Duties of the Confessor as Teacher and Guide

The Duties of the Confessor as Teacher and Guide.—(a) Instruction.—The confessor should teach children and other ignorant persons if he finds that they do not know truths necessary to be known for a fruitful reception of the Sacrament—that is, the mysteries of faith that must be believed explicitly and the dispositions for receiving absolution (924). He should instruct about duties when this will be for the penitent’s good—that is, when the penitent falsely believes something to be sinful which is not sinful, or to be gravely sinful that is only lightly sinful, or when the penitent’s ignorance of an obligation is gravely culpable, or when he is invincibly ignorant but will be kept from a sin without graver evil if he is instructed now. If an instruction will probably do no good, a confessor should not instruct an invincibly ignorant penitent about his duties, unless silence will be productive of greater evils than instruction. Thus, if the confessor foresees that the penitent will only be put in bad faith if he is told about a duty of restitution, it would be useless and wrong to speak to him about it; but if he should foresee that, if he does not speak, the penitent will do worse things with great injury or scandal to others, it would be necessary to instruct him.

(b) Direction.—In spiritual matters a confessor should be willing and able to counsel and advise, for example, about the choice of a state of life (marriage, clerical state, religious life), about voluntary rules or practices (vows, austerities), and about the performance of duties (e.g., training of children). For advice on temporal matters a priest should either direct his penitents to lawyers, physicians or other professional advisers, or, if he can give prudent direction himself (e.g., on artistic, educational, or business questions), he should preferably discuss the matter elsewhere than in the confessional.

In order that the Confessor may rightly fulfill the office of teacher, he must have sufficient knowledge to instruct penitents suitably.

606. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound under grave sin to know all those things which are required for the proper fulfillment of his office. - Thus all teach with St. Ligorius in the Practice of the Confessor and in the Apostolic Homilies, where he speaks thus: I affirm that a Confessor who exposes himself to hearing confessions without sufficient knowledge is in a state of damnation. The reason is that otherwise a Confessor of this kind exposes himself to the evident danger of performing so grave an office badly, with injury to the Sacrament and great harm to souls.

Therefore God requires special knowledge from His Ministers, as is evident from various words of Sacred Scripture: The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth. Mal. 2:7. - Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not perform the office of priesthood to Me. Osee 4:6. - If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. Matt. 15:14. - Woe to you, blind guides! Matt. 23:16. - It is also evident from innumerable testimonies of the Holy Fathers: No art is presumed to be taught unless it is first learned by attentive meditation. The pastoral magisterium is therefore undertaken with great temerity by the unskilled, since the government of souls is the art of arts. - St. Gregory, Pastoral Rule, part 1, chapter 1.

607. • II. The Confessor, however, is not bound to have such perfect knowledge that he can always immediately and by himself solve every doubt which occurs; rather, it is sufficient that he can do this in cases which commonly occur and that, concerning more difficult cases, he at least know how to doubt ¹. For greater knowledge can be had only with greater difficulty, since not even the more learned can immediately resolve every case. Nor is the Confessor bound to discern concerning each sin accused whether it is mortal or not, since this is often impossible; rather, it is sufficient that he hear each one as it was committed and judge concerning it ², both according to common principles and according to the circumstances of the matters explained by the penitent, and that he know how to apply a suitable remedy. - St. Ligorius, no. 627.

¹ St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 627), with the Salmanticenses, Suarez, and the common opinion, judges it sufficient if the Confessor understands the things which more frequently occur and knows how to doubt concerning the others.

And Cardinal De Lugo: It is not necessary that, in the doubts which occur, he himself be able to resolve everything; it is sufficient if he knows common cases and at least knows how to doubt concerning the more difficult ones, so that he may consult books or more skilled men (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70).

² Cardinal De Lugo confirms these things (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70): This knowledge need not be so great that he can discern concerning everything which the penitent says whether it is mortal or venial; for often not even the most learned can do this, partly because they cannot know the fact itself perfectly, whether the penitent consented with full deliberation or not, and partly because even the law itself cannot be known in every matter. It is therefore sufficient if, in those things which commonly occur, he knows whether they are mortal or venial.... And immediately afterward (ibid., no. 71): Hence I infer that it is not required that the confessor judge concerning everything which he hears from the penitent whether it is grave or light, indeed not even whether it is a sin; but concerning common things. Let him hear and understand the rest, and afterward absolve with the due intention.

Nor ought it then to disturb the Confessor that afterward he knows with certainty what was uncertain to him during confession. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 627), with Suarez, admonishes to the point that, although in some case the Confessor does not discern which things are grave or light, nevertheless, if the penitent in good faith declares his sin, the confession is valid; and although it is afterward noticed that it was mortal, there is no reason for it to be repeated in another confession.

608. Resolutions. - 1. Every Confessor is bound to know all those things which pertain to the validity, substance, integrity, and effect of the Sacrament of Penance, and which are required for its licit administration both on his part and on the part of the penitent.

2. He must also know the common obligations and those proper to states of life, the various species of sins, their circumstances changing the species ³, the principles for discerning between mortal and venial sins, and which things are mortal and venial in the individual precepts, at least according to the general principles and the common opinion of Theologians. Likewise, which acts are valid and licit ⁴. The reason is evident, because he must know that concerning which he is to judge; otherwise he will not be able to render an equitable judgment.

³ Concerning this point several things should be observed. 1. Where there is disagreement among the Doctors whether some circumstance induces a diversity of species, just as the penitent is not bound to confess it, neither is the confessor bound to inquire about it; on this matter the little work of Thomas Tamburini entitled Method of Expeditious Confession will be read with profit. 2. Even if this diversity of species is present, nevertheless, when it appears that the penitent did not advert at all to that special malice, there will be no need for the confessor to inquire about it. 3. Furthermore, it will pertain to the prudence of the confessor whether he ought to admonish the penitent concerning that special malice according to the rules which will be given below concerning admonishing a penitent. Hence St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 150): Moreover, it is not always expedient to admonish an uneducated penitent of this kind concerning the gravity of perjury if the admonition is foreseen as not readily profitable.

⁴ When the Confessor must judge concerning these things as regards what is to be done in the future, but he himself remains doubtful, and it is not convenient either here and now to employ means for dispelling the doubt or afterward to speak to the penitent again, this admonition of Cardinal De Lugo will be useful (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 71): When counsel must be given for the future, or restitution imposed, or a doubtful contract prohibited, or something similar, if the confessor himself cannot resolve it by himself, it will be good counsel to ask the penitent whether he is prepared to consult skilled men and to abide by their judgment concerning that doubt. If the penitent promises, let him absolve, declaring to him the obligation which he has of consulting one or more persons concerning that doubt.

3. He must know reserved cases ⁵ and censures in force, impediments of matrimony, the conditions of contracts, the various causes of restitution, the roots and occasions of sins, the remedies to be applied to them, the salutary and suitable satisfactions to be imposed, etc.

⁵ Cardinal De Lugo wisely admonishes (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70) that those who have the faculty of absolving from reserved cases by a Bull or another privilege are in a better condition. For he experiences less difficulty who can remember from a brief catalogue the sins from which he cannot absolve penitents.

4. Therefore a Confessor sins who knows that he lacks the aforesaid knowledge, even if he hears confessions solely from charity and obedience. Nor does the approval of the Bishop excuse him of itself; for this does not give the knowledge due from the nature of the matter, nor supply its defect ⁶. - St. Ligorius, Apostolic Homilies, no. 100.

