Instructing the ignorant penitent

384. Obligation of Teaching. 1. By force of his office the confessor is bound to teach the penitent those things which are required for receiving the sacrament here and now rightly, because as minister of the sacraments he ought to procure their valid and licit administration. Therefore, if the reception of the sacrament cannot be deferred to another time, he ought to teach the penitent: a. the truths which must be believed by necessity of means for salvation; b. the dispositions necessary for receiving the sacrament with fruit, namely sorrow, purpose, and formally integral confession of sins. But those things which must be known and believed only by necessity of precept need not be learned by the penitent from the confessor in the confessional; rather, it suffices if he grieves for past negligence and conceives the purpose of learning them soon.

2. It is not necessary that the confessor instruct the penitent about necessary things in such a way that afterward he knows them and can give an account of them, but only in that way which here and now is required and suffices for receiving the sacrament, namely by proposing the articles of faith to be believed so that he may elicit an act of faith concerning them, by examining conscience with him, by eliciting sorrow and purpose, and by warning him to learn these same things more accurately as soon as possible.

385. Obligation of Warning. 1. Penitents who, from an erroneous conscience, think that what is not a sin is a sin, or that what is venial is mortal, must be warned; for this ignorance is harmful to them, because they remain in danger of sinning formally.

2. Penitents who are in vincible and gravely culpable ignorance must be warned, even if no amendment is hoped for; for on the one hand the admonition cannot harm, since the penitent is already in a state of sin because of culpable ignorance or because of the doubt with which he acts, but on the other hand the warning can profit, because it is permitted to hope for the fruit of amendment.

a. If the penitent asks, the confessor is bound to manifest the truth; for then his ignorance is no longer invincible, and the silence of the confessor would confirm him in evil.

b. Ignorance is compared to vincible ignorance, so that a warning must be made, in the following cases:

a. If it induces proximate danger of sinning or of persevering in sins, as if the penitent is ignorant that pollution is a sin.

b. If it concerns laws which cannot long be unknown.

g. If it concerns those things which by necessity of means, either certainly or probably, must be known and believed.

3. A penitent who is in invincible ignorance must be warned if fruit from the warning is hoped for, either immediately or at least afterward, and no greater evil is feared. But if no fruit is hoped for from the warning, the warning must ordinarily be omitted and the penitent left in good faith; for from two evils the lesser must be chosen, namely material sin rather than formal sin, which the penitent, not about to obey, would commit.

a. The warning must be omitted even if the silence of the confessor tends to the harm of a third party as a particular person, if, e.g., it is foreseen that a penitent warned about restitution will not obey; for the warning would profit no one and would harm the penitent.

b. If the penitent is indeed hoped to be about to obey, but from the warning grave harm to a third party, e.g., harm to children, is at the same time foreseen if an invalid marriage is dissolved, the warning must be omitted. For just as the obligation of warning does not urge with grave harm to oneself, so neither does it urge with grave harm to another, provided the thing itself, because of invincible ignorance, is done without sin.¹

c. In doubt whether the warning will profit or harm, it must be omitted, unless a much greater utility is hoped to follow from the warning.

4. Nevertheless, the penitent must be warned, even if no fruit of amendment is hoped for, whenever from the warning being omitted a greater evil follows than from the warning being made, as if ignorance would bring on graver harm or public scandal.

Note. It belongs to the confessor, as physician of souls, prudently to investigate the roots of sins, prescribe fitting remedies, and offer warnings of salvation. But in fulfilling these things, let him remember that, besides the penance, the confessor cannot impose a strict obligation on the penitent unless he declares those things which the penitent is already bound to perform from another source, e.g., that restitution must be made or the occasion of sin must be abandoned. For only in imposing penance does he act as judge; in other things he acts as physician, "whose office is not to command, but to counsel."²

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. 22, n. 27.

² Cf. Lugo, Responsa moral., l. 1, dub. 8, n. 5. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 126.

The confessor is bound to instruct a penitent before he can give him absolution when he finds that he is ignorant of what he must know in order to receive the sacrament of Penance validly and lawfully. And so if the penitent does not know how to make an integral confession, or how to make an act of contrition, the confessor must instruct him. In the same way, he must teach one who is ignorant of those truths which must be believed in order to be saved. Innocent XI condemned the proposition that a man is capable of receiving absolution however great may be his ignorance of the mysteries of the Faith, and even if through culpable negligence he does not know of the mystery of the most blessed Trinity and of the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. Ignorance of those Christian truths whose knowledge is required by precept, and of the obligations of one’s state of life, is not a bar to valid absolution, and in spite of it absolution may lawfully be given on condition that the penitent undertake to learn what he should know, if the confessor cannot give the necessary instruction at once.

No general rule can be laid down as to whether the confessor should instruct a penitent whom he finds to be ignorant on other matters. Various cases must be distinguished. If the ignorance of the penitent is morally hurtful to him, as is an erroneous conscience which thinks that a perfectly harmless act is sinful, the confessor should put his conscience right. Again, if the penitent asks whether an action is lawful or not, the confessor should instruct him. In other cases, if the penitent is ignorant of his obligation, and he would not fulfil it even if he were told, as a general rule the confessor may and should abstain from telling him under the circumstances. For the information would do no good, but only harm, inasmuch as the sins which hitherto were only material would henceforth be formal. 'There is, however, an exception to this rule when what is done in ignorance and good faith is a cause of public scandal, for then the public good requires that the penitent should be told even to his temporary private loss.

On these principles authors agree that if a confessor detect a diriment impediment between parties who think that they. are validly married, he should not inform them of it, at any rate until he has obtained the necessary dispensation, so that he can at once proceed to set the matter right.

