The Knowledge of the Confessor

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.

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.

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.

In order that the Confessor may rightly fulfill the office of teacher, he must have sufficient knowledge to instruct penitents suitably.

606. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound under grave sin to know all those things which are required for the proper fulfillment of his office. - Thus all teach with St. Ligorius in the Practice of the Confessor and in the Apostolic Homilies, where he speaks thus: I affirm that a Confessor who exposes himself to hearing confessions without sufficient knowledge is in a state of damnation. The reason is that otherwise a Confessor of this kind exposes himself to the evident danger of performing so grave an office badly, with injury to the Sacrament and great harm to souls.

Therefore God requires special knowledge from His Ministers, as is evident from various words of Sacred Scripture: The lips of the Priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law at his mouth. Mal. 2:7. - Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not perform the office of priesthood to Me. Osee 4:6. - If the blind lead the blind, both fall into the pit. Matt. 15:14. - Woe to you, blind guides! Matt. 23:16. - It is also evident from innumerable testimonies of the Holy Fathers: No art is presumed to be taught unless it is first learned by attentive meditation. The pastoral magisterium is therefore undertaken with great temerity by the unskilled, since the government of souls is the art of arts. - St. Gregory, Pastoral Rule, part 1, chapter 1.

607. • II. The Confessor, however, is not bound to have such perfect knowledge that he can always immediately and by himself solve every doubt which occurs; rather, it is sufficient that he can do this in cases which commonly occur and that, concerning more difficult cases, he at least know how to doubt ¹. For greater knowledge can be had only with greater difficulty, since not even the more learned can immediately resolve every case. Nor is the Confessor bound to discern concerning each sin accused whether it is mortal or not, since this is often impossible; rather, it is sufficient that he hear each one as it was committed and judge concerning it ², both according to common principles and according to the circumstances of the matters explained by the penitent, and that he know how to apply a suitable remedy. - St. Ligorius, no. 627.

¹ St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 627), with the Salmanticenses, Suarez, and the common opinion, judges it sufficient if the Confessor understands the things which more frequently occur and knows how to doubt concerning the others.

And Cardinal De Lugo: It is not necessary that, in the doubts which occur, he himself be able to resolve everything; it is sufficient if he knows common cases and at least knows how to doubt concerning the more difficult ones, so that he may consult books or more skilled men (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70).

² Cardinal De Lugo confirms these things (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70): This knowledge need not be so great that he can discern concerning everything which the penitent says whether it is mortal or venial; for often not even the most learned can do this, partly because they cannot know the fact itself perfectly, whether the penitent consented with full deliberation or not, and partly because even the law itself cannot be known in every matter. It is therefore sufficient if, in those things which commonly occur, he knows whether they are mortal or venial.... And immediately afterward (ibid., no. 71): Hence I infer that it is not required that the confessor judge concerning everything which he hears from the penitent whether it is grave or light, indeed not even whether it is a sin; but concerning common things. Let him hear and understand the rest, and afterward absolve with the due intention.

Nor ought it then to disturb the Confessor that afterward he knows with certainty what was uncertain to him during confession. St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 627), with Suarez, admonishes to the point that, although in some case the Confessor does not discern which things are grave or light, nevertheless, if the penitent in good faith declares his sin, the confession is valid; and although it is afterward noticed that it was mortal, there is no reason for it to be repeated in another confession.

608. Resolutions. - 1. Every Confessor is bound to know all those things which pertain to the validity, substance, integrity, and effect of the Sacrament of Penance, and which are required for its licit administration both on his part and on the part of the penitent.

2. He must also know the common obligations and those proper to states of life, the various species of sins, their circumstances changing the species ³, the principles for discerning between mortal and venial sins, and which things are mortal and venial in the individual precepts, at least according to the general principles and the common opinion of Theologians. Likewise, which acts are valid and licit ⁴. The reason is evident, because he must know that concerning which he is to judge; otherwise he will not be able to render an equitable judgment.

³ Concerning this point several things should be observed. 1. Where there is disagreement among the Doctors whether some circumstance induces a diversity of species, just as the penitent is not bound to confess it, neither is the confessor bound to inquire about it; on this matter the little work of Thomas Tamburini entitled Method of Expeditious Confession will be read with profit. 2. Even if this diversity of species is present, nevertheless, when it appears that the penitent did not advert at all to that special malice, there will be no need for the confessor to inquire about it. 3. Furthermore, it will pertain to the prudence of the confessor whether he ought to admonish the penitent concerning that special malice according to the rules which will be given below concerning admonishing a penitent. Hence St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 150): Moreover, it is not always expedient to admonish an uneducated penitent of this kind concerning the gravity of perjury if the admonition is foreseen as not readily profitable.

⁴ When the Confessor must judge concerning these things as regards what is to be done in the future, but he himself remains doubtful, and it is not convenient either here and now to employ means for dispelling the doubt or afterward to speak to the penitent again, this admonition of Cardinal De Lugo will be useful (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 71): When counsel must be given for the future, or restitution imposed, or a doubtful contract prohibited, or something similar, if the confessor himself cannot resolve it by himself, it will be good counsel to ask the penitent whether he is prepared to consult skilled men and to abide by their judgment concerning that doubt. If the penitent promises, let him absolve, declaring to him the obligation which he has of consulting one or more persons concerning that doubt.

3. He must know reserved cases ⁵ and censures in force, impediments of matrimony, the conditions of contracts, the various causes of restitution, the roots and occasions of sins, the remedies to be applied to them, the salutary and suitable satisfactions to be imposed, etc.

⁵ Cardinal De Lugo wisely admonishes (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70) that those who have the faculty of absolving from reserved cases by a Bull or another privilege are in a better condition. For he experiences less difficulty who can remember from a brief catalogue the sins from which he cannot absolve penitents.

4. Therefore a Confessor sins who knows that he lacks the aforesaid knowledge, even if he hears confessions solely from charity 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 matter, nor supply its defect ⁶. - St. Ligorius, Apostolic Homilies, no. 100.

⁶ Nevertheless, this must be limited if the subject does not indeed know with certainty that he is ignorant of necessary things, but is troubled by doubts concerning his own sufficiency, by which even more skilled men of a timid disposition are not rarely distressed. De Lugo speaks aptly (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 72): I infer, secondly, that one sins gravely who without the knowledge respectively required exposes himself to hearing confessions; in this there is no difference, formally speaking, between a regular and a secular confessor, since each is bound by a precept of natural law. Nevertheless, there can be a material difference insofar as a Religious who doubts his fitness and sufficiency for that ministry can more easily lay aside that doubt when the Prelate, who knows him well, judges him fit and imposes such an office upon him.

Although De Lugo says these things only of a Religious, they nevertheless have place also as regards a secular priest if in like manner the Bishop knows the subject well and constrains him to the ministry.

Furthermore, the case of necessity must be excepted; in it, as De Lugo says (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 73), although a priest is ignorant and unlearned, he ought to hear the confession and absolve, because the knowledge of the confessor is required for the integrity of the confession; but since in that danger material integrity is not required, but it is sufficient to perceive some sin, or even sin in general, the ignorance of the confessor will not be an obstacle in that case. Hence the same must be said when Christians who are held in servitude among unbelievers have only one ignorant and unlearned priest, as Suarez teaches (On Penance, disputation 28, section 2, no. 6), because this too is reputed a morally extreme necessity.

609. • 5. The Superior also sins who gives an ignorant Confessor permission to hear Confessions, because he consents to and cooperates in his sin ⁷.

⁷ Nevertheless, the Doctors admonish that necessity sometimes brings it about that this ministry must be committed even to the less learned. Hence St. Alphonsus (book 3, no. 628), after saying that necessity excuses in this matter if otherwise penitents would have to lack confession for a long time, as happens among captives, then adds: And the Doctors say the same concerning small towns or galleys, where, as they say, if learned priests cannot be had, less learned ones can be appointed; they are nevertheless to be admonished of the obligation of learning.

Thus Cardinal De Lugo also observes (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 74) that Prelates who place unlearned and uneducated men over the ministry in these circumstances are to be excused. "I add," he says, "that on this ground Prelates who in some small and remote towns place unlearned and uneducated men over them as Pastors are often excused; for they generally do this because, on account of the small stipend, scarcity of provisions, and poverty of the inhabitants, no learned man is found who wishes to undertake that care. Hence, since those sheep cannot be assisted otherwise, as I suppose, it is better that in such necessity they have an unlearned confessor than that they be left entirely without every remedy. Nevertheless, the Prelate ought to admonish the pastor concerning the defect of knowledge from which he suffers and the obligation which he has of acquiring, if he can, the doctrine necessary for fulfilling his ministry. For the pastor and confessor always has this obligation, although the Prelate is sometimes excused by the necessity of the sheep when he sends a less sufficient minister."

6. The penitent himself also sins who deliberately chooses an unfit Confessor. If, however, anyone is in good faith, the confession will be valid, because on the part of the penitent there is an integral declaration of sins and the due disposition of soul; on the part of the Confessor there is at least knowledge of the sins under the confused character of sin, which suffices for the matter of the Sacrament ⁸.

⁸ Cardinal De Lugo nevertheless intimates an exception in this manner (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 72): Likewise, one who chooses an unfit person for this office sins; and not only the Prelate, but also a penitent who has the faculty of choosing a Confessor and knows that he is not fit, although approved, sins by choosing him, unless the penitent is such that by his own learning he can supply the ignorance of the confessor, as was said.

7. Experience cannot supply knowledge, but can only assist it; but where it is deprived of the aid of knowledge, it will impel the rash confessor into very many and very grave errors.

8. Therefore every Confessor is bound to apply himself diligently to the study of Moral Theology; and, as St. Ligorius asserts, Apostolic Homilies, no. 100: He ought never to interrupt that study, because among so many diverse and mutually dissimilar matters which pertain to this science, many, although read, fall from the mind with the passage of time because they occur more rarely; therefore it is necessary always to recall them to mind by frequent study.

