§ IV. On the Office of Judging and Promoting Disposition

I. For the confessor to absolve licitly, of itself at least broad moral certitude about the due disposition of the penitent is required, but that also suffices. It is said:

1. Of itself, because sometimes absolution can be granted conditionally even if the confessor lacks broad moral certitude (n. 404).

2. Broad moral certitude, that is, one which excludes strict doubt or imports the state of one opining.

3. That also suffices, for the matter concerns an internal thing, especially the sorrow of the penitent, about which greater certitude is had with difficulty, so that, if greater were required, "the administration of the sacrament would become subject to excessive scruples and difficulties" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 57). Hence apply these words of St. Thomas: "Certitude is not to be sought in the same way in all things, but in each matter according to its proper mode" (II-II, q. 47, a. 9, ad 2).

Having noted these things, the necessity of broad moral certitude is proved by these arguments:

First, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide¹ has these words: "Confessors should deny absolution to those who provide either no signs or only signs of feigned penance; but they should defer absolution for those whose penance is uncertain and suspect."

Next, after the first proposition condemned by Innocent XI,² almost all, both older and more recent authors, admit and defend the doctrine stated, as Aertnys,³ Berardi,⁴ and especially Ter Haar⁵ prove by the testimonies they cite.

Finally, the reverence due to the sacrament forbids its being ministered with so great a danger of nullity as the defect of broad moral certitude imports. In the case the sacrament will indeed probably be valid and probably will grant pardon to the sinner; but it cannot be admitted that for that reason alone the reverence due of itself to the sacrament may be neglected, or that the sacrament may thus be subordinated to the good of the subject, especially because a sinner who is doubtfully disposed wholly lacks an unimpeded right to absolution, since he ought to take care that he is certainly or at least sufficiently certainly disposed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 461; Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 117).

Objection 1. The Roman Catechism teaches: "For if the priest, after hearing the confession, has judged that diligence was not wholly lacking to the penitent in enumerating sins, nor sorrow in detesting them, he can be absolved."⁶ Therefore he to whom contrition seems not wholly lacking can be absolved; this is far different from saying that only one about whose contrition the confessor is morally certain can be absolved.

Response. The only sense corresponding to the words, or the natural sense, is this: the penitent can be absolved if the confessor has judged that some true sorrow is not lacking. But one who truly doubts whether sorrow is present does not judge that it is present (vol. I, n. 215). Therefore the Roman Catechism favors rather than opposes the opinion defended by us.

Objection 2. It suffices that the confessor administer the sacrament prudently and without rashness. But this has place when he imparts absolution to those who are probably contrite.

Response. I concede the major; I deny the minor. For he administers the sacrament imprudently and rashly when he exposes it to grave danger of nullity. But ministration made to those who are only probably attrite exposes the sacrament to grave danger of nullity.

Objection 3. In those who most need the sacrament of Penance, broad moral certitude about due disposition is scarcely had, so that, if the stricter opinion is admitted, absolution would of itself almost always have to be deferred for them.

Response. I deny the assertion, and that it must be denied will be clearer from what is to be said under II.

¹ August 1827.

² The said proposition is this: it is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion about the validity of the sacrament, leaving aside the safer one, unless law or agreement or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1151).

³ In Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 1900, pp. 283-536.

⁴ De Recidivis, n. 19 sq.

⁵ Cited work, n. 408 sq.

⁶ De Poenitentia, n. 60.

II. The very confession or assertion of the penitent provides sufficient certitude about due disposition, unless from some other source a positive prejudice against due disposition arises (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459). When such a prejudice has arisen, some other special sign of disposition should be added to the confession or assertion, by which the prejudice is removed or sufficiently weakened. It is said:

1. The confession itself provides sufficient certitude about due disposition. For no one is presumed evil or a hypocrite.

2. Unless from another source a prejudice against due disposition arises, for example from the fact that the penitent is a habituated relapser; likewise from the fact that the penitent, who several times promised that he would avoid an interrupted voluntary occasion, nevertheless has not ceased to approach it and to sin in it, even if he is not a habituated relapser. Each of these things will be developed more later.

III. Once a prejudice has arisen, another sign of disposition should be added by which the prejudice is removed or sufficiently weakened. Signs of this kind¹ are, for example: 1. confession following from an extraordinary motive, as from a sudden death or from a sermon; indeed a confession which is instituted neither from the precept of the Church, nor from the authority of others, nor from custom alone, can suffice, for example a confession instituted immediately or soon after a fall; 2. unusual good works, for example prayers, fasting, almsgiving, pilgrimage, performed before confession; 3. manifestation of a sin previously hidden; 4. sorrow expressed by sighs and tears, although these must not always be trusted; 5. words which signify a firmer purpose, although even these cannot always be trusted; 6. spontaneous request for means of amending oneself, and so forth (St. Alphonsus, VI, 460, 505).

¹ They are called extraordinary signs by many; but one must not insist on the character of the extraordinary.

IV. When a prejudice against the penitent's disposition has arisen, the confessor should try to dispose him and to elicit a sign by which the prejudice is removed. He is bound to these things under grave obligation, both because then the precept of fraternal correction is especially urgent, and because another practice is very harmful. "For if absolution is immediately denied or deferred for penitents of this kind, they will easily fall into despair or religious indifference."¹ Hence the Roman Ritual rightly says: "After hearing the confession ... he will apply opportune corrections and admonitions, as he judges there to be need, with fatherly charity, and he will try to lead the penitent to sorrow and contrition by efficacious words."²

Benedict XIV in the Constitution Apostolica³ has these words: "They should not cease to exhort especially those who are accustomed to approach the sacrament of Penance either rarely or not without many crimes; they should open to them the most wretched life which they have led under the yoke of sin; they should explain the baseness of their crimes, so that, namely, they may grieve from the heart and seriously propose that they will withdraw from sins in the future. For it is settled that solid and grave exhortations of confessors, given in the forum of Penance, are far more efficacious than the sacred sermons of preachers, so that the penitent may turn his soul away from vices.... Nor should confessors reply that this cannot be done if a more frequent number of penitents suggests brevity; for that golden saying of St. Francis Xavier, in Fursellini's Life of him (book 6, chapter 17), has already solved the difficulty, conceived in these words: As for those confessing, he judged that care should be bestowed not hurriedly but diligently, admonishing that they should prefer to hear few confessions rightly made rather than many rashly hurried" (n. 22). Leo XII inculcates the same in the Constitution Charitate Christi.⁴

¹ Ter Haar, cited work, n. 351.

² Title III, chapter 1, n. 18.

³ June 26, 1749.

⁴ December 25, 1825.