Questioning the penitent

102. In general. 1. In examining penitents concerning shameful sins, the confessor must be very cautious. In this matter it is better to fall short than to abound, lest the penitent from the questions of the confessor learn sins which he previously did not know and thus take an occasion of committing them, and lest confession be rendered odious, because the questioning of the confessor is for the penitent a cause of temptation or an occasion of scandal. For this reason one must not only refrain from asking about circumstances of sins, however notably aggravating, or about the mode in which the sin was perpetrated, but even in those things which of themselves would be necessary for an integral confession, it is better to omit questions from which, rightly and deservedly, grave inconvenience is feared to follow. In this case, therefore, once the certain species (although not the lowest species) and the number of the sin are known, one must abstain from further investigation, even if the integrity of confession is lacking.

2. If an adult accuses himself only in general of sins committed against chastity, and the confessor rightly and deservedly can suppose several sins of this kind, the examination is more suitably begun not from depraved thoughts, but from graver sins, according to the mode which is indicated in the volume De sacramentis, n. 441.

Since questions about shameful sins, as those which wound shamefacedness both in the penitent and in the confessor, are of such great difficulty and trouble, those opinions are to be well retained which remove the specific differences of sins, provided they are still truly probable, so that in practice we can safely follow them.

3. Those who accuse themselves of voluntary pollution sometimes, in sinning, desire a person of the different sex and therefore fornication. Younger persons, however, should not be explicitly asked about this matter, lest they learn sins which perhaps up to this point they do not know; but first they should be asked whether meanwhile they had depraved thoughts. If they deny this, beyond the number of the sin there is nothing else about which they should be asked; but if they affirm it, they should be asked whether they desired something shameful, and what.

4. If someone accuses himself of intercourse with a person of the other sex, besides fornication there can be present the sin of onanism or another sin perpetrated for impeding generation. In order that this may be discerned, he or she can be asked (whether man or woman): whether she could have become pregnant; if the answer is affirmative, none of these things occurred; if it is denied, let the person be asked further: why not? From the response there is had what is necessary to be known.

5. From boys or girls it must not be asked whether an effusion of semen (humor) occurred, lest perhaps they learn what they still do not know and from curiosity be stirred up to experience it. For the same reason they should not be explicitly asked about touches committed with others, whether of the same or of a different sex, but only about touches performed on their own body and about the pleasure perceived from them.

6. Although it is most certain that every venereal delectation freely admitted is a grave sin, nevertheless it is equally certain that very many of the faithful exist, especially from those who live with little Christian spirit, who in good faith judge that a slight venereal delectation, e.g. one taken from a light shameful touch or from a kiss, is not a grave sin. Therefore let the confessor consider whether it is better to admonish penitents of this kind about the gravity of any carnal delectation, or rather to omit this admonition. But lest those things which are dissembled for the salvation of the soul be turned into a lax practice, penitents of this kind must be admonished and exhorted with grave words that they abstain even from slight delectations, lest from slight things they proceed to graver ones.

103. In particular. 1. Those who accuse themselves of impure thoughts must be examined in diverse ways according to the quality of the persons.

a. Those whom the confessor rightly supposes to have sinned against chastity can be asked: whether they have done anything shameful; whether they desired to do it. For penitents frequently accuse sins of lust under the name of shameful thoughts, because they either do not wish or are not able to express anything else, and they expect to be examined about this matter by the confessor.

b. Those who are not accustomed to sin gravely against chastity can be asked: whether they also had depraved desires; whether they had depraved sensations (Gefühle) and consented to them.

c. If it can rightly be supposed that they have not sinned gravely, as frequently happens in the impubescent, they are not to be questioned further; but, with an admonition added, if there is need, that temptations of this kind are to be vigorously and diligently repelled, they are to be dismissed.

2. Those who confess impure touches on their own body can be asked: whether the touches were necessary; if they deny this: whether they were long-lasting or morose; if they deny this, nothing further is to be asked; if they affirm it, either pollution can simply be supposed, or it can be asked whether they polluted themselves, unless they are impubescent.

3. If imperfect acts (looks, touches, conversations, readings, etc.) occurred without a complete venereal act (pollution, intercourse), without commotions or venereal delectations having followed, or if, when they arose, consent was not given, the individual acts are grave or light sins according as the danger which they cause is grave or light. In confession, therefore, the acts themselves are to be accused distinctly, or it is to be said: I exposed myself to a light or grave danger of sinning against chastity. Likewise, if someone by those acts either intended commotion or delectation, or admitted it when it had arisen without intention, either the acts themselves are to be accused distinctly, or it is to be said: I voluntarily had carnal motions or venereal delectations, with their number added.

Since, however, the confessor sometimes ought to know how the commotions or delectations arose - namely where they arose from an object furnishing a voluntary occasion of sin, e.g. from obscene reading, from conversation, from frequenting the theater, etc. - it is necessary that the confessor ask about the occasion, so that it may be removed, unless the penitent himself declares it.

104. Concerning married persons. 1. Married persons who do not accuse themselves of abuse of marriage and do not furnish any suspicion of this abuse are not to be asked about this matter; but if the confessor prudently fears that they abuse marriage, let him cautiously ask them whether there is anything which in this matter gnaws at their conscience. Prudence, decency, and the sanctity of the place require that he speak nothing in particular about this matter unless he has been asked.

2. If spouses accuse themselves that they have had intercourse in a preposterous way or from behind, by these words they signify either the sin of sodomy or an undue position. To discern the matter it is sufficient to ask whether generation was possible; but if they deny this, the sin of sodomy is supposed. It can indeed happen that even in a case of undue position generation was impossible because of the effusion of the whole semen outside the vessel; if this had been foreseen, the undue position would be a grave sin; but in this slippery matter it is not necessary that everything be asked about.

3. Concerning the mode of acting with onanistic spouses, cf. n. 76.

386. Concerning the Obligation Itself. 1. The confessor per se is bound under grave sin to question penitents:

a. About those things which are required for the integral confession of sins, whether they have omitted these culpably or inculpably; for since he is bound to procure the legitimate administration of the sacrament, he cannot absolve penitents unless he has judged them to have confessed integrally (as to species and number).

b. About those things which are necessary to be known so that he can judge concerning the gravity of sins; for the confessor, so far as can morally be done, ought to judge whether the sins of the penitent are grave or slight (n. 388).

c. About those things which are necessary to be known so that he can know the disposition of the penitent and prescribe suitable remedies. For since he is bound to procure a worthy administration of the sacrament, he cannot absolve the penitent unless he has judged him to be disposed (n. 389).

a. Since by force of his office the confessor ought to procure the integral confession of sins, he is bound to question not only penitents who, from grave fault, but also those who, inculpably, on account of ignorance or forgetfulness, fail in integrity.¹ Nevertheless, the obligation of questioning penitents who culpably omit sins is graver than the obligation of questioning those who omit sins inculpably. But since it belongs per se to the penitent to accuse sins and to the confessor to hear the accusation, the obligation of questioning in the confessor is conditional and secondary, namely if the penitent fails; therefore the obligation of questioning is not greater, but rather less than the obligation of the penitent to examine and accuse himself.

b. In a long series of confessions, to omit one or another question about the species and number of sins which the penitent conceals from grave fault, or several questions about the number and species of sins which the penitent conceals in good faith, is not a grave sin because of smallness of matter, even if the penitent would be bound under grave sin to manifest them; for, considering the office of the confessor, by which he is bound to hear and help as many penitents as possible, such an omission is rightly considered slight.²

2. The confessor ought not to question all penitents at once, but only those whom he probably judges to be deficient in the integrity of confession; but those whom, either from the manner of confessing or from the condition of the person, he prudently judges to have confessed integrally, he is not bound to question.

Defects in the integrity of confession chiefly arise from a threefold cause: from negligence in examination, from shame, and from ignorance of religious matters. Hence ordinarily those must be questioned who rarely (once or twice a year) receive the sacraments, who seem little instructed, who either from the manner of confessing or from the condition of the person are judged to be concealing sins. But priests, religious, pious persons, and persons sufficiently instructed according to their condition are not to be questioned, nor penitents who from the manner of confessing can prudently be judged not to be deficient in integrity.

3. In making questions, the confessor is not bound to employ anything except ordinary diligence, and that different according to the different capacity of the penitent. The reason for the first is that the obligation of the penitent to examine himself requires only ordinary and moderate diligence. The reason for the second is that the confessor is bound only to help the penitent and supply for his defects; therefore, since penitents ought to employ different diligence in examining conscience according to their different capacity, the confessor also can employ different diligence.

a. Hence even if the confessor, after moral diligence has already been employed, thinks that by further questions he can fish out more sins or know more accurately, as to species and number, the things declared, he is no longer bound to question. Indeed, neither is it expedient to torture the penitent with many questions, even if some defect in integrity is committed, lest confession be rendered odious.

b. Therefore since the confessor ought to take care only that the penitent confess sins as he himself knows them according to his capacity, a rude and uncultivated man is to be examined more lightly than a civil and instructed man; a sick person, who because of weakness can attend with more difficulty, more lightly than one healthy and robust; one who has more sins, more lightly than one who has fewer.³

4. Questions ought to be moderate, lest confession be rendered burdensome and odious to penitents.

Therefore above all the confessor should not question about all things in which the penitent could have sinned, but only about those things in which, by reason of his state and condition, he probably has in fact sinned. Then also with respect to necessary questions, especially about shameful matters, he should attend lest penitents be offended and deterred from making confession in the future; for it is better to fail in the integrity of confession than to render confession odious to the penitent.

¹ Cf. Suarez, disp. 32, sect. 3, n. 7 s. Lugo, disp. 22, n. 17 ss. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 584.

² Cf. Gury, Casus consc. II, n. 669.

³ Lugo, disp. 16, n. 594.

387. What a Confessor Ought to Do Who Doubts the Sincerity of the Penitent. The axiom received in the forum of penance must be noted: the penitent speaking both for himself and against himself is to be believed; for in the tribunal of penance he is at once the accused and the witness, his own accuser and advocate, and besides he must be presumed truthful unless something else is proved. Therefore the confessor can always absolve the penitent unless he knows certainly that he is sacrilegiously denying a sin. In particular, however, one can distinguish as follows:

a. If the confessor certainly knows that the penitent has committed a sin which he conceals and which, when prudently questioned, he denies, he should first consider whether it can be supposed that the penitent does not hold the matter at issue as a sin, or that he has forgotten this sin, or that he has already confessed it to another, or that he has a just cause for omitting that sin. If any of these can be presumed, the penitent must be absolved, from whatever source the confessor has received knowledge of the matter; for the penitent must be believed.

b. If none of these can be presumed, the penitent must be treated in a different way according to the different source from which the confessor received knowledge of the sin:

a. If he knows this outside confession, and indeed from the report of others, the penitent must be diligently questioned; and if he denies it, the confessor ought to absolve him, for the penitent must be believed rather than others, whom he ought to suppose to have been deceived.¹

Since St. Alphonsus (n. 631) writes that he would not dare to absolve such a penitent in a case in which witnesses so grave had related his crime that moral certitude concerning it was had, a confessor, following the opinion of the holy doctor, can deny absolution to a penitent of this kind. For the holy doctor thinks that that rule, namely that the penitent must be believed, holds only in a doubtful matter, but not in a morally certain matter.

b. If he knows this outside confession, and indeed by his own experience and that infallible, because, e.g., he saw him killing, he ought to convict the penitent; and if nevertheless he constantly denies it, to dismiss him without absolution, for he lacks disposition.

g. If finally he knows this from the confession of an accomplice, he can question him only in general, lest the seal be violated, or even particularly about the same sin, if he would otherwise also have questioned about it, because it is customary for it to be committed by such a person. But if he does not confess the matter and it is plainly established that the penitent conceals a sin committed, it is licit to omit absolution and to recite some prayers to hide its omission; but it is also licit to absolve the penitent either absolutely or conditionally.

a. That absolution can be omitted is clear from this: on the one hand absolution would be null, and therefore the form of absolution would be pronounced in vain, which inconvenience is avoided by omitting absolution; on the other hand, by its omission the seal is not violated, since neither is the sin manifested, nor does a burden of penitents arise from it.²

b. Nevertheless it cannot be demonstrated that absolution is illicit: for on the one hand, the confessor who omits absolution does not prevent the sacrilegious reception of the sacraments; on the other hand, he is not bound to use the knowledge drawn from the confession of the accomplice, but from the common rule can act as if he had not heard that confession; yet to this extent he can use it, that he absolves only conditionally.³

Article Four.. Concerning the Obligation of Absolving Penitents in General.

This obligation, which concerns the sacramental judgment to be instituted by the confessor, comprises several particular obligations, namely the obligation of knowing the cause, the obligation of judging the disposition, and of rendering sentence, or of granting, deferring, or denying absolution.

¹ Lugo, disp. 22, n. 22. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 586.

² St. Alphonsus, n. 631.

³ Cf. Lehmkuhl, Casus consc. II, n. 40 ss. Elbel-Bierbaum III, pr. 8, n. 44. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 587.

As judge in the tribunal of Penance the confessor passes sentence and imposes satisfaction proportionate to the sins confessed. If the penitent makes a full confession, is truly sorry for his sins, and is ready to fulfil to the best of his ability all his grave obligations at least, there is nothing to prevent the confessor giving a penance and absolution at once. There is no necessity for putting questions to well-instructed penitents who make their confession with care and diligence, or to those who have only light matter to confess. If, however, the penitent does not fully declare the number and species of his grave sins, or if the confessor is not satisfied about his dispositions, he is bound to question him to procure a full confession and the necessary dispositions before giving absolution.¹ If the confessor knows that the penitent has committed some serious sin, but says nothing about it in confession, he should question him as to whether there is anything else on his conscience. If the penitent denies that there is, he should as a rule be absolved; it is a received maxim that “ the penitent must be believed in his own favour as well as against himself.” Even if the sin was known to the confessor from the confession of someone else, he must not, of course, put any question which would amount to a violation of the seal, but he may put a general question as to whether there is anything else, and if the penitent denies that there is, he may as a rule absolve even then. It may be that the penitent did not commit formal sin, or that he has forgotten it, or thinks that he is not bound to mention it to this confessor, or there may be some mistake on the part of the confessor or the informant. Still, if it is quite evident to the confessor that the penitent is making a bad confession, and so is not disposed for absolution, he cannot, of course, absolve him.

¹ 4 Lat., c. 21; Ritual.

The confessor’s obligation of putting questions to the penitent in order to supply any defect on the part of the latter is a grave one. Still it is only secondary; the obligation lies with the penitent in the first place, and so the confessor may be excused from grave sin if occasionally he does not put questions even to obtain what is necessary matter for confession. We may allow this especially when the confessor is weary after hearing a great many confessions, and, partly through weariness, partly through some slight negligence, fails to ask questions which are per se necessary.

The Ritual and theologians warn the confessor against putting unnecessary and indiscreet questions to the penitent. By doing so he may easily scandalize him or even teach him to commit sin. This is especially the case with regard to the young. In the matter of chastity it is a maxim that it is better to fail in putting many questions than to put one which is not necessary.

The confessor should be moderate in questioning the penitent, and only put questions about matter in which it is probable that he has committed sin. He should remember that the penitent is only bound to confess what his own conscience accuses him of; he does not sin nor is he bound to confess according to the conscience of his confessor.

The confessor has the office of questioning, instructing, judging sins, judging and promoting disposition, consulting for amendment of life, and rendering sentence. Each must be treated.

I. Existence of the obligation. The confessor is bound to question the penitent: 1. if he prudently fears that formal integrity is lacking, in other words, that the penitent has kept back things which he knew had to be confessed by him; 2. if he prudently fears that material integrity is lacking, in other words, that the penitent in good faith is silent about things which of themselves are to be confessed.

The first is clear from the fact that the confessor cannot expose the sacrament to danger of nullity. Add the arguments to be brought for the second part.

The second is proved: 1. by the authority of Councils, Pontiffs, and the Roman Ritual.

The Fourth Lateran Council: "Let the priest be discreet and cautious ... diligently inquiring both into the circumstances of the sinner and of the sin."¹ Leo XII in the encyclical Caritate Christi² teaches that necessary diligence must be applied by the confessor in questioning penitents. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Apostolica:³ "In the first place we admonish them to remember that they do not fulfill the parts of the office they have undertaken, indeed rather all those are guilty of a graver crime who, when they sit in the sacred tribunal of Penance, listen to penitents touched by no solicitude, do not admonish, do not question, but when the enumeration of crimes has been completed, immediately pronounce the form of absolution." The Roman Ritual: "If the penitent has not expressed the number, species, and circumstances of sins necessary to be explained, let the priest prudently question him."⁴

2. The Doctors agree. St. Thomas: "It must be said that the priest ought to search out the conscience of the sinner as a physician searches a wound and a judge a cause; because frequently those things which the one confessing would keep silent through shame, when questioned he reveals" (In IV Sentences, distinction 19). St. Antoninus,⁵ St. Bonaventure,⁶ St. Bernardine of Siena,⁷ St. Charles Borromeo,⁸ and St. Alphonsus teach the same (VI, 607, 629).

3. There are added arguments from reason; namely, the obligation is deduced: a) from the fact that the confessor as minister of the sacrament must take care that all sins not yet directly remitted be directly remitted, in other words, that confession also be materially integral; b) from the fact that the character of judgment requires that the judge know the whole cause before he pronounces sentence. There is added c) that the confessor as physician must strive to detect all diseases and provide medicine for them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629).

Question 1. Must the confessor question if he notices that the penitent, after sufficient diligence has been applied, omits some sin?

Response. Some formerly denied this, because formal integrity suffices, and in the case it is posited to be present. But with St. Alphonsus it is rightly affirmed, because the confessor, although formal integrity suffices for the penitent himself, is bound both as minister of the sacrament, and as judge, and as physician to consult, with ordinary diligence, for the integrity of the sacrament required of itself, that is, material integrity. There is added the fact that "otherwise, as Suarez says, confessors would almost never be bound to question rude and unlearned men, who, however much diligence they put forward, can never of themselves confess integrally by explaining the circumstances, species, and number of sins.... The consequence is against the practice of the Church and against the intention of the chapter Omnis utriusque sexus" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629). Nor should you object that the confessor is not bound to greater diligence than the penitent himself, who is supposed already to have applied the required diligence. For I answer that the obligation of the confessor is one thing and the obligation of the penitent another: the latter is bound to examine himself properly, while the former must, if he prudently fears that something is lacking to integrity, supply for it; but in supplying he is not bound to greater diligence than the penitent is in examining. I said: if he prudently fears that something is lacking to integrity. This commonly does not have place if the case concerns penitents who are both sufficiently instructed and diligent in examining and confessing sins; hence priests, religious, and pious persons commonly are not to be questioned (St. Alphonsus, VI, 607).

Question 2. To what extent is there an obligation of questioning if the confessor does not understand the penitent, because the latter, for example because of an organic defect or another reason, cannot express his thoughts in an intelligible way?

Response. In the proposed case it is for the most part expedient and sufficient, once the accusation is finished, to ask whether grave sins have been committed.

¹ Chapter 21, in chapter 12, De poenitentia.

² December 25, 1725.

³ June 26, 1749.

⁴ Title III, chapter 1, n. 16.

⁵ Summa Theologica, t. III, title 17, chapter 17, § 2.

⁶ In IV Sentences, distinction 19, doubt 5.

⁷ Tome II, sermon 27, article 2, chapter 3, p. 167.

⁸ Instructiones Poenit., in Acta Ecclesiae Mediolanensis, 1683, part IV, p. 431.

II. Object of the obligation. The obligation of questioning, as follows from what has been said above, commonly regards only those things which pertain to integrity, or which must be declared. Therefore commonly there is no obligation of questioning about species entirely unknown or not sufficiently attended to, and therefore not contracted, venial sins, mortal sins doubtfully committed, sins doubtfully mortal, and circumstances aggravating grave malice in the same species. Sometimes, however, there is an obligation so that a right judgment may be made about the required disposition or about the obligation of making restitution.¹

¹ Hence, for example, one should commonly inquire how great a sum a thief stole.

III. Required diligence. Mediocre diligence is required and suffices, as was said about the obligation of the penitent to examine conscience. For greater diligence cannot be demanded in the confessor, who is bound only secondarily, than in the penitent, who is bound primarily to procure integrity. For the rest, diligence should be proportioned both to the capacity of the penitent and to the character of the confession to be instituted. It is said:

1. To the capacity of the penitent: "Therefore the confessor," says Lugo, "ought to accommodate himself to the penitent and seek knowledge of sins from individual persons according to the capacity of each: subtler knowledge from the subtler, cruder from the cruder";¹ from which St. Alphonsus concludes: "When the penitent, although rude, seems sufficiently instructed and diligent in confessing sins with their circumstances according to his state and capacity, for a learned person is bound to examine himself in one way and a rude person in another, then the confessor is bound to ask nothing else" (Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 103).

2. To the character of the confession to be instituted; thus, for example, a general confession requires relatively less diligence than a confession of one month.

¹ De Poenitentia, disputation 16, n. 594.

IV. Gravity of the obligation. The obligation of which we have spoken is grave, although the obligation of the penitent to consult for integrity is graver than the obligation of the confessor. The reason is that the matter is grave.

Question. Does a confessor sin gravely who advertently omits one or another necessary question about species, number, and so forth? It is said advertently, that is, from grave carelessness or negligence; for it is clear that smallness of matter can be had in the negligence itself, but the question is whether smallness of matter can be admitted in the matter itself, that is, in mortal sins to be investigated.

Response. Many judge that the aforesaid confessor does not sin gravely, at least if he acted thus in a long series of confessions. But the contrary seems to have to be admitted, because the confessor advertently fails in a grave matter. Nor should you object that by this opinion too grave a burden is imposed on the confessor, since the burden imposed by this opinion scarcely differs from the burden imposed by the adversaries. For they say that then only is sin not grave when, in a long series of confessions, one or another necessary question is omitted. But this kind of diminution of the burden scarcely deserves notice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629).

Objection. The obligation of the penitent is greater than that of the confessor.

Response. Let that pass; but the argument proves that the obligation of the confessor also is grave.

V. Manner of fulfilling the obligation. The questions should be:

1. Timely, or made at an opportune time. Of itself, it is better to permit the penitent to explain himself, and not to interrupt him. Practically, one should proceed for the most part in this way. If the confession is foreseen to be brief, the confessor does not interrupt the penitent by questioning him, but waits for the end of the confession. If it concerns a long confession, the confessor will easily forget something necessary unless he mixes questions into the confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629).

2. Apt, that is, suited to the capacity, condition, and psychological state of the penitent. Generally questions should be brief, clear, and determinate, not negative ("Surely you did not consent?") nor disjunctive ("Did you sin by yourself or with others?"). A number greater rather than lesser should be proposed.

