hands on clerics, or religious, unless the power of absolution is
accorded to the bishops or others, either _jure_ or _privilegio_. The
words _suadente diabolo_ imply that there is question of a grave sin.
This censure is, accordingly, not incurred if the _percussio_ take
place either _ob legitimam sui defensionem, vel ob justam subditi
Clerici correptionem, vel ex joco aut casu fortuito vel ex subita ira,
vel ex ignorantia_ that the person struck is a cleric. On the other
hand, the censure extends also to _impuberes_ and the _efficaciter
cooperantes_.[555]
3. Duellists, even when they only challenge to a duel, or accept the
challenge, and all accomplices and abettors. The censures attached to the
duel are, therefore, incurred by:—
(1) the duellists themselves, whether the duel takes place with or
without witnesses, whether wounding follows or not; (2) the challengers
to a duel, even when the challenge is not accepted; (3) he who accepts
the challenge, even when no duel takes place, and when the parties to
the proposed duel do not meet; (4) the seconds, those who accompany the
duellists, and in fact all those who afford countenance and assistance
to them, and who, by advice, or in any other way, make themselves
accomplices; (5) the spectators who to that end, and of set purpose,
repair to the scene of the encounter, as such onlooking is a further
incitement to the encounter; (6) the persons in authority who permit
this, and, as far as in them lies, do not forbid it.
4. Those who belong to the sect of the Freemasons or Carbonari or to
other sects of the kind (Fenians in America and Ireland)[556] who agitate
either openly or in secret against the Church or the lawful government,
as well as all who in any way countenance these sects, or do not denounce
their secret heads and leaders (to the local ecclesiastical superiors)
when they clearly realize their duty of denouncing. Political partisans,
so long as they employ only the means which modern public law places at
their disposal in their endeavors to realize their ideal of the future
social state, do not incur this censure.
5. The violators of the rights of the sanctuary.
6 and 7. The violators of the inclosure in monasteries and convents. Only
the violation of the so-called Papal inclosure, that is, the inclosure
prescribed by general ecclesiastical law to the Orders with solemn vows,
brings with it the excommunication here mentioned; not the violation of
that inclosure which is observed in the more recent Congregations of men
or women either on account of their rules, or of a particular vow, or
also in consequence of a regulation of the local bishop. Not only do the
violators of the inclosure incur the excommunication, but all, Superiors
or others, who, without lawful reasons, permit entrance.
8, 9, and 10 refer to simony: real (8); confidential (9); in the bestowal
of benefices, and real on entering a Religious Order (10).
11 and 12 are directed against the abuse of spiritual favors for the
purpose of unworthy gain, which may take place by procuring for one’s
self: (11) material profit in the dispensing of indulgences and other
spiritual graces, or (12) by collecting Mass stipends at a higher price,
and having these Masses said in places where a lower fee is customary.
While number 11 concerns only the “_inferiores Episcopis_,” number
12 applies to all collectors (_colligentes_) who procure profit to
themselves by the above-mentioned proceedings.
13. Those who alienate and mortgage lands belonging to the Roman Church.
14. Members of Religious Orders who, without permission of the local
parish priest, presume to administer to clerics or laymen the Sacrament
of Extreme Unction, or the Eucharist as viaticum; except in case of
necessity.
15. Those who, without lawful permission, remove from the holy cemeteries
and catacombs of the city of Rome and its territories, relics (therefore,
only remains of saints, _corpora vel partes corporis, etiam in minima
particula, quibus indubia martyrii signa adjuncta sunt_; cf. S. R. C. 10
Dec., 1863), and those who help and countenance them.
16. Those who are associated in _crimine criminoso_ with a person whom
the Pope has, by name, excommunicated, that is, who, by helping or
countenancing, take part in the crime on account of which the originator
was, by mention of name, excommunicated by the Pope.
17. Clerics who knowingly and without compulsion associate _in divinis_
(that is, in the Church’s offices) with one by name excommunicated by the
Pope, and permit such to participate in divine service.
In order, therefore, that this excommunication be incurred, the
_communicatio_ must be: (_a_) with a person by name excommunicated by the
Pope; (_b_) knowingly and (_c_) voluntarily. According to the general
and unanimous explanation the _et_ is not to be taken as disjunctive but
conjunctive, so that the “_communicantes in divinis_,” with a person by
name excommunicated, and the “_ipsos in officiis recipientes_” are to be
interpreted as members of a sentence which necessarily belong to each
other.[557] “_Divina_” and “_officia_” are merely synonymous terms.
18. Those who presume, without proper permission, _etiam quovis
prætextu_, to absolve from the excommunications reserved _speciali modo_
to the Pope—that is, _extra casum legitimi impedimenti eundi Romam_.
19. Missionaries who _quocunque modo sive per se sive per alios_ engage
in commerce in _Indiis Orientalibus et America_, and those Superiors who
have not censured their subordinates offending on this head. _Ex authent.
Declarat._ S. C. Inq. 4 Dec., 1872, a Pio IX _approbata_.
20. Refers to clerics and laymen _quacunque dignitate etiam imperiali
aut regali_ who unlawfully appropriate jurisdictions, interests, rights,
also fiefs and hereditary tenures, incomes, usufruct, or revenues from
any church or benefice, from the _montes pietatis_ and other _pia loca_.
(This is an extension of the number 11 above, in section I of the
Censures.)[558]
_III. Excommunicationes Ordinariis Reservatæ._[559]
1. Clerics in major Orders, monks, and nuns, who, after having taken the
solemn vow of chastity (not the simple) dare to contract marriage, as
also all who attempt to perform the marriage rite over the above-named
persons—such marriage being of itself invalid.
2. All who cause abortion.[560]
3. Those who knowingly make use of forged Papal documents, or lend
assistance in this crime.
_IV. Excommunicationes non Reservatæ._
1. Those who order or insist with force that notorious heretics or those
by name excommunicated, or by name interdicted, should be buried with the
rites of the Church.
2. All those who injure or threaten the inquisitors, accusers, witnesses,
or other servants of the Holy Office in the performance of their duty, or
who steal or destroy the official documents of this Office, or who afford
help, advice, or countenance in any one of these actions.
3. This excommunication falls upon the vendors (_alienantes_) or
receivers (_recipere præsumentes_) of Church property who have not
obtained permission of the Pope in the prescribed form.
4. Those who omit to denounce a soliciting confessor (§ 45). False
denunciation constitutes a Papal reservation without censure.
To these excommunications are added Suspensions and Interdicts:—
The Suspensions _latæ sententiæ_ simply reserved to the Pope, refer to
Ordination which takes place by infraction of definite ecclesiastical
regulations, and to religious who are expelled from their Orders.
The Interdicts _latæ sententiæ_ affect universities, colleges, and
chapters, whatever name they may bear, who appeal to a future general
Council from the regulations or orders of the ruling Pope of the time, or
who knowingly cause religious service to be held in interdicted places,
as also those who admit persons excommunicated by name to religious
service, to the holy Sacraments, or to burial with Church service, and
that till the ecclesiastical Superior whose orders have been disregarded
has received satisfaction.
44. Absolution of Reserved Sins.
I. All those who can reserve sins may, of their ordinary power
(_ordinaria potestate_), also absolve from them; therefore: (1) those who
have reserved, (2) their successors in the same office, and (3) their
Superiors.
With delegated authority (_potestate delegata_) those can absolve who
have received a special faculty from the person reserving, or his
successor or Superior, and that only within the limits comprised in the
power conferred.
