Chapter I
THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE; OR, THE CONFESSOR CONSIDERED IN HIS OFFICE OF JUDGE
As a judge, it is the priest’s duty rightly to understand the matter—that is the sin—upon which he has to pass a sentence, to investigate the dispositions of the penitent, and to pronounce judgment. These three duties are the essential duties of the confessor in his office as judge.
48. The Knowledge of the Sins.
Christ has declared that we should confess to His ministers, i.e., we shall make declaration of all grave sins, with their number and kind. By means of this self-accusation, the minister of the Sacrament of Confession is informed of the sins of the penitent upon which he must pass judgment. As the priest is mediator between God and the penitent, and is thus bound, on the one hand, to protect the rights of God and preserve the order of divine Justice, and, on the other hand, to support the penitent and lead him to reconciliation with God, he must take care that all that belongs to a complete confession is performed by the penitent and where it falls short of completeness to supply the defect by questions.
The following principles are to be observed with regard to the duty of questioning:—
I. The confessor is not bound to question the penitent, however uneducated the latter may be, if he seems to be sufficiently instructed in his Christian duties, and has, according to his power of understanding, carefully confessed his sins. The questioning would otherwise become troublesome and useless. Still less is he, as a rule, bound to question those who often confess, and seldom sin gravely, such as pious persons, members of Religious Orders, priests, etc., unless it is clear from their accusation, or suspicion arises, that they have failed to confess something which it is necessary to confess. If this is the case, questioning is the more necessary with Regulars and priests, because there is danger that they might adopt, when hearing confessions themselves, the example of the superficial practice tolerated by their own confessors.
II. The confessor is bound to put questions to the penitent if he clearly recognizes or conjectures that the penitent has not declared all that appertains to the completeness of the confession, and what the confessor ought to know in order to perform his duty as judge and physician. As minister of the Sacrament, he must take care that the confession is a complete one, and, as it belongs to his office as judge, to investigate thoroughly the matter on which he has to pronounce judgment, and, as it is the duty of the physician to probe the wounds of the patient, so must the confessor sound the conscience of the penitent, by questioning about the sins which he supposes the penitent to have committed, and to have kept back out of ignorance, or forgetfulness, or false shame; by determining more exactly the specified number of the sins, when it has been stated too inexactly or indefinitely, or by asking it, if it has not been mentioned at all, and by investigating the necessary circumstances of the sins. Moreover, the confessor must find out the condition of the sinner himself, by which he may learn what advice is to be given, and what remedies employed to bring about the cure of the penitent.[643]
The duty of the confessor in this regard is undoubted, and ex genere suo gravis. Therefore Benedict XIV did not hesitate to teach in his Constitution “Apostolica” (26 June, 1749): “Above all, confessors should bear in mind that they do not discharge the duties of the office which they have undertaken—indeed, that all those are guilty of a great sin, who, while exercising the office of judge in the sacred tribunal of penance, unconcernedly listen to the penitents, do not exhort them, do not question them, but, when they have heard their sins, forthwith pronounce the words of absolution. This is certainly not the conduct of the zealous physician who pours oil and wine into the wound. And yet every one who administers the Sacrament of Penance holds the office of a physician; he must, therefore, carefully investigate not only the circumstances of the sins, but the moral condition of the person who has fallen into them, in order that he may provide for him suitable remedies, by the use of which the cure of his soul may be effected.”[644]
Although this duty is one in se gravis, yet parvitas materiæ may be more easily admitted in it than in the duty of the penitent to examine himself, even in those things which he must per se confess under the head of grave sin, or in materia necessaria confessionis. As the confessor must give account to God of the confessions which he has heard, there rests upon him, because of the great number of confessions which he hears, a much greater burden with respect to their integrity than upon the individual penitent. Billuart, however, rightly teaches: If the confessor, through slight negligence, inattention, weakness of memory, absence of mind, weariness of spirit, etc., has forgotten to put a question, even on necessary matter, such omission would be no sin, or only a venial one; for no one is bound, in such great difficulty and moral impossibility, to remedy the defects of others. What Gury says seems also to be quite reasonable, viz. that the omission of one or other per se necessary question, in a great number of confessions which a priest has heard, is, ex ipsa materiæ parvitate, no grave sin.[645]
III. As regards the completeness of the confession, the confessor is not bound to question the penitent with scrupulous exactitude; on the contrary, he must act with moderation and prudence according to the position, age, and power of comprehension of the penitent. The confessor need not, therefore, employ greater care in questioning than the penitent himself must employ in the examination of his conscience; but the latter is only bound to a mediocris diligentia in the examination of conscience. Moreover, the penitent is bound, in the first place, to know his sins; in order to make a complete confession, the confessor is only bound to assist him. The duty of the latter to push inquiry is merely a secondary one; that is, it must come into operation defectu pœnitentis. The extent of the confessor’s obligation in this matter is, therefore, regarded strictly in accordance with the situation, station, and intelligence of the penitent, so that the confessor is not bound to ask more than the penitent (by virtue of his situation, station, and power of apprehension) is bound to confess. When, therefore, it is certain that the penitent does not know, or has not noticed that certain circumstances add a new sinfulness to an act, the confessor is not bound to ask about them.[646]
49. The Nature of the Questions to be put to the Penitent.
If the confessor is obliged to address questions to penitents, they must always be moderate, discreet, modest, and proper.
(a) The questions must be moderate; that is, he should not question the penitents concerning sins which, having regard to their station, their age, their circumstances in life and their moral condition, they have probably not committed. He must not put questions about all possible sins; he should rather ask first if the penitent has committed the sins which are generally committed by people of such age, education, and position. If the answers of the penitent give occasion for further questioning, he must proceed in his inquiry; if they do not give such occasion, the confessor should ask, quite in a general way, if there is anything else which troubles his conscience, and when, after a short reflection (for which the necessary time must always be allowed him) he answers that he has nothing more to say, there is no reason for further questioning. As for the rest, it would seem useful to drop, at a seasonable moment, an appropriately tactful exhortation concerning sincere confessions.[647]
The questions of the confessor must be (b) discreet; that is, he must use the necessary discrimination in his questions; he must question with great prudence and caution. He must bear in mind the rule of the Roman Ritual: “The confessor should detain no one with inquisitive and profitless questions, and, above all, let him not ask young people of what they are ignorant, lest they be scandalized, and made familiar with new sins.”[648] Let him, therefore, never address to penitents a question by which a sin of which they were ignorant might be made known to them. Especially should he be discreet in his questioning of children and young people, and in questions concerning sins of impurity (here special caution is necessary with regard to women), lest he awaken their curiosity and cause them to investigate further, lest he teach the penitent sins, and lest he expose himself and the penitent to the danger of sin. When harm of this kind is to be feared, it is preferable that there should be some lack of material completeness in the confession, in conformity with the rule: melius est in multis deficere (sc. relate ad integritatem) quam in uno abundare (i.e. in probabilem ruinam pœnitentis). Two probable dangers here confront each other, a detriment to the soul of the penitent, and (material) incompleteness of the confession. Of the two the welfare of the soul is certainly to be preferred.
The questions of the confessor must, moreover, be (c) modest. If the confessor is obliged to put to the penitent a question concerning res inhonestæ, let him do this as modestly and prudently as he possibly can, and quite shortly. Of course he will often be obliged to put questions concerning the sins against purity, because penitents accuse themselves of these unwillingly, and very many do not properly confess their sins unless the confessor helps them. The confessor has, therefore, need of great prudence, in order, on the one hand, to elicit from the penitents what they conceal, and, on the other hand, not to teach them (especially the young) what they did not know before. He must here observe the following rules: (1) Let him avoid all curiosity, even the appearance of it, and all superfluous questions. When he fears that, out of anxiety of conscience, the penitent thinks that he has not fully confessed something, because he has not told all the circumstances, it is advisable to say to him at the end of the confession: “I have perfectly well understood your sins; do not, therefore, be anxious about not having fully declared the manner in which you sinned.” And if the penitent himself, out of ignorance or anxiety, wishes to describe the manner in which the sins were committed, the confessor must admonish him that this is not necessary. On the other hand, if the confessor has to question the penitent, he can inform him that these questions are necessary in order to learn the species of the sin. (2) In putting these questions let him make use of only perfectly modest expressions; when he speaks of the virtue of purity, let him always call it the angelic virtue, holy purity, in order to preserve the esteem and love of this virtue in himself, and inspire the penitent with it. And if the penitent should make use of improper, coarse expressions in confessing these sins, the confessor should gently admonish him, and teach him to express himself more becomingly. As long as it is doubtful whether the penitent has sinned against purity, the confessor should make use of general terms only, so that if the penitent has sinned, he may know it, and if he has not, may learn nothing new and dangerous. The confessor should generally begin with the lesser sins, and gradually proceed to the greater ones. He should begin with impure thoughts, wishes, listening to, or uttering, impure words, and ask if he has had temptations against holy purity, etc., and proceed thus to questions about acts. If the penitent denies having willingly entertained impure thoughts, he must not ask if he has sinned by impure actions; if the penitent confesses interior sins of impurity, let the confessor ask if he has listened to impure talk, or uttered such himself, if he has been guilty of immodesty by looking or touching. If he answers this also in the affirmative, he should ask (if the penitent is an adult) if he has committed any immodest act, or wished to do so; for there are penitents who, if they are not asked, conceal such sins, believing that they satisfy their duty if, by some remark, they give the confessor opportunity to question them. The confessor must sometimes deviate from this order, when, for instance, the penitent has already, of himself, confessed that he has committed grave sins against purity, or when he is ill informed. For the common people often do not consider the delectationes morosas and the desideria as sins, at least when they did not wish to proceed to acts; it is the same with immodest talk, which they call joking. Such penitents must, as a rule, be questioned, and, in the first place, if they have done anything immodest, then if they have carried on talk of this kind, and lastly concerning the interior sins. The confessor will sometimes observe that those who accuse themselves of sins of thought only, have also sinned by impure talk and actions, either because they scarcely distinguish the thoughts from the actions, and believe that they confessed the actions also by accusing themselves of the sinful thoughts, or that they wish to give the confessor an opportunity of questioning them about the actions of which they do not venture to accuse themselves, unless they are helped by the confessor.[649]
But with all these questions let the confessor be prudent and cautious. An imprudent confessor who neglects the necessary measures of precaution, may easily draw upon himself a denunciation, ac si sollicitationis reus sit.
On this account he must not ask married people bluntly and without preliminary question if they have rendered to each other the debitum conjugale, unless a valid reason or grounded suspicion justifies such question. He can, perhaps, in quite a general way, ask a wife if she has been obedient to her husband in all her duties, or if they have lived their married lives in a truly Christian manner. If anything in conjugali debito that troubles the conscience has really taken place, opportunity is given to the penitent of saying so himself, and then it is for the confessor either to investigate further, or to instruct, which should, however, be generally done in only a few words.[650] Finally, the questions must be asked at (d) the right time. Some questions are, as a rule, to be put before the accusation begins, for example (if the penitent does not say it of himself), when he last confessed; for this question contributes much towards a better knowledge of the number of the sins, and as to whether the penitent seldom or often receives the holy Sacraments, and whether greater or less care is necessary with him; this is, too, the almost general practice of confessors. Questions concerning the position, age, etc., of the penitent are more expediently asked in the course of the confession, when, on account of some sin, occasion offers itself, or, which seems to be preferable, at the end of the accusation. Other questions which appear necessary for the completion of the confession or for better understanding the state of the penitent’s soul, the confessor would best put when the accusation is finished. Penitents are often confused by being interrupted with questions, and cannot properly complete their confession. Let the confessor, therefore, keep in his mind the individual sins concerning which he must ask questions for the purpose of completeness. Let it be, therefore, the rule, not to interrupt the penitent in his confession, unless a question should be immediately necessary.[651]
After the confession the confessor should ask the penitent if anything still weighs upon his conscience; especially let him ask illiterate people who seldom confess, if they are heartily sorry for their sins, and if they purpose firmly to avoid sin.
On all occasions let the confessor avoid putting many questions, and confine himself to necessary ones. In an especial manner let him avoid all that does not appertain to the confession. He must remember that there are many penitents, especially men of some position, to whom much questioning by the confessor is irritating.
Moreover, let the confessor ask clearly, according to the intelligence of the penitents, so that these may perfectly understand and be able to answer correctly and shortly; the questions should, therefore, as a rule, not be of a general nature, but concrete, brief, and simple. Sometimes, when the penitents are of very limited mental capacity, the questions must be repeated in different words. He must ask in good order, proceeding from the beginnings of sin to the completed acts, from the lighter to the more grievous; from the usual to the extraordinary; before asking about the species and the number, he must satisfy himself as to whether there was consent. The confessor must ask kindly and gently, so that the penitent may feel that the confessor is treating him with truly paternal love. His special pattern must be the love and gentleness of Jesus towards sinners of which the Gospel furnishes so many examples; in this way the confessor wins for himself that confidence which is so necessary, and induces the penitent to confess all his sins sincerely, whereas harshness intimidates the penitent and seals his mouth. The insincerity of the penitent, and consequently the incompleteness of the confession, would thus be the fault of the confessor, who has to see that there is integrity. Let the confessor, therefore, refrain from every harsh word, make the penitent no reproach before the confession is complete, show no sign of displeasure or surprise. Illiterate penitents, those who have not confessed for a long time, and find confession hard, should be encouraged in a kindly manner to accuse themselves sincerely of all their known sins, before the confession begins.[652]
As to questions in particular, some refer to the object, others to the circumstances, and others to the number of the sins. With regard to the object, it is advisable that the confessor, keeping in view the different classes in life, should arrange questions for himself in the order of the Commandments, and impress them upon his memory, so that he may make a right use of them when necessary. But whether the penitent is likely to have committed other sins besides those which he has confessed, touching which the confessor may be bound to put questions to him, must be inferred from the penitent’s occupation and manner of life, as also from the circumstances by which certain sins become the motives, or concomitants, of other sins (for example, drunkenness is generally the cause of quarreling, blasphemy, impure thoughts, words, etc.). Moreover, it may happen that the penitent has a false conscience, a thing from which illiterate penitents not seldom suffer, and, in consequence, confesses as grave sins, what, upon questioning, prove to be only venial sins. On the other hand, in order to form a sure judgment as to the gravity of the sins, the confessor should not ask uneducated people whether they regarded the sins as venial or mortal, for such people say just what comes into their heads, as St. Alphonsus testifies (“ut ego millies observavi”), and if the confessor repeats the same question in a different way afterwards, they will answer the exact opposite.[653]
As to the circumstances the confessor must see that the accusation of the penitent and his own questions are confined to those which ought of necessity to be mentioned; nor should he ask about such circumstances as are unlikely to occur in the case of his penitents.[654]
As to the number of the sins, the confessor must inquire if the penitent does not mention it when confessing mortal sins, and it is beneficial to admonish him to give in future the number, when he believes the sins to be mortal.[655] If interior sins, such as hatred, impurity, etc., have become habitual, the confessor has, in most cases, performed his duty when he has found out the greater or less frequency in the day or the week, because a more exact enumeration of these sins is hardly possible. And if some one confesses multa desideria erga quaslibet feminas obvias, the number is sufficiently indicated by the penitent confessing, se modo nuptas modo innuptas concupivisse. Moreover, when, with habitual sinners, the confessor himself suggests a number, in order to obtain an estimate of the real number, let him choose a number higher than he expects to hear, so that the penitent may be able to reduce it, or to add only slightly to it, according to circumstances; if he merely assent to the number, the confessor can then propose a higher one. In addition, the confessor must, where it is necessary, inquire into the dispositions of the penitent—as a necessary preparation for absolution; if he is willing, for instance, to make restitution, to remove the immediate occasion of sin, if he is willing to forgive, etc. He must ask a relapsing sinner, during what length of time, from the last confession, he refrained from sin, how long he resisted temptation, employed the remedies, etc., for the guilt is not the same if the penitent overcame himself for a considerable time, or if he did not sin because the occasion was wanting, or he was not assailed by great temptation.[656]
For younger and inexperienced confessors we would suggest that penitents not seldom[657] conceal sins. This generally happens: (1) from false shame in confessing certain sins of impurity, sacrilegious confessions and communions, and acts of injustice; this shame is greatly increased by a certain natural shyness, especially in young women; (2) from fear of losing the respect of the confessor, and (3) from fear of reproof or of refusal of absolution.
The confessor must devote special care to these unhappy penitents. “It cannot be described how much the zeal of an experienced confessor can effect with them,” says the venerable Paul Segneri, and entering into the practical treatment of these penitents, he writes: “Through a little opening, that is, after the penitent has confessed some lesser fault, let the confessor procure for himself further access to his heart, and, having gained entrance, seek what hidden sins there are to be found.” And, giving an example, he proceeds: “When a youth comes to you to confess, and accuses himself of carrying on love affairs, indulging in frivolous talk, allowing his eyes too much liberty, and adds nothing more to this, let the confessor proceed skillfully from the talk and the looks, and examine into the impure thoughts, and the consent given to them; from these to the immodest acts which the penitent has committed with himself or with others. But prudence is necessary that mistakes may not be made. For here a wound is to be cleansed, there care to be taken that the healthy, uncontaminated part be not infected, that evil still unknown may not be learnt. Doubt not that light from heaven, which you must invoke, and experience constantly increasing with practice, will show you the safe way between these two rocks.... It is scarcely to be believed how useful it is to so formulate the questions yourself that the penitent has nothing to say but, ‘Yes,’ or ‘No.’ What a comfort it was to the Samaritan woman to be able to declare: ‘I have found some one who has told me all that I have done.’ If she had been called upon to confess her sins herself, who knows if she could ever have been brought to do so? But when she saw herself with such gentleness probed and fathomed by Christ, it was no longer difficult for her to confess.” ... “But in such confessions,” adds Segneri, “refrain from every sign by which the penitent could infer that the sins confessed to you seem very grave. Remind him of the joy in heaven over the conversion of a single sinner, and of the peace of mind with which he can go home, blessing a thousand times the day on which he delivered his conscience from such a burden.”[658]
Whilst the confessor cannot always prevent the concealment of sins; yet in many cases he will by prudent inquiry succeed in procuring sincere confessions. To this end, he must receive penitents with cordial friendliness, benevolence, and gentleness, reminding them that a confession which is not made with full sincerity is invalid and sacrilegious; and that Satan, crafty and envious, awakens false shame in penitents, in order to rob them of the effects of grace in this Sacrament.
