The Office of the Confessor

¹ Famous is the constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum poenitentiae (June 1, 1741), for the declaration of which the same pontiff afterward issued the constitution Apostolici muneris (February 8, 1745) and, on March 17, 1749, issued the third constitution Inter praeteritos. That constitution chiefly contains three things: concerning solicitation in confession, concerning calumnious denunciation of the confessor as if soliciting, and concerning absolution of an accomplice. And since in these constitutions it is chiefly provided, not only that delinquents be punished, but especially that worthy administration of the sacrament of penance be procured: the highest indecency is found in this, that a priest hears the confession of a person with whom he committed shameful sin and so acts as judge in a crime of which he himself is a participant; and the highest indecency likewise is contained in this, that further confessions are heard by a priest soliciting in confession, since he who rushes headlong into spiritual ruin ought to absolve and preserve another from sin. Finally, the supreme pontiff also intended to remove the dangers of sinning: for a new temptation and likewise a repeated delict must always be feared in a confessor who solicits or absolves an accomplice.

¹ Aertnys, De sollicitatione et absolutione complicis (Faenza, Novelli, 1897). Ian. Bucceroni, Commentarius in constitutionem Benedicti XIV Sacramentum poenitentiae (Rome: Typogr. prop. fid., 1888).

n. 369.

369. Declarations. 1. An accomplice is said to be one who commits the same sin (a shameful sin) with another, whether both act, as in mutual touches and conversations, or only one acts, e.g., one touches the other and this one consents and manifests consent externally. But he who externally does not resist is already considered to manifest consent externally.

a. Hence complicity properly so called is not had if a priest sins with one sleeping, drunk, insane, or unwilling; for the law speaks of formal complicity, for which the consent of both parties in the same sin is required.

b. To incur the case of complicity, immediate complicity in the shameful action itself is required; cooperation, however proximate, toward the shameful sin of another does not suffice.

By the person who is an accomplice is understood anyone with whom the priest committed a shameful sin, whether female or male or a boy, even not yet pubescent, indeed even a person with whom the priest sinned before receiving priesthood;¹ for the bull says: whatever person is the accomplice.
Under the name of shameful sin is comprehended any sin against the sixth precept, even if it was not consummated by copula, indeed even if it is only a shameful touch or glance or an immodest conversation.² But it is required that the sin be, on both sides, certain, external, and grave, both by reason of the internal act and by reason of the external act.

Hence that complicity of which the pontifical constitution speaks is not had if the sins are only internal, or only venial either internally or externally, or only doubtful, whether with doubt of law or doubt of fact.

¹ Holy Penitentiary, January 22, 1879.

² Holy Office, May 18, 1873.

n. 370.

370. Concerning the Forbidden Absolution of One's Own Accomplice. 1. Absolution of an accomplice in a shameful sin is not only gravely illicit but also invalid, except in danger of death.¹

a. The cited canon does not change those things which are contained on this matter in the bull Sacramentum poenitentiae. Therefore the confessor is deprived of jurisdiction over the shameful sin of complicity, but not also over the other sins of the same penitent. Therefore if the penitent confesses other sins before the confessor-accomplice directly, the sins of complicity are remitted indirectly, provided the penitent is rightly disposed.

b. Whether the priest-accomplice lacks jurisdiction over his accomplice as regards the sin of complicity perpetually, or only until this sin has been directly remitted, is not established. I would say that a confessor-accomplice can absolve the penitent-accomplice not only from other sins but also from the sin of complicity after this has already once been directly remitted. In this sense most authors have explained the bull Sacramentum poenitentiae.

c. If the priest-accomplice absolves his own accomplice in good faith, either because he is ignorant that he lacks jurisdiction, or because he does not advert that the penitent is his own accomplice, the absolution is invalid, because no ignorance of invalidating or incapacitating laws excuses from those laws.²

d. If the penitent-accomplice who is absolved by the priest-accomplice is in good faith, and likewise if he does not declare the sin of complicity, the other sins are remitted directly and the sins of complicity indirectly.

A confessor-accomplice:

a. who absolves, or pretends to absolve, an accomplice in a shameful sin incurs by that very fact an excommunication reserved to the apostolic see in a most special manner;

b. incurs the same also when absolving, or pretending to absolve, an accomplice in the article of death, if another priest, even one not approved, can hear the confession of the dying person without grave infamy and scandal, excepting the case in which the dying person refuses to confess to another;

c. finally incurs the same when absolving, or pretending to absolve, an accomplice who does not confess the sin of complicity from which he has not yet been absolved, but so conducts himself because he has been induced to this by the confessor-accomplice, whether directly or indirectly.³

Note. The confessor-accomplice must be warned never to hear the confession of his accomplice outside necessity; if, however, the latter confesses to him after having already been absolved by another from the sin of complicity, he is absolved validly, indeed even licitly, unless this has been prohibited to him by the particular law of the diocese or by the Sacred Penitentiary.

¹ Cn. 884.

² Cn. 16, 1.

³ Cn. 2367, 1, 2. The excommunication is explained in the booklet De Poenis ecclesiasticis. But the penitent-accomplice incurs no penalty, nor is his sin reserved by common law.

n. 371.

371. When a Priest Can Validly and Licitly Absolve His Own Accomplice:

a. In the article or danger of death: a. if no other priest is present or can be called, not even a simple one; b. if another refuses to hear the confession of the dying person; g. if the dying person refuses to confess to another, so that a sacrilegious confession is to be feared; d. if another priest cannot be called without grave scandal or infamy of the priest-accomplice.¹

This is clear from the bull of the holy pontiff, who confers jurisdiction on the priest-accomplice lest the dying person perish. Nevertheless, in this case the priest-accomplice is bound to forestall the danger of scandal or infamy, if he can, e.g., by withdrawing under some pretext; but if he omits to do this, though he can, or if he invents a danger of scandal or infamy where there is none, he indeed absolves validly, lest the dying person perish, but he acts illicitly and incurs the censure.

b. In gravest necessity. Although the supreme pontiff by the law itself excepts only extreme necessity, nevertheless by epikeia the priest can absolve his own accomplice also in gravest necessity. For it is scarcely credible that the supreme pontiff wished that this law, although prohibiting and invalidating, should also oblige in circumstances of this kind; wherefore in cases of gravest necessity the law is rightly said to suffer an exception.²

a. The authors imagine this case of gravest necessity: a woman has fallen into a shameful sin with a priest and has no other priest there with whom she may confess, and the circumstances of persons, place, etc., are such that she cannot turn elsewhere to seek a confessor, nor does any hope shine forth that another priest will ever come there (which can happen in mission places);³ or the precept of annual confession and communion urges this woman-accomplice; she cannot omit the reception of the sacraments without grave scandal and infamy, but no other confessor is present, nor can the woman move to another place to seek a confessor.

b. This exception will be granted all the more easily because the human law, although invalidating, collides not only with the natural law of avoiding scandal and with the natural right of avoiding infamy, but also with the divine law commanding holy communion to be received at times; further, because otherwise the woman would have to lack the benefit of absolution for a very long time, indeed perhaps through her whole life until death, which is altogether foreign to the mind of the Church.

¹ Cn. 2367.

² Cf. Gury-Ballerini at n. 587.

³ Moreover, in a case of gravest necessity the confessor can seek the faculty of absolving an accomplice, and it is not necessary that he reveal himself; for he can seek the faculty under a covered name and use the faculty once obtained. Bucceroni n. 49.

Vol. III, Book Fifth. On Penance., Ch. III, Q. II, Article Four. Concerning Solicitation in Confession.

n. 372.

372. Sources. a. To this matter belongs above all the bull of Gregory XV, Universi gregis (August 30, 1622), which extended to the whole world the particular laws already previously enacted on this matter for the Spains. Afterward (February 11, 1661) there were issued sixteen decrees of the Holy Office,¹ by which the pontifical constitutions are declared. To these decrees are added two propositions (6, 7) condemned by Alexander VII. Benedict XIV confirmed all these things by the constitution Sacramentum poenitentiae. Finally, on February 20, 1867, the Holy Office gave an instruction to all archbishops and bishops concerning the observance of the Benedictine constitution, and on July 20, 1890, an instruction concerning the examination to which the solicited person is to be subjected.

b. The Benedictine constitution has these things: Confessors who, either in the act of sacramental confession, or before or immediately after confession, or on the occasion or pretext of confession, or even outside the occasion of confession in the confessional or in another place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with the simulation of hearing confession there, have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent to immodest and shameful things, whether by words or signs or nods or touch or by writing to be read either then or afterward, or with him have had illicit and immodest conversations or dealings with rash daring, must be denounced to the ordinaries of the places.

¹ They can be consulted in Lehmkuhl II, n. 975 (n. 1253).

n. 373.

373. Concerning Solicitation Itself. 1. He is said to solicit to shameful things who attempts to induce another directly to sin against the sixth precept of the decalogue. Therefore he who by some action of whatever kind, whether in itself immodest or in itself indifferent but showing a shameful affection, attempts or intends to excite in another a shameful affection, is said to solicit to shameful things.

a. Therefore, if solicitation is made by words, one must advert whether the words, either in themselves or from the circumstances, signify a shameful affection and provoke to a shameful affection.

a. Therefore, according to the opinion of St. Alphonsus (n. 704), these words contain solicitation: I would marry you, if I were a secular; on the contrary, these words: remember me, because I love you from my heart, can have either a shameful sense or also another indifferent sense, wherefore judgment must be made about them from the circumstances; for if it were established that the confessor outside confession fosters a shameful love toward that person, they would contain solicitation.

b. If the confessor enjoins on the penitent that she await him at home, or asks her where she lives, or invites her to come alone to the house of the confessor, the words in themselves are indifferent; but if afterward from the circumstances they are known to have been said from a depraved intention, they contain an inchoate solicitation. Yet in order that words of this kind be condemned as shameful solicitation, it is required that, besides the immodest cause, no other prudent cause can be supposed on account of which they were spoken by the confessor.

g. If the confessor in confession praises a woman for beauty and charm, the words in themselves are serious and prudent, e.g., to warn the penitent about the danger of sinning, or they can have proceeded from imprudence and levity, or finally from a depraved intention; it is clear that only if they give off a libidinous affection, and this clearly appears, do words of this kind contain solicitation.

d. If a confessor, hearing the confession of a maidservant, praises the beauty of her mistress, recommending that she come tomorrow for confession, from these circumstances he is to be judged in the prior case; yet St. Alphonsus rightly adds (n. 703) that this praise is more easily to be taken in an evil sense, because prudently scarcely any other reason for this thing can be imagined.

b. If the confessor solicits by deed, e.g., because he touches with lightly immodest or obscene touches or kisses during confession, the matter is to be judged according to the same norm; for since acts in themselves are indifferent or only lightly sinful, it ought to be gathered from the circumstances whether there was present a depraved intention of soliciting and of proceeding to further things.

Circumstances of this kind are these: if the priest is known to be prone to lust, if the touches were forced or repeated more often, if afterward sin followed, etc.

c. He also is said to solicit who has immodest conversations or dealings with the penitent; therefore, who mixes shameful colloquies with the penitent, whether the matter to be acted upon is depraved (dealings) or only shameful conversation is had with him (conversations), as if he asks the penitent who is accusing herself of a shameful action whether it pleases her to be engaged in those things, what acts she exercises, etc.¹

A priest who has solicited any person in confession must be denounced to the ordinary.

The reason for this precept is that a priest who does not fear to abuse the sacrament of penance for so great a crime is suspected of heresy; but one who is suspected of heresy, from the ancient laws, ought to be denounced to the inquisitors and to clear himself from heresy. Moreover, solicitation is a most grave sin, not only against chastity, but also against religion; and if a pastor solicits his faithful, he also sins against justice.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 725 s.

n. 374.

374. Conditions Under Which Solicitation Must Be Denounced. In order that the obligation of denouncing exist, four conditions are required:

There must be solicitation to a shameful sin, not to any other sin whatever; yet it makes no difference whether the confessor solicited a male or a female, whether pubescent or prepubescent, whether he solicited to a sin to be committed with himself or with another or alone, or whether finally he solicited the penitent immediately or through the penitent mediated another person to a sin to be committed with him.
The crime of solicitation must be certain; wherefore not only must the word or deed of the confessor be certainly established to the penitent, but it must moreover be certain that it contained true solicitation; for since a confessor possessed of his certain fame cannot be deprived of it through denunciation unless the solicitation is established with certainty.
The crime of solicitation must be gravely culpable; here it must be noted that light or indifferent acts by which the confessor solicits can be gravely sinful either from libidinous affection or from a depraved intention by which he attempts to draw another to grave sin; but if he intended to induce the penitent only to light acts, he does not commit the sin of solicitation that must be denounced.
The crime of solicitation must have been committed in confession or with relation to confession; wherefore solicitation is not to be denounced if it has no relation to confession, even if it was committed in the administration of other sacraments.

n. 375.

375. Circumstances of Solicitation. There are four circumstances in which solicitation has that relation to confession such that the confessor must be denounced: a. if it occurs in the act of sacramental confession; b. if it occurs immediately before or immediately after; c. if it occurs on the occasion or pretext of confession, even if confession does not follow; d. if it occurs outside the occasion of confession in the confessional or in a place destined or chosen for hearing confessions, with simulation of confession. The individual circumstances must now be explained.

In the act of sacramental confession he solicits who interposes solicitation between the beginning of confession (when the priest blesses the penitent) and absolution. But a priest is considered to solicit in the act of confession when the confession has been begun, even if it was not completed or the penitent, for any cause whatever, was not absolved.
Immediately before or immediately after: if between the solicitation and the sacramental confession no interval, or no other act, intervenes which is not referred as a medium to the solicitation. But it can happen that one who is not to be denounced under this head must be denounced under another clause.

a. Therefore he must be denounced who, in the place of confession, solicits a woman asking for confession to be made immediately; or who solicits a woman who, after confession, approaches to kiss the hand of the confessor; or who, immediately after confession, leads a boy into his room and solicits him there. But solicitation made another day after confession, although made after the confessor heard another penitent after the deed, is not considered made immediately after confession, provided the confessor in confession did not manifest his depraved mind, as if, e.g., he said: wait for me a little while, and after a short time came and solicited.

b. If the confessor, after confession has been completed, outside the confessional, before he solicits, treats with the penitent about some business of which no word had yet been made in confession, the circumstances must be considered for judging the matter. If it is established that solicitation was already primarily intended beforehand and the business was chosen only as a means to complete it, solicitation to be denounced is had.

On the occasion of confession: if the penitent approached for confession to be made here and now, even though the confession itself, on account of the solicitation made by the confessor, did not in fact follow.

a. Therefore a confessor is probably not to be denounced who, asked by the penitent outside the place of confession to hear her confession the next day or even in the evening (when she asks in the morning), solicits her, whether confession afterward follows or not; for he solicited not on the occasion of confession, but on the occasion of a request for confession.¹ But a confessor must be denounced who solicits a person inviting the confessor to hear her confession immediately; for it is not only he who solicits in the confessional who solicits on the occasion of confession, but also he who solicits outside the confessional when confession is requested to be performed at once, so that confession and the request are morally one.

b. Nor is the confessor who, from confession, recognizing the soul of the penitent as inclined to shameful things, thence takes an occasion for afterward soliciting her, to be considered to have solicited so much on the occasion of confession as because of knowledge taken from confession.² But if from some external sign it is established that the confessor already in the confessional conceived the will of afterward soliciting, as if he asks the man inclined to shameful things where he lives, he must be denounced, not indeed because he solicited on the occasion of confession, but because he began the solicitation immediately after confession and afterward completed it.

Note. In confession, immediately before or after confession, and on the occasion of confession, he also is considered to solicit who, in the aforesaid circumstances, begins an act of solicitation which afterward he completes, as if in those circumstances the confessor gives letters provoking to shameful things to be read afterward; if he asks the penitent where she lives; if he invites her to come to the house of the confessor, etc., and afterward he expressly solicits. Yet it must be established morally that the depraved intention was already present in those circumstances; for it can happen that lust burst forth only afterward, when the sin was committed.

Pretext of confession is a false allegation of confession on the part of the confessor, which he abuses for soliciting, even if confession does not follow; as if a priest, visiting a sick woman, says that he wishes to hear her confession, and then, after sending away the others, solicits the sick woman.
In the place of confession with simulation of confession, but outside the occasion of confession: solicitation to be denounced is had even then, when the penitent has come for any end whatever, whether good or evil, e.g., to seek counsel or to tempt the confessor himself, provided the solicitation occurs in one of the three indicated places, namely either in the confessional or in a place destined for hearing confessions, or here and now chosen for this, and with simulation of confession.

a. These words, with simulation of confession, are to be referred not only to the last, but to all three members: and in the confessional and in a place destined for confession ordinarily there is simulation of confession by the very fact that the confessor and the penitent are in this place; but as to the third, it does not suffice that the confessor and the penitent are in a place here and now chosen for hearing confession and speak secretly with each other, but outwardly they must conduct themselves in such a way as to be considered to be instituting confession. Hence a confessor is not to be denounced who, sitting in a confessional, solicits a woman before she kneels.

b. A place destined for hearing confessions would be, e.g., a cell in which penitents who are hard of hearing are accustomed to be heard; a place chosen for hearing confessions for a certain time or for certain circumstances, such as a small room, sacristy, choir, where, e.g., during the time of a great crowd, confessions are heard. The room of the sick person or the bed on which the sick person lies is, by universal usage, a place chosen for hearing confessions in these circumstances.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 717.

² D'Annibale III, n. 367 with many others, who nevertheless note that the practice of the Roman congregations is different.

n. 376.

376. Concerning the Priest Soliciting. 1. Who are to be denounced. All priests of whatever dignity, both secular and religious, are to be denounced, provided they have truly and certainly committed the crime of solicitation.¹

From the sources alleged above, however, it is established how far the obligation of denouncing a soliciting priest extends, namely that he must be denounced even:

a. who lacked jurisdiction (e.g., on account of reservation or complicity), provided he solicited in confession;

b. who alone solicited and the penitent only consented in deed and manifested consent externally, the execution of the shameful plan having been delayed to another time;²

c. who solicited already a long time ago; whose crime remained wholly occult; who has set out into a distant land; who has already amended;

d. who solicited a penitent not adverting to the malice of the sin to which she was solicited;

e. even if he immediately repented of the solicitation made, or if, after beginning the solicitation, he immediately desisted.

A priest soliciting is indeed punished with grave penalties, which nevertheless are all ferendae sententiae;³ but the crime itself of solicitation is not reserved, unless perhaps somewhere the bishop has reserved it to himself. Therefore the priest soliciting, provided he is disposed, can be absolved by any confessor, but he must be warned not any longer to hear the confessions of the solicited person, even if she herself was not an accomplice, both on account of the great indecency of the matter and on account of the danger of relapse.

¹ Whether also bishops who solicit are to be denounced is not established; but laymen or clerics not yet priests, who pretend that they are confessors and solicit in confession, by force of the words of the law, which speaks only of priests, are not to be denounced.

² Holy Office, February 20, 1867.

³ Cf. cn. 2368, 1.

n. 377.

377. Who Ought to Denounce Confessors Soliciting: The solicited penitents themselves, and this even if someone else has already denounced him, even if the solicitation was mutual or the penitent consented to the solicitation; nor does there exist in this case any danger of defaming oneself, since the solicited are not interrogated about the consent given.

a. The prepubescent, or rather solicited persons who do not yet apprehend the malice of the solicitation, are denounced when they come to knowledge of the crime committed by the priest.

b. Besides the solicited person, no one else is obligated to make denunciation in the new Code. - The confessor soliciting is not bound to denounce himself; but one who accuses himself spontaneously is treated more leniently by the ecclesiastical judge. For priests who confess their crime spontaneously are admitted with congruous abjuration and salutary penances, with the counsel or precept added that they abstain from hearing the sacred confessions of the solicited persons; nor are they customarily affected by the other penalties set forth in the Clementine constitutions, even if later they are denounced.¹

¹ Instruction of the Holy Office, February 20, 1867.

n. 378.

378. Concerning the Solicited Penitent. Unless he incurs it by natural law, certainly by the grave precept of the Church he incurs the obligation, under penalty of excommunication (reserved to no one), within a month from knowledge of the obligation, of denouncing the soliciting priest either to the local ordinary or to the Congregation of the Holy Office.¹

If the solicitation is established, the confessor, with the conscience of the solicited penitent being gravely burdened, must warn him about the obligation of denouncing.² The confessor is bound by positive ecclesiastical law to give this warning under grave sin, even if the penitent is in good faith and is foreseen not to be about to satisfy his obligation, except only in the case of death, lest the penitent be cast into danger of damnation. But if here and now, on account of a just impediment, he cannot denounce, he ought to warn him that the obligation urges when the impediment ceases.

a. The confessor is not bound to interrogate his penitents whether they were solicited, unless from prudent suspicion arises from their accusation of solicitation having been made. But confessors who solicit are never bound themselves to warn the solicited person about the obligation of denouncing, even if afterward she returns to the one soliciting for confession.

b. The penitent must be warned about the obligation of denouncing, even if it is foreseen that he will refuse denunciation, or rather even if only a slight hope of success shines forth, because the common good requires it, and a private good ought to yield to the common good. Yet one must not affirm that the common good always and in every case requires it; for whenever the Church dispenses from making denunciation, she does this because it could not be done if the law of nature or the common good were always to require it. Therefore when, from the crime committed, common harm no longer threatens, as if the confessor hears no more confessions and the penitent is foreseen not to be about to obtain them, the warning also can be omitted.³

The obligation of denouncing is a personal burden and therefore to be fulfilled by the solicited person himself, and indeed in judicial form; wherefore the penitent does not satisfy the obligation by private letters given to the bishop. Further, this obligation is never extinguished except by the death of the soliciting priest; hence if denunciation cannot be made on account of some impediment, after the impediment has been removed the obligation again urges.

Before judicial denunciation can be made, the solicited person approaches the ordinary, or, if he cannot do this, sends private letters either by himself or through the confessor to him, in which he sets forth all the circumstances of the solicitation and signs his own name with the place of habitation. Then the ordinary either sends the mandate for making the denunciation, if there is need, or gives another instruction.

Solicited penitents who are certainly bound to make the denunciation cannot be absolved unless they have first satisfied the obligation of denouncing, or at least have promised that, within a month if they can, they will satisfy their obligation. Wherefore if the penitent shows himself prepared to denounce, and no prudent doubt arises concerning the seriousness of his will, absolution can at once be granted, especially if the necessity of communicating urges; but if it must be feared that the denunciation will be omitted, absolution is to be deferred until the denunciation has actually been made.
But he who, within a month from knowledge of the obligation, does not denounce without an excusing reason or culpably, incurs an excommunication reserved to no one, from which therefore any confessor can absolve a disposed penitent.

a. But in order that, after the month has elapsed, he incur the excommunication who has not made the denunciation within the month, it is required: a. that he knew the obligation of making denunciation within a month; b. that he knew an excommunication was attached to the omission.

b. If the solicited person culpably delayed the denunciation beyond a month, but now seriously promises that, as soon as possible, he will make the denunciation, he can be absolved from the censure, because in the cited canon it is said: not to be absolved, unless he seriously promises that he will satisfy. But if afterward, with changed will, he does not denounce, the censure does not revive, because there is nothing in the law concerning reincidence.⁴

False and calumnious denunciation of an innocent confessor concerning the crime of solicitation is a sin reserved by reason of itself to the Roman Pontiff, with an excommunication latae sententiae reserved in a special manner.⁵

a. The reserved sin of false denunciation is judicial denunciation, not private. A penitent who confesses this crime must be warned to retract the calumny and repair the harms which the priest suffered from it.

b. The delinquent cannot be absolved from this censure in any case unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and repaired, according to his powers, the harms that followed from it. Further, a grave and lasting penance must be imposed on him.⁶

Since the crime of false denunciation of a priest concerning solicitation is reserved also by reason of itself, i.e., also as a sin alone and not only as a censure, it follows that a penitent who does not incur the censure on account of ignorance nevertheless cannot be absolved from the sin outside danger of death without the special faculty of the Roman Pontiff.

¹ Cn. 2368, 2.

² Cn. 904.

³ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 743.

⁴ Cf. De poenis, n. 103.

⁵ Cn. 894; Cn. 2363.

⁶ Cn. 2363.

n. 379.

379. Concerning Causes Excusing from This Obligation. For a just cause the solicited person is excused from making denunciation; for this precept, although most grave, is nevertheless at times a positive precept of the Church, which does not oblige with very grave inconvenience. If, however, the denunciation must also be made by the law of nature, namely where the solicitation brings on public scandal or common harm, no very grave inconvenience excuses from making it.

Besides impossibility, probable danger of grave harm in the goods of life, reputation, or fortune excuses.

a. If the solicited person can neither approach the bishop nor write a letter to him on account of ignorance of letters, and present another obstacle to denunciation, he is excused on account of impotence; but the confessor is not bound to make the denunciation for the penitent unless grave public harm threatens.

b. One is not bound to denounce a distinguished benefactor from whom he has received extraordinary and necessary support, which he would lose on account of the denunciation; nor a priest closely joined by intimate friendship or by consanguinity, unless the law of nature demands it on account of the common good.

Fear of incurring the indignation of the one soliciting does not excuse, nor the obligation of gratitude toward the one soliciting, nor the shame which the solicited person must undergo in making the denunciation.

n. 380.

380. Manner of Acting with a Solicited Penitent. A confessor to whom a case of solicitation is brought ought to proceed in this way.

Since it not rarely happens that women, from ignorance or from hatred, envy, or another depraved motive, calumniate priests who are altogether innocent, the confessor should see whether the person is worthy of faith; and if he has doubt concerning this matter (which he will almost obtain whenever the person is prepared on her own initiative to make the denunciation), he should admonish her about the atrocity of the crime and about the grave penalty which is inflicted upon false accusation. But he should take care not to inquire about the name of the one soliciting.
He should diligently examine whether all the conditions are present which render the obligation of denouncing certain. And if he cannot judge this immediately, he should have the penitent return to him on another day. But if the solicitation is truly established, he should warn the penitent about the obligation of denouncing.
But if the penitent refuses to denounce, he should inquire whether there is an excusing cause. If an excusing cause is in fact present, denunciation can per se be omitted or at least delayed. Therefore if the penitent promises that he is willing to denounce when the excusing cause ceases, he can meanwhile be absolved.

Frequently penitents refuse to denounce because they fear that the one denounced will come to know the one denouncing. Wherefore the confessor should warn them that the one denounced cannot easily learn the person denouncing, first because it is generally granted that the denunciation be made by the agency of the confessor alone, then because the names of the denouncers are never manifested, and finally because the delinquent is ordinarily called to judgment only after the third denunciation.

The denunciation to be made must be made to the ordinary of the place in which the penitent is staying, even if the confessor soliciting belongs to another diocese, or to the Congregation of the Holy Office. The ordinary of the place then transmits the sworn denunciation to the bishop of the priest soliciting. But if it cannot be made to this ordinary, it must be made to the ordinary of the confessor soliciting.
Judicial denunciation must be made orally before the ordinary or his delegate with a notary intervening; sometimes, however, it is granted that it be made before a delegated priest with no notary intervening, or even before the confessor delegated in the confessional,¹ to whom the appropriate instruction is customarily transmitted by the ordinary for receiving it.
If the penitent, without a just cause, does not wish to make the denunciation, the confessor should try to induce him with suitable motives to make it; but if nevertheless he wholly refuses, he should not absolve the penitent, but should have him return to him at another time. Meanwhile he should have recourse either to the ordinary or to the holy see (the Penitentiary or the Holy Office), and, after all the circumstances have been set forth, with the name of the penitent nevertheless suppressed, he should ask for a suitable remedy. For either he is dispensed altogether from making denunciation, or it is granted that the whole matter be denounced by the agency of the confessor.

Lest the confessor who makes the denunciation for the penitent come to the knowledge of the priest soliciting, he should induce the penitent himself to write the name of the soliciting priest, and to bind his own name in a written schedule in the same envelope with those letters.

¹ The manner to be observed according to the prescription of the Holy Office of July 20, 1890, in receiving the denunciation, is found in the Acta S. Sedis, Appendix to vol. 25, to which, on August 6, 1897, was added an instruction concerning the care to be employed in causes of solicitation.

Vol. III, Book Fifth. On Penance., Ch. III, Question Three. Concerning…, Article One. Concerning the Knowledge of the Confessor.

n. 382.

382. Necessity of Knowledge. Outside a case of necessity, the confessor is bound under grave sin to have that knowledge which is required for duly performing his office; for he who, without due knowledge, exposes the sacrament and himself to the danger of gravely erring, and therefore of inflicting grave injury on the sacrament and great harm on souls. Neither gifts of talent, nor experience, nor common sense, which indeed help knowledge, can supply sufficient knowledge, but cannot fill the place of its parts.

a. A case of necessity is considered to be present not only in danger of death, but also when otherwise the faithful would have to lack confession for a long time. But in a case of necessity even a less learned confessor can licitly hear confessions; for when a confessor is lacking, not only does the insufficiency of the confessor not matter, but not even lack of integrity of confession, since in a case of necessity the sacrament can be administered without material integrity.¹

b. Hence a confessor sins who, knowing that necessary knowledge is lacking to him, freely (even from charity or obedience alone) hears confessions, unless there is question of confessions in which, as he prudently supposes, only venial sins are accused. Nor does a superior who commands hear confessions supply for the defect of knowledge; yet in a superior's judgment any priest who doubts concerning his own knowledge can acquiesce with a safe conscience, if by him he is judged fit and is commanded to be free for hearing confessions, provided the superior is sufficiently known to him.²

A superior sins who grants permission to hear confessions to an ignorant priest, because he consents to and cooperates with his sin. He is excused, however, if he exposes a less learned confessor in a case of necessity, where he cannot have one sufficiently learned, as in a small and remote place whose care a learned priest does not wish to undertake.³

A penitent sins who knowingly and deliberately chooses an unfit confessor; but if the penitent confesses to one who is unfit, he is in good faith, the sacrament is valid: for on the part of the penitent there is integral confession and due disposition, and on the part of the confessor at least a generic and confused knowledge of sins, which suffices for valid absolution.⁴

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. 21, n. 73.

² Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 576.

³ Lugo, ibid., n. 64.

⁴ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 627, 628.

n. 383.

383. What Knowledge Is Necessary. Knowledge is not required by which the confessor can always, immediately and by himself, solve all occurring doubts; but ordinarily sufficient knowledge is required, by which he can understand and resolve commonly occurring cases, and in more difficult cases at least know prudently how to doubt, so that he can consult books or others more learned.¹

a. Greater knowledge is required for hearing confessions in a great city than in a small and remote village; likewise for hearing any faithful of diverse state and diverse condition than for hearing penitents of the same state and condition.

b. A confessor ought to know: a. those things which pertain to the essence and effect of the sacrament of penance, and those things which are required for its valid and licit administration both on his own part and on the part of the penitent; b. the principles of discerning between mortal and venial sins, which sins are mortal and venial in the individual precepts, the various species of sins and the circumstances changing the species; g. those things which pertain to the restitution of goods and reputation; d. the more frequently occurring causes of reserved censures, impediments of marriage, and common and proper obligations of states; e. the roots and occasions of sins, and the opportune remedies to be suggested to penitents.

Note. The confessor should never interrupt the study of moral theology, both that he may preserve sufficient knowledge and that he may increase and perfect it. Nor should anyone flatter himself concerning preserving the knowledge necessary for hearing confessions without tireless study of moral theology, because this knowledge consists not only of many and scattered matters, but also of almost innumerable positive statutes, which are easily lost from memory unless they are recalled again. To preserving and perfecting this knowledge, the frequent reading of books of morals will greatly help, if the confessor, to solve occurring doubts, consults books or other more learned persons; if, after a more difficult confession has been heard, he diligently examines whether he acted rightly in all things; and finally, if he eagerly reads cases and diligently attends gatherings instituted almost everywhere for solving cases of conscience.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 627.

Vol. III, Book Fifth. On Penance., Ch. III, Question Three. Concerning…, Article Two. Concerning the Obligation of Teaching and Warning Penitents.

n. 384.

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

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

n. 385.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. 22, n. 27.

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

Vol. III, Book Fifth. On Penance., Ch. III, Question Three. Concerning…, Article Three. Concerning the Obligation of Questioning Penitents.

n. 386.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² Cf. Gury, Casus consc. II, n. 669.

³ Lugo, disp. 16, n. 594.

n. 387.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

² St. Alphonsus, n. 631.

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

Vol. III, Book Fifth. On Penance., Ch. III, Question Three. Concerning…, Article Five. Concerning Absolving Habitual Sinners.

n. 392.

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.

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.

n. 393.

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.

Vol. III, Book Fifth. On Penance., Ch. III, Question Three. Concerning…, Article Six. Concerning Absolving Recidivists.

n. 394.

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.

n. 395.

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.

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.

n. 396.

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.

Vol. III, Book Fifth. On Penance., Ch. III, Question Three. Concerning…, Article Seven. Concerning Absolving Occasionaries.

n. 397.

397. Notion of Occasion. An occasion of sin is generally defined as an external circumstance which offers a man an opportunity of sinning and allures him to sinning.

a. A circumstance can be a thing, as a depraved book, or a person, as a mistress for a lover. b. It differs from the danger of sinning; therefore an occasion does not name an interior inclination, whatever it may be, to sin, whether this is external or internal; wherefore danger has a broader range than an occasion of sinning. c. Two things must be considered in an occasion: the convenience of sinning which it offers to the man, and the impulse to sinning; therefore an occasion agrees with scandal, but in scandal the matter is considered more as it impels to sinning, whereas in an occasion it is considered more as it offers the opportunity of sinning. d. Two things concur to constitute an occasion: on the part of the object, the impulse and opportunity toward sin, and on the part of the subject, propensity and inclination toward sin.

n. 398.

398. Division of Occasion. 1. One occasion is remote, another proximate. That is called remote in which the danger of sinning is slight, in which therefore men for the most part do not sin; that is called proximate in which the danger of sinning is grave, in which therefore men for the most part sin.

An occasion is called proximate or remote from its conjunction with sin; and with moral certitude accompanying sin it is called proximate, otherwise remote. Greater or lesser conjunction of the occasion with sin is chiefly taken from the frequency of lapses of him who is found again in the occasion. But how great this frequency ought to be in order that the occasion can be called proximate, or morally necessarily joined with sin, cannot easily be determined; hence it is that theologians define a proximate occasion in diverse ways. For some say that the proximate occasion is that in which men always or almost always sin; others, that in which they never or almost never abstain from sin; others, that in which men sin for the most part; others, that in which men frequently sin.¹ It can be affirmed that an occasion is proximate when moral certitude is present that a man in it will sin, or when solid probability is lacking that a man in it will avoid sin. But whether moral certitude of sinning is present in a particular case, or whether it is lacking, must be judged: a. from the frequency of relapse known by experience, whether the penitent has already been in the occasion and has sinned in it for the most part; b. from the character of the penitent, whether perhaps from vehemence of temptation and from the known fragility of the penitent it ought by experience to be judged that he will almost always sin in this occasion; c. from common contingency, for frequently the gravity of danger must be judged from this rule: what for others in the same circumstances is a proximate occasion, will also be proximate for this one.

A proximate occasion is either proximate absolutely or per se, or per accidens or relatively. The former is that which commonly for all men brings in a proximate danger of sinning, as the sight of a shameful thing or obscene conversations; the latter is that which brings in a proximate danger of sinning only for some determined man on account of his own fragility, as access to a tavern.
A proximate occasion is either voluntary or necessary: voluntary is that which can easily be avoided or can be avoided with slight inconvenience; necessary is that which cannot be removed either physically or morally; physically, if someone, e.g., is enclosed in the same prison with an occasion of sinning; morally, if the occasion cannot be dismissed except with great difficulty or with great detriment in the goods of life or fortune or reputation.

a. In practice, one must not easily believe, but prudently inquire into the truth of the matter, if one constituted in an occasion pretends that he can dismiss the occasion only with great harm; for affection for sin often increases the difficulty of removing the occasion.

b. To form a judgment whether the harm which someone ought to undergo in order to flee or dismiss the occasion is truly notable, the circumstances of the persons must be attended to, and this must be measured according to the diverse estimate of fearful persons from the common estimate of men. St. Alphonsus notes (n. 455) that a moderately wealthy man is not excused if he refuses to suffer a loss of one hundred ducats (c. 800 cor.) to abandon the occasion.

A proximate occasion is either continuous or present, or interrupted or not present: continuous, or in esse, is that which someone always has with him, which he always has to seek, such as a free obscene or shameful statue which someone keeps at home; interrupted, or not in esse, is that which he does not indeed have with him, but can easily find, as a tavern for the drunkard, a mistress for the lover, gambling for him who is accustomed to blaspheme by gambling.

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, sect. 10, n. 148 ss.

n. 399.

399. Concerning Absolving Occasionaries in a Free Proximate Occasion. 1. A penitent who does not wish to avoid a proximate occasion of gravely sinning, which he can easily avoid, cannot be absolved: for he who does not wish to avoid a proximate occasion of this kind does not have an efficacious will not to sin any more, and therefore is not disposed for obtaining absolution, since the will itself of remaining in a proximate occasion is a grave sin.

It is not licit to admit the excuse by which penitents promise that, with remedies employed for not sinning, they will render a proximate occasion remote, when they can avoid it without difficulty; for it is not licit rashly to expose oneself to a danger of sinning which can easily be avoided, but it must plainly be fled.

He who promises that he will abandon a free proximate occasion, whether the occasion is continuous or interrupted, can per se be absolved, provided the confessor can prudently believe his promise. For he who is judged sufficiently disposed can per se always be absolved; indeed, ordinarily, absolution granted to him will profit more than its delay, because the grace of the sacrament will help him in executing his purpose.

Nevertheless, if, having already often been absolved, he has not stood by his promises, but has relapsed in the occasion, he is not to be absolved unless he has first dismissed the occasion; for the confessor ought rightly to suspect that he does not have a firm purpose. Further, even if he could be judged disposed, prudence persuades that by this means of delayed absolution the weak will of the penitent be helped in executing the purpose, especially if the occasion is in esse. Nevertheless, since the penitent can also be truly disposed after repeated relapse, absolutely speaking he is not prohibited from being absolved if a reason urges for granting absolution again before he has dismissed the occasion, provided he is seriously sorry and proposes amendment.

There are those who in this case establish the following rule concerning a voluntary proximate occasion in esse: the penitent cannot be absolved, not even the first time, unless he has first dismissed the occasion, even if he is disposed.¹ This rule is clear if it is stated concerning a strict obligation of deferring or denying absolution; for it seems hard, since the penitent is supposed sufficiently disposed and denial of absolution has the nature of a remedy by which relapse is prevented. But the confessor cannot be obligated to prescribe a remedy which is not altogether necessary, nor does he have the right to enjoin such a remedy. Yet it could sometimes be prudently advised to the penitent that absolution be deferred already at once the first time until the occasion has in fact been dismissed, where namely the delay of absolution is judged to be profitable to the penitent, as if there is question of dismissing a concubine.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 454.

n. 400.

400. Concerning Absolving Occasionaries in a Necessary Proximate Occasion. 1. He who does not wish to abandon a proximate occasion, morally necessary, of gravely sinning can be absolved, provided he promises that he will employ remedies for not sinning. For one constituted in a necessary occasion must be judged disposed if he is willing to employ suitable remedies for not sinning, since there does not exist an absolute obligation of abandoning the occasion, as not voluntary, but only a hypothetical obligation, either of employing remedies or of abandoning the occasion.

a. Remedies by which a proximate occasion can be rendered remote are: diligent prayer, more frequent use of the sacraments, daily renewal of the purpose of not sinning anymore, not being alone with a woman alone, fleeing from the sight of the accomplice, etc.¹

b. How great the inconvenience ought to be which excuses from abandoning a proximate occasion cannot be defined by a general rule, but must be determined in a particular case by the prudent judgment of the confessor, diligently considering the particular cases in which approved authors think that one constituted in a necessary proximate occasion must be absolved, so that he can form judgment in this matter.²

If one constituted in a necessary proximate occasion after several confessions returns with the same sins without any amendment, it is not absolutely to be demanded that he abandon the occasion, but he can still be absolved if he seriously wishes to employ means by which the occasion becomes remote instead of proximate; for when this will has been posited, he is sufficiently disposed, even if he does not wish to remove the occasion. Whether in a particular case dismissal of the occasion is to be demanded, or rather the use of means is to be earnestly recommended, must be left to the prudence of the confessor. Generally it can be said that it is not to be demanded that the occasion be dismissed if it is much more difficult to dismiss the occasion than to avoid sin by employing remedies.

In this case several authors with St. Alphonsus (n. 457) establish this rule: the penitent cannot be absolved unless he abandons the occasion, even if he must undergo a very grave inconvenience, the loss of goods, reputation, and life itself, since with him no hope of amendment appears; the words of Salvatori are to be applied: if your eye scandalizes you, etc.³ Others, however, think that one must not proceed all the way to this point; for from the fact that after many relapses no amendment has followed, it is not to be inferred that no hope of amendment remains, but only this: either that the proposed means were not sufficient, or that they were not employed. But if this latter is established, the penitent must be seriously warned either that he diligently employ the remedies or abandon the occasion, even with very grave inconvenience.

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, n. 151. St. Alphonsus, n. 455.

² Cf. Lugo, disp. 14, n. 151. St. Alphonsus, n. 455. Berardi, De recidivis et occasionariis II, p. 98 ss.

³ Mark 9:46.

Vol. III, Book Fifth. On Penance., Ch. III, Question Three. Concerning…, Article Eight. Concerning the Obligation of Correcting Defects.

n. 401.

401. Prenotions. 1. Defects committed by the confessor can be of three kinds: either they concern a. the value of the sacrament, as if the confessor did not absolve or absolved an indisposed person; b. the integrity of the sacrament, as if he did not question concerning the species and number of sins or did not impose penance; c. the obligations of the penitent, and indeed either to the temporal harm of the penitent himself or of a third party, as if he unduly obligated him to restitution or released him from making it, or without temporal harm to anyone, as if he did not warn him about abandoning an occasion.

In order that the degree of obligation in repairing defects can rightly be determined, several circumstances of the defect committed must be considered.

a. The defect committed can be culpable or inculpable; it is called culpable if it is committed with grave fault of the confessor, and inculpable if it is committed without fault of the confessor or with his slight fault. It is clear that the obligation of him who committed the defect culpably is much greater than the obligation of him who committed the defect without fault.

b. A defect can be committed either positively by doing something, or negatively by omitting something which had to be done. To determine the obligation of reparation, when the defect is committed to the temporal harm of the penitent or of a third party, one must advert whether the defect was committed positively or negatively, by omitting a due action.

c. The confessor can be bound to correct defects either from justice or only from charity. Because the obligation of justice is graver than the obligation of charity, it also obliges with grave inconvenience if the defect was committed with grave fault.

He is bound from justice to repair a defect if the defect concerns the value of the sacrament, or if by a positive action he influenced harm to the penitent or to a third party. He is bound from charity alone if the defect does not concern the value of the sacrament, and if he influenced harm to the penitent or a third party only negatively.

d. It can happen that from the defect committed the penitent undergoes no danger of soul, as if one healthy and existing in good faith is absolved invalidly; for if afterward, being attrite, he approaches holy communion, he obtains sanctifying grace, or at least by the following absolution those sins are remitted indirectly. But it can also happen that from the error committed the penitent is brought into danger of salvation, as if a dying person, who cannot receive another sacrament, is absolved invalidly.

Note. 1. In the individual following cases two things come into question: a. how great is the obligation of correcting the defect committed; b. in what way the defect is to be corrected.

As to the manner: a. Some defects can be corrected without the penitent knowing, as if one not absolved returns to the same confessor. b. If it is necessary to speak with the penitent himself, one must consider whether the matter to be spoken of is under the seal; for in this case it is not licit to speak unless the permission of the penitent has first been sought and obtained. c. Some defects must be repaired even outside confession; for others it is enough that they be repaired within confession. As far as can be done, reparation outside confession must be avoided, because it is troublesome both to the confessor and to the penitent. Wherefore if it is foreseen that the penitent will return to the confessor, and there is no danger in delay, it is preferable to settle the matter in the following confession. d. Finally, it can happen that the confessor does not know the penitent or the third person to whom harm was inflicted; in this case nothing remains except that the confessor repent of the fault, if he committed any, and otherwise commend the whole matter to God.

n. 402.

402. If There Is Question of the Value of the Sacrament. 1. A culpable defect concerning the value of the sacrament must be repaired even with grave inconvenience, if otherwise the penitent would suffer grave harm, because here there occurs an obligation of justice. But if grave spiritual harm in the penitent is not to be feared, he can be left in good faith; for in the following confession those sins will be remitted.

Therefore a confessor who, e.g., did not absolve a penitent guilty of mortal sins, either because he forgot to absolve or pronounced absolution badly, or who absolved without jurisdiction, with danger to salvation supposed in the penitent, ought to approach him even with grave inconvenience to himself. And in this case indeed, in which there is question of giving absolution, he can reveal the error even without permission having been sought, by saying that he did not absolve, because the obligation of the seal does not intervene here. But in other cases, where, e.g., he did not say or said badly those things which had to be said by reason of the obligations of the penitent, permission to speak concerning matters pertaining to confession must always first be sought, both because the sacramental judgment has already been completed, and because the warning is considered to be as it were a reproach of sin made outside confession, which would be troublesome to the penitent and would render the sacrament odious.

An inculpable defect concerning the value of the sacrament, even with grave harm of the penitent supposed, need not be repaired with grave inconvenience, unless the penitent is in danger of dying in the state of sin; for here there is only an obligation of charity, which does not urge with grave inconvenience except in extreme necessity, if, e.g., a dying person had been invalidly absolved.

a. If for this end (namely, to absolve him) the sick person not absolved had to be approached, he would have to be warned about the defect and induced to elicit sorrow for sins, to confess sins if any had been committed in the meantime, and to accuse again by a general formula the sins already previously declared; when this has been done, he could be absolved. But if the warning is very troublesome and it can be supposed that no mortal sin was committed in the meantime, absolution can be granted even without the penitent being warned, since the moral union between confession and absolution still endures both by reason of time (even after several days) and by reason of sorrow. Likewise if the penitent not absolved returned to the same confessor, he would not necessarily have to be warned about the error, but it would suffice to induce him to elicit sorrow for the sins accused in the last confession and to accuse them again in general; for in this way he is directly absolved also from them.

b. If a sick person of this kind, not absolved, afterward received viaticum, and especially if he received extreme unction, he would not necessarily have to be warned about the defect, because he would not suffer grave harm, since through extreme unction he can now certainly be supposed to have been justified.

…and 6 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Slater, Manual of Moral Theology

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 24 passages

Vol. II, Bk. II, Ch. III, Section II. The Faith and Holiness of the Minister

A priest who says Mass in the state of mortal sin is thereby guilty of several grievous sins. He celebrates Mass unworthily, he receives Holy Communion unworthily, and he gives himself the sacrament though he knows that he is unworthy to receive it. Some add a fourth sin, which is committed precisely by handling and administering the Blessed Sacrament in a state of sin. It is probable, however, that this last act, though wanting in due reverence, does not amount to a grievous sin, All the more is it a safe opinion that deacons and subdeacons who exercise their functions in a state of sin do not sin grievously by so doing, nor do Bishops and priests who in sin consecrate or bless pious objects, or preach the word of God.

Divines are not agreed whether a priest would commit one sin or as many sins as he administered sacraments unworthily who in a state of sin should hear many confessions or administer many Baptisms or other sacraments at the same time. If there were moral interruptions between the several sacraments, there would at least be as many sins as interruptions. But if there were no such moral interruption, it is a probable opinion that a priest who at one time administers a sacrament to many only commits one big mortal sin. The sin takes its unity from the fact that he exercises his office on one occasion unworthily, an office which he was consecrated to perform in a worthy manner. It is not, then, necessary for a priest who has sinned by hearing confessions in sin to say how many persons he has absolved; it will be sufficient if he states how often he has heard confessions in mortal sin.

It will be sufficient for a priest who is in sin to make an act of contrition before administering any of the other sacraments, but before saying Mass and receiving Holy Communion it is necessary for such a one to go to confession. The Council of Trent, commenting on the precept of St Paul, “ Let a man prove himself, and so let him eat of that bread,” says that the custom of the Church has always interpreted these words as implying that no one who is conscious of mortal sin ought to approach Holy Communion without sacramental confession, however contrite he may feel. It is, of course, advisable that this should be done before a minister who is in sin administers any of the sacraments, though it is only of strict obligation before saying Mass and receiving Holy Communion.

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Chapter VII. The Minister of Penance

Christ our Lord gave his Apostles and their successors a twofold spiritual power to enable them to do the work which he commissioned them to do for the sanctification and salvation of souls. This twofold spiritual power is the power of Orders and the power of Jurisdiction, The power of Orders has reference to the holy Eucharist, and it was conferred on the Apostles at the Last Supper when, after consecrating the blessed Eucharist, our Lord said to them: “Do this for a commemoration of me.” The power of Orders has reference not only to the blessed Eucharist but to everything that is required to prepare and dispose men for the worthy and fruitful reception of it. And so, by the disposition of Christ our Lord the power of Orders is necessary for the forgiveness of sins. In other words, only priests can be ministers of the sacrament of Penance (Can. 871).

The power of jurisdiction is the power of ruling subjects, and it was given to the Apostles by Christ our Lord when he said to them: “ Amen, I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven. Both powers are implied in the institution of the sacrament of Penance when our Lord said to his Apostles: ‘‘ As the Father hath sent me I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain they are retained.”

The power of Orders is conferred by the sacrament of Orders. We will treat of the power of jurisdiction in a separate chapter,

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Chapter IX. The Confessors of Religious

THE local Ordinary can give jurisdiction to hear the confessions of the members of a clerical order of exempt religious, as we have seen. Their religious superior, in accordance with the Constitutions, can likewise grant jurisdiction for hearing the confessions of the religious, of the novices, and of others who by day and night live in a house of the religious as servants, scholars, guests, or for the sake of their health. The religious superior can grant jurisdiction for hearing the confessions of all these to secular priests also, and to priests of other religious institutes.

In an exempt institute of laymen the superior proposes a confessor to the local Ordinary from whom he ought to obtain jurisdiction (Can. 875).

In an institute of laymen who are not exempt the local Ordinary designates a priest to hear confessions (Can. 529).

To hear the confessions of religious women in their convents lawfully and validly, both secular and religious priests of any degree or office, except Cardinals, require a special jurisdiction which the Ordinary of the place grants where the convent is situated, and any special law or privilege to the contrary is revoked (Can. 876).

To hear the confessions of such religious women one ordinary confessor only is to be appointed for each convent, unless the great number of the religious or some other cause require more (Can. 520).

The ordinary confessor is appointed for three years, but under certain conditions his office may be prolonged for a second or even for a third period of three years (Can. 526).

An extraordinary confessor for each community of religious women should be granted at least four times in the year, and all the religious and novices should present themselves to him at least to ask for his blessing (Can. 521).

The local Ordinary should appoint some special confessors for every house where a religious community lives to whom any nun may easily have recourse in particular cases, and if any religious asks for such a confessor no superioress in any way may inquire into the reason for the request, refuse it, or show displeasure at it (Can. 521).

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Chapter XI. De Abusu Sacramenti Poenitentiae

SANCTISSIMIS institutis abuti hominum malitia valet, nec sacramento Poenitentiae excepto. Ecclesia tamen nihil intentatum reliquit ut abusus hujus sacramenti evitentur vel ut iis si forte occurrant aptum remedium praebeatur. Gregorius XV aliique Romani Pontifices et praesertim Benedictus XIV leges tulerunt contra sollicitationem in sacro tribunali ac absolutionem complicis in peccato turpi. De his in hoc capite agimus ac primo de sollicitatione (Can. (The malice of men is able to abuse the most holy institutions, not excepting the sacrament of Penance. The Church, however, has left nothing untried in order that abuses of this sacrament may be avoided, or that, if they should occur, a fitting remedy may be provided. Gregory XV and other Roman Pontiffs, and especially Benedict XIV, made laws against solicitation in the sacred tribunal and against the absolution of an accomplice in a sin of impurity. Of these we treat in this chapter, and first of solicitation.) 904).