3. Kind. Therefore he should avoid harsh words ("Have you committed the most shameful sin of lust?"), likewise words which signify impatience ("What more? Have you finished? Hurry up and get yourself done"). If the confessor notices that the penitent has a sin which he declares with difficulty, let him say: Do not fear; I will gladly question you.

4. Prudent, or such that the penitent does not learn to sin from them (cf. can. 888, § 2).¹ But if this is feared, "the question ought to be made from afar, so that if the penitent committed it he may say so, and if he did not commit it he may not learn it" (St. Thomas, In IV Sentences, distinction 19, at the end).

5. Chaste. Generally the confessor should be mindful of this: in the matter of lust it is better to be deficient in many things than to abound in one; likewise of the admonition of St. Alphonsus: "Questions in the matter of chastity ought to be few and cautious" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 632). Specifically:

a) The confessor should not descend to particular modes or circumstances of the sin, nor to species which commonly do not occur. This is so that: 1. he may not be a cause of shameful temptation to the penitent or to himself; 2. he may not provide scandal to the penitent, as one who might suspect that the confessor is taking pleasure in the investigation of those things; 3. he may not bring confession into disrepute, namely, because there is danger lest some penitents narrate to others that matters of this kind were handled in this way (St. Alphonsus, at the cited place; cf. can. 888, § 2).

b) Let him use chaste terms, and such as do not teach sin to those who perhaps are ignorant of it. Hence, for example, he should not ask boys whether there was emission of seed, and so forth (St. Alphonsus, at the cited place). If a modest mode of questioning does not occur to his mind, let him rather abstain from the question.

¹ Cf. Roman Ritual, title III, chapter 1, n. 17.

VI. Excusing causes. The confessor is excused from questioning integrally:

1. As often as the penitent is excused from integrity, for example because of infirm health, scruples, and so forth.

2. When and insofar as the questions would be harmful, for example if they could not be made without danger being created for the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 632).

3. When and insofar as the questions would be useless. Hence, for example, he should not commonly ask penitents whether they regarded this or that as a grave sin; nor should inquiry be made too much into the number, as was said in n. 320 (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 20).

Corollary. Just as a great number of penitents does not excuse the penitent from integrity, so neither does it excuse the confessor from the obligation of supplying the defect (n. 326).

227. As to the questions to be asked, the rule admitted by all must be carefully observed: "In the matter of lust it is much better to be deficient in many things than to abound excessively in one thing by reason of the integrity of confession." Therefore, in doubt whether in such a case you can or ought to question, one must always stand for the negative part; for it is a lesser evil that something be lacking to the integrity of confession than to create scandal for the penitent, or even for oneself. G. 616.; Sporer 661.; Tamburini, Tr. 2. de 2. Eccl. praec. cap. 17, Monitio, etc.; Ithur. Cas. 38. n. 4.; Lugo, de Poenit. D. 16. n. 595. Hence St. Alphonsus, Hom. Apost. Tract. ult. c. unic. p. IV. n. 37: "Let him beware," he says, "that is, the confessor, of inquiring from girls or from boys whether emission of semen was present; for with these it is better that there be deficiency in the material integrity of confession than that he be the cause that they apprehend things which they have not yet known, or be placed in curiosity of learning them." And in the same place, p. 3. n. 27, the same holy Doctor has these things concerning the conjugal debt: the confessor "is not bound, ordinarily speaking, nor is it fitting, to ask," namely insofar as it may be necessary, "except wives, whether they have rendered it, in the most modest way possible; for instance, whether they have been obedient to their husbands in all things. Concerning other things let him be silent unless he has been asked." And if a bride-to-be asks about these things, so that she may know what will be lawful for her in the future, let him respond that she should ask her mother, or meanwhile, in doubts, obey her husband as head, and afterward consult a confessor concerning these things if they happen to her. Gobat, Theol. Exper. Tr. X. Cas. 17. n. 648. 649.

Therefore if at any time questioning must be done in this matter, it must be prudent. But the confessor will question prudently if, as St. Thomas says in IV. Dist. 19. q. 2. in fin. Expos. text. V. Et idem, the questioning is so done "that if he has committed it, he may learn; if he has not committed it, he may not learn." - But if the questions to be asked must be few and cautious, from that very fact it is sometimes necessary to question the penitent, and he acts badly who establishes for himself, as a general rule, never to question concerning this matter. For it is one thing to question cautiously, another never to question. And indeed, as the same St. Alphonsus teaches, Hom. Apost. Tract. ult. n. 37. app. 4. p. 1. n. III. and Prax. Confess. n. 90., and as others commonly teach who have written on the practice of confessions, penitents often, because of shame and modesty, say nothing concerning this matter, and expect the confessor to question and so, as it were, add courage to their mind. But now, if the confessor does not question, that shame and modesty altogether increase, so that penitents are strengthened in the purpose of keeping the matter silent, and that will which before perhaps was a certain velleity of telling the matter now becomes a purpose of keeping the matter silent. G. 924. The Angelic Doctor has these things, l. c.: "It must be said that the Priest ought to search out the conscience of the sinner in confession like a physician searching a wound, and a judge a case, because frequently what the one confessing would keep silent out of confusion, he reveals when asked. But in making questions three things must be attended to... Third, that concerning sins, especially carnal ones, he should not descend too much to particular circumstances; because delights of this kind, the more they are considered in special, are of their nature more apt to move concupiscence. And therefore it can happen that the confessor, seeking such things, harms both himself and the one confessing, and thus sometimes those searching out iniquities fail in their scrutiny." The aforesaid questioning can well be done with very few and very modest words.

228. The remedies for lust which the confessor can suggest to the penitent are some negative, others positive. The negative are: 1. flight from idleness; 2. abstinence from the reading of books which treat of matters of love; 3. in men, flight from familiarity with women, even if they seem upright, indeed most devout; but in women, flight from familiarity with men, especially young men; 4. flight from occasions; 5. flight from drunkenness and from all intemperance in food. Scavini, Tract. 4. D. 2. C. 3. art. 2. q. 2.; Voit, de praeceptis Decalogi, n. 758.; and others commonly. - The positive are: 1. frequent prayer; 2. frequent confession with the same confessor; 3. frequent communion; 4. memory of the last things; 5. constant cult and frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary; 6. custody of the senses; 7. mortification of the body; 8. they add that sometimes marriage should be counseled to those who can marry, as the sole remedy, or at least as the more efficacious one, by which they may be able to free themselves from the habit of masturbation, if, however, they do not wish to use other means; 9. it is a useful remedy to elicit a vow of chastity for some brief time, for example, only in the morning, and again to vow in the evening; or for one day, and again on the following day to vow; and if the matter, by the help of God's grace, has had a good outcome, a vow of this kind can be made on individual days, or even for a longer time, according as a prudent confessor shall judge expedient. Cf. St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 88. art. 4.; C. Gent. c. 138.; Scavini, l. c.; L. Prax. Confess. n. 94. and l. 6. n. 74. 75. Op. mor.; Voit, l. c. n. 739.; and others commonly.

229. Whether it is expedient in this matter to use the more benign opinions is declared thus by the general doctrine of St. Alphonsus, l. 6. n. 605: "Holzmann wisely says that, in the choice of opinions, the confessor ought to follow the more benign sentences when those rather induce the penitent to avoid sin. But otherwise, if those rather lead to transgression of the law, as are, according as Roncaglia and Sporer well note, those opinions which, although speculatively they may seem probable, nevertheless in practice are very dangerous; as in the matter of the sixth precept there are some opinions concerning touches, kisses, dances, comedies, the repressing of sensual motions, and the like." The same holy Doctor, more particularly concerning base books, says: "Let confessors carefully strive to prohibit this, namely to read such books, as much as they can, to young people, who from readings of this kind generally drink in a great ruin of the soul," l. 3. n. 426. And universally concerning the reading of books, the holy Doctor says in Append. de prohibitione libr. c. 5. n. 8: "in this matter it is ordinarily expedient to follow the stricter opinions." - Prax. Confess. nn. 119-120.

230. Besides these, the following are especially to be noticed:

1. As regards the rude, Elbel, speaking explicitly and generally concerning interior desires, has these things, de Consc. n. 125: "that many, at least from the ruder and less learned, inculpably persuade themselves that desires of this kind are not evil unless they are fulfilled in deed, seems sufficiently certain, which Sanchez, Stoz, and La Croix also expressly teach." St. Alphonsus says concerning this opinion, l. 1. n. 9: "I could never judge it probable... with other learned recent authors I judge it little probable." The reason for this sentence is that, if someone certainly knows the malice of the exterior action, and nevertheless wills to execute it, he already knows that he wills an evil. How then will he be excused from sin? G. v. 1. n. 123.; Cas. v. 1. n. 40. But as regards simple delight, it can more easily happen that invincible ignorance of it is present. Moreover, the rude rarely accuse themselves, of themselves, of internal acts of this kind. Therefore they are to be prudently questioned, when a prudent suspicion of acts of this kind is present. But whether concerning interior acts or concerning exterior acts, it often profits, and profits greatly, to question them not once only, but again and a third time, with diverse formulas. For what they deny the first or second time, they confess the third time, either because of shame, or because they themselves often have their own formula of speaking; and if this is not used, they do not easily understand the question.

2. As regards boys, speaking absolutely, at least in some rare case and at the beginning of a depraved habit, they can invincibly be ignorant of the malice of pollution. The reason is that the fact that an immodest look or touch, or the seizing of pleasure from pollution procured, or even naturally arisen, etc., are mortally evil and illicit, does not become known so easily from the comprehension of first principles, but needs discourse in order to detect their malice. Therefore their malice can at least for some time be ignorantly and inculpably unknown. From this a prudent confessor will easily conclude that, in such a contingency of fact, one must proceed cautiously and prudently; and this caution and prudence, though it must be observed with everyone, especially in this matter, must be observed above all with boys and girls. Cf. Elbel, de Consc. n. 128.; G. Cas. v. 1. n. 41.; Struggl, Tr. 3. q. 1. n. 13. Nor indeed must this be passed over in silence here, that boys and girls who still preserve the innocence of Baptism often accuse as sins against purity, with a certain vague and confused manner of speaking, things which either are no sins, or contain only a certain light lack of polish or immodesty.

3. "Nor should the confessor indulge girls that they be taught by men to read, and much less to write. How many simple girls, because they learned to read, have mourned the loss of the soul! If this is not a proximate occasion of sin, at least it is not a little dangerous. If they desire to learn such things, let them see to it that they are taught by some other woman, or by some little brother, and still with caution. Nor let him concede to young women that they wander about, visiting churches, and that they linger in church more than is necessary, with the disturbance of their parents; but let him admonish them to attend to obeying their parents, by embracing domestic labors." L. Prax. Confess. n. 101. And this indeed is an excellent and very easy remedy for avoiding many sins against chastity. The Sacred Congregations of Bishops and Regulars, in the Remarks on the more recent Constitutions of Congregations of Sisters, have not once only disapproved that Sisters teach boys, or admit male professors in their schools; or that the Sisters themselves be introduced into Seminaries and Colleges, since the matter is full of danger; or, what is more dangerous, that Sisters dwell alone in parishes. Cf. Bizzarri, Collect. toward the end, Animadvers., etc.

231. "On the penitent who fears that he gives assent to any evil thought whatever against chastity, let the confessor impose that he wholly despise scruples of this kind, affirming that not wrong thoughts, but only wrong consents, are sins. And in this matter let him never omit to use that rule wisely handed down by the doctors, namely that those who are of a timid conscience, unless they know with moral certainty that they have consented to grave sin, are to be judged immune from sin; for, as Father Alvarez says, it is impossible for sin to enter a soul abhorring it without being clearly recognized by that soul. For this reason it will often be expedient expressly to impose upon the scrupulous that they abstain from confession of thoughts of this kind, unless they know so certainly that they have consented to them that they could swear to it." L. l. 1. n. 15.

232. Concerning giving or denying absolution to a cleric habituated in occult sins of lasciviousness, who wishes to ascend to sacred orders without a prior experiment of continence, St. Alphonsus, l. 6. p. 64 and following, has these things, altogether practical and to be approved: "I. The present and ancient law of the Church, always constant, binds Bishops, confessors, and those to be promoted alike, so that when some recidivist or habitual cleric in the vice of the flesh desires to ascend to sacred order, whether to the subdiaconate, or to the diaconate, or to the presbyterate, although he has been sincerely converted to the Lord, and therefore can immediately be absolved, nevertheless he will not be able to receive sacred order unless for some time he gives effort to extirpating the depraved habit. And if he himself persists in receiving the order immediately, he is not judged disposed for absolution, because he violates the law of the Church in a grave matter. II. Yet a case can be given in which God gives to the penitent so extraordinary a grace of compunction that it renders him so approved that he himself can immediately assume sacred order; and therefore... receive the benefit of absolution without its first being proved by experience of time... But that simple sanctifying grace by no means suffices for receiving sacred orders, but beyond it interior perfection is required, is established from the common consent of the holy Fathers and Doctors, who with one mouth demand it." Moreover the holy Doctor adds at the end: "It must be noted that the confessor must take care with every effort to render persuaded an initiate of this kind, although extraordinarily contrite, that he defer receiving Orders until by the proof of some notable delay he show himself more purged from the crimes perpetrated... provided, however, that from this delay of Ordination he is not going to undergo a stigma, or the proximate danger of infamy." Cf. St. Thomas, 2. 2. q. 184. art. 6. 8.; q. 189. art. 1.; Suppl. q. 35. art. 1.; q. 36. art. 4. - The author of the book whose title is Istruzione per li novelli confessori thinks otherwise. He teaches that, if the one to be ordained sincerely and from his soul believes that he can live chastely and put off evil habits, proposing to furnish and fulfill all those things which, in his own judgment and in that of a discreet confessor, are judged necessary and opportune for amendment of life, this man can indeed be promoted lawfully, nor can the confessor forbid this to him; since he ought to be judged sufficiently disposed both for receiving the Sacrament of Penance and consequently also for sacred Order, for the worthy reception of which nothing is required except the state of grace. Cf. S. Alph., l. c. - But does a cleric of this kind make sufficient hope of himself, and does he not rather induce grave fear lest, with the progress of time and with the multitude and gravity of occasions in the exercise of the sacred ministry, he himself become worse and be about to be a scandal to the Christian people, with grave ruin of souls and damage to the Church? But Benedict XIV has these things, de Syn. l. 1. c. 2. par. 18: "The case which can be brought into controversy is that in which a penitent, habituated up to that point in sins, intends to be promoted to sacred Orders, and at the same time offers such judgments of a contrite heart that the confessor can deservedly judge his conversion sincere and trust that he will no longer relapse into the former sins by whose habit he had been entangled... Certainly it cannot be denied that the Spiritual Director of a penitent of this kind will be distracted by an overly anxious care in this species of fact; but that no general rule presents itself which can be applied by him indistinctly in cases of this kind. Wherefore we judge that no other counsel can be given to him than that he diligently inspect and maturely weigh all the circumstances of the person, of things, and of cases; that he also remember that the parts not only of a judge, but also of a physician, have been imposed upon him; and that the office of a physician is to apply that care to the sick man, and to prescribe to him those remedies which he believes will be more opportune and advantageous for his health." Cf. Lugo, de Poenit. D. 14. n. 171.

233. To the preceding question there is joined another analogous question, namely concerning one habituated in lasciviousness who likewise wishes to enter Religion without a prior experiment of continence. The reason of the state of clerics and of monks is not the same, speaking of itself. "Sacred orders," says St. Thomas, q. 189. art. 1. ad 3, "pre-exact sanctity; but the state of religion is a certain exercise for attaining sanctity. Hence the weight of orders is to be imposed on walls already dried by sanctity; but the weight of religion dries the walls, that is, men, from the moisture of vices." Cf. also art. 10 and Quodl. 3. art. 13. But although in the religious state more helps are found, which promote and aid the religious in acquiring sanctity of life, and which indeed are wholly lacking in the state of secular clerics, nevertheless, where there is question of religious who give work, as today is almost common, to exercising the sacred ministry and other pious works toward their neighbor, it is evident that dangers of falling are not absent even for a religious man, whose fall indeed will excite greater scandal and will bring detriment to the good name of his own Order. Hence very great prudence and caution altogether must be applied in this matter by confessors. But since, before someone is admitted to religious profession, he undergoes a novitiate, in which he is occupied solely with his own sanctification, and an experiment is made of the sincerity and firmness of a penitent of this kind, that circumspection and caution is indeed required less in the earlier confessor, who would first induce him to the religious state, but much more in the confessor of the novices themselves, lest within Religion a useless and harmful race be multiplied. Yet in this matter a certain excessive severity must be avoided, by which even suitable persons would be kept from the religious state by a certain vain fear; and thus they themselves would be deprived of this greatest good of Religion, and Religion perhaps of better religious. Those who have been sinners, faithfully cooperating with the grace of God, not rarely arrive at great sanctity. Cf. Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 1. D. 28.; G. Baller. Tom. 2. n. 718.

234. "It does not seem that this should be passed over, because certain persons, deceived by seductive spirits or by their own false opinions, think that either Christ himself, or his most glorious Mother, appears to them in a vision, and that they are soothed by them not only with embraces and kisses, but also with other more indecent gestures, so that just as their spirit interiorly, so also their flesh exteriorly, may be sensibly soothed with a congruent sense of delight and carnally consoled. This is clearly proved to be not only false and seductive, but also a grave blasphemy. The visitation of the Holy Spirit, just as it is infused against all vices to be repressed and detested, so also is it set in opposition especially against carnal allurements. And where the spirit of cleanness shall have shone forth with its brightness, it is necessary that all motions of depraved pleasure immediately vanish and disappear like darkness when light comes upon it. But concerning those who sometimes feel spiritual sweetness and are soon defiled by the itching of carnal delight, I do not know what I should judge, except that I rather choose them to be without those flowers which I would have to gather from the filth of mud. And just as I do not dare to condemn those who, unwillingly, are sometimes stained in spiritual affections by the fluid of carnal flux, so also I cannot excuse those who with consent take delight together in such a flux, whatever their intention may seem to be." De Profectu Religiosorum, among the works of St. Bonaventure, l. 2. c. 76, otherwise 75.

235. "Those who are wont more greatly to involve the mind of confessors in graver difficulties are those who are troubled by base visions, motions, and even touches from the devil, who not only excites the sensual tinder, but also sometimes has carnal commerce with them under the form of a man or of a woman, wherefore he is called a Succubus or Incubus... Here, however, a doubt arises whether the devil, with God permitting, can without any fault move the hands of that person to himself so that he be defiled by touches. Father Gravina, a Dominican, affirms, and indeed probably... The confessor ought to strive much to fortify the penitent in so horrid a conflict... If the confessor can judge that no fault at all is present in this temptation on the part of the penitent, before all else let him admonish him to apply these things: let him assist himself by continual prayers, frequently invoking the most holy names of Jesus and Mary; let him diligently turn himself away from the pleasures of the senses; let him frequent Communion; let him often protest that he does not wish to consent to any temptation or delight which he might feel by the work of the devil; let him often use the sign of the cross, carrying it also with him, and holy water, sprinkling with it his bed and room; let him also bring with him some relic of the Saints and the book of the Gospels; let him likewise apply private exorcisms to himself, saying: Wicked spirit, in the name of Jesus Christ I command you to depart from me, and not to trouble me further; besides, let him exhort that the afflicted person often humble himself, and frequently exercise himself in acts of humility of this kind, since God sometimes permits temptations of this kind in order to remove some internal pride from the soul. But if someone falls miserably in temptations of this kind, or seeks their occasions more than he flees them, his cure is very difficult... Nevertheless, if any of them should come, let the confessor not distrust, but see to it that he apply the greatest charity toward him; and let him comfort him by saying that where there is no will, there is no sin; hence if he resists by the will, he sins not at all. In these cases, before all else let the confessor send ahead an exorcism, at least a private one, against the devil; this certainly is lawful, in this way: I, as the minister of God, command you, or you, unclean spirits, that you depart from this creature of God. Then let him ask the penitent whether he has ever invoked the enemy and entered some pact with him; whether at any time he has denied the faith, or has exercised an act against it. Let him ask in what form the devil appears to him, whether of a man, woman, or beast. For then, if he has intercourse with him, besides sin against chastity and religion, he will be guilty of the sin of fornication, or sodomy, or incest, understand affective incest, of adultery or of sacrilege. Likewise let him ask in what place and time he had this commerce. Let him then show him the enormity of a crime of this kind, and seek to induce him to true conversion and to making an integral confession; for these ruined men, even if they confess, easily commit sins. Finally let him prescribe to him the same remedies noted above. Then let him defer absolving him, but exhort him to return often, so that in this way it can be known how he conducts himself in resisting the attacks of the enemy and in applying the remedies; nor let him absolve him except after a long experiment, for such conversions, as we have said, are rarely true and very rarely persevering." L. Prax. Conf. n. 110 and following.

236. Rare also are the true and sincere conversions of certain little women who frequent confession in order that they may converse with the confessor and be basely delighted together. Depraved women of this kind are wont to institute a lengthy confession of sins against purity, lingering over all the minute circumstances to be explained. Often they also lie and narrate sins which they have by no means committed, in order to excite themselves venereally. And that they may more easily deceive incautious confessors, they sometimes pretend that they are scrupulous and are troubled by anxiety of soul, so that they may more easily have opportunity of instituting base discourses of this kind. If at any time there is a prudent suspicion of a diabolical fraud of this kind, the prudent counsel will be: 1. to avoid excessive frequency of confessions of the same person; 2. to abstain from every question which is not absolutely necessary; 3. to teach the penitent in what way she can institute confession by a very brief and honorable formula, and not to permit her to depart from it; 4. to abstain from every admonition and observation which is not absolutely necessary, but to complete the confession with as few words as possible and altogether seriously. If these things are observed, no inconvenience will have to be feared; because if that person is proceeding fictitiously, after one or another time she will return no more.