Let the confessor also observe the following special remedies: 1. In order to remove false shame, let the penitent understand that a priest often hears much more shameful and serious sins; that the penitent is not known to him; let the priest encourage the penitent and defer reproof till the end of the confession; remind him of the seal of the confessional to which the confessor is most strictly bound, but also of the certain disclosing of the concealed sins before the whole world at the Last Judgment. 2. In order to remove fear of losing the esteem of the confessor, the confessor should avoid familiarity with his penitents, not visit them at their homes without urgent necessity, and not permit them to come to his house to speak about matters of conscience, as such things are to be treated in the confessional. Moreover, he must not object to his usual penitents occasionally confessing to another confessor; and if they have done so, he should commend them for it; an exception is to be made here in the case of scrupulous persons, who, by so doing, might only become the more confused, because another confessor would not know them as scrupulous persons.—“Caveat Confessarius, ne motiva naturalia et humana adhibeat ad fiduciam pœnitentium, mulierum præcipue, sibi conciliandam; id quippe periculosum est.”[659]
It follows from the above, that the confessor, at the end of the confession, may, and should, kindly ask unknown penitents (whose sincerity he justly doubts) if anything in their past lives still troubles their conscience, and encourage them to confess everything. By such questions not a few persons, especially of the uneducated class, and women, and children, are saved from sacrilege,—that is to say, they are induced to confess sins hitherto concealed; or the confessor may take occasion, from the silence or a confused answer, prudently to investigate the matter further. If, however, he discovers some defect in former confessions, he must admonish the penitent to repeat these invalid confessions by a general confession and assist him in doing so.[660]
If the penitent declares that he has nothing more of which to accuse himself, absolution must be given him—if he is, in other respects, worthy of it; for in cases of doubt as to the honesty of a penitent, there is no other means of arriving at the truth than by the testimony of the penitent himself, as he, himself, is defendant and witness.[661]
But what is the confessor to do if he knows positively that the penitent has concealed or denied a sin?
1. If he has obtained this knowledge outside of the confessional, and that (a) by his own observation (ex propria experientia), having himself seen or heard the sin of the penitent, he cannot absolve him as long as, on the one hand, the latter, when questioned, obstinately denies having committed the sin, and while, on the other hand, the confessor knows positively that the sin in question has not in the meantime been confessed to another priest. For then defect in formal integrity has been demonstrated. If the confessor has obtained his knowledge (b) on the statement of another, he must, as a rule, absolve the penitent, even if he when carefully questioned denies, for here the declaration of the penitent himself is to be preferred to the testimony of others; these latter may have been in error. Moreover, the confessor can assume that the penitent, if he really committed the sin, has forgotten it, or confessed it to another priest, or has some lawful ground for concealing it now. But if the witnesses were so trustworthy that no doubt could be entertained as to their statements, and if the confessor knew positively that since committing the sin the penitent had not confessed to another priest, and also that he could not have forgotten it, he cannot, as long as the penitent denies the sin, absolve him, because, in this case, a lie on the part of the penitent, quite inconsistent with the integrity of the confession, has been demonstrated; this case, however, will seldom occur.
2. If the confessor has obtained his knowledge from the confession of the accomplice (complex) he is not allowed specially to question the penitent concerning this sin, if he has not received from the accomplice express permission to do so, or if this sin does not generally occur with people in that station, or in those circumstances; otherwise he may only ask the penitent in a general way, as he would in any case have done, or should have done,—for example, if anything more troubles his conscience; and he can, in a general way, without letting his knowledge be suspected, exhort him to confess his sins sincerely; but the danger of breaking the seal of the confessional—by, perhaps, asking the penitent the same thing several times—must be carefully avoided. As to whether he can absolve such a penitent is a controverted point. After quoting the opinion of others on the subject, St. Alphonsus teaches: “In my judgment the opinion of Lacroix is to be preferred, that is, the confessor should not absolve, not even sub conditione, but should say a prayer, to conceal the fact that absolution is refused, because, in this manner, he, on the one hand, saves the seal—revealing nothing and inconveniencing no one—and, on the other hand, he has regard for the reverence due to the Sacrament by preventing its frustration.”[662]
Other theologians teach with Suarez that absolution may only be refused when it is quite evident that the penitent is telling a lie to the prejudice of the integrity of the confession. Indeed, not a few teach that absolution must, in every case, be given to the penitent who denies his sin, when the knowledge of this sin was obtained only from the confession of another, as this knowledge is to be regarded as not existing. This opinion is sufficiently probable, and deserves the preference, especially as it safeguards the sigillum. We must, moreover, consider that we can scarcely have a certainty that the penitent is confessing sacrilegiously, quite apart from the consideration that it is not lawful to make use of knowledge gained in the confessional for the spiritual guidance of another. Absolution sub conditione can also be given in this case, as this course preserves the reverence due to the Sacrament.[663]
But it is the confessor’s duty not only to understand the sins and to supplement the confession; he must also form for himself a judgment concerning the gravity of sins which he has heard. Although he must hear and understand all the sins of the penitent, and would sin if he absolved, and had failed through his own fault to take cognizance of a mortal sin, it is not necessary for him to pass judgment on everything he hears from the penitent. It is sufficient if he is able to do this in regard to the sins which usually occur; for the rest let him hear, take note, and then absolve. Thus St. Alphonsus,[664] and other theologians. Lehmkuhl remarks, that this necessary judgment is formed as soon as the confessor hears the sins, provided that he has an habitual knowledge which enables him to distinguish objectively grave and venial sins, and to apprehend their specific sinfulness. Whether the subjective malice has any proportion to the sin considered objectively cannot always be ascertained, though it may generally be presumed; nor is it always possible to discover it. Such questions, therefore, should not be asked (unless, perhaps, in the case of well-instructed penitents), for they are quite useless. It is a different matter with questions regarding the advertence and the consent of the will, and the objective gravity of the sins, in so far as it depends upon the circumstances. Such questions the confessor must ask per se, when the confession of the penitent leaves it doubtful if the materia has been gravis or levis, and no penitent, be he who he may, can be offended by such questions; nevertheless, it is not always necessary to put these questions, as, sometimes, a confessor may content himself with a presumption based upon the conscience of the penitent well known to him, or other indications.[665] The priest must pronounce judgment, as we have said, on the gravity of the sins, and have in his memory the sins confessed by the penitent, not as Suarez states, in order to absolve, but in order to form a correct judgment of the moral state of the penitent, and of his dispositions for the reception of absolution, and in order to impose a suitable penance.[666]
50. The Examination of the Dispositions of the Penitent.
The dispositions of the penitent consist in true sorrow and firm purpose of amendment. They are at the same time the quasi materia of this Sacrament, so that if they are wanting the absolution is invalid. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance must, therefore, make it a point to determine whether the penitent is properly disposed. But as this disposition is an interior matter, there arises for the confessor the great difficulty of knowing by what sign he may recognize it.
Hence the following principles:—
I. It is the duty of the confessor diligently to examine whether the penitent is properly disposed. This is evident from our introductory remarks, also from the fact that the confessor is a judge, and it is the duty of a judge to form an opinion of the worthiness or unworthiness of the accused. Finally, it results from the fact that he has to discharge his important office as a dispensator fidelis, and, as such, may not give Sanctum canibus.[667] Therefore, Suarez says: “Before the confessor absolves he must prudenter et probabiliter judicare, if the penitent is disposed, because he would otherwise expose himself to the danger of making mistakes, and would act without sufficient knowledge.”[668]
II. The confessor must arrive at a certitudo moralis, that is, a reasonable and probable judgment, that the penitent is disposed. This judicium prudens et probabile is necessary, as it is not allowed (except in case of necessity) to administer the Sacrament cum prudenti dubio as to its validity; but, on the other hand, it is also sufficient because the disposition of the soul is an interior matter, the exterior signs and indications of which produce, generally, only a moral certainty, a probability. The proper disposition of the penitent must, therefore, be presumed, unless circumstances directly suggest suspicion of the contrary.[669]
III. The confessor may regard as indicating proper dispositions the fact that the penitent comes to confession of his own accord, and not on account of the law of the Church, or with a view to receiving some other Sacrament, or under compulsion from parents or others; voluntary confession (confessio libera) alone, or in connection with a protestation of sorrow and a purpose of amendment, is the usual sign (signum ordinarium) of good dispositions, except when this protestation is rendered suspicious by some other circumstance. The confession itself affords ground for the presumption that the penitent is disposed, sorrow being made manifest by the confession and the principle holding good: nemo malus præsumendus est. We may not, therefore, presume that a penitent comes to confession indisposed; there must first be ground for such presumption. Therefore, the Roman Catechism teaches:[670] Si audita confessione, judicaverit (Sacerdos) neque in enumerandis peccatis diligentiam nec in detestandis dolorem omnino defuisse, which means that the penitent can be absolved when dolor tam contritionis quam attritionis is not wanting in him, for if neither is present there is no sorrow at all.[671] When the priest has heard the confession, and assured himself that the penitent has carefully examined his conscience and confessed his sins, and that he is sorry for them, he must absolve him.[672] When, therefore, the penitent shows by the manner of his self-accusation that he has contrition, and when his demeanor is worthy of the Sacrament and becoming a penitent, and his confession is sincere, the confessor must not doubt as to his dispositions, unless, as before said, there is positive presumption for the contrary. The presumption in favor of his dispositions derived from the confession will be neutralized by the opposite presumption which well-founded indications of indisposition produce. That in the case of contrary presumption the confessor may again decide in favor of the penitent and credit his assertion, “certain other, more or less weighty, arguments must be superadded” which tend to weaken the first suspicion or to destroy it totally. These arguments are called “signa doloris extraordinaria.”[673] But the confessor must not attach too much importance to these extraordinary signs, and must bear in mind that no one of those usually given by the theologians supplies, under all circumstances, complete proof of the penitent’s disposition. As such signs (which, when necessary, may furnish a stronger and special proof of the penitent’s sorrow and purpose of amendment) St. Alphonsus,[674] Reuter,[675] and other authors enumerate the following: (1) any striving after amendment which the penitent has shown; (2) any special manifestation of sorrow on the part of the penitent himself, or due to the exhortation of the confessor (for instance, tears, sighs, etc., although tears and sighs are not always to be trusted); (3) that the penitent was induced to confess by some special, extraordinary motive; (4) that, upon the exhortation of the confessor, he has attained to a better apprehension of sin, and an abhorrence of it; (5) that he has now ultimately confessed to the confessor long concealed sins; (6) that the number of the sins has become considerably less, although the circumstances remained the same (for if the penitent had been prevented from sinning by illness, or a similar circumstance, this would be no signum extraordinarium); (7) that restitution has been really made, the habit overcome, or some other difficult duty fulfilled; (8) that, in view of the confession which he wishes to make, he has increased prayer, given alms, undertaken fasting or other good works; (9) that he has voluntarily sought the means of amendment at the hands of the confessor, gladly adopted those proposed to him, or sincerely promised to adopt them; (10) that he willingly undertakes a severe penance, and offers to make satisfaction to God; (11) voluntary, spontaneous confession may often be a sufficient sign.
IV. The question for us now is: in what cases a serious “præjudicium” against the disposition of the penitent arises. According to the teaching of St. Leonard of Port Maurice, they are the following: (1) when the penitent always relapses in the same sins, and there is no visible trace or hope of amendment; (2) when the penitent answers coldly that he is sorry, especially when he has often relapsed; (3) when he has not applied the remedies given by the confessor; (4) when the penitent has made constant and unusual efforts for the gratification of his passions; (5) when the penitent receives the holy Sacraments only if commanded to do so by parents or teachers, or out of mere custom on feast-days, or out of human considerations; (6) when the penitent presumptuously excuses his sins, or enters into dispute with his confessor, a fortiori if he should even boast of his sins; (7) when the penitent refuses to accept a reasonable penance, for punishment or for amendment; (8) when the penitent shows a great inclination to sin, or covets the profit or great pleasure obtained from the sin.[676]
V. A penitent is to be regarded as completely indisposed who positively has no supernatural sorrow, and no real purpose of amendment, especially one who refuses to undertake a difficult obligation; one, for example: (l) who does not remove the immediate and willful occasion of sin;[677] (2) who will not lay aside enmity and hatred, and will not be reconciled; (3) who will not make restitution and repair injury; (4) who will not give up sinful occupations; (5) who will not promise to exert himself to lay aside a bad habit; (6) who does not employ the necessary means of amendment; (7) who is not willing to remove scandal that he has given or still gives to others.
VI. That penitent is doubtfully disposed against whom there is a well-founded “præjudicium,”—one arising from positive indications,—which præjudicium he has not wholly removed, so that there is still valid ground for considering him as not yet sufficiently disposed.
51. The Confessor’s Duty in Disposing his Penitents.
The confessor must, with fatherly love and care, to the best of his ability, dispose those penitents whom, after instruction and exhortation, he sees to be insufficiently disposed; and he is bound to this ex rigoroso religionis et charitatis officio. Magnificent is the discourse on this subject which Leo XII in his Encyclical letter of Dec. 25, 1825, extending the Jubilee to the whole Church, addressed to all the bishops. In § 5 the Pope writes: “You know well how necessary and salutary the labor of those priests is to whom the faithful must confess their sins, in order that they may be able to perform with fruit what they have been taught. Therefore it must be your zealous care that those priests appointed by you to hear confessions do not forget what our predecessor Innocent III prescribed with regard to the minister of the Sacrament of Penance; namely, that he should be discretus et cautus, in order to pour wine and oil, like the experienced physician, into the wounds of the stricken one, to give him good advice, and to prescribe what means of improvement he must employ.” And, after remarking (with a reference to the words of the Roman Ritual) that the priest must exercise great care as to whom he administers absolution, to whom he refuses it, and when he postpones it, especially emphasizing to whom it may not be given, he goes on to say that every one can easily see how totally different from this the procedure of those priests is, “who, as soon as they perceive that a person is burdened with many sins, at once declare that they cannot give him absolution, thus refusing to heal those for whose healing they were in a special manner appointed by Him who said: ‘Those who are whole need not the physician, but those who are sick,’ or to whom the least effort in eliciting sorrow and good purpose seems sufficient, and only then believe that they have taken a safe decision when they send the penitent away, to absolve him at some other time. For if ever the golden mean is to be observed, it is eminently in this case, so that too great ease of obtaining absolution may not engender carelessness in committing sin, and that too great difficulty may not estrange souls from the confessional and plunge them into despair of salvation. For many present themselves before the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance who are quite unprepared, but are in such dispositions that they might become prepared if only the priest, equipped with the compassion of Jesus Christ, who came to call not the just but sinners, understood how to treat them with zeal, patience, and gentleness. Those are not to be regarded as unprepared who have committed very grave offenses, or who have not confessed for very many years—for the mercy of the Lord knows no bounds, and inexhaustible is the treasure of His goodness—or who, ignorant, of humble condition, and slow of perception, have not duly examined themselves, for without the help of the priest they are unable to do this; but only those who, after being questioned by the confessor concerning their sins with necessary care (but not with a minuteness immoderately troublesome to them), and after the confessor has exhausted all the zeal which love can inspire, accompanied with fervent prayer, to move them to sorrow for their sins, are found to be wholly and entirely devoid of that sorrow by which they should at least become disposed to obtain grace in the Sacrament. In whatever dispositions those may be who approach the minister of the Sacrament of Penance, they should not be allowed to despair on account of their guilt, and to go away estranged from the goodness of God or the Sacrament of reconciliation.... St. Raymond of Pennafort, whom the Church calls the eminent minister of the Sacrament of Penance, may serve as a fitting example of this love. ‘After the confessor has heard the sins,’ he says, ‘let him comfort the sinner and bear his burden with him, let him be tender of heart, forbearing towards the penitent in his sins, let him distinguish with prudence, assist the person confessing with his prayers, give alms, and perform other good works for him, ever aid him with gentle exhortation, suggesting grounds for consolation, encouraging him to hope and also remonstrating with him when necessary.’” With these golden words, born of love for sinners and burning zeal for souls, the Pope admonishes confessors to take most benevolent interest in their penitents in order to dispose them. This is, indeed, a strict duty of love; love of God and of the poor sinner must move the confessor to use every exertion in his power to rescue him from his unhappy situation, and reconcile him with God. The confessor must thus act as the attorney of God and the father of the penitent; and as physician of the soul he is bound, after the example of the good Samaritan, to apply promptly for the sick soul of the penitent a suitable remedy, and the only suitable remedy here is the valid reception of absolution.[678]
It is true, as Segneri[679] says, that the heart of the sinner not seldom becomes as hard as stone (Job xli. 15); nevertheless, we must try to soften it, and to arouse in these wretched men—the more unhappy as their wretched state is of their own choice—sorrow for past sin, and a sincere determination never more to return to it. But in order to move them to sorrow and penance, powerful motives for sorrow must be proposed, and it is well to support these by one or more passages from Scripture, or utterances of a saint. These generally refer to the nature, the effects, and the consequences of sin—sin as the most terrible wrong done to the majesty of God (Jer. ii. 2); as the blackest ingratitude towards God, our best Father, and most generous benefactor (Deut. xxxii. 5, 18; Is. i. 3; v. 4; 2 Kings xii. 7); as the most execrable faithlessness towards Jesus, our most loving Redeemer (Heb. vi. 6; John x. 22); as an evil which brings with it the loss of grace and of the happiness of heaven (Wis. vii. 14; 2 Cor. ii. 9); leading to hell (Is. xxxiii. 14; Matt. xxvi. 26); and preparing a terrible death (Prov. vi. 34; Heb. x. 31); which is most hateful and disgraceful in itself; making the sinner an abomination before God and a slave of the devil (Ps. v. 6; Wis. xiv. 9). The peculiar hatefulness, the evil consequences, and danger of special sins may be described, as, for example, impurity, robbing man of innocence, ruining him in body and soul, surrendering him to disgrace and shame, making him the object of God’s especial abhorrence, and exposing him to severe punishment. But, in a particular manner, let the confessor seek to deter the penitent from relapse, impressing upon him the great truth that the difficulty of effecting his salvation increases in the same proportion as the number of his sins; that bad habits always become stronger, the mind more darkened, the will weaker, also that he is always becoming more unworthy of divine grace, that the evil one obtains more power over a man as the sinner’s resistance grows less. It is, however, neither necessary nor useful to set forth these motives indiscriminately; they must be chosen with a view to suit the penitent,[680] and not only stored in the memory, but, by meditation, deeply imprinted on the heart of the confessor, that he may bring them home to the penitent with the warmth of conviction and a persuasive unction.