Section Iv e e 2 The Confessor as Fudge

I. If ignorance concerns either those things which certainly or probably must be known by necessity of means, or those things which are required for receiving the sacrament of Penance fruitfully, the confessor, before absolving the penitent, should instruct him or should take care that he first learn them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 608, 610). Commonly it will be better at once to instruct such a penitent summarily,¹ to stir him to an act of faith in the things to be known,² and to absolve him, with the obligation imposed of afterward learning more diligently the rudiments of the Christian faith.³

II. If ignorance concerns things to be known by necessity of precept, commonly he should absolve the penitent at once; nevertheless, he should be warned of the obligation of afterward obtaining fuller instruction.

III. If ignorance concerns an obligation of doing or omitting something, admonition of itself must always be made, because both ignorance of this kind and the material sins arising from it involve some evil and can become harmful. Practically, however, these rules are established:

1. Admonition must always be made if the common good or positive law requires it. I said "always," even if the penitent is foreseen as not going to obey the admonition. "Universally," so Benedict XIV in the Constitution Apostolica,⁴ "the penitent must be admonished when ... he is in those circumstances of fact which, if the confessor dissimulates, strengthen the sinner in a wicked work, not without the scandal of others, when someone observes that those things which are practiced with impunity by those who frequent the Sacraments of the Church are judged by him to be lawful for himself." The reason for this doctrine is handed down by St. Alphonsus in these words: "Although the confessor by reason of his office is principally bound to attend to the good of the penitent, nevertheless, since he is a part of the commonwealth and has been constituted minister for the good of the Christian commonwealth, he is bound to prefer the public good to the private good of the penitent. So commonly" (VI, 615; Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 116). Hence generally the following must be admonished: 1. those who hold public offices, whether ecclesiastical or civil, and err concerning the duties of the office (St. Alphonsus, at the cited place); 2. those who have given their name to a harmful sect, for example socialism, liberalism, or the sect of Freemasons; 3. those who have been deputed by the party of liberals or socialists either to Legislative Assemblies or to Provincial or Municipal Administration; 4. those who are bound to denounce a confessor by reason of solicitation, as will be explained later.

2. Outside the case of the common good or of positive law, or considering only the good of the penitent, admonition is to be made as follows:

a) It must be made if it is judged that it will be useful or at least not harmful to the penitent. Hence it must be made: 1. if the penitent through ignorance regards as a sin what is not a sin, or as a grave sin what is light; 2. if the penitent actually doubts about liceity. Nevertheless, if the penitent asks the confessor, often "he ought not answer more than he is asked. For example, if someone bound by a vow of chastity asks whether the marriage was valid because of the vow, and whether he is bound to render the debt to his wife, the confessor should affirm both, saying nothing about the obligation of not asking, even if he knows that the marriage is null because of some diriment impediment" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 616); 3. if the ignorance is foreseen as soon going to cease, as if it concerns the first conclusions of the natural law, for example concerning the malice of pollution, the penitent should commonly be warned at once, and all the more because customs of this kind are rooted out with greater difficulty the longer they have been protracted (St. Alphonsus, III, 226); 4. if it concerns removing a proximate and voluntary occasion of sinning. Yet I would not deny that the penitent can be left in good faith in this case if it is truly feared that, after the admonition has been made and neglected, he will become wholly alienated from the sacraments; 5. if it concerns Prelates, Superiors, parish priests, or parents, both because ignorance is commonly not perfect and because the common good is involved (St. Alphonsus, VI, 615). Finally, if the penitent is judged not indeed immediately, but soon, to be going to obey the admonition, it should be deferred somewhat (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 115).

b) It must be omitted if it is judged that it will be harmful to the penitent.

c) If it is doubtful whether the admonition will help or harm, "the confessor ought to weigh the harm and the useful result, likewise the degree of fear of harm and of hope of utility, and choose that which he judges to preponderate.... For the rest, in doubt it regularly seems to me that formal evils are to be avoided rather than material ones" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 616).

¹ Let him not always require that the proposed articles be held in memory.

² For example by asking: Do you believe that there is one God? and so forth.

³ Roman Ritual, title VII, chapter 1, n. 14.

⁴ June 26, 1749.

"As regards the controversy... whether a Confessor is bound to admonish and teach penitents who invincibly are ignorant of the prohibition of certain superstitious rites, or of the condemnation of the Alexandrian permissions, when he foresees that the penitents, admonished and instructed, will not amend themselves, or whether instead he ought to leave them in good faith: the Supreme Pontiff considers that to leave such ignorant persons in their own ignorance concerning the cases about which there is question is not only the same as to close off every approach for all those Christians, lest they furnish obedience uniform with the Apostolic Constitution, the same as to evade the mind of the Holy See, which prudently commanded that the declarations recounted concerning the aforesaid rites be made known to all Christians; but also that omissions of such instruction tend toward grave scandal of the gentiles and toward public harm to the Christian name in those regions. His Holiness further declares that, although in some cases... Confessors can omit the instruction of penitents... nevertheless in the present case this doctrine has no place... Therefore Confessors and Missionaries ought to admonish and teach not only penitents, but also other Christians who invincibly are ignorant of the prohibition of certain superstitious rites and of the condemnation of the Alexandrian permissions, even if no fruit should be hoped from such admonition; for the instruction of such ignorant persons is incumbent on evangelical Workers, as a proper function of their office enjoined upon them by the aforesaid Apostolic Constitution." Instr. S. C. S. O. 14 Jan. 1753.