237. Moreover, speaking generally, "the confessor ought to be exceedingly cautious in hearing the confessions of women. And first it must be noted that in the Decree of the Sacred Congregations of Bishops, January 21, 1610, it is said: Confessors should not, without necessity, hear the confessions of women after evening twilight and before dawn. But speaking of the prudence of the confessor, he regularly should be, in the confessional with younger women, rather strict than gentle; nor should he permit them to approach the confessional in advance in order to speak with him, and much less to kiss his hands. In the act of confession, let him not show that he recognizes them; for some, who wish to be held religious, sometimes, noticing that they are known by the confessor, do not make an integral confession. It is also imprudence to cast the eyes upon penitents when they withdraw from the confessional, and to look at them for some time. Outside the confessional, let him not even linger to converse with them in the Church, and let him avoid every familiarity. Let him also abstain from receiving little gifts; and especially let him never go to their houses, except in the one case of grave infirmity, and then let him go only when called. Then let him apply great diligence in hearing their confessions, whence he should leave the door open; let him sit in a place where he can be seen by others, and never fix his eyes on the face of the penitent. And this especially holds if they are spiritual persons, with whom there is a danger of greater adhesion... Such persons do not immediately notice this, since the devil at the beginning does not send forth poisoned arrows, but only those which wound a little and increase affection. But in a short time persons of this kind come to this, that they no longer act with themselves as angels, as they had begun, but as clothed in flesh; they look at one another in turn, and strike one another's minds with flattering speeches, which still seem to proceed from the first devotion. Hence one begins to desire the presence of the other, and thus spiritual devotion is converted into carnal." L. Prax. Confess. n. 119.; G. Cas. t. 2. n. 725-727.; Reuter, Neo-Confessar. n. 110.

1. "Gervasius, a confessor, because of haste and some carelessness, sometimes omits one or another question to be asked about the species or number of sins.

It is asked: 1.º Whether, or in what way, there is a grave obligation of interrogating penitents? - 2.º What must be said about Gervasius?

R. To the 1st. Of itself there is a grave obligation in the confessor of interrogating penitents, because the confessor, insofar as he is judge, must take care that, as much as is sufficient, the cause of the sacramental judgment be instructed. Besides, he is constituted so that he may not only hear the penitent, but aid him in duly fulfilling his obligation. Hence:

1.º A confessor sins gravely if from the voluntary omission of some interrogation there ought to follow grave harm of the penitent or of another, and he had foreseen that harm at least confusedly. He also sins gravely if he fails in the obligation of interrogating with regard to a notable part of this obligation, considered in its whole complex; for example, if knowingly and voluntarily, without reasonable cause, he omits most questions about number and species. For then he gravely fails in his office, and inflicts grave irreverence upon confession and the sacrament.

2.º But he does not sin gravely if from slight negligence, or from inadvertence, he omits several things even necessarily to be asked. Billuart, diss. 6, a. 10, § 2, where he speaks thus: "If from slight negligence, from inadvertence, from lapse of memory, human distraction, weariness of spirit, too great attention in hearing confessions, etc., he omits to inquire something even necessary, it will be no sin or only a light sin: for no one is bound with so great difficulty and moral impossibility to supply the defects of others."

3.º There will be greater difficulty if the confessor, without grave reason and voluntarily, or from grave carelessness, omits only one or another necessary interrogation, for example, concerning number or species. On the one hand he seems to sin gravely, because he supplies the place of the penitent; but the penitent, if he adverted to the obligation and did not satisfy it, would sin gravely. Yet on the other hand it does not more probably seem that he sins gravely. The reason is that in this there appears smallness of matter with respect to the whole obligation considered in its complex. Besides, if gravity of matter were admitted, a very great burden would be imposed upon confessors, who would always fluctuate amid anxieties, fearing lest perhaps from grave negligence they had omitted an interrogation to be made, and thence would be driven into the opposite excess with great burden to penitents.

Furthermore, although the confessor supplies the place of the penitent, nevertheless he does not seem to be bound to interrogate with such rigor as the penitent is bound to accuse himself. For the confessor precisely supplies not as taking caution for the penitent, but rather as his helper. Add also that, if a rigorous comparison between the obligation of each were admitted, the burden of the confessor would exceed the debt of the penitent a thousand times; since the penitent is rarely bound to confess, but the confessor must continually and often the whole day fulfill his office.

To the 2nd. Gervasius seems to be excused from grave sin, since from carelessness he omits a few questions to be asked about the species and number of sins, because he is judged to fulfill his office as to its substance." G. 666-668, 671; I. M. 819.

As regards the number of sins, one must not be solicitous beyond measure, and when it is very difficult to know the probable number, it will be better to know the state of the penitent, especially with the unlearned and the habituated, and as regards internal acts. Lig. 466; Sporer 451; Lugo, d. 16, nn. 573, 575, 576.

It must also be noted here that if the confessor has not understood something well, he will be able at the end to interrogate about it, lest he interrupt the penitent. "But if from the conscience of the penitent known to him he can presume that what he did not perceive is something light, and he cannot interrogate without disturbance or annoyance of the penitent, he can be silent and absolve." La-Croix 1716.

Whether those confessors satisfy their duty who, when a penitent accuses himself of the sin of onanism, "maintain profound silence and, when the confession of sins is finished, excite him to contrition by general words and impart holy absolution to him when he asserts that he detests every mortal sin? - Response. Negative." Sacred Penitentiary, 14 December 1874.

"1. When there is a well-founded suspicion that a penitent who is altogether silent concerning onanism is addicted to this crime, is it lawful for the confessor to abstain from a prudent and discreet question on the ground that he foresees that many persons will be disturbed from good faith and that many will abandon the Sacraments? Or rather is the confessor bound to question prudently and discreetly? - 2. Whether a confessor who, either from spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, knows that a penitent is an onanist is bound to admonish him concerning the gravity of this sin just as concerning other mortal sins, and, as the Roman Ritual says, to reprove him with paternal charity, and to impart absolution to him only when it is established by sufficient signs that he grieves over the past and has the resolution not to act onanistically any longer? - Response. In view of ... the unspeakable vice in question having become widespread ... to 1, ordinarily negative to the first part, affirmative to the second; to 2, affirmative, according to the teachings of approved Authors." Sacred Penitentiary, 10 March 1886.

519. • First Rule. Before confession: the Confessor ought to endeavor to know explicitly the state of the penitent and the various circumstances from which he can be directed toward questioning prudently and fruitfully. Hence:

1. Let him examine whether there is question of a necessary confession or not; for if it is necessary, the penitent will have to be heard, questioned, and assisted with much greater diligence and care. But if it is not necessary, the penitent must be warned expressly: 1. that diligence of this kind is not required, indeed that he is free to withhold whatever sins he wishes; 2. that he ought not afterward to be anxious because through forgetfulness he omitted more or fewer of them ⁴.

⁴ Unless the penitent has been firmly persuaded of these two things, it is better to omit the general confession, which certainly would produce no fruit and, on the contrary, would be a perpetual fountain of anxieties.

2. Let him inquire prudently concerning the condition of the penitent, his age, occupations or offices, and his family: namely, whether he still has parents, brothers, or sisters; and whether he lives with them or has lived with them for a long time, etc.

3. Let him ask from what time the penitent has confessed; whether he was absolved; whether here and now he is entangled in some evil habit or evil affection of mind; whether he has frequently approached the Sacraments; whether he confessed piously or sacrilegiously; whether he ever concealed sins; at what time; for how long; whether he afterward confessed them, or repeated the sacrilegious confessions.

These preliminary items of knowledge will be of very great service to the Confessor;

he will press these questions more or less according to the character of the one confessing and the nature of the replies. Second Rule. As regards the order of confession: the accusation and questions in the confession itself ought to be made in a definite order, lest all things be mixed together, to the disturbance of the one confessing and with danger of a defect of integrity, etc. But the shorter and easier way is for the declaration of sins to be made according to the order of the commandments of God, of the Church, and of the special obligations of each one's proper state.

Third Rule. As regards the manner of confession: if the penitent is sufficiently instructed, let the Confessor kindly induce him to disclose his sins according to the aforesaid order, promising that he will assist him and, as often as there is need, question him so that all things may be rightly completed.

But if the penitent is uneducated, let the Confessor assume almost the whole burden of the confession himself; let him question him in order concerning all things that penitents of the same condition are accustomed to commit, and after each sin let him inquire from the penitent whether he knows of anything to be added. Before he begins the questions, however, let him carefully admonish the one confessing that he has nothing to fear concerning the difficulty of disclosing his sins: Be at peace and of good courage, he shall say, I shall make your confession; I assuredly know all the sins which you could have committed: I shall disclose all of them to you; your part alone will be to reply clearly and sincerely to my questions and to conceive true sorrow for your sins. - Thus Salvatori, Practical Instruction for New Confessors ⁵.

⁵ There is indicated a wholly excellent little work whose title is: Practical Instruction for New Confessors... A Most Useful Little Work Also for Catechists of Uneducated People, Written by Father Filippo Maria Salvatori, S.J., etc. It was published at Rome about the beginning of this century and afterward reprinted several times, and finally again at Rome by the press of Monaldi in the year 1848. In this last edition, however, through the alteration of one little word, perhaps by a typographical error, a corruption crept in, and indeed in a sufficiently grave matter, plainly repugnant to the meaning of the Author. For where he had written concerning a sinner (Part 2, sec. 1, no. 6): If he is truly penitent and gives PRUDENT signs of this repentance of his, he must be absolved, etc., this new edition substituted (p. 143): If he is truly penitent and gives EVIDENT signs of this repentance of his, etc. This is plainly beside the point. For since evidence adds to certitude that force of light which, as it were, dazzles the eyes of the mind and compels assent, who, I ask, among the Doctors requires it as a prerequisite in order that he may think it lawful for himself to absolve the penitent? Indeed, what certitude, much less evidence, I ask, does the matter itself admit? And the mind of the Author, in this matter assuredly consonant with the most common opinion of all, was manifest from those things which are read a little afterward in the same edition (p. 150): I suppose here that the penitent has given you all the signs by which you can form a PRUDENT judgment that he speaks sincerely. In this case you fail in a duty of justice by deferring absolution for him, because the penitent, as soon as he gives you PRUDENT arguments of a true conversion of heart, has a strict right to be absolved. These things indeed suggest that this corruption of the text is in fact to be ascribed to the ignorance of the typesetters.

It is also to be lamented that this Roman edition was printed neither according to the third Roman edition of the year 1803, which had been enlarged by the Author himself with certain additions of grave importance, nor according to the Novarese edition of the year 1836, which reproduced that Roman edition and added a lucid confirmation from the Encyclical of Leo XII, dated January 8, 1826, but according to the Venetian edition of the year 1803, which lacks these additions; indeed, it even presents this Venetian edition mutilated, namely, with the testimonies of most grave men who commended the little work by their authority omitted. Most of all, however, the omission of the paragraphs which hold the fourth and fifth places in the second part is to be lamented, for they confirm the practice proposed by the Author through the doctrines and examples of the Saints, the unanimous consent of the graver Doctors, and the authority of the Roman Catechism. Therefore, it is to be desired that, if some new edition of this precious little work is to be prepared, which indeed the difficulty of finding any copy of it ought to recommend, it be reproduced not from some mutilated copy, but from an integral and perfect one.

614. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound to question penitents concerning the species, number, and circumstances changing the species; concerning the causes of sins, habit, and proximate occasions, whenever he reasonably presumes or prudently doubts that these things have not been sufficiently declared. The reason is that the Confessor, as minister of the Sacrament, must procure its integrity and, as judge, must obtain for himself the knowledge necessary for rendering an equitable judgment. This is also evident from the Fourth Lateran Council and from the Roman Ritual. - St. Ligorius, no. 617, and Practice of the Confessor, no. 19.

II. The Confessor is not bound to question the penitent except with some ordinary diligence. The reason is that the penitent himself is bound to examine himself not with the greatest but only with moderate, that is, ordinary diligence. But the obligation of the Confessor cannot be graver than that of the penitent, since the Confessor is bound to examine the penitent only secondarily, or in default of him. - St. Ligorius, Practice of the Confessor, no. 20.

III. The Confessor is not bound to question penitents who, although uneducated, seem sufficiently instructed for their condition and diligent in confessing sins with their circumstances according to their state and capacity. - A fortiori, it is not necessary to examine those who confess frequently and rarely sin gravely, such as devout persons, Religious, and Ecclesiastics, unless something necessarily to be explained appears to be omitted by them. - St. Ligorius, no. 607, II and III; Apostolic Homilies, no. 103.

615. Rules for the Practice of Questioning. - I. Rule. Questioning must be moderate, and therefore the Confessor must take care not to be too anxious in questioning. Otherwise, questioning, and consequently confession itself, will be grave and burdensome both to himself and especially to the penitent. Hence let him never ask useless things or permit them to be narrated to him. Therefore let him attend to those things which the Roman Ritual has: Let him take care not to detain anyone with curious or useless questions, especially younger persons of either sex, or others, by imprudently questioning them about that which they do not know, lest they suffer scandal and thereby learn to sin.

And St. Ligorius, no. 607: Let the Confessor not be too anxious in questioning, but let him ask only about those things which probably pertain to the penitent according to his condition. And in the Practice of the Confessor, no. 21: Let him ask only about sins into which they can easily fall, their condition and capacity being considered. Thus also Billuart (dissertation 6, article 10, section 2): In a moral examination (the Confessor ought to examine) not with the greatest and exquisite, but with human and moderate diligence, and conformably to the capacity of the penitent. For the Priest is not bound to examine the penitent more than the penitent himself is bound to examine himself, since the Confessor is bound to examine him in default of the penitent. But the penitent is not bound to examine himself with the greatest and exquisite diligence, but with human and moral diligence. Nor does it matter that, if the Confessor examined more, perhaps he would discover more; for here attention must be paid not only to the material integrity of confession, but also lest the Sacrament be rendered burdensome and odious to penitents by the greatest and excessive industry in examining. It is therefore sufficient if the Confessor prudently judges that the penitent omits nothing. Sporer, no. 792, has the same in nearly the same words. - Salmanticenses, chapter 12, no. 21. - Reuter, The New Confessor, chapter 3, at the end, etc.

616. II. Rule. - Questioning must be discreet; namely, the Confessor must question with great prudence, diligently taking care: 1. not to ask about sins which probably were not committed, considering the condition and capacity of the penitent, etc.; 2. not to ask about those things from which the penitent may learn to sin or may suffer scandal, according to what was just said from the Roman Ritual; 3. not to ask with curiosity or levity even concerning those things about which inquiry must be made, for example, immodestly concerning immodest things, etc., etc. In a word, he must strive that in every question gravity, piety, modesty, and paternal charity alone appear, as the nature and dignity of this office require. - See the Roman Ritual. Hence: 1. he must be very cautious in questioning concerning the matter of lust, especially with women, adolescents, and children, who can suffer scandal much more easily. For how many unhappy penitents have lost innocence and soul because of an incautious question or explanation of the Confessor! But with married persons let him never make mention of the conjugal debt without grave cause (Sacred Penitentiary, June 8, 1842); and it will be sufficient, when the matter requires, to ask the woman whether she has furnished due fidelity and obedience to her husband in all things.

2. The rule admitted by all must be diligently observed: In the matter of lust it is much better to fall short in many things than to exceed in one by reason of the integrity of confession. Therefore, in doubt whether in such a case you can or ought to question, the negative side must always be followed; for it is a lesser evil that the integrity of confession be lacking than to incur the danger of losing a soul.

618. Questions. - QUESTION 1. What must the Confessor do in doubt concerning the sincerity of the penitent?

Reply. It is a common rule and a received axiom: The penitent is to be believed when speaking both for himself and against himself. The reason is that in the sacred tribunal the penitent is at once the accused and a witness, his own accuser and advocate, and moreover in doubt he is always to be presumed truthful. Therefore, after suitable questions, the Confessor must absolve a penitent who denies. - St. Ligorius, no. 631.

619. • QUESTION 2. What must the Confessor do if he knows with certainty that some sin is being concealed or denied by the penitent?

Reply 1. If he knows it from the confession of another, he must, lest the seal of confession be violated, question only generally, as he otherwise would have done or ought to have done. But if the penitent, when questioned, denies it, let him reply nothing; rather, if he can do so without arousing suspicion, let him merely exhort him generally to open his conscience with all confidence. Whether the Confessor ought to absolve such a penitent is disputed. - St. Ligorius, after reporting the opinions of others, concludes thus: In my judgment, Croix thinks better, that in this case he should by no means absolve, but should merely say some prayer in order to conceal the denial of absolution ². - More commonly, however, other Doctors with Suarez, On Penance, disputation 32, section 3, no. 9, teach that absolution is to be denied only when it is altogether evident that the penitent is lying against the integrity of confession. Indeed, several say that absolution is to be granted in every case to a penitent denying his sin whenever knowledge of this sin has been obtained solely from the confession of another, namely, an accomplice, because this knowledge is to be held as nothing, since it was acquired from the confession of another. This, moreover, is sufficiently probable. Reply 2. If he knows it outside confession, of itself he must absolve the penitent who denies it, because the penitent speaking for himself and against himself is to be believed; nor can the report of another of itself produce greater faith than the declaration of the penitent himself; therefore the Confessor is no more bound to believe others than the penitent. For if the penitent committed that sin, the Confessor must presume that he either forgot his sin, confessed it to another, has a just cause for concealing it, or that the reporters were instead deceived. - St. Ligorius, ibid. - Billuart, ibid.

² Illsung first introduced this opinion and practice (treatise 6, disputation 6, question 4, article 7, section 4, no. 128), relying upon a fallacious citation of Suarez, who (On Penance, disputation 32, section 3, no. 9) indeed teaches the opposite. Croix borrowed the same from Illsung (book 6, part 2, no. 1969), together with the fictitious support of Suarez, adding through inadvertence a citation of Dicastillus, whom Illsung had cited for another purpose. To these St. Alphonsus (no. 631) added Viva, who (On Penance, question 8, article 5, no. 2), although he reports the opinion of Suarez and De Lugo less exactly, nevertheless in no way adheres to that opinion. Therefore, that entire opinion is owed to an hallucination which wrongly adduced the authority of Suarez, Dicastillus, and Viva.

** The VV. oppose thirty-four columns (pp. 587-603) to the twenty-four lines of which this and the immediately following Note consist. Nevertheless, so great a bulk has more appearance than substance. As the matter demands, we shall give an account of those things which are said in the Note.

In this first little Note the question is whether a confessor can absolve a penitent concerning whom he knows from the confession of another that a sin is being concealed. But in the Note it is said that Illsung replied in the negative, relying upon a fallacious citation of Suarez, who indeed teaches the opposite. Therefore, that Illsung relies upon a citation of Suarez is beyond controversy. But the words of Suarez cited by Illsung prove that he cites Suarez fallaciously. These words of Suarez are (loc. cit. above in the Note): It is replied that as a rule one must stand by the confession and word of the penitent. Hence, however much (Illsung incorrectly has from whatever source) the confessor knows the sin of the penitent from the report of others, he is bound in this judgment to believe the penitent himself rather, for the reason given. Then, if the confessor himself saw the sin with his own eyes and can probably judge that the penitent confessed that sin to another, he can dissemble and believe that he then denies it because he is not bound to confess it again. But if it is altogether evident that he is lying against the integrity of confession, he is not bound so to stand by the words of the penitent that he cannot use his knowledge to convince and reprove the penitent himself. Moreover, Illsung argues from this text thus: According to Suarez, the confessor is not bound to stand by the words of the penitent if it is altogether evident that he is lying. But from the confession of another which has been heard, it can become altogether evident that the penitent is lying. Therefore.

But the reasoning is fallacious and contrary to the mind of Suarez if, according to Suarez, that complete evidence cannot be referred to a case of knowledge drawn from the confession of another. That, according to Suarez, that complete evidence cannot be referred to knowledge drawn from the confession of another is manifestly evident from these words of the same author: HOWEVER MUCH the confessor knows the sin of the penitent FROM THE REPORT OF OTHERS, etc. For the word however much embraces whatever certitude the Confessor can have from the confession of another. Therefore Illsung relies fallaciously upon the authority of Suarez.

The VV. here object (p. 589) that the words of Suarez, as a rule one must stand by the word of the penitent, are to be referred also to knowledge received from the report of others. - Reply. I deny the whole. For the context evidently proves that the word as a rule indeed intimates the exception which he adds, if the confessor saw it with his own eyes and cannot conjecture that the penitent confessed that sin to another; but the word however much in no way permits an exception as regards knowledge received from the report of another.

2. It is added in the Note that Croix borrowed from Illsung the false citation of Suarez and, furthermore, through inadvertence added the false citation of Dicastillus, whom Illsung had cited for another purpose. It is easily evident that these things are so. For Dicastillus, in the place which Illsung cites (On the Eucharist, disputation 9, no. 491), disputes whether the administration of the Eucharist can be simulated by giving an unconsecrated particle and, from this, generally whether it is lawful to simulate the administration of Sacraments. But Illsung cites him to prove that absolution can be simulated. Yet Dicastillus has not even one word concerning our present question. Therefore, through mere inadvertence Croix added the fallacious testimony of Dicastillus to the fallacious support of Suarez.

3. Finally, it is added in the Note that St. Alphonsus took from Croix the citations of Suarez, Illsung, and Dicastillus, and added to these Viva, who, although he reports the opinion of Suarez and De Lugo less exactly, nevertheless in no way adheres to that opinion (namely, of Illsung). - These things too are demonstrated with little business. For Viva indeed says (loc. cit. in the Note) that a penitent is not to be absolved if the confessor prudently judges that the penitent denies the sin from shame; but he nowhere says that this prudent judgment is had in the case of St. Alphonsus. Moreover, he reports the opinion of De Lugo and Suarez less exactly; for these did not say, if the confessor prudently judges, but if it is altogether evident. Therefore, in their opinion, a judgment, unless it is altogether evident, will not be prudent. But De Lugo (disputation 22, no. 22) denies that a judgment which rests upon the testimony of another penitent is evident and therefore prudent. You ask, he says, what if the confessor knows evidently from the confession of others that Peter committed such a sin, which he himself afterward denies in confession? It is replied that it is contradictory for him to know this evidently from the confession of others, since that entire knowledge is resolved into the testimony of another penitent. And these things can suffice to give an account of those things which had been written in this brief little Note.

For the opinion of St. Alphonsus the VV. add (pp. 592-594), besides Henno, who inclines to that opinion, also the authorities of Babenstuber, Reuter, and Voit. - Reply. St. Alphonsus had already observed that not all Authors thought the same in this question; this ought therefore to seem even less surprising because different authors frame different hypotheses. Moreover, Babenstuber, Reuter, and Voit, no less than St. Alphonsus, manifestly transcribed from Illsung and Croix.

Finally, the VV. conclude this part thus (p. 594): But it matters little whether more or fewer Authors approved the opinion of Father Illsung; for the holy Doctor approved it not on account of extrinsic authorities, but on account of intrinsic reasons which are certainly evident and convincing. - Reply. The holy Doctor in fact adduces no reason, but merely cites the Authors whom we indicated in the Note; the Note itself also, as is evident, merely has certain things concerning the Authors cited by the holy Doctor. Moreover, if truly evident reasons were present, as the VV. boast, we would not thus have dissenting Authors. For why, in a matter which depends especially upon prudent judgment, would we have as blind in an evident matter Suarez and Cardinal De Lugo, easily the foremost of the Theologians?

And let these things suffice for those sixteen columns which the VV. wrote against the eight lines of the preceding little Note. We shall subjoin to the Note itself the response to the other eighteen columns which the VV. added against the sixteen lines of the following Note.

