THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS
Sinful habits, and the immediate occasions of sin, are the nets with
which the arch-enemy of mankind ensnares and holds innumerable souls.
Especially in our own times have the occasions of sin become more
numerous and dangerous, and carelessness with regard to them has
increased. Many souls are thus lost! The more alarming this condition
proves, the more should the priest be animated by zeal to prevent its
fatal consequences. This requires great prudence and sound knowledge.
For this prudence the priest must continually pray and consult wise and
approved teachers. St. Alphonsus is recognized by all as a most safe
guide amongst these teachers; for this eminent Doctor has been given to
the Church by divine Providence in our days, that he might show us the
middle path between opinions which are either too lax or too strict.[818]
ARTICLE I
63. Sinful Occasions and the Duty of avoiding them.
By “occasion of sin” (_occasio peccandi_) we mean, in general, a person,
or some external object constituting for any one a danger of sinning. It
comprises two elements: an external object which incites to sin, and an
internal inclination to sin.
For a right understanding, we must distinguish between the _danger_ and
the _occasion_ of sinning.[819]
Danger is the impulse to sin, and if this impulse proceeds from a person
or an external object, this person, or this external object, is called
an _occasion_ of sin; but if the impulse to sin comes from within only,
namely from the devil or in consequence of a sinful habit, it is called
simply _danger_.[820] There is a danger in every occasion but not every
danger proceeds from an external occasion of sin.
1. The occasion of sin is either _immediate_ (_proxima_) or _remote_
(_remota_), according as the danger of sinning is great and probable,
or slight. The immediate occasion is “absolutely immediate,” when for
the generality of mankind it presents a serious and probable danger of
sinning; or it is “relatively immediate” when the danger exists for some
individual person on account of his particular disposition. A _per se
proxima occasio_ may, therefore, be _remota_ for a very pious and prudent
man, whereas an occasion _per se remota_ may be for a weak person and one
much inclined to sin _proxima_.
The existence of an _occasio proxima_ may be inferred: (1) _a posteriori_
from a sad experience that the person did, in fact, generally, or at
least often, fall into sin whenever the occasion presented itself. If,
however, his trespasses were notably less numerous than his victories,
the occasion cannot be called an _immediate_ one.[821] (2) _A priori_,
from the attraction of the object, from the weakness of the person, from
his passion, from a sinful habit, from the violence of the temptation
to which he is exposed in this occasion. Although sin has not yet been
committed, there is always great danger in _presumptuously_ exposing
one’s self to violent temptation.[822]
It may be assumed that an _occasio proximo_ has become _remota_: (1)
when it is known from experience that the sins have become less, and are
no longer frequent; (2) when some circumstance has supervened which has
caused the danger to be no longer a great one, such as a marriage, a
quarrel, etc.
2. Furthermore, the occasion is _continua_, continual, _seu in esse_,
or, with interruptions, _interrupta_, _non continua_, _non in esse_. It
is present interruptedly, when one is not always exposed to it, but only
occasionally, for instance in visits to dancing rooms, inns, etc.; it is
present continuously when one is always, uninterruptedly exposed to it;
for instance, in the case of a concubine or a servant living in the same
house and with whom one is accustomed to sin; an obscene statue in one’s
room.
3. Again, the immediate occasion is _voluntary_ (_voluntaria_), which
can easily, and without much detriment, be given up; and necessary
(_necessaria_) which the person cannot, even if he will, remove or
relinquish. The necessary occasion is either physically or morally
necessary; physically, when the person absolutely cannot remove it;
morally, when it cannot be abandoned or avoided without sin, or great
scandal, or great detriment to honor, or property, or without placing
one’s self in a similar or worse danger of sin.
The following principles are to be laid down respecting the duty of
avoiding the occasions of sin:—
I. The duty of avoiding mortal sin imposes upon us the strict duty of
avoiding also the immediate danger of mortal sin.
He who is bound under grave sin to reach a certain end is also bound
under grave sin to employ the means without which this end cannot be
reached; but flight from the immediate occasion of sin is the morally
necessary means of avoiding sin, consequently this immediate danger must
be avoided. Further, as a man is bound by love for his own person not
to expose his bodily life voluntarily to the danger of death, he is, _a
fortiori_, bound by the law of charity not to expose his supernatural
life voluntarily to the danger of death, that is, the danger of mortal
sin. It is, therefore, _in re morali_, a sin of the same kind to place
one’s self in an immediate occasion of sin, or to desire and commit the
sin. It follows from this that a man sins grievously as often as he
exposes himself without necessity to the immediate occasion of sin, even
if he does not actually sin in this occasion. On the other hand, it is
no sin to expose one’s self to a remote danger of sinning if there is a
reason for so doing, or if precautionary measures are taken. For such
danger can be easily overcome.[823]
II. It is allowed, in case of moral necessity, to expose one’s self to
the immediate occasion of sin; only suitable means must then be employed
to protect one’s self against the danger. In this case one does not love
the danger, but incurs it unwillingly, and if a man strengthens himself
by firm resolutions, prayer, etc., God will not suffer him to fall into
sin, and in this manner the danger becomes a remote one. From this it
results that a man is always bound to avoid _formal_ danger either by
flight or by precautionary measures.[824]
III. From the duty to avoid the risk of sinning results _the duty to
avoid the immediate occasions of sinning_ as these imply an immediate
danger of sinning. This same conclusion, moreover, follows from two
propositions condemned by Innocent XI: “The immediate occasion of sinning
is not to be avoided when there is any _causa utilis aut honesta_ for
not avoiding it” (Prop. 62). “It is permissible to seek directly an
immediate occasion of sinning _pro bono spirituali vel temporali nostro
vel proximi_” (Prop. 3).
On the other hand, this obligation is not incumbent in respect to
_remote_ occasions, because they do not present an immediate danger
of sinning, and because it is, for the most part, morally impossible
to avoid all these occasions; we should be obliged simply to leave
the world, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. v. 10), for they occur in all
circumstances.
But it must here be observed that the occasions of sin may be avoided
in two ways, according to the nature of the occasion. As this consists
in an external object and an interior inclination to sin, occasions can
be avoided: (1) _physically_ or _materially_ by separation from the
external object, and (2) _morally_, or _formally_, when the danger is
neutralized by other means which weaken the interior inclination without
physical separation. The first method must come into operation in cases
of _voluntary_ occasion, for he who _wishes_ to remain in immediate
occasion of sin has no real intention of avoiding sin. And when it
is a question of a really voluntary immediate occasion, where there
is frequent sinning, or violent passion, or a sinful habit, or great
incitement to sin, no success is to be hoped without separation, nor will
the use of remedies convert the immediate into a remote occasion. For
a great temptation cannot be overcome without the help of God’s grace,
but God does not assist those who presumptuously expose themselves to
temptation—as experience often shows. This is especially true of the
immediate voluntary occasions of sin against purity.[825] The second
method suffices in the case of the necessary occasion, for he who through
_necessity_ remains in a danger of sin, may hope for the divine help to
avoid sin.
From this consideration we deduce the following rules:—
1. An _occasio proxima libera_ of grave sin, whether _absolute_ or
_relative proxima_, must absolutely be avoided; to remain voluntarily in
such occasion or to seek it is itself a grave sin.
2. It is absolutely necessary to avoid or remove an _occasio proxima
necessaria_; but for him who finds himself in it there exists a
disjunctive duty, either of employing suitable means of reducing it to
a remote occasion, or of removing it in spite of all difficulties and
obstacles.
3. Not to remove a _remote occasion_, even when there is no particular
reason for exposing one’s self to it, is, of itself, no grave sin; but
this occasion must remain a _remote_ one, and he who finds himself
exposed to it must be resolved to avoid the temptations possibly arising
from it. For it is sometimes possible to foresee that what is now a
remote danger will very soon become a grave and immediate danger; in
this case it is the confessor’s duty to cut off such an occasion and to
forbid it to the penitent lest he fall into formal sin. And when, on the
contrary, the danger of a certain sin is _very remote_ and, in addition,
there is a steadfast intention not to sin, the virtue to which that sin
is opposed does not seem to suffer, even when this risk is incurred
without cause. If the danger is in any way considerable, and it is
incurred without cause, the virtue suffers; in a case of immediate danger
of sin this is certainly the case.[826] But the venial sin which a man
commits who is careless about keeping from a remote occasion increases
in gravity in proportion to the danger. If a man exposes himself to the
danger which such an occasion offers from a more or less weighty motive,
he commits no sin at all, provided his resolution not to sin remains firm.
4. If danger of venial sin is to be apprehended, he who presumptuously
exposes himself to it commits a venial sin; but if the danger of venial
sin proceeds from an action _in se_ commendable and useful, this
character of the action is sufficient ground for lawfully undertaking
it; indeed, we ought to disregard the danger in a case of this kind, at
the same time insuring ourselves against sin by employing preventive
measures. If we did not adopt this counsel, innumerable actions which
are useful would remain unperformed out of fear of sin, and this would
bespeak timidity rather than prudence and conscientiousness. On the other
hand, it is a mark of wisdom and zeal for perfection to avoid useless
actions which, _ex se_, cannot be done without venial sin, and to avoid
them the more because they may lead to other venial sins.[827]
64. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione
Proxima Voluntaria.
Upon the foregoing explanations are based the following rules, according
to which the confessor has to proceed with penitents _in occasione
proxima libera_:—
I. Penitents who are _in occasione continua_ cannot, as a rule, be
absolved, even the first time, before they have given up that which
constitutes the occasion, however much they may promise to do so. For
so long as a penitent remains under the influence of this occasion, he
is in immediate danger of breaking his resolution to abandon it, as its
removal, after an attachment to it has been formed and its fascination
experienced, is very difficult and demands great self-command; so that
there is reason for fearing that the presence of the sinful object will
again enslave the penitent. Hence, the penitent who knows this and would,
nevertheless, expose himself to the danger of breaking his resolution,
must be regarded as not disposed, and the confessor who indulges him sins
against his duty as judge by absolving an ill-disposed penitent, and also
against his duty as physician of the soul by not applying the necessary
means of amendment.[828]
To this rule there are, however, some exceptions, though in every case
the penitent must faithfully promise to remove the occasion as soon as
possible:—
1. When the penitent shows signs of extraordinary sorrow and firmness
of purpose, thus giving hope that he will carry out his resolutions
faithfully.