“As regards the controversy … whether a confessor is bound to admonish and teach penitents who invincibly are ignorant of the prohibition of certain superstitious rites or of the condemnation of the Alexandrian permissions, when he foresees that the penitents, admonished and instructed, will not amend themselves, or whether instead he ought to leave them in good faith: the Supreme Pontiff considers that to leave such ignorant persons in their own ignorance concerning the cases about which there is question is not only the same as to close off every approach for all those Christians, lest they furnish obedience uniform with the Apostolic Constitution, and the same as to evade the mind of the Holy See, which prudently commanded that the declarations recounted concerning the aforesaid rites be made known to all Christians; but also that omissions of such instruction tend toward grave scandal of the gentiles and toward public harm to the Christian name in those regions. His Holiness further declares that, although in some cases confessors can omit the instruction of penitents, nevertheless in the present case this doctrine has no place; therefore confessors and Missionaries ought to admonish and teach not only penitents but also other Christians who invincibly are ignorant of the prohibition of certain superstitious rites and of the condemnation of the Alexandrian permissions, even if no fruit should be hoped from such admonition; for the instruction of such ignorant persons is incumbent on evangelical workers as a proper function of their office enjoined upon them by the aforesaid Apostolic Constitution.” Instruction of the Holy Office, 14 Jan. 1753. Cf. C. 1762, pars. 14, 15, 20 ff.

1. Germana, an old woman, confesses thus: Father, she says, I performed the penance imposed on me; I faithfully recited morning and evening prayers; each day I also recited the rosary and attended Mass. Yet I have committed many imperfections, not obeying divine inspirations; perhaps I also had distractions in reciting prayers, but I do not know; I also sometimes had evil thoughts against the charity of neighbor; but I rejected them. I confess that we are all sinners, born in sin from Adam, and therefore I ask for absolution and penance. The confessor asks and urges Germana to declare some sin of her past life in species; but he obtains from her no other answer besides this: Father, I have already said everything; nothing remains for me to say.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Germana cannot be given the benefit of absolution from the preceding confession, because the certain matter of the sacrament is lacking. For the distractions in reciting prayers which she accuses, she accuses only doubtfully and with an entirely negative doubt. Generally, all uncertain or doubtful sins are insufficient matter; for upon them absolution cannot be given without exposing the sacrament to the danger of nullity. Although it is indeed best to accuse oneself also of non-correspondence to divine inspirations concerning works of counsel, nevertheless this does not constitute sufficient matter of absolution, because, speaking in itself, it is not a sin not to correspond to divine inspirations concerning works of counsel, contempt of them being excluded. But the rest which Germana accuses contains no sin, but an act of virtue. Therefore Germana, since she has accused no sin, even after the insistence of the confessor, is to be dismissed with only a blessing, leave being given to her that she may approach communion. G. 378; I. M. 666, 667.

3. Claudinus, a good old man, being asked by the confessor how he elicits the act of contrition for sins, answers: Thus I say: I love thee, my God, above all things, because thou art supremely good; spare, my God, spare my sins. The confessor, having heard this response, indeed labors with anxiety concerning the value of this contrition. Yet, thinking it to be a scruple, he absolves Claudinus.

It is asked: 1. Whether for sacramental confession perfect charity toward God suffices in place of an act of sorrow? 2. What is to be said to the Case?

R. To the 1st. Negatively. The reason is that the Council of Trent, sess. 14, cap. 3, asserts that the acts of the penitent are as it were the matter of the sacrament of penance. But among them it by no means enumerates charity, but places contrition, which the Council of Trent itself, in the following chapter, says holds the first place among the acts of the penitent. But it says that this is sorrow or detestation for sin committed. Therefore that contrition required by the Council for penance is formal contrition, by no means merely virtual; it is an act of the virtue of penance, by no means of charity. But the contrition required for penance must be such only as is expressed and prescribed by the Council, loc. cit., where it professedly hands on Catholic doctrine concerning the sacrament of penance. Therefore.

To the 2nd. An act of charity can be understood in two ways: first, as having for its material object God to be loved, and for its formal object the absolute goodness of God; and there that act stops; nor does that formal object advance in any way so far as to excite in us detestation of sins. And thus charity does not suffice without a true and formal act of sorrow or contrition for the sacrament of penance, so as to constitute part of its quasi-matter, although it suffices for the remission of sins outside the sacrament. But if that formal object of charity moves us also to detestation of admitted sins, then there is perfect contrition, formed by charity, as the same Council of Trent speaks, l. c., cap. 4; and it is best, not only for the remission of sins outside confession, but also in sacramental confession. Now indeed such seems to have been the charity of Claudinus, if attention is paid to the act which he elicited after the formal act of charity: spare, my God, spare my sins. For these words, by imploring divine mercy and the mercy of sins, implicitly signify sorrow of soul and detestation or hatred of the sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning henceforth. It is morally impossible that someone, recalling his sins, should elicit an act of love toward God without being sorry for his sins and detesting them, insofar as they are opposed to God supremely loved. Therefore Claudinus's confessor acted rightly.

