The Means of Procuring Integrity, or on the Examination of Conscience

288. On the necessity of examination. Examination of conscience is required of itself under grave obligation: for he who is bound to the end is also bound to employ the means necessary for obtaining the end.¹ But accidentally it can happen that examination is not necessary, namely when there is no danger that, with examination omitted, a grave sin will be omitted.

a. Therefore those who confess frequently and indeed only venials are not strictly bound to examination of conscience: for they have moral certitude that they have not committed mortal sin, and if they had committed it, it would not escape them even without examination. Wherefore, for valid reception of the sacrament on this part, nothing else is required of them except that they subject certain and determined matter to the keys. Nevertheless a brief examination of conscience must be recommended also to these, so that they may know their venial defects better and perceive more abundant fruits from confession.

b. When the penitent, from gravely culpable negligence in performing the examination, omits one or several mortal sins, the confession is invalid and must be wholly repeated, and at the same time the sacrilege of that grave negligence must be accused; but if the negligence was light and only venial, the confession is not invalid (n. 283, 4). But so that it can be discerned whether negligence in examining was grave or light, this rule is to be attended to: he who after instituted confession finds that he omitted more mortal sins than he said must be held guilty of grave negligence; he who confessed many more than he omitted must be judged not to have committed grave negligence.²

¹ The Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5, says that penitents must recount in confession all mortal sins of which, after diligent examination of themselves, they have consciousness.

² Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 3, n. 367.

289. On diligence in examination. 1. It is not required that the diligence in examining conscience be the highest, such as any most cautious person is accustomed to employ in a matter of the highest importance: for this would be too difficult and would render so necessary a sacrament odious; but it suffices that it be moderate and ordinary, such as prudent men are accustomed to employ in a matter of great importance. For the examination must be instituted in a human manner, i.e., in a manner accommodated to the infirmity of men, lest the sacrament be rendered too grave and burdensome.

a. No one is bound to note his sins in writing, even if on account of weak memory he forgets some of them in the act of confession; in like manner no one is bound to confess immediately after sins have been committed, even if by lapse of time certain sins slip from memory: for these are extraordinary things, which the precept of confessing integrally does not oblige one to employ.

b. He who after diligent examination thinks that perhaps several mortal sins would occur to him if he were to inquire longer and more diligently is not bound to inquire further: for if he were bound to greater diligence, he could never be at rest and would be driven to the highest diligence. And if, after confession instituted with serious and good will, sins omitted in confession occur to someone, he can and must judge that they were omitted inculpably. Therefore it suffices to accuse these alone in the next confession, nor is the whole confession to be repeated.

c. From these things it also follows that there is no obligation of thinking further about past life; but he who has made his confessions with good will should be persuaded that he has satisfied in confession; and if a sin occurs concerning which he doubts whether it was expressed in confession, he can and must presume that it was already accused with the others, and only where it is certain that satisfaction has not yet been made to the law of confession is he bound to accuse it.

2. The same diligence in examination of conscience is not required from all, but greater or lesser according to the diverse quality of penitents. a. He who has not confessed for a long time must examine himself more diligently than he who confessed a short time before; b. learned and instructed men must examine themselves more accurately than the rude and little cultivated; c. those who are exposed to many dangers of sinning must examine themselves more diligently than those who lead a uniform life more remote from dangers.

If penitents who are sufficiently instructed come to confession unprepared, they can be dismissed so that, after examining their conscience, they return, especially if it is a matter of a longer confession: for it is impossible that someone suddenly interrogated should immediately remember all things. Moreover, penitents are of themselves bound to examination of conscience; only the judgment concerning the sufficiency of the examination pertains to the confessor. Nevertheless, if the circumstances suggest otherwise, especially if it is to be feared that, once dismissed, they will not return to the confessor, it is better to help them at once in examining conscience. But if the penitents are rude, they are not easily to be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience themselves; rather the confessor should take upon himself the burden of examining them. For by a few interrogations the confessor will obtain more than they themselves, if left to themselves, could furnish by a long examination. But the confessor should notice that he is not bound to procure greater integrity than they themselves could obtain by examining themselves.

I. The obligation of examining conscience exists insofar as it is required for confessing integrally. This is clear both from the Council of Trent¹ and canon 901, and from the fact that one who is bound to the end is also bound to the means.

¹ Session 14, chapter 5 and canon 7.

II. Required diligence. Ordinary or moderate diligence suffices, that is, such as a prudent man is accustomed to employ in a serious matter. It suffices even if someone judges that by examining conscience longer and more diligently he would remember more sins. Nevertheless, diligence depends on the capacity of the penitent, on the moral state of the soul, on the time concerning which the examination must be instituted, etc. (St. Alphonsus, VI, 471).

Question. Whether the penitent is bound to write down sins if otherwise he is exposed to grave danger of not confessing integrally.

Response. Negatively, because ordinary or moderate diligence suffices for knowing and retaining sins in memory. But writing exceeds the limits of ordinary diligence. Besides, very many men who confess rarely are in the said danger, and therefore, if the stricter opinion is admitted, they would be bound to writing. Now, from frequent use of that means so many inconveniences would follow - especially the manifestation of written confessions, which from carelessness, etc., would fall into others' hands - that that use cannot be held as prescribed.

III. Causes excusing from diligent, or at least from more accurate, examination of conscience are sufficiently clear from what has been said about the causes excusing from integrity. Thus, for example, the same examination is not required for the sick as for the healthy (St. Alphonsus, VI, 471). Add that one who arranges with the confessor about questioning can lessen diligence in examining, because examination is required only as a means.

Corollary I. Writing is generally also to be discouraged, except sometimes once or twice in life, when someone is about to institute a general confession.

