Obligations of the Minister in Reference to the Recipient

381. All obligations of confessors arise from the general obligation of procuring those things which are necessary for the valid and licit administration and reception of the sacrament. Of these obligations some urge before the hearing of confession, others during the very hearing of confession, and others finally after the confession has been heard. Before the hearing of confession, suitable knowledge is required. During the hearing of confession, the obligation of teaching and warning must be observed, the obligation of interrogating, and the obligation of absolving the penitent. The obligation of the confessor after confession is twofold: one which follows from confession by accident, namely, of correcting defects committed; the other which follows from confession in itself, namely, of preserving the sacramental seal. The obligations cohere with the offices which belong to the minister of the sacrament of penance, namely with the office of teacher, by which he ought to warn the penitent and teach him those things which are necessary to be known; with the office of physician, by which he ought to cure the diseases of the soul and to suggest suitable remedies for avoiding relapse; but especially with the office of judge, by which he ought to judge concerning the sins and disposition of the penitent and reconcile him to God by sacramental absolution.

¹ St. Alphonsus, Praxis confessarii. Lacroix, Theologia moralis l. 6, pr. 2, n. 1699-1932. Stoz, Tribunal poenitentiae l. 2, De confessario ut iudice. Lohner, Instructio practica de confessionibus rite et fructuose excipiendis. Io. Palanco, Directorium confessarii (Cracow: Anczyc Gadowski, 1886). Aertnys, Theologia pastoralis complectens practicam institutionem confessarii (Paderborn: Schoningh, 1893). Tepehorn, Anleitung zur Verwaltung des heiligen Bussakramentes (Dulmen: Laumann, 1893). Reuter, Neoconfessarius, which Lehmkuhl newly edited in Latin (Freiburg: Herder, 1905), but Iul. Mullendorf in German, Der Beichtvater u. s. w. (Regensburg: Verlagsanstalt, 1901). Schick-Rhiel, Kurze Anleitung zur Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes (Fulda: Actiendruckerei, 1901).

When Is the Minister of the Sacraments Bound to Give Them?—(a) A pastor is obliged to give a Sacrament to one of his own subjects who reasonably requests it, and to do so willingly, freely (Canon 736), and, if he has no substitute, in person; for a spiritual shepherd has a grave duty of justice and charity to feed his flock. A request is not reasonable, however, if compliance will put the pastor to an inconvenience greater than that which the parishioner will suffer from a refusal, for example, when Baptisms, Confessions, or Communions are needlessly asked for outside the appointed hours, or when sick calls that can be attended during the day are sent in at night. The Sacraments necessary for salvation (Baptism and Penance) should be given even at the risk of life, if the subject is in grave need and there is assured hope of success (see 1167), and doubtless this should be applied also to Extreme Unction or even the Viaticum.

(b) One who is not a pastor is obliged from charity to give the Sacraments to those who reasonably ask. He would be obliged even to risk his life to save a soul, if there were no one else to administer a necessary Sacrament to a person in extreme spiritual peril who could be saved by his ministry.

When Is the Minister of the Sacraments Bound to Deny Them?—(a) He must always deny them to those who are incapable, for otherwise he insults the Sacrament. Under no circumstances, then, may a priest baptize one who is already baptized, or absolve one who is unrepentant; and he may not assist at the attempted marriage of a divorcee. Likewise, as is manifest, he must always deny the Sacraments to those who ask for them out of hatred or contempt for religion, for to grant them in such circumstances would be an act intrinsically evil.

(b) He must deny them, as a rule, to those who to his knowledge are certainly unworthy (e.g., on account of lack of requisite instruction or moral disposition); otherwise, he casts pearls before swine, cooperates in the sacrilege of others, and scandalizes the people. Hence, a public sinner—that is, one whose unworthiness is notorious (see 2053)—should not be given the Sacraments publicly, until he has repaired the scandal he gave; and no unworthy person, even though he be a hidden sinner whose guilt is known only to the minister, should be given a Sacrament in private until he has shown signs of repentance. Generally the minister is bound to assure himself beforehand of the good disposition of the one who asks for a Sacrament, though in case of Communion this is often impossible, and it suffices to presume that all who approach the altar becomingly are in the state of grace.

Administration to Unworthy Persons.—Since material cooperation with sin is lawful for a sufficient reason (see 1515 sqq.), one may administer a Sacrament to an unworthy person when refusal would cause a greater evil than ministration. This happens in the following cases:

(a) when refusal will necessitate a more wicked sacrilege (viz., injury to a Sacrament by the minister himself). This case occurs when the minister knows the subject’s unworthiness only from the latter’s sacramental confession, and hence cannot exclude him without violation of the seal;

(b) when the refusal will bring on more widespread evils (viz., discouragement of the use of the Sacraments). This happens when the subject who asks the Sacrament is not publicly known as a sinner, but his request is public, so that a refusal will amount to a defamation of him by the minister. If priests had the right to inflict public disgrace on those who approached the Sacraments, it is easily seen what grave scandals and disorders would follow, and that a ready excuse would present itself for personal spite and neglect of religion. Our Lord administered Communion to Judas rather than betray his secret guilt to the other Apostles.

