on the one hand, the penitent, as sufficiently disposed, has a right to
absolution, and, on the other, the postponement, if very displeasing
to him, would, _per se loquendo_, not help him, or certainly not help
him more than the absolution given to him at once. If, therefore, the
penitent has a desire to receive absolution, he will be offended by
the postponement. This desire manifests a very good will, which, when
supported by the grace of the Sacrament, allows better things to be
hoped for than would be the case if he were deprived of the sacramental
grace. But that, _absolute_, absolution may be deferred in the case
of a sufficiently disposed penitent, _even without his consent_, is
demonstrated by the unanimous teaching of theologians[695] as also by the
recommendations and practice of the saints.[696]
Moreover, the frequent awakening of love and sorrow is to be earnestly
recommended to the penitent if absolution has been deferred, that he may
thus be strengthened against temptation, and later, when better prepared,
acquire more abundant graces. A penance is also to be imposed upon the
penitent, and he must be reminded that it is not necessary for him to
confess again the sins already confessed when he comes back to the same
confessor. The latter can absolve, though not remembering the sins, if
he has imposed a suitable penance previously and adds a new one.[697]
In conclusion, we may remark that the postponement of absolution depends
entirely upon the judgment of the confessor, that neither general nor
special rules can be laid down concerning it. Everything should be left
to the discretion of the confessor, who is to be guided neither by the
suggestions of his own private judgment nor by the example of others, but
only by the unction of the Holy Ghost, imparted to the priest by study
and prayer.[698]
Concerning postponement of absolution, Segneri remarks: “This remedy,
when employed at the right time, produces great effects; like a burning
coal it rouses the soul from that lethargy which threatened to become
the sleep of death. Shamed and startled, the penitent recognizes the
greatness of his misfortune, is placed upon his guard, and reflects upon
his condition; if it finds him repentant, it increases his repentance in
an indescribable manner, so that his sorrow, which before was transient
and weak, and might easily have yielded to the simple allurements of some
present object, now becomes strong and powerful and is able to withstand
violent assault. And so this wholesome remedy is generally prescribed by
the masters of asceticism,[699] and employed by circumspect confessors
with much benefit, especially in those cases in which other remedies have
proved ineffectual.”[700]
CHAPTER II
THE ACCESSORY DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR
The essential office of the confessor is the judicial office. It is of
the highest significance. Connected with it are other supplementary
duties of equal importance. They refer to the preparation of the
confessor for his responsible office, the exercise of the office itself,
and his conduct after its completion.
ARTICLE I
THE PREPARATION
53. The Virtues which the Confessor must possess.
1. As in the administration of other Sacraments, the confessor must
first of all be in a state of grace. If he hears confessions in a
state of mortal sin, he commits as many sacrileges as he administers
absolutions.[701] And what a dishonor to God, what a calamity for the
priest is one single sacrilege! St. Alphonsus admonishes confessors,
who have been so unhappy as to commit a grave sin, to cleanse their
own consciences by confession before administering the Sacrament, or,
if they cannot confess, but must hear confessions, to elicit perfect
contrition. Whoever absolves in mortal sin dishonors the holy Sacrament
intrusted to him by God, and while he delivers others from the chains
of sin, reconciles them to God, and opens the gates of heaven to them,
his own soul becomes more and more entangled in sin, displeasing to
God and exposed to perdition, and will he be able to discharge his
holy office in a proper manner? Will he who is himself given to sin
effectively destroy the kingdom of sin by his admonition, instruction,
and exhortation? The right administration of the Sacrament of Penance
demands of the priest a deep hatred and personal abhorrence of sin.
2. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance must, therefore, _be
confirmed in virtue_. He who will lead others to virtue (and that is
surely also a duty of the confessor) must first be virtuous himself. _Qui
sibi nequam est, cui alii bonus erit_, exclaims the wise man in the Old
Testament (Eccli. xiv. 5). Nothing exercises such great power over the
minds of the people as the good example of a priest, and only then do
they believe firmly when they see him practice what he teaches. “That
voice penetrates deeper into the heart which the life of the speaker
confirms,” says Gregory the Great (Reg. Past.). St. Antoninus recalls the
words of St. Augustine: “The priest to whom every malady is to be exposed
must not fail in any one of the points which he is to judge in others;
else he condemns himself while sitting in judgment over others. When the
adulterous woman was taken before the Lord, He said to the Pharisees,
‘Let him amongst you who is without sin cast the first stone upon her.’
But as none seemed free from sin, they all withdrew, and did not care to
condemn the woman.” “Therefore,” adds St. Augustine, “priests are more
culpable than the Pharisees if they, though guilty themselves, dare to
condemn others.”[702] It is an irrefutable maxim of the Angelic Doctor
that, in the administration of this divine Sacrament, the Confessor
coöperates in a personal way with God. It is not sufficient for him to
live in a state of grace in order to be a useful servant in the work
of saving sinners; he must be solicitous about the practice of all the
virtues, for a lukewarm confessor, without interest in his work, who does
not exercise himself in prayer and mortification, can only discharge
this divine office carelessly. His words will not be inflamed by love,
nor his warnings animated by zeal, nor his counsels beget confidence.[703]
3. Amongst the virtues which the confessor must possess, charity occupies
the first place. As St. Alphonsus says emphatically, _the confessor must
have a heart full of love_, in order to discharge his office properly.
This love of the confessor, as Louis de Ponte says, must have all the
dimensions which the Apostle in his letter to the Ephesians demands;
the love of the confessor must be _so broad_ that he embraces in his
heart all the sinners of the whole world, excluding no one that will do
penance, and, like the father in the Gospel, hastening with open arms to
meet and receive every prodigal son who returns home; _so long-suffering_
that he does not grow weary if he has to wait a long time for the sinner,
and has often (seventy times seven) to deplore his relapse if only he
will return repentant; _so highly spiritual_ that he readily incites
sinners to a greater perfection; _so humble_ that he stoops to the most
abandoned criminal to lend him a helping hand, however low he may have
fallen by repeated indulgence in the most shameful sins. “Remember,”
writes St. Francis of Sales, “that penitents address you all as ‘father.’
You must, therefore, have a fatherly heart for them; receive them with
love, listen to them with patience; do not grow tired of their unmannerly
behavior, their ignorance, their fickleness; do not cease helping them,
that you may at any cost save their souls. Defiled though they be, they
are not on that account less precious; like pearls, they lose nothing by
the dirt into which they have fallen. Only try to cleanse them in the
Precious Blood of the innocent Lamb, and unite them to God, that they
may become heirs of eternal glory, and may one day eclipse the stars
by their splendor.”[704] And St. Alphonsus teaches: “When an unhappy
sinner comes, good confessors receive him with cordial love, and rejoice
like a conqueror who has made booty, reflecting that it has been given
to them to snatch a soul from the hands of Satan. They know that this
Sacrament was really instituted not for the just, but for sinners ...
that Jesus Christ said: ‘I am not come to call the just, but sinners’
(Mark ii. 17). Therefore are they filled with love, and the deeper they
see the soul sunk in the filth of sin, the greater love do they show
in order to win it for God.”[705] The good confessor exercises in his
office all the works of mercy by which charity manifests itself, as
Louis de Ponte so beautifully says: “Hearing confessions and absolving
penitents is a _truly heroic act_, and unspeakably well pleasing to
the divine Majesty; because in a special manner he exercises here the
corporal and spiritual works of mercy. He teaches the ignorant, guides
the erring, repairs injuries, comforts the sorrowful and the downcast,
imparts salutary counsel to the doubting, makes effectual intercession
with God for those whose salvation is endangered. He breaks the cruel
chains of the captive and liberates him from shameful slavery, clothes
the clean with the garment of grace, offers to the needy and to the
weary spiritual food and drink. Therefore I am convinced that God
shows mercy to the good and zealous confessor: since ‘Blessed are the
merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.’”[706] Therefore, the office of
the confessor is very _meritorious_. But in order that he may gain from
it undiminished merit, let him administer it out of love, pure love for
God and for souls. And that he may always do so Lehmkuhl recommends him
frequently to consider: (1) who He is whose office he discharges; (2) who
he is who discharges it; and (3) who he is for whom he discharges it.
For the priest represents in this holy tribunal the person of Christ as
Redeemer, who gave Himself as ransom for souls, who had this individual
soul before His eyes when He suffered, when He instituted the Sacrament
of Penance, who as God from all eternity, as Man, from the first moment
of His incarnation, chose this hour of His special love, in which, by
the influence of grace, the sinner would be brought to the feet of the
priest, by whose help and endeavor he might be sanctified and saved.
But the confessor who discharges this divine office and coöperates with
Christ in the divine work of the salvation of sinners, must recognize
that it is without any merit on his part that he has been raised to such
an exalted dignity. The confessor has, perhaps, himself grievously failed
and in no way can he better atone for his faults than by zeal in blotting
out and preventing the sins of others; and if he should have no sins of
his own to expiate, he should not forget that he owes this singular favor
to Christ and His grace.
The confessor must see in the penitent a brother of Christ, sprinkled
with the Blood of Christ, who now, to the shame of Christ, has fallen
into the most wretched captivity and slavery of the devil; who,
nevertheless, is dearly loved by God and Christ, and is called to eternal
and blissful union with Him; who will, perhaps, one day be a great
saint in heaven, and, if he dies before the confessor, will there be an
intercessor for him; or will certainly, out of gratitude, pray for him
here on earth.[707] The confessor should often read what St. Alphonsus
writes in his _Homo apostolicus_ about the love of the confessor:[708]
“This love must be chiefly exercised in receiving all, especially the
poor, the ignorant, and sinners in a friendly manner.... A still greater
love must the confessor exercise in hearing the confession itself.... And
at the end of the confession the confessor should, with much zeal, show
to the sinner the heinousness of his sins. This is the way by which you
may gain sinners if you employ the very greatest love in dealing with
them.” This love of the confessor produces in him that zeal for souls
which should especially animate him. When the confessor discharges his
office with zeal, souls (as experience shows) are not less effectually
led to God than by preaching. “Be certain,” exclaims St. Leonard of Port
Maurice, “that in a single morning which you have dedicated to God in the
confessional for the purpose of helping poor sinners, you acquire more
merit than if you were to perform other good and holy works for a whole
year. Indeed, I venture to say that it is sometimes better to interrupt
meditation, reading, the Breviary, or any other pious exercise in order
to hear confessions.... We should be content to sacrifice for a time even
the contemplation of God in order to comfort poor sinners. St. Ignatius
declared that he would very gladly submit to a postponement of the bliss
of heaven in order to be able to work for the salvation of a poor soul.
Does not that passage in the Gospel terrify you where the servant is
damned because he had not used the talent which he had received? And
you, who have received from the Lord not _one_, but three and four, and
perhaps ten talents, you will let them lie unused!”[709]
The most beautiful, the most efficacious pattern of true, wise,
indefatigable zeal for souls is He whose place the confessor occupies,
who in His boundless love shunned no trouble, effort, persecution, or
suffering, in seeking sinners, teaching them, moving them to sorrow and
penance, and pardoning them, and who for them gave up His life in shame
and agony.
Under the influence of this love, the confessor will also avoid certain
mistakes which are very injurious to his ministry, and by no means
becoming in a representative of Christ.
(_a_) He will not prefer the rich and the high-placed to the poor and the
unfortunate, but, after the example of our Saviour, will embrace the poor
and the unfortunate with special love.[710]
(_b_) He will not, in this love for penitents, be influenced by any
natural inclination, still less by any sinful affection; hence he will
not regard himself as fortunate if his confessional is besieged by
a great number _devotarum mulierum_, nor will he detain them in the
confessional longer than is necessary, nor treat them with too great
familiarity, but rather with a paternal severity, so that, in this holy
service, he may not incur temptation and ruin.
(_c_) He will not allow himself to be influenced by the rank of the
penitent, but rather remind high and low, rich and poor, of their duties
and obligations, and thus be all to all.[711]
(_d_) He will employ special diligence with those who are stained with
many sins, who have long lived in evil habit, and have often relapsed,
that they may be lifted out of the slough of sin, and led to God and a
new life. He will ponder the celebrated words of St. John Chrysostom:
“When you see one whose soul needs cure, do not say to yourself: why did
not this one or that one cure him? Cure him of his illness, and ask not
why others have been negligent. If you see gold lying on the ground, do
you say to yourself: why did not this one or that one pick it up? Do you
not hasten to pick it up before others? Even so, think of your fallen
brothers, that you have found a treasure in them.”[712]
(_e_) In hearing confessions he will increase his love and show it by
kindness and gentleness; he will manifest no sign of impatience or
wonder, even when the penitent confesses very great sins, or shows a
hardened unrepentant heart, or is uncouth and tires the confessor by
wrong answers and confused statements.