Corollary II. One who is morally certain that he does not have necessary matter is not bound to examination; nevertheless it is advised, namely so that he may better know and uproot venial defects. Besides, let penitents not examine themselves longer either about doubtful sins or about temptations against chastity; it is better, with further examination omitted, to confess doubtful sins as doubtful.

Corollary III. One who is bound under grave obligation to diligent examination, and, after neglecting it, confesses, receives the sacrament invalidly and sacrilegiously if he sufficiently adverts to the grave defect; this rarely happens, so that confessions are rarely to be repeated precisely for that reason.

Corollary IV. Uneducated penitents who in confession are found to have examined their conscience negligently should commonly not be sent away so that they may examine themselves more diligently; rather the confessor himself should examine them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 471). The same holds concerning penitents who are found by the confessor to have kept back sins and not to have examined themselves regarding past sins.

“8. The soul ought not to wish to know whether it proceeds according to the will of God or whether it now remains resigned to that same will; nor is there need for it to wish to know its state, nor anything of its own, but it ought to remain as a lifeless body.—9. The soul ought to remember neither itself, nor God, nor anything whatsoever; and in the interior way every reflection is harmful, even reflection upon its human actions and its own defects.—10. If by its own defects it scandalizes others, it is not necessary to reflect, provided the will to scandalize is absent; and not to be able to reflect upon one’s own defects is a grace of God.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

507. Principles. - I. A penitent, speaking per se, is bound under grave sin to make a diligent examination of mortal sins before confession. This follows from the precept of procuring, insofar as it can be done, even the material integrity of confession. For since he is bound to confess the number and species of sins, by that very fact he is bound to recall them to memory insofar as he can with moral diligence, and therefore to make a diligent examination; because he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means necessary for it. This is established also from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 5, where it is said that all mortal sins of which penitents have consciousness AFTER A DILIGENT EXAMINATION OF THEMSELVES must be recounted in confession....

II. Diligence in the examination must be serious, or as great as is customarily employed in serious matters of great importance ¹. The reason is evident; for there is question of the grave precept of confession. This is established also from the words of the Council of Trent just cited: after a diligent examination of themselves.

¹ As regards those who are accustomed to be excessively anxious about the sufficiency of their examination, the things which Lugo has from the common doctrine are pertinent (De Poenit., disp. 16, no. 590): It is certain, he says, that the penitent himself is not bound to a most exact examination of his sins, but to a human one, that is, one of such a kind that this sacrament is not rendered too grave and burdensome.... Hence it is not a good rule if you say...: if this man were to think for another hour about his sins, he would remember some sin which he does not remember, or could calculate the number of sins better; therefore, he is bound to think for another hour still. But the reason is the same, because attention must not be given only to an exact and integral confession of sins, but very great attention must also be given to the human condition, lest on that account the Sacrament be rendered grave and odious, or cause be given to shameless and ignorant heretics to call it the torture chamber of conscience.

III. Nevertheless, equal diligence is not required of all. For those who confess frequently need a lesser examination than those who confess rarely ²; but those who are involved in worldly affairs need a greater examination than those who lead a private life. Likewise, country people and the uneducated cannot employ that accurate diligence which the intelligent and learned can. - Billuart, ibid., and others commonly.

² Concerning these things, however, note the wise admonition of Cardinal De Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 16, no. 594): Finally, it must also be noted that he who has more sins is to be questioned more lightly and less exactly concerning each than he who has fewer. The reason is gathered from what has been said; because, since only human diligence and examination is required, and this is that which does not of itself generate disgust and weariness with this Sacrament, it follows that less distinct knowledge is required from one who, because of... the multitude of sins... could with greater difficulty render an exact account. For to one who must confess the sins of his whole life, which he spent in every kind of sin, that examination would be most difficult and of itself apt to render confession odious and excessively grave to him, which would not be difficult but easy for another making a monthly confession. And this is the reason why from a prostitute, a concubinary, and similar persons we seek the number of sins less exactly and distinctly than if, for example, he had persisted in that sin only for a month or a week; because, namely, the diligence which would suffice for distinctly confessing the sins of one week, if the same were employed for examining a long time, would introduce such difficulty and trouble as the precept of integral confession does not oblige one to, because it would render the precept itself and confession excessively troublesome and grave.

508. Resolutions. - 1. He who, from grave negligence in the examination of conscience, omits some mortal sin, sins mortally per se ³ and is bound to repeat the confession as invalid. Yet in a defect of examination there can be slightness of matter, even if a grave sin is thereby omitted, for example, because of some inadvertence; and then the confession is certainly valid.

³ Note the words of itself; because grave negligence in this matter, considered in itself, truly cannot be excused from grave guilt. But it must also be recalled here that which all teach: advertence to the gravity of the fault is required for a grave sin. It is therefore necessary that someone have known that at that time he was sinning gravely by negligence. Since this is not very frequent, because that would be equivalent to advertently consenting to a sacrilegious confession, it can be gathered therefrom that the necessity of repeating confessions for this reason rarely occurs.

2. He who is morally certain that he has not committed mortal sins since the last confession is not bound to a rigorous examination before confession, except insofar as is required for supplying sufficient matter for the Sacrament. In practice, however, pious penitents are to be counseled to devote themselves to an examination of conscience for at least five minutes, or about half a quarter-hour, namely, for recognizing and uprooting venial defects.

3. Entirely moderate diligence in examination is required in the timorous, because the conscience would not remain silent if anything gravely culpable lay hidden within; indeed, in the scrupulous an inquiry is to be omitted and sometimes altogether forbidden as useless and often harmful; for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes. - Thus commonly.