Is the fear of bodily harm or of death a sufficient reason for administering a Sacrament to an unworthy person? (a) If a greater evil will be caused by bestowal of the Sacrament, it should not be bestowed. This happens when the Sacrament is asked out of hatred or contempt of religion, and when great scandal will result if the priest yields. (b) If a greater evil will be caused by refusal of the Sacrament, it should not be refused. Examples are those of the previous paragraph. The mere private good of the minister is not preferable to the good of the Sacrament.

Simulation and Dissimulation of a Sacrament?—Is it lawful in case of difficulty to give a Sacrament only in appearance? (a) If this means simulation of a Sacrament, or the use of its externals in such a way as to make it null (i.e., by withholding internal intention or using invalid matter or form), the answer is in the negative; for simulation is always an acted lie (see 2403, 2404), and when applied to Sacraments it produces a sacrilegious mutilation and also, in the case of the Eucharist (e.g., when an unconsecrated host is given to a communicant), an occasion of idolatry. (b) If this means dissimulation of a Sacrament, or the use of some nonsacramental act to conceal the denial of a Sacrament, the answer is in the affirmative, for it is lawful to keep from others knowledge to which they have no right. Thus, a priest who wishes to conceal from onlookers that he has refused absolution to a penitent, can lawfully say a prayer and make a sign of the cross over this person.

Administration of Penance and Extreme Unction to Heretics and Schismatics.—(a) Regularly this is unlawful, even though these persons are in good faith and ask for the Sacraments. They must first renounce their errors and become reconciled with the Church (Canon 731).

(b) Exceptionally, according to some moralists, this is lawful when there is extreme need. Hence, according to this view a priest may secretly give conditional absolution to an unconscious heretic or schismatic in danger of death who has given signs of repentance; he may absolve and anoint a dying heretic or schismatic, even though conscious, if this person appears to be in good faith and repentant and willing to do all that God requires of him. But the priest should first try to convert the dying person, if this is possible and the latter’s good faith will not be disturbed; and he must also avoid giving scandal.

Repetition of a Sacrament on Account of Invalid Administration.—(a) This is unlawful when the fear of invalidity is groundless and foolish; for it is seriously disrespectful to a Sacrament and disedifying to others to repeat the rite without reason. But scrupulous persons are sometimes free of grave sin, since they mean well in repeating and are not accountable for their fears.

(b) This is lawful but not obligatory when there is a prudent misgiving about a useful Sacrament (Confirmation, Matrimony, anointing of one who is conscious); also when there is a slight reason of law or fact for fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament (Baptism, Orders, absolution of a dying person, anointing of an unconscious person, consecration of the Eucharist). For the Sacraments are for men. But if only a small loss or an unlikely loss will be caused by their non-repetition, the duty of repeating them cannot be insisted on.

(c) This is gravely obligatory when there is a prudent fear about a necessary or more important Sacrament; it is gravely or lightly obligatory (to be determined in each case) when there is a well-founded fear about a useful Sacrament, if charity, justice or religion calls for repetition and the inconvenience will not be too great. In Matrimony the alternate methods of convalidation or sanation may be used as the case demands. Again, the Sacraments are for men, and hence, if man will likely be subjected to a notable loss by the minister’s neglect of repetition, the duty of repetition is clear.

616. Principle VIII. Absolution is regularly to be deferred for those who are doubtfully capable or disposed, unless a grave reason urges that they be absolved under condition. - This is altogether certain, for of itself it is illicit to expose a sacrament to the danger of nullity or fruitlessness, because the reverence due to the sacrament prohibits this as sacrilege; - unless by accident, if there is a grave and proportionate reason or a necessity of notable utility to be obtained immediately for the neighbor, because the sacraments are for men. This is to be understood when the confessor has applied every effort for obtaining a sufficient disposition, and a certain disposition cannot be obtained.

Namely, as often as there is danger of nullity for the sacrament and danger of notable detriment for the neighbor, and both cannot be avoided at the same time, rather the danger to the neighbor must be avoided and the sacrament nevertheless conferred under condition: for the sacraments are for men, and the law of charity in a case of grave necessity prevails over the law of religion.

Thus in the following cases:

1. In danger of death, when the necessity of absolving here and now presses, and there is present only doubtful matter, or doubtful disposition, or a doubtfully capable subject, e.g., because there is doubt concerning his life or concerning sufficient presence to the minister.

2. In the case of Marriage soon to be celebrated or Confirmation soon to be received, if the disposition of the penitent is doubtful; likewise in a return to the Church after Baptism repeated under condition.1

3. In the case in which a doubtfully disposed penitent would for a long time lack the occasion of confessing.

4. In the case in which a doubtfully disposed penitent would be exposed to grave infamy or to giving scandal to others, if he were dismissed without absolution.