II. The bishops and their delegates can, according to common law, absolve
(1) all penitents from the _secret_ Papal reserves, with the exception
of those which are, _speciali modo_, reserved to the Pope;[561] and (2)
according to the general teaching of theologians, which is based upon the
ecclesiastical law itself, those penitents who are prevented from going
to the Pope, from _all_ Papal reserves, secret or public.[562]
According to the general interpretation of the Council of Trent, and
general custom, the bishop can transfer to another, by free choice
(_vicarius ad id specialiter deputandus_), his powers of absolving
from the Papal reserves under the specified conditions. Some bishops,
especially those in distant parts, not infrequently receive, through the
quinquennial or triennial faculties, greater powers over cases which are,
_speciali modo_, reserved to the Pope. But whether they can also transfer
these powers and how,—whether generally or only in separate cases,—must
be gathered from the document by which these privileges are conferred.
Formerly Regulars could, by virtue of a perpetual privilege, absolve from
all cases reserved, _ordinario modo_, to the Pope; this privilege has
been withdrawn by the constitution “_Apostolicæ Sedis_.”[563]
III. If a priest who is not empowered to absolve from reserved cases
hears a reserved sin in the confessional, he must, as a rule, refer the
penitent to the Superior, or to another priest delegated by him. But
if the confession must of necessity be made just at that time, and if
there is any obstacle in the way of going to another, the unauthorized
confessor can absolve directly from the non-reserved, and, consequently,
indirectly from the reserved sins. But the penitent must confess, in
addition to reserved sins, others which are not reserved, or confess
again a sin already confessed, in order that the _materia Sacramenti_ may
not be wanting. It is, however, afterwards the duty of the penitent—if it
is possible to him—to confess the reserved sin to the Superior, or to a
priest designated by him, or, as the case may be, to the same confessor
after the latter has received power to absolve from the sin in question,
in order that he may be directly absolved from the reserved sins.[564]
But the confessor can also apply to the Superior and from him obtain
powers for this special case to absolve the penitent from the reserved
sin; this must, of course, be done with the most careful and strict
observance of the secrecy of the confessional. Indeed, it is highly
to be recommended in our days that the confessor should not refer the
penitent to the Superior or to another priest with the requisite powers,
but should rather himself procure from the Superior the necessary powers
to absolve the penitent, even when the latter has no long or difficult
journey to make in order to reach the Superior. For, if the penitent
goes himself, the duty of confessing his sins again is incumbent upon
him, and to confess such a sin again requires from most penitents great
self-command: and there would be fear of his changing his mind and not
going to the Superior at all. Let the confessor, therefore, regard it
as a duty of charity,[565] which in most cases he must undertake for
his penitent, to obtain from the lawful Superior the necessary power
to absolve from the sin or censure confessed to him. But if it is a
question of Papal reserves, and if the confessor, in a case of really
urgent necessity, has given absolution, he must, in the name of the
person absolved, apply by letter to Rome, in order that the matter may
be finally set in order. If the Superior refuses “unjustly” to grant the
faculties for a reserved sin, such refusal is unlawful; indeed, he sins
if, without any valid reason, he makes difficulties about imparting the
faculty, and when great detriment to the subject is to be feared from
the refusal, he sins against charity and justice. But if the penitent
could without difficulty confess to a delegated priest, and if there were
lawful ground[566] for obliging the subject to confess to the Superior,
the Superior could without doing wrong refuse the faculty. As a general
rule it is to be observed: that the confessor who seeks faculties for the
absolution of reserved cases, and the Superior who imparts them, should
be guided only by consideration for the greater welfare of the soul of
the penitent; all vain, unworthy motives should be out of question.[567]
In case of refusal of faculties for absolving, another confessor cannot
directly absolve from the reserved sin.[568]
In requesting power to absolve from reserved sins, the name of the
penitent, his character, position, or parentage must not be mentioned,
and everything must be avoided that might betray him. Without naming the
person the reserved sin is indicated, or else the number only which the
sin in question bears on the official list of reserved cases, followed
by the request for faculties to absolve. Instead of this, one can, for
the special case, request the power to absolve from all the reserved sins
among which the one in question is contained. The instructions given by
the Superior upon application are to be accurately followed; the document
containing them is to be carefully sealed and afterwards burnt. The
priest who dispatches it, of course, gives his name and address, writing
on the envelope the superscription “_Pro foro interno_.” The envelope,
with the request thus sealed, is inclosed in a second envelope, which
must likewise be sealed, and this one is addressed to the Ordinary or
vicar-general.[569]
In order that the object of the reservations may be attained, the
Superior and his delegate must admonish the penitent with greater
earnestness, impose a more severe penance than ordinary upon him, and
prescribe special remedies, in order that he may be preserved from
relapse.
To the above we add:—
1. The difference between direct and simply indirect absolution is the
following: he who is only indirectly absolved cannot as he pleases
receive holy communion or say Mass (at least not when he remains under
the censure), but only when, in individual cases, there is urgent
necessity for the reception of communion or for saying Mass.
2. The duty of appearing before the Superior is undoubtedly binding under
grave sin; and when it is a question of a censure from which one has been
absolved with the obligation of presenting himself before the Superior
the duty remains in force, under pain of falling again under the same
censure.
3. When there is question of the duty of applying to the Pope, the Sacred
Penitentiary, or the Cardinal Grand Penitentiary is understood, as this
tribunal acts instead of the Pope in matters of conscience, after the
manner of a _munus perpetuum_, the Pope being neither accustomed to, nor
able personally to, receive all petitions.
4. “_Casus urgentiores, in quibus absolutio differri nequit absque
periculo gravis scandali vel infamiæ_,” are the following: (_a_) when
the penitent cannot stay away from holy communion or, as the case may
be, omit the celebration of holy Mass, without causing scandal, or
without giving rise to grave suspicion against himself; (_b_) when the
duty of yearly confession is to be fulfilled, or when the penitent would
otherwise remain a long time in grave sin.[570]
5. According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus,[571] the following
persons are considered as prevented, or, as the case may be, exempted
forever, from going to Rome: (_a_) those who are not able of their own
right to undertake a journey to Rome; (_b_) those who are too poor to
provide the requisites for such a journey; and (_c_) those who are in
weak health, and unequal to the exertions of the journey. It is true
traveling conditions are different now, and the obstacles which St.
Alphonsus considered valid in his day can no longer be allowed to hold
altogether good, but it is easy to gather from what the holy Doctor[572]
says upon the point when an obstacle may still be regarded as legitimate.
Accordingly, the following are to be considered as laboring under a
perpetual impediment of appearing before this Superior for absolution,
always with the understanding that their circumstances remain unchanged
for a period of five years or more: (_a_) children who are still under
paternal authority; (_b_) members of Religious Orders (except when they
have been guilty of some extraordinarily grave crime); (_c_) old people
of more than sixty years; (_d_) those who are in the position of servants
or in similar situations; (_e_) poor persons, who are not accustomed to
gain their maintenance by begging; (_f_) prisoners; (_g_) sick persons
and weak persons; (_h_) those who hold a public office, or provide for
a family, and cannot be replaced by a substitute; (_i_) women, except
those who, in a special case, have incurred a reserved censure, as, for
instance, the violation of the inclosure, in which case application by
letter must always be made to the Pope; (_k_) those not of age; and,
finally, (_l_) all those who cannot undertake this journey without great
moral or bodily harm, either to themselves or to those belonging to them.
