Section II. The Confessor as Physician of Souls

It is the confessor’s duty not merely to reconcile the sinner with God by absolving him from sin, but by suggesting to him means and remedies against relapse to enable the penitent to lead a good life in future. The confessor is the spiritual physician of souls, and he should be skilled in diagnosing the diseases of the soul and in applying the proper remedy. Catholic literature is very rich in ascetical books whose special province it is to map out the way of spiritual progress, to point out and describe the many vices and other obstacles to be overcome by the Christian wayfarer, and the means to be taken for the purpose. Among the best known of such works are: Rodriguez’ On the Practice of Christian Perfection, The Devout Life of St Francis de Sales, The Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius, The Spiritual Combat, by Scupoli, etc. The confessor should make himself as familiar as possible with one or two such treatises, and he should have tested their worth by applying the lessons which they give to the conduct of his own life. Here it will be sufficient briefly to indicate some general remedies which may be usefully prescribed in most cases where there is a sincere desire to amend. Frequent and fervent prayer, frequent reception of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, pious meditation on the end of life and on the presence of God, avoiding evil company and the occasions of sin, avoiding idleness by constant: occupation of mind and body, as far as is possible. Besides these general remedies, the confessor may suggest special ones for the correction of particular vices. The selfish and thoughtless should be told to practise kindness to those about them; the proud, acts of humility; the voluptuous, mortification of their passions; the envious, praising the good deeds of others; and so on. There is special difficulty as to the best method of treating recidivists and those who are placed in an occasion of sin, and something must now be said on each of these classes.

A recidivist is one who after many confessions has fallen into the same sin without any or with scarcely any amendment.

There is a controversy among theologians as to whether and on what conditions such a one may be absolved. Certain rigorists maintained that a recidivist could not be absolved until, by abstaining from sin for a considerable time, he had proved the sincerity of his conversion. According to the judgement of St Alphonsus, there is intolerable rigour in this opinion. On the other hand, laxists held that a penitent who has contracted a habit of sin should be absolved at once without delay even though there be no hope of amendment, provided that he make verbal profession of his sorrow and purpose of amendment. The foregoing proposition was condemned by Innocent XI, and if it were put in practice it would lead to grave abuses. For a confessor cannot give absolution to one whom he cannot reasonably judge to be truly sorry for his sins. There are cases where in spite of verbal protestations the confessor cannot form even a probable judgement that the recidivist is truly sorry for his sins. And sometimes it will benefit the penitent to defer absolution for a short time even if it might absolutely be given at once. The common opinion lies between these two extremes, and we cannot do better than explain it in the words of Lugo, for the lengthy discussions of subsequent authors on this question have added nothing of substantial value to the older doctrine.

(a) If a confessor judge a penitent, notwithstanding a past habit of sin, to have here and now a true sorrow and a firm resolve not to sin again, he can absolve him; because present sorrow and a purpose of amendment are sufficient, and future amendment is not required. And so he may absolve him even though he thinks he will fall again.

(b) But in the second place it is certain that when a priest, considering the past habit of sin, the propensity to it, and other circumstances, cannot judge the penitent to be sufficiently averse from the sin, he cannot absolve him, however much the penitent asserts that he is sorry, because if the priest does not believe him he has not the requisite ground for giving absolution.

(c) It will help toward forming a judgement about the present dispositions of the penitent if he show special signs of sorrow, or if he has already tried to correct his habit, or if, having never before been told what means to employ to correct his habit, now, on being told, he willingly accepts and proposes to employ them.

(d) Finally, it will sometimes be useful, with the penitent’s leave, to put off absolution for some days so as to excite the penitent to make greater efforts to overcome himself and show signs of real amendment.¹

¹ Lugo, De poenit., xiv, n. 166; can. 886.

An occasion of sin is an external circumstance which leads one to commit sin. It is a proximate occasion if, when a person is placed in it, it leads him to commit sin oftener than not; otherwise it is remote. It is a necessary occasion if he cannot avoid it by using ordinary diligence; otherwise it is voluntary.

(a) There is no necessity to avoid remote occasions of sin, for it is not possible to do so, and in spite of them sin may be avoided by using the proper means.

(b) We are bound to avoid proximate and voluntary occasions of sin, for we cannot remain in them without exposing ourselves to the proximate danger of committing sin, and if we voluntarily choose to remain in a proximate occasion we voluntarily choose the sin. As we are bound to avoid sin we are bound to take the necessary means for that end. This doctrine is confirmed by the 61st, 62nd, and 63rd propositions, condemned by Innocent XI.

(c) A necessary occasion is one which we cannot avoid. It is physically necessary if we cannot physically get away from it; it is morally necessary if it is more difficult to avoid it than to keep from sin while in it by using proper means and precautions.

There is no obligation to avoid necessary occasions of sin, for we cannot be obliged to do what is impossible; but we are bound to take the necessary means to avoid sin in spite of being in the occasion, and such means are always at hand if we have the good will to use them, for God’s goodness will never permit us to be tried above our strength. By using the means to avoid sin while placed in an occasion of sin, we make the proximate occasion remote, as theologians say.

It follows from this that one who finds his ordinary avocation in life, which is supposed to be an honest one, a proximate occasion of sin to him is seldom bound to give it up; he is only bound to make the occasion remote, which is generally possible with a good will and the help of God’s grace.