(_f_) And if the penitent is poorly prepared and badly disposed,
the confessor must use every endeavor, especially at the end of the
confession, to render him perfectly disposed by instructing him,
admonishing him, and (as the penitent’s condition may suggest) by blaming
or reproving, by recalling the thought of God’s justice, yet so as
rather to inspire confidence and to open the door of love and mercy.[713]
(_g_) Nor let the priest be sad, despondent, and dejected if he perceives
no progress, or only a little, and very slow progress in those on whom he
has expended so much trouble. Zeal for souls will guard him against this
dangerous rock.[714]
4. The confessor must, moreover, be eminently pure. He hears so many sins
of impurity; the saddest lapses from virtue are disclosed to him; he
must put questions in order to draw out and complete the confession of
these sins; some penitents express themselves very awkwardly, and, alas!
by most lamentable abuse of the holy Sacrament, snares are laid to the
chastity of the confessor. In order to escape these dangers and that he
may not be defiled while cleansing and healing others, the confessor must
have a great love for holy purity, and be confirmed in this virtue so as
to suppress resolutely and at once all rising temptations and sensual
emotions. Let him arm himself with a pure and holy intention, seeking
only the honor of God and the salvation of souls; let him avoid all
familiarity with female penitents, ever having as witnesses of his words
and actions God and his own and his penitent’s guardian angels; finally,
let him shield himself by frequent prayer, especially to Mary, the purest
of Virgins.
5. Lastly, the confessor must be equipped with _inexhaustible patience_.
Intrusive, scrupulous, melancholy, distrustful, rough, obstinate
penitents, will easily rouse to impatience and anger a confessor who is
vehement and excitable. Great patience is, therefore, necessary that,
while correcting the faults of others and giving peace to souls, he may
not fall into faults himself, become perplexed in heart, and lose his
peace of mind. He who will take away the sins of the world must be as
_meek_ as a lamb.
54. The Scientific Equipment of the Confessor.
St. Alphonsus teaches[715] that the confessor who hears confessions
without sufficient knowledge is in danger of eternal reprobation. And
justly does the sainted teacher express himself so seriously. If the
Lord demanded from the priests of the Old Testament that their lips
should keep knowledge, and that the law should be sought at their mouths
(Malach. ii. 17), and if He threatens the priest of the Old Testament
by the mouth of the prophet: (Os. iv. 6) “Because thou hast rejected
knowledge, I will reject thee, that thou shalt not do the office of
priesthood to me,” this applies in a much higher degree to the priest
of the New Law, who, as representative of God, discharges the office of
judge of souls, and holds in his power their eternal welfare or their
eternal ruin. An ignorant priest, one not equipped with the knowledge
necessary for so responsible and important a Sacrament, exposes himself
to the danger of pernicious error, the Sacrament to the danger of
dishonor, and the penitent to the danger of damnation. _An ignorant
confessor works much ruin._
How great the knowledge of the confessor must be is shown by the
consideration that he discharges the office of teacher, physician, and
judge, to people in the most diverse positions and circumstances of
life and the most unequal conditions of soul and mind. He is appointed
for them all; they all, without exception, come to him, and he must
instruct them upon the most important matters; he must know all diseases
and wounds, must examine and cure them; upon all sins he must pronounce
judgment, a just judgment, and one as much as possible in accordance with
the judgment of God! Truly, if any one who undertakes an office ought to
be provided with the knowledge requisite for its fitting discharge, it
is the priest, for upon the fitting discharge of his office depends,
not some temporary good or evil, but eternal salvation—his own and that
of his penitent! St. Teresa was moved to the following utterance in
her biography (chap. 5): “Half-instructed confessors have done my soul
great harm; for I could not always have such learned ones as I would
have desired. They certainly did not wish to deceive me, but the fact
was that they knew no better. Of something which was a venial sin, they
said it was no sin, and out of a very grave mortal sin they made a venial
sin. This has done me such harm, that my speaking here of so great an
evil, as a warning to others, will be readily understood.” The following
principles are to be laid down respecting the scientific outfit of the
confessor:—
I. The confessor is bound _sub gravi_, to possess all the knowledge which
is necessary to discharge his office without committing serious errors.
(1) Generally speaking, the confessor must, therefore, know his moral
theology thoroughly. He must know particularly what he has to do in order
to administer the Sacrament rightly; he must know upon what subject he
has to instruct the penitents, what he may permit, and what he must
forbid; he must especially understand how to dispose penitents who are
not disposed; how, and through what motives, acts of faith, of hope,
of love, and contrition (both _attritio_ and _contritio_) are to be
awakened; for he must very often rouse the penitents to such acts, and
even in many cases recite them for his penitents.
(2) Moreover, he must know accurately which of the sins that usually
occur are mortal, and which venial, at least _ex genere suo_; “he must
understand how to distinguish them _secundum principia communia_, though
not _in causis difficillimis_,” or, as Lugo says: “This knowledge need
not be of such a kind that in all cases he is able to distinguish
between mortal or venial sins, but only in those of frequent occurrence;
as for the rest, let him hear and understand, and then absolve with
the necessary intention.”[716] He must know: (3) the _species_ and
_circumstantiæ_ and how the number is expressed; (4) what is usually
necessary for the validity of documents, for valid contracts, for a valid
marriage, and what circumstances invalidate contracts and marriages,
etc.; (5) when restitution in matters of property and of honor must take
place; the duties of individuals according to their different stations,
occupations, and obligations; (6) what powers belong to him, what limits
there are to these powers, the _casus reservati_, and ecclesiastical
censures; (7) how the disposition of the penitent may be recognized, what
means of amendment he should and must prescribe, what penance he can or
must impose.[717]
II. The confessor, however, is not obliged to possess a _scientia
eminens_ (or _exquisita_) so as to be able to pronounce the right
decision at once in every question which occurs. What the theologians
call a _scientia mediocris_ suffices; that is, he must know, but know
thoroughly and well, cases of more usual occurrence, and in more
difficult things _saltem prudenter dubitare_; that is, he must know,
in a given case, that a difficulty exists and what the difficulty is,
and that he should obtain information before he decides. He must also
be acquainted with good books which he may consult, and, finally, he
must, when necessary, seek guidance from well-informed men. What Lacroix
writes (l. c.) upon this point is worthy of attention: “However well
informed a confessor may seem to be, it is not well to solve intricate
questions at once, especially in cases of obstacles to marriage, simony,
or restitution; in such cases you must rather tell the penitent that you
do not dare to decide the matter at once, in view of its difficulty,
and request him to wait a little while. By doing so, the confessor will
not lose the esteem of the penitent; on the contrary, the latter will
understand that he takes the matter conscientiously and seriously,
and will place all the more confidence in the confessor’s decision,
whereas scruples frequently remain when a decision is given quickly
and without specifying the grounds for it. In this way errors will be
avoided. This exhortation applies especially to confessors who are not
very well instructed, but who absolve and give dispensations in all
possible directions, the more confidently the less their ignorance
permits them to entertain a doubt.” And to this the learned author adds
the following remark: “Moreover, a _mediocris_, but _solida doctrina_,
is more useful than a _summa et exquisita cognitio_ when the latter
is not united to prudence and discretion. For those who have no sober
judgment treat everything with such theological subtlety that they often
involve themselves and others in scruples and other difficulties; it is,
therefore, better to adapt one’s self in such questions to the usage of
the Church and of prudent confessors.”
The confessor must obtain this knowledge and conserve it (_a_) by serious
study of moral theology. _Continuous_ study is necessary; for as moral
theology embraces such various matters, they would in time be forgotten
unless recalled to memory by repeated study.[718] The Roman Ritual
admonishes confessors to acquire the greatest possible knowledge and
wisdom, by zealous prayer to God, as well as by the study of approved
authors and the prudent counsel of experienced men.[719] And Benedict XIV
says in his Constitution “Apostolica” (26 June, 1749), n. 21: “It were,
indeed, to be desired that every confessor should possess that degree
of knowledge which is called _eminens_, but as this is the gift of a
few only, it is absolutely necessary that each one should be furnished
with at least competent knowledge.” St. Alphonsus gives the reason for
this when he says:[720] “We know well that the sacramental confessions
will not produce the fruit which we expect and desire, if they are not
heard by blameless, learned priests, and priests well instructed in the
salutary doctrines of the Church.”
(_b_) The confessor would err if, as confessor, he should wish to
dispense with the study of dogmatic theology. For the confessional is
the place in which he who is wavering in faith must be instructed and
confirmed; it is precisely in the guidance of souls that the Christian
moral law is shown to be the outcome of the doctrine of faith; the dogmas
of the Church supply the strongest motives for amendment and a holy life;
it is in the minds that have grasped with full and enthusiastic hold the
Church’s doctrines in whom we find that masterly authority and certainty
to which the soul gladly submits; and, without this, a ministry is
exposed to thousands and thousands of errors in the decision of questions
of conscience. “Give me a soul thoroughly firm in faith, and in that
faith the soul finds, as if spontaneously, its rule of life: _Justus ex
fide vivit_. A priest imbued with his Church’s teaching is as a bright
star leading others on the right road.”[721]
(_c_) In addition to dogma and moral the confessor needs a third
science—and this we may call the science of the saints, the doctrine of
Christian virtues or perfection. It is not foreign to moral theology;
it properly belongs to it as a part to the whole. At the Synod of
Westminster, in the year 1873, Bishop Ullathorne of Birmingham spoke of
this science as follows: “Moral theology has two branches: the first
is occupied with the right _judgment of sins_; the second aims at the
_practice of virtue_. As a science, the former is much more developed
than the latter; the former enables the priest to become a judge; it
deals with the Commandments of God, the duties of individual classes; it
draws the boundary line between what is sin and what is not sin, what is
of obligation and what is not of obligation. This is moral theology;
if its rules are applied to individual cases, we have casuistry. The
second science is called the science of the saints, asceticism, and it
makes the priest a guide of souls on _the road to perfection_. While
the first is more cultivated in the schools, the latter is left more to
the individual’s zeal and devotion. Yet the science of perfection is
necessary; for that which is known in scientific form makes a deeper
impression. There is great danger in cultivating the former without the
latter. If, in the discharge of his office as judge, a man does not cast
his eyes upward, he judges of sin and duty according to the standards of
lawfulness and not according to the light of perfection which must guide
us.”
III. An extensive knowledge is not necessary to all confessors; the
necessary knowledge must rather be _relative_; that is, adapted to the
condition of the penitents who come to confess. He, therefore, who
hears confessions at a place to which penitents of various stations,
professions, and circumstances, with various degrees of education resort,
must possess much greater, more comprehensive, knowledge, than another
priest who only hears the confessions of illiterate, simple people.
Although a priest who is conscious of his ignorance, or of his defective
knowledge of moral theology, and yet hears confessions, is, as St.
Alphonsus says, _in statu damnationis_, there may be cases in which an
ignorant confessor can and must hear confessions, namely, in cases of
extreme necessity, and when no other priest is present, thus:—
(_a_) In _the hour of death_, when a better-informed confessor is
wanting; (_b_) in any similar case of necessity, for instance, when
Christians are the captives of infidels and can only obtain an ignorant,
unlearned confessor—this situation being rightly regarded as “_necessitas
moraliter extrema_.”[722] “On these grounds Superiors may frequently be
excused who appoint priests not well instructed to little parishes in the
country; this they generally do because they have none better instructed
to send to these parishes. As provision cannot be otherwise made for
such places, it is better that they should have a confessor who is not
well instructed than none at all. The bishop, however, must remind such
a priest of his lack of knowledge, and admonish him to acquire, as his
duty strictly requires him to do, better knowledge, in order that he may
well discharge his office as confessor. _This duty is always incumbent
on the parish priest_, even when, in view of the necessitous state of a
flock, a bishop may be forced to intrust a parish to a priest who is not
sufficiently instructed. The same applies to other priests in charge of
souls.”[723] Nevertheless, it must be the most serious concern of every
bishop to procure well-trained and educated priests.
IV. If a priest is in doubt as to whether he possesses the requisite
knowledge for discharging the office of confessor, he can rest content
with the judgment of his Superior, if the latter is sufficiently
informed of his education and capacity by means of the examination
for approbation, or some other theological test, or in consequence of
long intercourse with him, or has been informed concerning it by some
other prudent man. Of itself, _the approbation which he has received
cannot satisfy a priest, nor excuse the confessor who is conscious of
his defective knowledge_; for the approbation presupposes the necessary
knowledge but does not impart it. St. Alphonsus teaches—in agreement with
all authors: “A confessor who is not conscious of being quite incapable
of hearing confessions, is justified in contenting himself with the
judgment of his Superior, and, indeed, must be so; to rely upon the
approbation of the bishop, and then believe that one is freed from study,
is presumption.”[724] Moreover, the Church has never tired of admonishing
confessors in the strongest terms, of their strict duty to acquire and
maintain the knowledge requisite for the administration of the Sacrament
of Penance; for an ignorant confessor causes terrible ruin and burdens
himself with a dreadful responsibility.
V. The knowledge of the confessor must be _practical_ in order to further
the salvation of souls and solve the _casus conscientiæ_ which occur. On
this point St. Alphonsus expresses himself in the following manner: “Many
who pride themselves on being instructed and distinguished theologians
disdain to read the moralists; they call them casuists, an opprobrious
name in their estimation. They say that, in order to hear confessions
properly, it is sufficient to know the general moral principles by which
all individual cases can be solved. Who denies that all cases must be
solved by principles? The difficulty lies in applying the principles to
individual cases complicated with so many circumstances. This cannot
be done without carefully weighing the grounds on both sides. Here the
moralists step in to solve the difficulty; they seek to explain by what
principles the many particular cases must be solved. Moreover, there are
in our days so many positive laws, Bulls, and decrees, with which we
can only become acquainted through the study of the casuists who have
collected and classified them, as the different subjects require. The
more recent the moralists are, therefore, the more useful are they in
comparison with the earlier ones (in this respect, of course). The author
of the work _Instructio pro novis Confessariis_ (p. 1, n. 18) rightly
says that with regard to many theologians the more deeply versed they are
in the speculative science, the more ignorant they are of moral, which,
as Gerson writes, is the most difficult of all; and however familiar any
one may be with it, he will always be obliged to add to his information.