The confessor must not be concerned at the fact that other penitents have to wait a long time and end by going away; for, in this case, he must not look to the welfare of others, but solely to that of the penitent with whom he is dealing at the moment. It is of his welfare and not that of the rest that he has to render account, and, as St. Francis Xavier used to say, it is better to hear the confessions of a few penitents well, than those of many hastily and without fruit. The confessor must very often dispose illiterate penitents (pœn. rudes) and children[681] by moving them to sorrow and purpose of amendment, because these latter do not sufficiently consider the necessity of these acts, and therefore neglect them. He must also frequently dispose penitents who have relapsed into sinful habits without endeavoring to amend, as with such people there is ground for the presumption that they are not truly disposed. “How many penitents have come to me not disposed, and I have endeavored, with the help of divine grace to dispose them, and I have certainly done so, and, to my very great comfort, dismissed them with absolution,” cries out St. Alphonsus.[682] Justly, therefore, does this sainted doctor and zealous guide of souls, blame those “indolent confessors” who send away a penitent without having shown any zeal in preparing him.[683]
If the confessor judges that the penitent is well disposed, he has no obligation with regard to his dispositions. For the rest, he will do well to exhort penitents who are unknown to him again to elicit sorrow and purpose of amendment aroused by his words, or at least to ask them if they heartily detest their sins. If they answer in the affirmative, the confessor can set his mind at rest, unless circumstances suggest otherwise.[684]
52. The Duty of the Confessor to administer, to defer, or to refuse Absolution.
After examining the dispositions of the penitent, and after endeavoring to make sure of them, the confessor, as we have seen in the last section, will find three classes of penitents: those who are certainly disposed, those who are doubtfully disposed, those who are not disposed.
His duty with regard to these different classes will form the subject-matter of this section.
I. Absolution must, in justice, be given to the penitent who is certainly disposed, so that the confessor would, generally speaking, sin gravely and against justice if he should refuse to absolve such a penitent. After hearing a case (causa), the judge must pronounce sentence on the accused, and in the tribunal of penance (the worthiness of the penitent being presupposed) the sentence can only be one of acquittal. Accordingly, if the penitent is worthy of acquittal, in other words, certainly disposed, absolution must be given him. This results also from the character of the confessor as representative of God; but God acquits the sinner who does worthy penance, therefore God’s representative must do likewise. This follows, further, from the aim of the institution of the Sacrament. It was instituted for the faithful and for their spiritual benefit; now, if the faithful are well disposed, they have a right to this Sacrament, and it would be injustice to withhold it from them. Finally, the confessor binds himself by admitting a penitent to confession, ex quasi-contractu, to pronounce judgment in accordance with the injunctions of Christ.[685] Absolution must also be given to a certainly disposed penitent when he has accused himself of venial sins only. In the latter case, however, it is, ex se, no great injustice not always to give absolution, but only the blessing, and if there is reasonable ground for this proceeding it is no sin at all.
II. Absolution must always be refused to penitents who are certainly not disposed. The confessor would be guilty of sacrilege if he administered absolution to penitents whose indisposition was certain, in whatever state of need the penitent might be; for, in this case, the confessor would utter the sacramental formula in vain, and such abuse is sinful. What penitents are certainly not disposed we have learnt above.[686] The strict duty of the confessor to dispose those penitents whom he has recognized as not disposed has also been treated of (§ 51). Not till all his pains and zeal have proved vain may he dismiss them as indisposed; and even then the confessor must not treat them harshly and reject and repel them, but clearly and eloquently lay before them their sad state, and the very great danger of incurring eternal damnation, and assure them that it would always afford him the greatest joy if they should at last do real penance, and that he would be ready at all times to receive them in the confessional as soon as they should be willing to obey the divine precepts.[687]
III. Absolution must, as a rule, be deferred in the case of those penitents who are altogether doubtfully disposed (plane dubie dispositi). For the confessor must take care that he does not presumptuously expose the Sacrament to the danger of nullity and commit a great sacrilege. Penitents are to be regarded as doubtfully disposed who, having a duty to fulfill sub gravi, such, for example, as removing an immediate occasion of sin, laying aside a vicious habit, making restitution, giving up an enmity, have promised to do their duty and failed to keep the promise. Failure to comply with the obligation does not point infallibly to a lack of proper dispositions, but it necessarily gives rise to well-founded doubts.
As a rule, absolution must be deferred in the case of such penitents, but if there is a causa gravis, it may be given to them sub conditione, or, according to circumstances, it must be so given to them.
For the Sacraments were instituted for men. When, therefore, more evil than good results from postponement of absolution, the welfare of the penitent demands that the Sacrament should be administered to him, even with the danger of nullity; regard for the Sacrament being preserved by the subjoined condition.
If dying persons are doubtfully disposed, they must be absolved sub conditione; on this point there can be no controversy.
It is universally admitted and also approved by St. Alphonsus that a doubtfully disposed penitent can be absolved, sub conditione, of course, when he himself, bona fide, believes that he is sufficiently disposed, and when there is a causa gravis for believing that the refusal or postponement of absolution would cause him to fall into a worse state; for example, commit another sacrilege, or become totally estranged from the Sacraments. In this case the confessor must use every means in prudence, and with holy, enlightened zeal, to dispose the penitent fittingly, and then—mindful of the mercy of Him whose place he fills, and who does not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax (Is. xlii. 3)—administer the absolution.
But in other cases where such evils are not to be feared, the confessor must defer absolution for doubtfully disposed penitents till they have shown themselves to be better disposed. This applies especially to relapsing sinners and to occasionarii. “Do not refuse absolution to the penitent, but postpone it,” is the exhortation of Segneri to confessors. “He must come again within a fixed time. In the meanwhile he may make himself more worthy and then give more trustworthy signs of sorrow.” Let it not be objected that the penitents would not return. “If they do not come to you, they will go to others, and will be better prepared and absolved with greater profit. If they neither come back to you nor go to another, you need not be concerned about it, for it is a clear sign that they are quite obdurate in sin, that they were not disposed, and had not the will to render themselves disposed. And yet, even in such cases the deferring of absolution is not without benefit; since a germ of holy fear remains in their hearts, which in time will bring forth fruits of penance. For, as the learned Aversa assures us, a wise postponement is of the greatest profit to the sinner, and experience itself proves that this postponement is mostly beneficial.”[688]
IV. Even in the case of a well-disposed penitent, absolution can, and sometimes must be, deferred, when this appears necessary to, or profitable for, his improvement. Although the well-disposed penitent has a right to absolution, yet the confessor, as a physician, must have regard for the cure of the penitent, nor has the penitent always a right to immediate absolution. The deferring of absolution is a grave duty when postponement is a necessary measure; it is not so imperative when it serves only as a measure of utility.
1. Postponement of absolution is necessary:—
(a) With penitents who have to remove a public scandal. This duty must be done before they are admitted to holy communion, and generally also before absolution. (b) With penitents who have been, in any respect, public sinners,—till they have publicly shown themselves to have amended; except, perhaps, when it is advisable to give absolution at once for their greater comfort and spiritual profit; yet with postponement of holy communion. (c) With penitents who are under some great obligation, who have to make considerable restitution, to be reconciled to an enemy, or to remove an occasion of sin, and of whom it is to be feared that they may not be true to their resolution on account of its great difficulties. (d) With a penitent who has not confessed for a long time, has often fallen back into the old sins, and has not so far employed any diligence in the examination of his conscience; for, in this case, he runs great risk (as, by his own fault, the declaration of his sins is incomplete) of being invalidly absolved. But if such a penitent does not know how to examine his conscience better, the confessor must aid him, and absolve him if he considers him otherwise capable and worthy of it.
For the cases cited Lehmkuhl and Reuter give this good rule: If it is more difficult for the penitent to come to the confessor again than to fulfill his heavy obligation, let him be at once absolved, unless he has already promised to fulfill his obligation and has not kept his promise; but if it is more difficult for him to fulfill the obligation than to come again, let the absolution be deferred. Here, however, the confessor must have regard for the relative or subjective difficulty which his penitent finds in removing the occasion of sin, on account of rooted habit, or the strength of a violent passion. That he may overcome this, the penitent must be stimulated by postponement of absolution; otherwise he will easily forget his purpose and his promise.[689]
2. Postponement of absolution, even when it is not necessary, may sometimes be profitable to the penitent. Between the certa and the plane dubia dispositio there are degrees, and the case may thus occur that the disposition of the penitent is not so certain that absolution must be given at once; on the other hand, it may not be so doubtful that absolution ought to be refused or postponed.[690] This applies to penitents to whom, in view of their dispositions and other circumstances, absolution, strictly speaking, may be given, but to whom postponement is useful in helping them to recognize more clearly the enormity of sin and the necessity of improvement. Thus they are more effectually strengthened against relapse, their sorrow for sin becomes deeper, their purpose of amendment firmer. Here the confessor, as physician before God, must consider whether it is more profitable for the penitent to give him absolution or to defer it. In determining this, he must consider the character of the penitent, and the circumstances of time and place in which we live. “When faith has become cold, and the penitent can scarcely be moved to make a confession, it is dangerous to defer absolution; this itself, indeed, may be a ground for giving absolution to a doubtfully disposed penitent. Thus it is that the confessor in our times must be more inclined to give absolution than in former times when faith was lively.”[691] The confessor must not postpone absolution when postponement is hurtful to the penitent, and this is the case when holy communion cannot be omitted without exciting remark; or when an indulgence can be gained at that time; when the danger is foreseen that the penitent would be obliged to confess the same sins to another confessor, which would be an unfair burden; or when the penitent, by this proceeding, would be exposed to the risk of dying without absolution; or if he could not come again for a long time.
But absolution should be deferred only for a short time—three, five, or eight days. For a sufficiently disposed penitent the postponement should never be long, especially when it is uncertain whether he has perfect contrition, or whether he would gain real profit from it.[692] St. Alphonsus is of this opinion also in the case when relapse is interior, for instance, a bad habit. But if it be exterior, for example, an immediate occasion of sin, whether voluntary, or necessary, absolution is always to be deferred till the immediate voluntary occasion has been removed or the necessary occasion become remote. For the exterior cause has greater influence on the will than the evil habit or interior weakness.[693] Moreover, the interior cause is not so easily removed, simply because it is interior, and clings to a man.[694] Hence St. Alphonsus also gives this advice: “One should not, I think, deviate from the usual view, according to which absolution is not to be deferred in the case of a penitent who relapses from interior weakness, because for him more profit is to be hoped from the sacramental grace than from postponement of absolution.”
Finally the postponement must not be very irksome to the penitent. For, on the one hand, the penitent, as sufficiently disposed, has a right to absolution, and, on the other, the postponement, if very displeasing to him, would, per se loquendo, not help him, or certainly not help him more than the absolution given to him at once. If, therefore, the penitent has a desire to receive absolution, he will be offended by the postponement. This desire manifests a very good will, which, when supported by the grace of the Sacrament, allows better things to be hoped for than would be the case if he were deprived of the sacramental grace. But that, absolute, absolution may be deferred in the case of a sufficiently disposed penitent, even without his consent, is demonstrated by the unanimous teaching of theologians[695] as also by the recommendations and practice of the saints.[696]
Moreover, the frequent awakening of love and sorrow is to be earnestly recommended to the penitent if absolution has been deferred, that he may thus be strengthened against temptation, and later, when better prepared, acquire more abundant graces. A penance is also to be imposed upon the penitent, and he must be reminded that it is not necessary for him to confess again the sins already confessed when he comes back to the same confessor. The latter can absolve, though not remembering the sins, if he has imposed a suitable penance previously and adds a new one.[697]
In conclusion, we may remark that the postponement of absolution depends entirely upon the judgment of the confessor, that neither general nor special rules can be laid down concerning it. Everything should be left to the discretion of the confessor, who is to be guided neither by the suggestions of his own private judgment nor by the example of others, but only by the unction of the Holy Ghost, imparted to the priest by study and prayer.[698]
Concerning postponement of absolution, Segneri remarks: “This remedy, when employed at the right time, produces great effects; like a burning coal it rouses the soul from that lethargy which threatened to become the sleep of death. Shamed and startled, the penitent recognizes the greatness of his misfortune, is placed upon his guard, and reflects upon his condition; if it finds him repentant, it increases his repentance in an indescribable manner, so that his sorrow, which before was transient and weak, and might easily have yielded to the simple allurements of some present object, now becomes strong and powerful and is able to withstand violent assault. And so this wholesome remedy is generally prescribed by the masters of asceticism,[699] and employed by circumspect confessors with much benefit, especially in those cases in which other remedies have proved ineffectual.”[700]
II. THE ACCESSORY DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR
The essential office of the confessor is the judicial office. It is of the highest significance. Connected with it are other supplementary duties of equal importance. They refer to the preparation of the confessor for his responsible office, the exercise of the office itself, and his conduct after its completion.
ARTICLE I
THE PREPARATION
53. The Virtues which the Confessor must possess.
1. As in the administration of other Sacraments, the confessor must first of all be in a state of grace. If he hears confessions in a state of mortal sin, he commits as many sacrileges as he administers absolutions.[701] And what a dishonor to God, what a calamity for the priest is one single sacrilege! St. Alphonsus admonishes confessors, who have been so unhappy as to commit a grave sin, to cleanse their own consciences by confession before administering the Sacrament, or, if they cannot confess, but must hear confessions, to elicit perfect contrition. Whoever absolves in mortal sin dishonors the holy Sacrament intrusted to him by God, and while he delivers others from the chains of sin, reconciles them to God, and opens the gates of heaven to them, his own soul becomes more and more entangled in sin, displeasing to God and exposed to perdition, and will he be able to discharge his holy office in a proper manner? Will he who is himself given to sin effectively destroy the kingdom of sin by his admonition, instruction, and exhortation? The right administration of the Sacrament of Penance demands of the priest a deep hatred and personal abhorrence of sin.
2. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance must, therefore, be confirmed in virtue. He who will lead others to virtue (and that is surely also a duty of the confessor) must first be virtuous himself. Qui sibi nequam est, cui alii bonus erit, exclaims the wise man in the Old Testament (Eccli. xiv. 5). Nothing exercises such great power over the minds of the people as the good example of a priest, and only then do they believe firmly when they see him practice what he teaches. “That voice penetrates deeper into the heart which the life of the speaker confirms,” says Gregory the Great (Reg. Past.). St. Antoninus recalls the words of St. Augustine: “The priest to whom every malady is to be exposed must not fail in any one of the points which he is to judge in others; else he condemns himself while sitting in judgment over others. When the adulterous woman was taken before the Lord, He said to the Pharisees, ‘Let him amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone upon her.’ But as none seemed free from sin, they all withdrew, and did not care to condemn the woman.” “Therefore,” adds St. Augustine, “priests are more culpable than the Pharisees if they, though guilty themselves, dare to condemn others.”[702] It is an irrefutable maxim of the Angelic Doctor that, in the administration of this divine Sacrament, the Confessor coöperates in a personal way with God. It is not sufficient for him to live in a state of grace in order to be a useful servant in the work of saving sinners; he must be solicitous about the practice of all the virtues, for a lukewarm confessor, without interest in his work, who does not exercise himself in prayer and mortification, can only discharge this divine office carelessly. His words will not be inflamed by love, nor his warnings animated by zeal, nor his counsels beget confidence.[703]
3. Amongst the virtues which the confessor must possess, charity occupies the first place. As St. Alphonsus says emphatically, the confessor must have a heart full of love, in order to discharge his office properly. This love of the confessor, as Louis de Ponte says, must have all the dimensions which the Apostle in his letter to the Ephesians demands; the love of the confessor must be so broad that he embraces in his heart all the sinners of the whole world, excluding no one that will do penance, and, like the father in the Gospel, hastening with open arms to meet and receive every prodigal son who returns home; so long-suffering that he does not grow weary if he has to wait a long time for the sinner, and has often (seventy times seven) to deplore his relapse if only he will return repentant; so highly spiritual that he readily incites sinners to a greater perfection; so humble that he stoops to the most abandoned criminal to lend him a helping hand, however low he may have fallen by repeated indulgence in the most shameful sins. “Remember,” writes St. Francis of Sales, “that penitents address you all as ‘father.’ You must, therefore, have a fatherly heart for them; receive them with love, listen to them with patience; do not grow tired of their unmannerly behavior, their ignorance, their fickleness; do not cease helping them, that you may at any cost save their souls. Defiled though they be, they are not on that account less precious; like pearls, they lose nothing by the dirt into which they have fallen. Only try to cleanse them in the Precious Blood of the innocent Lamb, and unite them to God, that they may become heirs of eternal glory, and may one day eclipse the stars by their splendor.”[704] And St. Alphonsus teaches: “When an unhappy sinner comes, good confessors receive him with cordial love, and rejoice like a conqueror who has made booty, reflecting that it has been given to them to snatch a soul from the hands of Satan. They know that this Sacrament was really instituted not for the just, but for sinners ... that Jesus Christ said: ‘I am not come to call the just, but sinners’ (Mark ii. 17). Therefore are they filled with love, and the deeper they see the soul sunk in the filth of sin, the greater love do they show in order to win it for God.”[705] The good confessor exercises in his office all the works of mercy by which charity manifests itself, as Louis de Ponte so beautifully says: “Hearing confessions and absolving penitents is a truly heroic act, and unspeakably well pleasing to the divine Majesty; because in a special manner he exercises here the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. He teaches the ignorant, guides the erring, repairs injuries, comforts the sorrowful and the downcast, imparts salutary counsel to the doubting, makes effectual intercession with God for those whose salvation is endangered. He breaks the cruel chains of the captive and liberates him from shameful slavery, clothes the clean with the garment of grace, offers to the needy and to the weary spiritual food and drink. Therefore I am convinced that God shows mercy to the good and zealous confessor: since ‘Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.’”[706] Therefore, the office of the confessor is very meritorious. But in order that he may gain from it undiminished merit, let him administer it out of love, pure love for God and for souls. And that he may always do so Lehmkuhl recommends him frequently to consider: (1) who He is whose office he discharges; (2) who he is who discharges it; and (3) who he is for whom he discharges it. For the priest represents in this holy tribunal the person of Christ as Redeemer, who gave Himself as ransom for souls, who had this individual soul before His eyes when He suffered, when He instituted the Sacrament of Penance, who as God from all eternity, as Man, from the first moment of His incarnation, chose this hour of His special love, in which, by the influence of grace, the sinner would be brought to the feet of the priest, by whose help and endeavor he might be sanctified and saved. But the confessor who discharges this divine office and coöperates with Christ in the divine work of the salvation of sinners, must recognize that it is without any merit on his part that he has been raised to such an exalted dignity. The confessor has, perhaps, himself grievously failed and in no way can he better atone for his faults than by zeal in blotting out and preventing the sins of others; and if he should have no sins of his own to expiate, he should not forget that he owes this singular favor to Christ and His grace.
