Chapter III. On the Confession of Habituated Persons

I. Notion of the habituated person. A habituated or customary person is one who has contracted a habit of some sin. Moreover, a habit of sin is a quality stable of itself by which someone is disposed to sin (vol. I, n. 333). Furthermore:

1. A habit of sin is obtained by frequency of acts. Nevertheless, frequency by itself alone does not suffice; rather it is required that contrary acts not be opposed to the sinful acts leading to the habit, by which contrary acts the origin of the habit would be prevented (vol. I, n. 341). Hence those who commit sins which of themselves arise rather from frailty or from a passing passion do not contract a habit of sin so easily as those who perpetrate sins which of themselves proceed more from malice. The reason is that the former, after the sin has been committed, more easily come to their senses and exercise contrary acts. Sins of the former kind are, for example, pollution and blasphemies; of the latter kind are hatred, theft, conjugal onanism, transgressions of the precepts of the Church, and so forth.

2. The habituated person has the will in some way fixed in sin, and therefore sins from a bad will, that is, from a will constantly inclined to evil, and therefore promptly and even from slight concupiscence, and as though without an effort of resisting; whence he comes to his senses with difficulty. "When someone," says St. Thomas, "sins from habit, which is to sin from malice, then the will tends by itself into the act of sin, as though now totally inclined from habit by way of a natural inclination into the act of sin" (De malo, q. 3, a. 13; cf. I-II, q. 78, aa. 2, 3, and 4; II-II, q. 156, a. 3; St. Alphonsus, V, 4, 2, 3; VI, 459; Praxis Confessarii, nn. 70, 73).

3. It cannot be accurately defined what frequency of acts, and how much time, is required for someone to be able to be judged to have contracted a habit of sin.

a) As regards frequency of acts, a greater number of sins committed through a certain time is required if the discussion concerns internal sins, to which sins of the mouth are equated, than if the discussion concerns external sins; greater, if it concerns solitary external sins than if mutual ones are concerned. The reason for the distinction is that a habit is formed the more easily, the greater the deliberation that preceded, as is usually the case in external acts, especially in mutual ones; and the more intense the deliberate acts are, as likewise customarily happens in external acts, especially in mutual ones. Hence a lesser frequency is required in these.

b) As regards time, this likewise depends on the intensity of the acts; likewise on the manner of acting more or less uniformly. Hence, for example, you would more easily call habituated one who through a notable time pollutes himself every week than one who sins frequently in one or another week and in other weeks resists temptation.

Corollary. "One who, for example, fornicated once a month for a year can well be called habituated here" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 70); likewise one who for a year once a month has given himself to drunkenness; likewise one who through a notable time either commits pollution once a week, or two or three times a week indulges in morose delectations (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

¹ Cf. Cardinal van Rossum, Commentarius de iudicio sacramentali Ioan. B. Pighi ad trutinam vocatus; Berardi, De recidivis et occasionariis; Ter Haar, De occasionariis et recidivis.

II. Division of habituated persons. For our purpose, habituated persons are divided into habituated persons who are not relapsers and habituated persons who are relapsers.

1. By us a habituated person who is not a relapser is understood as one who either has not yet confessed after the habit was contracted, or indeed has confessed but was not seriously admonished by the confessor (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459).

2. A habituated relapser is a habituated person who, having confessed and having been admonished by the confessor, has continued the custom of sin in the same manner. Thus theoretically (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459; Praxis Confessarii, n. 71; Selva, II, Instruction 4, n. 17). Practically, a habituated relapser is a habituated person who, notwithstanding confession and admonition by the confessor,¹ has relapsed: 1. quickly (St. Alphonsus, V, 505); 2. frequently (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459); 3. in almost the same circumstances as before, not on account of singular circumstances; 4. with no assigned remedy having been used and with no effort or quasi-effort or resistance (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459, 505).

¹ The assignment of means for amending oneself also pertains to admonition.

III. Absolution of the habituated person.

1. A habituated person who is not a relapser, even if he furnishes only ordinary signs of disposition, can be held as sufficiently disposed and absolved. The ordinary signs are the confession itself and the assertion of the penitent (n. 399). The proposition is clear from the fact that a multitude of sins of itself does not constitute a reason for seriously doubting the sincerity of the penitent who, whether explicitly or implicitly, namely by the very accusation of himself in order to obtain absolution, asserts his sorrow for sins (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459; Praxis Confessarii, n. 70).

Corollary. A habituated person who has confessed and relapsed after confession can not rarely be absolved, even if he furnishes only an ordinary sign of disposition, because, if some one of the conditions indicated in n. 459 is lacking, he is often not a relapser in the strict sense.

2. A habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition, and, although admonished by the confessor, continues to furnish only ordinary signs:

a) Cannot be absolved as often as he comes. For first, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, in the Instruction of April 29, 1784, declares that before the confessor grants absolution, it must be seen whether penitents "have used the remedies previously proposed to them, by whose help they may avoid sin in necessary and involuntary occasions; whether they have cast off the custom of sinning; whether, if at other times they have obtained the benefit of absolution, they have again relapsed from their own malice into the same crimes and have wallowed in the same mire." But these things clearly signify that, according to the mind of the Congregation, a habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition cannot be absolved as often as he comes.