I said, of itself; for if the confessor is altogether certain of the sin committed by the penitent because, for example, he himself saw him stealing, heard him blaspheming, etc., or knows it from the certain report of others ³, he cannot absolve one who denies, provided he is certain that the latter has not forgotten his sin and has no motive for concealing it; for this rule, The penitent is to be believed, etc., avails indeed in a matter less certain, but not in a matter evidently certain.

³ These words, if he knows it from the certain report of others, etc., seem to have slipped inadvertently from Benjamin Elbel (On Penance, conference 17, no. 454), from whom St. Alphonsus then took them, and our Author from him also. For Elbel adds that all think thus, although, even by the admission of St. Alphonsus, this is manifestly false, and that doctrine is the common one which Suarez expresses thus (On Penance, disputation 32, section 3, no. 9): However much the Confessor knows the sin of the penitent from the report of others, he is bound in this judgment to believe the penitent himself rather, for the reason given.

Indeed, Elbel himself teaches the opposite (On the Sacraments in General, conference 2, no. 44), where he proposes this case: "A certain bridegroom confessed that on the preceding night he had acted shamefully with his bride; and because the Confessor knew that he had already relapsed several times and was unwilling to avoid the proximate occasion, he dismisses him without absolution. Immediately after him the bride, very well known to the Confessor, approaches; nevertheless, perhaps fearing the denial of absolution, she says not a word about the sins of lust committed with the bridegroom. The Confessor doubts whether he ought to absolve." And he replies: "If the bride denies that she committed anything against chastity, he is bound to absolve her, because he is bound to place faith in the penitent as at once the accused and the accuser, speaking both for herself and against herself."

** It could seem incredible that from this brief Note the VV. could have taken matter with which to fill eighteen solid columns. For they heap together from everywhere texts of Authors by which they prove that a confessor cannot impart absolution to a penitent when he is altogether certain, when he knows evidently, that the penitent mendaciously and in bad faith denies the grave sin which he committed. But surely, with so great an apparatus of arms, are they not fighting against shadows?

For in the Note merely a certain defect of coherence in Elbel was noted: while he teaches that the confessor is bound in the proposed case to absolve the bride at least under a condition, he then says that absolution is to be denied if the confessor becomes more certain of the state of the penitent from the report of others. In what sense the words of Elbel in the Note are to be understood is evident from the fact that the opinion which St. Alphonsus attests to be commonly handed down is opposed to him. But this opinion is of this kind (book 6, no. 631): A distinction must be made: if he knows outside confession and knows by his own knowledge, for example, by seeing him steal or hearing him blaspheme, without doubt he ought not to absolve if he denies it, provided there is not a prudent doubt, etc. But if the confessor has it from suspicion or from the report of others, Suarez, Laymann, Holzmann, Sporer, and others also commonly say that after diligent questioning he ought as a rule to absolve. But if you understand the words of Elbel as referring to that certainty by which, for example, in Fagundez, cited by the VV. (p. 597), the Confessor is certain of someone's concubinage FROM PUBLIC NOTORIETY, the question is indeed reduced to such a condition that you seek adversaries to attack in vain. For this reason it was said that the VV. fashioned shadows for themselves against which they turned their arms.

467. Principle: The confessor is bound to question the penitent, of itself under grave obligation, as often as he judges probably that he, either culpably or inculpably, is omitting certain things necessary to be known for absolution. It is certain.

It is proved: (a) By the authority of Lateran Council IV, saying:³ "But let the priest be discreet and cautious... diligently inquiring both the circumstances of the sinner and of the sin." Likewise one reads in the Roman Ritual:⁴ "If the penitent has not expressed the number and species and circumstances of sins necessary to be explained, let the priest prudently question him."

³ In Denzing., n. 363.

⁴ Ordo ministrandi Sacr. Paenit.

(b) Theological reason. For the confessor, as judge, must know both the sins which the penitent has committed and his dispositions; but not rarely the penitent, because of ignorance or confusion, is silent about sins, or at least about the number or circumstances of sins; more often he says nothing concerning his own dispositions; therefore the confessor cannot know all these things except by questioning. - Besides, as physician, he must prescribe opportune remedies; now he cannot suggest them unless he questions about occasions and habit and also other causes of sin, since most penitents are altogether silent concerning these things.

468. Corollaries. (a) The confessor is not bound to question penitents who, on the one hand, seem sufficiently instructed, and, on the other, are diligent in confessing, such as those are accustomed to be who frequently receive the sacraments, unless, however, in some case, from their accusation, a probability arises that something necessary to be known is omitted. - On the contrary, those are ordinarily to be questioned who rarely approach the sacred tribunal, especially if they seem little instructed, because deservedly their accusation is presumed not to be integral.

Therefore the practice of those is to be disapproved who never question penitents, indeed do not even allow them to bring the confession to its end, but, after a few sins have been heard, immediately impart absolution: such a manner of acting often disturbs souls, rather than tranquilizing them, and is the cause why even grave sins are kept silent.

(b) The confessor is not bound to greater solicitude in questioning than penitents are in confessing; indeed, strictly speaking, he is bound to less, since the integrity of confession directly obliges the penitent and only indirectly the confessor. Therefore he is bound to employ only ordinary and moderate diligence, which is proportioned to the diverse capacity of penitents. Thus a rude and uncultivated person is not to be examined as accurately as one well instructed, nor a sick person as a healthy and robust one, because they are not bound to so minute an examination.¹

¹ This Lugo excellently declares, disp. XVI, n. 594.

(c) If, from slight negligence, inadvertence, frailty of memory, or distraction, or fatigue, the confessor omits to inquire about something which of itself is necessary for the integrity of confession, there will be no sin or only a light sin; for no one is bound to the impossible: now when many confessions are received, it is morally impossible always to avoid these defects. - Likewise, when moderate diligence has been employed, he does not sin who abstains from further questions, lest he render confession odious, although he foresees that with greater diligence more sins could be detected: for it is better that confession lack material integrity than that it become odious to many.

469. On the qualities of questioning. Questioning must be moderate, discreet, opportune.

(a) Moderate, that is, not about curious or useless matters which are foreign to confession, but only about those things which regard the state of conscience. Hence the confessor should not question about all sins, but only about those which have probably been committed by the penitent, according to each one's condition and dispositions. Likewise let him question each one according to the knowledge with which he is furnished, not according to the knowledge with which the confessor himself is endowed: and therefore if children, the ignorant, half-witted persons, etc., have only a confused knowledge of sins, he will seek something more precise in vain: the more he questions, the less these understand.

Nor should the confessor think that it is necessary to pronounce a certain judgment concerning the gravity or lightness of all the sins which are declared: provided he is endowed with competent knowledge and acquires sufficient knowledge of the dispositions of the penitent, by employing ordinary diligence, he can form a wise judgment and leave the rest to God. Besides, even if in forming judgment concerning the gravity of delicts he should err, the absolution is valid.

For the most part it is not expedient to ask the rude whether they regarded such or such a sin committed by them as mortal: for not rarely they will answer, not according to the truth of the matter, but according to that which occurs to their mind. Nevertheless, in certain cases, especially when there is question of chastity, and it is feared that perhaps by a direct question the penitent may be scandalized, the confessor can ask whether in doing that he was conscious that he was sinning gravely.

470. (b) Discreet, or prudent, both in the things about which he questions and in the manner of questioning, avoiding all those things which could probably scandalize penitents, or teach them those things which it is better to be ignorant of.

This is especially to be attended to in the matter of chastity with regard to younger persons, who perhaps do not yet know sins of this kind.¹ Besides, since it is established by experience that sins against chastity are not accused by some unless a question is asked about them, it is expedient to propose certain questions about this matter, yet prudently. Namely, the confessor should first use general terms, so that the penitent, if he is guilty, may understand; but if innocent, may learn nothing new; for example, have you sinned against modesty, decency, purity? - Afterward he should begin from lighter sins, and, according to the answers received, proceed to graver ones; for example, let him ask about thoughts, - about words heard or spoken, - about looks, - excessive familiarities, - touches with themselves, with others, of the same or of the other sex, etc. - Nevertheless, it must be noted that not a few, rude and ignorant, do not declare thoughts and desires, because they do not know that merely internal sins are to be accused; hence, even when they answer negatively about thoughts, a question can be proposed about immodest actions; afterward, if they answer affirmatively, it can be asked whether they also thought about these things before or after the actions committed, and whether they had a desire of performing them more often.

¹ "But let him take care not to detain anyone with curious or useless questions, especially younger persons of either sex, or others, by imprudently questioning concerning that which they are ignorant of, lest they suffer scandal and thence learn to sin." (Rit. Rom., l. c.)

Those words which could excite dangerous curiosity, such as pollution, fornication, sodomy, bestiality, etc., are to be carefully avoided with younger persons who are presumed innocent.

With regard to married persons, inquiry can be made whether they have fulfilled their duties toward the other spouse, without express mention being made of the conjugal debt, - or whether anything reproaches them with regard to the use of marriage; if they answer negatively, nothing more is to be inquired, unless there is a special reason; if affirmatively, it suffices to propose those questions by which it can be known whether they voluntarily take means for impeding the conception or birth of offspring.

In one word, in this matter this rule handed down by almost all is to be observed: It is better to be deficient in many things with regard to integrity, than to abound in one thing with probable ruin of the penitent.

471. (c) Opportune, that is, made at a suitable time and in a suitable manner.

Before confession, if the penitent is unknown, it should be kindly inquired from what time he has confessed - whether he was absolved - whether he is perfectly at peace concerning his past life? - If he is troubled, he should be led by paternal words to explain the cause of his anxiety, saying, for example, that all solicitude can easily be expelled by a candid confession, and all sins, even the gravest, are forgiven to the contrite in heart. - Questions can indeed be asked at the beginning about state and condition; but they are often better made in the course of confession, when an opportunity is given, lest from the beginning the penitent be overwhelmed with questions.

In the very act of confession, generally let him propose only few and brief questions, for example, about number and circumstances changing the species; but let him not interrupt the penitent too frequently, so that he may be able to confess in order all things which he remembers. Let him hear patiently and kindly the sins which are accused; if useless things are related, let it be said courteously that it is not necessary to say these things; if the greatest sins are declared, let no sign of astonishment or horror be given, but rather let a few things be said about the divine mercy, which remits the gravest delicts; if the penitent hesitates and confesses his sins only with difficulty, let him be led to perfect sincerity by a few more humane words, and helped by some questions. Let every rebuke be abstained from before the confession is finished.

After the confession has been heard, the penitent must be questioned about those things which he probably omitted, by going through those things which he himself declared. If there is question of those who are very timid, it is often profitable, after a paternal exhortation, immediately before absolution, to ask with paternal affection whether something burdens their conscience: for there are those who do not uncover all sins until, by most humane words, the confessor has won their confidence for himself. - If then a previously withheld sin is accused, let the confessor act most mildly, and propose motives of contrition, not only with regard to this sin, but also with regard to the malice of withholding it.

472. Corollary. From this it can be inferred what the confessor ought to do when he doubts concerning the sincerity of the penitent, or is morally certain that a grave sin is being withheld by him.

In the forum of penance there is a received axiom: the penitent is to be believed as much when speaking for himself as against himself. This indeed is wholly valid when there is only doubt concerning the sincerity of the penitent; for he himself is at once the accused and the witness, and his testimony of itself is better than any other, since he knows better than anyone else whether he has sinned or not, and whether the sin committed has already been remitted or not. - But if the matter is morally certain, it is doubted whether the aforesaid axiom can be applied. Hence:

(a) If the confessor only doubts concerning the sincerity of the penitent, he can indeed question him diligently and exhort him to perfect sincerity; but if the penitent affirms that he has accused all things, he is to be absolved, by force of the aforesaid axiom.

(b) If he knows with moral certainty that a grave sin was committed which is being withheld, first he must weigh whether the penitent is in good faith, ignorant of the gravity of this sin, or thinking that he has a motive for withholding it for a time, or whether probably this sin was confessed before another; for if something of this kind can be presumed, the penitent is to be believed.

But if nothing of this kind is probably presumed, a distinction must be made from what source the confessor knew the sin: - if by his own experience he knows that the sin was committed, for example, he saw a homicide perpetrated, he must convince the penitent, and if this man proceeds to deny everything (which will rarely happen), he is to be dismissed without absolution, as being indisposed. - If he knew it from the testimony of others, outside confession, he must question the penitent specially about this sin; but if the penitent denies it, more probably he can be absolved, because the penitent is to be believed rather than others who perhaps were deceived; yet probably St. Alphonsus (n. 631) teaches that in this case absolution is to be denied, if the witnesses are so grave that they render the matter morally certain. - Finally, if he knew it from the confession of another (for example, of a fiancee, wife, etc.), the confessor cannot question specially about this sin, but only generally, as persons of the same condition are accustomed to be questioned, lest perhaps the sacramental seal be violated. Nor is it expedient in this case to ask from the accomplice permission to use this knowledge for convicting the guilty person: for this would render confession odious. But if the penitent, having been generally questioned, is silent about the sin, it is better to give absolution, at least under condition, lest perhaps a suspicion arise that absolution is denied because of the confession of the accomplice. Yet probably St. Alphonsus (l. c.) asserts that absolution is to be denied.

59. One must recall to memory the principle explained in the Treatise on Penance, n. 385, namely, in questions all those things are to be avoided which can probably scandalize penitents: for material integrity of confession is prescribed only by positive divine law, while scandal must be avoided from the natural law itself. Now the confessor can especially scandalize in two ways, by imprudently teaching penitents a way of perpetrating sins unknown to them, or by proposing useless questions from which penitents judge the confessor to be too versed in venereal matters.

To avoid this, the confessor should first take pains that the penitent declare that by which his conscience is burdened, promising, however, that afterward he will help him.

60. (a) If there is question of the prepubescent, it is enough to ask whether and how often they have heard, spoken, or done anything against modesty, decency, purity - whether alone or with others. It would be imprudent to inquire about the manner in which the sin was committed, whether by using the hands or in another way. It is better to suggest that those actions which they would blush to commit before parents are seen by God, from whom nothing is hidden, and are very displeasing to Him, and are often punished by Him in this life, but especially in the other.

(b) As regards the mature, if they say that they touched themselves dishonorably, not from necessity but for the sake of pleasure, it can already be inferred, without further question, that pollution was committed. Wherefore girls are not to be asked whether they have procured pollution or emission of seed for themselves (which could excite their curiosity), but only whether they experienced dishonorable movements with pleasure, and fully consented to them, or voluntarily caused them (not inquiring about the manner); in which case the greatest horror of this delict should be impressed upon them.⁴ Since some accuse external acts, while saying nothing about thoughts or desires, they are to be asked whether they previously voluntarily desired to commit those acts, whether they wished to perpetrate other acts. - On the other hand, some accuse depraved thoughts without daring to declare external acts; they can be asked whether they furnished consent to these imaginations not only internally, but by some exterior act.

⁴ Cf. Fenelon, Avis aux confesseurs, Oeuvres, t. III, ed. Lebel, pp. 421-422.

(c) If the penitent accuses dishonorable familiarities with companions, it must be asked whether with persons of the same or of the other sex. If with persons of the same sex, whether as far as pollution (if there is question of males), as far as full pleasure (if of females); whether they did anything more shameful. If with persons of the other sex, whether they attempted what spouses do, or entirely consummated the evil action. Afterward one can ask about the quality of the person, so that it may be known whether adultery, incest, or sacrilege was committed. - Finally, opportune remedies are to be prescribed.

1. THE DUTY OF THE CONFESSOR TO QUESTION THE PENITENT (Interrogatio). —This duty arises from the nature of the Sacrament. Penance is a tribunal of justice. When the penitent's self-accusation is defective, so that the confessor cannot judge of the completeness of the avowal or the disposition of the sinner, prudent questioning becomes a duty.¹ Generally speaking, the presumption is in favor of the penitent. One who voluntarily comes to confession may be presumed to have the right disposition and to tell the truth. Hence no penitent should be interro- gated unless there is a well-founded doubt as to the integrity of his avowal or the absence of some element that is essential for the valid and worthy reception of the Sacrament.

¹ Conc. Lat. IV., c. 21: "Let the priest be discerning and cautious, so that, after the manner of a skilled physician, he may pour wine and oil upon the wounds of the injured man, diligently inquiring into the circumstances both of the sinner and of the sin, by which he may prudently understand what counsel he ought to offer him and what kind of remedy to apply, using various trials to save the sick man." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437). — Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 15: "If the penitent has not stated the number, species, and circumstances of the sins that must be explained, let the priest question him prudently." —Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. II, n. 461: "The confessor is bound to question penitents about the species and number of sins, the circumstances that change their species, and their causes, and about habits and proximate occasions, whenever he reasonably presumes or doubts that these are not sufficiently declared. The reason is that the confessor, as minister of the Sacrament, must procure its integrity, and as judge must acquire for himself the knowledge necessary to render an equitable judgment."

When it becomes necessary to ask questions, these will in the nature of the case deal with one of the following subjects: the number and specific character of one or more of the mortal sins confessed; necessary circumstances; causes and occasions; sinful habits; relapses, or the duty of restitution. Occasionally it may also be necessary to question the penitent in regard to his profession or occupation, his state of life, the time or validity of his last confession, etc.²

² Gury (Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 463): "The confessor is not bound to question penitents who, although uneducated, seem sufficiently instructed for their condition and diligent in confessing sins with their circumstances according to their state and capacity. All the more, it is not ordinarily necessary to examine those who confess often and rarely sin gravely, such as devout persons, religious, and clerics, unless something that must be explained seems to be omitted by them."

To perform his duty effectively, the confessor, in questioning a penitent, should proceed with caution,³ prudence,⁴ and discretion, especially in matters pertaining to the sixth and ninth commandments.⁵ Besides the questions he is in duty bound to ask, others may suggest themselves, and here especially great prudence is necessary. By working upon the emotions of a well disposed penitent the confessor can often prepare the way for grace.⁶

³ Op. cit., n. 462: "The confessor is not bound to question the penitent except with ordinary solicitude. The reason is that the penitent himself is not bound to examine himself with the highest diligence, but only with moderate, that is, ordinary diligence. The confessor’s obligation cannot be graver than the penitent’s, since the confessor is bound to examine the penitent only secondarily, that is, because of the penitent’s deficiency."

⁴ Conc. Lat. IV., c. 21; Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 15.

⁵ Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 219.

⁶ Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 46: "Let the priest beware of detaining anyone with curious or useless questions, especially younger persons of either sex, or of imprudently questioning others about what they do not know, lest they suffer scandal and thereby learn to sin." —Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 629: "Let the examination not be curious about unnecessary matters, whereby the confessor’s reputation, the dignity of the Sacrament, and the penitent’s progress may be diminished; let it not be indiscreet—for example, about things which it is morally certain such a person is not accustomed to commit, or from which the penitent may learn to sin, or immodestly about immodest matters, or too anxiously about number." (Ed. Gaudé, III, 653).— Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 463: "Questioning must always be moderate, discreet, opportune, and suited to all the circumstances of the penitent’s character, age, and condition. Reverence for the Sacrament, natural decency, charity, and prudence toward penitents seem to require this." —P. A. Kirsch, Zur Geschichte der kath. Beichte, pp. 212 sq.

2. THE CONFESSOR'S DUTY OF ADMONISHING AND INSTRUCTING THE PENITENT (Monitio). —This duty arises from the office of teacher, which a priest is bound to exercise whenever he finds a penitent to be ignorant of what is necessary for the integrity of confession or of the disposition required for the worthy reception of the Sacrament. a) Hence the confessor is in duty bound to instruct every penitent who is either vincibly and culpably or invincibly ignorant of the truths necessary for salvation and the more important duties of life. When a penitent is invincibly ignorant in regard to some of these duties, the confessor should not instruct him unless he has good reason to think that his advice will be heeded, lest what was purely a material sin should be- come a formal sin. The same rule holds good whenever there is reason to apprehend that instruction of the penitent would result in quarrels, enmity, scandal, or other serious evil.

When a confessor has reason to doubt whether instruction is likely to prove useful, he had better say nothing.⁷ b) If the penitent asks for instruction, it should always be given regardless of its probable effect. However, in such cases the confessor had better not go beyond the question asked, unless additional instruction is sure to prove beneficial. For instance, if a penitent has married in spite of the vow of chastity, and asks whether the marriage is valid and whether he is allowed to render the debitum, the confessor should reply in the affirmative, without informing the penitent that he has no right to demand that which he may render. c) The confessor is obliged to remove invincible ignorance by instruction whenever failure to do so would result in injury to the common good, or whenever it can reasonably be expected that the penitent will obey, either now or later; or if the penitent would otherwise remain in proximate danger of formal sin, or his ignorance would result in spiritual injury to himself, e. g., by regarding as sinful something which is permitted.

⁷ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor.t 1. VI, n. 616: "But is an admonition to be given when it is doubtful whether it will profit or harm? The reply is: if no harm is feared, it certainly must be given; but if there is doubt both about the harm and about the fruit to follow, then the confessor ought to weigh the harm and the benefit, likewise the degree of fear of harm and of hope of benefit, and choose what he judges to prevail. Besides, in doubt it seems to me that it should regularly be said that formal evils are to be avoided in preference to material ones." (Ed. Gaude, III, 641).

In applying these rules it is necessary to proceed with caution. "Some theologians assume," says Linsenmann, "that there is a species of error in moral matters which the confessor had better leave untouched, in other words, that the penitent runs less danger of committing formal sin if he transgresses a moral law ignorantly and in good faith, than if he is instructed with regard to his error. This assumption is scarcely ever founded in fact. An error that involves no moral danger either to the penitent or to others, cannot possibly have reference to the substance of the moral law, but will invariably pertain to purely human precepts of minor importance. If the penitent were unwilling to accept instruction in a matter involving mortal sin, —and only in such a case would it be the confessor's duty to instruct him, —he would be incapable of receiving absolution." ⁸ READINGS.—St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 1. VI, n. 607-616 (ed. Gaude, Vol. III, pp. 631 sqq.).—H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 462 sqq. —A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor. et Past., Vol. I, pp. 195 sqq. —F. A. Gopfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. III, 5th ed., pp. 234 sqq. —J. E. Primer, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 247 sqq., 255 sqq. —F. P. Kenrick, Theologia Moralis, Vol. II, 2nd ed., Malines 1861, pp. 256 sqq. —Al. Sabetti, SJ., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, 22nd ed. (by T. Barrett, SJ.), New York 1915, pp. 745 sqq.

⁸ Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der der Moraltheologie, p. 219. THE SEAL OF

270. - The confessor will question and admonish penitents concerning these matters according to the general principles. Nevertheless, the following things are to be noted particularly.