2. When the occasion is such that the penitent can give it up without
doing great violence to himself.
3. When there is a solid reason for administering absolution at once; for
it is allowed, where such reason exists, and if the necessary cautions
are employed, to expose one’s self and another to a danger which then
becomes a remote one; and if the penitent must receive absolution before
he can remove the occasion, he is to be regarded as one _in occasione
necessaria_, and he has a right, therefore, to immediate absolution. The
following are held to be sufficient reasons: (_a_) _Danger of death_;
that is, when the penitent is in danger of death and the occasion cannot
be removed at once for want of time, or because great disgrace or
scandal is to be feared. (_b_) _Difficulty in going to the same confessor
again_; if this is the case, or if the penitent could not return till
after a long time, nor repeat the confession to another confessor except
under great difficulties, he may also be absolved before giving up the
occasion. This holds good when the penitent confesses at a place far
removed from his own domicile, so that it would be very difficult for
him to go to the confessor again. (_c_) _Danger of disgrace_, if, on the
same day or the following, he were obliged to contract a marriage, or
receive holy communion, and could not withdraw without great disgrace.
The case is similar if one confesses during the time of a mission, and
cannot during this time remove the occasion without incurring infamy, as
is frequently the case. Here the confessor may content himself with the
removal of the occasion some weeks after the mission, but he must demand
that the penitent should take the preliminary steps towards this at once
if it can be done. (_d_) _Danger of spiritual injury_; that is, when the
confessor has grounds for fearing that, on account of the postponement
of absolution, the penitent would be estranged from the confessional and
perish in his sins; in this case, postponement of absolution would rather
increase the danger of not being faithful to his resolution.
In the above-named cases the confessor would be obliged to explain to the
penitent that he must not hope to receive absolution in the future if he
does not keep his promise.[829]
II. Those penitents who are _in occasione interrupta_ can be absolved
_aliquoties_ (two or three times) before they have abandoned the occasion
if they seriously promise to do so. They do not live _actu_ in the
occasion, and their resolution not to seek the occasion may, therefore,
be regarded as a firm one; but the confessor must urge them to abandon
the occasion.
If the penitent does not subsequently amend, absolution must be deferred
till he has really abandoned the occasion. As he could easily give up
the occasion, and does not do so, according to his promise, doubts as
to the firmness of his resolution arise; extraordinary signs of good
dispositions would, however, remove these doubts.
If the penitent shows some improvement, although he has not yet
completely given up the occasion, and if it is to be feared that
deferring absolution would do more harm than good to the penitent, he may
be absolved, seeing that his improvement indicates a firm resolve and
preludes complete amendment.[830]
III. Penitents who have relapsed into an _occasio continua_, that is,
those who have not kept their promise to remove the occasion, cannot
be absolved unless they prove their worthiness by some extraordinary
sign. But even in the latter case, that is, when these penitents give
extraordinary signs of their good dispositions, the confessor where it
seems feasible and useful may defer their absolution _ex officio medici_
till they have removed the occasion.[831]
65. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione
Necessaria.
The following are the rules for the treatment of this very numerous class
of penitents:—
I. Penitents who are _in occasione proximo necessaria_ can be absolved
without giving up the occasion if they are disposed and _are willing_ to
adopt _means of amendment_. “For,” as St. Alphonsus says, “an opportunity
of sinning is really, _in se_, no sin, and induces no necessity of
sinning; true sorrow and a firm purpose not to relapse may, therefore,
be quite consistent with an occasion; and although it is right that every
one should be bound to remove the immediate occasion of sin, this simply
means that no one may expose himself voluntarily to such risks. But if
the occasion is necessary, the danger becomes, by the application of
remedies, a remote one, and God does not withdraw the helps of His grace
from him who is firmly resolved not to offend Him.”[832]
II. If penitents who live _in occasione proxima necessaria_ have
relapsed, that is, have not employed the means prescribed by the
confessor, absolution must be deferred till they have amended, unless
they remove all doubts about their disposition by some extraordinary
sign.[833] But how are penitents to be dealt with who have employed the
means prescribed but yet have relapsed in the same way?
While many theologians believe that such persons can be absolved (and
that _toties quoties_) if they seriously promise amendment, St. Alphonsus
teaches (maintaining that this is the _sententia verior et communis_)
that they must give up the occasion before they can be absolved, even
if they suffer thereby great injury or detriment (_etiam, si opus sit,
cum jactura vitæ_), provided that, _after many attempts, there is no
improvement and no probable hope of improvement_. For in this case (he
says) the danger of sin remains a formal one and cannot be separated
from a sin. Physical separation from the occasion is, therefore (he
continues), the only means of salvation, and the words of Christ are
binding: “If thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from
thee; for it is better to enter into life with one eye than in possession
of both eyes, to be cast into hell fire.” (Matt, xviii. 9.) “What doth
it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of
his own soul?” (Matt. xvi. 26.) The holy Doctor excepts the case in
which the penitent gives such extraordinary signs of repentance that
improvement can be reasonably hoped for.[834] Ballerini, however, urges
the possibility of supposing that in the case of such penitents there is
something more in question than the want of the necessary dispositions,
namely, that the means prescribed and employed were not the right ones,
and, therefore, that others should be prescribed. This, he says, is not
to be understood of the general means simply, such as prayer and other
pious exercises, almsgiving, and abstinence, and frequent reception of
the holy Sacraments, etc., but much more of the special means which
are adapted to overcome temptations and dangers, and which are to be
determined according to circumstances; for if these were faithfully
employed, they would make relapse morally impossible, especially when
external sins were in question; for instance, avoiding of intercourse
_solius cum sola_.
Ballerini urges, moreover, that, _ex lege naturæ_, the penitent is,
indeed, bound to avoid the immediate danger, but this can be done in two
ways, by employing suitable means by which the danger becomes a remote
one, or by removing or avoiding the occasion; but the penitent, he says,
is bound to only one of the two _ex lege naturæ_; with what right,
therefore, can the confessor bind the penitent to the one more than to
the other? Nor must we impose upon the penitent what is too difficult,
indeed, in many cases morally impossible. Moreover, if the confessor is
obliged to choose that course which removes the penitent from the danger
of sinning, he will certainly never choose that means through which the
penitent will certainly sin by refusing to make use of it. Another way
is also open to the confessor, without insisting on this indiscreet
obligation, namely, to defer absolution sometimes till the penitent has
employed the suitable remedies with successful results. But in this
case it is to be observed that complete amendment is not necessary in
order that absolution may be given. It suffices that the number of sins
should indicate that it can be truly said that the occasion is no longer
immediate.[835]
“To put it in a few words, there is no need to deal with these penitents
otherwise than with those who have contracted sinful habits. I will
only add one remark, that if the confessor is harsh, strictly demanding
the more difficult step, the only result will be that the penitent will
become more entangled in sin; on the other hand, mildness and patience
will at least save him from complete ruin; thus theologians speak of the
confessions of a _meretrix_, a usurer, or of any other penitent who is
not sufficiently disposed, but has a desire to amend.”[836]
As to the remedies for penitents _in occasione necessaria_, the confessor
must endeavor:—
1. _To lessen the power of the sinful occasion._ A few resolute and
boldly spoken words, a serious threat, or rebuke, a cry for help, a
complaint at the proper place, will often suffice to discourage an
insolent tempter and prevent any further annoyance. The confessor must,
moreover, require that the penitent should no longer associate _solus
cum sola_, that he should shun all intimacy, and, as far as is possible,
avoid even the sight of the _complex_ and give up speaking and thinking
of her, etc.
2. _To lessen the power of the passion_,—by work, fasting, and exercises
of penance.
3. _To increase spiritual strength_,—by prayer, frequent reception of the
Sacraments, meditation upon the eternal truths.[837]
It is, however, to be carefully observed that the penitent is bound
to employ the means which he is able to employ; otherwise, though the
occasion would be necessary, the danger would be voluntary. Let the
confessor instruct the penitent as to this duty, select the means
corresponding to the danger, the character, and the circumstances of the
penitent, and also show him how to apply them.[838]
In the treatment of the _occasionarius_ the confessor must be very
prudent. P. Segneri calls attention to a double trick by which
penitents try to deceive themselves and the confessor. (_a_) They are
wont generally so to represent the occasion that it seems to be only
a remote one, or they pretend that shunning it would cause them great
difficulties, whereas there is frequently no other difficulty than that
their passion finds it hard to break chains that have become dear to
them. When, therefore, penitents speak of the scandal or the great injury
which removing or avoiding the occasion would cause, the confessor must
not be too ready to believe them, but must carefully weigh the matter,
for it is one of great importance. (_b_) The second, not less dangerous,
deception, is that they declare themselves ready to leave the _occasio in
esse_; but in reality this is only in words; when the confession is over
they do not perform what they have promised to perform. “I know well that
many teach that the penitent can be absolved the first time, if he has
made the promise to discharge his duty as soon as possible. But I repeat
what I have said: as a rule do not do so, for ... experience shows that
penitents who have obtained absolution in this manner do not subsequently
endeavor to break through the net of sin; they find a hundred evasions,
and before the occasion has been removed the sins have been multiplied,
till, at the expiration of the year, Easter approaches, when they proceed
to another confessor, who is equally imprudent. If a penitent has already
deceived you or other confessors, I declare to you that on no account
may you or can you give him absolution. For he is not disposed. If you,
nevertheless, should believe that the present words of the penitent
ought to be esteemed as of more value than his former deeds, and if,
without just grounds, you hold him sufficiently disposed and worthy of
absolution, listen, at least, to what I say to you: you do not act like
a good confessor, and even if you fulfill the duties of the judge, you
neglect the duties of the physician which are also incumbent upon you.
Even if the penitent is contrite, as he seems to you to be, it is not
fair to leave him in the jaws of the dragon when you can snatch him from
the terrible danger of relapse by means of that remedy which is the only
one against this evil, namely, by forcing him first to do that which he
is bound to do, and by deferring absolution till he has done it. This
just severity is still more necessary in the case of public sinners, for
with these scandal is added to the sin of occasion.”[839]
66. Some Commonly Occurring Occasions of Sin.
The application of the principles developed in the foregoing to many
occasions of sin—such as concubinage, dancing, the theater, bad reading,
and intimacies—presents to the young confessor at times no small
difficulty. These occasions are, moreover, so numerous nowadays that they
form a large part of the confessor’s work. We will, therefore, devote a
short discussion to them.