"Nevertheless in our Case," says Fr. Gury 402, "Claudinus ought to be carefully questioned by the confessor, so that the latter may know whether he really thought about sorrow for sins, or uttered a mere formula, the sense of which perhaps he did not sufficiently understand. Moreover the confessor ought to have taught the penitent about the manner of eliciting an act of contrition before confession." But these things are said rather by divining; for, as is drawn from the exposition of the Case, there is no trace in Claudinus of such alleged ignorance and negligence. From the very fact that Claudinus did not remain only in that act of charity, I love thee, my God, above all things, because thou art supremely good; but further uttered another act of sorrow and detestation of sins, Spare, my God, spare my sins, he certainly did not utter these words materially, by no means understanding them. And indeed who is so stupid that, uttering these words, he does not understand them? Certainly Claudinus is not such, who forms so perfect an act of charity, and then asks from God remission of sins. But who, asking from God remission of sins from a motive of perfect love, does not at the same time have sorrow for them and detestation of them? It is utterly repugnant seriously to implore divine mercy and forgiveness of sins at the same time, and not to be sorry for them, nor to detest them. Moreover contrition consists essentially in detestation of sin. Sorrow is its companion or effect. Roman Catechism n. 23, 24; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 85, a. 1, ad 3. The object of contrition of this kind is sin, that is, an evil action by which God is offended. St. Thomas, l. c., a. 2. How therefore does someone explicitly asking forgiveness of sins from God out of true love not at the same time detest and reprobate them? Does he not at the same time have displeasure with them? Therefore no obligation appears in the confessor, in the Case, of teaching the penitent the manner of eliciting an act of contrition, since the penitent elicits an act of contrition so perfectly. I. M. 677.

473. Principle: The confessor must teach penitents those truths which are necessary for rightly receiving the sacrament, unless absolution can be deferred to another time. It is certain.

For since he is the minister of the sacrament, he must procure its valid and licit administration; since he is a teacher, he is bound to teach those things which are necessary for its valid and licit reception. These things having been set down:

(a) A penitent who, whether culpably or inculpably, is ignorant of truths necessary by necessity of means, must be instructed about these before he can be absolved; for he is incapable of justification, and therefore of absolution.

Now there are two truths which are certainly necessary by necessity of means, namely the existence of God and his Providence, or faith that God exists and is a rewarder; therefore no one can be absolved without explicit faith in these truths.

But besides, it is probable that faith in the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation is necessary by necessity of means; and since in matters of this kind the safer opinion must be followed, no one can be absolved, outside the case of extreme necessity, unless he conceives explicit faith in these mysteries; otherwise the sacrament is exposed to danger of nullity.² But if there is question of a dying person whom it is impossible to instruct about these things, he can and must be absolved conditionally: and if he afterward survives, he is to be instructed and again absolved. - Yet it is not required that there be scientific knowledge of these mysteries; but it suffices that it be believed, with regard to the Trinity, that there are three distinct persons, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and that these three are one God; with regard to the Incarnation, that the Son of God made man redeemed us by his death. Therefore the confessor can teach these briefly and easily.

² Hence the Holy Office, 25 Jan. 1703, declared "that the missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not wholly incapable, the mysteries of Faith which are necessary by necessity of means, such as especially the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation" (Collect. P. F., n. 549). This was declared concerning an adult with respect to baptism; but the reason is the same with respect to absolution.

474. (b) Likewise he must be instructed, before he is absolved, who is ignorant of the dispositions necessary for fruitfully receiving the sacrament, namely contrition, firm purpose, and the manner of confessing integrally; otherwise he is exposed to the danger of receiving absolution invalidly or illicitly. But if the penitent has already at other times been warned several times in vain, absolution can be deferred, so that he may be more diligent in learning these things.

475. (c) If the penitent does not know the truths which are necessary by necessity of precept - for example, the mysteries of faith contained in the Creed, the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church, the doctrine concerning the Sacraments which he must receive, and other things necessary for the right formation of Christian life - he cannot be absolved unless he seriously promises to learn all these things morally as soon as possible, according to his capacity; for unless he promises this, by that very fact he is indisposed, since he does not wish to fulfill a grave precept. - A confessor who does not have the care of souls is not bound to instruct the penitent concerning these things, except perhaps from charity; if at the same time he is a pastor, or one having the care of souls, by office and from justice he must provide him the means of acquiring this knowledge, by assigning a place and time for receiving instruction.

(d) If the penitent is ignorant of those things which are necessary for rightly fulfilling his office, he regularly cannot be absolved unless he is prepared either to leave the office, - or to acquire the required knowledge, meanwhile abstaining from exercising those functions by which grave harm would probably be inflicted on his neighbor. For one who does not wish to promise this is indisposed, since he exposes himself to a proximate danger of causing grave harm; thus a judge, physician, pastor, laboring under ignorance, can gravely harm the fortunes of citizens, the health of bodies, and the salvation of souls. - It is said regularly, because if there is no hope that the warning will be of profit, nor is scandal feared, the warning about leaving the office can be omitted, provided the obligation of acquiring the necessary knowledge as soon as possible is urged.

476. Principle: When the ignorance of the penitent concerns the liceity of some matter, a warning is to be given if, all things considered, it will be of profit to him or to the community; otherwise, for the time, it must be omitted. It is certain.

The reason is that the confessor is bound to procure the good of the penitent and the general good of the community committed to him; therefore, if the warning profits both, it certainly must be given; if it profits the community and harms the penitent, it must be seen on which side the greater good lies; now, generally, the common good must be preferred to a particular good. But if it is foreseen that it will be harmful, it must for the time be abstained from.

477. Corollaries. (a) If the penitent, from an erroneous conscience, judges that something is a sin which in reality is not such, or that something is grave which in fact is light, he must be warned about this error, since it is harmful to him: for he formally commits grave sins. This is true even if it is foreseen that perhaps, from this warning, he will more often commit venial sins.