4. Generally, he satisfies who reflects upon where he was on each day, what affairs he transacted, in what he failed amid those circumstances by thought, affection, word and deed, or omission; how he conducted himself at home, in church, and in conversation with his neighbor ⁴. Nor is it necessary that, retracing the same footsteps, he search them again and again. - Reuter.

⁴ This manner of examining the conscience can rightly seem not merely sufficient but rather exquisite and most diligent.

5. An examination as accurate as for the healthy is not required for the sick; indeed, sometimes none is to be exacted from them because of weakness of the head. Nor should they readily be indulged when they say that they defer confession from day to day as though they had not yet sufficiently examined their conscience; but, insofar as their condition permits, they are to be examined briefly by the Confessor himself through the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church; for it is better to restore even those who have confessed imperfectly to the state of grace by absolution than, by deferring the Sacraments of the Church, to expose them to the danger of damnation. - Elbel, no. 153.

509. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is a penitent who fears that sins may fall from his memory bound to write them down and read what has been written?

Reply. Negative. The reason is that no one is bound to procure the integrity of confession through extraordinary means and through such exquisite diligence. Moreover, this is foreign to the common practice of the timorous. - St. Lig., no. 471, etc. ⁵.

⁵ Add the danger, by no means infrequent as experience testifies, of losing papers of this kind, and hence also scandals by no means light and contempt of the Sacrament.

QUESTION 2. What order is to be followed in the examination of conscience?

Reply 1. With respect to the matter: if someone has not confessed for a long time, it is expedient that he run through in order the precepts of God and the Church, the capital sins ⁶, and the special obligations of his state; otherwise, it suffices to attend to evil habits, to the more customary sins, or summarily to sins against God, one's neighbor, and oneself.

⁶ Whenever the order of the precepts of God and the Church is observed, an examination according to the order of the capital sins, or better, capital vices, will scarcely furnish any further necessary matter for confession; and unless there is question of penitents diligently instructed, an examination of this kind is accustomed to produce no moderate confusion rather than utility, and to induce useless repetitions; for the capital vices scarcely ever introduce sins which do not bear before them a transgression of divine or human law.

Reply 2. With respect to the manner: 1. divine light is humbly to be sought; 2. an examination of conscience is to be made; 3. then the baseness of sins and the gravity of the divine offense are to be considered especially, and thus one must devote oneself to eliciting sorrow and a purpose of amendment.

510. • QUESTION 3. What is to be done by the Confessor if penitents approach without having sufficiently examined their conscience?

Reply 1. If they are instructed, they can kindly be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience more accurately and return, at least if there is question of lengthy and involved confessions. The reason is that it is almost impossible for someone suddenly questioned to remember everything. - St. Lig., no. 471, and others commonly. Except, however, unless the circumstances counsel otherwise.

Reply 2. If they are uneducated or little instructed in spiritual matters, they are not readily to be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience, at least if they have employed some diligence. The reason is that the Confessor will easily supply for these persons. For by a few questions he himself will obtain more than they, left to themselves, would accomplish by a long examination, although they tried to recall all their sins to memory. Moreover, it is to be feared that perhaps, terrified by the difficulty, they will not return again to confess ⁷.

⁷ Thus the Roman Catechism (De Poenit., no. 60): There are others who, either because they are accustomed to confess their sins rarely or because they have employed no care and thought

into searching out their crimes, and when they have come to confession they know neither how to proceed nor sufficiently where the beginning of this duty is to be taken. These certainly must be rebuked more sharply, where the circumstances permit, and first of all taught that, before anyone approaches the priest, every effort must be made that he be moved by contrition for his sins; but that this can in no way be accomplished unless, by remembering them, he endeavors to recognize them individually. Wherefore, if the priest recognizes men of this kind as wholly unprepared, let him dismiss them from himself with most humane words, and exhort them to take some time for thinking about their sins and then to return. But if perhaps they affirm that they have devoted every effort to this matter, since the priest must greatly fear lest, once dismissed, they no longer return, they are to be heard, especially if they display some desire of amending their life and can be induced to accuse their negligence, which they promise to compensate for at another time by accurate meditation. And most worthy of attention are the things which immediately follow: In this, however, great caution must be employed. For if, after hearing the confession, he judges that neither diligence in enumerating sins nor sorrow in detesting them was wholly lacking in the penitent, he can be absolved; but if he notices that both are wanting in him, he shall be his adviser and counselor that he employ greater care, as was said before, in examining his conscience; and having treated the man as kindly as he can, he shall dismiss him.

317. (a) First, let the penitent choose a suitable time, free from other occupations, and implore divine light, since without the grace of God he cannot salutarily explore the hiding places of his conscience.

(b) So that he may more easily come to knowledge of his sins, let him observe some order; if he has not confessed for a long time, let him successively run through the precepts of God and of the Church, the capital sins, and the obligations of his own state: let him especially insist on these, with the confessor admonishing him, since, as experience bears witness, there are many who scarcely think of the duties of their own state. - If he has confessed a short time ago, let him examine himself concerning duties toward God, neighbor, and himself: for this is shorter and in this case fully suffices.

318. (c) Concerning each precept, or each virtue, let him weigh what sins he committed, and how often, by thought, word, and deed, searching his conscience especially about those sins into which he is accustomed more frequently to fall. Besides, he must diligently investigate circumstances changing the species, insofar as this can be done. - It is expedient for the uneducated to begin the examination from deeds, and from these ascend to words and thoughts or desires, because often they do not reconsider internal sins except insofar as they are connected with external ones.

Those who wish to employ the highest diligence in examination not only run through the various precepts of the Decalogue, but also try to recall in what places they were, what affairs they conducted, and how they conducted themselves daily at home, in church, and in their relations with neighbor; but, as we have noted, this exquisite diligence is not of precept.