De crimine sollicitationis in sacro tribunali Benedictus XIV Constitutione Sacramentum Poenitentiae tria statuit. Primo committit ac mandat omnibus locorum Ordinariis universi orbis christiani in suis respectivis dioecesibus ut diligenter omnique humano respectu postposito inquirant et procedant contra omnes ac singulos sacerdotes, tam seculares quam regulares quomodolibet exemptos, qui sollicitationis sunt rei, eosque graviter puniant. Rei autem sunt sollicitationis qui aliquem poenitentem, quaecumque persona illa sit, vel in actu sacramentalis confessionis, vel ante, vel immediate post confessionem, vel occasione, aut praetextu confessionis vel etiam extra occasionem confessionis in confessionali, sive in alio loco ad confessiones audiendas destinato aut electo, simulatione audiendi ibidem confessionem, ad inhonesta et turpia sollicitare, vel provocare, sive verbis, sive signis, sive nutibus, sive tactu, sive per scripturam aut tunc aut post legendam, tentaverint, aut cum eis illicitos et inhonestos sermones vel tractatus temerario ausu habuerint. Secundo, omnes et singuli sacerdotes ad confessiones audiendas constituti tenentur suos poenitentes quos noverint fuisse ab aliis sollicitatos sedulo monere de obligatione denunciandi locorum ordinariis personam quae sollicitationem commiserit, etiamsi sacerdos sit qui jurisdictione ad absolutionem valide impertiendam careat, aut sollicitatio inter confessarium et poenitentem mutua fuerit, sive sollicitationi poenitens consenserit, sive consensum minime praestiterit, vel longum tempus post ipsam sollicitationem jam effluxerit, aut sollicitatio a confessario non pro seipso sed pro alia persona peracta fuerit. Tertio, potestas absolvendi eos qui sive per se sive per alios apud ecclesiasticos judices falso innoxios sacerdotes sollicitationis accusant reservatur Summo Pontifici, ut tam detestabile facinus metu magnitudinis poenae coerceatur (Can (Concerning the crime of solicitation in the sacred tribunal Benedict XIV, in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae, laid down three things. First, he commits and enjoins upon all local Ordinaries of the whole Christian world, in their respective dioceses, that they diligently, and setting aside all human respect, inquire into and proceed against each and every priest, whether secular or regular and however exempt, who are guilty of solicitation, and punish them gravely. Now those are guilty of solicitation who have attempted to solicit or provoke any penitent, whoever that person may be, to what is shameful and base — whether in the act of sacramental confession, or before it, or immediately after it, or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, or even apart from the occasion of confession in the confessional, or in another place set apart or chosen for hearing confessions, under the pretence of hearing a confession there — whether by words, or by signs, or by nods, or by touch, or by writing to be read then or afterwards; or who with rash daring have held unlawful and indecent conversations or dealings with them. Secondly, each and every priest appointed to hear confessions is bound diligently to warn those of his penitents whom he knows to have been solicited by others of the obligation of denouncing to the local Ordinaries the person who committed the solicitation — even if the priest be one who lacks jurisdiction to give absolution validly, or if the solicitation was mutual between confessor and penitent, or whether the penitent consented to the solicitation or gave no consent at all, or a long time has already passed since the solicitation, or the solicitation was made by the confessor not for himself but for another person. Thirdly, the power of absolving those who, either by themselves or through others, falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges is reserved to the Supreme Pontiff, that so detestable a crime may be restrained by fear of the greatness of the penalty.). 894).

Ex dictis igitur, quae fere ad verbum in Constitutione Benedicti XIV inveniuntur, constat Ordinarios teneri sub gravi inquirere in sollicitantes ac hujus criminis reos graviter punire. Praxis Sacri Officii est ut post unam alteramve denunciationem sacerdos denunciatus observetur. Post tertiam vero contra suspectum procedi solet. Ad formale examen vocantur parochi aliique spectatae virtutis viri qui de indole et qualitatibus denunciantis et denunciati sub juramento de veritate dicenda et de secreto servando testimonium proferunt. Poenae jure reis infligendae sunt privatio omnium facultatum ad confessiones excipiendas, suspensio ab exercitio ordinis, privatio beneficiorum, privatio vocis activae et passivae si sit regularis, omnes tamen sunt ferendae sententiae (Can. (From what has been said, therefore, which is found almost word for word in the Constitution of Benedict XIV, it is established that Ordinaries are bound under grave sin to inquire into solicitors and to punish the guilty of this crime gravely. The practice of the Holy Office is that after one or another denunciation the denounced priest be watched; but after a third, proceedings are usually taken against the suspect. To the formal examination are called parish priests and other men of approved virtue, who give testimony on oath, to tell the truth and to keep secrecy, concerning the character and qualities of the denouncer and of the one denounced. The penalties to be inflicted on the guilty by law are deprivation of all faculties for hearing confessions, suspension from the exercise of the order, deprivation of benefices, and deprivation of active and passive voice if he be a regular; all of them, however, are ferendae sententiae.) 2368). Termini adhibiti in crimine definiendo strictae sunt interpretationis.

In actu sacramentalis confessionis: hoc intelligendum est de intervallo quod intercedit inter benedictionem et absolutionem etiam si poenitens non fuerit absolutus ob defectum dispositionum vel ob aliam causam.

Ante vel immediate post: ita ut nulla actio non referibilis ad sollicitationem intercesserit.

Occasione vel praetextu confessionis: occasio est quando confessio sequebatur vel sequi debebat juxta intentionem petentis. Praetextus habetur quando confessarius ficte proponit confessionem ut sollicitet. Quare si mulier et sacerdos fingunt confessionem faciendam ad alios decipiendos et ad tutius peccandum non est locus denunciandi, nec probabilius si poenitens praetexat confessionem ad sacerdotem-vocandum et sollicitandum. Probabilius non est denunciandus sacerdos qui propter cognitam ex confessione fragilitatem mulieris eam domi sollicitat, quia occasione scientiae ex confessione habitae sollicitat, non occasione confessionis (The terms used in defining the crime are of strict interpretation. In the act of sacramental confession: this is to be understood of the interval which falls between the blessing and the absolution, even if the penitent was not absolved for want of dispositions or for some other cause. Before or immediately after: so that no action unconnected with the solicitation has intervened. On the occasion or under the pretext of confession: it is an occasion when confession followed, or was to have followed, according to the intention of the one asking. There is a pretext when the confessor feignedly proposes confession in order to solicit. Wherefore, if a woman and a priest pretend that a confession is to be made in order to deceive others and to sin more safely, there is no room for denunciation; nor, more probably, if the penitent uses confession as a pretext for calling the priest and soliciting him. More probably a priest is not to be denounced who, on account of a woman’s frailty known from confession, solicits her at home, because he solicits on the occasion of knowledge had from confession, not on the occasion of the confession.).

In confessional: sive in alio loco ad confessiones audiendas destinato aut electo simulatione audiendi ibidem confessionem: unde non denunciandus est sacerdos qui sollicitat mulierem stantem ante confessionale, deest enim simulatio audiendi ejus confessionem. (or in another place set apart or chosen for hearing confessions, under the pretence of hearing a confession there: hence a priest is not to be denounced who solicits a woman standing in front of the confessional, for the pretence of hearing her confession is wanting.)

Inhonesta et turpia: haec significat gravia peccata contra sextum decalogi praeceptum. Graviter inhonesti sermones vel tractatus quin ulterius procedatur constituunt sollicitationem si ceterae conditiones habeantur. Qui externe poenitenti sollicitanti videtur esse denunciandus. (this signifies grave sins against the sixth precept of the decalogue. Gravely indecent conversations or dealings, even though nothing further follows, constitute solicitation if the other conditions are present. One who outwardly appears to be soliciting a penitent is to be denounced.) consentit

Omnes confessarii monere suos poenitentes, sive feminas sive masculos tenentur quos ab aliis sacerdotibus fuisse sollicitatos noverint de obligatione denunciandi sacerdotes sollicitantes locorum ordinariis vel Sanctae Sedi per Sacrum Officium vel per Poenitentiariam. Infra mensem ab accepta cognitione denunciationis faciendae obligatio est implenda, aliter poenitens sollicitatus incurrit excommunicationem nemini, reservatam ex Constitutione Pii IX, Apostolicae Sedis, et Can. (All confessors are bound to warn those of their penitents, whether women or men, whom they know to have been solicited by other priests, of the obligation of denouncing the soliciting priests to the local Ordinaries, or to the Holy See through the Holy Office or through the Penitentiary. The obligation of making the denunciation is to be fulfilled within a month from the time the knowledge was received; otherwise the solicited penitent incurs an excommunication reserved to no one, by the Constitution of Pius IX, Apostolicae Sedis.) 2368, sec. 2. Omnes etiam qui certo sciant casum sollicitationis sacerdotem reum denunciare tenentur, non tamen sub censura. Confessarii monere poenitentes de obligatione denunciandi sollicitantes tenentur, etiamsi praevideant eos obligationem non impleturos, nisi sint in articulo mortis, tunc enim dissimulare ob salutem animae licet. Nec capax est absolutionis qui onus implere recusat vel saltem nisi promittat se onus impleturum quum primum poterit. Confessarius audiens poenitentem qui sollicitatus fuisse videtur, circumstantias casus investigare debet ut moralem certitudinem de crimine patrato acquirat antequam obligationem denunciandi sollicitantem imponat. Denunciatio juridice est facienda, ac proinde qui denunciat personaliter adire debet ordinarium loci ubi crimen patrabatur, ac sub juramento testimonium dare. Qui ordinarium adire nequit, ad eum scribat, ut delegatum sibi substituere valeat ad denunciationem accipiendam. Scriptae denunciationes anonymae nullius sunt momenti, nec sufficiunt ad obligationi satisfaciendum.

Qui falso juridice accusat sacerdotem sollicitationis gravissimum committit peccatum et incurrit in excommunicationem cujus absolutio speciali modo Romano Pontifici reservatur a qua nequit ullo in casu absolvi nisi falsam denunciationem formaliter retractaverit, et damna reparaverit. Peccatum etiam ratione sui reservatur Sanctae Sedi (Can. (All also who know for certain of a case of solicitation are bound to denounce the guilty priest, not however under censure. Confessors are bound to warn penitents of the obligation of denouncing solicitors even if they foresee that they will not fulfil the obligation, unless they are at the point of death, for then it is lawful to say nothing for the good of the soul. Nor is he capable of absolution who refuses to fulfil the burden, or at least unless he promises that he will fulfil it as soon as he can. A confessor hearing a penitent who appears to have been solicited ought to investigate the circumstances of the case, so as to acquire moral certainty that the crime was committed, before he imposes the obligation of denouncing the solicitor. The denunciation is to be made juridically, and therefore the one who denounces ought to approach in person the Ordinary of the place where the crime was committed, and to give testimony on oath. One who cannot approach the Ordinary should write to him, so that he may be able to appoint a delegate in his place to receive the denunciation. Written anonymous denunciations are of no weight, nor do they suffice to satisfy the obligation. One who juridically accuses a priest of solicitation falsely commits a most grave sin and incurs an excommunication the absolution of which is reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner, from which he cannot in any case be absolved unless he has formally retracted the false denunciation and repaired the damage. The sin also is by reason of itself reserved to the Holy See.) 2363, 894).

Ex eadem Constitutione Benedicti XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae, confessarius poenitentem quocum peccatum grave contra castitatem commiserit a peccato complicem absolvere nequit; (By the same Constitution of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae, a confessor cannot absolve from the sin an accomplice with whom he has committed a grave sin against chastity;) qui autem talem complicem absolvere attentat in casum incidit specialissimo modo reservatum Romano Pontifici. Eandem poenam incurrit qui se absolvere fingit vel, sive directe sive indirecte, complicem inducit ad peccatum complicitatis tacendum quum ad confessionem venit. Si vero poenitens bona fide vel inadvertenter peccatum complicitatis omiserit dum complici confitetur valide ab eo absolvitur. Idem videtur dicendum si complex ab alio sacerdote directe a peccato complicitatis jam absolutus idem peccatum postea tamquam materiam liberam sacerdoti complici confitetur. Praestat autem ut sacerdos complex nunquam confessionem complicis excipiat nisi in casu necessitatis (Can. (The same penalty is incurred by one who pretends to absolve, or who, either directly or indirectly, induces the accomplice to keep silent about the sin of complicity when coming to confession. But if the penitent in good faith or inadvertently has omitted the sin of complicity while confessing to the accomplice, he is validly absolved by him. The same seems to be said if the accomplice, already directly absolved from the sin of complicity by another priest, afterwards confesses that same sin as free matter to the accomplice priest. It is better, however, that an accomplice priest should never hear the confession of his accomplice except in a case of necessity.) 884, 2367).

Complex vero in peccato turpi hic intelligitur qui interne et externe grave peccatum contra castitatem sive verbis sive aspectu sive facto cum sacerdote etiam ante sacerdotium susceptum commiserit. Ut incurratur censura absolutio debet esse formalis ita ut sacerdos sciat se absolvere poenitentem complicem, vel saltem ut ejus ignorantia sit crassa et supina. Requiritur etiam ut poenitens cognoverit se peccasse cum hoc sacerdote sive in actu peccati sive saltem ante absolutionem acceptam, quamvis non sit necessarium ut poenitens confessarium in actu confessionis agnoscat. Sacerdos igitur qui larvatus et incognitus cum muliere peccavit eam adhuc ignorantem suum complicem absolvere valide potest, nam aliter sese proderet poenitenti ac alii confessario ad quem poenitens absolutionis causa accederet. (By an accomplice in a sin of impurity is here understood one who, internally and externally, has committed a grave sin against chastity with the priest — whether by words, by looks, or by deed — even before the priesthood was received. For the censure to be incurred the absolution must be formal, so that the priest knows that he is absolving a penitent who is his accomplice, or at least so that his ignorance is crass and supine. It is also required that the penitent should have known that she sinned with this priest, either in the act of the sin or at least before absolution was received, although it is not necessary that the penitent should recognise the confessor in the act of confession. A priest, therefore, who sinned with a woman while masked and unrecognised can validly absolve her while she is still unaware that he is her accomplice; for otherwise he would betray himself to the penitent and to another confessor to whom the penitent might go for absolution.)

n. 5.

In articulo seu periculo mortis absolutio complicis data a complice sacerdote semper est valida ne anima pereat, ait Benedictus XIV. Praeterea complex moribundus qui nequit aut non vult alteri sacerdoti confiteri licite etiam a complice sacerdote absolvitur. Si vero alius sacerdos etiam non approbatus adsit, vel sine infamia et scandalo advocari possit ad confessionem accipiendam, sacerdos qui complicem in periculo mortis constitutum absolvat excommunicationem non evitat. (Moreover a dying accomplice who cannot, or will not, confess to another priest may lawfully be absolved even by the accomplice priest. But if another priest, even one not approved, is at hand, or can be called without infamy and scandal to receive the confession, a priest who absolves an accomplice placed in danger of death does not escape the excommunication.)

In locis remotis ubi complex alium confessarium habere nequit, et in periculo est ne sine absolutione discedat e vita, potest probabiliter a complice absolvi ne anima pereat. Poterit etiam sacerdos facultatem obtinere ut complicem in tanta necessitate absolvat. (A priest will also be able to obtain the faculty of absolving an accomplice in so great a necessity.)

THE confessor does not satisfy his obligations merely by absolving the penitents who come to him, and refusing absolution to those who are not properly disposed. In the confessional he holds the place of Christ for the reconciliation of sinners with God; he is also the minister of the sacrament, and as such he is bound to see that it is validly and lawfully received by the penitent. In other words, as theologians say, the confessor is the spiritual father, doctor, counsellor, and judge of his penitents. Something must be said on each of these heads (Can. 888, sec. 1).

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Ch. XII, Section I. The Confessor as Spiritual Father

The confessor should remember how our Lord used to act toward sinners during his mortal life; with what charity, forbearance, and patience he dealt with them, and he should strive to imitate his divine model. Like him he should be interested in the souls of men, not in their social position, age, or sex. Whoever they may be, he should receive all sympathetically and kindly. This does not mean that he should treat all precisely in the same way. Just because of his interest in his penitents and of his sympathy for them, he will treat them as their various needs demand; not expecting the same degree of virtue in all, nor attempting to raise all to the same height of sanctity. He should try to discover what God designs for each soul and be content to second the inspirations of the Holy Spirit.

In dealing with pious penitents, especially of the other sex, he should be brief and austere, otherwise he will lose much time with little or no fruit, and expose himself to no little danger. With these penitents, especially, he should treat of nothing in the confessional except whet concerns their consciences, and that in a fatherly way, but briefly. Even if he recognizes his penitents, it will be better as a rule not to show that he knows them for what they are outside the confessional. He will thus be able to deal with them for the good of their souls with more freedom and detachment.

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Ch. XII, Section II. The Confessor as Physician of Souls

It is the confessor’s duty not merely to reconcile the sinner with God by absolving him from sin, but by suggesting to him means and remedies against relapse to enable the penitent to lead a good life in future. The confessor is the spiritual physician of souls, and he should be skilled in diagnosing the diseases of the soul and in applying the proper remedy. Catholic literature is very rich in ascetical books whose special province it is to map out the way of spiritual progress, to point out and describe the many vices and other obstacles to be overcome by the Christian wayfarer, and the means to be taken for the purpose. Among the best known of such works are: Rodriguez’ On the Practice of Christian Perfection, The Devout Life of St Francis de Sales, The Spiritual Exercises of St Ignatius, The Spiritual Combat, by Scupoli, etc. The confessor should make himself as familiar as possible with one or two such treatises, and he should have tested their worth by applying the lessons which they give to the conduct of his own life. Here it will be sufficient briefly to indicate some general remedies which may be usefully prescribed in most cases where there is a sincere desire to amend. Frequent and fervent prayer, frequent reception of the sacraments of Penance and the Eucharist, pious meditation on the end of life and on the presence of God, avoiding evil company and the occasions of sin, avoiding idleness by constant: occupation of mind and body, as far as is possible. Besides these general remedies, the confessor may suggest special ones for the correction of particular vices. The selfish and thoughtless should be told to practise kindness to those about them; the proud, acts of humility; the voluptuous, mortification of their passions; the envious, praising the good deeds of others; and so on. There is special difficulty as to the best method of treating recidivists and those who are placed in an occasion of sin, and something must now be said on each of these classes.

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.

An occasion of sin is an external circumstance which leads one to commit sin. It is a proximate occasion if, when a person is placed in it, it leads him to commit sin oftener than not; otherwise it is remote. It is a necessary occasion if he cannot avoid it by using ordinary diligence; otherwise it is voluntary.

(a) There is no necessity to avoid remote occasions of sin, for it is not possible to do so, and in spite of them sin may be avoided by using the proper means.

(b) We are bound to avoid proximate and voluntary occasions of sin, for we cannot remain in them without exposing ourselves to the proximate danger of committing sin, and if we voluntarily choose to remain in a proximate occasion we voluntarily choose the sin. As we are bound to avoid sin we are bound to take the necessary means for that end. This doctrine is confirmed by the 61st, 62nd, and 63rd propositions, condemned by Innocent XI.

(c) A necessary occasion is one which we cannot avoid. It is physically necessary if we cannot physically get away from it; it is morally necessary if it is more difficult to avoid it than to keep from sin while in it by using proper means and precautions.

There is no obligation to avoid necessary occasions of sin, for we cannot be obliged to do what is impossible; but we are bound to take the necessary means to avoid sin in spite of being in the occasion, and such means are always at hand if we have the good will to use them, for God’s goodness will never permit us to be tried above our strength. By using the means to avoid sin while placed in an occasion of sin, we make the proximate occasion remote, as theologians say.

It follows from this that one who finds his ordinary avocation in life, which is supposed to be an honest one, a proximate occasion of sin to him is seldom bound to give it up; he is only bound to make the occasion remote, which is generally possible with a good will and the help of God’s grace.

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Ch. XII, Section III. The Confessor as Counsellor

The duties of the confessor require considerable expert knowledge in one who aspires to the office. He must in the first place have a competent knowledge of Christian morals and of all that belongs to the valid and lawful administration and reception of the sacraments. St Alphonsus teaches us that it is not sufficient merely to know the general principles of Christian morality; the confessor must have considerable skill in applying those principles correctly, according to the infinite variety which is found in human actions. The confessor should have received a thorough grounding in moral theology during the course of his priestly studies, and he should continue to keep it up during the rest of his life, for it is quickly lost unless means are taken to keep it fresh in the mind. The Church shows that she is conscious of this danger by insisting that all who have the cure of souls should at certain times every year be present at the conferences of the clergy, where moral questions are discussed. Every confessor is not called upon to be an authority in moral questions, but at least he should be able to decide correctly ordinary doubts and difficulties, and know when to doubt about more serious questions.

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

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

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

Section Iv e e 2 The Confessor as Fudge

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Ch. XII, Section IV. The Confessor as Judge

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

¹ 4 Lat., c. 21; Ritual.

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

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

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

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Chapter XIII. Mistakes made in Hearing Confessions

ONE who culpably causes unjust harm to another is bound in justice to repair that harm as far as he can. Even if the action which causes harm to another is done innocently, there will nevertheless arise an obligation to prevent the harm as far as possible as soon as the danger is noticed, and if there is grave negligence in doing this without reasonable excuse, injustice will be committed and the obligation of making restitution incurred. A confessor who admits a penitent to confession is bound in justice to absolve him if he is properly disposed for absolution. And so if he has neglected to do so, he must repair the error afterward, especially if the penitent were in danger of death and may die in sin without sacramental absolution.

Similarly, if the confessor gave his penitent false instruction in faith or morals, or bad advice, or bound him to make restitution when he was under no obligation to do so by the law of God, or released him from such an obligation when he was really under it, the confessor must afterward correct his mistake, taking the precaution to ask the penitent’s leave to say something to him about his confession if an opportunity is afforded him only out of confession. When the penitent was wrongfully compelled to make restitution with grave fault on the part of the confessor, the latter is bound in justice to make him restitution for the loss that he has suffered, if he cannot otherwise recover his money. The confessor is in the same way bound to make restitution to the defrauded creditor when, with grave fault, he released a penitent from the obligation of paying a just debt, if in consequence the penitent is now unwilling or unable to fulfil his obligation.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 1. The Virtue of Prud…, Persons Who Possess Prudence · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 3. The Subjective Par…, Restitution

If the confessor merely neglected to impose a penance, or supply for the deficiency of the penitent’s confession by questioning him, or failed to correct some mistake that he was labouring under, or to warn him of the obligation of making restitution, he did not thereby sin against justice, and he is not bound to make restitution, unless indeed in the circumstances his silence was equivalent to positive approval. Still, if knowingly and wilfully he did any of these things, he committed sin, and in as far as harm to his penitent or to others ensued he violated charity, which obliges every man to do what he can to prevent loss and damage to others. Even out of confession if he can prevent harm being caused by his failure to do his duty in the confessional, he should with the penitent’s leave do his best to prevent it.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 24 passages

Vol. I, Bk. I, Tr. II, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. III, Ch. II, Art. II, § II, Scholion II. On Multiplied Venial Sins

n. 292.

III. He who by multiplied and coalescing transgressions arrives at grave matter:

Already by the first transgression he sins gravely, if from the beginning he intends to proceed through coalescing transgressions to grave matter. Namely, although the execution of the individual transgressions is externally light, nevertheless, insofar as it is subject to a gravely evil intention, it is gravely evil. Nevertheless, these several transgressions constitute only one sin in number, unless the depraved intention is morally interrupted.
If he does not intend to proceed to grave matter, then he sins gravely when he advertently completes grave matter. Light transgressions which follow the completed grave matter, according to others, involve a continuation of the same mortal sin in number; according to St. Alphonsus and others, they do not constitute mortal sin unless they reach a new grave quantity (St. Alphonsus, III, 538).

Practical Admonitions. 1. Let the confessor strive to remove penitents, especially pious ones, even from venial sins. Hence: a) "Let him inculcate in his own the greatest possible horror of mortal sin; for the more vivid this is, the more efficaciously it will deter men even from venial sins, which dispose toward mortal sin. b) Let him repeatedly insist on the question of the Catechism: 'What evils do venial sins cause us?' c) Let him strive to know the dominant vice of the penitent, to which he may suggest suitable remedies. Thus, if he has found it to be a desire for riches greater than is fair, let him prescribe more ample alms; if excessive ambition, let him urge flight from conversations; if wandering of mind in prayers and other duties, let him indicate greater recollection and solitude; and so in the others. For contraries are most excellently cured by contraries. d) Let him very much commend daily and particular examination.

But if venial sins must be avoided by a simple member of the faithful, how much more by clerics! Therefore, as Trent admonishes, 'let them flee light offenses, which would be very great in them, so that their actions may bring veneration to all' (session 22, chapter 1, De Reformatione). Before the others, let them avoid omissions and negligences in prayer or in the duties of their state, useless conversations or familiarities with persons of the other sex, a critical spirit toward the precepts of superiors, and detractions concerning fellow clerics, especially when laypersons are listening."¹

¹ Sweens, Theologia moralis fundamentalis, n. 850.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. IV, Article IV. On Dispensation

n. 671.

IV. The subject of the power is the Supreme Pontiff and those to whom the Church has communicated it. Moreover:

The Pope can dispense all the faithful from all vows to which, according to what was said under III, the power of dispensing, such as it is in the Church, extends.
From can. 1313, non-reserved vows can be dispensed for a just cause, provided the dispensation does not harm a right acquired by others:

a) The local Ordinary, as regards all his subjects and also travelers. Thus can. 1313, 1°: understand subjects wherever they dwell; travelers and those without domicile actually staying in his territory (can. 94, § 2; 201, § 3).

b) The Superior of an exempt clerical religion, as regards professed members, novices, or others living day and night in the religious house for the sake of service, education, hospitality, or infirm health.

c) Those to whom the Apostolic See has delegated the power of dispensing. Now regular confessors probably can, by delegated power, dispense in all vows and oaths of the faithful in which Bishops can do this by ordinary power, and indeed both within and outside confession. They probably enjoy this power by force of a privilege which, under the old law, probably belonged to them, and which probably has not been revoked. Hence at least the Church supplies (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 256, 257).

Note 1. If the forum for which the power was given has not been expressed, the power is understood to have been granted for both forums (can. 202, § 3).

Note 2. Since dispensation is an act of voluntary jurisdiction, one who has the power of dispensing or commuting can use it even for himself (can. 201, § 3). Nevertheless no one can irritate his own vow.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. IV, Art. V, Scholion. On Reserved Vows

n. 681.

IV. Cessation of a reserved vow. First compare and apply what we have said about the cessation of a vow taken generally (n. 651). But as to the dispensation and commutation of a reserved vow, certain special things must be noted.

Dispensation. a) Bishops and those who have episcopal jurisdiction can dispense, but only insofar as it is necessary, "if access to the Pope is not easy and there is danger of grave harm in delay" (St. Alphonsus, cited place; VI, 987). I said insofar as it is necessary; "hence if it suffices that the vow be suspended, it cannot be dispensed. Likewise, if someone is dispensed from a vow of chastity with the restriction that he marry a certain woman to repair her honor, he cannot marry another" (St. Alphonsus, III, 258).

b) Regular confessors probably can do the same as Bishops, namely by a privilege which probably persists (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 258; VI, 987, 1128), so that at least the Church supplies. Dispensation, however, can be granted even outside confession.

Commutation. Insofar as those mentioned under 1 can dispense in reserved vows, to that extent they can also commute them.

Warning. The people should be advised not to emit vows without consulting the confessor. But the confessor should not permit vows so easily, especially a vow of chastity, above all of perpetual chastity, because ecclesiastical authority is not accustomed to dispense in this vow, when it has been maturely emitted, unless a very great commutation has been attached. If that vow seems fitting, let a temporary vow be permitted the first time, or several times, from one feast of the Blessed Virgin to another, and so at last, after much and serious testing, a perpetual vow¹ (cf. St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 93).

¹ Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, I, n. 631.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. I, Art. II, Scholion. On Confessors to…, I. Clerical Religion of Men

n. 374.

I. In individual houses of a clerical religion, several confessors legitimately approved should be deputed in proportion to the number of members, with the power, if the case concerns an exempt religion, of absolving even in cases reserved in the religion (can. 518, § 1).

Note 1. Religious Superiors having the power of hearing confessions can, with the things to be observed by law observed, hear the confessions of subjects who spontaneously and of their own motion ask this from them, but they should not do this habitually without grave cause (can. 518, § 2). Grave causes are, for example, a shortage of confessors, an anxious state of conscience in a subject, and the like. But a petition made spontaneously and of one's own motion suffices for the Superior to hear confessions by way of an act.

Note 2. Superiors should take care not to induce any subject, either personally or through another, by force, fear, importunate persuasions, or in any other way, to confess sins to them (can. 518, § 3). Simple counsel or persuasion in a particular case is not excluded.

II. With the constitutions remaining firm which command or counsel confession to be made at stated times with determinate confessors, if a religious, even an exempt one, for the quiet of his conscience, approaches a confessor approved by the local Ordinary, even though not listed among those designated, the confession, any contrary privilege being revoked, is valid and licit; and the confessor can absolve the religious even from sins and censures reserved in the religion (can. 519). These things were explained in n. 372.

III. As regards novices, these things hold:

In proportion to the number of novices, one or more ordinary confessors should be had (can. 566, § 2, 1); these should stay in the novitiate house itself (can. 566, § 2, 2).
Besides ordinary confessors, some confessors should be designated whom the novices can freely approach in particular cases, and the Master should not show that he takes this ill (can. 566, § 2, 3).
At least four times a year an extraordinary confessor should be given to the novices, to whom all should approach at least to receive a blessing (can. 566, § 2, 4).
Also for novices the things said in n. 374, II hold.

Note 1. The master of novices and his associate, and the Superior of a Seminary or college, should not hear the sacramental confessions of their students staying with them in the same house, unless the students ask this spontaneously from a grave and urgent cause in particular cases (can. 891). Therefore novices cannot habitually confess to the master of novices even for a grave and urgent cause. It is not clear that the prohibition of confessing to the master of novices should also be extended to postulants, since the Master is not of himself set over postulants.

Note 2. Novices can confess to the Superior of the house for a just cause in particular cases; for a grave cause, habitually (cf. can. 518, § 2).

IV. As regards postulants, nothing special is established by the Code, so that they are subject only to the common governance of religious.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. I, Art. II, Scholion. On Confessors to…, III. Religion of Women

n. 376.

I. Different confessors. They are distinguished as ordinary, special, extraordinary, and particular.

Ordinary confessor. a) For each house of religious women only one ordinary confessor should be given, who receives the sacramental confessions of the whole community, unless because of their great number or another just cause there is need of another or of several (can. 520, § 1).¹

The words "who receives the sacramental confessions of the whole community" indicate the office of the confessor rather than an obligation of the religious women to approach him in the case in which, within the time established by the rule, they have confessed to another. Nevertheless, of itself it should be counseled that all be content with the ordinary confessor and ordinarily confess to him at the stated times.

A just cause for naming several ordinary confessors could be, for example, a plurality of national languages.

b) For the office of ordinary confessor of religious women there should be deputed priests, whether from the secular clergy or religious with the permission of their Superiors, outstanding in integrity of morals and prudence. They should moreover be forty years of age, unless a just cause, in the judgment of the Ordinary, requires otherwise, and they should have no power in the external forum over those same religious women (can. 524, § 1).

If the house of religious women is immediately subject to the Apostolic See or to the local Ordinary, he chooses priests for confessions, both ordinary and extraordinary; if it is subject to a regular Superior, he presents confessors to the Ordinary, whose duty it is to approve the same for hearing the confessions of those nuns and, if need be, to supply for the Superior's negligence (can. 525).

The ordinary confessor of religious women should not exercise his office beyond three years. Nevertheless, the Ordinary can confirm him for a second, indeed even for a third, three-year period, if either because of a shortage of priests fit for this office he cannot provide otherwise, or if the greater part of the religious women, including those who in other matters do not have the right of casting a vote, has agreed by secret votes to the confirmation of the same confessor. Nevertheless, for those dissenting, if they wish, provision must be made otherwise (can. 526).² Outside the cases set forth, the ordinary confessor cannot again be deputed as ordinary in the same community except after a year from the completion of his office; but an extraordinary confessor can immediately be named as ordinary (can. 524, § 2).

Special confessor. If some religious woman, for the quiet of her soul and for greater progress in the way of God, asks for some special confessor or spiritual moderator, the Ordinary should readily grant him. Nevertheless, he should watch lest abuses creep in from this concession; but if they do creep in, he should eliminate them cautiously and prudently, with liberty of conscience preserved (can. 520, § 2). Therefore a special spiritual director could also be granted without the office of confessor.

a) A special confessor or spiritual moderator is to be granted not for a prefixed time, but as long as the just cause of necessity or spiritual utility of the religious woman who requested him endures.³

b) The ordinary confessor of the community can also be deputed as moderator of conscience for some religious woman.⁴

Extraordinary confessor. To each community of religious women there should be given an extraordinary confessor who at least four times a year comes to the religious house, and to whom all religious women must present themselves, at least to receive a blessing (can. 521, § 1). In an extraordinary confessor the same things are required as in an ordinary one (can. 524, § 1). The same things also hold as regards his selection (can. 525), but he can be named for an indefinite time. Finally, the mind of the legislator is judged to be that, as such, he should not come to the religious house more than four times a year without the authority of the Ordinary.
Particular confessor. The local Ordinaries in whose places communities of religious women exist should designate some priests for individual houses, to whom the religious women can easily have recourse for the sacrament of Penance in particular cases, without its being necessary to approach the Ordinary himself as often as the case arises (can. 521, § 2). It is said, 1. for the sacrament of Penance; therefore not only for seeking direction or counsel. It is said, 2. in particular cases; therefore not habitually after the manner of the special confessor of whom under 2.

Note. If some religious woman asks for one of those confessors, no Superior is permitted, either personally or through others, directly or indirectly, to inquire into the reason for the petition, to oppose the petition by words or deeds, or in any way to show that she takes it ill (can. 521, § 3). This paragraph seems to regard both the extraordinary confessor of paragraph 1 and the particular confessor of paragraph 2. For first, canon 521 treats of both kinds of confessors, § 1 of the extraordinary confessor, § 2 of particular confessors; then § 3 says: "If some religious woman asks for one of those confessors," not "of these confessors." Then the distinct paragraph confirms this; for if this admonition regarded only particular confessors, it should have been stated in the same paragraph, not in a distinct paragraph of the same canon, which also treats of the extraordinary confessor.⁵

¹ The Sacred Congregation for Religious, July 3, 1916, declared that there was no obligation of naming an ordinary confessor for a community which did not contain at least six sisters. But the same Congregation several times, for example January 10, 1920 and January 18, 1921, ordered canon 520 to be observed even for small houses. But that canon supposes confessors who receive confessions in the house of the sisters itself. Therefore, if they are allowed to approach a church so that there they may confess in the manner of secular women, a confessor does not seem to have to be named (Vermeersch, Epitome, 4, n. 590).

² Sacred Congregation for Religious, April 20, 1913.

³ Sacred Congregation for Religious, April 20, 1913.

⁴ Sacred Congregation for Religious, April 20, 1913.

⁵ Vermeersch, Periodica, IX, p. (3).

n. 378.

III. Things to be observed by confessors and by religious women. 1. The confessors of religious women, both ordinary and extraordinary, should in no way involve themselves in the internal or external governance of the community (can. 524, § 3). Special confessors called to the monastery or religious house, if they understand that the religious women approach them with no just cause either of necessity or of spiritual utility, should prudently dismiss them.¹

All religious women should in no way speak among themselves about the confessions of their companions, nor should they dare to criticize those sisters who make their confession to another than the deputed confessor.²
A Superior who acts against the prescriptions of canons 521, § 3,³ 522,⁴ and 523⁵ should be warned by the local Ordinary. If she offends again, she should be punished by him with deprivation of office, the Sacred Congregation of Religious being immediately informed (can. 2414).

¹ Decree Cum de sacramentalibus. The things said in the text, even if perhaps they can no longer be urged by force of the cited Decree, are nevertheless worthy of mention.

² Cf. p. 290.

³ Cf. p. 290.

⁴ Cf. p. 286.

⁵ Cf. p. 286.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Chapter II. On the Right Use of the Power

n. 389.

Before we speak of the use itself of the power, certain things must be noted about those things which are prerequisite to right use; these indeed are "goodness, knowledge, and prudence."¹ A few things concerning knowledge alone.

I. The necessity of knowledge needs no proof. It suffices to have noted with St. Alphonsus that "that confessor is in the state of damnation who exposes himself to receiving confessions without sufficient knowledge" (Praxis Confessarii, n. 18). That is, he is guilty of all the defects that follow from ignorance and that were foreseen at least confusedly.

II. Mediocre knowledge is required and suffices, greater or lesser, however, according to the diversity of places and penitents. In a word: it is required and suffices that the confessor know how to solve the cases commonly occurring in the place, and know how to doubt prudently about more difficult ones (St. Alphonsus, at the cited place and VI, 627). Nevertheless, greater knowledge is desired according to these words of the Roman Ritual: "That he may be able to judge rightly, distinguishing between leprosy and leprosy, and as a skilled physician prudently cure the diseases of souls, and know how to apply suitable remedies to each one, he should strive to acquire for himself as much knowledge and prudence as he can for this purpose."²

III. As regards the means of acquiring and preserving due knowledge, I note with St. Alphonsus:

"Those who desire this office of receiving confessions should not easily persuade themselves that they can render themselves sufficiently fit for so great an office without long study of moral science. For this, certainly, it is not enough to run through some little summary of those which are circulated; nor is it enough to know the general principles of this faculty, as some, who, despising casuists, arrogate to themselves the name of learned men, suppose. For moral science is not only very necessary to the Christian commonwealth, since the good governance of souls depends on it, but is also supremely difficult. First, because it requires a general knowledge of all the other sciences, offices, and arts; second, because it embraces so many diverse matters distant from one another; third, because in great part it consists of so many positive laws, which are found brought together only among the casuists, and especially among the more recent ones, since laws of this kind come forth day by day. Finally, it becomes most difficult because of the innumerable circumstances of cases, on which the variation of resolutions depends; for from the diversity of circumstances different principles must be applied, and in this consists the difficulty, since it cannot be done without great discussion or the careful reading of several books which examine and elucidate the matters" (VI, 628).

And in the Praxis Confessarii the Holy Doctor says thus: "No confessor should interrupt the study of moral theology; because from so many things so diverse and disparate among themselves which pertain to this science, many, although read, because they happen more rarely, fall from the mind with the progress of time. For this reason it is necessary always to recall them to memory by frequent study" (n. 18). In addition, all should prepare themselves well for the moral conferences, as they are called. Finally, especially new confessors, after a more difficult confession has been heard, should weigh whether they have acted rightly. If doubts occur, they should consult books or more learned persons, account nevertheless being taken of the sacramental seal.

Corollary I. One who doubts whether he enjoys due knowledge should acquiesce in the judgment of the Bishop or Superior (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 18).

Corollary II. One destitute of due knowledge, and a Bishop or Superior using him, are excused on account of grave cause. A grave cause is present in the article of death and generally if otherwise penitents would for a long time lack the faculty of confessing, as can happen, for example, among captives and in Missions because of a shortage of priests (St. Alphonsus, VI, 628).

Having noted these things, we shall speak first of the things to be observed in confession, then of the things to be avoided in it, finally of the things to be observed after confession.

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

² At the cited place, n. 3.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. I, § I. On the Office of Questioning

n. 390.

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

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

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

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

The Doctors agree. St. Thomas: "It must be said that the priest ought to search out the conscience of the sinner as a physician searches a wound and a judge a cause; because frequently those things which the one confessing would keep silent through shame, when questioned he reveals" (In IV Sentences, distinction 19). St. Antoninus,⁵ St. Bonaventure,⁶ St. Bernardine of Siena,⁷ St. Charles Borromeo,⁸ and St. Alphonsus teach the same (VI, 607, 629).
There are added arguments from reason; namely, the obligation is deduced: a) from the fact that the confessor as minister of the sacrament must take care that all sins not yet directly remitted be directly remitted, in other words, that confession also be materially integral; b) from the fact that the character of judgment requires that the judge know the whole cause before he pronounces sentence. There is added c) that the confessor as physician must strive to detect all diseases and provide medicine for them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 629).

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

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

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

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

¹ Chapter 21, in chapter 12, De poenitentia.

² December 25, 1725.

³ June 26, 1749.

⁴ Title III, chapter 1, n. 16.

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

⁶ In IV Sentences, distinction 19, doubt 5.

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

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

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. I, § II. On the Office of Instructing

n. 396.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁴ June 26, 1749.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. I, § III. On the Office of Judging Sins

n. 397.

I. For the confessor to absolve validly, it suffices that he has apprehended the act of the penitent under the aspect of sin, even if he forms no judgment either about the gravity or about the species of the sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 627).

II. For the confessor to absolve in such a way that there does not remain for the penitent the burden of afterwards confessing the sin again, it suffices that the penitent has declared the sin, as it was committed, to an attentive confessor, even if the confessor errs both as regards gravity and as regards species (St. Alphonsus, VI, 478).

III. For the confessor to absolve licitly, he generally ought to have judged whether the sins accused were grave or light, and of what species they were (St. Alphonsus, VI, 627). To explain these things more, observe that it suffices that the confessor: 1. habitually know the gravity and species of the more obvious sins;¹ 2. equipped with that knowledge, hear the sins, even if he does not form an entirely explicit judgment about gravity and species; 3. have judged about the sins in the way set forth at the moment when the penitent declares them, and pronounce sentence from the judgment previously had, even if, while he grants absolution, he does not remember the sins declared.

Corollary I. While the confessor imposes satisfaction, he ought to retain or reassume sufficient knowledge, which is easily present, for imposing a fitting satisfaction.

Corollary II. If absolution is deferred, for example for one or two weeks, it is required that in the following confession the confessor have retained, or now reassume, at least confused knowledge of the state of the penitent (n. 334).

¹ "Let him hear the rest and absolve" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 627).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. I, § IV. On the Office of Judging and Promoting Disposition

n. 398.

I. For the confessor to absolve licitly, of itself at least broad moral certitude about the due disposition of the penitent is required, but that also suffices. It is said:

Of itself, because sometimes absolution can be granted conditionally even if the confessor lacks broad moral certitude (n. 404).
Broad moral certitude, that is, one which excludes strict doubt or imports the state of one opining.
That also suffices, for the matter concerns an internal thing, especially the sorrow of the penitent, about which greater certitude is had with difficulty, so that, if greater were required, "the administration of the sacrament would become subject to excessive scruples and difficulties" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 57). Hence apply these words of St. Thomas: "Certitude is not to be sought in the same way in all things, but in each matter according to its proper mode" (II-II, q. 47, a. 9, ad 2).

Having noted these things, the necessity of broad moral certitude is proved by these arguments:

First, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide¹ has these words: "Confessors should deny absolution to those who provide either no signs or only signs of feigned penance; but they should defer absolution for those whose penance is uncertain and suspect."

Next, after the first proposition condemned by Innocent XI,² almost all, both older and more recent authors, admit and defend the doctrine stated, as Aertnys,³ Berardi,⁴ and especially Ter Haar⁵ prove by the testimonies they cite.

Finally, the reverence due to the sacrament forbids its being ministered with so great a danger of nullity as the defect of broad moral certitude imports. In the case the sacrament will indeed probably be valid and probably will grant pardon to the sinner; but it cannot be admitted that for that reason alone the reverence due of itself to the sacrament may be neglected, or that the sacrament may thus be subordinated to the good of the subject, especially because a sinner who is doubtfully disposed wholly lacks an unimpeded right to absolution, since he ought to take care that he is certainly or at least sufficiently certainly disposed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 461; Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 117).

Objection 1. The Roman Catechism teaches: "For if the priest, after hearing the confession, has judged that diligence was not wholly lacking to the penitent in enumerating sins, nor sorrow in detesting them, he can be absolved."⁶ Therefore he to whom contrition seems not wholly lacking can be absolved; this is far different from saying that only one about whose contrition the confessor is morally certain can be absolved.

Response. The only sense corresponding to the words, or the natural sense, is this: the penitent can be absolved if the confessor has judged that some true sorrow is not lacking. But one who truly doubts whether sorrow is present does not judge that it is present (vol. I, n. 215). Therefore the Roman Catechism favors rather than opposes the opinion defended by us.

Objection 2. It suffices that the confessor administer the sacrament prudently and without rashness. But this has place when he imparts absolution to those who are probably contrite.

Response. I concede the major; I deny the minor. For he administers the sacrament imprudently and rashly when he exposes it to grave danger of nullity. But ministration made to those who are only probably attrite exposes the sacrament to grave danger of nullity.

Objection 3. In those who most need the sacrament of Penance, broad moral certitude about due disposition is scarcely had, so that, if the stricter opinion is admitted, absolution would of itself almost always have to be deferred for them.

Response. I deny the assertion, and that it must be denied will be clearer from what is to be said under II.

¹ August 1827.

² The said proposition is this: it is not illicit in conferring sacraments to follow a probable opinion about the validity of the sacrament, leaving aside the safer one, unless law or agreement or danger of incurring grave harm forbids it (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1151).

³ In Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 1900, pp. 283-536.

⁴ De Recidivis, n. 19 sq.

⁵ Cited work, n. 408 sq.

⁶ De Poenitentia, n. 60.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. I, § V. On the Office of Consulting for Amendment of Life

n. 402.

After hearing confession, the confessor "will lead the penitent to amending and better ordering his life, and will hand down remedies for sins."¹ Hence he should inquire into the causes of sins, especially whether there was some occasion, and assign remedies. The general means are: 1. flight from occasions; 2. prayer, especially devotion toward the Blessed Virgin Mary; 3. frequency of the sacraments; 4. spiritual exercises instituted in some house of exercises. As regards particular means, compare what is to be said about the ministration of the sacrament to some persons specifically.

¹ Roman Ritual, title III, chapter 1, n. 18.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. I, § VI. On the Office of Rendering Sentence

n. 403.

I. For those certainly indisposed, that is, after paternal admonition, absolution must be denied. Those certainly indisposed are those who manifestly lack contrition or purpose, or do not wish to fulfill a grave obligation. "Let him not absolve those," says the Roman Ritual, "who are incapable of such a benefit: such are those who give no signs of sorrow; who do not wish to put aside hatred and enmities, or to restore another's property if they can, or to leave a proximate occasion of sinning, or in another way to abandon sins and amend life for the better; or who have given public scandal, unless they publicly make satisfaction and remove the scandal."¹

¹ Title III, chapter 1, n. 23.

n. 404.

II. For those doubtfully disposed, absolution of itself must be deferred (n. 398); but for a grave reason it can or even must be granted, but only under condition.

Those are understood as doubtfully disposed who, after paternal admonition, are not indeed held as certainly indisposed, but nevertheless do not bring those signs of penance which found broad moral certitude about due disposition.
A grave reason is had: 1. if someone is in danger of death; 2. if the penitent judges that he is disposed and it is prudently feared that, if absolution is delayed, he will become alienated from the sacraments and waste away in sins, or, for example by communicating or entering marriage, will commit another sacrilege (St. Alphonsus, VI, 432, 4).

n. 405.

III. To those sufficiently certainly disposed, absolution must be granted from justice, and regularly indeed immediately. In some cases, however, it can or even must be deferred, unless a special reason is present for imparting absolution immediately even then. It is said:

Absolution must be granted from justice and regularly immediately. For a penitent rightly confessed and disposed has by tacit contract a right to be absolved at once. Hence canon 886: if the confessor cannot doubt about the dispositions of the penitent and the latter asks for absolution, absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. II, § I. On Inquiry into the Name of an Accomplice

n. 408.

Canon 888, § 2 establishes: "Let the confessor take care altogether not to inquire into the name of an accomplice." This canon takes the place of the ecclesiastical documents¹ which before the Code governed this matter. Therefore, of itself it is forbidden to induce the penitent to reveal the name of an accomplice, and indeed under grave sin or, as commonly happens, under light sin, according as, considering the rules on defamation of neighbor (vol. I, n. 1069), it is grave or light to reveal the sin of a third person to one upright man. Scandal can be added, and the danger that the penitent may be somewhat alienated from the sacrament. Moreover, of itself it is always a grave sin to inquire into the name of an accomplice under denial of absolution.

And so the matter stands of itself, since, when a proportionate cause is added, inquiry into the name becomes licit.

Corollary I. It is lawful for the confessor to inquire into the name of an accomplice if the penitent is bound from another source to denounce the accomplice, and either the confessor is the superior to whom the accomplice must be denounced, or the denunciation cannot conveniently be made except through the mediation of the confessor, who has been made certain of the accomplice's name. But commonly, even in these cases, it is better that the name be revealed outside confession. If it is done through the mediation of the confessor, it can commonly be done without the name of the accomplice being manifested to the confessor, namely by handing to him a closed note on which the name of the accomplice is written, or even by handing to the confessor a closed note which contains both the facts to be manifested and the name of the accomplice, and which is handed over by the confessor to the one to whom it belongs by law.

Corollary II. The confessor can and must question the penitent insofar as the integrity of confession and the prudent ministration of the sacrament require it, even if from this he comes to knowledge of the accomplice, as was explained in n. 328 (St. Alphonsus, VI, 491, 492).

¹ The documents were: the Constitutions Suprema of Benedict XIV, July 7, 1745; Ubi primum, June 2, 1746; Ad eradicandum, September 28, 1746; and the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis of Pius IX, October 12, 1869. The law, however, not only prohibited inquiry into the name of an accomplice, but also, when the conditions were posited, established penalties; these have now been removed.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. II, § II. On Absolution of an Accomplice

n. 409.

1. Subtraction of jurisdiction. Canon 884 establishes: "Absolution of an accomplice in a shameful sin is invalid except in danger of death; and even in danger of death, outside the case of necessity, it is illicit on the part of the confessor according to the norm of the Apostolic Constitutions and especially the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV, June 1, 1741." We shall speak first of the requisites for subtraction of jurisdiction to have place; then of the way in which subtraction of jurisdiction must be understood; finally we shall assign exceptions to the general rule.

Requisites for subtraction of jurisdiction to have place. A sin is required:

a) Against chastity. It does not matter whether it is a sin of deed, of sight, or of speech² (St. Alphonsus, VI, 554).

b) Committed with another, whether with a male or with a female, whether with one mature or one immature, and, as the Sacred Penitentiary³ responded, whether before or after the priesthood was received. Nor does it stand in the way that in the latter case the danger of relapse has almost vanished; for a law which is founded on the presumption of common danger persists, even if in a particular case the danger has ceased. There is added the fact that, besides the danger of relapse to be avoided, other ends of the law are also assigned, such as the indecency of a confession of this kind.

c) Grave, and indeed subjectively and externally. It is nevertheless sufficiently externally grave if it shows grave internal malice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 554).

d) As grave and known to the other party, and indeed at the time when the sin is committed. Otherwise there is not complicity, or participation in the same grave external sin. Moreover, this condition is presumed to be present if the case concerns a mutual act of itself gravely influencing venereal commotion. But if the discussion is of an act not gravely influencing of itself, but posited with lustful intention or with venereal commotion, that intention or commotion must become known from the circumstances; otherwise the act is indeed common, but it is not common insofar as it involves grave sin.

e) Such in both parties as has been described. Hence the case is not present if the other party did not consent, or was ignorant of the malice, even if he or she was led into that error by the accomplice; nor is it present if the sin was committed with one sleeping, with one drunk, or with one not yet possessing the use of reason (St. Alphonsus, VI, 554).

f) That the confessor and the penitent know themselves as accomplices, whether previously, for example at the time of the sin, or now. This is required with sufficient probability, because otherwise it can happen that the confessor would have to defame himself before the penitent. Suppose some person presents herself to the confessor, ignorant that she has sinned with that priest, while the confessor notices that the person is present with whom he perpetrated lust. Otherwise one must speak if the confessor and penitent previously knew themselves as accomplices, and only the penitent did not notice that he or she was confessing to the confessor with whom he or she had sinned.

g) That the aforesaid things are at least morally certain. Doubt sometimes concerns the gravity of a touch, and so forth.