(b) If, on the contrary, the penitent regards as licit what is truly prohibited, or as light what in reality is grave, a distinction must be made: if the ignorance is vincible and gravely culpable, he must be seriously warned; for this cannot harm him, since, on account of culpable negligence, he is already guilty of mortal fault; but rather it can profit him, since from this warning he can draw strength for avoiding evil; thus, for example, a father of a family must be warned who doubts whether he is bound under grave obligation to educate his children in a Christian manner. - But if the ignorance is invincible, or inculpable, the penitent must indeed be warned as often as fruit is hoped for, at least for the future, and graver inconveniences are not feared; for even material evil is disorder, and of itself harms both individuals, by preparing a way for formal sin, and society, by disturbing the order instituted by God.¹ But where greater inconveniences prudently threaten either the penitent himself or a third person, he must be left in good faith: otherwise the sin will become formal from material; moreover, from two evils the lesser is to be tolerated so that the greater may be avoided. - In doubt whether the warning will be useful or harmful, it is generally to be omitted, unless the good which is hoped for greatly surpasses the evil which is feared.

¹ This the Vieux Moraliste lucidly sets forth, in Ami du Clerge, XXI, 1899, p. 1169 sq.

478. We declare the matter briefly by examples. (a) If a penitent in good faith has invalidly contracted marriage, he is generally not to be warned before the marriage can be revalidated, lest perhaps meanwhile he sin formally. - If the penitent is going to accept the warning, but at the same time it is foreseen that grave harm will befall others (for example, children, in the case in which putative spouses are separated), the warning is to be omitted.²

² Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 27.

(b) But the penitent is to be warned if otherwise there is danger lest he be strengthened in a depraved habit which afterward he will overcome only with difficulty; for example, if a boy falsely thinks that pollution is not a grave sin; - if ignorance induces or leaves a danger of formal sin, for example, if there is question of a proximate occasion of sin; - if ignorance concerns the first principles of morals or proximate conclusions, because then it is foreseen that it will cease shortly, and therefore the warning is useful for the future; - when the common good requires it, for example, if there is question of avoiding scandal, or of grave temporal or spiritual harm which the whole community will suffer from the fault of administrators; - when, from the circumstances, the silence of the confessor can be understood as positive approval of an evil matter. Hence, if the penitent asks, the confessor can rarely dissemble the truth; nevertheless he is not bound to say more than he is asked; for example, if someone, after a simple vow of chastity, has contracted marriage, and inquires whether the marriage is valid and whether the debt can be rendered, the answer can be given affirmatively, without its being added that to ask the debt is illicit.

479. Principle: The confessor is bound from charity, as far as can be done, to prepare the indisposed for absolution, by proposing motives of contrition. It is certain.

(a) For from charity he is bound to procure the good of the penitent and to turn away grave harms from him; but a sinner who is dismissed without absolution incurs grave harm, since he is exposed to the danger of remaining for a long time in the state of mortal sin, and perhaps of being deterred from confession. Besides, an indisposed person cannot be absolved; therefore, as far as can be done, that is, if there is a founded hope and at the same time time for disposing him to contrition, the confessor from charity must provide this.

(b) The Roman Ritual inculcates this obligation:² "And he will strive to lead him to sorrow and contrition by efficacious words, and he will induce him to amend and better institute his life, and will hand on remedies of sins." Likewise Leo XII¹ earnestly exhorts confessors to fulfill that office and censures those who neglect it: "Many present themselves indeed to ministers of penance entirely unprepared, yet very often such that from unprepared they can be made prepared, if only the priest, having put on the bowels of the mercy of Christ Jesus, who came not to call the just, but sinners, knows how to act with them studiously, patiently, and meekly. But if he omits to provide this, certainly he himself is no more to be called prepared for hearing than the others for approaching to confess." - St. Alphonsus (n. 608) teaches that this obligation is of itself grave.²

² Ordo administrandi Sacr. Paenit.

¹ Encyclical Caritate Christi, 25 Dec. 1825.

² "Wherefore I do not know how those sluggish confessors can be excused from fault who, as soon as they have known the penitent to be not sufficiently disposed, dismiss him, with no or very little diligence first applied to curing him. For I say that the confessor is bound from a rigorous obligation of charity to dispose him as much as he can." And he adds: "Nor ought it be a care to him that other penitents are waiting; for then the confessor is not bound to attend to the good of others, but only to the good of his penitent." This indeed is true if there are other confessors for hearing the other penitents, or if these can wait patiently and without grave inconvenience; for if a long delay would bring grave inconvenience to others, who perhaps are in greater necessity, the confessor must choose the lesser of two evils. Cf. Ball. P., n. 832.

480. Corollaries. (a) If the confessor prudently judges that the penitent is well disposed, he is strictly bound to nothing. Nevertheless it is expedient to exhort to contrition all concerning whom it is probably doubted whether they are sufficiently disposed, or at least to inquire whether they have elicited an act of sorrow and firm purpose; for thus the fruit of the sacrament is received more securely and abundantly.

(b) To excite the indisposed to contrition, the confessor should accommodate himself to the mind of each one, proposing motives which are proportioned to their capacity: the brevity of life, the nearness of death, which imposes an end on all pleasures and honors, the uncertain hour of it, the detriment of the soul and the peril of eternal salvation, saying, for example: "Do you wish to be a reprobate? If you cling to this sin, you are going to hell, and if you die in this state, you will be consigned to eternal torments." Let him also recall the benefits of God bestowed upon us, and his mercy, which is prepared to embrace prodigal sons, and also the blood of Christ poured out for us: "Who ever did for you what Christ did? And do you wish to betray him? That you may please yourself and others, do you not hesitate to crucify him anew in your heart? Ought you not rather to renounce creatures, pleasures, honors, than God and Christ?" With these or similar things, which the confessor will easily find if he reads and prays, he will be able, with grace helping, to move not a few penitents.¹

¹ Motives of contrition clearly set forth for various kinds of sinners you will find in Salvatori, op. cit., part I.