The learned Sperelli[725] likewise says, that those confessors who wholly
give themselves up to the study of scholastic theology, in the belief
that time devoted to the study of moral is wasted, are in great error,
for they can no longer distinguish sin from sin; and this, he says, is
an error which involves confessors and penitents in eternal ruin.”[726]
With these words, the sainted teacher demonstrates the necessity of the
study of theological casuistry. At the same time he shows also (and that
_a fortiori_) the necessity of practical instruction concerning the
administration of the Sacrament of Penance, as in this the confessor
learns the method of hearing confessions rightly and with fruit.
VI. Nothing can supply the defect of learning in the confessor. 1. It
is true that tact and a natural sagacity greatly assist the confessor,
but without solid knowledge this natural capacity profits him nothing,
but rather often exposes him to the danger of lightly deciding a
matter against all principles of sound doctrine. But he who does not
possess this innate sagacity must the more study how casuists decide
cases, in order to sharpen his judgment and learn the application of
principles.[727]
2. Nor can experience or long years of practice in the confessional
supply the place of learning. By experience alone one cannot learn what
is allowed and what is not allowed, still less how consciences are to
be guided; “for experience which is not based upon knowledge is nothing
else than a long custom of erring,”[728] and worse than the condition
of a still inexperienced but well-instructed confessor is that of a
gray-haired, unlearned one, who, trusting in his experience, errs in
his own judgment. Solid knowledge and experience must, therefore, be
united in an able confessor. A long practice without erudition in the
confessional is rather a danger than a help.
As an excuse for not studying moral theology, many confessors contend
that: Practice and theory are different things. If by this is meant
that it is far more difficult to put in practice the rules for the
administration of the Sacrament of Penance than to learn them, this
contention is right and just, and the deduction is that even a very
well-informed confessor must not trust to his own insight, but must
unceasingly implore light from on high. But if the above argument is to
be understood (as ignorant confessors use it) to mean that something
which is true in theory is in practice not always true, and that it is
impossible always to observe the rules taught by theology, this would
be a very pernicious error. If this were true, souls would be no longer
led by the doctrine approved in the Church, but by the intelligence or
the arbitrary will of the individual confessors. Practice is nothing
else than the application of certain rules. How could a confessor
understand the practical art of hearing confessions without possessing
the theoretical science which consists in a knowledge of the rules? Right
practice in the administration of the Sacrament of Penance is nothing
else than right application of rules.[729]
St. Alphonsus puts the question: Must a simple priest qualify himself
for hearing confessions by the study of moral theology, if he sees that
(in his diocese) there is a great want of confessors? And he answers in
the affirmative, “as Christ appointed priests expressly for the purpose
of saving souls, and the salvation of souls is chiefly effected by the
holy Sacrament of Penance. Accordingly, how can a priest be pronounced
free from sin who, out of negligence, does not hear confessions, or does
not qualify himself to do so when he sees great need for it—how will
such a one avoid the reproaches of the Lord, or escape the punishments
with which He threatens the idle servant? Such priests must not say that
they did their duty if they helped souls in another way, by instruction,
by prayer, by exhortation; that, I say, is not enough, because they
must help their neighbor in that which is necessary to his salvation.
Nor must it be said that hearing confessions is a duty of charity, and
that charity does not bind under such great difficulty as is involved in
undertaking the labor which the acquirement of the knowledge necessary
for the administration of the Sacrament of Penance entails. For it may be
answered that even if hearing confessions is a duty of charity, it is of
the essence of the sacerdotal office, and incumbent on every priest when
necessity requires it.”[730]
55. The Prudence of the Confessor.
In addition to knowledge the confessor must possess great prudence, as
his office is beset with difficulties and dangers.
The necessity for prudence in the confessor is shown in the very meaning
of the word; for prudence is nothing else than the good use and the right
application of principles and rules in any business, or, according to
the Angelic Doctor, the right application of general principles to the
individual case.[731] It is, therefore, called the right way of acting.
It is not, of course, the prudence of the world and the flesh which we
have here in view, that prudence which, before God, is folly (1 Cor. iii.
19), which sacrifices higher things for earthly profit; nor is it human
respect, which in weakness and fear, abandons principles for a momentary
success (_prudentia diabolica_, Jac. iii. 15), but the _supernatural
virtue_ of prudence,[732] which springs like a flower from sanctifying
grace and the love of God; which, in Confirmation, the Holy Ghost
bestows for individual use, and which is renewed for the public good in
the ordination of the priest: this is that prudence which our divine
Saviour recommended to His disciples, when He said to them: “_Estote
prudentes sicut serpentes._”[733] Now the office of the confessor is of
a thoroughly practical nature, difficult, and of the highest importance,
as, in the exercise of it, he may benefit or injure both himself and
others, according as his conduct is prudent or imprudent. Prudence,
therefore, not less than knowledge, is necessary to the confessor.
Prudence is the queen of the virtues, which counsels well, judges
rightly, and effectually conducts to the goal proposed.[734]
The confessor must be prudent both towards the _penitent_ and towards
_himself_, that he may injure neither the penitent nor himself, nor
administer his office to the detriment of religion and the scandal of
others.
According to the teaching of St. Alphonsus,[735] the confessor must
conduct himself prudently towards the penitent, especially in the
following points:—
(1) _In the questions_ which he puts to the penitent, so as only to ask
what is suited to the station, age, and condition of the penitent, and so
as not to teach him sins which he did not know; as already remarked, very
special care is necessary in questions concerning the sixth commandment;
(2) _in the instructions_ which he gives the penitent; instructing him
or preserving a discreet silence and leaving him in his good faith,
as the welfare of the penitent may demand (Praxis, n. 8, 9); (3) _in
prescribing the means of amendment_, so that these latter may be adapted
to the state of the penitent’s soul and to his circumstances (Praxis, n.
15); (4) _in imposing sacramental penance_, so that, as above stated,
it may correspond with the penitent’s sins and his station (Praxis, n.
11, 12); (5) _in giving, deferring, or refusing absolution_ (Praxis, n.
10, 63-77); (6) _in the choice of opinions_, in case of the existence of
probable opinions for and against a point, whether he must choose the
severer or the milder decision for the penitent in question[736] (Praxis,
n. 114); (7) _in preserving the seal of the confessional_, so as to
avoid every danger of breaking it either directly or indirectly (Praxis,
n. 117); (8) _in the treatment of very difficult and complicated
questions_, carefully weighing all the circumstances, and, when
necessary, asking the penitent for time, in order to seek advice from
books or learned men (Praxis, n. 194).
The confessor must be prudent with regard to himself, that: (1) He may
not prepare for himself temptation against holy purity in questioning
and investigating the circumstances of sins, that he may not injure his
good name, may not bring the office of the confessor into disrepute, may
not render the institution of the confessional odious; (2) _in vitando
aspectu fœminarum, juniorum præcipue et, nisi crates interfecta sit,
manus certe cum sudario intercedat_ (Praxis, n. 119); and (3), by being
_especially careful with regard to women_, being particular to avoid all
superfluous talk, all familiarity, accepting no presents from them, not
visiting them without necessity at their homes, treating younger ones
with severity rather than leniency. These measures of precaution the
confessor must adopt in the case of pious persons especially, _quibuscum
est periculum majoris adhæsionis_ (Praxis, n. 119-120).[737] But how
shall he obtain this prudence from which so many of the good effects of
the Sacrament depend? By study, by circumspection, by experience, by
docility, and purity of intention, the confessor can acquire for himself
the necessary prudence, assisted, of course, by divine grace. 1. By
study, for prudence derives its decisions and its opportune remedies from
science. 2. By circumspection, by considering the different circumstances
of the person and the case. This circumspection will enable the confessor
to reveal the deceptive motives of passion and vice, to suggest means
for the removal of obstacles in the way of amendment, to foresee and
provide against the detriment which may ensue. The gift of right judgment
is conferred upon us by God; maturity of judgment is acquired with age;
but those who have not been richly endowed by nature can sharpen their
judgment by the study of moral and pastoral theology and by taking
counsel of wiser men. 3. By experience, which teaches the confessor what
commonly occurs in practice, shows him how he must question, when he
must instruct the penitent or leave him _in bona fide_, how he finds his
way to the heart of the penitent, when he must show special indulgence,
how to judge rightly of the penitent’s disposition and to find the
proper remedies. Practical experience is thus an excellent school. 4. By
docility, which is especially necessary for young confessors; it teaches
them to mistrust themselves and to apply often to learned and experienced
confessors for advice, thus profiting by the experience of others. Hence
Benedict XIV advises confessors to beware of answering _divinando_ when
a more difficult or a new case is brought before them. On the contrary,
they should not decide the matter till after mature consideration;
moreover, they should consult the theologians whose teaching is solid and
sound.[738] 5. Purity of intention, that is the sole desire to please
God, and to lead men to salvation. “It is certain that the Christian
prudence of a confessor will be the greater, the greater is his love,
and that, in general, the mind is stimulated by the intention or the
desire to attain the end. The more a man is inflamed with the desire
of a certain good, the more zealous is he in his search for the means
of obtaining it, the more careful will he be in choosing the more
suitable means, the more cautious will he be to omit anything that may
be useful for his purpose, the more determined will he be in overcoming
all difficulties, so as to gain that on which he has set his mind. A
confessor who, with pure intention, seeks only God and the salvation of
souls, will labor with fruit.”[739]
ARTICLE II
DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR DURING CONFESSION
56. The Duty of instructing and exhorting the Penitent—Munus Doctoris.
The confessor will find many penitents either ignorant or under the
influence of error. This ignorance may refer to some point connected
with the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, the general duties of
a Christian life, or some particular duty. The duty of the confessor
to instruct the ignorant penitent varies with the subject on which
the ignorance exists. Hence: I. The confessor is _always_ obliged at
once to instruct the penitent who is ignorant of something which he
must _hic et nunc_ know in order to receive validly the Sacrament of
Penance, or to receive _licite_ the Holy Eucharist. 1. The confessor
must therefore instruct penitents who are ignorant of the truths which
they, _necessitate medii sive certo sive probabiliter_, ought to know and
believe, and this instruction must be given before the administration of
absolution.[740]
Moreover, the confessor must, before giving absolution, instruct the
penitent if he does not know how to make an act of contrition and purpose
of amendment. These instructions must also, of course, be imparted when
the penitent is not responsible for his ignorance; therefore, in every
case, because the penitent is incapable of receiving the Sacrament
in such a state of ignorance.[741] The confessor might send away a
penitent ignorant of these truths, imposing upon him the duty of first
obtaining instruction from some competent person or the parish priest;
but if there is no good reason to hope that he would fulfill this duty,
the instruction must be given concisely in the confessional, and this
should nowadays be done in most cases of the kind. 2. If the penitent is
ignorant concerning the Holy Sacrament of the Altar, the confessor must
certainly instruct him upon this point before allowing him to receive
holy communion.
It is, however, not necessary to the valid reception of absolution
that the penitent should retain all these truths in his memory; it
is sufficient that he substantially understands them and makes an
act of faith which the confessor recites to him. The confessor must
impose upon such penitents the duty of subsequently obtaining fuller
instruction.[742] It is also the duty of the confessor to ascertain
whether they know these truths. Whenever he thinks it probable that
a penitent does not know them, he must ask. He need not, as a rule,
ask those who were brought up as children in a pious and Christian
fashion. But others, who received Christian instruction in their
youth, and have subsequently neglected sermons and instructions, must
certainly be questioned, and this especially applies to our times,
when so many Christians, particularly men (but also not a few women),
absent themselves for a long time from sermons and neglect every other
kind of Christian instruction; such people, even when well educated
and instructed in worldly matters, are ignorant, _admodum rudes_, in
religion, having forgotten nearly all they had formerly learnt. In the
cares, labors, and pleasures of life, and frequently under the influence
of pernicious and irreligious literature, they have perhaps become
strongly infected with irreligion or heresy. If the penitents are such
that one could not ask if they are ignorant of these truths without
causing them confusion, the confessor might of his own accord explain
what is most essential, and, in some way, move the penitents to an act of
faith.[743]
II. If the penitent is ignorant of the truths of Christian doctrine and
the precepts of Christian life, especially of those truths which the
Christian must know and believe _necessitate præcepti_, the confessor
must first of all inquire if the penitent is responsible for this
ignorance or not. If he is, he can be absolved, but he must be sorry
for, and confess, his neglect, and make a firm resolution to learn these
truths; and if he does not keep his promise, absolution must, as a rule,
be refused to him till he has performed his duty. If he is ignorant by
no fault of his own, he can be absolved, but he must promise to obtain
instruction.[744] If the confessor is, at the same time, the pastor of
such penitents, he is bound, _ex officio_, or in justice, to provide them
with opportunities for acquiring better instruction; if he is not their
parish priest, he is not strictly bound in duty to do so, though he may
be bound _ex charitate_, but he is always bound to inform the penitent
as to his duty of becoming better instructed, and as to the sin of
negligence of which he is guilty if the ignorance is culpable, and which
he must confess.