Corollary. When the conditions have been fulfilled, subtraction of jurisdiction has place:

a) Even if the confessor is ignorant of the law which establishes the subtraction of jurisdiction; for "ignorance of invalidating or inhabilitating laws does not excuse from them unless something else is expressly said" (can. 16, § 1), or unless the incapacity is established only by way of penalty, which does not have place in the case, since the law was principally issued so that relapses might be guarded against.

b) Even if the confessor does not recognize the penitent; for if ignorance of an inhabilitating law does not excuse from it, still less does ignorance of the fact on which the application of the law depends. Nor should you object that Benedict XIV takes jurisdiction away from the confessor who "dares to receive the sacramental confession of the accomplice person," but that in our hypothesis rash daring is lacking. For the Supreme Pontiff subtracts jurisdiction from the confessor "lest he dare to receive the confession."

c) Even if the penitent does not notice that he or she is confessing to the confessor with whom he or she sinned, provided nevertheless that the confessor and penitent previously knew themselves as accomplices. For when this latter hypothesis has been fulfilled, the confessor admonishing the penitent does not defame himself.

¹ Cf. De Smet, De absolutione complicis et sollicitatione, 2nd ed.

² Holy Office, May 28, 1873.

³ January 22, 1879.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. II, § III. On Solicitation to Shameful Things

n. 416.

The principal ecclesiastical documents which pertain here are:

I. The Constitution Cum sicut nuper of Pius IV;¹ the Constitution Universi gregis of Gregory XV,² to which the Holy Office added sixteen responses on February 11, 1661; the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV,³ and Etsi Pastoralis, § 9, n. 5;⁴ the Instructions of the Holy Office.⁵

II. Canon 904 establishes as follows: "According to the norm of the apostolic constitutions, and especially of the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV, June 1, 1741, a penitent must, within a month, denounce to the local Ordinary, or to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, the priest guilty of the delict of solicitation in confession; and the confessor must, with the penitent's conscience gravely burdened, admonish the penitent concerning this obligation."

III. Canon 2368 declares that these penalties are to be decreed against those soliciting: "Whoever has committed the crime of solicitation of which canon 904 treats is to be suspended from the celebration of Mass and from hearing sacramental confessions, or even, according to the gravity of the delict, is to be declared incapable of receiving them; he is to be deprived of all benefices, dignities, active and passive voice, and is to be declared incapable of all these things; and in graver cases he is also to be subjected to degradation."

The law also affects the Eastern Church,⁶ not indeed by force of the Code (cf. can. 1), but by force of the earlier legislation, which the Code left in its vigor with respect to the Eastern Churches.

With these things premised, we shall speak first of those who must be denounced, then of those who must denounce, then of the manner of denouncing, finally of the obligation of the confessor with respect to the penitent who is bound to denounce; a scholion being added on the manner of receiving a denunciation.

¹ April 16 (17), 1561.

² August 30, 1622.

³ June 1, 1741.

⁴ May 26, 1742.

⁵ February 20, 1867, and July 20, 1890.

⁶ Holy Office, June 13, 1740; April 25, 1838 (Collectanea, n. 1282); Constitution Etsi pastoralis of Benedict XIV; Instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, August 26, 1775 (Collectanea, n. 1732).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. III, § I. On the Office of Preserving the Sacramental Seal

n. 428.

The law of the sacramental seal¹ can be taken in a broad and in a stricter sense. Taken in a broad sense, it is the law which forbids the use of sacramental knowledge which is of a nature to redound to the burden of the penitent, and therefore, if it were licit, would render confession more difficult. I said "which is of a nature," etc., because it does not matter whether the penitent notices the use or not; it suffices that in itself it involves a burden.

Taken in the stricter sense, it is the law which forbids the use of sacramental knowledge together with manifestation, or danger of manifesting the penitent.

The prohibited use of sacramental knowledge, or violation of the sacramental seal, is distinguished as twofold: direct and indirect (cf. can. 2369, § 2). Direct violation is the use of knowledge acquired from confession together with manifestation of the sinner. Wherefore observe that it is not required that the person of the penitent be known, but it suffices that the person be sufficiently determined; for instance, if I say concerning a person meeting me and unknown to you that he or she confessed this or that. Indirect violation is judged to be the use of knowledge acquired from confession which has annexed to it the danger that the sinner be betrayed, or which involves a burden of the penitent with or without danger of manifestation of the sinner.

These things having been noted, we shall speak first of the obligation, then of the object, then of the subject of the sacramental seal, and finally we shall deduce certain corollaries from the things set forth.

¹ So called because that law covers the things heard in confession as with a seal.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. III, § II. On the Obligation of Repairing Defects Admitted in Confession

n. 441.

I. A defect concerning validity is committed if the confessor does not absolve the penitent who is to be absolved, or does not absolve validly. Now a defect of this kind must of itself be repaired, and indeed from justice, because a tacit contract has intervened between confessor and penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 619). I said "of itself," for, considering the inconvenience often annexed to reparation, the obligation of repairing the defect is often lacking. For the rest, the obligation is more determined by these points:

If grave damage threatens the penitent, for instance if there is danger that he or she will die in the state of sin or remain in it for a long time, the confessor must repair the defect, and indeed with grave inconvenience: 1. if he committed it with grave fault; 2. if, although grave fault is absent, the confessor is a pastor, or the penitent is in grave danger of eternal damnation (St. Alphonsus, cited place).
If grave damage does not threaten the penitent, for instance if he or she has confessed again to another confessor, or is judged shortly to be going to confess; if, being at least attrite, which disposition can be presumed, he or she received the Holy Eucharist, the obligation of repairing the defect committed, and of admonishing the penitent about the invalidity of the prior confession, is had almost only insofar as there is an obligation of consulting for the integrity of the confession that will follow; in other words, the obligation of procuring that the penitent in the following confession subject again to the keys the sins of the prior confession. Of this obligation there will be discussion under II.

Corollary. If a penitent, not absolved or not validly absolved, returns to the same confessor, the latter is not bound to admonish him or her about the invalidity of the prior confession, provided that he consults for the integrity of the confession; to obtain this end it suffices to induce the penitent to accuse himself or herself collectively of the sins already confessed in the prior confession.

n. 442.

II. A defect concerning integrity must be repaired or supplied in this way:

If the confessor acted negatively, by not questioning when there was an obligation of questioning, he is not bound to supply the defect unless the penitent returns; in that case he is bound, because otherwise this new confession would not be integral (St. Alphonsus, VI, 620).
If the confessor positively induced the penitent to a defect of integrity, he is bound from justice to reparation, and indeed with grave inconvenience if he sinned gravely, with lesser inconvenience if he sinned lightly. If he did not sin, he is not bound, because admonition outside confession cannot be made without inconvenience (St. Alphonsus, cited place). I said above: he is bound from justice, because by a lie he took from the penitent the liberty of confessing in such a way as to be immune from the burden of integrity.

n. 443.

III. A defect concerning an obligation distinct from the obligation of integrity is to be repaired or supplied in this way:

If the confessor acted negatively, one must distinguish:

a) If from the uncorrected defect no grave damage threatens either the penitent or a third party, he is not bound to supply the defect unless the penitent returns.

b) If from the uncorrected defect grave damage threatens either the penitent or a third party, for instance if he did not admonish the penitent concerning the obligation of avoiding an occasion or of making restitution, the confessor is bound from charity to correct the defect, if it can conveniently be done. A graver or lighter inconvenience excuses according as the defect was committed with grave or light fault or without fault (St. Alphonsus, VI, 621).

If the confessor positively induced an error, one must likewise distinguish:

a) If from the uncorrected defect no grave damage threatens either the penitent or a third party, for instance if the confessor undeservedly exempted the penitent from the obligation of fasting, he is indeed bound of himself to correct the defect, because he is bound to prevent the cause of violating the law from remaining. But in practice there will easily be an excusing reason, especially if the confessor was not gravely culpable (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

b) If from the defect grave damage threatens either the penitent or a third party, for instance if he undeservedly exempted the penitent from the obligation of avoiding an occasion or of making restitution, he is bound from justice to repair the defect, and indeed with grave inconvenience if he committed the defect with grave fault; otherwise with lesser inconvenience (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

Insofar as the confessor himself can be bound to restitution because of a defect committed, see vol. I, n. 1005.

Corollary. If the penitent has departed but is foreseen to be going to return in time, it suffices to wait and to repair the defect in confession. Outside this case the defect cannot be repaired without the penitent being admonished about it outside confession. Now admonition of this kind, as being of a nature to introduce shame, cannot be made without the license of the penitent, except in the case in which the confessor omitted absolution through forgetfulness; for manifestation of this omission brings in no burden (St. Alphonsus, VI, 622).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Appendix. On External Circumstances to Be Observed

n. 444.

I. Place.

The proper place of sacramental confession is a church or a public or semi-public oratory (can. 908); hence, of itself, it is better that even the confessions of men be received in some one of the places assigned. As regards women, there is an obligation insofar as the confessional seat in which they must be heard is generally to be placed in such a place. But "it is licit to receive the confessions of men even in private houses" (can. 910, § 2).
The confessions of women should not be heard outside the confessional seat except for a cause of illness or other true necessity, and with the precautions which the local Ordinary has judged opportune (can. 910, § 1). For the rest, observe:

a) The confessional seat for hearing the confessions of women is always to be placed in an open and conspicuous place, and generally in a church or public or semi-public oratory destined for women (can. 909, § 1). Since "generally" is said, for a just cause it is licit to erect the confessional seat in another open and conspicuous place, for instance in the sacristy or in a room annexed to the church or oratory.

b) The confessional seat should be furnished with a fixed grating, finely perforated, between penitent and confessor (can. 909, § 2).

c) Even the confessions of men must be received in such a seat if they are received in a church or public oratory.¹

¹ Pontifical Commission, November 24, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 573).

n. 445.

II. Vesture. "Let him use a surplice and a violet stole, as time or the custom of places will allow."¹ Moreover, many regulars, either through direct concession or through communication of privileges, enjoy the faculty of using only the stole in church.

As regards the custom of using nothing except the stole alone or only the surplice, the response was: "Let the Roman Ritual be observed."² And finally it was declared: "It is fitting that in church a stole be used, according to the decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites."³

¹ Roman Ritual, title III, chapter I, n. 10.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 23, 1882 (n. 3542, response 3); cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 7, 1877 (n. 3426, response 4).

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, August 31, 1867 (n. 3158, response 2).

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 2 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 1. The Virtue of Prud…, Persons Who Possess Prudence

n. 1650.

The principles just given concerning political prudence will apply also, due proportion being observed, to domestic prudence.

(a) Hence, it is the duty of those who have authority over a family or a similar community to cultivate domestic prudence, without which they cannot discharge rightly the duties of their position of parent, rector, superior, manager, etc. Confessors and directors of souls need especially to be prudent; for even though a priest is thoroughly grounded in the principles of a moral system of conscience and in the teachings of ascetical theology, he will have to be guided by prudence in making use of his knowledge, so as to apply it well in the great variety of cases that will come before him, and to decide what will be most useful for the spiritual welfare of each individual subject.

(b) It is the duty of those who elect or appoint others to positions of authority (such as the positions of guardian, teacher, superintendent, etc.) to be assured beforehand of the fitness of the person chosen as regards prudence, namely, that he is devoted to the welfare of those whom he will rule, that he has acquired sufficient knowledge and experience, and that his habits are temperate, resolute, just.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. II, Art. 3. The Subjective Par…, Restitution

n. 1760.

Duties of Confessors about the Obligation of Restitution

Duties of Confessors about the Obligation of Restitution.—(a) As to confession, the penitent is obliged to mention the number of sins committed against the duty of restitution, if there have been many acts of intention not to pay (see 202 sqq.); but as a rule those who have for a long time continued in sinful neglect of the duty of restitution have committed only one sin thereby, or else they do not apprehend their duty of mentioning the distinct internal acts, and hence confessors are advised not to question overmuch about this.

(b) As to absolution, the penitent lacks true contrition if he is under a serious obligation to make restitution and is wilfully opposed to the performance of this duty at all or at the proper time. Such a one may not be absolved. But the confessor should not admonish a penitent of the duty of restitution, if the penitent is in good faith and the admonition would only do harm. If the obligation of restitution is only light, absolution may not be refused, and prudence will often advise that no admonition about the obligation be given.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 64 passages

Vol. I, On Conscience, III. On Probable Conscience · Vol. I, On Conscience, VI. On Scrupulous Conscience · Vol. I, On Sins and Virtues, I. On the Nature of Sin · Vol. II, On the Seventh and Tenth P…, XXVII. On Restitution from Unjust Cooperation · Vol. III, On Penance, V. On the Integrity of Confession · Vol. III, On Penance, VIII. On the Approbation of the Confessor · Vol. III, On Penance, IX. On the Jurisdiction of the Confessor · Vol. III, On Penance, X. On Regulars and Nuns · Vol. III, On Penance, XI. On Reservation · Vol. III, On Penance, XII. On the Various Duties of the Minister

Vol. I, On Conscience, III. On Probable Conscience

n. 129.

Is it expedient to prefer stricter opinions to more benign ones? - "Where the question concerns removing the penitent from danger of formal sin, the confessor ought, generally speaking, and insofar as Christian prudence suggests, to use benign opinions; but where benign opinions render nearer the danger of formal sin, as are some opinions of authors, for example, as regards avoiding proximate occasions, and others of this kind, then it is always expedient that the confessor use, indeed I say that he, as a physician of souls, is bound to use the safer opinions which conduce to preserving penitents in the state of grace." L. 1. 1. n. 87, l. 3. n. 547.

Where the penitent is prepared to follow the dictate of the confessor, whatever it may be, then "it belongs to the prudence of the confessor to weigh whether the use of the safer or less safe opinion will be profitable to his penitent... because although that is of itself safer and more perfect, nevertheless it will be more dangerous to impose on many the obligation of always acting according to the stricter opinions." L. 1. 6. n. 605. - Generally in practice, as far as can be done, the confessor ought rather to be benign than rigid with penitents. L. l. c. The same is clear by the authority of the Fathers and theologians, whom you have cited apud S. Alph. l. c. and l. 1. n. 86 par. Ego, and n. 89 toward the end, Praeterea res, H. A. tr. 1. n. 79.

n. 130.

Must a confessor know all probable opinions? - "A confessor is not to be obliged to knowledge of all probable opinions, but to that knowledge which the moderately learned commonly have; just as an advocate, judge, physician, or artisans also are not obliged to the highest and exquisite knowledge and skill in their profession, but to moderate knowledge according to the degree of their office and condition... thus a penitent ought not to require from an ordinary confessor anything except common knowledge about common sins and common opinions also; but if he desires subtler remedies, let him approach a more learned confessor." Lugo Resp. Mor. l. 1. d. 26. n. 2.

Vol. I, On Conscience, VI. On Scrupulous Conscience

n. 164.

What ought to be the manner of acting of a confessor with the scrupulous? - It is contained in these rules: 1. Let him be patient and full of charity, since the care of the scrupulous is long and arduous, and their condition most wretched. 2. Let him be discreet, so that he rightly knows what is the origin of the scruples in the penitent, and whether he is scrupulous in all things or only in one, so that he may be able to remedy the evils congruently. 3. Let him be prudent, namely in prescribing rules, which ought indeed to be general; for the scrupulous almost never are able to accommodate themselves to particular rules, because they cannot apply them to themselves. Indeed they always doubt whether the case was sufficiently explained and understood, whether the rule prescribed to them was well accommodated to that case. 4. Let him be brief and dictatorial in his responses; and, as far as he can, let him define everything promptly and firmly; otherwise the penitent would be confirmed in his anxiety by the authority of the confessor himself.

Especially let the confessor notice that for the most part scruples are concerned about three things: 1. that assent is given to any evil thought whatever which appears to the mind, for example, against faith, chastity, charity; 2. that past Confessions were null, or even sacrilegious, either because of defect of integrity or because of imperfection of sorrow; 3. that in every action sin or the danger of sin seems to be present.

If the first, let him command the penitent to despise fears of this kind altogether, and teach him that not depraved thoughts, but depraved consents are sins. Often it will also be expedient to impose on the scrupulous person that the penitent abstain from Confession of thoughts of this kind, unless he knows so certainly that he consented to them that he could immediately swear it. "Nor is there reason for us to be frightened because of length of time or vehemence of thought, for these things also are often natural and involuntary, and sometimes afterward appear greater from fear than they really were." Suarez d. 12. s. ult. "Nevertheless take care diligently to note that the devil or sense itself sometimes injects temptations into certain persons, especially the scrupulous, under an expression declaring consent, in this or a similar way: I wish to sin, I wish to consent; although nevertheless no consent of the will is present, which is not to be drawn from incidental words, but from the proper act itself of the superior will." Ithur. Cas. 18. n. 5; Elbel De Act. hum. 226 seq.

If the second, and the penitent has already elsewhere completed a general Confession, or for some notable time has been accustomed to approach penance diligently and piously, let him impose on him that he no longer think about past faults, nor say any word about them any more, unless he can swear that he certainly committed those mortal sins and never deposited them in Confession. But if after a Confession duly completed he returns, then let the confessor dismiss him unheard, commanding him to approach Communion. Thus S. Bernard behaved, who is reported to have said to a certain priest wishing from scruples to abstain from the celebration of Mass: Go, and celebrate on my faith; and he was freed. Nor should you say: Would that he who speaks so were another Bernard! "Whoever says so," says S. Antoninus from Gerson, "errs; for you have not committed yourself into the hands of a man because he is learned, because he is pious; but because he has been placed over you."

If the third, let the confessor impose that he act freely and despise scruples; indeed that he operate against them whenever evident sin does not appear; because, generally speaking, such persons, because of reason disturbed from that slightest fear, think there is sin where there is none. Hence it is necessary to enjoin a precept on them that they conquer scruples, lest they become useless both to themselves and to others; and that afterward they in no way accuse themselves in Confession of such actions. "For a scruple ought not to be exploded speculatively, but practically, and not so that it is not felt, but so that consent is not given to it by a determinate judgment." Suarez l. c. n. 4. In this matter it must be noted that even if it can happen that sometimes they err materially in acting so, nevertheless they will not sin formally by reason of the obedience which they furnish to the confessor; because then they obey not man, but God saying: He who hears you, hears me, and he who despises you, despises me. Nor indeed "in moral matters is every kind of certainty to be sought; and a doubt which perhaps in others would be reasonable is to be reckoned as nothing in the scrupulous." Suarez l. c. n. 6. - L. 1. 1. n. 12-19; La-Croix l. 1. n. 527 seq.

Vol. I, On Sins and Virtues, I. On the Nature of Sin

n. 291.

What are the merely internal sins of the will, and what is their nature? All sins which are committed by the interior will alone can easily be reduced to desire and delectation. - Desire is the purpose of some thing, or an act of the will by which we will to attain some good. One is efficacious, and is a purpose absolutely efficacious of itself, whence it is that someone in reality undertakes means to lead it to effect. Another is inefficacious, and is a purpose only conditionally efficacious, which someone would execute if he could; e.g., if he could steal the treasure of the Church, he would steal it. Now the desire of an evil thing is evil, since the object of action and of desire is one and the same. Hence a depraved desire has the species and malice, mortal or venial, of the sin which the exterior thing has toward which it is borne. Namely desire tends to this, absolutely or at least conditionally, that it execute the thing and constitute it as really existing. But if someone truly executed the thing, he would contract every malice both of the object and of the circumstances. Therefore the same must be said if someone pursues the thing by affection and desire; for since this affection of desire is joined with the very existence of the object, it is necessarily joined with all things necessarily connected with the object itself. Wherefore Titius having relations with Caia, another's wife, commits adultery if he knows her to belong to another, even if he would not wish her to belong to another; in the same way one desiring Caia, another's wife, is also guilty of adultery if he knows her to belong to another, and even if he would not wish her to belong to another, because desire tends, as the execution itself does, into the same existing work, and thus concrete with all its circumstances. Consequently in confession of the desire, e.g., of fornicating, the circumstances of consanguinity, marriage, the vow of chastity of the person, etc., are to be declared. L. 12. By no means, however, is there need to add whether the act concerning the object was absolute or conditioned. La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1032.

Delectation is a certain simple rest and complacency of the will from the presence of a fitting good, either possessed according to the thing, or according to cognition and apprehension. Delectation does not properly differ from joy, except insofar as joy is rather called the delectation of the rational appetite, and delectation rather is called that which belongs to the sensitive appetite with a certain transmutation of the body; and this delectation is also called sensible or sensual, and if it is with transmutation of the organs and spirits serving generation, it is called carnal or venereal delectation. S. Th. 1. 2. q. 31; q. 72, a. 2; Sanch. in Dec., l. 1, c. 2, n. 33. - But according to St. Alphonsus, 15, as desire regards future time and the work to be committed, so joy regards past time, namely when someone is pleased with himself concerning an evil work committed; and delectation regards present time, that is, when someone through imagination and thought renders present to himself the work of sin, e.g., fornication, and with deliberate consent delights in it, as if he were actually fornicating, yet without the desire of executing it. Morose delectation in a depraved thing is sin, because love is present in delectation. For that depraved thing would never delight unless it were loved according to itself. Suarez, de Pecc., d. 5, s. 7, n. 5. Moreover delectation is the rest of the appetite in good. "And therefore according to the delectation of the human will a man is chiefly judged good or evil. For he is good and virtuous who rejoices in the works of virtues, but evil who rejoices in evil works." S. Th. 1. 2. q. 34, a. 4. Morose delectation is voluntary delectation; for it is called morose not on account of a necessary delay of some time, but on account of the necessary consent of the will. For not delectation, but consent to delectation, is sin. S. Th. 1. 2. q. 74, a. 6, 8; q. 88, a. 5, ad 2. In a depraved thing; for delectation is twofold. One is concerning a depraved work, so that the evil work is the object of delectation, and this is always evil; another is delectation concerning the thought of an evil object, so that not the evil work, but the very thought concerning the evil work is of itself the object of delectation. And this can either be good, if there is a just cause of thinking, e.g., for the sake of study, consultation, etc., with abhorrence of the object; or it can be venially evil, if it is done from curiosity, etc.; or it can sometimes be even gravely evil, if there is proximate danger of consent. S. Th. de Verit., q. 15, a. 4; L. 16, 17.

Morose delectation in a depraved thing, insofar as delectation is distinguished from joy according to time, has malice and species according only to the variety of objects exhibited by the mind. For simple delectation does not tend into the object as something to be placed in reality, but rests in it as represented by the intellect. But the intellect abstracts from the other properties of the object except that one which moves delectation. L. 15, 28. But joy, as desire, takes on the malice and species both of the object and of the circumstances really annexed to it. For joy, since it is a volition pleased with itself, and therefore approving the past thing, is borne into it such as it existed in itself, namely clothed with its circumstances. Hence, in recollection and complacency over past sins, it is necessary in confession to declare the nature and specific circumstances of the object. L. 15. In recollection and complacency. For sin is not had by simple recollection of a sin formerly committed, from the fact that it neither pleases nor displeases the one remembering, because by no law are we commanded to repent several times of sins, if we have already done penance for them, or here and now to repent, if we have not yet repented of them. Laymann, de Poenit., d. 2, s. 8; Sporer, de Poenit., n. 192; Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, n. 376 ff.; S. Th. Quodl. 12, a. 33.

Lest in this matter the confessor scandalize the penitent by indiscreet questions, it must be noted that the confessor, from the general rule, ought to make judgment concerning sins as they are set forth, according to the obvious and natural sense of the accusation. Thoughts about a venereal matter, delectations, desires, are regularly borne, the former into carnal commotion, the latter into pollution and copulation. Wherefore the confessor satisfies his duty if he asks the penitent concerning consent furnished; for the aforesaid acts are not always voluntary and deliberate, nor is consent always explicitly explained. Consent often in these acts is not concerning some determined object, but is indeterminate consent into venereal delectation, pollution, and copulation, which is regularly followed by delectation arising from the commotion of the genital organs. And into this ordinarily are simple delectations borne. Desires, on the contrary, are borne into the completed act. Therefore the confessor will then be able to ask the penitent only whether the aforesaid acts regarded himself or another person, of a different or the same sex. But even from this question one must abstain if the penitent is still ignorant of these matters, especially since it is a lesser evil that confession not be exact than that the penitent be scandalized. Besides, if at times extraordinary species are present, and penitents know them, they are ordinarily accustomed to declare them themselves. Reuter, p. 2, n. 209.

Vol. II, On the Seventh and Tenth P…, XXVII. On Restitution from Unjust Cooperation

n. 1416.

Whether a confessor is held to restitution if, from grave negligence or ignorance, he omitted to admonish a penitent concerning restitution to be made? Resp. More probably negatively. For although from office the confessor is held to instruct the penitent well, and therefore sins gravely if he omits this when it is necessary, nevertheless he is not held to this from an obligation toward a third party. Except if the silence of the confessor is equivalent to positive approval, e.g., if, having been questioned, he avoids an answer in such a way that the absence of obligation is suggested to the penitent. L. 578.

Vol. III, On Penance, V. On the Integrity of Confession

n. 713.

Must the circumstance of dignity and office of the person necessarily be accused, e.g., if the sinner is a superior, magistrate, priest, etc.; if he is a confessor? - Resp. To the first: In the negative, more probably, of itself, i.e., the reason of scandal or office or particular obligation being excluded. The reason is that the circumstance of the dignity of the person sinning does not of itself change the species of sin, but at most aggravates the sin. - But the crime of injured majesty is equated with parricide, e.g., if someone kills the Pope, Emperor, King, or Prince, on account of the same virtue of observance and piety to which it is opposed. - Lugo, d. 16, nn. 309-311.

Resp. To the second: Resp. In the negative, more probably, provided it has no relation to Confession. The reason is that the confessor from his office is bound only to right direction in the tribunal of penance; from this direction no spiritual relationship arises. Moreover no injury is done to the sacrament through this sin, since it has no respect to Confession. Nevertheless it is easily evident that both a penitent of this kind must be entirely deterred from confessing further to that priest, and a confessor of this kind from admitting that penitent further to Confession. - Lugo, d. 16, n. 351 ff.; L., l. 3, n. 451.

Therefore a distinction must be made between the excellence and dignity of the person and his office. The circumstance of excellence and dignity of the person is of itself only aggravating, because from this no special virtue is gravely harmed. But the circumstance of office changes the species if the office induces a peculiar obligation of procuring the spiritual good of another. "For a Bishop, e.g., or a parish priest, from his own office, is pastor and physician of his subjects, and therefore is specially bound to impede their sins and to procure their salvation. Therefore they sin against the duty of their office if they positively attempt to stain those souls for whom they ought specially to watch. This sin not only pertains to the species of scandal, but is also specially against the duty of satisfying the proper office of Bishop or pastor, etc.... On the contrary, this malice is not found in any confessor whatever. For although in the very act of Confession he is pastor and physician, and has a peculiar obligation of governing and caring for the penitent, afterward, however, one who from office does not have that duty does not retain some peculiar obligation by this alone, that he once heard that person's Confession.... This could more easily be conceded in one who, although he is not parish priest or prelate, has nevertheless been specially chosen and assumed by the penitent himself as spiritual father by whom he is governed, which duty he has habitually accepted and retains, and therefore from the habitual duty itself seems to be obliged at least to moderate diligence concerning the salvation of his client, and much more to not positively bring upon him so grave a danger of eternal damnation." Lugo, de Poenit., d. 16, nn. 356-358, 179-181; L., l. 1, n. 451; Elbel, de Act. hum., n. 97.

Vol. III, On Penance, VIII. On the Approbation of the Confessor

n. 755.

What is required for the adequate power of the minister of penance? - Three things, namely power of order, power of jurisdiction, and approbation. The power of order is required, that is, that which belongs to the minister by force of ordination and is intrinsically annexed to the priestly character. The reason is that it was said by Christ to priests alone: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. John 20:22. This is established besides by a multiple definition of the Church. Trent, sess. 14, C. 6, cc. 3, 9, 10. - The power of jurisdiction is required, that is, the power by which the priest as judge can pronounce sentence on some, as his subjects. Trent, sess. 14, C. 7. - Approbation is required for hearing Confessions both licitly and validly, or a public judgment about the suitability of the priest for hearing Confessions. Trent, sess. 23, C. 15, de R.; L. 539, 540; Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 16; E. M.

But confessors are bound to take the oath, according to the Motu Proprio of Pius X. "I. Can the Ordinary in a case grant to extra-diocesan priests of the Latin rite, already approved by their own Ordinaries for their respective diocese, the faculty of hearing confessions either for one or another occasion or for some more or less long space of time, without being forced to receive from them again the oath prescribed in the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum against the errors of the Modernists? "II. Can the same Ordinary do this if it is a question of priests of the Syro-Malabar rite who, even if they have been approved in their own rite for confessions, nevertheless have never taken the said oath? "Resp. To I, in the affirmative; to II, if it is a question of a faculty to be granted by way of a transient act, in the affirmative; otherwise, in the negative." S. C. Consist., April 10, 1913, A. A. S., vol. 5, p. 272.

Vol. III, On Penance, IX. On the Jurisdiction of the Confessor

n. 765.

Is jurisdiction required for hearing Confessions licitly and validly? - Jurisdiction, taken generally, is a certain moral power of governing subjects. Ecclesiastical jurisdiction is twofold: one in the external forum, and it is the power of making laws, inflicting punishments, etc.; the other in the internal forum, and it is the power of absolving or binding in the tribunal of Penance. But this is either ordinary, which belongs to someone by reason of an office having care of souls annexed; or delegated, which is given to another by one having ordinary jurisdiction. - The power of jurisdiction is necessary for hearing Confessions, and the power of order does not suffice. The reason is that absolution is a judicial sentence, which cannot be passed except upon subjects. Therefore subjects must be assigned to the confessor; but this pertains to him who has authority over those subjects. This is altogether required for the right governance of the Church. And this is established from Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, declaring that "that absolution must be of no moment which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he does not have ordinary or subdelegated jurisdiction." - L. 557.

Vol. III, On Penance, X. On Regulars and Nuns

n. 782.

From whom do regulars obtain jurisdiction and approbation? - Regulars receive approbation for hearing the Confessions of their own from the superiors of their monastery, province, or order; but jurisdiction is delegated to them by their superiors. And this is understood not only of the professed, but also of novices, and also of secular servants who are truly of the household and continual table-companions. Such are not those who only serve them, but those who remain day and night in the house of the religious, are nourished there, and live under their obedience, although not by reason of a vow. - As regards Confessions of seculars, all mendicant religious, and those who participate in their privileges, have jurisdiction immediately from the Pope. Cf. 778, 784. But they must receive approbation from the Bishop of the place where Confessions are to be received. This approbation is required not only for liceity, but also for the validity of absolution. And this is to be understood even of nuns, although they are of the same order and subject to them, for whom a still special approbation of the Bishop of the place is required. - This is established from the privileges granted to Regulars by the Supreme Pontiffs, Clem. Dudum, de Sepulturis, etc.; from Trent, sess. 23, C. 15; from C. Superna of Clement X; from the common opinion of the doctors. L. 549, 552; Ferraris, v. Approbatio, a. 1, n. 64 f.; E. M.

Vol. III, On Penance, XI. On Reservation

n. 794.

What is reservation? - Reservation of causes generally is the calling up of the judgment of some cause from an inferior judge to a superior; whence it happens that, while the inferior judge's ordinary power remains, the power of judging certain other graver causes is taken away from him. Therefore reservation of cases in our matter, namely the reservation of sins or censures, in relation to absolution to be given and received, is a restriction or limitation of jurisdiction, i.e., a denial of the power of absolving from certain sins and censures, with the power of absolving from others preserved. Therefore in reserved matters the simple confessor can do nothing; in reserved matters, not in the penitent bound by reserved matters. The penitent can be absolved from other things; from reserved matters he cannot be absolved. Although the penitent confesses these in good faith, and the confessor absolves, they are then remitted only indirectly. - Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, c. 11; Lugo, de Euch., d. 14, n. 87, 96; L. 265, 578, 579, 596; S. Th., Suppl., q. 20, a. 2.

Vol. III, On Penance, XII. On the Various Duties of the Minister

n. 807.

What of the office of father? - The Confessor is a spiritual father, who gives spiritual life to the penitent, or restores and fosters it; for in the tribunal of penance he acts in place of the best parent of all, namely Christ himself, and therefore by penitents he is called by the sweet name of Father. But that which especially stands out in the true name of father is notable and inexhaustible charity. For what love is stronger than the love of a father? What love is truer, purer, more chaste, more constant, fuller of solicitude, and more foreign to one's own advantage, indeed more ready and prompt for every kind of privations and inconveniences? Therefore such must be the charity of the confessor, so that, clothed with the bowels of mercy of Christ Jesus, who came not to call the just but sinners, he may know how to deal diligently, patiently, and meekly with sinners. Leo XII, in the Bull for the great Jubilee of the year 1825. Thus a good father will bear all things for his spiritual children: for Charity is patient..., bears all things..., endures all things. 1 Cor. 13:4, 7.

The Confessor must be full of charity toward penitents, both at the beginning, during the course, and at the end of Confession. - At the beginning, by receiving all kindly. Therefore those are most to be reproved who, setting aside men, especially the uneducated, and mothers of families, hear only the Confessions of young girls and devout women. Clearly such men hear Confessions not to please God, but to indulge their own temperament. L. Prax. 120. - During the course, by helping the penitent as much as he can, so that he may accomplish a good and salutary Confession. Therefore, if penitents do not seem sufficiently instructed, the confessor ordinarily also ought himself to examine them, because these, left to themselves alone, will not examine themselves better, and if they are dismissed, they will never return more disposed; indeed, deterred by the difficulty of examining conscience, they will easily abstain from Confession. And if much time must be spent by the confessor in disposing the penitent, let him indeed spend it, nor ought it be a concern to him that other penitents are waiting. - At the end, by efficaciously stirring up the penitent to sincere sorrow and purpose. And if the penitent does not seem sufficiently disposed, the confessor is bound to stir up sorrow and purpose in him, because one absolving the indisposed exposes the sacrament to danger of frustration, but if he dismisses him without absolution, he perhaps exposes him to the danger of remaining long in the state of mortal sin, or even of not returning any more. - L. 607, 608; Prax. 4, 120.

But this charity of the confessor must not be separated from prudence. Therefore "the confessor must be supremely cautious in receiving the Confessions of women..., he should regularly be rather stern than sweet in the confessional with younger women." L. Prax. 119. The same must be observed still more with spiritual persons, "with whom there is danger of greater attachment." L. ib. St. Augustine apud St. Thomas, Opusc. 64, de Famil. dom., etc., says: "Conversation with these women is to be brief and stern; nor, because they are holier, are they therefore less to be guarded against, for the holier they are, the more they entice." And St. Thomas adds: "Although carnal affection is dangerous to all, nevertheless it is more pernicious to them when they associate with a person who seems spiritual; for although the beginning seems pure, nevertheless frequent familiarity is a domestic danger, and the more this familiarity grows, the principal motive is weakened and purity is stained."

How widely this charity of the confessor extends must be taken from the very end of Confession, which is the spiritual salvation of the penitent. Therefore the temporal affairs of the penitent himself are foreign to the confessor; the spiritual and temporal affairs of others are also foreign. But to involve himself in these things is not only at times ill-considered and dangerous; it can also render the sacrament odious. - Constitution of Leo XII Caritate Christi, Dec. 25, 1825; Salvatori, Istruz. Prat. pei Confess. novelli; L. 421, 452, 478.

n. 808.

What of the office of physician? - The Confessor is a true physician of souls, since he must rescue them from the various diseases of sin, remove them from the depraved affections of the passions, and restore them to divine grace. Therefore the Confessor, therefore, as a skilled physician, must know the cause of the evil, heal it, and prevent relapse. - To know the cause of the disease. "For the Confessor, that he may meet the infirmities of his penitent with suitable remedies, the origin and cause of all his spiritual diseases must be known. Some inquire nothing beyond the species and number of sins; if they see the penitent disposed, they immediately absolve him; but if not, without spending one word they dismiss him at once, saying with averted eye: Depart from me, because I cannot absolve you. Good confessors proceed otherwise: for these first investigate the origin and gravity of the disease, by asking about the habit of sin, about occasions, about time, about place, about the persons with whom, and by what concurrence of circumstances. For in this way they will be better able to correct penitents, dispose them for absolution, and add salutary remedies." L. Prax. 6. - To heal the disease. "When the origin and gravity of the disease are known, the confessor should proceed to make the due admonitions. And although he ought, as father, to hear penitents with charity, nevertheless, as physician, he is bound, as much as is necessary, to admonish and correct them, especially those who, burdened by many mortal sins, rarely approach the sacrament of penance." L. ib. 7, 10.

To prevent relapse. The confessor will prevent relapse by assigning to the penitent remedies suited to the disease. But remedies are either general or particular.

General remedies are: pious prayer and love toward God; frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the holy Guardian Angel, and of the patron Saint; frequency of the sacraments and Confession as soon as some mortal sin has been committed; consideration of the eternal truths, especially death and the last end, according to that saying: Remember your last things, and you will not sin forever, Ecclus. 7:40; remembrance of God present when temptation presses, saying: God sees me; evening examination of conscience with sorrow of soul and purpose; mental prayer and pious readings, especially for priests. - Particular remedies will be assigned according to the diversity of vices: for example, to him who is held by some hatred, let it be suggested, if this is prudently believed to be useful, that each day he commend to God the one whom he hates, reciting the Lord's Prayer for him, etc. And when he is troubled by the memory of the injury, let him remember the insults with which he himself has affected God. To him who has fallen into base sins, let it be enjoined that he avoid idleness, flee bad companions and depraved occasions. To him who has contracted a depraved habit over a long time in this vice, let it be prescribed that he avoid not only proximate occasions, but even certain remote ones, which for one so weak are like proximate occasions. But above all let the confessor see to it that this man communicate frequently; because the Eucharist is called: Wine bringing forth virgins. The confessor will assign other remedies to others according to his prudence, with the circumstances of occasions, persons, etc., having been considered. For prudence is the principal quality which ought to stand out in a physician. - L. ib. 15; La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1786-1932.

n. 809.

What of those habituated to sin, those in occasions of sin, and recidivists? What of absolution to be given, denied, or deferred to them? - The diseases of the soul are sins, and their causes are contracted habits, occasions, and relapses; whence come those habituated or customary sinners, those in occasions, and recidivists. Those habituated or customary sinners are those who have contracted a habit of sinning or a custom of sin, into which however they have not yet fallen after Confession. But they are said to have contracted a habit or custom if regularly five times in a month, indeed even once, they are accustomed to relapse into the same sins. A recidivist is one who after Confession, although admonished, relapses into the same sins with no or almost no amendment. One in an occasion is one who is found in some external circumstance which, either from its own nature or from the frailty of the man who is found in it, entices or induces to sinning. One occasion is necessary, another voluntary; one is present or in esse, which someone has with himself, e.g., if someone keeps a concubine at home; another is absent or not in esse, which someone does not have, but finds when seeking it, e.g., if the concubine is in a neighboring or distant house; one is absolute with respect to all, another relative with respect to such a person; finally one is proximate, in which men commonly for the most part sin, another remote, in which men commonly for the most part do not sin. Therefore that occasion is certainly to be judged proximate in which there is no true probability of not sinning; on the contrary, that is remote in which there is no true probability of sinning. It is clear that various degrees exist between the two.

Neither habit, nor relapse, nor occasions import necessity of sinning, but they contain only danger of sinning. Hence the question is raised whether they can and should be absolved, and when and how often, before they have amended the habit, prevented relapse, or removed the occasion. The reason for the difficulty is the doubt about the sincerity of sorrow and purpose, which arises from the habit itself, relapse, or occasion. - The rigid wish them not to be absolved before the habit has been amended, relapse avoided, and the occasion removed. The lax wish them to be able to be absolved whenever they say that they are sorry from the heart. The moderate walk a middle way, which is broad. Several of these establish turns almost mathematically, namely once, twice, three times, four times, but not beyond, if they bring only ordinary signs of penance; otherwise, if they bring extraordinary signs. But all agree that absolution can be given the first time, and that those are more easily to be absolved who sin from the very frailty of nature, and who are found in a necessary occasion. But others, and we adhere to these, say that the whole matter is in the prudent estimation of the confessor, and is to be weighed and judged from the various circumstances of sins, persons, places, times, and causes. The following rules can be established. Salm., C. 5, n. 68; L. 452 ff., 459 ff.

The confessor can safely give absolution whenever he prudently judges the penitent to be sufficiently disposed, i.e., that "neither diligence in enumerating sins, nor sorrow in detesting them, was altogether lacking to the penitent." Roman Catechism, p. 2, n. 60. It is the certain doctrine of Catholic schools that any penitent can be absolved if he presents sufficient indications of true penance. A prudent judgment about sufficient disposition does not necessarily have to be a certain judgment, but only a probable one suffices. The reason is that the sacrament of penance scarcely admits a more certain judgment of this kind. St. Thomas, I-II, q. 91, a. 3; II-II, q. 47, a. 9 ad 2; III, q. 68, a. 4 ad 2. But this prudent judgment about the sufficient disposition of the penitent must be formed from the assertion of the penitent himself, from his Confession, from the manner of the Confession, and from the other circumstances of the same Confession; nor indeed can it be taken from elsewhere. - St. Thomas, 4, dist. 17, q. 5, a. 3, q. 6 ad 2; Opusc. 12; Quodl. 1, a. 12; L. 459, 460, 461.

The confessor can safely defer absolution when the penitent, although he is sufficiently disposed, is nevertheless not unwilling, and the delay would be more useful to him than absolution immediately given. The first reason is that on the one hand a sufficiently disposed penitent has a right to absolution; but on the other hand, if he is unwilling, delay, speaking of itself, will either in no way profit him, or certainly will not profit him more than absolution immediately given. For if the penitent has a desire of receiving absolution, he is offended by delay, and it is greatly to be feared that he will not return any more. Likewise, if he has a desire of receiving absolution, since this is a very good will, better hope indeed will be had from such a will aided by sacramental grace than if he is deprived of this. The second reason is that otherwise the penitent would be deprived without any sufficient reason of sacramental grace, which is effective both for remitting and for preventing sins.

But that absolution can absolutely be deferred to a penitent, although sufficiently disposed, and even without his consent, is clear first by reason: namely because, although a sufficiently disposed penitent has a right to absolution, nevertheless he does not have a right to obtain it immediately; especially if delay seems useful for fulfilling some obligation, e.g., of restitution, for conceiving a greater horror concerning committed sins, and for strengthening more and more the constancy of a serious will not to sin any more. For it belongs to the confessor as judge to determine when and how the sentence of absolution is to be pronounced. But the confessor is not only judge, but father, teacher, and physician. And therefore, as father, he can before absolution put forward an admonition and spiritual exhortation, by which he may instruct and arm the penitent against temptations. Likewise, as teacher, before absolution he can teach the penitent whom he sees wrapped in much ignorance, which otherwise could lead him into many sins. Similarly, as physician, he can defer absolution when he rightly fears that the penitent now absolved will easily not fulfill some grave obligation, or will easily relapse immediately into the same crimes, unless by the very difficulty and delay of absolution the penitent better recognizes the gravity of sin and the necessity of amendment, becomes more cautious, and is confirmed in the purpose of not sinning. The experience of many weak penitents supports this, who, by this remedy prudently applied, are usually cured in a short time; and for recidivists and for those in occasions it seems more necessary and useful, because in this way they better conceive the necessity of perseverance in the purpose of not sinning. The authority of theologians is added; for very many and grave theologians teach the utility of sometimes deferring absolution.

The utility required for deferring absolution to a penitent otherwise sufficiently disposed must be notable; and consequently absolution must be deferred only for a short time. The reason is that it is altogether grave to remain in the state of mortal sin even for a few days; and, speaking of itself, absolution immediately given is more profitable than its delay. - For a short time, i.e., for some hours, for a day, for two or three days, for a week, at most for fifteen days. But this remedy of deferring absolution is not only useful, but simply necessary, and the confessor not only can but also must apply it when it is necessary for testing the sincere sorrow and purpose of the penitent, about which there is not sufficient evidence, and about whose sufficient disposition there is doubt. - Salm., c. 5, p. 4, n. 68; L. 461-464; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1 ad 4.

Whenever the penitent is sufficiently disposed, and no notable utility is present from delay of absolution, the confessor is absolutely bound to give it immediately. Whenever grave harm will follow for the penitent from absolution denied or delayed, absolution is to be given to him conditionally, if he is doubtfully disposed. The first reason is that absolution must be granted from justice, and under grave obligation, to every penitent duly confessed and disposed. Nor indeed is there any reason for delay, which could be no other than the utility of the penitent himself, which in this case is had rather from absolution immediately given. "Suarez, Sanchez, etc., say that to deny absolution in light matter does not exceed venial sin." L., H. A., tr. 16, n. 118. The second reason is the common axiom: Sacraments are for men. When necessity stands, provision is made for the salvation of man in the best way in which it can be done; nor from this would there be any irreverence toward the sacrament or other inconvenience. - L. 431, 432, 462; l. 3, n. 682; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 18, a. 4.

When the penitent does not wish to fulfill a grave obligation which he has, when he does not have sincere sorrow for committed sins, nor a purpose of not sinning henceforth, the confessor is then bound to deny absolution. To these indeed, and to these alone, absolution is to be denied absolutely. The reason is clear, because these, and these alone, are unworthy of absolution. Sin cannot be remitted to him who wishes to persevere in sin. Leo XII, Encyclical Letter Caritate Christi; Roman Ritual, de Sacram. poenit.

As regards recidivists, there is no other special doctrine, different from the preceding, which is general and comprehends all cases. Therefore, if the confessor from all the circumstances of the Confession prudently judges the penitent to be duly disposed, he can absolve him; nor here and now is it necessary that he judge that he will not relapse any more, otherwise very many could not be absolved, concerning whom certainly the confessor, while he absolves them, cannot form this judgment, that henceforth, namely for the whole time of future life, they will no longer sin gravely. Not future amendment, but present sorrow and purpose, are the necessary dispositions for absolution. If thus far the penitent has broken faith, this is not a reason why at present he cannot be absolved, if he is prudently judged to be duly disposed; it can only be a sufficient reason why the confessor either doubts the legitimate disposition of the penitent, or even is persuaded that he truly lacks the aforesaid disposition. And in this case of recidivists, although they appear disposed, delay of absolution can certainly at times be especially useful, as has already been said; to whom, moreover, frequent approach to the sacraments is also in itself especially useful, if indeed they are duly disposed for them. And thus in the Roman Ritual, de Sacram. poenit., it is said: "For those easily falling back into sins it will be most useful to counsel them to confess often, and, if it is expedient, TO COMMUNICATE." But whenever the penitent exhibits extraordinary signs of sorrow even after relapse, he can safely be absolved. The reason is that then, ordinarily at least speaking, it is more expedient that absolution not be deferred. Likewise he can safely be absolved if absolution cannot easily be deferred, lest he remain long in the state of mortal sin.

But before the confessor absolves such a one, he will take care to dispose him more certainly and fruitfully for receiving absolution. But if he appears only doubtfully disposed, then it will be not only useful, but necessary to defer absolution, unless a grave reason presses, in which case absolution can be given only conditionally. Toletus, l. 5, c. 13; Suarez, d. 32, s. 2; L. 459-464; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1 ad 4.

The same must consequently be said about those in occasions. The common and universal rule is that he who is only in a remote occasion can be absolved, if indeed he is otherwise duly disposed, but not he who is in a free proximate occasion which he does not wish to leave. The first reason is that otherwise we would all have to leave the world. The second reason is that he who wishes to remain in that moral danger of falling does not seem to have an efficacious purpose of not sinning, unless he has extraordinary sorrow and purpose, or proposes to apply other remedies by which the occasion from proximate becomes remote. Lugo, d. 14, n. 151. - When the occasion is necessary and cannot be left without scandal, grave infamy, or great spiritual or temporal detriment, then he licitly remains in the danger which is necessary, provided that meanwhile he is prepared to use the prescribed means, and can hope for divine help in resisting. The reason is that no one is bound to the impossible, whether physically or morally, and besides an occasion of sin is not of itself sin, nor does it place a man in the necessity of sinning; and, in the case, the will of using the prescribed means makes it remote. So the doctors commonly, L. 455, and St. Alphonsus 456 calls this opinion most probable. Suarez, d. 32, s. 2, n. 4; Lugo, d. 13, n. 160.

If one who was absolved in a voluntary occasion, because he sincerely promised that he would remove it, or in a necessary occasion, because he sincerely promised that he would apply the remedies prescribed by the confessor, afterward falls back into the same sins, practically speaking he is not again to be absolved before he actually exercises an effort both of removing the occasion in the former case and of actually applying in the latter the remedies prescribed by the confessor; not because he absolutely cannot even at present have sincere sorrow and purpose, but because from this the confessor can easily prudently come into suspicion about the sincerity of the sorrow and purpose, L. 505 at the end; and because prudence requires that, although the sorrow is sincere and the purpose sincere, the weak will of the penitent, especially if the occasion is in esse, be aided also by this means of delaying absolution, which in the case can be very useful, and in fact often is. Except, unless the penitent gives extraordinary signs of sorrow, or there is an urgent cause, e.g., the mark of infamy in omitting Communion, if he cannot return to the same confessor, or only after a long time. And in this, if the present disposition appears morally certain, absolution is to be given absolutely; but if doubtful, it can be given only conditionally. - Suarez, d. 32, s. 2; L. 452-458; Elbel, de Actib. human., 193 ff.; E. M.

n. 810.

What of the office of teacher? - The office of teacher comprises two things: the knowledge of the confessor himself, and the obligation of teaching the penitent.

n. 811.

What of the knowledge of the confessor? - The Confessor is bound under grave obligation to know all those things which are required for duly discharging his office. The reason is that otherwise a confessor of this kind exposes himself to evident danger of performing so grave an office badly, with injury to the sacrament and great detriment of souls. - Yet the Confessor is not bound to have so perfect a knowledge that he can always immediately and by himself solve all doubts which occur; but it suffices that he can do this in cases commonly occurring, and that concerning the more difficult ones he at least knows how to doubt. For greater knowledge can be had only with more difficulty, since even the more learned themselves cannot immediately solve all cases. Nor is the confessor bound to discern concerning each sin accused whether they are mortal or not; since this is often impossible. But it suffices that he hear each thing as it was done, and judge about them in the obvious and natural sense, both according to common principles and according to the circumstances of things explained by the penitent, and know how to apply a suitable remedy. "Salmanticenses, etc., rightly note that the confessor is not bound to form a certain judgment about each sin, but only about obvious and clear ones." L. 500. - Lugo, d. 21, n. 70, 71; L. 626, 627.

n. 812.

Resolutions: Every Confessor is bound to know all those things which regard the validity, substance, integrity, and effect of the sacrament of penance, and those things which are required for its licit administration, both on his own part and on the part of the penitent. - He must also know the common and proper obligations of states, the various species of sins, their circumstances changing the species, the principles of discerning between mortal and venial sins, and what things are mortal and venial in the individual precepts, at least according to general principles and the common opinion of theologians.

