor to receive confessions, because he consents to and cooperates with his sin; nor can he be excused except on account of necessity: namely, if learned priests are not present and meanwhile the good of souls must be provided for.

6°. The penitent himself also sins who purposely chooses an inept confessor. Yet if someone is in good faith, the confession will be valid; because on the part of the penitent there intervenes an integral declaration of sins and a due disposition of soul; on the part of the confessor there intervenes at least knowledge of sins under the confused aspect of sin, which suffices for the matter of the sacrament.

7°. Experience cannot supply knowledge, but only assist it; but where it is destitute of the aid of knowledge, it will drive a rash confessor into very many errors, and those very grave.

8°. Therefore every confessor is held diligently to devote himself to the study of moral theology; and, as St. Alphonsus says: "He must never interrupt that study; because from so many things so diverse and mutually unlike, which pertain to this knowledge, many things, although read, because they occur more rarely, fall away from the mind with the progress of time; for which reason it is necessary always by frequent study to recall them into the mind." Whence it must be said that they gravely err who regard the knowledge of moral theology as easy and scarcely worthy of any attention, saying repeatedly that almost all cases can be solved by some common sense with knowledge of general principles. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 628; and Hom. Ap. n. 100. - Baller. note (a), p. 567.

Question 1. Whether the confessor, besides those things which are necessary for the sacrament to be rightly received here and now, is also held to teach penitents those things which are necessary for living as Christians?

Resp. Affirmatively, at least speaking generally; and consequently, where he notices that someone is ignorant of the obligations of his state, he must instruct him. The reason is taken from the general principle of charity and from the great opportunity which the confessor alone has of teaching certain obligations. Nevertheless this obligation is not to be extended so far that the confessor is held to instruct penitents concerning all things which they themselves must know and can learn elsewhere, both because this would turn to the grave inconvenience not only of the confessor but also of other penitents, and because other means, perhaps more suitable, are not lacking for dispelling such ignorance. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 607 and following.

"Bishops will take care that priests receiving confessions have fixed and immovable that sacramental absolution is invalid when imparted to one ignorant of things necessary by necessity of means; nor can men be reconciled to God through a sacrament of this sort unless first, the darkness of this ignorance being shaken off, they are led to the acknowledgement of Faith. But confessors will carefully note that the absolution of one who through his own fault does not know things necessary by necessity of precept is to be put off to another time; and only sometimes in this case can the penitent be absolved, in which he recognizes and accuses himself as guilty of this vincible ignorance, and deeply sorrowing both begs pardon from God and seriously promises the priest that he will devote earnest effort by which, with the aid of divine grace, he may learn also the things necessary by precept." - Cf. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Etsi minime. Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 13 April 1807.

Question 2. Whether a penitent laboring under ignorance concerning some obligation must always be warned?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the ignorance seems vincible, that is, if the confessor notices that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is already lacking. The reason is because in giving the warning no danger threatens; but otherwise the penitent acting with that doubt is not immune from sin. - But if the ignorance is invincible, the penitent is to be warned if fruit from the warning is hoped for; otherwise, speaking generally, he is not, if it is not hoped for. The reason is because on the one hand this warning would not help, and on the other it would harm him, since, after being warned, he would formally sin in the future. Therefore the penitent is to be warned: 1°. whenever he himself asks concerning the malice of some thing, because, since he doubts about the licitness of the thing, he is no longer situated in invincible ignorance; 2°. whenever the silence of the confessor would confirm him in the purpose of performing an evil thing; 3°. whenever his ignorance concerns the primary principles of natural law, or the proximate conclusions of them, because such ignorance, if it is possible, cannot long be invincible; 4°. whenever, if the warning is omitted, the penitent would remain in a proximate occasion of formally sinning, or his ignorance would bring spiritual harm to the community. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 610, 614 and 615. - Baller. note (a), (b), and (c), p. 570.

By a twofold different reason the confessor is held to perform the office of judge, namely insofar as he must instruct the cause or interrogate penitents, and insofar as he must render sentence. Hence:

I say 1°. The confessor is held, with ordinary diligence, to interrogate penitents about the species, number, and circumstances changing the species, about the causes of sins, about habit and proximate occasions, as often as he reasonably presumes or prudently doubts that these things are not sufficiently declared. The reason is because the confessor, as Minister of the sacrament, must procure its integrity, and as judge he must acquire for himself the knowledge necessary for rendering an equitable judgment. - I said 1°. with ordinary diligence, because the penitent himself is not held to examine himself with the highest and exquisite diligence, but only ordinary diligence. But the obligation of the confessor cannot be heavier than that of the penitent, since the confessor is not held to examine the penitent except secondarily or in defect of him. - I said 2°. as often as he reasonably presumes, etc., because the obligation of the confessor, as was said just now, is only secondary or conditioned upon the ignorance or malice of the penitent who does not know or does not wish to manifest all things. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 607; Hom. Ap. n. 103; and Prax. Confess. nn. 19 and 20.