(d) Many, especially the ignorant, more easily detect their sins if they use some catalogue of sins which is neither too long nor too short: not too long indeed, lest they be compelled to spend much time in this examination; nor too short, so that there may be found there at least the principal sins of which they could have been guilty. Hence a catalogue of this kind, to be truly useful, must be adapted to the various classes of penitents.¹

¹ Thus, for the younger, cf. Timon-David, Traite de la Confession des Enfants et des Jeunes Gens, Paris, 1875, t. I, p. 150-177; Jaggers, Instructions for first confession, St. Louis, 1890, p. 133 sq.; Mother M. Loyola, First Confession, New York, 1901, p. 34-37; - for pious persons, cf. Pratique progressive de la Confession, Paris, 1900, t. I, p. 20-24; t. II, p. 19-23; for priests, cf. Gaduet, Avis et Examen de conscience, rendered in English: Examination of Conscience for the use of priests, New York, 1885; - for the faithful in general, who make a general confession, cf. How to make the Mission, by a Dominican Father, New York, 1897, p. 62-73; Konings, General Confession made easy, New York, 1879.

I. Obligation of the penitent. - The penitent is bound regularly, and indeed of itself under grave obligation, to premise to confession a diligent examination of all mortal sins which he has committed.

It is said: a) of itself and regularly. For exception is made 1) if time is lacking, as can occur in the dying; 2) if the examination is not necessary, the dispositions of the penitent being considered;

b) mortal sins: for one who is morally certain that he has not sinned mortally since his last confession is not strictly bound to a diligent examination, but only to discovering sufficient matter for the validity of the sacrament; although he is also to be exhorted to a diligent examination concerning venial sins, that he may receive more abundant fruits from the sacrament.

It is proved: 1) from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5: "From these things it is gathered that penitents must recount in confession all mortal sins of which, after diligent examination, they have consciousness." And surely, without such an examination they could not explore all the recesses of their soul, as the same Council says;

2. by reason: He who is bound to the end is, by that very fact, bound to the means of itself necessary for attaining the end. But a diligent examination, regularly speaking, is a necessary means for procuring the integrity of confession for those who have sinned gravely; for if they have committed several mortal sins, generally they cannot remember them all, because of the weakness of human memory, unless for some time they have diligently explored their conscience. Therefore one who has sinned gravely is regularly bound to a diligent examination of conscience.¹

¹ Cf. Reuter, Neo-Conf., p. I, c. 3, n. 4; St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 471; Marc, Th. M., II, nn. 1703-1704; Theol. Mech. (4), de Poen., nn. 47 and 48; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, nn. 446-450; Tanquerey, de Poen., nn. 312-316; Genicot, Th. M., II, nn. 301-303; Noldin, Th. M., III, nn. 277-278; Prummer, Th. M., III, nn. 383-385.

II. The diligence required is not the highest, than which no greater can be given, and which is used by the most cautious men in matters of the greatest moment: for this would be too burdensome and would render the sacrament odious; but ordinary or moderate diligence, which prudent men are accustomed to use in a grave matter. "For this," we read in St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 471, 1°, "moderate diligence suffices, such as a prudent man uses in arduous business; or such as, morally speaking, the learned and God-fearing are accustomed to use, even if someone should think that, with greater diligence, he would find more."

This, however, must be estimated according to the capacity and condition (or diversity of state) of the penitent and other circumstances. Greater diligence is required a) the longer the penitent has abstained from confession; b) the more numerous and diverse the mortal sins he has committed; c) the less account he has kept of things committed; d) the more learned and instructed he is: for the rude, unlearned, and uncultivated are incapable of an accurate examination.

Hence 1) ordinarily it suffices successively to run through the precepts of God and of the Church, the capital sins, and the obligations of one's proper state (on which one must insist, since there are many who scarcely think of the duties of their proper state); but if someone has confessed a short time before, it also suffices to examine himself concerning duties toward God, neighbor, and himself.

2. Those who confess frequently, rarely commit mortal sins, and daily examine their conscience, can be content with a shorter examination, because grave sins, if they have committed them, will easily occur to memory. Although they are to be led to a diligent examination, that they may discover venial sins, and also their causes and occasions, so that they may more easily extirpate defects.

3. The scrupulous ought not spend a long time in examination, because they are not accustomed to sin gravely, and moreover a minute examination can increase scruples and doubts; but if they had sinned gravely, this surely would be before their eyes.

4. The sick are not bound to an examination as accurate as those in good health; indeed sometimes they are excused from every examination, because of excessive weakness. In that case they are to be questioned briefly by the confessor himself concerning substantial matters. When they have survived, afterward they can complete their confession, if it is necessary.

III. Office of the confessor. - The confessor can, indeed sometimes must, direct penitents in the examination of conscience or supply for it, and also himself procure the integrity of confession.

He can act thus from charity; although, that they may examine their conscience more accurately, he can kindly dismiss those who are sufficiently instructed, especially if it is a question of a long confession, since it is almost impossible that they respond accurately to a questioning confessor without a previous examination. Besides, penitents of themselves are bound to the examination of conscience; to the confessor belongs only the judgment concerning the sufficiency of the examination. But from charity he must act thus toward those who otherwise are foreseen not to be going to return, especially toward the rude and ignorant, who cannot examine themselves otherwise.

IV. Catalogue of questions concerning sins to be accused. - Since certain moralists construct a long catalogue of sins and series of questions, useless and inept, lest the sacrament of Penance be rendered odious, it is pleasing here to add a schema of questions which can be proposed to penitents for supplying for the examination of their conscience and which, in ordinary circumstances, are abundantly sufficient.²

² Not only is the strict manner of questioning to be disapproved, such as was in use among certain Rigorists and can be found in Dens, in the appendix to the treatise on Penance; but even among recent authors, longer questions or inopportune questions are sometimes handed down: thus several, in Noldin and in Gury, as to the theological virtues or religion, and, for the latter, as to homicide and duel (!); indeed in Aertnijs, in Th. Past., questions concerning the sixth seem to descend into excessively minute circumstances.