1. Since controversy concerning these arts is heated, so that even newspapers not rarely discuss this argument, good faith can scarcely exist in penitents, nor at least persevere for long.

2. Those who, while frequenting the sacraments, err in this matter easily become harmful to others through their words and imprudent counsels; and because of a slight indication, they judge that the matter is permitted or at least tolerated by the confessor.

3. It is a question of a most grave evil which, for the sake of the common good, must be fought everywhere.

With these things considered:

1. The confessor will ask spouses unknown to him by a general question whether all things stand well in the marriage or whether they are troubled by any scruple. Nevertheless, he will not do this if there is a positive indication that this vice is not to be suspected in the penitent.

2. Those whom he discovers to be onanists, he will regularly admonish concerning their crime.

3. If the wife, with attention to the manner in which the excess is committed, can admit intercourse well begun, as we said above, he will instruct her concerning her faculty, lest she begin or continue to perpetrate formal sins.

4. In some rare case in which good faith is joined with extraordinary circumstances, and the danger of scandal together with the danger of excessive abuse has ceased, he will suppress the fault in silence.

Good faith will be more readily present in a wife who, having denied assent, thinks that she can cast all the guilt upon the man and does not distinguish among the manners in which the abuse is committed; or also in grave illness. Nor then are excessive abuses to be feared of themselves.

The responses of the Holy See are consonant with these rules; with attention to the manner in which the unspeakable vice has prevailed, they urge the obligation of questioning more severely than about the middle of the nineteenth century. In the year 1886, the Sacred Penitentiary gave this response:

"Doubt I. When there is a founded suspicion that a penitent who is entirely silent concerning onanism is addicted to this crime ²², may the confessor abstain from prudent and discreet questioning because he foresees that several persons will be disturbed from good faith and that many will desert the sacraments? Or is the confessor rather bound prudently and discreetly to question?

²² Noldin deservedly observes this: "In those regions in which the vice of onanism rages widely, the confessor can almost always reasonably suppose that the penitent deliberately conceals that sin. Nevertheless, let him abstain from special questions: whether they poured out the semen outside the vessel; whether they impeded generation by withdrawing themselves, etc." De sexto praecepto et usu coniugii, no. 76. And Palmieri also acknowledges that the probability of the vice acquires force from its wide propagation, and adds: "It is difficult to suppose good faith in those addicted to this vice; but if perhaps it is present, prudent questioning will do no harm" (note to vol. 6, no. 247).

"II. Is the confessor who, either from a spontaneous confession or from prudent questioning, knows that the penitent is an onanist bound to admonish him concerning the gravity of this sin and of other mortal sins, to rebuke him with paternal charity, as the Roman Ritual says, and to impart absolution to him only when it is established by sufficient signs that he is sorry for the past and has the resolution of no longer acting onanistically?

"Response to I. Regularly, negative to the first part; affirmative to the second.

"To II. Affirmative, according to the doctrine of approved authors."

The efficacious instructions given by the bishops of Belgium in the year 1909 are consonant. (Cf., for example, Nouvelle Revue théologique, vol. 41 [1909], p. 616 ff.) And approved authors hand down things consonant with these. Cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 1907; Noldin, De sexto praecepto et usu matrimonii; De Smet, De sponsalibus et matrimonio, nos. 145, 146.

Nor is the evasion of some valid who allege that "only the good of the penitent is to be cared for by the confessor." For he exercises the office of fraternal correction, not formally as confessor, but as a neighbor to whom an excellent occasion is available from confession. Wherefore, the ordinary rules of fraternal correction come into use, which command that we consult the common good first.

This must indeed be guarded against altogether, lest the very silence of the confessor be regarded as a certain tacit connivance, which today would easily be scandalous ²³. But by prudent and general questioning the confessor neither disturbs good faith of itself nor can now reasonably seem to connive at anything.

²³ A rumor concerning an indulgence by which some approved man conceded something is immediately spread; and what was permitted because of particular circumstances is reported as lawful of itself. We ourselves thus knew, in the year 1915, of an abuse made of counsel which a Catholic physician had given to a sick person.

414. - In cases of chastity and of the opposed lust, although the confessor cannot state false things, he must nevertheless act so prudently that, insofar as he can, he may avert from penitents the danger of falling; especially since it is often most difficult to pronounce with certainty concerning light or grave sin, concerning full or merely imperfect imputability; and rash condemnation has not rarely led a soul to despair, improvident hesitation to scarcely curable anxiety, and inconsiderate excuse to fatal audacity. Wherefore, let him quiet the fearful with firm responses, but at the same time efficaciously induce penitents, especially clerics and younger persons, to follow safer things, according to that saying ¹: "In this matter of the sixth precept, it is necessary, insofar as it is possible, to employ every severity."

¹ St. Alphonsus, Homo apostolicus, treatise 9, no. 34.

But paternal severity, which restrains rash actions, by no means excludes benevolence toward persons.

Nevertheless, that he may provide for his own security and perfection, let the confessor diligently attend that his affability remain supernatural, and that he seek himself in no matter.

Let him also show himself courteous and benign in such a way that he gives occasion to no sensual affection in others.

Let him not be ignorant that religious paranoia can lie hidden beneath a veil of intense piety, which is rooted in a morbid but exceedingly vehement concupiscence. Nor are there lacking persons for whom, in order to experience pleasure, it is sufficient to speak with another concerning sexual matters. Therefore, persons of this kind, especially unmarried women, can seek base satisfactions in the very tribunal of penance.

"Wherefore, the confessor must act with the greatest caution and vigilant prudence with persons of this kind, all the more because the religious-erotic fanaticism of women, especially unmarried women, sends deep roots into the feminine heart, which are afterward removed with sufficient difficulty. Unless the greatest vigilance, caution, and prudence are employed, the reputation of the priest can suffer the greatest detriment. When these women present themselves, they are to be sent quickly to a physician ²."

² Antonelli, vol. 2, nos. 222, 223. Cf. also Gemelli, Non moechaberis, pp. 43, 44, 55.

He will counsel spouses a tenor of life by which they may live, each content with the other, and grow in mutual love and esteem. Yet he should not neglect to lead them toward more perfect counsels.

But he will especially exhort others to these things:

That they flee whatever things are strange and unusual in these matters.

That, if there is a grave cause for seeing, reading, or treating something which can move the sense, they preserve a simple, not anxious, manner of acting.

That, except for a just cause, they involve themselves as little as possible in these matters and firmly repel specious pretexts.

That, even in a necessary action, they endeavor to avoid less pure affections and movements of the flesh.

That they value sincerity and strength of soul most highly and acquire them for themselves.

That they be mindful of human dignity and of the love with which Christ has espoused to himself the soul of the faithful.

That they assiduously foster higher studies.

That they taste most frequently the heavenly food of the Eucharist, with the devotion that is fitting.

That, also by tender devotion toward the most pure Virgin, they foster in themselves not only horror of sin but an apostolic love of chastity, of which St. Paul handed down an eminent example.

In this manner he will inculcate a delicate and pleasing purity; and he will form Christians concerning whom Athenagoras already said in the second century: "Since we have the hope of eternal life, we despise the pleasures of this life" ³.

³ Legatio pro christianis, no. 32 (M.P.G. 6, 966).

VI. Warning. As to questions in confession, let it be noted:

1. boys or girls are not to be asked whether an effusion of semen or humor was present;

2. nor women, except indirectly, whether they have satisfied passion, felt complete satisfaction (zelfvoldoening), vehement pleasure;

3. but others, confessing touches, are to be asked whether pollution followed;

4. on the contrary, those polluting themselves are to be asked also about immodest touches separated from pollution and are to be warned concerning their gravity;

5. but if someone is ignorant, even invincibly, that pollution is a sin, he is altogether to be instructed lest he acquire an evil habit.

VI. Let the confessor use the greatest prudence in the direction of penitents, lest he be a scandal to them. This could happen in two ways: either a. by teaching a mode of perpetrating sins unknown to the penitents; or b. by proposing useless questions, from which penitents would judge the confessor to be too curious or too versed in those things. For thus confession would become hateful if it were an occasion of scandal or temptation. Hence theologians hold the principle: in these matters it is better to be deficient than to abound.

In particular:

1. in questioning, all things are to be avoided which can probably scandalize the penitent. The material integrity of confession is prescribed only by positive divine law, while scandal must be avoided by natural law. Hence the first prescription of confessing integrally ceases to oblige when scandal is feared. Hence:

a. First of all, let the confessor permit the penitent to declare that by which his conscience is burdened, promising, however, if it seems necessary, that afterwards he will help him.

b. As to the impubescent, it suffices to ask whether and how often they have heard, said, or done anything against modesty, decency, purity: whether alone or with others. He would act imprudently if he inquired concerning the mode by which the sin was committed, whether with hands employed or in another mode. Nor should he begin speech concerning the effect or concerning complete pleasure. It is better to suggest that those actions, which they would blush to perpetrate before their parents, are seen by God from whom nothing is hidden, are very displeasing to him, and are punished by him even in this life, but especially in the other; besides, how one must act in temptations is to be told to them.

c. As to younger pubescent persons who are beginning sexual life and therefore are ignorant of several things concerning it: if they say that they have dishonorably touched themselves, not from necessity but because of pleasure, ordinarily it can be inferred, without a further question, that pollution was committed. Wherefore boys are not to be asked whether they have experienced some effect or have procured for themselves an emission of humor or semen, which could excite their curiosity; similarly girls are not to be asked whether they have suffered a certain distillation. Rather, only whether they have experienced dishonorable motions with pleasure and have fully consented to them or voluntarily admitted them, without inquiring concerning the mode; in which case the greatest horror of this offense should be instilled into them. As to the pubescent who are altogether developed or who certainly are sufficiently instructed, as also as to adults, one can ask: of males, concerning effusion of semen, for example concerning the evil effect that followed; of girls, concerning complete satisfaction procured, whether they satisfied themselves, whether they fulfilled passion.

d. Those who confess immodest touches upon their own body can be asked whether the touches were necessary; if they deny this, whether they were lasting or lingering; if they deny this, nothing further is to be inquired; if they affirm it, one must inquire further concerning pleasure, and if they are sufficiently developed, also concerning the complete act, as was said under c.

e. On the contrary, those polluting themselves are to be questioned also concerning immodest touches separated from pollution, and are to be warned that they are mortal sins by reason of the proximate danger of exciting or seeking venereal pleasure.

f. When they accuse certain external lustful acts, saying nothing concerning thoughts or desires, one must ask from them whether beforehand they voluntarily thought of or desired to commit those acts, whether they wished to perpetrate other acts, whether they desired something base and what it was, and it should be said to them that this is mortal sin. On the contrary, some accuse depraved thoughts, while they do not dare to declare external acts. These can be asked whether they gave consent to those imaginings not only internally, but by some exterior act, for example whether they had depraved sensations and consented to them. For adults, if they accuse themselves of having sinned against chastity, it is often better, in questioning, to begin from graver things, especially if they are more uneducated; for others one should begin from lesser things.

g. If an evolved penitent accuses dishonorable familiarities with companions, it must be asked whether with persons of the same or the other sex. If with persons of the same sex, whether up to pollution, if it concerns males; up to full pleasure, if it concerns females; whether they did anything more base. If with a person of the other sex, whether they attempted what spouses do, or altogether consummated the evil action; in this case one must ask concerning the effect that followed or did not follow, and concerning the cause of its not following. Afterwards one can ask concerning the quality of the person, so that it may be known whether adultery, incest, sacrilege was committed.

If the sin was not consummated, one must ask concerning touches, looks, kisses, and so forth. But if the penitent is guilty of only light pleasure, let the confessor say that in this matter there is always danger of passing to graver things, and let him warn prudence. And if the penitent accuses himself of having exposed himself to danger, or of having had carnal motions, one must ask concerning the cause and concerning necessity.

h. As to those habituated, let the confessor explore from what time they have been addicted to this vice, their bodily temperament, the circumstances of the sins, namely at what time, in what place, on what occasion, in what circumstances of things the fall is accustomed to occur, even if they institute confession with someone for the first time. Care must be taken that they always return to the same confessor, and institute confession soon after the fall; let them pray daily to obtain chastity and emit or renew a firm resolution.

i. Finally, for judging the gravity of this sin, it can be asked of the penitent, which would not be so valid for other sins: whether he judges that he has sinned gravely.

V. Warning for confessors. Concerning onanism, the faithful are also to be questioned and warned in confession. Concerning this, see the Sacred Penitentiary, March 10, 1886; and the Instruction of the bishops of Belgium, 1909;¹⁰ and the Provincial Council of Mechlin, n. 84-86. Indeed the Supreme Pontiff himself in the encyclical Casti Connubii does not hesitate to write: "Therefore priests who give their labor to hearing confessions, and others who have care of souls, by our supreme authority and care for the salvation of all souls, we admonish, lest they allow the faithful committed to them to err concerning this most grave law of God, and much more, that they keep themselves immune from opinions of this kind and in no way connive at them. But if any confessor or pastor of souls, may God avert it, has either himself led the faithful entrusted to him into these errors, or at least confirmed them in these either by approving or by deceitfully keeping silent, let him know that he will have to render a severe account to God the supreme judge concerning betrayal of his office, and let him judge that the words of Christ are said to him, Matt. XV, 14: They are blind, and leaders of the blind; but if the blind gives guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit."

¹⁰ As a commentary upon this instruction one can have the little work of the author A. Knoch, L'Onanisme conjugal et le tribunal de la Penitence, Liege, 1910. Besides, these can usefully be compared: Instructio pro confessariis de usu et abusu matrimonii, Eichstaett, Seminary 1931; Ami du Clerge, 1931; Creusen, "L'Onanisme conjugal," in N. R. Th., 1932.

For it concerns a most grave evil, spread everywhere and very harmful to the common good, concerning which good faith now can scarcely exist, whose practice among the good and pious will easily be harmful to others because of scandal, and which because of the silence of confessors will be judged able to be permitted or tolerated. With these things considered, the confessor:

1. Unless by positive judgment it appears that the penitent is immune from that vice, should regularly question unknown married persons at least by a general question: whether all things in marriage are rightly ordered, whether nothing concerning this troubles the conscience.

2. If an onanist is detected, he can never positively permit the vice, and regularly he must warn, not only if good faith is absent or there is probable hope of fruit, but also when these are lacking; indeed, the Sacred Penitentiary warns, March 10, 1886, "if he foresees that several are to be disturbed from good faith, and many will abandon the sacraments": both generally, because if confessors generally were silent, they would harm the common good, and in the particular case if it is feared that the silence of the confessor may be divulged, or the example be a scandal to the faithful. "For in this matter," says the Provincial Council of Mechlin, n. 85, "it is better to use severity than to indulge laxity."

3. Only extraordinarily, in a rare case, if these inconveniences and the danger of scandal and of excessive abuse are absent, he will be able to leave the penitent in good faith, which can more easily exist in the wife while she is in grave illness, or leaves the whole matter to the husband.

4. But if the spouse, considering the mode by which the vice is committed, can legitimately begin copulation well or admit it when begun, he will instruct that spouse concerning this faculty, so that he or she may henceforth avoid formal sins.

5. Let him also provide remedies against the vice:

a. let him show the gravity of the sin, which is directly opposed to the primary end of the conjugal act and of marriage, and the grave obligation of abandoning it;

b. let him explain the harmful effects in offspring born, and in the parents, who weaken the nervous system;

c. if the penitent objects the difficulty of feeding and educating more numerous offspring, let him excite confidence in the providence of God and explain that more numerous families generally are happier than others and emerge by the energy of their members, and by greater union and virile love;

d. if death from a new childbirth is feared, let him insinuate that the danger is easily exaggerated by some physicians, that no one can in this matter predict the event with certainty, that nature moreover brings help to the pregnant woman, and that the medical art has so advanced that the danger can rather be averted;

e. finally, in a discreet mode he can advise that they contain themselves or come together more rarely, or cautiously insinuate to them that there is a time less apt for fertilization.

6. Finally, to the relapsed without amendment absolution is regularly to be deferred, unless he brings extraordinary signs.

7. Moreover, in order that spouses may be able to exercise conjugal chastity, it is necessary that spouses, endowed with virtue, dominate passion and be apt to preserve continence for a time, as is sometimes necessary during pregnancy, or at the time of childbirth and purification, or because of disease or infirmity. But if they can do this, they will also be able rather easily to avoid onanism.

I. Obligation of questioning. - There is an obligation, of itself grave, of questioning penitents, as is proved in the Treatise on Penance, where it treats of the minister. The omission of questioning redounds to the detriment of souls, or to the prejudice of the sacrament:¹

¹ Cf. Marc, Th. M., II, n. 1804.

A. to the detriment of souls: 1) because it furnishes an occasion for many sacrilegious confessions, since there are many penitents who, unless they are questioned, pass over graver sins: "frequently," says St. Thomas, "those things which the penitent would keep silent because of shame, when questioned he reveals" (IV Sent., d. 19, qu. 2, art. 3, exp. textus);

2. because it is the cause that many penitents lack opportune remedies against relapse; for the confessor who does not question concerning the causes, occasions, and habit of sins, concerning diligence in amendment used or omitted, cannot prudently indicate the opportune means by which new falls may be forestalled;

3. because harm is easily brought upon others also, from the fact that the penitent does not remove scandal, or neglects the duties of his state, e.g., in the education and custody of children;

B. to the prejudice of the sacrament, whose integrity is exposed to danger, indeed also its validity, since often it cannot prudently be judged whether the penitent is disposed, or whether he needs a more ardent exhortation that he may be duly disposed.

II. What questions are to be made. - Questions are to be made only when, and insofar as, they are necessary for procuring the validity of the sacrament, the integrity of confession, or the amendment of the sinner:²

² Ibid., n. 1803.

1. for procuring the validity of the sacrament, e.g., for knowing whether there is sufficient matter of confession, whether the penitent conceals something out of shame, as often happens in boys and girls, whether the penitent is sufficiently disposed;

435. 1. The first duty which is incumbent upon the confessor in the act of confession is to judge rightly both concerning the sins heard and concerning the absolution to be given or refused.

For judging rightly, not only sufficient knowledge of moral theology is required, but also the integrity of the confession. Accordingly, the Roman Ritual admonishes:³⁸⁰ "If the penitent has not expressed the number and species of the sins and the circumstances necessary to be explained, let the priest question him prudently." But questioning must always be: a) Moderate, because excessive questions are accustomed to exasperate the penitent and bring upon the confessor the reproach of curiosity. b) Discreet and prudent, both concerning the matters about which he questions and in the manner of questioning. The confessor must avoid everything by which penitents could justly be scandalized.³⁸¹ c) Opportune. Generally it is not expedient to question the penitent before the accusation has been entirely completed, because otherwise sins are easily omitted through forgetfulness. If, however, the confessor perceives that the penitent accuses himself so imperfectly that as many questions must necessarily be posed as the memory is unable to retain, he can also question the penitent during the accusation.

³⁸⁰ Tit. 3, c. 1, n. 16.

³⁸¹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 888, § 2.

436. 2. The second duty of the confessor is to teach and admonish the penitent.

The confessor must teach the penitent those truths which are necessary for rightly receiving the sacrament; therefore not only the truths which are necessary by a necessity of means, but also all those things which necessarily pertain to contrition, purpose, confession, satisfaction, and so forth.³⁸² It is evident of itself that unlearned penitents do not need an altogether perfect knowledge of these truths, but that it suffices if they know at least the substance according to their capacity. Sometimes the confessor is also bound to instruct penitents concerning the duties of their state, for example, concerning the obligations of spouses.

If the penitent judges from an erroneous conscience that something is a sin which in truth is not such, or a grave sin which in fact is light, he must be instructed; for such an error is very harmful to him. But if the penitent thinks that something is licit which in truth is illicit, or that something is a light sin which in truth is grave, then a distinction must be made. If such ignorance is vincible and culpable, the penitent must be instructed, because he already sins from the fact that he did not expel this ignorance. But if such ignorance is invincible, the penitent must be instructed whenever good fruit is hoped from it; for otherwise the penitent would commit a material sin, which it is not lawful to permit without a grave cause. But whenever greater inconveniences are prudently feared from the instruction, whether for the penitent himself, for a third person, or for the community, the penitent can and must be left in good faith; for otherwise formal sins would be made from material sins. This case sometimes occurs in a putative marriage. For if the putative spouses are in good faith and their union can neither be dissolved nor changed into a legitimate marriage, it is preferable that they be left in good faith.

The confessor must admonish the penitent concerning obligations which must necessarily be fulfilled, for example, concerning restitution to be made, the proximate occasion to be avoided, and so forth.

³⁸² Cf. Roman Ritual, ibid., n. 14.

437. 3. The third duty of the confessor is to dispose the penitent to true contrition and amendment.

Concerning this matter the Roman Ritual admonishes:³⁸³ "And [the confessor] shall endeavor by efficacious words to lead him to sorrow and contrition, and shall induce him to amend his life and institute it better, and shall hand down remedies for sins." If the confessor prudently judges that the penitent is well disposed, he is strictly bound to nothing else except giving absolution, but it is almost always expedient to suggest to all some motive of contrition and good purpose. If the confessor doubts concerning the sufficient contrition of the penitent, he cannot absolve him unless he first rightly disposes him. St. Alphonsus teaches that this obligation is grave,³⁸⁴ saying: "Therefore I do not know how those indolent confessors can be excused from fault who, as soon as they have learned that the penitent is not sufficiently disposed, dismiss him, with no diligence or very little diligence first employed for curing him. For I say that the confessor is bound by a rigorous obligation of charity to dispose him insofar as he is able."

Since the confessor is not only a judge and teacher but also a physician, he must investigate the cause of the spiritual illness and then prescribe suitable remedies for amendment, for example, the frequent reception of the sacraments of penance and the Eucharist, determinate prayers, flight from the occasion, certain mortifications, and so forth.

³⁸³ Tit. 3, c. 1, n. 18.

³⁸⁴ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 608.

438. 4. The fourth duty of the confessor is to give, deny, or defer absolution.

Concerning these things, the following are to be noted:

a) Absolution must be given to a penitent rightly confessed and disposed, who asks for it here and now, or who does not readily consent to a delay.³⁸⁵

For the confessor, by freely hearing the confession of the penitent, enters into a quasi-contract of giving absolution if the penitent is rightly disposed. Hence, if after hearing the confession of a rightly disposed penitent he denies absolution, he breaks the contract and sins gravely, at least if the penitent is thereby compelled to remain in the state of mortal sin and bears this with difficulty. For a just cause, for example, for the sake of medicine or trial, absolution can sometimes be deferred for a brief time even for one well disposed and consenting, as will be stated below, because this can sometimes be useful to the penitent. Thus also in the ancient Church absolution was sometimes delayed for penitents.

b) Absolution must be denied to those who are certainly unworthy or incapable.