9. Hence it is evident how gravely those err who regard the science of Moral Theology as easy and scarcely worthy of any attention, repeatedly saying that nearly all cases can be resolved by some common sense together with a knowledge of general principles. - The same St. Ligorius speaks aptly, book 6, no. 628: Those who desire this office of hearing 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 which it certainly does not suffice to run through some little summary of those which circulate; nor is it sufficient to know the general principles of this faculty, as some who despise casuists suppose. For moral science is not only very necessary to the Christian commonwealth, since the good government of souls depends upon it, but also exceedingly difficult: both because it requires a general knowledge of all other sciences, duties, and arts ⁹; because it embraces so many diverse matters remote from one another; and because in great part it consists of so many positive laws which are found cited only among casuists, and especially among more recent ones, since laws of this kind appear daily. Finally, it becomes most difficult on account of the innumerable circumstances of cases upon which the variety of resolutions depends; for according to the diversity of circumstances different principles must be applied, and in this the difficulty consists, since it cannot be done without great discussion or an accurate reading of several books which examine and elucidate the matters.

⁹ Cardinal De Lugo wisely admonishes with others (On Penance, disputation 21, no. 70) that the knowledge required in a Confessor is not the same for all. For less suffices for some to hear the confessions of children or rustics; in others more is required for hearing merchants, judges, etc., who have more difficult cases. But for the confessions of a learned man much less is required, because the Confessor can be instructed by the penitent himself.

610. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound to instruct penitents in all those things which pertain to receiving the Sacrament rightly here and now. The reason is that, since the Priest is the minister of the Sacrament, he must procure its valid and licit reception and therefore impart the instruction necessary here and now.

II. He must instruct penitents when he notices that someone is ignorant of any of those things which are necessary for living as a Christian, such as, for example, his own obligations. - St. Ligorius, no. 607 ff.

III. Nevertheless, of itself and strictly, he is not bound to instruct them concerning all the things which they themselves ought to know and can learn elsewhere. The reason is that the office of teacher in the Confessor pertains of itself only to the right administration of the Sacrament of Penance. Per accidens, however, 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 ¹⁰. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

¹⁰ This obligation of charity is not special to Confessors, but common to all who know the necessity of their neighbor and can provide for him without grave inconvenience. A special obligation belongs to pastors, who owe it from their office.

The obligation of the Confessor will especially be present when the penitent is ignorant of those things which are necessary to know for salvation by a necessity of means. How this is to be understood, however, is well explained thus by Sporer (On Penance, no. 796): The Confessor who notices this (and it is frequent in children and rustics) is bound to instruct him in the manner of which he is capable here and now, not indeed doctrinally, so that he can comprehend, understand, retain in memory, and recite those things; but for the time it is sufficient that he intimate to him the obligation of learning and supply his ignorance by proposing to him the articles to be believed, so that he may elicit an act of faith concerning each one. For example: Do you believe that God is one in essence and three Persons, etc., as I and the Church believe? I believe.... Do you believe whatever the Holy Roman Church believes, and do you wish to die in her? I believe.... Furthermore: Are you sorry that you are so ignorant and have been negligent, etc.? I am sorry.... Do you firmly propose, when you have obtained a suitable occasion, that you will take care to be instructed and wish diligently to learn those things which are necessary for salvation? Certainly. If he elicits these acts, it suffices for the instruction to be furnished by the Confessor here and now and for sufficient disposition for the sacrament, etc.

611. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must a penitent laboring under ignorance concerning some obligation always be admonished?

Reply 1. Yes, if the ignorance appears vincible, that is, if the Confessor notices that the penitent doubts in such a way that good faith is already absent. The reason is that no danger threatens in giving the admonition; otherwise, the penitent acting with that doubt is not free from sin. Reply 2. If ignorance of some obligation is invincible, the penitent must be admonished if fruit is hoped for from the admonition; but not, generally speaking, if it is not hoped for. The reason is that on the one hand this admonition would not profit, and on the other it would harm him, since after being admonished he would sin formally in the future. - St. Ligorius, no. 610, and others commonly.

Therefore, the penitent must be admonished: 1. whenever he himself asks about the malice of some matter, because, since he doubts the lawfulness of the matter, he is no longer in invincible ignorance ¹¹; 2. whenever the silence of the Confessor would harden him in the purpose of carrying out an evil matter; 3. whenever his ignorance concerns the primary principles of natural law or their proximate conclusions, because such ignorance, if possible, cannot remain invincible for a long time; 4. whenever, if the admonition is omitted, the penitent would remain in a proximate occasion of sinning formally ¹². - St. Ligorius, no. 615.

¹¹ The reason is, says De Lugo (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 29), that the silence of the Confessor would be an approval of the error, which is never lawful. See St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 616.

Sanchez excepts (On Matrimony, book 2, disputation 38, no. 14) when the penitent is moved to ask by a mere scruple (he calls a scruple a doubt from a false or frivolous reason); for then he judges that, if the admonition is foreseen to be harmful, the confessor can remain silent or reply that he should lay aside a scruple of this kind. The reason is that a scruple does not remove good faith. - De Lugo (loc. cit.), however, admits this only so far as the Confessor can indeed pretend that he did not hear, did not attend, or forgot to reply, so that the penitent may thus remain in the good faith which he previously had, yet not confirmed by the authority of the Confessor himself. - But if the reason for asking is truly frivolous, for example, if he raises a doubt concerning the validity of matrimony because he celebrated it in the state of sin, at a prohibited time, by a fictitious testimony of freedom of state, or contrary to a previously emitted oath or vow, it does not appear why the Confessor (who from another true cause, but one unknown to the penitent, knows that the matrimony is invalid) cannot reply that that reason is empty and the scruple vain.

¹² The hypothesis of a penitent who believes himself bound where there is no obligation, or even thinks that a grave obligation is present where only a light one is present, must not be passed over. This ignorance, as always harmful, must always be removed.

QUESTION 2. Is an admonition to be given in doubt whether it will profit or harm?

Reply 1. Yes, if it will more probably profit; not so if it will more probably harm. - St. Ligorius, no. 916. - De Lugo. - Salmanticenses, etc., against some.

Reply 2. In a doubt equally balanced on either side, generally speaking, formal evils are to be avoided rather than material ones. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others ¹³.

¹³ Doctors commonly hold that an admonition which is foreseen as merely harmful is to be omitted, even if the ignorance results in the detriment of a third party. Thus also St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 614). The excellent reason, touched upon by Sanchez and then by De Lugo (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 26), is that the admonition does not even profit the creditor and harms only the penitent.

The case is different, however, when the common good is at issue, as St. Alphonsus observes with others (loc. cit., no. 615), for example, if someone in good faith believed himself to be a priest when he was not; his ignorance, as De Lugo says (disputation 22, no. 30), would redound to the common harm of those who receive a sacrament from him.

And to this pertains the case, which not rarely troubles the mind of the confessor, of a denunciation to be made which is ordered not to the private good of the person sinning but to the prevention of a common harm. This harm could indeed be so grave and so imminent that the obligation of denouncing would bind even with danger to life. Nevertheless, the Confessor, insofar as this can be done, must take care that the matter be carried out with the least danger to the denunciant. For to prevent, for example, a conflagration or treason, it is not always necessary either that the name of the denunciant be known or that he himself disclose the matter.

But when the harm does not appear so imminent, there must be weighed on the one hand the gravity of the harm and on the other the difficulty of denouncing which arises from the circumstances of persons, places, the business, etc. From consideration of these things it will be necessary to determine whether the gravity of the harm ought to impel the Confessor to admonish even with a slight hope of fruit and thus with grave danger of uselessly casting the penitent into bad faith, or whether the absence of every prudent hope of fruit ought rather to bring it about that, after the remedy against the common harm has been despaired of, he does not uselessly add grave harm to the penitent by removing his good faith.

Hence it is that in cases of solicitation, although denunciation is ordered not to the reform of the solicitor but to the common good, nevertheless the Apostolic See has sometimes been accustomed to dispense from denouncing. From this it is also evident that St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 694) established too generally that an admonition can never be omitted when the common harm is at issue.

612. • QUESTION 3. Is a spouse to be admonished of the invalidity of the matrimony on account of an occult impediment which the Confessor discovers?

Reply. No, generally speaking, until the Confessor has obtained a dispensation, unless it can be obtained immediately and easily from the Pope or Bishop. The reason is that very great inconveniences would generally follow from it, for example, danger of infamy, scandal, quarrels, or incontinence, etc., and consequently material fornication would become formal. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 611. - Elbel, no. 471, etc.

But can the Confessor oblige the spouse who is ignorant of the impediment and refuses the debt to render it? Reply. Yes. The reason is that, while the spouse is persuaded that the matrimony is valid, he is bound to render the debt so that he may follow the dictate of conscience. - St. Ligorius, ibid., and others commonly ¹⁴.

¹⁴ Sanchez speaks well (On Matrimony, book 2, disputation 38, no. 8) as regards those who would wish the Confessor merely to say generally that spouses are bound to render the debt: I confess that I do not grasp what difference there is between these statements: Render the debt; and, The wife is bound to render the debt; since each manner of speaking tends toward the same end, namely, to induce that spouse to render the debt. And if to induce by direct words were a fault, to induce by indirect words would not be free of it, since on the part of the Confessor the intention is the same in each manner of speaking, and the penitent understands precisely the same thing. Furthermore, because, since the penitent must be left in that ignorance, he sins mortally, supposing it, by not rendering; therefore the confessor is bound not to absolve unless he proposes that he will render it afterward. Therefore he can compel him to render it; and thus the confessor does not command an evil thing, but a thing owed, in view of the circumstances which occur.

613. • QUESTION 4. Is a penitent about to contract matrimony to be admonished of an unknown impediment?

Reply. Generally speaking, the admonition is to be given. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 612. - The reason is that after the matrimony the ignorance can cease without difficulty, for example, because it is discovered that consanguinity, affinity, etc., exists between the spouses; and then, besides the ready danger of sinning formally, other most grave inconveniences can follow, namely, scandals, quarrels, and perhaps even the separation of the spouses, etc. - Nevertheless, probably except the case in which no fruit at all is hoped for from the admonition and the impediment cannot easily be discovered; because it is better to permit material sin until a dispensation is obtained than to furnish the occasion of certain formal sin. - Lacroix, book 6, part 3, no. 540.