Next, as we shall say immediately, a habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition cannot of himself be absolved even the first time, namely on account of his doubtful disposition. How much more do these things hold concerning a habituated relapser who is a relapser again and again; indeed a relapser of this kind, if he brings nothing except an ordinary sign of disposition, seems to be judged not only doubtfully disposed, but much more probably indisposed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459, 505).

There is added experience, which teaches that "many relapsers who furnish only ordinary signs are not disposed, or at least are very doubtfully disposed."

"And truly so; for whoever has some practice of the sacred tribunal will confess that very many come to the sacrament of Penance not sufficiently disposed and not truly contrite, especially among those who in the same way continually relapse into a habit of sinning. Some are not sufficiently instructed in religious matters and are little taught concerning the necessity or conditions of true contrition which, according to Trent, are required for penance. They are so accustomed to external signs of religion that they even hold confession as a certain external ceremony, and are content provided that they obtain absolution. Others take some slight displeasure, or some feeble wish of amending themselves, as sufficient sorrow and purpose. Others approach the sacraments rather from a certain domestic usage or ancestral custom or from a certain human respect, although without an evil design, without seriously turning their mind to correcting morals. Others are so light in mind that they scarcely think of eliciting a true act of sorrow; or, with mind rather distracted, they recite from memory or read from a book a simple formula of contrition, without serious consideration and an internal act of detestation arising from a supernatural motive. Preachers and missionaries who give to the people a series of instructions on contrition and purpose can commonly testify to these defects of true disposition; and they find them not only among the illiterate, but also among more cultivated persons who not rarely are little instructed in the matter of religion. Indeed in our age these defects are often to be feared so much the more, inasmuch as the spirit of this world, which bears before itself indifference and levity in supernatural matters but the greatest industry in earthly goods, has also bespattered with its stains quite a number of Catholics who have not yet abandoned the use of the sacraments. Come now, these generally, when asked by the confessor whether they truly grieve for their sins, give an affirmative response, and this not with a feigned but, as they think, sincere mind, and therefore they furnish an ordinary sign of disposition; and nevertheless before God they are not truly contrite."¹

Ter Haar confirms this sad experience by these testimonies.²

Leo XII: "Many present themselves to the ministers of the sacrament of Penance altogether unprepared."³

The Roman Catechism: "Charity has so grown cold that already very many of the faithful think that no intimate sorrow of soul and groaning of heart is necessary for obtaining pardon of sins, but judge that it is enough if they have only the appearance of one grieving."⁴

Segneri says: "How many there are who, through defect of purpose, make confessions invalid and often even sacrilegious! It is not one or another, but whole generations of men and women, nobles and commoners, who say: I have always confessed the evil that I did; for so many years indeed I have lived in this depraved practice, but I have always accused it. They believe themselves clean, but they are not, because they confessed without true purpose... It is indeed easy to throw oneself at the feet of the confessor, strike the breast, and say: I repent. But the chief point of the matter is to see whether you have the purpose of changing life."⁵

The Directory for the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius, edited by the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Claudio Aquaviva, declares concerning the usefulness of general confession: "If there were no other usefulness, this surely ought to be enough, that we experience that men commonly approach confession either without sufficient examination, or without due sorrow, with no purpose of a better life or with a very weak one."⁶

As regards the doctrine of theologians we note:⁷ the ancient theologians almost commonly teach that a formal relapser who furnishes only an ordinary sign can in no way be absolved as often as he comes. Ter Haar proves this proposition by the very testimonies of the ancient theologians.⁸ Thus, to name some, St. Thomas of Villanova, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, Venerable Louis of Granada, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Paul Segneri, Lessius, and De Lugo, whose testimonies you may see in Ter Haar.⁹

¹ Ter Haar, De occasionariis et recidivis, n. 264.

² Ter Haar, cited work, n. 265.

³ Constitution Charitate Dei, December 25, 1825.

⁴ De Poenitentia, n. 67.

⁵ Penitenza istruita, chapter 8.

⁶ Chapter 16.

⁷ St. Thomas has these things: "Many things are expedient for the spiritual health of one relapsing ... namely, that greater caution be used concerning him" (IV Sent., dist. 32, a. 1, a. 4).

⁸ Ter Haar, cited work, n. 295 sq.

⁹ Ter Haar, cited place.

b) A habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition, and, although admonished by the confessor, continues to furnish only ordinary signs, of himself cannot be absolved even the first time. This is first drawn from the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide cited above, which sufficiently manifests that according to the mind of the Sacred Congregation, ordinary signs of disposition do not suffice even the first time if the matter concerns a habituated relapser.

Next, one who is doubtfully disposed cannot of himself be absolved (n. 398). But the penitent of whom we speak must be held as doubtfully disposed.