I. _Concubinage._ That is, _frequentatus concubitus cum eadem femina,
quam quis instar uxoris in propria vel aliena domo retinet_. It
generally occurs with unmarried people, but also in any other species of
unchastity. The confessor must devote a very special attention to this
occasion, for public scandal usually accompanies it. Those who practice
it are exposed to immediate danger of eternal damnation and are with
great difficulty brought to amend and separate.[840]
As _remedy_, the confessor may (1) sometimes _recommend marriage_ when
this is practicable. Marriage is often the only remedy for such unhappy
people, as the occasion of sin is, in this way, removed. The confessor
should especially encourage it in the following cases: (_a_) when the
concubine lives in the house of her accomplice, is supported by him,
and cannot otherwise procure her livelihood; (_b_) when the two parties
love each other very much, and especially (_c_) when the concubinage has
lasted a long time, is legalized, as regards the state, by a so-called
civil marriage, when children have resulted from this sinful connection;
and, finally (_d_), when one of the parties is in danger of death. On the
other hand, separation will be preferable to marriage when the concubine
lives in another house, and when not love but sensual passion is the
motive of their sinful life.
But if marriage cannot be at once contracted, the confessor must urge
separation if this is any way feasible, so that the occasion of sin
may, in the meanwhile, be removed; if separation is impracticable, the
confessor must prescribe suitable measures for diminishing the danger of
sin.[841]
On the other hand, confessors and parish priests should not have recourse
to a _matrimonium secretum_ or _conscientiæ_,[842] unless one of the two
living in a state of concubinage is in danger of death, or when they are
publicly regarded as married; for in other cases, _divortium_ is to be
feared, and if the concubinage _is secret_, scandal will arise as soon
as children are born, or there will be danger of a continued state of
onanistic cohabitation in order that no scandal may arise.
2. If marriage is either morally impossible, or if an unhappy marriage
is to be feared, the confessor must impose separation upon the parties,
where separation can take place, as it is the necessary means of
removing the occasion of sin. If immediate separation is impossible,
let him prescribe the remedies given above for penitents _in occasione
necessaria_. If, for instance, the concubine lives with the accomplice as
a servant or in any other capacity, she must, in order to avoid sin in
the meantime, tell the man plainly that she does not wish to live such
a life any longer, and resist him in every possible way, lock the door
of her bedroom at night, and apply the other remedies referred to above.
If she is dismissed from her service on this account and left houseless
and without sustenance, let the confessor (preserving his own honor and
avoiding scandal) procure her admission into a house of refuge for women,
or in some other way make provision for her need. If the parties live in
separate houses, let the confessor forbid the man to visit his accomplice
and have further intercourse with her. The woman must, in addition to
the remedies already prescribed, employ the following: (_a_) never again
to admit the accomplice to her dwelling; (_b_) to take rooms with some
respectable woman, so as not to be found alone; and (_c_) to change her
place of residence.
3. But if very weighty and insurmountable reasons prevent both marriage
and separation, the confessor must have recourse to such measures as
will remove the formal danger of sin; for in this case the occasion is a
necessary one, and he must act accordingly.
4. If one of the parties living in concubinage is seriously ill or in
danger of death, marriage must take place at once. If they cannot marry,
and if the concubinage is _public_, the man must dismiss his accomplice
and engage another respectable servant to wait upon him. If the woman
is dangerously ill, she must, her illness and circumstances permitting,
take steps to obtain admission into a public hospital if one is
accessible. Where the concubinage is _not publicly_ known, a separation
will present difficulties on account of the danger of disgrace. If it
is not practicable, the confessor must take care that the danger of
sin be removed as much as possible, and to this end prescribe the
aforesaid remedies. The following measures are also to be recommended:
removal of the portrait of the accomplice from the room; if such removal
is not possible, the sick person should, either personally or through
the confessor, beg pardon of the accomplice for the scandal given, and
advise the latter to provide for his (or her) soul’s salvation by true
repentance.[843]
5. As to the absolution of those living in concubinage, the following
rules will be serviceable to the confessor: if a _public_ concubinage and
a _voluntary occasion_ are in question, the parties cannot be absolved
till they have really separated. To the reasons already given above is
to be added the fact that it would cause scandal if the man who kept
a concubine in his house or who often visited her at her house, or
the woman who still lived with her accomplice or received him at her
house, were seen approaching holy communion. A _peccator publicus_ also
cannot be absolved till he has _publice_ done penance and atoned for his
scandal.[844]
If it is a question of a _necessary_ occasion with a _public
concubinage_, absolution must be deferred till the penitent has refrained
from sin for some considerable time and has repaired the scandal
given.[845] The confessor, however, must not readily believe that the
occasion is a necessary one, for the attachment to sin of these unhappy
people causes them to exaggerate the difficulties of separation, or,
indeed, to suppose difficulties where they do not exist.[846] An occasion
is only to be regarded as necessary when the penitent would suffer great
injury by leaving it, when it might mean the surrender of the social
position which he held at the time.[847] The public scandal might be
regarded as atoned for if the parties caused it to be made known (if it
were not already known) that they could not separate; furthermore, if
they publicly gave signs of their conversion by attending divine service,
receiving the Sacraments, etc., and, finally, if they marry, in case this
were possible. An exception to the above rule could only be made in the
following cases, certainly very rare ones: if the sinful intercourse had
long ceased but was still a subject of talk and the scandal could not at
once be removed, but the penitent were willing to atone for it as soon as
possible, he might then be absolved before the scandal was made good if
he promises not to go to holy communion, at least not in the place where
his former sinful career was a matter of notoriety.[848]
When a man living publicly in concubinage falls seriously ill, or is in
danger of death, he must be absolved _sub conditione_, if he is already
unconscious, and Extreme Unction must also be given to him; for it cannot
be maintained that he persists in manifest mortal sin, unless he had
expressly refused the holy Sacraments before unconsciousness set in.
If he is still conscious, but dying, and there is no time either for a
marriage or for arranging a separation, he must be helped to make an
act of contrition and absolved, and the other Sacraments should then be
administered to him. But care must be taken that the accomplice does not
come near him, and that, if it is still possible, the dying person asks
pardon before witnesses in atonement for the scandal, either personally,
or through the priest. If this form of atonement is not practicable,
the priest should provide for it in some other way.[849] But if there
is still sufficient time to atone for the scandal, and to remove the
occasion of relapse (exterior and interior), either by marriage or
separation, absolution must not be given till the scandal is atoned for
and the occasion removed. If neither expedient is practicable, this
impossibility must be declared before witnesses, so that it may become
known, and the sick person must promise to bring about the separation as
soon as he recovers.[850]
If the concubinage is not publicly known and the occasion is voluntary,
the parties may not as a rule be absolved till they have actually
separated, even if they give signs of great sorrow. An exception might be
made to this rule when a prompt dismissal would be impossible, and the
penitent would be under an urgent necessity of receiving holy communion
in order to avoid great infamy or some equivalent injury, supposing also
that the penitent were in very contrite dispositions in consequence of
some external occurrence—the death of a friend, deliverance from death,
etc., or if he and the accomplice did not live in the same house, or if
there were well-grounded fear that, on account of the postponement of
absolution, the penitent might become estranged from the confessional and
perish in his sins.[851]
If, with secret concubinage, the occasion is a necessary one, the
properly disposed penitent may be absolved, but absolution could be
postponed in accordance with the rules here applicable (§ 52).[852] Let
it be added that if the penitent maintains that the occasion is necessary
to avoid scandal or disgrace, he should not, as a rule, be believed.
II. _Dancing._[853]
Dancing with persons of different sex, when there is no question of
sinful circumstances, is, of itself, not forbidden, as it is not
_ex se actus libidinis_.[854] But it may become very sinful: (_a_)
through sinful intention; (_b_) through the danger of sinning; (_c_)
by the scandal given, and (_d_) by the prohibition of parents or of an
ecclesiastical law.[855]
Dancing is very sinful when those engaged in it have the intention of
exciting _venereas delectationes_, of employing _tactus malitiosos_,
or of indulging in _turpes sermones_. In this respect the so-called
masked balls (_choreæ larvatæ_, _bals masqués_) are a source of great
danger.[856]
Dancing may give rise to the following sins: (_a_) _malitiosæ manuum
constrictiones affectu nempe impudico_, differing from the simple, and,
of itself, not dangerous _manuum apprehensio_;[857] (_b_) _amplexus
pressi_; (_c_) _tactus obscæni_ (especially, _extra actum saltandi_)
before or after; (_d_) _amatorii et turpes sermones_; _aspectus
malitiosi_ (in the _obscænæ choreæ_); (_e_) _delectationes morosæ et
desideria turpia_. The confessor will, however, observe that the external
sins referred to occur less frequently in respectable dancing assemblies.
If dancing is a _periculum proximum_ to those engaging in it, and if
there is no _causa gravis_ for doing so, it must be avoided under grave
sin; if it constitutes only a _periculum remotum_ or is excused by some
_causa gravis_, it would be a venial sin only, or none at all. The
confessor must, therefore, take into consideration the danger and its
nature, as also the existence of a _causa gravis_.
He can judge if such danger is in question: (1) _from experience_,—that
is, when the penitent has taken part in dancing, and has often
(_frequenter_) sinned in consequence of it, and when the circumstances
are the same in some given case; (2) from other circumstances,—especially
the nature of the dance, too great frequency, the time of night, the
moral character of the other persons present at the dance, _indecens
feminarum pectoris nudatio_. General rules, applicable for all places and
persons, cannot be given here. _Public_ dances to which all have access
are, generally speaking, more dangerous than private ones.