But that interrogations may be made more easily and at the same time more prudently, attention must be given to the following practical rules, which Doctors commonly hand down:

Rule I. Interrogation must be moderate; and therefore the confessor must beware lest he be excessive or almost anxious in interrogating; otherwise confession would become very burdensome and odious both to himself and especially to the penitent. Hence let him never ask useless things, nor allow them to be narrated to himself. - Nor should you say that it is no burden for some, especially women, to pursue long narrations; for it is answered that by those narrations some injury is done to the sacrament, occasion is given to the jests of malevolent men, and time is lost. Therefore the Roman Ritual rightly says: "Let [the confessor] beware lest ... he detain anyone with useless interrogations." Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 607. - Sporer, 792. - Reuter, Neoconfessarius, ch. 3.

Rule II. Interrogation must be discreet; namely, the confessor must interrogate with great prudence, carefully guarding 1°. lest he interrogate about sins which probably were not committed, when the condition and capacity, etc., of the penitent have been considered; 2°. lest he interrogate about those things from which the penitent might learn to sin or suffer scandal, as the Roman Ritual warns, where after the words just reported it is added: "especially by imprudently questioning younger persons of either sex, or others, about that which they do not know, lest they suffer scandal and from it learn to sin"; 3°. nor let him interrogate too curiously or lightly even in those things about which one must interrogate, for example, immodestly about immodest things, etc. In one word, he must strive that in any interrogations there appear only gravity, piety, modesty, and paternal charity, just as the nature and dignity of this office require. Hence:

1°. The confessor must be very cautious in interrogating about the matter of luxury, especially with women, adolescents, and children, who can much more easily suffer scandal. But with married persons, without grave cause, let him never make mention of the conjugal debt; and it will be enough, where the matter demands, to ask a woman whether she has shown due fidelity and obedience to her husband in all things.

2°. The rule admitted by all must be carefully observed: In the matter of luxury it is much better in many things to fall short than in one thing to abound, by reason of the integrity of confession. Therefore in doubt whether in such a case you can or ought to interrogate, the negative part must always be stood by; for it is a lesser evil for the integrity of confession to be lacking than to incur the danger of losing a soul.

Rule III. Interrogation must be opportune, that is, it must be made at the time at which it is fitting; but certain interrogations are ordinarily to be made before confession, but few, lest the penitent be offended, for example: since what time has he not confessed? whether he was absolved? whether he fulfilled the penance? whether he is at peace concerning his past life? This last interrogation must be made only when the penitent has not confessed for a long time, or when a general confession is instituted from a determinate time. - The other questions concerning condition, state, age, etc., will more fittingly be made, when occasion is given, in the course of confession; thus on the one hand every suspicion of curiosity and levity will be avoided, and on the other the penitent will answer more easily, since his confidence in the confessor will have been more increased. - Cf. Berardi, vol. 1, de Recidivis et Occasionariis, dissertation 1. - Konings, nn. 1424 and following.

Question. What must the confessor do in doubt concerning the sincerity of the penitent?

Resp. There is a common rule, and as it were an accepted axiom: The penitent is to be believed, whether speaking for himself or against himself. The reason is because the penitent in the sacred tribunal is at once accused and witness, his own accuser and advocate, and besides, in doubt, he is always to be presumed truthful. Wherefore, after opportune interrogations, the confessor must absolve the penitent who denies. - But if the confessor knows certainly that some sin is being concealed or denied by the penitent, then a distinction must be made and it must be resolved as follows:

1°. If he knows that sin from the confession of another, he must, lest the seal of confession be violated, only interrogate generally, just as otherwise he would have done or ought to have done; but if the penitent, having been questioned, denies, let him reply nothing, but, if he can do this without suspicion, let him merely exhort generally that the conscience be opened with all confidence. But whether the confessor must absolve such a penitent is controverted. - And if indeed it is admitted that it is then certain or evident to him that the penitent is lying and confessing sacrilegiously, you will not be able to absolve him, just as St. Alphonsus teaches, who, after reporting the opinions of others, concludes thus: "Lacroix thinks better, in my judgment, that in that case he should by no means absolve, but only pray something in order to conceal the denial of absolution." - Nevertheless grave authors are not lacking who deny the hypothesis, namely that such evidence or certitude can be had from the confession of others, and especially from the confession of one accomplice; and therefore they teach that in that case the penitent is to be absolved absolutely, or at least under condition. For, they say, in this tribunal the penitent must be believed in his own cause more than others. Other theologians add another reason, for they say that the knowledge which the confessor has from the confession of another must be regarded as nothing.