They are to be questioned opportunely according to the circumstances:

A. Concerning the sacraments previously received: concerning the penance fulfilled; and, if they rarely receive the sacraments, concerning sacrileges on account of concealment, concerning their number, concerning the time during which they adverted to the sacrilege, and concerning the paschal communion not performed. But it is better to ask in this way: Have you any anguish of conscience concerning your past life? Now make a good confession; say everything ingenuously; do not fear; unload your conscience.

B. Concerning the precepts of the Decalogue. Regarding the 1st: whether the penitent knows the four principal mysteries of faith; whether he knows those things which are of necessity of precept; whether he has for a long time omitted all prayer; whether he has not exposed the faith to danger (by reading, association, conversations, occasion), or cooperated in works against the faith.

Concerning superstitions (e.g., Spiritism), one must not ask unless in regions where they are common, or unless there is a special reason for estimating that the penitent is guilty of them.

Regarding the 2nd: whether he has blasphemed; whether with the intention of blaspheming, and whether he has thus given scandal; what formula he used; but if he has erred concerning the sense of the formula, he is to be instructed; likewise whether he has murmured against God and the dispositions of Providence.

Likewise, whether he has sworn vainly or falsely, and whether he has thereby brought harm to his neighbor.

They are not to be questioned concerning vows unless they are pious penitents, who still more often confuse these with resolutions.

Regarding the 3rd: whether he has omitted hearing Mass deliberately, or because of some necessity; whether he has not been negligent in coming late to Mass; whether he has done or commanded servile works without necessity, and for how long, whether also publicly.

Regarding the 4th: children concerning love, reverence, and obedience toward parents, and whether they have not gravely failed against them, treated parents harshly, or saddened them; parents concerning the education of children, religious instruction, correction and vigilance, and good example, etc.

Regarding the 5th: whether the penitent has held anyone in hatred; whether he has wished or imprecated evils upon him, and whether seriously, and what things he wished to inflict upon him. Whether he has not given bad example, induced another to sin, used another for executing sin, cooperated in another's sin. Whether he has been angry with his neighbor, and if he says yes, whether he committed anything by deed (quarrel, striking, wounding). Whether he has given himself to drunkenness.

Regarding the 6th and 9th: whether he has a tranquil conscience as to modesty and purity; whether he has taken delight in impure thoughts, and voluntarily; whether he has had desires, and to do what sort of act; whether he has had or willingly heard obscene conversations, or read obscene books; whether he has been indecently dressed; whether he has had looks or touches, lascivious kisses or embraces, and whether they were mutual; whether he experienced an effect, e.g., more or less vehement motions of the flesh, seminal emission in a man, full satisfaction in a woman; whether he has committed a shameful act, alone, with another, of the opposite sex or of the same sex (a free or bound person), e.g.: whether he sinned with a boy or with a girl; whether he did the conjugal act ("have you committed the sin?"); whether the act has had consequences or will have fruit ("has that had consequences?") and why not?

Concerning sodomy and bestiality, questions are not to be made, lest penitents learn them or be scandalized; unless there is altogether a grave reason for estimating that the penitent has committed such things (e.g., if the presence of an animal was an occasion of sin; or, for those who have accused themselves of seminal emission had with another: whether they did something worse).

Concerning onanism, however, spouses are to be questioned: whether they have rightly fulfilled the duties of matrimony, and if they hesitate or deny, whether they have conformed themselves to the laws of nature; whether they have done nothing against the end of matrimony, the fruitfulness and sanctity of matrimony; whether they do not abuse matrimony; whether they have committed themselves totally to divine providence concerning the generation of children, conformed themselves to the will of God as to the number of children, and did not intend to limit the number of infants; whether they have not distrusted divine providence from fear of increasing offspring (how many children do you have?), etc., where precise and well-determined questions are to be preferred to indeterminate and excessively vague ones.

Regarding the 7th and 10th: whether the penitent has committed injustice, retains anything unjustly; whether he has unjustly brought about harm; whether he has deceived; whether he has neglected to pay debts (restitution).

Regarding the 8th: whether he has spoken evil of his neighbor, whether great or small, false or true, hidden or widely known (reparation); whether he has thought evils concerning his neighbor; whether he has affected him with injurious words, whether with grave injuries; whether he has lied.

C. Concerning the precepts of the Church: concerning the observance of feasts, abstinence from meats, annual confession and communion.

D. Concerning duties of state: parents concerning children, as has been said; spouses concerning mutual fidelity, love, peaceful life, and duties (e.g., whether perhaps they have anything which gnaws the conscience concerning marriage, whether they are of one mind between themselves, whether the husband keeps faith with his wife, whether the wife obeys her husband in all honest things, whether she does not render life troublesome to her husband, whether she has care of the domestic matter, whether the husband does not squander goods); masters concerning vigilance exercised over servants and concerning negligence in removing scandals from them, and concerning the just wage paid; servants and workers concerning work performed or neglected, harm brought about, petty thefts, labor on Sunday; children, whether they have concealed anything out of shame, and have had dishonorable games, e.g., things which they would not dare to do under the eyes of others; likewise adolescents and girls, especially if they love adornment: then they are to be questioned whether they have associated familiarly, too freely, etc., with persons of the other sex; tavern-keepers, whether they have tolerated sins (blasphemies, foul speech, detractions), whether in some way they have cooperated in the sins of others (by giving drink, obscene pictures, a room); merchants concerning exaggerated price, deceit and fraud in commerce, with grave harm of neighbor; soldiers concerning blasphemies, omission of the duties of religion, quarrels, sins of lust and thefts; tailors concerning little pieces of cloth retained, etc.