5. If it is greatly to be feared lest the doubtfully disposed and dismissed penitent be cast into despair or not return to receive the sacrament; not, however, if he seriously threatens this, which is rather a sign of indisposition.

6. If matter cannot be had except doubtfully grave; or if there is doubt concerning sufficient or perfect use of reason in the penitent, while the precept of confession presses or perhaps grave matter is present.

7. Finally, in doubt whether the minister has already absolved or has absolved duly, i.e., with the due form. This case is reduced to doubt concerning the condition of the subject, because if the penitent had already been validly absolved, the matter of the sacrament would be lacking, namely a new confession.

Therefore there are only six cases on the part of the penitent, and one on the part of the minister.

617. Signs of sufficient or insufficient disposition in the penitent. - For forming a truly founded or morally certain judgment concerning the sufficient disposition of the penitent, a truly grave motive is required.

A. But the indications of positive disposition are: 1) the due preparation of the penitent for confession, 2) the confession itself duly made, especially if it is done spontaneously, e.g., for more easily avoiding sin and obtaining the state of grace, 3) the affirmation of the penitent if it appears true and sincere, 4) the manner of confessing, namely a manner evidently candid and humble.

These are ordinary signs, namely those which of themselves and in ordinary circumstances suffice; but when there is a special reason for doubting concerning the disposition or sincerity of the penitent, graver signs drawn from the special circumstances of the penitent are required, or extraordinary conjectural signs, whether of more abundant grace, or of more intense sorrow, or of firmer purpose.

a) Of more abundant grace, as 1) if he confesses from a supernatural and peculiar motive, e.g., on the occasion of preaching, or of the death of a friend, or of imminent evil; 2) if for confessing he had to undergo a sufficiently great inconvenience, such as a long journey, the loss of a day of gain, a great external conflict; 3) if the confession is made altogether spontaneously from the sole impulse of grace, with no other external circumstance impelling, especially in regions where faith has grown weak and human respect does not impel toward the sacraments.

b) Of more intense sorrow, as, for example, 1) if he has applied special means: fasting, alms, prayers, Masses, so that he might make a good confession; 2) if he says words flowing from the heart, or gives sighs and sheds tears, which is a sign having force in many, provided it is not done from a human motive, but not always certain or sincere; 3) if he confesses with greater sincerity, with outpouring of heart, e.g., sins which he previously culpably omitted; 4) if he signifies that he apprehends his sins and the danger of damnation better.

c) Of firmer purpose, as 1) if he says that after the sin he immediately repented; 2) if he especially asks for remedies and willingly promises to apply them, or willingly accepts a great penance; 3) if he has already persevered for some time or has applied diligence to this by the remedies indicated, e.g., by fleeing the occasion, burning bad books, renouncing the company of the wicked; in one word, if there is already a change of life; 4) if he has relapsed with greater difficulty, i.e., after notable resistance, or more rarely in the same circumstances; 5) if he has already fulfilled a difficult obligation, e.g., restitution or reparation of reputation or honor, or reconciliation with enemies.

B. On the contrary, those are called doubtfully disposed in the strict sense against whose disposition from positive indications a grave suspicion arises, while on the other hand, because of much graver reasons, a probable and prudent judgment concerning sufficient disposition cannot be formed.

From positive indications these are judged doubtfully disposed: 1) those who have relapsed in the same or a worse way, without having applied the remedies prescribed by the confessor and without a serious effort at amendment; 2) those who only coldly respond that they are sorry, especially if they have already relapsed rather often; 3) if they show great affection for sin, or have drawn great utility from sins, or devote their whole effort to satisfying passions; 4) when they are of a freer and more lax life, or rashly excuse their sins, or engage in contention and altercation with the confessor, or seem to boast of the sin committed; 5) when they approach the sacrament not spontaneously, but only by command of parents or others, or from mere custom, or to please others, or from fear lest they lose their reputation; 6) if they refuse a moderate penance proportioned to their strength.

We said: a) From positive indications. Therefore if against dispositions proved by a grave reason no grave positive reason militates, or only a light and slight reason does, then the penitent is not judged doubtfully disposed, because in human and practical matters a solidly founded opinion, to which no grave reason is opposed, is equivalent to practical certitude. And thus the opinions of some, who contend that probable disposition suffices, by understanding probability in the strict philosophical sense of a much greater likeness to truth, can be reconciled with the opinion of St. Alphonsus, who requires a morally certain disposition with a certitude broadly so called and imperfect (II, n. 80). But if they understood otherwise, even, for example, concerning the less probable, they would not judge rightly.

b) While on the other hand a probable and prudent judgment concerning sufficient disposition cannot be formed. For although from one or another motive, e.g., from a sudden relapse, a grave suspicion can arise, on the other hand there can be much graver reasons concerning sufficient disposition, namely extraordinary signs of contrition. But a notably more probable opinion is equivalent to practical certitude (II, n. 80). Then, therefore, absolution is to be given immediately and indeed in an absolute manner.