The confessor must see in the penitent a brother of Christ, sprinkled with the Blood of Christ, who now, to the shame of Christ, has fallen into the most wretched captivity and slavery of the devil; who, nevertheless, is dearly loved by God and Christ, and is called to eternal and blissful union with Him; who will, perhaps, one day be a great saint in heaven, and, if he dies before the confessor, will there be an intercessor for him; or will certainly, out of gratitude, pray for him here on earth.[707] The confessor should often read what St. Alphonsus writes in his Homo apostolicus about the love of the confessor:[708] “This love must be chiefly exercised in receiving all, especially the poor, the ignorant, and sinners in a friendly manner.... A still greater love must the confessor exercise in hearing the confession itself.... And at the end of the confession the confessor should, with much zeal, show to the sinner the heinousness of his sins. This is the way by which you may gain sinners if you employ the very greatest love in dealing with them.” This love of the confessor produces in him that zeal for souls which should especially animate him. When the confessor discharges his office with zeal, souls (as experience shows) are not less effectually led to God than by preaching. “Be certain,” exclaims St. Leonard of Port Maurice, “that in a single morning which you have dedicated to God in the confessional for the purpose of helping poor sinners, you acquire more merit than if you were to perform other good and holy works for a whole year. Indeed, I venture to say that it is sometimes better to interrupt meditation, reading, the Breviary, or any other pious exercise in order to hear confessions.... We should be content to sacrifice for a time even the contemplation of God in order to comfort poor sinners. St. Ignatius declared that he would very gladly submit to a postponement of the bliss of heaven in order to be able to work for the salvation of a poor soul. Does not that passage in the Gospel terrify you where the servant is damned because he had not used the talent which he had received? And you, who have received from the Lord not one, but three and four, and perhaps ten talents, you will let them lie unused!”[709]
The most beautiful, the most efficacious pattern of true, wise, indefatigable zeal for souls is He whose place the confessor occupies, who in His boundless love shunned no trouble, effort, persecution, or suffering, in seeking sinners, teaching them, moving them to sorrow and penance, and pardoning them, and who for them gave up His life in shame and agony.
Under the influence of this love, the confessor will also avoid certain mistakes which are very injurious to his ministry, and by no means becoming in a representative of Christ.
(a) He will not prefer the rich and the high-placed to the poor and the unfortunate, but, after the example of our Saviour, will embrace the poor and the unfortunate with special love.[710]
(b) He will not, in this love for penitents, be influenced by any natural inclination, still less by any sinful affection; hence he will not regard himself as fortunate if his confessional is besieged by a great number devotarum mulierum, nor will he detain them in the confessional longer than is necessary, nor treat them with too great familiarity, but rather with a paternal severity, so that, in this holy service, he may not incur temptation and ruin.
(c) He will not allow himself to be influenced by the rank of the penitent, but rather remind high and low, rich and poor, of their duties and obligations, and thus be all to all.[711]
(d) He will employ special diligence with those who are stained with many sins, who have long lived in evil habit, and have often relapsed, that they may be lifted out of the slough of sin, and led to God and a new life. He will ponder the celebrated words of St. John Chrysostom: “When you see one whose soul needs cure, do not say to yourself: why did not this one or that one cure him? Cure him of his illness, and ask not why others have been negligent. If you see gold lying on the ground, do you say to yourself: why did not this one or that one pick it up? Do you not hasten to pick it up before others? Even so, think of your fallen brothers, that you have found a treasure in them.”[712]
(e) In hearing confessions he will increase his love and show it by kindness and gentleness; he will manifest no sign of impatience or wonder, even when the penitent confesses very great sins, or shows a hardened unrepentant heart, or is uncouth and tires the confessor by wrong answers and confused statements.
(f) And if the penitent is poorly prepared and badly disposed, the confessor must use every endeavor, especially at the end of the confession, to render him perfectly disposed by instructing him, admonishing him, and (as the penitent’s condition may suggest) by blaming or reproving, by recalling the thought of God’s justice, yet so as rather to inspire confidence and to open the door of love and mercy.[713]
(g) Nor let the priest be sad, despondent, and dejected if he perceives no progress, or only a little, and very slow progress in those on whom he has expended so much trouble. Zeal for souls will guard him against this dangerous rock.[714]
4. The confessor must, moreover, be eminently pure. He hears so many sins of impurity; the saddest lapses from virtue are disclosed to him; he must put questions in order to draw out and complete the confession of these sins; some penitents express themselves very awkwardly, and, alas! by most lamentable abuse of the holy Sacrament, snares are laid to the chastity of the confessor. In order to escape these dangers and that he may not be defiled while cleansing and healing others, the confessor must have a great love for holy purity, and be confirmed in this virtue so as to suppress resolutely and at once all rising temptations and sensual emotions. Let him arm himself with a pure and holy intention, seeking only the honor of God and the salvation of souls; let him avoid all familiarity with female penitents, ever having as witnesses of his words and actions God and his own and his penitent’s guardian angels; finally, let him shield himself by frequent prayer, especially to Mary, the purest of Virgins.
5. Lastly, the confessor must be equipped with inexhaustible patience. Intrusive, scrupulous, melancholy, distrustful, rough, obstinate penitents, will easily rouse to impatience and anger a confessor who is vehement and excitable. Great patience is, therefore, necessary that, while correcting the faults of others and giving peace to souls, he may not fall into faults himself, become perplexed in heart, and lose his peace of mind. He who will take away the sins of the world must be as meek as a lamb.
54. The Scientific Equipment of the Confessor.
St. Alphonsus teaches[715] that the confessor who hears confessions without sufficient knowledge is in danger of eternal reprobation. And justly does the sainted teacher express himself so seriously. If the Lord demanded from the priests of the Old Testament that their lips should keep knowledge, and that the law should be sought at their mouths (Malach. ii. 17), and if He threatens the priest of the Old Testament by the mouth of the prophet: (Os. iv. 6) “Because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of priesthood to me,” this applies in a much higher degree to the priest of the New Law, who, as representative of God, discharges the office of judge of souls, and holds in his power their eternal welfare or their eternal ruin. An ignorant priest, one not equipped with the knowledge necessary for so responsible and important a Sacrament, exposes himself to the danger of pernicious error, the Sacrament to the danger of dishonor, and the penitent to the danger of damnation. An ignorant confessor works much ruin.
How great the knowledge of the confessor must be is shown by the consideration that he discharges the office of teacher, physician, and judge, to people in the most diverse positions and circumstances of life and the most unequal conditions of soul and mind. He is appointed for them all; they all, without exception, come to him, and he must instruct them upon the most important matters; he must know all diseases and wounds, must examine and cure them; upon all sins he must pronounce judgment, a just judgment, and one as much as possible in accordance with the judgment of God! Truly, if any one who undertakes an office ought to be provided with the knowledge requisite for its fitting discharge, it is the priest, for upon the fitting discharge of his office depends, not some temporary good or evil, but eternal salvation—his own and that of his penitent! St. Teresa was moved to the following utterance in her biography (chap. 5): “Half-instructed confessors have done my soul great harm; for I could not always have such learned ones as I would have desired. They certainly did not wish to deceive me, but the fact was that they knew no better. Of something which was a venial sin, they said it was no sin, and out of a very grave mortal sin they made a venial sin. This has done me such harm, that my speaking here of so great an evil, as a warning to others, will be readily understood.” The following principles are to be laid down respecting the scientific outfit of the confessor:—
I. The confessor is bound sub gravi, to possess all the knowledge which is necessary to discharge his office without committing serious errors.
(1) Generally speaking, the confessor must, therefore, know his moral theology thoroughly. He must know particularly what he has to do in order to administer the Sacrament rightly; he must know upon what subject he has to instruct the penitents, what he may permit, and what he must forbid; he must especially understand how to dispose penitents who are not disposed; how, and through what motives, acts of faith, of hope, of love, and contrition (both attritio and contritio) are to be awakened; for he must very often rouse the penitents to such acts, and even in many cases recite them for his penitents.
(2) Moreover, he must know accurately which of the sins that usually occur are mortal, and which venial, at least ex genere suo; “he must understand how to distinguish them secundum principia communia, though not in causis difficillimis,” or, as Lugo says: “This knowledge need not be of such a kind that in all cases he is able to distinguish between mortal or venial sins, but only in those of frequent occurrence; as for the rest, let him hear and understand, and then absolve with the necessary intention.”[716] He must know: (3) the species and circumstantiæ and how the number is expressed; (4) what is usually necessary for the validity of documents, for valid contracts, for a valid marriage, and what circumstances invalidate contracts and marriages, etc.; (5) when restitution in matters of property and of honor must take place; the duties of individuals according to their different stations, occupations, and obligations; (6) what powers belong to him, what limits there are to these powers, the casus reservati, and ecclesiastical censures; (7) how the disposition of the penitent may be recognized, what means of amendment he should and must prescribe, what penance he can or must impose.[717]
II. The confessor, however, is not obliged to possess a scientia eminens (or exquisita) so as to be able to pronounce the right decision at once in every question which occurs. What the theologians call a scientia mediocris suffices; that is, he must know, but know thoroughly and well, cases of more usual occurrence, and in more difficult things saltem prudenter dubitare; that is, he must know, in a given case, that a difficulty exists and what the difficulty is, and that he should obtain information before he decides. He must also be acquainted with good books which he may consult, and, finally, he must, when necessary, seek guidance from well-informed men. What Lacroix writes (l. c.) upon this point is worthy of attention: “However well informed a confessor may seem to be, it is not well to solve intricate questions at once, especially in cases of obstacles to marriage, simony, or restitution; in such cases you must rather tell the penitent that you do not dare to decide the matter at once, in view of its difficulty, and request him to wait a little while. By doing so, the confessor will not lose the esteem of the penitent; on the contrary, the latter will understand that he takes the matter conscientiously and seriously, and will place all the more confidence in the confessor’s decision, whereas scruples frequently remain when a decision is given quickly and without specifying the grounds for it. In this way errors will be avoided. This exhortation applies especially to confessors who are not very well instructed, but who absolve and give dispensations in all possible directions, the more confidently the less their ignorance permits them to entertain a doubt.” And to this the learned author adds the following remark: “Moreover, a mediocris, but solida doctrina, is more useful than a summa et exquisita cognitio when the latter is not united to prudence and discretion. For those who have no sober judgment treat everything with such theological subtlety that they often involve themselves and others in scruples and other difficulties; it is, therefore, better to adapt one’s self in such questions to the usage of the Church and of prudent confessors.”
The confessor must obtain this knowledge and conserve it (a) by serious study of moral theology. Continuous study is necessary; for as moral theology embraces such various matters, they would in time be forgotten unless recalled to memory by repeated study.[718] The Roman Ritual admonishes confessors to acquire the greatest possible knowledge and wisdom, by zealous prayer to God, as well as by the study of approved authors and the prudent counsel of experienced men.[719] And Benedict XIV says in his Constitution “Apostolica” (26 June, 1749), n. 21: “It were, indeed, to be desired that every confessor should possess that degree of knowledge which is called eminens, but as this is the gift of a few only, it is absolutely necessary that each one should be furnished with at least competent knowledge.” St. Alphonsus gives the reason for this when he says:[720] “We know well that the sacramental confessions will not produce the fruit which we expect and desire, if they are not heard by blameless, learned priests, and priests well instructed in the salutary doctrines of the Church.”
(b) The confessor would err if, as confessor, he should wish to dispense with the study of dogmatic theology. For the confessional is the place in which he who is wavering in faith must be instructed and confirmed; it is precisely in the guidance of souls that the Christian moral law is shown to be the outcome of the doctrine of faith; the dogmas of the Church supply the strongest motives for amendment and a holy life; it is in the minds that have grasped with full and enthusiastic hold the Church’s doctrines in whom we find that masterly authority and certainty to which the soul gladly submits; and, without this, a ministry is exposed to thousands and thousands of errors in the decision of questions of conscience. “Give me a soul thoroughly firm in faith, and in that faith the soul finds, as if spontaneously, its rule of life: Justus ex fide vivit. A priest imbued with his Church’s teaching is as a bright star leading others on the right road.”[721]
(c) In addition to dogma and moral the confessor needs a third science—and this we may call the science of the saints, the doctrine of Christian virtues or perfection. It is not foreign to moral theology; it properly belongs to it as a part to the whole. At the Synod of Westminster, in the year 1873, Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham spoke of this science as follows: “Moral theology has two branches: the first is occupied with the right judgment of sins; the second aims at the practice of virtue. As a science, the former is much more developed than the latter; the former enables the priest to become a judge; it deals with the Commandments of God, the duties of individual classes; it draws the boundary line between what is sin and what is not sin, what is of obligation and what is not of obligation. This is moral theology; if its rules are applied to individual cases, we have casuistry. The second science is called the science of the saints, asceticism, and it makes the priest a guide of souls on the road to perfection. While the first is more cultivated in the schools, the latter is left more to the individual’s zeal and devotion. Yet the science of perfection is necessary; for that which is known in scientific form makes a deeper impression. There is great danger in cultivating the former without the latter. If, in the discharge of his office as judge, a man does not cast his eyes upward, he judges of sin and duty according to the standards of lawfulness and not according to the light of perfection which must guide us.”
III. An extensive knowledge is not necessary to all confessors; the necessary knowledge must rather be relative; that is, adapted to the condition of the penitents who come to confess. He, therefore, who hears confessions at a place to which penitents of various stations, professions, and circumstances, with various degrees of education resort, must possess much greater, more comprehensive, knowledge, than another priest who only hears the confessions of illiterate, simple people. Although a priest who is conscious of his ignorance, or of his defective knowledge of moral theology, and yet hears confessions, is, as St. Alphonsus says, in statu damnationis, there may be cases in which an ignorant confessor can and must hear confessions, namely, in cases of extreme necessity, and when no other priest is present, thus:—
(a) In the hour of death, when a better-informed confessor is wanting; (b) in any similar case of necessity, for instance, when Christians are the captives of infidels and can only obtain an ignorant, unlearned confessor—this situation being rightly regarded as “necessitas moraliter extrema.”[722] “On these grounds Superiors may frequently be excused who appoint priests not well instructed to little parishes in the country; this they generally do because they have none better instructed to send to these parishes. As provision cannot be otherwise made for such places, it is better that they should have a confessor who is not well instructed than none at all. The bishop, however, must remind such a priest of his lack of knowledge, and admonish him to acquire, as his duty strictly requires him to do, better knowledge, in order that he may well discharge his office as confessor. This duty is always incumbent on the parish priest, even when, in view of the necessitous state of a flock, a bishop may be forced to intrust a parish to a priest who is not sufficiently instructed. The same applies to other priests in charge of souls.”[723] Nevertheless, it must be the most serious concern of every bishop to procure well-trained and educated priests.
IV. If a priest is in doubt as to whether he possesses the requisite knowledge for discharging the office of confessor, he can rest content with the judgment of his Superior, if the latter is sufficiently informed of his education and capacity by means of the examination for approbation, or some other theological test, or in consequence of long intercourse with him, or has been informed concerning it by some other prudent man. Of itself, the approbation which he has received cannot satisfy a priest, nor excuse the confessor who is conscious of his defective knowledge; for the approbation presupposes the necessary knowledge but does not impart it. St. Alphonsus teaches—in agreement with all authors: “A confessor who is not conscious of being quite incapable of hearing confessions, is justified in contenting himself with the judgment of his Superior, and, indeed, must be so; to rely upon the approbation of the bishop, and then believe that one is freed from study, is presumption.”[724] Moreover, the Church has never tired of admonishing confessors in the strongest terms, of their strict duty to acquire and maintain the knowledge requisite for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance; for an ignorant confessor causes terrible ruin and burdens himself with a dreadful responsibility.
V. The knowledge of the confessor must be practical in order to further the salvation of souls and solve the casus conscientiæ which occur. On this point St. Alphonsus expresses himself in the following manner: “Many who pride themselves on being instructed and distinguished theologians disdain to read the moralists; they call them casuists, an opprobrious name in their estimation. They say that, in order to hear confessions properly, it is sufficient to know the general moral principles by which all individual cases can be solved. Who denies that all cases must be solved by principles? The difficulty lies in applying the principles to individual cases complicated with so many circumstances. This cannot be done without carefully weighing the grounds on both sides. Here the moralists step in to solve the difficulty; they seek to explain by what principles the many particular cases must be solved. Moreover, there are in our days so many positive laws, Bulls, and decrees, with which we can only become acquainted through the study of the casuists who have collected and classified them, as the different subjects require. The more recent the moralists are, therefore, the more useful are they in comparison with the earlier ones (in this respect, of course). The author of the work Instructio pro novis Confessariis (p. 1, n. 18) rightly says that with regard to many theologians the more deeply versed they are in the speculative science, the more ignorant they are of moral, which, as Gerson writes, is the most difficult of all; and however familiar any one may be with it, he will always be obliged to add to his information. The learned Sperelli[725] likewise says, that those confessors who wholly give themselves up to the study of scholastic theology, in the belief that time devoted to the study of moral is wasted, are in great error, for they can no longer distinguish sin from sin; and this, he says, is an error which involves confessors and penitents in eternal ruin.”[726]
With these words, the sainted teacher demonstrates the necessity of the study of theological casuistry. At the same time he shows also (and that a fortiori) the necessity of practical instruction concerning the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, as in this the confessor learns the method of hearing confessions rightly and with fruit.