Likewise which acts are valid and licit. The reason is clear, because he must know that concerning which he must judge; otherwise he will not be able to render an equitable judgment. - Therefore he must also know reserved cases, and the censures in force, impediments of marriage, conditions of contracts, the various causes of restitution, the roots and occasions of sins, the remedies to be brought to them, and salutary and suitable satisfactions to be imposed. Therefore the confessor sins who knows that the aforesaid knowledge is lacking to him, even if from charity alone and obedience he receives Confessions. Nor does the approbation of the Bishop excuse him of itself; for this does not give the knowledge due from the nature of the matter, nor supply its defect. Except the case of necessity. - The superior also sins who gives an ignorant confessor permission to receive Confessions, because he consents to and cooperates with his sin. Again except the case of necessity. - The penitent himself also sins who knowingly chooses a confessor ignorant with respect to himself; because he does not wish, as he ought, to be directed in the way of salvation, and thus undergoes grave spiritual harm. Yet if the penitent is in good faith, the Confession will be valid, because on the part of the penitent an integral declaration of sins and due disposition of soul intervenes; on the part of the confessor there intervenes at least knowledge of the sins under the confused notion of sin, which suffices for the matter of the sacrament. Likewise except unless the penitent is such that by his own learning he can supply the ignorance of the confessor. For knowledge is not necessary to a judge for his sentence to be valid, but jurisdiction is. - Experience cannot supply knowledge, but only helps it. Therefore every confessor is bound to apply himself diligently to the study of moral theology, and, as St. Liguori asserts, H. A. 100, "he must never interrupt that study." - Lugo, d. 21, n. 70 ff.; L. 627, 628, H. A. 100.

n. 813.

What of the obligation of teaching penitents? - The confessor is bound to teach penitents all those things which pertain to receiving the sacrament here and now duly. The reason is that, since the priest is the minister of the sacrament, he must procure its valid and licit reception, and therefore hand on the instruction here and now necessary. - He must teach penitents when he notices that someone is ignorant of something from those things which are necessary for living as a Christian, such as, for example, his own obligations. - Yet of himself and strictly he is not bound to instruct them about all things which they themselves ought to know and can learn elsewhere. The reason is that the office of teacher in a confessor of itself pertains only to the right administration of the sacrament of penance. Yet per accidens an obligation from charity could be present, when the penitent could acquire this knowledge for himself, either by himself or through another, only with very great difficulty.

This obligation of charity is not special to confessors, but common to all who know the need of a neighbor and can provide for him without grave inconvenience. A special obligation is present in parents, teachers, and pastors, who owe this from office. - L. 607.

n. 814.

Must the confessor admonish the penitent if he is in ignorance? - Resp. In the affirmative, if the ignorance seems vincible, i.e., if the confessor notices that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is already lacking. The reason is that in making the admonition no danger threatens; but otherwise the penitent, acting with that doubt, is not free from sin. - If the ignorance is invincible, a distinction must be made. The admonition is to be made if there is question of a matter necessary by necessity of means; otherwise the penitent is certainly indisposed. If there is question of other matters, affirmatively, if the admonition will be useful. The reason is that this is required from the general precept of charity and from the office of teacher which the confessor has.

If the admonition will not be useful, although there is question of repairing the harm of a third private person, e.g., of restitution of a debt, it is either simply to be omitted or deferred to a better occasion. The reason is that it would be useless to the creditor and harmful to the penitent. - If there is question of public harm, speaking of itself, the admonition is to be made. The reason is that the public good is to be preferred to the private good of the penitent, and the confirmation and propagation of evil is to be impeded, lest others think that what is not corrected is lawful, and themselves also do it, "since someone thinks that those things are lawful for him which he observes to be done with impunity by those who frequent the sacraments of the Church." Benedict XIV, Encyclical Apostolica Constitutio, June 26, 1749, § 20. Besides, there is hope that, with God's grace helping, the admonition made will be useful to the public good, even as regards the part of the penitent himself, if he himself brings a sincere will to receive the sacrament of penance, if not immediately, perhaps after some time, after he has seriously considered the matter. Speaking of itself, because if perhaps greater harm, both private and public, were feared from the admonition made; because, for example, a penitent not very fervent and pious would therefore be entirely turned away from the Church, and because of his influence would bring greater harm upon the Church, it will belong to prudence to dissemble, permitting the lesser evil so that the greater may be avoided. Then indeed that holds which St. Alphonsus 610 calls a most valid reason, "namely that of two evils the lesser is to be permitted, that the greater may be avoided." - L. 609, 614, 615, 694; l. 3, n. 682; Lugo, d. 22, n. 29, 30, 37.

n. 815.

Resolutions: Therefore the penitent is to be admonished: Whenever he himself asks about the malice of some matter, because since he doubts about the lawfulness of the matter, he is already not in invincible ignorance. - Whenever the silence of the confessor would confirm him in the purpose of doing an evil thing, by thus tacitly approving the error. - Whenever his ignorance concerns the first principles of natural law or their proximate conclusions; because such ignorance, if it is possible, cannot be invincible for long. - Whenever, if the admonition were omitted, the penitent would be going to remain formally in a proximate occasion of sinning. - Lugo, d. 22, n. 29, 37; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 2, 38, n. 11; L. 609, 615, 616; Ithur., Cas. 31.

n. 816.

Must the admonition be made in doubt whether it will be useful or harmful? - What preponderates is to be chosen in the case, as is commonly handed down. Therefore: Affirmatively, if it is more probably going to be useful; otherwise, if it is more probably going to be harmful. In a doubt equal on both sides, generally speaking, formal evils are rather to be avoided than material ones. Hence regularly one must be silent when it is dangerous to speak. - La-Croix 1759; Lugo, d. 23, n. 31; L. 614, 916.

n. 817.

Must a spouse be admonished about the invalidity of marriage because of a hidden impediment which the confessor detects? - Resp. In the negative, generally speaking, unless a dispensation can be immediately and easily obtained from the Pope or Bishop. The reason is that very great inconveniences would usually follow from this, e.g., danger of infamy, scandal, quarrels, incontinence, etc.; and consequently material fornication would become formal. But can the confessor oblige the spouse ignorant of the impediment and denying the debt to render it? Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that, while the spouse's persuasion stands that the marriage is valid, that spouse is bound to render the debt, so that he may follow the dictate of conscience. - Elbel 471; Sanchez, de Matr., l. 2, d. 38, n. 8; L. 601.

n. 818.

Must a penitent about to contract marriage be admonished about an unknown impediment? - Generally speaking, the admonition is to be made. The reason is that after marriage ignorance can cease without great difficulty, e.g., from the fact that consanguinity, affinity, etc., is discovered to exist between the spouses; and then there is easily danger of sinning formally, and very grave inconveniences can follow from this, namely scandals, quarrels, and perhaps even the separation of the spouses, etc. - Yet probably except the case in which no fruit at all is hoped from the admonition, nor can the impediment easily be detected; because it is better to permit material sin until a dispensation is obtained than to provide an occasion of certain formal sin. - La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 540; L. 612.

n. 819.

What of the office of judge? - Since the sacrament of penance was instituted in the manner of a judgment, as the penitent in this judgment is the accused, the accuser, and at the same time the witness, whence it is that he is regularly to be believed both for himself and against himself, so the confessor is the judge; and this is the principal and proper office of the confessor. Hence it belongs to him to pronounce sentence, and before this to instruct the cause by judging about sins. - As regards pronouncing the sentence, when absolution is to be given, deferred, or denied has already been said. Cf. 809. Likewise whether and what penance is to be imposed has already been said. Cf. 725, 726. - As regards instructing the cause, the confessor is bound to render judgment about sins, and consequently he must hear and understand them, without however making a reflex judgment about them concerning their intrinsic nature, genus, species, object, end, circumstances, etc. But he must render judgment about them according to the obvious sense of the Confession made and of its circumstances. He is therefore bound besides to question penitents about the species, number, and circumstances changing the species, about the causes of sins, about habit and proximate occasions, as often as he reasonably presumes, or prudently doubts, that those things had to be declared and are not sufficiently declared. The reason is that the confessor, as minister of the sacrament, must procure its integrity, and as judge must acquire for himself the knowledge necessary for rendering an equitable judgment. This is clear also from the Fourth Lateran Council, and also from the Roman Ritual. - Yet the confessor is not bound to question the penitent except with some ordinary diligence. The reason is that the penitent himself is not bound to examine himself with the greatest, but only with moderate, that is ordinary, diligence. But the obligation of the confessor cannot be graver than that of the penitent, since the confessor is not bound to examine the penitent except secondarily, or in defect of him. Likewise the confessor is not bound to question penitents who, although uneducated, seem sufficiently instructed for their condition, diligent in confessing sins with circumstances according to their state and capacity. A fortiori it is not necessary to examine those who confess often and rarely sin gravely, such as devout persons, religious, and ecclesiastics, unless something necessarily to be explained seems to be omitted by them. - Cf. here n. 717, 749, 811, 822; L. 607, 617, 629, H. A. 103, Prax. 19, 20.

n. 820.

Note: The Confessor, insofar as he is judge, does not have authority to command the penitent anything whatever; but he has authority to command only as regards the satisfaction to be enjoined. Therefore obedience is owed to the confessor in other matters insofar as he prescribes to the penitent those things which some law, whether natural or positive, otherwise demands. Insofar as judge, the confessor takes cognizance only of the cause, so that according to the merit of the cause he may deny, impart, or defer absolution, and impose a suitable satisfaction. And from this it is that the confessor must then in some way at least remember the sins heard. Cf. n. 749. - Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 28, n. 5; de Poenit., d. 14, n. 171; L. 604, para. Ratio autem.

n. 821.

What of the practice of questioning? - Questioning must be moderate, as has just been said, cf. 819; and therefore the confessor must beware lest he be too anxious in questioning. Otherwise the questioning will be grave and burdensome both to himself and especially to the penitent, and consequently also Confession itself. - Questioning must besides be discreet, that is, the confessor must question with great prudence, carefully beware lest he ask about sins which probably were not committed, with the condition and capacity of the penitent, etc., considered; lest he ask about those things from which the penitent may learn to sin, or may suffer scandal; and lest he question too curiously or too lightly even in those things about which questioning is to be done. - Besides, questioning must be opportune, that is, be done at the time and in the manner in which it is fitting. Certain questions, if at times they seem to be asked, are to be asked before Confession, namely: since what time has he not confessed? whether he was absolved? whether he fulfilled the penance? whether he is at peace concerning his past life? Other questions concerning condition, state, age, etc., will more suitably be made, when occasion is given, in the course of Confession. Thus on the one hand every suspicion of curiosity and levity will be avoided, and on the other hand the penitent will answer more easily, since his confidence in the confessor has been increased more. - Roman Ritual; L. 607, 629, Prax. 21; Lugo, d. 16, n. 589 ff.

n. 822.

Resolutions: The confessor must be very cautious in questioning about the matter of lust, especially with women, adolescents, and children, who can suffer scandal much more easily. Hence the rule admitted by all must be carefully observed: In the matter of lust, it is much better to fall short in many things than to exceed in one thing, by reason of the integrity of Confession. Therefore in doubt whether in such a case you can or ought to question, one must always stand for the negative side; for it is a lesser evil that something be lacking to the integrity of Confession than to incur danger of a soul being lost. - But confessors err who wish always to make a certain judgment about the quality of sin, whether it is grave or light, and twist penitents so that they may know with what mind or with what conscience they did this; for these will often answer whatever happens to come into their mouth, so that a little later, when questioned about the same matter, they will deny what before they had affirmed. Otherwise, however, if they seem sufficiently instructed, or if there is doubt about full consent given to temptation. Generally, unless circumstances suggest otherwise, it can be presumed that the penitent apprehended the object of sin as it is evil in itself. - They err likewise who wish always to make a certain judgment about the number of sins. This is often very difficult; indeed at times it is impossible to define even a merely likely number. Then it will be better to know the state of the penitent, his customs, and occasions, than to torment him fruitlessly about the number, especially as regards the uneducated, internal acts, and sins of the mouth. - They err who, under pretext of frequent sacrilegious Confessions, practically change the accusation of the penitent into an inquisition by the confessor, not without danger of scandal. But falsely, in this age of ours, certain moderns generally affirm that frequency of sacrilegious Confessions, because of shame or negligence. Most experienced and most pious confessors testify altogether to the contrary.

n. 823.

What must the confessor do in doubt about the sincerity of the penitent? - This is the common rule and as it were the received axiom: The penitent must be believed when speaking both for himself and against himself. The reason is that the penitent in the sacred tribunal is at once the accused and the witness, his own accuser and advocate, and besides in doubt he must always be presumed truthful. Therefore after suitable questions the confessor must absolve the penitent who denies. - L. 630, 631.

n. 824.

What must the confessor do if he knows certainly that some sin is being kept silent or denied by the penitent? - If he knows outside Confession, of himself he must absolve the penitent who denies, because the penitent speaking for himself and against himself must be believed; nor of itself can the report of another create greater faith than the declaration of the penitent himself; nor therefore is the confessor bound to believe others more than the penitent himself. For if the penitent committed that sin, the confessor must presume that he has either forgotten his sin, or confessed it to another, or has a just cause for keeping it silent, or that rather the reporters were deceived.

If he knows it from the Confession of another, he must, lest the seal of Confession be violated, question only generally, as he otherwise would have done or ought to have done; but if the penitent, questioned, denies, let him answer nothing, but, if he can do this without suspicion, let him merely exhort him generally to open his conscience with all confidence. But whether the confessor must absolve such a penitent is disputed. St. Liguori, after relating the opinions of others, thus concludes: "La-Croix thinks better in my judgment, that in that case he should by no means absolve, but only pray something to conceal the denial of absolution." Suarez, de Poenit., d. 32, s. 3, n. 9, generally teaches: "However much the confessor may know the sin of the penitent from the report of others, he is bound in this judgment to believe the penitent himself more, because of the reason given." And generally St. Thomas also teaches the same, who besides notes the distinction between one speaking in Confession about himself and about others. Opusc. 7, al. 12, q. 6: "In Confession the sinner confessing must be believed both for himself and against himself; but against another he must in no way be believed; otherwise opportunity would be given to many for fictitious Confession and fraudulent defamation." On the contrary, when the penitent speaks about himself, thus St. Thomas in 4, d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, q. 5 ad 2: "As regards this knowledge, namely through manifestation in Confession, the priest cannot receive GREATER CERTAINTY than to believe the subject, BECAUSE THIS IS FOR HELPING HIS CONSCIENCE; whence in the forum of Confession a man is believed both for himself and against himself." And indeed the same reason entirely holds in this case as in the preceding one; nor consequently can the report of another of itself make greater force than the declaration of the penitent himself. - Of itself, for if the confessor certainly and evidently knows the sin of the penitent, e.g., because he saw it, "he is not bound so to stand by the words of the penitent that he cannot use his own knowledge to convict and rebuke the penitent himself." Suarez, l.c. Presumption indeed must yield to manifest truth. But the confessor, insofar as he is minister of the sacrament, must provide for its reverence; insofar as he is judge, he must loose or bind as justice and equity itself require. - St. Thomas, Quodl. 1, a. 12.

n. 825.

What of the office of the minister after Confession? - The confessor has a twofold obligation after Confession. The first per accidens, as regards defects committed that must be repaired. The other per se, as regards the seal to be preserved. L. 618, 634.

n. 826.

What of the obligation of correcting defects committed in Confession concerning the validity of the sacrament? - An error of this kind committed with grave fault, and with grave harm to the penitent supposed, must be repaired, even with grave inconvenience to the confessor, after permission has first been sought from the penitent. The reason is that the confessor, from office and from a quasi-contract entered into with the penitent, is bound to administer the sacrament duly to him. But because of the sacramental seal, without the penitent's permission, the confessor cannot admonish the penitent, if indeed a grave offense of the penitent would follow.

For in the case of absolution either in no way or invalidly imparted, there would truly be nothing against the seal if the confessor says: that an error intervened, that there is need for him to absolve again, etc. - But if the error was inculpable, or lightly culpable, the confessor is indeed bound from justice to repair and prevent the harm of the penitent, but with less inconvenience. The harm of the penitent can easily be repaired, e.g., if the penitent receives the Eucharist immediately after Confession or again confesses shortly. Therefore then the confessor is bound to repair the harm only under light obligation. But in very grave harm of the penitent, e.g., if he is in the article of death, or in grave danger of no longer confessing, nor receiving the Eucharist, or extreme unction, the confessor is likewise bound from justice, even with notable inconvenience to himself, to admonish the penitent and repair the error, by reason of the very grave and extreme necessity in which the penitent is placed. - L. 619, 622.

n. 827.

What of correcting errors concerning the accidents of the sacrament? - Such an error is not to be repaired outside Confession if the confessor in this has conducted himself only negatively, although culpably; the reason is that, if there is question of the integrity of Confession, the obligation of the integrity of Confession directly affects the penitent, not the confessor.

Hence although the confessor is bound to procure the integrity of the sacrament and the utility of the penitent in Confession, as minister of the sacrament and spiritual physician, nevertheless he is no longer bound to this once Confession has ended. Nor consequently is the confessor the cause that perhaps the penitent does not confess those sins; since he said nothing, did nothing, by which the penitent is moved to omit them, but the cause is solely the forgetfulness or inexperience of the penitent. Still less does the obligation of teaching the ignorant outside Confession press, lest a material violation of law follow. But it is grave of itself for the penitent that a discussion about it be instituted outside Confession. But if the penitent returns to confession, within it the confessor must prudently admonish the penitent about the defect committed. - But an error is to be repaired even outside Confession if he positively led the penitent into error; because, from natural law, each person must remove the cause of evil which he positively and voluntarily placed. Nevertheless the permission of the penitent is to be sought; and if the penitent denies it, the confessor is bound to nothing. But whether an error is to be repaired, whether in Confession or outside Confession, permission having first been sought from the penitent, even with grave inconvenience, or only with light inconvenience, or without any inconvenience, depends on the grave or light or no fault of the confessor in that error, on the grave or light or no detriment of the penitent from that error, and on the burden to the penitent himself in renewing discussion about Confession. All these things must be weighed on both sides. L. 620; Lugo, d. 22, n. 63, 75, 76.

n. 828.

To what is a confessor bound who unduly released a penitent from making restitution, or on the contrary obligated him to it? - If from malice or vincible ignorance, or grave negligence, he unduly released the penitent, he is bound to correct the error; but if he does not correct it, or the penitent, who otherwise would have restored, meanwhile has become unable to restore, the confessor himself is bound to restore in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely by impeding the restitution owed to him. Likewise, if from malice or ignorance or grave negligence he obligated the penitent to undue restitution, he is bound from justice to retract the error; and if the penitent has already restored, he is bound to compensate him for the harm. - If inculpably or from light negligence he unduly obligated the penitent, or released him from the obligation, he is bound from justice to correct the error, but not with such grave inconvenience. The reason is that on the one hand each person is bound from justice to prevent his action, even an inculpable one, from causing another harm which he can easily prevent; and on the other hand, from light fault, or only material fault, ordinarily there does not arise an obligation with grave inconvenience. But if he neglects to admonish, when he can without grave inconvenience to himself, he is consequently bound to restitution. L. 621.

The admonition, in this case as in the following one, must be made in confession if the penitent returns to it. But if the penitent does not return, it is to be made outside confession, but only after permission has first been sought from the penitent. Cf. 827.

n. 829.

To what is a confessor bound who omitted to admonish a penitent about restitution to be made? - He is bound to admonish the penitent within Confession about the obligation, with some inconvenience, if no fault or only light fault intervened, at least by reason of charity; but with greater inconvenience, if in the omission he sinned gravely. In either case, however, this inconvenience is to be weighed against the grave harm of another. - More probably he is not bound to restore, even if by omitting the admonition he sinned gravely; the reason is that the confessor is not bound from justice to prevent the harm of him to whom restitution is owed. - L. 621; Lugo, d. 22, n. 67.

n. 830.

Can the confessor, without the penitent's permission, speak with him outside Confession about a defect committed in Confession? - Resp. In the negative, if the penitent has already departed; the reason is that that admonition outside Confession is burdensome to the penitent. Besides, after absolution the judgment is complete; nor does it matter that the admonition is made for repairing the defect of the same Confession. Nevertheless the confessor, even without permission having been sought, could abruptly reveal his error, saying, for example, that he had not absolved; by which means certainly neither is the seal broken, nor can there be a reasonable offense of the penitent. La-Croix 1776; L. 622.

n. 831.

What of the obligation of the seal of Confession? - The seal of Confession is the religious obligation of preserving secrecy concerning those things which are known from sacramental Confession, namely of manifesting them to others neither directly nor indirectly, nor, outside confession, to the penitent himself. - There is a most strict obligation of preserving the seal of Confession inviolably.

This is clear 1. From natural law, and indeed under a threefold title, namely from charity, from justice, and from religion. 2. From positive divine law, at least implicit; for from the institution of Christ, Confession, imposed on all from necessity of precept and from necessity of means, must be secret: therefore by that very fact there has been imposed by Christ on confessors the obligation of preserving the seal. 3.

From ecclesiastical law, the Fourth Lateran Council, C. 21, Omnis utriusque sexus, etc. - The obligation of the seal of Confession always presses in every case, so that in no possible case is it lawful to reveal anything heard and received in Confession. The reason is manifestly clear; because if some exception could be given, men would always fear lest such a sin be that cause for licitly breaking the seal, and consequently the sacrament of penance would become odious. Moreover no cause of obtaining good or avoiding evil can compensate for that evil of hatred of the sacrament. - The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental Confession, namely one made with the intention of accusing oneself and obtaining absolution. From every, because then the whole reason for the precept is present; and this holds even if absolution has not been conferred for whatever reason, since Confession is made in order to receive absolution at some time. From only, because only sacramental Confession induces the obligation of the seal, since any other manifestation has no relation with the sacrament of penance. - L. 634, 636; E. M.

n. 832.

Resolutions: Confession which is knowingly made to a layman or to a priest lacking jurisdiction does not induce the obligation of the seal, but only of natural secrecy. It would have to be said otherwise if the priest is believed to be approved; because the Confession on the part of the penitent is truly sacramental. - If someone approaches a confessor with the intention of deceiving him, mocking him, dragging him into sin, or extorting something from him, he does not accuse himself in relation to the sacrament, and consequently there is no obligation of the sacramental seal. - If someone opens his conscience to a confessor without the will of receiving absolution, but in order to obtain counsel, or in order to satisfy in some way the command of a superior, only the obligation of natural secrecy presses, because this is not done in relation to absolution. - L. 640.

n. 833.

Is there smallness of matter in violation of the seal? - Resp. In the negative, at least in direct revelation. The reason is that matter, even the very lightest, includes the whole reason of the precept. At least in direct revelation; because if the danger of indirect revelation is very remote or little probable, lightness of matter can be given. For the revelation, if perhaps some would then follow, would have to be judged to follow by chance and per accidens.

Yet this very remote danger is a thing quite different from smallness of matter. - L. 635, 640; Lugo, d. 23, n. 71.

n. 834.

Is it lawful to use a probable opinion in the matter of the seal? - Resp. In the negative, as regards probability of fact and as regards probability of law. The reason is that it is not lawful to use a probable opinion to the prejudice of a certain right which another possesses. But harm would follow for the penitent, who would be drawn back from confession. And this harm must be altogether prevented.

Therefore the confessor is bound to the seal in doubt whether something was said by the penitent in relation to Confession; and where it is only speculatively probable that the seal is not violated by revealing this or that manifested by the penitent in Confession. St. Liguori 633 has these things: "Before all things... it must be seen whether in this matter of the sacramental seal it is lawful to use probable opinions... Viva... says that no one can use knowledge had from Confession unless it is morally certain, or at least certainly most probable, that from such use no revelation of Confession and no burden to the penitent will come. The reason..., because otherwise a probable burden would be inflicted on the penitent, on account of which Confession would be rendered odious to him... And this reason strongly presses... I think it must altogether be said that it is not lawful to use opinions from whose use it is not morally certain that no burden is inflicted on the penitent." And 637: "In doubt whether something was said by the penitent in relation to Confession, the confessor is bound to the seal... The reason is that otherwise Confession would be rendered odious, since otherwise many sins truly heard in Confession, because of a defect of memory and hallucination of the confessor, could be manifested with impunity." Diana, tom. 1, tr. 8, init.; Ithur., Cas. 37, n. 35; La-Croix 1946.

n. 835.

Can the confessor at least after the death of the penitent use knowledge acquired through Confession? - "The obligation of this seal is most strict, so that in no case ever, for the sake of obtaining any good or avoiding any evil, can any sin whatever, even the least, or anything else that falls under the seal of Confession, be revealed directly or indirectly, before and after the death of the one confessing, without mortal sacrilege." Laymann, l. 5, tr. 6, c. 14, n. 2. And Busembaum 634: "This seal is an obligation to be silent even after the death of the penitent."

n. 836.

Can a confessor, asked about the sin of a penitent, say that he does not know it, even with an oath? - Resp. In the affirmative, even if insistence is made that he speak without mental restriction, or as confessor. The reason is that he truly does not know it with knowledge permitted to human dealings. Hence he will always be able to say, and even to swear, that he does not know, that he says this without equivocation, or that he affirms it even as confessor. Nevertheless the better answer will always be to rebuke the importunate questioner: What kind of question is this which you ask? For sometimes it could happen that all would understand that the confessor truly was ignorant of the matter, and thus would deduce that the Confession had not been integral. - L. 645, 646, H. A. 148; St. Thomas, 4, d. 21, q. 3, a. 1 ad 3.

…and 24 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 3 passages

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Part III. On the Minister of Penance · Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. III, Ch. II, Article I. On the Office of the Minister in Confession · Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. III, Ch. II, Art. I, § I. On the Duties of the Confessor

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Part III. On the Minister of Penance

We must treat: 1. of the power of the Minister; 2. of his office.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. III, Ch. II, Article I. On the Office of the Minister in Confession

We must treat: 1. of the duties of the Confessor in general; 2. of his manner of acting with the various classes of penitents.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. III, Ch. II, Art. I, § I. On the Duties of the Confessor

Bucceroni, Commentaries (1910), Second Commentary: On Cons…, III. On Probable Conscience and on Probabilism · Chapter VI: On the Confessor's Practice Regarding the Matter of Lust

A fourfold duty or office is assigned to the Confessor, namely: 1. of Father; 2. of Physician; 3. of Teacher; 4. of Judge.

Bucceroni, Commentaries (1910)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 16 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Bucceroni, Commentaries (1910), Second Commentary: On Cons…, III. On Probable Conscience and on Probabilism

n. 81.

Must a confessor know all probable opinions? - "A confessor is not to be obliged to knowledge of all probable opinions, but to that knowledge which the moderately learned commonly have; just as an advocate, judge, physician, or artisans are not obliged to supreme and exquisite knowledge and expertise in their profession, but to a moderate one according to the degree of their office and condition... thus a penitent ought not to demand from an available confessor anything except common knowledge about common sins and also common opinions; but if he desires subtler remedies, let him go to a more learned confessor." Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 26, n. 2.

Chapter VI: On the Confessor's Practice Regarding the Matter of Lust

n. 227.

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

n. 227.

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

n. 228.

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

n. 229.

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

Besides these, the following are especially to be noticed:

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

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

120. On Sins to be Confessed · 121. On Contrition · 134. On the Office of the Judge · 135. On Relapsers and Those in Occasions

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

n. 231.

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

n. 232.

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

n. 233.

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

n. 234.

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

n. 235.

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

n. 236.

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

n. 237.

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

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 79 passages (filed under the subtopics)

120. On Sins to be Confessed

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

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

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

121. On Contrition

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

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

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

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

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

134. On the Office of the Judge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Guido, a priest of unhappy memory - whatever may be said of his judgment - lest he disturb penitents, is accustomed to postpone to the end of confession the questions to be asked, the remedies to be prescribed, and the burdens of restitution to be imposed, of abandoning the occasion, etc. But not rarely, when the narration of the penitent has been completed, he has become entirely forgetful of the things to be investigated or imposed, indeed even of the sins themselves. What then, the wretched man? He compels the ruder to repeat the confession in a summary way, but leaves the more cultivated in peace, lest he offend them; and, the matter being dissembled, he immediately absolves, sometimes indeed not knowing what he is absolving.

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

R. Guido acted badly, by postponing to the end of confession all questions to be asked and burdens or remedies to be prescribed, because of the danger of forgetfulness. Any other man acting thus would be imprudent; how much more Guido, who knows well that he is of unhappy memory?" Thus Fr. Gury 679.

Guido indeed acted badly, but is he bound before he absolves to demand from his penitent a repeated confession, so that he himself can now ask the questions which he omitted, especially concerning the species and number of sins? Busembaum, apud St. Alphonsus 499, says: "If, when confession has been finished, you understand that the confessor did not perceive some things, whether because of sleep or distraction, but you do not know what those things are, you are bound to repeat the confession if it was short, because you can prudently doubt about each thing. But if it was long, you are not bound because of the contrary reason; and it is enough to confess that you doubt whether the confessor perceived any of your sins." And St. Alphonsus immediately adds: "Thus also hold the Salmanticenses, etc., who say that Christ the Lord is not presumed to have imposed the precept of integrity with so great a burden, namely of repeating all sins in such a Case, and Lugo teaches the same, d. 16, n. 607, with Sanchez, etc., commonly." Hence it is drawn that a confessor who had proposed to himself to interrogate the penitent about the species and number of some grave sin at the end of confession, and then forgets such a sin, if the confession was of only one or another grave sin, seems to be bound to demand a repeated confession; for then he can prudently doubt about each thing, nor otherwise is a grave burden imposed upon the penitent, especially if the confessor does this prudently. And this certainly without scruple is commonly done by confessors, if sometimes they do not hear and understand some sin well, nor are penitents disturbed on that account. But if the confession was long and of several grave sins, then the confessor seems able to abstain from demanding a repeated confession of all, lest he impose so great a burden upon the penitent. I. M. 717.

Robertinus abstains from hearing confessions, because he says that from experience itself it is established for him that he often cannot define whether there was mortal or venial sin, since penitents often explain sins in a very doubtful manner, so that they themselves do not know whether they gave consent. Besides, he adds that he is greatly wearied in his head in hearing confessions, both so that he may form a judgment about the lowest species of sins and determine against what virtue precisely they are, and so that he may judge about the number, which often is impossible for him to perceive clearly, since he cannot at once make mentally the addition of all the sins in order to know the entire number of sins.

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

R. Robertinus is greatly deceived concerning the nature of the judgment to be formed about sins in the administration of the sacrament of penance. For first, "the confessor is not bound to form a certain judgment about individual sins, but only about the obvious and clear." Lig. 500. "It is not necessary that the confessor judge in all things which sins are grave or light; it is enough if he knows how to judge this in those which commonly occur; but the rest he may hear and absolve." Lig. 627.

Besides, as regards the judgment to be formed by the confessor concerning sins, 1.º with regard to the species of sins, a twofold knowledge of sin must be distinguished. The first knowledge is explicit, reflex, and in the signate act, concerning the nature or species of each sin, against what virtue and what precept it is; and such is the knowledge of guilt in the external judicial forum, when the judge pronouncing punishment explicitly signifies the various laws violated by the guilty person and the punishments already established by law in the diverse articles of the code. The other knowledge is implicit, direct, and in the exercised act, and is had when the confessor apprehends the sin with all its circumstances changing the species, so that if any one of them is lacking, he is prepared to interrogate. Although he himself does not actually say: such a sin is against such virtues and precepts, in such or such lowest species, nevertheless he distinguishes one sin from another very well. Now for hearing confession validly and licitly this latter knowledge of sin is sufficient; for it is sufficient for forming a true judgment about the sin. But it is enough, with regard to the species and circumstances of sins that must necessarily be explained, by reason of restitution of goods and reputation, reservation, censure, irregularity, etc., "if the confessor understands the things which more frequently happen, and knows how to doubt about the others." Lig. 627; I. M. 811. - 2.º With regard to the number of sins, it is not necessary that at the end of the whole confession the confessor make some arithmetical calculation and addition of all the sins. For, for imposing penance, even a confused knowledge of the state of the penitent is sufficient; but once the penance has been imposed, it is not necessary for imparting absolution also to remember even confusedly the sins or the imposed penance, but it is enough to remember that the penitent, rightly disposed, has rightly confessed, and that judgment has been passed upon him. Nor indeed is it necessary to make the same calculation in any part of confession, when the penitent confesses sins of each species, saying, for example, that through several years he committed such a sin about ten or twelve times; and then through several years fell into it more frequently, say about twenty times each week, etc. For that distinct knowledge of the number is sufficient which is had successively by parts: then the confessor, although successively and by parts, truly forms judgment about the number of sins, and from this can sufficiently know at the end of the whole confession at least confusedly the state of the penitent. Besides, that calculation would be an intolerable burden for the confessor. Suarez, d. 22, s. 6 at the end; Lugo, d. 16, n. 636; La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1717; Reuter, Neoconf., p. 1, c. 7, n. 28; L. 502; G. 678; I. M. 745, 749.

Patutius the confessor asks: Whether he is always bound to absolve a penitent whose confession he has heard, and for this purpose to embrace the more benign probable opinion?

R. 1.º In a Case of grave necessity, for example at the article of death, he is bound. The reason is that in such a Case he cannot, charity being preserved, leave the penitent without a remedy which he can licitly apply. But, according to a morally certain opinion, he can licitly use the more benign probable opinion.

2.º Outside the case of grave necessity, if that probable opinion stands on the part of the penitent, who in his action wishes to embrace a probable opinion favorable to himself, for example, whether the penitent in such a Case is bound to restitution, then the confessor is bound to embrace the probable opinion of the penitent and absolve him. The reason is that, the confession having been heard, the penitent has a certain right to absolution if he is legitimately disposed. But although he wishes to embrace the more benign probable opinion, the penitent can be legitimately disposed; for by embracing that opinion, he can well detest all past sins and have an efficacious purpose of observing all the precepts of God. For he sufficiently observes the divine precept who, by following a probable opinion, prudently judges that he is bound by no precept to perform something, and therefore omits it. Therefore. - But if that probable opinion stands on the part of the confessor, for example, whether in such circumstances the confessor can deny absolution or give it, and each opinion is probable, the confessor can choose the stricter opinion and deny absolution. For 1.º then the confessor acts according to an opinion truly probable and consequently licitly. Therefore, just as the penitent concerning his own obligation can choose a probable opinion, so also the confessor concerning his own obligation can choose a probable opinion. 2.º Because, if there were any reason why the confessor could not do this, it would be because, the confession having been heard, the penitent has a certain right to absolution. But since only the obligation of absolving the penitent is probable, the penitent does not have a certain right to absolution. Therefore. - Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 26; L. I, 6, n. 604; H. A., tr. 16, nn. 118, 119; I. M., vol. 1, n. 119.

135. On Relapsers and Those in Occasions

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.

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:

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Theological Virtues · Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Penance · Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Matrimony · Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Constitution *Apostolicae Sedis* · Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Constitution *Sacramentum Poenitentiae*

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?

…and 39 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 105 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Theological Virtues

n. 412, 415.

On Admonition to Be Given Even When No Amendment Is Foreseen

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

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Penance

n. 809.

Absolution of the Habitual Sinner and of One in an Occasion of Sin

“60. Absolution is neither to be denied nor deferred to a penitent who has the habit of sinning against the law of God, of nature, or of the Church, even if no hope of amendment appears, provided that he says orally that he is sorry and proposes amendment.”—“61. One who remains in a proximate occasion of sin which he can but does not wish to leave, and indeed directly and deliberately seeks it out or thrusts himself into it, can sometimes be absolved.” Propositions condemned by Innocent XI.

n. 809.

“41. A concubinary is not to be obliged to dismiss his concubine if she would be exceedingly useful for the concubinary’s pleasure—commonly, regalo—since, if she were absent, he would live his life with too much difficulty, other dishes would affect the concubinary with great weariness, and another maidservant would be found only with great difficulty.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VII.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Matrimony

n. 1058, 1066.

On Questions to Be Asked by Confessors Concerning Onanism

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

n. 1058, 1066.

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

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis

Absolution of an Accomplice

The absolution of an accomplice is reserved in a most special manner to the Holy See, so that it is excepted even in a general and most ample grant of absolving from all cases, even those under a censure reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff. Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 4 April 1871.

The absolution of an accomplice which is treated here concerns the first absolution of the accomplice, namely, one who has not yet been absolved by another confessor from the sin of complicity. By a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 29 May 1867, it was declared that a confessor is free to absolve an accomplice who has already been absolved by another confessor from the dishonorable sin of complicity; counsel, however, must always be given to the confessor in question that, unless necessity compels him, he abstain from hearing the sacred confessions of the accomplice, even though already absolved from the sin of complicity.

Under the prohibition of absolving an accomplice in a base matter are included not only touches, but all grave and externally committed sins against chastity, even those which consist in mere conversations and looks that involve complicity. Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 28 May 1873.

"Whether a confessor who pretends to absolve his male or female accomplice in a base sin, according to the mind of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, no. 10, for example, by reciting some prayer, or by pronouncing other words, or even by remaining silent, in such a way that by signs or gestures of the hands he seems truly to release the penitent from sins, incurs the excommunication reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff which is treated in the aforesaid Bull.—Response. Confessors pretending to absolve an accomplice in a base sin do not escape the reserved excommunication in the Bull Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV." Sacred Penitentiary, 1 March 1878.—Consequently, neither do those escape excommunication who pretend to absolve and do not absolve. Holy Office, 5 December 1883.

"Whether he incurs the censures enacted against those absolving an accomplice in a base sin, who indeed absolves an accomplice, but an accomplice who did not declare the sin of complicity in confession.—Response. The deprivation of jurisdiction for absolving an accomplice in a base sin, and the excommunication annexed to it, insofar as the confessor has absolved him, are ordered to the base sin itself in which that same confessor was an accomplice." Sacred Penitentiary, 16 May 1877.

"Confessors do not escape the excommunication reserved in the Bull Sacramentum Poenitentiae who absolve, or pretend to absolve, an accomplice who indeed does not confess the sin of complicity from which he has not yet been absolved, but conducts himself thus because the confessor, either directly or indirectly, induced the penitent to do so." Sacred Penitentiary, 19 February 1896.

"Whether those who absolve an accomplice in a base matter with crass and supine ignorance incur this excommunication or not?—Response. In the case proposed, they incur it." Holy Office, 13 January 1892.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae

Instruction of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition to All Archbishops, Bishops, and Other Ordinaries of Places Concerning the Observance of the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV

"The things which the Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, of glorious memory, confirmed and decreed in the Constitution issued on 1 June 1741, whose beginning is Sacramentum Poenitentiae, are reduced principally to these four heads. First, just as had already been enacted previously, especially by Gregory XV in the Constitution dated 30 August 1622, which begins Universi, all Ordinaries of places as well as Inquisitors are appointed judges for investigating, proceeding against, and punishing with condign penalties those who solicit to base acts in confession, although exempt in any manner from ordinary jurisdiction. Likewise, all priests constituted to hear sacred confessions, as had also been prescribed previously, are bound to admonish their penitents to denounce solicitors of this kind to the Inquisitors or Ordinaries of places as soon as they can; and not to absolve those same penitents who refuse to obey in fulfilling this duty. Furthermore, in the third place, except at the point of death, the case of those who falsely accuse innocent priests of solicitation before ecclesiastical judges, or wickedly procure that it be done by others, is reserved to the Apostolic See. Fourth and finally, every faculty and jurisdiction to hear the sacramental confessions of an accomplice in a base sin committed against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue is taken away from every priest, unless an altogether extreme necessity is urgent, namely, if at the very point of death another priest is lacking who can perform the office of confessor, or cannot be called or approach without some grave infamy or scandal that would arise. - Constitution Apostolici muneris of the same Supreme Pontiff Benedict XIV, 8 February 1745. - And the case of those confessors who shall have dared to absolve an accomplice in a base sin is reserved to the Apostolic See.

"There is certainly no doubt that all and each of these prescriptions, prohibitions, and reservations extend their force universally to all nations and are to be steadfastly and inviolably observed everywhere on earth. This is most evident even to one reading the Constitutions of Gregory XV and Benedict XIV; and the same has been confirmed by the authority of subsequent Pontiffs, as occasion offered, up to the present day. - And indeed, when the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina asked: 1. Whether the Constitution of Benedict XIV against solicitors also binds Franciscan missionaries who exercise the ministry in Cochinchina? 2. Whether the same Constitution can be restricted and moderated in some case because of the great scarcity of confessors in that same kingdom of Cochinchina? by command of Pius VI, in the year 1775, the reply was made in a suitable instruction: To 1. Affirmative; to 2. Negative. And recently Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX, by a Decree of this Supreme Inquisition on Wednesday, 27 June 1866, declared that, in the faculties which bishops and other Ordinaries of places possess by Apostolic grant for absolving from all cases reserved to the Apostolic See, cases reserved in the Bull of Benedict XIV which begins Sacramentum Poenitentiae must henceforth always be excepted and regarded as excepted. - He moreover commanded this Decree to be notified, without any exception, to all Ordinaries everywhere on earth endowed with the aforesaid faculty of absolving.

"Therefore, all Ordinaries of places must strive most earnestly lest the force of the things salutarily provided in the aforesaid Constitution gradually grow weak anywhere. But the Most Eminent Fathers, Cardinals and Supreme Inquisitors, recently learned that the same Constitution was not everywhere being put into execution as it ought to be, and that in some places certain abuses had crept in, both in fulfilling the burden of denunciation and in instituting judgment against solicitors, which could by no means be tolerated without harm to justice and provident severity. They therefore judged that it would not be unwelcome even to the Ordinaries of places if the Decrees made by this Supreme Congregation against those abuses according to the norms of the sacred canons were collected into one and placed before their eyes. For this purpose they ordered the present Instruction to be issued.

"1. Persons, whether men or women, whoever they may be, solicited to base acts in confession, or on the occasion or under the pretext of confession, as is explicitly prescribed in the aforesaid Constitution, must report the matter to the Holy See or to the Ordinary of the place.

"2. Every priest who solicits in confession must be denounced, even one lacking jurisdiction, and also one who consents to the solicitation of the penitent, although he immediately ceases to speak about the base matter, defers its completion to another time, and does not furnish absolution to the penitent. - From the Decree of 11 February 1661, confirmed in the Constitution Sacramentum.

"3. Denunciations of this kind can be omitted by no one without mortal fault. Penitents must be admonished concerning this matter, and their good faith does not excuse confessors from admonishing and instructing them.

"4. Priests constituted to hear sacred confessions who do not admonish their penitents concerning this obligation must be punished. - From the Declarations under dates of 20 March 1624 and 1 October 1626, in Albitius, On Inconstancy in Faith, chapter 35, no. 17.

"5. Penitents who have been admonished and altogether refuse cannot be absolved; but those who for a just cause must defer the denunciation, and pledge and seriously promise to make it as soon as they can, can be absolved.

"6. Anonymous denunciations against those soliciting to base acts have no force; for denunciations must be made judicially, namely, before the bishop or his delegate, with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who acts as notary, and with an oath and the expression and subscription of one's own name; nor does it suffice if it is made by certificates or by letters without the name and surname of the author. - Albitius, place cited, no. 21. - Furthermore, it is forbidden that, in receiving denunciations, witnesses be present besides the judge and notary, each of whom must be an ecclesiastical man furnished with the special deputation of the bishop drawn up in writing. Care must also be taken that those denouncing are not asked whether they consented to the solicitation; and it would be most fitting if nothing were noted in the records concerning consent of this kind, however spontaneously manifested. - From the declaration of Urban VIII on Thursday, 17 April 1624.

"7. The burden of denunciation is personal and must be fulfilled by the person solicited herself. But if she is prevented by most grave difficulties from being able to accomplish this herself, then, either in person, or by letter, or through another person acceptable to her, she should approach her own Ordinary, or the Holy See through the Sacred Penitentiary, or even through this Supreme Inquisition, setting forth all the circumstances; and thereafter she should conduct herself according to the instruction which she will receive. But if necessity is urgent, she should conduct herself according to the counsels and admonitions of her confessor. Yet if, detained by no impediment, she altogether refuses denunciation, in this case and the other cases mentioned above the confessor is to be praised who has not denied his assistance to the penitent and has consulted either the Ordinary or the Holy See for suitable provisions, the name of the penitent nevertheless being suppressed. Approved authors hand down the formulas to be employed in these cases, among whom are Pignatelli, title 1, consultation 104; Carena; Albitius; etc.

"8. The case not infrequently occurs that a confessor or another ecclesiastical man is deputed by bishops, to whom this power certainly belongs, to receive denunciations in a matter pertaining to the crime of solicitation without the intervention of a notary. A sheet is appended to this Instruction concerning the manner in which a denunciation must be drawn up in these cases. For the most suitable men who are appointed to this most grave duty must be instructed concerning the act of denunciation to be received in judicial form, and admonished that immediately after receiving the denunciation they cautiously transmit it without delay to the bishop himself by whom they were deputed, and retain no copy or any trace of the completed act for themselves. And in approximately this manner the burden of denunciation is fulfilled without difficulty. Certainly, the Ordinaries of places must bring it about that there be no need to apply to places subject to their jurisdiction that which was declared for the missions of Pernambuco in America on 22 January 1627: namely, that women who have been solicited are not bound to denunciation if the ministers of the Inquisition and the vicars of the bishop dwelling in distant regions cannot be approached without grave inconvenience.

"9. If in the denunciations, as not rarely happens, other persons are indicated who were perhaps likewise solicited, or who can in some manner bear testimony concerning this crime, all these also must be examined separately in the judicial form expressed above; and they must be questioned first in generalities, and then by degrees, as the matter permits, descending to particulars, whether and how they themselves were in fact solicited, or saw or heard that other persons had been solicited.

"10. After a denunciation has been received, proceedings are not undertaken immediately, but the ecclesiastical superior must diligently inquire whether the person denouncing is worthy of faith. The crime of solicitation is for the most part perpetrated secretly; hence there is a privilege that, in cases instituted against this crime, even singular attestations are admitted for making full proof. But in the aforesaid Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs it is prescribed that proceedings are not to be undertaken with singular witnesses unless presumptions, indications, and other supporting evidence concur. Therefore, the weight of each denunciation and its qualities and circumstances must be seriously and accurately weighed; and, before proceedings are undertaken against the person denounced, it must be evident and established to the judge that the women or men denouncing are of good name and are not led to accuse by enmity or by another human affection. For witnesses of this kind, though singular, must be free from all private affections so that complete faith can be accorded to them. - From the Instruction given by command of Pius VI in the year 1775 to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina.

"11. It is the custom of this Supreme Inquisition that, after one or two denunciations, a rescript be issued that the person denounced be observed, that is, that he be regarded as suspected concerning the crime reported, so that as soon as the matter has been established by new denunciations, he is to be summoned to judgment. For the most part, proceedings customarily begin only after the third denunciation. For a formal examination, parish priests or men of proven faith and distinguished virtue, especially ecclesiastics, are summoned; under oath to speak the truth and preserve secrecy, they are examined concerning the qualities of the persons denouncing and of the person denounced, and concerning their mutual hatreds and enmities. After these inquiries have been completed, the accused is brought to judgment and, before the judge, with the intervention of an ecclesiastical man who acts as notary, he must answer under oath to speak the truth concerning the individual circumstances of each denunciation and examination. The greatest care is taken that the names of those denouncing not be disclosed to the accused, and that the sacramental seal not be violated in any manner.

"12. When the truth of the crime committed has become evident, the accused having been admitted to his defense as the laws demand, one must proceed to forbidding him in perpetuity to hear confessions, withdrawing each and every faculty for that office granted to him even through any privilege or by the Holy See itself. The bishop himself, and not another delegated by him, shall pronounce a sentence of this kind; and, according to the measure of the fault and with all the circumstances considered, he shall also inflict upon the accused the other penalties which are decreed in the aforesaid Constitutions. Furthermore, if the accused confessed the crime in judgment, he must make a suitable abjuration, so that he may thus purge himself from the suspicion of heresy which he incurred; and he shall be punished with this penalty also in the sentence itself. It is to be noted that all penalties of this kind, and the incapacity itself for celebrating the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass prescribed in the Decree of Benedict XIV in August 1745, are only ferendae sententiae. Nevertheless, there must be abstention from inflicting degradation and handing over to the secular arm. That, indeed, was enacted by Gregory XV; but it must be regarded as imposed for terror rather than in order that it be put into execution. - Albitius, work cited, chapter 15, no. 13, and Benedict XIV in a private letter dated 11 November 1713 to Emmanuel de Azevedo, priest of the Society of Jesus.

"13. Those who, entirely unanticipated by any denunciations concerning this crime, moved by conscience, present themselves to the Ordinary of the place or his delegate, spontaneously confess the crimes of solicitation committed by them, and seek pardon, must be dismissed with a suitable abjuration and salutary penances only; with the counsel or precept added that they abstain from hearing the sacred confessions of the persons solicited. Nor are they to be affected by the other penalties mentioned previously, even if denunciations should subsequently be added. But those who, already anticipated by judicial process but not yet cited, spontaneously present themselves, and likewise those whom the Ordinary of the place shall discover, from denunciations received afterwards, to have confessed in their spontaneous appearance a truth not complete but diminished, do not enjoy the benefit of immunity; nevertheless, at the prudence of the Ordinary himself, let them be punished more mildly.

"14. That which must be most greatly cared for and observed in treating these cases, whether by Apostolic commission or by the proper right of bishops, is that these same cases, as pertaining to the faith, be conducted most secretly and, after they have been decided and already put into execution, be entirely suppressed by perpetual silence. All officials of the ecclesiastical curia, and any others whatsoever who are assumed for treating these cases or as advocates for defending them, must take an oath to preserve secrecy; and the bishops themselves and other Ordinaries of places are bound to preserve secrecy, as provided in law in the chapter Statuta, final, On Heretics, in the Sixth, and in the Clementine Multorum, section Porro, On Heretics. Those, however, who satisfy the burden of denunciation, and those who are subjected to examination in these cases, are bound, even if they are priests, to swear at the beginning to speak the truth and, when the act is completed, to preserve secrecy, touching the most holy Gospels of God. If these things are observed cautiously and sacredly, no danger of odium or infamy or any other danger whatsoever can be feared which would restrain either witnesses from speaking the truth or competent judges from investigating and punishing the crime of solicitation with condign penalties.

"15. It was granted by Pius VI in the Instruction mentioned above, given in the year 1775 to the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, that, since it is most difficult in those regions so distant and dissimilar to observe exactly all the things which are to be observed in these cases, and since, if some of these things are omitted, justice does not permit penalties to be inflicted against accused persons concerning whose crime sufficient proof has not yet been made in judicial form, then it would perhaps be more prudent if, outside the order of judgment, proceedings were undertaken to meet so great an evil by easier and more expeditious means and methods, which the prudence of the Apostolic Vicar joined with zeal for souls will suggest in particular cases. But now everyone sees that this indulgence made for places so distant and dissimilar is neither common to all nor can rightly be introduced everywhere without the authority of the Apostolic See.

"16. Furthermore, if Ordinaries of places become involved in more grave difficulties in drawing up processes, or even, after a process has been drawn up, in pronouncing sentence against those soliciting to base acts in confession, they can, with the acts transmitted, refer the matter to this Supreme Congregation, which will furnish particular instructions adapted to the individual cases, as is often done, and will itself pronounce the definitive sentence if it shall be expedient.

"These are the things which conduce to the cautious and correct execution of the aforesaid Pontifical Constitution and which, as easily observed everywhere, this Sacred Congregation of the Supreme and Universal Inquisition earnestly commends to the pastoral zeal and solicitude of the Ordinaries.

"Given at Rome, 20 February 1867."

On the Sin of Solicitation and Complicity

"1. Whether any confessor can absolve a priest who solicited in the act or place of sacramental confession.

"2. When a confessor can be considered guilty of a base sin, so that if he absolves an accomplice, he incurs the penalties and censures threatened by the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, Sacramentum Poenitentiae and Apostolici muneris?

"Response. To 1. Since solicitation, provided that it was simple, is reserved to the Holy See by no law, nothing prevents a soliciting priest, otherwise rightly disposed, from being absolved by any confessor.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion, On the Theological Virtues · Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion, On the Sacrament of Penance, Faculties and Privileges o…, 9 March 1870)

"To 2. In order to discern when a confessor ought to be regarded as guilty of an external base sin grave in its kind, so that if he attempts to absolve an accomplice he ought to be regarded as bound by the penalties and censures inflicted through the Constitutions of Benedict XIV, let him consult approved authors, and especially Saint Alphonsus de Liguori." Holy Office, 15 September 1859.

n. 1252.

Decrees of the Holy Office, 11 February 1661

"1. Whether a confessor is to be denounced who gives the penitent in confession a paper to be read later at home, in which he solicited her to venereal acts? - The Lord Qualifiers judged that he is to be denounced and that the negative opinion is not probable.

n. 1252.