458. Principle: The confessor is bound under grave obligation, outside the case of necessity, to have that knowledge which is called competent, that is, that by which he can solve the cases which commonly occur in the place where he is accustomed to hear confessions, and at least prudently doubt concerning the more difficult ones, so that he may be able to consult books or other more learned persons. - It is said outside the case of necessity; for if necessity presses, not only extreme but also grave, a less learned confessor licitly receives confessions, since for the most part the ignorance of the confessor does not hinder the validity of the sacrament, but only its integrity or fruitful administration; now in a case of necessity it is lawful to administer the sacrament even with the danger that it remain invalid or defective. But a priest who fears that the sacrament may be null can absolve only conditionally.

³ Suarez, disp. XXVIII, sect. 2; Lugo, disp. XXI, n. 70-74; Salmantic., ch. 12, n. 3-13; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 9, § 2; St. Alphonsus, n. 626-628; Lehmk., n. 438-441; Hilar. Sexten, § 44, p. 391-394; Marc, n. 1786-1787; Genicot, n. 355-356; Noldin, n. 391-392; Segneri, Il Confessore istruito, ch. I.

For, this knowledge being lacking, he exposes himself to a proximate and morally certain danger of fulfilling his office badly, with injury to the sacrament and harm to penitents. Indeed, as minister, he must procure the validity and integrity of the sacrament; as teacher, he is bound to instruct the ignorant; as judge, he must render an equitable judgment concerning the gravity and number of sins, define whether restitution is to be made or not, whether certain impediments stand in the way of a marriage to be celebrated or not, how dispensations can be obtained, understood, and put into execution, whether the penitent is to be absolved or not; as physician, he must investigate the cause of spiritual diseases and propose opportune remedies. But all these things certainly require no mediocre knowledge; when this is lacking, the sacrament is exposed to nullity, and penitents suffer detriment in a most grave matter, according to that saying of Scripture:¹ "But if the blind man offers guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit." - Hence St. Alphonsus deservedly says:² "I affirm that that confessor is in the state of damnation who, without sufficient knowledge, exposes himself to receiving confessions."

¹ Matt. XV, 14. Cf. Syn. Theol. Fundam., Prologomena, n. 14-17.

² St. Alphonsus, Praxis, n. 18.

459. Nor let it be said that sound sense or natural judgment plainly suffices for solving cases. - It indeed suffices for knowing the first principles of morals, but not for the ultimate conclusions of these; nor certainly does it help much for detecting positive laws concerning vows, justice, the administration of the sacraments, the scope and limits of jurisdiction, reserved cases, impediments of marriage and dispensations, and other things of this kind. Besides, natural and sound judgment, which for the application of principles and rules is not only useful but necessary, is helped not a little by the study of theology, where there are to be found warnings and counsels which the common sense of wise men has elaborated and digested through many centuries. He would lack sound judgment who would despise the wisdom of other prudent men.

Nor does experience alone suffice: this indeed is of much profit, especially for better scrutinizing the interior dispositions of penitents, and also for applying rules according to the various circumstances of places, times, and persons. But without knowledge, it serves little and sometimes does much harm; for there is no lack of confessors who, after thirty or forty years spent in the exercise of the sacred ministry, solve cases against all the principles of sound doctrine, because they were accustomed to do this from the beginning; and, as Habert rightly warns,¹ "the long experience of a confessor who lacks study and knowledge is an antiquity of error."

¹ Habert, Praxis Sacram. Paenit., Tr. I, ch. 4; cf. Ami du Clerge, t. XIX, 1898, Notes d'un Vieux Moraliste, pp. 1009, 1057 sq.

460. Corollaries. (a) The same knowledge is not required in all confessors, but greater or lesser according to the diversity of places and persons. Thus, generally, greater knowledge is necessary in a city, where penitents of every kind are accustomed to confess, than in a humble and remote village, where only the confessions of rude and simple persons are received.

(b) A priest sins gravely who, while he certainly knows that competent knowledge is lacking to him, accepts the office of confessor; nor does the approbation given by the Bishop excuse him, since this supposes knowledge but does not supply it. In doubt, however, whether it is lacking or not, he can follow the judgment of the Bishop. - A Bishop also sins gravely when he approves as confessor one whom he knows to be ignorant, because thus he cooperates in his sin. Nevertheless he is excused if he approves one less suitable for small and remote places, when he cannot find a more learned one, because it is better for the faithful to have an unlearned confessor than none. Nevertheless the Bishop must warn this man of the obligation of acquiring competent knowledge as soon as possible.

461. (c) Therefore, under grave obligation, alumni of Seminaries who wish to devote themselves to the sacred ministry are bound to study theology for a long time and seriously, not only dogmatic but also moral theology, so that they may be made suitable for exercising the office of confessor. - Besides, no confessor, even one approved, ought to discontinue the study of theology, especially moral theology; for from so many matters so diverse and differing among themselves, especially from those which are prescribed by positive law and occur more rarely, many things very easily fall from the memory unless they are read again and again.² - For this reason the Church wills that not only among secular priests, but also among regulars having the care of souls, collations or pastoral conferences be held frequently; yet in order that these may be truly useful, it is necessary that those who participate in them prepare themselves for them by consulting approved authors; otherwise time is wasted in vain.¹

² Benedict XIV does not hesitate to assert (Instit., XXXII, n. 4) "that some priests, namely, who at the beginning took up the office of confessor most excellently, afterward, after a long time, with all care of studies neglected, lose the former knowledge of moral theology, so that those who had been most skilled in this sort of art, finally, instructed only with a slight and confused knowledge of the art itself and with its first rudiments, are scarcely numbered among beginners." - Cf. Plenary Council of Baltimore III, n. 189.

¹ Hence one of the questions to which Bishops must respond when they prepare the report on the state of their churches is this: "whether conferences of moral theology, or of cases of conscience, are held... and how many times they are held, and who are present at them and what profit is had from them." Cf. Plenary Council of Baltimore III, n. 189-193; Collect. P. F., n. 108.

(d) When difficult cases occur, it is not expedient to solve them immediately, but it must be said to the penitent that he should give time for considering the matter more maturely; meanwhile he can be absolved, provided he is prepared to obey the decision to be given; for thus many errors are guarded against, especially if books or more learned persons are consulted. Indeed, it is very useful for new confessors, even when they had to solve a case immediately, to consult books and more experienced persons about the same case, so that thus they may know whether they acted rightly or not; for thus defects admitted can be repaired and future errors guarded against.

1786. Principles. I. The confessor is bound, and indeed UNDER GRAVE obligation, to have KNOWLEDGE of all those things which are required for the function of his office. - St. Alphonsus says gravely to the point:¹² "And to dispatch myself more briefly, I affirm that the confessor who, without sufficient knowledge, exposes himself to receiving confessions is in the state of damnation." The reason is because, this knowledge being lacking, the confessor certainly commits himself to danger of fulfilling his most holy office badly, with injury to the Sacrament and with harm to penitents.

Nor let it be said that knowledge is supplied by experience; for this, although it helps knowledge, nevertheless never fills its role. Hence "no confessor ought to interrupt the study of moral theology, because, from so many things so diverse and different among themselves which pertain to this knowledge, many things, although read, because they occur more rarely, fall from the mind with the passage of time: for which reason it is necessary always, by frequent study, to recall them into memory."¹³ (cf. n. 4).

Hence it is inferred: 1. A priest who, ignorant in moral matters, receives confessions sins gravely. Nor does the approbation of the Superior excuse him; for this supposes the knowledge due, but by no means infuses it. 2. A Superior who grants the faculty of receiving confessions to an unlearned priest sins gravely; for he consents to and cooperates in this one's sin. - 3. The penitent himself sins gravely who, placed in grave spiritual necessity, approaches a confessor whose knowledge he recognizes to be unsuitable to his state; because, besides the spiritual harm which he suffers, he is the cause why the Sacrament of Penance is administered in an undue manner.¹⁴

1787. II. As regards the QUALITY of knowledge, "It would surely be desirable," says Benedict XIV,¹⁵ "that every confessor possess that knowledge which they call eminent; but since this quality belongs to few, it is altogether necessary that he be instructed at least with competent knowledge." But this knowledge will be competent if he himself can always bring a prudent judgment in this forum; for judicial power requires this, that the things which must be judged be well discerned.

Therefore the confessor must know: 1. which sins are mortal, which venial, at least from their kind; - 2. the species and circumstances necessarily to be explained; - 3. things pertaining to restitution of goods and reputation; - 4. reserved cases, so that he may know to which his jurisdiction does not extend; likewise excommunications, censures, and irregularities, at least the more common; - 5. matrimonial impediments, and the common obligations of states; - 6. the requisites in the penitent for good disposition; - 7. opportune remedies to be opposed to sins.¹⁶

For the rest, FOR PRACTICE, it is useful to advert: 1. It is enough if the confessor is at least skilled in those things which more frequently occur, and concerning more difficult matters knows at least how to doubt, so that thus he can consult books, or learned men with due leave if he needs this. - 2. The same knowledge is not required in all; but greater or lesser knowledge according to the diversity of places and penitents: thus greater knowledge is required for hearing confessions in a city than in villages; greater for receiving confessions of Bishops, priests, and clerics, than of seculars and farmers. - 3. In more involved doubts, especially if the case is public, or easily to be made public, not only should learned men of greater experience be consulted, but often it is expedient, if time permits, that recourse be had to the Bishop himself.

IT IS ASKED. Whether a priest is bound to render himself FIT for receiving confessions?

Resp. Since Christ the Lord instituted priests for this end, that souls might be saved, and since the salvation of souls is obtained especially through the Sacrament of Penance: it follows that the office of receiving confessions is one of the chief offices of the priesthood; and therefore priests ARE BOUND, at least in grave necessity of peoples, to exercise it, and consequently to render themselves fit for it.

Hence St. Alphonsus:¹⁷ "I do not see," he says, "how those priests who, on account of idleness, withdraw themselves from this burden, can be safe in conscience, and be excused from the reproach of the Lord, and from the punishment of damnation inflicted on that idle servant who hid his talent.... Nor let priests of this sort say that they sufficiently fulfill their obligation if they assist souls in another way, namely by instructing, correcting, praying, without ministering the Sacrament of confession; for they are bound to assist them in that in which they have need for their own salvation. For if the neighbor needs food, you must assist him in food, not in garments. Nor is it valid to say that the office of hearing confessions is a work of charity, and charity does not oblige with so much inconvenience: for it is answered that this office does not have its origin from a simple motive of charity, but from the proper priestly office, as has been said."¹⁸

The Confessor, that he may rightly fulfill the duty of doctor, must have sufficient knowledge, so that he may fittingly teach penitents.