III. If the penitent is ignorant of particular duties, the confessor must
primarily consider the spiritual welfare of the penitent in deciding
whether he shall instruct him or not; but this spiritual welfare must be
taken in its full sense as comprising, therefore, the individual welfare
of the penitent himself, and also the general welfare for which he has to
provide. This instruction must, however, be given with prudence, for fear
of causing more harm than good to the penitent. The following obligations
of the penitent are here chiefly in question: the duties of his station
in life, the duty of making restitution (honor, good name, property), of
avoiding dangerous occasions, of reconciliation, of removing scandal,
and of practicing almsgiving.[745] When he considers it necessary and
appropriate, the confessor must, with special prudence, instruct persons
engaged to be married concerning their conduct in that state. It may also
be opportune to inform a penitent that he is not bound to fast or to
abstain, so that he may not, from ignorance, believe that he commits sin
where there is no sin at all. This duty of instructing the penitent must
now be somewhat more clearly considered and particularized.
The confessor must instruct or exhort:—
1. When the ignorance of the penitent is not invincible, or when he is
responsible for it (_vincibilis seu culpabilis_); when the penitent is
in such a state of doubt concerning some duty that there can no longer
be a question of _bona fides_. When a person is in such ignorance, he is
already in a state of sin, or in immediate danger of formal sin, because
he acts under reasonable doubt or culpable ignorance. The exhortation,
therefore, so far from doing harm, can only result in good, as it will
afterwards produce the desired fruit. When, therefore, the penitent,
not out of mere scrupulosity, but in consequence of a serious doubt,
questions the confessor about some duty, the latter must instruct him.
In this case where the penitent has a substantial doubt and he is bound
to remove it, the confessor’s duty is to tell him the truth; moreover,
it is plain that the penitent is disposed to act in accordance with the
confessor’s answer. If, however, the confessor thinks, in an exceptional
case, that the penitent should not know the whole truth, he need say
nothing more in reply to the penitent than what is necessary.[746] If,
for instance, a person bound by a vow of chastity asks if the marriage
which he has contracted without a dispensation is invalid on account of
the vow, let him answer in the negative, but be silent about the _debitum
conjugale_; if he asks whether he may render the _debitum_, let the
confessor answer in the affirmative, and be silent about demanding the
_debitum_.
2. When the penitent is ignorant of things which cannot long escape his
knowledge, and when his ignorance, still _invincibilis et inculpabilis_,
will soon cease to be so and become _culpabilis_, especially where a
vice is growing with the lapse of time and its extirpation becomes more
difficult—in such case the confessor must, _as a rule_, instruct and
exhort the penitent at once; for instance, when young people who have
not yet attained to puberty, begin to contract a _habitus pollutionis_,
they must be seriously warned to desist from their dangerous and sinful
practice, even when they are perhaps in _bona fide_. But in this the
confessor must weigh well the circumstances, considering whether,
perhaps, for the time being, a very heavy burden is not being imposed
upon the penitent, which he will scarcely be able to bear, but which will
very soon cease. In this case silence would be preferable.
3. If the ignorance is _invincibilis_, but a good result may be hoped
from the exhortation, in this case the confessor must exhort even when in
consequence a difficulty arises for the penitent, or when it is foreseen
that the exhortation will certainly not do harm. For a material violation
of a law must also be avoided, when this can be done without danger of
a greater evil. The confessor must not fail, therefore, to admonish,
although he foresees that the penitent will not immediately obey, if he
has hopes that he will soon do so. For it may happen that a penitent,
when he has learnt the truth, does not at first obey, but when he has
become calmer, after serious reflection, amends his life.[747] If the
confessor sees that the penitent does not receive the exhortation well
at the time, but that he will receive it better at some more seasonable
moment, he must defer it to a later occasion. If there is no likelihood
of good resulting from the exhortation, the confessor, according to the
general and approved teaching of theologians, is bound, _per se loquendo_
(that is, unless there is some other motive, such as regard for the
_bonum publicum_), to omit the exhortation, and to leave the penitent in
his _bona fide_.
When, therefore, the confessor learns in the course of the confession
that the penitent has contracted an invalid marriage through some secret
impediment, and danger of disgrace, scandal, or incontinence is to be
feared from disclosing to him the nullity of the marriage, he must be
silent on the subject of the invalidity, and leave the penitent _in
bona fide_ until he has obtained a dispensation. And in the case where
he could not disclose the nullity of the marriage at all without being
obliged to face these difficulties, he should ask for a _sanatio in
radice_, and conceal everything from the penitent. In such a case the
confessor can even bind in duty the putative husband (or wife) who
refuses the _debitum conjugale_, to render it; for if the husband (or
wife) is convinced that he (or she) is living in lawful matrimony, he (or
she) is bound in conscience to render the _debitum_. But the confessor
will act more safely by telling the penitent quite in a general way that
married people are bound to render the _debitum_, and that they cannot be
absolved if they do not perform their duty.[748]
The confessor must not admonish the penitent to make restitution when
he foresees that the penitent (who believes, _bona fide_, that he is
not bound to make restitution) will not obey; for such admonition would
injure the penitent, and not benefit the person to whom he is bound to
make the restitution; indeed, the confessor must be more concerned to
avert spiritual injury from the penitent than temporal injury from
another. Nevertheless, the confessor must not lightly presume that his
admonition will not be obeyed.[749]
Instruction or admonition must also be omitted if there is reasonable
fear that scandal, disgrace, quarrels, and other serious inconvenience
will arise; for it is better to provide against formal sins in others
than material sins in the penitent. For instance, if a marriage is
invalid, and the parties are not aware of the fact, the confessor could
inform the wife of it without danger, whereas serious difficulties might
be caused by disclosing it to the husband.
If a marriage is to be contracted, and, through the confession of the
penitent, the confessor discovers an _impedimentum dirimens_, but of
which the penitent is _invincibiliter_ ignorant, the confessor is, as
a rule, bound to instruct the penitent concerning it, and to admonish
him either to refrain from contracting the marriage, or to obtain a
dispensation before contracting it. Great inconveniences frequently arise
from an invalid marriage, for the invalidity is often disclosed later
on, and in such a case the penitent is exposed to no small danger of
committing actual sin. If, however, no good result can be expected from
revealing the defect, the confessor would be obliged to abstain from
admonishing till he himself has obtained a dispensation, for it is better
to permit a material sin than to furnish occasion for formal sin.[750]
If, on the day before the marriage, or on the day itself, when everything
is prepared, and the wedding could not be stopped without scandal and
disgrace, the bride or bridegroom reveals to the confessor a secret
impediment, a dispensation must be obtained from the bishop, if there
is time to do so, and the bishop can, according to the _communissima
et probabilissima sententia_, dispense in such a case, as from other
laws, when recourse to the Pope is impossible, and there is danger in
delay. Indeed, according to the probable opinion of many theologians,
the bishop can also delegate this power universally as a _potestas
ordinaria_, to others, for all cases that occur. But if the confessor
cannot apply to the bishop, the parish priest or the confessor may, as
some teach (and St. Alphonsus adds: “not without ground”), declare _ex
Epikeia_, that the law of the impediment in question does not bind in the
particular case, because it is detrimental; but, in order to be safe,
and to preserve the reverence due to the commandment of the Church,
application to the Sacred Penitentiary, or to the Ordinary, must be made
as soon as possible to obtain a dispensation.[751]
In cases of doubt as to whether the admonition will do good or harm, it
should be omitted, because it is better to guard against formal sins than
material. But if it is more probable that the admonition will benefit,
it must be given, and Viva and Roncaglia rightly remark that we must not
easily conclude that the penitent would not obey after having learnt the
truth.[752]
The objection might be raised that the penitent who should refuse to
obey the exhortation of his confessor would not be in good disposition,
and, therefore, could not receive absolution. St. Alphonsus disposes
of this objection by pointing out that the confessor must consider the
disposition in which the penitent actually is while he is still ignorant
of his obligation, and not the state of mind in which it is presumed
that he would be after he had been admonished about it. As it is not
allowable to expose one’s neighbor to a danger to which it is anticipated
that he will succumb, so the confessor must not expose a penitent to the
danger of refusing to fulfill a duty by instructing him about it; he must
rather leave the penitent in material sin, because a _peccatum formale_
outweighs all _peccata materialia_.[753]
4. The confessor must speak when the ignorance of the penitent concerns
the _prima principia moralia_ or the _proximas conclusiones_ deduced from
them; for such ignorance is either not actually existent, or will not
be for long _invincibilis_, and is generally hurtful to the penitent.
Especially urgent is the duty of admonishing the penitent when omitting
to do so would confirm him in a sinful habit which he would probably find
great difficulty in overcoming later.
5. Moreover, admonition must be given when the ignorance touches the duty
of giving up a gravely sinful immediate occasion, as such ignorance tends
to the ruin of the penitent, by rendering easier the fall into formal sin.
6. The penitent must be admonished even when he is not disposed, if the
confessor’s silence were to bring harm to the community, by scandal, for
instance, to the faithful. For if the confessor is bound to be chiefly
concerned about the salvation of the penitent, he is also bound, as
a member of Christian society and its servant, to prefer the _bonum
commune_ to the _bonum privatum_ of the penitent.[754] The fact that
the admonition is _hic et nunc_ fruitless or that the penitent takes
offense at it is not a valid objection, for such a penitent will amend
the more easily when he sees that no other priest will absolve him,
and in the meantime the scandal will cease, for the faithful will see
that the penitent in question is not admitted to the Sacraments. Hence
princes, officials, bishops, prelates, parish priests, employers, who
neglect their duties towards their subordinates, must be instructed
and exhorted. For we may not lightly presume that their ignorance is
_invincibilis_, since everybody ought to know the duties of his office,
and ignorance of them, even when _invincibilis_, always tends to the
injury of the community, as others may easily think they are justified
in imitating what they see their superiors doing. Therefore, as Benedict
XIV teaches,[755] those are to be instructed concerning their duties who
frequently receive the holy Sacraments, in order that others may not be
led to believe that wrongdoing is allowable, because they see it done by
these and done with impunity. And Lugo adds that when the confessor has
reasonable doubts as to whether such penitents perform their duties, he
is bound to ask them if they are faithful to them.[756]
7. The confessor must admonish when, on account of special circumstances,
his silence would be equivalent to a positively false answer.
8. A penitent must always be admonished when, in consequence of a false
conscience, he believes something to be a sin which is none, or believes
it to be a greater sin than is really the case. Moreover, instruction
ought not to be withheld even though it afford an occasion to the
penitent of sinning more frequently, as might happen when he learns
that a sin which he believed _conscientia erronea_ to be mortal is only
venial. Nevertheless, the confessor must consider whether something
which _per se_ is a venial sin, may not, in view of the circumstances of
scandal, danger, etc., become a grave sin.
In conclusion we will add a remark of St. Alphonsus, namely, that
confessors act imprudently by instructing _uneducated_ penitents
concerning the special and greater sinfulness imparted by circumstances
to wicked acts; for instance, that adultery is a greater sin than
impurity among unmarried persons, that incest is committed when relatives
are guilty of impurity with each other. But this instruction must be
given when there is reason for believing that the knowledge of the
greater sinfulness will effectually prevent the sin.[757]
Sometimes the confessor is asked by his penitents for instruction and
advice in matters affecting the welfare of the soul. Although the
confessor must be careful not to advise and help in all possible worldly
matters, he must not refuse to be the adviser and helper of his penitent
in matters pertaining to the salvation of souls. This is a part of his
duty. And to whom should a penitent turn in such circumstances if not
to the confessor who knows the state of his soul and his entire life?
But if the confessor has to give advice and instruction, let him judge
the matter in the light of faith, and in accordance with the principles
of Christian morality, not according to a certain empirical wisdom
and worldly prudence, and not according to his subjective opinion. In
important matters let him, therefore, deliberate thoroughly, ask help of
God through the Mother of Good Counsel, and, when necessary, seek advice
at the hands of experienced and prudent men. Then let him pronounce his
decision clearly and definitely.
57. The Duty of suggesting Remedies against Relapse (the Confessor as
Physician).