⁶ Nevertheless, this must be limited if the subject does not indeed know with certainty that he is ignorant of necessary things, but is troubled by doubts concerning his own sufficiency, by which even more skilled men of a timid disposition are not rarely distressed. De Lugo speaks aptly (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 72): I infer, secondly, that one sins gravely who without the knowledge respectively required exposes himself to hearing confessions; in this there is no difference, formally speaking, between a regular and a secular confessor, since each is bound by a precept of natural law. Nevertheless, there can be a material difference insofar as a Religious who doubts his fitness and sufficiency for that ministry can more easily lay aside that doubt when the Prelate, who knows him well, judges him fit and imposes such an office upon him.

Although De Lugo says these things only of a Religious, they nevertheless have place also as regards a secular priest if in like manner the Bishop knows the subject well and constrains him to the ministry.

Furthermore, the case of necessity must be excepted; in it, as De Lugo says (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 73), although a priest is ignorant and unlearned, he ought to hear the confession and absolve, because the knowledge of the confessor is required for the integrity of the confession; but since in that danger material integrity is not required, but it is sufficient to perceive some sin, or even sin in general, the ignorance of the confessor will not be an obstacle in that case. Hence the same must be said when Christians who are held in servitude among unbelievers have only one ignorant and unlearned priest, as Suarez teaches (On Penance, disputation 28, section 2, no. 6), because this too is reputed a morally extreme necessity.

609. • 5. The Superior also sins who gives an ignorant Confessor permission to hear Confessions, because he consents to and cooperates in his sin ⁷.

⁷ Nevertheless, the Doctors admonish that necessity sometimes brings it about that this ministry must be committed even to the less learned. Hence St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 628), after saying that necessity excuses in this matter if otherwise penitents would have to lack confession for a long time, as happens among captives, then adds: And the Doctors say the same concerning small towns or galleys, where, as they say, if learned priests cannot be had, less learned ones can be appointed; they are nevertheless to be admonished of the obligation of learning.

Thus Cardinal De Lugo also observes (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 74) that Prelates who place unlearned and uneducated men over the ministry in these circumstances are to be excused. "I add," he says, "that on this ground Prelates who in some small and remote towns place unlearned and uneducated men over them as Pastors are often excused; for they generally do this because, on account of the small stipend, scarcity of provisions, and poverty of the inhabitants, no learned man is found who wishes to undertake that care. Hence, since those sheep cannot be assisted otherwise, as I suppose, it is better that in such necessity they have an unlearned confessor than that they be left entirely without every remedy. Nevertheless, the Prelate ought to admonish the pastor concerning the defect of knowledge from which he suffers and the obligation which he has of acquiring, if he can, the doctrine necessary for fulfilling his ministry. For the pastor and confessor always has this obligation, although the Prelate is sometimes excused by the necessity of the sheep when he sends a less sufficient minister."

6. The penitent himself also sins who deliberately chooses an unfit Confessor. If, however, anyone is in good faith, the confession will be valid, because on the part of the penitent there is an integral declaration of sins and the due disposition of soul; on the part of the Confessor there is at least knowledge of the sins under the confused character of sin, which suffices for the matter of the Sacrament ⁸.

⁸ Cardinal De Lugo nevertheless intimates an exception in this manner (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 72): Likewise, one who chooses an unfit person for this office sins; and not only the Prelate, but also a penitent who has the faculty of choosing a Confessor and knows that he is not fit, although approved, sins by choosing him, unless the penitent is such that by his own learning he can supply the ignorance of the confessor, as was said.

7. Experience cannot supply knowledge, but can only assist it; but where it is deprived of the aid of knowledge, it will impel the rash confessor into very many and very grave errors.

8. Therefore every Confessor is bound to apply himself diligently to the study of Moral Theology; and, as St. Ligorius asserts, Apostolic Homilies, no. 100: He ought never to interrupt that study, because among so many diverse and mutually dissimilar matters which pertain to this science, many, although read, fall from the mind with the passage of time because they occur more rarely; therefore it is necessary always to recall them to mind by frequent study.

9. Hence it is evident how gravely those err who regard the science of Moral Theology as easy and scarcely worthy of any attention, repeatedly saying that nearly all cases can be resolved by some common sense together with a knowledge of general principles. - The same St. Ligorius speaks aptly, book 6, no. 628: Those who desire this office of hearing confessions should not easily persuade themselves that they can render themselves sufficiently fit for so great an office without long study of moral science, for which it certainly does not suffice to run through some little summary of those which circulate; nor is it sufficient to know the general principles of this faculty, as some who despise casuists suppose. For moral science is not only very necessary to the Christian commonwealth, since the good government of souls depends upon it, but also exceedingly difficult: both because it requires a general knowledge of all other sciences, duties, and arts ⁹; because it embraces so many diverse matters remote from one another; and because in great part it consists of so many positive laws which are found cited only among casuists, and especially among more recent ones, since laws of this kind appear daily. Finally, it becomes most difficult on account of the innumerable circumstances of cases upon which the variety of resolutions depends; for according to the diversity of circumstances different principles must be applied, and in this the difficulty consists, since it cannot be done without great discussion or an accurate reading of several books which examine and elucidate the matters.

⁹ Cardinal De Lugo wisely admonishes with others (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70) that the knowledge required in a Confessor is not the same for all. For less suffices for some to hear the confessions of children or rustics; in others more is required for hearing merchants, judges, etc., who have more difficult cases. But for the confessions of a learned man much less is required, because the Confessor can be instructed by the penitent himself.

610. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound to instruct penitents in all those things which pertain to receiving the Sacrament rightly here and now. The reason is that, since the Priest is the minister of the Sacrament, he must procure its valid and licit reception and therefore impart the instruction necessary here and now.

II. He must instruct penitents when he notices that someone is ignorant of any of those things which are necessary for living as a Christian, such as, for example, his own obligations. - St. Ligorius, no. 607 ff.

III. Nevertheless, of itself and strictly, he is not bound to instruct them concerning all the things which they themselves ought to know and can learn elsewhere. The reason is that the office of teacher in the Confessor pertains of itself only to the right administration of the Sacrament of Penance. Per accidens, however, an obligation from charity could be present when the penitent could acquire this knowledge for himself, either by himself or through another, only with very great difficulty ¹⁰. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

¹⁰ This obligation of charity is not special to Confessors, but common to all who know the necessity of their neighbor and can provide for him without grave inconvenience. A special obligation belongs to pastors, who owe it from their office.

The obligation of the Confessor will especially be present when the penitent is ignorant of those things which are necessary to know for salvation by a necessity of means. How this is to be understood, however, is well explained thus by Sporer (On Penance, no. 796): The Confessor who notices this (and it is frequent in children and rustics) is bound to instruct him in the manner of which he is capable here and now, not indeed doctrinally, so that he can comprehend, understand, retain in memory, and recite those things; but for the time it is sufficient that he intimate to him the obligation of learning and supply his ignorance by proposing to him the articles to be believed, so that he may elicit an act of faith concerning each one. For example: Do you believe that God is one in essence and three Persons, etc., as I and the Church believe? I believe.... Do you believe whatever the Holy Roman Church believes, and do you wish to die in her? I believe.... Furthermore: Are you sorry that you are so ignorant and have been negligent, etc.? I am sorry.... Do you firmly propose, when you have obtained a suitable occasion, that you will take care to be instructed and wish diligently to learn those things which are necessary for salvation? Certainly. If he elicits these acts, it suffices for the instruction to be furnished by the Confessor here and now and for sufficient disposition for the sacrament, etc.

611. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must a penitent laboring under ignorance concerning some obligation always be admonished?

Reply 1. Yes, if the ignorance appears vincible, that is, if the Confessor notices that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is already absent. The reason is that no danger threatens in giving the admonition; otherwise, the penitent acting with that doubt is not free from sin. Reply 2. If ignorance of some obligation is invincible, the penitent must be admonished if fruit is hoped for from the admonition; but not, generally speaking, if it is not hoped for. The reason is that on the one hand this admonition would not profit, and on the other it would harm him, since after being admonished he would sin formally in the future. - St. Ligorius, no. 610, and others commonly.

Therefore, the penitent must be admonished: 1. whenever he himself asks about the malice of some matter, because, since he doubts the lawfulness of the matter, he is no longer in invincible ignorance ¹¹; 2. whenever the silence of the Confessor would harden him in the purpose of carrying out an evil matter; 3. whenever his ignorance concerns the primary principles of natural law or their proximate conclusions, because such ignorance, if possible, cannot remain invincible for a long time; 4. whenever, if the admonition is omitted, the penitent would remain in a proximate occasion of sinning formally ¹². - St. Ligorius, no. 615.

¹¹ The reason is, says De Lugo (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 29), that the silence of the Confessor would be an approval of the error, which is never lawful. See St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 616.

Sanchez excepts (On Matrimony, book 2, disputation 38, no. 14) when the penitent is moved to ask by a mere scruple (he calls a scruple a doubt from a false or frivolous reason); for then he judges that, if the admonition is foreseen to be harmful, the confessor can remain silent or reply that he should lay aside a scruple of this kind. The reason is that a scruple does not remove good faith. - De Lugo (loc. cit.), however, admits this only so far as the Confessor can indeed pretend that he did not hear, did not attend, or forgot to reply, so that the penitent may thus remain in the good faith which he previously had, yet not confirmed by the authority of the Confessor himself. - But if the reason for asking is truly frivolous, for example, if he raises a doubt concerning the validity of matrimony because he celebrated it in the state of sin, at a prohibited time, by a fictitious testimony of freedom of state, or contrary to a previously emitted oath or vow, it does not appear why the Confessor (who from another true cause, but one unknown to the penitent, knows that the matrimony is invalid) cannot reply that that reason is empty and the scruple vain.

¹² The hypothesis of a penitent who believes himself bound where there is no obligation, or even thinks that a grave obligation is present where only a light one is present, must not be passed over. This ignorance, as always harmful, must always be removed.

QUESTION 2. Is an admonition to be given in doubt whether it will profit or harm?

Reply 1. Yes, if it will more probably profit; not so if it will more probably harm. - St. Ligorius, no. 916. - De Lugo. - Salmanticenses, etc., against some.

Reply 2. In a doubt equally balanced on either side, generally speaking, formal evils are to be avoided rather than material ones. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others ¹³.

¹³ Doctors commonly hold that an admonition which is foreseen as merely harmful is to be omitted, even if the ignorance results in the detriment of a third party. Thus also St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 614). The excellent reason, touched upon by Sanchez and then by De Lugo (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 26), is that the admonition does not even profit the creditor and harms only the penitent.

The case is different, however, when the common good is at issue, as St. Alphonsus observes with others (loc. cit., no. 615), for example, if someone in good faith believed himself to be a priest when he was not; his ignorance, as De Lugo says (disputation 22, no. 30), would redound to the common harm of those who receive a sacrament from him.

And to this pertains the case, which not rarely troubles the mind of the confessor, of a denunciation to be made which is ordered not to the private good of the person sinning but to the prevention of a common harm. This harm could indeed be so grave and so imminent that the obligation of denouncing would bind even with danger to life. Nevertheless, the Confessor, insofar as this can be done, must take care that the matter be carried out with the least danger to the denunciant. For to prevent, for example, a conflagration or treason, it is not always necessary either that the name of the denunciant be known or that he himself disclose the matter.

But when the harm does not appear so imminent, there must be weighed on the one hand the gravity of the harm and on the other the difficulty of denouncing which arises from the circumstances of persons, places, the business, etc. From consideration of these things it will be necessary to determine whether the gravity of the harm ought to impel the Confessor to admonish even with a slight hope of fruit and thus with grave danger of uselessly casting the penitent into bad faith, or whether the absence of every prudent hope of fruit ought rather to bring it about that, after the remedy against the common harm has been despaired of, he does not uselessly add grave harm to the penitent by removing his good faith.

Hence it is that in cases of solicitation, although denunciation is ordered not to the reform of the solicitor but to the common good, nevertheless the Apostolic See has sometimes been accustomed to dispense from denouncing. From this it is also evident that St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 694) established too generally that an admonition can never be omitted when the common harm is at issue.

612. • QUESTION 3. Is a spouse to be admonished of the invalidity of the matrimony on account of an occult impediment which the Confessor discovers?

Reply. No, generally speaking, until the Confessor has obtained a dispensation, unless it can be obtained immediately and easily from the Pope or Bishop. The reason is that very great inconveniences would generally follow from it, for example, danger of infamy, scandal, quarrels, or incontinence, etc., and consequently material fornication would become formal. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 611. - Elbel, no. 471, etc.

But can the Confessor oblige the spouse who is ignorant of the impediment and refuses the debt to render it? Reply. Yes. The reason is that, while the spouse is persuaded that the matrimony is valid, he is bound to render the debt so that he may follow the dictate of conscience. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others commonly ¹⁴.

¹⁴ Sanchez speaks well (On Matrimony, book 2, disputation 38, no. 8) as regards those who would wish the Confessor merely to say generally that spouses are bound to render the debt: I confess that I do not grasp what difference there is between these statements: Render the debt; and, The wife is bound to render the debt; since each manner of speaking tends toward the same end, namely, to induce that spouse to render the debt. And if to induce by direct words were a fault, to induce by indirect words would not be free of it, since on the part of the Confessor the intention is the same in each manner of speaking, and the penitent understands precisely the same thing. Furthermore, because, since the penitent must be left in that ignorance, he sins mortally, supposing it, by not rendering; therefore the confessor is bound not to absolve unless he proposes that he will render it afterward. Therefore he can compel him to render it; and thus the confessor does not command an evil thing, but a thing owed, in view of the circumstances which occur.

613. • QUESTION 4. Is a penitent about to contract matrimony to be admonished of an unknown impediment?

Reply. Generally speaking, the admonition is to be given. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 612. - The reason is that after the matrimony the ignorance can cease without difficulty, for example, because it is discovered that consanguinity, affinity, etc., exists between the spouses; and then, besides the ready danger of sinning formally, other most grave inconveniences can follow, namely, scandals, quarrels, and perhaps even the separation of the spouses, etc. - Nevertheless, probably except the case in which no fruit at all is hoped for from the admonition and the impediment cannot easily be discovered; because it is better to permit material sin until a dispensation is obtained than to furnish the occasion of certain formal sin. - Lacroix, book 6, part 3, no. 540.

I. Obligation of instructing and admonishing. - The confessor, from his office, is bound under grave obligation:

1. As minister of the sacrament, to instruct the penitent, not indeed concerning all things which the latter is bound to know, but concerning those things which he is bound to know in order here and now rightly, that is, validly and fruitfully, to receive the sacrament; unless, however, absolution can be deferred to another time.