2. As to instruction: ordinarily those who commit a sin of lust from ignorance are to be instructed, because ignorance is harmful to them or to others, at least by generating a vicious habit.

3. In judging sins, one must proceed cautiously: for rash condemnation leads the penitent to despair, improvident hesitation to anxiety, and inconsiderate excusing to ruinous audacity. Therefore let the confessor quiet the anxious and scrupulous by firm responses; but let him generally induce others to proceed by the safer way with paternal severity, so that he shows benevolence toward persons but wards off all rashness in actions. He will usefully provide these counsels to the penitent:

a. that he flee whatever things are strange and unaccustomed in these matters;

b. that if there is a grave cause of seeing, reading, handling, touching something, he preserve a simple and secure mode of acting, not an anxious one;

c. that except for a just cause he do nothing and avoid specious pretexts;

d. that in necessary actions he study to avoid a less pure affection and motions of the flesh;

e. that he always proceed with perfect sincerity and strength of soul;

f. that he be mindful of human and Christian dignity, and foster more sublime pursuits.

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:

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

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

Question 2. Whether a penitent laboring under ignorance concerning some obligation must always be warned?

Resp. Affirmatively, if the ignorance seems vincible, that is, if the confessor notices that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is already lacking. The reason is because in giving the warning no danger threatens; but otherwise the penitent acting with that doubt is not immune from sin. - But if the ignorance is invincible, the penitent is to be warned if fruit from the warning is hoped for; otherwise, speaking generally, he is not, if it is not hoped for. The reason is because on the one hand this warning would not help, and on the other it would harm him, since, after being warned, he would formally sin in the future. Therefore the penitent is to be warned: 1°. whenever he himself asks concerning the malice of some thing, because, since he doubts about the licitness of the thing, he is no longer situated in invincible ignorance; 2°. whenever the silence of the confessor would confirm him in the purpose of performing an evil thing; 3°. whenever his ignorance concerns the primary principles of natural law, or the proximate conclusions of them, because such ignorance, if it is possible, cannot long be invincible; 4°. whenever, if the warning is omitted, the penitent would remain in a proximate occasion of formally sinning, or his ignorance would bring spiritual harm to the community. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 610, 614 and 615. - Baller. note (a), (b), and (c), p. 570.

By a twofold different reason the confessor is held to perform the office of judge, namely insofar as he must instruct the cause or interrogate penitents, and insofar as he must render sentence. Hence:

I say 2°. Absolution must always and altogether be denied to a certainly indisposed penitent; but to him who certainly is disposed, it must of itself be granted from justice and under grave obligation. The reason of the first is because, if the certain indisposition of the penitent is supposed, sacrilege could not be avoided. But the reason of the second is both because in the very act of confession a certain quasi-contract has been entered upon, by virtue of which the penitent rightly confessed and disposed has a right to receive the sacrament; and because the end of the institution of this sacrament demands this; and finally because otherwise the penitent would be obliged either to put off the recovery of grace to another time with danger to eternal salvation, or to approach another confessor without being able besides to trust certainly that he will receive absolution from that new confessor. Therefore a priest denying absolution to a disposed penitent would act unjustly, would pervert the end of the sacrament itself, and would impose an intolerable burden.

Question 1. Whether it is expedient to use the remedy of deferring absolution for a sufficiently disposed penitent?

Resp. If the confessor cannot doubt concerning the dispositions of the penitent, and the latter asks for absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred (Can. 886).

Certainly the examples of the Lord and of the saints persuade that it would be better for the confessor to render an account of too much charity than of austerity. "With absolution deferred for these (attrite persons), they remain enemies of God, incapable of every merit and satisfaction; for their works according to St. Thomas, in 4, dist. 15, since they are done without charity, are not satisfactory. Therefore the prudent and benign practice, fortified by so many testimonies, of immediately absolving sinners whether attrite or contrite flourishes in the whole Catholic Church. ... Therefore the manner full of wisdom and charity is to rescue sinful souls most swiftly from the state of sin, according to the practice of the universal Church founded in the Gospel of Christ, so that they may quickly receive the first robe; and not to prolong, but, as far as can be done, to hasten the spirit of penance according to the form which the Council of Trent has most wholesomely prescribed, so that before reconciliation they may resolve, and after it, having been restored to the state of grace more securely and wholesomely, they may strive to make satisfaction." Instruction of the S. C. de Prop. F., 3 Oct. 1736. Collect. n. 321.

Question 2. Whether certitude concerning the disposition of the penitent is required so that he can be absolved?

Resp. Absolute certitude is not required, nor even strict moral certitude, such as is required in other sacraments, for example concerning the wine for the consecration of the Eucharist. The reason is because the sacrament of Penance scarcely admits a judgment of this sort with more certitude. But a prudent judgment or broad moral certitude is required and suffices, which, as St. Alphonsus says, is equivalent to prudent probability. For penitents commonly display only probability of disposition. Therefore the Catechism of the Council of Trent, n. 82, thus teaches: "If, after the confession has been heard, [the priest] shall have judged that neither diligence in enumerating sins nor sorrow in detesting them was altogether lacking to the penitent, he will be able to be absolved." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 461. - Suarez, disp. 32, sect. 2, n. 1.

Question 3. What is the ordinary sign of sufficient disposition in a penitent, so that the confessor can safely absolve?

Resp. Speaking of itself, and unless something peculiar occurs on the part of the penitent which brings upon the confessor a prudent suspicion concerning his indisposition, confession made in the due manner is by itself alone the common and ordinary sign of sufficient disposition. For, as St. Alphonsus well says, "the penitent on the one hand is not to be presumed evil, so that he would wish to approach the sacrament indisposed; and on the other he is well presumed disposed while he confesses his sins, since spontaneous confession itself is a sign of contrition, unless some positive presumption to the contrary stands in the way; for all agree that sorrow is manifested through confession." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 459. - Baller. note (b), p. 589.