If there is only _periculum remotum_ in question, any _causa
rationabilis_ excuses from sin, certainly from grievous sin; for
instance, to recreate one’s self, to have a little amusement (once and
again in the year), to find more easily an opportunity of marrying, to
show courtesy towards those who give invitations to the dance, to avoid
the talk and ridicule of others, etc. If, however, there is question of
_periculum proximum_, the _causa_ must be a _gravis_ to constitute an
excuse; for instance, to avoid giving serious offense to wife, husband,
parents, brothers and sisters, or to avoid family quarrels. But then
there must be no other way of escaping these quarrels, and the penitent
who exposes himself to these dangers must protect himself by suitable
means.[858]
With reference to the confessor’s conduct in this matter, we may add
the following remarks: (1) Let him equally avoid excess and deficiency
of zeal; (2) let him estimate the danger to which dancing exposes his
penitent, by asking him if he has committed sin at other dances, or
been subjected to great temptation. If it results from this examination
that the penitent is strictly bound to avoid these pleasures, let the
confessor forbid them to him even under threat of refusing absolution;
if no such obligation is evident, let him not show himself too ready in
permitting indulgence in this dangerous and doubtful pleasure, and let
him tell the penitent how he should conduct himself.[859]
III. _Frequenting theaters._
Theatrical performances (in the wider sense of the term) are, according
to the teaching of St. Thomas,[860] _secundum se_, not sinful, but may
become gravely so, by offending against religion and good morals, in
the matter represented or in the manner of representing it. Very many
modern dramas are of the latter kind, and full of dangers, treating as
they do of anti-religious subjects or of such as are hostile to faith,
or lascivious; degrading the Catholic faith, distorting historical
facts to its detriment, extolling the enemies of the Church, holding
up holy rites and even the Sacraments of the Church to mockery and
contempt, calumniating priests, making vices, such as adultery, revenge,
suicide, and sins of the flesh, appear lawful or even glorifying them;
characterizing religion in general as ridiculous, superstitious, etc.,
treating not only of obscene and dangerous subjects, but also offending
decency in the manner of representation.
If, therefore, the dramas in question are _Religioni notabiliter
contraria_, or if the subject-matter or the manner of representing it are
_nimis turpia_, attendance is certainly a grave sin. For what may not be
seen, or heard, or read, _extra theatrum_, without great sin, cannot be,
as the Angelic Master expresses himself, _ratione theatri leviora_.[861]
If they are _notabiliter_, but not _nimis turpia_, they may be _occasio
relativa_, and frequenting them out of curiosity or for amusement (if
there is no danger of consenting _in turpem delectationem_) may be free
from grave sin. But this danger will, in the case of young people, be
absent only when they have very tender consciences, conduct themselves
very prudently, and when, after being repeatedly present at such
performances, they are able to say that they have not committed mortal
sin.[862] Performances, however, which are _non notabiliter turpia_,
may be an _occasio proxima_ for those who know by experience their own
weakness, the more so as nowadays doubtful attractions are introduced
even into otherwise good or harmless plays.
The so-called _choreæ scenicæ_ (ballet), _quæ inter actus miscentur,
utpote in quibus ob vestitum saltatricum, obscænos saltandi modos aut
lascivas gesticulationes, maxima apparere solet turpitudo_, will probably
be for many theatergoers an _occasio proximo_.
When, therefore, one goes to a theater without exercising any
discrimination as to the choice of the play or the manner of its
performance, he exposes himself to a probable danger of sin, _ex
communiter contingentibus fit prudens præsumptio_. Some, however,
maintain that they attend chiefly to the music, not to the plot and its
representation; this, of course, would materially reduce the danger, but
not wholly remove it.
Frequenting the theater may also become sinful on account of the _sinful
intention_ connected with it, and by the scandal thereby given. Besides
the actors and actresses in a bad play, those also give scandal who
coöperate _in spectacula notabiliter turpia aut Religioni graviter
adversa_, positively, by money or applause, and, negatively, by not
preventing them when _ex officio_ they were bound to do so, or at least
could have prevented them by some other means; for example, by refusing
to coöperate, etc.[863] Moreover, parents and other superiors give
scandal who do not effectually prevent their children and those under
their care from being present at improper representations, or when they
give permission to go there, without having previously ascertained the
character of the play. Finally, those give scandal who encourage others
(especially young people) by their example to attend theaters, also
clerics and religious who, contrary to ecclesiastical regulations, are
present at secular performances.[864]
If, therefore, by going to the theater, a person exposes himself to only
_slight danger_, and only gives _slight scandal_, he is free from grave
sin if he takes the necessary precautions.
But if he suffers great danger, or gives great scandal, only a _causa
gravis_ would excuse him from grave sin if he takes the necessary
precautions, and tries to the best of his power to make good the scandal.
Such _causa gravis_ would be, for instance, a well-founded fear of great
detriment, continued irritation of parents, of husband or wife, etc.;
the loss of the subscription fee would not be a _causa sufficiens_.
But even when there is a _causa_, and, in spite of precautions, faith
is endangered, or if the person often succumbs to temptation, he is
absolutely bound to avoid the occasion. Hence no _causa_ will excuse
frequentation of a very immoral or godless performance, because it will
not be possible to avoid the formal danger which accompanies it.
In cases where it is necessary, the penitent must be strictly bound to
avoid the theater or certain plays; even where this obligation is not
strictly binding, he must still be persuaded to avoid the theater, and if
this is not possible or opportune, the priest must at least instruct the
penitent cautiously to conduct himself.
The actors in immoral and godless plays cannot, of course, be admitted
to the Sacraments till they have either given up their profession, or no
longer take part in such performances, for they are _peccatores publici,
publicum scandalum præbentes_.[865]
IV. _Bad reading._
The reading of bad books is a source of great danger, and this occasion
of sin is very common, unceasingly estranging countless numbers from
faith and robbing them of innocence.
We must distinguish between: (1) books which, _ex professo_, are written
against religion and faith (defending the errors of heretics and
infidels) and those which are not, _ex professo_, directed against it
(only here and there attacking religion); (2) books which, _ex professo_,
are obscene (which, if not wholly, yet to a great extent, treat of
obscene things) and such as are _subobscæni_ (in which a good deal of
obscenity is to be found).
Books _ex professo impii_ are very dangerous and pernicious.
Few persons who are not learned and pious theologians can read them
without injury to their faith. Hence the Church (in the second rule of
the Index) has strictly prohibited the reading of such books, and if
they _hæresim propugnant_, reading them consciously entails censure of
excommunication reserved to the Pope.[866] Books which are hostile to
religion, but not so _ex professo_, are also a source of danger, and,
therefore, reading them is permitted to no one without necessity. The
degree of the danger depends upon the object which the reader has in
view, upon his age, his religious sentiments, and knowledge.
Books _ex professo_ obscene are certainly dangerous, for they excite
violent temptations, and they are still worse when, as is often the case,
they are illustrated with obscene pictures. Reading such is strictly
forbidden by the seventh rule of the Index.
The _libri erotici_ (_de amoribus agentes_), for instance many comedies,
tragedies, dramas, novels, and romances, are sources of relative danger;
the reading of them is, in many respects, injurious, especially to young
people.
_Bad newspapers and periodicals_ must be classified in the same way as
books, and what has been said above concerning the reading of bad books
holds good as to newspapers and periodicals. If they are written _ex
professo_ against faith and morals, they are even more dangerous than
such books.
Accordingly, the confessor is bound: (1) when there is ground for
suspicion that the penitent has sinned by such reading and has been
silent about it, to ask him on the matter; omitting to do so would be
very injurious to the penitent, as it would be leaving him in great
danger, and if he had purposely concealed it, he would have confessed
sacrilegiously.
The confessor is bound (2) to admonish penitents who have read bad books,
etc., to refrain entirely from such reading, to buy no more books,
etc., of the kind, not to borrow them, nor in future to have them in
their possession. He must especially instruct parents and superiors on
this head, and incite them to watchfulness. He is bound (3) to refuse
absolution to those who will not refrain from such reading.[867] (4) To
prescribe for the penitent who reads infidel writings _ex necessitate_
suitable safeguards in order that the poison may not injure him,
such remedies as reading good books and newspapers, praying for the
preservation of faith, frequent reception of the Sacraments, etc. (5) To
do his best to keep young people from novel reading.[868]
The confessor must, to the best of his ability, endeavor to prevent
the reading of so-called “liberal” books, newspapers, and periodicals,
which are, indeed, bad, though not, _ex professo_, godless or obscene;
especially (_a_) when the penitent is conscious of his duty to refrain
from such reading, or is in doubt about it; (_b_) when, although not
aware of this duty, good results are to be expected from exhortation;
and (_c_) when the confessor perceives that such reading is beginning
to harm the penitent. On the other hand, the confessor must be silent
concerning the duty of avoiding such reading (_a_) when the penitent
is _invincibiliter_ ignorant of this duty; (_b_) when the confessor
could not hope that his admonition would be acted upon, or when, on
the contrary, he would have to fear still greater evils; but he must
then inspire his penitent with distrust of these newspapers, etc., and
endeavor by exhortation and request to wean him from such dangerous
reading.[869] A man of business might be permitted to keep and to read
bad newspapers on account of the advertisements, when such advertisements
are not to be found (or not so fully) in a good paper, but he must
be admonished to subscribe for this end only, and not to leave the
newspaper about for others, especially children, to read. It is not
allowed to inn-keepers to have bad newspapers in their establishments
in order to attract customers by such reading, for that would be an
_actio ex se ordinata ad malum_. Under the heading of “bad newspapers”
are not included those producing here and there incorrect judgments upon
religion.[870]
V. _Intimacies_ (_procationes_).[871]
1. If this intimacy is begun with a view to matrimony it is not, _de se_,
forbidden, for none is bound to marry a person who is unknown to him; he
may, during a certain time, study the character and morals of the person
by means of lawful intimacy.[872]
But such intimacies, _in praxi_, very easily become an _occasio proxima_
of grave sin amongst young people and those who have not much conscience,
especially when greater familiarity and freedom of intercourse sets
in, and the time of marriage approaches.[873] That an intimacy may not
degenerate into an _occasio proxima_, or, having become such, may cease
to be so, the following rules must be observed: Only such as wish,
and are able, to contract marriage within a reasonable time (_tempus
rationabile_) should be allowed this kind of intimacy. They must,
therefore, be of proper age, so that the intimacy may not be too much
prolonged; there must be no impediment in the way of their marriage, that
is, they must possess the necessary liberty, being free from bondage of
any kind; the parents must not (from just motives) be opposed to their
child’s marriage, or to marriage with the particular person in question.
Moreover, there must be a firm intention of marrying. This intention may
be presumed to be wanting in the case of a rich young man who enters into
such relationship with a poor girl, or one who, at the very outset of the
acquaintance, induces her to sin, or neglects the necessary precautions,
or who, at the expiration of a suitable time, shows no disposition
whatever to contract marriage, etc. How long such intimacy may last
(_rationabile tempus_) cannot be determined by hard and fast rules
applicable to all cases; it must be left to the intelligent discretion of
the persons in question; half a year, or a whole year, may generally be
regarded as not too long. Let the confessor, therefore, take care that
the intimacy is not prolonged for years with danger of sin, and if it has
already lasted too long, let him provide that it should either be broken
off, or interrupted for a time, or that marriage should take place as
soon as possible.