2. As teacher and physician, who ought to direct in the way of salvation, at least to admonish the penitent concerning matters which he is bound to know and to do, or concerning other truths and obligations which he ought to know, so that he may learn or fulfill them.¹

¹ Cf. Reuter, o. c., p. I, c. IV, nn. 5-9; St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, nn. 608-616; Billuart, de Poen., diss. 6, a. 10, § 3; Berardi, Praxis conf., nn. 1107-1114; Tanquerey, o. c., nn. 473-478; Theol. Mechl., de Poen. (4), nn. 78-79; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, nn. 571-576; Aertnijs, Th. P., nn. 63-66; Ballerini-Palmieri, de Poen., nn. 811-831; Genicot, Th. M., II, nn. 357-359; Noldin, Th. M., III, nn. 393-394.

II. Instruction and admonition always to be made before absolution. - From this it is clear concerning what things in particular penitents must always be instructed or admonished before absolution, namely:

1. Those who culpably or inculpably are ignorant of truths certainly to be believed by necessity of means (namely, that God exists and that He is a supernatural rewarder) are absolutely to be instructed before absolution, as being incapable of contrition, justification, and absolution. Likewise, generally, those who are ignorant of truths probably to be believed by necessity of means (God triune, and the Son incarnate and redeemer), because in doubt concerning means necessary to the end, especially to the ultimate end, eternal salvation, the safer part is to be chosen; unless, however, there is extreme necessity in which it is impossible to instruct the dying person concerning these things. In that case, the other necessary things being given, he must be absolved under condition: if you are capable; and if he survives, he is to be instructed and absolved again. It should be noted, however, that a very developed or scientific knowledge of these mysteries is not required, but that it suffices that it be believed that there are three distinct ones (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) who are one God, and that the Son of God, having become man, redeemed us by His death; these things can easily be taught. But if someone cannot retain them, it suffices to recall them in confession.

2. Likewise those are to be instructed or admonished before absolution who are ignorant of, or do not have, the dispositions necessary for receiving the sacrament validly or licitly and fruitfully, namely contrition, a firm purpose, and the mode of confessing integrally; for otherwise they are exposed to the danger of receiving absolution invalidly or illicitly.

3. Likewise those who are ignorant of necessary things to be known by necessity of precept (the Symbol, the Decalogue, the precepts of the Church, the sacraments to be received by them, the Lord's prayer, and other things necessary for establishing a right Christian life) are to be admonished. But they can be absolved if they grieve for negligence and seriously promise to learn these things as soon as possible; for then they are sufficiently disposed. But if they have several times promised in vain, it must be examined whether absolution should be deferred because of defect or doubt of purpose. But if all means of learning these things are lacking to the penitent, from charity the confessor can be bound to teach him, and, if he is a parish priest, from justice; and therefore the place and time for receiving instruction are to be designated.

4. Likewise those who are ignorant of the things necessary for rightly fulfilling their office are, of themselves and generally, not to be absolved unless they are prepared to relinquish their office (of judge, physician, advocate, confessor, parish priest), or to acquire the required knowledge, and meanwhile to abstain from exercising those things by which grave harm could probably be brought upon the neighbor. Otherwise they would be indisposed, as exposing themselves to the proximate danger of causing grave harm. Sometimes, however, the admonition concerning leaving the office can be omitted, if it is not hoped that it will be profitable and scandal is lacking; but the obligation of acquiring the necessary knowledge as soon as possible must always be urged.

5. Likewise, before absolution, penitents are to be admonished concerning obligations which result from their sins (unless in good faith they are ignorant and certainly will not act, nor is a greater evil feared otherwise), such as the obligation of restoring reputation, honor, or goods; the obligation of avoiding proximate occasions of sin; the obligation of laying aside grave hatred, reconciling oneself with an enemy, repairing scandal, etc. These the confessor should impose in such a way that he does not give ear to the vain pretexts of penitents, but prescribes them as an essential condition of absolution.

III. Admonition regularly to be made, and at an opportune time. - It is also clear concerning what things penitents (who labor under ignorance or an erroneous conscience) are regularly to be admonished, but with prudence, and not necessarily before absolution, but at an opportune time:

1. Those who exaggerate evil for themselves and judge that to be evil which is not, or to be graver than it is, e.g., that to be mortal which is venial: for then the error is harmful, as being the cause of formal sin, and it is to be removed. This is true even if it is foreseen that from this they will more often commit venial sins; for it is better to permit innumerable venial sins than one mortal sin, as St. Alphonsus notes, Th. M., l. III, c. V, n. 130; and the confessor by his admonition will forestall such a multiplication of relapse.

2. Likewise those who diminish evil and judge licit what is evil, or less evil than it is, e.g., that to be venial which is mortal, and who are not in good faith, but whose ignorance is vincible and gravely culpable; as if they doubt or inquire, which is a sign of doubtful faith. Then in them there is culpable negligence, and they are not excused from sin, from which therefore they are to be rescued by every effort.²

² Let it be noted: 1) only sometimes, and altogether more rarely, if a greater sin is certainly feared, the confessor perhaps can dissemble the truth and say nothing, as if he had not heard the question, provided that from this he is not thought to approve the evil; 2) nevertheless he is not bound to say more than is necessary or than he is asked. For example, if one bound by a simple vow of chastity asks whether the marriage was therefore invalid, let him answer negatively, remaining silent concerning the debt; if the penitent asks whether he must render the debt to the spouse, let him answer affirmatively, remaining silent concerning the obligation not to ask. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. VI, n. 616; Reuter, Neo-conf., p. I, c. IV, n. 7.

3. Likewise those who so judge from invincible ignorance, if that ignorance cannot remain for long, as if it is a question of first principles and first conclusions of natural law and of obvious duties of state (e.g., concerning the education of children), in one word, concerning those things which cannot be ignored for long.

4. Likewise those who err from invincible ignorance, or from ignorance not gravely culpable, if admonition is foreseen likely to be profitable, at least after some time, or if there is not a grave and serious reason for doubting this; unless sometimes greater evils would have to be feared. For the office of the confessor is to instruct penitents concerning obligations, if it can be done without grave inconvenience; but admonition must be omitted if formal sin in others or grave harms would arise. Hence the penitent who in good faith has contracted marriage invalidly generally is not to be admonished before the marriage can be revalidated, lest perhaps meanwhile he sin formally; indeed even if he is going to receive the admonition, but at the same time formal sins are foreseen in others, e.g., in the spouse, or grave harms, e.g., in the children.

5. Likewise those who err from invincible ignorance are to be admonished, even if the admonition will not be profitable, provided that omission of the admonition harms the common good, as if it is a question of scandal or of grave temporal or spiritual harm which the whole community is going to suffer from the neglect of a superior; e.g., if silence would be the cause that reading depraved books, frequenting dances, entry into the Masonic sect, or the practice of onanism would be believed or said not to be illicit, because confessors seem to oppose them little.

6. Likewise if invincible error does not harm the common good but harms the penitent himself, as if it brings danger to salvation, e.g., if it is concerned with means perhaps necessary for salvation or absolution, or if it introduces the danger of founding a depraved habit from which afterward he will free himself only with difficulty, such as fornication or self-abuse.