1420. Principles. - I. The Confessor is held under grave obligation to know all those things which are required for rightly fulfilling his duty. - Thus all with St. Alphonsus, who speaks thus: "I affirm that that confessor is in a state of damnation who exposes himself to hearing Confessions without sufficient knowledge." The reason is that otherwise a confessor of this kind exposes himself to the evident danger of badly discharging so grave a duty, with injury to the Sacrament and with great detriment to souls.

Therefore God requires special knowledge from His Ministers, as is clear from various words of Sacred Scripture: The lips of the priest shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth. - Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not perform the priesthood for Me. - If the blind offer leadership to the blind, both fall into the pit. - Woe to you, blind guides! - It is clear also from innumerable testimonies of the Holy Fathers: "No art is presumed to be taught, unless it is first learned by attentive meditation. Therefore the pastoral magisterium is undertaken by the unskilled with great rashness, since the governance of souls is the art of arts." - St. Gregory. Cf. what was said p. XCIII. under IV.

II. Nevertheless the Confessor is not held:

1) To have knowledge so perfect that he can always immediately and by himself solve all doubts that occur; but it suffices if he can do this in cases commonly occurring, and concerning more difficult ones knows at least how to doubt, so that he may consult books or, with due permission (if he has need of it), learned men. For greater knowledge can be had with more difficulty, since not even the more learned themselves are able immediately to solve all cases. Hence in more involved doubts, especially if the case is public or easily to be made public, not only are other learned men and men of greater experience to be consulted, but especially the Bishop is to be heard, if time is available. - Sometimes also the warning which Lugo gives will be useful: "When counsel must be given for the future, or restitution imposed, or a doubtful contract prohibited, or something similar, if the confessor cannot by himself" (or not immediately) "resolve it, it will be good counsel to ask the penitent whether he is prepared to consult skilled men and to stand by their judgment concerning that doubt" (or to return to himself, the confessor): "but if the penitent promises, let him absolve, telling him the obligation which he has of consulting someone or some persons concerning that doubt" (or of returning to himself, the confessor). Nor even

2) Is the confessor held to discern concerning each of the sins 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 know how to judge concerning them, both according to common principles and according to the adjuncts of things set forth by the penitent, and to apply a suitable remedy. Nor ought it then move the confessor that afterward he certainly knows that, while the confession was being made, it was uncertain to him. On the matter St. Alphonsus warns with Suarez, that although in some case the confessor does not discern which things are grave or light; if nevertheless the penitent in good faith says his sin, the Confession is valid; and although afterward it is noticed that it was mortal, there is no reason that it be repeated in another Confession. Nor

3) Is the same knowledge required in all, but greater or lesser according to the diversity of places, penitents, and adjuncts. It is said: a) of places, and thus lesser knowledge is required in small towns. - It is said: b) of penitents, and thus likewise lesser knowledge is required for hearing the Confessions of boys or country people than for hearing merchants, judges, etc., who have more difficult cases. But for the Confessions of a learned Theologian much less knowledge is required, because the confessor can be instructed by the penitent himself, provided nevertheless, I would add, that he is God-fearing, concerning whom you may not legitimately suspect that he chose one less learned in order that he might be absolved more easily. - It is said: c) of adjuncts; for the scarcity of priests will be able to excuse a Bishop, so that, if on account of it the faithful otherwise would have to lack a confessor for a long time, as happens more easily in Mission places, he may send a less sufficient minister.

Nevertheless the less sufficient are held diligently to apply themselves to studies, and they are to be warned by the Bishop concerning this obligation. - Lugo.

It is clear of itself that in the article of death, another being lacking, even an ignorant and unlearned priest must hear the Confession and absolve.

1421. Resolves. - 1° Any Confessor whatsoever is held to know all those things which regard 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. Hence also what is the difference between a Confession simply null or invalid and one which, besides, is sacrilegious.

2° He must know also the common obligations and the proper obligations of states; the various species of sins; their adjuncts changing the species; the principles of discerning between mortal and venial sins, and what things are mortal and venial in 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.

3° He must know cases and censures from which he cannot absolve, and with respect to those from which he can absolve, under what conditions he can do this; impediments of Matrimony; conditions of contracts; various causes of restitution; roots and occasions of sins; remedies to be brought to them; salutary and suitable satisfactions to be imposed, etc.

4° Therefore a confessor sins who certainly knows that the aforesaid knowledge is lacking to him, even if he hears Confessions from charity alone and obedience. Nor does the approbation of the Bishop excuse him of itself; for this does not give the knowledge due from the nature of the thing, nor supply its defect. I have said: certainly knows; for he who doubts concerning his aptitude will be able to lay aside the doubt, when the Prelate, who knows him well, imposes that duty on him.

5° The Superior also sins who gives permission to an ignorant confessor to hear Confessions, because he consents to and cooperates with his sin. H. A. Tr. XVI. 99 in fine.

6° The penitent himself also sins who deliberately chooses an inept confessor. Nevertheless, 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 due disposition of soul; on the part of the confessor there intervenes at least cognition of sins under the confused notion of sin, which suffices for the matter of the Sacrament. L. VI. 628 sub 1 and 2.

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

8° Therefore every Confessor whatsoever is held diligently to apply himself to the study of Moral Theology; and, as St. Alphonsus asserts, he must never interrupt that study; "because from so many diverse things and things disparate among themselves, which pertain to this knowledge, many things, although read, since they happen more rarely, in the progress of time fall from the mind; wherefore it is necessary always by frequent study to recall them into the mind."

9° Hence it is clear how gravely they err who consider the knowledge of Moral Theology easy and hardly worthy of any attention, repeatedly saying that nearly all cases can be solved by some common sense, with knowledge of general principles. - Aptly the same St. Alphonsus says: "Let those who aspire to this duty of hearing Confessions not easily persuade themselves that they can render themselves sufficiently suitable for so great a duty without prolonged study of moral knowledge, for which certainly it does not suffice to run through some little summary of those which are carried about; nor is it enough to know the general principles of this faculty, as certain men think, who (despising Casuists) arrogate to themselves the name of literati. For moral knowledge is not only very necessary to the Christian commonwealth, since the good governance of souls depends upon it, but it is also supremely difficult; both because it requires a general knowledge of all other sciences, offices, and arts; and because it embraces so many diverse matters separated among themselves; and because in great part it consists of so many positive laws, which are found cited only among Casuists, and especially among more recent ones, since laws of this kind come forth day by day. - Finally it becomes most difficult on account of innumerable circumstances of cases, upon which the variation of resolutions depends: for from the diversity of circumstances diverse principles must be applied, and in this the difficulty consists, since this cannot be done without great discussion, or the accurate reading of several books which examine and elucidate matters."

I. Outside the case of necessity, the confessor is bound under grave obligation to have that knowledge which is required for duly undertaking his function and which is competent; namely, not eminent, but moderate, by which he can solve cases which commonly occur in the place where he is accustomed to hear confessions, and at least prudently doubt concerning more difficult ones, so that he may be able to consult books or others more learned.

It is proved: For if this knowledge is lacking, he exposes himself to a proximate and morally certain danger of fulfilling his function badly, with injury to the sacrament and damage to penitents. For as minister he must procure the validity and integrity of the sacrament; as teacher, he is held to instruct the ignorant concerning duties; as judge, he must judge concerning the sins, dispositions, and obligations to be urged upon penitents; as physician, he must investigate the cause of spiritual diseases and propose opportune remedies. All these certainly require no small knowledge; and when this is lacking, the sacrament is exposed to nullity or defects, and penitents suffer detriment in a most grave matter, according to that saying (Mt. XV, 14): "But if the blind offer guidance to the blind, both fall into the pit." - Hence St. Alphonsus, Pr. Conf., n. 18: "I affirm that that confessor is in a state of damnation who, without sufficient knowledge, exposes himself to receiving confessions."

It is said A) moderate, by which he can solve cases commonly occurring; namely, a) as minister he is bound to know 1) what pertains to the essence and effects of the sacrament of Penance, to its validity and licit administration and reception; - b) as judge and teacher: 2) the principles of discerning between mortal and venial sins both in general and in the individual precepts; 3) what pertains to the species, number, and circumstances of sins necessarily to be declared; 4) what pertains to the restitution of reputation and of goods; 5) reserved cases and the more frequently occurring censures; 6) impediments of marriage and obligations of states; - all which things it is impossible to know unless he knows the general principles of moral science concerning human acts, conscience, sins, and laws; - c) as physician: 7) the roots and occasions of sins and opportune remedies;

B) in the place where he is accustomed to hear confessions: for the same knowledge is not required in all confessors, but greater or less according to the diversity of places, times, and penitents. Thus, for example, greater knowledge is required in a city than in a remote village, for hearing any faithful whatever of diverse conditions than for the faithful of the same state and condition;

C) outside the case of necessity: for, if necessity presses, not only extreme but even grave, a less learned confessor licitly receives confessions, since generally the ignorance of the confessor does not obstruct the validity of the sacrament, but only its integrity or its fruitful administration; indeed in a case of true necessity, it is not always illicit to administer the sacrament with danger lest it remain defective or invalid. But a priest who fears lest the sacrament be null can absolve only conditionally.

II. Corollaries. - From the things said theologians deduce the following:

1. Natural endowments of talent or sound sense, or natural judgment, are not sufficient in a confessor. It is indeed sufficient for knowing the first moral principles, but not for their ultimate conclusions; nor does it help much for detecting positive laws concerning vows, justice, sacred ministration, the scope and limits of jurisdiction, reserved cases, matrimonial impediments and dispensations, and other things of this kind. Moreover natural and sound judgment, which is necessary for the application of principles and rules, is helped not a little by the study of theology, where one can find practical admonitions and counsels, which the common sense of the wise has elaborated and digested through many centuries. He would lack sound judgment who despised the wisdom of other prudent men.

2. Nor is experience alone sufficient: for it does not supply knowledge, but only helps it. Namely, it profits much for searching out the interior dispositions of penitents, and also for applying rules according to the various circumstances of places, times, and persons; but it does not furnish knowledge of principles and rules. Hence those who rely on experience alone necessarily commit many errors. Add that from so many matters so diverse and disparate among themselves, especially from those which are prescribed by positive law and occur more rarely, many very easily fall from the mind unless they are rather often recalled to mind.