2. In order that the intimacy may proceed honorably, the persons must
adopt suitable measures of precaution. Those therefore, between whom such
intimacy exists, _must not live in the same house_; they must, as soon
as possible, obtain the consent of the parents or their representatives,
for if they frequently meet without the knowledge, or against the will of
their parents, they will do it secretly, and in this lies a great danger.
If the parents are opposed to the marriage without just reason, the
confessor must suggest some other means for their honorable intercourse.
They must not associate solus cum sola, especially secretly in retired
places at night time—“_id quippe, si non fortuito sed consulto fiat,
nonnisi ex fine libidinis aut cum summo periculo libidinis fiet_,”
remarks Aertnys,[874] and Ballerini[875] says: “Those especially who have
care of the persons in question must pay attention to this. Parents,
and particularly mothers, must be very earnestly appealed to, and their
strict duty of watchfulness and care most forcibly insisted upon. And
in this they must be influenced not only by conscience, but by the
fear that the daughters ‘_semel corruptæ in paterna domo dehonestatæ
consenescant_.’” Moreover, their visits must not be too frequent nor too
long; and if they should be alone, they must not offend against the rules
of morality, but conduct themselves honorably in every respect; and,
lastly, they must procure for themselves the necessary graces in this
dangerous time by prayer and the reception of the Sacraments.[876]
3. Still greater prudence is necessary after engagement, as the danger of
sin becomes greater, _cum sponsus respiciat sponsam tanquam suam, magna
familiaritas sit quasi inevitabilis, imaginatio copulæ conjugalis brevi
secuturæ libidinem commoveat et timor prægnationis evanescat_, etc.[877]
Therefore, let the confessor, to the best of his ability, bring about
that the time of betrothal may not be deferred too long.[878]
4. If they have fallen into sin _ob causam amoris_, the intimacy assumes
the character of an _occasio proxima_, and it must be dealt with
according to the principles applicable to it.[879] They must, therefore,
_break off_ the intimacy if they can, without great detriment, forego
the intended marriage, and wait for the occasion of contracting another,
or they must set their relations with each other on a _better footing_ if
they cannot forego the marriage without sin and without great detriment.
It results from the foregoing that all “intimacies” are to be regarded as
sinful and as _occasiones proximæ_, which: (1) are entered upon without
any intention of marriage, but only for the sake of pleasure, sensuality,
and sin; (2) which are begun without hope of speedy marriage,[880] or
(3) in spite of the justifiable opposition of parents, (4) which are
secretly carried on,[881] and (5) which exist between persons who live in
the same house. Persons who maintain such relations, and will not break
them off, or refuse to amend, may not be absolved. Even if it happens
that they do not at first sin grievously, they will not, later on, remain
free from sin. And if they maintain that they have done nothing wrong,
the confessor must not at once trust their assurances, but instruct them
in their duty with the necessary circumspection and prudence.[882] “We
admonish all confessors,” writes Gaume, “not to absolve those who are
carrying on love affairs, when such things are for them gravely sinful,
when after three warnings from their own or other confessors (concerning
which penitents are always to be questioned) they have not really
amended. They must be given plainly to understand that, until they have
really amended, they cannot expect absolution from their own confessors,
nor claim it from others.”[883]
ARTICLE II
HABITUAL AND RELAPSING SINNERS
67. Definition and Treatment of Habitual Sinners.
An habitual sinner is one who, in consequence of a disposition or
tendency which he has acquired by oft-repeated sinful acts of a definite
kind,—such as blasphemy, cursing, perjury, impurity,—frequently falls
into that sin.[884]
How many acts suffice to constitute a sinful habit (_habitus seu
consuetudo_) depends upon the nature of the sin which has been often
committed and upon the manner in which it is committed, for instance, by
thought, word, or action; also upon the difficulty or ease with which
the sin is committed—so that the more easily a sin is committed the more
acts are required to constitute a habit. Sins of thought and speech
are more easily committed than sins of act, those which are incomplete
than those which are completed; and in completed acts, those which are
committed alone are more easily committed than those which have an
accomplice. Moreover, we must take into consideration the length of time
which elapses between the separate sinful acts of the same kind, as also
the disposition and temperament of the person, and the greater or less
intentness of the will in committing the sin.
Thus, according to the words of St. Alphonsus, the repetition of an
external sin five times in a month, if between the separate acts there
is any interval, may produce a habit. In sins of _luxuria consummata_,
with a _complex_, for instance, _fornicatio_, _sodomia_, a much smaller
number of repetitions of the same sin are enough to constitute a habit
of this sin. A much greater number is necessary in sins of speech and
thought. He must undoubtedly be regarded as an habitual sinner, who,
during a considerable time, has not resisted but yielded to temptation
of a definite kind. “However, when the administration or postponement of
absolution is in question,” remarks Lehmkuhl, “it does not so very much
depend upon the more or less accurate definition of a habit,” seeing that
there is no reason for excluding a penitent from absolution on account of
a sinful habit if he has a real wish to resist it or lay it aside.[885]
Nevertheless, this habit—like the occasion of sin—often excites a
_suspicion that the penitent is not disposed_ and inspires apprehensions
of relapse. The confessor must, therefore, be cautious in administering
absolution.
As a rule, the habitual sinner who is not in immediate occasion of sin,
must receive absolution if there is reason to believe that he has the
necessary dispositions. In this case absolution is to be given when
there has been no previous improvement, but the penitent must faithfully
promise to adopt the measures prescribed for his amendment.
In the case of such a penitent we must not presume at once that he
intends to receive the holy Sacrament in bad dispositions; we may
infer from the fact of his confessing his sins that he is disposed, as
spontaneous confession is a sign of repentance, unless there is positive
ground to presume the contrary. Nor may we say that the sinful habit is
a sign of indisposition, for although the sinful _habitus_ may make the
sinner more inclined to sin, it does not justify the supposition that he
has no firm wish to amend.[886]
But if (1) the habit is already _deeply rooted_ (as it generally is with
those who are habitual sinners _ex mala voluntate_, and always with
those who have been addicted to any vice—especially that of lust—for a
long time), the confessor could defer absolution for a short time, in
accordance with the principles guiding such postponement, unless some
other circumstance demands the immediate administration of absolution;
this he could do, both in order to learn how the penitent applies the
prescribed means of amendment, as also that the penitent himself may
conceive a greater horror of sin.[887]
(2) If the habitual sinner (_in peccato mortali habituatus_) is a cleric
who will soon receive Holy Orders, absolution must also be postponed;
for _positive_ goodness is necessary in such a penitent. An habitual
sinner who _refuses_ to confess _several_ times in the year, cannot, _per
se_, be refused absolution on that account; for, on the one hand, there
is no command to confess several times in the year, and, on the other
hand, there are other means which could be prescribed for uprooting the
habit and which are very suitable and efficacious for that purpose. A
different course, however, would have to be taken if the other remedies
were inefficacious; for many penitents can only find a suitable remedy in
frequent confession. Hence Toletus says very justly (in speaking of those
who habitually practice pollution), “I believe that there is scarcely
any other efficacious remedy for these than frequent confession, as
this Sacrament is the strongest curb.”[888] And still more clearly and
decisively does St. Alphonsus express himself,[889] saying, “He to whom
a grave sin, especially pollution, has become a habit, and who does not
frequently confess, may expect amendment only through a miracle.”
68. Relapse, and the Treatment of Relapsing Sinners.
Relapse into sin signifies literally the repeated commission of a sin
already confessed. In the theological sense, those are called relapsing
sinners, who, after several confessions, fall into the same sins again.
From this it results that a relapsing sinner is also an habitual sinner,
but not every habitual sinner is a relapsing sinner.[890]
In order that a confessor may arrive at a correct judgment concerning a
penitent who seems to be a relapsing sinner, he must investigate: (1)
if the sinful habit already exists; (2) if the penitent has already
been admonished by another confessor, and if he has known the means of
amendment; (3) if he has applied them and how; (4) how often, and under
what circumstances he has relapsed, if as often, or more often, or
less often, than before; if immediately, or almost immediately, after
the confession, if in severe temptation, or after long resistance, and
when he sinned last. From the answers he receives to these questions he
will recognize if he has to deal with a relapsing sinner, and, at the
same time, if the relapse is a sign of want of proper dispositions.
The relapsing sinner in the specified theological sense is not to be
confounded with one who relapses into a _single sin_ without habit, or
into an _occasio peccati_, that is, one who has not kept a promise to
give up an occasion of sin, has not removed the occasion, or has again
sought it (§ 64, III), whether he now has a habit of sinning or not. Here
we are only considering the _recidivi consuetudinarii_; those, therefore,
who have relapsed into the habit of sin, either from internal weakness,
or in consequence of external occasion.
Another distinction between relapsing sinners is not to be overlooked:
those who sin only in consequence of the force of passion, or of
weakness, in such sort that their will is generally opposed to sin, and,
therefore, when the storm of passion is over, immediately regret having
committed the sin, as it generally happens with blasphemies, curses, and
often with pollution,—these are _incontinentes seu habituati in peccato
tantum_; whilst those who sin in consequence of an habitual attachment
to sin, or from malice, and therefore without the preceding violent
impulse of passion,—these are the _intemperati seu habituati in voluntate
peccandi_ who are not so easily led to contrition.