The questions as to whether one who has committed reserved sins must, in
the absence of an authorized confessor, confess to a simple one, in the
case of his having to say Mass or communicate, or whether it suffices
to elicit contrition,—and whether the penitent who has committed both
reserved and unreserved sins must accuse himself in the confessional
of the reserved sins as well,—formerly discussed by theologians, are
solved by present usage. As the penitent under existing legislation can
be directly absolved from censures and sins (though with the duty of
applying to the Roman tribunal), the rule now is that the penitent must
immediately confess all his sins.[573]
IV. In the hour of death every reservation ceases, and any confessor
may then administer absolution. And a simple, that is, unauthorized,
confessor, can absolve a penitent in _articulo mortis_ from reserved sins
even when the Superior is present or is easily accessible, since the
Council of Trent has expressly declared that _in articulo mortis_ there
is no reservation. Moreover, no obligation must be imposed upon the dying
person in case of his restoration to health, unless perhaps he should owe
to some other person a debt of satisfaction or restitution. If, however,
it is a question of reserved censures, the confessor who possesses no
power to absolve from these must impose the duty, in case of recovery,
of appearing before the Superior; in this case it would, of course, be
advisable to set the matter in order at once with the Superior if he be
present or easily accessible.
With regard to the absolution of reserved cases the following questions
remain to be discussed:—
1. Is the reservation of sins removed by an invalid absolution which the
Superior, or a priest authorized by him, has administered? In answering
this question theologians set up the following distinctions: (_a_) If
the absolution was invalid without fault on the part of the penitent,
and if the latter confessed all his reserved sins, the reservation is
removed according to the usual, and intrinsically well-founded, opinion
of theologians: in this case the penitent has fulfilled the object of
the reservation if not that of the Sacrament, by submitting the reserved
sins to the judgment of the Superior, or, as the case may be, of the
authorized priest. (_b_) And even if the confession were sacrilegious,
the reservation is, according to the not improbable teaching of many
theologians, removed, and that on the ground just alleged. This teaching,
however, cannot be extended to the confessor who absolves from reserved
sins _virtute jubilæi_, as, at the time of a Jubilee indulgence, the
confessor does not possess the faculty to absolve all penitents from
reserved cases, but only the _vere pœnitentes_, who wish to gain
the Jubilee indulgence; but those who, of their own fault, make the
confession invalid, are certainly not of that class.
2. When the penitent through forgetfulness has omitted to confess a
reserved sin, the reservation is removed, according to an opinion which
St. Alphonsus, following Lugo, characterized as the most common among
theologians and as probable, so that _any_ confessor could, afterwards,
directly absolve from these reserved sins, and this is presumed to be
the intention of the Superior as regards the properly disposed penitent.
On the other hand, not a few theologians, among them Suarez,[574]
teach that in the above case the reservation is not removed, and St.
Alphonsus designates this opinion as the more probable, and for the very
strong reason that (as he says) a reservation is only removed by being
submitted to the judgment of the Superior, in order that the object of
the reservation may be attained. This latter opinion certainly deserves
the preference in view of the argument alleged; but the following cases
are excepted: (1) when one may assume from any positive sign that the
Superior wished to remove the reservation; (2) when the penitent went to
the Superior or to an authorized priest for the purpose of being absolved
from all reserved sins, and declared this wish to the confessor; (3)
when a privilege was granted in favor of the penitent, such as either
expires with an official act, or is limited to a definite period, as, for
example, at Jubilee time. To these Suarez adds a fourth exception—when
(4) the reservation refers only to the censure, “because in order to
absolve from a censure, it is not necessary _per se et directe_, to know
the matter in question accurately in detail, but the general intention
of absolving from all sins, reserved included, to the extent of the
confessor’s power and the penitent’s necessity is sufficient for the
purpose.”[575] But if the penitent has, through his own fault, failed to
confess the reserved sin, the reservation is certainly not removed, as
one cannot here assume that the Superior annuls it.[576]
3. It is not allowed to absolve a penitent only from the reserved sins
and for the rest to send him to another confessor. Nothing can justify
such a proceeding.[577]
4. If a penitent has confessed a sin as to the reservation of which
a doubt exists, the latter is directly absolved by the absolution
administered by a simple confessor. This need not be afterwards
confessed if it should prove that the sin was undoubtedly reserved.[578]
5. A confessor has applied for powers to absolve the penitent from
reserved sins; in the meantime, however, after these powers have been
granted, and before they have been exercised, the penitent has again
committed the reserved sin or committed it several times, or committed
other reserved sins—do the powers applied for suffice in order to be able
to absolve? If the powers are conferred in a general way, say in the
following or a similar manner: “_Facultatem tibi concedimus pœnitentem
hac vice absolvendi a reservatis_,” the confessor can, according to a
very probable and general opinion, absolve the penitent from all reserved
sins committed before and after; only the interval between the powers
conferred and the new reserved sins incurred must be no longer than
one month, and the powers must not have been conferred on account of a
festival which is already past. If, however, the faculties have been
conferred for a definite class of reserved sins only without specifying
the number, these faculties suffice to absolve the penitent (but only to
absolve him once) from all cases of this kind.[579]
CHAPTER III
ABUSE OF POWER BY THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT
An exalted, indeed a divine, power has God conferred upon priests, in
authorizing them, as judges of souls in His stead, to remit or to retain
sins. This power has been conferred upon them for the salvation and
welfare of souls. It is, therefore, greatly to be regretted that we must
here speak of an abuse of this power. The Church has, alas! found herself
obliged to adopt severe measures against this abuse, in order to prevent
it, but in her severity she shows her zeal for the faithful, and proves
herself the faithful dispenser of the Mysteries of Christ. There are
three ways in which the priest may abuse his power in the Sacrament of
Penance.
45. Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin.
In a former paragraph (§ 27) we have laid down that it may be permissible
to reveal indirectly the accomplice of the sin (_complex peccati_) in so
far as the complete confession of one’s own sin may render this avowal
necessary, and that, accordingly, the confessor is also allowed, in order
to make the penitent’s confession entire, to ask the circumstances which
alter the nature of the sin, or to put questions which are necessary
in order to provide the better for the penitent’s spiritual welfare,
questions through which the _complex peccati_ might also become known
to the confessor. Here we treat of a totally different case, viz. the
illicit attempt of detecting the name of the _complex peccati_ without
necessity, and of demanding its revelation under threat of refusing
absolution.
On this point Benedict XIV issued several constitutions[580] which Pius
IX confirmed in his Constitution “_Apostolicæ Sedis_” (see § 43, p. 326).
The motives of the legislation are stated thus: many confessors, led
astray by false zeal, have introduced a perverse and pernicious practice
in hearing the confessions of the faithful ... that when penitents come
to them who had an accomplice in their sin, they ask these penitents
indiscriminately for the name of the accomplice. Nor do they do this in
a kindly manner, by advice; but they force and compel them to reveal the
name by threats of refusing absolution; indeed, not content with this,
they even go so far as to demand from their penitents that they should
mention the dwelling-place of the accomplice. This absolutely intolerable
imprudence they justify by the pretext of care for the amendment of
the accomplice, and do not hesitate to defend it by certain opinions
borrowed from theologians, whereas they only falsely apply true and
sound teachings to their own and their penitent’s ruin, and, moreover,
are guilty before God, the eternal Judge, of many and great evils which
follow from their work, as they should easily have apprehended. Nor could
malicious talk and scandal fail to arise from this conduct, nor any other
result be expected than that not only the dispensers of the Sacrament,
but the sacred Ministry itself, become odious, and the faithful perplexed.
In the second constitution the Pope decrees:—
1. The excommunication _latæ sententiæ_, which is reserved to the Pope,
against all who in future presume to teach that this practice is allowed,
and against all who orally or in writing dare to defend it, or attack, or
presumptuously expound otherwise, or distort, what was said against this
practice in the first Brief.