The reason is that otherwise the sacrament would certainly be frustrated, which is not lawful even in extreme necessity. The unworthy or indisposed are those who lack true contrition and a sincere and firm purpose, for example, those who are unwilling to leave a voluntary proximate occasion of sinning; who are unwilling to put aside grave enmities or hatred of their neighbor; who are unwilling to make necessary restitution, although they can do so; who are unwilling to remove the scandal which they give to others; who refuse to leave gravely sinful arts or occupations, and so forth. Those incapable of absolution are, for example, the unbaptized, the dead, the perpetually insane, the absent, and so forth.

Note. Whenever the confessor must deny absolution, let him not employ harsh words, but in a kind and tranquil manner let him manifest to the penitent the reason why absolution cannot be granted. Moreover, let the confessor first endeavor with prudent diligence to dispose unprepared penitents, and only after useless attempts let him deny absolution.

c) Absolution must be deferred if the disposition of the penitent is plainly doubtful and there is no urgent cause for absolving him conditionally; it can be deferred for a brief time for a penitent rightly disposed if alpha) the confessor rightly judges this to be useful for his amendment, and beta) the penitent consents to the delay.

The reason for the first part is that otherwise the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity, which certainly is not lawful except in grave necessity. Furthermore, penitents are judged doubtfully disposed whose contrition seems very suspect, for example, recidivists who always return with the same sins and have not employed the remedies prescribed by the confessor; penitents who narrate grave sins very cursorily and coldly, without any sense of contrition; those who approach the sacrament of penance from custom or from reverential fear of parents or masters; those who refuse to accept a moderate penance proportioned to their strength, and so forth. In practice it is sometimes most difficult to judge concerning the sufficient disposition of the penitent. When the confessor remains in doubt, he can usefully employ this rule: If he prudently judges that the delay of absolution will be useful to the penitent, since after a brief time he will return better disposed, let him defer absolution; but if he seriously fears that the penitent will become worse from the delayed absolution or that he will no longer return to confession, let him impart absolution, at least conditionally, after a diligent exhortation to contrition and firm purpose has first been given. For the rest, discussion will return to this matter below, when recidivists and habitual sinners are treated.

The reason for the other part is that a rightly disposed penitent indeed has a right to absolution, but not that absolution be granted to him immediately. Furthermore, the confessor as physician can employ delayed absolution as an efficacious remedy for curing the tepidity of the penitent. Such a practice of deferring absolution existed in the ancient Church and produced good fruits. Nevertheless, let the delay be brief (that is, ordinarily not beyond a week), especially if the penitent is in the state of mortal sin; for a long delay cannot but harm the penitent, who then lacks many graces. Then let it not be done unless the penitent consents.³⁸⁶ For the Code of Canon Law, c. 886, establishes: "If the confessor cannot doubt concerning the dispositions of the penitent and the latter seeks absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred." The reason is that a delay of absolution which a penitent certainly rightly disposed and burdened with mortal sins accepts not willingly but under compulsion will very rarely produce good fruits; on the contrary, it is sometimes very harmful.

St. Alphonsus wisely admonishes:³⁸⁷ "For the rest, each one in this matter of imparting or deferring absolution must direct himself according to the light given to him by God. This is certain: in this matter those who are more lenient than is right err just as those who are more rigid than is right in absolving. Either extreme is pernicious; for many confessors on account of excessive facility in absolving are the cause that more souls go to perdition, but others on account of excessive rigidity are of no less detriment. Hence I hardly know whether it ought to be a matter of less scruple for the confessor to absolve the indisposed than to dismiss the disposed."

³⁸⁵ Code of Canon Law, c. 886. Cf. Cappello, l.c., n. 487.

³⁸⁶ Thus also Noldin-Schmitt (De sacr.¹⁷, n. 392), nor is the contrary efficaciously proved by Ter Haar (De occasionariis et recidivis, thesis 20).

³⁸⁷ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 464.

1804. "The priest ought to search out the conscience of the sinner in confession, as a physician the wound, and a judge the cause." Thus St. Thomas.¹ - Wherefore hold the following:

Principles. I. The confessor is bound, sometimes under grave obligation, TO QUESTION the penitent. Thus all Theologians; and it is proved:

1. By the authority of the Church, especially from cap. Omnis utriusque, de Poenit., in which one reads: "But let the priest be discreet and prudent... diligently inquiring both the circumstances of the sinner and of the sin." And from the ROMAN RITUAL: "If the penitent has not expressed the number, species, and circumstances of sins necessary to be explained, let the priest prudently question him."

2. By manifold reason. - The first is that omission of opportune questions redounds TO THE DAMAGE OF SOULS: for, 1) it can furnish occasion for many sacrilegious confessions, because there are many penitents who, unless they are questioned, pass over more grave sins in silence. "Frequently," says St. Thomas,² "things which one confessing would keep silent out of confusion, when questioned he reveals." 2) Many penitents will lack opportune remedies; for the confessor, not questioning about habit, occasions, causes of sins, diligence used or not used for amendment (all of which things are usually kept silent), cannot indicate remedies by which new falls are prevented. - 3) Damage will very easily be brought also upon others; for things which turn to the detriment of others are usually passed over in accusation: such are scandals, neglect in fulfilling the very grave duties of one's own state, e.g. in the education and custody of children. Hence, unless penitents are questioned and suitably admonished, no amendment will be able to follow.

The other reason is because the omission of questions redounds TO THE PREJUDICE OF THE SACRAMENT; for, 1) it frequently prejudices its integrity: for, questions being omitted, the accusation will be made in this or a similar way: "Father, I have blasphemed, I have committed base things, I have had quarrels, etc.," with species and number not explained; - 2) it also frequently prejudices its validity: for unless the penitent is questioned, e.g. whether he has used any care not to fall again, whether he has used the prescribed remedies, etc., it will not be possible prudently to judge whether he is disposed, or whether he needs a more ardent exhortation, so that he may be rightly disposed. Hence it can most easily happen that absolutions are given which are wholly invalid.³

We said, 1. under grave obligation; for there is question of a grave matter, which regards the salvation of the penitent and the reverence of the Sacrament. - Nevertheless there can be negligence lightly culpable, as is plain.

We said, 2. he is bound sometimes; for if the penitent explains his sins and his state as much as there is need, it is clear that the confessor is held to no further questions.⁴

1805. II. The confessor is bound to question AS MUCH AS this is NECESSARY for procuring the validity of the Sacrament, the integrity of confession, and the healing of the penitent. - The reason is because these three things must be cared for by him, insofar as he is minister of the Sacrament. Hence, as often as he reasonably presumes, or prudently thinks, that something of those things which are required for the aforesaid has not been sufficiently declared, so often he is bound to inquire.⁵ (See also n. 1809.)

Therefore: 1. For procuring the VALIDITY of the Sacrament, it may be necessary, by questioning, to investigate: whether sufficient matter is present, e.g. if there is question of imperfections, or of light faults which are often committed without advertence; - whether the penitent is keeping something back out of shame, as happens especially in boys and girls; - whether sufficient disposition is present: for knowing this, it will often be necessary to question the penitent, e.g. whether and how, after confession, he abstained from faults; whether and how he fulfilled the prescribed means.

2. For the INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION it may be necessary to question the penitent - about the number of sins; - about their species; - about circumstances changing the species (whether objective or theological); - about certain sins which he is accustomed, from inconsideration, wholly to keep back, e.g. sins of thought, and sins of omission concerning the obligations of his own state (cf. n. 1810, Rule 32).

3. For the HEALING OF THE PENITENT, questions can be necessary by which it becomes known, e.g., what the causes of his sins are, namely whether they proceed from some occasion, or habit, from lack of custody of the senses, from impure thoughts, etc.

Hence, the PRACTICE of certain confessors is especially to be disapproved, who not only do not question penitents, but do not even allow them to bring their confession to an end, and who, having heard one or another sin, interrupt the accusation, saying: "Come now, that is enough, I absolve you from all your sins." Nor can such a practice be used with that penitent who declares only venial sins (unless he is scrupulous); for often penitents begin from venial sins, being about to confess mortal sins only toward the end, which therefore, on account of the fear injected by the confessor, are easily kept back. For the rest, confession made so very hastily and cursorily usually disturbs them exceedingly, far from calming their mind.⁶

1806. III. Questions, where they must be made, should be MODERATE, DISCREET, and TIMELY, namely such that no greater inconvenience stands in the way than would be the defect itself of the integrity of confession.

1. MODERATE; therefore the confessor: 1) should never inquire into matters foreign to confession, nor suffer them to be narrated to himself. - 2) let him remember that he is not held to question the penitent except with ordinary diligence. - 3) Let him remember, moreover, that less distinct knowledge is required from one who, either because of incapacity, or because of sickness, or because of the multitude of sins, or for another reason, could more difficulty render exact knowledge (cf. nn. 1703 and 1705). - Hence the penitent is not to be questioned about sins which he has probably not committed; because, in this case, there is lacking a reasonable presumption and prudent doubt that the things which must be declared are not being sufficiently declared. - But because of the contrary presumption, let him be questioned about sins which usually abound in men of such a condition.⁷

2. DISCREET, especially in those things which regard the sixth precept. For theologians, without any exception, affirm that it is rather to be permitted that material integrity be lacking to confession than that scandal be furnished to the penitent. And the Roman Ritual admonishes concerning the same thing. Wherefore: "Questions, in the matter of chastity, ought to be few and cautious, lest (the confessor) either give occasion for investigating or betraying confession, or teach the ignorant, or offend, or expose himself or the other to danger. And if he fears these things, he ought rather to suffer something to be lacking to material integrity. And indeed, if in this matter thoughts are denied, there is no need to proceed to works. Yet the more rude deny thoughts; when asked, they confess words and works, because they do not equally recognize or advert to those thoughts."⁸ (cf. n. 1694).

3. TIMELY, i.e. made at the time and in the manner in which it is fitting. - Hence: 1) Certain questions are to be made before confession, but few, lest the penitent be offended: e.g. from what time he has not confessed? whether he was absolved? whether he fulfilled the penance? - 2) But questions concerning the condition of life, state, age, etc., if these do not appear from the confession itself, will more fittingly be made when an occasion has been given in the course of confession: for thus, on the one hand, every suspicion of curiosity and levity will be avoided, and on the other, the penitent will more easily respond, since his trust in the confessor has increased more.⁹ - 3) Let the penitent first be allowed to explain himself as much as he can, as is fitting; then let him be helped from time to time by questions.¹⁰ - 4) Toward the end, unless a better occasion has previously offered itself, let it be benignly asked of an unknown penitent whether there is anything which still troubles his conscience, whether he has omitted nothing in prior confessions. "Through these questions many souls are usually freed from sacrileges."¹¹

St. Alphonsus also notes:¹² "1) It is better if the confessor examines the sins one by one, as soon as the penitent exposes them, than that he defer the examination until the end; because either the confessor easily forgets those things which he heard, or the penitent would have to be obliged, with his grave burden, to repeat what had been confessed." 2) "Regularly speaking, it is not expedient that the confessor rebuke the penitent in the course of confession, lest he, being terrified, omit some sin; nevertheless, sometimes it is expedient within confession to set before him the malice of some graver sin, provided courage is immediately furnished to him," according to what was said at n. 1793, 2.

1807. Q. What ought the confessor to do with a penitent concerning whom he KNOWS or SUSPECTS some sin which that one does not confess?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. "If he knows outside confession, and knows from his own knowledge, for example by seeing him stealing, or hearing him blaspheming, without doubt he ought not absolve, if that one denies it: provided there is not present a prudent doubt whether he has confessed to another; or he has a just cause for keeping silent. Thus commonly."¹³

2. "But if the confessor has this from suspicion or from the report of others, the Doctors also commonly say that after diligent inquiry, if the penitent still denies, he must be absolved; for then the confessor is not able to refuse faith to the penitent, nor, on account of a suspicion or another's report, can he deprive him of the right which he has acquired to absolution by confession and by signs of contrition."¹⁴

3. Finally, if the confessor knows the sin from the confession of an accomplice, he certainly will not be able, without violation of the sacramental seal, to question the penitent in a special manner about that sin, unless he has obtained express permission for this (but this permission is not ordinarily to be sought); but only in a general manner, that is, in the manner in which he is accustomed to question other similar penitents. But whether he ought to absolve one denying is disputed. But St. Alphonsus, having brought forward the opinions of others, concludes in this manner: "In my judgment, Croix, etc., thinks better, that in that case he should in no way absolve, but only pray something, to hide the denial of absolution." Nor is the conclusion of the Blessed Doctor supported by a reason of little moment: for the confessor, by using the knowledge of confession in the aforesaid manner, by no means violates the sacramental seal; wherefore he is bound to do this for denying the Sacrament to the unworthy person secretly asking it, according to those things which we said above, nn. 1426 and 1430.¹⁵

There must be treated 1° of the case to be instructed; 2° of the sentence to be rendered.

1424. - Principle I. The practice of making no questions is not a little to be disapproved, especially for these reasons:

1° It is because that practice redounds to the harm of souls; for: a) it can produce not a few sacrileges, insofar as many are those who, unless they are questioned, do not reveal graver sins. "Frequently," says St. Thomas, "those things which the penitent would be silent about from confusion, when questioned he reveals"; - b) it leaves many without opportune remedies; for the confessor not questioning concerning habit, concerning occasions, concerning causes of sins, concerning diligence employed or not employed for amendment, etc. (which things penitents for the most part pass over in silence), will not be able to assign suitable remedies for preventing relapses; - c) it harms others also than penitents, insofar as penitents, for the most part, do not accuse themselves of scandal, or of most grave omissions in the duties of their own state, e.g. in the education and custody of children; and thus, unless they are questioned and suitably warned, they do not cease from the same scandals and omissions.

2° It is because it redounds to the prejudice of the Sacrament; for: a) very often it prejudices its integrity, as if the confessor does not question a penitent accusing himself in this way: Father, I have done shameful things, the species and number not having been explained; - b) it often prejudices validity also; for if the confessor does not question penitents, e.g. whether they have employed any care for not relapsing, whether they have fulfilled the remedies assigned, etc., he will never be able prudently to judge whether they are disposed, or whether they need a more fervent exhortation in order that they may be disposed, and thus he will often give absolutions that are altogether invalid.

3° It is because it is opposed to the concordant opinion of Theologians.

4° It is because it is opposed to the authentic rules of the Church, as is clear from the Canon Omnis and from the Roman Ritual.

Principle II. Since the confessor must procure three things, i.e. the validity of the Sacrament, the integrity of Confession, and the cure of the penitent: therefore, whenever he reasonably presumes or prudently doubts that something of those things which are required for these has not been sufficiently declared, he is held to inquire concerning it. - Hence:

1° For procuring the validity of the Sacrament, it can be necessary to investigate by questioning - whether sufficient matter is present, e.g. if there is question of imperfections, or of light faults which are often committed without advertence; - whether the penitent holds back anything from shame, as especially happens in boys and girls; - whether sufficient disposition is present, for knowing which it will often be necessary to question the penitent, e.g. whether and how after Confession he has abstained from faults; whether and how he has fulfilled the prescribed means.

2° For the integrity of Confession, it can be necessary to question the penitent - concerning the number of sins, - concerning their species; - concerning circumstances changing either the objective or the theological species (n. 27); - concerning some sins which he is accustomed from thoughtlessness altogether to pass over in silence, e.g. sins of thought, and sins of omission concerning obligations of one's own state.

3° For the cure of the penitent, questions can be necessary through which it becomes known, e.g., what are the causes of his sins, whether namely they proceed from some occasion; from some habit; from a defect of custody of the senses; from impure thoughts, etc.

4° The penitent must not be questioned concerning sins of which it is not likely that he committed them; for then a reasonable presumption and prudent doubt are lacking that those things which must be declared are not sufficiently declared. - But on account of the contrary presumption "he should be questioned concerning the sins which are accustomed to abound in men of such a condition."

5° If the penitent seems sufficiently instructed, as devout persons, Religious, Ecclesiastics, and is sufficiently accurate in explaining his sins, he is to be questioned concerning nothing, unless perhaps there is fear lest he hold back something from shame, or unless it is necessary to add some question for assigning opportune remedies to him. The reason for each part of the resolution is the same as that which was just alleged under 4°.

Principle III. Questioning, where it must be made, should be moderate, prudent, opportune.

1° Moderate. Hence the confessor:

a) Should never ask useless things, nor suffer them to be narrated to him.

b) Should be mindful that he is not held to question the penitent except with ordinary diligence.

c) Should remember besides that a less distinct knowledge is required "from him who either on account of incapacity, or on account of sickness, or on account of the multitude of sins, or for another cause, could render an exact knowledge with more difficulty.... And this is the reason why from a prostitute and a concubinary and the like we ask less exactly and distinctly the number of sins than if for one month or for one week only e.g. they had been in that sin." Besides "it must be adverted," says St. Alphonsus, "concerning the number of sins of which some are held by a depraved habit, since a certain number cannot be had, let the confessor take care to know the state of the penitent, namely the manner of living, the application which he spends on other affairs, the time of habit with the accomplice, the place where he especially stayed; and then let him question concerning the number, questioning the penitent how often approximately he sinned in a day, or in a week, or month, proposing to him several numbers, e.g. three or four times, eight or ten times, so that he may see to which number he rather adheres. And if the penitent adheres to the greater number, the best thing to do will be if he is again questioned concerning a greater number. But in this the confessor should advert not to form a certain judgment concerning the number; let him note the frequency in general, and make a judgment in a confused way, apprehending the sins as many as they are before God. Some Doctors say that concerning the internal sins of the habituated, such as sins of hatred, of depraved delights and desires, it suffices for the most part to question concerning the time through which the evil habit endured; but this altogether does not satisfy me, because it can be that someone is more intent on external business, or stays where fewer occasions of depraved thoughts occur to him; another will be more allured by another passion of soul; and therefore general questions must be employed concerning one's own application, concerning place, concerning inclination of soul, etc., so that he may form a judgment of greater or lesser frequency of internal acts."

d) Those confessors err who, from boys, half-witted persons, the hard of hearing, stammerers, men of confused mind (who now affirm, now deny to the same question), would wish to know how the matter precisely stands. Moreover in this manner, the more they question, the less they understand, and the more they confound both the penitents and themselves. Hence St. Alphonsus wrote: "After two or three questions, the confessor should not be anxious if the judgment which he makes seems to him to be too confused; for from involved and confused consciences it is morally impossible to hope for greater clarity."

2° Prudent. Concerning this quality of questions it will soon be treated more broadly, where there is question of questions concerning shameful things.

3° Opportune. The question, namely, must be made at the time and in the manner in which it is suitable. Hence:

a) Certain questions must be made before Confession, but few, lest the penitent be offended: e.g. from what time has he not confessed? was he absolved? has he fulfilled the penance? is he not anxious about his past life? Yet this last question must be made only when the penitent has not confessed for a long time, or when a general Confession is being instituted from a determinate time. - But questions concerning the condition of life, state, age, etc., if these are not made manifest from the Confession itself, will be made more suitably when an occasion is given in the course of the Confession: for thus on the one hand every suspicion of curiosity and levity will be avoided; but on the other hand the penitent will more easily respond, since his confidence in the confessor will have grown more.

b) "It is better" if "the confessor examines the sins one by one as soon as the penitent sets them forth, than that he defer the examination until the end; because either the confessor easily forgets those things which he heard, or the penitent would have to be obliged with his own grave burden to repeat the things confessed." Yet this warning of St. Alphonsus, according to the mind of the holy Doctor himself, does not hold where there is question of easier or shorter Confessions, nor in the case in which the penitent accurately declares his sins. For apart from necessity the accusation of the penitent is not to be interrupted by any questions, or even warnings, lest namely fear or confusion be injected into him thence.

c) Those confessors would be vehemently disapproved who would scarcely concede to penitents time for responding to questions, and would urge them with an impatient voice, repeating: What further? Do you know other things? etc. For they would disturb and confound the penitent.

1425. - Principle IV. Questions concerning carnal sins must be: 1) necessary; 2) prudent; 3) modest; 4) such as do not bring grave harm to the confessor himself. I explain each.

1) Necessary, i.e. they must be made from a just cause; for without a just cause it is illicit to expose - oneself to temptations, - the penitent to the same temptations, and besides to the suspicion that the confessor delights in such conversations, or even that he is practically versed in things of this kind, - the Sacrament, Religion, and the priestly body to reproach, insofar as to the penitent an occasion is easily given afterward of laughing and joking concerning inept questions made to him.

But questions are necessary, or are made from a just cause, if they are required either for aiding the shame of the penitent, or for knowing what remedies are to be assigned to him, or for procuring the integrity, even material, of Confession.

1° For aiding the shame of the penitent. This can more easily be present in boys and adolescents. Therefore St. Alphonsus wisely warns: "Many times, even if boys deny" that they have committed shameful things, "it is profitable to use suggestive questions with them, e.g. and now tell me, how often have you done these things? Five times? ten times?" - Yet those confessors exceed who in every Confession make and repeat questions for aiding the shame of the penitent, even with those concerning whom it is not likely that they commit shameful things and hold them back. Indeed, although this suspicion is present, one must beware of questions too often repeated and multiplied. - But much more and in a very worse manner do those confessors exceed who, under the pretext of aiding the shame of penitents, make many particular and minute questions, even when one or another, expressed in generic words, would suffice.

2° For knowing what remedies are to be applied. For this it ordinarily suffices to inquire whether sins arise from some occasion, or from an evil habit, or from freedom of the senses, or from depraved thoughts. - I have said: ordinarily suffices; because if the penitent could employ fasts and other macerations (which indeed is a rarer case), it would be useful also to know whether his sins arise chiefly from carnal motions, and whether these arise from a more robust constitution of body. But it is not necessary to question directly concerning these motions; for if the penitent is asked whether he always rushes into sins on account of evil thoughts, from his response the confessor will be able to infer whether the cause of his sins is to be placed in thoughts of the mind rather than in motions of the body.

3° For procuring the integrity, even material, of Confession. For this not only do questions suffice which are necessary for knowing the species, and, insofar as it can be morally known, the number of mortal sins, but questions concerning other things besides species and number are altogether to be disapproved. Hence confessors exceed when they question: whether a) concerning circumstances only aggravating; - or b) concerning imperfect acts preliminary to copula or done immediately after copula, when the penitent already accuses himself of copula (n. 218. 4°; 222); - or c) concerning the manner in which the sin was committed, if that manner does not change the species; - or d) concerning the number of imperfect acts which were done in the same impulse of passion (n. 220. Note).