The following principles are to be observed in absolving relapsing
sinners:—
I. The confessor must carefully examine the actual dispositions of
a relapsing sinner who has already been instructed and admonished
sufficiently, and who again returns, burdened with the same sinful
habit, without having made any attempt at amendment, or applied any of
the remedies prescribed for him by the confessor. Relapse under the
specified circumstances is, of course, no _direct_ argument against the
actual disposition of the sinner, though it is a direct argument against
the sorrow and purpose of amendment of preceding confessions. He who is
_truly_ sorry, and firmly purposes to avoid a sin, will refrain from it
at least for a time, and will not allow himself to be overcome in the
very first struggle with the enemy. It is, as Lehmkuhl rightly says,
legitimate to draw an indirect conclusion against the actual disposition
if the penitent gives only the same signs of sorrow as before.[891] His
disposition is, therefore, doubtful, and he must give better proofs of
it, although no definite rule can be laid down as to how, and to what
extent, this proof must be forthcoming.[892]
If, however, the confessor can form a _probabile et prudens judicium_
concerning the actual disposition of the relapsing penitent, he may
absolve him even if he has often relapsed, unless perhaps the duty of
giving up an occasion or making a restitution has to be previously
fulfilled. For even if the contrition of the penitent is only
_momentary_, not _persistent_, it is yet _true_ contrition. Because this
contrition is not persistent, it is not sufficient with respect to its
final operation,—namely, the attainment of eternal salvation; but because
it is true sorrow it is sufficient with respect to its immediate effect,
namely, that of procuring for the penitent absolution. As absolution
conveys sacramental grace, it increases the strength of the penitent,
enabling him to persevere; moreover, it remits mortal sin, so that if
the penitent died before he relapsed, he would be saved, and if he
died after relapse, _in statu impœnitentiæ_, he would be at least less
guilty in God’s sight, as his former sins would have been effaced by
absolution. Moreover, a sinner of this kind—accustomed to the reception
of the Sacraments, frequently instructed by his confessor, and admonished
concerning the danger of dying in mortal sin, the punishments of hell and
their eternal duration, the divine mercy and goodness, and the frequent
eliciting of sorrow and firm purpose—will, in the hour of death, if no
priest can help him, be more easily able to save himself from eternal
damnation by an act of perfect contrition. Hence the confessor must be
careful to exercise, with relapsing sinners, that great prudence spoken
of in the Roman Catechism, lest, having been accustomed to receive
the Sacraments, they be debarred from them by refusal of absolution,
or by imprudent postponement, to the great danger of their eternal
salvation.[893]
But if, as remarked above, the duty of abandoning some occasion of sin
or of making restitution, etc., be incumbent on the penitent, it may
be made a rule, for the first time, to put off absolution till he has
performed this duty, if it is easier for him to come to confession again
than to perform it; and this procedure will be still more in place if
the penitent had already once failed to keep his promise; indeed, in
this latter case, the penitent should only rarely be trusted before he
has really accomplished his duty. He may occasionally and by the way of
exception be trusted if, for instance, he shows special signs of a firmer
resolution, and if, on the other hand, it would be very difficult for him
to come again—having, perhaps, made a long journey, or for some other
similar reason.
II. Relapsing sinners whom the confessor sees to be insufficiently
disposed must, to the best of his ability, be helped to a proper
state of mind by his fatherly and zealous admonitions. He should not,
therefore, dismiss such penitents by at once postponing absolution, still
less by a prompt refusal of it. He should rather put before them the
hideousness of sin, the value of divine grace, and the danger of eternal
damnation.[894] Such admonition will, if imparted in the proper manner,
have the desired effect, at least if the sinner is not too much addicted
to sin.[895]
If the penitent should respond to these exhortations of the confessor
with some _unusual_ utterance, such as: “Now I see the greatness of my
misfortune,” “Give me a severe penance,” “This time I am very sorry for
my sins,” the confessor may hope that success has attended them. On the
other hand, he would have to fear that he had labored in vain if the
penitent should answer nothing more than that he is sorry, that he wished
to avoid sin, or if to the confessor’s questions he only gave cold and
indifferent answers. But here also the character and education of the
penitent are to be considered, and there is room for deception.[896]
III. If, in spite of the exhortation, the penitent remains indisposed,
the confessor must postpone absolution till he has received satisfactory
proof of amendment. This he must do as judge in order to preserve the
Sacrament from nullity, and also as physician in order to move the
penitent to an effectual amendment.
If the confessor finds himself obliged to postpone absolution, he must
inform the penitent of it in the gentlest manner, for the good physician
endeavors to make bitter medicine taste pleasant.[897] If, however, there
is a solid reason, absolution may be given to a doubtfully disposed
relapsing sinner _sub conditione_. For if more harm than benefit is to be
anticipated from the postponement, the salvation of the penitent demands,
as St. Alphonsus says,[898] that the Sacrament be exposed even to the
risk of nullity.
The confessor may act in accordance with the above principles in the
following cases:—
1. In danger of death, that the penitent may not be lost.
2. On account of imperfect use of reason, when the penitent is weak in
mind, or is a child not yet arrived at an adequate use of reason, and
has relapsed into doubtfully grave sins; for such penitents require
absolution in order not to remain in a state of mortal sin, and on the
other hand postponement would have no effect with them.
3. When the confessor fears that the penitent will not return. This is
much to be dreaded by reason of the weak faith of many people and their
scanty zeal for the welfare of their souls.
4. On account of the urgency of contracting a marriage on the same or
the following day, or of receiving holy communion, in order to avoid
great scandal; and even if a doubtfully disposed person ought not to
communicate, prudence will often suggest to the confessor not to inform
him of this.
5. On account of the difficulty of going to confession again, that is,
if the penitent would not be able to confess again for a long time,
as a prolonged postponement of absolution would remain without fruit,
and leave the penitent during that time in a state of mortal sin. This
reason, however, does not suffice in the case of relapsing sinners who
have neglected to make restitution, to terminate an enmity, or to give up
some occasion of sin.[899]
IV. Relapsing sinners, as to whose dispositions the confessor has
satisfied himself, may be, _toties quoties_, absolved, inasmuch as he is
judge.
It is to be remarked, however, that (_a_) a relapsing sinner who returns
for the first time can be more easily absolved than if he comes a second
and a third time to confession after having relapsed. The more numerous
the relapses after confession, the stronger is the presumption against
dispositions. (_b_) If some external occasion is the cause of this
relapse, the confessor must the more seriously consider if it would not
be better to postpone absolution, in order to test the sincerity of one
who has so often broken his promise to remove or abandon this occasion;
and he must not give credit to mere promises, or even to tears. For
the obligation is rather to remove an external occasion of sin than to
reduce it to a remote occasion, because experience proves abundantly that
this latter course is very difficult, and it is in many cases easier to
abandon the occasion.[900]
If, however, the relapse is the result of internal weakness, and the
penitent does not seem sufficiently disposed for the reception of
absolution, the confessor should employ all his zeal and charity in
preparing him for absolution. For the grace of the holy Sacraments is
very necessary to such penitents, and postponement of absolution would
not be helpful in their case. These are the penitents who yield to
violent temptations, or the stress of passion, in consequence of internal
weakness (we have designated them above _recidivi incontinentes_).
Nevertheless, there may be cases in this class of penitents also, in
which severity is to be used, or in which holy communion at least must
be forbidden, when it is evident, or to be presumed, from the frequent
relapses accompanying the frequent reception of the Sacraments, that
detestation of sin and firm resolution have been or are wanting. But if
it is to be presumed that the relapse takes place rather in consequence
of the Sacraments being seldom received, the penitent must be encouraged
to more frequent reception.[901]
V. Even if the relapsing sinner could absolutely be absolved, the
confessor may sometimes postpone absolution for a short time as a remedy,
if he believes that such postponement is necessary, or will be useful.
For, of two suitable remedies, the physician must choose that one from
which the better effect may be expected. Now it is universally admitted
and proved by experience that an occasional postponement of absolution
for a short time contributes much to the improvement of the habitual
sinner by increasing his detestation of sin and exciting his zeal in the
work of amendment. But great prudence is demanded in venturing upon this
experiment, especially in our times, when difficulty of any kind induces
weak people to absent themselves from the holy Sacraments.[902]
The postponement of absolution in the case of a sufficiently disposed
relapsing sinner without his consent is certainly not allowable, if it
either failed to benefit his soul, or if it were to bring disgrace, or
even the danger of it, to his reputation. Except in these two cases,
postponement of absolution is left to the discretion of the confessor.
St. Alphonsus[903] distinguishes here between those who relapse in
consequence of _internal weakness_, and those who relapse on account of
an _occasion_,[904] and teaches that postponement is seldom beneficial
with the first class; for here a better result is to be anticipated from
the graces of the Sacrament than from postponement. For those especially
who relapse into the sin of pollution there is no more efficacious means
of amendment than frequent confession; indeed, without this, improvement
is scarcely to be hoped for. But an opportune threat of deferring
absolution will always prove beneficial. With sinners of the second
class postponement is useful because the external occasion is a stronger
incitement to sin, and a more powerful remedy must be opposed to a more
powerful agency of seduction; moreover, the removal of the occasion is
more under the control of the will than the uprooting of a sinful habit.
With relapsing sinners of the first class a postponement of from eight
to ten days generally suffices; from two to three weeks would be the
longest period during which absolution should be deferred. With those of
the second class a postponement of ten to fifteen days will generally not
suffice, but the experience obtained within the space of a month will
always be sufficient. The postponement should not extend over a month,
if the penitent cannot come under the influence of the occasion during
the course of this time, because delay under the circumstances would be
useless.
69. Relapsing Sinners requiring Special Care.
There are two classes of relapsing sinners to whom the confessor must
devote special care: those who are _despondent_, and those who are always
relapsing into the sin of pollution.
I. As to the first, he must endeavor to find out the cause of their
despondency. If this proceeds (1) from the strength of the sinful habit,
the confessor must take care not to excite fear in one whose will is
good but who makes little progress; on the contrary, he must praise him
even if he sees only a slight improvement, and inspire him with hope
of finally achieving complete amendment with the help of divine grace.
Courage, hope of victory, and perseverance are necessary to such a
penitent. If he falls a hundred times, he must rise a hundred times and
renew the struggle; victory will not fail him who perseveres. But if (2)
an effeminate disposition accompanies these relapses, the confessor must
stimulate the penitent. He must teach him that everything is possible
to us with the help of divine grace, if we earnestly _will and wish_ to
succeed; for so St. Augustine encouraged himself in his struggle against
the flesh. “When,” he writes,[905] “the rooted habit said: Do you think
you can live without these things? Hope spoke encouragingly: Can you
not do what these young men and women do? And are they able to do it of
their own strength, and not in the Lord, their God?” The confessor should
urge the penitent, not in temptation only, but in all his doings, to act
bravely and manfully; he should seek to divert him from everything that
enervates the mind. If the despondency has its origin in carelessness,
let the confessor point to the terrible punishments of sin and endeavor
thus to arouse salutary fear.[906]
II. Pollution is a truly murderous vice, and, according to the testimony
of all confessors and physicians, appallingly prevalent. Its consequences
are as ruinous as its cure is difficult.