2. The suspension from hearing confessions _ferendæ sententiæ_, and
other heavy penalties against those who, after the manner of the
above-described and condemned practice, dare to ask penitents the name
of the _complex peccati_, or the dwelling-place, or other circumstances
imparting a closer or more individual designation of this _complex_,
threatening at the same time the refusal of the sacramental absolution to
the penitent who refuses to give information on these points.
3. The Sacred Office was advised rigorously to proceed against those
who taught that this practice was allowed, defended it, etc. (as above
indicated), and against the confessors who applied this pernicious
teaching, when their conduct excited suspicion that they adhered to
the false doctrine. The Pope, therefore, laid upon all (except the
penitents _in propria causa_) who knew that a confessor was guilty of
this teaching, or of practices which excited suspicion—an obligation of
bringing the matter before the notice of the Sacred Office within a month
(under pain of excommunication, which is now, however, removed).[581]
The Constitutions of Benedict XIV, however, as is clear from the
foregoing, are leveled against the practice of asking penitents,
_passim_, indiscriminately, who have an accomplice in their sin, for the
name of the accomplice. The prohibition is, therefore, not an absolute
one, for there may be circumstances in which it is allowed to demand from
the penitent even under threat of withholding absolution, the naming of
the partner in sin. This is the case when the confessor holds at the
same time another office, such as that of a Superior, by virtue of which
he can oblige the penitent to reveal to him the authors and accomplices
of the sin, in order to punish them as pernicious to the general weal.
If this is the case, the confessor does not ask for the name of the
accomplice as confessor but as Superior, and as Superior he rightfully
demands to know who the accomplice is.
When, again, the confessor sees that by the concealment of the partner
in guilt there would arise grave evil which the penitent is bound
to prevent, the latter must, out of regard for the general welfare,
make known the accomplice in his sin to the proper person; but if
the confessor is at once convinced that the penitent cannot himself
communicate it directly to the Superior, and also that he has no other
more suitable person through whom he could do so than the confessor
himself, the penitent is bound to accept this sole remaining expedient,
and inform the confessor of the accomplice, and the confessor may force
him to do so under pain of withholding absolution; for, if the penitent
were not willing to obey, he would not be worthy to receive absolution.
“However,” Lugo warns us, “the confessor must proceed in this matter with
great caution, that scandal may not arise in making use of information
obtained in the confessional. It is, therefore, better to request the
penitent to speak to him upon the subject outside the confessional.”
Indeed, it is necessary to require that the information should not be
given him under the seal of the confessional.[582]
46. The Absolution of the Complex in Peccato Turpi.
To preserve the sanctity of the institution of Penance, to protect the
Sacraments from contempt, and save souls from ruin, the Church has laid
down the following very salutary regulations:[583]
I. No priest, whether secular or regular, possesses jurisdiction over his
_complex in peccato turpi_ against the sixth commandment, till another
confessor has absolved the _complex_ from this sin.
According to this, jurisdiction is withdrawn from the confessor only
in respect to the sin against the sixth commandment which he himself
has committed with the penitent.[584] Nevertheless, this withdrawal of
jurisdiction has also the effect that he cannot validly absolve from
other mortal sins which the penitent (_complex_) confessed at the same
time with that sin. For the Pope has declared absolutely invalid and void
the absolution administered by a priest who possesses no jurisdiction
over such a sin and such a penitent.[585] But after the sin of the
_complex_ has been remitted by another priest, the jurisdiction of
the unhappy priest over this penitent revives, even with respect to
this directly remitted sin. The _Sacerdos complex_ could, therefore,
afterwards absolve his _complex_ from sins which the latter had
subsequently committed—not with him. Such a proceeding is, however, to be
discouraged, for the sense of shame is thereby lost, the reverence due
to the Sacrament dies away, and the danger of relapse, or, at least, of
great temptation, is imminent. Such unhappy penitents must, therefore,
be admonished never more to confess to the _confessarius complex_.[586]
But what is the _confessarius complex_ to do if the penitent again
confesses that sin in which the confessor has been _complex_, although
it has already been remitted by another confessor? If he only confessed
this sin, the case would be just as if a penitent confessed a reserved
sin only to a priest not empowered for reserved sins; the latter could
not absolve, because there would be (for him) no proper _materia
sacramenti_.[587] But if the penitent (_complex_) confessed other sins
(in addition to that in which the confessor had been his _complex_)
absolution could be given,[588] since a priest who is not authorized for
reserved sins can administer absolution when reserved and unreserved
sins have been confessed. But then the absolution is, both by the nature
of the case and the intention of the person absolving, applied to the
unreserved sins only. There is, moreover, a great difference between
the two cases,—the confession of the sin in which the confessor was an
accomplice, and the confession of reserved and unreserved sins,—namely,
that to absolve a penitent who has confessed reserved and unreserved
sins, a _causa ab integritate confessionis excusans_ must be present,
whereas no such reason is here necessary in order to submit again to the
power of the keys a sin already remitted.[589]
In some dioceses it was _de jure particulari_ forbidden that a priest
should ever hear the confession of a _complex, saltem copula consummata_.
This prohibition, however, the S. Congr. Concil. repeatedly rejected,
and when the resolutions of a synod containing such a prohibition were
submitted to it the Congregation returned the answer: _Tale decretum
deleatur_, although the defenders of the decree adduced much in its
justification, and emphatically denied the danger of scandal which many
maintained would easily arise in little places. Thus, most wisely did the
Congregation curb undue zeal.[590]
But here another and much more difficult question forces itself upon
us: What is to be done, _si alicubi mulier, quæ misere in ejusmodi
peccatum cum sacerdote lapsa fuerit, nullum alium, quocum peccatum
illud sacramentaliter confiteatur, sacerdotem ibi habeat_, but the
circumstances of the person and of the place, etc., are such that she
cannot go elsewhere to confess to another confessor, and there is no
hope of her being able to confess to another priest at the place in
question (at a mission, for example). Ballerini declares that it was not
the intention of Benedict XIV, when he gave his Constitution, that such
persons, in the above circumstances, should be deprived of the Sacraments
of the Church their whole life, till in the hour of their death they
could at last be absolved _a sacerdote peccati complice_. And might not
such a person die suddenly without illness preceding? What then is she to
do when the time for the yearly confession and Easter communion has come?
May we say that she can always receive holy communion with _contritio_
alone, indeed, that she must receive it? And what if scandal arises among
the people, and the woman loses her good reputation by its becoming
known that she has not received holy communion for several years? If any
one objects that, in this extremity, such a penitent might be proceeded
with exactly as if she had a reserved sin to confess, and, therefore,
omitting that sin (over which the confessor has no jurisdiction), the
other sins could be submitted to absolution, by which that sin also
would be indirectly remitted, we ask: How and when will this sin be
finally submitted to the power of the keys? Great difficulties beset
this question, and we dare not make a decision supported only by our own
judgment.