On the contrary, admonition is not to be made if there is no hope of amendment and the ignorance is involuntary and not more harmful to the penitent, to others, or to the common good; yet this happens not rarely: for of two evils the lesser is to be permitted so that the greater may be avoided. Hence in the concurrence of material and formal sin, the formal is more to be forestalled, for by it alone God is offended.

IV. Observations.

Therefore 1) in judging the opportuneness of admonition, it must be remembered that one mortal sin is graver than many venial sins, one formal sin than all material sins; the spiritual harm of the penitent than the temporal harm of others; the detriment of the common good than the detriment of the particular good of the penitent alone.

The reason of this last is that then the confessor, says St. Alphonsus, Praxis Conf., n. 9, "since he himself has been constituted minister for the good of the Christian republic, is bound to prefer the public good to the private good of the penitent."

2. Civil or ecclesiastical superiors who fail in their proper office with regard to those subject to them are absolutely to be admonished. The reason is both because their ignorance is not easily to be supposed invincible, since each one is bound to know the obvious obligations of his office, and because their ignorance, even invincible, will always be to the harm of the community, while others can easily think that what they see being done by superiors is licit for themselves. (St. Alphonsus, ibidem.)

3. For the same reason, in the case of common harm, those who frequently receive the sacraments are to be admonished, as Benedict XIV teaches (Bulla Apostolica, § 20), lest, namely, that which is observed to be practiced by these with impunity be judged licit by others. Nor is it an obstacle that admonition here and now seems to be made uselessly, or even with scandal of the penitent; for such a penitent, when afterward he sees himself absolved by no one, will more easily be amended; and meanwhile the scandal of others will cease when they see that he is not admitted to the sacraments.

4. That the confessor may gain the confidence of penitents, let him not imprudently impose upon them undue burdens, nor immediately and precipitately respond to counsel sought or doubt proposed. More opportunely he will take time for reflection, or even, if there is no danger of harming the seal, seek the mind of one more learned and wiser.

5. Ignorance is invincible: a) when someone in no way adverts or suspects that the act is evil (or obligatory); b) when someone sometimes doubts concerning this, but in no way adverts or suspects the obligation of examining, neither implicitly nor confusedly; c) when he doubts and seriously examines, but the examination does not make the act appear illicit or the obligation of changing the manner of acting.

On the contrary, it is vincible if it can be overcome by serious examination. For this three things are required: a) doubt concerning the liceity of the action; b) advertence to the obligation of examining, at least implicit; c) negligence of examination.

V. Warning. - From the foregoing it is also evident that penitents are generally to be questioned and admonished concerning onanism: for very many principles demand this. For such a practice a) with difficulty admits invincible ignorance, at least lasting ignorance; b) harms the common good; c) harms the penitent because of the depraved habit which he contracts; d) and if the pious follow it, it causes scandal. Hence they are not to be admonished only in a very rare case. Concerning these things cf. A. Knoch, "L'Onanisme conjugal et le tribunal de la Penitence."

Wherefore those gravely fail in their office who generally neglect to question under the pretext that it is too burdensome, or that the custom of questioning no longer exists, or that the use of onanism here and there is already so general that it is rightly feared that by diligent questioning and by a stricter manner of proceeding many will therefore cease to frequent the sacraments and the church. For the decrees of the Holy Office, the instructions of the bishops of Belgium, and of the Council of Mechlin are clear; nor can they be held as a positive law subject to mutability, but they are nothing other than the authentic interpretation of the natural law. Hence they can never be changed or legitimately go into desuetude, but always and everywhere are to be applied perpetually. Therefore those who do not conform themselves to them, and never or almost never question concerning conjugal onanism, or easily or indiscriminately grant absolution to onanists as though to all, sin gravely.

Most recently the Supreme Pontiff has willed to sanction this by his supreme authority. After he solemnly promulgated: "any use whatever of matrimony in the exercise of which the act, by the industry of men, is deprived of its natural power of procreating life, infringes the law of God and of nature, and those who have committed such a thing are stained by the blemish of grave guilt"; he adds these things for confessors:

"Therefore priests who give their work to hearing confessions, and others who have the care of souls, by Our supreme authority and by Our care for the salvation of all souls, We admonish, that they not permit the faithful entrusted to them to err concerning this most grave law of God, and much more, that they themselves keep themselves immune from false opinions of this sort, and that they in no way connive in them. But if any confessor or pastor of souls, which God forbid, should himself lead the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or at least should confirm them in these errors, whether by approving or by deceitfully remaining silent, let him know that he will have to render a severe account to God the Supreme Judge concerning the betrayal of his office, and let him consider as said to himself the words of Christ: they are blind, and leaders of the blind; but if the blind gives guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit."

Since, therefore, several confessors, the admonitions of bishops and the decrees of the Holy Office having been passed over, have in no way changed their lax manner of acting, let us see whether at least they are willing to give ear to the supreme authority of the Supreme Pontiff.

VI. Corollary concerning the rude. - From the things said before it is now sufficiently evident how one must proceed with the rude, without a special question being raised concerning them.³

³ Concerning them Reuter, o. c., nn. 3 and 114-118, and Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, nn. 612-614, can be seen.

These persons, in the business of salvation, sometimes are well or better instructed than others, but not always, as can be evident from their accusation and answers. Concerning them let the following rules hold:

1. In accusation they are not immediately, but only when an occasion is given, to be helped, so that first they are permitted to express themselves, as was said q. 2, n. IV, C.

2. If they accuse themselves insufficiently, or this can deservedly be presumed, they are generally not to be dismissed, but are to be examined: by running through the precepts of God and of the Church and the obligations of state, as was said q. 1, n. III and IV.

3. To this end they are also to be questioned, but moderately and according to their capacity, so that the accusation may be completed in the mode in which this is possible for such persons: according to what was said q. 2, n. IV, A.

4. But if they seem unable to institute a sufficiently accurate examination, let the confessor also suggest to them the manner of examining themselves.

5. Those who are not negligent in enumerating sins are to be admonished concerning sorrow and purpose (unless, however, it is evident that in this matter they are solicitous), so that they may seriously weigh the malice of sin, and, motives of contrition having been proposed according to their grasp, may exercise themselves in sorrow: for there are those who think it suffices after confession merely materially to recite the formula of contrition (cf. q. 2, n. IV, C, 3, b; and q. 3, n. II, 2).

6. If some scarcely have anything to accuse (or say nothing particular), it must be examined from what the defect arises:

a) If from a uniform life and continual labor they scarcely have occasion of sinning, and thus easily abstain from graver things and hold light things of little account, they are to be helped so that they may accuse lighter things and, for the security of contrition, accuse a graver sin of their past life.

b) If from defect of examination, they are to be admonished concerning the obligation of examining conscience, and, according to prudence, either dismissed until sufficient preparation, or subjected to an examination of conscience to supply the defect. This, from charity, must often be done if they themselves cannot examine themselves, or if something worse is to be feared, e.g., if it is foreseen that they would be gravely offended or not return (q. 1, n. III).

The penitent sometimes needs special instruction concerning things which he ought to know or do. - Hence the following are established:

1808. Principles. I. The confessor is bound TO INSTRUCT the penitent when he observes, or prudently judges, that he is ignorant of things necessary for faith and salvation. - The reason is because one who labors under such ignorance is not capable of absolution (cf. n. 427).