If the confessor purposes to terrify unhappy penitents by depicting the
dreadful consequences of this vice, let him proceed with caution, for not
all who are addicted to it experience them in full measure, and those who
do not would give him the lie. Some of these consequences are: nervous
prostration, consumption, epilepsy, spinal diseases; excess saps physical
vigor, dulls the understanding, impairs the memory, and hastens death.
Depression of spirits is also a characteristic of such people, a result
partly of nervous exhaustion and partly of remorse. Rarely, indeed, is
the conversion of such a man effected without the higher motives of
religion. That he must be treated with extreme prudence is evident.
Earnest but loving admonition instilling moral strength will soonest
attain to the desired end. The origin of the evil and the causes which
form the occasions of the individual sins (which must be investigated)
will suggest appropriate precautions.[907]
Here are some rules for the confessor of such penitents:—
1. Let him excite in them a great longing to be freed from the vice, and
inspire them with courage for the struggle and hope of ultimate victory;
otherwise his remedies will be fruitless. To this end, let him point out
the danger of eternal damnation; for the more the sins accumulate the
more difficult salvation becomes, and the stronger the habit the weaker
the will. To inspire courage let the priest reawaken in him a feeling and
sense of his dignity as a man and a Christian, which is outraged by this
vice.
2. The penitent must shun all dangerous occasions, avoid idleness and
solitude; take no part in improper amusements, theaters, and dancing, as
they excite impure fancies and enfeeble the mind.
3. Further remedies are: frequent prayer—especially the “Hail Mary” in
honor of the most pure Virgin, each time renewing before her picture the
resolution to sin no more. Meditation on the eternal truths will always
prove very efficacious.
4. When temptation arises the penitent should turn away his mind from it
at once; and if it persists, confidently pray, pronouncing the names of
Jesus and Mary. He may also reflect upon the sufferings of Our Savior,
on the eternal flames of hell, the presence of God. Very useful also is
a fervent act of love, accompanied by a resolution rather to die than to
sin.
5. One of the surest remedies is, undoubtedly, marriage—as the Apostle
also teaches (1 Cor. vii. 2, 9). Add to these other natural remedies
in support of the supernatural ones, such as: moderation in eating and
drinking—especially abstinence from wine and stimulating food in the
evening; moderation in sleep; physical exercise; early rising; at night,
prayer till sleep sets in.
But in order that the confessor may select suitable remedies, he must
know the physical constitution of the penitent and the circumstances of
his sins; namely, when, where, and under what conditions he generally
sins. The confessor should not omit to prescribe or recommend such of the
above-mentioned remedies as are adapted to the penitent.[908]
III. From the rule given above, according to which relapsing habitual
sinners can be absolved when they are sufficiently disposed, clerics,
who wish to receive Holy Orders immediately after absolution, form an
exception. They may not, as a rule, be absolved till satisfactory proof
be given of their self-restraint. Such a penitent must first have laid
aside his bad habit during a considerable time, at least during several
months. For a sacred minister would be unworthy to assist at the altar if
he did not possess the virtue of confirmed purity, seeing that the higher
Orders demand perfection in those who enter them, both on account of the
sacredness of the duties connected with the Orders, as also on account
of the good example which they are bound to give to the faithful. “As
those,” says St. Thomas, “who receive Orders, are, by virtue of their
dignity, placed above the people, so must they be conspicuous also by
the merit of holiness.”[909] And in another place he enforces this still
more, saying: “As the minister is by his ordination set apart for the
highest office, in which he serves Christ Himself in the Sacrament of the
Altar, a greater interior holiness is demanded for this than even the
religious state requires.”[910] Therefore, it by no means suffices for
the worthy reception of Holy Orders to be in a state of grace; _positive_
and _habitual_ holiness is required. St. Alphonsus establishes this
abundantly from Holy Writ, from the definitions of the Church, and from
the teaching of the holy Fathers.
If, therefore, a cleric sincerely promises that he will not receive Holy
Orders while addicted to such bad habit, he may be absolved; still
it would be preferable, if no obstacle presented itself, to postpone
absolution for a time. If, however, he should persist in his purpose of
receiving Holy Orders, he would thereby make himself unworthy of both
Sacraments. An exception is to be made in the case of a person favored by
God with such extraordinary compunction that he is quite transformed by
it and delivered from the old weakness,—such a one the confessor _can_
absolve and admit without any further probation to Holy Orders. But in
this case also the confessor should endeavor by every means to induce
the penitent to postpone the reception of Holy Orders, so that he may
better purify himself from the bad habit and carry out the resolutions
he has made. Indeed, if the penitent will not postpone the reception
of Holy Orders, the confessor, as physician, may, for this purpose and
for his spiritual profit, delay absolution so as to force the former to
put off his ordination. This applies when no danger of disgrace arises
from such postponement, for, otherwise, the penitent who gives signs of
_extraordinary_ sorrow is entitled to immediate absolution. “_Ceterum
Confessarii debent esse difficiles, quantum fieri potest, in absolvendis
hujusmodi ordinandis, qui postmodum ordinarie pessimi evadunt presbyteri
et sic populis et Ecclesiæ perniciem magnam afferunt._”
The above holds good not only with respect to the _vitium luxuriæ_, but
also with regard to any other vice.
A confessor administering absolution according to the above principles
provides for the interests of the Church, as well as for those of the
faithful and for those of the persons to be ordained.[911] If it is
objected that the person to be ordained would be brought into evil
repute by such proceeding, it may be answered, in denial of this, that
ordination may be postponed for many reasons and that pious youths not
infrequently desire such postponement. And if the consequences stated in
the objection were really to supervene, the evils resulting from hasty
ordination are by far more fatal. Nor is the want of priests, which
prevails nearly everywhere in our days, reason for rejecting the above
teaching, which is entirely based upon the principles of the saints and
of the Church. It would be a dangerous remedy to apply to the evil of
scarcity of priests. Moreover, experience of centuries proves that the
number of priests increases when and where the discipline of the Church
is strictly enforced. St. Thomas remarks, “God never so abandons His
Church that worthy servants of the altar in sufficient numbers are not to
be found, if only the worthy are ordained and the unworthy debarred from
ordination.”[912]
To conclude this very important section, we will call the attention of
the confessor to two Instructions given by the Congregation de Propag.
Fide. In these the practice of “_indiscriminatim_” absolving relapsing
sinners, adopted by some confessors, is strongly rebuked and condemned.
One Instruction (Aug. 1827) appeals first to the twofold power of
absolving and remitting sin to which this practice is entirely opposed,
and then to the teaching of the Rituale Roman. (Tit. De Sacram. Pœnit.):
“But let the priest take heed when and to whom absolution is to be
administered or refused.” Now this would not be prescribed if absolution
were to be given to all without distinction, including relapsing sinners
and penitents living in a habit of sin. The penitents being divided (as
above specified) into three classes, to whom absolution is to be given,
or postponed, or refused, respectively, the Instruction concludes: “Thus
teach prudent theologians, the Instructions given to confessors by St.
Charles Borromeo, and by St. Francis of Sales. Confessors must reflect
that, from too great ease in obtaining absolution, there results a great
ease in sinning.” In the other Instruction (April, 1784) the confessor
is reminded of his duty to examine into the gravity of the sins, the
obstinacy of the malady, and the dispositions of the penitent. He must,
therefore, carefully inquire if the penitent has true sorrow; if he has
entered upon a new life, detesting the former; if he promises amendment
with the heart, and not with the mouth alone; if he has abandoned the
occasions of sin; if he has applied the remedies previously recommended
to him; if he has laid aside the habit of sinning; if, having previously
received absolution, he has relapsed into the same sins in consequence
of his depravity; if he is ready to repair injury inflicted. These, and
many other things, the confessor must examine before he confers upon the
penitent the blessing of absolution.[913]
70. Penitents aiming at Perfection.
As we have seen in previous sections, the confessor must treat with great
care and zeal those penitents who are stained with grave sins and vices;
but he must not, on that account, neglect those who are striving after
virtue and perfection. A penitent who has preserved himself free from
grave sin and is capable of perfection claims, as St. Alphonsus teaches,
all the confessor’s care as guide along the path to perfection and divine
love.[914]
But as this is no light and easy matter, and as it involves
responsibility on the part of the confessor, he must pray to God for
light and endeavor to learn the natural disposition of the penitent and
the operation of the Holy Ghost in his soul. _For all are not to be led
in the same manner._ The phlegmatic, the choleric, the melancholy, and
the sanguine must all be differently treated. While the phlegmatic must
be spurred on that they may not become lukewarm, the choleric must be
restrained that they may not go too far, whilst they are guided to the
nobler and more exalted works and exercises in the service of God. With
the melancholy, care must be exercised that they do not give way to
sadness, do not isolate themselves, and imagine everything more difficult
than it is in reality; the sanguine must be prevented from allowing
themselves to be hurried by natural impulse into what exceeds their
strength; the confessor must insist upon their weighing everything well,
and then acting with firmness.[915] The guide of souls seeks to recognize
the operation of the Holy Ghost in his penitents, and he will carefully
follow up this operation. For the Holy Ghost dwells in the soul of the
just man; He is the teacher of the interior life and the invisible guide
to perfection. The confessor’s duty is to coöperate with the Holy Ghost.
St. Ignatius remarks wisely: “To wish to lead all to perfection by the
same road is full of danger; such a one does not understand how manifold
and abundant the gifts of the Holy Ghost are.”
Nevertheless, there are certain general principles and rules which are
useful to all in obtaining Christian perfection. As the saints, approved
theologians, and masters of the spiritual life have laid them down, we
reproduce them here in brief:—
1. Perfection consists for each one in performing well his ordinary work;
and he does it well who does it because, and when, and as God wishes—His
most holy Will being the source and rule of all perfection.
2. Penitents must be led gradually and regularly (_non per saltum_) to
perfection; for example, they must first act with the right purpose
and intention and learn to imitate the actions of Christ before they
contemplate higher things; they should first learn to bear easier trials
patiently before demanding more difficult ones.
3. The confessor should admonish them constantly to cherish the desire
for greater perfection, even if in certain instances they never seem to
attain to it; for such a desire will have this effect, that they will
at least reach that perfection of which they are capable and they will
acquire greater merit.