VI. Nothing can supply the defect of learning in the confessor. 1. It is true that tact and a natural sagacity greatly assist the confessor, but without solid knowledge this natural capacity profits him nothing, but rather often exposes him to the danger of lightly deciding a matter against all principles of sound doctrine. But he who does not possess this innate sagacity must the more study how casuists decide cases, in order to sharpen his judgment and learn the application of principles.[727]
2. Nor can experience or long years of practice in the confessional supply the place of learning. By experience alone one cannot learn what is allowed and what is not allowed, still less how consciences are to be guided; “for experience which is not based upon knowledge is nothing else than a long custom of erring,”[728] and worse than the condition of a still inexperienced but well-instructed confessor is that of a gray-haired, unlearned one, who, trusting in his experience, errs in his own judgment. Solid knowledge and experience must, therefore, be united in an able confessor. A long practice without erudition in the confessional is rather a danger than a help.
As an excuse for not studying moral theology, many confessors contend that: Practice and theory are different things. If by this is meant that it is far more difficult to put in practice the rules for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance than to learn them, this contention is right and just, and the deduction is that even a very well-informed confessor must not trust to his own insight, but must unceasingly implore light from on high. But if the above argument is to be understood (as ignorant confessors use it) to mean that something which is true in theory is in practice not always true, and that it is impossible always to observe the rules taught by theology, this would be a very pernicious error. If this were true, souls would be no longer led by the doctrine approved in the Church, but by the intelligence or the arbitrary will of the individual confessors. Practice is nothing else than the application of certain rules. How could a confessor understand the practical art of hearing confessions without possessing the theoretical science which consists in a knowledge of the rules? Right practice in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance is nothing else than right application of rules.[729]
St. Alphonsus puts the question: Must a simple priest qualify himself for hearing confessions by the study of moral theology, if he sees that (in his diocese) there is a great want of confessors? And he answers in the affirmative, “as Christ appointed priests expressly for the purpose of saving souls, and the salvation of souls is chiefly effected by the holy Sacrament of Penance. Accordingly, how can a priest be pronounced free from sin who, out of negligence, does not hear confessions, or does not qualify himself to do so when he sees great need for it—how will such a one avoid the reproaches of the Lord, or escape the punishments with which He threatens the idle servant? Such priests must not say that they did their duty if they helped souls in another way, by instruction, by prayer, by exhortation; that, I say, is not enough, because they must help their neighbor in that which is necessary to his salvation. Nor must it be said that hearing confessions is a duty of charity, and that charity does not bind under such great difficulty as is involved in undertaking the labor which the acquirement of the knowledge necessary for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance entails. For it may be answered that even if hearing confessions is a duty of charity, it is of the essence of the sacerdotal office, and incumbent on every priest when necessity requires it.”[730]
55. The Prudence of the Confessor.
In addition to knowledge the confessor must possess great prudence, as his office is beset with difficulties and dangers.
The necessity for prudence in the confessor is shown in the very meaning of the word; for prudence is nothing else than the good use and the right application of principles and rules in any business, or, according to the Angelic Doctor, the right application of general principles to the individual case.[731] It is, therefore, called the right way of acting. It is not, of course, the prudence of the world and the flesh which we have here in view, that prudence which, before God, is folly (1 Cor. iii. 19), which sacrifices higher things for earthly profit; nor is it human respect, which in weakness and fear, abandons principles for a momentary success (prudentia diabolica, Jac. iii. 15), but the supernatural virtue of prudence,[732] which springs like a flower from sanctifying grace and the love of God; which, in Confirmation, the Holy Ghost bestows for individual use, and which is renewed for the public good in the ordination of the priest: this is that prudence which our divine Saviour recommended to His disciples, when He said to them: “Estote prudentes sicut serpentes.”[733] Now the office of the confessor is of a thoroughly practical nature, difficult, and of the highest importance, as, in the exercise of it, he may benefit or injure both himself and others, according as his conduct is prudent or imprudent. Prudence, therefore, not less than knowledge, is necessary to the confessor. Prudence is the queen of the virtues, which counsels well, judges rightly, and effectually conducts to the goal proposed.[734]
The confessor must be prudent both towards the penitent and towards himself, that he may injure neither the penitent nor himself, nor administer his office to the detriment of religion and the scandal of others.
According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus,[735] the confessor must conduct himself prudently towards the penitent, especially in the following points:—
(1) In the questions which he puts to the penitent, so as only to ask what is suited to the station, age, and condition of the penitent, and so as not to teach him sins which he did not know; as already remarked, very special care is necessary in questions concerning the sixth commandment; (2) in the instructions which he gives the penitent; instructing him or preserving a discreet silence and leaving him in his good faith, as the welfare of the penitent may demand (Praxis, n. 8, 9); (3) in prescribing the means of amendment, so that these latter may be adapted to the state of the penitent’s soul and to his circumstances (Praxis, n. 15); (4) in imposing sacramental penance, so that, as above stated, it may correspond with the penitent’s sins and his station (Praxis, n. 11, 12); (5) in giving, deferring, or refusing absolution (Praxis, n. 10, 63-77); (6) in the choice of opinions, in case of the existence of probable opinions for and against a point, whether he must choose the severer or the milder decision for the penitent in question[736] (Praxis, n. 114); (7) in preserving the seal of the confessional, so as to avoid every danger of breaking it either directly or indirectly (Praxis, n. 117); (8) in the treatment of very difficult and complicated questions, carefully weighing all the circumstances, and, when necessary, asking the penitent for time, in order to seek advice from books or learned men (Praxis, n. 194).
The confessor must be prudent with regard to himself, that: (1) He may not prepare for himself temptation against holy purity in questioning and investigating the circumstances of sins, that he may not injure his good name, may not bring the office of the confessor into disrepute, may not render the institution of the confessional odious; (2) in vitando aspectu fœminarum, juniorum præcipue et, nisi crates interfecta sit, manus certe cum sudario intercedat (Praxis, n. 119); and (3), by being especially careful with regard to women, being particular to avoid all superfluous talk, all familiarity, accepting no presents from them, not visiting them without necessity at their homes, treating younger ones with severity rather than leniency. These measures of precaution the confessor must adopt in the case of pious persons especially, quibuscum est periculum majoris adhæsionis (Praxis, n. 119-120).[737] But how shall he obtain this prudence from which so many of the good effects of the Sacrament depend? By study, by circumspection, by experience, by docility, and purity of intention, the confessor can acquire for himself the necessary prudence, assisted, of course, by divine grace. 1. By study, for prudence derives its decisions and its opportune remedies from science. 2. By circumspection, by considering the different circumstances of the person and the case. This circumspection will enable the confessor to reveal the deceptive motives of passion and vice, to suggest means for the removal of obstacles in the way of amendment, to foresee and provide against the detriment which may ensue. The gift of right judgment is conferred upon us by God; maturity of judgment is acquired with age; but those who have not been richly endowed by nature can sharpen their judgment by the study of moral and pastoral theology and by taking counsel of wiser men. 3. By experience, which teaches the confessor what commonly occurs in practice, shows him how he must question, when he must instruct the penitent or leave him in bona fide, how he finds his way to the heart of the penitent, when he must show special indulgence, how to judge rightly of the penitent’s disposition and to find the proper remedies. Practical experience is thus an excellent school. 4. By docility, which is especially necessary for young confessors; it teaches them to mistrust themselves and to apply often to learned and experienced confessors for advice, thus profiting by the experience of others. Hence Benedict XIV advises confessors to beware of answering divinando when a more difficult or a new case is brought before them. On the contrary, they should not decide the matter till after mature consideration; moreover, they should consult the theologians whose teaching is solid and sound.[738] 5. Purity of intention, that is the sole desire to please God, and to lead men to salvation. “It is certain that the Christian prudence of a confessor will be the greater, the greater is his love, and that, in general, the mind is stimulated by the intention or the desire to attain the end. The more a man is inflamed with the desire of a certain good, the more zealous is he in his search for the means of obtaining it, the more careful will he be in choosing the more suitable means, the more cautious will he be to omit anything that may be useful for his purpose, the more determined will he be in overcoming all difficulties, so as to gain that on which he has set his mind. A confessor who, with pure intention, seeks only God and the salvation of souls, will labor with fruit.”[739]
ARTICLE II
DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR DURING CONFESSION
56. The Duty of instructing and exhorting the Penitent—Munus Doctoris.
The confessor will find many penitents either ignorant or under the influence of error. This ignorance may refer to some point connected with the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, the general duties of a Christian life, or some particular duty. The duty of the confessor to instruct the ignorant penitent varies with the subject on which the ignorance exists. Hence: I. The confessor is always obliged at once to instruct the penitent who is ignorant of something which he must hic et nunc know in order to receive validly the Sacrament of Penance, or to receive licite the Holy Eucharist. 1. The confessor must therefore instruct penitents who are ignorant of the truths which they, necessitate medii sive certo sive probabiliter, ought to know and believe, and this instruction must be given before the administration of absolution.[740]
Moreover, the confessor must, before giving absolution, instruct the penitent if he does not know how to make an act of contrition and purpose of amendment. These instructions must also, of course, be imparted when the penitent is not responsible for his ignorance; therefore, in every case, because the penitent is incapable of receiving the Sacrament in such a state of ignorance.[741] The confessor might send away a penitent ignorant of these truths, imposing upon him the duty of first obtaining instruction from some competent person or the parish priest; but if there is no good reason to hope that he would fulfill this duty, the instruction must be given concisely in the confessional, and this should nowadays be done in most cases of the kind. 2. If the penitent is ignorant concerning the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the confessor must certainly instruct him upon this point before allowing him to receive holy communion.
It is, however, not necessary to the valid reception of absolution that the penitent should retain all these truths in his memory; it is sufficient that he substantially understands them and makes an act of faith which the confessor recites to him. The confessor must impose upon such penitents the duty of subsequently obtaining fuller instruction.[742] It is also the duty of the confessor to ascertain whether they know these truths. Whenever he thinks it probable that a penitent does not know them, he must ask. He need not, as a rule, ask those who were brought up as children in a pious and Christian fashion. But others, who received Christian instruction in their youth, and have subsequently neglected sermons and instructions, must certainly be questioned, and this especially applies to our times, when so many Christians, particularly men (but also not a few women), absent themselves for a long time from sermons and neglect every other kind of Christian instruction; such people, even when well educated and instructed in worldly matters, are ignorant, admodum rudes, in religion, having forgotten nearly all they had formerly learnt. In the cares, labors, and pleasures of life, and frequently under the influence of pernicious and irreligious literature, they have perhaps become strongly infected with irreligion or heresy. If the penitents are such that one could not ask if they are ignorant of these truths without causing them confusion, the confessor might of his own accord explain what is most essential, and, in some way, move the penitents to an act of faith.[743]
II. If the penitent is ignorant of the truths of Christian doctrine and the precepts of Christian life, especially of those truths which the Christian must know and believe necessitate præcepti, the confessor must first of all inquire if the penitent is responsible for this ignorance or not. If he is, he can be absolved, but he must be sorry for, and confess, his neglect, and make a firm resolution to learn these truths; and if he does not keep his promise, absolution must, as a rule, be refused to him till he has performed his duty. If he is ignorant by no fault of his own, he can be absolved, but he must promise to obtain instruction.[744] If the confessor is, at the same time, the pastor of such penitents, he is bound, ex officio, or in justice, to provide them with opportunities for acquiring better instruction; if he is not their parish priest, he is not strictly bound in duty to do so, though he may be bound ex charitate, but he is always bound to inform the penitent as to his duty of becoming better instructed, and as to the sin of negligence of which he is guilty if the ignorance is culpable, and which he must confess.
III. If the penitent is ignorant of particular duties, the confessor must primarily consider the spiritual welfare of the penitent in deciding whether he shall instruct him or not; but this spiritual welfare must be taken in its full sense as comprising, therefore, the individual welfare of the penitent himself, and also the general welfare for which he has to provide. This instruction must, however, be given with prudence, for fear of causing more harm than good to the penitent. The following obligations of the penitent are here chiefly in question: the duties of his station in life, the duty of making restitution (honor, good name, property), of avoiding dangerous occasions, of reconciliation, of removing scandal, and of practicing almsgiving.[745] When he considers it necessary and appropriate, the confessor must, with special prudence, instruct persons engaged to be married concerning their conduct in that state. It may also be opportune to inform a penitent that he is not bound to fast or to abstain, so that he may not, from ignorance, believe that he commits sin where there is no sin at all. This duty of instructing the penitent must now be somewhat more clearly considered and particularized.
The confessor must instruct or exhort:—
1. When the ignorance of the penitent is not invincible, or when he is responsible for it (vincibilis seu culpabilis); when the penitent is in such a state of doubt concerning some duty that there can no longer be a question of bona fides. When a person is in such ignorance, he is already in a state of sin, or in immediate danger of formal sin, because he acts under reasonable doubt or culpable ignorance. The exhortation, therefore, so far from doing harm, can only result in good, as it will afterwards produce the desired fruit. When, therefore, the penitent, not out of mere scrupulosity, but in consequence of a serious doubt, questions the confessor about some duty, the latter must instruct him. In this case where the penitent has a substantial doubt and he is bound to remove it, the confessor’s duty is to tell him the truth; moreover, it is plain that the penitent is disposed to act in accordance with the confessor’s answer. If, however, the confessor thinks, in an exceptional case, that the penitent should not know the whole truth, he need say nothing more in reply to the penitent than what is necessary.[746] If, for instance, a person bound by a vow of chastity asks if the marriage which he has contracted without a dispensation is invalid on account of the vow, let him answer in the negative, but be silent about the debitum conjugale; if he asks whether he may render the debitum, let the confessor answer in the affirmative, and be silent about demanding the debitum.
2. When the penitent is ignorant of things which cannot long escape his knowledge, and when his ignorance, still invincibilis et inculpabilis, will soon cease to be so and become culpabilis, especially where a vice is growing with the lapse of time and its extirpation becomes more difficult—in such case the confessor must, as a rule, instruct and exhort the penitent at once; for instance, when young people who have not yet attained to puberty, begin to contract a habitus pollutionis, they must be seriously warned to desist from their dangerous and sinful practice, even when they are perhaps in bona fide. But in this the confessor must weigh well the circumstances, considering whether, perhaps, for the time being, a very heavy burden is not being imposed upon the penitent, which he will scarcely be able to bear, but which will very soon cease. In this case silence would be preferable.
3. If the ignorance is invincibilis, but a good result may be hoped from the exhortation, in this case the confessor must exhort even when in consequence a difficulty arises for the penitent, or when it is foreseen that the exhortation will certainly not do harm. For a material violation of a law must also be avoided, when this can be done without danger of a greater evil. The confessor must not fail, therefore, to admonish, although he foresees that the penitent will not immediately obey, if he has hopes that he will soon do so. For it may happen that a penitent, when he has learnt the truth, does not at first obey, but when he has become calmer, after serious reflection, amends his life.[747] If the confessor sees that the penitent does not receive the exhortation well at the time, but that he will receive it better at some more seasonable moment, he must defer it to a later occasion. If there is no likelihood of good resulting from the exhortation, the confessor, according to the general and approved teaching of theologians, is bound, per se loquendo (that is, unless there is some other motive, such as regard for the bonum publicum), to omit the exhortation, and to leave the penitent in his bona fide.
When, therefore, the confessor learns in the course of the confession that the penitent has contracted an invalid marriage through some secret impediment, and danger of disgrace, scandal, or incontinence is to be feared from disclosing to him the nullity of the marriage, he must be silent on the subject of the invalidity, and leave the penitent in bona fide until he has obtained a dispensation. And in the case where he could not disclose the nullity of the marriage at all without being obliged to face these difficulties, he should ask for a sanatio in radice, and conceal everything from the penitent. In such a case the confessor can even bind in duty the putative husband (or wife) who refuses the debitum conjugale, to render it; for if the husband (or wife) is convinced that he (or she) is living in lawful matrimony, he (or she) is bound in conscience to render the debitum. But the confessor will act more safely by telling the penitent quite in a general way that married people are bound to render the debitum, and that they cannot be absolved if they do not perform their duty.[748]
The confessor must not admonish the penitent to make restitution when he foresees that the penitent (who believes, bona fide, that he is not bound to make restitution) will not obey; for such admonition would injure the penitent, and not benefit the person to whom he is bound to make the restitution; indeed, the confessor must be more concerned to avert spiritual injury from the penitent than temporal injury from another. Nevertheless, the confessor must not lightly presume that his admonition will not be obeyed.[749]
Instruction or admonition must also be omitted if there is reasonable fear that scandal, disgrace, quarrels, and other serious inconvenience will arise; for it is better to provide against formal sins in others than material sins in the penitent. For instance, if a marriage is invalid, and the parties are not aware of the fact, the confessor could inform the wife of it without danger, whereas serious difficulties might be caused by disclosing it to the husband.