The minor is proved. Since the same signs of disposition are supposed to be at hand, no greater certitude can be had about the present disposition than is had about the disposition had in the past confession; indeed, on account of the continued and confirmed habit, rather less certitude must be had about the present disposition. But it is rightly doubted whether the penitent was well disposed in the past confession.

The subsumed minor is proved. If right disposition in the past confession were admitted, we would posit a penitent who had had contrition estimatively supreme and a universal, firm, and efficacious purpose, and besides this had been fortified by the grace of the sacrament; and notwithstanding all these things, he would have relapsed quickly, frequently, in the same morally considered circumstances, with no means assigned by the confessor having been used and with no effort or resistance, into the same sins. This indeed can happen, but nevertheless it is deservedly doubted whether it had place (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459, 505; Praxis Confessarii, n. 20). Indeed, as we have said, less certitude concerning the present than concerning the earlier disposition must be had, because the habit and culpability have increased since the prior confession, and so true aversion from sin has become more difficult.

As regards the doctrine of theologians, we note that very many support the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, as for example St. Thomas of Villanova, St. Francis de Sales, Segneri, Benedict XIII, Archbishop of Benevento, etc., whose testimonies Ter Haar brings forward.¹

Objection 1. Theologians earlier than St. Alphonsus commonly teach the contrary.

Response. By referring to those things which we noted above concerning the doctrine of theologians.

Objection 2. The penitent is to be believed, whether speaking for himself or against himself.

Response. The principle stated certainly cannot be admitted without limitation, as is clear from proposition 60 condemned by Innocent XI: "To a penitent having a custom of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appears, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred, provided that with his mouth he says that he is sorry and proposes amendment." Besides this, the principle holds more for integrity than for the disposition of the penitent, since the penitent can err more easily as regards the latter. Finally, the principle can be urged less when, as in our hypothesis, there is deserved doubt about the truth of the past testimony. Nor nevertheless should the penitent for that reason be called guilty of lying; since commonly he deceived himself.

Objection 3. To return with the same sins is not of itself a sign either that true sorrow and purpose of amendment was lacking or that it is lacking; certainly not more than if he returned with other sins. Rather, it is only a sign of human frailty.

Response. The discussion concerns a habituated person, and such a one as not only returns with the same sins, but, after being admonished, has relapsed quickly, with no means assigned by the confessor having been used and with no effort or resistance having been furnished. In this case we do not contend that there is a certain sign that sorrow was lacking, but that there is a reason for seriously doubting whether right disposition was present, and still more whether it is present.

Instance. "That someone," says St. Thomas, "afterwards, that is, after penance, sins either in act or in purpose, does not exclude that the first penance was true, for the truth of a prior act is never excluded through a contrary subsequent act; for just as one truly ran who afterwards sits, so one truly repented who afterwards sins" (III, q. 84, a. 10, ad 4).

Response with Billuart:² "His words, that is, St. Thomas's, are not to the point. For there the Holy Doctor means that a following sin does not exclude preceding penance, supposing that it was true; because, he says, the truth of a prior act is not excluded through a contrary subsequent act. Hence, just as he truly ran who afterwards sits, so he truly repented, if he truly repented, who afterwards sins; for what has been done cannot become undone. All admit this. But the Holy Doctor does not deny that frequent following relapses are indications that the prior penance was not true," or at least that it is to be doubted.

I said that a habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition cannot of himself be absolved; since, although he is doubtfully disposed, nevertheless he can be absolved under condition if some one of the causes assigned in n. 404 is present.

¹ Ter Haar, cited work, n. 295 sq.

² Tractatus de Sacramento Poenitentiae, dissertation 6, article 10.

3. If a habituated relapser either of himself, or after being admonished by the confessor, furnishes an extraordinary sign of disposition, he can be held as sufficiently certainly disposed, and therefore can be absolved by the confessor as judge, though not always as physician (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459). It is said:

a) Either of himself, or after being admonished by the confessor. Namely, let the confessor admonish the doubtfully disposed penitent paternally and try to elicit an extraordinary sign of disposition by which the prejudice against his disposition is removed (n. 401).

b) An extraordinary sign of disposition; what the extraordinary signs of disposition are, see n. 400.

c) He can be absolved by the confessor as judge, though not always as physician. Namely, generally let him be absolved at once if he is a relapser from internal frailty; otherwise, if from an occasion, especially a continuous one (St. Alphonsus, VI, 456, 450, 463, 464; Praxis Confessarii, nn. 76, 77). I said:

a) Generally let him be absolved at once if he is a relapser from internal frailty; because sometimes delay is expedient or even necessary for strengthening the will, as if remedies have long been used in vain.

b) Otherwise, if from an occasion, especially a continuous one; in this case delay of absolution should be used, unless there is a special reason for granting absolution at once. What the special reasons are, see n. 407.

Note. If a habituated relapser in venial sins occurs, let the confessor take care either to elicit an extraordinary sign of contrition, or to "dispose the penitent to grieve especially over some light fault from which he has greater horror, or to suggest to him that he confess some graver sin of past life against some precept, for it suffices that he confess in general without number, so that he may have certain matter on which absolution can rest" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 71).