Recidivists and habitual sinners

392. Notion. 1. A habitual sinner, or one habituated, is said to be one who, from the repetition of sins of the same kind, has contracted a depraved inclination or habit of committing the same sins. A habit or custom of sinning is a certain facility and propensity, induced from repeated sins, of committing the same sins.

To constitute a habit, two elements essentially concur: frequency of sins of the same kind and a certain distance and at the same time proximity between the individual lapses; for sins repeated more often do not induce a habit if they are too distant from each other, nor if they are too close, as if they were committed on the same day but afterward omitted.

2. When a depraved habit is considered contracted cannot be accurately defined, because this depends both on the character of the one sinning, and on the longer or shorter time which intervenes between sinful acts, and especially on the nature of the sin: for the more easily some sin is committed, the more acts within a certain time are required to contract a habit; and since internal sins (to which sins of the mouth are also referred) are committed more easily than external sins, generally more acts are required to induce a habit in internal sins (and sins of the mouth) than in external sins.

a. He who for a notable time, e.g., for a whole year, has committed an external sin five times in a month, indeed in the matter of lust even he who has sinned five or once in a month for a year, is considered to have contracted a habit.

b. He who once daily for a longer time sins by depraved desires or blasphemies is a habitual sinner; indeed also he who commits these same sins three or four times in a week for some time must be called a habitual sinner.

393. Norm of Absolving. Any habitual sinner can and ought to be absolved, even if no amendment has preceded, provided he seriously proposes amendment; for a depraved habit is not a sin, but an inclination to sin, and therefore can be consistent with a true disposition of heart.

a. They are stricter than is just who, before they grant absolution, require from the penitent that he have laid aside the depraved habit and amended the relapse. For although amendment of life is the best sign of disposition, it is nevertheless not the only, and therefore not the necessary, sign of disposition; rather, before amendment and without it a true disposition can be present. Indeed, not even from this, that someone immediately after confession relapses into the same sin, is a defect of sorrow and purpose rightly inferred. For it can happen that a soul, drawn away from worldly things and considering again the eternal truths, with the help of grace conceives true sorrow and purpose, but immediately afterward, when worldly things and occasions of sinning present themselves again to the senses, the same soul, vehemently attracted and excited, such being its mutability and weakness, adheres again to sin, so that he who had just now been converted to God is now again converted to creatures. Nevertheless, if a penitent, already more often warned, returns without any amendment, a prudent doubt concerning the defect of true disposition is suggested, even though he affirms that he is sorry.

b. If a habitual sinner refuses to confess more frequently, absolution per se cannot be denied to him, both because more frequent confession is not prescribed, and because other means of amendment can be enjoined. But if other means were not judged sufficiently effective, as can happen with those habituated in vices of the flesh, then certainly absolution would have to be denied to him who refused to use a morally necessary and not very difficult means of amendment.

394. Notion. A recidivist simply and generally is said to be that habituated person who after confession has relapsed into the same sin; but a recidivist formally, or in the theological sense, is said to be that habituated person who has already confessed the same sin several times and always relapses in the same way. Therefore three things are required in order that someone can truly be called a recidivist:

a. That he has contracted a depraved habit of sinning.

Per se it is not indeed necessary that a recidivist be a habitual sinner; for if someone confesses four times a year and at each time accuses himself of one sin of pollution committed, he is a recidivist, but is not a habitual sinner; for four lapses in a year do not suffice for contracting a habit. In fact, however, a recidivist will almost always be at the same time a habitual sinner.

b. That he has already confessed the same sin several times (three or four times).

Therefore a penitent who confesses the same sin during the first two or three times is not strictly a recidivist; consequently he is to be treated as a simple sinner if he has not yet contracted a depraved habit, or as a simple habitual sinner if he has already contracted the habit of sinning. Therefore there is no particular reason for doubting their disposition when they seriously say that they are sorry.

c. That he has relapsed without any effort of amendment having been employed; therefore he who for some time has employed the means prescribed by the confessor and has fought strenuously against temptations, even if afterward he has fallen again, is not properly a recidivist.

395. Norm of Absolving. 1. A recidivist who is prudently judged disposed can per se always be absolved: for he who can truly be judged disposed can be absolved, even though he is a recidivist; for nothing else is required for valid and licit absolution except that he be actually disposed; but future amendment is not required for true disposition, nor does foresight of future relapse prevent it.

2. But as regards recidivists the difficulty is in forming a judgment concerning their disposition; for from frequent relapse into the same sins there arises a grave suspicion of some depraved attachment, of slight horror of sin, and of defect of a serious will to amend oneself. This suspicion renders their disposition doubtful, even if they affirm that they are sorry for their sins, and therefore prevents them from being prudently judged disposed, unless some particular reason is added by which the doubt concerning disposition is sufficiently removed.

a. Much is always left to the prudence and discretion of the confessor, to whom the help of grace is always present, so that he may form for himself a judgment concerning the disposition of the penitent. In forming this judgment, first his own experience, and then also attention to certain particular signs, will help him (n. 390).

b. In order that a judgment concerning the disposition of a recidivist can be more easily formed, it must be noted that there are many recidivists from fragility. Of this kind are those who indeed often relapse into the same sins, but to whom sin habitually is displeasing, who therefore immediately detest the sin after the lapse and propose amendment, and who resist temptation in some way even for a time, but then succumb again both from weakness of will and from vehemence of temptation. Concerning the disposition of these one must not doubt. But there are also other recidivists from evil will, namely those who adhere with depraved affection to the object of sin and from this depraved affection often relapse into the same sins; nevertheless, either from custom or from human respect, they sometimes approach the sacraments, nor do they conceive a true and sincere will of amendment. The disposition of these is not doubtful, but rather null. Yet a good confessor does not dismiss these miserable sinners without absolution, but will try by salutary warnings to dispose them to amendment of life. But if he truly detects in them indications of a changed will, he can absolve these recidivists too.

396. Whether Absolution Should Be Deferred for a Recidivist.

a. If the recidivist, otherwise rightly disposed, has relapsed from internal fragility, as into sins of pollution, morose delectation, hatred, blasphemy, etc., ordinarily greater fruit is to be hoped from the grace of the sacrament than from the delay of absolution. Sometimes, however, even in this kind of sinners, delay of absolution will seem profitable to a prudent confessor, especially if the remedies are employed negligently.

b. If the recidivist, otherwise rightly disposed, has relapsed in an external occasion or because he has not fulfilled an obligation (e.g., of retracting calumny, of reconciling himself), it is ordinarily expedient that absolution be deferred until the occasion has been dismissed or the obligation fulfilled; for he who has already often broken faith must have his will, though good, strengthened by this remedy of deferred absolution.

Delay of absolution, with a suitable warning, especially in younger penitents of lighter character who are otherwise piously and religiously educated, and who either do not fulfill an obligation or do not lay aside a depraved habit, is an excellent means of striking in a greater detestation of sin and of strengthening their weak will.

c. If the recidivist is doubtfully disposed and the necessity of absolving him under condition does not urge, absolution per se must be deferred so that in this way the will of the penitent can be established by experience. But because in our times, especially in cities in which faith languishes and Christian duties are neglected, denial or delay of absolution generally profits little, indeed rather renders sinners offended and indignant and hardens them more, ordinarily the confessor acts better who tries to dispose such a penitent to sorrow and purpose, prescribes to him particular means of amendment, and absolves him.

Note. Lest the theory of St. Alphonsus concerning extraordinary signs of disposition be wrongly understood and applied, it must be noted: a. In occasionaries and recidivists extraordinary or greater sorrow and a firmer purpose are not required; for provided sufficient disposition is present, they can safely be absolved. b. The occasionary and the recidivist can always be absolved, provided he can be prudently judged by the confessor to be truly disposed, whatever may be the sign on which his judgment is founded: whether ordinary or extraordinary, whether the penitent has brought it to confession or finally exhibited it in confession at the warning of the confessor. g. Wherefore the confessor would act imprudently who judged an occasionary or recidivist simply indisposed unless he detected in him one or another of the extraordinary signs, and more imprudently still he who absolutely deferred absolution for a recidivist of this kind without having applied care and effort by salutary warnings to lead him to sorrow and purpose. But if the confessor has suitably performed this, it will generally happen as is asserted in these words: "it cannot happen that the penitent does not exhibit some sufficient sign of his soul; and therefore, when he affirms that he acts sincerely and that he wishes to perform those things which the confessor requires, the confessor can with a safe conscience impart absolution, even if the penitent has given no other sign of his conversion in advance."¹

Case. Recidivists in drunkenness and publicly known as such, who almost every week or even more often become drunk, are not altogether to be repelled from the sacraments, but ordinarily they are not to be admitted to them at once either. Not the first, because one must not despair of the amendment of any man; not the second, first because he cannot be absolved who is foreseen to be about to violate his purpose after a short time, unless necessity urges; for scandal would have to be feared if he relapsed immediately after receiving the sacraments. Then, because public scandal must first be repaired. Therefore absolution must be deferred for a penitent of this kind until he has at least somewhat amended himself. Indeed, even in the case in which, on account of an extraordinary sign of penance, he had been absolved at once, it is preferable not to admit him immediately to holy communion, both so that the public scandal may in the meantime be repaired by real amendment, and so that scandal perhaps about to arise from relapse may be avoided.

¹ Salvatori in Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 187.

A recidivist is one who after many confessions has fallen into the same sin without any or with scarcely any amendment.

There is a controversy among theologians as to whether and on what conditions such a one may be absolved. Certain rigorists maintained that a recidivist could not be absolved until, by abstaining from sin for a considerable time, he had proved the sincerity of his conversion. According to the judgement of St Alphonsus, there is intolerable rigour in this opinion. On the other hand, laxists held that a penitent who has contracted a habit of sin should be absolved at once without delay even though there be no hope of amendment, provided that he make verbal profession of his sorrow and purpose of amendment. The foregoing proposition was condemned by Innocent XI, and if it were put in practice it would lead to grave abuses. For a confessor cannot give absolution to one whom he cannot reasonably judge to be truly sorry for his sins. There are cases where in spite of verbal protestations the confessor cannot form even a probable judgement that the recidivist is truly sorry for his sins. And sometimes it will benefit the penitent to defer absolution for a short time even if it might absolutely be given at once. The common opinion lies between these two extremes, and we cannot do better than explain it in the words of Lugo, for the lengthy discussions of subsequent authors on this question have added nothing of substantial value to the older doctrine.

(a) If a confessor judge a penitent, notwithstanding a past habit of sin, to have here and now a true sorrow and a firm resolve not to sin again, he can absolve him; because present sorrow and a purpose of amendment are sufficient, and future amendment is not required. And so he may absolve him even though he thinks he will fall again.

(b) But in the second place it is certain that when a priest, considering the past habit of sin, the propensity to it, and other circumstances, cannot judge the penitent to be sufficiently averse from the sin, he cannot absolve him, however much the penitent asserts that he is sorry, because if the priest does not believe him he has not the requisite ground for giving absolution.

(c) It will help toward forming a judgement about the present dispositions of the penitent if he show special signs of sorrow, or if he has already tried to correct his habit, or if, having never before been told what means to employ to correct his habit, now, on being told, he willingly accepts and proposes to employ them.

(d) Finally, it will sometimes be useful, with the penitent’s leave, to put off absolution for some days so as to excite the penitent to make greater efforts to overcome himself and show signs of real amendment.¹

¹ Lugo, De poenit., xiv, n. 166; can. 886.

I. Notion of the habituated person. A habituated or customary person is one who has contracted a habit of some sin. Moreover, a habit of sin is a quality stable of itself by which someone is disposed to sin (vol. I, n. 333). Furthermore:

1. A habit of sin is obtained by frequency of acts. Nevertheless, frequency by itself alone does not suffice; rather it is required that contrary acts not be opposed to the sinful acts leading to the habit, by which contrary acts the origin of the habit would be prevented (vol. I, n. 341). Hence those who commit sins which of themselves arise rather from frailty or from a passing passion do not contract a habit of sin so easily as those who perpetrate sins which of themselves proceed more from malice. The reason is that the former, after the sin has been committed, more easily come to their senses and exercise contrary acts. Sins of the former kind are, for example, pollution and blasphemies; of the latter kind are hatred, theft, conjugal onanism, transgressions of the precepts of the Church, and so forth.

2. The habituated person has the will in some way fixed in sin, and therefore sins from a bad will, that is, from a will constantly inclined to evil, and therefore promptly and even from slight concupiscence, and as though without an effort of resisting; whence he comes to his senses with difficulty. "When someone," says St. Thomas, "sins from habit, which is to sin from malice, then the will tends by itself into the act of sin, as though now totally inclined from habit by way of a natural inclination into the act of sin" (De malo, q. 3, a. 13; cf. I-II, q. 78, aa. 2, 3, and 4; II-II, q. 156, a. 3; St. Alphonsus, V, 4, 2, 3; VI, 459; Praxis Confessarii, nn. 70, 73).

3. It cannot be accurately defined what frequency of acts, and how much time, is required for someone to be able to be judged to have contracted a habit of sin.

a) As regards frequency of acts, a greater number of sins committed through a certain time is required if the discussion concerns internal sins, to which sins of the mouth are equated, than if the discussion concerns external sins; greater, if it concerns solitary external sins than if mutual ones are concerned. The reason for the distinction is that a habit is formed the more easily, the greater the deliberation that preceded, as is usually the case in external acts, especially in mutual ones; and the more intense the deliberate acts are, as likewise customarily happens in external acts, especially in mutual ones. Hence a lesser frequency is required in these.

b) As regards time, this likewise depends on the intensity of the acts; likewise on the manner of acting more or less uniformly. Hence, for example, you would more easily call habituated one who through a notable time pollutes himself every week than one who sins frequently in one or another week and in other weeks resists temptation.

Corollary. "One who, for example, fornicated once a month for a year can well be called habituated here" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 70); likewise one who for a year once a month has given himself to drunkenness; likewise one who through a notable time either commits pollution once a week, or two or three times a week indulges in morose delectations (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

¹ Cf. Cardinal van Rossum, Commentarius de iudicio sacramentali Ioan. B. Pighi ad trutinam vocatus; Berardi, De recidivis et occasionariis; Ter Haar, De occasionariis et recidivis.

II. Division of habituated persons. For our purpose, habituated persons are divided into habituated persons who are not relapsers and habituated persons who are relapsers.

1. By us a habituated person who is not a relapser is understood as one who either has not yet confessed after the habit was contracted, or indeed has confessed but was not seriously admonished by the confessor (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459).

2. A habituated relapser is a habituated person who, having confessed and having been admonished by the confessor, has continued the custom of sin in the same manner. Thus theoretically (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459; Praxis Confessarii, n. 71; Selva, II, Instruction 4, n. 17). Practically, a habituated relapser is a habituated person who, notwithstanding confession and admonition by the confessor,¹ has relapsed: 1. quickly (St. Alphonsus, V, 505); 2. frequently (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459); 3. in almost the same circumstances as before, not on account of singular circumstances; 4. with no assigned remedy having been used and with no effort or quasi-effort or resistance (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459, 505).

¹ The assignment of means for amending oneself also pertains to admonition.

III. Absolution of the habituated person.

1. A habituated person who is not a relapser, even if he furnishes only ordinary signs of disposition, can be held as sufficiently disposed and absolved. The ordinary signs are the confession itself and the assertion of the penitent (n. 399). The proposition is clear from the fact that a multitude of sins of itself does not constitute a reason for seriously doubting the sincerity of the penitent who, whether explicitly or implicitly, namely by the very accusation of himself in order to obtain absolution, asserts his sorrow for sins (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459; Praxis Confessarii, n. 70).

Corollary. A habituated person who has confessed and relapsed after confession can not rarely be absolved, even if he furnishes only an ordinary sign of disposition, because, if some one of the conditions indicated in n. 459 is lacking, he is often not a relapser in the strict sense.

2. A habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition, and, although admonished by the confessor, continues to furnish only ordinary signs:

a) Cannot be absolved as often as he comes. For first, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, in the Instruction of April 29, 1784, declares that before the confessor grants absolution, it must be seen whether penitents "have used the remedies previously proposed to them, by whose help they may avoid sin in necessary and involuntary occasions; whether they have cast off the custom of sinning; whether, if at other times they have obtained the benefit of absolution, they have again relapsed from their own malice into the same crimes and have wallowed in the same mire." But these things clearly signify that, according to the mind of the Congregation, a habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition cannot be absolved as often as he comes.

Next, as we shall say immediately, a habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition cannot of himself be absolved even the first time, namely on account of his doubtful disposition. How much more do these things hold concerning a habituated relapser who is a relapser again and again; indeed a relapser of this kind, if he brings nothing except an ordinary sign of disposition, seems to be judged not only doubtfully disposed, but much more probably indisposed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459, 505).

There is added experience, which teaches that "many relapsers who furnish only ordinary signs are not disposed, or at least are very doubtfully disposed."

"And truly so; for whoever has some practice of the sacred tribunal will confess that very many come to the sacrament of Penance not sufficiently disposed and not truly contrite, especially among those who in the same way continually relapse into a habit of sinning. Some are not sufficiently instructed in religious matters and are little taught concerning the necessity or conditions of true contrition which, according to Trent, are required for penance. They are so accustomed to external signs of religion that they even hold confession as a certain external ceremony, and are content provided that they obtain absolution. Others take some slight displeasure, or some feeble wish of amending themselves, as sufficient sorrow and purpose. Others approach the sacraments rather from a certain domestic usage or ancestral custom or from a certain human respect, although without an evil design, without seriously turning their mind to correcting morals. Others are so light in mind that they scarcely think of eliciting a true act of sorrow; or, with mind rather distracted, they recite from memory or read from a book a simple formula of contrition, without serious consideration and an internal act of detestation arising from a supernatural motive. Preachers and missionaries who give to the people a series of instructions on contrition and purpose can commonly testify to these defects of true disposition; and they find them not only among the illiterate, but also among more cultivated persons who not rarely are little instructed in the matter of religion. Indeed in our age these defects are often to be feared so much the more, inasmuch as the spirit of this world, which bears before itself indifference and levity in supernatural matters but the greatest industry in earthly goods, has also bespattered with its stains quite a number of Catholics who have not yet abandoned the use of the sacraments. Come now, these generally, when asked by the confessor whether they truly grieve for their sins, give an affirmative response, and this not with a feigned but, as they think, sincere mind, and therefore they furnish an ordinary sign of disposition; and nevertheless before God they are not truly contrite."¹

Ter Haar confirms this sad experience by these testimonies.²

Leo XII: "Many present themselves to the ministers of the sacrament of Penance altogether unprepared."³

The Roman Catechism: "Charity has so grown cold that already very many of the faithful think that no intimate sorrow of soul and groaning of heart is necessary for obtaining pardon of sins, but judge that it is enough if they have only the appearance of one grieving."⁴

Segneri says: "How many there are who, through defect of purpose, make confessions invalid and often even sacrilegious! It is not one or another, but whole generations of men and women, nobles and commoners, who say: I have always confessed the evil that I did; for so many years indeed I have lived in this depraved practice, but I have always accused it. They believe themselves clean, but they are not, because they confessed without true purpose... It is indeed easy to throw oneself at the feet of the confessor, strike the breast, and say: I repent. But the chief point of the matter is to see whether you have the purpose of changing life."⁵

The Directory for the spiritual exercises of St. Ignatius, edited by the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, Claudio Aquaviva, declares concerning the usefulness of general confession: "If there were no other usefulness, this surely ought to be enough, that we experience that men commonly approach confession either without sufficient examination, or without due sorrow, with no purpose of a better life or with a very weak one."⁶

As regards the doctrine of theologians we note:⁷ the ancient theologians almost commonly teach that a formal relapser who furnishes only an ordinary sign can in no way be absolved as often as he comes. Ter Haar proves this proposition by the very testimonies of the ancient theologians.⁸ Thus, to name some, St. Thomas of Villanova, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Bellarmine, St. Francis de Sales, Venerable Louis of Granada, St. Leonard of Port Maurice, Paul Segneri, Lessius, and De Lugo, whose testimonies you may see in Ter Haar.⁹

¹ Ter Haar, De occasionariis et recidivis, n. 264.

² Ter Haar, cited work, n. 265.

³ Constitution Charitate Dei, December 25, 1825.

⁴ De Poenitentia, n. 67.

⁵ Penitenza istruita, chapter 8.

⁶ Chapter 16.

⁷ St. Thomas has these things: "Many things are expedient for the spiritual health of one relapsing ... namely, that greater caution be used concerning him" (IV Sent., dist. 32, a. 1, a. 4).

⁸ Ter Haar, cited work, n. 295 sq.

⁹ Ter Haar, cited place.

b) A habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition, and, although admonished by the confessor, continues to furnish only ordinary signs, of himself cannot be absolved even the first time. This is first drawn from the Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide cited above, which sufficiently manifests that according to the mind of the Sacred Congregation, ordinary signs of disposition do not suffice even the first time if the matter concerns a habituated relapser.

Next, one who is doubtfully disposed cannot of himself be absolved (n. 398). But the penitent of whom we speak must be held as doubtfully disposed.

The minor is proved. Since the same signs of disposition are supposed to be at hand, no greater certitude can be had about the present disposition than is had about the disposition had in the past confession; indeed, on account of the continued and confirmed habit, rather less certitude must be had about the present disposition. But it is rightly doubted whether the penitent was well disposed in the past confession.

The subsumed minor is proved. If right disposition in the past confession were admitted, we would posit a penitent who had had contrition estimatively supreme and a universal, firm, and efficacious purpose, and besides this had been fortified by the grace of the sacrament; and notwithstanding all these things, he would have relapsed quickly, frequently, in the same morally considered circumstances, with no means assigned by the confessor having been used and with no effort or resistance, into the same sins. This indeed can happen, but nevertheless it is deservedly doubted whether it had place (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459, 505; Praxis Confessarii, n. 20). Indeed, as we have said, less certitude concerning the present than concerning the earlier disposition must be had, because the habit and culpability have increased since the prior confession, and so true aversion from sin has become more difficult.

As regards the doctrine of theologians, we note that very many support the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, as for example St. Thomas of Villanova, St. Francis de Sales, Segneri, Benedict XIII, Archbishop of Benevento, etc., whose testimonies Ter Haar brings forward.¹

Objection 1. Theologians earlier than St. Alphonsus commonly teach the contrary.

Response. By referring to those things which we noted above concerning the doctrine of theologians.

Objection 2. The penitent is to be believed, whether speaking for himself or against himself.

Response. The principle stated certainly cannot be admitted without limitation, as is clear from proposition 60 condemned by Innocent XI: "To a penitent having a custom of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appears, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred, provided that with his mouth he says that he is sorry and proposes amendment." Besides this, the principle holds more for integrity than for the disposition of the penitent, since the penitent can err more easily as regards the latter. Finally, the principle can be urged less when, as in our hypothesis, there is deserved doubt about the truth of the past testimony. Nor nevertheless should the penitent for that reason be called guilty of lying; since commonly he deceived himself.

Objection 3. To return with the same sins is not of itself a sign either that true sorrow and purpose of amendment was lacking or that it is lacking; certainly not more than if he returned with other sins. Rather, it is only a sign of human frailty.

Response. The discussion concerns a habituated person, and such a one as not only returns with the same sins, but, after being admonished, has relapsed quickly, with no means assigned by the confessor having been used and with no effort or resistance having been furnished. In this case we do not contend that there is a certain sign that sorrow was lacking, but that there is a reason for seriously doubting whether right disposition was present, and still more whether it is present.

Instance. "That someone," says St. Thomas, "afterwards, that is, after penance, sins either in act or in purpose, does not exclude that the first penance was true, for the truth of a prior act is never excluded through a contrary subsequent act; for just as one truly ran who afterwards sits, so one truly repented who afterwards sins" (III, q. 84, a. 10, ad 4).

Response with Billuart:² "His words, that is, St. Thomas's, are not to the point. For there the Holy Doctor means that a following sin does not exclude preceding penance, supposing that it was true; because, he says, the truth of a prior act is not excluded through a contrary subsequent act. Hence, just as he truly ran who afterwards sits, so he truly repented, if he truly repented, who afterwards sins; for what has been done cannot become undone. All admit this. But the Holy Doctor does not deny that frequent following relapses are indications that the prior penance was not true," or at least that it is to be doubted.

I said that a habituated relapser who brings only ordinary signs of disposition cannot of himself be absolved; since, although he is doubtfully disposed, nevertheless he can be absolved under condition if some one of the causes assigned in n. 404 is present.

¹ Ter Haar, cited work, n. 295 sq.

² Tractatus de Sacramento Poenitentiae, dissertation 6, article 10.

3. If a habituated relapser either of himself, or after being admonished by the confessor, furnishes an extraordinary sign of disposition, he can be held as sufficiently certainly disposed, and therefore can be absolved by the confessor as judge, though not always as physician (St. Alphonsus, VI, 459). It is said:

a) Either of himself, or after being admonished by the confessor. Namely, let the confessor admonish the doubtfully disposed penitent paternally and try to elicit an extraordinary sign of disposition by which the prejudice against his disposition is removed (n. 401).

b) An extraordinary sign of disposition; what the extraordinary signs of disposition are, see n. 400.

c) He can be absolved by the confessor as judge, though not always as physician. Namely, generally let him be absolved at once if he is a relapser from internal frailty; otherwise, if from an occasion, especially a continuous one (St. Alphonsus, VI, 456, 450, 463, 464; Praxis Confessarii, nn. 76, 77). I said:

a) Generally let him be absolved at once if he is a relapser from internal frailty; because sometimes delay is expedient or even necessary for strengthening the will, as if remedies have long been used in vain.

b) Otherwise, if from an occasion, especially a continuous one; in this case delay of absolution should be used, unless there is a special reason for granting absolution at once. What the special reasons are, see n. 407.

Note. If a habituated relapser in venial sins occurs, let the confessor take care either to elicit an extraordinary sign of contrition, or to "dispose the penitent to grieve especially over some light fault from which he has greater horror, or to suggest to him that he confess some graver sin of past life against some precept, for it suffices that he confess in general without number, so that he may have certain matter on which absolution can rest" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 71).

1. Alphonsus, a confessor, does not grant absolution to penitents unless he is altogether certain of their good dispositions. Hence he always grants absolution to relapsers and those in occasions the first, second, and third time; but afterward he always denies absolution to all relapsers and those in occasions, unless first the former abstain from every relapse and the latter remove the occasion. Finally, he always defers absolution for all when he himself is doubtful about the dispositions of the penitents.

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

R. The manner of acting of Alphonsus cannot be approved, and he seems not to act well in all things. For first, so that the confessor can grant absolution, it is by no means required that he have complete certainty about the good dispositions of the penitent; but "it is enough that the confessor have a prudent probability concerning the disposition of the penitent, and that on the other side a prudent suspicion of indisposition not stand in the way; otherwise hardly anyone could be absolved, since whatever signs of penitents furnish only probability of disposition." St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 461.

Always to grant absolution to relapsers and those in occasions the first, second, and third time is not right. For the fact that relapsers and those in occasions of this sort have not previously approached confession, or have approached only once and again, certainly is not an argument of the good disposition of those penitents, who can well approach confession without the necessary contrition. Therefore the norm of absolution to be given cannot be that the penitent confesses the first or second or third time, but the prudent judgment in the confessor concerning sorrow and purpose. Indeed, "the penitent must be absolved as often as he seriously proposes to amend in the future and altogether to abstain, provided that the confessor prudently believes that he truly proposes and speaks seriously." Sporer, c. 2, n. 330, cited by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 463, as handing down the common opinion.

It is also not right always to deny absolution to relapsers, unless first they abstain from every relapse. If it were so, then that would have to be deleted which is contained in the Roman Ritual, Order of Administering the Sacrament of Penance: "But to those confessing more rarely or later, or easily falling back into sins, it will have been most useful to counsel that they confess often, say once in a month, or on certain solemn days, and, if it is expedient, communicate." How will they be able to communicate unless they are first absolved? Nevertheless there is question also of relapsers, and of relapsers easily falling back into sin.

Likewise it is not right always to deny absolution to those in occasions, unless first they remove the occasion. For first, according to the opinion which St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 457 at the end, affirms to be held most commonly, any penitent and always can be absolved who approaches confession with true sorrow and purpose, so that hope of amendment shines forth. Besides, an occasion can be voluntary, from which one can withdraw by his own will; but it can also be necessary, which one cannot remove; nor indeed is he bound to remove it, speaking absolutely, but he is bound only to render it remote from proximate, by using the means which a prudent and discreet confessor will suggest. Therefore if the penitent truly uses these means and tries not to sin, although in fact he has sinned, he can still sincerely grieve and propose; and the very means used and the effort employed can be an argument of that sincere sorrow and purpose. Indeed even still, after experience of no progress, true sorrow and the required purpose can stand, without the will of taking away the occasion with so great a detriment. Therefore the penitent can be absolved. For nothing else is required except confession with sorrow and purpose. Finally, as St. Alphonsus also says, l. 6, n. 454: "The doctors commonly affirm that the penitent is not bound to dismiss the occasion, if otherwise he is going to suffer grave temporal harm, provided meanwhile he is prepared to use the prescribed means ... The reason is that the occasion of sinning is not in itself a sin, nor does it bring a necessity of sinning; wherefore true detestation of sins, and a firm purpose of not relapsing and of using due remedies, can well stand together with it."

It is likewise not right that absolution is always to be deferred when the confessor is doubtful about the dispositions of the penitent. For even in that case of doubt absolution is to be given, although conditionally, if from absolution denied grave spiritual harm of the penitent would follow. Gury, Comp., vol. 2, n. 435.

Therefore it must be said that in this matter of absolution to be granted, deferred, or denied, "a certain rule cannot be established, but the confessor must direct himself from the occurring circumstances." St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 463. And from circumstances of this sort he will easily be able to form a prudent judgment concerning the sufficient disposition of the penitent. And, if the priest, clothed with the bowels of the mercy of Christ, who did not come to call the just but sinners, knows how to act studiously, patiently, meekly with those penitents who seem unprepared, and by every industry of charity to stir them to sorrow and purpose, it will indeed be difficult for them not to exhibit some sufficient sign of their mind. Cf. Commentarium De absolutione danda, differenda, deneganda, ed. 5.

2. Titius, a priest receiving the confessions of the faithful in the church on the day on which the solemn feast of the Blessed Virgin was celebrated with a great concourse of people, among several others imparted absolution to a certain drunken old man, who had abstained from the sacraments for ten years; besides, to a certain young man devoted for about seven years to impurities and self-abuse, although he had been accustomed several times a year to approach the sacrament of penance; finally, to a certain woman who was living after the manner of a prostitute, and who, although with abundant tears she deplored the things admitted by her and detested her most wretched state, nevertheless feared greatly lest from want she would be impelled to relapse again.

Having returned into the sacristy, Titius, exulting with joy, cries out: "Oh, how salutarily these feasts have been instituted! It can scarcely be said what very abundant fruits are perceived from the sacrament of penance!" Then he recounts the three cases reviewed, in general words, to Caius the confessor, who by chance was present. This man greatly wondered at the manner of acting of Titius; for he could not persuade himself how to sinners of this kind, without any intervening delay, and before the habit had been amended and relapse avoided, absolution could be conceded. For he held as certain that there was no truer and safer sign of penance than to abstain from sins, and that he who with a sincere heart proposes that he will sin no more will not relapse so quickly, just as a house solidly built does not fall so quickly. And so a contention arises between them on this matter, to which, that an end may be imposed, both together consult a theologian most distinguished in doctrine and reputation. Having learned the question, he asks within himself:

1.º What comes under the name of customary sinner and relapser? - 2.º What signs of penance must be present in sinners of this sort, so that they can be absolved? - 3.º What must be judged about the manner of thinking and acting of each confessor, as in the Case?