If a marriage is to be contracted, and, through the confession of the penitent, the confessor discovers an impedimentum dirimens, but of which the penitent is invincibiliter ignorant, the confessor is, as a rule, bound to instruct the penitent concerning it, and to admonish him either to refrain from contracting the marriage, or to obtain a dispensation before contracting it. Great inconveniences frequently arise from an invalid marriage, for the invalidity is often disclosed later on, and in such a case the penitent is exposed to no small danger of committing actual sin. If, however, no good result can be expected from revealing the defect, the confessor would be obliged to abstain from admonishing till he himself has obtained a dispensation, for it is better to permit a material sin than to furnish occasion for formal sin.[750] If, on the day before the marriage, or on the day itself, when everything is prepared, and the wedding could not be stopped without scandal and disgrace, the bride or bridegroom reveals to the confessor a secret impediment, a dispensation must be obtained from the bishop, if there is time to do so, and the bishop can, according to the communissima et probabilissima sententia, dispense in such a case, as from other laws, when recourse to the Pope is impossible, and there is danger in delay. Indeed, according to the probable opinion of many theologians, the bishop can also delegate this power universally as a potestas ordinaria, to others, for all cases that occur. But if the confessor cannot apply to the bishop, the parish priest or the confessor may, as some teach (and St. Alphonsus adds: “not without ground”), declare ex Epikeia, that the law of the impediment in question does not bind in the particular case, because it is detrimental; but, in order to be safe, and to preserve the reverence due to the commandment of the Church, application to the Sacred Penitentiary, or to the Ordinary, must be made as soon as possible to obtain a dispensation.[751]
In cases of doubt as to whether the admonition will do good or harm, it should be omitted, because it is better to guard against formal sins than material. But if it is more probable that the admonition will benefit, it must be given, and Viva and Roncaglia rightly remark that we must not easily conclude that the penitent would not obey after having learnt the truth.[752]
The objection might be raised that the penitent who should refuse to obey the exhortation of his confessor would not be in good disposition, and, therefore, could not receive absolution. St. Alphonsus disposes of this objection by pointing out that the confessor must consider the disposition in which the penitent actually is while he is still ignorant of his obligation, and not the state of mind in which it is presumed that he would be after he had been admonished about it. As it is not allowable to expose one’s neighbor to a danger to which it is anticipated that he will succumb, so the confessor must not expose a penitent to the danger of refusing to fulfill a duty by instructing him about it; he must rather leave the penitent in material sin, because a peccatum formale outweighs all peccata materialia.[753]
4. The confessor must speak when the ignorance of the penitent concerns the prima principia moralia or the proximas conclusiones deduced from them; for such ignorance is either not actually existent, or will not be for long invincibilis, and is generally hurtful to the penitent. Especially urgent is the duty of admonishing the penitent when omitting to do so would confirm him in a sinful habit which he would probably find great difficulty in overcoming later.
5. Moreover, admonition must be given when the ignorance touches the duty of giving up a gravely sinful immediate occasion, as such ignorance tends to the ruin of the penitent, by rendering easier the fall into formal sin.
6. The penitent must be admonished even when he is not disposed, if the confessor’s silence were to bring harm to the community, by scandal, for instance, to the faithful. For if the confessor is bound to be chiefly concerned about the salvation of the penitent, he is also bound, as a member of Christian society and its servant, to prefer the bonum commune to the bonum privatum of the penitent.[754] The fact that the admonition is hic et nunc fruitless or that the penitent takes offense at it is not a valid objection, for such a penitent will amend the more easily when he sees that no other priest will absolve him, and in the meantime the scandal will cease, for the faithful will see that the penitent in question is not admitted to the Sacraments. Hence princes, officials, bishops, prelates, parish priests, employers, who neglect their duties towards their subordinates, must be instructed and exhorted. For we may not lightly presume that their ignorance is invincibilis, since everybody ought to know the duties of his office, and ignorance of them, even when invincibilis, always tends to the injury of the community, as others may easily think they are justified in imitating what they see their superiors doing. Therefore, as Benedict XIV teaches,[755] those are to be instructed concerning their duties who frequently receive the holy Sacraments, in order that others may not be led to believe that wrongdoing is allowable, because they see it done by these and done with impunity. And Lugo adds that when the confessor has reasonable doubts as to whether such penitents perform their duties, he is bound to ask them if they are faithful to them.[756]
7. The confessor must admonish when, on account of special circumstances, his silence would be equivalent to a positively false answer.
8. A penitent must always be admonished when, in consequence of a false conscience, he believes something to be a sin which is none, or believes it to be a greater sin than is really the case. Moreover, instruction ought not to be withheld even though it afford an occasion to the penitent of sinning more frequently, as might happen when he learns that a sin which he believed conscientia erronea to be mortal is only venial. Nevertheless, the confessor must consider whether something which per se is a venial sin, may not, in view of the circumstances of scandal, danger, etc., become a grave sin.
In conclusion we will add a remark of St. Alphonsus, namely, that confessors act imprudently by instructing uneducated penitents concerning the special and greater sinfulness imparted by circumstances to wicked acts; for instance, that adultery is a greater sin than impurity among unmarried persons, that incest is committed when relatives are guilty of impurity with each other. But this instruction must be given when there is reason for believing that the knowledge of the greater sinfulness will effectually prevent the sin.[757]
Sometimes the confessor is asked by his penitents for instruction and advice in matters affecting the welfare of the soul. Although the confessor must be careful not to advise and help in all possible worldly matters, he must not refuse to be the adviser and helper of his penitent in matters pertaining to the salvation of souls. This is a part of his duty. And to whom should a penitent turn in such circumstances if not to the confessor who knows the state of his soul and his entire life? But if the confessor has to give advice and instruction, let him judge the matter in the light of faith, and in accordance with the principles of Christian morality, not according to a certain empirical wisdom and worldly prudence, and not according to his subjective opinion. In important matters let him, therefore, deliberate thoroughly, ask help of God through the Mother of Good Counsel, and, when necessary, seek advice at the hands of experienced and prudent men. Then let him pronounce his decision clearly and definitely.
57. The Duty of suggesting Remedies against Relapse (the Confessor as Physician).
Sins are justly described as wounds of the soul, the cure of which is to be sought in the Sacrament of Penance. It is certainly the first and highest function of the minister of the Sacrament to reconcile the sinner to God by canceling his sins; but there remains another task of great significance, viz. to keep the penitent—the sinner now reconciled to God—faithful to his duty and to his promises, and to preserve him from new sins. For the confessor is also the spiritual physician of the penitent. And as it is the duty of the bodily physician to study the malady and its causes, and then to prescribe remedies, so the physician of the soul must first know the sins of the penitent, their causes and gravity, and then provide the remedies, by the conscientious application of which relapse into sin may be prevented. In order to discharge his duty as physician of the soul, the confessor must, therefore, first ascertain if the penitent has a habit of sinning, if he lives in immediate occasion of sin, he must question him as to the time and the place of the sin, the persons with whom he has sinned, and under what circumstances he has usually been led into sin. “Herein many confessors fail,” says St. Alphonsus, “and the ruin of many souls results from it; for by omitting such questions, the confessor is unable to find out if the penitent is a relapsing sinner, and, therefore, cannot prescribe suitable means for eradicating the sinful habit and avoiding the occasion.”[758]
Those confessors are gravely wanting in their duty who content themselves with remitting the sins confessed, but do not trouble about the preservation of the converted sinner, the new life and the cure of the penitent’s sickness; hence it happens that persons who are enslaved by a sinful habit very soon fall from the new life of grace, and, in the words of Our Saviour, the state of the relapsing sinner is worse than his former state, and the confessor thus shares in his guilt.[759]
The confessor’s work as a judge of the sins and disposition of the penitent places him in a position of peculiar advantage for discharging his duty as physician. But in order to effect a thorough cure of these wounds of the soul, he must, as we have seen above, be acquainted with the whole moral state of the penitent; hence he must not confine himself to know if the sin was mortal or venial, a sin of some special occasion, an habitual sin, or one of relapse; he must also ascertain if his penitent, in matters of religion, is instructed or ignorant, if he is on the way of improvement, if his good will has become strengthened by the grace of God and by resistance to evil, or is still weak and vacillating.
The confessor must make it his special business to learn the penitent’s predominant passion, and the prevailing vices connected with it. The predominant passion is an habitual tendency, more or less violent, to some sin, which exercises a certain mastery over the soul, and has other evil inclinations in its service. Such predominant passions are: the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and pride; also the seven capital sins. They have their root partly in original sin, partly in perverse education, partly in repeated sinning, partly in exterior influences. Now it will not avail much to combat the individual sins; their root—the sinful passion—must be torn out. It is like a poisonous growth which is always striking deeper roots into the human soul, and ever putting forth fresh shoots in the individual sins. This baneful root must be removed, and with it its noxious growth of sin will also be removed.
To this end the predominant passion must first be diagnosed, and this is generally a very difficult matter. There are passions, such as avarice, covetousness, pride, intemperance, sloth, which are seldom recognized as sins by the penitent, and even take the appearance of virtue. In acquiring this knowledge, which is as necessary as it is difficult, the confessor must help his penitent by suggesting careful, serious examination of conscience, especially the use of the particular examination of conscience; the observation of the causes, the motives, and the occasions of sin. Finally, he should point out the necessity of illuminating grace, which the penitent obtains by earnest prayer. The confessor himself must try to discover this predominant passion by suitable questions, by examining the sins which have been confessed, and the moral condition of the penitent. The difficulty of his task must not deter him, for its successful accomplishment will greatly effect the amendment and cure of the penitent. Earnest prayer for light, the intention only of advancing the glory of God and the salvation of the penitent, joined to true zeal for souls, will assuredly lead the man of prayer and of interior life to the desired knowledge. Having learnt the state of the penitent’s disease, let the confessor proceed to the cure of it; this will primarily be effected by the abundant graces obtained in the worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance. It must be the confessor’s next care to dispose the penitent well, or to perfect his dispositions, by endeavoring to move him to greater sorrow for his sins, and to a firmer purpose of amendment. The deeper the sorrow and the more earnest the purpose of amendment, the more lasting will be the effect of the Sacrament for the improvement of the sinner.
The confessor must then reprove (reprehendere) the sinner; that is, he must in strong and forcible language emphasize the shamefulness and perniciousness of his sin. And St. Alphonsus teaches that the confessor must discharge this duty of reprehension even when the penitent is one in high position; the confessor, he says, must reflect that his words are more efficacious than sermons.[760] This reprehension is particularly necessary for those who seldom confess, who come burdened with many sins, or who, from weakness of faith or attachment to creatures, manifest little sorrow. It is very salutary, because the words of the confessor, specially adapted to the penitent, are much more efficacious than those of the preacher.[761] But let the confessor administer it with much prudence, that it may really prove an effective medicine for the sick soul—not with indignation, violence, and anger, but in sympathy and love, in the spirit of meekness, with due regard for the penitent’s condition and the gravity of his sins. Despondent and scrupulous penitents must be encouraged and not cast into despair. Those who are crushed by sorrow should be treated as Christ treated the penitent Magdalen, and as the father treated the prodigal son.[762]
Finally, the confessor must provide the penitent with remedies against relapse. Of such there are general ones, useful against all sins, and for all penitents; and special ones applicable to special sins. The following are general means:—
1. The most excellent general means of eradicating vice and implanting virtue is regular, devout, and humble prayer. The confessor should, therefore, earnestly admonish the penitent regularly to recite the daily prayers of a Christian, to implore the divine grace in temptation, and if possible, hear Mass daily. Pious penitents, who seriously aim at virtue, should be recommended to add special devotions to the usual prayers; such as visits to the Blessed Sacrament, a portion of the Rosary, etc.; especially spiritual reading every day, at a fixed hour, from a suitable book, which the confessor may specify, short ejaculatory prayers, frequent renewal of good intention, and recollection of the presence of God, as also a short meditation in the morning, when possible.
2. Frequent renewal of purpose and regular examination of conscience are very beneficial. Therefore, the penitent should renew his good resolutions every morning at his prayers and also during the day; to his night prayers he should add an examination of conscience, at the same time awakening true sorrow for all sins of the past. The confessor should also instruct the penitent in the exercise of the special resolution, and the examen particulare, and induce him to adopt these exercises, as they are so well calculated to root out particular faults, to bring about general improvement, and to confirm him in his striving after virtue.
3. Frequent confession, and the confessor should fix the time for the penitent’s next confession; or he should determine how often he must confess in the future, not, however, making too great demands upon him, but requiring only what he will probably be able to perform. Let him particularly recommend the penitent to confess as soon as possible after relapse into mortal sin. Frequent confession must be imposed as a duty on those who, from interior weakness, are always relapsing into the same sins, in proportion as this proves itself to be the only efficient means of insuring perseverance in virtue. This applies to those who have become addicted to the peccatum pollutionis.
4. Frequent reception of the holy communion, with due preparation and thanksgiving. True, it is not necessary to receive holy communion as often as one confesses in order to rid one’s self of habitual sin; but frequent, even weekly communion, is permitted for the cure of a soul much weakened by sin, if the penitent desires it, receives it with an earnest wish to amend, and is really, although but slowly, being converted by this means from a life of sin. For holy communion is not only a help to virtue, but also a remedy against sin. By increasing sanctifying grace and holy love, by the intimate union with God which it effects, by the wealth of grace which it brings to the soul, it effectually preserves men from mortal sin, destroys evil inclinations, excites the desire for virtue, and gives the strength to practice it. For penitents who already walk in the paths of virtue, frequent communion is an aid to progress in perfection, and assuredly communio frequens eminently conduces to perseverance and advancement in good; the confessor should, therefore, most earnestly recommend this remedy to his penitents.
But he must not demand too much. The reception of holy communion every three months is generally regarded as the minimum; but the confessor will often be obliged to content himself with longer intervals, especially when youths and men (and in many cases, even women also) are concerned. When received every month, or at least every six or eight weeks, holy communion is a means of keeping alive zeal for eternal salvation and of remaining firm in a Christian life.
More frequent reception of holy communion, every fortnight, every week, or several times during the week, is to be allowed or recommended when the following conditions exist:—
(a) For weekly communion, and, if a feast occur, two communions in the week, it is necessary that mortal sin should generally be avoided; but if such penitents are in the habit of committing venial sins with deliberation, and if no improvement or serious endeavor to improve manifests itself, it is well occasionally to forbid communion to such persons, in order to inspire them with greater fear of venial sin, and to show them with what reverence this Sacrament must be received.
(b) More frequent communion in the week may be permitted and recommended to those who are free from affection to venial sins, who do not generally commit deliberate venial sins, who practice meditation, mortify their senses and passions,—who, in other words, are striving after perfection.
(c) Daily communion may be allowed to those who not only do not entertain voluntary attachment to any venial sin, but who steadfastly endeavor to advance in virtue, who gladly and diligently devote themselves to interior prayer, who have, to a great extent, suppressed their evil passions, and who are filled with a great longing for holy communion. The confessor must not be too indulgent, nor, on the other hand, too rigorous. Before permitting frequent communion to any one, it is necessary to consider if the person is so situated as to be able to prepare properly and to make suitable thanksgiving. It is also recommended (1) on one day in every week, as a rule, not to receive communion, in accordance with the practice of experienced confessors, and (2) sometimes to forbid communion on some particular day, for some just motive—as a trial, a mortification, or a punishment. If, later on, the confessor perceives that, in spite of frequent communion, the penitent makes no progress in the way of perfection, and that he cherishes in his heart a voluntary attachment to sin, the confessor must reduce the number of his communions.[763]
5. Avoiding bad company and associating with good, religious men. The confessor must, of course, most earnestly exhort the penitent to avoid every occasion and danger of sin, especially every immediate, and more serious, danger of sin even when it is a remote one, in so far as it is morally possible to avoid it. The special occasions and dangers which exist in some particular place, the confessor will learn from his own observation, from the advice of experienced men, or the counsel of his superiors.
6. The reading of good books, the lives of the saints.
7. Reflection on the eternal truths, the Life and Passion of Jesus.
8. Frequent thought of the presence of God.
9. Voluntary works of penance in punishment of relapse, which the penitent should determine in advance. This remedy is much to be recommended, not only against grave sins, but also against slight defects, when one is aiming at perfection.
10. Special devotion to the divine Heart of Jesus, to Mary, and to the Guardian Angel. It is better to do a little regularly, than much without perseverance and order, according to the humor and mood of the moment.
11. Confidence and perseverance, even when a relapse occurs; for nothing is more harmful than to lose courage and regard amendment as too difficult and impossible on account of frequent relapses. This mood generally arises from wrong application of remedies, and from a certain secret pride. Therefore, wholly distrusting his own powers, the penitent must put all his confidence in God.[764]
The confessor should not content himself with indicating remedies for the penitent; he must choose and impose them with reference to the latter’s moral sickness, his temptations and occasions of sinning, and his station in life; if necessary he must also instruct him as to their application.
Moreover, there are special remedies for different vices.
1. Against pride, the confessor should recommend:—
(a) The following considerations—what man is of himself, that he has received all from God, that he has already committed so many sins; his poverty and weakness, his inconstancy, his ingratitude and infidelity towards God.
(b) The example of Christ, who so deeply humbled Himself for love of us, who expressly and earnestly invites us to imitate His humility; on the other hand, that pride is the sin of Satan.
(c) The promises held out to humility, and the punishment of the proud. “God resists the proud, and gives His grace to the humble.” (St. James iv. 6.) “The prayer of the humble man pierceth the clouds.” (Eccl. xxxv. 21.)
(d) Finally, he should remind him that, to obtain humility, he must humble himself, hence he must avoid rather than seek the praise of men, and, so far as his position allows, forego outward marks of distinction, etc.
2. Against avarice (covetousness):—
(a) The utterances of Holy Writ against the avaricious and the covetous. (Eccl. x. 9.) “There is not a more wicked thing than to love money, for such a one setteth even his own soul for sale.” The parable of the rich man. (St. Luke xviii. 25.) “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.”
(b) Earthly goods can never fully satisfy a man, nor make him really happy.
(c) All our earthly possessions we must leave behind to heirs, who, perhaps, will soon forget us, and neither thank us nor pray for us. Better it is, therefore, with our earthly goods to procure for ourselves heavenly treasures, of which we cannot be robbed. (See St. Matthew vi. 19, 20; St. Luke xvi. 9.)
(d) The menace of the Apostle: “They that will become rich, fall into the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim. vi. 9.)
(e) The example of Jesus, of Mary, of St. Joseph, and of so many saints.
3. Against impurity:—
(a) Serious consideration of the disgrace into which this vice throws a man; a vice in which he makes himself the tool and slave of the vilest desires and passions.
(b) Flight from those persons and things, the sight of whom, or intercourse with whom, excites to sinful thoughts and desires; avoidance of every dangerous intimacy.
(c) Avoidance of idleness; constant useful occupation.
(d) Watchfulness over the senses.
(e) Energetic suppression of temptation in its first beginnings, as soon as one is conscious of it. Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur.
(f) Humble prayer is here preëminently necessary—especially devotion to the most blessed Virgin in her Immaculate Conception. Instant appeal to her in temptation; the prayer: “O Domina mea, O mater mea,” etc., every morning and evening has always proved very efficacious.
(g) Mortification of the flesh; at least avoidance of all luxuriousness and effeminacy.
4. Against intemperance:—
(a) Consideration of the disgrace peculiar to this vice.