Question 4. To whom properly is absolution to be denied?

Resp. Many classes of penitents to whom absolution is to be denied are enumerated by diverse authors; but it can be said more briefly and more generally: it is to be denied to all and only those who at least do not promise that they will satisfy some grave and certain obligation in that manner in which they ought. - Cf. Baller. note (a) and (b), p. 590.

Rule I. Before all things let the confessor study to see through the intimate motions and condition of soul of penitents, so that he may be able to accommodate instruction to their capacity and nature; for not all are to be led by the same spirit, nor are all to be governed in one way.

Rule II. Let him lead penitents to perfection by degrees and in order, so that they first strive to attain the first degree of virtue before they contend for the highest; for example, let them first learn to act with a right intention and rightly perform ordinary actions before they think out higher things; let them first learn to bear light things patiently before they seek grave things; let them first learn to suffer with a calm soul before they wish to rejoice concerning adversities.

Rule III. Let him teach all that the perfection of each is situated in this: that they perform ordinary works well, for example, that they pray well, be present at Mass, exercise themselves in labors, take refreshment of the body in the manner in which it is fitting, converse inoffensively with their neighbor, and finally rightly carry out all things to which they are bound from office and state.

Rule IV. Let him opportunely test penitents professing devotion, so that he may notice by what spirit they are led, whether of God or of the world, of love or of fear; and what affection is predominant in them, which must first be mortified. Nevertheless not all are to be tested and treated in the same manner, but caution and discretion are necessary: thus those who are prone to sadness are to be received more benignly, lest they fall into dejection of soul; souls still tender, whom God first conciliates to himself, are to be treated more gently; but if the souls are nobler or stronger, or have extraordinary benefits of God, a certain severity must be joined to sweetness. But let the confessor beware lest the test be open; for otherwise it helps nothing.

Rule V. Let him not impose, indeed, where there is need, let him temper extraordinary penal practices; but let him so instruct souls that they themselves spontaneously request them; nor is their spirit to be believed when they are found eagerly to pursue extraordinary things, unless certain signs are present that they are led by divine impulse. If someone is noticed to be tenacious of his own judgment in doing things, he is to be corrected strongly and at the same time sweetly. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confess. nn. 90 and following.

VIII. THE FIFTH RULE. With the oil of kindliness let a prudent minister join the vinegar of severity, lest the festering sore become more dangerous. After he has with patience and meekness heard the sins, let him apply remedies opportune for the curing of the wounds, and impose satisfactory works consonant with the age, state, health, and gravity of the crimes. If penitents show themselves difficult toward undergoing the yoke of satisfaction imposed by you prudently and moderately according to the evangelical and Tridentine rules, there occurs a foundation for doubting of their disposition, unless they allege evident and manifest reasons for refusing.

VIII. Two things here Fr. Gobat teaches, the one true, the other false. He said what was true, when he says that a purse of contrary practically probable opinions is MOST CONVENIENT. For what more convenient than to abound in various contrary opinions — namely true and false — and according to the diversity of penitents to adopt now one, now the other, and all as a safe rule? The other is false, namely that confessors who, the use of these contrary opinions being rejected, use a single evangelical doctrine, or that which they judge nearer to the Gospel, do not discharge their office well. If of two contrary doctrines one is true, the other must necessarily be false. Therefore a confessor, if he holds out a remedy to one penitent, imparts poison to another. But falsity is poison, and especially if the falsity be known, which kills souls. But in the case proposed the falsity is known. Since a confessor employing contrary doctrines knows that one is false, if the other is true, since contrary doctrines cannot be true at once.

VIII. In few words I conclude the whole matter. The endowments of a confessor are these. 1. A singular vocation of God: for unless he be called by God with a singular grace, he will be a most inept minister for bearing the place of God, who will destroy himself and others. 2. Fortitude, contempt of the world, and a study of the glory of God alone. 3. Prudence, meekness, humility, charity. 4. Let him always have before his eyes the image of Christian justification, and it is necessary that he know exceedingly well what is the spirit of the Christian profession. From the holy Scriptures, from the Gospel, from the epistles of Paul let him conceive the true image of the spirit of Christ and of justification.

V. QUESTION IV. Whether a confessor is bound to admonish penitents of those things of which they are ignorant, whether vincibly or invincibly? ANSWER. With a full pen I have treated this question in Vol. II, Apparatus, dissertation 1, chapter 4. In few words I shall now despatch it. Fr. Viva in his Course, part 6, question 8, article 3, no. 4, teaches these things: “If it be hoped that the penitent, adverting for example that the marriage is invalid, or that a contract which he thinks just is unjust, and so forth, will remove those material sins, the confessor is bound to detect the ignorance for the good of the penitent, lest he sin against the law of God even materially. But if no progress be hoped for, but rather it be feared that the material sin will hereafter be a formal sin — for example, if, knowing the marriage to be invalid, he would not then easily abstain from knowing her whom he thought his wife — in such a case the ignorance is not to be removed, according to that of Augustine in the chapter Si quis, and so forth. And the same Tamburini teaches out of Pellizarius, when someone IS IN GOOD FAITH IN A PROXIMATE OCCASION, and no amendment is hoped for; or when someone in good faith does not restore another's goods. For the revelation of the truth would harm the penitent, if thereafter with formal fault he should remain in the proximate occasion, or retain another's goods. Nor would this profit him to whom another's goods must be restored, because we suppose that there is no hope that they will be restored if the good faith be taken away.”