"2. Whether a confessor consenting to solicitation, but immediately ceasing to speak of that base matter, deferring its completion to another time, and not furnishing absolution to the penitent, falls under the penalties contained in the Bull of Gregory and is to be denounced? - They judged that he falls under them and that the confessor is to be denounced, the contrary opinion, which they judged not to be probable, having been rejected.

n. 1252.

"3. Whether a confessor, when soliciting, is to be denounced because of the smallness of the matter? - Since in venereal matters there is no smallness of matter, and even if there were, there would be none in the present matter, they judged that he is to be denounced and that the contrary opinion is not probable.

…and 65 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 2 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion, On the Theological Virtues

n. ¶40.

N. 230. 231. - On Admonition to Be Made, Even When No Amendment Is Foreseen

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

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion, On the Sacrament of Penance, Faculties and Privileges o…, 9 March 1870)

n. ¶54.

N. 598. - On Denunciation to Be Made to Apostolic Vicars in the Matter of Solicitation

"Whether Apostolic Vicars without a special faculty can receive denunciations in the matter of solicitation to shameful things, and whether, denunciations of this kind having been received, they are bound to refer them to the Holy Office? Resp. Supplication is to be made to the Most Holy One for extension to all Apostolic Vicars of the Instruction for the Apostolic Vicar of Cochinchina, dated 1 June 1775, with this addition: that they send to the Holy Office through the medium of the S. C. de P. F., in a sealed letter, the names of those soliciting." Holy Office, 20 June 1883. Supreme Pontiff Leo XIII on the same day approved and conceded the extension. Other decisions concerning this matter, please compare, in the Commentary on Const. Sacramentum Poenitentiae.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 16 passages

Vol. I, Matrimony, and Holy Orders, On Penance (Volume I), Moral Part — Chapter II: On the Confessor

n. 374.

I. Notion. The judgment of suitability is the authentic judgment of the Ordinary concerning the suitability of a priest for receiving confessions.

It is called: (a) a judgment, that is, an act of the intellect, yet manifested by external signs; (b) authentic, or pronounced by a legitimate superior, and indeed in an authoritative manner; but the legitimate superior in this matter is the Ordinary, or he who has episcopal, or quasi-episcopal, jurisdiction, and therefore the vicar general, the vicar capitular (in the United States, the administrator of the diocese), or a regular prelate enjoying quasi-episcopal power in some territory; (c) concerning the suitability of a priest..., namely, concerning the gifts required for usefully receiving confessions; these gifts are chiefly, on the part of the intellect: knowledge, by which the principles and rules of moral theology are known; and also prudence, for applying the same to particular cases; on the part of the will: integrity of morals and piety.

n. 375.

What today we call the judgment of suitability until now was called approval;¹ but now the Code does not speak of approval as of a positive act to be put first, but only of the judgment of suitability, which often the bishop pronounces only by the very act by which he grants jurisdiction. Hence we think one should not linger over this notion of approval.

¹ Suarez, disp. XXVIII; Lugo, disp. XXI; Salmantic., cap. 11, n. 86-110; Lacroix, n. 1485-1547; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 5; Elbel-Bierb., Confer. XI, n. 278-287; St. Alphonsus, n. 542-552; Lehmk., n. 379 sq.; Kenrick, n. 121 sq.; Hilar. Sexten, p. 326-334; Baller. P., n. 546-587; Noldin, n. 329-333; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., I, 1700-1707.

Long ago approval, or the judgment of suitability, and jurisdiction were conferred at the same time. From this it happened that these words are taken promiscuously; indeed in some Pontifical Constitutions approval designates not only the judgment concerning suitability, but also the permission or faculty of hearing confessions, and therefore jurisdiction.

n. 376.

II. Necessity. 1° According to the Code (can. 877), the judgment of suitability is necessary for all confessors, even regulars, for licitly hearing confessions: "Let both local Ordinaries not grant jurisdiction, and religious Superiors not grant jurisdiction or license for hearing confessions, except to those who have been found suitable through examination, unless there is question of a priest whose theological doctrine they have ascertained from elsewhere." This law has rightly been established, so that unskillful and unworthy ministers might be kept away from the sacred tribunal.

2° It was expressly declared by Pius V that doctors and lectors of Sacred Theology are not exempt from this law.¹ But those who possess a parochial benefice to which care of souls is attached do not need special approval; for by the very fact that they are deputed to this office, they are implicitly recognized as suitable for hearing confessions. Moreover, one who is not endowed with doctrine and prudence must not be assumed as pastor (can. 453), and the Ordinary can compel a pastor, and indeed even a canon, concerning whose suitability doubts arise, to a new test of doctrine.²

¹ Constitution Romani Pontificis, 8 Aug. 1571.

² "If after jurisdiction or license has been granted they prudently doubt whether a priest previously approved by them still remains suitable, let them compel him to a new test of doctrine, even if there is question of a pastor or penitentiary canon" (Can. 878).

3° Exempt regulars today need approval for receiving the confessions of regulars of their own order;³ but in this case let the religious Superiors judge concerning their suitability (can. 877).

³ Exempt regulars are those who pronounce solemn vows, such as Franciscans, Dominicans, Benedictines, and also certain Congregations enjoying this special privilege, such as the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer. - Concerning all those things which pertain to the approval of Regulars, Piat Montensis discusses fully, Praelect. Juris Regularis, Tournai, 1898, t. II, p. 170-205; cf. the compendium of the same work, by V. ab Appeltern, 1903, p. 549-560.

n. 377.

III. The manner in which it is conferred. 1° Approval must be obtained from the Ordinary of the place in which the confession is received, but not from the Bishop of the penitent or of the confessor. This today is certain from several Pontifical Constitutions¹ and from the Code, c. 874 and 877. This indeed has been wisely established; for approval supposes knowledge not only of the priest to be approved, but also of the faithful for whom he is approved; now the Bishop of the place where confessions are heard is judged to have this knowledge alone. - Hence a priest approved in one diocese cannot validly absolve in another, unless he is approved by the Bishop of this diocese. - From this it likewise follows that a Bishop can approve not only his own subjects, but also foreign priests, for receiving confessions in his diocese.

¹ Thus Constitution of Urban VIII Cum sicut accepimus, 12 Sept. 1628; Clement X Superna, 21 June 1670; Innocent XII, 19 April 1700, Cum sicut non, where these things are read: "Confessors, both secular and regular... can by no means hear confessions without the approval of the Ordinary and diocesan Bishop of the place in which the penitents themselves live and choose confessors... nor can approval once or several times from other local Ordinaries suffice for this..." Cf. Constitution of Benedict XIV, Apostolica Indulta, 5 Aug. 1744.

n. 378.

But the Ordinary of the place can do this either by himself or through another specially deputed for this, for example, through archpriests, or vicars forane, or through Superiors of Regulars with respect to their subjects, etc. For the whole matter is committed to the judgment of the Ordinary, from the Code (can. 877).

n. 379.

2° The Bishop can confer approval either after a prior examination,² or without an examination, when he knows from elsewhere the suitability of the confessor; this is clear from Trent, declaring that a priest can be approved by Bishops "through an examination, if it shall seem necessary to them, or if otherwise he is judged suitable," and from the Code cited above, n. 376. Regulars themselves can be compelled to undergo this examination. - Both seculars and regulars can be obliged to a new examination, if the Bishop judges this opportune.¹

² In many places, no other examination is required from those who in seminaries have devoted labor to the study of theology, except that which they already underwent before sacred orders, especially the priesthood. As to others, let these words of Kenrick, n. 126, be noted: "This custom has prevailed among us, that priests coming from elsewhere, and bringing suitable testimonials with them, and regulars, are not subjected to examination; but all are held by the Tridentine law; and it is plainly expedient that day by day stricter discipline in this matter be observed: by which means very many errors would be avoided."

¹ Code, c. 877.

n. 380.

3° The Ordinary should not revoke approval from one who truly remains suitable, since in this matter he acts as judge, who is bound to pass judgment according to truth; therefore he sins if he revokes or suspends it without cause.² Nevertheless one to whom approval has been denied even unjustly cannot validly absolve, since jurisdiction also has been denied to him, without which absolution is invalid.³ - Besides, the Bishop is not bound to confer jurisdiction on every suitable person: for this is left to his judgment.

² Code, c. 880.

³ From the old law it was clear from the condemnation of proposition 13 by Alexander VII, 24 Sept. 1665, apud Denzing., n. 984; cf. Viva, op. cit. on proposition XIII; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., t. I, p. 736-737.

n. 381.

4° Approval can be limited with respect to time, place, or kind of persons whose confessions the approved priest is permitted to receive: for the whole matter is committed to the judgment of the Bishop.

n. 451.

1° The principal function which the confessor exercises in the sacred tribunal is certainly the office of judge: for this follows openly from the fact that the sacrament of Penance must be administered in the manner of a judgment. But because this sacrament was instituted not only for destroying past sins, but also for guarding against future ones, the confessor must also perform the parts of a physician, by suggesting opportune remedies. And since one of human infirmities is ignorance, which can be cured only by salutary doctrine, it is necessary that he discharge the office of teacher, by instructing the ignorant. But these various offices tend to this, that they generate or nourish the spiritual life; and therefore the confessor is truly the spiritual father of penitents, and cannot fruitfully exercise his duties unless he loves them with a paternal affection, adhering to the footsteps of St. Paul, who said concerning the faithful committed to him:³ "My little children, with whom I am again in travail until Christ be formed in you." - "Though we could have been a burden to you as apostles of Christ, yet we became little ones in your midst, as if a nurse should cherish her children."

³ Galat. IV, 19; I Thess. II, 7.

n. 452.

2° But while the confessor exercises his various offices, he must regard three things: (A) the good of the sacrament; namely insofar as, as a faithful minister, he must procure, as far as can be done: (a) the validity of the sacrament, which depends not only upon the correct use of matter and form, but also upon the dispositions of the subject; (b) its integrity, with regard to the accusation of sins and the imposition of satisfaction; (c) its legitimate administration, by observing all those things which are prescribed by the Church, and by taking care that nothing be done by which the sacrament is rendered odious to penitents.

(B) The good of the penitent; for the sacraments are for men. Hence he will assist the penitent, in the best way possible, (a) so that he may confess his sins sincerely and integrally; (b) so that he may detest the same with supernatural hatred, by proposing opportune motives of contrition; (c) so that he may guard against future sins, by prescribing salutary remedies and the means for persevering.

(C) The public good, that is, not only the good of the penitent himself, but also of the other faithful, by guarding, for example, lest the frequent and protracted confession of certain persons, or the granting or denial of absolution, cause some scandal or other evil in the community.

But in order that we may comprehend all these things in an order at once chronological and logical, we shall speak of the duties of the confessor: 1° before the act of confession; 2° in the very act of confession; 3° after confession.

n. 462.

B. On the Prudence Required in the Confessor

(a) Notion. To knowledge there must be added prudence, which in general is the faculty of choosing all the best means for obtaining the end. Now the end which the confessor must intend is the glory of God and the salvation of souls; hence he is a prudent confessor who is furnished with the faculty of applying general principles and precepts to various penitents, according to the variety of circumstances, so that he may safely lead them to Christian perfection and eternal life. But for this it is required that he treat diverse penitents not in the same way, but according to their diverse character and condition, according to that saying of the Apostle:³ "I became all things to all men, that I might make all saved."

² St. Alphonsus, H. A., Tr. XXI, n. 4; Habert, Pratique du Sacr. de Penitence, Paris, 1748, Tr. I, ch. 4, p. 100-131; Hilar. Sexten, p. 394-398; Aertnys, Th. Past., n. 9-12.

³ I Cor., IX, 22.

n. 463.

(b) Necessity. This prudence is indeed required: in questions, which must be adapted to the character, age, and condition of each penitent, taking care especially lest he teach unknown sins to simple and innocent persons; - in forming judgment concerning the morality and gravity of actions, attention being given not only to external circumstances, but also to the subjective dispositions of each one; - in exciting contrition, by proposing motives according to the mind, character, and sins of each person; - in suggesting remedies which truly heal the various spiritual diseases by taking away the cause of sins; - in giving counsels, whether for fulfilling the various duties of states, or for progress in the practice of virtues; - in imposing satisfactions, not only according to the quality of the crimes, but also according to the spiritual diseases and strength of penitents; - in giving, deferring, or denying absolution, by rightly judging concerning the dispositions of penitents, especially when there is question of those in occasions and of recidivists; - in receiving the confessions of women, by avoiding whatever could scandalize others or himself, and cause some detriment to the penitents themselves. In one word, in almost every step he must be cautious and circumspect; for "the rule of souls is the art of arts."

n. 464.

(c) The means by which prudence is acquired. First of all, prudence should be sought from him who is the author of wisdom; for since it is a supernatural virtue, it can especially be obtained and increased by prayer. - But the conditions which are desired for the increase of this virtue are, besides knowledge, concerning which we have spoken: purity of intention, by which he wishes to please God alone, and not men; to sanctify and save souls, but not to conciliate them to himself: for God is accustomed to illuminate those who seek nothing except the divine glory, while he blinds the vain and proud; - circumspection, by which he considers not only a single aspect of the matter, but the various circumstances of persons and cases, and also the principles which are applicable to these circumstances; hence let him not be hasty in judgment, but spend the due time for considering the matter, and, if some doubt remains, let him not affirm more than he knows; - docility of mind, which is necessary especially for younger men: but this requires that, rightly distrustful of themselves, they frequently seek the counsels of learned and experienced men, so that they may use their knowledge and experience: "No one in those things which fall under prudence suffices for himself as to all things," as St. Thomas rightly says; - long practice joined with knowledge and circumspection; for those who for a long time have attentively scrutinized the hiding places of consciences, and often have ascended from effects to causes, or conversely have descended from causes to effects, know much better how one ought to question, when to warn penitents or to leave them in good faith, by what methods to prepare a way for themselves into their souls, what judgment to make concerning dispositions, etc.; for experience is the best of teachers.

n. 465.

C. Goodness of Life Required in the Confessor

Notion and necessity. This goodness does not consist only in the state of grace, which is certainly required for avoiding the sacrilegious administration of this sacrament, but in the combination of those virtues which are desired for fruitfully discharging this office. Indeed, he must handle the wounds of sinners, even the most shameful, in such a way that he himself is not contaminated; besides, he must lead others into the way of sanctity. But unless he is endowed with special goodness, he will with the greatest difficulty avoid stains, while he frequently receives the confessions of those who are accustomed to accuse shameful things; and besides he will with difficulty lead others in the way of perfection, if it is unknown to himself.

¹ Habert, op. cit., Tr. I, ch. 2, p. 9-40; Hilar. Sexten, § 44, p. 387-391; Gaume, Manuel, n. 1-28; 129-166.

n. 466.

The principal virtues which are necessary for the confessor in order to discharge his office fruitfully are:

(a) Supernatural zeal of souls, by which he loves penitents with a special charity as spiritual children committed to him by God, so that he may lead them to eternal beatitude, - and as brothers redeemed by the blood of Christ, to whom he must apply the merits and satisfactions of the Lord, by forming or increasing Christian virtues in their hearts. - Therefore he will not prefer the rich and noble to the poor and rude, nor devout or little-devout women to men burdened with grave sins: he will embrace all with paternal affection, but especially those who are more miserable and guilty of graver sins. He will show himself meek and kind to all, putting on the bowels of mercy, not only when he questions and instructs, but also when he corrects: "Since benevolence often does more toward those to be corrected than austerity; exhortation more than threat; charity more than power."¹

¹ Trent, sess. XIII, ch. I de Reformat. - Concerning paternal charity toward penitents St. Alphonsus treats excellently, H. A., Tr. XXI, n. 1-3.

(b) Patience, which is certainly necessary for instructing the ignorant and rude, for disposing those who approach unprepared, especially if they have sinned much and scarcely have a spark of contrition; for kindly receiving those who make lengthy confessions, especially if the confessor has already sat for long hours in the sacred tribunal. - Therefore let him think of the patience of Christ, and keep before his eyes that it often happens that from impatience the confessor is disturbed more and more, and penitents are exposed to the danger of withholding sins.

(c) Fortitude, lest from vain fear and pusillanimity he omit to warn and correct, especially the rich, the noble, and the powerful, and to prescribe salutary remedies to them.

(d) Exceeding purity, lest while he cleans the filth of others, he himself be stained. Hence, in the confession of women, let him generally abstain from every affectionate word; let him be cautious and brief in questioning about the matter of chastity; let him not fix his eyes on the face of penitents, and let him avoid excessive familiarity, whether within or outside confession. Nor let him trust too much in past chastity, or in the sanctity of penitents; for, as St. Augustine testifies, even most holy men have fallen, and the more holy women are, the more they attract.¹

¹ Thus St. Thomas (Opusc. LVII, De modo confitendi, p. 439, t. XXVIII ed. Vives), referring to these words of Augustine: "Speech with women must be brief and rigid. Nor yet because they have been holier are they therefore to be less guarded against. For the holier they have been, the more they attract, and under the pretext of a pleasant conversation there mixes itself the most impious birdlime of lust." In the same place St. Augustine declares that great Prelates have fallen, concerning whose fall he presumed no more than concerning Jerome and Ambrose.

n. 516.

§ II. On the Duties of the Confessor with Regard to Various Kinds of Penitents

Preliminary Remarks. Since the penitents who approach the sacred tribunal are diverse, the manner of acting with them also must be diverse, accommodated to the character and temperament of each, and also to age, sex, condition, and needs: for those who are light and those who are constant in mind, the scrupulous and the lax, the young and the old, men and women, magistrates and workers, relapsed sinners and the pious, cannot be treated in the same way. Therefore the confessor must become all things to all, that he may make all safe. Hence he ought to study not only Moral Theology, but practical Psychology, habits, passions, and virtues, and also Pastoral Theology, where the application of general principles to various kinds of penitents is more fully set forth; and moreover the treatise On the Obligations of Various States; and also Ascetical Theology, that he may direct pious persons into the way of perfection.

But here we shall note only a few things about those kinds of penitents in whose confession a special difficulty is more commonly found, referring, for the rest, to approved authors who have written fully on this matter.¹ We shall treat, namely:

¹ St. Alphonsus, Praxis confessarii; M. Fornarius, Institutio confessariorum; Reuter, Neo-Confessarius, parts II-III; Lacroix, lib. VI, n. 1794-1932; Gaume, Manuel des Confesseurs; Ciolli, Direttorio pratico del confessore, translated into French by Mazoyer, Directoire pratique du Jeune Confesseur, Paris, 1899; Aertnys, Theologia Pastoralis, Tournai, 1893; Hilar. a Sexten, Tr. Pastoralis de Sacram., Mainz, 1895, § 47-57; Lehmk., n. 476-522; Berardi, Praxis Confessariorum; Dubois, Pratique du zele ecclesiastique, translated into English: Zeal in the Work of the Ministry.

1° of those who need special instruction: children, the rude, the semi-fatuous, the deaf and mute;

2° of those for whom it is more difficult to conceive contrition: those in occasions of sin, those with habits, and relapsed sinners;

3° of those who need special care: the pious and the dying.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 6 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Pt. II, Ch. II, Sect. 5, Article 4: Questioning and Instructing Penitents

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. V, Section II: Moral Norms · Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. V, Chapter I: The Persons and Qualities of the Confessor · Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. V, Ch. II, § 2. With Regard to the Persons of Penitents

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

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

Vermeersch, On Chastity

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 18 passages

Vermeersch, On Chastity, Parergon: How the Confessor Ought to Conduct Himself

n. 414.

Various counsels.

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

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

n. ¶2151.

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

n. ¶2152.

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

n. ¶2153.

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

n. ¶2154.

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

n. ¶2155.

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

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

n. ¶2156.

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

n. ¶2157.

But he will especially exhort others to these things:

n. ¶2158.

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

n. ¶2159.

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

n. ¶2160.

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

n. ¶2161.

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

n. ¶2162.

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

n. ¶2163.

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

n. ¶2164.

That they assiduously foster higher studies.

n. ¶2165.

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

n. ¶2166.

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

n. ¶2167.

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

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

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 12 passages

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. V, Section II: Moral Norms

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, III. Questions Concerning …, Introduction — Concerning Pastoral Theology · Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, III. Questions Concerning Various Categories of Penitents (1933), Concerning Various Categories of Penitents

Utility. - From the moral section of this treatise, that most excellent fruit is to be gathered: that the confessor may know how to direct all canonical rules to the spiritual good of penitents, and may be helped in acquiring for himself that supernatural prudence by which it will come to pass that he can happily discharge the office of the good Samaritan.

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. V, Chapter I: The Persons and Qualities of the Confessor

n. 528.

— I. The persons of the confessor. "Let the priest remember that in hearing confessions he sustains alike the person of judge and physician, and that he has been constituted by God minister at once of divine justice and mercy, that he may consult the divine honor and the salvation of souls" (c. 888, §1).

The confessor must furnish some things insofar as he is confessor, others insofar as he is neighbor. The things which he owes from his function, or insofar as he is confessor, he owes under graver imputation and with greater inconvenience; and insofar as they oblige toward another man, they must be furnished from justice and with the burden of restitution; while the remaining things which are positively to be furnished are ruled by the obligation and norms of charity. The former are to be done of themselves, and by the confessor alone; the latter accidentally, insofar as necessity occurs, and by every man placed in the same circumstances. The former introduce a new species of sin in the confessor who is to be blamed; not so the latter.

Therefore the Code assigns to the confessor two formal accounts of office to be fulfilled: that of judge, because the absolution or retention of sins is a judicial sentence; that of physician, because that judgment has been instituted for healing the wounds of sins. Therefore the former person is gathered from the nature of this sacrament, the latter from its end. Wherefore they do not stand in the same order: the function of judge is more intrinsic and essential; the office of physician, insofar as there is question of medicine superadded to absolution, seems rather to pertain to the integrity than to the essence of the function. Insofar, I say, as there is question of medicine superadded to absolution, for absolution itself makes the sinner substantially sound.

Thus far the things said regard the specific account of this sacrament. From the generic account, however, the priest must act as the person of minister, and by this title take care for valid and decent administration of the sacrament.

Authors have often spoken rather confusedly about these offices. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 426, ascribes to the confessor the person of judge, father, physician; Aertnys, C.SS.R., l. 6, tr. 5, c. 4 art. 1, the person of teacher, physician, and judge; while most think that the four functions of father, teacher, physician, judge belong to the same. The Code followed St. Thom., 4 S. d. 19 after all the questions; Lugo, d. 22, n. 19 and 14, n. 171; d'Ann., III, 329. Lehmk., II, 541, acknowledges the office of judge as the single essential proper office, to which he adds the others as accessory.

n. 529.

— From the double person to be sustained, the Code infers that the confessor has been "constituted by God minister of divine justice and mercy, that he may consult the divine honor and the salvation of souls." Therefore regard for the salvation of souls, although principal, is not the only regard; but it is necessary that the confessor suitably reconcile his solicitude for saving with care for the divine honor.

n. 530.

— As minister of the sacrament, lest he be sacrilegious, he must take care for the validity of the sacrament, by teaching the penitent the things which are necessary to be known for valid reception, and by denying the sacrament to the unworthy.

The good disposition of the penitent must be morally known to him. This moral knowledge consists in prudent probability (Ball.-Palm., V, 528), with the exclusion of a grave contrary reason (St. Alph., VI, 460; d'Ann., III, 335; Lehmk., II, 123). For this, and not more, can be humanly demanded. Wherefore if from the circumstances a grave prejudice against the disposition of the penitent arises, other arguments must accede by which that suspicion is dissolved or sufficiently weakened. Yet let the confessor beware lest he imprudently explore or test the disposition of the penitent by asking whether, with loss of goods or of children, he will keep his resolutions. And finally, in this judgment, one must stand by the affirmation itself of the penitent, which seems to be sincere.

Whom he notes to be ignorant of necessary things, for example, things necessary for salvation, he must, as there is opportunity, instruct and admonish concerning the duty of procuring for himself greater erudition in the faith. He must also admonish him who from vincible and mortally culpable ignorance is in an evil state, because otherwise neither the sacrament nor the penitent is consulted. For such a penitent is indisposed.

But the good faith of the penitent must be prudently explored, rather by general questions, whether or not he has remorse of conscience about some grave matter (Lugo, d. 22, n. 23), lest from the things heard he be constituted in doubtful or bad faith.

n. 531.

— As judge, lest he be guilty of injustice toward the penitent, he must bring the cause begun to an end, as much as is from himself, give absolution to the disposed, confer a valid sacrament (or a valid sentence), give a suitable penance.

To the penitent who adheres to a probable opinion, absolution of itself must be given: for he is disposed. Indeed it is enough for this that, on account of the extrinsic authority of approved doctors, they conceive a judgment concerning the honesty of the action, since the priest cannot impose his own opinion to be followed. And he can of himself be absolved (if nothing from elsewhere stands in the way) who follows an opinion indeed improbable, yet covered by sufficient appearance of probability, so that the penitent can be judged to be in good faith. It must be said otherwise of the penitent who resists the confessor by mere obstinacy.

n. 532.

— As physician, he will sometimes defer absolution even for the disposed; he will endeavor to dispose well the doubtfully disposed; he will leave in good faith one whom he cannot instruct without danger, provided no preponderating reason obliges to admonition; he will give penances not only suitable but salutary; he will add counsels for amendment. Therefore:

Although sometimes absolution of him who can licitly be absolved is usefully deferred, yet this is to be done rarely, and almost only with the penitent consenting, because it can turn to grave danger or damage of the penitent. The chief utility will be had when the penitent must actually fulfill some difficult obligation, and the delay is not too grave for him, or, as some wish, less grave than the obligation to be fulfilled (cf. Reuter, Neoconfessarius, n. 34).

For time, place, persons, the manner of acting will vary; in doubt what is expedient, for the most part absolution will be conferred more justly and more safely (d'Ann., III, 334).

He is doubtfully disposed against whom there remains, not sufficiently dissolved, a founded reason arguing a defect of disposition, that is, of sorrow or purpose.

Such a one, regularly, especially today, the confessor clothed with the bowels of charity will endeavor to bring to a more certain disposition, at least in the present. "But if he neglects to furnish this, certainly he himself is no more ready for hearing than others are for approaching to confess" (Leo XII, Const. Caritate Christi, December 25, 1825, §5, which contains most beautiful warnings).

If by this effort he shall have profited nothing, for a time, using most humane words, he will have to defer absolution, until the penitent is suitably disposed, unless, however, the case has been one of absolving the same conditionally: concerning which matter it will soon be treated below.

He who in good faith errs about his obligations is regularly to be admonished, from charity both toward other persons whose interest it is, and toward the penitent himself, since observance of the divine law always profits. And when from an erroneous conscience he thinks sin to be where there is none, or grave sin where there is light, he must always be untaught, especially if there is danger of formal sin, because no goods are to be procured through evil. Yet let the confessor propose this in such a way that he in no way seems to approve what is light, or at least dangerous; indeed let him not omit to dissuade from dangerous things, and to exhort to better things. But if the penitent is not solicitous about true obligations, he will have to be admonished if hope of fruit is had and graver inconveniences are not feared. If fruit is not hoped for, or graver inconveniences are to be feared, the confessor must not and cannot admonish the penitent, since the good of the penitent must be procured by the confessor himself. And consequently he also licitly advises that he act according to his ignorance: for example, that Caia render the debt to Titius whom in good faith, although falsely, she judges to be her husband. Nor does some prejudice of a particular third party stand in the way.

Yet admonition will have to be made: a) if the silence of the confessor seems about to harm the common good; b) if the penitent himself doubts and asks, because then to keep back the truth would be to approve error. Yet the confessor must not say more than he is asked. Asked about the honesty of rendering the conjugal debt by him who, for example on account of a vow of chastity, can render but not ask that debt, he will pass over the asking of the debt with prudent silence; c) if the ignorance is foreseen soon to be going to become vincible or culpable, or the ignorance itself is spiritually harmful: as if it induces a proximate occasion of sinning formally, or confirms a depraved custom of doing things which are shameful.

Finally, in doubt whether admonition will be profitable or not, the importance of the matter must be compared with the degree of hope or fear, and those parts must be chosen which are judged to preponderate.

Yet no anxiety is to be had about a small excess. And let us hold the principle of St. Alph., VI, 610, 616 at the end: regularly formal evils rather than material ones are to be avoided. Wherefore d'Ann., III, 316, judges that regularly, in doubt, silence is to be kept.

Yet if the scandal (or sin) of the penitent will be brief and momentary, and there is hope that soon he will acquiesce, admonition regularly is to be made, especially if an account of the common good accedes; but this will better be done after absolution, lest the penitent be deprived of the fruit of the sacrament received.

Finally an admonition which, now useless or harmful, is foreseen later to be more useful and efficacious, will be able laudably to be deferred to a more opportune time.

These admonitions, insofar as they confer to the spiritual health of the penitent, pertain to the function of physician; insofar as they repair or impede the damages of others, they are to be given by the priest as neighbor, as will be said here immediately.

To procuring a good disposition there also pertains that the confessor help the penitent in perfecting the examination of his conscience, through suitable questions and indications.

From c. 887 itself, the penances to be given are to be salutary and suitable, adapted to the quality and number of sins, and to the condition of the penitent. Cf. below n. 545 ff.

n. 533.

— Sacramental confession affords the confessor a most propitious occasion of exercising the office of fraternal correction. This, as neighbor, for the common or private utility of the penitent or of another, he must fulfill from charity.

Wherefore, according to the norms of charity prudently weighed, the confessor will admonish the penitent concerning the obligation of laying aside hatred, of restoring honor, reputation, or goods unjustly injured; of removing for others an occasion of sinning; of removing or repairing scandals; of correcting delinquents; of helping the needy; of denouncing crimes or delinquents on account of the common good or of the innocent, etc.

This will be of greatest moment where there is question of penitent Prelates and of those who bear a public person.

Now we must speak a little more distinctly about the individual parts of the function. But before this, let us briefly explain with what qualities the confessor must be furnished.

n. 534.

— II. The qualities of the confessor. 1. While he receives confessions, the confessor must, in the first place, be constituted in the grace of God, at least through an act of contrition. Yet called unexpectedly to help a dying person, if he cannot so quickly recollect himself for eliciting true contrition, or in good faith judge himself contrite, although he is not in grace, he will not sin by absolving.

But of itself he who from his function is obliged to administer several sacraments frequently must already for this reason be in the habitual state of grace, lest he be opposed to a proximate danger of sinning mortally.

He also must be such that, in exercising this ministry, he is not placed, on account of his ignorance or fragility, in a proximate occasion of mortal sin.

As was said, t. I, in the treatise on Sins, n. 435, the number of sins can be estimated probably from the number of sessions in the tribunal of Penance.

n. 535.

— 1. For the confessor to absolve sins validly, it is enough that he know them at least under the confused account of sin. Nor is it necessary that he judge concerning all of them whether or not they are sins. Cf. Lugo, Paenit., d. 21, n. 71; St. Alph., l. 6, n. 627.

But for him licitly to exercise that ministry, that knowledge is required by which he can bear prudent judgment in this forum. Wherefore it is required: a) that he can suitably solve the more common cases, sufficiently distinguishing mortal sins, venial sins, and species, and knowing reservations and censures of more frequent application; b) that concerning graver and rarer cases he know how to doubt prudently, and to consult more learned men or theological books.

This competence is to be estimated relatively according to the diversity of places and penitents, as is evident; and also according to the abundance or lack of suitable priests.

For in necessity, the salvation of the faithful must be provided for in the better way in which it can be. Therefore for small towns and in less cultivated regions, learned men being lacking, the less learned both will licitly be deputed and will licitly hear confessions, provided that, according to their moral powers, they are zealous gradually to acquire for themselves suitable knowledge.

To the knowledge of the confessor it pertains to know several practically probable opinions, so that he can, according to the diverse condition and utility of penitents, now prescribe one, now another, if not to be followed, at least to be advised.

Prudence also is required in the instruction, admonition, questioning, and spiritual care of the penitent.

n. 536.

— Both priests who approach unprepared for hearing confessions sin, and Superiors who, without necessity, appoint or tolerate such men, when they can correct them.

But in doubt about his own suitability, a subject can well stand by the judgment of a Superior who, from familiar acquaintance itself, has sufficiently ascertained his character and doctrine: which easily happens in religious institutes.

n. 537.

Summary

— I. The Persons of the Confessor. 1. From the generic account of the sacrament the confessor must sustain the person of minister of the sacrament; from the specific account, the person of judge and physician: of judge, because absolution or retention of sins is a judicial sentence; of physician, because the judgment has been instituted for healing wounds. The function of judge, which is gathered from the nature of the sacrament, is more intrinsic than the function of physician, which is gathered from the end of the sacrament. And when there is question of medicine superadded to absolution (which makes one substantially sound), it pertains to the integrity of the person to be borne rather than to its essence.

Besides, as neighbor, according to the norms of charity, he must help the penitent according to his necessity and circumstances. But the parts of the function must be fulfilled under graver imputation and with greater inconvenience; indeed, insofar as they create an obligation toward another, they bind the confessor from justice and with the burden of restitution.

As minister of divine justice and mercy, he must consult the divine honor and the salvation of souls (c. 888, §1).

Corollaries. a) As minister of the sacrament he must, lest he be sacrilegious, take care for the validity of the sacrament, by teaching the penitent the things which are necessary for the value of the sacrament; by admonishing him who from vincible ignorance is in an evil state, and therefore, prudently, by questions that are rather general, by exploring his good faith; finally by denying the sacrament to the unworthy. The good disposition of the penitent must be morally known to him: morally, that is, by prudent probability, to which no grave reason is opposed, and which of itself is already begotten by the serious affirmation of the penitent; b) as judge he must, from justice toward the penitent, bring the cause begun, as much as is from himself, to an end through valid absolution, with a suitable penance added. He preserves the right of absolution who adheres to a probable opinion; he can of himself be absolved who in good faith follows an opinion not solidly probable, but which is covered by a sufficient appearance of probability. One doubtfully disposed cannot be absolved except conditionally, in a case of moral necessity, or of grave detriment to be avoided; c) as physician, he will endeavor to dispose the doubtfully disposed; he will help the penitent in perfecting the examination of his conscience; he will add counsels for amendment; he will give salutary penances; sometimes, but rarely, and almost only with the penitent consenting, he will defer absolution for the disposed, yet inclined rather to giving than to deferring absolution; d) as neighbor, for the common utility or the proper utility of the penitent or of another, he will exercise the office of fraternal correction, of which he has of itself a splendid occasion.

One erring in bad faith is to be admonished. One erring in good faith will prudently be untaught errors by which he too much increases his own obligations, so that he neither approaches dangerous things nor deserts better things. One erring about a true obligation will be admonished if hope of fruit is had without fear of graver inconvenience. If fruit is not hoped for, or greater evils are to be feared, the confessor will abstain from admonition, unless by his silence he seems to approve error, or is about to harm the common good, or is more harmful to the penitent himself, for example on account of a strengthened bad custom. Sometimes admonition will laudably be deferred to a more opportune time. In doubt, without anxiety, advantages and disadvantages must be weighed, yet so that formal sins rather than material sins are avoided.

II. Qualities. The function of confessor demands: the state of grace, procured at least through contrition; and the habitual state of grace in him who is accustomed to minister the sacraments; flight from proximate occasion of sin, from ignorance or fragility; knowledge, by which he knows how to solve the more common cases suitably, and concerning others to doubt prudently and to consult. To this knowledge also it pertains that he know several probable opinions. Yet for valid absolution it is enough that he know the things accused under the confused account of sin; and the required knowledge varies according to circumstances and the abundance of confessors; prudence, in the instruction, admonition, questioning, and spiritual care of the penitent.

Those who are not suitable and exercise the function sin; in doubt they can stand by the judgment of the Superior by whom they are known. Superiors who approve unsuitable men sin.

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. V, Ch. II, § 2. With Regard to the Persons of Penitents

n. 553.

— General Counsels.

"To hear confessions," St. J. B. de Rossi used to say, "is, of all ways to heaven, the shortest way"; yet it supposes not a few things in the confessor, that it may bear all the fruits which are deservedly expected from so great a sacrament of mercy. May some general counsels profit him; we have thought fit to add them here.

By his own piety and sanctity of life the confessor, as is clear, will be helped very much. But in carrying out this function let him take the greatest care for the purest intention of soul, most remote from every human end. This removes the dangers of temptations; this preserves a holy liberty of responding according to truth, without human respect; this procures great peace of conscience and security, even after errors have been committed. Nor, in his conversation with the penitent, let him foster or tolerate any affection other than supernatural. A safeguard against temptations also will be furnished by consideration of the angels who protect the little ones, and by the persuasion that the matter is conducted between souls, and not between bodies which are informed by the soul.
Let him beware lest, deceived by the facility of many confessions, he now neglect the study of moral theology, which, according to the opinion of St. Alph. (Praxis confessarii, n. 17, 18 at the end), is the work of an entire life.
Let him hold the golden rule commended by learned and pious men: let the confessor strive, insofar as is lawful for him, to render less difficult for Christians the execution of that office which is among the more difficult things prescribed in the law of grace.

But the use of confession is rendered more difficult not only by him who torments the penitent with importunate questions or by his impatience and anger, but also by him who renders inconvenient for him the revelation of a grave fault which especially dishonors his state.

Therefore, to a person unknown to him, even a religious person or one frequently communicating and confessing, let him allow time for declaring all things, nor from the beginning let him show that he lacks leisure. He will be able to dispatch more quickly a penitent who shows himself scrupulous and fearful.

Nor by any word or manner of acting let him suppose that nothing grave is to be revealed; but, gently extolling the advantages of perfect sincerity, let him bring forward the good occasion which is present for opening the heart fully. But let him begin by saying that the internal state of the penitent is entirely unknown to him, so that he himself does not know whether or not anything is to be supplied.

It sometimes happens that a thing must be opened which a person of the other sex is greatly ashamed to report in a concrete manner, nor dares to press down by silence without fear of culpable reticence. If the confessor advert to this or suspect it, and it does not pertain to the good of the penitent that he himself know the manner, let him declare that the matter is sufficiently understood by him, and that there is no need that more be declared, that the penitent is truly dispensed from every further explanation. And in truth, in the matter of the sixth and ninth precepts, we are persuaded by c. 888, §2 itself to act thus.

Because grave authors testify to us that very many confessions are sacrilegious on account of culpable reticence, let us not deny or practically neglect the office of questioning; yet let us fulfill it circumspectly, so that we do not disturb souls and inject into persons who enjoy interior peace a suspicion of former confessions badly made.
Let the confessor remember that the principle about not disturbing good faith by admonitions is not fully brought forward unless the word "uselessly" is added.

But the utility can be: a) of the penitent, who, not admonished, may contract a depraved custom, who may lead a life of less integral honesty; b) of another person whom the penitent harms either by his manner of acting or by the manner in which he will interpret the silence or connivance of the confessor; c) of the Christian community, which, with Christianity languishing, is infected too much.

Let the first and as it were supreme rule of the confessor be the salvation or greater spiritual utility of the penitent. According to it let him absolve, retain sins, moderate penance. Hence also in doubts about positive obligations, for example of restoring, which have no direct spiritual utility, let the confessor embrace the more benign opinion, which nevertheless is probable.
As Lehmk., II, 607, notes after Gobat, a later confessor ought to presume that the former one discharged his function well. Wherefore concerning past confessions, imposed obligations, let him not be solicitous, unless he certainly discovers that the former confessor erred.
Let the confessor not be content with necessary absolution having been given, but let him have at heart the spiritual progress of the penitent; and with tireless zeal let him exhort and stimulate him to seeking nobler and more perfect things, which at the same time are more blessed.
After confessions have been heard, let the confessor recollect in soul how he acted and how he could have acted better; about doubtful solutions let him question someone more skilled. Let him not trust his own prudence so greatly that he judges that nothing is to be learned by him from others. On the contrary, let him despise no aid, neither divine nor human, so that he may be able better to consult "the divine honor and the salvation of souls" (can. 888, §1).

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 131 passages

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, III. Questions Concerning …, Introduction — Concerning Pastoral Theology

n. ¶1848.

Pastoral theology is the practical instruction of the pastor of souls for the right and fruitful management of his office. Wherefore it is rather an art than a science; but an art which applies the principles of theological science, namely dogmatic and moral theology.

n. ¶1849.

Its end is to feed the sheep; therefore it regards all the means of salvation by which the pastor, in the internal and external forum, may feed his sheep and lead them to the ultimate end. It is the art of ruling souls; the practical method by which the pastor, according to the rules of theology, may be able to direct the souls entrusted to him.

n. ¶1850.

The office of the pastor is threefold: to preach dogmatic and moral doctrine; to direct and edify by example and counsel, where ascetical theology comes into use; to minister the sacraments. Pastoral theology proposes an apt method by which the pastor, in those various offices, may be able to direct souls according to the rules of religious truth, morality, and perfection; whence it also includes the rules and method of preaching and catechizing.

n. ¶1851.

For the present, however, we consider only the method in the administration of the sacraments, chiefly in the internal forum of the sacrament of Penance, where the priest concurs more closely and principally in procuring the salvation of souls by doctrine, correction, and counsel, as also by his own holiness and zeal.

n. ¶1852.

The end of our treatment is the begun instruction of the younger priest for the ministry of souls; in French they would say: "to initiate the young priest into the exercise of the ministry of souls." This we shall furnish by an exposition of the rules which he must follow and of the means which he must use, in order more surely to convert sinners turned away from God, and more greatly to sanctify the just united to God. By these rules, it is by no means our mind to supply for experience, which, under the light of the principles of moral theology, will always remain the mistress of the government of souls; but we intend to use the experience of others, that we may avoid errors and even involuntary defects.

n. ¶1853.

"The government of souls is the art of arts," says St. Gregory. For it is a work most sublime, because a divine work: to exercise the judgment and mercy of God; most difficult, since it is more difficult to know the diseases of the soul than those of the body; most salutary: from the good or bad government of confessors, says St. Alphonsus (Praxis Conf., n. 1), the salvation or ruin of the people depends. For this there are required in the confessor: 1) science possessed not only speculatively but prepared for practice: namely, method, exercise, and practice by which he may be able to apply principles; 2) great prudence; 3) goodness of life and zeal. Hence the things which are set forth in moral theology concerning the qualities and duties of the confessor are here to be applied.

n. ¶1854.

Pastoral discipline is certainly not new, although now it is commonly treated more orderly and more completely. Peter of Poitiers, in the twelfth century, is said to have been the first to cultivate casuistic theology, and to have had several imitators. From the thirteenth century, throughout the whole Middle Age, the penitential Summas were very well known, such as those which Peraldus, O.P. (d. 1250), St. Raymond of Pennafort, O.P. (1175-1275), Ioannes Rumsik of Fribourg, O.P. (d. 1314), Bartholomaeus of Pisa, O.P. (d. 1347), Angelus of Clavasio or Carleti, O.M. (d. 1493), Trovamala, O.M. (d. 1495), Tabiena, O.P. (d. 1521), Sylvester Prierias, O.P. (d. 1523), Bartholomaeus Fumus, O.P. (d. 1545), and Bartholomaeus of St. Faustus, O. Cist. (1571-1639), are read to have written. To the same genus belong Ioannes Nider, O.P. (d. 1438), Formicarius, Tr. de 10 Praeceptis, and Consolatorium timoratae conscientiae; St. Antoninus, O.P. (1384-1459), Summula confessionis; Cajetan, O.P. (1469-1534), Summula Peccatorum; Bartholomaeus de Medina, O.P. (1528-1581), Brevis instructio de Poenitentia; Azpilcueta, Doctor Navarrus (d. 1586), Manuale confessariorum; Lopez, O.P. (d. 1596), Instructorium conscientiae; Binsfeld (d. 1598), Enchiridion Theologiae pastoralis; Martin Fornari, S.I. (1547-1612), Institutio Confessariorum; Loth, O.P. (d. 1652), Resolutiones theologicae; Stoz, S.I. (d. 1678), Tribunal Poenitentiae; Antonius a Spiritu Sancto, O. Carm. (d. 1677), Directorium Confessariorum; Segneri, S.I. (d. 1694), Parochus instructus, Confessarius instructus, Poenitens instructus; Lohner, S.I. (d. 1697), Instructio de conversatione apostolica, Instructio pastorum; Reuter, S.I. (1680-1762), Neo-Confessarius practice instructus; Wigandt, O.P. (d. 1708), Tribunal Confessariorum; Gaume (1802-1879), Manuel des Confesseurs. Several Saints also, besides those already cited, have deserved well of pastoral theology, as St. Charles Borromeo (d. 1584), writing an instruction of pastors, and St. Francis de Sales (d. 1622), an instruction to confessors; but especially St. Alphonsus (1696-1787). Here also can be referred works of Moral Theology of a more practical character, such as Lacroix, S.I. (1652-1714), and Sporer, O.M. (d. 1708); or cases of conscience, such as Toletus, S.I. (1532-1596), Bartholomaeus a Ledesma, O.P. (d. 1604), Bianchis, O.P. (d. 1622), Nazarius, O.P. (1556-1646), Pontas (1638-1728), and P. Van der Velden, O.M. (d. 1857), resolved in the work: Praxis administrandi sacramentum Poenitentiae.

n. ¶1855.

In more recent time special treatises of pastoral theology have already been published, such as, among many others, Alberti, Sailer (d. 1832), Benger (d. 1870), Gassner, Amberger (d. 1889), Schuech (d. 1893), Pruner (d. 1907), William Stang (an American), Goepfert (d. 1913), Krieg, etc., wrote; but more specially in order to the practice of the confessional: Zenner (d. 1861), Tappehorn (d. 1906), Probst. For our purpose, however, let the following be held as specially commended: St. Alphonsus, Praxis confessariorum and Silva Rerum praedicabilium; Aertnijs, C.SS.R., Theologia Pastoralis; Berardi, Praxis Confessariorum; Reuter-Lehmkuhl-Umberg, S.I., Neo-Confessarius practice instructus; Frassinetti, Compendium Th. Moralis; Schneider, Manuale Sacerdotum; to which we wish to add more practical modern moral manuals, such as Aertnijs and Marc from the C.SS.R.; Haine and Theol. Mechliniensis; Lehmkuhl, Genicot-Salsmans, Noldin-Schmitt, and Vermeersch from the S.I.; Tanquerey, S.S.; and Prummer from the O.P.; or also collections of cases of conscience such as were made by Gury, Lehmkuhl, Genicot, and Villada.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, III. Questions Concerning Various Categories of Penitents (1933), Concerning Various Categories of Penitents

n. ¶1856.

I. The present treatment pertains to the final part of the doctrine concerning Penance, where the subject of this sacrament is discussed.

n. ¶1857.

Now the subject of Penance is every and only wayfarer man, baptized, a sinner, truly contrite, and confessing in some manner. He must be:

n. ¶1858.

a wayfarer man, because the sacraments were instituted for him alone;

n. ¶1859.

baptized, because Baptism renders persons capable of receiving the other sacraments, which otherwise would be received invalidly;

n. ¶1860.

a sinner, that is, one who after Baptism has committed at least a venial sin, because the virtue of penance is only concerning actual personal sin, and the sacrament of penance was instituted for the remission of sins committed after Baptism; but if he were not a sinner, the words of absolution would not be verified and absolution would be invalid;

n. ¶1861.

contrite, at least by imperfect contrition; otherwise he would not truly be penitent, since contrition is the principal and essential act of penance, without which it is impossible to obtain remission of actual sin;

n. ¶1862.

confessing in some manner, or externally accusing himself of being a sinner. For without an external accusation the sins and dispositions of the penitent would be unknown to the minister, who would not be able to exercise judgment; but any external accusation whatever, even a minimal one, suffices for this in circumstances in which a greater integrity of confession is impossible.

n. ¶1863.

II. All the foregoing things are clear from the doctrine concerning the virtue and sacrament of penance. Hence, in the present matter, an application must be made of the principles set forth in the whole treatise concerning penance to the various categories of penitents which can present special difficulties.

n. ¶1864.

The categories can be divided according to the particular dispositions of penitents; the condition of the body, or of the soul; the state of life; or the kind of sin.

n. ¶1865.

But we limit the exposition of the present little work to the three former kinds of classes; perhaps we shall treat of the remaining ones at a future time.

n. ¶1866.

III. Moreover, the questions to be treated can be reduced to the following:

n. ¶1867.

I. Concerning penitents variously disposed:

n. ¶1868.

Concerning penitents who are to be directed in the examination of conscience.

n. ¶1869.

Concerning penitents who are to be interrogated.

n. ¶1870.

Concerning penitents who are to be instructed and admonished.

n. ¶1871.

Concerning customary sinners and recidivists.

n. ¶1872.

Concerning those in occasions of sin.

n. ¶1873.

Concerning penitents who are to be obliged or induced to a new or general confession.

n. ¶1874.

II. Concerning penitents various according to the condition of the body:

n. ¶1875.

Concerning children.

n. ¶1876.

Concerning the half-witted and deaf-mutes.

n. ¶1877.

Concerning adolescents and young persons.

n. ¶1878.

Concerning men and women.

n. ¶1879.

Concerning abnormal persons.

n. ¶1880.

Concerning the sick and the dying.

n. ¶1881.

Concerning the incarcerated and those condemned to death.

n. ¶1882.

III. Concerning penitents various according to the condition of the soul:

n. ¶1883.

Concerning the pious and devout.

n. ¶1884.

Concerning the perfect and contemplative.

n. ¶1885.

Concerning the tempted.

n. ¶1886.

Concerning the scrupulous.

n. ¶1887.

Concerning the lax.

…and 91 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 2 passages

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. V, Chapter III. On the Minister of the Sacrament of Penance · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. V, Ch. III, Article II. On the Duties and Obligations of the Confessor

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. V, Chapter III. On the Minister of the Sacrament of Penance

n. ¶53.

We divide this chapter into four articles, namely: 1. on the power of the minister; 2. on his duties and obligations; 3. on the manner of acting with habitual sinners, those in occasions of sin, and recidivists; 4. on the abuse of confession.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. V, Ch. III, Article II. On the Duties and Obligations of the Confessor

n. 431.

431. The office of the confessor is fourfold, namely, that of judge, teacher, physician, and father. But his principal office is the office of judge, since the sacrament of penance was instituted by Christ after the manner of a judgment. Since the sacramental judgment is not a condemnatory judgment but a liberative one and for the benefit of the penitent, the confessor must treat the penitent with paternal affection, heal his wounds as a good physician, and dispel his ignorance as a teacher. In exercising his office, the confessor must keep before his eyes a) the honor of God, and consequently the good of the sacrament, so that with great diligence he procures not only the validity but also the liceity of the sacrament; b) the good of the penitent. For the sacraments are for men.³⁷⁴

In order, however, that we may discuss all the duties of the confessor in a clear order, we shall treat: 1. his duties before the act of confession; 2. in the act of confession itself; 3. after confession.

³⁷⁴ Code of Canon Law, c. 888, § 1.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 8 passages

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. III, Ch. III, Article II: On The Varied Obligation Of The Confessor Toward Various Penitents · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. III, Ch. III, Art. II, § 1. On The Obligation Of The Confessor Toward Penitents Diverse From The State Of Soul

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. III, Ch. III, Article II: On The Varied Obligation Of The Confessor Toward Various Penitents

Among penitents a twofold variety can be detected: the one, namely, which arises from their internal state of soul; and the other, which proceeds from their external condition of life. - Hence there is a twofold paragraph.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. III, Ch. III, Art. II, § 1. On The Obligation Of The Confessor Toward Penitents Diverse From The State Of Soul

n. ¶1818.

Penitents who are distinguished from others from the very state of their soul can conveniently be reduced to SEVEN CLASSES, namely: 1. to occasionaries; - 2. to the habituated and recidivists; - 3. to converts from heresy; - 4. to the scrupulous; - 5. to those vexed by the demon; - 6. to pious and devout penitents; - and 7. finally to those enriched with the gift of contemplation.