Nor rarely in modern times does it happen that, amid so great a neglect of divine things, men otherwise liberally educated are involved in ignorance of this sort. - Nevertheless a long instruction is not required. It is sufficient that the one to be absolved be taught the principal mysteries, and those things which pertain to receiving the Sacrament here and now rightly. As to the rest, concerning things necessary by precept to be known, it is enough if he promises that he will learn them from others, at least as to the substance. But confessors who are led by the true spirit of charity do not refuse to teach them by themselves.¹⁶

1809. II. The confessor is bound TO ADMONISH the penitent concerning his various obligations, and concerning the gravity of the sins to which he is liable; nevertheless WITH PRUDENCE. - The reason is because he is bound, from his proper office, to direct the penitent into the way of salvation. Obligations of this sort, concerning which he is bound to admonish him, are: the obligation of restoring reputation, honor, or goods; the obligation of avoiding dangerous occasions; the obligation of laying aside hatred, repairing scandal, making fraternal correction, bestowing alms according to his condition, etc.; likewise the obligations of his own state.¹⁷ We said with prudence, namely lest he harm the penitent more than he profit him.

But let him use these FOUR CAUTIONS:¹⁸

1. Lest he present as mortal that concerning which it is probably disputed on either side among the Doctors whether it is such (cf. n. 337).

2. Before he makes a conscience of mortal sin for the penitent, let him be sufficiently certain that he has rightly understood the sense of his words; for not rarely penitents use such expressions which at first sight seem to indicate mortal sins, while in reality there is in no way question of mortal sin. - Thus, e.g., when a penitent says: I have hatred against my neighbor, sometimes there is question only of displeasure and unavoidable antipathy because of some injury received. - The same sometimes happens in girls, who say: I had evil thoughts; I had evil conversations with other girls; I committed immodesties, etc.; or in boys, who say: I did base, foul things, etc. (cf. n. 1806).

3. Let him attend whether a sin truly committed by the penitent is also truly mortal. Thus a confessor would act imprudently if, hearing a penitent accusing himself of some sin against the sixth Precept, immediately and in every case he argued that he was guilty of mortal sin. For although the principle is most true, that in venereal matter there is no smallness of matter, nevertheless this must be understood in the sense in which we spoke at nn. 768 and 769.

4. Let him attend lest perhaps the penitent is in good faith, insofar namely as that which he does is indeed, in itself, a mortal sin, but he thinks that he either does nothing evil, or sins only venially. - But he will seek this from the natural disposition of the penitent, from his instruction, from his manner of expressing himself, and from similar probable conjectures; yet taking care lest he give him occasion for doubting, and bring upon him bad faith, which he previously lacked.

1810. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a penitent who labors under ignorance concerning some obligation is ALWAYS TO BE ADMONISHED?

Resp. Negative; for the RULES of correction must be attended to, which can be reduced to three.¹⁹

Rule 1. The penitent is to be admonished, even if no fruit of amendment is hoped for, as often as he labors under VINCIBLE ignorance. For he who labors under such ignorance is already involved in the state of sin, or at least in the proximate danger of sinning formally, because he acts with a practical doubt, or from culpable ignorance. Therefore admonition cannot harm; and it can profit, since it can happen that afterward it produces its desired fruits.

Whence it follows: 1. As often as the penitent, pressed not indeed by mere scruple but by grave doubt, questions the confessor, the confessor is bound to disclose the truth, nor can he dissemble; because what the penitent was previously doing from ignorance, this same thing he will do after the question, relying on the testimony of the confessor. Nevertheless the confessor ought not respond more than he is asked: e.g. if someone bound by a vow of chastity asks whether marriage was invalid because of the vow, let him respond negatively, keeping silence about the debt; if he asks whether he ought to render the debt to the spouse, let him respond affirmatively, keeping silence about petitioning.²⁰ - 2. The penitent is similarly to be admonished as often as his ignorance concerns those things which he cannot be ignorant of for a long time, especially if the vice, with the progress of time, increases and is rooted out with greater difficulty. Thus impubescents who begin to contract the habit of pollution are to be strongly admonished, even if they are found in some good faith. And the same must be said of those who perhaps in good faith had contracted a merely civil marriage. - 3. Finally he is to be admonished as often as, the admonition being omitted, he would remain in a proximate occasion of formal sin.

Rule 2. The penitent is to be admonished, although he labors under INVINCIBLE ignorance, as often as fruit of amendment is hoped for. - Hence, although it is foreseen that he will not immediately obey, nevertheless the admonition is not to be omitted if there is hope that he will shortly obey; for it sometimes happens that the penitent, disturbed in mind at the beginning, rejects the correction; but afterward, the mind having become calm, thinks it over again with fruit.²¹

We said, as often as fruit is hoped for. For if from the admonition no fruit is hoped for, the common and true opinion teaches that the confessor, speaking in itself (i.e. unless another reason presses, e.g. of the public good), is bound to omit the admonition, and to leave the penitent in his good faith. Hence, e.g., "if the confessor knows that the penitent contracted marriage invalidly, because of some occult impediment, and there is danger of infamy, scandal, or incontinence if he manifests the nullity, he ought to leave him in good faith until a dispensation is obtained"²² (cf. n. 2081). Likewise, the admonition about making restitution, about repairing reputation, etc., is to be omitted if the confessor foresees that it will happen that the penitent, who is in good faith, will not obey the admonition. - The most valid reason is because of two evils the lesser must be permitted. Wherefore, in this case, the confessor ought to be silent and, by not opening the truth of the matter, permit material sin in the penitent, "because one formal sin outweighs all material sins."²³

IN DOUBT whether the admonition will profit or harm, it is to be omitted; on account of the reason already brought forward, namely because formal sins are rather to be avoided than material sins. We said in doubt; because if the admonition will more probably profit, it is still to be made.²⁴ And "Viva and Roncaglia rightly advert that it is not easily to be judged that the penitent, the truth being known, will not obey the admonition."²⁵

Rule 3. The penitent is to be admonished, even if indisposed, as often as, the admonition being omitted, damage would redound to the spiritual COMMON good. - The reason is "because then the confessor, since he himself is constituted a minister for the good of the Christian republic, is bound to prefer the public good to the private good of the penitent."²⁶ Nor does it stand in the way that the admonition here and now may seem to be made uselessly, or even with scandal of the penitent; for such a penitent, when he afterward sees that he is absolved by no one, will more easily be amended; and meanwhile the scandal of others will cease, when they see that he is not admitted to the Sacraments.

Hence: 1. Princes, Governors, Bishops, Prelates, pastors, masters, who fail in their proper office as to those subject to them, must altogether be admonished. The reason is both because their ignorance is not easily to be supposed invincible (since each one is bound to know the obvious obligations of his duty), and "because their ignorance, even invincible, will always be for damage to the community, since with easy business others can think that what they see to be done by Superiors is licit for themselves." And, on account of this same reason, those are to be admonished, as Benedict XIV teaches, who frequently receive the Sacraments, lest namely that be judged licit by others which is noticed to be practiced by these with impunity.²⁷

"Moreover, Lugo well adds that if the confessor reasonably doubts whether penitents of this sort satisfy their duty, he is bound to question them about it."²⁸

2. Penitents are similarly to be admonished as often as the silence of confessors would be the cause why some false dogma, whether against faith, or against the law of God or of the Church, would gradually be scattered among the people: as if it were believed or said that certain illicit things, e.g. the reading of wicked books, frequenting modern dances, entrance into a masonic sect, are not illicit, because confessors seem little to oppose them.