VIII. QUESTION V. What if a confessor be asked by a penitent to lay open to him the truth of those things of which he is ignorant? ANSWER. De Lugo answers, disputation 22, section 2, no. 29: “But what if the penitent should question the confessor, or the Doctor, upon that matter? It is answered that then he ought to open the truth. … But Sánchez adds with others that when the penitent questions not from doubt but from scruple, THE CONFESSOR CAN KEEP SILENCE, or answer that (N.B.) he lay aside the scruple, because a scruple does not hinder good faith, nor the invincible ignorance which excuses it. This nevertheless does not seem to be said consequently: because even if the penitent question from scruple, the confessor cannot affirm that to be lawful which is unlawful: therefore neither will he be able to keep silence. … The confessor could indeed in that case FEIGN THAT HE HAD NOT HEARD, or had not attended, or answer that he had forgotten, that thus he may remain in the good faith which he had before, not nevertheless confirmed by his own authority.” Can a judge and a doctor therefore feign that he did not hear, or did not attend? And is he who, being questioned, keeps silence not presumed to consent?

XIV. I am unwilling to produce the matter further. Only some absurdities I shall here indicate in passing which follow upon the adversaries' opinion. 1. A confessor would not be bound to admonish penitents invincibly ignorant that gain exacted beyond the principal as owed out of benevolence is to be restored. 2. Similarly he ought not to admonish a knightly man provoked to a duel, in good faith thinking that it must be accepted lest his honour be clouded and he incur the mark of cowardice. 3. That those are not to be admonished who in good faith believe the killing of a calumniator lawful, when no other mode occurs of escaping infamy. 4. That those are to be left in their ignorance who in good faith believe that a judge can judge according to a less probable opinion, and can accept money when litigants have on their side opinions equally probable. 5. That those are not to be enlightened who invincibly believe it lawful to retain a concubine exceedingly useful for delight. 6. Girls who certainly reckon that the abortion of an unanimated foetus can be procured without sin for the avoiding of infamy. 7. Very many who hold it for certain that a proximate occasion exceedingly convenient is not to be forsaken are to be left in the darkness of ignorance.

Case.—Father Caius hears Bertha’s confession, and from the very beginning discovers that she is extremely ignorant about her religion. To the question, “Are there more Gods than one?” she answers correctly. She knows also of God’s justice, of the existence of Heaven and hell. But that is all. When asked how many Divine Persons there are, she becomes confused, saying first seven, then one, then three. The question, “Who died for us upon the cross?” she is unable to answer.

Question.—What should be done with such a penitent?

Solution.—Father Caius should admonish this ignorant penitent of her obligation to receive religious instruction, and the administration of the Sacrament should be postponed until due instruction has been imparted. If the confessor foresees that on account of shyness or other obstacles she would not come to be instructed, or if perhaps he will not be able later to instruct her himself, for instance, if he is a missionary, then he must not dismiss her, saying that he can do nothing with her, that she must seek instruction, but he must then and there teach her the most necessary truths (S. Alph. L. VI. 608).

Indispensably necessary for the validity of absolution is the knowledge of the existence of one God and of His justice (Heb., II. 6). Whether the knowledge of the Divine Trinity and of the Incarnation is indispensably necessary (necessitate medii) is a matter of dispute among theologians. A list of literature on this point we find in S. Alphonsus L. II. n. 2. Since probably the confessor is pressed for time he may content himself by making Bertha acquainted hic et nunc with the last-mentioned two articles of faith; then, in regard to knowledge of the mysteries of the faith, she is capable of receiving absolution. It is not necessary to impart instruction strictly according to the catechism. Caius may say: “You know that there is but one God. But there are three Divine Persons. How many Divine Persons are there? They are called Father, Son, Holy Ghost. What are they?” In the same way he should instruct and question her concerning the Incarnation.

In the event of Bertha having gone to confession often before, it may be presumed that the confessors did their duty as doctores. What, however, is to be done if it becomes apparent that Bertha has not been questioned by any confessor, much less instructed? Ballerini is of opinion that, according to the principles of probability, the ignorance of the mysteries in question would not necessitate a repetition of previous confessions, and in support of his decision he quotes St. Alphonsus L. VI. n. 505: “It must be noted that penitents are not to be compelled to repeat confessions unless it is morally certain that they were invalid.” The Saint, however, does not seem to allow the application of this procedure to a case like ours, because he calls the view of the necessity (necessitate medii) of the distinct knowledge of both mysteries communior et (videtur) probabilior, and concludes his investigation with the following words: “Therefore, when he has recognized that his confession, because of ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity or of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, was probably valid but also probably null, he is bound, after he has been instructed concerning those mysteries, to repeat the confession.” In these two points made by St. Alphonsus there is no contradiction, they are in perfect accord. In L. VI. 505, he treats of certain acts which the penitent positively performed and in regard to them applies the principle “in dubio praesumitur rite factum, quod factum est” as also “in dubio standum est pro valore actus.” The teaching of St. Alphonsus on the point referred to is strictly in accordance with this principle. In L. II. 2, namely, in our case, he treats of something quite different, namely of a subjectum capax or incapax Sacramenti. Here there can be no presumption of validity. Here comes into consideration the proposition condemned by Innocent XI. “It is not unlawful, in conferring the Sacraments, to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the Sacrament while leaving aside the safer opinion.’ Therefore the Saint insists upon the iteratio confessionis (cf. L. I. 48. H. A. I. 25). Moreover, probably every conscientious confessor, guided by Ballerini, would cause Bertha to repeat her confessions, as this course evidently would present no particular difficulty and in praxi one prefers to choose the safer way.