Hence, in order, one must treat of the obligation by which the confessor is held toward these various penitents, and especially of the obligation by which he is held toward those whom we have listed in the first two species. For, as our most zealous Doctor speaks:¹ "The greatest care of the confessor ought to be to conduct himself well with those who are in a proximate occasion of sinning, or are habituated in vices, or are recidivists. These are two great rocks against which the greater part of confessors dash themselves and fail."

III. On Converts From Heresy

n. ¶1832.

I. A heretic, converted to the Catholic faith, when he first presents himself to the confessor, is to be received kindly and greatly helped in the examination of conscience, from which excessive rigor is to be excluded. - He is to be asked how many years he lived in his sect while doubting concerning its truth, and whether he contemned or neglected to inquire concerning the true religion, and for how long.

If he was only a material heretic, any confessor can absolve him without a special faculty; likewise, if he was formally a heretic, but ignorant of the excommunication attached to formal heresy; for excommunication is not incurred by one who is ignorant of it. - But if even a slight doubt concerning an incurred excommunication should arise, he is to be absolved under condition, and with the profession of faith having first been made. Wherefore the confessor would act inconsiderately if, when about to reconcile a heretic, he did not beforehand procure for himself a special faculty, which he could easily need (cf. n. 443).

The exhortations should allude especially to those dogmas concerning which the newly converted man previously did not think rightly. - A penance which does not frighten him away is to be imposed upon him. - Recall what was said at n. 1479 as to Baptism, and at n. 1655 as to the obligation of confession.

n. ¶1833.

II. In reconciling heretics, according to the diversity of cases, a THREEFOLD MODE OF PROCEEDING is distinguished: 1. If the previous Baptism has been judged certainly valid, "only the abjuration, or profession of faith, is received, which absolution from censures follows." Thus the S. C. of the Holy Office, on July 20, 1859.¹ 2. If the nullity of the previous Baptism is established, Baptism is conferred absolutely, nor does any abjuration or absolution follow, because the Sacrament of regeneration washes away all things. 3. If Baptism is to be repeated under condition, the following order is to be observed: 1) Let the abjuration, or profession of faith, be made before two witnesses, according to the form prescribed by Pius IV, and more recently by Pius IX, with some addition.² 2) Let conditional Baptism follow. 3) Let conditional absolution from censure be imparted. 4) Let sacramental confession be made, with absolution from sins likewise conditional.

Note. - Those who must be baptized under condition "can, for the greater ease of the ecclesiastical function, first be heard sacramentally as to the accusation of their faults. Then, after the conferral of Baptism under condition, the confessor, again taking up summarily with the penitent those things concerning which he has already made accusation, is to absolve him sacramentally, likewise under condition." (S. OFFIC., November 1, 1875).³

n. ¶1834.

III. If an acatholic, in the article of death, wishes to return to the Catholic faith, he must emit a profession of Faith before two witnesses, at least as to those things which must be believed explicitly by necessity of means and of precept. And this act of conversion is immediately to be described in a public instrument, so that in this way all cavils of adversaries may be forestalled. - After this the dying man is to be duly disposed by acts of faith, hope, charity, sorrow, and purpose; then, confession having been made, he is to be absolved from excommunication and from sins, and lastly refreshed with the Most Holy Viaticum and Extreme Unction.⁴

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Fourth Part: On the Minist…, Question First: On the Power Itself of the Minister · Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Fourth Part: On the Minist…, Question Three: On the Duties of the Minister in Order to the Use of the Power

V. On Persons Vexed By The Demon

n. ¶1840.

Since it rarely happens that men are vexed by the demon in a sensible manner, there is no reason why we should dwell much on the present argument.

Before all things, the confessor must be warned that in this matter he should recede equally from excessive incredulity and from excessive credulity. "Let the confessor not be so incredulous," says St. Alphonsus,¹² "that he judges all invasions or infestations of demons to be fantasies or bodily infirmities; because it must not be denied that true possessed persons are found even among Christians." Therefore let him prove all things according to those things which we said concerning divination (n. 558 and n. 622 and following).

These things being premised, it will be sufficient to have noted the following from St. Alphonsus: 1. Some possessed persons are vexed by evil spirits with horrible specters, or bodily torments. The care of these is easy: prayer, patience, and above all perfect conformity with the divine will are to be insinuated to them. 2. Those who usually trouble confessors more are those who are vexed by the demon with filthy visions, motions, and even touches... etc. But let the confessor take care that the penitent subject such acts to the keys of the Sacrament, if perhaps he fails in anything, either because of imperfect advertence, or because of some deficiency of resistance.¹³

The REMEDIES are: that the penitent, in so horrible a conflict, pray perseveringly and insistently, commending himself a hundred and a thousand times to God, groaning, and asking mercy at the feet of the Crucified and of the Mother of God; that he apply himself much and constantly to mortification, diligently turning the mind away from the pleasures of the senses and frequently protesting that he does not wish to consent to the operations of the demon. - Then to prayer and mortification humility with unshaken confidence must be joined; the use of the Sacraments, of the most sacred sign of the Cross, of blessed water, of private exorcism, of holy Relics, and of the book of the Gospels.¹⁴

But if someone falls miserably in these temptations, the care of him is very difficult. Let the confessor prescribe for him the remedies just recounted, and especially let him employ exorcism, at least private exorcism. - Let him delay absolving him and exhort him to return often, nor let him absolve him except after a long trial; for such conversions are rarely true, and very rarely persevering.¹⁵ See more, if you wish, in St. Alphonsus.

Note. Scaramelli¹⁶ warns that exorcism profits nothing or little with persons who are in the state of contemplation; because God Himself wills their purgation through the infestation of demons.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 42 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Fourth Part: On the Minist…, Question First: On the Power Itself of the Minister

S. Th., Suppl., q. 17, and q. 19, a. 2 and 3.

n. 568.

568. Principle. The power of remitting sins does not belong to all the faithful, but to certain ministers, namely, to the Apostles and their successors, i.e., to bishops and priests alone. - Thus the most ancient and uninterrupted tradition declares, and the Council of Florence, decree for the Armenians, and Trent, sess. 14, c. 6. Hence the Code of Law, can. 871: "The minister of this sacrament is a priest alone." Therefore for exercising his office validly the power of order is required; and, as the same Council of Trent teaches, c. 7, moreover by divine right the power of jurisdiction is required, because a judicial sentence cannot be rendered except over subjects. Hence can. 872: "Besides the power of order, for the valid absolution of sins there is required in the minister the power of jurisdiction, whether ordinary or delegated, over the penitent."

n. 568.

St. Thomas explains this thus, q. 8, a. 4:

n. 568.

"The other sacraments do not consist in this, that one approaching the sacrament does something, but only that he receives, as is clear in Baptism and the like... But in Penance the act of the one approaching the sacrament is of the substance of the sacrament, because contrition, confession, and satisfaction are parts of penance, which are acts of the penitent; but our acts, since they have their principle in us, cannot be dispensed to us by others except by command. Hence it is necessary that he who is constituted dispenser of this sacrament be such that he can command something to be done. But command does not belong to someone over another, except to him who has jurisdiction over him. And therefore it is of the necessity of this sacrament not only that the minister have order, as in the other sacraments, but also that he have jurisdiction."

569. The power of order and the power of jurisdiction differ in the minister. - For the power of order is an efficient power, of sanctifying or effecting sacred things, in this case the instrumental power of conferring grace; the power of jurisdiction is a moral power, of ruling subjects in matters regarding the supernatural end, or in order to holiness and eternal life.

Jurisdiction is one thing of the forum of the Church or external forum, when it directly and primarily regards the public rule and utility of the Church; another of the forum of God or internal forum, when it directly and primarily regards the private utility of any of the faithful. The former is ecclesiastical and social power which is granted by the Pontiff from his own authority, and therefore is derived from him as from the principal cause and is exercised by his authority; the other is power not ecclesiastical but divine, which is granted by the proper authority of God, who alone is able directly to touch conscience and the bond of sin, nevertheless through the mediation of the Pontiff as minister and instrument of divinity, and therefore to be exercised not by the proper authority of the Church but by the authority of God himself. This latter, says Billot,¹ is first of loosing rather than binding; but the former first of binding rather than loosing.

¹ De Ecclesia, th. XXI.

Therefore in the confessor the power of order and the power of jurisdiction differ in many ways:

In conferral. The former is conferred by consecration, namely by sacred ordination, and inheres indelibly in the subject; the other is conferred by the external act of mission to subjects by a superior,² which mission can be revoked, diminished or increased, suspended and limited, e.g., as to men, if it is restricted to certain men or kinds of men; as to place, e.g., within the limits of one diocese or parish; as to time, so that after a certain time has elapsed it expires, e.g., after three years; as to causes or sins, if the superior reserves to himself absolution from certain graver sins (Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 11). Hence priests are equal in the power of order, not in the power of jurisdiction.

² Cf. II-II, q. 39, a. 1.

In essence. The power of order gives proximate aptitude and disposition for this, that someone receive jurisdiction over subjects for absolving from sins; it is deputation for exercising sacramental judgment, but indeterminately over subjects, if he has any: "whose," i.e., of what subjects, says Christ, "sins you shall remit, they are remitted unto them." The power of jurisdiction is the faculty of exercising the sanctifying power of order over certain determinate persons as legitimately designated subjects. The former, namely, gives capacity; the other is the faculty of exercising that capacity.

In effect. From the power of jurisdiction the judgment is valid; from the power of order it is efficacious.

Hence the power of jurisdiction can be defined: Power conferred by an external act of a superior, by which a priest can exercise jurisdiction toward subjects in the internal and penitential forum, or a legitimate deputation for exercising the office of absolving from sins, in a judicial manner, determinate penitents as subjects.³

³ Or with Billuart, diss. 6, a. 2, § 1: The power by which a priest as judge renders sentence in the forum of conscience upon another as upon a subject. Or as Chretien: A supernatural judicial power, conferred by an act of legitimate authority, by force of which a priest remits the sins of subjects in the sacrament of Penance. Thus in the little work: Certain Questions on Penance, which deserves to be consulted for this whole part of the treatise.

570. The power of the confessor pertains to the power of the keys. - A key is an instrument for opening the kingdom of heaven, which is closed by sin as to the debt of fault and as to the debt of punishment; or an eminent sacred power by which the obstacle of sin is removed. For although Christ, by divine authority and by the merit of the Passion, opened heaven in a universal way, as far as depends on himself, nevertheless it belongs to his ministers to open it, through the sacraments, as to this or that person, for whom it remains closed because of original or actual sin: namely, Christ, as principal agent, is said to have the key of excellence; priests, as instrumental agents, the key of ministry.⁴

⁴ Thus q. 19, a. 2; and q. 17, a. 1. Hence "the act of the priest is not immediately over the kingdom, but over the sacraments by which man comes to the kingdom" q. 17, a. 2, ad 5.

Hence the exercise of the power includes a twofold act or a twofold judgment: 1) a judgment of discretion concerning the dispositions or fitness of this or that recipient, by which it is discerned whether he is worthy or not; 2) the judgment itself, whether of absolution and remission, or of retention, by which we open or close, receive the worthy or exclude the unworthy from the kingdom. And therefore two keys are distinguished: a) the key of knowledge, or the authority of exercising an act of knowledge by which it is discerned and shown to whom it must be opened; b) the key of power, or the very authority of loosing and binding by which heaven is opened or closed. Not as if they were two powers as to essence, but two by comparison with the acts of which one presupposes the other.⁵

⁵ In q. 17, a. 3.

For, says St. Thomas, that power of the keys is really the same as the character or spiritual instrumental power of order, so that by essence the power over the real Body of Christ and over the mystical Body of Christ is the same, or the power by which the priest can confect the Eucharist and the power by which he can loose and bind, if jurisdiction is present (q. 17, a. 2, ad 1); but they differ according to reason insofar as they are compared to diverse effects: the character by consecration to God, the power of the keys to subjects. Hence the keys are given with order in some consecration, but the execution of the key needs due matter around which it is exercised, namely subjects, and therefore the act of the keys is had through jurisdiction; and thus before he has jurisdiction the minister has the keys, but does not have the act of the keys⁶ (ad 2).

⁶ From this it is clear, even according to St. Thomas, whatever some have thought, that the power of jurisdiction is distinguished from order and is not given with it. This is clear from the words ad 1: "the power... by which he can loose and bind, if jurisdiction is present"; and from the response ad 2: "the key is given with order; but the execution of the key needs due matter, which is the subject people through jurisdiction; and therefore before he has jurisdiction, he has the keys, but does not have the act of the keys."

Hence the power of jurisdiction, even in the external forum, by which someone is subjected and admitted, or excluded, to the communion of the Church, through which someone goes to heaven, is also sometimes called a key, but improperly, because it is not immediately the key of the kingdom of heaven, removing sin, but a certain remote disposition to it, or to grace (q. 19, a. 3), and a condition for exercising the key (q. 17, a. 2, ad 1 and 2). According to this, Christ gave to Peter in a singular way the power of binding and loosing or remitting sins (Mt. XVI, 19), so that it may be understood that he before the others has the power of jurisdiction. "And therefore the Lord says indeterminately: Whose sins you shall remit, understanding nevertheless that the use of that power ought to be, with the power conferred on Peter presupposed, according to his ordination" (q. 20, a. 1, ad 1).

The key of jurisdiction can belong not only to priests but also to others, who can excommunicate (q. 19, a. 3; q. 22, a. 2); the key of order belongs to priests alone (q. 20, a. 1, ad 1).

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Fourth Part: On the Minist…, Question Three: On the Duties of the Minister in Order to the Use of the Power

600. A twofold special office is distinguished in the confessor: that of judge and that of physician. - Just as there is a twofold end in administering the sacrament of Penance, so also in the minister a twofold office is distinguished, namely, that of judge and of physician. And indeed 1) the primary office is that of judge, because it is essential to the minister of this sacrament, which was instituted under the form of judgment. But since this judgment is not condemnatory but liberatory and instituted for the utility of the penitent, not only for destroying past sins but also for guarding against future ones, hence 2) consequently the confessor must also perform the parts of a physician, by healing his wounds and suggesting opportune remedies. "A priest," says St. Thomas, "in confession must search out the conscience of the sinner, as a physician searches out the wound and a judge the case" (In IV Sent., d. 19, exp. text.). Hence can. 888, § 1:

"Let the priest remember that in hearing confessions he sustains equally the person of judge and of physician, and that he has been constituted by God as the minister at once of divine justice and mercy, so that he may provide for the divine honor and the salvation of souls."

But since a) ignorance is one of the human infirmities and causes of sins, and since the minister of the sacrament is bound to teach those approaching the things which are necessary for receiving the sacrament validly and licitly, the physician and judge must perform the office of teacher, by teaching penitents and driving away ignorances.

Similarly b) because the various offices tend to generate and nourish spiritual life, the confessor is the spiritual father of penitents; he will not fruitfully exercise this office unless he loves them with paternal affection (Gal. IV, 19; I Thess. II, 7).

Hence by many, after St. Alphonsus, four offices are distinguished: of father, teacher, physician, and judge. Concerning these Haine says, Th. M. III, de Poen., q. 97: as father, he puts on the viscera of charity; as teacher, he is strong in knowledge; as physician, in prudence; as judge, he must preserve the equity by which he looses and binds, not indeed according to his own judgment, but as has been prescribed for him by God. Yet these four offices are easily reduced to the last two.

601. Obligation of hearing confessions. - Obligation can arise from a twofold source: from justice and from charity.

A. From justice. According to can. 892, § 1: "Parish priests and others to whom the care of souls has been entrusted by force of office are bound by a grave obligation of justice to hear, whether by themselves or through another, the confessions of the faithful committed to them, as often as these reasonably ask to be heard." For those who take upon themselves the care of souls bind themselves to this by a tacit contract with their subjects, from whom they receive sustenance or honor under the condition of ministering the sacraments; and with the ecclesiastical superior, who does not commit the care of souls to anyone except under the condition that he faithfully fulfill the duties of this office: but one of these duties is to hear the confessions of the faithful committed to him.

Therefore, as we learn from the treatise on charity, not only 1) in extreme necessity, but also 2) in grave spiritual necessity pressing upon their subjects, they are bound under grave obligation (by themselves or through another) to minister the sacrament even with danger to life; 3) but in common necessity they are bound to hear their confessions when they themselves reasonably ask, i.e., because of true spiritual utility. For a pastor must provide pasture for the sheep not only when they are in extreme or grave need, but also when they are in common need; otherwise provision would not be sufficiently made for them; and one of the chief acts of feeding is exercised in the sacrament of Penance. Yet this must be understood in such a way that, because of a legitimate impediment, penitents can be sent away for a moderate time; for since there is not urgent necessity, the law does not oblige with so great an inconvenience. Hence:

a) Pastors sin gravely if they declare that they do not wish to hear confessions except rarely and on a few determinate days, e.g., once or twice each month; and if they often show themselves difficult and peevish in receiving confessions. For thus confession is rendered hateful and not a few faithful are deterred from its practice.

b) But if someone once or twice, outside urgent necessity, refuses to hear someone's confession, even without a legitimate reason, he does not sin gravely, generally speaking, because the harm which is inflicted is easily repaired.

c) But he sins in no way if he dismisses those who wish to confess too frequently and without a special reason: for they do not ask reasonably.

d) If a parish priest has suitable assistants, he is not bound so strictly to receive confessions by himself, but can satisfy this office through vicars; unless he is requested by name, or a special necessity of the penitent demands that the confession be heard by the parish priest. Nevertheless it is altogether fitting that parish priests in this matter furnish a good example to vicars, by hearing confessions as often as they are not impeded by graver business.

B. From charity. According to can. 892, § 2: "When necessity is urgent, all confessors are bound by an obligation from charity to hear the confessions of the faithful, and in danger of death all priests."

Thus according to the principles concerning the order of charity.

Hence: 1) If one's neighbor is in danger of death, all priests are bound under grave obligation to hear confession even with a sufficiently great inconvenience for grave necessity, indeed with certain danger of their own life for the extreme spiritual necessity of the neighbor.

If, outside danger of death, one's neighbor is in grave spiritual necessity, confessors furnished with sufficient jurisdiction and accustomed to exercise it are bound under grave obligation, when others are lacking, with some detriment in temporal goods to be prudently estimated; - indeed with grave inconvenience, if there is a common scarcity of confessors.

If a sinful neighbor is in common necessity and asks for confession, the confessor is bound to hear him, provided it can be done without any inconvenience and there is no other who can opportunely be approached.

Therefore, in order that there be present for a simple priest or confessor a grave obligation of hearing confessions with danger to his own life, three things are required: a) that the spiritual necessity of the neighbor be morally certain and therefore that there be no other who can bring help; b) that the hope of absolving the dying person be likewise certain or probable; c) that from the death of the priest greater evils not follow, e.g., the probable damnation of several others, if no other priest is present in this place.

602. In exercising his office, the confessor must regard both the good of the sacrament, and the good of the penitent, and also the public good. - Namely, in order that he may duly perform his office, he must have before his eyes:

The good of the sacrament, so that with great diligence he procure its validity, integrity, and liceity, i.e., its legitimate administration and reception, and the honor of God.

The good of the penitent, so that in the best way possible he may receive the sacrament and its fruit for repairing past sins and guarding against future ones; for the sacraments are for men.

The public good, by taking care lest something less right in the exercise of the office cause scandal or some other evil in the community.

The first is rather to be regarded from the virtue of religion; the second, as also the third, from justice and charity.

But in order to exercise his office perfectly, the confessor has various duties to fulfill before the act, - in the act, - and after the act of confession.

…and 2 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 110 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, CHAPTER I: ON THE POWER OF THE MINISTER

n. ¶1390.

1390. - In order that someone validly absolve, nothing else is required on the part of the one absolving except intention, the power of Order and of jurisdiction; but that he also absolve rightly, licitly, and worthily, probity, knowledge, and prudence are required. Therefore three things are required for the adequate power of the Minister of Penance, namely, 1° the power of Order; 2° the power of jurisdiction; 3° approbation.

I. The power of Order is required, i.e. that which belongs to the Minister by force of ordination, and is intrinsically attached to the priestly character. The reason is that to priests alone was it said by Christ: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. - This is established besides by the manifold definition of the Church.

II. The power of jurisdiction is required, i.e. the power by which a priest, as judge, can pass sentence on certain persons, as being his subjects. This is clear from Trent.

III. Approbation is required for hearing Confessions both licitly and validly, or a declaration of the Ordinary judging juridically concerning the suitability of the priest, or concerning the three gifts just indicated, which are necessary in order that someone absolve rightly, licitly, and worthily. - Trent.

Note. - Even a priest who is not a curate is obliged to render himself fit for hearing Confessions if he is in a place where the inhabitants, on account of a scarcity of confessors, labor under grave spiritual necessity, which today, since the number of priests has been so diminished, and especially in this region, is easily found.

Besides, it is altogether to be advised to parish priests whose subjects cannot easily find another occasion of confessing, except among them, that from time to time they call in some unknown confessors and offer their subjects every liberty of confessing to these; indeed, while strangers are exercising their office, let them not themselves hear Confessions. Thus not rarely invalid Confessions and sacrileges will be prevented. Certainly from this head already the utility of missions appears.

We must treat 1° concerning approbation; 2° concerning jurisdiction; 3° concerning the reservation of cases.

ON APPROBATION.

Approbation, taken nakedly, can be defined: the juridical judgment of a Prelate concerning the suitability of a priest for hearing Confessions.

Hence, for granting approbation, an examination is not essentially required; for a prudent judgment concerning suitability can be had even without an examination, when this is otherwise established.

n. ¶1391.

1391. - I say I. Approbation is required for hearing Confessions both licitly and validly. Thus by force of Trent.

I say II. Only the Bishop can approve, or one who has quasi-episcopal jurisdiction. The reason is that it pertains only to the Prelates of the Church to judge concerning the suitability of Ministers to be deputed for hearing Confessions. This is also clear from Trent cited above. - But the Bishop can approve either by himself or through another delegated by him, because approbation is an act of jurisdiction; but ordinary jurisdiction can be delegated.

According to the present discipline of the Church, together with approbation jurisdiction also is usually conferred by the Prelate upon priests; and therefore in common usage, under the name of approbation, jurisdiction also is comprehended. But formerly, delegated jurisdiction was commonly granted by parish priests, and approbation only by Bishops; which faculty indeed now scarcely has exercise among parish priests, since scarcely now can a priest be found who, together with approbation, has not also already received jurisdiction from the Bishop.

n. ¶1392.

1392. Questions. - Query 1° From what Bishop must approbation be had?

Resp. From the opinion today altogether to be held, approbation must be given by the Bishop of the diocese in which Confessions are to be heard; hence the approbation either of the Bishop of the penitents or of the Bishop of the priests does not suffice. This is clear from the Bull Cum sicut of Innocent XII, April 19, 1700, apud St. Alphonsus, which Bull Benedict XIV confirmed in the Constitution Apostolica indulta.

Query 2° Can someone absolve his own subject in a foreign diocese without the approbation of the Ordinary?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if he has truly personal or ordinary jurisdiction over him. The reason is that whoever by reason of his office has ordinary jurisdiction is considered approved by the law itself for hearing his own subjects everywhere; nor is ordinary jurisdiction, provided it is exercised without judicial stir, bound to place; but unless it is specially restricted, it can be exercised everywhere. - Thus commonly. Hence a Bishop and a parish priest can absolve their subjects outside the parish and diocese without the approbation of the Bishop of the place.

Resp. 2° Neg., if over the penitent there is had only delegated jurisdiction; because this per se is considered merely territorial, not personal, and therefore does not follow the delegate outside the territory.

Query 3° Does presumed approbation suffice?

Resp. Neg. The reason is that from Trent approbation actually and absolutely existing, and already obtained, is required. But for approbation of this kind actual consent declared by some sign is required. Indeed it is not lawful to begin Confessions before that consent, requested by letters, has been received, even if it seems certain to be obtained. - Thus commonly.

A fortiori, ratihabition of approbation even prudently presumed is not valid, because ratihabition has place only in acts whose value can be suspended into the future; but the value of present absolution cannot be suspended; for the value of Sacraments cannot depend on a future action.

Query 4° Can a Bishop validly and licitly limit approbation with respect to a certain time, place, and persons?

Resp. 1° Affirm. as regards validity, even without cause. The reason is that it is an act altogether dependent on the will of the Bishop, as Superior. Hence just as he can validly refuse approbation, so he can grant it only with restriction. This is also clear from the 13th proposition condemned by Alexander VII: He satisfies the precept of annual Confession who confesses to a regular presented to the Bishop, but unjustly reprobated. Therefore the denial of approbation, even an unjust denial, is valid; therefore a fortiori a restriction. - This is also clear from Trent, where it is said: Unless he obtain approbation. But he who obtains it with restriction simply does not obtain it for the cases excluded.... Therefore.

Resp. 2° As regards liceity, distinguish. - A Bishop can indeed restrict or even altogether deny approbation for a just cause, as is evident; because the necessity of approbation was introduced for this end, that the suitable may be separated from the unsuitable. But otherwise if he does this without a just cause.

Query 5° What are the just causes for limiting approbation to a time, etc.?

Resp. They are for the most part the following: 1° if now there is a necessity of having several confessors, which afterward ceases; 2° if the one to be approved indeed has sufficient knowledge, but greater knowledge is deservedly desired for perpetual approbation; 3° if there is a prudent fear lest, after once having perpetual approbation, he neglect study; 4° for trying how he conducts himself in hearing Confessions, namely whether he applies general principles well in practice, etc.

Query 6° Can a Bishop validly and licitly revoke granted approbation?

Resp. 1° Affirm. by reason of validity, if a just cause is present. Otherwise it is controverted. Practically, however, the opinion denying this is scarcely to be judged probable, since for the Bishop there can be innumerable just causes for revoking approbation which are unknown to the confessor.

Resp. 2° By reason of liceity, distinguish. 1° A Bishop can indeed for just causes revoke approbation even granted without limitation; for this follows from the necessity of approbation, which demands that whoever ceases to be suitable be removed from the office. 2° But he cannot revoke approbation without a just cause. For from what has been said, a Bishop cannot deny approbation without a cause; therefore a fortiori he cannot revoke without cause the one granted; since according to the saying: A guest is more disgracefully cast out than not admitted.

Query 7° Can a Bishop approve a foreign priest?

Resp. A Bishop can approve any suitable one actually existing in his diocese, even if only passing through. This is clear from the universal practice and the common opinion of Theologians against a few, who for this require a quasi-domicile, or at least a domicile of habitation in the diocese of the approving Bishop. The reason is that delegation or a mandate can be committed to anyone, provided he is capable. This is clear moreover from the practice which is universally observed in the Church.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, Ch. I, ARTICLE II: ON JURISDICTION

What jurisdiction is, and what its various species are, see n. 149.

n. ¶1393.

1393. Principles. - I. The power of jurisdiction is necessary for hearing Confessions, nor does the power of Order suffice. The reason is that absolution is a judicial sentence, which cannot be passed except on subjects. Therefore subjects must be assigned to the confessor; but this pertains to him who has authority over those subjects. Moreover, this is altogether required for the right governance of the Church. For a very great inconvenience would arise if the faculty of absolving were independent of those to whom it was said by Christ: Whatever you shall bind, ... shall be bound; ... whatever you shall loose, ... shall be loosed. But it is especially clear from Trent.

II. Ordinary jurisdiction belongs: 1° to the Pope for the whole Church in both forums; 2° to the Bishop for his diocese, likewise in both forums, since it has been committed to him precisely that he may rule and direct it; likewise to the Archbishop, while he visits the subjects of his Suffragans; to the Capitular Vicar; to the Vicar General; and, for the internal forum, to the Canon Penitentiary of the Cathedral church; 3° to parish priests for their subjects in the internal forum; 4° to Abbots and Prelates of Regulars for their subjects.

III. Ordinary jurisdiction can be delegated, or exercised through another. The reason is that delegation is a proper act of ordinary power. Cf. n. 150. Nevertheless jurisdiction for hearing Confessions cannot be delegated except to a priest approved by the Bishop, as is clear from what was said above concerning approbation. As regards parish priests, the faculty of delegating has become almost useless; since Bishops, to whom it pertains to approve confessors, are accustomed to confer jurisdiction and approbation together, as was said in n. 1391.

IV. Delegated jurisdiction is granted by the Church to any priest in a case of extreme necessity, or in the article of death, or, as others will have it, the Church then supplies jurisdiction. This is clear from Trent.

V. Delegated jurisdiction for hearing Confessions expires by revocation made by the Superior, or by the lapse of the prefixed time; likewise by the death of the one delegating, or his ceasing from office, if it was given for some particular person and the judgment has not yet been begun; or also if it was given generally, but with the clause: at the will of the one granting; at our good pleasure, or another similar clause. Cf. n. 151.

n. ¶1394.

1394. Questions. - Query 1° What is the jurisdiction of confessors in the Ecclesiastical Provinces of the United States, ordinary or delegated, and to what places does it extend?

Resp. 1° According to those things which we said in n. 1138, the common opinion almost up to this time has been that the jurisdiction of all priests is delegated. Therefore they cannot absolve those committed to them in a foreign diocese. See however T. I. (b), p. 471.

Resp. 2° That ancient custom, that approbation given for the diocese of one of these Provinces would be valid also for the others, which custom had been introduced in the year 1810 by a quasi-pact of the Bishops, has been abrogated.¹

Resp. 3° All priests among us are accustomed to be approved and are considered approved for the whole diocese, "although," as Kenrick rightly observes,² "they ought not to use the faculties committed to them to the burden of others; wherefore, only with the good leave of the Missionary of the place, ought they to hear Confessions outside their Mission."

Query 2° Can delegated jurisdiction be subdelegated?

Resp. Neg., generally speaking, namely, unless a special concession of the one delegating is added; and then it is considered to be subdelegated in the name of the one delegating himself. The reason is that a delegate has only that power which is granted to him; but to him is granted only the power of exercising jurisdiction, not of committing it to another, unless something else is expressed. Therefore, etc. - For exceptions see n. 150.

Query 3° Does the Church supply jurisdiction when penitents invincibly are ignorant of its defect?

Things to be noted beforehand concerning a title of jurisdiction and error concerning it. - A title of jurisdiction in general is an act by which power for performing ecclesiastical functions is conferred.

A title is true or false: it is true when it labors under no vice; but in order that it be true, three things are required: 1° the free power of the one granting; 2° the ability of the one receiving; 3° the due form in the act of concession.

False is that which labors under a vice concerning one of the three things just indicated. It is also called putative relatively to those who, ignorant of its vice, deem it legitimate.

A false title can be either fictitious, or colored, or simply or notoriously null.

Fictitious is that which was not granted by a Superior, or not for the case, or place, or time, or person, concerning which there is question.

Colored is that which was granted by a legitimate Superior, and of itself would be apt for conferring jurisdiction if it were not voided on account of a hidden defect; but that hidden defect can occur: 1° in the one granting. Thus, e.g., if the death of the Bishop were unknown, his Vicar General would have only a colored title; 2° in the one receiving, whether some vice preceded, e.g. hidden irregularity, or excommunication; or whether he was deprived of his title, and this is unknown; 3° in the act, as if hidden simony had intervened, by reason of which the act would be void.

Simply null is that which was granted by a Superior to whom it does not pertain to grant, e.g. by an Archbishop, outside the cases in which the faculty of supplying the negligence of Suffragans is attributed to him; or if it was indeed granted by him to whom it pertains to grant, but labors under a vice manifest to all or almost all.

Error concerning the title can be either common among the faithful, all or almost all of the place where Confessions are heard, or private only of some person.

These things having been noted beforehand:

Resp. 1° The Church certainly supplies if the error is common and at the same time joined with a colored title. The reason is drawn from the common interpretation of Theologians supported by diverse places of the Law. For, as they say, the Church, as a pious mother, is deservedly considered to supply jurisdiction for the good of souls, since she can do this.²

Resp. 2° According to an opinion probable to St. Alphonsus, but whose opposite he says is more common, the Church also supplies if common error is present without a colored title, but with a title only esteemed or fictitious. For the same reason urges as in the preceding case, since also in this hypothesis innumerable souls could perish.³

Resp. 3° The Church is not considered to supply jurisdiction if the error is private, e.g. if it is of one or a few. The reason is that the Church is not considered to supply except by reason of the common good, after the likeness namely of a provider or general governor, who attends only to the general good of society, and leaves the good of private persons to the care of particular providers. - Thus very commonly the Theologians against a few.

Query 4° Is it lawful to absolve with doubtful jurisdiction in a doubt of fact, for example in a case in which it is doubted whether it was truly conferred by the Superior, or whether the time for which it was granted has elapsed?

Resp. Neg., unless there presses the necessity of annual Confession, of celebrating or communicating in order to avoid infamy, of celebrating from obligation, or of absolution from mortal sin otherwise not to be had for a long time; in these cases however only conditionally, with the burden on the penitent of confessing again if he learns that the confessor truly lacked jurisdiction, and with contrition elicited before Communion (n. 1344. q. 8° under 8°).

Query 5° Is it lawful to absolve with jurisdiction probable by probability of law?

Resp. Affirm., provided the opinion is truly probable, supported by grave reason and authority. For in this case custom itself confers jurisdiction, and by force of this custom the confessor, in absolving, would not absolve with only a probable opinion, but with morally certain certitude, not direct, but reflex. - Nevertheless it is not lawful to use this jurisdiction except when a cause of grave necessity or of great utility is present, as Elbel and Wig. say, or a gravely reasonable cause, as St. Alphonsus explains. The reason is that, although in that case, for the good of souls, the Church can well be considered to supply jurisdiction, nevertheless, with no just cause added, she is not presumed to wish to connive at mere freedom of priests.²

Query 6° Do excommunicated persons to be avoided, the suspended, the interdicted, the irregular, the degraded, schismatics, notorious heretics, apostates, etc., validly absolve in danger of death, when another priest is lacking?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that all priests can absolve in the article of death, as is clear from Trent.³

Query 7° Can a simple priest absolve not only in the article, but also in the danger of death?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that there is nearly the same necessity of the penitent in danger and in the article of death. Besides, it is clear from Canon Law that the article and danger of death are taken for the same thing.¹

But danger of this kind is considered present: 1° in a dangerous illness; 2° in time of plague; 3° in a difficult childbirth; 4° in an arduous surgical operation; 5° before a very dangerous navigation; 6° in battle, or in other similar circumstances.²

Query 8° Can a simple priest absolve a dying person, even when an approved confessor is present?

Resp. Doctors disagree among themselves; and St. Alphonsus, after weighing the reasons of each opinion, finally gives his judgment in these words: "Nevertheless, these things notwithstanding," namely the reasons for the affirmative brought by him, "I think one must not depart from the first opinion," namely the negative, which he calls very common, "on account of the authority of the Roman Ritual (On the Sacrament of Penance, near the beginning), where it is said thus: But if danger of death threatens, and an approved (note this) confessor is lacking, any priest can absolve from any censures and sins whatsoever. Therefore simple priests can absolve if an approved confessor is lacking; therefore they cannot if an approved one is present."³

Except: 1° if the approved confessor would not wish or would not be able to hear the Confession, because then it is the same as if he were lacking; 2° if the approved confessor is excommunicated by name, suspended, interdicted, irregular, degraded, a schismatic, notoriously a heretic, an apostate, because then the simple priest is to be preferred; 3° more probably, if the approved confessor were of another diocese, because with respect to the sick person he is by no means called approved; 4° probably, if the dying person so shuddered to manifest his crimes to the approved confessor - because, e.g., he is his enemy, or a blood relative, or the object of sin - that he would be in danger of confessing sacrilegiously; 5° if the sick person could not confess to the approved confessor without great difficulty or inconvenience, thus Mazzotta, alleged by St. Alphonsus and not disapproved; 6° if the approved confessor comes after the Confession with the simple priest has already begun; 7° if the approved confessor is the accomplice of the sick person in a shameful sin.⁴

What the law is, if there is question of reserved sins when one having the faculty is present, see n. 1403. q. 4°.

Query 9° Can a parish priest call in a parish priest of the same or of a different diocese for hearing Confessions in his parish?

Resp. 1° As regards a parish priest of the same diocese, although by force of his office he has special jurisdiction only for his own parish, nevertheless from the almost universal custom he can hear Confessions even in the whole diocese, unless the Bishop decrees otherwise. Nevertheless the proper customs of places must be consulted.

Resp. 2° As regards a parish priest of a different diocese, various opinions are brought, as Benedict XIV says. Those who affirm argue from Trent, because a parochial benefice would serve for universal approbation. Others deny, whose opinion, St. Alphonsus says, receives strength from the Response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, December 3, 1707. - Benedict XIV admits the first opinion in those places where such a custom exists.

Query 10° Can a priest approved by the Bishop hear the Confessions of the faithful without the leave of the parish priest?

Resp. 1° As regards liceity, neg., if Confessions are heard in a Church subject to the parish priest. The reason is that due order altogether requires that, since the parish priest is the immediate Superior in his Church, leave to exercise sacred ministries there be sought from him. Nevertheless the leave of the parish priest is not required for hearing Confessions in the Chapel of Regulars or of Nuns, but the leave of the Superior or Superiorissa of the place suffices.

Resp. 2° As regards validity, it is certain according to all that the license of the parish priest is not required outside the case of annual Confession. Indeed neither is it required for annual Confession, at least per se, or by common law. This is clear from the common doctrine of Theologians against some, and also from the present custom and universal practice of the Church, as Benedict XIV testifies, and as is clear from the declaration of S. C. de P. F., July 2, 1827. - But if somewhere that custom is not in force, nevertheless the Confessions must be held valid, unless the Bishop expressly contradicts; for if he is silent, he seems to consent to the universal custom of the Church.

Query 11° Does a delegate validly and licitly absolve after the elapsed term of a delegation to be renewed every year, e.g. if a crowd of penitents should flow together to some great solemnity?

Resp. 1° He absolves invalidly per se, i.e. by reason of jurisdiction, because in fact he has none. Nevertheless he will probably absolve validly by reason of common error, on account of which the Church is considered to supply for the good of souls.

Resp. 2° The priest sins gravely per se if he knowingly does this; the reason is that he exercises the function of confessor without legitimate authority; and, although then the Church supplies, he is nevertheless guilty because he unduly compels her to supply.

Query 12° Can a priest approved in some place validly hear the Confessions of pilgrims coming there?

Resp. 1° Affirm. absolutely as regards regular confessors, who have this special privilege from the Holy Apostolic See. - See the Constitution Superna of Clement X.

Resp. 2° Also affirm. as regards secular priests; the reason is that such is the custom having force from the tacit consent of Ordinaries, which is equivalent to ratihabition in the present. - Thus the more common Theologians and Canonists.

Query 13° Can a Bishop, under penalty of invalidity, prohibit diocesan subjects from going to confess outside the diocese?

Resp. Negatively, whether they go to confess outside the diocese to regular confessors, who have the privilege of hearing the Confessions of all the faithful coming from anywhere, or whether they confess in another diocese to secular priests. The reason is that, with the present custom of absolving pilgrims standing, these are no longer to be said to be absolved from the tacit consent of their Ordinaries, but from the will of the Church, which, by approving such a custom, grants to all approved confessors jurisdiction over pilgrims presenting themselves at their tribunal, excepting only those who go elsewhere in fraud of reservation. (18) p. 419.

Query 14° Can a simple priest absolve those sailing on the Ocean, or from whom must approbation be obtained?

Resp. 1° He cannot absolve per se, unless in probable danger of death, as was said above; because a priest of this kind outside that case lacks every jurisdiction.

Resp. 2° The approbation of the Bishop of the place whence the ship sets sail is required and suffices, and the faculty endures until it reaches a place where another ecclesiastical Superior possessing jurisdiction has been established. Thus S. C. O., March 17, 1869.

Query 15° Can military Chaplains absolve them everywhere without the approbation of the Bishop of the place?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if they have been specially delegated by the Supreme Pontiff to the spiritual care of soldiers, or by a major Chaplain approved by the Pope.

Resp. 2° But if they lack this special delegation, they can indeed hear Confessions in the diocese of the approving Bishop, and also outside it on the road and in camps from the tacit consent of the Bishops, as is clear from universal custom; nevertheless they cannot validly absolve in stations nor in garrisons without the license of the Bishop of the place, because they have no jurisdiction. This is clear from various Declarations of the Sacred Congregation, which P. Zacharia reports apud Lacroix. See also St. Alphonsus.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, APPENDIX I: ON THE JURISDICTION AND APPROBATION OF REGULARS

Regulars, by reason of privileges and of immediate dependence on the Supreme Pontiff, differ in several things as regards jurisdiction from secular priests. Hence:

n. ¶1395.

1395. - I say I. Regulars properly so called, or those who emit solemn vows and are endowed with the privilege of exemption, and likewise those who communicate with Mendicants in privileges, receive immediately from the Pope jurisdiction for hearing the Confessions both of their own and of seculars. Hence jurisdiction granted to individual religious priests is understood, with the communication or delegation of their own Superior added. - This is clear from the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs in the Corpus Juris; likewise from other Constitutions, which, although afterward modified, especially by Trent, as regards privileges, nevertheless remained irrevoked as regards the substance of jurisdiction. - Thus commonly with Lugo, Lacroix, and Billuart. - There are however those who contradict, especially today, or after the Resolution given by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, March 2, 1866, which we report in n. 1397, q. 8°. This resolution, however, does not seem to others to settle the question, since the proposed doubt regards a Regular having a faculty from the Bishop. Nor indeed, they say, is it thereby excluded that a Regular can draw a faculty also from another source.

I say II. Regulars, for hearing the Confessions of their own, receive approbation together with jurisdiction from the Superiors of their monastery or Order; but for hearing the Confessions of seculars they receive approbation from the Bishop of the place where the Confessions are to be heard. The reason for the first is that Trent required the approbation of the Bishop only for the Confession of seculars, and did not change the ancient discipline as regards the Confessions of Regulars. The reason for the second is clear from the Decree of Innocent XII, in the year 1700, by which it was sanctioned that confessors, whoever they may be, both seculars and regulars, can by no means hear secular penitents without the approbation of the Bishop of the place.

I say III. Regulars cannot confess, at least ordinarily, outside their own Order, without the consent of their Superiors; indeed even in the Monastery, to no one other than the one designated by the Superior himself. But those living outside the Monastery, or making a journey, cannot confess except to a companion, if they have some suitable one; but if they do not have one, they can confess to any suitable priest, whether regular or secular. - These things are clear from privileges which are known to have been granted to all Religions by Innocent IV and by other Supreme Pontiffs.

n. ¶1396.

1396. Resolves. - 1° Although Regulars have jurisdiction from the Pope, nevertheless they have it bound as regards hearing the Confessions of seculars; since for the validity of absolution the approbation of the Bishop, as a condition sine qua non, is required. Thus Trent decreed that "no one, even a regular, can hear the Confessions of seculars, ... unless either he has a parochial benefice, or obtains approbation from the Bishops."

2° If the Bishop expressly granted approbation only for some transitory act, e.g. for performing some Mission, the faculty received is considered to be valid for that act alone, and for every judgment then begun.

3° If the Bishop, or your Superior by his delegation, grants you approbation for a determined class of penitents, the faculty cannot be extended to others, as is evident. But if the request for the faculty from the Bishop or from the Superior is general, and the concession was not restricted, the faculty obtained is not limited to the work which was the occasion of the petition. Thus, e.g., if you seek a faculty on the occasion of giving spiritual exercises to Nuns, in such a convent, from the same faculty received, you can hear also the Confessions of other faithful. The reason is that in a concession is contained whatever is not excepted. Except however reserved cases, which by the law itself are never understood to be comprehended in a general faculty of hearing Confessions.

4° A religious missionary called by the Bishop to perform a Mission in his diocese, by that very fact receives tacit approbation for hearing Confessions during the time of the Mission for which he is called. The same must be said if he was requested by the parish priest or another Superior with the license of the Bishop. Nevertheless he is considered approved only for ordinary cases. Hence in practice recourse must always be had to the Bishop for determining the extension or measure of the approbation.

5° When a religious Superior, by delegation of the Bishop, employs a subject for general works of the Sacred Ministry, with the hypothesis of some special restriction set aside, he is considered to grant him an all-sided faculty for any penitents whatsoever, and for all reserved cases also contained in the episcopal concession; the reason is that he is considered to grant all that which he can and is accustomed to grant, according to the aforesaid rule: In a concession is contained whatever is not excepted.

n. ¶1397.

1397. Questions. - Query 1° Can Regulars outside the house, when a suitable companion is lacking, confess to a priest not approved?

Resp. See n. 1195. G). b).

Query 2° Can a Bishop without cause deny approbation to Regulars?

Resp. Neg. "For," says Pignatelli, "regular confessors do not receive jurisdiction from the Bishop, but from the Supreme Pontiff, and approbation is required only as a condition, that jurisdiction can be exercised. Therefore Bishops cannot prohibit Regulars from absolving at some time."... Nevertheless, if approbation is lacking, even if unjustly denied, jurisdiction also will be lacking. Cf. n. 1392. q. 4°.

Query 3° Can a Bishop approve Regulars with a limitation of time, persons, or places?

Resp. Affirm. This is clear from various Decrees of the Holy See. - See St. Alphonsus. See however n. 1196. 4°.

Query 4° Can a Bishop revoke approbation granted to Regulars?

Resp. 1° He cannot revoke the approbation of all Regulars of the same community without consulting the Sacred Congregation of Bishops. Thus from the Bull Superna. - Except if there is question of regions far distant from the City, and a very grave cause is present; concerning which the Sacred Congregation willed the consciences of Bishops to be gravely burdened.

Resp. 2° But a Bishop can revoke the approbation of individual Regulars in the individual; but if there is question of a Regular approved simply and without any limitation of time, i.e. not for a determined time or at his revocation, will, or good pleasure, and approved after a previous examination, only for a just cause concerning Confession; nevertheless one approved in this way by his Vicar or by predecessor Bishops, and not by himself, he can freely revoke and subject to a new examination for a just cause. Thus from the same Bull Superna.

Query 5° Does a Regular once approved in some diocese need a new approbation if, after changing his habitation, he returns to the same diocese?

Resp. Neg., unless the diocesan statutes or the Bishop establish otherwise. The reason is that one approved indefinitely and without limitation remains approved at least until an implicit revocation of the approbation; but in the present case no revocation has intervened, not even an implicit one. Therefore. - Thus Lacroix, Lugo, with the common opinion.

Query 6° Does a Regular approved in some diocese need a new approbation for validly absolving if, after changing place, he passes through the same diocese?

Resp. Neg., as at q. 5°, because approbation granted indefinitely and without limitation endures until revocation. - Lacroix.

Query 7° Does a Religious validly absolve seculars by delegation of the Bishop, but without the Superior knowing?

Resp. Negatively, if the Bishop intended only to give approbation, and otherwise the Superior is so unaware that he has not given jurisdiction; for then that Religious would have jurisdiction from no one. Affirmatively, however, if the Bishop, as is usually done, intended also to confer jurisdiction. See the following question.

Query 8° Does a Religious validly absolve, with the Superior unwilling, but by delegation of the Bishop?

Resp. 1° Negatively, if the Bishop intended only to give approbation, and otherwise the Superior, who has the power of constituting confessors, is so unwilling that he does not wish to give jurisdiction or removes the jurisdiction given. The reason is clear. For then the Religious has jurisdiction from no one.

Resp. 2° Affirmatively however, if the Bishop intended also to confer jurisdiction, as from present practice is usually done. The reason is that the Bishop can well confer jurisdiction on a Religious, no less than on a secular priest, over his own sheep. For whoever enjoys ordinary jurisdiction can delegate it to any priest. - Billuart, etc.

But that Religious would sin gravely against obedience, because in a grave matter he would transgress the precept of his Superior; nor in that case could he use the privileges which many Religious enjoy, e.g. for absolving from certain censures, unless privileges of this kind had also been communicated to him by the Bishop; because a Religious receives a privilege of this kind only through the Superior himself, who from the hypothesis grants no faculty to the subject.

These things are confirmed by a Declaration which very recently came forth from the Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. For the following doubts having been proposed:

"I. Whether a Religious not approved according to the laws of his own Order by his Superior, or with that Superior unwilling, validly hears the Confessions of seculars with only the faculty of the Ordinary."

"II. Whether Regular Superiors, having jurisdiction, can suspend their subjects from hearing the Confessions of seculars even from informed conscience."

"And, in the affirmative, III. Whether an orally announced suspension, and one announced without writing, is valid."

"IV. Whether absolution imparted by him who is bound by such a suspension is valid."

"And, in the negative, V. Whether one who attempts an absolution of this kind incurs irregularity."

"The Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, the matter having been discussed, on March 2, 1866, responded":

To I. Affirmatively.

To II. Affirmatively; yet so that the suspended Religious hears Confessions illicitly, but not invalidly.

To III. Affirmatively, since it is brought by way of a particular precept.

To IV. Affirmatively.

To V. It has been provided for in the preceding answers.

Query 9° Can Regulars absolve, without the Bishop's approbation, their servants or other domestics living in the monastery?

Resp. See n. 1194. II.

Query 10° Can Regulars absolve pupils living with them, without the Bishop's approbation, as being of the household?

Resp. A twofold opinion is given. See n. 1194. II.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, APPENDIX II: ON JURISDICTION WITH RESPECT TO NUNS

n. ¶1398.

1398. - I say I. Nuns emitting solemn vows and cloistered cannot confess except to a priest specially approved for them by the Bishop, although they may be exempt from the jurisdiction of that same Bishop and subject to Regulars of their own Order; yet in that case the deputation and election of the confessor belongs to the regular Prelate. Thus from the Bull Inscrutabili of Gregory XV and from the Constitutions of the Supreme Pontiffs.

Indeed a confessor approved for one monastery cannot validly hear the Confessions of Nuns of another monastery, unless he was approved in general for Nuns. Clement X confirmed this in the year 1670, in the Bull Superna.

But from the Decree of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, September 20, 1642, the ordinary confessor of Nuns cannot be approved except for a triennium; when this has elapsed, he cannot hear Confessions any longer in the same monastery without the license of the Sacred Congregation. - But a restriction of this kind is not observed everywhere, or even, on account of the lack of confessors who are suitable for hearing the Confessions of Nuns, it cannot be observed, and then the approbation is valid until it is revoked by words or by fact. - But with an Apostolic indult saved, or unless, as was just said, it cannot be done otherwise in some region, the confessor of Nuns ought to be forty years of age; nor are the Vicar General, a Canon or another beneficed cleric obliged to choir, a parish priest, if he is much impeded thereby in carrying out his office, or, if there is question of Nuns subject to the Bishop and of the ordinary confessor, a Regular, to be deputed to that office.

Let the confessor beware lest he conduct himself as Superior of the monastery, since such authority in no way belongs to him. - Thus the Sacred Congregation of Bishops, September 7, 1797. - See Analecta Juris Pontificii.

I say II. Bishops and other Superiors of Nuns are held two or three times a year, even for the Novices themselves, to present an extraordinary confessor. Thus Trent established. - These statutes were confirmed by other Supreme Pontiffs, especially Benedict XIV in the Bull Pastoralis, issued August 5, 1748. Moreover, a particular confessor must be granted to Nuns in the article of death, if they ask, indeed also sometimes in life, if some Nun asks this or refuses to confess to the ordinary; but then for only certain extraordinary occasions the confessor must be deputed. These things are clear from the Bull Pastoralis of Benedict XIV just cited. Nor indeed does Trent prohibit several extraordinary confessors from being placed in charge, or from being offered beyond two or three times. Therefore the sense of the Decree is that they must be granted at least two or three times.

n. ¶1399.

1399. Questions. - Query 1° Are all Nuns held to present themselves to the extraordinary confessor and to confess to him?

Resp. 1° All and each are held to present themselves at least to hear salutary warnings. This is clear from the same Bull of Benedict XIV, and also from an express Declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops on October 19, 1621. But the reason for this disposition is that provision be made for the liberty of Nuns, who perhaps need the ministry of an extraordinary confessor; otherwise fear, or the displeasing of the ordinary confessor, or the falling into suspicion among the other Nuns, would easily prohibit them.

Resp. 2° They are not held to confess to the extraordinary confessor, but it suffices that they present themselves before him, for instance, that they ask his blessing, or receive salutary warnings from him. This is clear from the cited Bull of Benedict XIV. - See St. Alphonsus.