Two things are, however, clear enough: one is that when Benedict XIV
withdrew from the _confessario criminis complici_ the jurisdiction to
administer absolution to the _complex ab eodem crimine_, he certainly
removed the occasion of very great scandal, but he by no means wished to
close to the sinner the way of reconciliation opened by Christ to him
and to all the faithful; indeed, it was precisely in order that this
reconciliation might be the more certainly and better accomplished by
the agency of another priest, that he wished to make the _confessarius
criminis complex_ incapable of accomplishing it. He, therefore,
presupposed, what generally is the case, that other priests would not
be wanting, from whom the penitent, by confession and sacramental
absolution, might obtain remission of her sin. It has never been the
intention and practice of the Church, by restricting jurisdiction for the
remission of certain sins and reserving absolution for them, to set aside
the ordinary means of forgiveness, the sacramental confession of sin, and
to supply for this by perfect contrition or indirect remission. However
ample these extraordinary means for obtaining eternal salvation may be,
yet the Church does not allow that the ordinary dispensation set up by
Christ for our welfare should be disregarded. The Church, therefore,
removed all restrictions upon absolution for the hour of death, so that
all priests can absolve every penitent from all sins and censures. We are
not, however, to suppose that the Church has made this provision solely
for the moment and the danger of death; she makes other exceptions.[591]
It is, therefore, very far from the intention and the custom of the
Church so to limit the jurisdiction necessary to the administration
of the Sacrament of Confession that it remains restricted even when a
sinner, during a long time, and still less if during his whole lifetime,
is unable to have access to a priest whose power is not limited. And
who, out of fear of an abuse, would forbid a priest the dispensing of a
Sacrament, or one of the faithful the reception of a Sacrament, when the
reception of such Sacrament appears necessary? When, therefore, necessity
demands the reception of the Sacrament, it is not to be refused by the
priest nor to be neglected by the faithful. If abuse takes place, let the
blame fall upon those who would not make good use of the benefit.[592]
_A pari_ Ballerini teaches that the _confessarius complex_ may administer
absolution from the _crimen, in quo ipse complex fuit_, to the penitent
who has no other confessor, and who, if he were not absolved by the
_confessarius complex_, would be obliged to abstain for a long time from
holy communion with possible scandal to others, and this teaching is in
the Commentaries of the _Acta S. Sedis_ extended to other extraordinary
cases, when, _during a long time_, no opportunity presents itself to the
_persona complex_ of confessing _without evident danger of sacrilege_,
and when, at the same time, evident danger of disgrace or even of
suspicion arises from the long abstention from the holy Sacraments.[593]
II. To incur this penalty it is necessary:—
1. That the sin in which the confessor was an accomplice should be a
mortal sin, both internally and in the external act. Purely internal
mortal sins, and those not completed externally, are, therefore, excluded;
2. That _both_ confessor and penitent should have sinned and have been
guilty of the _peccatum turpe_;
3. That the two preceding conditions should be certainly fulfilled; hence
the sin must certainly have been mortal internally and externally, and on
the part of both the confessor and the penitent, on the principle that
_odia restringenda sunt_.[594]
Accordingly, it is indifferent if the _complex_ be a person of the male
or female sex. Benedict XIV expressly says: “_Qualemcumque personam_”;
moreover, it is not necessary that the sin should be completed, as the
Constitution says generally and indefinitely: “a sin against the sixth
commandment,” and the object of the law is—_occasiones non tantum copulæ
sed omnis turpitudinis a sanctitate tribunali pœnitentiæ removere.
Casum complicis ergo constituunt: tactus impudicus, osculum, amplexus,
colloquium uti et aspectus, dummodo complicitatem important ac tam
interne, tum externe sint graviter mali._[595]
But when one party has either not gravely sinned or only by an internal
act, there is no _casus complicis_ in question.
III. The _confessarius_ can absolve his _complex_, when the latter is
_in articulo mortis_ and when another priest, who may also be without
faculties, cannot be called in without greater danger of defamation or
of scandal, or when another priest is, indeed, present, but declines to
hear the confession of the dying person. In the latter case this priest
is regarded as absent. The _sacerdos complex_ is, however, bound to
take all care that no suspicion or scandal arises from the presence of
another priest; he may, for example, upon some pretext or another, absent
himself, having previously induced the dying person to send for another
confessor. If he fail to do this, and so is under the necessity of
administering absolution to the dying person, he sins gravely and incurs
the penalty decreed; but the absolution administered by him, “_etiam
directa hujus peccati_” would be valid, that the dying person might not
be lost.[596]
All authors teach that a priest can also absolve his _complex_ who is
_in articulo mortis_, when the latter, without fault on the part of
the _confessarius complex_, refuses to confess to another priest. This
penitent, however, must be _in bona fide_ as regards the commandment
of the Church. Here the eternal salvation of the poor penitent is in
question, and frequently scandal would result if the priest should refuse
to hear the confession of the dying person.[597]
IV. The confessor who, apart from the specified cases of necessity,
absolves his _complex in peccato turpi_ from this _peccatum turpe_
incurs, _ipso facto_, the excommunication specially reserved to
the Pope.[598] If a priest absolves his _complex ex ignorantia_ or
_inadvertentia_, and thus remains free from grave sin, he does not incur
the censure. But it is doubtful whether the absolution administered
is valid. The _sententia communis_ rejects the absolution as invalid,
since the Pope has only excepted the absolution administered in the
hour of death; but several later theologians hold the absolution to be
valid, because the Pope, as they point out, speaks only of the _sacerdos
sacrilegus_, who knowingly and intentionally absolves his _complex_.[599]
Further, a priest does not incur the excommunication who hears the
confession of his _complex_, but does not absolve him, seeing that,
according to the Constitution of Pius IX, only the _sacerdotes
absolventes_ fall under the excommunication. If, however, the confessor
pretends to absolve his _complex_ (_fingere absolutionem_) while, in
reality, he does not absolve him,—for instance, saying some prayer in
place of the usual form of absolution,—he incurs excommunication. So the
S. C. Inq. declared on December 10, 1883, with the approbation of Leo
XIII.[600]
If the penitent confesses to the _sacerdos complex_ and conceals the
sin against the sixth commandment, which the confessor has committed
with him, and the confessor absolves him, the latter does not incur the
excommunication, according to a declaration of the S. Pœnitent. on May
16, 1887. “For this penalty falls only on the priest who absolves his
_complex_ from that _peccatum turpe_ in which the priest has been the
_complex_ of the penitent.” Nevertheless, according to the declaration
of the Penitentiary, the confessor of the priest who has absolved
his _complex_ (even when he has not absolved him from the _peccatum
complicitatis_) is bound to remind him with the greatest zeal that he has
been guilty of a very grave sin, and an abominable abuse of the Sacrament
of Confession, and he may only absolve this priest after exhorting him
in the most forcible manner to relinquish his office as confessor, and
after imposing on him the obligation of refraining from hearing the
confessions of his _complex_ in the future; and that if the _persona
complex_ appears in the confessional again, he should exhort this person
to accuse himself to another confessor in a valid confession both of
the _peccatum complicitatis_ and of the sins invalidly confessed. The
concession of the Council of Trent (Sess. XXIV. cap. 6, “Liceat”) does
not empower a bishop to absolve a priest who has absolved his _complex_.