(b) Avoidance of everything which excites to it, especially convivial occasions and gatherings.
(c) Slight mortifications.
(d) Determining a fixed measure, with the firm resolve never to exceed it without due reason.
5. Against envy:—
(a) The envious man tortures himself; this is the most foolish of vices.
(b) Envying others is copying the devil, rejoicing at the happiness of others is imitating the angels.
(c) Through God and Christ all men stand in close relationship to each other, are all brothers.
(d) Consequences of envy. Cain, the Pharisees.
(e) When feelings of envy rise in the heart, the penitent should endeavor to be well disposed towards the particular person, should meet him in a friendly manner, should be ready to help him if necessary, should at least pray for him there and then.
6. Against anger:—
(a) Our duty to strive after meekness and patience, in imitation of Jesus.
(b) The ruinous effects of anger—robbing a man—either partially or wholly—of the use of reason, hurrying him into unconsidered, shameful, and most sinful actions; destroying peace, stirring up enmities.
(c) Prevention of the outward inducements to anger: certain games, drinking—and if they cannot be prevented, the penitent should lessen them by prudent precautionary measures.
(d) God has every reason for being angry with us, and for taking vengeance upon us, on account of the many insults which we offer to Him. But He forgives us, and it is, therefore, but just that we should harbor no anger towards our neighbor.
(e) If we do not forgive, we have no right to hope for forgiveness at the hands of God, and there is a dreadful significance in the mouth of the Christian who prays in the “Our Father” “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them who trespass against us.”
(f) When anger is aroused, a man must refrain from every word and act until he has mastered it.
7. Against sloth:—
(a) God’s abhorrence of spiritual sloth: “I would that thou wert cold or hot,” etc. (Apoc. iii. 15, 16.)
(b) Consideration of the shortness and importance of human life; and, on the other hand, the tireless zeal of the man of the world in his pursuit of earthly things.
(c) The great injustice done to God by neglect of the service due to Him—for man is the servant of God!
(d) Regular order in life: establishing an order of the day; in the morning renewal of the determination to avoid all idleness; in the evening, rendering account to one’s self of how the day has been spent.[765]
In his efforts on behalf of the penitent let the confessor keep in mind that the conversion of a sinner is more the operation of divine grace than the fruit of any human activity. Let him, therefore, pray often for his penitents; and let him not despair and despond if the conversion of a sinner inured to vice does not immediately follow. For such conversion does not usually take place suddenly; generally not for a long time, nor till after a hard struggle and earnest prayer. Moreover, God rewards his laborers according to their work, and not according to their success.
III. THE DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR AFTER THE CONFESSION
The confessor has certain duties to perform after the confession. These are principally two, one of which is always and per se incumbent upon him, viz.: the preservation of the seal of the confessional; while the other, the correcting of errors which may have occurred in the confession, may arise per accidens.
58. The Duty of correcting Errors occurring in the Confession.
The confessor more easily and more seriously errs in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance (by reason of the variety of the duties which this office imposes upon him) than in the other Sacraments. The errors here committed may, moreover, have grave consequences. It is, therefore, necessary to treat of them in detail and to show how they may be corrected.
The errors which the confessor (even the instructed and conscientious confessor) may commit in the confessional are classified under three heads: (1) Those which affect the validity of the Sacrament: when the confessor has forgotten to give absolution, or has given it without due jurisdiction, or to a penitent insufficiently prepared; (2) those which refer to the integrity of the confession: when the confessor has not asked concerning the number or circumstances when he was bound to ask; and (3) those relating to the duties of the penitent: when the confessor has not admonished the penitent to avoid some immediate occasion of sin, or to make restitution, or where he has obliged him to restore when there was no obligation.[766]
Now an error may entail great injury to the penitent, or to a third person, or again no great harm may result. Moreover, the error may have been committed through great culpability on the part of the confessor, or without such culpability, at least without great culpability. Finally, the error may be positive, the confessor doing something wrong; or it may be negative, the confessor neglecting something he should have done.
As regards the duty of rectifying these errors, the following principles are to be observed:—
I. An error touching the validity of the Sacrament, resulting from grave fault on the part of the confessor, and causing great harm to the penitent, must, ex justitia, be made good by the confessor, even when such reparation involves serious trouble.
Even if the confessor is not bound in justice to hear confessions, as soon as he does so, he enters into a kind of agreement with the penitent to administer the Sacrament properly; if he administers it invalidly, he is a damnificator injustus, and must, ex justitia, and secundum justitiæ regulas, make good the injury he has caused. But if the fault of the confessor was only a slight one, he is, as regards the correction of the error, in the position of one who has, inculpabiliter, caused some temporal harm. In this case, he would be bound to make good the error only when he could do so without relatively great inconvenience to himself. And if the confessor sinned gravely in committing the error, he would also be excused from remedying it, if his own incommodum much exceeded the detriment and danger resulting from it to his penitent. But if, in consequence of the confessor’s error, the penitent’s eternal salvation has been seriously endangered—for instance, if he has invalidly absolved a dying person, or one who will probably not confess again before his death, he must remedy this injury under all circumstances, even cum suo damno relative gravi, or gravissimo; for this is also a duty of charity. Likewise when the confessor is the pastor of the penitent, and, therefore, ratione stipendii, the more strictly bound to avert from those committed to him great spiritual injury, he must cum gravi incommodo make good an error committed cum levi culpa. If the penitent has subsequently confessed to another priest, or received holy communion or Extreme Unction, the injury done to the penitent is thereby already made good, and the confessor has no further obligations.[767]
II. If the error touches the integrity of the confession, the confessor is not bound to remedy it outside the confessional, if his action in the matter has been of a negative character; this error he must make good ex charitate, and secundum regulas charitatis, whether the error was culpable on his part or not. But if his action was positive cum gravi sua culpa, he must remedy the error even outside the confessional, for he is bound to do so ex justitia and, in consequence, even with grave inconvenience to himself. Only when this could not be done without causing scandal and much embarrassment to the penitent would the confessor be justified in not doing it. But it should be carefully observed that an intentional silence must, under circumstances, be regarded as a positive influence upon the penitent.
That in the case of an omission the confessor is bound only ex charitate to remedy the defect is explained by the fact that he failed in his accessory duties, not doing that which he ought to have done—the obligation here arises, as the theologians say, not so much ex officio, as occasione officii, or not on account of a duty which he owes to God, but rather on account of a duty which he, titulo justitiæ et muneris, always owes to men. For these accessory duties towards our fellow-men, in so far as they are duties of office or of quasi-justitia, do not extend beyond the act of confession itself.[768]
It follows from this that such defects or errors are hardly ever to be corrected outside the Sacrament of Penance, for the penitent will, presumably, receive this Sacrament again. But if, by not being informed of the error, so great injury, especially spiritual injury, should result to the penitent that charity demanded reparation of even this negative defect, the confessor must make the reparation even outside the confessional. For any other person—not a confessor—would, under like circumstances, be similarly bound towards his neighbor.
That a confessor should be bound ex justitia to make good an error committed through a positive action and cum gravi sua culpa, is based upon the fact that he has caused the penitent to infringe an important commandment (the integrity of the confession). Even if this infringement had been for the penitent only a material one,—therefore, not sinful,—the confessor would be obliged to prevent such material infringement for the future by correcting the error caused by himself. But if the fault of the confessor in committing the error was only a slight one, a lesser ground would release him from the duty of correcting the fault; and if he acted bona fide, he is entirely released from it, seeing that subsequent instruction concerning the fault committed can never take place without embarrassment and difficulty.[769]
III. A defect having reference to a duty of the penitent, which causes the latter, or a third person injury, must be made good by the confessor cum gravi suo incommodo, if cum gravi sua culpa he has instructed the penitent falsely; if he committed the error without great fault on his part, he is not bound to correct it cum gravi, although he is bound cum aliquo incommodo. The confessor is, in this case, causa injusta damni, and has, therefore, the obligations of a damnificator injustus.
The injury caused by the confessor may be spiritual, in consequence of wrong instruction, or temporal, by imposing restitution, or some similar burden to which the penitent was not bound. With reference to others than the penitent, the question will generally be one of temporal loss in consequence of the penitent having been released from his duties to them. The question of injury to the community at large should be remembered in this connection.
If, therefore, the confessor committed the error cum gravi culpa, for instance, caused some great temporal harm, he must repair it himself if it cannot be otherwise repaired, and prevent injury which has not yet ensued, but which may ensue. If the error took place without his fault, he is not bound to repair any harm which ensues before he knew of the error, and which could not be repaired without great detriment to himself. He must, however, avert injury which is still threatening, and repair that which already exists if it can be done without relatively great detriment to himself. If he neglects this ex gravi negligentia, he is guilty of a great injustice, and is responsible for all harm which he did not prevent. So, if he has wrongly bound any one to make restitution, he must advise the penitent (after obtaining from him permission to speak about matters of confession) not to make the restitution, or if he has already made it, to indemnify himself compensatione occulta, if this be possible. If he omits, ex gravi negligentia, so to instruct the penitent, he is bound to make good the injury out of his own means, in case his warning, or the retractation of his error, is no longer effectual in preventing the injury, or compensating for it. But if, after becoming aware of his error, the confessor can no longer warn the penitent, or if the warning or retractation must be regarded as useless, he is free from all obligation. If from the first the confessor’s error was fraught with great guilt, he is bound, if it is any way possible, to see that justice is done to the injured person.[770] The same principles hold good if a third person has suffered injury, or been exposed to the risk of it by the fault of the confessor. If the evil consequences are sufficiently remote and the case admits of delay, the error may be set right in the next confession of the penitent; for generally it is no easy matter to speak about anything connected with a confession outside the confessional. In cases of necessity, however, the confessor must brave this difficulty and do his duty.
Gobat[771] gives confessors (especially young ones) the following excellent rules which they should always keep in view in order to acquire the necessary prudence and dexterity in their office:—
1. After he has heard a confession, the confessor should always reflect if, and in what, he has erred, so that he may avoid these faults in future.
2. In giving or refusing absolution, in imposing a penance, the confessor’s first consideration should always be the welfare of the penitent and his greater spiritual advantage.
3. Let him be careful not to pronounce a sin mortal without being certain that it is so.
4. In doubt as to whether restitution or a similar duty is to be imposed, let him adopt the more lenient opinion of the theologians if this is really probable.
5. The confessor of a penitent must presume that the former confessor discharged his duty properly, unless he sees plainly the contrary.
6. The confessor must know the different opinions of theologians upon one and the same matter when such exist and are practically probable, in order to make use of one or the other, according to the different dispositions of the penitents and their requirements.
59. The Duty of preserving the Seal of Confession.
By the seal of confession, or sigillum confessionis sive sacramentale, we understand the duty of preserving silence concerning everything which has been learnt in sacramental confession.
I. The duty of preserving the seal of the confessional is based upon natural and divine law and upon the strict precept of the Church. It is true, God has not laid down any formal and express demand to preserve the seal of confession, but that this is His will results (naturaliter) from the divine institution of confession, and especially from the commandment which obliges all the faithful to confess all their mortal sins, but which binds them only to confess their sins in secret (secreto). Now this general law to confess all, even the gravest and most secret sins, would assuredly be too burdensome to the faithful; indeed, its observance would become simply morally impossible if confessors were not bound by the strictest obligation to preserve the seal of the confessional. Danger to human life and the social order, would, in fact, be inevitable if this duty did not exist. Thus the seal of the confessional seems to be an indispensable condition of the observance of the commandment to make full confession of sins. But he who prescribes an end must also prescribe the means necessary to that end. And if every man is bound to preserve a secret confided to him, a confessor is still more bound, under all circumstances, to maintain silence concerning sins which have been confessed to him as secretum, seeing that so much depends upon his fidelity in this respect,—the sanctity, the usefulness, and the blessings of the holy Sacrament of Penance.[772] Moreover, the duty of preserving the seal of the confessional is imposed by an express law of the Church, which has existed in constant tradition, and is thus expressed by the IV. Council of the Lateran:[773] Let the confessor beware of betraying the sinner in any way, by a word, or a sign, or by any other means; but if he should stand in need of wiser counsel let him ask for it without, in any way, indicating the person.
II. It results also from the above that the obligation of the seal belongs to the virtue of religion. Breaking it is an abuse of a Sacrament, therefore, rightly regarded as a kind of sacrilege; however, it must not be confessed under the general designation of a sacrilege, but as a breach of the seal of confession, in order that the ultimate and full species of the sin may be recognized.
Inasmuch as the confessor, ex officio, listens to the confession of the penitent, he is bound, ex fidelitate, to silence concerning everything which the interest of the penitent demands that he should keep secret. Finally, breaking the seal of confession would, in many cases, be a defamation of the penitent, and would, therefore, be an injustice. It is thus of its nature a very grave sin, a sacrilege, which is generally accompanied by injury to reputation and breach of faith.[774]
III. The obligation of the seal is a very strict one, admitting neither parvitas materia per se, nor any exception: only when the penitent has expressly and voluntarily given permission would it be allowable to disclose anything heard in confession, and even then prudence will generally dissuade the confessor from making use of the permission.[775]
St. Alphonsus teaches,[776] as sententia certissima, that never, and in no case, is the slightest disclosure of the secrets of the confessional permitted, not even to save one’s life, to save the state, or to remedy the greatest spiritual necessity. The reason for this most stringent obligation is clear. If there were only one exception made, people would always be in a state of fear that this or that sin might be sufficient ground for lawfully breaking the seal, and the Sacrament would thereby become odious.[777]
When, therefore, the confessor is asked concerning anything which he has learnt in the confessional, he must, per se, reprimand the questioner, reminding him that such questions are quite inadmissible. If, however, he can see no other effectual way of evading the question or of averting suspicion from the penitent, he can and must declare, even upon oath, that the penitent has not confessed to him what is in question, that he knows nothing at all about it. Such a statement is not a lie nor is it, in consequence, a perjury if made upon oath, for it is a case of lawful use of the implicit reservation that the confessor, as a private individual,—the only capacity in which he can be expected to answer,—has no knowledge of a subject revealed to him as a representative of God.[778]
And should the confessor be asked if he has given absolution to a penitent, let him answer, “I did what it was my duty to do,” or, still better, dismiss the questioner with the answer, “Such questions are not allowed.” If he had not given the absolution and was asked by a priest or other cleric if the penitent might receive holy communion, he must answer, “Ask him yourself.”[779]
Concerning the penitent’s permission to speak about the confession, St. Alphonsus teaches as follows: 1. This permission must be given in words, or by facts which convey it, as, for instance, when the penitent himself begins to talk to the confessor about something said in the confessional. This permission may not be presumed even if it were for the penitent’s own welfare.[780]
2. Permission obtained by threats or metus reverentialis does not suffice; for instance, if the confessor has obtained it through repeated requests, the penitent having at first refused it.[781] 3. The penitent can recall the permission which he has given at his pleasure.[782] 4. When the confessor has obtained the permission let him be very careful not to overstep the limits laid down by the penitent.[783]
IV. The duty of preserving the seal of the confessional thus differs from that of preserving any other secret in the following points: (a) It does not admit parvitas materiæ; (b) it exists even with regard to the person who has confessed, or whom the secret concerns; (c) it never admits of any exception.[784]
V. The duty of secrecy attaches to every really sacramental confession; that is, confession made with the intention of accusing one’s self and of obtaining absolution. Therefore, (a) confession knowingly made to a cleric or a priest without jurisdiction does not impose the duty of silence, but only the obligation of the natural secret, excepting, however, the case where the penitent intended that the priest should obtain jurisdiction, and afterwards give him absolution. The duty of the seal would also come into effect if the penitent believed that the priest to whom he confessed had jurisdiction. (b) If a person informs a confessor of the state of his conscience not with the intention of receiving absolution, but for the purpose of obtaining advice or instruction for his spiritual life, or for some other object, there is no obligation of the seal, but only of the secretum naturale and commissum; though of this class of secrets it is unquestionably the most binding. The same principles would apply if a person said that he made the disclosures concerning himself only sub sigillo. But there is always this difference between the case mentioned and the seal of the confessional, that here parvitas materiæ is admissible, and that the secret is, of itself, not violated by any reference to the person concerned.[785] (c) A pretended confession, made for the purpose of deceiving, or seducing, or ridiculing the priest, does not impose the duty of the seal and the priest might, at the call of circumstances, make use of knowledge thus obtained, in his defense. On the other hand, a confession begun with the honest intention of receiving the Sacrament, but during which the penitent allowed himself to be carried away and influenced by some sinful purpose, would impose the duty of the seal, since such confession was, at least in part, sacramental.[786] (d) Finally, a confession, or relation of sins made for some other purpose would not impose it, though, under circumstances, the duty of the strictest secretum naturale et commissum may ensue. The confessor is also forbidden to make use of a probable opinion in matters which come under the seal, whether the probabilitas be facti or juris. The probabilitas facti would turn on the question whether it is probable that the confession made was sacramental or not; in neither case have I any right to say or do anything which might possibly amount to a breach of the seal. The probabilitas juris exists when authors disagree as to what constitutes an infraction of the seal; here I may not adopt any form of action or speech which on solid probable grounds would mean a breach of the seal, or tend to make the Sacrament odious to the faithful. On the contrary, it must be morally certain that the utterance or action in question excludes all danger of disclosure and of aversion to the Sacrament.[787]
60. The Subject of the Seal of Confession.
The duty of preserving the seal of confession binds, in the first place, the confessor who hears the confession. It devolves also upon all who, by lawful or unlawful means, have acquired knowledge of that which falls under the seal; otherwise the penitent would not be sufficiently protected, and might be deterred from approaching the Sacrament. This extension of the duty of the seal was certainly in the intention of Our Saviour.[788]
In addition to the confessor, therefore, the following are bound by the seal of the confessional: (a) the Superior to whom the penitent or the confessor (with permission of the penitent) had recourse either verbally or by writing, in a reserved case, or a similar matter; (b) any one employed as an interpreter in a confession; (c) the theologian whom the confessor consulted, either verbally or by writing, in a difficult case, and especially any person to whom the confessor in any way communicated matter learnt in the confessional—whether that communication was made sacrilege vel imprudentur, or in a lawful manner—excepting when the penitent has, perhaps, widened the limits of his permission.[789] If, therefore (for example), the confessor, in behalf of the penitent, should ask for a remission of debts, and, in doing so, with the penitent’s permission, discloses to the injured person the sin of theft, etc., the latter possesses the knowledge of this theft under the seal of the confessional; for it is in the penitent’s power to give permission to propagate information received by the confessor in the confessional, either under the same seal, that is, in the same manner as the confessor possesses it, or in some less stringent manner.[790] (d) He who, either accidentally or purposely, has heard the confession of another, and those who, through him, have obtained knowledge of a sin so heard. Deliberately to overhear the confession of another is, of itself, a breach of the seal. (e) Whoever reads a piece of paper upon which the penitent has written his sins may be bound either under the seal, or to the natural secret only. He is bound under the seal: (1) if he should read the written confession in actu confessionis, especially, if it is already handed to the confessor for the purpose of confession; (2) if he found it in the confessional, having been left there by the confessor, “for this knowledge is none other than that of the confessor”; (3) if he snatched it from the hand of the confessor to whom the penitent had handed it; (4) if it had been snatched from the hands of the penitent while he was confessing, or had fallen from his hands; (5) if writing the confession is, for the penitent, the necessary means of making a complete confession, reading this writing before the confession also imposes the obligation of the seal; (6) this holds good in every case after the confession, before the document has so far returned to the penitent’s possession that he has voluntarily preserved it when he might have destroyed it; (7) whosoever reads the letter in which permission is asked of a Superior to absolve from a reserved case, as this belongs to the confession.