Query 2° What must be held concerning Nuns existing among us?

Resp. 1° As regards the approbation of the confessor, since, with those excepted about whom we spoke in n. 1205. V., the others are prohibited from emitting solemn vows, everything depends on the will of the Bishops. Therefore, unless the Bishop has signified the contrary, their Confessions are validly heard even without special deputation, and the clause: except Nuns, attached to jurisdiction, regards only Nuns strictly so called. But the mind of the Holy See is that even toward Nuns not strictly so called those things be observed by Bishops which are established by common law for those strictly so called in this matter. See Gury, Roman Edition 1873, and the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore.

Resp. 2° As regards the extraordinary confessor, there seems to be for the Bishop and other Superiors an obligation of procuring someone for Nuns among us living in cloister not Papal. The reason is that the end of the law is the same, namely, of providing for liberty of conscience. For if they are obliged to strict cloister, it is fair that they also use the privilege of cloistered Nuns.

Query 3° Is the Bishop held to grant an extraordinary confessor even to pious congregations of women, which are not truly Nuns?

Resp. Benedict XIV earnestly exhorts Bishops to extend to any communities of women the laws of Trent concerning extraordinary confessors of Nuns. - Constitution Pastoralis curae, August 5, 1748, with which several Decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars and the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore agree; indeed the Bishop is held to this in conscience, if those pious women have only one confessor designated by the Superiors, the faculty of calling another having been taken from them.

Query 4° Can cloistered Nuns be absolved by any confessor while by chance they are outside the monastery?

Resp. Affirm. with Lacroix and others. The reason is that the Constitutions Inscrutabili of Gregory XV and of other Supreme Pontiffs, which prohibit Nuns from confessing to another priest than one specially approved by the Bishop for Nuns, do not seem to be understood except of Nuns living in Monasteries; for they suppose that Nuns are always within the cloister. Therefore any confessors, although not approved for Nuns, can absolve Nuns coming to them by accident. Besides, a very great inconvenience would generally be present if travelling Nuns had to confess only to specially approved confessors; for often they would have to lack the Sacraments of Penance and Eucharist. The Response of the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars, August 27, 1852, agrees.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, APPENDIX II: ON JURISDICTI…, ARTICLE III: ON RESERVED CASES

The reservation of cases is a restriction or limitation of jurisdiction, or a denial of the power of absolving from certain sins, the power of absolving from the others being saved. We must treat 1° concerning reservation; 2° concerning the absolution of reserved things.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, APPENDIX II: ON JURISDICTI…, Art. III, § I, Or On The Principle And Nature Of Reservation

n. ¶1400.

1400. Principles. - I. There is given in the Church the power of reserving certain cases or causes of graver crimes, from which inferior confessors cannot absolve without a special faculty. For to the Church, as was said in n. 1392. q. 4°, belongs the power of conferring and limiting jurisdiction; therefore also of reserving cases. - Besides, this is clear from the definition of Trent.

II. The power of reserving sins belongs only to those who have jurisdiction in the internal forum and, today at least, also in the external. The reason is that it pertains to those alone who can confer jurisdiction over the society of the faithful to limit the same.

Hence: 1° the Pope can reserve cases in the whole Church; 2° Bishops in their own diocese; which reservation, according to the common opinion and the opinion truer to St. Alphonsus, is valid even as regards non-exempt Nuns, since they are not excepted in the law. Whether it is also valid as regards exempt Nuns in exempt matter is disputed probably on both sides; 3° others having episcopal jurisdiction, with respect to their own subjects.

III. Three things are required, from the custom of the Church, in order that a sin be considered reserved, namely, that it be 1° grave internally and externally; 2° consummated in its own species, and hence those favoring a homicide do not incur its reservation, since they have not consummated it, nor those committing imperfect sodomy incur the reservation of sodomy, since they have not consummated it in its own species; 3° so certain that no prudent doubt remains whether it has been perpetrated; whether it is internally and externally grave; whether it is consummated in its own species; whether it is comprehended under the reservation. The reason is that only external crimes are wont to be reserved, and indeed the graver and more atrocious; and hence it must be externally and internally grave - and because reservation, as being odious, is to be interpreted strictly, and hence it must be consummated in its own species and certain.

IV. Reservation affects the confessor immediately, and the penitent mediately; because it immediately touches the power of the confessor and restricts it.

Moreover, most episcopal cases are reserved simply, without censure; but papal cases almost all have censure, and are reserved principally on account of the censure, so that in them the censure is reserved immediately, and the sin itself mediately or accessorily. Hence in papal cases, when the censure is reserved, the sin also remains reserved; but, contrariwise, when the censure is removed, e.g. because it was unknown, neither is the sin reserved, because when the object of reservation is removed, i.e. the censure, the sin now does not remain reserved. - But the cases reserved to the Pope without censure are two: the first, namely concerning him who receives gifts from Regulars strictly so called of either sex (from the Constitutions of Clement VIII and Urban VIII. - See St. Alphonsus, H. A. Tr. XIII. 8. 9); the second, if someone wickedly, by himself or through others, denounces an innocent confessor concerning solicitation (from the Constitution of Benedict XIV).

Concerning reservation to be made by Bishops, those things opportunely occur which we have apud Benedict XIV, and of which this is nearly the sum:

a) Let it be extended only to a few cases, and

b) to only the more atrocious and graver crimes, whose reservation may contribute to retaining Christian discipline, and may yield to edification, not to destruction; lest otherwise, with the power of confessors restricted, an effect contrary to the pious mind of Holy Mother Church follow. Therefore let it not comprehend cases which, although they induce mortal sin, nevertheless turn upon things of small moment and are wont to occur frequently among the unlearned, such as cases of damage given and similar things. Hence also in reserving carnal sins much circumspection must be used, on account of the danger of scandals, especially among those persons on whom, on account of frequent return to the confessor, something of suspicion could fall.

c) Let it not be superfluous, and therefore let it not comprehend those cases which are specially reserved to the Holy See, nor those in which absolution is not conferred unless with restitution or execution of those things to which the penitent is held.

d) Let it not promiscuously, i.e. not except on account of frequent scandal or another necessary cause, be extended to those things to which by Law a major excommunication has been imposed, whose absolution is reserved to no one.

n. ¶1401.

1401. Questions. - Query 1° Does ignorance of reservation or of the censure to be incurred from it excuse?

Resp. 1° Affirmatively as regards censure, because in it the character of penalty is especially considered, which is inflicted only on the contumacious; and this whether the ignorance is of fact, e.g. that such a book was written by an apostate or heretic to defend heresy, or of law, i.e. of the censure or law, whether divine or ecclesiastical, provided however it is not gross; although even this excuses if in the decree of censure there is read: who shall have done this knowingly, or deliberately, or rashly, or who shall have presumed. Concerning this matter more broadly where there will be speech about Censures, n. 1664. q. 2°. q. 3°.

Resp. 2° As regards reservation, it is controverted. The more common opinion denies, to which St. Alphonsus subscribes; the reason is that reservation restricts the power of the confessor, whom it immediately affects, as was said in n. 1400. IV.; therefore whether the penitent had knowledge of the reservation or did not have it, the power of the priest remains restricted.

Query 2° Does ignorance at least excuse from reservation when it is joined with censure?

Resp. 1° Affirm. for papal cases, because papal cases, with the two excepted about which in n. 1400, are reserved on account of the censure, from which ignorance excuses, as was just said. Therefore, when the censure is removed, no reservation remains.

Resp. 2° More truly, Neg. for episcopal cases; because in these reservation is principally and per se considered, to which sometimes a censure is annexed as a circumstance, for this end, that sinners may be more deterred from sin. Nevertheless this must be understood concerning the cases which, not indeed Common Law, but Bishops themselves reserve to themselves.

Query 3° Can the subject of another diocese be absolved if the case is reserved only in the place of Confession?

Resp. Neg. according to the more common opinion and the opinion by far more probable to St. Alphonsus, because reservation immediately regards confessors. Sacred Penitentiary, November 21, 1873. (K) p. 408.

Query 4° Can the subject of another diocese be absolved when the sin is reserved in his own diocese, but not in the place of Confession?

Resp. 1° He can be absolved by Regulars by force of the privilege granted to them in the Constitution Superna of Clement X.

Resp. 2° As regards secular Confessors, the very common and truer opinion affirms. The reason is that the universal custom so has it. - Except in either case, unless someone from his own diocese has gone to another principally and solely in fraud of reservation.

Query 5° Can regular Prelates or Superiors reserve cases in their own Order or Monastery?

Resp. They can reserve only some determined by Clement VIII, which are eleven in number and can be seen apud St. Alphonsus. But they can in no way reserve others without the consent of the general Chapter for the whole Religion, and of the provincial Chapter for the whole Province.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, APPENDIX II: ON JURISDICTI…, Art. III, § II. On The Absolution Of Reserved Things

n. ¶1402.

1402. Principles. - I. Those can absolve from reserved cases by ordinary power: 1° those reserving them themselves; 2° their successors in the same power; 3° their Superiors.

II. Bishops, or their delegates, can absolve:

1) Where Trent has been received, from hidden papal cases, except however those which are reserved to the Roman Pontiff in a special manner in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis. This is clear from the Constitution itself, § Firmam tamen. See p. 361.

2) From papal cases, even notorious or public, all the faithful who on account of a legitimate impediment cannot approach the Apostolic See, lest from delay of absolution danger threaten souls. This is clear from Canon Law.

But absolution in this case is given directly, i.e. so that reservation ceases perpetually, if an impediment of this kind is perpetual. But the following are considered detained by a perpetual impediment: 1. Women, unless they are expressly noted by censure, as Nuns violating cloister. 2. Sexagenarians. 3. The sick with grave and rather long-lasting illness, such as quartan fever and the like. 4. Religious, even as regards censures incurred before entrance into Religion. For they can be absolved by their prelates or the delegate of these, except for enormous striking (n. 1753. q. 2°. R. 2°) of a Cleric. 5. The impubes, even if they ask absolution after attaining puberty. 6. Sons of a family. 7. Those condemned to perpetual prison. 8. Those bound by the care of feeding a family or administering its goods, or of bearing a public office which cannot be left without public detriment. 9. Those living collegially, such as soldiers, seminarians, etc. 10. The poor, who are not wandering beggars. 11. All others who cannot go to Rome without grave temporal or spiritual harm to themselves or their own. All these are considered perpetually impeded, unless a founded hope is present that within ten years, or according to others five years, they will be able to go easily to Rome; nor are they then held to approach Rome by letters or through a procurator. The same faculty, in the same circumstances, belongs to any confessor if the penitent is perpetually impeded from approaching the Bishop.

If the impediment is not perpetual, but long-lasting, i.e. at least for a half-year, the Bishop can absolve, with the burden on the penitent and with an oath given by him, in the internal forum a promise, of approaching the Pope or one having faculty from him, to receive his mandates, and this under penalty of reincidence (p. 316. col. 1. 3°). But if he cannot approach even the Bishop for a half-year, he will be able to be absolved by any confessor, with the burden as above.

3) The faculties of our Bishops, see p. LXXI. n. 15. 16.

III. Any Confessor, even a Regular, cannot absolve from cases properly episcopal unless he has received the faculty from the Bishop himself, even if he could absolve from any cases whatsoever reserved to the Pope. - Thus Clement X in the Bull Superna.

IV. There is no reservation in either the article or danger of death. Nevertheless it is required that he who is then in possession of himself: a) ask Absolution (but see n. 1672. q. 4°). b) Repair scandal (ib. q. 7°. q. 8°). c) First satisfy the injured party, unless this party could and wished to remit the reparation of injury, or refused a just one, or unless the one to be absolved was perpetually unable to satisfy; or, if he cannot do this then, furnish sufficient caution, or at least, if he cannot even furnish this then, swear that he will satisfy as soon as he can (ib. q. 9°). d) If censure, reserved to the Bishop or in a special manner to the Pope, is annexed to the reserved sin, from which a priest cannot absolve, he swear, in the internal forum promise, that he will present himself to a superior having the faculty, if he recovers; otherwise he falls again into the same censure. e) If there is question of a grave crime, before absolution he swear, in the internal forum promise, not to fall again.

n. ¶1403.

1403. Questions. - Query 1° Can a simple confessor sometimes absolve from reserved things, even outside the danger of death?

Resp. Affirm., if the Bishop or one having the faculty cannot easily be approached, and on the other hand there is present either 1° danger of infamy or scandal from the omission of the celebration of Mass or Communion, or 2° necessity of fulfilling the paschal precept, or 3° fear lest the penitent remain for a long time in mortal sin. Nevertheless, if the impediment is not long-lasting, that absolution can be given only ad effectum, i.e. so that, notwithstanding the reservation either of sin or of censure, which is afterward to be removed by the Superior, he can now be absolved, communicate, or celebrate. If it is long-lasting or perpetual, see n. 1402. II. 2). But if the penitent has no other mortal sins than reserved sins, and, as ordinarily happens, doubts concerning perfect contrition, he is held to accuse either some venial sin, or a mortal sin otherwise confessed, or even the reserved sin itself, if in this he is a recidivist, or in a proximate occasion of relapsing into it.

Query 2° How besides is reservation removed?

Resp. 1° It is removed indirectly, with the burden of supplying, if someone in good faith has made a valid Confession before one not having the faculty, provided he subjects another non-reserved sin to the keys.

Resp. 2° It is removed directly: a) Excepting a jubilee, through a Confession, even one null or even sacrilegious, yet made to one having the faculty, and in which the reserved sin is accused.

b) Through a valid Confession made to one having the faculty, although the penitent forgets the reserved case, yet inculpably. Thus St. Alphonsus as probable, except the case in which it is positively presumed that, if the one having the faculty had heard the sin, he would have deferred absolution.

c) Through the Confession of a doubtfully reserved sin made to one not having the faculty, even if afterward it is known as certainly reserved. Therefore in this case afterward he is not held to approach the Superior or one having the faculty.

Query 3° Is one having reserved and non-reserved sins held in Confession to accuse also the reserved sins?

Resp. Neg., probably, per se. The reason is that otherwise he would be held to confess those sins twice, namely to the inferior and to the Superior. I said: per se, or unless he is a recidivist in the reserved sin, or in a proximate occasion of relapsing into it, as was said above at q. 1°.

Query 4° Can an inferior absolve a dying person from reserved things when the Superior is present?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if the cases are purely reserved. The reason is that in the article of death there is no reservation.

Resp. 2° Neg. as regards things reserved by the Bishop with censure; because since the dying person, if he recovers, is held to approach the Superior as soon as possible, he is to be absolved by this one if he is present. (8) p. 393.

Query 5° Is the leave of the Superior required for absolving a dying person from cases with reserved censure, if it can be sought by letters or through a procurator?

Resp. Neg., according to the more common and more probable opinion, both on account of the danger of manifestation, and because anyone who cannot personally approach the Superior is considered legitimately impeded.

Query 6° Can the Superior absolve the penitent from reserved sins, and send him back to the inferior for absolution from the non-reserved?

Resp. This does not seem improbable in a case, certainly very rare, in which the Superior a) could not free himself from some very grave business, b) judged it necessary to hear the reserved sin personally, and c) the penitent was under a necessity of communicating and did not wish to confess the same sins twice.

Query 7° Can pilgrims be absolved from episcopal censures which they incurred in their own diocese?

Resp. Neg., if there is question of public censures or censures inflicted ab homine by a particular sentence. Otherwise affirm. Cf. however n. 1401. q. 4°. R. 2°. (19) p. 419.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, APPENDIX I: ON THE ABSOLUTION OF ONE'S OWN ACCOMPLICE IN A SHAMEFUL SIN

n. ¶1404.

1404. - I. No confessor can absolve his own accomplice, i.e. an associate and participant in a shameful sin. This is clear from the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV, June 1, 1741. - Likewise from another Constitution of the same Pontiff: Apostolici muneris, February 8, 1745.

II. A Confessor lacks all jurisdiction for absolving an accomplice as regards the sin of which he was a participant. This is inferred from the express words of the Bull, in which it is said: "Moreover there is removed from him by the law itself any authority and jurisdiction whatsoever for absolving any person whatsoever from a fault of this kind."

n. ¶1405.

1405. Questions. - Query 1° What comes under the name of shameful sin?

Resp. Every grave sin against the Sixth Precept of the Decalogue, even if it has not been consummated by copula; indeed even if it is only a shameful touch or look, or speech, as today is certain.

But it is required that on each side there be a certainly mortal sin, not only internal, but also external, insofar as mutual, or externally manifested at the same time on each side.

Query 2° Under the name of accomplice do not only women, but also men, come?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that the words of the Bull are altogether general; for in it it is said: "Who shall dare to hear the Sacramental Confession of a person who is an accomplice in a shameful sin against the Sixth Precept." Therefore the disposition of the Constitution is not to be restricted to the female sex. - Thus commonly.

Query 3° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in the article or danger of death?

Resp. Affirm., if another priest cannot be called who can perform the function of confessor; but otherwise if another priest is present, even one not approved, who can hear the Confession.

Query 4° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in death, if another cannot be called or approach without infamy or scandal?

Resp. Affirm. Nevertheless the priest-accomplice is held to prevent such dangers of infamy or scandal, if he can, e.g. by departing under some pretext, etc. Otherwise he will not evade the penalties, although the absolution is valid. This is clear from the Constitution of Benedict XIV.

Query 5° Can a priest absolve an accomplice in death, if the latter refuses to confess to another?

Resp. Affirm., if otherwise he is disposed, namely lest he perish, or at least lest his eternal salvation be endangered. Cf. n. 1402. IV.

Query 6° Can a priest absolve an accomplice from other sins foreign to himself, after that one has once been absolved by another from his own sin?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that he lacks jurisdiction over this penitent only as regards the sin of which he himself was a participant; therefore, when that sin has been blotted out through absolution imparted by another, the prohibition now ceases, nor is jurisdiction lacking. - Except: I. if the penitent was absolved from this sin by another confessor, either 1) only indirectly, e.g. on account of inculpable forgetfulness of the said shameful sin, or 2) invalidly. II. If that priest has been absolved from the censures and penalties which he incurred on account of the attempted absolution of an accomplice by force of the faculty reported at p. LXXI. Note 2, under the burden, namely, of altogether abstaining from hearing the Confessions of the accomplice. - Nevertheless the absolution which the confessor, absolved with this burden, had given would not by the law itself be invalid; for from precisely this, that the law or precept of a Superior prohibits some act from being done, unless it expresses that by that very fact it also wishes it to be done voidly and nullly, the act must not be considered null in conscience. III. According to some, if the penitent again confesses to the accomplice that very sin itself from which complicity arises, as sufficient matter, without adding another matter; for the words, they say, of the Constitution are altogether peremptory. Thus Pruner and Acta. Yet this exception, although it is usefully alleged here, does not pertain to the question. St. Alphonsus does not treat this precise question.

But truly, if any shame remains in a priest who through pitiable frailty has perpetrated a shameful sin with another, if any honor due to the Sacrament, he will never afterward hear the Confession of the accomplice. Moreover, the danger of a new fall, or at least of grave temptation in the direction of such a penitent, can easily be present. Therefore the faithful are to be turned away, as far as can be done, so that afterward, with the case of necessity set aside, they never approach a confessor who is an accomplice of sin. See the same warning given in n. 1365. q. 4°.

n. ¶1406.

1406. - Resolves: 1° A Confessor invalidly absolves a penitent:

a) With whom he agreed about seducing a woman, although afterward he did not seduce her; because it is verified that this penitent is an associate of an iniquitous agreement against chastity.

b) From whom he heard only shameful conversations, if he showed that they pleased him; because by exteriorly taking complacence in them he participated in them, and therefore is an accomplice of shameful sin.

c) With whom he sinned against chastity before he was a priest or cleric; because it is always true that he is an accomplice, and therefore all jurisdiction is removed from him. Sacred Penitentiary apud Haringer.

d) An impubes accomplice; because the prohibition made to a confessor of absolving an accomplice does not have the character of reservation, since the power of absolving is removed from him, not from other confessors; nor is it certain that impuberty exempts from reservation.

2° A Confessor validly absolves:

a) A girl whom he shamefully touches while sleeping or resisting, or by whom he is touched while sleeping or resisting, although he altogether ought not hear her, lest he cast himself into the danger of sinning more gravely or formally; because he does not absolve from a sin of complicity.

b) A woman with whom there intervened a kiss given in passing, or a momentary touch of the hands or respectable parts from play or levity. - The same holds if the confessor takes hold of a girl by the hand, arm, or neck, and he indeed undergoes venereal delight on his own part, even externally declared, if he excites none in the penitent. The same, if a priest were to induce a woman to believe that there is no sin if she allowed herself to be shamefully touched by him; and she, deceived by him, in good faith allowed herself to be shamefully touched, without sinning formally. For in these cases either a certainly mortal sin is not present, or it is not present on each side.

c) Resolve the same if the motion, however carnal, and arising on each side, is personal to each and respectively unknown. The reason is that, in order that there be a sin of an accomplice, unity of time in which each sins does not suffice, but moral unity of action is required, or communication in one action morally.

d) Resolve the same if there is question of a mortal sin internally or externally doubtful, and this whether it is thus doubtful on the part of each or on the part of one of the two.

Note. - Saving a better judgment, we altogether dissent from some who opine that an accomplice is validly absolved if he were absolved inadvertently; for Benedict XIV, requiring presumption (see n. 1401. q. 1°. R. 1°), requires it not so that the absolution be null, but so that excommunication be incurred. - Nor do we agree with those who think that an accomplice forgetting the sin of complicity inculpably, or placed in any necessity whatsoever other than that which arises from danger of death, can be validly, although only indirectly, absolved; for the case of an accomplice is not properly a reserved case, but a case in which all jurisdiction over the accomplice is taken away from the confessor, with only the danger of death excepted; but an exception confirms the rule.

Concerning the excommunication which one absolving an accomplice incurs, see in the Treatise on Censures, n. 1715.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, APPENDIX II: ON SOLICITATION IN CONFESSION

n. ¶1407.

1407. - I. When this crime of solicitation exists. - Here there is question of the abuse of the Sacrament of Penance for shameful things, - but not of the abuse of other Sacraments for shameful things, nor of the abuse of the same Sacrament of Penance for other sins, even very grave ones (see Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 10. 11. p. LXI.). But the obligation of denouncing solicitors seems to have been imposed on account of this venereal matter alone, because, on account of the frailty of nature, this solicitation can happen more frequently and there can exist a greater danger of consenting to it.¹ Now it is asked: A) What is understood by the dishonest and shameful things to which solicitation is made? B) By what act is solicitation completed? C) What sort of nexus must intervene between solicitation and the Sacrament of Penance, so that truly and according to the mind of the legislator the solicitation is an abuse of the Sacrament?

n. ¶1408.

1408. - Ad A). By dishonest and shameful sins, to which solicitation is made, are understood all external lustful acts or acts of luxury, to which also pertain acts which either from their own nature, or from the particular disposition of the accomplice, or from the intention of the one acting, otherwise sufficiently manifested (e.g. by a sign or word³), are inductive to a vehement commotion of the genital spirits.² One soliciting only to acts venially dishonest, and therefore not venereal (for in these there is not smallness of matter. See n. 484. 485 and Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 3. p. LX.), is not to be denounced, because solicitation must be a grave sin. Except if from the circumstances it were certainly conjectured that the priest, by an act evil of itself lightly, had had the mind of proceeding to grave things.⁴

A Confessor consenting only to a woman soliciting him in Confession is in no way exempted from the sin of dishonest dealing in the confessional, and therefore, as guilty of solicitation to shameful things in Confession, etc., must be denounced by the penitent by whom he was solicited, and this although he immediately ceased to speak of that shameful matter, deferring its complement to another time and not giving absolution to the penitent;¹ likewise although, induced by fear, he consented to the solicitation, and a fortiori when the confessor and penitent solicited each other mutually,² for instance when the confessor, solicited to one species of shamefulness, solicited the penitent to another.

Notes near nn. 1407-1408 (printed p. 143; left-column note sequence).

1 L. VI. 684. | 2 Amort. Tr. XIII. § 24. q. 5. | 3 e.g. by a rather flattering word. | 4 L. VI. 554 sub 3. 683.

n. ¶1409.

1409. - Ad B). Solicitation to shameful things is present if a confessor (or even a priest lacking jurisdiction, but here in Confession³) solicits either a male or a female to sin either with himself or with another; nor does it matter whether he solicits the penitent himself, or, through the penitent as mediator, some other person. Moreover, solicitation of this kind on the part of the confessor can be made either immediately, e.g. by obscene words, or mediately, as by a note afterward to be read by the penitent;⁴ and it must be held as completed whether the penitent is in fact drawn into sin or resists, provided a means apt for enticing to dishonest acts is placed;⁵ nor does it matter whether the means applied is evil in itself or indifferent, provided afterward from the circumstances it is known that this was employed for soliciting, for instance if the confessor with this intention commands a woman to wait for him at home, or with this same intention asks her where she lives.⁶

n. ¶1410.

1410. - Ad C). But solicitation of this kind, in order that it be an abuse of the Sacrament, must have, in the manner determined by law, some relation intervening either between itself and Confession, or between itself and the place where Confessions are heard.⁷

a) The relation required to Confession is present if the solicitation is made:

1) In the act of sacramental Confession begun, although not perfected; or

2) Immediately before it, i.e. with nothing intervening between it and the solicitation. To one using the request for Confession as a means of soliciting, apply what is to be said under 4); or

3) Immediately after, namely when after Confession neither the confessor nor the penitent turns aside to other things, so that the solicitation happens before any other action intervenes, - or if the confessor immediately after Confession leads a boy into a room and solicits him, because then he immediately places, if not the solicitation, at least its means; (20) p. 419. or

4) On the occasion of Confession (true). e.g. if the confessor, having been asked or inducing to Confession, turns aside and solicits, although he has not yet sat down, nor the woman knelt, and this although he has been asked only by the woman to hear her Confession on the following day, provided nevertheless that then the solicitation is made in the Confessional or in the place of Confession or under the pretext of Confession (see Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 4. p. LX.), - or if, on account of knowledge had in the woman's Confession, he should solicit her afterward at home, provided that from indications it is sufficiently clear that he was moved to this by that knowledge, not by other causes; (21) p. 419. or

5) Under the pretext of Confession (fictitious), if the confessor from an evil end fictitiously invites a woman to Confession and then solicits her, or persuades a woman that, pretending herself sick, she should summon him to sin. (22) p. 419.

b) A relation to the place where Confessions are heard will be present if the prohibited acts are exercised:

1) In the confessional properly so called.

2) In any place whatsoever where Confessions are customarily heard, although a confessional is not found there.

3) In any place whatsoever which the confessor at his own choice has chosen for hearing Confessions; and thus even in a field, etc.

But in order that the obligation of denouncing arise on account of the circumstances narrated under b), it is necessary that simulation of Confession be added, i.e. the confessor and penitent must act in such a way that the former seems to hear the confession (e.g. by applying his ears), the latter to make it. Hence he is not to be denounced who, sitting in the confessional, solicits a woman standing before the confessional, without simulating Confession. See Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 15. p. LXI. - Yet this simulation is not required if he solicits in the confessional a person who likewise is found in it; for in order to denounce it suffices that he himself in the confessional treats of shameful matters, without simulating that he hears Confession. (23) p. 419.

Notes near nn. 1408-1410 (printed p. 143; right-column note sequence).

1 S. Off. T. I. p. LX. 2, and p. LXII. 2. | 2 S. Off. p. LX. 8. 9. | 3 Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 5. p. LX. Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867 sub. 2. p. LXII. | 4 Prop. 6 condemned by Alex. VII, p. XIII. Cf. Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 1. p. LX. | 5 Viva, theol. trutina damn. thes. 6. n. 7. | 6 L. VI. 676. | 7 Ib. 676-680.

n. ¶1411.

1411. - II. The obligation of denouncing does not bind, as is clear of itself, the one soliciting, nor is he held to warn the one solicited by him of that obligation. It must be made to the Holy See or to the Ordinary. But the end of denunciation is:

1) That, if the person denouncing is otherwise a very honorable person and worthy of faith, and not suspect of any malice, revenge, or enmity, or of subornation, and the one denounced is otherwise a man of little fear, a denunciation of this kind may render the denounced one suspect, so that he may be watched by the Ordinary. Cf. Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867 sub. 11. p. LXIV.

2) That, if otherwise greater indications concur on the part of the one denounced, e.g. otherwise suspect conversation, they may furnish the Ordinary with a motive, the first time, for employing a paternal warning, by which indeed he does not impute the crime, but exhorts to caution, yet in such a way that he does not render the person denouncing suspect to the one denounced. For "for the most part" it is the custom "not to proceed" to trial "except from the third denunciation." Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867 sub. 11. p. LXIV.

Hence the adequate end of the law is understood: namely, the Pontiff intends the punishment of the guilty party rather than his amendment, in order, that is, to repair the harm to the Church and the scandal,¹ or, as Amort says, the end is not the amendment of a particular person, but the public security of the Sacrament and of souls, from the certain chastisement of so abominable a crime, and from the unavoidable fear of all confessors of incurring very grave punishments, even by one act or only once repeated; indeed also the indemnity of the Church, namely lest pests of this kind creep into public offices, than which nothing is more harmful to the common good of the Church.²

Wherefore:

a) Each and every person solicited is altogether held to denounce, nor is he exempted from the obligation of denouncing because another has denounced.

b) A Confessor must be denounced again if he offends again, after he has been punished on account of the first crime, or has not been fully convicted concerning solicitation.

c) The penitent is held to denounce the solicitor, even if from fraternal correction he hopes for his amendment; indeed, according to St. Alph., even if he has certainly been amended.

d) Denunciation must be made even if the solicitation cannot be juridically proved, or the crime is occult, or was perpetrated a long time ago. Nor can it be said that so late a denunciation can have no effect; for perhaps it will serve for the complement of other preceding denunciations concerning the same confessor, or with other indications for closing the door to dignities against hypocrites of this kind, or at least for the perpetual terror of the confessor, lest by repeated solicitation he complete the measure of sins, since solicitations "committed even a long time before can sometimes be called before the tribunal." But after the solicitor has departed from life, he is not to be denounced, because then the total end of the law ceases, namely both the amendment and the punishment of the guilty party.

e) There must also denounce, but today no longer under excommunication, every witness of this delict, whether by sight or by hearing, and whoever (apart from the case of advice having been asked) has learned the solicitation immediately or mediately from the sayings of the solicitor himself, or of the person solicited (provided this one is worthy of faith), outside Confession.

f) The person solicited or conscious of the solicitation is not excused from denunciation on account of difficulties intrinsic to the denunciation and almost common, such as the shame of the solicited one; fear of suspicion that will arise against oneself in the judge; danger of inconvenience or harm, which is slight relatively to the person denouncing and to the harms probably to be feared for the Church and for souls, or even danger of grave harm, but which is not probable: for these are not of such a kind that they give place to epikeia.

n. ¶1412.

1412. - Practice of the Confessor. a) If it is doubted whether the deed or saying of the confessor was true "solicitation," the penitent is not to be obliged to denunciation, unless either 1) vehement indications of solicitation are added, or 2) the words of themselves present solicitation, and it is only doubted whether the confessor uttered them for an evil end... See the application of this rule in Resp. S. C. O. a. 1661 ad Dub. 12. 16. p. LXI.

b) Before the Confessor obliges the person solicited to denunciation, which is the condition of absolution, he must seriously weigh whether this person merits belief; because, if there is a grave, just, and very probable suspicion, strengthened by several indications, that she, led by hatred, wishes to calumniate some priest, she would not be obliged to denunciation, but rather would have to be rebuked for her malice. But in every case the person solicited is to be instructed concerning the very great crime reserved to the Supreme Pontiff alone, which she would commit through a false denunciation.

c) Let confessors altogether abstain from inquiring the name of the solicitor, although they are held to question the penitent concerning circumstances that must necessarily be known.

d) But if the confessor certainly knows that the penitent has been solicited, he is held diligently to warn her, although she is existing in good faith (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 3. p. LXII.), concerning the obligation of denouncing, even if he certainly foresees that the solicited one is not going to denounce. - He should also indicate the mode of denunciation more accommodated to the circumstances of the person, place, and time. On this matter Amort gives the following rules: 1) When the Bishop or Vicar General (of the place in which the penitent is staying, says Kenrick) is in the vicinity, so that he can easily be approached by the person solicited herself, she is held to denounce the solicitor in her own person, and to say that N. N., a Priest, Pastor, Religious, solicited her to shameful things in the Sacrament of holy Confession. 2) If the Ordinary cannot conveniently be approached on account of distance or another cause (e.g. the illness of the solicited one, etc.), the person solicited is held to denounce the solicitor by letter, with her own and the solicitor's name written; but letters of this kind are to be transmitted with altogether such caution and security that no prudent fear remains concerning their loss. 3) If the person solicited cannot denounce even by letter, she is held to approach the rural dean, or a confessor, or another prudent man, who in her name may write to the Ordinary, or, through the Sacred Penitentiary or the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, to the Holy See (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 7. p. LXIII.). Yet "regularly it is not expedient that the confessor take upon himself this burden of carrying the denunciation in place of the penitent, or of receiving it... Besides, we do not deny that in some case, for instance, if somewhere public harm were imminent, nor another way were open for avoiding it, the confessor could be obliged from the law of charity to undertake a burden of this kind; but this will rarely happen."

When a denunciation of this kind has been made, the Ordinary will write back to some ecclesiastical man, in whose prudence he trusts, that he may receive the testimony of the solicited one under oath, and may remit it with his own testimony concerning the honesty and fitness of the one denouncing to the Ordinary. And in this way the act of denunciation will be completed.

e) Therefore denunciation is never to be made anonymously, and indeed must always be directed personally to the Bishop or to the Vicar General, not to the office of the Ordinariate.

Let confessors diligently take care that they not impart Sacramental absolution to solicited penitents, unless, first bringing the denunciation to effect, they have indicated the delinquent to the competent judge. For since denunciation is a very arduous thing, the confessor must not show himself too credulous toward the promises of the penitent, and the solicited regularly cannot be absolved unless denunciation has first been made: but if there is an impediment to making the denunciation immediately, they must at least be prepared to denounce as soon as possible; otherwise they sin gravely and incur excommunication. But an impediment will be present if there is a just cause (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 5. p. LXII.) for deferring it, - namely if the Bishop, Vicar General, etc., are far distant, or if there is necessity of communicating in order to avoid scandal or gain a jubilee, - and the person can be believed, that she is going to denounce. But if the penitent is not a faithful and God-fearing person, concerning whom it can be believed that she will satisfy her obligation, - or, even if one could not rightly doubt concerning the person's firm purpose of denouncing immediately, nevertheless there would be no grave inconvenience in deferring absolution, - she will have to be stimulated to making the denunciation as soon as possible by a delay of absolution.

f) If a person certainly solicited has refused denunciation, the confessor must inquire into the cause of the refusal, and, insofar as he can, remove it. In order, e.g., to remove from those denouncing the fear of infamy, he will be able to say: A woman denouncing is not received by the ecclesiastical judge as an accomplice, but as a witness; nor is she held to manifest her own consent; indeed she cannot even be questioned by the judge concerning it; but if from simplicity she declares that she consented, this is not noted in the records (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 6. p. LXIII.). Nor is there danger of infamy for the one denouncing; because, if the confessor denounced, in order to diminish his own delict before the judge, were voluntarily to confess that he had performed dishonest acts with the person denouncing and with her consenting, the judge does not give faith to the confessor, but rather believes that he says this in order to evade judgment or lessen the penalty. On the other hand the woman is not held to manifest her own consent, nor does the judge concern himself with it.

If the penitent, on account of gifts received or to be received, says that she is impeded from denouncing by gratitude or necessity, or adduces other insufficient excuses, the confessor should seriously warn her concerning the gravity of sacrilege, concerning the obligation of obeying ecclesiastical laws enacted for preventing the greatest scandals and harms, - and also concerning the penalty of excommunication, which the person solicited incurs by the fact itself if, without legitimate cause, she does not denounce the solicitor as soon as possible (i.e. within a month), - and he should not easily admit those things which persons of this kind are accustomed to adduce, that they may be freed from the burden of denunciation. But if the solicited one, led by false shame or impious mercy, does not wish to denounce the solicitor, the confessor should not absolve her, but dismiss her as indisposed.

g) But if the confessor discovers that the person solicited is otherwise well disposed for the Sacrament of Penance, but has a just cause for resisting, namely on account of probable danger of grave harm in the goods of reputation, fortune, or body, - or that on account of panic fear or great shame she can in no way be brought to denounce the solicitor by herself or through the confessor, then indeed he should not absolve her, but should make her return to him at another convenient time; meanwhile, however, concealing the penitent's name and adding the causes which suggest her exemption from the obligation of denunciation, he should set forth the whole case to the Bishop: so that he may declare what in the Lord shall have seemed opportune, or, according to the condition of things, may request from the Sacred Penitentiary a dispensation concerning it (Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 7. p. LXIII.). For the Holy See sometimes grants the faculty to the confessor of dispensing the penitent for that occasion from the burden of denouncing, especially if the solicitor has already been amended and has done penance. Indeed then, after a serious promise has been made of standing by what is to be resolved, even in a case of necessity she can be absolved immediately.

Note. - Concerning the mode of proceeding in causes of solicitation, see Instr. S. C. O. a. 1867. 8-16. p. LXIII.-LXV.

Even exempt Regulars are to be denounced to the Ordinaries of places, as is clear from the Constitution of Gregory XV. Cf. n. 1202. O). 2°.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, CHAPTER II: ON THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER

1° In Confession; 2° after Confession.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, Ch. II, ARTICLE I: ON THE OFFICE OF THE MINISTER IN CONFESSION

There must be treated 1° of the duties of the confessor in general; 2° of his manner of acting with the various kinds of penitents.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART THIRD: ON THE MINISTE…, Ch. II, Art. I, § I. On the Duties of the Confessor

A fourfold duty or office of the confessor is assigned, namely 1° of Father; 2° of Physician; 3° of Doctor; 4° of Judge.

Point I. On the Office of Father.

n. ¶1413.

1413. - The Confessor is a spiritual father, who gives spiritual life to the penitent, or restores and fosters it; for in the tribunal of Penance he acts in the place of the best of all parents, namely Christ Himself, and therefore by penitents he is called by the sweetest name of father. But that which especially stands out in the true name of father is remarkable and inexhaustible charity. For what affection is stronger than the affection of a father? What is truer, purer, more chaste, more constant, fuller of solicitude and more alien from one's own advantage, indeed readier and more prompt for every kind of privation and inconvenience? Therefore such must be the charity of the confessor, so that, clothed with the bowels of mercy of Christ Jesus, Who came not to call the just, but sinners, he may know how to deal zealously, patiently, and meekly with sinners. Thus, as a good father, he will sustain all things for his spiritual children: for charity is patient, ... bears all things, ... endures all things.

The Confessor must be full of charity toward penitents, both at the beginning, and in the course, and at the end of Confession. It is pleasing to hear St. Alphonsus himself speaking on these things.

n. ¶1414.

1414. - I. At the beginning of Confession. "First he" (the Confessor) "must employ charity in receiving kindly all, whether they are poor, or rude, or sinners. Some spend time only in hearing the Confessions of certain devout persons or persons of rank, because they have not so much courage as to repel these from themselves. But if some miserable sinner approaches them, he is heard unwillingly and is driven away loaded with reproaches: whence it happens that that wretched one, after he has brought the greatest force upon himself so that he might come to confess his sins, feeling himself so harshly received, conceives hatred for the Sacrament of Penance, and, despairing that he can find someone who may help him and absolve him from sins, rushes headlong with loosened reins into the slippery way of a lost life, and falls into despair of salvation. Good confessors act otherwise. When sinners of this kind flow together to them, they receive them kindly, and, as a victor over captured prey, they exult, considering that the lot has fallen to them to snatch a soul from the hands of the demon. They know that this Sacrament was instituted properly not for the just, but for sinners; for venial faults, in order to be remitted, do not need sacramental absolution, since they can be blotted out in many other ways. They know also that Christ protested in these words: I came not to call the just, but sinners. Therefore the confessor, clothing himself with the bowels of charity, the more he finds souls stained by the multitude and atrocity of sins, the more, that he may gain them for God, should embrace them with greater charity, and give them courage with these or similar words: Come, brother, be of good courage, do not fear; confess your sins fearlessly. Open all things confidently; be ashamed of nothing: it does not matter if you have not looked into all the recesses of your conscience; it suffices if you answer what is asked. Give thanks to God, Who has awaited you until now for penance. Now your life must be changed. Rejoice, because God certainly remits all sins to you, however great, if you have a good will, and therefore He has awaited you, that He might spare you: therefore say all things with a cheerful soul, cover nothing with wrappings."

n. ¶1415.

1415. - II. In the course of Confession. "He must show far greater charity in hearing the Confession. Let him take care not to show himself impatient or affected by weariness; nor let him show himself struck with amazement at the sins which are narrated; provided the penitent is not so hard or insolent in soul that he exposes several and more atrocious sins without any shame, and without any displeasure and sense of soul; because then one must labor with all one's powers that the penitent may perceive how great is their deformity and magnitude; and therefore then a sharper correction is required, so that he may be awakened from lethal lethargy. It is indeed true that... in the act of Confession confessors must abstain from making correction, lest perhaps penitents, frightened, hold back sins; nevertheless this is understood when speaking regularly: besides, many times it is expedient not to proceed to further things, and immediately to correct the penitent, especially when he confesses a very enormous sin, or if he has been habituated in some vice, so that he may comprehend the gravity of the sin. Yet let him advert not to exasperate him, nor to terrify him. Wherefore, after he has corrected him as much as shall have been needed, immediately let him give him courage for confessing the remaining sins, saying: Come, brother, do you wish to recover from this vice? Is it not so? And since you are prepared to do this, be of cheerful soul. Therefore narrate the remaining sins, holding back nothing. Take care, I beg you, lest you commit some sacrilege; for this would be the greatest of all the sins which you have committed until now. Therefore say all things with a strong soul; conquer yourself: confess all things sincerely: for God is prepared to spare you."

n. ¶1416.

1416. - III. At the end of Confession. "At the end of Confession also it is necessary that the confessor apply himself with a more vehement ardor and zeal, so that he may make the penitent perceive the gravity and multitude of his sins, and the miserable state of damnation in which he is found; but let this always be done with the greatest charity. Nevertheless it is more fitting then to use graver words, so that thus he may better be able to return to a good fruit of mind; nevertheless he must effect that the penitent understand that what is said to him proceeds not from an angry soul, but from singular love and commiseration toward his soul, which can be expressed in this way: My son, do you consider the life of a damned one which you have led? Do you perceive the evil which you have worked? What evil has your God ever done to you, Whom you have so recklessly despised? If there had been no one more hostile to you than Jesus Christ, could you have borne yourself worse toward Him? But, I ask you, consider who this Jesus is? He is the one Who, though He was God, needing nothing, was made man for you, wished to die on the cross, that He might redeem you from hell. Ah! son, if meanwhile you had died, if on this night, whither would you have gone? Where would you now be? You would be in the eternal fire of hell. What will become of you, if you go on in the future to live the life you have led until now? Will you be able to be saved thus? Awake and see that, unless you change your morals for the better, you are already damned. What good have you gathered for yourself from so many sins? Do you not consider that you prepare for yourself a double hell, one here of anguish and misery, another there of punishments? Come, son, turn away from evil, cease to sin, and commit yourself wholly into the arms of God, which are extended to receive you: enough, as much as you have sinned against Him. I wish to help you with all my powers and with my whole heart; come to me always and whenever you please, since you will find a father who will receive you kindly. Behold, now firmly resolve that you wish to be made holy. It depends on you. For God is always prepared, and has imparted this time to you for this, that you may turn yourself away from evil and do good. O how good it is to have God as a friend! etc."

To the charity of Father can also be referred the following warning of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore: "Lest any delay hinder those wishing to confess, we earnestly exhort and beseech pastors of souls that they be present at the confessionals for hearing penitents on each Sabbath, and on the Vigils of Feasts at least in the evening time, and on Sundays and feast days in the morning before the first Mass.... But if the number of the faithful is greater than that all who approach can be heard on one day, let him also choose other times, other days, which he may spend on this necessary work."

Point II. On the Office of Physician.

The Confessor is a true physician of souls, since he must rescue them from the various diseases of sin, remove them from the depraved affections of the passions, and restore them to divine grace. Therefore the Confessor, as a skilled physician, must 1° know the cause of the evil; 2° heal it; 3° prevent relapse. Let us hear St. Alphonsus again.

n. ¶1417.

1417. - I. The Confessor must know the cause of the disease. "For the Confessor, that he may meet the infirmities of his penitent with opportune remedies, the origin and cause of all his spiritual diseases must be known. Some... beyond the species and number of sins inquire nothing else: if they see the penitent disposed, they immediately absolve him; but if not, without spending one word, they dismiss him at once, saying with a turned eye: Depart from me, because I cannot absolve you. Good confessors proceed otherwise: for these first begin to investigate the origin and gravity of the disease, by questioning concerning the habit of sinning, concerning occasions, concerning the time, concerning the place, concerning the persons with whom, and with what concurrence of things. For thus they will be better able to correct the penitents, dispose them for absolution, and add salutary remedies."

n. ¶1418.

1418. - II. He must heal the disease. "When the origin and gravity of the disease have been known, let the confessor proceed to make the due admonitions. And although he as Father must listen to penitents with charity, nevertheless as physician he is held, as much as is needed, to warn and correct them, especially those who, burdened with many mortal sins, rarely approach the Sacrament of Penance.... Nor then must the confessor attend to other penitents who surround him. For, as St. Francis Xavier used to say, it is better to hear the rightly made Confessions of a few than the disordered and fruitless Confessions of many. Here it is necessary to advert how wrongly those confessors act who, if they find a penitent indisposed, immediately order him to go away from them, lest they spend some time with him.... And it matters little that others wait or depart unconfessed; for the confessor must render an account on the day of judgment concerning this one only, who now confesses to him, not concerning others." - I think an exception from this rule conformable to the mind of the holy Doctor in the case in which, on the one side, there is a crowd of penitents who, unless they are heard now, cannot or are foreseen not to be about to return except after a long time, and on the other side, the penitent who needs a longer time, e.g. on account of a necessary general Confession, can easily return and is hoped with foundation to be about to return.

"After due corrections or warnings, it is better that labor be spent on disposing the penitent to absolution through acts of true sorrow and purpose; wherefore I wish confessors to be warned that those penitents are very few, especially the rude, who come to confess with an act of sorrow premised. Some confessors think that they have done enough for their office if they merely question penitents of this kind in the following way: Come, do you ask pardon from God for all these things (which in truth is not a true act of sorrow)? Are you sorry from the heart for all your sins? and, with no other word interposed, they bestow absolution on them. Altogether different from this is the method of good confessors. For these first of all labor so that penitents (the discourse is about those who are held by mortal sins) may conceive true sorrow and detestation of sins. And first they prepare them through an act of attrition, e.g.: My son, where now ought you to be in eternity? In hell. Ah! in that fire you would always be tortured! Nor would any hope remain to you any longer that you could be rescued thence! There you would be dwelling, abandoned by all, rejected by God for all eternity! Therefore, are you sorry that you have offended God on account of the hell which you have deserved?... Afterward let him take care that an act of contrition be elicited, in this way: My son, what have you done? You have sinned against God, the highest and infinite good; you have had no regard for Him; you have turned your face away from Him: you have cast Him behind your back; you have despised His friendship and grace. Come therefore, because you have offended God, infinite goodness, are you now sorry from your whole heart? Detest and hate, above all evils, all the injuries by which undeservedly you have affected so good a God. Are you not now ready to die a thousand times rather than commit these things in the future?"

n. ¶1419.

1419. - III. He must prevent relapse. The confessor will prevent relapse by assigning to the penitent remedies suited to the disease. But remedies are either general or particular.

1° General remedies are 1) pious prayer and love toward God; 2) frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, of the holy Guardian Angel, and of the holy Patron; 3) frequency of the Sacraments and Confession as soon as any mortal sin has been committed; 4) consideration of the eternal truths, especially of death and of the last end, according to that saying: Remember thy last things, and thou shalt not sin forever; 5) recollection of God present when temptation presses, by saying: God sees me; 6) evening examination of conscience with sorrow of soul and purpose; 7) mental prayer and pious readings, especially for priests.

2° Particular remedies will be assigned according to the diversity of vices: e.g. to him who is held by some hatred, let it be suggested that daily he commend to God him whom he hates, reciting for him the Lord's Prayer, etc. And when the memory of the injury disturbs him, let him recall the insults by which he himself has affected God. - To him who has fallen into shameful sins, let it be enjoined that he avoid idleness, flee evil companions and depraved occasions. - To him who has contracted a depraved habit through a long time in this vice, let it be prescribed that he avoid not only proximate occasions, but even certain remote ones, which to one so weak are as if proximate. But especially let the confessor take care that this one communicate frequently; because the Eucharist is called: wine bringing forth virgins. And thus concerning others.

The confessor will assign other remedies according to his prudence, the circumstances of occasions, persons, etc., having been inspected. For prudence is the chief quality which must stand out in a physician. - See St. Alphonsus in Praxis Confessarii; and in H. A. Cf. n. 1389.

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. III, Chapter II. On the Office of the Minister · Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. III, Ch. II, Art. I, § I. On the Offices of the Confessor in General · Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. III, Ch. II, Art. I, § II. On the Offices of the Confessor in Particular

Point III. On the Office of Doctor.

The Confessor, that he may rightly fulfill the duty of doctor, must have sufficient knowledge, so that he may fittingly teach penitents.

…and 70 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 26 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. III, Chapter II. On the Office of the Minister

Bk. II, Diss. II, Chapter XI — An exhortation to Confessors · Bk. III, Diss. III, Chapter IX — An admonition to Confessors · Diss. III, Chapter I — On the sublime dignity and the eminent endowments of a confessor

The offices by which the Minister of the sacrament of Penance is bound, some must be exercised in the very act of confession and others after the confession has been heard.

§ 1. Let the priest remember in hearing confessions that he sustains alike the person of judge and of physician, and that he has been constituted by God the minister at once of divine justice and mercy, so that he may consult the divine honor and the salvation of souls.

§ 2. Let him altogether beware lest he inquire the name of an accomplice; lest he detain anyone with curious or useless questions, especially concerning the sixth precept of the Decalogue; and especially lest he imprudently question younger persons about those things which they do not know (Can. 888).

§ 1. Pastors and others to whom the care of souls is entrusted by virtue of office are held by a grave obligation of justice to hear, either personally or through another, the confessions of the faithful committed to them, as often as these reasonably ask to be heard.

§ 2. When necessity urges, all confessors are held by an obligation from charity to hear the confessions of the faithful; and in danger of death all priests are so held (Can. 892).

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. III, Ch. II, Art. I, § I. On the Offices of the Confessor in General

n. 788.

Four offices must be performed by the confessor in the very act of confession, namely those of father, physician, teacher, and judge. But when the diverse nature of penitents has been considered, the obligations which flow from these four offices can and must be modified; but if you attend to their substance, assuredly they must always be observed. A few things concerning each, but see more in the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, nn. 279 and following.

n. 789.

I. Concerning the Office of Father

I say. Every confessor, as such, is truly and properly the spiritual father of penitents. The reason is taken from a twofold head; for the confessor not only through the absolution which he imparts truly furnishes or increases spiritual life, namely grace, although instrumentally, but also bears the place of the best parent of all, namely of Christ himself. There is added the very sense of the faithful, who all and everywhere throughout the world call the priest in the sacred tribunal of Penance father. Hence:

1°. The confessor, while he receives confessions, must both have and show great charity toward penitents; for that which is contained above all in the name of father is distinguished and inexhaustible charity. Therefore Leo XII, in the Bull for the great Jubilee of the year 1825, admonished each confessor that, "clothed with the bowels of mercy of Christ Jesus, who did not come to call the just, but sinners, he should know how to deal earnestly, patiently, and meekly with sinners."