The Sacred Penitentiary has expressly declared this on July 18, 1860, and
it results from the Constitution “_Apostolicæ Sedis_,” in which all the
_casus papales_ reserved _speciali modo_ to the Pope are excepted from
the powers granted to bishops in the cap. “Liceat.”[601]
But if, “_in casibus urgentioribus_,” absolution cannot be deferred
without danger of great scandal and disgrace, a bishop, or another
priest, can administer absolution _injunctis de jure injungendis_ on the
confessor who has unlawfully absolved his _complex in peccato turpi_,
but under penalty of “reincidence” if within the space of a month, the
absolved priest has not recourse by letter, and through the confessor, to
the Holy See.[602]
If a confessor in such a case is obliged to apply to the Holy See, he
must address his petition to the Sacred Penitentiary. In this petition he
must adopt a fictitious name, set forth the case concisely and clearly,
with all the circumstances appertaining to the matter, as: _quot personas
complices et quoties Sacerdos absolvere attentaverit; an unam vel plures
irregularitates contraxerit ex violatione censuræ per celebrationem missæ
vel exercitium solemne Ordinis Sacri; an alias jam acceperit Rescriptum
gratiæ pro absolutione ab hujusmodi crimine_.[603]
47. Sollicitatio Proprii Pœnitentis ad Turpia.
The minister of the Sacrament of Penance is a man, and remains a man;
even when he is administering this Sacrament he is subject to the
weaknesses of human nature, and hence he bears within him the inclination
to evil and is exposed to the temptations of the devil; and it is there
where he destroys the work of Satan that he must experience the hostility
of the evil one more, perhaps, than elsewhere. In addition to this, the
confessor holds such intimate intercourse with the penitent, and must,
alas! so often deal with dangerous matter; he must listen to certain
sins, investigate them and give them his attention in order to discharge
his duty rightly. Thus may be explained the dreadful abuse of the
Sacrament of Confession of which we now treat,—an abuse, however, which
is very rare,—the _Sollicitatio proprii pœnitentis ad turpia_.[604]
There is question only of an _abusus Sacramenti Pœnitentiæ ad turpia_,
but not of an _abusus aliorum Sacramentorum ad turpia_, and also not
of an _abusus ejusdem Pœnitentiæ Sacramenti ad alia peccata, quamvis
gravissima_.
_Jam quæritur_:—
I. _Quid intelligatur per turpia vel inhonesta, ad quæ fit sollicitatio?_
II. _Quo actu sollicitatio perficiatur?_
III. _Qualis nexus inter sollicitationem et Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ
intervenire oporteat, ut revera et ex mente legislatoris sollicitatio
abusus Sacramenti sit?_
Ad I. _Per peccata turpia, ad quæ fit sollicitatio, intelliguntur omnes
actus externi libidinosi seu actus luxuriæ, quo spectant etiam actus
vel ex sua natura vel ex particulari dispositione complicis vel ex
intentione operantis aliunde satis manifestata_ (_v.g._ _signo_, _verbo_)
_inductivi ad vehementem commotionem spirituum genitalium; intelligantur
ergo: quilibet tractatus turpis, sermo obscænus vel actio obscæna.
Sollicitatio ex mente legislatoris non perpetratur actibus tantum
venialiter inhonestis adeoque non veneriis (nam in his non est parvitas
materiæ). Excipe, si ex circumstantiis certe conjiceretur, sacerdotem
actu de se leviter malo (v.g. verbo blandiori) animum habuisse procedendi
ad gravia.[605] Confessarius consentiens tantum mulieri sollicitanti
in confessione nullo modo eximitur a peccato sollicitationis_, i.e.
_inhonesti tractatus in confessionali, idque licet statim desierit
de illa turpi materia loqui, differendo illius complementum ad aliud
tempus et non præbendo absolutionem pœnitenti; item licet inductus metu
consenserit sollicitationi[606] et a fortiori, quando confessarius et
pœnitens invicem se sollicitarunt, puta quando confessarius ad unam
turpitudinis speciem sollicitatus ad aliam sollicitavit pœnitentem. Juxta
Decreta sollicitaret etiam confessarius, qui diceret pœnitenti: “Si
sæcularis essem, te uxorem ducerem”; vel “Expecta me hodie domi tuæ, quia
tecum loqui cupio” et postea domi sollicitaret; vel “Hisce peccatis tuis
pollutionem passus sum”; item, si feminæ petenti confessionem responderet
in confessionali: “Nolo tuam audire confessionem, ne quid mihi contingat;
quia amore tui captus sum”; item “Totum me commoveri sentio ex affectu,
quo te prosequor”; vel “Domum tuam veniam et promitte mihi, te facturum
esse quod voluero.”_[607]
Ad II. _Crimen sollicitationis ad turpia adest, si confessarius,
qualiscunque sit, tam sæcularis quant regularis (vel etiam sacerdos
carens jurisdictione at hic in confessione)[608] sollicitat pœnitentem
sive marem sive feminam ad peccandum sive secum sive cum alio; nec
refert, utrum ipsum pœnitentem sollicitet, an mediante pœnitente aliam
quampiam personam. Præterea sollicitatio hujusmodi ex parte confessarii
fieri potest vel_ immediate _(v.g. verbis obscænis) vel_ mediate,
_puta per chartam postmodum a pœnitente legendam;[609] et habenda
est_ completa, _sive pœnitens reapse ad peccatum pertrahatur, sive
resistat, dummodo ponatur medium aptum alliciendi ad actus inhonestos;
nec refert, medium adhibitum in se malum sit an indifferens, dummodo ex
circumstantiis postea cognoscatur, id ad sollicitandum adhibitum esse,
puta, si confessarius mulieri hoc animo intimet, ut expectet eum domi,
vel eam eodem animo interroget, ubi habitet_.
Ad III. _Ut vero sollicitatio ejusmodi sit abusus Sacramenti oportet,
ut, modo a lege determinato, relatio aliqua intercedat inter ipsam et
confessionem vel inter ipsam et locum ubi confessiones excipiuntur._[610]
(_a_) _Relatio requisita ad confessionem adest, si sollicitatio fit_: (1)
_in actu sacramentalis confessionis incæptæ, licet non perfectæ; vel_ (2)
_immediate ante confessionem; vel_ (3) _immediate post confessionem_,
i.e. _quando inter sollicitationem et confessionem nihil mediat, ita ut
nec confessarius nec pœnitens ad aliud negotium serio se divertant_.[611]
(4) _Occasione confessionis_ (_veræ_) _vid. quando fit invitatio
ad confessionem hic et nunc excipiendam ex parte pœnitentis, aut
quando confessarius invitat pœnitentem ad confessionem hic et nunc
faciendam, et hac occasione data, divertit pœnitentem a proposito et
ad turpia provocat; aut si in confessione, sive immediate ante sive
post, initium sollicitationis fit, quæ postea completur v.g. si dantur
litteræ sollicitantes vel si fit interrogatio de habitatione et postea
sequitur sollicitatio domi, vel si ob fragilitatem mulieris ex ejus
confessione cognitam postea eam domi sollicitaverit, dummodo ex indiciis
sufficienter constat, eum ex ilia scientia non aliis ex causis ad id
motum fuisse.[612] Ejusmodi indicia aderunt si v.g. confessarius auditis
peccatis mulierem interrogaverit, ubi habitet, an sola domi manere soleat
vel alia hisce similia interrogaverit, vel, dum ad peccandum accessit,
verbis aut factis aliqua commemoravit ex iis, quæ ex confessione
accepit._[613]
(5) _Prætextu confessionis_ (_fictæ_), _si confessarius ex pravo fine
invitat mulierem ad confessionem et deinde sollicitat, vel feminæ suadet,
ut fingens se ægrotam eum, confessarium suum, tanquam ad confessionem
faciendam, revera ad peccandum accersat. Secus probabilius dicendum,
si prætextus confessionis non est ordinatus ad sollicitationem sed ad
peccati jam conventi executionem, puta ad avertendum Superiorem vel
familiares domus a scandalo et suspicione mali._[614]
(_b_) _Relatio requisita ad locum, ubi confessiones excipiuntur, aderit,
si actus prohibiti exerceantur_:—
(1) _In confessionali proprie dicto_; (2) _in loco quocunque, ubi
confessiones excipi solent, licet confessionale ibi non inveniatur_; (3)
_in loco quocunque, quem confessarius ad confessiones audiendas pro suo
arbitrio elegit_.