R. To the 1st. Customary sinners are here called those who have contracted the custom of sinning. But this custom, as in all moral matters, is not fixed and determined by such a number of falls; but from greater or lesser frequency it has a certain breadth. He is a customary sinner who blasphemes twenty or ten times in a week, and he also is a customary sinner who blasphemes only five times or once in a week. But relapsers are called those who after confession, although admonished by the confessor, relapse into the same sins, without any or almost any amendment. Wherefore although customary sinners are also relapsers, nevertheless they are not here called relapsers unless after confession they relapse into the same sins, having already been admonished before, and fall back without any or almost any amendment.

To the 2nd. Relapse into sins, whether others or the same, cannot of itself impede absolution. For to the sinner, by the sentence of Jesus Christ himself, not only seven times, but even seventy-seven times, it is forgiven. Hence it is plainly evident that amendment already following, as it is not necessary and essential to true penance, so neither is it necessarily prerequired for absolution. But another thing is plainly evident from this: also with regard to customary sinners and relapsers it is said without any foundation that they can be absolved at least the first time, or once and again, or three times, or three and four times. For if such a relapser could be absolved the first and fourth time, this was because he had contrition and purpose; why therefore could he not have it also the fifth and sixth time? Hence, if a relapser always has it, he can always, speaking absolutely, be absolved. But by what signs is sufficient contrition and sufficient purpose discerned? There are those who require extraordinary signs. But besides the fact that the extraordinary signs which they assign are at least in several things confused with ordinary ones and can also be fallacious, why can ordinary signs not suffice the second time, for example, if they sufficed the first? Why will he who quite seriously affirms and proves by the whole tenor of his confession that he has sorrow and purpose the first time not be able also the second and third and fourth and fifth time quite seriously to affirm and demonstrate the sincere penance of his mind? Wherefore again this is the whole difficulty: to judge prudently about the sincerity of sorrow and purpose, by whatever signs someone may finally be led to a prudent judgment of this sort. Yet it must not be denied that, although absolution can be given, sometimes nevertheless it is expedient to defer it; and this holds both for relapsers and for those in occasions, namely when that delay is judged going to profit the penitent. For if to the office of judge belongs the judgment of absolution to be given or denied, to the office of physician belongs giving it at an opportune time for the greater utility of the penitent. Wherefore, if the confessor judges that delay useful to the spiritual good of the penitent, he can prudently defer it, without being bound to do so, namely if the penitent is sufficiently disposed. Moreover, almost all agree that one must act more mildly both with those who are placed in a necessary occasion, because they are held by a graver difficulty, and with customary sinners and relapsers, because they labor under a greater infirmity. St. Alphonsus also has the doctrine handed down, as to the very substance of the matter, who in Homo Apostolicus, last treatise, n. 13, says: "Whenever some sign is present by which it can prudently be judged that the penitent has changed his will, he can be absolved well." And in the same place the Holy Doctor treats of those in occasions and relapsers.

To the 3rd. Titius acted well by absolving the drunken old man, who had abstained from the sacraments for ten years. For what doubt can there be that that drunken man, approaching the sacraments again of his own accord after ten years, was moved by sincere penance? A sign is certainly present by which the penitent can prudently be judged to have changed his will. The young man devoted to self-abuse could also be absolved, if namely Titius had first suitably stirred him to sorrow and purpose. Spontaneous frequency of the sacraments certainly is a sign of sincere will. It will perhaps also be useful, because that man was accustomed several times a year to approach the sacraments, if Titius frightens him somewhat and shows, as St. Alphonsus says in the place cited, n. 15, as though he could not absolve him. Likewise Titius acted well by absolving the prostitute, who showed not only ordinary signs but also, with abundant tears, extraordinary signs of contrition. Fear of future relapse does not impede the sincerity of present sorrow, and therefore there could be no difficulty of absolving on this account.

But as regards Caius, amendment of life following is certainly the best sign of penance, but true penance can be had also without it. This, from the things just related among others, is plainly established from proposition 36 of the Synod of Pistoia, condemned by Pius VI. Likewise, from the fact that someone relapses quickly after sorrow and purpose and after confession, speaking absolutely, there is no argument of defect of sincere penance. For someone, recalling his mind from worldly things and remembering his last things, with the grace of God aiding, can conceive true and perfect contrition. Once this has been conceived, at once, for example, an occasion of sinning presents itself, placing the matter before the senses, vehemently striking the imagination, more sharply irritating the mind; whence, thinking worldly things again, he adheres to worldly things, and this according to the liberty and mutability of the human will. Wherefore he who just now truly loved God, now loves creatures; as he who just now truly sat, now stands. Nevertheless it must likewise not be denied that some prudent suspicion of defect of sincere penance can be had from the fact that the penitent, admonished and already often admonished, returns without any or almost any amendment. For in reality to what prudent man ought that good faith not to seem suspect, which someone has always disappointed? But, since this is only suspicion, presumption, and conjecture from the very fact of purpose not observed, the matter must be carefully examined with all its circumstances, and then, if the disposition of the penitent still prudently appears doubtful, absolution certainly cannot be given to him, but it is either to be denied, or at least deferred. But that is not understood which D'Annibale has, p. 3, n. 340, ed. 3, namely that it is required that the relapser appear not doubtfully, but sufficiently disposed, and yet absolution is to be denied him when no probable hope of amendment any longer appears. With pardon of the illustrious theologian, these things seem contradictory and practically impossible.

3. To Bertha, a servant girl often sinning with Caius her master, Titius the confessor imposes that she immediately depart from his house. But she refuses to do this, both because Caius had promised amendment, and because for some years he had not paid her the wages of service, which nevertheless she hoped to receive soon, and would receive no longer if she departed. Having heard these things, Titius absolves her, at the same time enjoining that she return to confession each week. But only after six months, with relapse repeated several times, does Bertha return to Titius, bringing forward the same reasons lest she be compelled to leave the house of her master. And since the confessor hears from her that the master in a few days is about to set out for Naples, where it was necessary for him to remain rather long, and at the same time that she wishes to communicate on that day lest she be deprived of a plenary indulgence, he again imparts absolution. In reality it happened that before the master departed from Rome, Bertha committed no sin with him.

Meanwhile Caius, dwelling at Naples, manifests to a confessor that he has at Rome a servant girl as concubine, whom nevertheless he promises that he will dismiss scarcely after he has returned to his native land; from this it happens that he is immediately absolved.

But when afterward he returned to Rome, he interposes conversation about this matter with the servant girl, and lest they be separated from each other, both firmly determine not to fail any more in the future. A whole month passes and they faithfully observe their purpose. Soon, however, the Easter precept urging, they approach a confessor, who, having been made certain about the matter, dismisses them unabsolved until they separate. Therefore they approach another confessor, who, having heard all things, asks within himself:

1.º What and of how many kinds is an occasion of sin? - 2.º Whether and in what occasion a penitent constituted in it can be absolved? - 3.º What must be judged about the manner of acting of the confessors, as to each thing as in the Case?

R. To the 1st. An occasion is a certain exterior circumstance, bringing to us a danger of sinning. This danger comes from the fact that that exterior circumstance is of itself alluring to sinning. Hence it is clear that an occasion is a true moral cause of sin, although by accident and not of itself. If the aforesaid danger of sinning is possible, but not probable, the occasion is remote. But if the danger is truly probable, the occasion is proximate. But just as the probability of danger is not in an indivisible point, but there is lesser and greater probability, and then moral certainty, so a proximate occasion is less or more proximate, and simply proximate. A proximate occasion, if it is such with respect to someone in particular because of his special fragility, is an occasion relatively; but if it is such regularly with respect to all, it is an occasion absolutely. If again it is such that it cannot be taken away, or not except with grave detriment to oneself, or on the contrary can be removed altogether, then the occasion is simply necessary, morally necessary, or voluntary. Finally, if someone has it with himself or otherwise, it is called in esse, or present, or not in esse, or absent.

To the 2nd. In whatever occasion the penitent is constituted, he can indeed be absolved if he sincerely grieves and proposes. And this in reality is the whole difficulty: to judge prudently about the sincerity of contrition and purpose. Wherefore what is said, that one in an occasion can be absolved at least the first time, is said with no reason. If one in an occasion exhibits signs of contrition and purpose neither the first nor the hundredth time, he can never be absolved; and on the contrary, speaking of itself, he can always be absolved, if he always exhibits sincere contrition and sincere purpose. Hence, if he is in a voluntary occasion and does not remove it, and therefore falls into sins, a prudent argument of sincere contrition and purpose certainly is not had, and therefore he cannot be absolved. If he is in a necessary occasion and tries to render it remote by using opportune means, even if sometimes again he falls into sins, on the contrary an argument is had of the sincerity of sorrow and purpose, whence, speaking of itself, he can be absolved.

To the 3rd. Bertha is found in an occasion, if not simply necessary, then certainly morally necessary. Titius the confessor acted well the first time by absolving her. For on one side Caius had promised amendment, and on the other Bertha also promises amendment, and seems to promise seriously, because she willingly accepts approaching confession frequently from the excellent admonition and exhortation of the confessor. Titius the confessor also acts well the second time by absolving Bertha. For the good will of Bertha appears serious from the confession performed spontaneously, although after six months, and from the desire of Communion and of the plenary indulgence. But the occasion meanwhile is physically removed by the journey of the master. And the sincere will of Bertha this time was also proved by the very fact, because no sin was committed after confession and before the departure of the master. Caius also at Naples is rightly absolved by his confessor. For, since he is removed from the occasion and promises that he will take it away, his will of sinning no more appears serious, and consequently his contrition must be called sincere. These things having been premised and presupposed, the will of Caius and Bertha not to sin any more, after the return of the master, also appears serious, which is also confirmed by the experience of a whole month. Hence the later confessor, whom they soon approached while the Easter precept was urging, does not seem to have acted well by denying absolution to them unless they first separated from each other.

And here it must be noted that, since there was question of the Easter precept, absolution was not to be denied for this special reason also without a graver reason. Besides, Bertha and also Caius appear to be persons, although fragile, religious, and who revere the laws of the Church. Hence the confessor ought not by that denial of absolution, made so precisely, rather to keep them away from confession than to allure and invite them to it. Finally, another thing must be attended to in practice with regard to this Case and others like it. Caius will dismiss Bertha; Bertha will leave Caius. But will not Caius, taking on another servant girl, perhaps be able to have for himself a new and worse danger? And will not Bertha, finding another master, perhaps herself be able to find a new and worse occasion? Hence would it not be better to meet the old evil than perhaps to furnish occasion for a new one? But this certainly is the practical difficulty in cases of this sort, and there is need of great consideration of all circumstances so that a truly prudent judgment may be formed.

632. • An habitual sinner, insofar as he is distinguished from a recidivist, according to more recent authors is said to be one who has contracted a habit of some sin into which, nevertheless, he has not yet relapsed after confession. But a recidivist is called one who has contracted a habit and, after confession, relapses into the same sin. - St. Ligorius, no. 457 ¹.

¹ The Author attributes these definitions to the more recent authors because in fact a distinction of this kind between an habitual sinner and a recidivist belonged only to certain more recent writers: so that the former is called one who has contracted a habit of some sin which he has not yet confessed (they add that a habit is contracted by an act repeated five times in a month); but the latter is one who, after once confessing following the contraction of such a habit, has relapsed into the same sins (see St. Alphonsus, Practice of the Confessor, nos. 70-71). These indeed can perhaps be admitted in some sense, as also that one should be called a recidivist who, after confession, relapses into a sin even of a different species, as a certain Franzoia wished with some others, who disfigured rather than illustrated the Marrow of Moral Theology of Hermann Busembaum with his Notes. But in the theological acceptation, the Doctors understand a frequent relapse into the same sins after many confessions without any correction, as Cardinal De Lugo says (On Penance, disputation 14, no. 166); or, as the Salmanticenses have (treatise 17, chapter 2, no. 167): The question concerns one who, having been admonished more frequently, always remains in the same state, applying no care on his part so that he may return to better fruit. And Gobat (Experimental Theology, treatise 7, case 16, no. 518): When moral Theologians treat of recidivists..., they speak only of those recidivists who continue to commit the same mortal sin even after a purpose of correction and after several confessions, as John Sanchez, De Lugo, Lessius, and Filliucci express. And Venerable Father Segneri (The Instructed Christian, part 3, discourse 22): I intend to speak of another kind of recidivists, and they are those who, after confession, immediately return to the same fault without any correction and without any effort to correct themselves. And Ludovicus of Granada describes the same persons: when they have first confessed their crimes at this time, they immediately relapse into the same things and remit nothing of their depraved habit and license of swearing, perjuring, lying, defaming, cursing, imprecating evil, and coveting, nor do they embrace any office of virtue and piety, but remain the same as they had been before. Thus this most holy man in Andreucci, who from the common opinion of the Doctors (In the Opuscule The Recidivist Confessor, section 1, in the appendix to volume 2 of Busembaum's Marrow, Rome, 1844, Press of the Propagation of the Faith) gathers that these three things are required to constitute a recidivist in the theological acceptation: 1. frequent relapse after several confessions; 2. relapse into sins of the same species; 3. a defect of every correction, even one begun.

Therefore, consideration of an habitual sinner who is not a recidivist in this sense can pertain here only when someone, perhaps abstaining from confession for several years and frequently relapsing into the same sins by force of the contracted habit, needs the particular care of the confessor, as laboring under that habit which, as Suarez says (On Religion, treatise 5, book 3, chapter 8, no. 7), has in a certain way passed into nature. For the Theologians inquire into a habit of this kind, and further into the difficulty of correcting it, not into the one more recently devised by the more recent writers.

The reason is readily evident why this diversity between the Theologians of the School and certain more recent writers in handing down the notions of an habitual sinner or a recidivist must be kept before the eyes. For once it is evident that these notions are received differently by the Theologians and by those more recent writers, it will manifestly appear that the subject of disputation is different for each, and that the authority and support of Theologians who were disputing about another subject are therefore wrongly invoked for theories built upon the new notion, although each uses the same terms.

633. Rule I. - Every habitual sinner can always be absolved, even the first time he confesses the depraved habit, although no correction has preceded, provided that he seriously proposes this and shows signs of repentance, even if only ordinary. - St. Ligorius, no. 450, and others commonly ².

² This is against Juvenin and that Ludovicus Habert who, on account of his pertinacity in attacking the Constitution Unigenitus, was expelled from the Sorbonne

Academy and died unhappily in exile at Blois on April 7, 1718. They, with certain others, require that true conversion first be proved through correction of life; otherwise, as Juvenin says in his condemned Theological Institutions (see the Index of Prohibited Books, Rome, 1744, under JUVENIN, and more recent editions under Theological Institutions), On Penance, dissertation 5, chapter 5, article 1, it is morally certain that an affection for mortal sin is found in them. In these words you see two things badly confounded: namely, a certain inclination to evil, or better, a certain facility of some power toward its acts, and a deliberate affection for mortal sin. And from this it would surely be proved that all are affected toward mortal sin and accordingly are always unworthy of the benefit of absolution, since, as Scripture says (Genesis 8:21), the sense and thought of the human heart are prone to evil from youth.

Against these St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 459) urges these words of the Roman Catechism (On the Sacrament of Penance, no. 60): If, after hearing the confession, the priest judges that neither diligence in enumerating the sins nor sorrow in detesting them has been altogether lacking to the penitent, he can be absolved. And he adds: Note, HAS NOT BEEN ALTOGETHER LACKING. And indeed these things fit the matter excellently. Yet it may seem to someone that this must be asked: why do those words of the Catechism, which are most general, not equally avail even when the penitent has relapsed into the same sins after confession, but are gratuitously restricted to this single case?

But absolution is to be denied to an habitual sinner if he refuses to employ the means prudently proposed by the Confessor and necessary for conquering the habit. The reason is that by this very fact he does not sincerely wish to be corrected, although he asserts that he wishes to change his life; and therefore he is simply indisposed ³.

³ These things pertain to the general doctrine concerning which it was said above (no. 626) that whoever refuses to fulfill some certain and grave obligation is incapable of absolution.

634. Rule III. - A recidivist furnishing extraordinary or special signs of sorrow can be absolved as often as he comes. The reason is that by extraordinary signs of sorrow every prudent suspicion which the preceding falls, even if frequent, could have induced is removed, and the Confessor can prudently judge the penitent to be sufficiently disposed. - I said can be absolved, but not that he necessarily must be; for the Confessor can defer absolution in this case if he judges that the deferral will be useful to the penitent, although ordinarily it is more expedient that it not be deferred ⁴. - St. Ligorius, no. 460, and Practice of the Confessor, no. 76.

⁴ See those things said more diffusely concerning this argument above (no. 621).

635. Rule IV. - A recidivist, even one furnishing only ordinary signs of contrition ⁵, can be absolved and generally must be whenever absolution cannot easily be deferred. The reason is that, on the one hand, he can be judged absolutely to be sufficiently disposed from the ordinary signs, and, on the other hand, there is a grave reason for absolving him, lest he remain for a long time in the state of mortal sin; but before the Confessor absolves such a person, he will employ care to dispose him better and more certainly to receive the benefit of absolution ⁶.

⁵ Above, in the Note to no. 625, we observed that the Author calls ordinary almost those signs which St. Alphonsus reckons among the extraordinary.

⁶ Concerning this necessary care in Confessors, see the Note to the following number 27.

636. Rule V. - A recidivist returning with the same depraved habit, with no effort employed and none of the means prescribed by the Confessor fulfilled, cannot be absolved unless he shows extraordinary signs of sorrow. Thus St. Ligorius ⁷: The third common opinion which we follow, and which Sanchez, Palaus, Bonacina, De Lugo, Petrocorensis, Sporer, Azor, Viva, Laymann, Holzmann, Anacletus, Milante, Wigandt, and the Salmanticenses, treatise 17, chapter 2, nos. 168 and 170, with Suarez, Sayrus, Hurtado, Prado, Rodriguez, Lopez, etc., hold, teaches, that a recidivist sinner returning with the same depraved habit cannot be absolved unless he brings extraordinary signs of his disposition.... The reason is that, in order that a confessor may absolve a penitent, he must be morally certain of his disposition; hence, although a sinner confessing for the first time is to be judged disposed, because (as we said) no presumption to the contrary stands against him, nevertheless, when he has already been admonished in another that frequent relapse furnishes a sign, or at least gives a prudent suspicion, that his repentance is not true; for one who firmly proposes (De Lugo well says, disputation 14, no. 160) a thing morally possible for himself does not so easily forget his purpose, but perseveres at least for some time and falls with greater difficulty or less frequently (book 6, no. 459).

⁷ I would say that it was not done by chance that the Author alleges only St. Alphonsus for this doctrine. For (and these things are said only so that the rights of history and truth may be preserved) he indeed brings forward many authors (loc. cit.) and does not hesitate to call this opinion of his common. But: 1. Most of those whom he alleges here are the very same whom you have cited above in the note to no. 621, namely, Sanchez, Suarez, Palaus, Bonacina, Azor, Sayrus, Hurtado, De Lugo, etc.; and for the rest he indicates no other places of theirs than those which we brought forward there. Moreover, their opinion, which we indicated there by their own words brought forward, differs from this thesis by the whole heaven; for they expressly affirm, or manifestly suppose, that the penitent can be absolved, and propose a deferral of absolution as merely useful, and accordingly to be employed only from salutary counsel and only sometimes. Hence it seems attributable only to a slip of the eyes or of memory that St. Alphonsus took the citations from treatise 17, chapter 2, no. 168 of the Salmanticenses, as he himself alleges them there. For those Doctors are indeed brought forward there; but the opinion for which they are invoked there is not the thesis of St. Alphonsus, but another, which the Salmanticenses thus express: Although IT IS A SALUTARY COUNSEL to defer absolution when such a deferral is believed likely to profit...; yet if the penitent approaches with sorrow and a firm purpose..., the confessor CAN ABSOLVE HIM, even if hitherto, after being admonished several times, he has not taken care to be corrected. These words are as consonant with the sense of the Doctors alleged as they differ from the opinion of St. Alphonsus.

2. But St. Alphonsus himself (loc. cit.) also manifestly reveals that his doctrine is one thing and the opinion of the Doctors whom he had alleged for himself a little before is another. For not long afterward, after mentioning the opinion of Sanchez, Laymann, De Lugo, Palaus, Viva, Sporer, and others that a recidivist can well be absolved several times, even if he has relapsed in the same manner and employed no remedy, he adds: I venerate the authority of such great Doctors; but I have never been able to acquiesce in their opinion. But what the Doctors named here by St. Alphonsus hold, namely, that a recidivist can be absolved several times even if, etc., is common without exception to all whom he had previously cited for himself, and even to the author of the theology for the use of the Seminary of Perigueux, although the latter is accustomed to follow the footsteps of Juvenin, Habert, and Gennett rather than those of the theological schools.

3. If there are a few who introduce mention of an extraordinary sign of disposition, they do not exact this as a condition without which the Confessor cannot absolve, but either merely say that it also contributes to discerning disposition, as De Lugo (On Penance, disputation 14, no. 166), or mention it as a case in which, contrary to what St. Alphonsus thought (nos. 463-464), absolution is not to be deferred, as Laymann (On Penance, chapter 5, no. 10). Therefore you will find only the Salmanticenses who, in treatise 17, chapter 2, no. 170, hand down as more probable that then it will not only be a salutary counsel to defer absolution, but the Confessor will be bound to do so. Nevertheless, their opinion also departs from the opinion of St. Alphonsus. For first, they judge other opinions probable as well (ibid., no. 167), the first of which (ibid., no. 168), against the opinion of St. Alphonsus, teaches that absolution can be conferred, although it can sometimes be salutary from counsel to defer it. Then they limit that obligation of deferring absolution (ibid., no. 170), unless some scandal or other extrinsic inconvenience follows from denied absolution; by which limitation they all but overthrow the thesis of St. Alphonsus, while by that very fact they concede that, speaking per se, absolution can be conferred. Finally (ibid., no. 168), they themselves treat of one who, having been admonished MORE FREQUENTLY, always remains in the same state, etc.; wherefore they too must now be reckoned among those to whose opinion St. Alphonsus says, as we recently saw, that he was never able to acquiesce.

4. Likewise, if some whom the Salmanticenses (no. 170) most eagerly sought out used those phrases, cannot be absolved, are not to be absolved, nevertheless their opinion favors in no way either the opinion of St. Alphonsus or even that of the Salmanticenses. And surely, what support does it give to their theory that Sanchez (On the Decalogue, book 2, chapter 32, no. 45), when he says that one accustomed to blasphemies can be absolved, indeed is to be absolved, nevertheless excepts a case in which scandal is to be repaired: unless, he says, he furnished enormous scandal to others by those blasphemies, and thus the Confessor judged that his private consolation was to be postponed, and that it was expedient for the divine glory that he not be absolved until he had satisfied for the public scandal by striving for the correction of his life? And this is the same as what Bonacina says (On the Second Precept, disputation 4, question 1, point 14, no. 7): By reason of the scandal which one who perjures himself is accustomed to furnish to others, absolution is to be denied according to the judgment of a prudent confessor; for scandal is to be prevented. Again, what support does it give their theory that Ludovicus Lopez and Bartholomew Medina, alleged by them, said that one who does not have a purpose of correcting the vice is not to be absolved? For Lopez, proposing his own opinion and that of Medina (Instruction of Conscience, part 1, chapter 25), says: Medina seems to subscribe to this opinion of Soto, that one who is everywhere held by a habit of swearing, without choice and consideration whether he swears what is true or false, AND LACKS A TRUE PURPOSE of rooting out the wicked habit, is not to be absolved. But if he resolves upon correction and with a good will has embraced the remedies enjoined upon him by the Confessor, there is no reason why absolution should be prolonged for him. What does it profit that Rodriguez, alleged by them (Summary, part 1, chapter 192, no. 13), said these things while transcribing Medina? But one who is so defective in his depraved habit that in confession itself he swears at every word ought not to be absolved for that time. Indeed, Ludovicus Lopez (loc. cit.) regards as more rigorous that which Medina had suggested and which Rodericus takes from Medina: that one who has burst forth into many oaths, snatched into them by the evil habit by which he is held, and who, although he had previously confessed this several times, never furnished correction, is not to be absolved but is to be sent away so that for some days he may conduct himself attentively toward rooting out so pernicious a habit. And the reason which Medina brings forward here for deferring absolution introduces another enormous difference between their opinion and the recent opinion of St. Alphonsus. Namely, St. Alphonsus, according to the theories of Juvenin and the like, universally denies that a penitent of this kind can be absolved, since he must be judged indisposed; but most of the Doctors whom either he himself or the Salmanticenses allege do otherwise. For these, as we noted elsewhere above in the note to no. 621, since they treat especially of vices of the tongue, regard deferral of absolution as a mere expedient for at length arousing and stimulating the sluggishness of those who, by force of a depraved habit, break forth into blasphemous or perjurious words that are even less deliberate and who are in a continual state of mortal sin, as Trullench also notes (On the Decalogue, book 2, chapter 1, doubt 20, no. 6), though he was wrongly cited for that reason by the Salmanticenses, unless they employ suitable care for correcting the vice. Indeed, as Medina expressly observes (Instruction of Confessors, book 1, chapter 54, section 5), since this sin is in the tongue rather than in the heart or affection, they disputed nothing about the disposition of the penitent; and therefore Azor also (part 1, book 11, chapter 3, question 4), himself wrongly alleged by the Salmanticenses, after saying, Nevertheless, absolution seems to be deferred for a time so that he may meanwhile devote some effort to it (to correcting the habit), immediately adds: unless there is otherwise a just cause by which he ought to be absolved from sins immediately.

If there are some who introduce discussion of deferring absolution on account of a suspicion that the penitent has approached less disposed, they do not propose it as a rule to be universally observed with recidivists, but say only that there is a place for a suspicion of this kind sometimes or at some time; concerning this we shall treat in the following Note. Furthermore, they themselves suppose that a penitent of this kind has already been absolved several times; in which, again, St. Alphonsus, as we saw, professes that he departs from them.

5. And these things, although few in view of the gravity of the argument (for the brevity of the Note does not permit more things which would make for a clearer demonstration of the matter), can suffice to establish that the preceding opinion of St. Alphonsus, whenever it is considered whole with all its parts, can be called, rather than common, contrary to the common opinion of the Doctors. Yet this is not said as any censure of that opinion, but only, as was said above, so that its own place and right may remain for historical truth, and from this there may remain the faculty of using that canon which the same St. Alphonsus (no. 460) praises, saying: I think that he by no means errs who directs himself according to opinions commonly received from Doctors of no humble reputation. For the rest, in what manner the opinion of St. Alphonsus can in some way be drawn toward the common opinion, we shall indicate in the following Note.

6. Meanwhile, note that the reason which the Author brings forward for that rule, and which certain others are accustomed to bring forward, is not free from a logical fault (for this must not be concealed). For grant that, after confession, someone has relapsed into the same sins in the same manner and, if you wish, even in a worse manner and measure; this could perhaps introduce some suspicion that the purpose in that confession was less efficacious; and I said, perhaps some suspicion, because, since the human will is subject to change, not even from a subsequent relapse can we logically argue to some defect of the preceding confession, since this must very often be ascribed not to a defect of a most sincere purpose, but, as daily experience teaches, to frailty and inconstancy after a sincere purpose. But if someone wishes further to argue from preceding falls to a defect of sorrow and purpose in the present, no law of logic permits it, as all Theologians reason excellently with St. Thomas.

** Indeed, it is not our intention, nor can it be, to pursue the VV. through those two hundred and eighty columns by which, with almost useless labor, they oppress every most patient reader. It will suffice us at present to give a sufficient account of those things which we noted concerning this argument.

It is said in the Note (no. 1) that St. Alphonsus did not hesitate indeed to call his opinion common; nevertheless, as is added (no. 5), it can be called, rather than common, contrary to the common opinion of the Doctors. Yet, so that a fair judgment may be formed concerning this affirmation, the words which are added there must not be neglected: WHENEVER IT IS CONSIDERED WHOLE WITH ALL ITS PARTS. Yet the VV. nowhere seem to have taken any account of these words throughout those two hundred and eighty columns.

Therefore, the first reason why we affirmed this is the one which we touched upon above in the Note to no. 632: namely, because the notion both of an habitual sinner and of a recidivist which St. Alphonsus hands down and Gury followed (see above no. 632 and below no. 638) is one thing, while that commonly handed down by the Doctors is another. Moreover, as was observed there, once it is evident that these notions are employed in a different sense by the Theologians and by those more recent writers, it will manifestly appear that the subject of disputation is different for each and that the authority and support of Theologians who were disputing about another subject are therefore wrongly invoked for theories built upon the new notion, although each uses the same terms.

To this reasoning, which otherwise is neither slight nor abstruse, you will seek in vain throughout those two hundred and eighty columns for any reply whatsoever.

And indeed in that Note to no. 632 we neither expressly attributed those new notions of an Habitual Sinner and a Recidivist to the holy Doctor, out of a certain reverence for him, nor there expressly deduced against him that latter conclusion. Nevertheless, if the VV. preferred this way of defending the holy Doctor, not so that they might defend his doctrine as it truly is in itself, but so that they might endeavor to show its consonance with the common doctrines of the schools, which is a question not of right but of fact, surely it was in no way lawful to neglect this part of the question, which is of the gravest moment.

We brought forward another reason for our affirmation, and one manifestly decisive, in the Note (no. 2), namely, by bringing forward those words of the holy Doctor himself: I venerate the authority of such great Doctors; but I have never been able to acquiesce in their opinion; where he says that he departs from the opinion of Sanchez, Laymann, De Lugo, Palaus, Viva, Sporer, and OTHERS. It does not pertain here now to inquire whether the opinion which the holy Doctor professes is better, or the opinion of those in whom he says he was never able to acquiesce; the question now concerns the fact itself: Does the holy Doctor depart from the common opinion? Concerning the controversy touched upon there by the holy Doctor, the VV. write (p. 656): St. Alphonsus, AGAINST SEVERAL DOCTORS alleged for the first proposition, who judge that such a (recidivist) can be absolved up to the third or fourth time, establishes the following doctrine: An Habitual Sinner, or one Habituated, who, having already once been admonished, has relapsed in the same manner, cannot be absolved, etc. Here the VV. speak the truth, but not the whole truth: namely, they admit that the holy Doctor departs from the Authors whom he had alleged for his own thesis. But if, by the admission of the VV. themselves, St. Alphonsus departs from the opinion of those great Doctors whom he himself had alleged for his doctrine, why, I ask, are they so angry with those who perhaps say that those Authors in no way support the thesis of the holy Doctor?

But I said that the VV. have here confessed the truth, but not the whole truth. For they say that St. Alphonsus established his thesis against several; which is most true. But the word several can indicate either simply many or, taken comparatively, some greater multitude in comparison with the contrary party. Yet in neither sense does that word express the whole truth. Why? Because the holy Doctor Alphonsus had no Author whom he could allege for his opinion, nor did the VV. find anyone, nor will they find anyone, unless perhaps they have recourse either to those who, as St. Alphonsus says (book 6, no. 459), with intolerable rigor say that an habitual sinner can never be absolved unless his correction is established by long experience, or to someone among those who perhaps resolved to transcribe St. Alphonsus for themselves, whose support otherwise would not prove that the holy Doctor did not depart from the unanimous opinion of all the Doctors.