3. A priest sins gravely who, while certainly knowing that competent knowledge is lacking to him, accepts the function of confessor, even if only from charity or obedience; - nor is it sufficient once to undergo a good examination, but he is bound to preserve knowledge by study, indeed to increase it, on account of new cases occurring, new positive laws, new decisions, for example, of the Roman Congregations. Nor does the approbation given by the bishop excuse him, since this supposes knowledge but does not supply it; although nevertheless, in doubt whether it is lacking or not, he can follow the judgment of the bishop.¹

¹ Benedict XIV does not hesitate to assert, Inst. XXXII, n. 4, "that some priests, who at the beginning had accepted the function of Confessor most excellently, thereafter after a long time, every care of studies having been neglected, lose the former knowledge of moral theology, so that those who had been most skilled in an art of this kind, at length, instructed with a scanty and confused knowledge of this art and with its first rudiments, are scarcely numbered among beginners."

4. Likewise a bishop sins gravely who would approve a confessor whom he knew to be ignorant, because thus he would cooperate in his sin; - although nevertheless he can be excused if he approve one less suitable in a case of necessity, for example, for small and remote places, when he cannot find one more learned: for it is better for the faithful to have an unlearned confessor than none. In which case the bishop is bound to admonish him concerning the obligation of obtaining competent knowledge as soon as possible.

5. Likewise the penitent sins gravely who deliberately chooses an inept confessor, if thus he exposes himself to grave spiritual damage, since besides the damage which he suffers, he is the cause that the sacrament is ministered in an undue mode.

6. Students of seminaries who are destined for the sacred ministry are bound under grave obligation to apply themselves for a long time and seriously to the study of theology, not only dogmatic but also moral, so that they may be made fit for exercising the function of confessor.

7. Likewise a confessor sins who for a long time neglects the study of moral theology, if he does not retain it in memory; and indeed easily gravely, if he exposes himself to a proximate danger of committing grave errors and of harming penitents.²

² St. Alphonsus writes (Praxis Conf., n. 17): "The lips of the priest shall guard knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth (Malach. II, 7). For the confessor, that he may duly perform the office of teacher, there is need that he know the law well; for he who is ignorant of it cannot teach others. But here that must be adverted to which St. Gregory writes, namely, that the office of directing souls through the way of eternal salvation is the art of arts: The art of arts is the rule of souls. And St. Francis de Sales used to say that the office of hearing confessions is the greatest and most difficult of all. In truth it is so. It is the greatest of all, because it is the end of all sciences, which ought to be nothing other than eternal salvation; and it is the most difficult of all, first, because the function of confessor requires knowledge of all sciences, all offices, and arts; secondly, because the science of moral theology embraces so many matters diverse among themselves; thirdly, because in great part it consists of so many positive laws and sacred canons, whose understanding must be taken according to their true signification: moreover each of these laws is rendered difficult, since by reason of circumstances which make cases dissimilar, resolutions must be varied. Certain men, who boast themselves to be learned and theologians of great note, disdain even to read cursorily the moralists, whom they call casuists (a name of disgrace among them). These say that, so that confessions can be duly received, it is sufficient to know well the general principles of morals; for by them, they say, all particular cases can be resolved. Who can deny that all particular cases must be resolved by these principles? But the whole work and the whole labor is in adapting principles of this kind to particular cases, entangled in such diverse circumstances, and that it may be discerned which of the principles agrees with the occurring circumstances; this cannot be done without great discussion of the reasons which stand for each side. And this is what the moralists have accomplished, while they labored in explaining from which principles many particular cases had to be resolved. Moreover, in this our age, as has been said, there are so many positive laws, so many bulls, so many decrees, which cannot be known unless the casuists are read, who have collected them, and according as the variety of matters demands, there those things are opportunely found; and therefore, the more recent these moralists are, the more useful they are than the ancient. Moved by a just reason, the author of the Instructions for New Confessors (Part. i, 18) affirms that many theologians, the deeper they are in speculative sciences, the ruder they are in the moral sciences, which, as Gerson writes (Tract. de orat.), are the most difficult of all, and no learned man, however much he is most versed in these, is such that new things do not happen to him day by day; from which he infers that the study of moral theology must never be abandoned by the confessor. The most learned Sperelli (De Episc., p. 3, c. 4) likewise says that those greatly err who apply themselves wholly to the study of scholastic theology, judging time to be spent vainly in moral theology, and afterward do not know how to distinguish leprosy from leprosy; which error (he adds) drags confessors and penitents together into eternal perdition."

III. Observations. - 1) Lest errors be committed when difficult cases occur, it is not expedient to solve them at once, but the penitent must be told that he should give time for considering the matter more maturely and for consulting books and those more learned; yet meanwhile he can be absolved, provided that he is prepared to obey the decision to be given or to approach a more learned confessor.

2. Likewise it is very useful for new confessors, even when they had to solve a case at once, to consult books and those more skilled concerning the same case, so that they may at once know whether they acted rightly or not: for thus defects admitted can be repaired and future errors guarded against.

3. Likewise here the ecclesiastical conferences concerning theological dogmatic and moral matters are especially to be commended.

603. Before confession the confessor must acquire the required endowments. - Besides the power of order and of jurisdiction, which are necessary for the value of the sacrament, several qualities or endowments are required in the minister, without which he could not licitly and fruitfully execute his office for the spiritual salvation of those confessing. Therefore the confessor must prepare himself for receiving confessions, by acquiring the qualities which are necessary for duly fulfilling this office: on the part of the speculative intellect, knowledge; on the part of the practical intellect, prudence; on the part of the will, goodness of life. Thus the Roman Ritual, t. 3, c. 1, n. 1.

604. On the knowledge of the confessor. - The confessor is bound under grave obligation, outside the case of extreme necessity, to have that knowledge which is required and competent for duly undertaking his office: not eminent knowledge, namely, but mediocre knowledge, by which he can solve cases which commonly occur in the place where he is accustomed to hear confessions, and at least prudently doubt concerning more difficult matters, so that he can consult books or others more learned.

For when this knowledge is lacking, he exposes himself to a proximate and morally certain danger of badly fulfilling his office, with injury to the sacrament and harm to penitents. For, as minister, he must procure the validity and integrity of the sacrament; as teacher, he is bound to instruct the ignorant concerning duties; as judge, he must judge concerning the sins, dispositions, and obligations to be urged upon penitents; as physician, he must investigate the spiritual cause of illnesses and propose opportune remedies. All these things certainly require no small knowledge.

Therefore:

1. It is necessary that the confessor be able to solve cases commonly occurring. Hence he is bound to know those things which pertain to the essence and effects of the sacrament of Penance, to its valid and licit administration and reception; - the principles of discerning between mortal and venial sins both in general and in individual precepts; - those things which regard the species, number, and circumstances of sins necessarily to be declared; - those things which regard restitution of reputation and goods; - reserved cases and the censures which occur more frequently; - impediments of marriage and obligations of states; - the roots and occasions of sins and opportune remedies. Yet it is impossible to know or rightly understand these things unless he knows the general principles of moral science concerning human acts, conscience, sins, and laws.

But as to more difficult cases, which otherwise rarely occur, it is not expedient to solve them immediately; rather, it must be said to the penitent that he should give time for considering the matter more maturely and for consulting books and more learned men. Yet meanwhile he can be absolved, provided he is prepared to obey the decision to be given.

2. The required knowledge must be measured according to the place where confessions are customarily heard; for the same knowledge is not required in all confessors, but greater or lesser according to the diversity of places, times, and penitents. Thus, for example, greater knowledge is required in a city than in a remote village, for hearing any faithful whatever of diverse condition than for hearing faithful of the same state or condition.

3. The aforesaid knowledge is required outside the case of necessity. For if necessity presses, not only extreme but also grave necessity, a less learned confessor licitly receives confessions, since for the most part the ignorance of the confessor does not stand in the way of the validity of the sacrament, but only of its integrity or of its fruitful administration; indeed, in a case of necessity it is not always illicit to administer a sacrament with danger lest it remain defective or invalid. But a priest who fears that the sacrament may be null can absolve only conditionally.

4. A priest sins gravely who, while he certainly knows that he lacks competent knowledge, accepts the office of confessor even from charity alone or obedience, even if formerly he well underwent the danger of examination and has the approval of the Bishop, since this supposes but does not supply knowledge; although nevertheless, in doubt whether this knowledge is lacking or not, he can follow the judgment of the bishop, if the bishop knows the priest well. Likewise he easily sins gravely who for a long time neglects the study of moral theology, if thus he exposes himself to the danger of committing grave errors and harming penitents.

5. A bishop also would sin gravely who approved a confessor whom he knew to be ignorant, because thus he would cooperate with his sin; - although nevertheless he can be excused if he approves one less suitable in a case of necessity, e.g., for small and remote places, when he cannot find one more learned: for it is better for the faithful to have an unlearned confessor than none. In this case the bishop is bound to warn him of the obligation of acquiring competent knowledge as soon as possible.

6. Likewise a penitent would sin gravely who deliberately chose an inept confessor, if thus he exposed himself to grave spiritual harm, since, besides the harm which he would suffer, he would be the cause that the sacrament was ministered in an undue way.

605. On the prudence of the confessor. - To knowledge there must be added prudence, i.e., practical wisdom which orders the best means to the end. For it is especially necessary to the confessor, that he may know how to lead principles into practice and to apply general precepts according to the condition of persons and circumstances; so that he may sin neither by excess nor by defect, nor run into laxity or into rigor, but safely lead to an upright Christian life, and to perfection and eternal life.

For it belongs to a judge and physician rightly to adapt those things which are required for judging cases or curing illnesses; but the confessor is judge and physician of souls. Therefore for this it is required that he know the character of the penitent and that he treat diverse penitents not in the same way, but according to their diverse character and condition. - Moreover, difficult cases not rarely occur, whose circumstances can vary to infinity, and in which the confessor cannot proceed rightly unless prudence directs him.

But he must be prudent both toward the penitent and toward himself, so that he may harm neither; and toward the Christian commonwealth, lest, with detriment to religion, he give scandal, but according to his powers procure the public good.