_Ut autem crimen sollicitationis ex mente legislatoris adsit ac
propterea pœna sollicitantibus confessariis inflicta contrahatur, ob
circumstantias sub_ (_b_) _enarratas enascatur simulatio confessionis
accedat necesse est_, i.e. _confessarius et pœnitens ita se gerant
oportet, ut confessionem ille audire_ (_v.g._ _aures applicando_), _hic
peragere videatur. Hæc tamen simulatio non requiritur, si sollicitat
in confessionali personam, quæ pariter in eo invenitur; sufficit enim,
ut sacerdos in confessionali de rebus turpibus agat, quin simulet
confessionem audire._[615]
The _sollicitatio_ described in the foregoing is a very grave mortal sin
of impurity, of sacrilege, and of scandal. For it is a dreadful abuse
of the Sacrament of Penance, when, as Gregory XV expresses himself, the
confessor thus offers the penitent poison instead of a remedy, instead of
bread a scorpion, from a spiritual father becoming a wretched betrayer of
souls.
IV. All penitents are bound under pain of mortal sin to denounce to
the _Ordinarius loci_, or to the Holy See through the Penitentiary or
Inquisition, the confessors who have been guilty of solicitation.[616]
The object of this denunciation is the following:—
1. If the person who denounces is known as honorable and truthful, if
no evil intention, such as revenge, enmity, or calumny is to be imputed
to him, whilst on the other hand, the denounced priest is already
known to be not very conscientious, the denunciation effects that the
_suspected_ confessor will be _watched_ by the _Ordinarius_.[617] And
if stronger grounds of suspicion against the denounced priest accumulate
from other quarters (for example, suspicious intercourse), this supplies
the _Ordinarius_ with a motive for administering to him, in the first
place, a fatherly warning, in doing which, the _Ordinarius_ does not
yet impute to him the _crimen sollicitationis_, but rather exhorts
him to be conscientious; in this, however, the _Ordinarius_ must so
proceed as not to excite the suspicion of the denounced against the
denouncer. “_Ut plurimum enim nonnisi a tertia denuntiatione ad judicium
procedi debet._”[618] The precise object of the law is to safeguard
the Church and to inspire confessors with a just dread of the enormity
of the crime which abuses the sacred tribunal of penance; or, as Amort
expresses it: _finis non est emendatio personæ particularis sed securitas
publica Sacramenti et animarum ex castigatione certa tam abominandi
sceleris, et ex metu indeclinabili omnium confessariorum incurrendi
gravissima supplicia etiam actu unico aut, semel tantum iterato; imo
etiam indemnitas Ecclesiæ ne scil. ejusmodi pestes ad officia publica
subrepant, quo nihil est nocentius communi Ecclesiæ bono_.[619] Every
solicited person is, therefore, strictly bound to denounce, and is not
released from this duty because another has denounced; this duty never
ceases to bind, though it is sometimes suspended for a time; in case
of repetition a confessor must be again denounced, even if he has been
already punished on account of the first transgression, or has not been
fully convicted of solicitation;[620] again, the penitent is bound to
denounce, even when, in consequence of _correctio fraterna_, he believes
that he may confidently hope for amendment, indeed, as St. Alphonsus
teaches, even when the fault has been atoned for;[621] denunciation must
be made if the fact is certain though it cannot be judicially proved, or
when the crime is secret, or was committed a long time before. It must
not be supposed that belated information of this kind can be of no use;
it may perhaps serve to complete previous information respecting the same
confessor, or, in conjunction with other grounds of suspicion to close to
a hypocrite the road to ecclesiastical dignities, or at least, to inspire
the confessor with lasting fear of filling up the measure of iniquity
by repeated solicitation, seeing that even solicitations committed a
long time before may be brought into court. If, however, the person who
solicited is dead, the denunciation need not take place, because then the
full object of the law can no longer be realized.[622]
2. The duty of denouncing is not incumbent upon the person who solicits,
nor is he bound to admonish the penitent solicited by him to make the
denunciation. All solicited penitents, however, without exception, male
and female, seculars and regulars, high and low, to whatever class
they may belong, are bound to denounce. Denunciation is also incumbent
(but now no longer _sub excommunicatione_)[623] upon all witnesses of
this crime, eye-witnesses or ear-witnesses, and whoever has received
information of the solicitation outside confession, directly or
indirectly, from words of the person soliciting himself, or the solicited
person, if the latter be trustworthy.[624] The penitent must denounce
in any case whether he has consented to, or rejected, the solicitation,
but he need not make known his consent; he must also denounce when the
solicitation has been mutual between confessor and penitent, or when the
penitent has solicited, and the confessor has consented.[625]
A young girl, who, at the time of being solicited, was ignorant of any
evil design, must, according to a decree of the Sacred Inquisition (May
11, 1707) denounce the confessor as soon as she has attained to an
understanding of the solicitation which took place.
The solicited person, or whoever has certain knowledge of the
solicitation, is not released from the obligation to denounce on account
of the general difficulties attaching to the denunciation itself, as, for
example, shame at having been solicited; fear that the judge might become
suspicious of her; the danger of harm or detriment to the denouncing
person; any such damage must be considered as trifling compared with the
possibility of scandal to the Church and to souls; the use of _Epikeia_
(_i.e._, a benign interpretation of the law) is not justifiable in this
case.
3. Every priest who has been guilty of the crime of solicitation,
including him who possesses no jurisdiction, is liable to denunciation,
be he secular or regular, or in any way exempted, whatever dignity he may
hold; whether he has himself solicited, or consented to the solicitation
of the penitent, and even when he has already amended.[626]
V. The confessor’s dealing with solicited persons is regulated in
accordance with the following ordinances of the Papal Constitutions and
Instructions of the Sacred Congregation.
1. All confessors are bound _sub gravi_ to instruct those of their
penitents whom they know to have been solicited in the specified manner,
that it is their duty to denounce the persons soliciting. This duty of
instructing remains imperative even when the solicited penitents are _in
bona fide_.
The confessors who do not instruct their solicited penitents must be
punished.[627]
They must instruct their penitents concerning: (_a_) the strict duty of
denouncing; (_b_) the time within which the denunciation must be made;
(_c_) the penalty attached to the neglect of this duty; and (_d_) the
manner of making the denunciation.
2. Let the confessor proceed in the following manner:—
(_a_) If he is in doubt as to whether the act or the word of the person
in question really constituted a true solicitation, he must not oblige
the penitent to denounce, except when strong grounds for suspecting
solicitation are superadded, or when the words, _de se_, are soliciting,
and doubt exists only as to whether the confessor uttered them with a bad
intention.[628]
(_b_) Before the confessor binds the solicited person to denounce (and
only on condition that she denounce may absolution be administered) he
must seriously consider whether this person be deserving of credit, or if
there is weighty, just, and very probable suspicion, supported by other
indications, that she is influenced by revenge and wishes to calumniate
the priest. In this latter case the confessor must remind her that she
commits a very great sin, and one reserved to the Pope, in falsely
denouncing a priest for solicitation.
(_c_) The confessor must not seek to know the name of the person
soliciting, though he must question the penitent as to the necessary
circumstances.
(_d_) And when the confessor knows positively that the penitent has been
solicited, he must seriously impress upon her (even when she is in good
faith) the duty of denouncing the person who solicited, and the confessor
is bound to do so, even when he foresees that the penitent will not
denounce.[629] After which he must indicate an appropriate method of
making the denunciation. In this the following rules are to be observed:—
(_a_) In order that the object of the denunciation may be obtained,
the Ordinary must be informed of the crime and all its circumstances;
the name of the confessor who solicited is to be given, that he may
be summoned before the Ordinary, and, if found guilty, be punished;
if the denouncer does not know the baptismal and family name of the
confessor, she must describe him as accurately as she can, so that he
may be recognized; finally, the name and dwelling-place of the denouncer
must be given, that the Ordinary may make inquiries concerning her
trustworthiness, and, if it should be necessary, summon her as a witness.