Note. If some admonition is to be made, and it is greatly feared lest the penitent take it in a bad part, there are many authors who think that the penitent is to be admonished in more obscure words only after absolution has been given. Nor does this opinion seem to be rejected, provided it is understood of the sole case in which, on the one hand, it is despaired that the penitent will obey a clear admonition, and on the other hand, no good effect is foreseen as going to flow from denied absolution.²⁹

1850. I. The BETROTHED are generally to be admonished that they celebrate matrimony as quickly as possible; for thus very many sins are impeded. Recall what was said at n. 826 and following, to which add the following:¹⁰

1. Let the confessor first see whether any impediment is present, whether prohibiting or diriment, ecclesiastical or civil, so that it may be removed opportunely. See n. 1984 sqq. and n. 2041 sqq.

2. Let him use every zeal and industry, so that the betrothed, purified by holy confession, may receive this great Sacrament fruitfully. - The matter having been accomplished in vain, let him dismiss the indisposed without absolution, without, however, denying to those asking, if they have truly confessed, a certificate of confession made. Let him absolve the doubtfully disposed under condition, as was said above at n. 1663, q. 4 and 5. - Moreover in either case, let him gravely admonish them to prepare themselves, through perfect contrition, for entering matrimony worthily, and to return shortly to confessing, with all mention of the sacrilege by which those contracting unworthily defile themselves omitted, in order to forestall a greater sin, unless perhaps a certain fruit could be hoped for from an admonition of this kind.¹¹

3. Let him admonish them concerning the most grave end of matrimony, and concerning the obligations of spouses and parents (cf. n. 699 sqq. and n. 703). - But speaking of those things which regard the use of matrimony, let him use the greatest prudence. "For innocent betrothed women, who perhaps are ignorant of copula, are not to be instructed by a priest before matrimony; but if they ask anything, they are first to be sent back to their mothers. This especially holds for betrothed women of a more honorable condition, who are wont to be taught by their mothers on the day before matrimony. If they do not have a mother, let the pastor or confessor point out to them some prudent and pious matron, from whom they may learn all those things which it is fitting for spouses to know."¹² But if the betrothed have already been corrupted, or are by no means ignorant of the base matter, let the confessor teach them, yet briefly and with the most chaste words, as is set forth in the following rule.

1851. II. "SPOUSES are to be taught that not all things are licit for the married, but that the sanctity of matrimony can be defiled by grave sins. Wherefore the following general RULES are to be handed down to each: 1. All those things are licit to spouses which are ordered to the generation of offspring, or to the legitimate use of marriage. - 2. They are immune from mortal fault if deliberately they do nothing by which they expose themselves to great danger either of losing semen on the part of either one, or of harming a fetus conceived. - 3. For the rest, if afterward they doubt concerning some matter, counsel must be sought from the confessor.

"Moreover, each is to be taught: 1. The HUSBAND, that he not ask the debt at those times in which copula can be gravely harmful to the wife, for example at the time of purgation, or of grave disease. - 2. The WIFE, that she is bound under grave sin to obey the husband in rendering the debt, unless she is excused from a just cause, for example because of infirmity."¹³

1852. Let it be noted: "1. The instruction premised, which of itself is incumbent on the pastor, is to be handed down either on the day before matrimony is to be contracted, or a little after it has been contracted, according as it shall have seemed expedient; or as often as younger spouses ask to be taught by the confessor concerning this matter, or are noticed to need instruction of this kind.

2. "Instruction of spouses concerning things to be observed in the case of abortion, as regards Baptism of the aborted fetus, wholly pertains to the pastor; nevertheless, when an occasion has been given, namely when the confessor notices that spouses are ignorant of these things, or have failed in their office in this matter, let him himself not neglect to teach them. The same must be said concerning those things which spouses must avoid, that they may beware of abortion.

3. "Let the confessor not omit to admonish younger wives, for whom it is fitting, that they not take with themselves into bed an infant not yet one year old, nor boys or girls already six years old; and much more, that they not permit children of this kind of either sex to sleep together in the same bed."¹⁴

IT IS ASKED. How must one proceed with spouses who are placed in a PROXIMATE OCCASION of sin because of abuse of matrimony against nature, for example if one directly pollutes the other, if one is accustomed to consent to onanism, sodomy, one's own pollution, etc.?

Resp. They are to be treated as habituated persons or recidivists in a necessary occasion. But if, remedies having been applied, they always relapse in the same way, without probable hope of amendment, they are in no way to be absolved unless they have removed the occasion, according to what was said at n. 1825, q. 2. - Indeed, in this case, a spouse who is placed in proximate danger of sinning because of the solicitation of the consort is bound to make separation if no other remedy remains,¹⁵ as will be seen in the Treatise on Matrimony (n. 2124, 2).

1853. St. Alphonsus admonishes:¹⁶ "With persons of this kind (i.e., with princes, magistrates, prelates, pastors, priests, etc.), although corrections must be applied in milder and more discreet words, nevertheless let it be done with greater fortitude and warmth of soul, since from the sins of these persons, on account of the graver harm which can be brought to others by their evil example, a more pernicious consequent license of crimes is wont to exist." (cf. n. 1810, Reg. 3a).

See the Praxis Confessarii n. 48 and following, as regards the questions to be asked of those who are of a conscience little meticulous. See also the things set forth in Part 4, On Particular States.¹⁷

1422. Principles. - I. The confessor is held to teach penitents all those things which pertain to the Sacrament being rightly received here and now. The reason is that, since the priest is the minister of the Sacrament, he must procure its valid and licit reception, and therefore deliver the instruction necessary here and now.

II. He must teach penitents, when he adverts that someone is ignorant of something from those things which are necessary for living Christianly, such as, e.g., the obligations of his own state.

III. Nevertheless, per se and strictly, he is not held to instruct them concerning all things which they ought to know and can learn from elsewhere. The reason is that the duty of doctor in a confessor pertains of itself only to the right administration of the Sacrament of Penance. Yet per accidens there could be an obligation from charity, when with the greatest difficulty the penitent could acquire this knowledge for himself either by himself or through another.

IV. In teaching or warning a penitent concerning the gravity of sin, the confessor should employ these four cautions:

1° That he not set down as mortal that concerning which it is disputed among Doctors with probability on each side whether it is such.

2° Before he makes a conscience for his penitent concerning a mortal sin, let him be sufficiently certain that he has rightly understood the sense of the penitent's words; for not rarely penitents use such expressions which at first sight seem to indicate mortal sins, while in truth there is no question of a mortal sin in any way. Thus, e.g., when the penitent says: I have hatred against my neighbor, sometimes there is question only of displeasure and inevitable antipathy on account of some injury received. The same sometimes happens in girls, who say: I had bad thoughts; I made bad conversations with other girls; I committed immodesties, etc.; - or in boys, who say: I did shameful things.

3° Let him advert whether the sin truly committed by the penitent is also truly mortal. Thus the confessor would act imprudently if, hearing a penitent accusing himself of some sin against the Sixth Precept, immediately and in every case he accused him of mortal sin. For although the principle is most true that in venereal matter there is not smallness of matter, nevertheless it must be understood in the sense in which we spoke n. 484. 485. Wherefore, speaking with St. Alphonsus concerning sins of non-consummated luxury, we taught (n. 486-492 and 503. 3°) that certain things, although, for the most part, especially among persons of different sex, they are not done without mortal sin, nevertheless can sometimes be done without mortal sin, because they are done from curiosity, levity, etc., and with the proximate danger of consent, grave scandal, lustful intention (under which in practice also comes the intention of merely sensible delight), and grave influence on pollution set aside.