On the other hand, whoever reads the written enumeration of the sins of others is bound to the natural secret only: (1) if the penitent, after completing his confession, had voluntarily left the document behind, had thrown it away, had not destroyed it; and (2) if the penitent, without exactly intending to make his confession, had written down his sins, and this document is read prior to the confession. Though in this case the obligation of the natural secret only comes into force, it is the strictest of its kind.[791] The penitent is not bound by the seal to be silent about what the confessor has said to him; but he is bound to natural secrecy concerning everything the revelation of which might injure the confessor or the Sacrament; indeed the penitent is more strictly bound to silence, because the confessor, unlike other men, does not impart advice and instruction spontaneously but in virtue of his office.[792]
61. The Object or Matter of the Seal of Confession.
The object of the seal of confession is, in general, everything the revealing of which would make confession odious. This is a natural deduction from the end of the law and from a decision of the S. C. Inquis. given under the authority of Innocent XI, Nov. 18, 1682, by which a proposition was rejected permitting the use of all information obtained in the confessional, as long as no direct or indirect revelation takes place.[793]
Objects of the seal are:—
1. All sins; mortal and venial sins both of the penitent and of his accomplice (complex);[794] indeed, notoriously public sins, also, in so far as they are known through the medium of confession. Not only mortal and venial sins in individuo, but also omnino in genere. It would be no breach of the seal to say, in a general way, that the penitent had committed venial sins or only venial sins, especially as the penitent himself, by going to confession, practically tells every one that he has committed some sin, at least a venial sin; and it is, moreover, a matter of faith that no man can remain free from all venial sin, unless he has received a special privilege from God, and the Blessed Virgin alone is known positively to have possessed such a privilege.
2. The objects and circumstances of the sins, and not only that which it is of precept to confess, but also that which the penitent believed necessary for the better explanation of his sins. For example, if a son confesses that he hates his father because the latter has committed adultery, the adultery of the father, although not a necessary part of the confession of the son, is, nevertheless, an object of the seal; or when the penitent confesses a murder at which he has rejoiced, a duel which he has witnessed, etc.[795]
3. The penance imposed, except when this is a small one such as is generally imposed for the slightest sins; for a more severe penance indicates that graver sins have been committed.
4. Temptations, because they stand in relation to sins, in so far as the penitent doubts if he has consented to them, or asks advice of the confessor in order not to yield to them.
5. Defects, which are confessed in explanation of a sin; for example, illegitimacy, where a penitent has received Orders, in opposition to the law of the Church. Natural defects of the penitent also, in so far as they are known through the confessional, and tend to his disgrace (for instance, defective education, stupidity, etc.), are objects of the seal. But if these do not stand in any relation to the confession, or if the penitent would not resent their being made known, and if they are matter of general knowledge already, they are not objects of the seal.[796]
6. The penitent’s position in life may be, ex se, an object of the seal, in so far as information about it is necessary in order to explain the sins according to their ultimate species. Nevertheless, it may be assumed that this information, even when thus necessary, is not given to the confessor sub sigillo, but rather prævie. If it is a question of a position known to every one (though perhaps not known to the confessor) the penitent does not intend to include this knowledge under the seal. But it is a different matter when, on account of certain circumstances, the penitent attaches importance to his incognito. It is certainly not allowed so to speak of the position and circumstances of the penitent so as to indicate thereby that he had sinned against individual duties of his position.[797]
7. Scruples, or the scrupulosity of the penitent, may be an object either of the seal, or of the natural secret. (a) The scruples themselves which the penitent confesses are, of course, direct objects of the seal, in so far as they are considered by him to be sins. (b) The scrupulosity which the penitent confesses as a circumstance of his sins—or in order to give a better idea of his spiritual state—is likewise an object of the seal. (c) To say in a general way that the penitent has confessed many scruples, violates the seal in the same way as to disclose that he has confessed several venial sins, real or supposed. (d) On the other hand, the scrupulosity which is only perceived in the manner of expression is not matter of the seal, but, per se, of the natural secret which obliges the more strictly as the knowledge obtained is more intimately connected with the confession itself.[798]
8. Sins committed in the confession itself, for example, impatience, not showing the confessor due reverence, etc., are, per se, not objects of the sigillum, because the penitent does not confess them; nevertheless, making them known might easily, and generally will, involve danger to the seal; for these sins suggest a severe reprehension or a refusal of absolution.[799]
9. Virtues or supernatural gifts which the penitent discloses in order that the confessor may learn the state of his soul, are not, per se, objects of the seal; but if they are disclosed inasmuch as they have reference to a sin, they are matter of the sigillum.[800]
62. Violations of the Seal.
The seal of confession is, in the first place, violated by every communication of those things which are matter of the seal if the penitent is recognized, or if there is a danger of his being recognized. Moreover, every use of things falling under the seal which is calculated to make confession odious, or to cause the penitent annoyance and detriment, is also a breach of the seal.
A distinction is, accordingly, to be made between direct and indirect violation of the seal; it is directly violated when any matter of the seal itself is directly disclosed and the person of the penitent indicated; it is indirectly violated when revelation of matter of the seal involves only risk of discovery of the penitent or danger of harm to him. In the indirect violation there may be parvitas materiæ; that is, when, through the communication or the use of that which was learnt under the seal only very slight danger of recognition would be incurred, as when the confessor speaks of the sins prevalent in some particular town or place without the inhabitants of the place becoming, thereby, appreciably prejudiced against the institution of the confessional, or any particular defamation resulting. But if there is doubt as to whether the consequences are really so slight, such a proceeding must be regarded as a great sin.
For a violation of the seal, it is not necessary that the person with whom the confessor speaks knows that he is making use of knowledge gained in the confessional; it is enough that the confessor should speak from this knowledge. Nor is it necessary that the person of the penitent should actually be recognized by him with whom the confessor speaks; it suffices that the circumstances should be such that the identity of the penitent emerges sufficiently distinct from what the confessor says, or that the person of the penitent may possibly be recognized, or that well-founded suspicion could arise. As the faithful preservation of the seal is of the highest importance, the confessor must always be very careful that penitents do not become averse or disinclined to the confessional. Nevertheless he is not bound to avoid every trivial danger, and to anticipate every idle conjecture of malicious people.[801] In view of their supreme importance, we here subjoin a few cases of violation of the seal, as discussed by eminent theologians.
1. A priest indirectly violates the seal: (a) if he says or intimates that he refused or deferred absolution to a certain penitent, because he, thereby, implies that the penitent had confessed a grave sin, or had not been disposed; or if he says that a certain penitent’s confession had not been finished—unless it were generally known that this confession was a general one, or one concerning a long space of time, so that there can be no embarrassment on the part of the penitent. Indeed, Lugo adds that even if the penitent himself were to say that he had not been absolved, the confessor must not take the liberty of repeating it.[802] (b) If he said of a notorious thief that the latter had confessed his thefts to him with great sorrow. The case would be different if without entering into detail he were to remark that the same thief had made his confession to him.[803] (c) If he praises excessively some penitent in comparison with others whom he heard at the same time, or says that he committed venial sins only, suspicion being thus easily excited that the others had confessed grave sins. An exception would be if there were some particular ground for so speaking, without offense to the other penitents, and without danger of injurious suspicion.[804] (d) If two confessors, to whom the same penitent had confessed, talk together concerning his sins. (e) If he reproves the penitent aloud, questions him concerning circumstances of the sins, so that bystanders can hear it. (f) If, after having heard the confessions of some few penitents, he should say that he had heard a particular sin—for the individual penitents fall under suspicion of having committed this sin. (g) If he speaks of sins which he has heard in the confessional in such a way that those who hear him can infer or conjecture the identity of those who committed them. (h) If he speaks of sins learnt outside the confessional, but adds a circumstance learnt only in the confessional, or makes use of knowledge gathered in the confessional for the purpose of specifying or corroborating some statement. (i) If, without the penitent’s permission, he speaks to him outside the confessional about his sins heard in the confessional. Where the penitent himself begins, the confessor may only speak about the particular subject to which the penitent confines himself. Likewise if, after the confession, the priest’s demeanor shows that he remembers his sins and esteems him less highly than before. (k) If he should intimate that the penitent had not confessed a particular sin, because, thereby, suspicion might easily arise that he had actually concealed a sin.[805]
2. As a general rule it is allowed to speak vaguely of sins heard in the confessional in such a manner that there is no danger of recognizing the person, and no suspicion is aroused against any persons. In this, however, scandal to lay people is to be carefully avoided, for they readily believe that speech of this kind is a violation of the seal, and may, thereby, be deterred from approaching the confessional; nor should one be too easily persuaded that there is no fear of any danger in the matter. Confessors, therefore, should not be too ready to talk much about what they have heard in the confessional; for such talk, when often indulged in, is not quite free from the danger of a slip beyond what is permissible and of awakening suspicions in the hearers. Indeed, before laymen such talk must be altogether avoided.[806]
No violation of the seal is, therefore, in question: (a) when the confessor says that “Titus confessed to him”; only Titus must not then have come to him secretly, for from this circumstance it might be inferred that he had a bad conscience; (b) when he praises the conscience of a penitent; but he must not, on account of possible circumstances, awaken thereby the suspicion that others, who confessed to him at the same time, have bad consciences; for it might be that if he were questioned concerning another penitent, he could not maintain the same tone of praise.[807] (c) If, immediately after absolution, before the penitent leaves the confessional, he speaks to him of what he has then and there heard, for though the Sacrament has been administered, the judicial act still morally continues.[808] (d) If he speaks to the penitent during confession of his sins of another confession, for, in actu confessionis, the penitent has no right to the preservation of the seal; but even this the confessor should not do without reason, for it is troublesome to many penitents. (e) When he prays for a penitent, even if he only knows him through the confessional, or treats him more leniently (or otherwise) on account of the state of his soul learnt in the confessional; when he makes use of knowledge acquired in the confessional in order to ask learned and experienced confessors for advice,[809] or to perfect his own work in the confessional, to be able to question better, to instruct better, and more efficaciously to watch over those committed to his charge.
The confessor does not violate the seal by saying that a certain vice is prevalent in some place, town, or parish when this place or parish is of considerable size (St. Alphonsus assumes three thousand Catholics as the population) and when it is a question of vices which are public, and no new defamation arises. On the other hand, it would be a violation of the seal if (a) by this statement concerning the sins, or by the manner of it, the parish, etc., were defamed, and (b), in any case, if the place were small. Hard and fast limits cannot be laid down to determine when a serious breach of the seal takes place, and when such revelations would be quite permissible; each case must be carefully considered and weighed, in order to learn if any, or a grave, or only a slight, violation is in question. A preacher, therefore, has a right to speak against vices which are secretly very prevalent in a parish, and if he has obtained his knowledge of them outside the confessional, he can speak of them with still greater freedom; but he should always employ a wise caution, so as not to awaken suspicions injurious to those who confess to him.[810]
In deciding whether violation of the seal of the confession is committed when a confessor says that he has heard a grave sin in the confessional from a religious of some particular Order, without designating the individual, the following circumstances must be considered: (a) whether, from the nature of the sin referred to, defamation of the Order results or not; (b) before what persons the statement was made, as this circumstance usually determines the quality of the defamation; (c) whether, from the statement itself, or from the circumstances, suspicion falls upon the occupants of a few houses. From this it can be inferred if a grave violation of the seal, or a slight one, or none at all, has taken place; but it is very unlikely that no violation of the seal at all has been committed by such a communication. The confessor of a convent would, accordingly, break the seal, if, while preaching in the convent, he should signalize a particular sin of a nun, or of that convent, which he knew only through the confessional. On the other hand, he would not break it if he were to speak generally of defects which usually occur, or may occur, in all convents; otherwise a priest who heard confessions in a convent could never preach there, and such a prohibition would be contrary to the general usage.[811] If the confessor knows through the confessional that snares are being prepared for him, he may, under some pretext, go away, or provide for his safety, if by so doing the sin confessed does not become known, nor any detriment ensues to the penitent by which the confessional would be rendered odious; if, however, he cannot, without breaking the seal, escape or evade the snares prepared for him, nor avoid an objective sacrilege, he must rather endure or permit his death and the sacrilege than break the seal. Nevertheless, he can, and must, exhort and bind the penitent in the confessional to give him permission to make use of this knowledge.[812]
It is not allowed to Superiors to make use of knowledge gained in the confessional in the external government of those under them, or to adopt any course of action which is in any way odious to the penitent, or which would make the confessional odious. Hence it is not allowed to a Superior, in consequence of knowledge obtained through the confessional, to alter an arrangement which he has once made, or which he had determined upon only in his mind; but the case may occur in which he may inform the penitent in the confessional that he had intended to make certain arrangements, but that he now begs his permission to recede from this intention.[813]
Accordingly, it is never allowed to a confessor to remove from his office a subordinate whom he knows through the confessional to be unfit for it, to deprive him of his vote at an election, to forbid him the Sacraments, to withdraw from him any tokens of good-will formerly shown, to look at him askance, to take from him keys which he formerly held or to hide those which he was in the habit of leaving about, etc. But if the confessor obtained this information otherwise than in the confessional, he may make use of the knowledge otherwise obtained; but then this information must really move him to his course of action just as if he had had no knowledge of the unworthiness of the subordinate through the confessional.[814]
Where it is customary to give a ticket to testify that confession has been made, the confessor must confine himself to stating merely that he has heard the confession, and he must not state that he has given absolution to the penitent; for if he invariably attested that the penitent had been absolved, he would be committing himself to a lie, in cases where he had not absolved; if, again, he testified to having absolved those whom he had absolved, and to not having absolved others to whom he had refused absolution, he would, indirectly, violate the seal of the confessional.
And if the confessor should refuse the ticket to an ill-disposed penitent who had made a sacramental confession, he would also violate the seal in the following cases: (a) where the penitent asks for this ticket outside the confessional, and (b) when it is given to all penitents, or when it is demanded by the penitent’s Superior, as at Easter time, for example. But if the penitent had no intention at all of making a sacramental confession, but only made pretense of confession in order to procure his ticket, for instance, in order to escape punishment from a teacher, or to contract a marriage, the ticket must be refused to him.[815]
If a confessor knows only through the confessional the bad state of a man’s conscience, he must not on that account refuse to hear his confession; he would only be allowed to do so if he had previously, from another motive, resolved never to hear his confession again, because such a refusal would make the confessional odious both to the penitent and to others who should come to hear of the confessor’s behavior.[816]
But how is a confessor to behave who learns from the confession of an unmarried woman who is near death that she is pregnant, this fact being quite unknown to others? Here may be question of the Baptism of the child after the death of the mother, before it is born. If a month has passed since conception, the confessor must induce the penitent to make known her condition, after confession, to some other person, to her mother, perhaps, or to the doctor (if the latter is a good Catholic, or a believer) in order that, after her death, the child may be at once brought into the world and baptized; for she must prefer the Baptism of the child, as a higher good, to her own reputation. If she refuses to disclose the matter, the confessor should induce her to communicate it to him outside confession, in order that he may inform her parents and the doctor of it after her death. But here great caution is necessary, lest others should be led to believe that he is breaking the seal. Hence he should persuade the sick person to make a written statement of the case, if she is able to do so, or he can do it for her; she should then give it sealed to a third person who is to open it immediately after her death.
If she will not consent to this plan, the confessor should abstain from pressing her great responsibility in case she should be invincibiliter ignorant of it, or, perhaps, be persuaded that the fœtus will not survive her; for otherwise, in his endeavor to save the soul of the fœtus, he would incur the risk of ruining both souls, that of the mother and that of the child. But absolution can be given to the sick person unless she is undoubtedly ill disposed—which will seldom be the case. Finally, if the confessor knows the condition of the sick person only through the confessional and cannot obtain her permission to make it known, he must maintain perpetual silence, come what may. For the duty of the seal does not cease with the life of the penitent.[817]
As the binding force of the seal exists only for the benefit of the penitent, the penitent may cancel or modify this obligation, but he alone has this power. This permission must, however, be given quite voluntarily. If the penitent has thus given permission to break the seal in some point, this permission does not extend to the revelation of his accomplices and others; the law of universal charity and of justice (for instance, preservation of a good name) still remains intact, and binds the more strictly the more probability there is of the Sacrament being made odious by any suspicion.
SECTION III
THE DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR TOWARD DIFFERENT CLASSES OF PENITENTS
Having considered in the foregoing sections the essential and accidental duties of the confessor in general, it remains to be shown how these duties are to be performed in concrete cases. Penitents, not being of one type, require treatment according to their intellectual development, their moral constitution, and their natural dispositions, their station and circumstances of life. On account of the difficulties which beset confessors in dealing with these different classes of penitents, we propose to give some practical suggestions. We shall treat of persons placed in peculiar spiritual conditions, persons in different external circumstances, and persons who on account of the great danger of their salvation call for special care.