2°. The confessor must show this paternal charity at the beginning, in the course, and at the end of confession. At the beginning indeed, insofar as he receives all kindly and promptly without any distinction, whether they are rich and pious, or whether they are poor, uncultivated, and sinners. Besides, if he sees someone unprepared, let him help him and render him prepared; if he notices someone timid because of shame or entangled because of scruples, let him add courage and say that the whole matter can be arranged with easy business. - In the course of confession let him beware lest he exhibit himself as impatient or affected with weariness, nor let him show that he is struck with wonder at the sins which are narrated. Finally, at the end it is necessary that the confessor perform the office of father with more vehement ardor; for on the one hand he must then briefly indeed, but more severely, place before the eyes of the penitent the multitude and gravity of his sins, especially if the penitent does not appear very disposed; and on the other he must use those words, and act with such meekness, that the penitent can take no offense from it, or be less prompt in the future to return to him. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confess. ch. 1, § 1.

n. 790.

II. Concerning the Office of Physician

I say. The confessor is a true physician of souls; for just as sinners are often compared in the Scriptures to the sick or even to the dead, indeed are also properly called by these names, so the confessor can not only be compared to a physician, but also is one; for he must rescue the souls of penitents from the various diseases of sin and restore them to divine grace. Hence:

1°. The confessor must know the cause of the disease; for just as a bodily physician must first devote all his diligence and strength to this, that he may investigate the very root of the disease, so also the confessor; otherwise he will supply useless or insufficient, or even harmful, remedies. Therefore good confessors inquire not only about the number and species of sins and about dispositions, but also about habits, occasions, and other circumstances which are connected with the disease, if indeed the disease is present and not only some passing weakness.

2°. He must heal the disease; for it is not enough to know the origin of the disease, but it is necessary besides to place the finger on that part of the wound which flows with the greater corruption, and either by cutting away or by fostering to obtain the cure of it. Therefore the confessor must make due observations, suggest counsels, and declare what is to be done. To the point St. Alphonsus says: "The confessor must not attend to other penitents who surround him. For, as St. Francis Xavier used to say, it is better to hear the confessions of a few rightly made than the disordered confessions of many and without fruit. And it matters little that others wait or depart unconfessed; for the confessor must render an account on the day of judgment only concerning this one who now confesses to him, but not concerning the others." - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confessarii, nn. 6, 7 and 10.

3°. He must guard against relapse; which certainly the confessor will perform by assigning to the penitent remedies suited to the disease. But remedies are either general or particular. General ones are reduced to pious prayers, to frequent invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary, to consideration of the eternal truths, to the evening examination of conscience, and especially to frequency of the sacraments. But particular remedies must necessarily be diverse according to the diversity of penitents and of the circumstances in which they are found; nor will he rightly indicate them unless he uses great prudence. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Prax. Confessarii, n. 15; and Hom. Ap., tract. 21, nn. 5 and 6.

n. 791.

III. Concerning the Office of Teacher

I say. The confessor deserves the office of teacher for himself by a twofold reason, namely insofar as he must teach penitents all those things which pertain to the sacrament to be rightly received here and now, and insofar as he has already acquired for himself competent knowledge before he begins to receive confessions. The reason of the first is because it pertains essentially to the nature of a Minister divinely instituted to procure the valid and licit reception of the sacrament which is here and now to be administered by him. But the reason of the second is taken above all from the Scriptures; for it is said in Malachi ii, 7: "The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth"; and Hosea iv, 6: "Because you have rejected knowledge, I will reject you, lest you perform the priesthood for me." It is also established from the natural law itself; for the confessor entering the sacramental tribunal of Penance without being furnished with competent knowledge exposes himself to the evident danger of gravely erring, with grave injury to the sacrament and to the great detriment of souls. Therefore Christ himself says, Matthew xv, 14: "If the blind man furnishes guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit." And St. Alphonsus did not hesitate to utter these words: "I affirm that that confessor is in the state of damnation who exposes himself to receiving confessions without sufficient knowledge." But according to the mind of St. Alphonsus himself, by the name of sufficient knowledge is not understood that by which the confessor can always, immediately, and by himself solve all doubts which occur, but only that by which he can understand and resolve cases commonly occurring, and in more difficult ones knows at least how to doubt. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 627. - Lugo, disp. 21, n. 70.

n. 792.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n. 793.

Questions

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

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

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

n. 793, Q. 2.

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

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

n. 793.

IV. Concerning the Office of Judge

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

n. 794.

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

n. 795.

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

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

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

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

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

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

n. 796.

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

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

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

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

n. 797.

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

n. 798.

Questions

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

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

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

n. 798, Q. 2.

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

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

n. 798, Q. 3.

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

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

n. 798, Q. 4.

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

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

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. III, Ch. II, Art. I, § II. On the Offices of the Confessor in Particular

n. 799.

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

n. 800.

I. Concerning Occasionaries

An occasion of sin is generally defined as an external circumstance which, whether from its own nature or from the frailty of the man who is found in it, allures or induces to sinning. Hence it differs from the danger of sinning, under which appellation comes whatever impels to sin, whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic. - Occasion is distinguished manifoldly, namely proximate or remote; voluntary or necessary; present or not present. Therefore:

1°. A proximate occasion is that in which men commonly for the most part sin; but a remote occasion is that in which men commonly for the most part do not sin. But each is called either absolute or of itself, when of itself it thus much or little induces to sinning, so that it is such with respect to men taken commonly; or relative or by accident, when it is such only with respect to someone, his frailty being considered, if it is proximate; his firmness of soul, piety, or prudence being considered, if it is remote.

2°. A voluntary occasion is one which can easily be dismissed; but a necessary occasion is one which physically or morally cannot be removed, or at least one which can be dismissed only with great difficulty, that is, by undergoing notable temporal detriment in life, reputation, or fortune.

3°. A present occasion, or one in esse, is one which a person has with himself without actually seeking it, for example, if he keeps a concubine at home or is accustomed to sin with a maidservant; but a non-present occasion, or one not in esse, is one which a person indeed does not have in act, but easily finds, as a tavern is relative to a drunkard, a mistress with respect to a lover. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 452.

n. 801.

I say. Absolution must never be denied to a penitent constituted in a remote occasion, even if he is unwilling to leave it; nevertheless it must be denied to one constituted in a proximate occasion if the occasion is at the same time voluntary; but if it is necessary, it cannot be denied, at least by force of that occasion. The reason of the first is both because a remote occasion does not induce a proximate danger of sin, and because otherwise we would have to depart from this world. But the reason of the second is because then the penitent is not sufficiently disposed. Besides, it is established from proposition 61 condemned by Innocent XI, which reads thus: "He can sometimes be absolved who is situated in a proximate occasion which he can and does not wish to omit; indeed, he directly and deliberately seeks it or thrusts himself into it." But the reason of the third is because, on the one hand, no one is held to the impossible, whether that is physically impossible or only morally impossible; and on the other hand an occasion of sin of itself is not a formal sin. - I said at least by force of that occasion, because the other dispositions must be present, and especially a firm promise of applying remedies by which the danger of sinning formally may be removed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 455.

n. 802.

You Will Resolve. 1°. He can be absolved who does not wish to undergo notable temporal detriment in order to flee a proximate occasion, if otherwise he is found disposed, because then there would be moral impossibility of avoiding the occasion. But notable detriment is not the same for all, but is diverse according to the diversity of persons, and must be measured by the common estimation of timorous men.

2°. It is not always necessary that the penitent in fact leave a proximate and voluntary occasion before absolution is given, but often a sincere promise suffices. This must be said especially concerning the case in which the penitent gives extraordinary signs of sorrow, or some extrinsic cause is present impelling to the giving of absolution, for example, danger of incurring disgrace in omitting Communion, the desire of gaining an indulgence, etc., etc.

3°. Nevertheless, if the penitent is found in those circumstances which require some effort, for example, in fleeing some companion or not going, in certain circumstances of time, persons, etc., to some house; or if there is question of an occasion in esse which can easily and immediately be dismissed, then it will belong to the prudence of the confessor to weigh whether it is expedient that first the penitent conquer the difficulty and in fact leave the occasion, and afterward receive absolution. For that is commonly expedient.

n. 803.

II. Concerning Habitual Sinners and Relapsers

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.

n. 804.

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.

n. 805.

Question. What are those special or extraordinary or new signs?

Resp. The following are commonly enumerated: 1°. if the penitent has applied a greater effort than before toward amending himself, or if he has been notably amended; a fortiori if he has already wholly changed his life for the better; 2°. if he confesses with great shame a sin long concealed; 3°. if he has more diligently used the remedies prescribed by the confessor; 4°. if he has undertaken a long journey for rightly performing confession; 5°. if he earnestly seeks to institute a general confession or wishes to repeat the greater part of the sins of his past life; 6°. if he has been induced to confess by an extraordinary motive, namely from having heard a sermon, from the death of some friend, etc.; 7°. if he confesses with great humility and words breathing forth compunction of heart, at least ordinarily; 8°. if he spontaneously asserts that he wishes altogether to avoid sin with every inconvenience, and a fortiori if he says that he would rather die than sin; 9°. if he sends forth sighs or groans, or pours out tears, at least ordinarily; 10°. not rarely even spontaneous confession can be had as an extraordinary sign of sorrow, especially in those youths and men who must conquer themselves and human fear in order to approach confession. - But these are brought forward as examples; the general rule can be that everything is to be held as an extraordinary sign which adds something to the common and ordinary sign, namely to confession made in a due or suitable manner, and therefore supplies a sufficient motive for removing the prudent suspicion which in the case is supposed to be had concerning the indisposition of the penitent.

Therefore it must be concluded that the confessor who is led by the Spirit of God and has true charity is scarcely ever obliged to deny absolution, because even from the most hardened relapsers he can obtain not one, but several of the aforesaid signs by his persuasions and exhortations. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 460 and following. - Baller. note (a), pp. 613 and following.

n. 806.

III. Concerning Pious Penitents

I say. Although the confessor has been constituted primarily for the good of those who are bound by great bonds of sins, he must nevertheless devote his labor also to those who are pious and wish to be directed in the way of perfection. For to all confessors are to be applied the words which were once spoken to Jeremiah: "Behold, I have constituted you over the nations, that you may root out and destroy, build and plant." But that direction in the way of perfection may be done by a prudent manner, attention must be given to the following practical rules.

n. 807.

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

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

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

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

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

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 94 passages

Bk. II, Diss. II, Chapter XI — An exhortation to Confessors

I. There is no need of many words, O Ministers of Christ, to persuade you to withdraw from the kingdom of Probabilism — in which, as Bishop Palanco, a man most celebrated not for doctrine only but also for sanctity of morals, says, it is not God who reigns, but the inventions of men and their vain cogitations. But Christ your Master, Matthew 15, cries out: In vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men. And they are doctrines of men, not of God, which I have hitherto studied to refute.

II. Seriously, I pray you, weigh the security and tranquillity which the Probabilists promise you at that very time at which you repel the more splendid light — by the force of a human reflection which men have devised. Against them cry the divine Scriptures. Hear Paul, 1 Corinthians 4: For I am not conscious to myself of any thing; yet am I not hereby justified. Would the Probabilists have replied to the Apostle that he should form for himself a reflex syllogism, by which to shake off his fear? But Paul straightway adds: But he that judgeth me is the Lord. And he judges, not according to the reflex doctrines which men have devised, but according to his own law — eternal, immutable, and true. Wherefore Paul exhorts, Philippians chapter 2, that with fear and trembling you work out your salvation. This holy fear and dread the divine Scriptures continually urge and command. Serve ye the Lord with fear, and rejoice unto him with trembling: Psalm 2. Who can understand sins? From my secret ones cleanse me: Psalm 18.

III. To whom, then, must we hearken? To the divine Scriptures, or to the Probabilists? The Scriptures cry: There is a way which seemeth just to a man; but the ends thereof lead to death. Probabilism, on the contrary, contends that that becomes right which appears distorted and erroneous, by the help of a single reflex proposition. But why do I prolong further the most manifest opposition between the holy Scriptures and the probabilistic axioms? You yourselves, O Ministers of Christ, already perceive that nothing is so hostile to the accomplishing of the business of eternal salvation as the security introduced by this new manner of opining, which equals error itself — covered over by the artifice of subtle reflections and by the darkness of ignorance — to truth. But Ecclesiasticus, chapter 2 [recte 11], says: Error and darkness are created with sinners; and David adds: The Lord knoweth the thoughts of men, that they are vain: Psalm 93.

IV. But let this remain fixed more deeply in your souls, O Ministers of God, which St. Paul commends to you: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine: 2 Timothy 4. The word, not of men, but of God, is to be preached by you — not from the pulpit only, but above all from the very tribunal of penance. A double doctrine — one for the chair, another for the tribunal of loosing and binding — the Scribes and Pharisees devised. One, and that a simple one, is the doctrine of Christ, which, adds St. Paul, men refuse to endure, because it is an enemy to the flesh and to the appetites; and therefore they busy themselves to corrupt it with cavils, paradoxes, and unheard-of inventions. For there shall be a time, when they will not endure sound doctrine; but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; and will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.

V. That doctrine is corrupt, says St. Thomas with all the Fathers on this place, which has falsity mingled with it. Probabilism has falsity mingled with it, since it defends the licit use of contrary opinions about the same action. Whether the things which we have hitherto refuted be fables, judge you yourselves. The doctrines which I have confuted itch in the ears, indulge the desires of men, favor human liberty against the law of God. What clearer sign do you await? What excuse can you offer, if you allow yourselves to be deceived? Nay, that the Apostle might shut every crack of escape, he foretold that this corruption of doctrine, these fables, these masters with itching ears, would come in the last days. Know also this, that, in the last days, shall come dangerous times. He describes the endowments of these men, that we may be able to be on our guard: Men shall be lovers of themselves, covetous, haughty, proud ... having an appearance indeed of godliness, but denying the power thereof ... For of these sort are they who creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, who are led away with divers desires: ever learning, and never attaining to the knowledge of the truth. They always confess; they always, or frequently, eat the body of Christ; they attend sermons and discourses; they have frequent and familiar converse with the ministers of God: yet they never dismiss the pomps, the luxury, and the ambition of the world; but, laden with the burdens of sins, and puffed up with divers desires, they flee from and reject the knowledge of the truth.

VI. But know this: that you can by no means announce this doctrine of divine truth, and openly inculcate it in season and out of season, without sustaining reproaches, derisions, and persecutions — and those grave ones. For Paul adds in the same place, chapter 3: And all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

Bk. III, Diss. III, Chapter IX — An admonition to Confessors

I. When I consider the oracles of Christ, and the doctrine of all the Fathers and of the graver Theologians, I tremble in every limb over the salvation of the rich; nor do the benign blandishments of certain men soothe my grief and dread. Extremes indeed must be avoided. Care must be taken lest the yoke of Christ be weighted down more than is right in this cause — which rarely happens. Care must be taken lest we relax it more than is right — which, as is well known, most easily happens from the proscribed opinions, and from others more benign than is fair. Let the Confessors of the rich, then, keep before their eyes the Gospel of Christ Jesus and the doctrine of the holy Fathers.

II. Confessors must beware of flattering the rich. Let them inculcate more deeply the doctrine of Christ concerning their difficult salvation. Let them beware lest the fear of alienating the rich from themselves, and of displeasing them, cause them to soothe and temper the severity of the evangelical doctrine with excessive sweetness. A certain and precise rule cannot be designated, either concerning the acquiring of a higher state, or concerning the increasing of a patrimony within the sphere of the same state. The superfluity of goods, too, is not fixed at any individual point. The rich can keep more things for the future, for dowering their daughters, for providing for their children, for sustaining the burdens of the City or of the Commonwealth, and for repairing other inconveniences which are wont probably to occur. But under these titles avaricious cupidity, ambition, and self-love feign very many things which reduce a most grave precept to nothing.

III. This is certain: that the rich abound in superfluities, when all their burdens, whether present or future, have been weighed. Vain and lying, then, is the excuse of very many rich men who say that they lack superfluities. Against these let Confessors hurl what St. Gregory Nazianzen writes in oration 14 [recte]: Those who have resolved to live softly and delicately are necessarily enticed to devising magnificent apparatus of buildings. In constructing and adorning these, the greatest force of money is poured out. To these they gladly summon and invite assemblies of men; they zealously procure splendid and varied furniture, innumerable kinds of cups, buffoons, mimes, harpers, singers male and female, dancers male and female — in short, the whole sport of wantonness. And while these things are carried on within, there sit at the doors of the vestibule innumerable ragged men, some full of grievous ulcers, some bereft of eyes, some maimed in their feet; they cry out together, and yet are not heard. If God beholds these things — as assuredly he does — what end do you think there will be, O enemies of the poor? Do you not know that it is for the sake of these that all the horrendous and terrible examples are set down and commemorated in the holy Gospel?

IV. In defining the quantity of the alms to be distributed one sticks fast. Christ commands, and the Fathers inculcate, that all superfluities be distributed. But since these superfluities are enclosed within no certain limit, they are not subject to a certain and precise measure. Some of the Theologians assign a tenth part of the revenues, whether coming from landed estates or from industry. Others prescribe a narrower, others an ampler measure.

V. Adriaan Reland, in his On the Mahometan Religion, from page 99, narrates that the Turks burden gold, silver, wheat, barley, dates, raisins, camels, oxen, sheep, and plants with a fixed yearly payment of alms, with many conditions added; which payment comes to about five in the hundred. This I note in passing, lest Christian rich men show themselves difficult in laying out alms. But since I cannot myself designate a precise measure, I shall set down what the holy Doctors suggest.

VI. St. Thomas of Villanova, sermon 2 on St. Martin, furnishes this answer: Hear John: He that hath two coats, let him give one to him that hath none; and he that hath meat, let him do in like manner. You will say perhaps: To give the half is much. I have a wife and a household to feed. For all these the remaining half would not suffice. To which I say: Zacchaeus had all these; yet, with the Lord approving, he laid out half of his goods upon the poor. Oh, you will say, Zacchaeus was a publican: what wonder if he gave all who had first plundered? Give, then, all that is over. But you will say: If indeed my children did not increase, neither would I increase my inheritance and patrimony; but as children come, the patrimony too must be increased. Well, let it be so: reckon up all these things; give what is over. You will say: I gladly accept; if I reckon all things, much is wanting. Truly it is so: to your cupidity much is wanting, and much would be wanting even if you alone, without a partner, possessed the whole world. I do not wish, then, to bring you to a reckoning. Do as Tobias counseled his son, chapter 4: According to thy ability be merciful. If thou have much, give abundantly; if thou have little, take care even so to bestow willingly a little. I do not disapprove if you set aside a certain portion of money, at the judgment of a good man and according to your revenues, to be laid out upon the poor each year. Since, therefore, a certain and precise quantity of alms cannot be prescribed, let us say at least those things which seem to approach nearest to the evangelical doctrine. And first it is certain that those rich men do not keep the precept of almsgiving who out of ample riches impart some worthless leavings and a few pennies to the poor, with no regard had to the abundance of their riches; who feed their dogs more sumptuously than the poor; who pour out money with a lavish hand upon luxury, pomps, banquets, games, and other amusements, but succor the poor only moderately. The rule of holy Tobias, therefore, must be kept before the eyes. Let him who possesses much lay out much; and let those whose patrimonies are slender give slender aids to the poor, which they may impart with the desire of giving more, if they had it. Let the rich behold Christ in the poor; let them reckon themselves as brothers of the poor; let them distribute to them not the worthless scraps of their table and of their riches, but a just portion. Besides the crumbs of the table, then, and those pennies which are wont to be distributed to the beggars they meet, let the rich assign a certain portion of their revenues — greater or less, according to the abundance of their riches — to be imparted to the poor each year.

n. VII.

VII. The rich are wont to object the number of their children, and the dowry of their daughters. To whom Augustine furnishes this answer, sermon 43, On various matters: Make room for Christ along with your children; let your Lord be added to your family, let your Creator be added to your offspring, let your brother be added to the number of your children ... You have two children: reckon him the third. You have three: let Christ be numbered the fourth. You have five: let him be called the sixth. You have ten: let him be the eleventh. I do not wish to say more. Keep for your Lord the place of one child. For what you shall give to your Lord will profit both you and your children. But what you keep ill for your children will harm both you and them. You shall give one portion, which you have allotted to one child.

Diss. III, Chapter I — On the sublime dignity and the eminent endowments of a confessor

All the treatises of moral theology more or less pave the way to the sacrament of Penance; and all things which have been said or can be said of the sacrament of Penance come back to this, that an upright confessor be found, skilled in evangelical doctrine and in ecclesiastical discipline, and prudent, who may know how rightly to administer this sacrament. But of the skilled in this art there are very few.

II. No dignity in the Christian commonwealth is more eminent, no grade more sublime. A confessor bears the place of God, to whom all men, even the Supreme Pontiffs themselves, are subject. The Jews cried out: Who is this who forgiveth sins also? Assuredly they knew that this faculty belonged to God alone, and to those who sustain the place of God.

III. Confessors are the fathers of the Christian country, the preservers of public tranquillity, the avengers of outrages, the guardians of evangelical sanctity. These promote the felicity of citizens and reciprocal tranquillity, while they compel subjects to obey princes, to pay them tributes, and to obey their laws. They render princes clement, provident, and just avengers toward their subjects; among the subjects themselves they foster mutual benevolence and justice; and finally they bind both princes and subjects to God.

IV. Hence it is plain that this office is to be committed solely to upright, learned, prudent, and experienced men. Those who are inept for the ministry and for governing chairs, who are of blunt talent, and unequal to the transacting of any grave civil business whatsoever, are to be kept from this province: for it would be handed over to their own and to the faithful's ruin; and there would be undertaken a burden of this kind fearful to angelic shoulders.

SECTION I — On the spirit of fortitude and liberty of a confessor

I. A confessor must needs be a man of God, since he exercises the office of God. Let him therefore imitate God, setting himself above all things which are of the world; let him respect no person, so as to dread that person in this ministry. Let him contemn all things for Christ. Hear Paul crying out to the Philippians 3: Furthermore I count all things to be but loss for the excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but as dung, that I may gain Christ.

II. The ministers of Christ, while they sit in the tribunal bearing the place of God, ought not to seek the favour, the breeze, or the esteem of magnates, of matrons, or of princes; nor to fear contempt or exile. Let them have more deeply imprinted upon the heart the documents of Christ, necessary to all Christians: For he that shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him the Son of man shall be ashamed, when he shall come in his majesty. Luke 9. And again Matthew 10: Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven. But he that shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven.

III. For many centuries the bloody persecutions of the mysteries of the Christian faith have ceased. But wars burn, and indeed internal ones, and therefore more mournful, against the rules and mandates of evangelical sanctity. The battles of opinions grow hot; fights for the soothing of human appetitions are daily renewed; because these conciliate to themselves the favour and acclamation of a raving world. But hear Augustine, ministers of Christ, thundering in his sermon on Psalm 48: Thou art advanced, when thou hearest a reproach concerning Christ; thou art advanced, if thou art such. What dost thou fear for thy forehead, which thou hast armed with the sign of the cross? Again on the Psalm, with a fuller discourse, he inculcates this endowment of fortitude and liberty: Let the lips therefore say what the heart has: let it not have fear and simulation. Let the heart have what the lips say: on the contrary, let the lips have what the heart believes. For sometimes there is fear, and thou darest not say what thou knowest, what thou believest: sometimes there is simulation, and thou sayest what thou hast not in thy heart. … Let thy lips agree with thy heart.

IV. In the first centuries of the Church the Neros, Domitians, Diocletians, and the rest of those savage lions assailed the soldiers of Christ not by mines but straightforwardly. There was no place for hesitating: either Christ was to be renounced, or death to be undergone. But in our age the opinions favouring the world, pomps, and theatres have their own Christian patrons, and indeed powerful ones, and they smile upon the mind so much the more efficaciously as they more kindly favour cupidity and concupiscence. There is added the authority of the multitude walking by the broad and spacious way, which, after the manner of a torrent, snatches away all things with itself; so that even the elect, if it could be, would be led into error.

V. These two kinds of persecution all the Fathers, especially St. Augustine, represent to us. An inward love of one's own little glory, of excelling others and occupying the first benches, tempers the theology of Christ more than is just to the desires of men. Certain confessors, asked by Christians and by girls whether it be lawful to approach theatres and dances, reply what certain men replied in the time of St. Augustine, in his book On the Pastor, chapter 3: Be secure: God destroys no one. Only hold the Christian faith. He will not destroy those whom he redeemed: he will not destroy those for whom he shed his blood. And if spectacles should wish to delight your souls, go — what evil is there? Do they not openly say such things today? What evil do the delights of theatres, comedies, and dances present? Go, what evil is there? The holy Doctor goes on: Great is the mercy of God, which pardons all. Crown yourselves with roses before they wither. … If we say these things, we shall perchance gather larger crowds: if there be certain men (the Rigorists) who feel that we saying these things are not rightly wise, we offend a few, but we conciliate the multitude. The multitude hears our smooth-tongued and kindly discourses, brought forth by self-love. A few skilled in the evangelical law are offended; but in the meanwhile the multitude flows together, applauds, and acclaims us. Do you see how monstrous, how savage, how crafty, how continual this persecution is?

VI. Afterwards the authority of the multitude, custom, universal usage, is a tyrant more truculent and savage than the Neros, Diocletians, and Domitians, which continually cries out, subjoins Augustine on Psalm 73: For the serpent does not now cease to whisper and to say: Is God truly about to damn such great crowds? Is he about to free only a few? What else is this than: Do against the precept, and you shall not die the death? But as then, so now. If thou shalt do what the devil suggests, and shalt contemn what God commands, the day of judgment will come, and will find true what God threatened, false what the devil promised. Again on Psalm 45 the holy Doctor relates this treacherous persecution: How many do this! And who does not do it? Is God about to destroy all? O great temptation! O great persecution! cries Augustine elsewhere. How is it to be conquered, how overcome? The lovers of the world (Augustine goes on, on Psalm 136) sometimes question us and say to us: Set forth the reason. … What do we answer? Hear the answer of Augustine, which he forthwith exhibits in the same place: Babylon carries thee, Babylon contains thee, Babylon nourishes thee, Babylon speaks of thee. Thou knowest not how to grasp save that which shines for a time: to meditate the eternal thou art ignorant; thou dost not grasp what thou askest. But self-love, a persecutor, lies in ambush and rages. If we answer in this fashion, we are despised, derided, defamed. Great temptation! Great persecution! Truly, brethren (Augustine goes on in the same place), so it is. But begin to be willing to preach the truth, however little you know, and see how necessary it is that you suffer such mockers and exactors of truth, full of falsity … but see how you are engaged among them, lest, if they be loved by thee, and thou affect their friendships and fearest to displease such men, Babylon begin to delight thee and thou forget Jerusalem. Fearing this therefore, see what he subjoins, see what follows. … If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, and so forth. Behold, thence was that citizen who questioned the Lord: Good Master, what shall I do that I may obtain eternal life? … And the Lord said to him something of the canticles of Sion, which he knew that he would not grasp; but he gave us an example how many there are who seek as it were counsel unto eternal life; and so long do they praise us (N.B.) as we answer what they seek. But that you are engaged among these clamourers binds you not to wish to please them, lest you forget Jerusalem while acting here on earth. "If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand be forgotten."

SECTION II — On the charity and prudence of a confessor

I. That common axiom, No one gives what he has not, is in the highest degree opportune for illustrating our argument. If a confessor be void of the love of God, how can he kindle in penitents the ardour of charity? He that is evil to himself, to whom will he be good? says Ecclesiasticus, chapter 14.

II. Very many confess that they are ignorant; no one acknowledges himself imprudent, as Seneca himself adverts, epistle 56. Very many yield to others the prerogative of knowledge; but they arrogate prudence to themselves, and the more ignorant they are, the more prudent they reckon themselves. The learned can be imprudent; the ignorant, of blunt talent and slow of mind, cannot be prudent. For prudence needs an acute and perspicacious mind, which may foresee things future; a strong memory, which may hold things past; things present; a keen talent, by which it can compare events at once, and thence deliberate. The mute, the sluggish, the torpid are commonly reputed prudent by the vulgar. But these often lack this one vice only, that they are not talkative and vain-speaking.

III. Unless it be given as a holy gift by God, this precious gem can scarcely be gained. If the seed be present, it can be perfected by industry, study, and experience. The prudence necessary to confessors is acquired not so much by industry and study as by continual prayer and the cultivation of humility. A confessor is a peacemaker of sinners with God. Unless he be cautious and prudent in procuring this most lofty business, he will profit nothing. I shall exhibit a few rules of prudence.

IV. THE FIRST RULE is that a confessor, before he ascend the tribunal of God, put off utterly all affections of the flesh, of the world, of hope and of fear, and put on the armour of God, the spirit of fortitude, and the ornament of an evangelical and not human overflowing mercy; since he must sit as arbiter upon a throne not only of wrath but at once of clemency and of vengeance. Let him recall to mind the spirit and marrow of evangelical doctrine, let him hold firm in his hands the evangelical balances. Let him judge that better which approaches more nearly to the incorrupt sanctity of the Gospel, and that worse which stands further from evangelical truth. Let him consider more deeply that he betakes himself thither to this end, that he may restore sinners to the grace and friendship of God, and make them conformable to the image of his Son.

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

VI. THE THIRD RULE. Let him weigh the grief of the penitent, and see whether it be conceived from the love of God above all things. If he shall have seen penitents to lack this love, let him incite and inflame them to it. Let him set before them the immense benefits of God, and above all that most cruel death which Jesus Christ underwent for us; let him set before them the punishments of hell and the terror of the last judgment. Let him employ various incitements for various persons, let him urge with diverse goads according to the diversity of penitents; let him terrify some, animate others. Let him begin, nature herself leading, from the more imperfect acts, from fear of punishments let him ascend to hope; but let him not break off the journey until he has come at last to charity. Let the confessor direct all his industry to this, that he may have, so far as can be done, this sincere conversion of the sinner thoroughly known. But this living plant of the penitent he will know from its fruits. Let him instruct his penitents that a true conversion is set not in beatings of the breast, or in the narration of crimes, and in vain promises made to the priest. For thus the Pharisees and the Sadducees, bearing before them an appearance of sanctity, approached to receive the baptism of John, but did not bring forth worthy fruits of penance. But of this the discourse will return again.

n. VII.

VII. THE FOURTH RULE. The prudence of a confessor ought chiefly to shine forth in this, that with Christian patience and evangelical meekness he receive, hear, and embrace his penitents as brethren, whom he ought to snatch from the servitude of the devil and to gain for God. Patience is necessary for you — for all assuredly, but for you above all.

n. VIII.

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

n. IX.

IX. THE SIXTH. Let a confessor not accept gifts from penitents: because the Holy Ghost says: Thou shalt not accept person nor gifts: for gifts blind the eyes of the wise, and change the words of the just. Deuteronomy 16. Let him altogether decline familiarity, especially of women. Eve by her blandishments led Adam back. The breath, and the voice, the sighs, the very tears are enchantments and prodigies, which by a certain magnetic force infect the hearts of men. With that caution and circumspection are women to be handled with which they would be handled if they laboured under a most savage plague.

SECTION III — On the knowledge of a confessor. Whence he ought to draw it. The axioms of Frs. La Croix, Gobat, and others are refuted

I. Here the water sticks, and whence to take my beginning I know not. A confessor sits as judge, that he may judge and avenge crimes perpetrated against the law of God. An exact knowledge therefore of the divine laws is more or less necessary, so far as human weakness permits. Where is that law? In the holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, in the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, and the other Apostles. These books a confessor ought to turn over with hand by day and by night. The reason is evident. Any judge must be skilled in the laws of princes; any craftsman must have the rules of his art thoroughly known.

II. I have attentively read the moralists who above the rest are today in the hands of confessors — the Salmanticenses, Tamburini, Leander, Sporer, Gobat, Viva, La Croix, Reiffenstuel, and others like them who dispute concerning the knowledge of confessors. None of these sends you to the holy Scripture, to the Fathers, to the Councils to be learned. They propose Summists and casuists; but of the Gospel, of Paul, of Trent and its Catechism they are silent.

III. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 1788, writes this: “Lamas and Sioz think that those are sufficiently learned for this office (of confessor) who have diligently read an entire SUM, or attentively heard it explained. But if anyone doubt of himself, let him present himself to the examiners appointed by the bishop or superior: and if they judge that he knows enough, he can acquiesce and with confidence in God undertake the function, although it be the greatest and gravest of all. So Sporer.”

IV. Lamas published a little Sum, overflowing with lax opinions, as anyone can see. The author is of no name. Stoz I have not seen. Sporer I have read, and, as he himself testifies, he is a collector of Tamburini, Sánchez, Gobat, and other like authors, often concluding: So my Doctors. Less aptly therefore does Fr. La Croix propose to confessors a rule prescribed by Lamas, a casuist assuredly of no authority and knowledge, so far as from his book appears to my weakness.

V. He subjoins in the same place, no. 1791, Fr. La Croix: Rightly does GOBAT admonish, tract 7, no. 521, that a confessor ought to know SEVERAL OPINIONS which are truly probable concerning moral matters, because often, where it is not a question of the validity of the sacrament, he cannot nor is it expedient to direct penitents ACCORDING TO A SINGLE DOCTRINE, any more than a physician could heal all men by a single medicine; but according to the diversity of the subject and of circumstances he ought to apply these or those; nevertheless he ought to observe this which I have said at no. 1727.

VI. A purse therefore of several contrary opinions must a confessor have — for if they were not contrary, one would suffice — and according to the diversity of penitents weigh them. It is not expedient to direct penitents according to a single doctrine? Who ever heard such things? Is there therefore not one divine law, not one doctrine of Christ, not one Gospel, not one faith, not one Baptism? Take a step further, and hear what Fr. Gobat writes, tract 7, no. 511: “It helps very much toward prudently administering this sacrament to have in fresh memory and use certain rules, documents, or aphorisms, scattered here and there through the books of the most wise theologians.” Who are these most wise theologians? Lamas, Stoz, Burgaber, Sporer, Caramuel, Tamburini, Diana, Bonacina, Leander, Zanardi, La Cruz, and so forth.

n. VII.

VII. But let us meditate one of the aphorisms which Fr. Gobat assigns in the same place, no. 515: “Since in the Shield of Judges we shall show that it is morally almost certain that, speaking of itself, it is lawful to follow either of two opinions truly and practically probable; but since it is also certain that sometimes by reason of various circumstances there lies upon a confessor an obligation of using one rather than the other; therefore let confessors note the most true doctrine of Fr. Lessius, which he hands down in the preface of his work On Right and Justice, namely that a knowledge of contrary practically probable opinions is MOST CONVENIENT and almost NECESSARY for the forum of conscience. Wherefore I do not reckon that those confessors can discharge their office well enough who are, as it is wont to be said, doctors of one opinion only.”

n. VIII.

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

…and 54 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Slater, Cases I

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 8 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Slater, Cases I, Restitution, Case 5. A Confessor's Mistake

Titius borrowed one hundred pounds sterling from his relative Caius, who, since he knew that Titius was oppressed by straitened circumstances, did not seek the money owed for several years; but after seven years, when the affairs of Titius had changed for the better, he asked him to return the hundred pounds. Titius doubts whether, after so many years have elapsed, he is bound to pay the money, since the debt has been extinguished by what is called the Statute of Limitations; nevertheless, he approaches a confessor and asks whether he is bound or not. The latter says that it is honorable to pay the money, but that there is no strict obligation. Hence it is asked:

What are the Statutes of Limitation, and what are their effects?

To what is a confessor bound who has unduly exempted a penitent from the burden of restitution?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

This question is answered above, p. 261.

What are the obligations of a confessor who has wrongly excused a penitent from the duty of making restitution?

If the confessor excuses the penitent out of malice or gravely culpable ignorance, he is bound to correct his error, and if he does not do so, or if now the penitent is unwilling, or is not able to make restitution, the confessor will be bound to make it for him. If there was no grave fault in the confessor’s advice, he will be bound to correct the mistake as far as he can, and if he can not do this, he will be excused from further obligation.

Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 3. An Anxious Penitent · Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 15. An Unfortunate Mother · Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 20. On the Absolution of an Accomplice · Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 21. Feigned Absolution of an Accomplice

The case. Titius was wrong in thinking that the effect of the Statutes of Limitation for an action of debt is to extinguish the right after six years. Those who administer the law and lawyers are unanimous on the point, and agree that it only bars the remedy. But if the debt is not extinguished by the law, it still remains to be paid. The confessor, therefore, was wrong in his decision, and if he gave it from gravely culpable ignorance, he is bound to correct his mistake, and if Titius will not now make restitution, or can not now, though he could have done before, the confessor will be bound to make it for him, as was said above.

Slater, Cases II

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 89 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 3. An Anxious Penitent

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

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

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

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

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

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

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

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

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

n. ¶9.

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

n. ¶10.

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

Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 15. An Unfortunate Mother

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

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

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

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

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

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

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

1 Lehmkuhl, II, 1247, eleventh edition.

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

n. ¶9.

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

n. ¶10.

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

n. ¶11.

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

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

n. ¶12.

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

Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 20. On the Absolution of an Accomplice

Titius, a priest, while making spiritual exercises, moved by divine mercy, disclosed to his confessor a certain pact with Paul, a priest. For since Titius and Paul mutually knew that they sinned rather frequently with women, they agreed between themselves to confess to each other and to give absolution mutually to the accomplice. Having heard these things, Titius’s confessor doubted whether he could now absolve him. Hence it is asked:

What does ecclesiastical law establish concerning the absolution of an accomplice?

How is the word “accomplice” to be understood?

What is to be done by the confessor of a priest who has absolved an accomplice?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

What does ecclesiastical law provide concerning the absolution of an accomplice?

A priest who with another person has gravely sinned against chastity is forbidden to absolve that person from the sin of complicity, is deprived of jurisdiction for absolving that sin, and, if he attempts the absolution of that sin, incurs an excommunication reserved in a most special manner to the Roman Pontiff.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 213.

How is the word accomplice to be understood?

n. ¶9.

DE ABSOLUTIONE COMPLICIS

n. ¶10.

An accomplice in a shameful sin is here understood as one who, internally and externally, has committed a grave sin against chastity, whether by words, by a look, or by deed, with a priest, even before the priesthood was received.¹

n. ¶11.

What must be done by the confessor of a priest who has absolved an accomplice?

n. ¶12.

If a priest confesses that he has attempted to absolve an accomplice, the confessor must admonish him to ask from the Sacred Penitentiary a faculty by which he can be absolved by his confessor. If he wishes, the confessor himself can ask for this faculty. The name of the penitent is not disclosed to the Sacred Penitentiary. If it is necessary for avoiding scandal, or for another just cause, that the penitent be absolved immediately, the confessor can absolve him directly, but under the burden of presenting himself within a month by letter, as above, to the Sacred Penitentiary.²

2 Ibid., 204.

n. ¶13.

To the case. Titius and Paulus, priests, mutually agreed upon the absolution of mutual complices in a sin against chastity and upon the absolution of themselves from their own sins. This pact is itself against chastity, inasmuch as it is a means by which they more easily indulge in impurity; they are therefore accomplices in a shameful sin and cannot absolve each other; if they attempt it, they incur the said excommunication.³

3 Bulot, Compend. Theol. Moral., vol. ii, n. 575.

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, 214.

Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 21. Feigned Absolution of an Accomplice

Titius, a priest, goes to a certain house of Regulars to devote himself to spiritual exercises. After some days there he makes his confession to Father Caius, who was giving him the exercises. Among other sins he confesses that he had indecent conversations with Philip, a friend who belonged to the flock committed to him, and afterwards absolved him; furthermore, that he sinned shamefully once and again with Mary, Philip’s daughter, and once pretended to absolve her after she confessed to him. On another occasion in the confessional, when he suspected from the sound of her voice that she was present, but refrained from questioning her lest he become more certain, he then actually absolved her; afterwards, however, when she sought Holy Communion, it became certain that she had been present in the confessional. Titius adds that he is exceedingly sorry for the past, most firmly resolves amendment of life, and asks for absolution. Hence it is asked:

What does Benedict XIV establish in the Constitution The Sacrament of Penance?

What is to be said of the faculty of absolving from the cases contained there?

What is to be said of the case?

Vol. II, Case LX: An Unbaptized Marriage Candidate in the Confessional · Vol. III, Case LV: A Difficult Case Presented by the Confession of a Bride · Vol. IV, Case XXXIV: Never Refuse to Hear a Confession · Vol. IV, Case XXXV: The Confession …, Left her Husband

Solution

What does Benedict XIV provide in the Constitution The Sacrament of Penance?

…and 49 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 20 passages

Vol. II, Case LX: An Unbaptized Marriage Candidate in the Confessional

Livia, the religiously brought up daughter of a wealthy manufacturer, is about to marry Titus, who for several years has been bookkeeper in her father’s office. The wedding is to be celebrated in the spirit of the Church; Livia and Titus are to receive Holy Communion at the Nuptial Mass. Two hours before the ceremony they both come to confession. Titus, who for some time has regularly received the Sacraments at Easter time, begs the priest, in his confession, for advice and assistance, confessing that he is an adventurer, having secured his position with the aid of forged papers, and that he is a Hebrew. In deference to the views prevailing in the home of his employer, and particularly out of consideration for the daughter of the house, he has pretended piety, even going to the Sacraments; he avows he had not unwillingly entered the confessional, as he had been comforted there and had recognized in the priest, bound in secrecy through the seal of confession, a sympathizing friend and a consoler for his greatly perturbed soul. He had even felt that, through his humble admission of errors, not only had his soul been comforted, but relieved from guilt through the absolving words of the minister of God. Now he had resolved to make this awful revelation, safe from all betrayal, hoping for assistance, advice, mercy! He, however, states his unalterable will: 1. That he will not desist under any circumstances from marrying Livia; 2. That although he is certainly not an irreligious man, he can have no faith in a personal God, in Christ, in dogmas. And now the priest shall say what is to be done.

May the priest impart this information to the bride or to her father? To this question we must reply a positive No!

Evidently no seal of confession exists here; Titus has never sought sacramental absolution. Yet perhaps a natural obligation to secrecy, a sort of official seal of secrecy, binds the priest. A revelation would also result in the most scandalous stories about revelations from the confessional, thereby bringing the Sacrament of Penance into ill repute, all the worse as Titus would not escape punishment by the law. Compared with this the great misfortune of the deceived bride and her family can not be taken into account. Every man has the natural right in the state of distress to seek counsel and consolation, and the Church imposes upon the one entrusted with this confidence the strictest silence.

To be sure in such a case the strict obligation of secrecy can not be viewed as absolutely certain. Per se, ex natura secreti, it follows not. Propter scandalum evitandum, therefore per accidens it might follow. S. ALPH., Theol. Mor., Lib. 4, Tract 6, n. 971: An entrusted secret can be disclosed, at least without grave sin... for a just cause, namely if keeping the secret would tend toward harm to the community, to another innocent person, or even to the one entrusting it; because then the order of charity demands that it be revealed; hence even if you had sworn, you could then disclose it. Thus commonly, etc. If it can be hoped that a scandal arising from publishing the secret, namely the opinion that the seal of confession had been violated, may be removed by explanation, and that the people would accept such explanation, then the confessor would have to act as due consideration for averting the damnum injustum from Livia would suggest. If the confessor can not entertain this hope then he will per accidens, propter scandalum horrendum, propter bonum commune, namely the conservation of confidence to the Holy Sacrament of Penance, be obliged to secrecy.

Of course the obligation of secrecy for the priest would be much plainer, if Titus had revealed his secret, in the form of a confession, only after long years of wedded life with Livia, after they had been blessed with children, then the revelation in a certain sense would no longer serve as avertendum damnum, but place Livia in a position which would actually mean a damnum emergens and deliver her, besides, to most serious qualms of conscience.

May the priest arrange for a sanatio matrimonii in radice? Even if this is possible from a dogmatic standpoint, the priest must not apply for it without Livia’s knowledge; for Livia’s consent is by no means to be presupposed. If Titus should be found out and be brought to court, Livia would perhaps find consolation in the fact of not actually being the wife of the adventurer and in having exclusive right to the children; it might eventually be her only compensation if some honorable man would then take this unfortunate woman for his wife.

Rudolf Hittmair, D.D.

Vol. III, Case LV: A Difficult Case Presented by the Confession of a Bride

Bertha comes to Confession in preparation for her marriage and acknowledges that she is pregnant by a third party, the intended husband knowing nothing of the fact. May she enter the married state without revealing this to the bridegroom?

In regard to marriage, distinction is made between such defects and circumstances that violate the bridegroom’s vested rights, and such that do not interfere with his actual rights, though they render the marriage less desirable. To the latter belong poverty, inferior position, lack of beauty, loss of virginity, and the like. As regards these things the bride must not positively deceive the bridegroom by lying or dissimulation, but neither is she obliged in justice to make them known, not even if expressly asked about them.

As regards the corruptio, St. Alphonsus teaches positively that if the bridegroom makes inquiries about it: she may conceal it by answering equivocally; for then she does not feign, but conceals a hidden defect. L. VII. 864. It is different with defects which detract from the bridegroom’s right, as do, for instance, infamy, sexual disease, etc. In this class of defects must be included pregnancy by a third party. Lacroix confirms this explicitly (L. VI. 183). A sin against justice is committed by those who sell corrupted merchandise as perfect, particularly if the defect is concealed. Even if the bride has the firm intention to make compensation to the bridegroom for the damage resulting by the marriage (alendi prolem alienam), it is a question whether she will be capable of doing so. The fact that a wife who gives birth to a child by adultery is not obliged to make her husband aware of the fact, has no relation with our case. There is an indissolubly contracted marriage, quoad vinculum, and most deplorable consequences would result for the whole family from such revelation, while here a bride is only preparing to contract matrimony and from the revelation she alone would be at a disadvantage, and in a collision of the law the right of the innocent prevails over that of the guilty. It follows that Bertha must make known her condition to the intended husband, as also St. Alphonsus teaches (L. VII. n. 865 excepitur 1). In case she is not aware of this obligation, the confessor must instruct her, if she herself asks for information; is she bona fide and may be expected to obey, she is to be so instructed, also if she does not ask. If, however, the confessor has good reason to suppose that his direction will be fruitless, he had better keep silent and leave her bona fide.

What is to be done if, as in our case, the woman makes her Confession directly before the marriage? And if great danger is present that through such a revelation the marriage would even at the last moment be prevented to her public disgrace? Here it is necessary to discriminate. It is possible that the bridegroom will not become aware that the child has someone else for father. If this may be presumed, the bride cannot be obliged by refusal of absolution to incur great disgrace by revealing the truth, provided she is of the firm intention to do all in her power to avoid any injury to husband and legitimate children. To such an extraordinary step, as the revealing of the true situation, which would require a truly heroic act, Bertha cannot be obliged. The loss of honor and good name predominate, because of higher degree than a possible harm to the husband’s fortune. If, however, it is probable, or even certain, that the bridegroom wil learn the true state of affairs, for instance, by the early time of the birth, then I should again advise to discriminate according to the impression which the bride’s deception is likely to make upon the man. Possibly it may be supposed in good reason that the husband will accept the inevitable and forgive. Presuming this she may even in such case keep her silence; not, however, if the deception, as really must be feared, will result in a very unhappy marriage, or if it must even be expected that the husband will have recourse to the courts and institute proceedings for separation, or even divorce, on this ground. In this case the evil consequences are of greater account than the injury to her honor, and she must withdraw even at the last moment. George Freund, C.SS.R.

Vol. IV, Case XXXIV: Never Refuse to Hear a Confession

( 1 ) A zealous priest told the following story: " I had been acting temporarily as parish priest in a very busy place. After six months the new pastor was appointed. He wrote to announce his arrival on a certain day, and I was naturally very busy on the eve of my departure. I had been in the confessional from an early hour until ten o'clock in the morning, and could only hear about half the people who were waiting, for I had to say good-bye to the school children, and was to take the Holy Sacrament to two sick people. I returned from my visit to them quite exhausted, long past dinner-time, and there were still many things that I had to arrange before starting the next day on my twelve hours' journey back to the town where I was assistant, and where a sick pastor was eagerly awaiting me. My time during the afternoon was constantly interrupted by visitors, who came to bid farewell and to bring me little tokens of their affection. Towards evening a perfect stranger came in and asked me to hear his confession. I begged him to put it off, saying that I was very tired and had hardly time to arrange for my departure. He insisted, however, and repeated his request, until I at last yielded to his importunity, though sorely against my will. His soul was burdened with many grievous sins and he had not been to confession for seven years. When he began his confession he said that God had inspired him with great confidence in me, and, if I had not heard him, he would probably not have gone to confession for a long time, but would have continued in his sinful career." (2) Another priest, no less conscientious and zealous than the first, said: " One day I had been hearing confessions from early in the morning until noon, and was glad when I had given absolution to my last penitent. I went into the sacristy to make my Gratiarum actio post missam, for, two hours previously, I had interrupted the confessions in order to say Mass. I had just begun my thanksgiving, when a stranger came up to me and asked me to hear his confession. I was looking forward to being free to return to my comfortable room, and did not like being disturbed, so I asked the man rather roughly to what parish he belonged. He mentioned a parish in the neighborhood, so I told him to go to his own priest, for, our parish being very large, we had more than enough to do with our own people.

" During this short conversation I did not rise from the prie-dieu, for I wished to finish my thanksgiving and then go away. The man, however, remained standing beside me; and, as I prayed, the thought came into my mind that I resembled a Pharisee, who regarded it as a sin to omit or cut short a prayer, but was unwilling to do his neighbor a great service. This thought filled me with shame and made me more charitable. I rose from my knees and calmly invited the man to follow me to the confessional. His confession convinced me that he could not possibly have gone to his own parish priest, for it would have cost him an amount of heroism, of which he was scarcely capable, to force himself to do so."—Canon Anton Skocdopole.

Vol. IV, Case XXXV: The Confession …, Left her Husband

Pius, a young confessor, is very zealous in hearing confessions, and as his piety and kindliness have won him general confidence, it often happens that penitents come to him from other parishes to ask his advice in their difficulties. He frequently has to deal with wives living apart from their husbands without the sanction of the Church.

Not long ago one woman confessed that she was not living with her husband, because he was an adulterer; another said she could not remain with her husband, because he ill-treated, abused and beat her, therefore she had left him.

The question arises: For what reasons may a wife leave her husband, and if she leaves him on her own authority, can she receive absolution?

Answer.—A wife may leave her husband secundum jus publicum propria auctoritate, if he has committed adultery, but she must be morally certain of his guilt, mere suspicion is not enough. St. Alphonsus says on this subject ( Th. mor., VI. 960): " Certum est, virum posse dimittere uxorem adulteram, idem communiter dicunt doctores de viro adultero, quem uxor possit relinquere." The confessor ought to point out to her that it is her duty, if possible, to ask the ecclesiastical authorities to grant her a separation; if this be not possible she need not be disturbed. In the same way the wife may probabilius leave her husband propria auctoritate, if he ill-treats her or beats her, and if delay might be dangerous, or if she does not bring her complaint before the ecclesiastical court, or cannot bring forward witnesses to her husband’s ill-treatment.

St. Alphonsus says (VI. 971): “May she then depart on her own authority? I answer yes, if there is danger in delay, or if she cannot bring suit or prove the cruelty.” If, however, she is able to find witnesses to testify to her ill-treatment, and can bring her complaint before the ecclesiastical court, she should await its decision.

Theologians point out, however, that if there are real grounds for separation, and the wife acts in bona fide, and there is reason to fear that the information will do no good, then the confessor need not draw her attention to this duty. Scavini says (IV. 539): “If sufficiently grave and canonical causes exist for the spouses to separate from one another, according to many they should not be disturbed if they did this on their own authority, with scandal and amazement excluded; for it is too burdensome for many that they be compelled to seek a judicial sentence. They say that this is at least to be tolerated if it is done only for a time.” A remark made by the renowned Dr. Müller (III. 505) is also worth noticing: “Nor do I think spouses who have been separated only by civil authority should be disturbed if they are acting in good faith, for scarcely any fruit from an admonition can be hoped for.”