I said: the species and... number of mortal sins; for it is not necessary to question concerning simple temptations, concerning carnal motions, concerning involuntary pollutions, concerning light disorders in the use of Matrimony, unless from another head a good reason urges for questioning concerning some of these. Hence, if someone moved by a vain scruple comes to Confession saying that he committed shameful things in childhood without cognition of malice, and now wishes to accuse them because he never confessed them, the confessor will teach him that no obligation is present of accusing such things; yet if the penitent desires to disclose them for greater tranquillity, this can be permitted to him; but it will not be necessary to add questions.

Note. - In questioning penitents concerning the species of sins, the distinctions of Theologians are to be followed as a norm, provided the penitents are not such that concerning them (either on account of childish age, or on account of extraordinary ignorance or stupidity) it cannot be presumed that they have formally contracted those special malices. Cf. n. 199. Resolves 2°.

2) Prudent. For Theologians cry out with one voice that it should rather be permitted that material integrity be lacking to Confession than that scandal be furnished to penitents through imprudent questions. - But an imprudent question is one which contains the danger lest it produce evil rather than good; and especially lest penitents learn the malice which perhaps they are ignorant of, and thus on account of that very question begin to sin. Cf. Lit. Rom.

3) Modest. But questions will not be modest if the confessor uses words too free, shameless, and least fitting to priestly modesty.

But what expressions will the confessor be able to use in particular cases, so that with due prudence and modesty he may question penitents?

Behold some particular examples of questions for some cases often occurring in practice.

A girl says: I made indecent jokes with my sister in bed; - the Confessor should ask: were these touches very shameful?

A married woman says: I had copula in a preposterous manner. - The Confessor will ask: in this manner can you conceive offspring?

A husband says: I touch my wife with my hands; - the Confessor will ask: do you linger in these touches, without coming to the conjugal act? On account of these touches did an evil effect happen?

An adolescent says: I did shameful things with my brother in bed; - that the confessor may understand whether sodomy was present, he will ask: therefore did you touch your brother with your hands? To the one responding affirmatively he will add: did you do something worse with him?

A man says: I sinned with a woman, or I slept with a woman, or I did what I wished with a woman; - these things are to be understood of perfect copula, and therefore no question is to be made, except for knowing whether that woman was married, consanguineous, etc.

A married man says: I did shameful things with a girl; - the Confessor will question him, saying: did you make the matrimonial act with her?

A girl says: I did shameful things with a lover; - the Confessor will add: did you do these things with the hands, or also in a worse manner? - Thus he will understand whether there was, or was not, union of bodies, in which there is present the malice of fornication. Yet if the confessor sees the necessity of knowing whether this fornication was effectively completed, he will also be able to say: by that which you did, could you become pregnant? To the one responding affirmatively he can further question, saying whether she actually remained pregnant, that he may forearm her against temptations to abortion, and that he may strive to impede scandal in the best possible way.

A man says: I have a vice of touching women; - the Confessor will be able to add: are these touches very shameful?

A married woman says: I did not well perform the matrimonial act; - the Confessor will be able to say: in the manner in which you bear yourself with your husband, can you conceive offspring? If she affirms, then he will teach her that in that manner there is a light fault, or even none, if the husband wishes to do this; but if she denies, then the confessor will add: explain therefore what you did.

A girl or boy says: I touched myself. - Should it then be inquired whether pollution was present? Certainly not at all. "Let him take care," says St. Alphonsus, "not to inquire of girls or boys whether emission of semen was present," lest namely "they apprehend what they had not yet known, or be placed in curiosity of learning." The same caution is to be had generally with respect to unmarried women, even adult ones; whence P. a Bergamo wrote: "Nevertheless nothing is to be hinted concerning pollution; since this is not equally sensible to all women; indeed to many it is altogether unknown;... whence one must abstain from these words: pollution, corruption, and the like.... Worthy of being known is that the vice of pollution is not so common generally among women as among males, and very many women are in no way infected with this lust. Therefore one must speak more cautiously with women, lest they draw malice from our expressions."

Here finally it can be asked what questions are to be made to girls or young persons who accuse nothing at all concerning faults against the Sixth Precept, if the confessor fears lest they hold something back from shame? He can say: have you heard evil conversations? have you had evil thoughts? Have you done some indecent thing? Have you made evil jokes? These questions can induce no danger, because, if the penitent does not know the malice, he will not learn it; nor will he be placed in curiosity of learning what these words of the confessor signify, because he will understand that there is question of indecent things and jokes in another kind. Meanwhile, if they respond negatively, sometimes the confessor will be able to use a suggestive question, saying, as was noted above from St. Alphonsus: And now say, how often have you done these things? If they affirm that they have committed indecent things, or have made evil jokes, then the confessor will be able to say, e.g.: explain what these indecent things and these evil jokes are which you did? Did you do them secretly? Were you alone? Where were you? Would you have done thus, if your mother had been there? If your mother had seen you, would you have been suffused with shame? And on account of shame you have never accused these sins; is it not so? Ordinarily from the responses the confessor will know either certainly or almost certainly whether that boy truly did shameful things, and thence, according to the rules given above, he will be able to come to other questions, if they seem necessary. - Some confessors instead of saying: have you done some indecent thing? say: have you committed some dishonesty? or: have you committed something against the virtue of holy purity? I judge that these questions made thus abruptly are not sufficiently prudent; because, if the girl does not know the malice, she will not be able to attach any sense to these questions, and therefore she will easily be in curiosity of learning what those words mean; whence also she will easily seek an explanation from other girls, and thus she will badly learn what she was well ignorant of. - Other confessors behave much worse, and to nearly all boys, girls, and adolescents they say abruptly: have you touched yourself? But they do this because from experience they know that other questions, made in general and under a certain veil, are not effective, as this one is, for extorting the confession of sin. I indeed confess that this open question is more effective, so that, if other questions extort confession from seven or eight boys, this one will extort confession from nine or ten; but I judge altogether that it is not ordinarily to be employed; for if it were ordinarily employed, it would teach malice to very many; but is it fitting, in order to aid some, to inflict harm of this kind on very many others? - At most, therefore, such a question will be able to be made in some rare case, when namely the confessor is certain of the sin committed by the penitent, the confession of which he could not obtain unless by employing the aforesaid question.

4) That they bring no grave harm to the confessor himself. For if the confessor on account of some special questions would be cast into grave danger of sinning mortally, certainly he neither ought, nor would be able, to make them. That he ought not is clear; because, just as a penitent is not held to the material integrity of Confession with his own grave spiritual harm, much less will the confessor be held to procure the same integrity with grave harm to his own soul. Besides, all know that charity begins from oneself. But that then he cannot make those questions is clear from the general obligation itself of avoiding grave dangers of sinning mortally, when it is possible to avoid them. Besides, if there were question only of some temptation or of some carnal motion, through these things the confessor would not be obliged to abstain from necessary, prudent, and modest questions; but rather he should fortify himself with prayer, and, before he begins to hear Confessions, renew his right intention. Thus almost concerning questions Berardi.

1426. Questions. - Query 1° What must the confessor do in doubt concerning the sincerity of the penitent?

Resp. There is a common rule, and as it were a received axiom: The penitent is to be believed, both when speaking for himself and against himself. The reason is that the penitent in the Sacred Tribunal is at once defendant and witness, his own accuser and advocate, and otherwise in doubt is always to be presumed truthful. Wherefore, after opportune questions, the confessor must absolve the penitent denying.

Query 2° What must the confessor do if he knows certainly that some sin is being sacrilegiously held back or denied by the penitent?

Resp. 1° If he knows it from the Confession of another, and has not obtained from this one license to speak with the accomplice concerning the sin declared (which license is not ordinarily to be sought), he must, lest the seal of Confession be violated, only question generally, as he otherwise would have done or ought to have done; but if the penitent questioned has denied it, let him answer nothing, but, where this can be done without suspicion, let him merely exhort generally that the conscience be opened with all confidence. But whether the confessor must absolve such a penitent is controverted. - St. Alphonsus, after reporting the opinions of others, concludes thus: "Better, in my judgment, Croix thinks,... that in that case he should in no way absolve, but only pray something to conceal the denial of absolution." And rightly indeed. For whenever, as in the case, injury to the seal can be avoided, the Sacrament cannot be ministered to one unworthy who asks it occultly.

Resp. 2° If he knows it outside Confession, of itself he must absolve the penitent denying, because the penitent speaking for himself and against himself is to be believed; nor of itself can the report of another make greater faith than the declaration of the penitent himself; nor therefore is the confessor held to believe others more than the penitent himself. For if the penitent committed that sin, the confessor must presume that he either has forgotten his sin, or has confessed it to another, or has a just cause for holding it back, or that the reporters rather were deceived.

I said: of itself; for, if the confessor is altogether certain concerning the sin committed by the penitent, because e.g. he himself saw him stealing, heard him blaspheming, etc., or knows it from the certain report of others, he cannot absolve the one denying, provided he is certain that he had not forgotten his sin, nor has any motive for holding it back; for this rule: The penitent is to be believed, etc., holds indeed in a less certain matter, but not in an evidently certain matter.

In practice let confessors take care not easily to give faith especially to women, although pious, by whom they are informed concerning the sins and the manner of life of those who are going to approach them; for very often some things are exaggerated, and not rarely reports of this kind bend the judgment of the confessor concerning the disposition of those approaching him to the worse side than is fitting.

608. Principle I. The confessor, as judge, from office is sometimes bound to question the penitent with moral diligence, and indeed of itself under grave obligation, as often as he probably judges that he, whether culpably or inculpably, perhaps omits certain things necessary to be known for knowledge of the case or for absolution.

It is said: 1) sometimes, for if from the confession itself or from the condition of the person of the penitent he judges that he knows the sins completely and the dispositions of soul sufficiently, the confessor is not bound to question, as this would be idle in the case. This also holds concerning uneducated persons who seem sufficiently instructed and diligently accuse their sins;

2. with moral diligence, because the confessor is bound to question only to supply the defect of the penitent, who himself is not bound to greater diligence; and besides, excessive diligence would render the sacrament burdensome and hateful;

3. of itself, under grave obligation: for it concerns a grave matter, since it regards the salvation of the penitent and the reverence of the sacrament; although nevertheless there can be negligence culpable only lightly, as if in a long series of sins one or another question is omitted.

It is proved: a) From the authority of the Church, namely from Lateran Council IV, in the decree concerning annual confession: "But let the priest be discreet and prudent... diligently inquiring both the circumstances of the sinner and of the sin"; and from the Roman Ritual, t. 3, c. 1, n. 16: "if the penitent has not expressed the number, species, and circumstances of sins necessary to be explained, let the priest prudently question him."

b) By reason: The confessor, as judge, cannot pronounce sentence unless he knows the case, namely both the sins which the penitent has committed, as to number, species, and circumstances, and his dispositions, and often also the occasions and causes of sins, which he must be disposed to leave or combat. But for this it is not always sufficient that he hear the penitent, but often it is required that he question him. Therefore he is bound to question as often as he knows or reasonably doubts or presumes that the penitent does not sufficiently manifest these things.

609. Concerning what things one must question. - Therefore he is bound to question concerning three things, namely those things, and insofar as they are necessary, for procuring 1) the validity of the sacrament, 2) the integrity of confession, or 3) the correction or amendment of the penitent.

1. For procuring the validity of the sacrament, e.g., for knowing whether there is sufficient matter of confession, whether the penitent is concealing something out of shame, as often happens in boys and girls, whether the penitent is sufficiently disposed.

2. For the integrity of confession, e.g., concerning the number of sins, species, circumstances changing the species; or concerning sins of which penitents are not accustomed to accuse themselves, as concerning internal sins, the omission of the duties of state, etc.

3. For the correction of the penitent, e.g., concerning the cause and occasion of sins, frequency, gravity, malice, etc.

Yet not all are to be questioned, but only those concerning whom, whether from the manner of confessing, or from the common state or condition of the person, there is for the confessor a special reason for conjecturing that one of the aforesaid defects is present.1

From the things just said the following conclusions must be deduced:

1°. Every confessor is held to know all those things which pertain to the value, substance, integrity, and effect of the sacrament of Penance, and which are required for its licit administration, both on his own part and on the part of the penitent.

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

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

4°. Therefore the confessor sins who knows that the aforesaid knowledge is lacking to him, even if he receives confessions from charity alone and obedience. Nor does the approval of the Bishop excuse him of itself; for this does not give the knowledge due from the nature of the thing, nor does it supply for its defect.

5°. The superior also sins who gives permission to an ignorant confessor to receive confessions, because he consents to and cooperates with his sin; nor can he be excused except on account of necessity: namely, if learned priests are not present and meanwhile the good of souls must be provided for.

6°. The penitent himself also sins who purposely chooses an inept confessor. Yet if someone is in good faith, the confession will be valid; because on the part of the penitent there intervenes an integral declaration of sins and a due disposition of soul; on the part of the confessor there intervenes at least knowledge of sins under the confused aspect of sin, which suffices for the matter of the sacrament.

7°. Experience cannot supply knowledge, but only assist it; but where it is destitute of the aid of knowledge, it will drive a rash confessor into very many errors, and those very grave.

8°. Therefore every confessor is held diligently to devote himself to the study of moral theology; and, as St. Alphonsus says: "He must never interrupt that study; because from so many things so diverse and mutually unlike, which pertain to this knowledge, many things, although read, because they occur more rarely, fall away from the mind with the progress of time; for which reason it is necessary always by frequent study to recall them into the mind." Whence it must be said that they gravely err who regard the knowledge of moral theology as easy and scarcely worthy of any attention, saying repeatedly that almost all cases can be solved by some common sense with knowledge of general principles. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 628; and Hom. Ap. n. 100. - Baller. note (a), p. 567.

Question 1. Whether the confessor, besides those things which are necessary for the sacrament to be rightly received here and now, is also held to teach penitents those things which are necessary for living as Christians?

Resp. Affirmatively, at least speaking generally; and consequently, where he notices that someone is ignorant of the obligations of his state, he must instruct him. The reason is taken from the general principle of charity and from the great opportunity which the confessor alone has of teaching certain obligations. Nevertheless this obligation is not to be extended so far that the confessor is held to instruct penitents concerning all things which they themselves must know and can learn elsewhere, both because this would turn to the grave inconvenience not only of the confessor but also of other penitents, and because other means, perhaps more suitable, are not lacking for dispelling such ignorance. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 607 and following.

"Bishops will take care that priests receiving confessions have fixed and immovable that sacramental absolution is invalid when imparted to one ignorant of things necessary by necessity of means; nor can men be reconciled to God through a sacrament of this sort unless first, the darkness of this ignorance being shaken off, they are led to the acknowledgement of Faith. But confessors will carefully note that the absolution of one who through his own fault does not know things necessary by necessity of precept is to be put off to another time; and only sometimes in this case can the penitent be absolved, in which he recognizes and accuses himself as guilty of this vincible ignorance, and deeply sorrowing both begs pardon from God and seriously promises the priest that he will devote earnest effort by which, with the aid of divine grace, he may learn also the things necessary by precept." - Cf. Benedict XIV in the Constitution Etsi minime. Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 13 April 1807.

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 1°. The confessor is held, with ordinary diligence, to interrogate penitents about the species, number, and circumstances changing the species, about the causes of sins, about habit and proximate occasions, as often as he reasonably presumes or prudently doubts that these things are not sufficiently declared. The reason is because the confessor, as Minister of the sacrament, must procure its integrity, and as judge he must acquire for himself the knowledge necessary for rendering an equitable judgment. - I said 1°. with ordinary diligence, because the penitent himself is not held to examine himself with the highest and exquisite diligence, but only ordinary diligence. But the obligation of the confessor cannot be heavier than that of the penitent, since the confessor is not held to examine the penitent except secondarily or in defect of him. - I said 2°. as often as he reasonably presumes, etc., because the obligation of the confessor, as was said just now, is only secondary or conditioned upon the ignorance or malice of the penitent who does not know or does not wish to manifest all things. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 607; Hom. Ap. n. 103; and Prax. Confess. nn. 19 and 20.

But that interrogations may be made more easily and at the same time more prudently, attention must be given to the following practical rules, which Doctors commonly hand down:

Rule I. Interrogation must be moderate; and therefore the confessor must beware lest he be excessive or almost anxious in interrogating; otherwise confession would become very burdensome and odious both to himself and especially to the penitent. Hence let him never ask useless things, nor allow them to be narrated to himself. - Nor should you say that it is no burden for some, especially women, to pursue long narrations; for it is answered that by those narrations some injury is done to the sacrament, occasion is given to the jests of malevolent men, and time is lost. Therefore the Roman Ritual rightly says: "Let [the confessor] beware lest ... he detain anyone with useless interrogations." Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 607. - Sporer, 792. - Reuter, Neoconfessarius, ch. 3.

Rule II. Interrogation must be discreet; namely, the confessor must interrogate with great prudence, carefully guarding 1°. lest he interrogate about sins which probably were not committed, when the condition and capacity, etc., of the penitent have been considered; 2°. lest he interrogate about those things from which the penitent might learn to sin or suffer scandal, as the Roman Ritual warns, where after the words just reported it is added: "especially by imprudently questioning younger persons of either sex, or others, about that which they do not know, lest they suffer scandal and from it learn to sin"; 3°. nor let him interrogate too curiously or lightly even in those things about which one must interrogate, for example, immodestly about immodest things, etc. In one word, he must strive that in any interrogations there appear only gravity, piety, modesty, and paternal charity, just as the nature and dignity of this office require. Hence:

1°. The confessor must be very cautious in interrogating about the matter of luxury, especially with women, adolescents, and children, who can much more easily suffer scandal. But with married persons, without grave cause, let him never make mention of the conjugal debt; and it will be enough, where the matter demands, to ask a woman whether she has shown due fidelity and obedience to her husband in all things.

2°. The rule admitted by all must be carefully observed: In the matter of luxury it is much better in many things to fall short than in one thing to abound, by reason of the integrity of confession. Therefore in doubt whether in such a case you can or ought to interrogate, the negative part must always be stood by; for it is a lesser evil for the integrity of confession to be lacking than to incur the danger of losing a soul.

Rule III. Interrogation must be opportune, that is, it must be made at the time at which it is fitting; but certain interrogations are ordinarily to be made before confession, but few, lest the penitent be offended, for example: since what time has he not confessed? whether he was absolved? whether he fulfilled the penance? whether he is at peace concerning his past life? This last interrogation must be made only when the penitent has not confessed for a long time, or when a general confession is instituted from a determinate time. - The other questions concerning condition, state, age, etc., will more fittingly be made, when occasion is given, in the course of confession; thus on the one hand every suspicion of curiosity and levity will be avoided, and on the other the penitent will answer more easily, since his confidence in the confessor will have been more increased. - Cf. Berardi, vol. 1, de Recidivis et Occasionariis, dissertation 1. - Konings, nn. 1424 and following.

Question. What must the confessor do in doubt concerning the sincerity of the penitent?

Resp. There is a common rule, and as it were an accepted axiom: The penitent is to be believed, whether speaking for himself or against himself. The reason is because the penitent in the sacred tribunal is at once accused and witness, his own accuser and advocate, and besides, in doubt, he is always to be presumed truthful. Wherefore, after opportune interrogations, the confessor must absolve the penitent who denies. - But if the confessor knows certainly that some sin is being concealed or denied by the penitent, then a distinction must be made and it must be resolved as follows:

1°. If he knows that sin from the confession of another, he must, lest the seal of confession be violated, only interrogate generally, just as otherwise he would have done or ought to have done; but if the penitent, having been questioned, denies, let him reply nothing, but, if he can do this without suspicion, let him merely exhort generally that the conscience be opened with all confidence. But whether the confessor must absolve such a penitent is controverted. - And if indeed it is admitted that it is then certain or evident to him that the penitent is lying and confessing sacrilegiously, you will not be able to absolve him, just as St. Alphonsus teaches, who, after reporting the opinions of others, concludes thus: "Lacroix thinks better, in my judgment, that in that case he should by no means absolve, but only pray something in order to conceal the denial of absolution." - Nevertheless grave authors are not lacking who deny the hypothesis, namely that such evidence or certitude can be had from the confession of others, and especially from the confession of one accomplice; and therefore they teach that in that case the penitent is to be absolved absolutely, or at least under condition. For, they say, in this tribunal the penitent must be believed in his own cause more than others. Other theologians add another reason, for they say that the knowledge which the confessor has from the confession of another must be regarded as nothing.

2°. But if the confessor knows that sin outside confession, of itself he must absolve the penitent who denies, because the penitent speaking for himself and against himself is to be believed; nor of itself can the report of another make greater faith than the declaration of the penitent himself; nor consequently is the confessor held to believe others more than the penitent himself. For if the penitent committed that sin, the confessor must presume that he either has forgotten his sin, or has confessed it to another, or has a just cause for concealing it, or that the reporters rather were deceived. - I said of itself; for if the confessor is altogether certain about the sin committed by the penitent because, for example, he himself saw him stealing, etc., or he knows it from the altogether certain report of others, for example, because the penitent is publicly known as a concubinary, he cannot absolve one denying, provided he is certain that he has not forgotten his sin and has no motive for concealing it; for this rule: The penitent is to be believed, etc., has force indeed in a less certain matter, but not in a matter evidently certain. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 631. - Lugo, disp. 22, n. 22. - Baller. note (a), p. 575; and note (a), p. 577.

The four aforesaid offices of father, physician, teacher, and judge must be exercised by the confessor toward all penitents, although not in the same degree nor in the same manner; but according to the diversity of penitents special difficulties can be present, to be resolved by him, and which consequently introduce special obligations. Here we shall treat especially of the manner of acting of the confessor 1°. toward those who are situated in an occasion of sin; 2°. toward habitual sinners and relapsers; 3°. toward pious and timorous penitents.

58. We are not bound to confess to a confessor questioning us the habit of some sin.

XXII. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Course of Moral Theology, Vol. II, part 6, question 5, no. 2: “Although a penitent be bound to answer a confessor questioning him concerning a habit of sin, since the opposite opinion was condemned by Innocent XI … nevertheless, speaking per se, a habit of this kind is not to be laid open.”

XXVII. The Salmanticenses, tract 24, disputation 8, doubt 4, § 2, no. 202, page 140, say: “In a second way it happens that a confessor inquires concerning these circumstances, not out of some special and accidental motives, such as we have just recounted, but because he is of that opinion, that circumstances notably aggravating within the species ought to be explained in confession. And then a penitent, because he knows at least from the testimony of others that our negative opinion is safe, more common, and more probable than the contrary, is not bound to answer to that interrogation of the confessor; but he can with reverence say that he has explained what he ought, and that he can keep silence about what he keeps silent, nor is he held to more: because he knows that circumstances notably aggravating — for example the quantity of the thing taken away, concerning which inquiry is made — are not necessary matter of confession. And by what has been said the confessor cannot compel him to more, nor deny him absolution by force of this: because the penitent proceeds according to a safe and probable opinion, and therefore acts rightly, and the confessor CAN and OUGHT to conform himself to him.”