Sins are justly described as wounds of the soul, the cure of which is
to be sought in the Sacrament of Penance. It is certainly the first
and highest function of the minister of the Sacrament to reconcile the
sinner to God by canceling his sins; but there remains another task of
great significance, viz. to keep the penitent—the sinner now reconciled
to God—faithful to his duty and to his promises, and to preserve him
from new sins. For the confessor is also the spiritual physician of the
penitent. And as it is the duty of the bodily physician to study the
malady and its causes, and then to prescribe remedies, so the physician
of the soul must first know the sins of the penitent, their causes and
gravity, and then provide the remedies, by the conscientious application
of which relapse into sin may be prevented. In order to discharge his
duty as physician of the soul, the confessor must, therefore, first
ascertain if the penitent has a habit of sinning, if he lives in
immediate occasion of sin, he must question him as to the time and the
place of the sin, the persons with whom he has sinned, and under what
circumstances he has usually been led into sin. “Herein many confessors
fail,” says St. Alphonsus, “and the ruin of many souls results from it;
for by omitting such questions, the confessor is unable to find out if
the penitent is a relapsing sinner, and, therefore, cannot prescribe
suitable means for eradicating the sinful habit and avoiding the
occasion.”[758]
Those confessors are gravely wanting in their duty who content themselves
with remitting the sins confessed, but do not trouble about the
preservation of the converted sinner, the new life and the cure of the
penitent’s sickness; hence it happens that persons who are enslaved by
a sinful habit very soon fall from the new life of grace, and, in the
words of Our Saviour, the state of the relapsing sinner is worse than his
former state, and the confessor thus shares in his guilt.[759]
The confessor’s work as a judge of the sins and disposition of the
penitent places him in a position of peculiar advantage for discharging
his duty as physician. But in order to effect a thorough cure of these
wounds of the soul, he must, as we have seen above, be acquainted with
the whole moral state of the penitent; hence he must not confine himself
to know if the sin was mortal or venial, a sin of some special occasion,
an habitual sin, or one of relapse; he must also ascertain if his
penitent, in matters of religion, is instructed or ignorant, if he is on
the way of improvement, if his good will has become strengthened by the
grace of God and by resistance to evil, or is still weak and vacillating.
The confessor must make it his special business to learn the penitent’s
predominant passion, and the prevailing vices connected with it. The
predominant passion is an habitual tendency, more or less violent, to
some sin, which exercises a certain mastery over the soul, and has other
evil inclinations in its service. Such predominant passions are: the lust
of the eyes, the lust of the flesh, and pride; also the seven capital
sins. They have their root partly in original sin, partly in perverse
education, partly in repeated sinning, partly in exterior influences.
Now it will not avail much to combat the individual sins; their root—the
sinful passion—must be torn out. It is like a poisonous growth which is
always striking deeper roots into the human soul, and ever putting forth
fresh shoots in the individual sins. This baneful root must be removed,
and with it its noxious growth of sin will also be removed.
To this end the predominant passion must first be diagnosed, and this
is generally a very difficult matter. There are passions, such as
avarice, covetousness, pride, intemperance, sloth, which are seldom
recognized as sins by the penitent, and even take the appearance of
virtue. In acquiring this knowledge, which is as necessary as it is
difficult, the confessor must help his penitent by suggesting _careful,
serious examination of conscience_, especially the use of the particular
examination of conscience; _the observation of the causes, the motives,
and the occasions of sin_. Finally, he should point out the necessity
of _illuminating grace_, which the penitent obtains by earnest prayer.
The confessor himself must try to discover this predominant passion by
suitable questions, by examining the sins which have been confessed, and
the moral condition of the penitent. The difficulty of his task must
not deter him, for its successful accomplishment will greatly effect
the amendment and cure of the penitent. Earnest prayer for light, the
intention only of advancing the glory of God and the salvation of the
penitent, joined to true zeal for souls, will assuredly lead the man of
prayer and of interior life to the desired knowledge. Having learnt the
state of the penitent’s disease, let the confessor proceed to the cure
of it; this will primarily be effected by the abundant graces obtained
in the worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance. It must be the
confessor’s next care to dispose the penitent well, or to perfect his
dispositions, by endeavoring to move him to greater sorrow for his sins,
and to a firmer purpose of amendment. The deeper the sorrow and the more
earnest the purpose of amendment, the more lasting will be the effect of
the Sacrament for the improvement of the sinner.
The confessor must then reprove (_reprehendere_) the sinner; that is,
he must in strong and forcible language emphasize the shamefulness and
perniciousness of his sin. And St. Alphonsus teaches that the confessor
must discharge this duty of reprehension even when the penitent is one in
high position; the confessor, he says, must reflect that his words are
more efficacious than sermons.[760] This reprehension is particularly
necessary for those who seldom confess, who come burdened with many sins,
or who, from weakness of faith or attachment to creatures, manifest
little sorrow. It is _very salutary_, because the words of the confessor,
specially adapted to the penitent, are much more efficacious than those
of the preacher.[761] But let the confessor administer it with _much
prudence_, that it may really prove an effective medicine for the sick
soul—not with indignation, violence, and anger, but in sympathy and love,
in the spirit of meekness, with due regard for the penitent’s condition
and the gravity of his sins. Despondent and scrupulous penitents must be
encouraged and not cast into despair. Those who are crushed by sorrow
should be treated as Christ treated the penitent Magdalen, and as the
father treated the prodigal son.[762]
Finally, the confessor must provide the penitent with remedies against
relapse. Of such there are _general_ ones, useful against all sins, and
for all penitents; and _special_ ones applicable to special sins. The
following are general means:—
1. The most excellent general means of eradicating vice and implanting
virtue is _regular, devout, and humble prayer_. The confessor should,
therefore, earnestly admonish the penitent regularly to recite the daily
prayers of a Christian, to implore the divine grace in temptation, and if
possible, hear Mass daily. Pious penitents, who seriously aim at virtue,
should be recommended to add special devotions to the usual prayers;
such as visits to the Blessed Sacrament, a portion of the Rosary, etc.;
especially spiritual reading every day, at a fixed hour, from a suitable
book, which the confessor may specify, short ejaculatory prayers,
frequent renewal of good intention, and recollection of the presence of
God, as also a short meditation in the morning, when possible.
2. _Frequent renewal of purpose and regular examination of conscience_
are very beneficial. Therefore, the penitent should renew his good
resolutions every morning at his prayers and also during the day; to his
night prayers he should add an examination of conscience, at the same
time awakening true sorrow for all sins of the past. The confessor should
also instruct the penitent in the exercise of the special resolution, and
the _examen particulare_, and induce him to adopt these exercises, as
they are so well calculated to root out particular faults, to bring about
general improvement, and to confirm him in his striving after virtue.
3. _Frequent confession_, and the confessor should fix the time for the
penitent’s next confession; or he should determine how often he must
confess in the future, not, however, making too great demands upon him,
but requiring only what he will probably be able to perform. Let him
particularly recommend the penitent to confess as soon as possible after
relapse into mortal sin. Frequent confession must be imposed as a duty
on those who, from interior weakness, are always relapsing into the same
sins, in proportion as this proves itself to be the only efficient means
of insuring perseverance in virtue. This applies to those who have become
addicted to the _peccatum pollutionis_.
4. _Frequent reception of the holy communion_, with due preparation and
thanksgiving. True, it is not necessary to receive holy communion as
often as one confesses in order to rid one’s self of habitual sin; but
frequent, even weekly communion, is permitted for the cure of a soul much
weakened by sin, if the penitent desires it, receives it with an earnest
wish to amend, and is really, although but slowly, being converted by
this means from a life of sin. For holy communion is not only a help to
virtue, but also a remedy against sin. By increasing sanctifying grace
and holy love, by the intimate union with God which it effects, by the
wealth of grace which it brings to the soul, it effectually preserves
men from mortal sin, destroys evil inclinations, excites the desire for
virtue, and gives the strength to practice it. For penitents who already
walk in the paths of virtue, frequent communion is an aid to progress
in perfection, and assuredly _communio frequens_ eminently conduces to
perseverance and advancement in good; the confessor should, therefore,
most earnestly recommend this remedy to his penitents.
But he must not demand too much. The reception of holy communion every
three months is generally regarded as the _minimum_; but the confessor
will often be obliged to content himself with longer intervals,
especially when youths and men (and in many cases, even women also) are
concerned. When received _every month_, or at least every six or eight
weeks, holy communion is a means of keeping alive zeal for eternal
salvation and of remaining firm in a Christian life.
More frequent reception of holy communion, every fortnight, every week,
or several times during the week, is to be allowed or recommended when
the following conditions exist:—
(_a_) For weekly communion, and, if a feast occur, two communions in
the week, it is necessary that mortal sin should generally be avoided;
but if such penitents are in the habit of committing venial sins with
deliberation, and if no improvement or serious endeavor to improve
manifests itself, it is well occasionally to forbid communion to such
persons, in order to inspire them with greater fear of venial sin, and to
show them with what reverence this Sacrament must be received.
(_b_) More frequent communion in the week may be permitted and
recommended to those who are free from affection to venial sins, who do
not generally commit deliberate venial sins, who practice meditation,
mortify their senses and passions,—who, in other words, are striving
after perfection.
(_c_) Daily communion may be allowed to those who not only do not
entertain voluntary attachment to any venial sin, but who steadfastly
endeavor to advance in virtue, who gladly and diligently devote
themselves to interior prayer, who have, to a great extent, suppressed
their evil passions, and who are filled with a great longing for holy
communion. The confessor must not be too indulgent, nor, on the other
hand, too rigorous. Before permitting frequent communion to any one,
it is necessary to consider if the person is so situated as to be able
to prepare properly and to make suitable thanksgiving. It is also
recommended (1) on one day in every week, as a rule, not to receive
communion, in accordance with the practice of experienced confessors, and
(2) sometimes to forbid communion on some particular day, for some just
motive—as a trial, a mortification, or a punishment. If, later on, the
confessor perceives that, in spite of frequent communion, the penitent
makes no progress in the way of perfection, and that he cherishes in his
heart a voluntary attachment to sin, the confessor must reduce the number
of his communions.[763]
5. _Avoiding bad company and associating with good, religious men._ The
confessor must, of course, most earnestly exhort the penitent to avoid
_every_ occasion and danger of sin, especially every immediate, and more
serious, danger of sin even when it is a remote one, in so far as it is
morally possible to avoid it. The special occasions and dangers which
exist in some particular place, the confessor will learn from his own
observation, from the advice of experienced men, or the counsel of his
superiors.
6. _The reading of good books, the lives of the saints._
7. _Reflection on the eternal truths, the Life and Passion of Jesus._
8. _Frequent thought of the presence of God._
9. _Voluntary works of penance_ in punishment of relapse, which the
penitent should determine in advance. This remedy is much to be
recommended, not only against grave sins, but also against slight
defects, when one is aiming at perfection.
10. _Special devotion to the divine Heart of Jesus, to Mary, and to the
Guardian Angel._ It is better to do a little regularly, than much without
perseverance and order, according to the humor and mood of the moment.
11. _Confidence and perseverance_, even when a relapse occurs; for
nothing is more harmful than to lose courage and regard amendment as
too difficult and impossible on account of frequent relapses. This mood
generally arises from wrong application of remedies, and from a certain
secret pride. Therefore, wholly distrusting his own powers, the penitent
must put all his confidence in God.[764]
The confessor should not content himself with indicating remedies for the
penitent; he must choose and impose them with reference to the latter’s
moral sickness, his temptations and occasions of sinning, and his station
in life; if necessary he must also instruct him as to their application.
Moreover, there are special remedies for different vices.
1. _Against pride_, the confessor should recommend:—
(_a_) The following considerations—what man is of himself, that he has
received all from God, that he has already committed so many sins; his
poverty and weakness, his inconstancy, his ingratitude and infidelity
towards God.
(_b_) The example of Christ, who so deeply humbled Himself for love of
us, who expressly and earnestly invites us to imitate His humility; on
the other hand, that pride is the sin of Satan.
(_c_) The promises held out to humility, and the punishment of the proud.
“God resists the proud, and gives His grace to the humble.” (St. James
iv. 6.) “The prayer of the humble man pierceth the clouds.” (Eccl. xxxv.
21.)
(_d_) Finally, he should remind him that, to obtain humility, he must
humble himself, hence he must avoid rather than seek the praise of men,
and, so far as his position allows, forego outward marks of distinction,
etc.
2. _Against avarice_ (_covetousness_):—
(_a_) The utterances of Holy Writ against the avaricious and the
covetous. (Eccl. x. 9.) “There is not a more wicked thing than to love
money, for such a one setteth even his own soul for sale.” The parable
of the rich man. (St. Luke xviii. 25.) “It is easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven.”
(_b_) Earthly goods can never fully satisfy a man, nor make him really
happy.
(_c_) All our earthly possessions we must leave behind to heirs, who,
perhaps, will soon forget us, and neither thank us nor pray for us.
Better it is, therefore, with our earthly goods to procure for ourselves
heavenly treasures, of which we cannot be robbed. (See St. Matthew vi.
19, 20; St. Luke xvi. 9.)
(_d_) The menace of the Apostle: “They that will become rich, fall into
the snare of the devil.” (1 Tim. vi. 9.)
(_e_) The example of Jesus, of Mary, of St. Joseph, and of so many saints.
3. _Against impurity_:—
(_a_) Serious consideration of the disgrace into which this vice throws
a man; a vice in which he makes himself the tool and slave of the vilest
desires and passions.
(_b_) Flight from those persons and things, the sight of whom, or
intercourse with whom, excites to sinful thoughts and desires; avoidance
of every dangerous intimacy.
(_c_) Avoidance of idleness; constant useful occupation.
(_d_) Watchfulness over the senses.
(_e_) Energetic suppression of temptation in its first beginnings, as
soon as one is conscious of it. _Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur._
(_f_) Humble prayer is here preëminently necessary—especially devotion to
the most blessed Virgin in her Immaculate Conception. Instant appeal to
her in temptation; the prayer: “_O Domina mea, O mater mea_,” etc., every
morning and evening has always proved very efficacious.