A. Toward the penitent he must be prudent:

1. As to contrition, so that he proposes motives of contrition according to the talent, character, and sins of each one; and is not too easy in judging that the penitent is contrite, nor too rigid, but from indications and circumstances forms an equitable judgment.

2. In confession: a) In forming judgment concerning the morality of actions, so that he regards not only the object, but also the subjective circumstances, the dispositions of each one, and conscience, which more often change the species or gravity.

b) In interrogations, which in no way should be immoderate, indiscreet, or untimely or inopportune, but adapted to the character, age, and condition of each one, namely, to take care lest he teach simple and innocent persons sins unknown to them and lead them into temptation, or offend penitents; and nevertheless that they be sufficient for detecting hidden wounds and the causes, occasions, and gravity of spiritual illnesses.

c) In giving counsels, by selecting opinions and warnings according as the spiritual good of penitents requires, and in instructions, by warning the ignorant or leaving them in good faith, generally as he knows to be more expedient for their good.

d) In leaving perfect liberty of approaching another confessor.

3. In absolution, so that he rightly discerns the disposition or indisposition of the penitent, and grants, denies, or defers absolution according as it is expedient for his salvation, especially with occasionarii and recidivists.

4. In satisfactions, so that he imposes salutary and fitting ones, accommodated to the quality of the sins, but more to the good of the penitent; likewise that he suggest opportune remedies accommodated to the sins, above all by removing the causes of sins.

5. In the attendant consequences of confession: a) in correcting his own errors; and b) in keeping the seal, so that he avoids every danger that anything be revealed directly or indirectly, and indeed so strictly that in doubt he does that which is safer (II, n. 90-91); indeed c) in abstaining from every word concerning the defects of other confessors.

B. Toward himself: a) In searching out the circumstances of sins, especially against chastity, lest by these very minute ways he excite temptation in himself.

b) In avoiding the sight of women, especially younger women.

c) In acting cautiously with women, even those devoted to spirituality or tending to perfection, namely by avoiding superfluous conversations or familiarity, by not receiving little gifts, by not visiting them at home without necessity, by showing himself rigid and austere rather than pleasing, etc.

C. Toward the Christian commonwealth. For although the confessor, by reason of his office, is bound principally to devote himself to the good of the penitent, nevertheless, since the sacraments are for the Church and he himself is constituted as minister for the good of the Church, not only the private good but also the public good is to be procured by him as far as possible, which is not to be harmed and to which the private good of the penitent is to be subordinated, as St. Alphonsus warns, Th. M., l. VI, n. 615.

But in order that he acquire prudence, attention must be given to the nature, qualities, and conditions of prudence according to the doctrine of St. Thomas.¹

¹ Cf. II, n. 11-12 and 23-25; and our little work On the Minister of Penance, c. 4, q. 1, a. 2.

606. On goodness of life required in the confessor. - Besides knowledge and prudence there is also required goodness or honesty of life. This consists not only in the state of grace, which is necessary for avoiding sacrilegious ministration of the sacrament, and therefore is ordinarily required in one who is accustomed to hear confessions and is not to be exposed to a proximate occasion (n. 78, 3); - but also in the complex of virtues which are desired for duly fulfilling the office of confessor, both so that he himself may not be contaminated by handling the ulcers of sins, and so that he can direct others in the way of sanctity.

The principal virtues necessary for a confessor are customarily enumerated: supernatural zeal of souls, by which from sincere charity toward God and neighbor he consults solely and only the honor of God and the salvation of the neighbor, spends himself entirely, and loves penitents with a special paternal love as spiritual children of God; for this there are required great meekness of mercy and paternal gravity, which demands reverence with every too sensible affection excluded; - patience, - fortitude, - eminent purity, - and great humility.²

² Concerning these, cf. St. Alphonsus, Homo Ap., tr. 21, n. 1 ff.; and Praxis Confessarii; Aertnijs, Th. P., n. 18 ff.; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, n. 560-565; and our little work On the Minister of Penance, c. 4, q. 1, a. 3.

I. The spirit of the Christian profession transforms the earthly man into a heavenly one, as the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15: As we have borne the image of the earthly, let us bear also the image of the heavenly. The Christian puts off the image of the earthly man in the very profession of Baptism, by which he renounces Satan, his pomps, and his works. This renunciation precedes the profession of faith, says Salvian in Book 6 of The Government of God: For what is the first confession of Christians in saving Baptism? What, indeed, but that they protest that they renounce the Devil, and his pomps, and his spectacles, and his works? ... And what more? I believe, sayest thou, in God the Father almighty, and in Jesus Christ his Son. First, therefore, the Devil is renounced, that God may be believed. For he who does not renounce the Devil does not believe God. The genuine and precise sense of this profession I shall explain when we come to speak of Baptism; and I shall make plain that Pastors frequently sin because they neglect to lay open to baptized youths the burdens of this profession which they have made.

II. Question I. What rules ought Pastors of souls to observe in healing the sick? Answer: These spiritual physicians must first of all have thoroughly examined the gravity of the infirmity, as has been said; then they must know what the rules of health are. If the physicians of bodies did not know when the pulse of the arteries is ordered and regular, how could they distinguish the sick man from the healthy? What a healthy Christian is, therefore, must be well known to the directors of souls. Now those Christians are held to be healthy who are conformed to Christ Jesus, as St. Paul testifies in Romans 8: For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren. The physicians of souls, therefore, must set before their eyes the image of the life which Christ Jesus led on earth, that they may be able to cure souls and restore them to firm health.

III. These, moreover, are the lineaments of that divine image, says St. Peter in his first Epistle, chapter 2: But you are a chosen generation, a kingly priesthood, a holy nation, a purchased people. This image pours forth rays of sanctity in every direction, as the Apostle Paul adds in 1 Thessalonians 4: This is the will of God, your sanctification; and in 2 Corinthians 7 [recte 13]: Salute all the Saints; and elsewhere: For you are bought with a great price: glorify and bear God in your body. Nay more, that our bodies are members of Christ he testifies again in 1 Corinthians 6: Your bodies are the members of Christ. And finally, Ephesians 4: Let us grow up in him in all things, who is the head, Christ. But how can it come to pass that a Christian man should become like to God? I shall show in few words.

IV. Question II. In what does the spirit of Christian perfection chiefly consist? Answer: In charity and humility. Of the first now; of the latter, below. The fire of divine love, when the pitch of worldly and carnal affections has been consumed, kindles a heavenly flame, and makes us like to God and observers of his whole law, as Christ himself teaches in Matthew 22: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, etc. Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. Him whom you love, you do not injure, you do not visit with wrongs; you do not steal what is his; you do not blaspheme his name; you do not circumvent him with deceits or frauds; you carry out what pleases him; you do not rashly bring lawsuits against him; you abstain from the things that displease him. Behold how true is the saying of the Apostle: love is the fulfilling of the law.

V. This is the man of God adorned with the eight beatitudes, says the Evangelist Matthew in chapter 5, who imitates God and fulfills his following commandments: Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you... Go first to be reconciled to thy brother. He commands these things to be done, not that we may please men, but that we may please God. He warns that it cannot come to pass that we should serve God and the World; for we must needs hold one or the other in hatred. That we must refrain from the greedy heaping up of riches and from solicitude about things, the Gospels frequently inculcate: Take heed that you do not your justice before men... Lay not up to yourselves treasures on earth... No man can serve two masters... Be not solicitous... For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. We must read what the same Matthew prescribes in chapter 7, where he cries out that our foot must be restrained from the broad way, and that we must enter by the strait and narrow way: Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it! By this narrow gate and strait way Christ our exemplar entered into the kingdom of heaven, and the same way have walked all his true disciples, whom we know with certainty to have entered the kingdom of God. He wishes us to be prompt and prepared for the renunciation of all things that we possess in this world: He that doth not renounce all that he possesseth, cannot be my disciple.

VI. St. Paul the Apostle, taught by Christ Jesus, paints in vivid colors the character which Christians must sustain upon the theater of this world. And first, we are compared, in 1 Corinthians 9, to those who run in the race to obtain the prize: And every one that striveth for the mastery, refraineth himself from all things: and they indeed that they may receive a corruptible crown. Meditate this truth more deeply. Those who run in the race restrain their senses, and aim all their powers and endeavors at this one thing alone, to obtain the prize. Do those runners, while they run, turn aside their eyes to look at games, comedies, dances, spectacles, and the other illusions of the raving World? Far from it. They have absolutely nothing else in mind and soul but the attainment of the crown — and that a corruptible one. We all run in the race to obtain an incorruptible, infinite, and eternal crown. And do we labor under such fatuity that, this eternal crown being spurned, like boys devoid of reason we bend our soul to catching the breeze of the world, to vain spectacles, to fables, to fooleries? With our mouth we boast that we wish to obtain this crown; but meanwhile in very deed we spend our time and our whole life in games, in colloquies with women, in banquets, in consolations, which war as enemies against the attainment of the crown. If you consult the volumes of certain Casuists, they report this battle to you as light, not deadly; and many affirm, with various little distinctions added, that you can both attain the crown and enjoy the aforesaid blandishments and delights of the World. Against them cries the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 7: This therefore I say, brethren; the time is short; it remaineth, that they also who have wives, be as if they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as if they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as if they used it not: for the fashion of this world passeth away. Behold the state of this mortal life depicted for you. But there remain more shining lineaments still. What are they? To battle with the senses, to torment the flesh, to restrain the appetites, and daily to carry the cross of Christ, our exemplary master: If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. And they that are Christ's, have crucified their flesh, with the vices and concupiscences.

VII. To this is added that all who would sustain the image and character of Christ in this valley of tears must bear patiently and with a constant soul the hatred of the world, its mockeries, contempts, and persecutions. The Disciples lamented that the world held them in hatred. Christ the Lord replied, John 15: If the world hate you, know ye, that it hath hated me before you. If you had been of the world, the world would love its own: but because you are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. And again he thunders by the mouth of Paul: If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ; and again: All that will live godly in Christ Jesus, shall suffer persecution.

VIII. These are the ornaments, the definitions, the pronouncements, the axioms, and the principles of the Christian profession, which the Pastors of souls ought always to have both engraved in their soul and sounding on their lips. It is necessary that they ponder these things with themselves in serious and humble meditation, that they may be able to hold them out with profit to their flock, as food excellently disposed and prepared.