And since it is most openly evident, even from the most express testimony of the holy Doctor Alphonsus, that he departed from the most common and indeed the unanimous opinion of all the Doctors, what finally is to be thought of those two hundred and eighty columns by which the VV. wish to contend that it was asserted only through calumny that the opinion of St. Alphonsus can be called, rather than common, contrary to the common opinion of the Doctors? To these things add what we indicated above: that the notions both of an Habitual Sinner and of a Recidivist which St. Alphonsus adopts are employed in another sense by all the Doctors whom he alleges, so that even if the theses of the holy Doctor agreed verbally with the theses of the Doctors, they would nevertheless differ in sense. Therefore it is so much the more confirmed and becomes perspicuous that the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, whenever it is considered whole with all its parts, can be called, rather than common, contrary to the common opinion of the Doctors. Yet this was not said, as was observed in the Note, as any censure of that opinion, but only so that its own place and right may remain for historical truth and from this there may remain the faculty of using that canon which the same St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 460) praises, saying: I think that he by no means errs who directs himself according to opinions commonly received from Doctors of no humble reputation.

These things having been set forth beforehand, which pertain to the substance of the matter, let us come to the remaining parts of the Note, which are of lesser moment, since they present incidental little questions.

And as regards those things contained in no. 1, behold, the VV. (p. 660) do not hesitate to affirm that the thesis of St. Alphonsus, who says that a recidivist cannot be absolved, etc., is altogether the same as that of the Authors whose express words we reported in the Note to no. 621 and whom the Salmanticenses bring forward (treatise 17, chapter 2, no. 168) for the opinion which establishes that a recidivist of this kind can be absolved absolutely, although it is sometimes useful for him to defer absolution. The VV. handle this argument through twenty-four columns and contend (p. 680) that the Salmanticenses falsely alleged these authors for that opinion. Surely it was a most unhappy design by which they undertook to fight against the manifest evidence of fact; yet a reader who has already been able to observe very frequently that this is customary with them will not be astonished.

Let the testimonies brought forward above in the Note to no. 621 be read, I ask; they suppose a penitent sufficiently disposed and capable of absolution. Is such the penitent whom St. Alphonsus denies can be absolved? There we brought forward, for example, the express words of Suarez, where he says that it sometimes profits to defer absolution for a recidivist penitent of this kind. But the VV. object (p. 669) that the text of Suarez is brought forward there truncated, because these words were omitted: But if at length experience proves that these (remedies) do not suffice, the penitent will sometimes have to be compelled to remove the occasion, etc. But is the thesis of St. Alphonsus of which we speak this: that the confessor can and ought sometimes to intimate to the penitent the obligation of removing the occasion? Whoever abounds in leisure and patience may read these and other things of this kind, merely suitable for imposing upon readers who are accustomed to judge from the great mass of volumes.

With the context of the holy Doctor considered more diligently, another reason presents itself on account of which we may say that the holy Doctor alleged the Authors brought forward by the Salmanticenses in no. 168 not altogether beside the matter, however much their opinion is opposed to the opinion which the thesis of the holy Doctor defends. For let these words of St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 459) be considered: The first part (namely, of the thesis) is against the first opinion, which says that recidivists ought always to be absolved when they approach the Sacrament.

Let it now be omitted whether anyone in fact professed this most absurd doctrine. The VV. (p. 680) affirm that John Sanchez professes it in truth; and thus they openly make it evident that they did not read Sanchez, just as they themselves say that St. Alphonsus did not read other Authors whom he cites for the same opinion, but took the citations of them from the Salmanticenses. I said that the VV. did not read John Sanchez. For elsewhere, in the Note to no. 621, we already observed that this absurd opinion was wrongly ascribed even to John Sanchez, since he merely contends that absolution is not to be deferred for a penitent rightly disposed on account of the hope of greater fruit. Thus he says (Selected Disputations, disputation 9, no. 11): It is inferred that it will not be a most salutary counsel sometimes to deny absolution to one having a habit of sinning, however much Sayrus, Suarez,

Sanchez, Reginaldus, Toletus, Sa, and others counsel it. For if the confessor can LICITLY absolve the penitent, as they themselves admit, he will be bound to do so; for the penitent has a right that absolution not be denied to him, IF HE IS WORTHY, unless by his own consent. I certainly believe that the aforesaid authors, when they say that it will be a right counsel to deny absolution to a penitent having a habit of sinning, did not understand this absolutely, but with the penitent's consent first having been given. Yet I judge absolutely that it will never be a right counsel to deny absolution, however much the penitent may consent, supposing that it can be licitly imparted. For when it is denied, it ought to be done for this end, that the penitent may be rendered more cautious for preventing sins. Yet I do not understand that greater strength for avoiding sins will inhere in the penitent if he lacks sacramental grace and the other helps proceeding from the Sacrament than if he is clothed with it and them. And since counsel ought to concern the better good, surely I do not grasp that it is a better good for the penitent to lack the grace of the Sacrament for some time than to be clothed with it, etc. These are the words of Sanchez, which nearly return to that opinion of St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 464): It is to be hoped more that he will be corrected through the help of grace received in the Sacrament than through deferral of absolution. Therefore, the holy Doctor judged that absolution is rarely to be deferred for these persons.

But how it happened that St. Alphonsus depicted the opinion of Sanchez in such different colors, as we explained, so that he even hurled against it the condemnation of proposition 60 among those proscribed by Innocent XI, can scarcely be understood: Although no hope of correction appears, absolution is not to be denied, provided that he declares orally that he is sorry and proposes correction. Indeed, the Salmanticenses, from whom the VV. (p. 680) say that the holy Doctor transcribed these things, treat of a sinner who approaches with sorrow and a stated purpose (loc. cit., no. 169); but they had said (ibid., no. 167), if he approaches with sorrow for past things and firmly proposes correction for the future, and again (no. 168), if the penitent approaches with sorrow and a firm purpose. Such, namely, is the penitent whom Sanchez, Bonacina, Sayrus, Palaus, Suarez, etc., alleged there, require so that then he can be absolved absolutely. Yet, against this opinion of theirs, it is surely marvelous that even the VV. (p. 677) do not hesitate to object the aforesaid condemnation of proposition 60, relying, namely, upon those most wretched later additions to the Salmanticenses.

But to return to the matter, whatever may be the case concerning these miseries, it is manifest from what has been said that the holy Doctor Alphonsus wished to establish his thesis even against this opinion which he reports in the first place, whatever opinion he may at length have fashioned for himself. Moreover, since this opinion, as he himself inexactly explains it, established that recidivists ought always to be absolved whenever they approach the Sacrament, the reason is now evident why he could oppose to this opinion not only the authors whom the Salmanticenses in no. 170 allege for the opinion which the holy Doctor himself followed, but also those whom the Salmanticenses allege in no. 168, who teach, namely, that it is sometimes useful to defer absolution for these sinners. For does not Sanchez also, as we saw, have these authors, namely, Suarez, Sanchez, Bonacina, Sayrus, etc., as opposed to himself?

Let us conclude two things from this. First, to give an account of why St. Alphonsus alleged Suarez, Sanchez, Palaus, etc., for his thesis, it is not necessary to suppose a slip of the eyes or memory. For the purpose he proposed to himself of attacking the opinion of Sanchez or of others, as he had fashioned it for himself, the Authors whom the Salmanticenses reported both in no. 168 and in no. 170 certainly pertained to the matter. And since this twofold citation contributed to the purpose of the holy Doctor, the correction was consequently not most wise which the VV.

confession, and has fallen in the same manner, with no effort employed and none of the means prescribed by the confessor fulfilled, say (p. 680, in the Note) was introduced into the Mechlin editions of 1845, Regensburg of 1846, and Turin of 1847, which deleted the citation of no. 168.

But secondly, it must altogether be retained that the authors brought forward by the Salmanticenses in no. 168 likewise do not stand for the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, not insofar as he refutes the opinion of Sanchez, but insofar as he establishes his own opinion, so that they can rightly be alleged for this, as was already shown above. Let the VV. have for themselves in this matter also the support of those who prepared the editions just mentioned, since they, not considering how that citation could conduce to the purpose of the holy Doctor, therefore judged that it was to be suppressed because they knew sufficiently well that those Authors were opposed to the opinion of the holy Doctor considered in itself.

We must now come to those things which are contained in the Note (no. 3) concerning extraordinary signs of sorrow; these, however, when the explanations of the VV. are added, scarcely have any difficulty. First, the VV. (p. 682) take care to remove the odium of a new term, namely, extraordinary signs; and according to that saying of the Poet, If it is lawful to use great examples in small matters, they bring forward those things which Benedict XIV writes in the work On the Beatification of the Servants of God, book 2, chapter 28, nos. 6 and 7: namely, that a doctrine cannot be qualified as new when some new word is employed, not so that a new thing may be signified, but so that the mysteries of our faith may be explained more easily and contrary heresies refuted.

Then the same VV. (p. 653, in the Note), to show that a new doctrine does not lie beneath the new term, and at the same time to soften whatever rigidity the term extraordinary sign may bear, first observe that those signs of sorrow which the holy Doctor calls extraordinary were taken from Authors wherever they mention some sign of the disposition of penitents. St. Alphonsus, they say, gathered the extraordinary signs which are had separately in individual Doctors and set them forth jointly.

They then add: From this exposition it is at the same time evident that St. Alphonsus in admitting extraordinary signs shows himself not more rigorous but rather most mild, since these signs are of the widest latitude. For it can scarcely be thought, at least according to those things which commonly and regularly occur, that a recidivist not lacking true sorrow and a sufficient purpose would not bring forward one or another of these signs, since even a smaller number of sins, or some continence after the last confession, or fulfillment of the means prescribed by the confessor, suffices. It is therefore evident that St. Alphonsus in no way exacts extraordinary contrition, but extraordinary signs of sincere ordinary contrition; indeed, he does not even exact extraordinary signs in the strict sense, or signs rare and scarcely possible, but requires only that a penitent who has relapsed in the same manner should bring forward, beyond the accustomed confession and the customary doubtful declarations (add: if, nevertheless, he brings forth even these somehow and does not merely add to the confession, I have nothing else) of sincere sorrow and firm purpose, some solid and proven sign from which a prudent confessor can form for himself a judgment concerning his disposition.

And surely we shall have the holy Doctor altogether mild in this matter, especially if, where he exacts an extraordinary sign, he ultimately wishes to exclude only the opinion against which, as we saw above, he opposes the first part of his thesis, namely, the opinion condemned in the aforesaid proposition 60 among those proscribed by Innocent XI. And indeed this also seems to intimate that the holy Doctor, among other reasons, objects this condemned proposition against that very opinion, as he himself, as we said, apprehends it; otherwise than that most inept addition to the Salmanticenses praised by the VV., which objects the condemned Proposition even against the first opinion among the Salmanticenses and its patrons, whom indeed the holy Doctor alleges for his thesis.

Hence, indeed, it is evident that it was not without cause that it was finally added in the Note (no. 5) that the opinion of St. Alphonsus can in some manner be drawn toward the common opinion; this was afterward done more fully in the following Note, where we reported the mind of the holy Doctor. And you have things corresponding to those where he says (book 6, no. 459): As often as the penitent brings true signs of sorrow and purpose, so often can he rightly be absolved. And after bringing forward the testimonies of Sts. Jerome and Chrysostom, he proceeds: Hence the Author of the book published at Rome, whose title is Instruction for New Confessors, part 1, chapter 15, no. 356, thus says: If the relapse arises from one's own frailty, without another voluntary extrinsic cause, it is almost rashness to say that every one who relapses is indisposed. And therefore in chapter 9, no. 213, he says that a sinner who has relapsed through the force of an evil habit is to be absolved immediately if he has a firm will to employ the means for correcting himself; and he adds: And we judge that to act otherwise would be excessive rigor, and that the Confessor, by acting thus, would depart from the true spirit of the Church and of the Lord, and from the nature of the Sacrament, which is not only a judgment but a salutary medicine.

To these, moreover, add the conclusion which the holy Doctor (book 6, no. 461) deduces from the doctrine of the Roman Catechism, saying: Therefore, whenever it is not known to the Confessor that sorrow was altogether lacking to the penitent, he can absolve him; and from this, when these principles have been weighed, you will readily infer that the mind of Blessed Alphonsus can most easily be reconciled at last with the common doctrine.

Finally, as regards those things which are said in the Note (no. 6) concerning the argument which Gury uses to establish his rule, the VV. complain most bitterly (p. 692), as though they displayed a grave injury against the holy Doctor; and all the more because in the same Note (no. 4) it is premised that the theory of Juvenin and those like him savors of that principle that a recidivist cannot be absolved, since he must be judged indisposed: as though, the VV. say (p. 693), it were not a reproach when it denounces the holy Doctor as a follower of the theory of Juvenin, whose Institutions were condemned, and of Ludovicus Habert, who came to an unhappy end.

Reply. Did St. Alphonsus not often elsewhere allege Juvenin and Ludovicus Habert in support of some opinion approved by himself? Is not this very thing seen in this same paragraph, where he writes: See Juvenin, Theological Institutions, book 7, p. 408, and the Salmanticenses, etc.? Is anyone who therefore says that St. Alphonsus adopted the opinion of Juvenin to be thought to reproach the holy Doctor as a follower of Juvenin's condemned Theological Institutions? Let that be so if it were affirmed in the Note that Juvenin's Institutions were proscribed because he said that an habitual sinner, whenever he approaches confession, is never to be judged disposed for absolution. But this is not affirmed in the Note.

For the rest, the words of St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 459) are of this kind: When he himself (the penitent) has already been admonished in another confession, and has fallen in the same manner, with no effort employed and none of the means prescribed by the Confessor fulfilled, that frequent relapse furnishes a sign, or at least gives a prudent suspicion, that his repentance is not true. And Gury, after St. Alphonsus, adds the reason: For one who firmly proposes to avoid sin does not so easily forget his purpose, but perseveres at least for some time and falls with greater difficulty or less frequently; these are in fact the words of De Lugo (disputation 14, no. 160), and the words of De Lugo are brought forward there by St. Alphonsus.

But there is no small difference between the opinion of De Lugo and the opinion of St. Alphonsus. First, De Lugo disputes about one who is situated in a proximate occasion of sinning; St. Alphonsus and Gury do not. Then De Lugo (ibid., no. 156) speaks of one who, having been absolved more frequently, always relapses in the same manner; but St. Alphonsus speaks of one who has once been admonished and absolved. Moreover, De Lugo (ibid., no. 160) says that a suspicion of this kind can SOMETIMES have place per accidens, just as Sporer (On Penance, no. 330) and Laymann (On Penance, chapter 5, no. 10) say that this can happen AT TIMES; but St. Alphonsus hands it down as a general norm never to be omitted in judging recidivists.

And indeed, to establish his opinion, St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) brings forward the words of Isidore: He worthily performs penance who so bewails past evils that he does not commit future ones again; from whom the holy Doctor copied these words here does not appear. For Faure (Theological Doubts, doubt 3, section 4) shrewdly warns that the moderns copied this and other propositions of this kind from the impious Arnauld, and he shows that the ancient Doctors had formerly objected these propositions to themselves and explained them. And surely Peter Lombard (book 4, distinction 14) had thus replied to this objection: The aforesaid words, To repent is to bewail what was done before and not to commit things to be bewailed, can rightly be taken thus: that they are referred not to different times but to the same time; namely, that at the time when he bewails the evils committed, he does not by his will commit deeds to be bewailed. St. Raymond also has things corresponding to these (book 4, distinction 14).

And after Raymond, St. Thomas employed the same reply thus (III, question 84, article 10, reply to objection 4): It must be said that to repent is to bewail what was done before and not to commit things to be bewailed, namely, while one weeps, either in act or in purpose. For he is a mocker and not a penitent who, at the same time as he repents, does that of which he repents, or proposes that he will again do what he has done, or even actually sins in the same or another kind of sin. But that someone afterward sins either in act or in purpose does not exclude that his repentance was previously true. For the truth of a prior act is never excluded by a subsequent contrary act. For just as one who afterward sits truly ran, so one who afterward sins truly repented.

And in these things you have the reason why it was said in the Note that the rule of judgment proposed by Gury after St. Alphonsus is not free from a logical fault. A relapse, St. Alphonsus says, furnishes a sign, or at least gives a prudent suspicion, that his repentance is not true.

If the holy Doctor had said, that his repentance was not true, namely, in the preceding confession, even thus that saying of St. Thomas would meet him: One who afterward sins truly repented. For, as he says elsewhere (On IV Sentences, distinction 14, question 1, article 4, minor question 2), however much efficacy some virtue may have, it does not remove flexibility from free choice while one is in the state of the way. Likewise, that which is future cannot belong to the substance or integrity of any virtue except insofar as it is present in apprehension or in the will, because virtue as regards the habit does not await something in the future.... Hence, since penance is a virtue, and insofar as it is a Sacrament does not extend beyond the act of virtue, future continuation will not belong to the essential integrity of penance except insofar as it is in the purpose; and therefore repentance can be true, and nevertheless someone can afterward fall away from it. To this indeed pertains what St. Alphonsus also has (book 6, no. 459): De Lugo, disputation 14, no. 166, teaches well with Suarez, Sanchez, Reginaldus, Henriquez, and others commonly, that sufficient disposition is present sorrow and purpose, not future correction; and thus the penitent can be absolved even though he is judged likely to relapse.

But if the inference from a relapse into sins does not hold for excluding true preceding repentance, then a fortiori a relapse furnishes no argument for judging the present disposition of one who now approaches.

Hence St. Alphonsus afterward also tempers his aforesaid opinion thus (loc. cit.): Although a relapse furnishes some suspicion, it nevertheless does not exhibit a certain sign of indisposition; for it can well happen that the penitent truly had a firm will not to relapse and yet relapsed through the force of a depraved habit. These words surely import that the holy Doctor intimates that, from true preceding repentance, it can be argued that disposition is not lacking in the present either. And in fact, as the holy Doctor himself had premised, on the one hand the penitent is not to be presumed evil, so that he would wish to approach the Sacrament indisposed; on the other hand, he is presumed disposed while he confesses his sins, since spontaneous confession itself is a sign of contrition, unless some positive presumption to the contrary stands in the way, namely, as he adds (ibid., no. 460), unless it appears that the penitent approaches confession merely from the obligation of the paschal precept, or impelled by parents, a tutor, a master, etc. But if relapse in the same manner furnishes some suspicion of indisposition, namely, of a will not so firm and efficacious for employing remedies, nevertheless, as the holy Doctor himself adds (ibid., no. 459), whenever the penitent brings extraordinary signs of sorrow, that suspicion of indisposition is removed by them; and then the Confessor will be able prudently to judge that his penitent is sufficiently disposed. Moreover, since those sufficient signs of disposition which the holy Doctor calls extraordinary, if perhaps they are lacking when the preceding habit of life is considered, can, according to the teaching of St. Alphonsus himself, appear in and from the confession itself, as is handed down in the following Note, it again becomes clear how the opinion of St. Alphonsus can be reconciled with the common doctrine of others, however harsh the things which he had premised may appear. Yet those things will not appear harsh if the suspicion which a relapse repeated more frequently into the same sins without any correction casts upon him moves the Confessor, not indeed to decide a priori that the penitent is indisposed and to be dismissed without absolution, but to inquire more accurately, according to his office, into the penitent's present disposition.

637. Rule VI. - A doubtfully disposed recidivist is to have absolution deferred for some time, until a prudent sign of disposition appears. - St. Ligorius, Practice of the Confessor, nos. 71 and 72; Apostolic Man, last treatise, nos. 9 and 10 ⁸.

⁸ That, except in a case of necessity, a doubtfully disposed penitent cannot licitly be absolved, namely, one whom no prudent reason persuades to be sufficiently disposed to receive grace in the Sacrament, ought to be beyond controversy. And from this is to be sought the reason why Theologians sometimes admonish that one should act thus with those recidivists who display either no indication, or certainly an ambiguous indication, of a good will, so that a not imprudent suspicion arises that they may here and now lack the suitable dispositions. But it is one thing that a penitent in that condition cannot be absolved, and another that he ought to be dismissed to be absolved at another time; as though either that delay had the power of procuring disposition, or patience in returning were a more certain indication of a better disposition in the penitent, or, on the contrary, it were not more expedient, indeed the office of the Confessor, then to employ every care so that, as far as it can be done with the grace of God, he may dispose the penitent to receive rightly the benefit of absolution.

Would that the words with which His Holiness Pope Leo XII, in announcing the Jubilee to the whole world (Constitution Charitate Christi, December 25, 1825, section 5), admonished Confessors were fixed in the minds of all priests: Many indeed (he says) present themselves altogether unprepared to the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance, but very often they are of such a kind that from unprepared they can be made prepared, provided that the priest, clothed with the bowels of the mercy of Christ Jesus, who came not to call the just but sinners, knows how to deal with them diligently, patiently, and gently. But that those, and those alone, are here called unprepared who lack an essential disposition is evident from what follows: For those alone are to be judged unprepared, not those who have committed even the gravest crimes, or who have been absent from confession even for very many years,

for the mercy of the Lord is without number and the treasure of his goodness is infinite; nor those who, being uncultivated in condition or slow in understanding, have not sufficiently examined themselves, since by almost no diligence of their own would they accomplish this without the assistance of the priest himself; but those who, after the necessary diligence has been employed by him in questioning them, yet not so as to burden them beyond measure, and after every effort of charity has been exhausted in exciting them to detestation of their sins..., are nevertheless prudently judged to lack the sense of sorrow and repentance by which they may at least be disposed to obtain the grace of God in the Sacrament (these are the words of the Council of Trent concerning attrition). From these things it is evident that even those who not merely are doubtfully disposed but manifestly approach indisposed can be absolved, since the patience, gentleness, and industrious charity of the priest can then and there obtain this: that from unprepared they become prepared, and that the Confessor can prudently judge this.

Therefore, the Supreme Pontiff further does not omit to censure those who, rather than undertake this care so that with solicitous charity they may reconcile sinners to God, enter upon an easy way of freeing themselves from this burden by sending penitents away to be absolved at another time. Therefore, after he indicated who are to be judged incapable of the benefit of absolution, such (he says) are those who give NO signs of sorrow, who are unwilling to lay aside hatreds and enmities, or to restore the goods of others if they can, or to abandon the proximate occasion of sinning, or in some other manner to forsake sins and amend their life for the better; or those who have given public scandal, unless they make public satisfaction and remove the scandal; he immediately gravely warns how far the conduct of those who, as soon as they hear some graver sin or perceive someone infected with a manifold kind of sins, at once declare that they cannot absolve, departs from the manner of an experienced physician who likewise pours wine and oil into the wounds of the injured man. They refuse to heal those very persons (the Supreme Pontiff proceeds) for whose care they were especially appointed by him who says: Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are ill. Wherefore he deservedly declares that a priest of this kind is more indisposed to hear confessions than a sinner approaches confession unprepared: But if he (the priest) neglects to perform this, surely he is no more to be called prepared to hear than the others are to approach confession.

From these things this also is gathered: it is not to be feared that a sufficient sign of disposition cannot be had even if no delay of absolution is employed, which otherwise is very often a fallacious test of disposition. St. Alphonsus also warned of this very thing (book 6, no. 459), where he writes: Nor is it true that a test of time alone is the sole sign of a changed will; for a change of will depends upon divine grace, which does not need time but operates in an instant, and therefore can be manifested not only through a trial of time but also through certain other signs. Indeed, sometimes other signs of present disposition manifest a change of will much better than experience of time; for those signs directly indicate the disposition of the penitent, but experience only indirectly: so much so that it can NOT RARELY happen that someone restrains himself from vices even for a long time for the respectability of this world (for example, that he may obtain absolution or be admitted to paschal Communion) ..., and nevertheless is not rightly disposed. Therefore, as often as the penitent brings true signs of sorrow and purpose, so often can he rightly be absolved. As regards these words, take care to observe that there are indeed some sins into which one falls from affection and with an affection tenaciously adhering to some unlawful object, for example, when from hatred and a desire for revenge someone detracts from his neighbor, wishes or even inflicts evils upon him, or when one ruinously coveting riches pursues unlawful gains, or desperately loves some woman with whom he has an adulterous relationship, etc.; and with these surely a discourse about a change of will fittingly occurs, since it ought to detest what it ardently loved.

But in many other sins, even if they are perpetrated from a certain habit, you would wrongly seek this affection toward the object of sin, as, for example, very often happens in sins of the tongue and frequently also in impurity. Hence it happens that a man indeed relapses again and again, yet not as though giving himself wholly to sin, but rather overcome by a certain sloth and frailty, at the same time accusing himself and soon repenting of the deed, now struggling against the vice, now succumbing to it through weakness, and always bearing the yoke of the vice in some manner unwillingly. Moreover, with one of this kind, as is evident, the matter concerns a will not so much to be changed as to be strengthened, so that he may become accustomed to watch more attentively if sins of the tongue are at issue, to resist more strongly if other vices are at issue, and to use suitable safeguards more diligently.

For the rest, since St. Alphonsus, when he requires extraordinary signs of disposition, appears finally to understand nothing other than what he has in the cited text, namely, some true sign of sorrow and purpose, so that he thinks one lacking some extraordinary sign (Practice of the Confessor, no. 71) to be designated in proposition 60 condemned by Innocent XI as one who merely declares orally that he is sorry and proposes correction, he will not with difficulty be reconciled in this respect with the common opinion of the Doctors and with the practice which the Supreme Pontiff and teacher of teachers, Leo XII, commends in the cited Constitution. For no one of the Doctors taught that one should be absolved who, as the Pontiff says, is prudently judged to lack the sense of sorrow and repentance by which he may be disposed to obtain grace in the Sacrament. Nor, again, does St. Alphonsus, as is evident from the cited text, contend that a delay of absolution is necessary so that the disposition even of a recidivist may either become sufficiently known if at first it appears doubtful, or may even be acquired if perhaps it appears altogether lacking to the penitent as he approaches. Indeed (loc. cit., no. 460), among the signs which he himself calls extraordinary, he also enumerates this: If the penitent, at the admonition of the Confessor, signifies that he has attained a new knowledge of his iniquity or of the danger of his damnation.

The method by which this end can be attained without the trial of deferred absolution, and at the same time the practice commended by the Supreme Pontiff Leo XII retained, you have set forth as clearly as briefly by Philip Mary Salvatori in the opuscule published several times at Rome with the title Practical Instruction for New Confessors; concerning this, however, see what we noted above at no. 519, p. 405. He deservedly affirms that, just as this method cannot be observed without labor, so it cannot be omitted by the Confessor without fault where it is needed; and the things which we brought forward above from the Constitution of Leo XII confirm this. Thus, as that pious and learned Author, most practiced in the ministry of hearing the confessions of men of this kind, observes (part 2, section 1), even if the penitent, either at first encounter or even during confession, furnishes no other indication among those which others have called extraordinary by which the Confessor may judge sufficiently concerning his disposition, nevertheless, when the confession has been completed not without the suitable assistance of a patient and gentle priest, if the latter undertakes efficaciously to place before the eyes of the penitent the gravity, deformity, and baseness of his sins and vices; then the most evil effects of sins, the harms, the detriment to the soul, the danger to eternal salvation, and the treasure of wrath accumulated by a disordered life, as well as the vain hope of consulting for himself when the hour of death is already at hand and the judgment of God is imminent; and then also if he suggests an easy way by which he can both meet these evils and enter upon the right way of salvation; if, moreover, he adds to these things that every penitent must seriously weigh that sacramental absolution obtains an effect corresponding to the dispositions of those confessing, and accordingly, just as it looses and cleanses one who sincerely repents, so it binds more tightly those who lack the sense of true repentance and heaps sacrilege upon their other sins; if, I say, the Confessor proposes all these and other things of this kind, and does so not with the zeal of one indignant but rather with the great charity of one who has compassion and solicitously desires the salvation of penitents, the praised Author deservedly concludes that it cannot happen that the penitent does not exhibit some sufficient sign of his mind. Therefore, to one who affirms that he acts sincerely and that he wishes to perform those things which the Confessor requires, the Confessor can with a safe conscience impart absolution, even if the penitent has previously given no other sign of his conversion.

The reason is that, since in these circumstances that testimony of the penitent cannot reasonably be attributed either to ignorance or to fraud, that which is like an axiom among all Theologians now avails: the penitent is to be believed both for himself and against himself. I said, not from fraud, because in the present case deceit has no end or cause, since it would merely turn to the destruction of the liar. Hence the distinction which St. Thomas notes between one speaking in confession about himself and about others (Opuscule 7, otherwise 12, question 6): In confession, the sinner confessing is to be believed both for himself and against himself; but he is in no way to be believed against another; otherwise an occasion of feigned confession and fraudulent defamation would be given to many. But, on the contrary, when the penitent speaks about himself, the holy Doctor thus intimates the reason (On IV Sentences, distinction 17, question 3, article 3, minor question 5, reply to objection 2): As regards this knowledge (namely, through the manifestation of confession), the priest cannot receive greater certainty than by believing the subject, BECAUSE THIS IS FOR THE RELIEF OF HIS OWN CONSCIENCE; hence in the forum of confession a man is believed both for himself and against himself.

And diligently observe those most weighty words of the holy Doctor: He cannot receive greater certainty than by believing the subject. And surely, does not the fact that Confessors with a safe conscience absolve penitents as though they had confessed integrally rest upon this one canon, although experience teaches that those who sacrilegiously conceal sins approach not infrequently? And even if someone wishes to follow the theory of extraordinary signs, can these not also be simulated? Indeed, is not the complaint frequent that Confessors are very often deceived by an appearance of piety and devotion fabricated by some for other ends? And yet who would for that reason rightly reproach Confessors? Or who will require Confessors, in order to guard against deceptions, to have faith in no one even when no prudent reason for denying faith is present? Would not the economy by which, according to the testimony of St. Thomas with all Theologians, the whole administration of this Sacrament is governed thus be overturned from its foundation?

Hence the Supreme Pontiff Leo XII, while commending the aforesaid practice in the cited Constitution, does not omit to censure those morose Confessors to whom (as he says) scarcely any signification of sorrow and purpose seems sufficient for them to think that they can absolve; and they think that they have at last adopted a safe counsel if they send men away to be absolved at another time.

Nor is St. Alphonsus to be said to dissent from these things or to require anything more; from him it will be useful to copy these words (book 6, no. 461): As regards our proposition, it suffices that the Confessor have a prudent probability concerning the disposition of the penitent and that, on the other hand, no prudent suspicion of indisposition stands in the way; otherwise scarcely anyone could be absolved, since whatever signs penitents give furnish only a probability of disposition, as Suarez rightly teaches, On Penance, disputation 32, section 2, no. 1, where he says that it is necessary and sufficient that the Confessor prudently and probably judge that the penitent is disposed. And this seems sufficiently expressed in the Roman Catechism, On Penance, no. 60, where it is said: If, after hearing the confession, the priest judges that neither diligence in enumerating the sins nor sorrow in detesting them was altogether lacking to the penitent, he can be absolved. Therefore, whenever it is not positively known to the Confessor that sorrow was altogether lacking to the penitent, he can absolve him. Hence the Author cited above, Instruction for New Confessors (namely, Giordanini), part 1, chapter 15, no. 360, speaks thus with Esparza: Whence we finally establish here the conclusion which is the key of this whole matter: nothing else is required for administering penance than a prudent probable judgment concerning the disposition of the penitent. Hence, if the circumstances do not found a prudent doubt that he is not sufficiently disposed, the Confessor ought not trouble himself or the penitent to have evidence of it, which is impossible. And to this conduces the text in chapter A nobis 2, On the Sentence of Excommunication, where it is said: The judgment of the Church sometimes follows an opinion which can both deceive and be deceived. Thus far St. Alphonsus.