(_g_) Mortification of the flesh; at least avoidance of all luxuriousness
and effeminacy.
4. _Against intemperance_:—
(_a_) Consideration of the disgrace peculiar to this vice.
(_b_) Avoidance of everything which excites to it, especially convivial
occasions and gatherings.
(_c_) Slight mortifications.
(_d_) Determining a fixed measure, with the firm resolve never to exceed
it without due reason.
5. _Against envy_:—
(_a_) The envious man tortures himself; this is the most foolish of vices.
(_b_) Envying others is copying the devil, rejoicing at the happiness of
others is imitating the angels.
(_c_) Through God and Christ all men stand in close relationship to each
other, are all brothers.
(_d_) Consequences of envy. Cain, the Pharisees.
(_e_) When feelings of envy rise in the heart, the penitent should
endeavor to be well disposed towards the particular person, should meet
him in a friendly manner, should be ready to help him if necessary,
should at least pray for him there and then.
6. _Against anger_:—
(_a_) Our duty to strive after meekness and patience, in imitation of
Jesus.
(_b_) The ruinous effects of anger—robbing a man—either partially or
wholly—of the use of reason, hurrying him into unconsidered, shameful,
and most sinful actions; destroying peace, stirring up enmities.
(_c_) Prevention of the outward inducements to anger: certain games,
drinking—and if they cannot be prevented, the penitent should lessen them
by prudent precautionary measures.
(_d_) God has every reason for being angry with us, and for taking
vengeance upon us, on account of the many insults which we offer to Him.
But He forgives us, and it is, therefore, but just that we should harbor
no anger towards our neighbor.
(_e_) If we do not forgive, we have no right to hope for forgiveness at
the hands of God, and there is a dreadful significance in the mouth of
the Christian who prays in the “Our Father” “forgive us our trespasses as
we forgive them who trespass against us.”
(_f_) When anger is aroused, a man must refrain from every word and act
until he has mastered it.
7. _Against sloth_:—
(_a_) God’s abhorrence of spiritual sloth: “I would that thou wert cold
or hot,” etc. (Apoc. iii. 15, 16.)
(_b_) Consideration of the shortness and importance of human life; and,
on the other hand, the tireless zeal of the man of the world in his
pursuit of earthly things.
(_c_) The great injustice done to God by neglect of the service due to
Him—for man is the servant of God!
(_d_) Regular order in life: establishing an order of the day; in
the morning renewal of the determination to avoid all idleness; in
the evening, rendering account to one’s self of how the day has been
spent.[765]
In his efforts on behalf of the penitent let the confessor keep in mind
that the conversion of a sinner is more the operation of divine grace
than the fruit of any human activity. Let him, therefore, pray often for
his penitents; and let him not despair and despond if the conversion of
a sinner inured to vice does not immediately follow. For such conversion
does not usually take place suddenly; generally not for a long time, nor
till after a hard struggle and earnest prayer. Moreover, God rewards his
laborers according to their work, and not according to their success.
CHAPTER III
THE DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR AFTER THE CONFESSION
The confessor has certain duties to perform after the confession. These
are principally two, one of which is always and _per se_ incumbent upon
him, viz.: the _preservation of the seal of the confessional_; while
the other, the _correcting of errors which may have occurred in the
confession_, may arise _per accidens_.
58. The Duty of correcting Errors occurring in the Confession.
The confessor more easily and more seriously errs in the administration
of the Sacrament of Penance (by reason of the variety of the duties
which this office imposes upon him) than in the other Sacraments. The
errors here committed may, moreover, have grave consequences. It is,
therefore, necessary to treat of them in detail and to show how they may
be corrected.
The errors which the confessor (even the instructed and conscientious
confessor) may commit in the confessional are classified under three
heads: (1) _Those which affect the validity of the Sacrament_: when the
confessor has forgotten to give absolution, or has given it without
due jurisdiction, or to a penitent insufficiently prepared; (2) _those
which refer to the integrity of the confession_: when the confessor
has not asked concerning the number or circumstances when he was bound
to ask; and (3) _those relating to the duties of the penitent_: when
the confessor has not admonished the penitent to avoid some immediate
occasion of sin, or to make restitution, or where he has obliged him to
restore when there was no obligation.[766]
Now an error may entail great injury to the penitent, or to a third
person, or again no great harm may result. Moreover, the error may have
been committed through great culpability on the part of the confessor, or
without such culpability, at least without great culpability. Finally,
the error may be _positive_, the confessor _doing_ something wrong; or it
may be _negative_, the confessor neglecting something he should have done.
As regards the duty of rectifying these errors, the following principles
are to be observed:—
I. An error touching the validity of the Sacrament, resulting from _grave
fault_ on the part of the confessor, and causing great harm to the
penitent, must, _ex justitia_, be made good by the confessor, even when
such reparation involves serious trouble.
Even if the confessor is not bound in justice to hear confessions, as
soon as he does so, he enters into a kind of agreement with the penitent
to administer the Sacrament properly; if he administers it invalidly,
he is a _damnificator injustus_, and must, _ex justitia_, and _secundum
justitiæ regulas_, make good the injury he has caused. But if the fault
of the confessor was only a slight one, he is, as regards the correction
of the error, in the position of one who has, _inculpabiliter_, caused
some temporal harm. In this case, he would be bound to make good the
error only when he could do so without relatively great inconvenience to
himself. And if the confessor sinned gravely in committing the error, he
would also be excused from remedying it, if his own _incommodum_ much
exceeded the detriment and danger resulting from it to his penitent.
But if, in consequence of the confessor’s error, the penitent’s eternal
salvation has been seriously endangered—for instance, if he has invalidly
absolved a dying person, or one who will probably not confess again
before his death, he must remedy this injury under all circumstances,
even _cum suo damno relative gravi_, or _gravissimo_; for this is also
a duty of charity. Likewise when the confessor is the pastor of the
penitent, and, therefore, _ratione stipendii_, the more strictly bound to
avert from those committed to him great spiritual injury, he must _cum
gravi incommodo_ make good an error committed _cum levi culpa_. If the
penitent has subsequently confessed to another priest, or received holy
communion or Extreme Unction, the injury done to the penitent is thereby
already made good, and the confessor has no further obligations.[767]
II. If the error touches the integrity of the confession, the confessor
is not bound to remedy it outside the confessional, if his action in the
matter has been of a _negative_ character; this error he must make good
_ex charitate_, and _secundum regulas charitatis_, whether the error was
culpable on his part or not. But if his action was _positive cum gravi
sua culpa_, he must remedy the error even outside the confessional,
for he is bound to do so _ex justitia_ and, in consequence, even with
grave inconvenience to himself. Only when this could not be done
without causing scandal and much embarrassment to the penitent would
the confessor be justified in not doing it. But it should be carefully
observed that an intentional silence must, under circumstances, be
regarded as a _positive_ influence upon the penitent.
That in the case of an omission the confessor is bound only _ex
charitate_ to remedy the defect is explained by the fact that he failed
in his accessory duties, not doing that which he ought to have done—the
obligation here arises, as the theologians say, not so much _ex officio_,
as _occasione officii_, or not on account of a duty which he owes to God,
but rather on account of a duty which he, _titulo justitiæ et muneris_,
always owes to men. For these accessory duties towards our fellow-men, in
so far as they are duties of office or of _quasi-justitia_, do not extend
beyond the act of confession itself.[768]
It follows from this that such defects or errors are hardly ever to
be corrected outside the Sacrament of Penance, for the penitent will,
presumably, receive this Sacrament again. But if, by not being informed
of the error, so great injury, especially spiritual injury, should
result to the penitent that charity demanded reparation of even this
negative defect, the confessor must make the reparation even outside the
confessional. For any other person—not a confessor—would, under like
circumstances, be similarly bound towards his neighbor.
That a confessor should be bound _ex justitia_ to make good an error
committed through a _positive_ action and _cum gravi sua culpa_, is based
upon the fact that he has caused the penitent to infringe an important
commandment (the integrity of the confession). Even if this infringement
had been for the penitent only a material one,—therefore, not sinful,—the
confessor would be obliged to prevent such material infringement for the
future by correcting the error caused by himself. But if the fault of
the confessor in committing the error was only a slight one, a lesser
ground would release him from the duty of correcting the fault; and
if he acted _bona fide_, he is entirely released from it, seeing that
subsequent instruction concerning the fault committed can never take
place without embarrassment and difficulty.[769]
III. A defect having reference to a duty of the penitent, which causes
the latter, or a third person injury, must be made good by the confessor
_cum gravi suo incommodo_, if _cum gravi sua culpa_ he has instructed the
penitent falsely; if he committed the error without great fault on his
part, he is not bound to correct it _cum gravi_, although he is bound
_cum aliquo incommodo_. The confessor is, in this case, _causa injusta
damni_, and has, therefore, the obligations of a _damnificator injustus_.
The injury caused by the confessor may be spiritual, in consequence of
wrong instruction, or temporal, by imposing restitution, or some similar
burden to which the penitent was not bound. With reference to others than
the penitent, the question will generally be one of temporal loss in
consequence of the penitent having been released from his duties to them.
The question of injury to the community at large should be remembered in
this connection.
If, therefore, the confessor committed the error _cum gravi culpa_, for
instance, caused some great temporal harm, he must repair it himself
if it cannot be otherwise repaired, and prevent injury which has not
yet ensued, but which may ensue. If the error took place without his
fault, he is not bound to repair any harm which ensues before he knew
of the error, and which could not be repaired without great detriment
to himself. He must, however, avert injury which is still threatening,
and repair that which already exists if it can be done without
relatively great detriment to himself. If he neglects this _ex gravi
negligentia_, he is guilty of a great injustice, and is responsible
for all harm which he did not prevent. So, if he has wrongly bound any
one to make restitution, he must advise the penitent (after obtaining
from him permission to speak about matters of confession) not to make
the restitution, or if he has already made it, to indemnify himself
_compensatione occulta_, if this be possible. If he omits, _ex gravi
negligentia_, so to instruct the penitent, he is bound to make good the
injury out of his own means, in case his warning, or the retractation
of his error, is no longer effectual in preventing the injury, or
compensating for it. But if, after becoming aware of his error, the
confessor can no longer warn the penitent, or if the warning or
retractation must be regarded as useless, he is free from all obligation.
If from the first the confessor’s error was fraught with great guilt, he
is bound, if it is any way possible, to see that justice is done to the
injured person.[770] The same principles hold good if a third person has
suffered injury, or been exposed to the risk of it by the fault of the
confessor. If the evil consequences are sufficiently remote and the case
admits of delay, the error may be set right in the next confession of
the penitent; for generally it is no easy matter to speak about anything
connected with a confession outside the confessional. In cases of
necessity, however, the confessor must brave this difficulty and do his
duty.
Gobat[771] gives confessors (especially young ones) the following
excellent rules which they should always keep in view in order to acquire
the necessary prudence and dexterity in their office:—
1. After he has heard a confession, the confessor should always reflect
if, and in what, he has erred, so that he may avoid these faults in
future.
2. In giving or refusing absolution, in imposing a penance, the
confessor’s first consideration should always be the welfare of the
penitent and his greater spiritual advantage.
3. Let him be careful not to pronounce a sin mortal without being certain
that it is so.
4. In doubt as to whether restitution or a similar duty is to be imposed,
let him adopt the more lenient opinion of the theologians if this is
really probable.
5. The confessor of a penitent must presume that the former confessor
discharged his duty properly, unless he sees plainly the contrary.
6. The confessor must know the different opinions of theologians upon
one and the same matter when such exist and are practically probable,
in order to make use of one or the other, according to the different
dispositions of the penitents and their requirements.
59. The Duty of preserving the Seal of Confession.
By the seal of confession, or _sigillum confessionis sive sacramentale_,
we understand the duty of preserving silence concerning everything which
has been learnt in sacramental confession.
I. The duty of preserving the seal of the confessional is based upon
natural and divine law and upon the strict precept of the Church.
It is true, God has not laid down any formal and express demand to
preserve the seal of confession, but that this is His will results
(_naturaliter_) from the divine institution of confession, and especially
from the _commandment_ which _obliges_ all the faithful to confess all
their mortal sins, but which binds them only to confess their sins _in
secret_ (_secreto_). Now this general law to confess all, even the
gravest and most secret sins, would assuredly be too burdensome to the
faithful; indeed, its observance would become simply morally impossible
if confessors were not bound by the strictest obligation to preserve
the seal of the confessional. Danger to human life and the social
order, would, in fact, be inevitable if this duty did not exist. Thus
the seal of the confessional seems to be an indispensable condition
of the observance of the commandment to make full confession of sins.
But he who prescribes an end must also prescribe the means necessary
to that end. And if every man is bound to preserve a secret confided
to him, a confessor is still more bound, under all circumstances, to
maintain silence concerning sins which have been confessed to him as
_secretum_, seeing that so much depends upon his fidelity in this
respect,—the sanctity, the usefulness, and the blessings of the holy
Sacrament of Penance.[772] Moreover, the duty of preserving the seal of
the confessional is imposed by an express law of the Church, which has
existed in constant tradition, and is thus expressed by the IV. Council
of the Lateran:[773] Let the confessor beware of betraying the sinner in
any way, by a word, or a sign, or by any other means; but if he should
stand in need of wiser counsel let him ask for it without, in any way,
indicating the person.