IX. Question III. Is humility the chief virtue of Christian perfection? Answer: One of the chief effects of original sin, with which men are born stained and wounded, is pride, whose antidote is called humility. The sages of the Heathen were ignorant both of original sin and of true humility. Most admirably, after the Fathers, St. Thomas, in the II-II, q. 161, art. 5, ad 2, declares that the sublime and lofty edifice which the Son of God raised up consists chiefly of two things: namely, of humility, which occupies the place of the foundation, and of charity, which is the form of the whole edifice, and which, bestowing value, beauty, and firmness, couples and consolidates all the parts of the fabric in a wondrous bond. These are the words of the Angelic Doctor: As the ordered assemblage of the virtues is by a certain similitude compared to an edifice, so also that which is first in the acquisition of the virtues is compared to the foundation, which is first laid in a building. But the virtues are truly infused by God. Whence what is first in the acquisition of the virtues can be taken in two ways: in one way, by way of removing an obstacle; and thus humility holds the first place, inasmuch as it expels pride, which God resisteth, and renders man submissive and open to receive the influx of divine grace, inasmuch as it empties out the inflation of pride. Whence it is said in James 4 that God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble: and in this respect humility is called the foundation of the spiritual edifice. Wherefore, as no fabric can stand without a foundation, so no virtue can shine forth without humility.

X. The more necessary is this antidote of humility for expelling pride, the more difficult is its execution and practice. Unless the Son of God had taught this virtue both by word and by example, it would scarcely shine forth among men, swollen, puffed up, and supercilious with the poison of pride. The divine Word emptied himself, putting on the form of a servant and of a sinner, that he might induce men to the study and exercise of so great a virtue. Wisely does St. Augustine expound, in the book On Holy Virginity, chapter 45 [recte 35], these words — Learn of me, because I am meek, and humble of heart — which he interprets thus: He to whom the Father hath delivered all things, and whom no one knoweth but the Father, and who alone knoweth the Father, and he to whom he willeth to reveal him, saith not: Learn of me to frame the world, or to raise the dead; but: because I am meek, and humble of heart. O wholesome doctrine! O Master and Lord of mortals, to whom death was ministered and poured out in the cup of pride! He would not teach what he himself was not; he would not command what he himself did not. But, passing over the very many things which he here writes in commendation of humility, I shall recall before your eyes a few of those which he has in Epistle 56 [recte 118], to Dioscorus: To this, he says, my Dioscorus, I would have you submit with entire piety, and construct for yourself no other way for grasping and holding the truth than that which has been constructed by him who, as God, sees the infirmity of our steps. And that way is, first, humility; second, humility; third, humility; and as often as you should ask, so often would I say this — not that there are not other precepts to be spoken of, but unless humility precede, accompany, and follow whatever good we do, unless it be set before us to look upon, and beside us to lean upon, and over us to restrain us, while we are rejoicing over some good deed, pride wrests the whole from our hand. The other vices, indeed, are to be feared in sins; but pride is to be feared even in deeds rightly done, lest those things which have been laudably done be lost through the very desire of praise. Therefore, as that most renowned Rhetorician, when he was asked what seemed to him the first thing to be observed in the precepts of eloquence, is said to have answered, Delivery; when it was asked what second, the same Delivery; what third, to have said nothing else but Delivery: so if you should ask, and as often as you should ask, concerning the precepts of the Christian Religion, I would answer nothing else but humility, even though necessity should perhaps compel me to speak of other things, etc.

I. Two things I have thus far touched upon: the infirmity and the deadly wounds of human nature, which is the first; the other, the remedies suited for healing that nature. I now desire you as judges, O Pastors of souls: is not an assured knowledge, both of human infirmity and of the remedies by which it must be cured, supremely necessary — and that in advance? Let us now converse together, prejudices laid aside. For how few are there who approach the curing of souls imbued with this instruction! Who first of all expounds original sin, pride, and the evils that proceed thence? Who inculcates the force and necessity of the most grave precept of humility, which is the antidote of pride? Scarcely do very many of those whose books are worn by handling for the government of souls make any mention of this virtue, which is the basis and foundation of the whole evangelical edifice. Who among them brings forward the axioms and rules of Christian sanctity — namely, the daily carrying of the cross, the battling with the flesh, the soul prepared to sustain the hatred of the world, persecutions, derisions, contumelies, calumnies — and cries out that these are as it were the preludes of the Christian life, and that charity is that form which animates and vivifies the spirit of the evangelical profession? If a Physician should approach to cure a sick man without having thoroughly examined the rules of health, and without taking care to explore the nature of the sick man and the gravity of his disease, would he not be convicted of manifest folly? And yet how many are the physicians of souls who have ascertained the force of the baptismal profession, and the rules which Christ himself prescribed for the ordering of the Christian life and which we have indicated, and who impose the observance of them upon sinners?

II. When worldly men behold Christians, Priests, and religious Men fallen into lust, avarice, gluttony, and similar disgraces, they murmur, they are amazed, they wonder; on the contrary, those who are free from these vices they extol. That very many are damned on account of lust and avarice, holy Scripture teaches. But few are they who bend their soul toward pride, the root of these and of the other crimes. And yet it is certain that men for the greater part perish eternally on account of the most hidden crime of pride. By pride Lucifer fell with the third part of the Angels; by pride fell Adam, the head of the human race. The disease infecting the whole human race is pride: this is the prevailing and dominant fever, the most malignant of all diseases, which penetrates all the hiding-places and recesses of the human heart; this is the pestilential plague which, from ambush and as it were by underground passages, brings forth the slaughter of souls. From the carnal vices, which strike the senses of men and beget infamy, we abstain, if not from love of virtue, at least from dread of undergoing ignominy. Frequently we cover vice with vice; and in order to catch the favor, applause, esteem, and deference of the world, we detest the sordid and vile sins. But dazzling is the crime of pride, which bewitched the mind of the supreme Angel and of the first man. It often either steals away or gnaws at the very merit of good works, or lays snares for it. On every side it besieges and surrounds us, so that we glory even in sanctity itself. At that very time when we are extolling the virtue of humility and magnifying its necessity, pride, clothed in a splendid garment, transforms itself into an Angel of light, and works its machinations within us, and stirs up a breeze of sweet and insensible complacency. Pride, says Augustine, lies in wait even for good works. More of this I shall make manifest when we come to speak of pride and humility.

III. From these things which I have touched upon in passing, gather, O Pastors of souls, how much it is to be feared and dreaded at that very time when we flatter ourselves about chastity, about poverty, about equity. Most cunning self-love creeps within us, gnaws, excites elation without our noticing, and makes our souls swell. Against these most hidden rocks we dash souls — we ourselves, Theologians, ministers of God, Confessors — who, in order to be eminent and to shine above others, in order to conciliate to ourselves the worldly Powers, often speak pleasing things, and most pugnaciously defend opinions smeared with the paint of a new benignity, which indulge flesh and blood, and which procure for us the patronage of the Rich and of Magnates.

IV. All those books, therefore, which neglect the aforesaid evangelical doctrine and the rules which Christ our Savior himself established for the curing of our diseases, which do not inculcate them, which swarm with definitions, petty distinctions, petty questions, and disputations devised by the wit of men, are unfit for instructing Pastors in the government of souls. You, therefore, Ministers of Christ, if the salvation of others and your own is dear to your heart, first of all bend your soul, your powers, and your studies upon the Gospels of Jesus Christ and the Pauline Epistles. Unless the doctrine of Christ is thoroughly known to you, how can you detect the falsity of human opinions? The evangelical doctrine is simple: it teaches not to cavil, nor to wrangle, nor to dispute, but to execute the divine law with a humble and docile soul; it inflames the heart and kindles the fire of divine love; it begets contempt of the world and of earthly things.

V. "What has been said thus far serves Preachers and mystical Men, not the cultivators of moral Theology." So chatter those who, prepossessed by the art of caviling, have introduced new and unheard-of rules of morals. But, to reduce them to straits, I ask: are the things we have thus far gathered from the Gospels true, or false? If they blurt out that they are false, they themselves are not Christians. If true: then these things above all are to be expounded, inculcated, and urged. Then those books which are empty of the aforesaid precepts, which set up the mere petty opinions of men as rules of morals, are unfit for curing the infirmities of Christians. The most holy Fathers of all ages observed this method which we have described. Consult your own self, excellent Reader. Do you not, while you read and meditate the evangelical sayings recited, find yourself moved? Do you not feel the futility of many human opinions, with which not a few casuistical volumes swarm? Sit as judge yourself. When, from the reading of certain Casuists, have you experienced yourself inflamed toward God? When animated and impelled to cultivate humility; to trample upon riches, the applause of men, and worldly glory; to bear the cross daily; to crucify the flesh and the appetites with their concupiscences by the severity of fasts and vigils? When have you read in books of that kind that the observance of this evangelical oracle is forcefully inculcated: Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect? Of the precept of humility, which is, as we have said and as must continually be repeated, the first foundation of the Christian edifice, and of the other most grave commandment of yearning after evangelical perfection seated in charity, either no discourse at all, or a dry one, is found in not a few casuistical books. If, then, the first and chief rules of the Christian profession and of the reformation of morals are neglected, what wonder if Christians for the greater part profane the Sacraments of Christ, and lead a life corrupted with perpetual vices? But of this more in its place. You meanwhile, Pastor of souls, have always before your eyes that Christians who are to be saved must be conformed to the divine exemplar, Christ Jesus. This single most certain rule will teach you more than the volumes of many of certain authors.

I. All theologians teach that penitents laboring under vincible ignorance must be instructed. The dispute concerns invincible ignorance alone. The precept of fraternal correction must be distinguished from the precept of giving instruction to the penitent, who is to receive the Sacrament of penance. The former, when hope of profit is wanting, does not press; but the latter binds even when the hope of amendment has been removed, on account of the reverence due to the Sacrament. All likewise teach that those penitents must be enlightened who labor under ignorance of the Trinity, of the Incarnation, of the Eucharist, and of the supernatural sorrow necessary for sacramental confession.

II. Sanchez, Lugo, Tamburini, the Salmanticenses, and Sporer defend the position that Confessors are not bound — nay, that they ought not — to enlighten penitents laboring under invincible ignorance of the mysteries which are not necessary with the necessity of means, and of the other truths of law, whether positive or natural.