Some are accustomed to be moved by this: that the facility of absolving which is introduced through this practice may produce a facility of relapsing into the same sins. To this objection a reply could indeed be made with the praised Salvatori (loc. cit.), whose words are these: I reply first: I too had heard it said thus and in speculation believed it, but practice undeceived me. I have not yet found one person of ruined life who cast himself headlong into wickedness because of ease found in Confessors; but I have found many who did so because of excessive harshness and difficulty in absolving. But then it must be altogether denied that there is a facility of absolving and a consequent facility of relapse when the Confessor, rather than freeing himself in a convenient manner by saying that he cannot absolve, whereby the penitent departs in the same and perhaps a worse state, as being indignant against both the priest and the Sacrament, undertakes immense labor himself and brings it about that the penitent is then absolved when, exhibiting sufficient signs of sincere and serious repentance, he furnishes a prudent hope that sacramental absolution will be salutary for him.

For the rest, it is not excluded by these things that absolution can sometimes be deferred, where the matter requires it, according to those things which we already noted above (at no. 621). Yet as regards this also, that which the Supreme Pontiff Leo XII warns in the cited Constitution is to be kept before the eyes: With whatever mind those who approach the Sacrament of Penance may come, nothing is more to be guarded against by him (the Confessor) than that anyone... depart hostile to the Sacrament of reconciliation.... Wherefore, if there is a just cause why absolution is to be deferred, let him persuade those confessing in words as humane as he can that both his office and duty and their own salvation altogether require this, and let him most gently allure them to return as soon as possible, so that, when those things which were salutarily prescribed have been faithfully performed, they may be loosed from the bonds of sins and refreshed by the sweetness of heavenly grace. And surely, whoever has any experience in receiving confessions will confess that what the praised Salvatori affirmed (loc. cit.) is most true; it is better to report it in his own words: And here I cannot refrain from saying something which, every time I remember it, makes my spirit shudder. Among the very many whom I encountered while hearing confessions in hospitals, or who had altogether withdrawn for many years from confession, or had made them incomplete and sacrilegious for many years,

I found in the greater part (and other Confessors told me they had observed the same) that the origin of this arose from the bad reception encountered with some Confessor.

** It has seemed proper here to satisfy certain doubts which the distinguished priest Aemilius Berardi raised concerning the things said above about Recidivists in the opuscule On Recidivists, Faenza, 1873.

1. The distinguished Berardi writes (pp. 6-7): Ballerini, Frassinetti, and Gury said some things pertinent to the matter so that they might open an easier way. But... concerning recidivists they do not determine the new facilities sufficiently openly, clearly, and precisely.

Reply. Setting aside for now the cause both of Frassinetti and of Gury, especially since the latter in this Compendium followed St. Alphonsus almost exactly as regards Recidivists, I would confidently say that it was never my intention to bring forward new facilities of this kind, both because I never held anything more important than to follow the well-worn ways of approved Doctors, and because, after the most exact studies of so many Doctors, it will indeed seem sufficiently difficult to bring forward anything new. But if anything in these Notes seemed new to some, you may say that this occurred per accidens, insofar as something was again brought to light from the most abundant treasury of our teachers which could seem new to some, especially after, from the past century, even in our Italy, many schools had been invaded by the works and doctrines, for example, of Gennetti, Witasse, Merbesius, Collet, Juvenin, Ludovicus Habert, Antoine, and others of this flour. To remedy these evils also, indeed especially, divine providence raised up Blessed Doctor Alphonsus.

2. The distinguished Berardi adds (p. 7): But what he (Ballerini) thinks concerning the benign opinion, which indeed concedes that recidivists can be absolved several times but afterward obliges absolution to be deferred for them unless they furnish some extraordinary sign, he does not declare sufficiently openly. On the one hand, he seems to exclude even then the obligation of deferring absolution, to deny the necessity of any extraordinary sign, and to reject the theory of extraordinary signs.... On the other hand, it seems altogether that he requires some extraordinary sign, namely, insofar as the penitent displays more manifest sorrow on account of a certain special admonition of the Confessor.

Reply. Ballerini thinks that which all think, or at least ought to think, namely: 1. that one who is not disposed cannot be absolved, and that one who appears disposed can be absolved; 2. that it is the office of the Confessor to discern whether or not the penitent brings disposition, that is, as the Council of Trent says, sorrow of mind and detestation of the sin committed with the purpose of not sinning for the future; this office is necessary both if the penitent is habitual and a recidivist and if he is not such; 3. that it is to be gathered from the circumstances in what manner the Confessor may become sufficiently certain concerning this disposition. For sometimes this disposition appears sufficiently from the character and state of the penitent or other circumstances; sometimes the Confessor will remain uncertain about it; sometimes he will discover that it is altogether lacking. In the first case, there is no reason why the Confessor should be further solicitous; in the second, he will employ means to dispel the doubt; in the third, he will undertake the care of rendering the indisposed penitent disposed, if it can be done, with divine grace.

But that some, for the sake of a certain clarity, have distinguished the indications from which disposition is inferred into ordinary and extraordinary, or into common and special, let it be so, provided that they propose the matter sufficiently clearly; for Gury, for example, Gury calls certain signs ordinary which St. Alphonsus judges extraordinary; and again, that which is ordinary in Peter will seem extraordinary in John; indeed, according to the diverse judgment of Confessors, that will happen to be extraordinary for one which will not even be approved as ordinary by another. The Constitution of Leo XII, concerning which above in the Note, censures morose Confessors of this kind. For the rest, the substance of the matter resides in this: that the Confessor, from wherever he finally draws the arguments for judgment, form that prudent judgment concerning the disposition of the penitent which St. Alphonsus also, as we intimated in this and the preceding Note, judged sufficient for absolving rightly. Whether these arguments or indications of disposition are to be called ordinary or extraordinary according to the theories of some may seem a question of lesser moment.

3. The distinguished Berardi asks (p. 8): What if, either on account of a defect of fervor in this admonition (of the Confessor), or however fervent it may be, the penitent never furnishes any special sign? Can he nevertheless always be absolved, or is there then a true obligation to dismiss him without absolution? What Ballerini thought is not sufficiently clear.

Reply. The solution of this doubt is easily gathered both from the text of Gury and from the appended Notes; namely, whenever the sufficient disposition of the penitent cannot be established, the norm which the most common doctrine hands down as to be observed with a doubtfully disposed penitent is at hand.

4. The distinguished Berardi adds (p. 29): All say, or manifestly suppose, that the Confessor not merely can by counsel, but is bound to defer absolution for recidivists unless they furnish some extraordinary sign. Therefore, the opinion of Ballerini does not seem accurate when he writes: You will find only the Salmanticenses who hand down as more probable that then it will be not only a salutary counsel to defer absolution, but the Confessor will be bound to it.

And on the same matter the distinguished man writes (p. 43): Father Ballerini makes another objection as follows: Ten theologians, that is, De Lugo, Sayrus, Bonacina, Toletus, etc., establish no obligation of deferring absolution for recidivists; indeed, they openly suppose that they can always be absolved. Then, after many things, he concludes (p. 48): Therefore, for manifold reason this objection of Father Ballerini also seems to fall.

And concerning the same matter the distinguished man had already premised (p. 10): Ballerini says that, if you except the Salmanticenses alone..., the other earlier theologians expressly affirm or manifestly suppose that the penitent can be absolved, and they propose the delay of absolution as merely useful, and therefore as to be admitted only from salutary counsel and only sometimes.

Reply. Those ten theologians are not brought forward by Ballerini against the practice of deferring absolution for recidivists who lack an extraordinary sign of sorrow, and much less to prove that recidivists of this kind can always be absolved. And, to speak plainly, it is somewhat difficult to understand how the distinguished Berardi or anyone else could persuade himself that this monstrosity of doctrine was handed down or defended by us. Indeed, according to them, if a recidivist bringing no extraordinary sign is not to be held as positively indisposed, he is at least to be judged one concerning whom it is not established whether he is disposed. But what reason do they bring forward that they do not hesitate to affirm that, according to the opinion of Ballerini, a recidivist concerning whom it is in no way established whether he is disposed can always be absolved? Indeed, who among theologians ever brought forward this prodigy of opinion? For we know indeed that this opinion was attributed to John Sanchez; but it was observed in the preceding Note that this was done erroneously, not to say through mere calumny.

For the rest, the purpose for which those ten theologians were brought forward is manifestly evident from the scope of that Note (Note to no. 621). There the discourse is expressly about a penitent rightly disposed; that the remedy of deferred absolution can usefully be employed with him so that he may be impelled to correct a depraved habit is confirmed by the authority of those ten theologians. Indeed, that the testimonies of the Doctors alleged there concern a rightly disposed penitent is proved there from the fact that they call the delay of absolution merely useful, not necessary. But that those Doctors, as the Note says in such express words, discuss A DISPOSED PENITENT is manifest from this: that they suggest a delay of absolution not as necessary but as merely useful, and from mere counsel, and as to be employed only sometimes. These words surely indicate sufficiently of themselves that according to us also a delay of absolution is necessary whenever the penitent is found less disposed or his disposition is not sufficiently established. But because the phrase extraordinary signs is not employed there to indicate a rightly disposed penitent, let the distinguished Berardi pardon us. First, this was not the place; second, let whoever wishes hold this phrase as necessary, so far as we are concerned. But let indulgence in turn be granted us, so that, since this manner of speaking did not seem necessary for so many centuries, no one be bound by this new theological law, much less understood wrongly if he uses another manner of speaking in accordance with the received custom of theologians.

5. Here perhaps the distinguished Berardi will observe that these ten theologians are brought into the discussion also in the Note immediately preceding this one, where the discourse concerns Recidivists.

Reply. This is most true. But at the same time it is true that those Doctors are alleged there, not indeed so that their opinion may be expounded concerning the manner of acting with recidivists or of judging their disposition, but only so that it may be shown that the holy Doctor Alphonsus alleged less pertinently these Doctors and those passages of theirs which had been brought forward by us in the Note to no. 621. Therefore, when the distinguished Berardi says, Ballerini says that, if you except the Salmanticenses alone..., the other earlier theologians expressly affirm or manifestly suppose that the penitent can be absolved, etc., this indeed expresses the sense which he seemed to himself able to attribute to Ballerini, but not the sense which either the words or the context of Ballerini's Notes bear.

Likewise, it is true, as the distinguished man has it, that when the contexts of the Notes are compared, the praised Doctors appear as opposed to the Salmanticenses. Indeed, because of the evidence of the fact, the matter could not be otherwise; for the Salmanticenses themselves (treatise 17, chapter 2, no. 170) openly profess that they depart from the opinion of those Doctors, which otherwise they call probable. Nevertheless, lest a sense less consonant with the truth be affixed to this opposition, the purpose on account of which mention is made in the preceding Note both of the aforesaid Doctors (no. 1) and of the Salmanticenses (no. 3) must be kept before the eyes. Namely, just as the sole end of bringing those Doctors upon the scene (no. 1) was to show that the opinion of the holy Doctor Alphonsus was one thing, but that of those Doctors whose allegations he himself indicated that he had taken from no. 168 of the cited passage of the Salmanticenses was another, so also the reason for discussing the Salmanticenses (no. 3) was that it might become manifest that the opinion of the holy Doctor differed also from the judgments of the Salmanticenses, from whom nevertheless he seems to have drawn his opinion. Moreover, from the fact that there seems to be exhibited there a different cause on account of which the doctrine of St. Alphonsus differs now from that of the praised Doctors and now from the opinion of the Salmanticenses, it surely does not follow that the reason for the opposition between those Doctors and the Salmanticenses is that which the distinguished man assigns. Indeed, there was no concern in the Note to add anything more about the question as the Salmanticenses treat it, since it in no way pertained to the purpose of the Note. But if it is examined, there will appear without difficulty both another reason for the aforesaid opposition and also the reason why the opinion of the Salmanticenses can be called altogether singular.

They namely institute the question (loc. cit., no. 167) concerning one who has the habit of perjuring or blaspheming, who approaches confession with sorrow for past things and FIRMLY PROPOSES correction for the future. Then (no. 168) they bring forward the first opinion, which is probable to them, that although it is a salutary counsel to defer absolution when such a delay is believed likely to profit, yet if the penitent approaches with sorrow and a FIRM PURPOSE, the Confessor can absolve him. In bringing forward the second opinion they add that the penitent not only can but ought to be absolved if he approaches with sorrow and the AFORESAID PURPOSE..., unless from some circumstance he judges that he does not have true sorrow.

But do not these things display that state of the penitent which, as we have seen, St. Alphonsus also judged sufficient so that he can be absolved? Does not the allegation of Suarez, Sanchez, Palaus, etc., who are brought forward as judging that the penitent is sufficiently disposed so that he can be absolved, confirm this very thing? Does not the allegation of the second opinion also persuade this, where John Sanchez is brought forward as contending against the authors of the first opinion that absolution is never to be deferred, because the grace of the Sacrament profits more than a delay of absolution? Finally, do not the Salmanticenses themselves concede that this penitent can be absolved if some extrinsic reason seems to require it? Therefore, the opposition between the Salmanticenses and the Authors from whom they depart is not to be understood in such a sense as though the latter were judged to have thought that even a penitent whose sufficient disposition is not established can be absolved. Rather, when the whole context is considered, it is easy to conclude that the Salmanticenses declined somewhat toward a doctrine more severe than even that of St. Alphonsus himself, insofar as they required singular signs of sorrow where the penitent could already be recognized as sufficiently disposed. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that certain elements are mingled there, which is not new in this work, and these leave complete coherence in that accumulation of matters to be desired.

For the rest, the greater good of the penitent must always be considered; thus very well St. Ligorius, no. 459. Concina (chapter 10, no. 24) says: That you may avoid the sin of erring, if you see that by two or three absolutions you can cure the sick person, be rich in mercy. The correction of the sinner is a safer norm than all rules for either imparting or denying absolution.

638. Questions. - QUESTION 1. When is a habit judged to have been contracted?

Reply 1. This cannot be determined by a general rule, because some contract a greater facility toward a certain sin by a few acts, for example, three or four, than others do by committing it more frequently; hence neither is one who has sinned many times in a certain kind always to be held habitual, nor is one who has begun to sin three or four times always to be held non-habitual. Reply 2. Generally speaking, a sin repeated more frequently in a short time more easily induces a habit of it than if it were repeated the same number of times over a longer interval of time. - St. Ligorius, Practice of the Confessor, no. 70.

639. • QUESTION 2. What are the extraordinary signs of sorrow?

Reply. The following are commonly listed: 1. if the penitent has employed a much greater effort than before to correct himself, or if he has been notably corrected; a fortiori, if he has now wholly changed his life for the better; 2. if he confesses with great shame a sin long concealed; 3. if he has used more diligently the remedies prescribed by the Confessor;

4. if he has undertaken a long journey in order to make confession properly; 5. if he urgently requests to make a general confession or wishes to repeat the greater part of the sins of his past life; 6. if he was induced to confess by an extraordinary motive, namely, by a sermon heard, the death of some friend, etc.; 7. if he confesses with great humility and with words redolent of compunction of heart, at least ordinarily; 8. if he spontaneously asserts that he wishes altogether to avoid sin despite every inconvenience; a fortiori, if he says that he would rather die than sin; 9. if he gives forth sighs or groans, or sheds tears, at least ordinarily; 10. not rarely even spontaneous confession can be held as an extraordinary sign of sorrow, especially in those young men and men who must overcome themselves and human fear in order to approach confession.

640. • QUESTION 3. Can absolution be denied to an habitual sinner who refuses to confess several times in the year?

Reply. No, per se, if he appears sufficiently disposed from another source; because there is no precept of confessing several times in the year, and there are other means which can be enjoined for conquering the habit. Such persons are rather to be induced gently and firmly to approach more frequently, for example, on the feast of Pentecost, of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the Nativity of the Lord, etc.

QUESTION 4. What is to be done with those who confess immediately before contracting matrimony and who hitherto have been addicted to a depraved habit?

Reply 1. If they have been accustomed to sin with each other, they can be absolved more easily; for the occasion will cease through matrimony.

Reply 2. The difficulty is greater if the depraved habit arises from another source; nevertheless, it is more expedient to absolve such persons, at least conditionally, than to dismiss them unabsolved, unless their indisposition is certainly established ⁹.

⁹ A question of this kind and the solution added savor of the theory which not even the Author himself approves, namely, of those who define every habitual sinner a priori as indisposed and incapable of absolution. Those things which the Author premised above (from no. 633) also conflict with this theory. The certain doctrine of the Catholic schools is that any penitent, whether habitual or not, cannot be absolved if he does not appear disposed, but can be absolved if he furnishes sufficient indications of true repentance. And since in the case a delay of absolution induces grave inconvenience, when he appears sufficiently disposed he not only can but ought to be absolved without delay.

537. (A) Notion. A person with a sinful habit, or habituated in sin, is called one who has contracted an internal facility of committing the same sin from acts often repeated.¹ Therefore a sinful custom or habit is distinguished from an occasion of sinning, in that the latter is extrinsic to the sinner himself, while the former is internal; nevertheless it is often connected with an occasion, insofar as not rarely it arises from this or at least is much increased by it.

¹ Concerning habits in general and their influence on the will, it is spoken in Fundamental Moral Theology; meanwhile see, if you wish, besides the classical authors, Vieux moraliste ap. Ami du Clergé, XXI, 1899, pp. 529, 593, 673 sq.

How many acts suffice for contracting a depraved habit cannot be determined absolutely. For this depends on the character of the one sinning, namely his greater or lesser fragility; on the nature of the sin, since in certain matters, for example, in the matter of chastity, depraved habits are acquired more easily and more promptly; on the manner in which the sin is committed, with greater or lesser adhesion of the will; and also on the longer or shorter time which has intervened between the various acts: thus one who sins several times on the same day, and afterward abstains from the same sins for a long time, does not so easily contract a habit as one who regularly commits the same sins once or twice daily, or each week. - Let the confessor attend especially to this: the more easily some sin is committed, the more acts are required to constitute a habit; thus more acts are required for internal sins, which are more easily completed than external ones, more for those which are perpetrated alone than for those which require an accomplice. Hence, according to St. Alphonsus,² to commit an external sin five times in a month, provided some interval intervenes between the various acts, suffices for contracting a habit; while, if there is question of internal sins, a much greater number is required; but if there is question of external sins which can be perpetrated only with an accomplice, a smaller number is required; for example, one who fornicates once a month for a year can be called habituated.

² Praxis Confess., n. 70.

Again, one must distinguish between a habit contracted deliberately, with perfect choice of the will, and a habit formed from mere fragility: in the former case, as often happens for habits of theft and hatred, those with sinful habits generally sin because of a habitual perversity of the will, and therefore they repent with more difficulty; in the latter case, for example, if there is question of sins of the flesh, intemperance, or anger, they offend because of the vehement impulse of passion, and when this has passed, they more easily abhor their sin.

538. (B) Principle: Those with sinful habits can be absolved as often as they exhibit themselves truly and sincerely disposed to employ those means which are necessary for conquering the habit. It is certain.

For a depraved habit of itself is not a sign of indisposition, but only renders relapse more probable; now, if someone retracts the habit and sincerely wishes to employ the means for conquering the habit, by that very fact he shows that he is well disposed, and therefore he can be absolved; moreover, by employing the prescribed means, he will lessen and gradually extinguish the force of the habit: for custom is conquered by contrary custom.

But the means to be suggested are general, such as prayer, meditation, remembrance of the presence of God, flight from the occasion if the habit arises from an occasion, frequent reception of the sacraments, etc.; or particular, namely those which are opposed to the depraved habit, for example, mortification of the senses for conquering impurity, abstinence from intoxicating drink for overcoming intemperance, as is explained elsewhere in the Treatise on Sins and on Virtues.

539. Corollaries. (a) One with a sinful habit, who for the first time confesses the depraved habit, regularly ought to be absolved, although no amendment has preceded, provided he seriously promises to use the means necessary for eradicating the habit. For since he has not violated promises, and is supposed sincere, he can and ought to be believed. - Yet it is said regularly, because if the habit is very rooted and has been contracted deliberately, sometimes it is expedient to defer absolution for a short time, so that the penitent may conceive a more vivid horror of sin and more strenuously employ the prescribed means.

(b) One with a sinful habit, who had already rather often confessed the depraved habit, but had not been warned about the remedies to be employed, can be absolved if, better instructed, he promises to use them. For if he did not employ the necessary means, this must be attributed to ignorance rather than malice; moreover, since he seriously promises to use them, he shows himself well disposed.

(c) But if he rejects means truly necessary for conquering the habit, generally absolution is to be denied.¹ For one who wills the end wills the means; and one who does not will the means does not will the end, that is, in this case, he does not wish to flee sin. - It is said generally, because if the penitent rejects certain means in good faith, because he does not think them necessary, and is prepared to employ others, although, in the judgment of the confessor, they are less efficacious, he can for a time be left in good faith and absolved.

¹ Deservedly, therefore, this proposition 60 was condemned by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679: "To a penitent having a custom of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appears, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred: provided he says by mouth that he is sorry and proposes amendment." (Ap. Denzing., n. 1077; cf. Viva, on this proposition.) Now when necessary means are rejected, there is no hope of amendment.

540. (A) Notion. In general, a relapsed sinner is called one who, after he has confessed certain sins, often relapses into the same without amendment. Therefore he differs from one who merely has a sinful habit, who indeed often relapses into the same sin, but has not yet confessed this depraved habit.

With regard to absolution, one must distinguish between those who are formally relapsed sinners and those who are such materially only.

Now, that someone may be formally a relapsed sinner, three conditions are simultaneously required: (a) that, after he has confessed a depraved habit, he was seriously warned by the confessor concerning the gravity of the fault and the means necessary for avoiding it; (b) that he has fallen into the same sins, but not others of a different kind; (c) that, without amendment, he has relapsed in almost the same way, with the same facility, immediately or shortly after confession, without serious effort either to repel temptations or to employ the means of amendment.

One is called materially relapsed who indeed has often relapsed, but (a) either had not been seriously warned by the confessor; (b) or, although warned, did not relapse into the same sins, but into others of a different kind; (c) or, although warned and relapsed into the same sins, exhibits some amendment, because he has not sinned so often, or at least for some time seriously tried to resist temptations, or employed at least some one of the assigned means, although, because of the greater vehemence or frequency of temptations, in fact he has sinned as often as before.

541. As to materially relapsed sinners, there is no special difficulty: if they have not yet been admonished, let the confessor seriously admonish them and propose means to them: if they sincerely promise to employ these, they can be absolved. If they bring some signs of amendment, they are to be exhorted to make greater efforts; if, one vicious habit having been corrected, they have fallen into another, new remedies are to be proposed for destroying this also.

Therefore the whole difficulty concerns formally relapsed sinners. Rigorists, imbued with Jansenist principles, hold that they are not to be absolved unless they have proved amendment by long experience. A few others¹ think they can be absolved as often as they bring ordinary signs of disposition, and sincerely say that they are disposed. St. Alphonsus,² walking a middle way, teaches that generally they are not to be absolved unless they present extraordinary signs of contrition. His doctrine, if rightly understood, seems to us to be followed.

¹ Faure, Dubit. theolog. dub. 3; Baller. P., n. 225-345; Genicot, n. 370.

² Cf. Vindic. Alphons., p. 647-788.

542. (B) Principle: Formally relapsed sinners regularly cannot be absolved, unless by special signs they show that they are truly contrite. Thus commonly.

For frequent relapse into the same sins, without amendment, shortly after absolution, generates a prudent presumption of a weak purpose; for one who firmly purposes to avoid sin and to employ the means necessary for this, regularly does not change his mind so easily, nor so suddenly. But this presumption regularly cannot be destroyed except by special signs of contrition or of firm purpose; for common signs had already been given before and were found ineffective. Therefore more than ordinary signs are desired in this case.

Yet it is said regularly; for sometimes there are found penitents who are so changeable in mind that they can be sincerely contrite, and nevertheless, because of innate changeableness and fragility, fall into the same sins as soon as a vehement temptation arises; these can be absolved, provided it is established, with all things considered, that they are sufficiently disposed.

543. (C) Corollaries. (a) When a relapsed sinner brings certain special signs of contrition, he can be absolved at once. For relapse is not in itself an absolute sign of indisposition, since it can arise from mere fragility, but only generates a presumption of a weak purpose; but this presumption is destroyed by special signs of contrition; therefore, notwithstanding frequent relapse, the penitent in this case can be absolved.

But these signs are called extraordinary, not in the sense that extraordinary contrition is required, since simple attrition suffices with absolution; but in the sense that they must be more proving than those which had been given before by the same penitent. Therefore these signs are not something absolute, but wholly relative; nor can they be truly useful unless at the same time there are considered the character of the penitent, the temptations by which he is attacked, and other circumstances; hence much in this matter must be committed to the prudence and discretion of the confessor.

544. These things being posited, the principal extraordinary signs of contrition are: (a) tears poured forth not on account of some human motive (for example, because a girl was abandoned by her lover), but on account of the offense of God and the ruin of one's own soul; (b) heartfelt words, that is, manifesting a compunct heart and a firm will of avoiding sins; (c) spontaneous confession, made not from mere custom, but from the internal impulse of grace, especially when notable difficulties for confessing have been overcome, for example, after a great internal conflict, after a long journey, or when someone consents to undergo grave harm or grave inconvenience; but a confession is not judged spontaneous if it is made from the persuasion of parents or superiors, from the obligation of the paschal precept where this is commonly fulfilled, or from the custom of confessing on certain feasts; (d) spontaneous flight from the occasion, for example, by seeking reconciliation with an enemy, by restoring what has been taken, by dismissing a concubine; (e) manifestation of a firm and generous will, shown by deeds, for example, by manifesting sins previously concealed, making a general confession, or approaching the sacred tribunal notwithstanding the mockery of friends, etc.; (f) detestation of sin immediately after a fall, because then relapse can be attributed to mere fragility; (g) an unusual fear struck in from some event, for example, the death of a relative or friend, public or private calamity, fear of imminent death; (h) reception of more abundant grace, for example, on the occasion of a mission or spiritual exercises; in one word, all those things from which a sincere purpose of amendment can prudently be inferred.

545. (b) If the relapsed sinner brings none of these signs, he is not immediately to be dismissed without absolution, but is to be disposed to contrition by a fervent exhortation, as was said above (n. 479).

That the confessor may accomplish this more easily and efficaciously, he must attend to these things. 1. If the defect of disposition arises from ignorance alone, or inadvertence, or fragility, it will be rather easy to excite the penitent to contrition, by instructing him and proposing to him motives of sorrow accommodated to his capacity, especially if it is done by way of dialogue, so that the penitent cannot be distracted in mind.

2. If the defect of disposition arises from affection for sin, the difficulty indeed increases, but it is not insuperable. For the penitent, from the fact that he approaches the sacred tribunal, conceives at least some desire of conversion; moreover God is accustomed to grant grace to men of good will; therefore if the confessor, moved by prudent and ardent zeal, with paternal charity warns the relapsed sinner concerning the dangers in which he is placed, and suggests to him the means by which he can overcome temptations, he can make him well disposed; which indeed he will recognize from the very manner of speaking and acting of the penitent, for example, if he says that he has acquired a new knowledge of his own iniquity, or that he is prepared seriously to employ the prescribed means.

Here, however, it is worth noting that those who relapse from intrinsic facility are more easily made contrite than those who relapse from an extrinsic occasion. Thus those who consent to blasphemies, shameful thoughts and desires, or pollution, are made contrite rather easily; hence they can more easily be absolved, especially if they promise that they will return to confession immediately after a fall. But the proud are made contrite with more difficulty, who pursue a determinate person with hatred; the impure, who cling to some person with mad love, or spouses who abuse marriage; the avaricious, who have become richer from the goods of others; the timid, who by fear of men are deterred from fulfilling their duties. Of these indeed one must never despair; but to dispose them for absolution is very difficult.

546. (c) If, after a fervent exhortation, the relapsed sinner remains doubtfully disposed, he can indeed be absolved conditionally, if a special necessity urges, according to the principles set forth above (n. 487). But if there is no necessity of this kind, absolution is regularly to be deferred, especially when the penitent is placed in a proximate occasion, - or, though warned several times, has not yet restored, - or delay is judged opportune for striking salutary fear into the heart of the penitent.

547. (d) If finally it is morally certain that the relapsed sinner remains indisposed, absolution is to be deferred, not indeed for a long time, but for a few days, not with severe words, but with the most humane, by explaining the reason why absolution is deferred, and by assigning the means which must be employed for obtaining contrition shortly.

It was said: not for a long time, lest he come into desperation and sin more often; for relapsed sinners from intrinsic fragility a delay of eight or ten days suffices; for relapsed sinners from an occasion, a delay of fifteen days.

With most humane words, lest penitents bid farewell to confession; which Leo XII¹ explains very well thus: "Wherefore, if there is a just cause why absolution is to be deferred, it is necessary that he persuade those confessing, with words as humane as possible, that this is wholly demanded both by his own charge and office and by their own salvation, and that he very gently entice them to return as soon as possible, so that, those things which shall have been salutarily prescribed having been faithfully performed, they may be refreshed, loosed from the bonds of sins, by the sweetness of heavenly grace."

¹ Encycl. Caritate Christi, Dec. 25, 1825.

By explaining the reason ... so that in this way it may be understood that absolution is deferred not from hatred or anger, but from paternal solicitude.

By assigning means, so that the penitent may know what must be done that he may be better disposed for absolution; for delay of itself will not change his mind unless at the same time remedies are prescribed to him. - In this way absolution, sweetly and firmly delayed, can correct relapsed sinners, if not for the present time, at least for the future.

— Penitents of little piety and rarely approaching the tribunal of Penance, for example only at Paschal time, must be treated by the confessor with that dexterity by which, in a few moments, he knows how to question them sufficiently, bring them to sincere contrition, and render them, by paternal counsels, more pacified, instructed, and content about the confession made.

Such persons, if they are doubtfully disposed, are to be absolved under condition rather than dismissed with the danger that now they omit the sacraments entirely.

What if, stained by many harmful things, they are foreseen soon to relapse?

Let the confessor discharge his office with all zeal and charity. When he has done this: a) either they appear certainly indisposed, for example because they do not wish to fulfill a grave obligation of which they are conscious: then, as if unwilling, let him deny absolution, indicating the manifest reason of the sentence and adding how gladly they would be received better disposed; let him not neglect to cast seeds of this disposition. Rarely, except sometimes with priests or with the uneducated full of faith, will harsh severity profit anything; b) or they sincerely grieve and resolve: let the confessor absolve them, obtaining, if it can be done, more frequent use of the sacraments; c) if the disposition is doubtful, let him absolve them under condition, with a paternal admonition added, in which he recalls the uselessness of absolution given to him whom God knows to be indisposed.

Thus he will help as much as he can. There is hope of absolution efficaciously given; at the beginning at least sins will be committed less frequently; the soul will not be turned away from religion or the sacraments; and perhaps great scandals will be impeded.

Doctors agree that the greatest indulgence also must be used with those who at the end of a mission approach the sacrament of Penance.

Concerning recidivists and those who are placed in a proximate occasion of sinning, cf. the things said above, n. 543, and the things to be said in the chapter on the penitent.