These questions are not always all to be made, but according to the state, condition, and capacity of the penitent, and the answers which he has given.

V. Observation. - It is best to institute an examination of conscience every day.

383. 1. Necessity of the examination of conscience. The penitent is regularly bound under grave obligation to make a diligent examination of conscience before he confesses.

Hence the Council of Trent²³⁷ admonishes penitents to recount in confession all mortal sins of which they have consciousness after a diligent examination of themselves. The reason for this obligation is evident of itself. For how could the penitent accuse himself of all mortal sins according to species and number unless he had first diligently recalled them to memory? I said, however: he is regularly bound, because a) if time or strength is lacking, as in grave illness or at the point of death, so great an examination of conscience is not required, just as neither is so great an integrity of confession then necessary. Likewise b) there is no grave obligation of examining the conscience for those who are morally certain that they have not sinned gravely since their last confession. Therefore they should strive rather to elicit true contrition concerning the free matter adduced than to search their conscience at length concerning the smallest sins or imperfections.

²³⁷ Sess. 14, c. 5, On Penance (Denz., n. 899).

384. 2. In this examination there is required not the greatest diligence, but that which prudent men are accustomed to employ in a grave matter.

Therefore this diligence is to be measured: a) According to the length of time which has elapsed since the last confession. For a greater examination of conscience is required, for example, to find sins committed during an entire year than during two months. b) According to the condition of persons. Thus, for example, uninstructed men are not bound to make as great an examination as instructed and cultivated men. Hence an uninstructed man coming into the confessional without a sufficient examination of conscience is not to be dismissed, but is to be assisted by the confessor himself. For if he were dismissed, either he would lose heart and perhaps no longer return, or, if he did return, the result of the examination made would scarcely be better. Therefore the confessor himself should then assist the penitent in making the examination by putting a few but well-adapted questions. But if a well-instructed penitent has failed from mere negligence to make an examination of conscience, he is ordinarily to be dismissed and exhorted to make a better examination. Concerning this matter the Roman Catechism²³⁸ writes: "If the priest recognizes men of this kind to be altogether unprepared, he will dismiss them from him with most humane words and exhort them to take some time to think over their sins and then return. But if perhaps they affirm that they have devoted every effort to this matter, since the priest must especially fear lest, once dismissed, they no longer return, they are to be heard, especially if they show some zeal for amending their life and can be induced to accuse themselves of their negligence, which they promise to compensate at another time by an accurate meditation." Those who lie gravely ill and because of lack of strength or the bitterness of their pains cannot think over their past life are neither to be obliged to a longer examination of conscience nor to be examined excessively by the confessor himself. It is much better that, after accusing themselves of the sins which came to mind without great labor, they strive according to their strength to elicit perfect contrition. But afterward, if perhaps health is recovered, the confession of those sins which were omitted must be supplied. Moreover, pastors and preachers should often admonish the faithful that the sick not defer making confession until the extremity of life, when the powers of soul and body are already most diminished.

Those who with grave negligence make an examination of a conscience burdened with mortal sins sin gravely, because they cannot then obtain that integrity of confession which is required under grave precept. Moreover, one who negligently makes the examination of conscience is also accustomed to elicit contrition negligently and thus to receive the sacrament of penance sacrilegiously.

Several theologians taught that a penitent who because of a weak memory foresees that he will forget some sins in confession nevertheless is not bound to write his sins on paper. The reason is that such writing is an extraordinary means and, moreover, can easily be lost or come to the knowledge of others. But the ancient moralists indeed seem rightly to have called writing an extraordinary means, because at that time fewer men knew the art of writing; today, however, in our regions almost anyone can write without any difficulty, and scarcely any danger of losing the writing exists for a diligent man. Therefore writing is no longer always an extraordinary means for obtaining the integrity of confession.²³⁹

²³⁸ P. 2, c. 5, q. 60.

²³⁹ Cf. above, n. 365, and St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, nn. 429, 479, 493.

385. 3. The method to be observed in the examination of conscience is determined by no positive precept.

Therefore let each one follow whatever method he prefers. The following things seem worthy of observation:

a) The best custom is to make an examination of conscience every day. For then a man will know very well the state of his soul and at the time of confession will easily obtain the necessary integrity.

b) When the time of confession approaches, the penitent should invoke the Holy Spirit, who enlightens human hearts. Then in a quiet place he should think over his life since his last confession, preserving a clear order. Simple faithful who do not confess so frequently can usefully employ the so-called catalogue of sins,²⁴⁰ such as is found in many books of devotion. But the faithful who confess frequently will better recognize the state of their conscience if they think over how they have fulfilled the obligations of their state, their obligations toward their neighbor, their religious obligations, and so forth.

²⁴⁰ Commonly, Beichtspiegel.