4° Let him advert whether perhaps the penitent is in good faith, insofar, namely, as that which he does is indeed in itself a mortal sin; but he thinks that he either does nothing evil or sins only venially. On this matter let there be the following:

1423. Questions. - Query 1° Must a penitent laboring under ignorance concerning some obligation always be warned?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if the ignorance seems vincible, i.e. if the confessor adverts that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is now lacking. The reason is that in the admonition being made no danger is imminent; but otherwise the penitent, acting with that doubt, is not free from sin.

Resp. 2° If the ignorance of some obligation is invincible, the penitent is to be warned if fruit from the admonition is hoped for; but otherwise, generally speaking, if it is not hoped for. The reason is that on the one hand this admonition would not profit, and on the other hand it would harm him; since, having been warned, he would sin formally in the future. Therefore if no fear of harm is present, it is to be made.

Therefore the penitent is to be warned, 1° whenever he himself asks concerning the malice of some thing; because, since he doubts concerning the licitness of the thing, he is no longer in invincible ignorance, and because the silence of the confessor would often be an approval of error, which is never licit. Yet prudently the confessor will not extend the response beyond that concerning which the penitent asked; 2° whenever the silence of the confessor would harden him in the purpose of performing an evil thing; 3° whenever his ignorance turns upon the primary principles of natural law, or upon their proximate conclusions; because such ignorance, although possible as regards proximate conclusions (n. 167. q. 1°. Resp. 2°), cannot be invincible for long; 4° whenever, the warning omitted, the penitent would remain in a proximate occasion of sinning formally; 5° if the ignorance would yield to the common harm, as in a Pastor, Bishop, confessor, etc., since the public good must prevail over the private good. Besides, there is hope that the penitent, if he is absolved by no one, will finally amend himself; next, public scandal must be met, arising thence e.g., namely that penitents would say that such a thing cannot be impious or iniquitous, because confessors are little solicitous concerning it, and say nothing; rarely, finally, will such ignorance be inculpable; 6° if the penitent is going to obey a brief warning, although in the beginning he does not acquiesce; 7° if the ignorance turns upon those things which must be known by necessity of means, as is clear from what was said n. 257-259 and 1422. I.

Query 2° Must an admonition be made in doubt whether it will profit or harm?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if it is more probably going to profit; otherwise, if it is more probably going to harm.

Resp. 2° In a doubt equal on each side, generally speaking, formal evils are rather to be avoided than material ones.

Query 3° Must a spouse be warned concerning the invalidity of Matrimony on account of an occult impediment which the confessor detects?

Resp. Neg., generally speaking, until the confessor has obtained a dispensation, unless this can be obtained immediately and easily from the Pope or Bishop. The reason is that most often the greatest inconveniences would follow thence, e.g. danger of infamy, scandal, quarrels, or incontinence, etc., and therefore material fornication would become formal. - Thus commonly with St. Alph.

But can the confessor oblige a spouse, ignorant of the impediment and denying the debt, to render it? Resp. affirmative. The reason is that, with the persuasion of the spouse standing that the Matrimony is valid, he is held to render the debt, so that he may follow the dictate of conscience. More safely he will say to the penitent in general, that he cannot be absolved who refuses to satisfy his obligation, and that it is now known that a spouse is held to render the debt.

Query 4° Must a penitent, about to contract Matrimony, be warned concerning an unknown impediment?

Resp. Generally speaking, the warning is to be made. - Thus commonly with St. Alph. - The reason is that after Matrimony ignorance can cease by no means with difficulty, e.g. from the fact that it is detected that consanguinity, affinity, etc., is present between the spouses; and then, besides the easy danger of sinning formally, other most grave inconveniences can follow, namely scandals, quarrels, and perhaps even separation of the spouses, etc. - Yet St. Alphonsus excepts the case in which no fruit at all is hoped for from the warning, nor can the impediment easily be detected; because it is better to permit a material sin until a dispensation is obtained than to furnish the occasion of a certain formal sin.

Note. - Let the Confessor take care that he be neither too easy nor too difficult in supposing the good faith of the penitent. Let him take counsel from probable conjectures, drawn e.g. from the natural character of the penitent, from his instruction, from the nature itself of the sin, and especially from the words and expressions of the penitent himself.

611. Principle III. The confessor, as teacher, from office is bound to instruct the penitent, as far as possible, concerning those things which are strictly necessary for duly receiving the sacrament, unless absolution can be deferred to another time; - indeed regularly and of itself at least to admonish concerning the Christian truths and precepts to be learned, both common and particular to state, which the penitent must know.

It is said: 1) He is bound to instruct or teach those things which are necessary for duly receiving the sacrament; therefore not concerning all things which the penitent is bound to know and can learn elsewhere (unless by accident from charity, if it were impossible for someone to learn them elsewhere), but of itself concerning all things which he is bound to know for duly receiving the sacrament here and now. Yet exception is made: a) if to teach here and now is impossible and there is extreme necessity of receiving the sacrament which cannot be deferred; b) if absolution can be deferred to another time.

2. Concerning other truths and obligations to be learned he is bound only to admonish, and indeed of itself and regularly; because by accident he can be not bound if from this a greater evil would follow for the penitent or for others.

It is proved: The minister of Penance 1) from office is bound to procure valid and fruitful administration, and therefore he is teacher for teaching those things which are necessary for valid and fruitful reception; and 2) since the sacrament is for amendment and liberation from past and future sins, he is also bound from office (and not only as any man from charity, if it can be done without inconvenience) at least to admonish concerning truths to be learned and obligations to be fulfilled, insofar as it contributes to the aforesaid end, because from office he is bound to lead the penitent away from future sin and bring him onto the way of salvation. Cf. Ritual, t. 3, c. 1, n. 14 and 18.

And indeed, since for the validity of the sacrament the confessor needs jurisdiction, he is either the proper pastor of the penitent, or from a certain deputation holds the place of the proper pastor. Hence it pertains to him from office to teach subjects their duties and obligations, and the means for avoiding defects in the future; - indeed, since in ministering the sacrament he is the minister of the Church "constituted for the good of the Christian commonwealth," he is also bound to procure the common good if it is possible, and "to prefer the public good to the private good of the penitent," as St. Alphonsus has it, Th. M., l. VI, n. 615.

Hence he must: 1) teach, and indeed before absolution, the truths necessary for receiving the sacrament here and now, namely those which, even only probably, are necessary to be known for salvation by necessity of means, and those which pertain to the necessary dispositions of contrition, confession, purpose, and satisfaction, as to substance and according to the capacity of each one;

2. likewise admonish concerning duties which result from the sins declared, e.g., as to making restitution, removing or repairing scandal, laying aside hatred, seeking reconciliation, etc.

3. admonish concerning truths necessary to be known by necessity of precept and concerning the duties of Christian life, both common and particular to state: a) if ignorance of them is vincible, or soon becomes so; b) even if it is invincible but fruit of the admonition is hoped for; c) even if fruit is not hoped for, but the ignorance or the lack of admonition would be to the greater detriment either of the penitent himself (e.g., because it exposes him to danger of sinning or of persevering in sin), or of others or of the common good.

Here the rules handed down in the treatise on Charity, I, n. 942, and in the treatise on Prudence, where there is question of the formation of a right conscience, II, n. 69, come to be applied.1