I. A customary sinner, or one habituated in sin, is said to be one who has contracted a habit, or a constant internal propensity and facility of committing the same sin, from custom, or from acts frequently repeated.¹ This habit is therefore distinguished

¹ Concerning these, Billuart, de Poen., diss. 6, a. 10, § 6; Reuter, o. c., nn. 175-188; St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, nn. 459-564; Pr. conf., nn. 70-77; Berardi, opusc. de Recidivis et Occasionariis; Tanquerey, de Poen., nn. 537-547; Aertnijs, Th. M., II, nn. 310-314; Theol. Mechl., de Poen. (4), nn. 86-87; Prummer, Th. M., III, nn. 452-453; Ter Haar, de Occasionariis et Recidivis, a work very much to be commended, can be compared.

a) from the mere occasion of sin: for this is external to the sinner, while the habit is intrinsic; yet the habit is often connected with occasion, insofar as not rarely it arises from this or is greatly increased by it;

b) from a habitual affection for sin, by which one clings to sin with a continual deliberate will: for this is a sin and must absolutely be laid aside in confession, while a habit does not necessarily render one indisposed, since it can remain even involuntarily after it has been retracted.

A habit is acquired by repeated acts. Hence three things are required for contracting it:

1. Frequency or number of falls; but how many acts are required and suffice cannot be determined absolutely, but depends on various circumstances: namely on the disposition of the one sinning, on his greater or lesser fragility or predisposition; on the nature of the sin, more or less alluring, since in certain matters, such as drunkenness or lust, depraved habits are acquired more easily and quickly; on the difficulty or facility of committing the sin; on the manner in which it is committed, with greater or lesser deliberation or adhesion of the will, etc.

2. Duration of time: for he who sins more often on the same day and afterward abstains for a long time does not so easily contract a habit as he who regularly once or again daily, or every week, commits the same sin.

3. Uninterrupted continuation: for just as a habit is lost by cessation from acts, so, if the acts are too distant, it cannot be contracted. Hence:

a) The more easily some sin is committed, the more acts are required for contracting a habit: thus more acts are required for merely internal sins, which are more easily completed, than for external sins; more for sins of the mouth than for sins of deed; more for external sins begun than for consummated ones; and for those which are perpetrated alone than for those which require an accomplice. Thus, according to St. Alphonsus, Pr. Conf., n. 70, to commit an external sin of deed five times in a month can suffice for contracting a habit, provided that some interval intervenes among the various acts, as if someone falls into drunkenness or seminal emission each week for some months; while if it is a question of a sin of the heart or mouth, a much greater number is required, namely twice or three times in a week; but if of external sins which can be perpetrated only with an accomplice, a smaller number is required, so that one who for a year fornicates once a month, or commits sodomy, can be called habituated.

b) One custom is contracted from mere fragility, and another is contracted deliberately from a perfect choice of the will. For there are incontinent customary sinners, who sin only from fragility, or from the impulse of a passing passion that is, as it were, extrinsic to the will, so that habitually their will is opposed to sin, and after the sin has passed they abhor it and easily repent and desire to be freed from the habit, as sometimes happens in those who consent to passions of the flesh, intemperance, or anger, and easily happens in blasphemies, imprecations, and seminal emission. On the contrary, there are intemperate customary sinners, or those habituated in the will of sinning, who sin from a true habit and therefore from malice of the will, or from a permanent evil inclination, as it were intrinsic, and habitual affection for sin, even without the impulse of passion; hence they do not easily detest sin or are moved to penance.² This easily happens in shameful love, constant hatred, conjugal onanism, the injustice of theft, and transgression of the precepts of the Church from sloth or human fear, or even in sins of the flesh, for those who rejoice in them or seek them from inveterate custom.

² "It is difficult to act against that to which habit inclines." St. Thomas, de Malo, q. 3, a. 13, ad 6. "Free choice can use habit or not use it. Whence it is not necessary that someone always act according to habit, but he can sometimes act against habit, although with difficulty. Nevertheless, while the habit remains, it cannot happen that he remain for a long time doing nothing according to the habit." De Ver., q. 24, a. 12, ad 13. Hence "the intemperate man is not penitent," because "his healing is more difficult... on the part of the inclination of appetite which in the intemperate man is from habit, which is removed with difficulty" (II-II, q. 156, a. 3 and ad 2). "Whence those who sin thus persevere in the will of sinning and do not easily repent." De Malo, q. 3, a. 13. For indeed "he who sins from habit always rejoices in this, that he works from habit, as long as he uses the habit. But because he can not use the habit, but meditate by reason, which is not totally corrupted, on something else, it can happen that, not using the habit, he grieves concerning what he has committed through habit. And thus for the most part such persons repent of sin, not because sin according to itself displeases them, but because of some inconvenience which they incur from sin" (I-II, q. 78, a. 2, ad 3). Cf. Q. De Ver., 24, a. 10 and a. 11, ad 4; de Malo, q. 3, a. 10.

Whence St. Thomas says: whoever sins from habit sins from certain malice (I-II, q. 78, a. 2), and more gravely than from passion: sin from passion is likened to an intermittent disease, sin from habit to a continuous disease (a. 4, and II-II, q. 156, a. 3).

II. Those habituated in sin can for the most part be judged, with Ter Haar, o. c., n. 216:

1. In the matter of lust: those who everywhere yield to morose delights and depraved desires; those who daily, almost, indulge in gravely shameful conversations; those who frequently fall into the sin of seminal emission, say once and again in a week according to each one's constitution; those who ruinously love a person of the other or even of the same sex, often visit that person and gravely sin with that person; those who are accustomed to frequent brothels, likewise theatres or cinematographs that are very shameful; those who are greatly addicted to reading obscene or erotic books in which they find impure nourishment; those who are accustomed to live onanistically in marriage, etc.

2. In the matter of injustice: those who think almost solely about increasing riches by whatever means, licit or illicit, provided that they do not fall into the hands of the civil judge, e.g., in contracts, in business affairs, in stock-exchange operations, etc.; those who culpably neglect for a long time to restore things unjustly acquired or to pay debts; those who often commit smaller thefts coalescing into grave matter; those who, in the function of an office accepted under the title of justice, e.g., physicians, advocates, notaries, stewards, are frequently gravely injurious, etc.

3. In the matter of enmity: those who for a long time pursue their neighbor with constant grave hatred, seek vengeance concerning an injury inflicted by him, and strive to harm his reputation or temporal goods, etc.

4. In matter opposed to faith: those who often voluntarily cling to doubts concerning the truths of faith; those who are accustomed to read books, periodicals, newspapers gravely dangerous without a just and proportionate cause; those who frequent assemblies of heretics, socialists, and other men of this kind, or have familiar intercourse of friendship with them, and often speak against the Church and its ministers with danger of perversion, etc.

5. In the matter of blasphemy: those who are accustomed in simple conversation to intermingle formulas that are truly blasphemous, or even frequently, if they are carried away by anger, belch forth blasphemies, and use no care to leave behind this custom.

6. In the matter of intemperance: those who are accustomed to visit taverns and there, or even at home, often, say several times in a month, give themselves to drunkenness.

7. In the matter of the precepts of the Church: those who scarcely care for the law of abstinence; those who again and again, e.g., once and again in a month, from a light or no cause do not hear the prescribed Mass; those who on prohibited days are accustomed without grave reason to perform servile works.

8. In the matter of duties of state: those who gravely neglect these, e.g., parents who omit the religious education of children or do not strive to turn them away from dangers of faith and morals, especially mothers of families who permit daughters to make love alone with young men; masters and teachers who are in no way solicitous concerning the honesty of domestics or workers in workshops or pupils in schools; children and subjects who are accustomed to contemn the precepts of parents and masters in a grave matter; ecclesiastical and civil superiors who care little for the particular laws of their community or society, and neither admonish nor punish transgressors, with grave common harm; confessors who neglect to acquire by study the necessary knowledge, so that they are often gravely mistaken in the solution of cases, who question almost nothing, neglect to admonish those not sufficiently disposed, absolve all sinners without distinction, or contrariwise, everywhere deny absolution to recidivists without grave reason or too harshly; priests who, not dispensed, often do not recite the divine office, who by their light manner of acting, words, games, excessive haste of Mass, furnish grave scandal to the faithful; religious of either sex who often wound vows in grave matter, e.g., of poverty, who are accustomed to transgress rules of greater moment, say of silence, enclosure, spiritual exercises, reverence toward superiors, etc., with notable harm to the community and danger of relaxation, etc.

All these, if not by some motion of passion which quickly passes, so that in a short time they recover themselves, but from a will constantly inclined to evil, frequently, easily, and promptly admit these sins, must be called habituated sinners. For although several from these things enumerated commit only sins of omission, nevertheless they truly sin from a depraved habit, say from the vice of sloth or neglect; this vice indeed is in them a permanent quality, by which they are inclined as if naturally, either so that they bring almost no force to bear upon themselves for fulfilling those duties and precepts, or so that they easily, frequently, and with almost no resistance yield to fear or human respect.

III. In general a recidivist is said to be one who falls again into sin; therefore a recidivist penitent is one who, having confessed a sin and been admonished concerning it, falls back into it even once. Whence, strictly speaking and of itself, there can be a customary sinner who is not a recidivist, as one who has never confessed the sin in whose custom he perseveres; and there can be a recidivist who is not a customary sinner, as one who after confession falls back into sin several times. Nevertheless, in present theological usage, a recidivist is commonly said to be one who, after he has confessed some sin, often falls back into the same without amendment, or into the same habit of sin (whether from an internal cause or from an external cause). Hence with such a customary recidivist there must not be confused a recidivist into a sin without habit or custom, or a recidivist into the occasion of sin alone, such as one who does not keep the promise concerning removing the occasion and approaches the occasion again or has not expelled it.

Hence one recidivist is formal, another material. Formally he is a recidivist if the relapse is supposed to proceed from defect of firm will. For this, three conditions are required together: a) frequent relapse after several confessions, after, namely, the penitent has been admonished by the confessor concerning the gravity of the fault and concerning the means necessary for avoiding it; b) relapse into the same sin, but not into others of a different genus; c) defect of every amendment, even begun, so that in almost the same manner, with the same facility, immediately or shortly after confession, without serious effort (whether to repel temptations or to use the means of amendment), he has fallen back. Thus if someone after individual confessions has frequently and deliberately relapsed, beginning from one or another day after confession.

Materially he is a recidivist if the relapse is supposed to proceed from mere infirmity, inconstancy, or fragility of the will. Such is one who 1) had not been seriously admonished by the confessor; or 2) though admonished, did not relapse into the same sins but into others of a different genus; or 3) although admonished and relapsed, exhibits some amendment or diminution of sin, because he did not sin so often, or for a sufficiently notable time seriously tried to resist temptations, or used some one of the means assigned, even if, because of greater vehemence or frequency of temptation, he sinned as often as before.

IV. Practical rules. - Concerning customary sinners and recidivists, three practical rules are commonly enunciated:

A. Simple customary sinners who are not recidivists can regularly be absolved, as often as they are found truly and sincerely prepared to use the means necessary for overcoming the custom.

This is explained: For their disposition it is required and suffices that they retract the custom and do not voluntarily retain the cause and danger of sin. But it is retracted by the will of sinning no more and of extirpating the depraved habit by means. The means are both general or common, such as prayer, meditation, remembrance of the presence of God, reception of the sacraments, etc., and particular, which are directly opposed to the depraved custom, e.g., mortification of the senses against impurity, abstinence from drink against intemperance.

It is proved: A confession rightly made and the declaration of the penitent asserting that he grieves and proposes amendment are sufficient signs of sorrow and disposition, if a presumption to the contrary does not stand in the way.

But the depraved habit alone of itself does not give such a presumption: for it is not a sign of indisposition, but of greater facility and probability toward sin. "Although a depraved habit," says St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 459, "renders the sinner more prone to sin, nevertheless it does not give a presumption of his infirm will."

Therefore the simple customary sinner who is truly and sincerely prepared to use the means is judged sufficiently disposed, and consequently can be absolved.

This is confirmed: a) certainly it is not required that he has already extirpated the custom; b) moreover, by using the prescribed means, he will lessen the force of the custom and little by little extinguish it: for custom is conquered by contrary custom.

Hence: 1) he who for the first time confesses a depraved habit must be absolved, although no amendment has preceded, provided that he seriously promises it: for since he has not violated promises, he is to be supposed sincere, and can and must be believed;

2. he who has already several times confessed a depraved custom, but had not been admonished concerning remedies to be used, can be absolved if, better instructed, he promises to use them. For the fact that he has not used means is to be attributed to ignorance rather than malice;

3. he who, admonished, did not use the necessary means sufficiently and relapsed, is a recidivist and is to be treated as such.

B. Material or incontinent recidivists, who relapse from fragility and infirmity of the will, can regularly be absolved if they seriously propose amendment and furnish the ordinary signs of the sincerity of their disposition.

For they have relapsed either because they were insufficiently admonished, or after a serious effort at amendment because of greater vehemence or frequency of temptation, or inconstancy of the will in persevering, or from mere fragility in such a way that sin habitually displeases them. Accordingly, after the fall they immediately detest the sin, but from infirmity of the will or from mobility and vehemence of passion they again succumb. Now ordinarily there is no doubt concerning the disposition of these.

C. Formal and intemperate recidivists regularly cannot be absolved unless by special signs they show that they have true contrition and firm purpose.

Such recidivists are from an evil will, who cling to the object of sin and from this affection are driven into new sins; whence they are suspect concerning disposition. For one who sincerely and strongly proposes a thing morally possible to him, in the case to avoid sin and to use the necessary means, does not so easily nor so suddenly change his mind and will, but perseveres at least for some time and uses the means. Whence frequent relapse from a depraved will, without almost any effort and any amendment, generates a prudent suspicion and a founded presumption that someone's purpose was not sincere and efficacious but only infirm, and that even now it is such if in the same manner as before he proposes under common signs.

But this presumption is not destroyed by a simple assertion, which no longer deserves anything except little faith, but only by special and extraordinary signs.

Therefore such a penitent remains suspect concerning disposition, and accordingly the confessor cannot form for himself a prudent judgment concerning his legitimate disposition.

And therefore such penitents are to be held as doubtfully disposed, and cannot be absolved unless a) they furnish a special disposition or extraordinary signs of disposition, by which they appear morally certainly disposed, so that they can be absolved absolutely; or b) unless there is a proportionately grave reason, sufficient namely that they can be absolved under condition, which is verified in the cases enumerated in the treatise on Penance, where it treats of the Duties of the Minister.

449. Those in occasions of sin are called those who are situated in an occasion of sinning. Now an occasion of sinning is something extrinsic (a person, thing, book, spectacle, dances, and so forth) which entices to sin and affords an opportunity of sinning.⁴¹⁴ Therefore an occasion of sinning is not a disordered passion or the frailty of the penitent, since these are something intrinsic.

Division of occasions:

a) A remote occasion, which carries with it only a light danger of sinning and in which a man is accustomed to sin rarely. Such remote occasions exist everywhere on earth, and a man neither ought nor can flee from them. b) A proximate occasion, which causes a grave and pressing external danger of sinning, in which a man frequently sins mortally in fact; for example, visiting a tavern for a man greatly addicted to the vice of drunkenness.

A proximate occasion is subdivided: alpha) One is absolute, or per se; another is relative, or per accidens. The former is that in which all men generally are accustomed to sin gravely, for example, to look lingeringly without reasonable cause at very shameful things. The latter is that which induces a proximate danger of sinning not for all, but for some determinate man because of his special frailty or an aroused passion, for example, entering a tavern for a drunken man.

beta) One is voluntary; another necessary. The former is said to be that which can easily, or with light inconvenience, be removed, for example, a dangerous courtship between lovers. The latter is that which cannot be removed physically or morally. In a physically necessary occasion there live, for example, in the same house children of a family who sin with one another; men imprisoned who sin with one another. In a morally necessary occasion there live in the same house children of a family who sin with the maid of their own family. For the maid can more easily leave the house than a son of the family. Therefore a necessary occasion is one which cannot be removed without great harm and great external difficulty. But what is truly great harm must be weighed from the diverse circumstances of persons.

gamma) One occasion is continuous, or in esse; another is interrupted, or non in esse. The former is that in which someone is always situated, for example, a concubine living in the house of her master, onanistic spouses; the latter is said to be that in which someone indeed does not always live but which he can easily have, for example, a tavern for a drunken man; a mistress for a lustful man.

⁴¹⁴ An occasion of sinning and scandal agree in this, that both entice to sin; but they differ: a) because scandal is always a human act, while an occasion can also be an external physical thing; b) because an occasion affords an opportunity of sinning, but scandal does not always do so.

450. 1. Absolution of Those in Occasions of Sin.

Rule 1. Absolution is not to be denied to a penitent existing in a remote occasion.

The reason is that all of us live in a remote occasion of sinning, which, if we had to avoid it, would require us to go out of the world, which is wholly filled with dangers of sinning. Therefore to avoid remote occasions of sinning is impossible, and consequently is not necessary.

Rule 2. Absolution is not to be denied to a penitent who is situated in a necessary proximate occasion, provided that he is truly contrite and prepared to employ the prescribed means, so that the occasion materially proximate becomes formally remote.

The reason is that the confessor cannot demand from the penitent that which is physically or morally impossible. But, on the other hand, it can safely be hoped that the penitent who employs the prescribed remedies will conquer the temptations with the help of God, "who will not suffer you to be tempted above that which you are able."⁴¹⁵ The chief means by which a necessary proximate occasion can be rendered formally remote are: fervent prayer, frequent confession, the flight of every familiarity and solitary conversation with the accomplice, and so forth. - But when the penitent refuses to employ remedies of this kind, or when he indeed promised them but afterward neglected them and consequently always relapsed into the same sins, he is to be treated as a recidivist dwelling in a proximate occasion, namely, he is not to be absolved unless he has given extraordinary signs of contrition and has removed the proximate occasion even with the gravest inconvenience. For Christ prescribed: "If thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee: it is better for thee having one eye to enter into life, than having two eyes to be cast into the hell of fire."⁴¹⁶

You will ask. Can a penitent be absolved who, existing in a necessary occasion, always relapses in the same manner after employing the remedies? The response seems easy to us: Such a case is scarcely ever possible; for then the penitent truly does what lies within him. Moreover, God does not deny grace to one doing what lies within him. It can indeed occur that the penitent relapses several times into the same sins; but if he obeys the commands of the confessor, at length he will become constant. For the rest, if the case should nevertheless occur, the penitent would be treated as a habitual recidivist. - A case of a necessary and continuous proximate occasion is the abuse of marriage between spouses. But if that sin is committed again and again by the spouses without any amendment, absolution is to be deferred or denied, since the due disposition of the penitents is then absent.

⁴¹⁵ 1 Cor. 10:13.

⁴¹⁶ Matt. 18:9.

451. Rule 3. Absolution is to be denied to a penitent who refuses to leave a voluntary proximate occasion of sinning gravely.

The reason is that he who wills voluntarily to remain in a proximate occasion loves the danger of sinning, and consequently has neither true contrition concerning past sins nor a true purpose concerning avoiding future sins. Hence, on March 2, 1679, Innocent XI condemned proposition 61: "He who is situated in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and does not will to omit, and indeed directly and deliberately seeks or thrusts himself into, can sometimes be absolved"; proposition 62: "A proximate occasion of sinning is not to be fled when some useful or honorable cause for not fleeing it occurs"; proposition 63: "It is lawful directly to seek a proximate occasion of sinning for our own or our neighbor's spiritual or temporal good."⁴¹⁷

If someone is situated in a voluntary and continuous proximate occasion, absolution is generally to be deferred until the penitent has actually removed this occasion. Hence, for example, a concubinary is not to be absolved before he has cast the concubine out of the house. The reason is that, although the penitent is here and now sufficiently disposed to receive absolution, nevertheless it is greatly to be feared that afterward, unmindful of the promise given and overcome by vehement passion, he will not remove the occasion. But I said: generally, because if the confessor has moral conviction of the firm purpose made by the penitent, and especially if the penitent is no longer able to return to the same confessor, he can grant absolution immediately. But if the penitent has already again and again promised in preceding confessions to remove the occasion and has not kept his promises, he is now not only one in an occasion of sin but also a recidivist, and consequently is not to be absolved unless he has given extraordinary signs of contrition and an urgent necessity of absolving is present.

But if someone is situated in a proximate non-continuous or interrupted occasion, he can be absolved immediately, provided that he seriously promises to leave this occasion. But if he is not only one in an occasion of sin but also a recidivist, he is not to be absolved unless he has given extraordinary signs of contrition, as will be stated below.

⁴¹⁷ Denz., nn. 1211-1213.

452. 2. Absolution of Habitual Sinners.

A habitual sinner, or one habituated, is said to be one who has contracted the habit of some sin, into which, however, he has not yet relapsed after its confession. But if he has already confessed this sin once or several times and nevertheless has committed it again, he is called a recidivist.⁴¹⁸

How many acts are necessary for acquiring an evil habit cannot be determined absolutely. For this depends upon many things, namely, upon weakness of will, upon the nature and manner of the sin, and upon the long or short interval within which the individual sins are committed. Thus, for example, a man weak in will more easily contracts an almost invincible habit of sinning than a strong man. According to St. Alphonsus,⁴¹⁹ he is judged to have contracted a habit who is accustomed to commit an external sin five times in a month. But for internal sins a much greater number is required.

A custom of sinning can arise either from external human incitement, that is, from a proximate occasion, and then the habitual sinner is at the same time one in an occasion of sin; or from a diabolical temptation or from a disordered passion, and then he is properly a habitual sinner. Concerning this latter the following rule is valid.

Rule. A habitual sinner can and ought to be absolved when he is truly attrite and sincerely promises to employ the means necessary for conquering the evil custom.

The reason is that an evil custom in no way proves the indisposition of the penitent. Moreover (according to the adage: The penitent is to be believed when speaking both for himself and against himself), a penitent firmly asserting his attrition and his purpose seriously to employ remedies against the evil custom is worthy of belief and capable of absolution. The remedies which are to be employed by the penitent must be determined according to the quality both of the evil custom and of the man sinning. Proposition 60, condemned by Innocent XI on March 2, 1679, is not opposed to this doctrine: "Absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred to a penitent having a custom of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, although no hope of amendment appears, provided that he declares orally that he is sorry and proposes amendment."⁴²⁰ For in this proposition the essence of the error is situated in those words: "although no hope of amendment appears." Moreover, a habitual sinner who confesses a habit of sinning for the first time and seriously promises amendment always offers a true hope of amendment. Certainly, if a habitual sinner has already rather often promised amendment and nevertheless always fell in the same manner into the same sins, he offers little hope of amendment; but then he is now not a simple habitual sinner, but a habitual recidivist, who is to be treated otherwise, as will be stated below. For the rest, it is very rare in practice that someone is a simple habitual sinner and not at the same time a recidivist. A simple habitual sinner would be, for example, a man who has not confessed for ten years and within this time has contracted the habit of polluting himself once a week.

⁴¹⁸ Cf. below, n. 453.

⁴¹⁹ Praxis confess., n. 70.

⁴²⁰ Denz., n. 1210.

453. 3. Absolution of Recidivists.

In some sense all men are recidivists, for all repeat sins. We are not speaking here of recidivists in this broad material sense. A recidivist in the strict or formal sense is called one who after confessions so falls into the same mortal sins that from this it is rightly permitted to doubt concerning his disposition in the preceding confessions. Therefore a recidivist differs from a habitual sinner, since the latter accuses a habit of sin for the first time. Older authors not rarely confuse the habitual sinner with the recidivist; but modern theologians do not describe the characteristic signs of a recidivist in the same manner. Therefore careful attention must be given to the precise sense in which the individual authors accept the words habitual sinner and recidivist. The quasi-characteristic sign of a recidivist seems to be that after repeated confessions (three or four) he has employed no serious effort to guard against some grave sin, so that his persistence in an evil will can prudently be inferred from this.⁴²¹

Rule. A recidivist regularly cannot be absolved unless by special signs he has first dispelled the presumption of indisposition existing against him.

I say: regularly, for in a case of necessity the sacrament can be administered even to a man doubtfully disposed. - But the reason for the rule stated is that from a relapse into exactly the same sins without any amendment whatsoever there arises a vehement presumption that the penitent lacks sincere contrition and a firm purpose, since it is scarcely possible that a man, grieving from his inmost heart concerning the sins committed and firmly proposing to employ the means necessary for amendment, should fall in exactly the same manner into the same sins. Therefore this presumption must be destroyed, which assuredly is not done by a simple assertion of the penitent. For if the penitent has already failed again and again to keep his promises, he certainly merits little belief. Therefore he must prove his true contrition and purpose from elsewhere.

The special signs of contrition and a sufficient purpose are diverse according to the diverse character of penitents, nor can anything be determined in particular. Thus, for example, tears shed on account of sins committed show a sufficient disposition in a strong man who weeps very rarely, while, on the contrary, they merit no great belief in certain women who are accustomed frequently to weep at will. Let the general rule be: After weighing all the circumstances, the confessor must have sufficient certitude of the disposition of the penitent. - As special signs showing a sufficient disposition there are adduced, for example, the spontaneous flight from a proximate occasion; firmness in a good purpose at least for some time. Hence, if the penitent after the preceding confession abstained for a month from a sin into which he previously fell every week, he offers a special sign of the good purpose he had. Nevertheless, too much trust is not to be placed in those penitents who for human reasons approach Easter confession and then abstain from sins for some time beforehand with the intention of avoiding the denial of absolution. Other special signs are: a spontaneous confession, especially at an unusual time; a pious pilgrimage for the purpose of making a confession; Spiritual Exercises completed. If a recidivist brings none of these or similar signs, he is not immediately to be dismissed without absolution, but is to be disposed to true contrition and a sincere purpose. This must be done especially whenever there is question of sins committed from frailty, for example, of pollution rather often committed by a young man. But if after a suitable exhortation the recidivist remains doubtfully disposed, in a case of necessity he can be absolved under condition; otherwise absolution is to be deferred for a brief time. A delay of eight days suffices for recidivists who sin from frailty; but for recidivists from occasion, absolution is fittingly deferred for fifteen days. It is evident of itself that the confessor ought to address the penitent not with rough but with most humane words. Let him be mindful of that adage: "Firmly in the matter, gently in the manner." In our days absolution is rarely to be deferred unless it is altogether necessary. For because of the weakness of faith under which many penitents labor, delayed absolution often does more harm than good.

⁴²¹ Cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 2208, § 1.

1813. Penitents, after admonitions and exhortations have been heard, can be divided into a threefold class: for some are certainly disposed, others doubtfully disposed, and others finally positively indisposed. - Therefore the confessor, so that he may rightly and fruitfully perform his twofold office toward each, i.e. the office of JUDGE and PHYSICIAN, ought to attend to the following:

Principles. I. Absolution IS TO BE GIVEN to capable and worthy penitents, or the RIGHTLY DISPOSED, unless the good of the penitent counsels delay, as will be said at n. 1816. "The reason is because the penitent, after confession has been made, since he is disposed, has a strict right to absolution; by denying which the confessor would inflict grave injury upon him, both because he would deprive him of the grace of the Sacrament, and because he would oblige him to undergo a great burden, namely to repeat before another his grave sins."³⁶

1814. II. Absolution must altogether BE DENIED to incapable and unworthy persons. The reason is because to administer a Sacrament where essential conditions are lacking is a great sacrilege; and often also a most grave deception of the penitent, namely when, from invalid absolution received, he incurs greater danger of eternal damnation.

We said, 1. to the incapable, namely to those who either have never had the use of reason, or are ignorant of necessary things with necessity of means (cf. n. 1808), or are not morally present, or bring no matter to the Sacrament.

We said, 2. to the unworthy, i.e. to those certainly indisposed (cf. n. 1817, q. 4).

Wherefore St. Alphonsus gravely admonishes, saying:³⁷ 1) Let the confessor be inflexible in deferring or denying absolution as often as it is proper; especially with priests and Ordinands. 2) Let him be full of charity, both by bringing it about according to his strength that the indisposed penitent become disposed, and by dismissing with sweet words the one whom he cannot absolve, so that this one may not be reluctant to return (cf. n. 1793, 3).

1815. III. Absolution IS TO BE DEFERRED for the penitent DOUBTFULLY DISPOSED; unless there is present a GRAVE CAUSE because of which absolution can be imparted under condition. - The reason of the first part is because otherwise the confessor would expose the Sacrament to danger of nullity, and so would commit grave sacrilege. The reason of the second part is because the Sacraments are for men, and therefore in a case in which the salvation of a man is endangered, they are to be administered in every better manner by which it can be done; but irreverence toward the Sacrament is removed by a just cause and condition. See individual cases under n. 1663, q. 4, where concerning the conditioned form. But here:

Let it be noted: 1. Delay of absolution, when it can be used, is a most efficacious REMEDY; for it shakes the drowsy, lest they fall into the sleep of death; as a carbuncle it rouses those deceived by the fallacy of sin, so that they open their eyes and know their dangerous state. - Even if they should not return to the same confessor, a just and prudent delay is not useless; because, like a strong admonition, it will be a seed of reflection and conversion, which will bear fruit in its own time.³⁸ It was said: when it can be used; for among penitents doubtfully disposed there are found some who, dismissed, would not return, and would waste away in their sins, although it is not impossible for them to dispose themselves better. These ought rather to be absolved under condition.³⁹

2. The delay ought to be brief, i.e. for eight or ten days, if the sin proceeds from intrinsic frailty; indeed sometimes for a shorter time, e.g. for a day, or an hour, or even for a quarter of an hour. - But if it proceeds from an extrinsic cause, e.g. from a proximate occasion, the delay can be longer, e.g. of one month, if from the circumstances it is required (cf. n. 1831).

And indeed these principles press the Confessor insofar as he is considered solely as judge. But since the parts of physician also must be performed by him, it must be established:

1816. IV. The confessor, insofar as he performs the office of PHYSICIAN, CAN, indeed OUGHT, sometimes TO DEFER absolution for a penitent, even one RIGHTLY DISPOSED, namely when he prudently judges that such a delay will be profitable for his amendment and salvation. To the point St. Alphonsus says thus:⁴⁰ "It is certain and common among all that the confessor can defer absolution for a penitent even disposed, and even without his consent, whenever he prudently judges that delay is useful for his amendment. The reason is because the penitent, although he has a right to absolution by reason of confession performed, nevertheless does not have a right to be absolved at once: for the confessor, to whom not only the duty of judge but also of physician belongs, can well, indeed in my judgment is bound to, defer absolution when he judges such a remedy to be necessarily useful to the salvation of his penitent." But that the Blessed Doctor in this matter by no means departs from the opinion of the ancient Theologians (of the sixteenth century) is found demonstrated splendidly in the Alphonsian Vindications.⁴¹

We said, 1. when he judges that the delay will be profitable: as, e.g., when there is probable danger lest the penitent, after receiving absolution, break his purpose: as often happens to those who must make restitution, make a denunciation, remove an occasion of sin, reconcile themselves with enemies, learn things necessary to be known, shake off culpable negligence, etc. But the delay, in these cases, will be able to be of the very briefest time, namely until they have fulfilled the obligation. - But the obligation itself of deferring absolution will be grave or light, according as the delay itself will be judged necessary, or only useful.⁴²

We said, 2. when he judges PRUDENTLY; because one must proceed considerately. For absolution is never to be put off for one sufficiently disposed if the delay is foreseen as more harmful than profitable, or if from it a mark or danger of infamy would arise for the penitent. And the same must be said if, all things weighed, the delay would seem useless, or if such a remedy could be used with too little convenience.⁴³

Note. - According to the diversity of places and times it is expedient to defer absolution more frequently or more rarely. Thus, in great cities or in impious regions, where faith has collapsed, it hardly ever seems expedient that absolution be deferred; otherwise elsewhere, where faith is living.