The obligation of procuring the integrity of confession pertains both to the penitent and to the confessor. - Wherefore the following things are established:

1703. Principles. I. The PENITENT is bound, and indeed, speaking of itself, under grave obligation, to premise before confession a diligent EXAMINATION of all mortal sins which he has committed. The reason is that without such an examination he could not, to use the words of Trent, search out all the recesses of his soul.⁷

The diligence of this examination is to be estimated according to the capacity of the penitent, the delay of time, and the other circumstances. "For this a middling diligence suffices, such as a prudent man employs in arduous affairs; or such as, morally speaking, learned and timorous persons are accustomed to employ, even if someone thinks that by greater diligence he would find more."⁸ The penitent can satisfy this obligation without excessive labor if, after imploring God's help, he recalls to mind the precepts of the Decalogue and the precepts of the Church, the capital sins, the obligations of his own state, and at the same time inquires whether and how often he offended regarding all these things, by thought, word, and deed. - And he will more easily attain this if he turns over in his mind the places to which he went, the persons with whom he conversed, the business which he transacted, and the affections of soul to which he was accustomed to yield.⁹

Let it be noted FOR PRACTICE: 1. Danger of publication being removed, it is useful to write sins, lest they slip from memory; but excessive anxiety is to be avoided; and therefore this should be prohibited to the scrupulous.¹⁰

2. Those who are morally certain that they are immune from mortal sins are not bound to spend much time in searching their conscience, provided they can supply matter which truly suffices for the Sacrament. - Nevertheless they are to be exhorted not to hurry too much through the examination of conscience, and to spend at least five minutes on it, by which they may be better able to recognize their defects and to extirpate those recognized.¹¹

3. Those who are scrupulous ought not to search their conscience much; indeed, diligent investigation must sometimes be interdicted to them; for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes.

4. The sick are not bound to an accurate examination as the healthy are, as is clear. Therefore one must watch carefully lest they defer their confession under the pretext that they have not yet sufficiently searched their conscience; let the confessor himself examine them. For it is better to restore them to the state of grace through absolution, even if they have confessed imperfectly, than, the Sacraments of the Church being delayed, to expose them to certain danger of damnation.¹² (cf. n. 1854.)

1704. II. The CONFESSOR can, indeed sometimes MUST, supply the examination of conscience, and himself procure the integrity of confession. To the point the Holy Doctor says thus: "Although the duty of examining conscience is principally the penitent's, nevertheless, whatever other Doctors may have said, it must not be doubted that if the confessor has recognized that the penitent has not discussed his conscience diligently enough, he himself is bound to question him, first about sins into which he could likely have fallen, and afterward about their species and number, as is proved from chapter Omnis utriusque on Penance and from the Roman Ritual."¹³

But he is bound to this as judge, that he may know the cause, and as minister of the Sacrament, that he may procure its integrity (cf. n. 1834).

1705. It is asked: What must the confessor do if penitents approach without sufficiently discussing their conscience?

Resp. 1. If they are sufficiently instructed, they are to be sent away to another time: "With most humane words," says the Roman Catechism,¹⁴ "he will send them away from himself, and will exhort them to take some space of time for thinking over their sins, and then to return." The reason is that it can scarcely happen that someone, at least if a longer confession is at issue, being suddenly asked, remembers all things.¹⁵ Except if circumstances suggest otherwise.

Resp. 2. If they are rude, they are not easily to be sent away. "They act wrongly," says St. Alphonsus,¹⁶ "who dismiss the rude, that they may examine themselves better." And he gravely adds: "Fr. Segneri calls this an intolerable error, and by the best right, because men of this sort, however much they labor, will with difficulty examine themselves as is fitting, and as exactly as the confessor himself can examine them; and on the contrary, when they have been dismissed, there will be danger lest, terrified by the difficulty of examining themselves, they be drawn back from confessing and harden in sins. - Nevertheless let the confessor notice that he is not bound to question these so minutely; let him ask only about sins into which they can easily fall, in view of their condition and capacity. Indeed, when the penitent, although rude, seems to be sufficiently instructed and diligent in confessing his sins with circumstances..., then the confessor is bound to ask nothing else."

Resp. 3. If they are customary sinners, the confessor should not spend too much time by anxiously inquiring about the number of sins; because often it is impossible to find such a number. Many, because of the importunity of the confessor, respond only by guessing: one hundred times, one thousand times; but what prudent man will give faith to them? - The confessor does better if he diligently inquires into the state of the penitent, "namely the manner of living, the application which he expends on other affairs, the time of the custom with the accomplice, the place where he especially stayed; and then he should inquire about the number by asking the penitent about how often he sinned in a day, in a week, or month, proposing to him several numbers, for example three or four times, eight or ten times, so that he may see to which number he rather adheres. And if the penitent adheres to the greater number, it will be best done if he is again asked about a greater number." But in this the confessor should take care not to form a certain judgment about the number; let him note the frequency in general, and make judgment confusedly, apprehending the sins, whatever number they are before God.¹⁷ (cf. n. 1805.)

1372. Principles. - I. The penitent, speaking per se, is held under grave obligation to institute a diligent examination of mortal sins before Confession. This follows from the precept of procuring also material integrity, as far as can be done. For since he is held to confess the number and species of sins, by that very fact he is held to recall them into memory as far as he can by moral diligence, and therefore to institute a diligent examination; because he who is obliged to the end is also obliged to the means necessary for it. It is clear also from Trent.

II. Diligence in the examination ought to be serious, or such as is usually applied in serious matters and matters of great moment. The reason is clear; for there is question of the grave precept of Confession. - Nevertheless it is not required that it be the greatest diligence, even if someone thinks that through it, for example by thinking for another hour, he would find still other sins. - Likewise, due diligence having once been applied, no one is obliged afterward to think expressly about his past life further.

III. Nevertheless equal diligence is not required from all. For those who confess frequently need less examination than those who confess rarely; but those who are involved in worldly business need more than those who lead a private life. Likewise country people and the unlearned cannot apply that accurate diligence which the skillful and learned can.