(_b_) The denunciation may be effected in one of the following ways: If
the bishop or the vicar-general (_loci in quo moratur pœnitens_)[630]
is near at hand, so that the solicited person can easily have access
to him, the latter is bound to make the denunciation in person, and to
declare that N. N., priest, parish priest, religious, etc., has solicited
her _ad turpia_ in the holy Sacrament of Confession. If, on account of
distance, the solicited person cannot easily reach the Ordinary, she must
make the denunciation in writing; that is, she informs the Ordinary by
this document that she has to make a denunciation to him, which should
come before the ecclesiastical tribunal, and she begs the Ordinary, at
the same time, to authorize a priest to receive this denunciation.[631]
The denunciation itself may be effected by letter, or through any other
person—_hoc tantum valet quoad præceptum denuntiationis naturale et
quatenus tale præceptum obligat in casu particulari. Nam si sermo sit
de præcepto denuntiationis positivo, in ipsa Instr. cit. dicitur, quod
onus personale est._[632] The denunciatory document must, however, be
dispatched with such precaution that no reasonable fear of its loss need
be entertained. And if the solicited person cannot make the denunciation
by writing, she should repair to the dean, or to some other prudent and
experienced man, who then writes in her name to the Ordinary, or to the
Sacred Penitentiary, or to the Holy Office.[633] As a rule it is not
advisable that the confessor should take upon himself the burden of
making the denunciation for the penitent. But it is not to be denied that
there are cases when the confessor is bound by the precept of charity to
do this, namely, when the well-being of the community is threatened, and
no other way appears of meeting the emergency.[634] The denunciation must
never be made anonymously, and is always to be addressed to the bishop or
to the vicar-general in person, not to the office of the Ordinary.[635]
3. Confessors cannot absolve penitents who know that they have been
solicited till they have denounced the delinquent, or, at least, till
they have promised that they will do so as soon as they can. This is laid
down in the Constitutions of Benedict XIV and in the Instruction of the
S. C. Inquis.
From this it follows that:—
(_a_) The confessor cannot absolve penitents who refuse to denounce. If
a solicited person refuses, the confessor must investigate the cause
of the refusal, and endeavor to remove it. If he finds the cause to
be fear of disgrace, he may, in order to remove it, tell her that she
stands before the ecclesiastical judge not as _persona complex_, but as
a _testis_, that she is not bound to make known her consent; indeed,
that she cannot even be questioned concerning her consent, and that if
she has, _ex simplicitate_, declared her consent, it cannot be taken
down in the official deeds.[636] Nor is any danger whatever of disgrace
to be feared. If the penitent says that in gratitude for benefits
received, or to be received, for presents, etc., she is unable to make
the denunciation, or alleges other insufficient grounds for the refusal,
the confessor must explain to the penitent the sacrilege, and her duty
to obey the laws of the Church, which have been made for the purpose of
warding off great scandal and detriment, and remind her of the penalty of
excommunication which the solicited person _ipso facto_ incurs, by not
denouncing the soliciting priest within a month. Moreover, the confessor
must not lightly admit what such persons are accustomed to bring forward
in order to escape from the burden of denunciation. If the solicited
person refuses to perform her duty out of false shame or irreligious
pity, absolution is to be refused her as not being properly disposed. The
confessor must, however, out of a true zeal for souls, exert himself by
all means to induce such an unhappy penitent to make the denunciation; he
should prevail upon her to come again at another convenient time, and,
meanwhile, inform the Ordinary or the Holy See through the Penitentiary,
or the Inquisition, of the matter without mentioning the name of the
penitent.
(_b_) If, however, the confessor perceives that a solicited person
otherwise well-disposed for the Sacrament of Penance has a lawful ground
for refusing the denunciation, as, for example, a probable, well-founded
danger of suffering appreciable injury in honor, property, or
person,[637] or that, on account of fear or excessive timidity, she can
by no means be brought to denounce the soliciting person at that time,
either personally or through the confessor, but yet promises faithfully
to make the denunciation later on, as soon as she can, he may absolve
her, and that at once _stante nempe gravi difficultate denuntiationis
faciendæ, si necessitas urgeat_, that is, when the penitent has to
receive holy communion, in order to avoid scandal, or to gain a Jubilee
indulgence. If there is no _necessitas urgens_, the confessor must defer
the absolution, and appoint another time for the penitent to come to
him; meanwhile, he must address himself to the bishop, and lay the whole
case before him, concealing the name of the penitent, adding also the
grounds which make it advisable to dispense the penitent from the duty
of denouncing. The bishop then may himself decide what is to be done or
apply to the Sacred Penitentiary;[638] for the Holy See occasionally
confers upon the confessor authority to dispense the penitent _pro ea
vice_ from the duty of denouncing, especially when the soliciting person
has amended, and done penance. Solicited persons can also be absolved
who “_in partibus schismaticorum, hæreticorum et mahometanorum degunt_,”
although these regions are subject to the Constitutions leveled against
those who solicit; such a case may occur when the circumstances indicate
that no hope of punishing the soliciting person can be entertained and
the _mulieres sollicitatæ_ cannot denounce without danger and disgrace,
while those denounced can easily escape punishment by having recourse
either to schismatic bishops or to unbelieving lay judges.[639]
VI. Solicited penitents who neglect, or, through their own fault, omit,
to denounce the _Confessarios, sive Sacerdotes, a quibus sollicitati
fuerint_, within a month, incur, _ipso facto_, the excommunication which
is not reserved.[640] They incur this penalty, therefore, _infra mensem_,
that is, reckoning from the day on which they were warned of their
duty. If they give information later on, they can be absolved from the
excommunication by any priest.[641]
In conclusion, we enumerate the penalties which are to be imposed upon
priests soliciting, according to the nature of the offense, and according
to the circumstances:—
(1) Suspension from the exercise of the sacerdotal powers; (2)
deprivation of benefices, dignities, and offices, with perpetual
disability to acquire such again; (3) deprivation of active and passive
vote, when Regulars are in question; and, (4) continual disability to
celebrate Mass. But all these penalties are _pœnæferendæ sententiæ_;
degradation, and delivering the delinquent to the _brachium sæculare_,
are not resorted to nowadays. Gregory XV appointed this punishment, but,
as the Instruction says, we must regard it more as imposed _ad terrorem_
than for the purpose of being actually carried out.[642]
SECTION II
THE OFFICE OF THE CONFESSOR
When the priest who is _rite_ authorized to administer the Sacrament
of Penance makes use of the power intrusted to him and exercises the
office of a confessor, he performs a threefold office: that of Judge,
that of Physician of the Soul, and that of Teacher. The most important
of these is the first, the office of Judge; this is his essential office
by the institution of the Sacrament; while the other two are only of an
accessory character, not because they are of inferior significance,—they
are, indeed, very important offices, upon the faithful discharge of which
much depends,—but because they “dispose to the right exercise of the
judicial office” and their faithful and zealous execution is necessary to
the better, more fruitful, and more salutary discharge of the former. If,
in the administration of this Sacrament, the priest officiated merely as
judge, without, at the same time, proving himself to be a physician and
teacher also, he would discharge his office unfruitfully, and weaken the
efficacy of the Sacrament to which Christ has attached great effects.
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.”