1817. Questions. Q. 1. Whether and what sort of CERTITUDE is required concerning the disposition of the penitent, so that he can be absolved?

Resp. The extreme opinions being passed over, of the Rigorists, who will that no one, outside danger of death, is to be absolved before he has put forth most certain arguments of conversion; and of the Laxists, who think that absolution is to be denied to no one unless evidence holds signs of indisposition, we say with St. Alphonsus:

1. In this Sacrament, since the matter is moral, as the acts of the penitent are, MORAL or respective CERTITUDE suffices... "Hence, as regards our purpose, it is sufficient that the confessor have prudent probability concerning the disposition of the penitent, and that, on the other hand, no prudent suspicion of indisposition stands in the way; otherwise scarcely anyone could be absolved, since whatever signs of penitents furnish nothing except probability of disposition... And this seems to be sufficiently expressed in the Roman Catechism, where it is said: If, the confession having been heard, the priest has judged that neither diligence in enumerating sins, nor sorrow in detesting them, was wholly lacking to the penitent, he will be able to be absolved"⁴⁴ (cf. n. 1424).

2. The dispositions of the penitent ought to become known to the confessor through certain signs, whether ordinary or extraordinary. ORDINARY SIGNS indeed suffice if no indication of indisposition appears to the contrary. But if they are attacked by some positive presumption, or in other words, if there is present a founded suspicion concerning the indisposition of the penitent, e.g. because of his new and continuous falls into sin, they no longer suffice; but SOME EXTRAORDINARY SIGN is required. The reason is because the presumption which ordinary signs introduce concerning the disposition of the penitent is destroyed by the presumption which founded reasons furnish concerning his indisposition. Hence the confessor necessarily becomes hesitating and doubtful (in which case see what was said at n. 1815). But where some extraordinary sign (which either precedes the accusation of sins, or, with the confessor admonishing and exhorting, follows it) supervenes, suspicion concerning indisposition is (for the most part) removed, and the confessor judges that his penitent is now sufficiently disposed.⁴⁵

Q. 2. What are the ORDINARY SIGNS of sufficient disposition?

Resp. According to St. Alphonsus,⁴⁶ they are the confession itself rightly made, and the protestation of the penitent asserting that he is sorry and proposes. For the presumption is in favor of the penitent, and he is to be believed when nothing stands in the way to the contrary.

Q. 3. What are EXTRAORDINARY or special SIGNS?⁴⁷

Resp. St. Alphonsus enumerates nine signs of this sort, which can be recalled to two heads, namely some zeal for amendment, and a special manifestation of sorrow.

1. Some ZEAL FOR AMENDMENT, for example: 1) The use of means, e.g. if the penitent diligently avoided the occasion, carried into execution the means prescribed by the confessor, used prayers, alms, etc., for rooting out the vice. - 2) Perseverance for some time, e.g. absolutely speaking, for about three weeks, or relatively to temptations, for one or another week, when previously he was accustomed to fall many times in the week. That continence can happen after confession, which is a better sign, or even before he approaches confession, so that he might dispose himself for it. - 3) A more difficult or rarer fall: more difficult, i.e. after notable resistance; rarer, namely in the same occasions and temptations. - 4) Fulfillment of some difficult obligation, as, e.g., of restitution, repairing the neighbor's reputation, etc.

2. Some SPECIAL MANIFESTATION OF SORROW, e.g. 1) Tears and sighs, at least for the most part, but especially cordial words. - 2) Spontaneous confession made, not from custom, but from an internal impulse of grace, so that divine friendship may be received, especially if there accedes a long journey, loss of notable profit, grave inconvenience, great internal or external conflict. - 3) External impulse of grace, in some extraordinary event, for example because of a sermon heard, because of the death of a friend, because of fear of an imminent scourge. - 4) Confession of sins previously concealed. - 5) Signification of a new knowledge of one's sin, or of the danger of damnation. - 6) Request for means of amendment, and similar things: for example, "if the penitent says that he repented immediately after the sin, if he desires to make satisfaction, if he accepts a great penance with a good mind, if of himself he protests that he would rather die than fall again." From signs of this sort it is rightly gathered that the penitent asserts sorrow and purpose not only with the mouth, but from the soul.⁴⁸

"The following things are to be noted concerning these: 1. Zeal for amendment can sometimes stand with slight amendment, on account of special difficulties of amendment, which can proceed: 1) from a habit very deeply rooted, since it demands great efforts; 2) from assiduous and vehement temptations, because they entangle a man; 3) from a very light and changeable disposition, which is especially proper to adolescents, and by which it happens that with equal facility they pass to good and to evil; 4) from the facility with which some sins are committed, for example sins of heart and of mouth.⁴⁹

"2. Spontaneity of confession is to be presumed especially in those regions in which faith has grown weak; for there human respect does not impel one to receiving the Sacraments, as in others in which religion flourishes, but rather draws one back from them. For the rest, even in regions of this sort, there are not lacking those who approach the sacred Tribunal from custom alone, or from other natural motives.⁵⁰

"3. In the time of a Mission which turns out prosperously, recidivists for the most part are usually rightly disposed, if they diligently attended the sermons, and at this time abstained from sin."⁵¹

Q. 4. What are the signs of INDISPOSITION?

Resp. 1. The ABSOLUTELY indisposed, and therefore incapable of the benefit of absolution, are to be judged, from the Roman Ritual:⁵² "Those who give no signs of sorrow; who DO NOT WANT to lay aside hatreds and enmities, or to restore the goods of others, if they can, or to leave a proximate occasion of sinning, or in another way to leave sins, and amend life for the better; or who have given public scandal, unless they publicly satisfy and remove the scandal"; and generally, whoever refuse to fulfill a known grave obligation.

Resp. 2. The DOUBTFULLY disposed are to be judged: 1) Those who approach the sacred tribunal compelled, or only from human consideration, or without any preparation; - 2) those who confess without any sense of humility, narrating their sins historically and almost jokingly, or without any submission to the confessor, namely excusing their own wicked manner of acting, accusing others, etc.; - 3) those who use crafty words, seeking rather to cover over than to expose sins, or not confessing them unless they have been detected by the industry of the confessor; - 4) those who are very difficult in accepting penances and remedies necessary for sins; - 5) those finally who, remedies being neglected, have fallen back into a wicked habit after they have already been admonished by the confessor.⁵³

But let it be noted FOR PRACTICE: - 1. In the Confessor there is necessary the industry of ardent charity, by which namely, according to his strength, "not without prayers poured out to God from the inmost heart" (as Leo XII says),⁵⁴ he strives to make the unprepared prepared: and this often succeeds with true zeal.

2. "In the penitent there is not necessary an interpretative disposition, namely that if he were found in this or that conflict of circumstances, he would not sin, when he does not at all reflect on this; because otherwise, if confessors wished to presume the interpretative indispositions of penitents, they could absolve few, since they could judge that many of those whose children had been killed certainly would be moved with hatred against the killers; if they were tempted by tyrants with torments, they would fall away from the Faith, etc. - Therefore it suffices to find in the penitent that actual disposition, so that he may be absolved; namely that here and now he resolves no longer to sin in any case in general. Nor does it stand in the way that he would be indisposed by interpretative will, namely if he were admonished."⁵⁵

From the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, one must properly distinguish between the HABITUATED and RECIDIVISTS, concerning whom not a few authors speak rather confusedly. - Hence, so that confusion of this sort may be avoided, we shall treat separately: 1. of the habituated; 2. of recidivists.

1826. DEFINITION. A consuetudinary or habituated person, as he is distinguished from a recidivist, is one who, by repetition of sins of the same kind, has contracted a wicked habit, and confesses it the first time.¹

How many acts suffice for contracting a wicked habit depends on the nature of the repeated sin itself, and on the manner in which it was committed, namely by thought, word, or deed; on the longer or shorter time which intervened between sinful acts of the same kind; on the disposition or temperament of the one sinning; on the greater or lesser intensity with which the will placed the acts, etc. - Thus, "five times in a month," says St. Alphonsus,² "can already constitute an evil habit in some vice of EXTERNAL SIN, provided some interval intervenes among them"; for otherwise it seems to be a continuation of one sin. But in sins of consummated lust which have an accomplice, e.g. of fornication, sodomy, a much smaller number can constitute a habit: thus, e.g., one who, through an entire year, should fornicate once a month, could well be called habituated. - Finally, in sins of HEART and MOUTH a much greater number is required, so that a habit may be judged to be present.

DIVISION. Among the habituated, those must be distinguished: 1. who sin and have contracted the habit with perfect election of the will; 2. who sin and have contracted the habit from incontinence, or from weakness of the will. The former offend: 1) because of habitual perversity of will, 2) without the previous impulse of vehement passion, and therefore 3) do not easily detest the sin committed. On the contrary, the latter offend: 1) because of the force of an impelling passion, so that 2) their will is habitually good and contrary to sin; which sin therefore 3) once the ardor of passion has been extinguished, they abhor exceedingly.³

1827. Principle. A habituated person, even if no amendment has preceded, can be absolved, provided he SERIOUSLY PROPOSES to himself to use the MEANS which are prescribed to him for amending life. - Thus most commonly, against certain more rigid authors. The reason is "because such a penitent, on the one hand, is not to be presumed evil, so that he would wish to approach the Sacrament indisposed; and on the other, he is well presumed disposed, while he confesses his sins, since spontaneous confession itself is a sign of contrition, unless some positive presumption stands in the way to the contrary. Nor is it valid to say that the same wicked habit is a sign of indisposition: for, although a wicked habit renders the sinner more prone to sin, nevertheless it does not give a presumption of his weak will."⁴

Except: 1. If the habit is very deeply rooted, such as it is accustomed to be in one who is habituated from an evil will, or through a long time has been given to some vice, especially of the flesh; for then the confessor will be able to defer absolution (for a brief time), if something else does not stand in the way: both so that he may test how the penitent executes the remedies, and so that the penitent himself may conceive greater horror of his vice.⁵ - 2. If the one habituated in grave sin is a cleric who shortly wishes to be promoted to sacred Orders; for positive goodness is necessary in him, as will be said in its place (n. 1916, q. 2).

IT IS ASKED. Whether absolution can be denied to a habituated person who REFUSES to confess SEVERAL TIMES in the year.

Resp. Negative, in itself, if he otherwise seems sufficiently disposed; because there is no precept of confessing several times in the year, and there are other means which can be enjoined for rooting out the habit. Nevertheless otherwise must be said if the other means are not judged sufficiently efficacious. For many penitents can find an apt remedy in confession alone. Hence Toletus says most rightly,⁶ speaking of those habituated in the crime of pollution: "I scarcely think there is any other efficacious remedy than to use most frequent confession: for this Sacrament is the greatest bridle; and he who does not use it should not promise himself amendment, unless through a miracle."⁷ (cf. n. 1812, 3).

1828. DEFINITION. A recidivist generally is said to be one who after confession has fallen back into the same sins.

Of those relapsing after confession, some are recidivists formally, others only materially. FORMALLY, or a true RECIDIVIST, according to the mind of St. Alphonsus, is one who: 1. has contracted a habit of sin; 2. has been rightly admonished in another confession; and 3. has fallen back into accustomed sins in the same or nearly the same manner, with no zeal for amendment having been used, nor any of the prescribed means having been fulfilled. MATERIALLY, that one is judged a recidivist in whom one or another of the three aforesaid conditions is lacking. And he is to be treated either as a simple sinner or as a habituated person (cf. n. 1826).⁸

1829. Principles. I. A penitent FORMALLY A RECIDIVIST cannot be absolved if he brings only the ORDINARY sign of disposition, namely if he only asserts that he is sorry for his sins, and that he no longer wishes in the future to offend God gravely. It is established: 1. From proposition 60 condemned by Innocent XI: "For a penitent having a habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appears, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred, provided he orally states that he is sorry and proposes amendment." - 2. From reason: "For the habit contracted, and past relapses without any amendment, furnish great suspicion that the sorrow and purpose which the penitent asserts he has are by no means true. Hence for this one absolution is to be deferred for some time, until a prudent sign of amendment appears. And at this point the ruin of souls is to be lamented, of which so many evil confessors are the cause, by absolving without distinction so many recidivists, who when they have found confessors who always absolve them so easily, lose horror in sinning, and go on to rot in the mire of vices, even unto death." Thus St. Alphonsus.⁹

"Certain Doctors admit that a recidivist can be absolved with ordinary signs alone up to the third and fourth time. But to this opinion (the Holy Doctor writes) I have never been able to acquiesce, since a habituated person who after one confession relapses without amendment (at least begun), is already a true recidivist, and furnishes a founded suspicion of his indisposition."¹⁰

"And let it be noted here that this rule proceeds even with respect to venial faults; for although it is commonly admitted that those who fall into light sins can more easily be absolved, because their occasions are more frequent, nevertheless, since it is the common opinion that it is a grave sin and sacrilege to receive absolution upon light sins confessed without true sorrow and purpose; and that it does not suffice to be sorry for the multitude or excessive number of such faults, unless sorrow is had for some one in particular": it can easily happen that penitents, recidivists in venial faults, perform sacrilegious or at least invalid confessions. "Hence, let the confessor strive diligently not to absolve such penitents indiscriminately; for then, even if they are in good faith, nevertheless he himself will not be able to be excused from sacrilege, by imparting absolution to those who can be judged not sufficiently disposed for absolution."¹¹ But see n. 1842.

1830. II. A penitent, even formally a recidivist, can be absolved as often as he furnishes SOME EXTRAORDINARY SIGN of disposition. - Thus the Holy Doctor, against Merbesius and others, who with intolerable rigor say that a habituated person can never be absolved unless his amendment is established by long experience. The reason of our opinion is because an extraordinary sign, provided it is solid and founded, takes away the suspicion of indisposition which repeated falls introduce¹² (cf. n. 1817, q. 1).

"Nor is it true what the adversaries object, namely that proof of time alone is the sole sign of a changed will: for change of will depends on divine grace, which does not need time, but operates in an instant; and therefore it can become manifest not only by experiment of time, but by certain other signs. - Indeed, sometimes other signs of present disposition manifest the change of will much better than experience of time; for those signs indicate directly the disposition of the penitent; but experience only indirectly, so that not rarely it can happen that someone, even for a long time, abstains from vices for the honorableness of this world, as St. Gregory says, and nevertheless is not rightly disposed. Therefore, as often as the penitent brings true signs of sorrow and purpose (or in other words: as often as he is prudently judged to have changed his will), so often he will be able to be absolved well."¹³

We say, he will be able to be absolved; for he is not necessarily and always to be absolved, because the confessor can, indeed sometimes ought, as PHYSICIAN, to defer absolution for a penitent even sufficiently disposed, as we have already affirmed several times (cf. n. 1816).

Let it further be noted: 1. A recidivist returning the first time will more easily be able to be absolved than the second or third time. For extraordinary signs are obtained more easily the more promptly the confessor puts the sickle to the root, and besides, the special signs of disposition required are smaller in proportion as the indications of indisposition have not yet been multiplied so much.¹⁴

2. Incontinent recidivists (from passion) can more easily be absolved than the intemperate (from habit); because in the former the confessor will very often find, or will be able to induce, some extraordinary sign, but in these latter rarely.¹⁵ Hence, recidivists into blasphemies can more easily be absolved than into other sins of hatred, theft, or lust, to which the habit clings more strongly because of the greater passion which is found in them.¹⁶

3. A recidivist formally such, unless he is certainly indisposed, can or ought to be absolved under condition in those cases in which one doubtfully disposed can or ought to be absolved (cf. n. 1663, q. 5, Rule 1). - Advert also that, because faith has everywhere collapsed, in this our age there more often occurs the lamentable case in which it is rightly to be feared lest a penitent doubtfully disposed, and dismissed without absolution, bid farewell to the Sacraments and waste away in his sins.¹⁷

1831. Questions. Q. 1. Whether one must use the remedy of delay of absolution toward a recidivist SUFFICIENTLY DISPOSED?

Resp. 1. Negative, when the delay is judged more likely to harm than to profit, or to bring upon the penitent some mark or danger of infamy (cf. n. 1816).

2. Outside these cases, the matter is to be committed to the prudence of the confessor. St. Alphonsus distinguishes thus: 1) If the penitent has relapsed because of an intrinsic cause or fragility, as happens in sins of pollution, morose delectation, hatred, blasphemy, and similar things, delay is rarely expedient; because greater fruit is to be hoped for from the grace of the Sacrament than from the delay of absolution (especially for recidivists into the sin of pollution there is no remedy more efficacious than frequent confession, indeed without it amendment can scarcely be hoped for, since this Sacrament is the greatest bridle): nevertheless, an opportune threat of delay will always be profitable... It was said, rarely expedient; for sometimes it profits, or even is necessary for striking terror, e.g. if remedies for a long time have been applied in vain, if the beginnings of a vice, especially in an adolescent, must be opposed, etc. - 2) If he has relapsed because of an occasion, ordinarily delay is expedient; both because the occasion is a stronger incentive to sin: but a stronger restraint must be opposed to a stronger allurement; and because removal of the occasion, more than rooting out of the habit, depends on the will: but what depends more on the will must be exacted more rigidly.¹⁸ The same must be said of a penitent obliged to restitution, reconciliation, denunciation, repair of grave scandal¹⁹ (cf. nn. 1793, 3, and 1816).

Q. 2. Why must a RECIDIVIST formally such be treated with greater severity than one simply RELAPSED from a voluntary occasion not present?

Resp. The reason is because the occasionary is supposed not at the same time to be habituated in sin; wherefore the occasionary, or recidivist from occasion, as such, can be absolved twice or three times without the occasion having been left; but otherwise, if at the same time he is recidivist into a habit of sin, without amendment.²⁰

Q. 3. What REMEDIES ARE TO BE ASSIGNED to recidivists INTO POLLUTION or into other lustful acts?²¹

Resp. The most apt will be: 1. To excite in them an ardent desire of recovering purity of mind and body, and to raise their soul to the struggle; otherwise the rest will be altogether useless. To excite the desire, let the confessor show the sick person the danger of damnation unless he corrects himself; because the more sins are accumulated, so much the more difficult is the attainment of salvation rendered; and the more intense the habit becomes, so much the weaker the will becomes. But to raise the soul to the struggle, let him insert into the penitent a sense of his dignity, by which he is man and Christian, and which by his vile habit he lowers, indeed finally no longer even feels; let him inspire in him confidence in God, in the Blessed Virgin Mary, and hope of victory, if he is going to use the remedies faithfully and constantly, even if it happens that he relapses from fragility.²²

2. To withdraw far from every dangerous occasion, to flee idleness and solitude, to avoid dishonest conversations, not to read amatory books, not to frequent dances and theaters, since these throw impure phantasms into the mind and soften the soul.²³

3. Frequent prayer, especially to recite three times each day the Angelic Salutation in honor of the purity of the Most Blessed Virgin, morning and evening, always adding before her image the purpose of not sinning and supplication for the gift of perseverance. Very much also will serve the frequent meditation of the eternal truths, according to the divine saying: "Remember your last things, and you will not sin forever"; and according to this counsel of St. Alphonsus: "Mental prayer is to be insinuated, not only to the timorous, but also to sinners, who often, because of defect of consideration, return to the vomit."²⁴

4. When some temptation rushes in, immediately to avert the mind elsewhere, and, if the temptation persists, to invoke several times and confidently the Most Holy Names of Jesus and Mary; thought concerning the Passion of Christ, eternal fire, death, the presence of God, remorse of conscience after sin, etc., also helps; likewise a fervent act of love toward God, with the purpose of undergoing death rather than sinning.²⁵

5. Frequenting of the Sacraments, which in wondrous ways represses the heat of lust; indeed, without it scarcely any other efficacious remedy is supplied; but especially care must be taken that the penitent return to the confessor immediately after a fall, and also that he choose for himself a stable, learned, and pious confessor.²⁶

6. Marriage, if it can be done, according to the admonition of the Apostle (1 Cor. 7:2, 9): "Because of fornication let each man have his own wife, and each woman her own husband... If they do not contain themselves, let them marry; for it is better to marry than to burn." Indeed, the incontinent who would not wish to use other opportune means would be held to marriage.²⁷

To these we add some NATURAL REMEDIES which can assist the supernatural ones; they are namely: 1. temperance in food and drink, especially in the evening; in the evening not to use wine, nor hot foods; - 2. temperance in sleep; not to lie in an immodest position, nor in a soft bed; in the morning to rise early; - 3. exercises which tire the body, such as walks, hunting, etc.²⁸

Concerning recidivists into blasphemies, recall what was said at n. 599.²⁹

Notes near nn. 1466-1469, particular occasions of drunkenness, lust, injustice, and heresy (printed pp. 178-179).

1 L. VI. 459. | 2 Prax. Conf. n. 70. | 3 De Recid. n. 77. Ed. 1a. | 4 2. 2. q. 156. a. 3. ad 3.

1470. - A consuetudinary, or habituated person, must carefully be distinguished from a recidivist, and the former is said to be he who, by the repetition of sins of the same kind, concerning which either he has not yet confessed, or (practically speaking) has not yet been confessed and admonished, has contracted a true propensity to those sins, or a depraved habit of them.

How many acts suffice for contracting a depraved habit depends on the nature of the repeated sin itself, and on the mode in which it was committed, namely by thought, word, or deed; - on the longer or shorter time which intervened between the acts themselves of the same kind of sin; - on the temperament or disposition of the penitent; - on the greater or lesser intensity with which the will placed the acts, etc. - Thus "five times in a month," says St. Alphonsus, "can already constitute an evil habit in some vice of external sin, provided that between the acts themselves some interval intervenes. And in the matter of fornications, sodomies, and bestialities a much smaller number can constitute a habit: one who, e.g., would fornicate once in a month for a year, can well be called habituated." (27) p. 421.

Among the habituated some are such simply, or incontinent; but others are habituated in evil will. - The latter sin a) because of habitual perversity of will; b) without a previous impulse of vehement passion, or from proper election, or at least from only light concupiscence; c) they do not easily detest the sin committed. - But the former, on the contrary, sin 1) from the impulse of vehement passion; so that 2) habitually their will itself is good and contrary to sin, which therefore 3), the impulse of passion having passed, they very greatly abhor. Thus Berardi from St. Thomas. (28) p. 421.

He is called a recidivist who, although admonished and having promised amendment, has fallen back into the same sin of custom. But according to the mind of St. Alphonsus one must well distinguish between a recidivist such formally and materially. The former is he who has fallen back in the same or almost the same way; the latter, who after his last Confession indeed fell back, but not in the same or almost the same way. - Therefore, that someone may be called a recidivist formally such, three things are required: 1° That he has contracted a habit of sin; 2° that in another Confession he was rightly admonished; 3° that he fell back into the habit or into the sin of habit in the same or almost the same way, no study of amendment having been employed, or prescribed means.

Notes near n. 1470, consuetudinaries and recidivists distinguished (printed p. 179).

1 Vind. Ed. 2a. T. II. p. 276. col. 1 (1). | 2 L. VI. 459. | 3 Ib. | 4 Prax. Conf. n. 70. | 5 L. VI. 459. | 6 Prax. Conf. n. 70. | 7 L. VI. 460.

1471. - Principle I. A depraved habit is not of itself a sign of indisposition. The reason is that "although ... it renders the sinner more prone to sin, nevertheless it does not give a presumption of his infirm will." - Hence the habituated person can be absolved at once and regularly must be, "even if no amendment has preceded, provided that he seriously proposes it"; i.e. he is disposed "by true sorrow and firm purpose of employing efficacious means for amendment." Moreover sorrow and purpose of this kind are presumed from the Confession itself, spontaneous indeed; which presumption yields only to some positive presumption to the contrary. - I said: can be absolved AT ONCE and REGULARLY must be. For "if the habit were very rooted," such as it is accustomed to be in him who is habituated in evil will, and universally in those who for a long time were given to some vice, especially of the flesh, "the confessor also can defer absolution for him," a) "for experiencing how constant the penitent is in reducing the prescribed means to practice, and" b) "that he himself may conceive greater horror of his vice."

1472. - Principle II. Nor is it a sign of indisposition that someone has become a recidivist into the sin of habit, provided that he is only such materially (n. 1470). But the following show a recidivist to be only such materially - "the fulfillment of means prescribed by the confessor"; - "a smaller number of sins," ... namely "when the penitent was in the same occasions of sinning," but not when that smaller number of sins is to be attributed to another cause than the purpose of amendment, e.g. to illness, with which he labored after the last Confession; - "if ... after the last Confession he contained himself for a long time, e.g. for 20 or 30 days, when before he was accustomed to fall several times in a week"; - "if the relapse" was only "after a great conflict," or long and energetic resistance, or in a very vehement temptation; - if after relapse and before Confession he abstained from sin for a notable time. - The reason of the principle is that in cases of this kind relapse, even frequent, is deservedly attributed, not to a defect of true sorrow and firm purpose, but to greater infirmity which exists from a depraved habit. - Hence the confessor ought especially to ask a penitent who has fallen back into the sin of habit: a) whether he employed the means prescribed for amendment; b) how often and in what circumstances he fell back. From the response it will be clear whether the relapse is a sign of indisposition or not. But if it is not, he can and must absolve him. But whether at once, we shall soon say.

1473. - Principle III. A recidivist formally such (n. 1470), by the very fact that he has fallen back in the same or almost the same way into the sin of habit, offers a founded presumption of his indisposition; - which presumption, unless it is taken away by a contrary presumption, makes his disposition at least doubtful, and therefore that he must be held and treated as doubtfully disposed.

I say: 1° he offers a founded presumption of his indisposition. "For he who firmly proposes (Lugo says well) a thing morally possible to himself, does not so easily forget his purpose," or does not act as one who had no purpose at all; "but at least for some time perseveres, and falls with more difficulty or more rarely." Therefore by this very fact that he has fallen back in the same or almost the same way into the sin of habit, he offers a founded presumption of an infirm purpose.

I say: 2° which presumption, unless it is taken away by a contrary presumption, makes his disposition at least doubtful. But that contrary presumption is not founded by ordinary signs of disposition, namely the usual affirmation or protestation of penitents, that they sincerely are sorry and firmly purpose; but only by extraordinary signs (or some special manifestation of sorrow), and these solid and founded, namely such from which with foundation the will of the penitent can be argued truly to have been changed for the better.

Notes near nn. 1471-1473, habituated persons and formal recidivists (printed p. 180).

1 L. VI. 459. | 2 Prax. Conf. n. 73. Vind. Ed. 2a. T. II. p. 285 sq.

1474. - St. Alphonsus enumerates nine signs of this kind, and here, for the sake of aiding memory, we review them under four headings, according as they are collected, namely either A) as manifesting primarily sorrow of soul; or B) from the motive itself of Confession; or C) from those things which the penitent performed before he approached Confession; or D) from the accusation itself and from the mode in which it is instituted.

1475. - A. Tears, sighs, or cordial words extraordinarily manifest sorrow of soul or compunction of heart. But cordial words "sometimes," says St. Alphonsus, "can be more certain signs than tears"; for tears "sometimes proceed from some passion which penitents set forth; or from the motive of denied absolution, or of damage suffered or imminent." Besides there are those who by their very temperament are more easily moved to tears, and for whom these flow at even the lightest motions of soul and such as are almost immediately to be calmed. Hence regularly they are to be valued less in women than in men. "For the rest," adds St. Alphonsus, "the tears of penitents for the most part arise from compunction of heart, especially if they are poured out after hearing a sermon or the admonition of a confessor offering some motive of compunction."

1476. - B. The motive itself of Confession, namely:

a) "Spontaneous Confession, namely if the penitent approaches, not now to fulfill the Paschal precept, nor on account of some custom of confessing oneself on some feasts, nor does he approach impelled by parents, by a master or teacher: but comes altogether spontaneously, and truly inspired by divine light, for the sole end that he may receive divine grace. Especially if for confessing himself he has undertaken a long journey, has abstained from notable gain," e.g. "from the gain of that day, has sustained a grave inconvenience, or has overcome a great internal or external conflict."

b) "If he has come moved by some extraordinary impulse, suppose on account of a sermon heard," or a Mission frequented, or spiritual exercises performed, "or the death of a friend" or relative, "or on account of fear of some imminent scourge," e.g. of an epidemic disease, or because he was snatched from some proximate danger of death.

Note. - 1° It has been said under a), that that Confession is not spontaneous which is instituted for fulfilling the Paschal precept. Take care nevertheless not to conclude thence that he who has not confessed through the whole year and only in the Paschal time approaches the Sacrament of Penance, by this very fact, or a priori, must be held as indisposed. Rather you will say that he who spontaneously and for the end that he may obey the Church and reconcile himself with God approaches the Sacred Tribunal in the Paschal time, is to be presumed disposed, until this presumption is not destroyed by a contrary presumption. Nevertheless many approach Paschal Confession without any preparation of soul and from mere custom; others, because they are compelled to it; others, because it is their interest that they be judged good Christians. All these indeed commonly show sufficiently, by the very manner of confessing, the defect of due disposition. - Nevertheless let the confessor remember that especially in the Paschal time he is obliged to dispose penitents; for that time is almost the only one in which he can act directly upon the soul of penitents of this kind. - Which persons in this time can be absolved conditionally, see above n. 1344. q. 8°. II Rule.

2° The spontaneity of Confession is to be presumed especially in those regions or nations in which faith has languished; for there human respect does not impel to receiving the Sacraments (as in others in which religion flourishes), but rather draws back from them. For the rest, even in regions or nations of this kind there are not lacking those who approach the Sacred Tribunal from custom alone, or from other motives also.

Notes near nn. 1474-1476, extraordinary signs and spontaneous confession (printed pp. 180-181).

1 L. VI. 460. Prax. Conf. n. 74. | 2 Ib. | 3 Ib. | 4 Ib.

1477. - C. Those things which the penitent performed before he approached Confession. Such are: "study" (serious indeed or equal, but not some very minimal and scarcely perceptible one) "employed for amendment; ... or if the penitent employed fasts, alms, prayers and Masses, that he might make a good Confession, and dispose himself for absolution; flight" or removal "of occasions; ... fulfillment of means prescribed by the confessor.... If the penitent, before he approaches, has restored the thing or reputation taken away"; has burned or otherwise destroyed depraved books, toward which he was much affected; has renounced a condemned society, etc.

Note as to the study of amendment. - This is not to be judged precisely from the degree of amendment which followed; for it can happen that a lighter amendment must especially be attributed: either 1) to a very rooted habit; or 2) to assiduous and vehement temptations; or 3) to a very light and changeable temperament, which is especially proper to young persons, and by which it happens that they pass with equal facility to good and to evil; or 4) to the rusticity of the penitent, to his dullness, to his labile memory, to his occupations, and also to the little care of confessors in assigning congruent remedies to him; or 5) to the condition of the sin itself, suppose because it is most easily committed, as sin of heart and mouth. Indeed even in sins themselves of deed this must be attended to; for someone pollutes himself more easily than he fornicates; he is more easily seduced than he seduces, etc.

Notes near n. 1477, prior efforts toward amendment (printed p. 181).