1373. Resolves. - He sins per se mortally who from gravely culpable negligence in the examination omits some mortal sin, and he is held to repeat the Confession, as sacrilegious. Nevertheless in defect of examination there can be smallness of matter, even if a grave sin is omitted from it, e.g. on account of some inadvertence; and then the Confession is certainly valid. I said: per se; for per accidens that obligation can either cease or be greatly diminished, namely:

1° He who is morally certain that he has not committed mortal sins since the last Confession is not held to a rigorous examination before Confession, except insofar as is required for furnishing sufficient matter for the Sacrament. In practice, however, it is to be advised to pious penitents that they give attention to an examination of conscience at least for five minutes, or for about half a quarter of an hour, namely for knowing and rooting out venial defects.

2° An entirely middling diligence of examination is required in those of timid conscience, because conscience would not be silent if anything gravely culpable lay hidden within; indeed in the scrupulous inquiry is to be omitted, and sometimes altogether forbidden, as useless and often harmful: for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes.

3° For the sick, an examination so accurate as for the healthy is not required; indeed sometimes none is to be demanded from them on account of weakness of the head; nor should compliance easily be made with them when they say they are putting off Confession from day to day, as if they have not yet sufficiently discussed their conscience; but as far as their state permits, they are to be examined briefly by the confessor himself through the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church; for it is better to restore them to the state of grace through absolution, even if confessed imperfectly, than, with the Sacraments of the Church delayed, to expose them to the danger of damnation.

1374. Questions. - Query 1° Is a penitent who fears lest sins fall from memory held to write them and read the writings?

Resp. Neg. The reason is that no one is held to procure the integrity of Confession through extraordinary means, and through diligence so exquisite. Besides, this is foreign to the common practice of those who fear God, and can even be prohibited to the scrupulous.

Query 2° What order is to be followed in the examination of conscience?

Resp. 1° By reason of matter: if someone has not confessed for a long time, it is expedient that he run through the order of the precepts of God and of the Church, and the special obligations of his state; otherwise it suffices to attend to evil habits, to sins more customary, or summarily to sins against God, one's neighbor, and oneself.

Resp. 2° By reason of manner: 1) divine light is to be humbly sought; 2) discussion of conscience is to be made; 3) afterward the baseness of sins and the gravity of the divine offense are especially to be considered, and thus one must insist upon eliciting sorrow and purpose.

Query 3° What is to be done by the confessor if penitents approach without their conscience having been sufficiently discussed?

Resp. 1° If they are instructed, they must kindly be dismissed, so that they may discuss their conscience more accurately and return, at least if there is question of lengthy and complicated Confessions. The reason is that it is almost impossible that someone suddenly, when asked, remember all things. Except, however, unless circumstances advise otherwise.

Resp. 2° If they are unlearned or little instructed in matters of Religion, they are not easily to be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience, at least if they have applied some diligence. The reason is that the confessor will easily supply for these. For by some questions he himself will obtain more than they, left to themselves, would furnish by a long examination, although they should strive to recall all sins into memory. Besides, it is to be feared lest perhaps, terrified by the difficulty, they may not return any more to confess.

528. Remarks. - 1. For confessing one's sins integrally, an examination of conscience is required of itself and regularly, to be made with ordinary diligence. Concerning this, see our Questions on the Various Categories of Penitents, c. 1, q. 1.

2. The penitent ought to set forth his sins clearly and distinctly, as much as he can, with all the requisites; and if he notices that the confessor has not heard or not understood them, he is bound to repeat them, as can happen if someone confesses under the sound of the organ, or to a somewhat deaf or sleepy confessor. Indeed, if someone purposely confessed in such a way that he would not be understood, he would commit sacrilege and the confession would have to be repeated.

3. In the case in which a confession is known to be incomplete, it must be completed in the next following confession (prop. 11 condemned by Alexander VII), otherwise this would not be integral; - if it is known for whatever cause to be invalid, it must be repeated, and indeed distinctly and entirely if it is made before another confessor; but if before the same one, in a general or more or less special manner according as is necessary so that he may confusedly recall the state of the penitent or of the past confession; - if it is known to be sacrilegious, the sin of sacrilege must additionally be accused, or even several sins if there were other confessions made with memory of the preceding sacrilege.⁵

⁵ Concerning repeating confession, as also concerning general confession, more is said in the work Questions on the Various Categories of Penitents, c. 1, q. 6.

I say. The penitent is bound per se under grave obligation, before he approaches confession, to institute a diligent examination of mortal sins. But this diligence, although it ought to be serious, and as great as is usually employed in affairs of great moment, nevertheless is not required equal for all, nor so exact that it should be prolonged as long as there is hope of finding some new sin. The reason of the first is, both because the Council of Trent expressly requires a diligent discussion of oneself, and because the obligation of the end imports the obligation of the means: but diligent examination is a means essentially ordered to procuring integrity in confession. But the reason of the second is that, from the very nature of the matter, those who confess frequently or lead a private and tranquil life need less examination than those who rarely approach this sacrament or are wholly entangled in worldly affairs. Finally, the reason of the third is that, as Card. de Lugo wisely admonishes, a most exact examination is not required, but a human one, that is, such that the sacrament is not rendered too grave and burdensome. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 5. - Lugo, disp. 16, n. 590. - Baller. note (b) p. 392.

IV. QUESTION II. What diligence is to be employed in the examination of conscience? ANSWER. Two extremes are to be guarded against in this most grave business. Excessive diligence, which brings anguish and torture to the mind and disturbs the soul, is to be avoided. For confession is not a butchery of souls, as the Calvinists blurt out, but an emptying of wounds and a remedy for future ones. The other extreme of negligence is also to be avoided. Let us seriously and maturely recall the sins committed. A few admonitions I shall add.

VIII. If therefore he has found that he had forgotten a third or a fourth part of his sins, he can then persuade himself that he did send before the due examination. False therefore and vain is the aforesaid rule. The quantity of time to be spent in the examination of conscience cannot be prescribed. The more a conscience is wounded with graver outrages, the more diligently is it to be inspected.