Point IV. On the Means of Procuring Integrity, or on the Examination of Conscience

I. The obligation of examining conscience exists insofar as it is required for confessing integrally. This is clear both from the Council of Trent¹ and canon 901, and from the fact that one who is bound to the end is also bound to the means.

¹ Session 14, chapter 5 and canon 7.

II. Required diligence. Ordinary or moderate diligence suffices, that is, such as a prudent man is accustomed to employ in a serious matter. It suffices even if someone judges that by examining conscience longer and more diligently he would remember more sins. Nevertheless, diligence depends on the capacity of the penitent, on the moral state of the soul, on the time concerning which the examination must be instituted, etc. (St. Alphonsus, VI, 471).

Question. Whether the penitent is bound to write down sins if otherwise he is exposed to grave danger of not confessing integrally.

Response. Negatively, because ordinary or moderate diligence suffices for knowing and retaining sins in memory. But writing exceeds the limits of ordinary diligence. Besides, very many men who confess rarely are in the said danger, and therefore, if the stricter opinion is admitted, they would be bound to writing. Now, from frequent use of that means so many inconveniences would follow - especially the manifestation of written confessions, which from carelessness, etc., would fall into others' hands - that that use cannot be held as prescribed.

III. Causes excusing from diligent, or at least from more accurate, examination of conscience are sufficiently clear from what has been said about the causes excusing from integrity. Thus, for example, the same examination is not required for the sick as for the healthy (St. Alphonsus, VI, 471). Add that one who arranges with the confessor about questioning can lessen diligence in examining, because examination is required only as a means.

Corollary I. Writing is generally also to be discouraged, except sometimes once or twice in life, when someone is about to institute a general confession.

Corollary II. One who is morally certain that he does not have necessary matter is not bound to examination; nevertheless it is advised, namely so that he may better know and uproot venial defects. Besides, let penitents not examine themselves longer either about doubtful sins or about temptations against chastity; it is better, with further examination omitted, to confess doubtful sins as doubtful.

Corollary III. One who is bound under grave obligation to diligent examination, and, after neglecting it, confesses, receives the sacrament invalidly and sacrilegiously if he sufficiently adverts to the grave defect; this rarely happens, so that confessions are rarely to be repeated precisely for that reason.

Corollary IV. Uneducated penitents who in confession are found to have examined their conscience negligently should commonly not be sent away so that they may examine themselves more diligently; rather the confessor himself should examine them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 471). The same holds concerning penitents who are found by the confessor to have kept back sins and not to have examined themselves regarding past sins.