II. It results also from the above that the obligation of the seal
belongs _to the virtue of religion_. Breaking it is an abuse of a
Sacrament, therefore, rightly regarded as a kind of sacrilege; however,
it must not be confessed under the general designation of a sacrilege,
but as a breach of the seal of confession, in order that the ultimate and
full species of the sin may be recognized.
Inasmuch as the confessor, _ex officio_, listens to the confession of the
penitent, he is bound, _ex fidelitate_, to silence concerning everything
which the interest of the penitent demands that he should keep secret.
Finally, breaking the seal of confession would, in many cases, be a
defamation of the penitent, and would, therefore, be an _injustice_. It
is thus of its nature a very grave sin, a sacrilege, which is generally
accompanied by injury to reputation and breach of faith.[774]
III. The obligation of the seal is a very strict one, admitting neither
_parvitas materia per se_, nor any exception: only when the penitent
has expressly and voluntarily given permission would it be allowable
to disclose anything heard in confession, and even then prudence will
generally dissuade the confessor from making use of the permission.[775]
St. Alphonsus teaches,[776] as _sententia certissima_, that never, and in
no case, is the slightest disclosure of the secrets of the confessional
permitted, not even to save one’s life, to save the state, or to remedy
the greatest spiritual necessity. The reason for this most stringent
obligation is clear. If there were only one exception made, people would
always be in a state of fear that this or that sin might be sufficient
ground for lawfully breaking the seal, and the Sacrament would thereby
become odious.[777]
When, therefore, the confessor is asked concerning anything which he has
learnt in the confessional, he must, _per se_, reprimand the questioner,
reminding him that such questions are quite inadmissible. If, however,
he can see no other effectual way of evading the question or of averting
suspicion from the penitent, he can and must declare, even upon oath,
that the penitent has not confessed to him what is in question, that
he knows nothing at all about it. Such a statement is not a lie nor is
it, in consequence, a perjury if made upon oath, for it is a case of
lawful use of the implicit reservation that the confessor, as a private
individual,—the only capacity in which he can be expected to answer,—has
no knowledge of a subject revealed to him as a representative of God.[778]
And should the confessor be asked if he has given absolution to a
penitent, let him answer, “I did what it was my duty to do,” or, still
better, dismiss the questioner with the answer, “Such questions are not
allowed.” If he had not given the absolution and was asked by a priest
or other cleric if the penitent might receive holy communion, he must
answer, “Ask him yourself.”[779]
Concerning the penitent’s permission to speak about the confession, St.
Alphonsus teaches as follows: 1. This permission must be given in words,
or by facts which convey it, as, for instance, when the penitent himself
begins to talk to the confessor about something said in the confessional.
This permission may not be presumed even if it were for the penitent’s
own welfare.[780]
2. Permission obtained by threats or _metus reverentialis_ does not
suffice; for instance, if the confessor has obtained it through repeated
requests, the penitent having at first refused it.[781] 3. The penitent
can recall the permission which he has given at his pleasure.[782] 4.
When the confessor has obtained the permission let him be very careful
not to overstep the limits laid down by the penitent.[783]
IV. The duty of preserving the seal of the confessional thus differs from
that of preserving any other secret in the following points: (_a_) It
does not admit _parvitas materiæ_; (_b_) it exists even with regard to
the person who has confessed, or whom the secret concerns; (_c_) it never
admits of any exception.[784]
V. The duty of secrecy attaches to _every_ really sacramental confession;
that is, confession made with the intention of accusing one’s self and
of obtaining absolution. Therefore, (_a_) confession _knowingly_ made
to a cleric or a priest without jurisdiction does not impose the duty
of silence, but only the obligation of the natural secret, excepting,
however, the case where the penitent intended that the priest should
obtain jurisdiction, and afterwards give him absolution. The duty of
the seal would also come into effect if the penitent believed that the
priest to whom he confessed had jurisdiction. (_b_) If a person informs
a confessor of the state of his conscience not with the intention
of receiving absolution, but for the purpose of obtaining advice or
instruction for his spiritual life, or for some other object, there
is no obligation of the seal, but only of the _secretum naturale_ and
_commissum_; though of this class of secrets it is unquestionably the
most binding. The same principles would apply if a person said that he
made the disclosures concerning himself only _sub sigillo_. But there
is always this difference between the case mentioned and the seal of
the confessional, that here _parvitas materiæ_ is admissible, and that
the secret is, of itself, not violated by any reference to the person
concerned.[785] (_c_) A pretended confession, made for the purpose of
deceiving, or seducing, or ridiculing the priest, does not impose the
duty of the seal and the priest might, at the call of circumstances,
make use of knowledge thus obtained, in his defense. On the other hand,
a confession begun with the honest intention of receiving the Sacrament,
but during which the penitent allowed himself to be carried away and
influenced by some sinful purpose, would impose the duty of the seal,
since such confession was, at least in part, sacramental.[786] (_d_)
Finally, a confession, or relation of sins made for some other purpose
would not impose it, though, under circumstances, the duty of the
strictest _secretum naturale et commissum_ may ensue. The confessor is
also forbidden to make use of a probable opinion in matters which come
under the seal, whether the _probabilitas_ be _facti_ or _juris_. The
_probabilitas facti_ would turn on the question whether it is probable
that the confession made was sacramental or not; in neither case have I
any right to say or do anything which might possibly amount to a breach
of the seal. The _probabilitas juris_ exists when authors disagree as to
what constitutes an infraction of the seal; here I may not adopt any form
of action or speech which on solid probable grounds would mean a breach
of the seal, or tend to make the Sacrament odious to the faithful. On
the contrary, it must be morally certain that the utterance or action
in question excludes all danger of disclosure and of aversion to the
Sacrament.[787]
60. The Subject of the Seal of Confession.
The duty of preserving the seal of confession binds, in the first place,
the confessor who hears the confession. It devolves also upon all who,
by lawful or unlawful means, have acquired knowledge of that which
falls under the seal; otherwise the penitent would not be sufficiently
protected, and might be deterred from approaching the Sacrament. This
extension of the duty of the seal was certainly in the intention of Our
Saviour.[788]
In addition to the confessor, therefore, the following are bound by the
seal of the confessional: (_a_) the Superior to whom the penitent or the
confessor (with permission of the penitent) had recourse either verbally
or by writing, in a reserved case, or a similar matter; (_b_) any one
employed as an interpreter in a confession; (_c_) the theologian whom the
confessor consulted, either verbally or by writing, in a difficult case,
and especially any person to whom the confessor in any way communicated
matter learnt in the confessional—whether that communication was made
_sacrilege vel imprudentur_, or in a lawful manner—excepting when the
penitent has, perhaps, widened the limits of his permission.[789] If,
therefore (for example), the confessor, in behalf of the penitent, should
ask for a remission of debts, and, in doing so, with the penitent’s
permission, discloses to the injured person the sin of theft, etc.,
the latter possesses the knowledge of this theft under the seal of the
confessional; for it is in the penitent’s power to give permission to
propagate information received by the confessor in the confessional,
either under the same seal, that is, in the same manner as the confessor
possesses it, or in some less stringent manner.[790] (_d_) He who,
either accidentally or purposely, has heard the confession of another,
and those who, through him, have obtained knowledge of a sin so heard.
Deliberately to overhear the confession of another is, of itself, a
breach of the seal. (_e_) Whoever reads a piece of paper upon which the
penitent has written his sins may be bound either under the seal, or to
the natural secret only. He is bound under the seal: (1) if he should
read the written confession _in actu confessionis_, especially, if it is
already handed to the confessor for the purpose of confession; (2) if he
found it in the confessional, having been left there by the confessor,
“for this knowledge is none other than that of the confessor”; (3) if
he snatched it from the hand of the confessor to whom the penitent had
handed it; (4) if it had been snatched from the hands of the penitent
while he was confessing, or had fallen from his hands; (5) if writing the
confession is, for the penitent, the necessary means of making a complete
confession, reading this writing before the confession also imposes the
obligation of the seal; (6) this holds good _in every case_ after the
confession, _before_ the document has so far returned to the penitent’s
possession that he has voluntarily preserved it when he might have
destroyed it; (7) whosoever reads the letter in which permission is asked
of a Superior to absolve from a reserved case, as this belongs to the
confession.
On the other hand, whoever reads the written enumeration of the sins of
others is bound to the natural secret only: (1) if the penitent, after
completing his confession, had voluntarily left the document behind, had
thrown it away, had not destroyed it; and (2) if the penitent, without
exactly intending to make his confession, had written down his sins,
and this document is read prior to the confession. Though in this case
the obligation of the natural secret only comes into force, it is the
strictest of its kind.[791] The penitent is not bound by the seal to
be silent about what the confessor has said to him; but he is bound to
natural secrecy concerning everything the revelation of which might
injure the confessor or the Sacrament; indeed the penitent is more
strictly bound to silence, because the confessor, unlike other men, does
not impart advice and instruction spontaneously but in virtue of his
office.[792]
61. The Object or Matter of the Seal of Confession.
The object of the seal of confession is, in general, everything the
revealing of which would make confession odious. This is a natural
deduction from the end of the law and from a decision of the S. C.
Inquis. given under the authority of Innocent XI, Nov. 18, 1682, by which
a proposition was rejected permitting the use of all information obtained
in the confessional, as long as no direct or indirect revelation takes
place.[793]
Objects of the seal are:—
1. _All sins_; mortal and venial sins both of the penitent and of his
accomplice (_complex_);[794] indeed, notoriously public sins, also, in so
far as they are known through the medium of confession. Not only mortal
and venial sins _in individuo_, but also _omnino in genere_. It would be
no breach of the seal to say, in a general way, that the penitent had
committed venial sins or only venial sins, especially as the penitent
himself, by going to confession, practically tells every one that he
has committed _some sin_, at least a venial sin; and it is, moreover, a
matter of faith that no man can remain free from all venial sin, unless
he has received a special privilege from God, and the Blessed Virgin
alone is known positively to have possessed such a privilege.
2. _The objects and circumstances of the sins_, and not only that which
it is of precept to confess, but also that which the penitent believed
necessary for the better explanation of his sins. For example, if a son
confesses that he hates his father because the latter has committed
adultery, the adultery of the father, although not a necessary part of
the confession of the son, is, nevertheless, an object of the seal; or
when the penitent confesses a murder at which he has rejoiced, a duel
which he has witnessed, etc.[795]
3. _The penance imposed_, except when this is a small one such as is
generally imposed for the slightest sins; for a more severe penance
indicates that graver sins have been committed.
4. _Temptations_, because they stand in relation to sins, in so far as
the penitent doubts if he has consented to them, or asks advice of the
confessor in order not to yield to them.
5. _Defects_, which are confessed in explanation of a sin; for example,
illegitimacy, where a penitent has received Orders, in opposition to the
law of the Church. _Natural_ defects of the penitent also, in so far as
they are known through the confessional, and tend to his disgrace (for
instance, defective education, stupidity, etc.), are objects of the seal.
But if these do not stand in any relation to the confession, or if the
penitent would not resent their being made known, and if they are matter
of general knowledge already, they are not objects of the seal.[796]
6. _The penitent’s position in life_ may be, _ex se_, an object of the
seal, in so far as information about it is necessary in order to explain
the sins according to their ultimate species. Nevertheless, it may be
assumed that this information, even when thus necessary, is not given to
the confessor _sub sigillo_, but rather _prævie_. If it is a question of
a position known to every one (though perhaps not known to the confessor)
the penitent does not intend to include this knowledge under the seal.
But it is a different matter when, on account of certain circumstances,
the penitent attaches importance to his incognito. It is certainly not
allowed so to speak of the position and circumstances of the penitent so
as to indicate thereby that he had sinned against individual duties of
his position.[797]
7. _Scruples_, or the scrupulosity of the penitent, may be an object
either of the seal, or of the natural secret. (_a_) The scruples
themselves which the penitent confesses are, of course, _direct_ objects
of the seal, in so far as they are considered by him to be sins. (_b_)
The scrupulosity which the penitent confesses as a circumstance of his
sins—or in order to give a better idea of his spiritual state—is likewise
an object of the seal. (_c_) To say in a general way that the penitent
has confessed many scruples, violates the seal in the same way as to
disclose that he has confessed _several_ venial sins, real or supposed.
(_d_) On the other hand, the scrupulosity which is only perceived in the
manner of expression is not matter of the seal, but, _per se_, of the
natural secret which obliges the more strictly as the knowledge obtained
is more intimately connected with the confession itself.[798]
8. _Sins committed in the confession itself_, for example, impatience,
not showing the confessor due reverence, etc., are, _per se_, not
objects of the _sigillum_, because the penitent does not confess them;
nevertheless, making them known might easily, and generally will, involve
danger to the seal; for these sins suggest a severe reprehension or a
refusal of absolution.[799]
9. _Virtues or supernatural gifts_ which the penitent discloses in order
that the confessor may learn the state of his soul, are not, _per se_,
objects of the seal; but if they are disclosed inasmuch as they have
reference to a sin, they are matter of the _sigillum_.[800]
62. Violations of the Seal.
The seal of confession is, in the first place, violated by every
communication of those things which are matter of the seal if the
penitent is recognized, or if there is a danger of his being recognized.