LVIII. Fr. Viva in his Treatise on Proposition 41 of Alexander VII, no. 16: “It is doubted here whether he can be absolved who has been engaged in a proximate occasion of sinning before he take it away, especially if he promised in another Confession; and then if he did not promise. Some — Coninck, disputation 8 On Penance, no. 133, Filliucci, Azor, Sánchez — think that he cannot be absolved outside the case of necessity. Nay, Cardenas, difficulty 40, chapter 5, article 4, no. 108, thinks that this is gathered from proposition 61 of Innocent XI, where it is condemned that he can be absolved who is engaged in a proximate occasion of sinning which he can and will not omit. And the reason seems to be, because he who approaches the Sacrament of Penance before he take away that occasion is reckoned to be unwilling to cast it out, and therefore to approach without the due efficacious purpose of not sinning thereafter; since in this very thing, that the occasion of sinning is not taken away when it can be taken away, he sins. Nor is it an objection that he says he has the purpose of taking it away; for he only purposes to take it away in the future; and if he does not take it away at once, by that very fact he wills to remain for the present in that occasion, and therefore sins; just as he who, when a lion is approaching, purposes to flee and does not flee at once, is reckoned to will to remain in danger of death. More commonly nevertheless with Suárez, disputation 32, section 3, Tabiena, and others think that a penitent of this kind can be absolved once and again, if here and now there appear true signs of grief and of an efficacious purpose of taking away at once the proximate occasion. Nay, Córdoba, Cajetan, and others think that he can be absolved even a third and a fourth time, though it be often expedient to defer absolution until that proximate occasion be taken away. He ought nevertheless altogether to be absolved even before the separation from it, both if danger of death be at hand, and if, absolution being deferred, it be believed that he will not have the opportunity of returning, or from another cause will not return. The reason why he seems able to be absolved the first and second time is because the penitent could, either immediately, or by hearing a sermon, or by hearing the admonitions of the confessor himself, be stirred up to a true and efficacious purpose of not sinning, in which case he is sufficiently disposed. So everywhere penitents are absolved by this, that they purpose to restore, although before Confession they had not restored, as they could: because from the confessor's admonitions there can here and now arise a true purpose of restoring, which before Confession was either weak or was thought sufficient, even though for some opportune time the restitution had to be deferred. Therefore this same thing can be done in him who is bound to take away a proximate occasion. Nor from that proposition 61 of Innocent XI is it drawn that he cannot be absolved: for he who purposes to take away the occasion at once cannot be said to will it for the present, just as neither is he said to will the danger of death who, when a lion is approaching, purposes to flee as soon as he can. Cautiously nevertheless is one to proceed in this, because everywhere a purpose of this kind is not efficacious in him who could beforehand have taken away the occasion of sinning and has not yet taken it away.”

XII. I prove that the described doctrine of Frs. La Croix, Viva, de Lugo, and others is contained in this condemned thesis 58: We are not bound to confess to a confessor questioning us a habit of some sin. A confessor can by right question only concerning those sins which a penitent is bound to manifest. Therefore if a confessor can by right question concerning a habit of sinning, a penitent is bound to manifest it. What to this? He ought to manifest it, reply the casuists, if he be questioned, but otherwise if the confessor keep silence. A vain cavil. The duty of manifesting precedes the right of questioning. For unless there were in the penitent a duty of manifesting, the confessor could not question; since he can question only concerning those things which the penitent is bound to lay open. But, reasonings being dismissed, let the common sense of all Christians be consulted, who, being sincerely contrite, first of all set forth the state, the habit, and the custom of sinning. Scarcely would the recounted doctrine have come into the mind of any Christian, had not the casuists devised it. Hence gather how true it is that which I have more often indicated, namely that by one arbitrary little distinction the theses condemned by the Church are eluded, and the most clear testimonies of holy Scripture itself.

VI. The Venerable Innocent XI condemned this thesis: We are not bound to confess to a confessor questioning us a habit of some sin. These two things — the right of questioning and the duty of manifesting — are so conjoined that the one cannot subsist without the other. Nay, the duty of manifesting precedes the right of questioning, as I have said. A habit of fornicating or of perjuring oneself does not change the species, but only aggravates the malice within the same species. The doctrine denying the duty of answering has been condemned. Therefore the doctrine denying the duty of manifesting an aggravating circumstance has been condemned.

V. THE SECOND RULE. Let the confessor above all explore the disposition and quality of the penitent, and according to the diversity of temperament allure, incite, and animate him to lay bare his conscience, and to open his inmost recesses and more hidden wounds, and to manifest all things to him who bears the place of God. If he detect a shame and a certain repugnance, let him with skill, dexterity, and gentleness raise him up, help him, and add courage. When it comes to the sixth mandate of the Decalogue, let him employ a tongue excellently instructed: let him use words which savour of modesty: let him above all beware lest he bring in the knowledge of crimes unknown, or question anything too curiously. In this business let him study in the highest degree brevity: let him bend to this, that he soften the heart of the penitent, and the abscess will of its own accord and speedily flow out, and forthwith with a brief hand he will close the wounds, lest the mind both of the speaker and of the hearer be defiled. He will temper or continue his questions, as prudence shall have suggested.

II. QUESTION II. What ought a confessor to observe in the questioning of penitents? ANSWER. Let him consider the state of the penitent — master, servant, married man, judge, advocate, magnate, prince, youth, girl, mother of a family. In the examination of carnal sins there is need of great prudence. Let all questions be chaste. Two things can hinder the integrity of confession: malice and shame. These obstacles he will easily overcome if he represent the infinite clemency of God toward sinners; if he set forth the passion of Christ Jesus for the saving of sinners; if he add courage for the vomiting forth of the monsters which torture the soul. But unless a confessor be endowed with natural acumen and dexterity, and supported by God's help, we fill leaves in vain.

IV. QUESTION III. Whether a confessor ought to question concerning the partner of a crime? ANSWER. I have already said above that a penitent is bound to manifest the accomplice, the name and habitation being concealed, when a confessor cannot be found who is ignorant of the accomplice. Therefore also a confessor is bound to question, when a penitent either ignorantly or from another cause conceals the accomplice. Benedict XIV published two diplomas, one on the 7th of July 1745, whose beginning is Suprema omnium, the other on the 4th of the Nones of June 1746, whose beginning is Ubi primum. By these decrees the Pontiff proscribes the abuse of those confessors who are wont either by blandishments or by threats to extort from penitents the name of an accomplice under pretext of correcting him. Therefore in the kingdom of Portugal, at whose bishops' entreaties the decrees emanated, or the constitution confirming the first decree, confessors took care that penitents should manifest the accomplice outside confession, that they might be able to correct him. Which most grave abuse the Pontiff condemned, the doctrine standing entire of laying him open, the name and habitation being concealed, as often as necessity demands it.

Catherine, troubled by anxieties, opens her conscience to her confessor. She says that she indeed wishes that she had not offended God, but that she is not sorry for her sins, or at least is much less sorry for them than for temporal evils. Furthermore, she affirms that she is certain that she will fall again into the same sins immediately or within a few days after confession; and finally, that unless fear of hell stood in the way, she fears that she would abandon the service of God and indulge in vices, since she does nothing for the love of God. Hence she thinks that she is in no way disposed to receive sacramental absolution. Hence it is asked:

1. What is required on the part of the penitent for the validity of the sacrament of Penance?

2. What is signified among theologians by the statement that sorrow ought to be supreme?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is required for the validity of the sacrament of Penance on the part of the penitent?

For the validity of Penance the penitent must make a formally integral confession of all the mortal sins which he has committed after Baptism and which have not been directly absolved, and he must have true and supernatural sorrow for them.

2. What do theologians mean when they say that sorrow for sin must be supreme?

They mean that the sinner must regard sin as the greatest of all evils, and that he must be prepared to do and to suffer anything rather than commit sin again.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 156.

3. The case. Catherine tells her confessor that she wishes that she had not offended God, but that she has no sorrow for her sins, or at least much less sorrow for them than for temporal evils. Catherine probably means that she does not feel sorrow for her sins, as she does for temporal evils. She should be told that the sorrow required in Penance is in the will, and she should be asked whether she proposes to avoid sin in future, with God’s grace, come what may. If she says Yes, she shows she has sorrow for her sins. Catherine further says that she is certain that she will fall into sin again immediately, or at least within a few days after confession. She should be asked whether here and now she proposes to avoid the proximate occasions of sin and to do her best not to fall into it again. If she again says Yes, she should be encouraged to trust in God’s help and be absolved.

She says she does nothing out of love for God, and that she fears that she would commit sin if it were not for the fear of hell. Catherine should be told not to torment herself by such idle suppositions; it is enough if through fear of God’s punishments she observes His commandments and avoids sin. She thus fulfils the precept of love substantially: “ He that hath My commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth Me ” (John xiv. 21). Of course it will be well for Catherine to exercise herself in special acts of the love of God, in which we can always advance.

Peter, a missionary priest, was called to a woman committed to his care who was said to be dying. He met a physician, a friend and a Catholic, who had been called to the same woman. From him Peter heard that the woman, whose husband had been with the army in southern Africa for a year, had become pregnant through sin and had procured an abortion upon herself not without grave danger to her life. Approaching the dying woman, Peter warned her of her dangerous condition and persuaded her to prepare for death. When, however, she said nothing in confession about the adultery or the abortion, although she spontaneously admitted that she had not confessed within the past year, Peter asked whether she had anything else that troubled her conscience, to which she replied, “No, nothing else.” Peter did not know what was to be done in the case, especially since homicide was among the cases reserved by the Bishop in the diocese. Hence it is asked:

1. What penalty is established against those who procure abortion, and does a mother who procures an abortion upon herself incur it?

2. When homicide is reserved by the Bishop, is abortion considered to be comprehended?

3. What is to be done by a confessor when a penitent in confession denies a sin committed by that penitent?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What spiritual penalty is annexed to the crime of procuring abortion, and does a mother who commits the crime incur the penalty?

By the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX, those who procure abortion are excommunicated. The absolution of the censure is reserved to the bishops. St. Alphonsus (III, 395) teaches that a probable opinion excuses mothers from the penalty of excommunication inflicted by Sixtus V on those who procure abortion. According to many recent theologians this opinion remains probable with respect to the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX, since the object of Pius IX was to limit the number of censures, not to increase it.¹

1 Lehmkuhl, II, 1247, eleventh edition.

2. When homicide is reserved by a bishop, is abortion comprehended in the term?

Not usually; in many of the pagellae of the bishops who reserve homicide, abortion is specially excepted, and even if it is not expressly excepted it may be understood as tacitly excepted, because it is a crime with its own special penalties inflicted by the Holy See.

3. What should a confessor do when a penitent denies that he has committed a sin which nevertheless the confessor thinks that he has committed?

The confessor should ask him whether there is not something more, and exhort him to make a full and sincere confession without fear. If the penitent still denies that there is anything more, the confessor should ordinarily absolve him. For ordinarily the confessor may and should believe the penitent both against and for himself. If it is evident to the confessor that the penitent is lying and making a bad confession, he should of course not absolve him, but occasions when he can be sure of this will be rare.¹

1 Bucceroni, Theol. Moral., vol. ii, 824.

4. The case. After exhorting the woman to make a full confession without fear, and asking her again whether there is anything else on her conscience, as for example, against the sixth commandment, if she persists in her denial, Peter should absolve her. It might possibly be that she had not committed either formal adultery or abortion, or even if she had committed those crimes there might be some reason subjectively sufficient to excuse her from confessing them to Peter. As she is in danger of death, and all reservation ceases in such a case, even if abortion were comprehended under homicide and reserved, Peter could absolve her without recurring to the bishop.

Albert, a boy fourteen years of age residing in a certain Catholic college, accuses himself in confession of a shameful sin committed with another boy. Questioned by the confessor, he spontaneously admits that he had committed the same sin several times before after being solicited by the same accomplice. Since the confessor prudently fears that the same thing will happen again, he asks whether Albert is prepared to employ every means to prevent a relapse, even to denounce the accomplice. The boy says that he will willingly disclose the accomplice’s name to the confessor himself, but in no way to the superiors, although he willingly grants the confessor the faculty to disclose the matter to the superiors. From the circumstances the confessor judges it altogether necessary for preventing a relapse, and also for the common good of the college, that the accomplice in the case be denounced to the superiors; hence he thinks that the boy cannot be absolved when he refuses this burden, yet thinks that it is not lawful for him to inquire into the accomplice’s name. Hence it is asked:

1. What is to be said of the necessity of confessing a sin if thereby the accomplice in the sin is disclosed to the confessor?

2. What is to be said of a confessor who inquires into the accomplice’s name?

What must be done by the confessor in the case?

1. Is it necessary to confess a sin if in so doing an accomplice in the sin is made known to the confessor?

If possible the penitent should go to a confessor who would not know the accomplice in the sin. If he can not conveniently do this, it is a controverted point as to whether he should mention the sin, which can not be confessed without also betraying an accomplice, or not. Some authorities hold that he may not mention the sin because the natural law of secrecy about another’s sin is stricter than the positive law about the integrity of confession. Others hold the contrary opinion, because for good reason we may make known the secret sin of another. Both opinions are probable, so that the penitent may follow either.¹

1 Bucceroni, vol. ii, n. 720.

2. May a confessor ask the name of an accomplice?

In the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis the first of the excommunications reserved to the Holy See is incurred by those who teach or defend as lawful the practice of inquiring from penitents the name of an accomplice in sin as the practice was condemned by Benedict XIV. The practice then is in general unlawful. However, as Benedict XIV himself supposes, there are certain cases in which the penitent is bound to denounce an accomplice, and sometimes this can. only be done to or through a confessor, who may then ask the name of an accomplice.²

2 Ibid., 1178 ff.

3. The case. The good of the college requires that the boy who corrupts his school fellows should be denounced to the authorities when this is necessary to prevent future grave sins. This could only be done in the circumstances of the case by Albert himself. He was therefore under a grave obligation of doing this, and could not be absolved if he refused to do it. As he absolutely refused to denounce his accomplice personally to the authorities, but was not unwilling to tell the confessor, to whom he also gave leave to mention the matter to the authorities, the confessor may ask him to write the boy’s name on a slip of paper and put it in an envelope and give it to him, and that he will see that it goes to the authorities. In doing this the confessor would do nothing wrong, but only help the boy to do his duty.

Titia, being reprimanded by her confessor for neglecting to make her Easter duty, gave the following reasons to justify herself: She said that she was at Confession last Easter, but that the confessor refused her absolution, because she would not reveal the name of a man high in the city government, with whom she had sinned. The confessor urged that he might be able to reclaim the official, who was a Catholic, if he knew his name; at least, he might be able to prevent him from doing further evil. It is not wrong, the confessor further urged, to make known the hidden sin of another, when there is a sufficient reason for making it known. In the present instance, the good of your neighbor demands that his sin be made known, because he may be reclaimed to the grace of God, or, at least, prevented from repeating this sin. Titia, however, refused to make known the name and was dismissed, without absolution, being requested to come back in another week, which she failed to do.

Now we ask:

1. Is it always, and in all cases, forbidden for a confessor to inquire the name of an accomplice, or are there any cases when this is allowed?

2. What judgment is to be formed of the confessor in question?

3. Did the confessor incur any censure?

1. In answer to the first question, we would say that Benedict XIV issued four Apostolic Constitutions condemning the practice of inquiring in confession the name of an accomplice.

The first of these constitutions begins, "Suprema omnium," and was issued in 1745. The second begins, "Ubi primum," and was issued in 1746. These two constitutions were first issued to the bishops of Portugal and Algarve. By a third constitution, beginning "Ad eradicandum," these two constitutions were extended to the whole Church. To these the same Pontiff added a fourth, "Apostolici ministerii," prescribing the mode of procedure against delinquents. In these four constitutions, the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV condemns the practice of inquiring the name of an accomplice, and he punishes by excommunication, to be incurred ipso facto, and reserved to the Roman Pontiff, whosoever shall teach that the aforesaid practice is licit, or whosoever shall defend it, or shall attack the decrees issued against it, or shall twist the same into another meaning; in like manner, also, suspension is decreed, "ferendae sententiae," against those who inquire the name of an accomplice, or his or her place of residence, or shall inquire such other information in confession that may easily discover the identity of the accomplice, and who shall deny absolution to penitents refusing to give this information. And these penalties are incurred, even though the delinquent may not have committed mortal sin.

The theologians maintain, however, that these constitutions do not include each and every one inquiring the name of an accomplice. They except, therefore, from the penalties decreed in these constitutions all cases in which, according to true and sound teaching ("juxta veras et sanas doctrinas"), it is allowed and even necessary for the guidance of the penitent's conscience, to demand the name of the accomplice.

Some theologians err in determining what cases are to be exempted from the Benedictine censures.

Those err who hold that it is allowed to inquire the degree of relationship in sins of incest. Because the degree of relationship does not add a new species to the sin of incest.

Again, those theologians err who maintain that it is licit to inquire whether a maid servant lives in the same house. Because it is sufficient to inquire whether the occasion is proximate or remote. Indeed, it can not be said that there is any certain grave obligation to tell a mortal sin in Confession, if such Confession will reveal the identity of the accomplice. If, therefore, the penitent is not bound to confess such a sin, by what right may a confessor question him about it?

The case may occur where concealing the name of the accomplice may work much evil, which evil the penitent is bound to prevent, but which can not be prevented except by making known the accomplice to the confessor. In that case the confessor must oblige the penitent to make known the accomplice, and if the penitent refuse, he or she is not worthy of absolution, and the penitent is bound in conscience to make the revelation, or otherwise to be judged unworthy of absolution. But it is very desirable that the identity of the accomplice be revealed to the confessor, not in Confession, but outside of it. For if the revelation be made outside of Confession, then the case is no longer a case of the confessor inquiring the name of an accomplice, but of a penitent revealing the identity of his accomplice, because he is bound to do so by a higher law. 2. The conduct of the confessor in this case in requiring the penitent to discover the identity of the accomplice is reprehensible. It is in direct opposition to the constitutions of Benedict XIV, which expressly forbid inquiry as to the name of an accomplice, under pretext of correcting him. Nor did the good that the confessor hoped to do, after learning the name of the accomplice, justify him, because it did not fall within any of the cases which require the revelation of an accomplice.

The confessor is likewise blameworthy for sending Titia away without absolution. However, it is not evident from the case, that he denied her absolution, and told her to come back, in order to induce her to make known her accomplice.

3. The confessor incurred excommunication, reserved to the Holy See, because he taught, and defended, and recommended a practice condemned as detestable by Benedict XIV. That he did so in private, and not publicly, does not exempt him from the censure. For in the constitution of Pius IX, "Apostolicae Sedis," all those incur the excommunication who teach or defend, either publicly or in private, propositions condemned by the Holy See.

It might be urged in the confessor's defense that he did not teach that it was licit to deny absolution in this case. But such defense seems to lack any solid foundation. Some theologians, indeed, hold that no excommunication is incurred where the confessor does not teach that it is licit to deny absolution. But this can not be gathered from the Benedictine constitutions; because where they speak of the excommunication incurred, they do not make mention of "absolution"; they speak of absolution only in connection with the suspension incurred by the confessor. Wherefore the confessor is not suspended, unless he teach that the practice of inquiring the name of an accomplice is licit, and threaten the penitent with a denial of absolution, as an inducement to make the revelation. The confessor, therefore, in this case, has committed a mortal sin, has incurred excommunication reserved to the Pope, and should be punished with suspension, if he denied the penitent absolution because she would not reveal the name of her accomplice.

In conclusion it is to be noted that Benedict XIV obliges all persons who shall in any manner have knowledge of such confessors, to denounce them. The penitent alone, in his or her own cause, is excused from the obligation of denouncing, "ne seipsum prodat." The priest, therefore, who knows of such confessors, outside of Confession, is bound to denounce them. This denunciation is to be made to the Holy Office. Strictly speaking, if the offense was committed "ex prava voluntate," the confessor is to be denounced to the Holy Office. If the offense was committed "ex animi levitate," the confessor is to be denounced to the Ordinary. But the Holy Office is to judge whether the offense was committed "ex prava voluntate" or "ex animi levitate." Therefore, in either case, the denunciation is to be made to the Holy Office,

Case.—John, on one of his frequent visits to a public inn, drinks to excess, becomes intoxicated and falls asleep there. When he awakens he is sober again, proceeds to use indecent and impure language, and engages in a vicious quarrel with another man. Several days after he goes to confession, but does not mention anything of all this. The confessor, who has been informed by the innkeeper of John’s improper behavior, is surprised that John does not accuse himself of the things that he did at the inn, and begins to question him, in a general way, about intemperance, impure language, etc., but John replies to all these questions that he is not guilty in this respect.

Question.—It is asked whether the confessor is privileged, or obliged, to remind John of the happenings at the inn, and what he will have to do if John denies them.

Solution.—This is a case, first, of the obligation of a confessor to question his penitent, and, secondly, of his privilege or obligation to question the penitent about a sin omitted or denied by the penitent, when, to the certain knowledge of the confessor, he has committed it. The obligation on the part of the confessor, to question the penitent, prevails whenever the confessor doubts, either on account of the confession, or on account of his private knowledge, that the penitent makes a complete confession, and this obligation to question extends to everything, but no more, that the confessor must know to exercise his office. In this case the confessor knows from private information that his penitent has committed mortal sins which he omits in his confession, namely, complete intoxication, impure talk, and vicious quarreling, all of which are objectively mortal sins, though among people of low station they are often not considered of grave nature. The confessor is, therefore, privileged and obliged to inquire about these sins, not only in a general way, but positively and directly. Such a question can always be asked of a man of the station and habits of John, even if the confession itself does not offer a reason for the question. Such information cannot be regarded to have been made sub secreto, hence he may, and must, state that he was informed of these happenings by one of those present at the inn, unless of course harmful consequences are to be feared.

What, however, is the confessor to do if the penitent denies these sins? Evidently the confessor cannot absolve the penitent if he is absolutely convinced that the penitent denies the matter in a sacrilegious way, if he is positive that his information was absolutely reliable, and, on the other hand, that the penitent knowingly and maliciously denies his guilt. Such absolute conviction, however, can hardly ever be secured through the statement of a third person. This is based by authorities of Moral Theology on the fact that the informant may have been mistaken; furthermore, the penitent may be an invincibly ignorant person, and may even have a valid reason to be silent, since perhaps he has already confessed these sins. In this case, for instance, the innkeeper in relating the incident may have exaggerated, etc. It is possible that the patient does not know of his complete intoxication, he may think that he just fell asleep, and as far as the impure talk and the quarrel is concerned, these things may mean so little to him that he forgot all about them. The principle governing here will therefore be: Poenitenti credendum est tam pro se quam contra se dicenti. This penitent will have to be absolved.