2°. But if the confessor knows that sin outside confession, of itself he must absolve the penitent who denies, because the penitent speaking for himself and against himself is to be believed; nor of itself can the report of another make greater faith than the declaration of the penitent himself; nor consequently is the confessor held to believe others more than the penitent himself. For if the penitent committed that sin, the confessor must presume that he either has forgotten his sin, or has confessed it to another, or has a just cause for concealing it, or that the reporters rather were deceived. - I said of itself; for if the confessor is altogether certain about the sin committed by the penitent because, for example, he himself saw him stealing, etc., or he knows it from the altogether certain report of others, for example, because the penitent is publicly known as a concubinary, he cannot absolve one denying, provided he is certain that he has not forgotten his sin and has no motive for concealing it; for this rule: The penitent is to be believed, etc., has force indeed in a less certain matter, but not in a matter evidently certain. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 631. - Lugo, disp. 22, n. 22. - Baller. note (a), p. 575; and note (a), p. 577.

I say 2°. Absolution must always and altogether be denied to a certainly indisposed penitent; but to him who certainly is disposed, it must of itself be granted from justice and under grave obligation. The reason of the first is because, if the certain indisposition of the penitent is supposed, sacrilege could not be avoided. But the reason of the second is both because in the very act of confession a certain quasi-contract has been entered upon, by virtue of which the penitent rightly confessed and disposed has a right to receive the sacrament; and because the end of the institution of this sacrament demands this; and finally because otherwise the penitent would be obliged either to put off the recovery of grace to another time with danger to eternal salvation, or to approach another confessor without being able besides to trust certainly that he will receive absolution from that new confessor. Therefore a priest denying absolution to a disposed penitent would act unjustly, would pervert the end of the sacrament itself, and would impose an intolerable burden.

Question 1. Whether it is expedient to use the remedy of deferring absolution for a sufficiently disposed penitent?

Resp. If the confessor cannot doubt concerning the dispositions of the penitent, and the latter asks for absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred (Can. 886).

Certainly the examples of the Lord and of the saints persuade that it would be better for the confessor to render an account of too much charity than of austerity. "With absolution deferred for these (attrite persons), they remain enemies of God, incapable of every merit and satisfaction; for their works according to St. Thomas, in 4, dist. 15, since they are done without charity, are not satisfactory. Therefore the prudent and benign practice, fortified by so many testimonies, of immediately absolving sinners whether attrite or contrite flourishes in the whole Catholic Church. ... Therefore the manner full of wisdom and charity is to rescue sinful souls most swiftly from the state of sin, according to the practice of the universal Church founded in the Gospel of Christ, so that they may quickly receive the first robe; and not to prolong, but, as far as can be done, to hasten the spirit of penance according to the form which the Council of Trent has most wholesomely prescribed, so that before reconciliation they may resolve, and after it, having been restored to the state of grace more securely and wholesomely, they may strive to make satisfaction." Instruction of the S. C. de Prop. F., 3 Oct. 1736. Collect. n. 321.

Question 2. Whether certitude concerning the disposition of the penitent is required so that he can be absolved?

Resp. Absolute certitude is not required, nor even strict moral certitude, such as is required in other sacraments, for example concerning the wine for the consecration of the Eucharist. The reason is because the sacrament of Penance scarcely admits a judgment of this sort with more certitude. But a prudent judgment or broad moral certitude is required and suffices, which, as St. Alphonsus says, is equivalent to prudent probability. For penitents commonly display only probability of disposition. Therefore the Catechism of the Council of Trent, n. 82, thus teaches: "If, after the confession has been heard, [the priest] shall have judged that neither diligence in enumerating sins nor sorrow in detesting them was altogether lacking to the penitent, he will be able to be absolved." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 461. - Suarez, disp. 32, sect. 2, n. 1.

Question 3. What is the ordinary sign of sufficient disposition in a penitent, so that the confessor can safely absolve?

Resp. Speaking of itself, and unless something peculiar occurs on the part of the penitent which brings upon the confessor a prudent suspicion concerning his indisposition, confession made in the due manner is by itself alone the common and ordinary sign of sufficient disposition. For, as St. Alphonsus well says, "the penitent on the one hand is not to be presumed evil, so that he would wish to approach the sacrament indisposed; and on the other he is well presumed disposed while he confesses his sins, since spontaneous confession itself is a sign of contrition, unless some positive presumption to the contrary stands in the way; for all agree that sorrow is manifested through confession." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 459. - Baller. note (b), p. 589.

Question 4. To whom properly is absolution to be denied?

Resp. Many classes of penitents to whom absolution is to be denied are enumerated by diverse authors; but it can be said more briefly and more generally: it is to be denied to all and only those who at least do not promise that they will satisfy some grave and certain obligation in that manner in which they ought. - Cf. Baller. note (a) and (b), p. 590.