Moreover, every _use_ of things falling under the seal which is
calculated to make confession odious, or to cause the penitent annoyance
and detriment, is also a breach of the seal.
A distinction is, accordingly, to be made between _direct_ and _indirect_
violation of the seal; it is _directly_ violated when any matter of
the seal itself is directly disclosed and the person of the penitent
indicated; it is _indirectly_ violated when revelation of matter of the
seal involves only risk of discovery of the penitent or danger of harm to
him. In the indirect violation there may be _parvitas materiæ_; that is,
when, through the _communication_ or the _use_ of that which was learnt
under the seal only very slight danger of recognition would be incurred,
as when the confessor speaks of the sins prevalent in some particular
town or place without the inhabitants of the place becoming, thereby,
appreciably prejudiced against the institution of the confessional, or
any particular defamation resulting. But if there is doubt as to whether
the consequences are really so slight, such a proceeding must be regarded
as a great sin.
For a violation of the seal, it is not necessary that the person with
whom the confessor speaks knows that he is making use of knowledge gained
in the confessional; it is enough that the confessor should speak from
this knowledge. Nor is it necessary that the person of the penitent
should actually be recognized by him with whom the confessor speaks; it
suffices that the circumstances should be such that the identity of the
penitent emerges sufficiently distinct from what the confessor says,
or that the person of the penitent may possibly be recognized, or that
well-founded suspicion _could_ arise. As the faithful preservation of
the seal is of the highest importance, the confessor must always be
very careful that penitents do not become averse or disinclined to the
confessional. Nevertheless he is not bound to avoid every trivial danger,
and to anticipate every idle conjecture of malicious people.[801] In view
of their supreme importance, we here subjoin a few cases of violation of
the seal, as discussed by eminent theologians.
1. A priest indirectly violates the seal: (_a_) if he says or intimates
that he refused or deferred absolution to a certain penitent, because he,
thereby, implies that the penitent had confessed a grave sin, or had not
been disposed; or if he says that a certain penitent’s confession had
not been finished—unless it were generally known that this confession
was a general one, or one concerning a long space of time, so that there
can be no embarrassment on the part of the penitent. Indeed, Lugo adds
that even if the penitent himself were to say that he had not been
absolved, the confessor must not take the liberty of repeating it.[802]
(_b_) If he said of a notorious thief that the latter had confessed
his thefts to him with great sorrow. The case would be different if
without entering into detail he were to remark that the same thief had
made his confession to him.[803] (_c_) If he praises excessively some
penitent in comparison with others whom he heard at the same time, or
says that he committed venial sins only, suspicion being thus easily
excited that the others had confessed grave sins. An exception would be
if there were some particular ground for so speaking, without offense
to the other penitents, and without danger of injurious suspicion.[804]
(_d_) If two confessors, to whom the same penitent had confessed, talk
together concerning his sins. (_e_) If he reproves the penitent aloud,
questions him concerning circumstances of the sins, so that bystanders
can hear it. (_f_) If, after having heard the confessions of some few
penitents, he should say that he had heard a particular sin—for the
individual penitents fall under suspicion of having committed this sin.
(_g_) If he speaks of sins which he has heard in the confessional in such
a way that those who hear him can infer or conjecture the identity of
those who committed them. (_h_) If he speaks of sins learnt outside the
confessional, but adds a circumstance learnt only in the confessional,
or makes use of knowledge gathered in the confessional for the purpose
of specifying or corroborating some statement. (_i_) If, without the
penitent’s permission, he speaks to him outside the confessional about
his sins heard in the confessional. Where the penitent himself begins,
the confessor may only speak about the particular subject to which
the penitent confines himself. Likewise if, after the confession, the
priest’s demeanor shows that he remembers his sins and esteems him less
highly than before. (_k_) If he should intimate that the penitent had
_not_ confessed a particular sin, because, thereby, suspicion might
easily arise that he had actually concealed a sin.[805]
2. As a general rule it is allowed to speak vaguely of sins heard in the
confessional in such a manner that there is no danger of recognizing
the person, and no suspicion is aroused against any persons. In this,
however, scandal to lay people is to be carefully avoided, for they
readily believe that speech of this kind is a violation of the seal, and
may, thereby, be deterred from approaching the confessional; nor should
one be too easily persuaded that there is no fear of any danger in the
matter. Confessors, therefore, should not be too ready to talk much about
what they have heard in the confessional; for such talk, when often
indulged in, is not quite free from the danger of a slip beyond what is
permissible and of awakening suspicions in the hearers. Indeed, before
laymen such talk must be altogether avoided.[806]
No violation of the seal is, therefore, in question: (_a_) when the
confessor says that “Titus confessed to him”; only Titus must not
then have come to him secretly, for from this circumstance it might
be inferred that he had a bad conscience; (_b_) when he praises the
conscience of a penitent; but he must not, on account of possible
circumstances, awaken thereby the suspicion that others, who confessed
to him at the same time, have bad consciences; for it might be that if
he were questioned concerning another penitent, he could not maintain
the same tone of praise.[807] (_c_) If, immediately after absolution,
before the penitent leaves the confessional, he speaks to him of what he
has then and there heard, for though the Sacrament has been administered,
the judicial act still morally continues.[808] (_d_) If he speaks to
the penitent during confession of his sins of another confession, for,
_in actu confessionis_, the penitent has no right to the preservation
of the seal; but even this the confessor should not do without reason,
for it is troublesome to many penitents. (_e_) When he prays for a
penitent, even if he only knows him through the confessional, or treats
him more leniently (or otherwise) on account of the state of his soul
learnt in the confessional; when he makes use of knowledge acquired in
the confessional in order to ask learned and experienced confessors for
advice,[809] or to perfect his own work in the confessional, to be able
to question better, to instruct better, and more efficaciously to watch
over those committed to his charge.
The confessor does not violate the seal by saying that a certain vice is
prevalent in some place, town, or parish when this place or parish is of
considerable size (St. Alphonsus assumes three thousand Catholics as the
population) and when it is a question of vices which are public, and no
new defamation arises. On the other hand, it would be a violation of the
seal if (_a_) by this statement concerning the sins, or by the manner of
it, the parish, etc., were defamed, and (_b_), in any case, if the place
were small. Hard and fast limits cannot be laid down to determine when a
serious breach of the seal takes place, and when such revelations would
be quite permissible; each case must be carefully considered and weighed,
in order to learn if any, or a grave, or only a slight, violation is
in question. A preacher, therefore, has a right to speak against vices
which are secretly very prevalent in a parish, and if he has obtained his
knowledge of them outside the confessional, he can speak of them with
still greater freedom; but he should always employ a wise caution, so as
not to awaken suspicions injurious to those who confess to him.[810]
In deciding whether violation of the seal of the confession is committed
when a confessor says that he has heard a grave sin in the confessional
from a religious of some particular Order, without designating the
individual, the following circumstances must be considered: (_a_)
whether, from the nature of the sin referred to, defamation of the Order
results or not; (_b_) before what persons the statement was made, as this
circumstance usually determines the quality of the defamation; (_c_)
whether, from the statement itself, or from the circumstances, suspicion
falls upon the occupants of a few houses. From this it can be inferred
if a grave violation of the seal, or a slight one, or none at all, has
taken place; but it is very unlikely that no violation of the seal at all
has been committed by such a communication. The confessor of a convent
would, accordingly, break the seal, if, while preaching in the convent,
he should signalize a particular sin of a nun, or of that convent, which
he knew only through the confessional. On the other hand, he would not
break it if he were to speak generally of defects which usually occur,
or may occur, in all convents; otherwise a priest who heard confessions
in a convent could never preach there, and such a prohibition would be
contrary to the general usage.[811] If the confessor knows through the
confessional that snares are being prepared for him, he may, under some
pretext, go away, or provide for his safety, if by so doing the sin
confessed does not become known, nor any detriment ensues to the penitent
by which the confessional would be rendered odious; if, however, he
cannot, without breaking the seal, escape or evade the snares prepared
for him, nor avoid an objective sacrilege, he must rather endure or
permit his death and the sacrilege than break the seal. Nevertheless, he
can, and must, exhort and bind the penitent in the confessional to give
him permission to make use of this knowledge.[812]
It is not allowed to Superiors to make use of knowledge gained in the
confessional in the external government of those under them, or to adopt
any course of action which is in any way odious to the penitent, or
which would make the confessional odious. Hence it is not allowed to a
Superior, in consequence of knowledge obtained through the confessional,
to alter an arrangement which he has once made, or which he had
determined upon only in his mind; but the case may occur in which he may
inform the penitent in the confessional that he had intended to make
certain arrangements, but that he now begs his permission to recede from
this intention.[813]
Accordingly, it is never allowed to a confessor to remove from his
office a subordinate whom he knows through the confessional to be unfit
for it, to deprive him of his vote at an election, to forbid him the
Sacraments, to withdraw from him any tokens of good-will formerly shown,
to look at him askance, to take from him keys which he formerly held or
to hide those which he was in the habit of leaving about, etc. But if the
confessor obtained this information otherwise than in the confessional,
he may make use of the knowledge otherwise obtained; but then this
information must really move him to his course of action just as if he
had had no knowledge of the unworthiness of the subordinate through the
confessional.[814]
Where it is customary to give a ticket to testify that confession has
been made, the confessor must confine himself to stating merely that
he has heard the confession, and he must not state that he has given
absolution to the penitent; for if he invariably attested that the
penitent had been absolved, he would be committing himself to a lie,
in cases where he had not absolved; if, again, he testified to having
absolved those whom he had absolved, and to not having absolved others to
whom he had refused absolution, he would, indirectly, violate the seal of
the confessional.
And if the confessor should refuse the ticket to an ill-disposed penitent
who had made a sacramental confession, he would also violate the seal
in the following cases: (_a_) where the penitent asks for this ticket
outside the confessional, and (_b_) when it is given to all penitents,
or when it is demanded by the penitent’s Superior, as at Easter time,
for example. But if the penitent had no intention at all of making a
sacramental confession, but only made pretense of confession in order
to procure his ticket, for instance, in order to escape punishment from
a teacher, or to contract a marriage, the ticket must be refused to
him.[815]
If a confessor knows only through the confessional the bad state of
a man’s conscience, he must not on that account refuse to hear his
confession; he would only be allowed to do so if he had previously, from
another motive, resolved never to hear his confession again, because such
a refusal would make the confessional odious both to the penitent and to
others who should come to hear of the confessor’s behavior.[816]
But how is a confessor to behave who learns from the confession of an
unmarried woman who is near death that she is pregnant, this fact being
quite unknown to others? Here may be question of the Baptism of the
child after the death of the mother, before it is born. If a month has
passed since conception, the confessor must induce the penitent to make
known her condition, after confession, to some other person, to her
mother, perhaps, or to the doctor (if the latter is a good Catholic, or
a believer) in order that, after her death, the child may be at once
brought into the world and baptized; for she must prefer the Baptism of
the child, as a higher good, to her own reputation. If she refuses to
disclose the matter, the confessor should induce her to communicate it to
him outside confession, in order that he may inform her parents and the
doctor of it after her death. But here great caution is necessary, lest
others should be led to believe that he is breaking the seal. Hence he
should persuade the sick person to make a written statement of the case,
if she is able to do so, or he can do it for her; she should then give it
sealed to a third person who is to open it immediately after her death.
If she will not consent to this plan, the confessor should abstain from
pressing her great responsibility in case she should be _invincibiliter_
ignorant of it, or, perhaps, be persuaded that the fœtus will not survive
her; for otherwise, in his endeavor to save the soul of the fœtus, he
would incur the risk of ruining both souls, that of the mother and that
of the child. But absolution can be given to the sick person unless she
is undoubtedly ill disposed—which will seldom be the case. Finally, if
the confessor knows the condition of the sick person only through the
confessional and cannot obtain her permission to make it known, he must
maintain perpetual silence, come what may. For the duty of the seal does
not cease with the life of the penitent.[817]
As the binding force of the seal exists only for the benefit of the
penitent, the penitent may cancel or modify this obligation, but he
alone has this power. This permission must, however, be given quite
voluntarily. If the penitent has thus given permission to break the seal
in some point, this permission does not extend to the revelation of his
accomplices and others; the law of universal charity and of justice (for
instance, preservation of a good name) still remains intact, and binds
the more strictly the more probability there is of the Sacrament being
made odious by any suspicion.
SECTION III
THE DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR TOWARD DIFFERENT CLASSES OF PENITENTS
Having considered in the foregoing sections the essential and accidental
duties of the confessor in general, it remains to be shown how these
duties are to be performed in concrete cases. Penitents, not being of
one type, require treatment according to their intellectual development,
their moral constitution, and their natural dispositions, their station
and circumstances of life. On account of the difficulties which beset
confessors in dealing with these different classes of penitents, we
propose to give some practical suggestions. We shall treat of persons
placed in peculiar spiritual conditions, persons in different external
circumstances, and persons who on account of the great danger of their
salvation call for special care.