§ I. On the Office of Questioning

I. Existence of the obligation. The confessor is bound to question the penitent: 1. if he prudently fears that formal integrity is lacking, in other words, that the penitent has kept back things which he knew had to be confessed by him; 2. if he prudently fears that material integrity is lacking, in other words, that the penitent in good faith is silent about things which of themselves are to be confessed.

The first is clear from the fact that the confessor cannot expose the sacrament to danger of nullity. Add the arguments to be brought for the second part.

The second is proved: 1. by the authority of Councils, Pontiffs, and the Roman Ritual.

The Fourth Lateran Council: "Let the priest be discreet and cautious ... diligently inquiring both into the circumstances of the sinner and of the sin."¹ Leo XII in the encyclical Caritate Christi² teaches that necessary diligence must be applied by the confessor in questioning penitents. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Apostolica:³ "In the first place we admonish them to remember that they do not fulfill the parts of the office they have undertaken, indeed rather all those are guilty of a graver crime who, when they sit in the sacred tribunal of Penance, listen to penitents touched by no solicitude, do not admonish, do not question, but when the enumeration of crimes has been completed, immediately pronounce the form of absolution." The Roman Ritual: "If the penitent has not expressed the number, species, and circumstances of sins necessary to be explained, let the priest prudently question him."⁴

2. The Doctors agree. St. Thomas: "It must be said that the priest ought to search out the conscience of the sinner as a physician searches a wound and a judge a cause; because frequently those things which the one confessing would keep silent through shame, when questioned he reveals" (In IV Sentences, distinction 19). St. Antoninus,⁵ St. Bonaventure,⁶ St. Bernardine of Siena,⁷ St. Charles Borromeo,⁸ and St. Alphonsus teach the same (VI, 607, 629).

3. There are added arguments from reason; namely, the obligation is deduced: a) from the fact that the confessor as minister of the sacrament must take care that all sins not yet directly remitted be directly remitted, in other words, that confession also be materially integral; b) from the fact that the character of judgment requires that the judge know the whole cause before he pronounces sentence. There is added c) that the confessor as physician must strive to detect all diseases and provide medicine for them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629).

Question 1. Must the confessor question if he notices that the penitent, after sufficient diligence has been applied, omits some sin?

Response. Some formerly denied this, because formal integrity suffices, and in the case it is posited to be present. But with St. Alphonsus it is rightly affirmed, because the confessor, although formal integrity suffices for the penitent himself, is bound both as minister of the sacrament, and as judge, and as physician to consult, with ordinary diligence, for the integrity of the sacrament required of itself, that is, material integrity. There is added the fact that "otherwise, as Suarez says, confessors would almost never be bound to question rude and unlearned men, who, however much diligence they put forward, can never of themselves confess integrally by explaining the circumstances, species, and number of sins.... The consequence is against the practice of the Church and against the intention of the chapter Omnis utriusque sexus" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629). Nor should you object that the confessor is not bound to greater diligence than the penitent himself, who is supposed already to have applied the required diligence. For I answer that the obligation of the confessor is one thing and the obligation of the penitent another: the latter is bound to examine himself properly, while the former must, if he prudently fears that something is lacking to integrity, supply for it; but in supplying he is not bound to greater diligence than the penitent is in examining. I said: if he prudently fears that something is lacking to integrity. This commonly does not have place if the case concerns penitents who are both sufficiently instructed and diligent in examining and confessing sins; hence priests, religious, and pious persons commonly are not to be questioned (St. Alphonsus, VI, 607).

Question 2. To what extent is there an obligation of questioning if the confessor does not understand the penitent, because the latter, for example because of an organic defect or another reason, cannot express his thoughts in an intelligible way?

Response. In the proposed case it is for the most part expedient and sufficient, once the accusation is finished, to ask whether grave sins have been committed.

¹ Chapter 21, in chapter 12, De poenitentia.

² December 25, 1725.

³ June 26, 1749.

⁴ Title III, chapter 1, n. 16.

⁵ Summa Theologica, t. III, title 17, chapter 17, § 2.

⁶ In IV Sentences, distinction 19, doubt 5.

⁷ Tome II, sermon 27, article 2, chapter 3, p. 167.

⁸ Instructiones Poenit., in Acta Ecclesiae Mediolanensis, 1683, part IV, p. 431.

II. Object of the obligation. The obligation of questioning, as follows from what has been said above, commonly regards only those things which pertain to integrity, or which must be declared. Therefore commonly there is no obligation of questioning about species entirely unknown or not sufficiently attended to, and therefore not contracted, venial sins, mortal sins doubtfully committed, sins doubtfully mortal, and circumstances aggravating grave malice in the same species. Sometimes, however, there is an obligation so that a right judgment may be made about the required disposition or about the obligation of making restitution.¹

¹ Hence, for example, one should commonly inquire how great a sum a thief stole.