III. This opinion seems to me false. All Christians are bound by a most grave precept to learn the truths necessary for the forming of our morals. Therefore Confessors ought to manifest truths of this kind to penitents who are ignorant of them. By what reason, I ask, can Confessors dissemble the manifestation of these truths? Perhaps because they foresee that their penitents are unprepared to receive it? Then those penitents are violators of the precept of learning and finding the truth, and are therefore unprepared to receive the Sacrament. I set the matter forth perspicuously. Just as the Confessor in the tribunal sustains the person of a judge, to absolve or to bind; of a physician, to heal wounds; of a doctor, to enlighten, instruct, and teach: so penitents approach this tribunal as guilty men to be absolved, as sick men to be healed, as ignorant men to be enlightened, instructed, and corrected. If the Confessor foresees that they are so unteachable and so given over to depraved desires that he hopes for no profit from the manifestation of the truth, by what reason can he presume them disposed and prepared for the Sacrament? He foresees them unteachable, rebels against the light, and obstinate in their ignorance — and at the same time he will judge these same men worthy to receive the Sacrament of penance?

IV. The Adversaries are pressed more closely. They all teach that the truth must be laid open when penitents labor under a vincibly erroneous conscience. But when penitents are foreseen to be unprepared, and rebels against receiving the manifestation of the truth, forthwith their ignorance, which until then was invincible, becomes vincible and crass. Therefore, even according to their own principles, the Confessor sins gravely if he does not manifest the truth; and the penitents receiving the Sacrament are sacrilegious. I prove the minor. Ignorance is vincible, according to all, when a way lies open to Christians of learning the truth of which they are ignorant; in our case this way lies open; therefore, if Christians refuse to learn this truth from the Confessor, their ignorance becomes vincible and crass. All this is most luminous.¹

¹ See Tome 2 of the Apparatus, Dissertation I, chapter 4.

V. The writers cited teach that penitents are not to be admonished by their Confessors who in good faith possess the goods of others, who enter upon usurious contracts, who practice pollutions in good faith, whenever it is foreseen that the manifestation of the truth will harm, and not profit, the penitent. Nay, some add — among them Tamburini — that the truth is not to be manifested even if the penitents would make right use of the knowledge, when the remedy is most difficult and infamy or scandal is feared. If a dying man, they say, is ignorant that he has heaped up a great sum of money by usuries and unjust contracts, and it is foreseen that, if admonished by the Confessor, he will not make restitution, then he is to be left in his ignorance. Tamburini says that this doctrine is especially necessary, above all to the Confessors of Princes and of Merchants; but it must be spat out as false.

VI. They object, first: when the manifestation of the truth is foreseen to be harmful and not profitable, no just end of revealing the truth presents itself; nay, say the Salmanticenses, treatise 20, chapter 5, point 3, number 27, in that case Confessors administer poison, while they seem to apply medicine. Answer. Christ the Lord foresaw that few would receive his law, and that very many would be rebels against it: did he for that reason abstain from promulgating it? Is there no just end of revealing the truth? Is it not a just end to guard the Sacraments, lest they be profaned by the unworthy and the blinded, who refuse to open their eyes to the light that freely offers itself?

VII. They object, secondly, the authority of St. Augustine, found in the chapter Si quis, On penance, distinction 7, saying: If I knew that it would not profit thee, I would not admonish thee, I would not terrify thee. Answer. St. Augustine speaks of fraternal correction, say some. But the holy Doctor there discourses of a dying man, to whom he urges penance; and he adds that he does not know whether it will profit him. For if he knew it would not profit, he would not urge it. Ignorantly, therefore, is this authority brought against us.²

² See Tome 2 of the Apparatus, Dissertation 1, chapter 4.

VIII. They oppose, thirdly: Innocent III, in the chapter Quia circa, On consanguinity and affinity, says: Thou mayest dissemble, that he may remain in the union thus contracted, since from a separation, as thou assertest, grave scandal may threaten. Answer. Some say that the Pontiff speaks of a Bishop or a Parish priest, not of a Confessor. Leaving this response aside, the true one is presented. The entire text of the Pontiff in the place cited is this: Further, concerning the man N., for whose dispensation — that is, the indulgence of remaining with her who touches him in the fifth degree of consanguinity — to be obtained from the apostolic See, a false cause was alleged to us, namely offspring; whereas before the dispensation was obtained, the only daughter whom he had had entered the way of all flesh, as thy consultation stated: thou mayest dissemble, that he may remain in the union thus contracted, since from a separation (as thou assertest) thou seest grave scandal to threaten. It is evident that the Pontiff approves the dispensation — which otherwise, on account of the falsely stated cause, was null — in order to guard against the scandal which he foresaw would arise from the separation of the spouses. See what the Gloss teaches in the same place.³ Ineptly does Navarrus cavil at this dispensation, as has been demonstrated in the place cited by the most luminous reasons. Wherefore the Casuists named wrongly oppose to us the testimonies both of Augustine and of Innocent.

³ See Tome 2 of the Apparatus, Dissertation 1, chapter 4, number 28 and following.

IX. I sum the matter up in few words. Confessors, that they may be able to absolve their penitents, must of necessity form this judgment: namely, that they approach that tribunal with a sincere heart and a contrite soul; that they sincerely will to observe all the commandments of the Law; that they are prepared to receive instruction in all the truths which the divine law commands to be known and kept. With these dispositions Confessors must presume their penitents to be adorned. Therefore they can in no way presume them adverse and rebellious to receiving the knowledge of the divine Law and of the precepts of which they labor in ignorance. But if they presume them such, it necessarily follows that they must also judge them most unworthy of the reception of the Sacraments. See more in the place cited.

X. Bertha married in good faith. Her marriage, on account of a hidden impediment, is null. If she be admonished of the impediment, she is placed in a proximate occasion of fornicating. If she refuse to render the debt, either she is killed by her husband, or mutual enmities and infamies arise between the families.

XI. Not a few devise cases occurring either never, or most rarely, that they may extort some decision, which they afterwards apply to cases happening everywhere. The Confessor sitting before the tribunal, before he absolves Bertha, ought to admonish her. She will be placed, you say, in a proximate occasion of fornicating, because she cannot be separated without scandal. This occasion will be a necessary one, not a free one; and by opportune remedies continence can be observed, until a dispensation be obtained.⁴

⁴ See Tome 2 of the Apparatus, Dissertation 1, chapter 4, number 48.

XLVII. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 1788: “Lamas and Sioz think that those are sufficiently learned for this office (of confessor) who have diligently read an entire SUM OF CASES, or have 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 Sioz and Sporer.”

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.

XX. Nor should you suspect that the acquisition of this divine knowledge is difficult and too laborious. Give me a priest upright and of excellent sense, or of a well-squared mind (and unless these be present, all things are superfluous), studious of the evangelical law: and hold him for the best, most learned, and most prudent confessor. The knowledge of a confessor looks chiefly to this, that he know how to soften the heart of the penitent, to illuminate his mind, and that he have the gift of persuading, of rebuking, and of conforming his penitents to the exemplar of Christ Jesus. But this knowledge is drawn not from the books of certain casuists, but from the Gospel. Christians are damned because they refuse to observe the evangelical law, because they are ignorant of its spirit. That priest is a wise confessor who knows how to kindle in his penitents the fire of evangelical charity. If some cases occur against the positive precepts of God, of the Church, and other laws of discipline, he will be able, as I have said, to consult the casuists, but the graver ones. In his hand nevertheless let him always have the touchstone, or the rule, of the evangelical law, and let him choose that which he shall have seen more, not less, conformable to it. Concerning the spirit of the evangelical law see my Vol. II, History of Probabilism, dissertation 4, chapter 3, where it is most abundantly explained out of St. Thomas wherein that spirit is set.

Paul, a priest, for several years almost entirely neglected the study of moral theology. Sometimes indeed, when a theological conference is approaching, he hastily looks through authors so that he may have something to say, except perhaps when it happens to him to propose a case. With regard to cases that commonly occur, he does not know whether he always knows the solution; and with regard to more difficult cases, he has a considerable suspicion that he scarcely knows enough even to doubt the solutions. If cases happen to occur that require investigation, he has discovered that he has forgotten matters of great importance concerning impediments of marriage, conditions of contracts, especially sale and purchase, and the roots of restitution. Caius, the confessor to whom Paul discloses all these things, denies absolution unless, as St. Alphonsus teaches, he promises that he will never interrupt that study. It is asked:

1. What knowledge is required under grave obligation in a confessor?

2. Can a confessor after several years sufficiently trust his memory of the knowledge of theology once acquired in the seminary without its being refreshed by study?

3. What is to be said of the case?

(From the cases of the Diocese of

Liverpool for the years 1898–1899.)

1. What knowledge must the confessor have sub gravi?

The confessor must know how to administer the sacrament of penance validly, and he must have the knowledge required to give a prudent judgment in this tribunal. For this purpose he must know: “Which sins are mortal and which venial, at least by their kind; the species and circumstances that must necessarily be explained; matters pertaining to the restitution of goods and reputation; reserved cases and at least the more common excommunications; the more common censures and irregularities; what is required in a penitent for a good disposition; appropriate remedies for sins. It is enough if the confessor understands the things that occur more frequently and knows that he must doubt concerning the others.”¹

1 St. Alphonsus, Theol. Moral, lib. vi, n. 627.

2. Can a confessor after many years trust his memory about what he learned in the seminary without refreshing it by study?

No, he certainly can not do so. Daily experience teaches most men how readily things once known drop out of memory, and most priests know how easy it is to forget the principles of moral theology unless they are kept fresh by constant study.

3. The case. Caius, the confessor of Paul, who also was a priest, was quite right to threaten the withholding of absolution from him unless he promised to keep up the study of moral theology. It is clear from the case that he was deficient in that knowledge which theologians require sub gravi in a confessor. He was not sure about the right solution of ordinary cases, and he had grave suspicions that he did not know enough to doubt more about difficult cases. Occasionally, when he found it necessary to look into matters, he found that he had forgotten things of great importance about the impediments of marriage, the conditions of contracts, especially of sale, and the roots of restitution. All these are indeed matters of importance, and of frequent occurrence, and Paul should lose no time before refreshing his memory, about them; otherwise he will not escape serious sin.