1 L. VI. 460. Prax. Conf. n. 74. | 2 Vind. Ed. 2a. p. 402. 4. p. 444 (4). T. II.

1478. - D. The accusation itself, and the mode in which it is instituted. a) "If the penitent confesses sins previously kept silent through shame." b) "If on account of the admonition of the confessor he shows that he has apprehended a new knowledge and horror of his sin, and of the danger of his damnation." c) "If he himself" the penitent "asks remedies from the confessor, or new means for amendment; likewise if he promises to fulfill the means which the confessor then suggests to him, especially if he was never admonished to employ them," or if he promises "better to execute the means" previously "given by the confessor.... But I judge that these promises are not to be trusted altogether, if other signs are lacking: since penitents, that they may seize absolution, easily promise, but afterward attend to it with difficulty."

"Others add other signs, as if the penitent gladly accepts a great penance; if he asserts that he repented of the sin as soon as he committed it; if he protests that he wishes to die rather than sin. But I do not know whether these signs alone can be sufficient; rather I would say that they can serve for aiding other signs which alone would not suffice."

From these things conclude that it is not so difficult for a sagacious confessor to find in the penitent - or for a confessor burning with true zeal for souls to induce in the same - some extraordinary, solid, and founded sign, e.g. that which was brought forward under b) in this number. Wherefore let the confessor well attend to these words of His Holiness Pope Leo XII in the Bull of Jubilee of 1825: "Many indeed present themselves to the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance altogether unprepared, but very often nevertheless such that from unprepared they can become prepared, if only the priest, clothed with the bowels of mercy of Jesus Christ, who came not to call the just, but sinners, knows how to deal with them studiously, patiently, and meekly."

Notes near n. 1478, accusation and mode of confession (printed p. 182).

1 L. VI. 460. Prax. Conf. n. 74. | 2 Ib. | 3 Ib.

1479. - I say: 3° that he must be held as doubtfully disposed and treated.

Hence: a) Absolution here and now is not to be conceded to him; for it is not lawful to administer a Sacrament with doubtful matter; but contrition, which is the matter of the Sacrament of Penance, is doubtful in a recidivist formally such. Therefore.

b) Absolution is to be deferred for him until prudent probability is had, namely solitary [probability] (n. 52. 3°), concerning his disposition, or contrition; in other words, until he brings sufficient signs of amendment. - But as to the time to which absolution is to be deferred, St. Alphonsus hands down this rule: 1° If there is question of recidivists from intrinsic frailty, regularly a delay of 8 or 10, or at most 15 or 20 days suffices. For if it is protracted beyond that time, it will easily exceed the strength of the penitent, which otherwise is sufficiently weak, and he will fall in spirit and return with difficulty. - If 2° there is question of recidivists in an extrinsic proximate occasion, a longer experience is required, since the occasion "is a stronger incentive to sinning. But an experience of a month will always suffice." Yet it seems that not even to so long a time is it to be protracted, if within that time the penitent cannot approach the occasion; for so great a delay would be frustrated in this case of its end.

c) Absolution will have to be deferred also for him who already after the first admonition is formally a recidivist; because even here he is doubtfully disposed. Indeed regularly the disposition of this one is more doubtful than of him who falls back after a second or third admonition; for the first, by its own nature, has a greater force for moving than subsequent ones.

For the rest, for other reasons a recidivist returning the first time will be able to be absolved more easily than the second or third time. For extraordinary signs are obtained from a confessor the more easily, the more promptly and quickly he puts the sickle to the root, and moreover the fewer special signs of disposition are exacted, the less multiplied still are the indications of indisposition.

Recall also the things said above n. 1476, Note 2, concerning judgment about the spontaneity of Confession in regions or nations in which faith has languished and frequency of the Sacraments has been greatly diminished.

Note. - Do not wonder that St. Alphonsus is more severe toward a recidivist formally such than toward a penitent who has fallen back from a voluntary occasion not present, whom he teaches can be absolved twice or three times. For: 1° this latter is supposed not to lack a firm purpose of avoiding the occasion, nor to have neglected all means of amendment, suppose prayer, renewal of purpose, etc. (n. 1436. q. 1°. R. 1°), and therefore he is not judged to be a recidivist formally such. 2° Relapse (and this is perhaps the stronger reason) from a contracted habit of itself induces a greater suspicion of indisposition than relapse from a transitory passion; for this latter is determined from the sudden and more vivid presence of the object in the occasion; but on the contrary habit, as St. Thomas teaches, is a quality which according to its own nature has this, that it is not easily changed. - For the rest, as physician, the confessor must be more severe with recidivists from occasion; because the physician attends not to the present disposition (as does the judge), but chiefly to future dangers, or to the very causes of the disease.

d) A recidivist formally such, unless he is certainly indisposed, can or must be absolved under condition in those cases in which one doubtfully disposed can or must be absolved (n. 1344. q. 8°). Advert also that, because faith everywhere is collapsing, in this our age there occurs more often a case to be lamented, in which it is rightly feared lest a penitent doubtfully disposed and dismissed without absolution say farewell to the Sacraments, and waste away in his sins.

Notes near n. 1479, deferring absolution for recidivists (printed p. 182).

1 Conc. Pl. Balt. II. n. 286. Cf. Vind. Ed. 2a. T. II. p. 340. col. 1 (1). | 2 Prax. Conf. n. 72.

Notes near n. 1479, recidivists, habit, and future danger (printed pp. 182-183).

1 Vind. Ed. 2a. T. II. p. 378 sq. | 2 1. 2. q. 49, art. 2. ad 3. | 3 Prax. Conf. n. 71. Vind. p. 786. 2. Ed. 2a. T. II. p. 399 sq.

1480. - Principle IV. For a recidivist, although disposed sufficiently or enough, i.e. such materially, or even formally, but bringing extraordinary signs, the confessor, as physician, can defer absolution, even without his consent, whenever he prudently judges the delay to be useful for his amendment; indeed he is held to this when he judges such a remedy to be necessarily useful for the salvation of his penitent. See the things said n. 1427. II. But whether it is expedient ORDINARILY to use this remedy or not, without the consent of the penitent? See the things said n. 1428. q. 1°, to which St. Alphonsus adds: "If the penitent has relapsed from intrinsic frailty, ... I say with the most common sentence of the Doctors, that it is rarely expedient to defer absolution for a recidivist, when he is disposed: for the grace of the Sacrament must be hoped to be able to profit him more than the delay of absolution." But "it will always be profitable that the confessor terrify recidivists of this kind" from intrinsic frailty "and show as if he could not absolve them."

St. Alphonsus says: 1° if the penitent has relapsed from FRAILTY; for from the mind of the holy Doctor I judge that absolution is regularly to be deferred for a penitent, even sufficiently disposed, if he has relapsed into the sin of habit and there is question of one habituated in evil will (n. 1471). For according to the holy Doctor (ibid.) absolution already can be deferred for a habituated non-recidivist, if there is question of a very rooted habit.

I add, from Berardi, the following cases in which I judge according to the mind of St. Alphonsus that regularly it is fitting or even necessary that absolution be deferred, even for a recidivist from intrinsic frailty.

The first case can be if the penitent is placed in great danger of eternal damnation, namely insofar as remedies have indeed already been employed by him for a long time, and with sufficient diligence and perseverance also, but with no or almost no amendment of the depraved custom (which case certainly, as experience shows, is not chimerical), especially if that miserable man, living perpetually thus in the state of mortal sin, is already old, or labors under slow phthisis, and much more if the danger is present lest at some time sudden death attack him, since, e.g., an apoplectic stroke had already threatened him at other times. For in such and so great a danger reason counsels that, all other remedies having been tried in vain, it is necessary to try (at least for the most part) even the remedy of delaying absolution; for extreme remedies must be applied to extreme evils.

The second case can be if the habituated penitent brings great and extraordinary scandal, as several Theologians note, e.g. Sanchez, Bonacina, Sporer, and Laymann; for hope, even moderate, of impeding the ruin of many souls must prevail over the fear of bringing damage to the penitent; for public damage must be esteemed much more than private.

The third is the case of restitution (especially if there is question of a great sum), as was said n. 719. 4°.

The fourth is the case of reconciliation to be executed with an enemy, or between husband and wife, as St. Francis Xavier and Roncaglia note.

St. Alphonsus says: 2° if the penitent has relapsed from INTRINSIC frailty: for if he has relapsed on account of an occasion, it will be necessary to act with him as was said n. 1479. b).

Notes near n. 1480, physicianly delay of absolution (printed p. 183).

1 Vind. Ed. 2a. T. II. p. 402. 4. | 2 Prax. Conf. n. 76. | 3 Ib. | 4 Ib. n. 77. L. VI. 464 in fine. Cf. Vind. Ed. 2a. p. 404 sq. et 423 sq. | 5 De Recid. n. 110 sq. Ed. 1a.

1481. - The Manner of Acting with Consuetudinaries and Recidivists.

1° As to admonitions. Those who are of a lighter mind, and do not sufficiently perceive the gravity and danger of the sin of habit and relapse, let the confessor strive to shake and terrify them, and teach with graver words to how great a danger they expose their eternal salvation, unless they inflict serious violence upon themselves. - But to the faint-hearted let him add courage, and let him exhort them not to renounce the purpose of amendment, trusting in the aid of Him who does not desert those who are of good will. Especially let him admonish them that, when they fall back, they beware for themselves of melancholy and faint-heartedness, and rather at once elicit an act of contrition, renew the purpose, and, as soon as it can be done, have recourse to the remedy of Confession, lest namely that first relapse become the cause of many others. But let the confessor himself also take the greatest care that courage and patience not fail him.

2° As to the means of amendment. See the things said n. 1434.

3° As to the delay of absolution. Let the confessor take the greatest care that it be as little hateful to the penitent as can be done. Therefore let him strive to convince him of its necessity or usefulness, and let him dismiss him from himself only with most humane words, and lovingly induce him to return to him at the determined time. For recidivists, since they easily lose heart, when after some time they always fall back into the same sins, will with difficulty return to a confessor by whom they are treated less kindly.

Notes near n. 1481, practical handling of consuetudinaries and recidivists (printed p. 184).

1 L. II. Dec. c. XXXII. n. 45. | 2 De II. Dec. D. IV. q. 1. p. 13. | 3 n. 332. | 4 L. V. Tr. VI. c. IV. n. 10. | 5 L. IV. Ep. 8. n. 14. | 6 Q. 5. c. 4. Reg. 1a. | 7 Cf. Vind. Ed. 2a. T. II. p. 426 sq.

657. A customary sinner, or one habituated in sin, is said to be one who has contracted a habit, or a constant internal propensity and facility for committing the same sin, from custom or frequently repeated acts. This habit, therefore, is distinguished:

1. from a mere occasion of sin: for this is external to the sinner, whereas habit is intrinsic; yet habit is often connected with an occasion, inasmuch as it not rarely arises from it or is much increased by it;

b) from a habitual affection toward sin, by which someone with a constant will deliberately adheres to sin: for this is sin and must altogether be put away in confession, whereas habit does not necessarily render one indisposed, since even after it has been retracted it can remain involuntarily.

A habit is acquired by repeated acts. Hence three things are required for contracting it:

1. Frequency, or the number of falls; but how many acts are required and suffice cannot be determined absolutely, but depends on various circumstances: on the character of the sinner, namely on his greater or lesser fragility; on the nature of the sin, more or less alluring, since in certain matters, such as drunkenness or luxury, evil habits are more easily and quickly acquired; on the difficulty or facility of committing the sin; on the mode in which it is committed, with greater or lesser deliberation or adherence of the will, etc.

2. Duration of time: for one who sins several times on the same day and afterward abstains for a long time does not so easily contract a habit as one who regularly commits sin once or twice, daily or every week.

3. Uninterrupted continuation: for just as a habit is lost by cessation from acts, so, if the acts are too distant, it cannot be contracted. Hence:

a) The more easily some sin is committed, the more acts are required for contracting a habit: thus more acts are required for merely internal sins, which are more easily completed, than for external sins; more for sins of the mouth than for sins of deed; more for external sins begun than for consummated sins, and for those which are perpetrated alone than for those which require an accomplice.

Thus, according to St. Alphonsus, Praxis Conf., n. 70, to commit an external sin of deed five times in a month, provided that some interval intervenes between the various acts, can suffice for contracting a habit, as if someone falls each week for several months into drunkenness or pollution; whereas, if there is question of a sin of the heart or of the mouth, a much greater number is required, namely twice or three times in a week; but if there is question of external sins which can be perpetrated only with an accomplice, a smaller number is required, so that one who fornicates once a month for a year, or commits sodomy, can be said to be habituated.

b) One custom is contracted from mere fragility, and another is deliberately contracted from a perfect choice of the will: for there are incontinent customary sinners, who sin only from fragility or from the passing and, as it were, extrinsic impulse of passion, so that habitually their will is opposed to sin, and when the sin has passed they abhor it and easily repent and desire to be freed from the custom; as sometimes happens in those who consent to passions of the flesh, of intemperance, or of anger, and easily happens in blasphemies, imprecations, and pollution; - on the contrary, there are intemperate customary sinners, or those habituated in the will of sinning, who sin from true habit and therefore from malice of will, or from a permanent intrinsic evil inclination and habitual affection toward sin, even without the impulse of passion; and consequently they do not easily detest the sin or are moved to penance,1 as often happens in base love, constant hatred, conjugal onanism, injustice of theft, and transgression of the precepts of the Church from acedia or human fear, or also in sins of the flesh, for those who rejoice in them or from inveterate custom seek them. Hence, says St. Thomas, I-II, q. 78, a. 2: "Whoever sins from habit sins from certain malice." Namely, sin from passion is, as it were, an interpolated disease; sin from habit is a continuous disease (ibid., a. 4).

As we noted II, n. 1032, 2, one who by a firm purpose has efficaciously retracted a vicious habit but has not yet extirpated it is not simply intemperate, since the habit is no longer voluntary to him; hence if from the inclination of the remaining habit it happens that he sins, he seems more to be likened to the incontinent man who falls from passion than to the intemperate man who sins from a voluntary habit. But if afterward he neglects to extirpate the habit, the habit will again be voluntary to him, and he himself again intemperate.

658. A relapser in general is said to be one who falls again into sin; hence a relapsing penitent is one who, after having confessed a sin and been admonished concerning it, falls back into it, even once. Therefore, strictly speaking and per se, there can be a customary sinner who is not a relapser, as one who has never confessed the sin in the custom of which he perseveres; and there can be a relapser who is not a customary sinner, as one who after confession falls back into a sin several times. Nevertheless, in present-day theological acceptation, a relapser is usually said to be one who, after he has confessed some sin, often falls back into the same without amendment, or into the same habit of sin, whether from an internal cause or from an external cause. Hence there must not be confused with such a customary relapser one who relapses into sin without habit or custom, or one who relapses into the occasion of sin alone, such as one who does not keep a promise concerning removing an occasion and again approaches or does not expel the occasion.

Hence one relapser is formal, another material.

He is formally a relapser if the relapse is supposed to proceed from defect of a firm purpose of the will.

For this three conditions are required at the same time: a) frequent relapse after several confessions, after, namely, the penitent has been admonished by the confessor concerning the gravity of the fault and concerning the means necessary for avoiding it; b) relapse into the same sin, but not into others of a different kind; c) defect of all amendment, even begun, so that in almost the same way, with the same facility, at once or shortly after confession, without serious effort either to repel temptations or to apply the means of amendment, he has relapsed. Thus if someone after individual confessions has frequently relapsed deliberately, beginning from one or another day after confession.

He is materially a relapser if the relapse is supposed to proceed from mere infirmity, inconstancy, or fragility of the will.

Such is one who 1) has not been seriously admonished by the confessor, or 2) although admonished, did not relapse into the same sins but into others of a different kind, or 3) although admonished and having relapsed, shows some amendment or diminution of sin, because he has not sinned so often, - or for a rather notable time has seriously tried to resist temptations, - or has applied some one of the assigned means, even if on account of the greater vehemence or frequency of temptation he has sinned as often as before.

659. Principles and rules. - Concerning customary sinners and relapsers three practical rules are usually enumerated:

A. Simple customary sinners who are not relapsers regularly can be absolved whenever they are found truly and sincerely prepared to exhibit the necessary means for conquering the custom.

It is explained: For their disposition it is required and suffices that they retract the custom, and not voluntarily retain the cause and danger of sin; but the custom is retracted through the will of not sinning any more and of extirpating the evil habit through suitable means. These means are both general or common, as prayer, meditation, remembrance of the presence of God, reception of the sacraments, etc., and particular means, which are directly opposed to the evil custom, for example mortification of the senses against impurity, abstinence from drink against intemperance.

It is proved: A confession rightly made, and the declaration of the penitent asserting that he truly grieves and firmly proposes amendment, are sufficient signs of sorrow and disposition, if no presumption to the contrary stands in the way.

But a bad habit alone per se does not give such a presumption: for it is not a sign of indisposition, but of greater facility and probability for sinning. "Although," says St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. VI, n. 459, "a bad habit renders the sinner more prone to sin, nevertheless it does not give a presumption of his weak will."

Therefore a simple customary sinner who is truly and sincerely prepared to apply the means is judged sufficiently disposed, and consequently can be absolved.

It is confirmed: a) certainly it is not required that he has already extirpated the custom;

b) besides, by applying the prescribed means, he will diminish the force of the custom and gradually extinguish it: for custom is conquered by a contrary custom.

Hence: 1) One who for the first time confesses a bad habit must be absolved, although no amendment has preceded, provided he seriously promises it: for since he has not violated promises, he is to be supposed sincere, and can and must be believed.

2. One who has already confessed a bad custom rather often, but had not been admonished concerning the remedies to be applied, can be absolved if, better instructed, he promises to use them. For the fact that he has not applied the means must be attributed to ignorance rather than to malice.

3. One who, after being admonished, did not sufficiently apply the necessary means and relapsed is a relapser, and is to be treated as such.

B. Material relapsers or incontinent persons, who relapse from fragility and infirmity of will, regularly can be absolved, if they seriously propose amendment and furnish the ordinary signs of the sincerity of their disposition.

For they have fallen either because they were insufficiently admonished, - or, after a serious effort of amendment, from the greater vehemence or frequency of temptation, or from inconstancy of the will in persevering, - or from mere fragility, so that the sin habitually displeases them; and consequently after a fall they at once detest the sin, but from infirmity of will or from the mobility and vehemence of passion they again succumb. Now ordinarily there is no doubt concerning the disposition of these persons.

C. Formal and intemperate relapsers regularly cannot be absolved, unless by special signs they show that they have true contrition and a firm purpose.

Such relapsers are from an evil will, who adhere to the object of sin and from this affection are driven into new sins; hence they are suspected concerning disposition.

For one who sincerely and strongly proposes a thing morally possible to himself, in the case, to avoid sin and to apply the necessary means, does not so easily nor so suddenly change his mind and will, but at least perseveres for some time and applies the means. Hence frequent relapse from a depraved will, without almost any effort and any amendment, generates a prudent suspicion and a founded presumption that the purpose of someone was not sincere and efficacious but only weak, and that even now it is such, if he proposes in the same way as before under common signs.

But this presumption is not destroyed by a simple assertion, which no longer deserves anything but slight faith, but only by special and extraordinary signs.

Therefore such a penitent remains suspected concerning disposition, and consequently the confessor cannot form for himself a prudent judgment concerning his due disposition.

And therefore such penitents are to be held as doubtfully disposed, and they cannot be absolved unless a) they furnish a special disposition or at least extraordinary signs of good disposition, by which they appear morally certainly disposed, so that they can be absolved absolutely; or b) unless there is present a proportionately grave reason, namely one sufficient that they can be absolved under condition, which is verified in the cases enumerated above, n. 616.

Hence false is both the opinion of the Laxists and of some moderns, who say that they can be held as disposed and absolved with ordinary signs, unless at the same time from positive circumstances indications of indisposition are present - as is clear from the proposition condemned by Innocent XI, prop. 60;1 - and the opinion of the Rigorists, who said that they were not to be absolved unless by long experience they had proved amendment.

660. How one must proceed in practice. - From this it is clear how one must act practically:

1. The relapser is to be examined, whether he has notably diminished the number of falls, or has abstained for a notable time after confession, or has fought strenuously even if he has fallen more often than before: such a one can be absolved at once, because he has applied a serious zeal for amendment, of which there is a threefold sign: a) application of means; b) rarer, more difficult, or later relapse; c) perseverance for some not altogether brief time.

2. If serious effort is lacking, special or extraordinary signs are to be sought; and when these have been posited, the relapser can be absolved at once. But extraordinary signs are not necessarily extraordinary dispositions, since simple attrition suffices; but they are signs, more proving, clearer, more numerous, and those which had been given before by the same penitent, of this required attrition at least; hence they are to be considered relatively to the character of the penitent, to the nature of the temptations, and to the other circumstances. Several things are found indicated in n. 617.

A habitual sinner is called one who, from frequency in a certain kind of sins, has contracted a habit or depraved inclination of committing those same sins. But what frequency is required and suffices for contracting a habit cannot be accurately defined, although it seems certain that a habit is more easily acquired in external sins committed uniformly than through an interrupted frequency of internal sins.

But a relapser, at least in the theological sense, is called that sinner who, having confessed many times, always relapses in the same way. Wherefore a relapser is almost always a habitual sinner, but not conversely. I said in the theological sense, because by force of the word a relapser simply is one who, after some sin once confessed, commits it again. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 459. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 490 and following.

I say 1°. Every habitual sinner can always be absolved, although no amendment has preceded, provided he seriously proposes this and shows sufficient signs of contrition. The reason is because a depraved habit is not properly a sin, but a certain inclination and facility toward committing it, and consequently of itself it ought not to impede absolution from being given; otherwise those who have more vehement passions and a greater proclivity to evil ought not to be absolved, which certainly is absurd.

I say 2°. A relapser who gives no hope of amendment at all cannot be absolved; nor does the simple and bare fact of approaching confession ordinarily found that hope; and consequently it is false to assert that a relapser can be absolved as often as he approaches the sacrament. The reason of the first is because only he gives no hope of amendment who here and now lacks an efficacious purpose and true contrition. But the reason of the second is because the presumption stands against the relapser who simply and barely performs confession in the very same way in which until now he had been accustomed to perform it; and the confessor, if he wishes to be prudent, cannot abstract from this presumption. Besides, it is established from proposition 60 condemned by Innocent XI, which reads thus: "To a penitent having a habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, although no hope of amendment appears, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred, provided he says with his mouth that he is sorry and proposes amendment." I said ordinarily, because cases can be given and truly are given in which the simple and bare petition of absolution after confession, performed with customary humility, can lead the confessor prudently to think that the relapsing penitent does not lack sufficient disposition, and to confer upon him the benefit of absolution, especially if some extrinsic reason for receiving Communion is added. But when this judgment can be made, the prudent confessor must gather from the circumstances.

I say 3°. A relapser who offers some special or extraordinary or new sign of sorrow can be absolved as often as this occurs. The reason is because in that case every prudent suspicion is removed which the preceding falls and confessions performed without any amendment could have induced; and consequently the confessor can prudently judge that the penitent is sufficiently disposed. - I said can be absolved, but not necessarily must be; for the confessor can defer absolution in this case if he judges that delay will be useful to the penitent, although ordinarily it is more expedient that it not be deferred. - Cf. Baller. note (a), pp. 602 and following.

60. To a penitent having a habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even though no hope of amendment appear, absolution is neither to be denied nor to be deferred, provided he utter with his mouth that he is sorry and purposes amendment.

LX. The same Torrecilla, Vol. III, Considerations, Consultation 11, Miscellany, no. 1, folio 454: “When the confession is only of venial sins, there is not required that grief or attrition of which Trent speaks, session 14, chapter 4; but it suffices that the penitent approach confession with a desire and will of confessing, without an actual complacency of sinning.”

VI. Francolino, page 114: “But since these reasons flourish now also as they flourished formerly, it follows that absolution ought also to be deferred. … Speaking of penitents who have an inveterate habit of sinning, he thus discourses (Merbesius): Men of this kind are not to be absolved quickly, because they are converted to God as they ought only with great difficulty. For as St. Thomas says, I-II, q. 78, art. 2, reply 3, "he who sins from habit always rejoices in this, that he acts from habit, so long as he uses the habit; but because he can not use the habit, but through reason, which is not totally corrupted, meditate something else, it can happen that, not using the habit, he grieve for that which he has committed through the habit; and so for the most part such men repent of sin, not because sin displeases them of itself, but on account of some inconvenience which they incur from the sin." Thus St. Thomas. Therefore since with those who sin from a vicious habit the sin does not displease of itself, namely inasmuch as it is an offence of God, but on account of some detriment or temporal inconvenience, and what they perceive from it, if they are so affected, as also any others so minded, sacramental absolution is for a time to be denied and deferred, until their conversion be discerned and appear through worthy fruits of penance and a love of God at least inchoately conceived.”

XI. Merbesius: If a penitent should fall frequently into mortal sins, he could be proved for two months, or for a whole three months; at whose expiry, if a true amendment were foreseen, proceeding from his entire fidelity and from the force by which he endeavoured to tear out from his soul sins implanted by long custom, he could be absolved. Page 141, column 1.

I. Never too much, which is never enough, runs the common axiom. I have depicted above the image of Christian justification. This would be enough that a confessor might be able to detect when a penitent is in fact converted. But because the business is of the highest moment, since upon this — if not solely, at least in the highest degree — depends the right administration of penance, I have reckoned it worth the labour to touch briefly upon the specimen and idea of a true conversion. For hence a confessor will gather when he ought to impart and when to suspend absolution.

II. To those God promises pardon who with their whole heart are converted to him. Deuteronomy 6: When thou shalt seek the Lord … thou shalt find him: yet so, if thou seek him with all thy heart, and all the affliction of thy soul. The Prophet Ezechiel, chapter 18: Cast away from you all your transgressions by which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. This spiritual life of a new heart and a new spirit is infused by God and is divine. Therefore it is robust, firm, strong, and stable.

III. Paul the Apostle, Romans 6, writes these things: What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein? Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death? For we are buried together with him by baptism into death; that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life. … Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer. For he that is dead is justified from sin. … Knowing that Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him. … So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord. … Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin; but present yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of justice unto God. … For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity unto iniquity, so now yield your members to serve justice unto sanctification.

IV. Behold the image of the Prophets and the Apostles expressed to the life. You have here a full and entire change of heart. The interior you do not see. But this true and entire change of soul bursts forth outwardly. Just as the perfect health of the body, set in pure blood, in the best disposition of the vitals, nerves, and stomach, betrays itself visible and manifest to all outwardly in the colour of the countenance, in the eyes, and in all the members; so the spiritual life of the soul, divinely infused by a sincere conversion, lays itself open visibly outwardly, brings forth new fruits, and severely animadverts upon the very members of the body as the offspring and accomplices of crimes. Lascivious and wanton eyes it afflicts with tears; it turns away from vanity, with David, the countenance once smeared with pigment for the capturing of souls; it presses it down with modesty, sadness, and pallor; and the other members, which indulged luxury, drunkenness, banquets, and revelling, it presses down, crucifies, and tortures with fasts, disciplines, and lyings on the ground, more or less according as they more or less kick back. Pomps, luxury, and display it transmutes into a humble adornment, into wailing and howling. These are the signs of a sinner to be absolved and absolved. Here there is no place for tergiversation, no lurking-hole open for escape. Since all the testimonies of the holy Scriptures demand these signs, and with these colours delineate the true image of a converted sinner.

V. All penitents testify to the confessor that with a whole and full heart they detest their sins, and that they are converted to God; and after a few days they will relapse into the same outrages. This their feigned and lying will St. Augustine thus censures, Book 8 of the Confessions, chapter 9: Whence this monstrous thing, and why is it? The mind commands the body, and it obeys forthwith: the mind commands itself, and it is resisted. The mind commands that the hand be moved, and so great is the facility that the command is scarcely discerned from the service. And the mind is mind; but the hand is body. The mind commands that the mind will, nor is it another; and yet it does not do it. Whence this monstrous thing, and why is it? It commands, I say, that it will, which would not command unless it willed; and yet what it commands is not done. But it does not will with the whole heart; therefore it does not command with the whole. For in so far does it command as it wills; and in so far is not that done which it commands as it does not will. Since the will commands that there be a will, nor another, but itself. Assuredly it does not command in fullness, and therefore that is not which it commands. For if it were full, it would not command that it be, because it would already be. It is not therefore a monstrous thing partly to will and partly not to will, but a sickness of the mind: because it does not wholly rise, being lifted up by truth, weighed down by custom. And therefore there are two wills, because one of them is not whole; and this is present to the one which is lacking to the other.

VI. The keen argumentation of St. Augustine the common sense of men confirms in the individual duties of human life. Who would say that he wills fully and with his whole heart who does not execute that which he testifies he wills, if it be in his own power that it be done? For two things are required for the execution of a promise: power and will. Which of these is lacking in a sinner? Is it power? God forbid to assert this, cry out all Catholic theologians. Power therefore is present. And is that not done which penitents say they will to do? Therefore will is lacking. Therefore the will which they falsely allege is feigned and masked. Wherefore skilfully does St. Thomas teach, I-II, q. 10, art. 4: A will is not perfect unless it be such that, opportunity being given, it operates. Does a soldier panting with his whole heart for glory not furnish all things consonant with the attaining of this end? Does a miser neglect any of those things which he judges necessary for the acquiring of riches? Does not a sick man swallow even more bitter medicines, when with a full will he desires health? If therefore sinners willed with their whole heart and with a full will to reform their morals, they would omit none of those things which conduce to the attaining of this end. And this the more, because they ought to will their own amendment through the observance of the mandates with a greater ardour, a more powerful endeavour, and a more diligent study than a soldier glory, than a miser gold, than a sick man health.

VII. Beware therefore, O confessor, of giving credence to a penitent who, when he can amend himself, refuses to abstain from those things which fight with amendment. Long experience has taught that games, comedies, friendships, and the enticements of little women are the cause of their relapses. He neglects to break off these covenants of iniquity. Therefore he does not will amendment with his whole heart. Penitents have, you say, a full will of amending themselves while they confess; but afterwards the inconstancy of human sickness changes it.

VIII. This is a most vain hallucination, and the more pernicious as it is the more frequent. That a full and constant human deliberation can be changed no one denies. But this rarely happens, as all the just testify. Tell me: why does it come about that the avaricious, gamesters, and the lustful are rarely changed? Because, answers the Prophet, Psalm 72, they have passed into the affection: because the will of fornicating, of acquiring riches and spending them on games, is full, and dominates in them. But why do the just, the chaste, the sincere and ingenuous rarely fall, rarely or never lie, rarely or never fornicate? Because their will is full, entire, constant. Therefore the will of penitents, which they display as full while they confess, and which they frequently and most frequently change, is not a full and firm will, but weak, infirm, a mere velleity, extorted by mere servile fear, and utterly void of the love of virtue, of justice, and of God. Why were the Jews inconstant in the obedience of God? Because they failed (says David, Psalm 105) they forgot his works, they did not sustain his counsel. Because from mere fear, by no means from love, they served God. Human nature is weak, frail, changeable. But by the grace of God and due vigilance it becomes robust and dominant. Why do you obtrude frailty? cries St. Augustine, homily 28 among the 50, now sermon 17. Glass, although it be frail, yet lasts long. You will find cups from grandfathers and great-grandfathers, out of which you drink. I urge again. Is a man inconstant and changeable in the business of eternal salvation alone? Why in any other business whatsoever does he rarely recede from that which he sincerely and with his whole heart conceived and deliberately promised, unless the reasons or the circumstances of the promise be changed? Because, although he be changeable and weak, yet when with his whole will and full mind he wills, he in fact furnishes that which he promised with his whole heart. In the one and only most grave business of eternal salvation he promises with a full heart, not to man but to God, an amendment of morals; and after a few days he becomes lying, perfidious, and rebellious. What is the cause of so sudden and frequent a change? A defect of power? God forbid. A change of circumstances, or of the end? By no means. The same God who forbids, the same hell, the same paradise, the same malice of crimes, the same sanctity of amendment. What of this, that in this one business above the rest divine helps are ready, and the sacrament itself of Penance confers a healing and strengthening grace? Therefore it is evident that penitents frequently relapsing into the same crimes are therefore not amended because they do not will amendment with their whole heart and with a full will. Therefore imprudently do confessors give credence to the sayings of penitents, when their frequent relapses prove the fallacy of promises of this kind. Nature is prone to pleasures, to enticements, to delights; but it is repugnant to virtue and to heavenly things. Be it so. And yet from all these things the men of the world abstain, that they may serve one lying idol alone. What does a soldier not endure that he may attain glory? What does a merchant not bear that he may grow rich? What does the luxurious man not suffer that he may become brutish, or the gamester that he may become a conqueror? And do you contend to gain the kingdom of heaven, which suffers violence, without labour and grief? O most foolish of all fools, if you believe it.