III. Required diligence. Mediocre diligence is required and suffices, as was said about the obligation of the penitent to examine conscience. For greater diligence cannot be demanded in the confessor, who is bound only secondarily, than in the penitent, who is bound primarily to procure integrity. For the rest, diligence should be proportioned both to the capacity of the penitent and to the character of the confession to be instituted. It is said:

1. To the capacity of the penitent: "Therefore the confessor," says Lugo, "ought to accommodate himself to the penitent and seek knowledge of sins from individual persons according to the capacity of each: subtler knowledge from the subtler, cruder from the cruder";¹ from which St. Alphonsus concludes: "When the penitent, although rude, seems sufficiently instructed and diligent in confessing sins with their circumstances according to his state and capacity, for a learned person is bound to examine himself in one way and a rude person in another, then the confessor is bound to ask nothing else" (Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 103).

2. To the character of the confession to be instituted; thus, for example, a general confession requires relatively less diligence than a confession of one month.

¹ De Poenitentia, disputation 16, n. 594.

IV. Gravity of the obligation. The obligation of which we have spoken is grave, although the obligation of the penitent to consult for integrity is graver than the obligation of the confessor. The reason is that the matter is grave.

Question. Does a confessor sin gravely who advertently omits one or another necessary question about species, number, and so forth? It is said advertently, that is, from grave carelessness or negligence; for it is clear that smallness of matter can be had in the negligence itself, but the question is whether smallness of matter can be admitted in the matter itself, that is, in mortal sins to be investigated.

Response. Many judge that the aforesaid confessor does not sin gravely, at least if he acted thus in a long series of confessions. But the contrary seems to have to be admitted, because the confessor advertently fails in a grave matter. Nor should you object that by this opinion too grave a burden is imposed on the confessor, since the burden imposed by this opinion scarcely differs from the burden imposed by the adversaries. For they say that then only is sin not grave when, in a long series of confessions, one or another necessary question is omitted. But this kind of diminution of the burden scarcely deserves notice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629).

Objection. The obligation of the penitent is greater than that of the confessor.

Response. Let that pass; but the argument proves that the obligation of the confessor also is grave.

V. Manner of fulfilling the obligation. The questions should be:

1. Timely, or made at an opportune time. Of itself, it is better to permit the penitent to explain himself, and not to interrupt him. Practically, one should proceed for the most part in this way. If the confession is foreseen to be brief, the confessor does not interrupt the penitent by questioning him, but waits for the end of the confession. If it concerns a long confession, the confessor will easily forget something necessary unless he mixes questions into the confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629).

2. Apt, that is, suited to the capacity, condition, and psychological state of the penitent. Generally questions should be brief, clear, and determinate, not negative ("Surely you did not consent?") nor disjunctive ("Did you sin by yourself or with others?"). A number greater rather than lesser should be proposed.

3. Kind. Therefore he should avoid harsh words ("Have you committed the most shameful sin of lust?"), likewise words which signify impatience ("What more? Have you finished? Hurry up and get yourself done"). If the confessor notices that the penitent has a sin which he declares with difficulty, let him say: Do not fear; I will gladly question you.

4. Prudent, or such that the penitent does not learn to sin from them (cf. can. 888, § 2).¹ But if this is feared, "the question ought to be made from afar, so that if the penitent committed it he may say so, and if he did not commit it he may not learn it" (St. Thomas, In IV Sentences, distinction 19, at the end).

5. Chaste. Generally the confessor should be mindful of this: in the matter of lust it is better to be deficient in many things than to abound in one; likewise of the admonition of St. Alphonsus: "Questions in the matter of chastity ought to be few and cautious" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 632). Specifically:

a) The confessor should not descend to particular modes or circumstances of the sin, nor to species which commonly do not occur. This is so that: 1. he may not be a cause of shameful temptation to the penitent or to himself; 2. he may not provide scandal to the penitent, as one who might suspect that the confessor is taking pleasure in the investigation of those things; 3. he may not bring confession into disrepute, namely, because there is danger lest some penitents narrate to others that matters of this kind were handled in this way (St. Alphonsus, at the cited place; cf. can. 888, § 2).

b) Let him use chaste terms, and such as do not teach sin to those who perhaps are ignorant of it. Hence, for example, he should not ask boys whether there was emission of seed, and so forth (St. Alphonsus, at the cited place). If a modest mode of questioning does not occur to his mind, let him rather abstain from the question.

¹ Cf. Roman Ritual, title III, chapter 1, n. 17.

VI. Excusing causes. The confessor is excused from questioning integrally:

1. As often as the penitent is excused from integrity, for example because of infirm health, scruples, and so forth.

2. When and insofar as the questions would be harmful, for example if they could not be made without danger being created for the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 632).

3. When and insofar as the questions would be useless. Hence, for example, he should not commonly ask penitents whether they regarded this or that as a grave sin; nor should inquiry be made too much into the number, as was said in n. 320 (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 20).

Corollary. Just as a great number of penitents does not excuse the penitent from integrity, so neither does it excuse the confessor from the obligation of supplying the defect (n. 326).