IX. Innumerable testimonies of the holy Fathers, which I have given in Vol. IX, Book 1, dissertation 5, chapter 4, I could transcribe hither; but it pleases me to subjoin a few from Cardinal Bellarmine, sermon 8 on the fourth Sunday of Advent: Many today are found to be unskilled stewards, who understand neither their office, nor their place, nor their grade. Those lastly do not acknowledge themselves ministers and dispensers, who, as though they were not about to render an account to the Lord, with the highest facility lay hands upon all; and both the contrite and the not contrite, both those confessing with a full perfidy and those prepared to satisfy for their sins and those not prepared, as it were by their own power and authority, ABSOLVE. THESE BY THEIR UNSKILFULNESS AND PRIDE CORRUPT PEOPLES AND CLOSE TO THEM THE WAY OF TRUE PENANCE. For there would not be today so great a facility of sinning, if there were not so great a facility of absolving. Men laden with sins come, and who have fallen a thousand times into the same, often without any sign of grief, either on the day before or on the very day of a great solemnity; and they wish at once to be absolved and to approach the communion of the holy mysteries. And we, inconsiderate judges and unfaithful dispensers, lay hands upon all, and say: I absolve thee: go in peace. But woe to us when the Lord shall set his reckoning with his servants.

I. A Christian by mortal sin turns his back upon God, breaks the covenant entered upon with Christ in Baptism, crucifies Christ himself again on his own part, repudiates the eternal inheritance, and becomes a bondman of the devil, that he may indulge the filthy pleasures of the world, and roll himself again like a swine in the mire of lust or of avarice. All the Fathers, all the Evangelists testify that within a short interval of time the covenant between such sinners and God is commonly not reintegrated. But let us hear Trent itself, session 14, chapter 2, where it has these things: Obtaining a full and entire remission of all sins (by Baptism), to which newness and integrity nevertheless we can by no means arrive through the sacrament of Penance without great weepings and labours on our part, the divine justice exacting it; so that Penance has deservedly been called by the holy Fathers a certain laborious Baptism.

II. Those who have been touched with a sincere penitence and true grief so pursue their outrages with hatred that they execrate also all things which impel to sin. And because concupiscence, the flesh, and the senses continually urge to sins, therefore they severely animadvert upon their own body with weepings and great labours, as Trent says. What does it profit (says St. Gregory the Great, or another author, Book 6 on 1 Kings, chapter 2) to confess outrages, if the affliction of penance do not follow the voice of confession? For then do we discern a sinner well converted, when he strives to blot out by a worthy austerity of affliction that which by speaking he confesses. Whence also the Lord cursed the tree adorned with leaves but barren of fruit, because he does not receive the ornament of confession without the fruit of affliction.

III. Similar things have Chrysostom, Basil, Jerome, Augustine, and all the rest of the Fathers. Tell me: when you seriously meditate these testimonies of the Scriptures and of the Fathers, do you not feel yourself moved? They mutter: the Doctors of the times have set forth for us the resolving of the cases of the times. The image of conversion and justification depicted in the holy Scriptures and in the Fathers is diverse by the whole heaven from that which you behold delineated in the books of certain men. To whom is credence to be given? Be thou the judge.

IV. All the preachers of our age with one mouth cry out from the pulpit that the conversion of a sinner of habit, habituated and relapsing, as it is vulgarly said, is most difficult. They urge that this cannot be done without fasts, tears, labours, vigils, and laborious works sent before. Fr. Claude de la Colombière of the Society of Jesus, a fervent preacher, in sermon 72, against those who violate only the Lenten fasts and confess at Easter, writes these things, rendered into Latin from the French: Do you, hearers, contend to persuade me that your penance is true? So false do I reckon it, that I should fear to profane with you the blood of the Redeemer, if I absolved you before I disposed you to penance by the fasts of forty days after the feasts have elapsed (N.B.), that by this experiment I might gather whether it truly repents you of the violated Lent.

V. Fr. de la Colombière is plainly neither a Rigorist nor a Jansenist. While the hearers hear these things, they grow pale, they weep, they approach terrified the confessors forestalled by the books and opinions of certain casuists, and, their faults being manifested — which thereabouts for several years are the same — they are absolved; and, their tears dried and their fear driven out, they joyfully reckon themselves just. But because the justification is feigned, after a few days they will relapse into the same outrages. There is added that some confessors, that they may make their penitents joyful and triumphant, are wont to say: Preachers declaim oratorically, figuratively, emphatically; they exaggerate and amplify.

VI. These things are known to the whole world: namely that preachers by the clearest testimonies of holy Scripture prove that the conversion of the relapsing, the habituated, and those of habit is rare and most difficult; and that on the other hand those of habit, entangled in habits, are absolved three and four times in a year. These things, I say, are explored by the whole world. To whom is credence to be given? Whence, I ask, so great a diversity between preachers and confessors? Whence? From the variety of the books which they read. Preachers form their sermons from the holy Scriptures and from the testimonies of the Fathers; therefore they represent the true idea of the conversion of penitents. Confessors on the contrary, the holy Scriptures and the Fathers being almost dismissed, turn over Summists full of contrary opinions. But those opinions are therefore opposed, because they proceed not from the limpid and single fount of the Scriptures, but from the diversity of human talents.

VII. What if those very apostolic ministers who from the pulpit hand down the best idea of the conversion of sinners, passing from it to the confessional, should enter upon an altogether different reckoning, and should at once, no distinction being made, absolve inveterate sinners terrified by the sermon, God inspiring, but not yet converted as they ought? Whereby it comes about that sinners of this kind, putting off the horror of their faults on account of the too easy pardon, as soon as the struck fear has vanished (compelled by which alone, and not by divine charity, they execrated their faults), return with all speed to their pristine vomit, and their last state becomes worse than the first. Consider, ministers of Penance, that truth is one, in whatsoever place it must be spoken, and that practice ought to consent with right theory: and that this is that which Christ, the Apostles, the Fathers, and the perennial tradition of the Church have confirmed. Being therefore nothing solicitous of the world's favour, nothing of the concourse of many to your churches, intend only the salvation of souls redeemed by the blood of the immaculate Lamb.

VIII. Let the most learned Guy de Seve, Bishop of Arras, impose an end upon this chapter, who in his most ample pastoral instruction, part 3, writes these things among very many others: “How many merchants who gain by any art whatsoever? How many works of iniquity among those who ought to administer, or to take care that justice be administered? How many priests in a life altogether idle? Religious, who after they have separated themselves from the world return to the spacious way of the world? Do all these walk by the narrow way? Do they not rather walk by the spacious way, and consequently by the way of perdition? All these … satisfy the precepts of the Church concerning annual confession and communion. Meanwhile no change. Whence this? Is it that we are not practically convinced that the narrow way must be held, that one may come to heaven? Is it that this truth remains barren of salvation in the mind, nor passes even to the heart? Is it that it does not perchance reach even to the mind itself? Is it that cupidity itself blinds? Is it that they are engaged in ignorance? Is it that perchance the Directors and Confessors themselves are ignorant of that truth, and are blind guides who give guidance to others? Is it that they neglect to instruct their penitents concerning this, or that penitents contemn their admonitions? Which briefly is the ORIGIN of that blindness, which has all but overthrown the FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIANITY, AND ESTABLISHED A CERTAIN APPEARANCE OF HERESY IN MORAL MATTERS MORE DANGEROUS (if it be permitted to say it) to Christians than that which regards the mind. Since it is as frequent in the Church that practical truths of this kind be impugned, as it is rare (among Catholics) that those be there impugned which stick in speculation alone. Moreover our age supplies examples over which we cannot but groan. And all the errors with which the moral field is sprinkled, of which some strike against the very principles of the law of nature — from what other fount could they have gushed forth, save that there was ignored both that great principle concerning the necessity of entering the narrow way, and that indispensable precept by which a Christian is bound to fight against the senses and desires of his own nature? Further, since that ignorance is born from no other source than that the authors of such evil dogmas, who have provoked upon their own head the threats and anathemas of the Apostolic See and of very many bishops, ARE NOT WONT TO CONSULT FOR THEIR OWN DECISIONS THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, OR THE HOLY FATHERS, OR THE COUNCILS, which you will find so rarely cited among them as you will there frequently see huge crowds of certain theologians OF THE LAST CENTURY,” and so forth.

IX. Very many like things the most learned bishop has in the same instruction, which from a study of brevity I pass over. Unless the truths of faith be considered immovable by the sacred Scripture and by the definitions of the Apostolic See and of the Councils, it would be all over with Religion. Altogether the same will happen with the truths of morals, unless we have before our eyes the holy Scripture, the pontifical decrees, the tradition of the Fathers, and the canons of the Councils. And it is heresy to deny the truths of morals as well as the truths of faith. Moreover self-love, concupiscence, and cupidity lie in ambush more impotently against the truths of morals than against those of faith. Since the precepts of morals crucify the flesh, restrain the senses, afflict the appetitions, and condemn and execrate the idol of ambition, and all the enticements, pleasures, and prestiges of a raving world. Wherefore it is more easily erred in the rules of morals than in those of faith. Turn yourselves therefore from the word of men to the word of God, to the Fathers, to the sacred Councils: let these be turned before your eyes, that you may learn what is the narrow way, and how it is to be trodden. Imbued with these divine Scriptures, and strengthened by the canons of the Supreme Pontiffs, of the holy Fathers, and of the Councils, you will be able with unstumbling foot to read the moral authors, and to distinguish the true from the false; and to hold those things which are true, and to reject utterly those which are false under whatsoever roof and mask.

I. Concerning the occasion of sinning some things have been said above, where I set forth the purpose of not sinning. But because the argument is of the highest moment, the knowledge of it must be more widely explained: for this is the reason why Christians do not abstain from sins, because they refuse to leave behind the sweet enticements and fuels of sinning. Very many casuists fashion for themselves arbitrary definitions of a proximate occasion, of a near one, of a nearer one, of one proximate of itself, of one proximate by accident, of a probable occasion, of a more probable occasion: and finally they reason concerning dangers and occasions as they feel concerning probable opinions.

II. The most wise Jesuit Fr. Michael de Elizalde rubs down the thoughts of these men, Book 8, question 15, § 3. For there are (he says) who most unskilfully philosophize concerning dangers as concerning probable opinions, by saying that some are more, others less, others equally probable. Those they call equally probable in which as often as one sins more or less, so often one does not; those dangers more probable in which one sins more often, those less in which one does not sin so often, but nevertheless often offends. They resolve nevertheless according to the way of probable opinions that we are bound to avoid none of these dangers, because in all of them the opposite is at once probable — namely that I am not about to sin. Therefore, they say, there is a grave foundation, therefore it is probable; I follow it, and thus I prudently commit myself to the danger. This is the best logical consequence from the way of PROBABILISTS, but one which alone would overturn the way of paradise and fill up hell. For who, being fully consistent with himself, would confess that it is lawful for a young man to enter that house in which either he himself, or men like him, or better than himself, entering, so often or even more often slip and fall? It is plain that this cannot be said from principles, and that it is to commit one's soul to fortune or chance: which is a crime. Lastly, that we may not delay in confuting absurdities, the matter comes to this one word, that there is no danger at all to be avoided, but that we are obliged only to avoid the necessity of sinning: for after those probable dangers there follows a necessity; and those which exist beneath necessity, they say, are probable on either side. But I am bound to avoid no probables: therefore no dangers, but only necessity. But necessity is not danger. And of the proper character of danger is some contingency in the opposite; and everyone seeing fire applied to tow says that there is a danger lest it burn: so in other necessary things. O men!

I. Alexander VII condemned the following proposition, which is the 41st: A concubinary is not bound to cast out his concubine, if she were exceedingly useful for the delight of the concubinary — commonly called regalo — when, she being lacking, he would live too wretchedly, and other foods would affect the concubinary with great weariness, and another maidservant would be found with difficulty.

The Venerable Innocent XI the following. Absolution is not to be denied nor deferred to a penitent having a habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appear, provided he bring forth with his mouth that he grieves and purposes amendment. This is no. 60.

Someone can sometimes be absolved who is engaged in a proximate occasion of sinning, which he can and will not dismiss, nay which he directly and of set purpose seeks, or thrusts himself into. This is 61.

A proximate occasion of sinning is not to be fled when some useful or honourable cause of not fleeing occurs. This is 62.

It is lawful to seek directly a proximate occasion of sinning for the spiritual or temporal good of ourselves or of a neighbour. This is 63.

II. From the recounted proscribed opinions, flatly fighting with the Gospel of Christ crying out If thy eye, and so forth, gather of what sort is the theology of those who maintained them. And yet those very men taught these things, whose books very many confessors use. They disapprove indeed the condemned theses; but they absorb with a poisonous straw the corollaries which follow thence; nay, certain casuists either elude or extenuate with arbitrary figments the very proscribed theses. Lest this seem to be asserted by me gratuitously, I subjoin an example.

III. Fr. Viva in his Treatise on proposition 41 of Alexander VII, no. 16, writes these things: “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 in another confession he promised it, and then did not stand by his promises. Some, with 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 consequently 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 does it stand in the way 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 do not take it away at once, by that very fact he wills to remain for the present in that occasion, and consequently 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 the danger of death. More commonly nevertheless, with Suárez, disputation 32, section 3, Tabiena, and others, they 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, although 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 a danger of death threaten, and if, absolution being deferred, it be believed that he will not have the opportunity of returning, or from another cause will not return. And the reason why he seems able to be absolved the first and second time is because the penitent could, either immediately before, or by hearing a sermon, or by hearing the admonitions of the confessor himself, be excited to a true and efficacious purpose of not sinning; in which case he is sufficiently disposed. Thus everywhere penitents are absolved by this, that they purpose to restore, although before confession they had not restored as they could: because from the admonitions of the confessor there can here and now arise a true purpose of restoring, which before confession was either weak, or was thought sufficient; although for some opportune time the restitution would have 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 antecedently have taken away the occasion of sinning and has not yet taken it away.”

IV. That the author may prove that a concubinary can be absolved once and again — concerning whom the discourse is in the thesis proscribed by Alexander VII — he opposes the parity of debtors, who everywhere, he says, are absolved by this, that they purpose to restore, although before confession they had not restored as they could. Everywhere assuredly, and would that not everywhere, debtors are absolved, although before confession they had not restored as they could, by confessors forestalled with false doctrines. Is it validly? Is it not sacrilegiously? Let us hear the doctrine of St. Francis Xavier, Apostle of the Indies, related in Book 6, chapter 17, by Turselline: Let absolution forthwith follow confession. … If they owe anything, let them restore it. … If they have any quarrels, let them lay them aside, let them return into favour with their enemies, and let them be disentangled from the lust and habit and from the outrages in which they are implicated. Let all these things run before absolution. Is not the doctrine of this Apostle of the East, drawn from the divine Scriptures and the Fathers, of more account than the interpretations of Leander, Tamburini, Busembaum, Escobar, Diana, Bonacina, Viva, and others? But let us hear another Apostle of our Italy, St. Charles Borromeo, who in the First Council of Milan prescribes these things: Let confessors beware lest before due satisfaction they absolve those to whom, when the faculty is present of restoring another's goods, or of paying out the legacies which have been made for pious causes, and when it has been most cautiously enjoined upon them by their superior that they do it, they have nevertheless neglected to perform it. What of this, that holy Scripture itself, Tobias 4, cries out: If any man hath done any work for thee, IMMEDIATELY pay him his hire?

V. The doctrine of Fr. Viva, as it seems to me, is included in this thesis condemned by Innocent XI: Someone can SOMETIMES be absolved who is engaged in a proximate occasion of sinning, and so forth. This proscribed thesis does not assert that one engaged in a proximate occasion is to be absolved as often as it happens, or twice, or thrice, or four times; but sometimes. Therefore according to the pontifical decree such a man is never to be absolved, unless first, when he can, he forsake the occasion. And the cited author teaches that this man can be absolved the first and second time. Why this? Because, he says, he who purposes to take away the occasion at once cannot be said to will it for the present. And who among Catholics has been so mad as to teach that he is to be absolved who wills the occasion of sin for the present? Did the authors of the condemned theses not require a purpose of dismissing the occasion for the present? Cautiously nevertheless, subjoins Fr. Viva, is one to proceed in this. This alone was lacking, that absolution should be imparted to such sinners even incautiously and indiscriminately. It is false that the eminent Doctor Suárez, and Cajetan, whom the author alleges as his own safeguard, teach this false doctrine. Fr. Suárez I have vindicated from this lax doctrine in Vol. IX, Book 2, disputation 5, chapter 4, § 3, no. 7 and following, as also Cajetan — that it may be known to all that I am immune from party zeal.

I. QUESTION I. Whether a concubinary can be absolved before he expel the concubine? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, tract 5, disputation 7, question 35, writes these things: “I answer more probably that a concubinary can lawfully be absolved once and again before he cast out the concubine, provided he anew firmly purpose to the confessor to cast her out of the house. … The reason is, because from a second, nay from a third or fourth promise made concerning the casting out of a concubine, or another proximate occasion, there is not taken a grave judgment concerning a DEFECT OF THE DISPOSITION OF THE PENITENT. Therefore he can lawfully be absolved.” Weigh, reader, the reason which this most kindly probabilist here brings forth; and gather thence the character of the recent kindly theology. From this author Fr. Viva transcribed his own opinion, not adverting that this author wrote before the condemned theses.

II. QUESTION II. Whether a concubinary can be absolved, the concubine not being cast out of the house, because he cannot do it without great detriment to his life, his honour, or his money? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 36: “I answer more probably that he can be absolved, nay ought to be, as often as he shall have truly repented — not only when there is present some amendment, but even when NO PROGRESS APPEARS; provided, as we have said, such a concubinary have grief for his sins, and a true purpose of guarding against them in the future, and so forth. … Our answer is proved: because even after that experience of no progress there can stand a true grief and the requisite purpose, without a will of taking away that occasion with so great a detriment. Therefore the penitent can be absolved. … So Vivaldus, Sánchez, Diana, and most recently and MOST LEARNEDLY (as he is wont) de Lugo, disputation 14, nos. 155 and 156, Hurtado, Candidus, Bonacina, Sá, Layman, Brunius, and so forth.” Do you see how these probabilists reconcile with the retention of the occasion the purpose of amendment? Do you see how the leading probabilists maintain it most learnedly? But it is condemned, and anti-evangelical.

III. QUESTION III. Whether a concubinary can be absolved, the concubine not being cast out of the house, because he would lose his reputation if he expelled the concubine? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 38: “I answer more probably that he himself can be absolved, nay she herself also, if by the same a mark of infamy would be incurred, or if he could not cast her out without grave loss or scandal. … So Sánchez, de Lugo, Bonacina, Candidus.” This opinion is the daughter of the preceding, and false, and condemned by the Church.

IV. QUESTION IV. Whether a concubinary can be absolved, the concubine not being cast out, who lent to the said woman, for example, a hundred gold pieces, and believes that he will lose them if he expel her from the house? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 39: “I answer more probably that he himself can be absolved, and likewise the woman herself, in the case in which he would not recover the hundred gold pieces owed to him, if he should cast her out of the house — provided he purpose not to sin any more. Because no one is bound to avoid a proximate occasion with great detriment to himself, even temporal.” So Sánchez, de Lugo, Bonacina. The Gospel of Christ cries out: What doth it profit a man, if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? And the younger casuists cited defend that for the avoiding of the loss of a hundred gold pieces the concubine is not to be dismissed.

V. QUESTION V. Whether a penitent can be absolved who even after repeated admonition fornicates now with one, now with another? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 44: “I answer that he can, as often as he approaches confession with grief and a purpose of not sinning, provided he retain or maintain no woman elsewhere. So Bonacina, Sá, Lublinus, Trullench.” A concubinary is bound to feed a concubine at his own expense at home or elsewhere, and sins with the same one alone. But this sinner without so many inconveniences can lie now with one, now with another — that is, multiply scandals and seduce several women; and nevertheless as often as he approaches confession with grief he will have to be absolved. This grief is chimerical. This doctrine is contained in the proscribed theses, and is to be disapproved by all.

VI. QUESTION VI. Whether a confessor can be absolved who out of devotion receives confessions in the hearing of which he is frequently and voluntarily polluted? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 46: “Joseph ab Horto affirms it, and Castropalao, in his Mirror of Parish Priests, chapter 10, in Diana, teaching that such a confessor can be absolved, provided he approach with grief and a purpose of not sinning.” This opinion is false, lax, and full of scandal. The addition of grief and purpose is a mere chimera, as is also the other, the devotion of receiving confessions in which that confessor is voluntarily and indeed frequently polluted.

VII. QUESTION VII. Whether a physician or a surgeon can be absolved who in healing women often sin, if they have no purpose of ceasing from the cure? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 48: “I answer more probably that they can be absolved, however much they cannot forsake their own office, provided they repent and purpose not to consent any more. It is plain from what has been said.” From what has been said, namely, is plain the falsity and laxity of this poisonous antecedent. Either physicians and surgeons ought to amend themselves or to relinquish their arts; and the same would be of advocates, judges, and the rest, when their own professions were to them a proximate occasion of sinning.

VIII. QUESTION VIII. Whether a hostess can be absolved without a purpose of not receiving a guest with whom she has sinned several times, when without great scandal or detriment she could not forbid him her lodging? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, question 55: “I answer more probably that she can be absolved, provided she promise and purpose that she will never be alone with him alone in any separate chamber, and that she repents of the past from her soul, even if she had confessed and purposed that she would never sin with him any more. So Navarrus and other Doctors, to whom add Stephen Baum thus speaking: It follows from what has been said that a woman can be absolved who receives at home without a husband a man with whom she often sins, if she cannot honourably cast him out thence, or has a cause of retaining him, provided she firmly purpose that she will not sin with him any more.”

IX. Very many other like and unheard-of figments I pass over, and having transcribed them I set down nothing; but I submit the same to the judgment of readers, nothing doubting but that all who shall read them ought to disapprove and detest them.

X. QUESTION IX. Are dancing-women, mime-women, singing-women, and comic actresses to be absolved? ANSWER. Unless they first relinquish their art, which, all things being regarded, is in fact vicious and evil, they are not to be absolved. The Fathers of the Church and the Councils of all ages detested theatrical representations as the iniquitous relics of pagan superstition. Some prate that the ancient Fathers condemned theatres because they were most base and stained with superstition. These men have never read the Fathers. The Fathers condemn that men put on a woman's garment, as being forbidden by God; they condemn harlot-like music and fornicating song; they condemn the meeting of men and women, being seen and seeing. All these things are done today. Nay our theatres are for the most part baser than those which were represented in the time of the Fathers: for then women did not act as mimes, as in our age, unless you except the theatres of the goddess Flora and the Floralia, at which not even honourable pagans assisted.

XI. Certain men are not ashamed to oppose the authority of St. Thomas. Elsewhere of set purpose I have proved more clearly than the noonday light that those opponents labour under a supine ignorance. In Book 4, distinction 16, question 4, article 2, question 2, he says that if spectacles be of base things provoking to sin, the studious inspection of them is a sin, and sometimes so great a lust can be employed in them that it be even mortal. Whence all ought to keep themselves from such inspection. All therefore according to St. Thomas ought to keep themselves. Sometimes therefore, not always, it is mortal. A most inept opposition. Assuredly a man can sometimes behold base things without being mortally delighted. But if he shall have done it frequently, he will sin mortally, because he exposes himself to the danger of sinning mortally. For the rest, that the ignorance of the objectors may be more evidently plain, the Angelic subjoins what must be brought into the midst from 2-2, question 168, article 3. Although those beholding base things should experience no delight, they sin the sin of cooperation. For here St. Thomas adds in the same place: But if any men bestow superfluous things upon such, or even SUPPORT (N.B.) those actors who use unlawful games, they sin, as it were fostering them in sin. Whence Augustine says on John, tract 100, that to give one's goods to actors is a monstrous vice. All who frequent theatres, although they were immune from lust, sin mortally, because they foster actors in mortal sin by paying them a wage. In the time of St. Thomas there were actors, or jesters, commonly called saltimbanchi, who exercised lawful games. That their art was not of itself unlawful he says in the place cited — which holds true if the games be lawful, as in the time of St. Thomas they were. Which I prove by an evident demonstration. St. Thomas in the place cited, II-II, q. 169, art. 2, reply 3, teaches this: Of itself it is vicious that a woman use a man's garment, or conversely; and especially because this can be a cause of lasciviousness, it is specially forbidden in the law. Therefore when in the preceding question, article 3, reply 3, the Angelic says that the office of actors is not of itself unlawful, he does not speak of actors of whom one puts on a man's garment and another a woman's garment, as is done in our age. For this is of itself vicious, says St. Thomas. Therefore it is clearer than the noonday light that St. Thomas disapproves as vicious the theatres of our time, in which either emasculated men put on a woman's garment, or women themselves shamelessly come forth upon the stage — which no one would deny to be a grave sin.

Caius, a Catholic young man, is accustomed to confess every week. Although otherwise of good disposition, he always accuses himself of the sin of self-pollution committed three or four times within the week. To the confessor’s questions he replied that he was accustomed to abstain for almost two days after confession but afterwards fell; that he was very sorry for the sins, sincerely wished to free himself from the evil habit, and would willingly accept from the confessor advice and means for amending himself. Hence it is asked:

1. Who is a relapser?

2. How must he be treated?

3. What is to be said of the case?

A recidivist is one who after many confessions has fallen into the same sin without any or with scarcely any amendment.

2. How is a recidivist to be treated?

This is a much controverted point among more recent moral theologians. The Jansenists taught that a recidivist can not be absolved until he has proved the sincerity of sorrow by actual amendment and by abstaining from falling again into the same sin for some time after confession. On the other hand laxists held that a penitent who has contracted a habit of sin should be absolved at once, provided that he makes verbal profession of his sorrow and purpose of amendment. Even some who are neither rigorists nor laxists hold that after a recidivist has been absolved a certain number of times, he may not be absolved again unless he shows extraordinary signs of sorrow. The doctrine of Lugo and other older theologians on this matter seems more workable and better grounded. In brief it comes to this: that the matter must be left to the judgment of the confessor, and if the confessor judges that the penitent is here and now sorry for his sins, notwithstanding his falls in the past, he may always absolve him.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 218 ff.

3. The case. The fact that Caius keeps from sin for some time after going to confession shows that he derives fruit from the sacrament and he should not be deprived of it. He may be told to come to confession immediately after falling into sin if he can do so; to pray hard and perseveringly especially in time of temptation to God and His blessed Mother for help; to go frequently to Holy Communion; to keep constantly occupied in mind and body; to take plenty of fresh air exercise; and similar means. With God’s grace, if he adopts these remedies he will conquer his bad habit. The confessor should do all he can to cheer and encourage him.

Case.—Assuredly habitual drunkards are no small trial to the confessor, especially when they make not the slightest attempt at amendment. How is this class of habitual sinners to be treated in confessionali? We have here in mind the notorious drunkard who adds to his guilt by giving scandal to others. In his work on Moral, Noldin says on this subject: “Those who relapse into drunkenness and are publicly known as such, who become drunk almost every week or even more frequently, are not to be altogether driven away from the Sacraments, but ordinarily neither are they to be admitted to them at once. Not the former, because no person’s amendment is to be despaired of; not the latter, chiefly because one who is foreseen to be about to violate his resolution after a short time cannot be absolved unless necessity presses: for scandal would have to be feared if he relapsed immediately after receiving the Sacraments; moreover, because the public scandal must first be repaired. Therefore absolution is to be deferred for a penitent of this kind until he has at least amended himself to some extent. Indeed, even in the case in which he had been absolved at once because of an extraordinary sign of repentance, it is better not to admit him immediately to Holy Communion, both so that the public scandal may meanwhile be repaired by actual amendment and so that scandal perhaps arising from a relapse may be forestalled” (Summa Theol. Mor. ed. V. P. II. n. 411).

Question.—What about the matter when there is question of the Easter Confession?

Solution.—This kind of habitual sinner usually comes to confession only at Easter. Assuredly even then a recidivus ex genere ebriorum must not be absolved if the confessor has reason to doubt his disposition. Such doubt is certainly present if the penitent on his part has done nothing to reform, and has not avoided the occasions. It would be wrong to think “if he is disposed hic et nunc then with a good conscience I can give him absolution.” True, every habitual or occasional sinner may be absolved if only in actu he is disposed, and may be regarded as such by the confessor, even if later the penitent does not amend, and the confessor foresees that he will relapse into his former habits. “A relapsing sinner who is prudently judged disposed can always in himself be absolved; for one who can truly be judged disposed can be absolved, although he is a relapsing sinner: for nothing else is required for valid and lawful absolution except that he be actually disposed; future amendment, however, is not required for true disposition, nor does foresight of a future relapse prevent it’” (Ibidem, n. 410). “A person in an occasion of sin and a relapsing sinner can always be absolved, provided that he can prudently be judged by the confessor to be truly disposed, whatever the sign may be upon which his judgment is based: whether ordinary or extraordinary, whether the penitent brought it to confession or at last displayed it in confession in response to the confessor’s admonition” (Ibid., n. 411).

But now I ask: may a recidivus, as in our case, who for years, perhaps, has given his confessor empty promises, and has made no earnest attempt or hardly any to break with his sinful habit, be regarded, prudenter, as vere dispositus? How, then, may a confessor absolve such a one simply because he appears disposed hic et nunc? (Unfortunately there are confessors who absolve everyone if only they say “yes.” It is hardly necessary to remark that such administration of the tribunal of Penance is in damnum perhaps even in perditionem animarum.) There could be only one valid reason to exercise clemency in the case of such a penitent, and that is the periculum diffamationis, in the event of his not being absolved. But this is not as bad as it seems at first sight. If in a town a habitual drunkard is publicly known as such, then there can no longer be talk of defaming.

However, if the confessor believes for good reasons that he ought to absolve him, then he should likewise permit him to receive holy Communion; for though Noldin considers it prudent not to admit a notorious drunkard at once to holy Communion, even if he has been absolved propter signum extraordinarium poenitentiae, still on occasion of the Easter Communion a milder interpretation may prevail; on the one hand quia urget praeceptum, and, on the other, because the faithful take less scandal, just because it is the Easter Communion.