4. He must instruct them to confess every week, and induce them to avoid
even venial sins which are voluntary and deliberate, also to give up any
attachment to these sins. Those who confess venial sins which they have
_not committed with deliberation, but from human weakness_, must always
be absolved; those who have committed _venial sins with deliberation_,
but not from habitual attachment to them, must be absolved, but, at the
same time, helped and incited earnestly and zealously to endeavor, by
employing the means recommended by the confessor, to avoid them; those
who are accustomed to confess venial sins which they have committed
without any resistance, from _habitual attachment or custom_, give rise
to the suspicion that they are not properly disposed; the confessor,
therefore, must dispose them to true sorrow for at least _one_ venial
sin, and to a firm purpose of amendment, in order that they may be
absolved without sacrilege. Occasionally, however, as in the case of
other relapsing sinners, absolution may be postponed. The confessor
should not easily forbid them to confess their imperfections,—for
example, that they have not consecrated their actions of the day to
God, nor said the prayers of a confraternity, etc.,—because such
self-accusations contribute to a better knowledge of the penitent’s
spiritual state, exercise humility, and produce tenderness of conscience;
besides these imperfections often go along with some venial sin.[916]
The same applies to the transgression of those rules in a Religious
Order which do not bind under sin. And if the penitent confesses only
imperfections which do not positively amount to venial sins, or other
doubtful sins, let the confessor observe what we have said above (§ 6).
Let him see that they always go to holy communion well prepared and not
from mere custom; for a single communion after good preparation is worth
more than many communions received in a state of tepidity. The confessor,
however, must distinguish carefully true zeal and fervor from sensible
devotion.
5. The confessor should teach them _to master their passions_; especially
their predominant ones, for which purpose the particular examination is
eminently adapted. He should induce them to _practice virtues_, and that
in the right order, namely: (_a_) first the virtues demanded by their
position and profession; he should not, therefore, permit young women to
hurry from one Church to another, or to remain there longer than is right
and necessary, thus neglecting important duties, their families, etc. He
should exhort them rather to perform their household work faithfully and
zealously; (_b_) they should be instructed to practice more zealously
_those virtues against which they are tempted_; finally (_c_), he should
exhort them not to prefer those virtues which are more conspicuous and
more esteemed by men, but to strive after those which are in themselves
more excellent and useful and more pleasing to God, such as humility,
obedience, meekness, patience.[917] (_d_) He should also urge them to be
_faithful in small things_; for God does not generally ask great things
from us.[918]
6. He should not impose upon them extraordinary exercises; indeed,
he should not even permit them easily. At the same time he must not
prevent mortifications and practices of penance, even exterior ones;
but they must be proportioned to the corporal and spiritual powers of
the penitent. What saints have sometimes done, or allowed others to do,
cannot serve as a rule, but is more to be admired than imitated.
The confessor must also have regard for the special dangers and
temptations which may attend those who are striving after perfection:—
1. Those who at first were, by God’s grace, cheered with spiritual
consolation easily lose courage and relax in their zeal when He, for
their trial, and to lead them to higher things, withdraws from them
sensible devotion. If the confessor observes this, he must instruct them
in what true progress and true virtue consist; but penitents must be
warned in advance of this state of the soul.
2. The devil seeks to make those who are progressing in virtue believe
that they have advanced far enough, and endeavors to produce within them
the beginnings of lukewarmness. They become negligent in their accustomed
pious exercises, lay aside first one and then another mortification,
and begin to disregard slight faults. In this there is a great danger
lest, gradually relaxing in zeal, they at length fall into grave sin at
the first temptation, which the devil prepares for them when they have
become sufficiently tepid. It is difficult to perceive the beginning of
lukewarmness, but not its progress, and when the evil shows itself, the
confessor must endeavor with zeal and prudence to check it and prevent it
from becoming worse. To this end the penitent may be ordered to resume
all the pious exercises which he has neglected; he should be reminded
of the loss of grace, of its value, the dangers of lukewarmness. If the
penitent, before his relapse, had made considerable progress in virtue,
he should be admonished to make a retreat. The confessor should not
abandon hope even if the penitent has seriously failed. He must receive
him in a friendly manner and show compassion, for in this case severity
would be poison. He should remind him of Peter and Magdalen, who obtained
so many graces by their tears of sorrow and rendered themselves worthy
of the special love of Our Savior. On the other hand, the confessor must
urge the penitent to love God more, to develop greater zeal in His
service, and to repair his shortcomings by redoubled obedience, to adore
the divine Justice, to humble himself deeply, and to live more carefully
in the future.
If the penitent informs the priest that he has had extraordinary
consolations, and that his methods of prayer are unusual, the latter
should not show himself altogether incredulous in these matters; but
should calmly and carefully examine if any signs of hallucination are
present.[919]
Whilst there would be danger in promoting the deceptions of Satan by
imprudent credulity, very great injury might be done, on the other hand,
by incredulity and contempt. That he may not be taken unawares, the
confessor should familiarize himself with treatises on spiritual life;
for even in the humblest station of life God may manifest His special
graces.[920]
We give a few general rules:—
1. We must be more careful when the sense of spiritual consolation in a
penitent has been preceded by some external cause, or when some object
which, in the natural course of things might produce such consolation,
has been presented to the senses, than in the case of consolation by
which suddenly, and without any previously existing cause, the higher
powers of the soul seem filled with great light. The cause of the latter
can only be God (St. Ignatius). For only God can directly influence the
higher faculties of the soul—the understanding and the will. The devil
can only do so indirectly; he can cause sensible devotion, excite tears
and other effects which depend upon the bodily powers (Reuter).
2. The good Spirit suggests nothing which is opposed to truth, to Holy
Writ, the doctrines of the Church, the practices of the saints, the life
of Christ; nor anything frivolous, idle, inappropriate.
3. The good Spirit incites to self-denial, to mortification, endurance
of adversity, imitation of Christ, resignation to the will of God,
submission of private judgment, perfect obedience, humility.
4. The good Spirit is modest, and, therefore, proceeds to all its work
in an orderly manner; it incites, as a rule, only to what is usual and
ordinary and adapted to each one’s powers, without the intervention of
miracles. For the ordinary road to heaven is God’s own design; and if,
nevertheless, He sometimes inspires extraordinary things, it is almost
exclusively in the case of souls who are already rooted in humility and
do not strive after empty honors.
5. It is a sign of the operations of the Holy Spirit when the penitent
is humble of heart, not desiring extraordinary things, not aspiring
to astonishing exercises, making his holiness consist in the faithful
performance of the ordinary duties of life, holding himself unworthy of
the gifts of God, not exalting himself above others on account of these
gifts, rejoicing to be despised if the confessor treats his lights as
pure illusions, maintaining secrecy about his gifts.
6. But even when an emotion does come from God, a temptation from the
devil or some inordinate natural affection may intrude itself, so that
one might conclude that the consolation or the light which the penitent
has received is not from God; as, for instance, would be the case where
signs of pride were visible.
But whatever be the origin of these interior emotions and illuminations,
the individual must always employ them for the purpose of increasing
his contempt of self, both in his own eyes and those of others, in
intensifying his longing to imitate Christ in His poverty, humility, and
suffering; and if he zealously pursues this object, the purposes of the
devil will be defeated if the inspirations emanated from him.
7. Obedience, even against the proper judgment, is a good sign, and
absolutely necessary. Gladly and readily revealing what seems to redound
to one’s credit, seeking praise by means of extraordinary gifts,
displeasure if the confessor hesitates, are bad signs.
The confessor should not wish to have as penitents persons who lay claim
to extraordinary gifts, nor, prompted by vanity, should he take pleasure
in the flatteries which such persons offer to him. If he is so foolish
and vain, he can only ascribe it to a just judgment of God if he at last
discovers that, in punishment of his vanity and imprudence, persons who
suffered from illusions have deluded him also.[921]
71. Hypocritical Penitents.
The confessor must be able to distinguish penitents who seriously strive
after perfection, truly pious penitents, from those whose piety is
merely a cloak. The piety of these latter consists entirely in outward
practices; they visit churches a great deal, say many prayers, go to
confession often, and receive holy communion several times in the week.
And yet they neither know anything of true and solid virtue, nor strive
after it, but, on the contrary, are full of faults. They remain longer in
church than is necessary, with the result that parents, husband, or wife
are inconvenienced, and household duties are neglected. They receive the
Sacraments often—to be seen and praised by men; and if the confessor does
not allow them to approach holy communion as often as they wish, they
are angry with him. In the confessional they wish to talk much to the
confessor when there is neither use nor necessity for it. The spirit of
mortification is utterly wanting in them; they are, therefore, attached
to the pleasures of the table, dislike work, and are loquacious. They are
neither humble nor obedient; they do not submit to the guidance of their
confessor, but act as though he should rather obey them; they deceive him
by confessing trivial sins and concealing grave ones. They seek praise
and honor, are impatient under correction, despise others, and blame them
arrogantly. They are wanting in charity, and, consequently, cause trouble
among their familiars; they envy others, are given to anger, have no
care for the honor and good name of others, etc. With these hypocritical
persons must be classed those, particularly women, who wish to unite
piety to a worldly life.
But there is another class of women who adorn themselves with a show of
piety; namely, those _quæ sunt captæ amore Confessarii. Malum profecto,
quo non ipsæ tantum in perniciem ruunt, sed etiam Confessarium, nisi eos
dimittat, ruinæ participem reddunt. Persona talis nullam habet requiem;
torquet eam desiderium colloquendi cum Confessario unde, quoties facultas
ipsi est, ad Confessarium redit; torquet eam sollicitudo, qua illi
placere gestit, diffidentia et metus ne ab ipso deseratur, zelotypia ne
aliæ apud ilium gratia magis polleant._ The confessor must reprimand
them in season or out of season, that they may enter into themselves,
and strive after true and solid piety. If he is not successful, he must
endeavor to rid himself of them, or dispatch their confessions quickly.
There are, moreover, _extraordinary_ possibilities of _hypocrisy_ in some
women. “All malice is short compared to the malice of a woman,” according
to Jesus Sirach (25, 26). _Inde contigit, ut feminæ falso devotæ
finxerint se infirmas, postea miraculo sanatas atque publicas gratiarum
actiones impetrarint pro valetudine sic recuperata; aliæ finxerunt
vexationes et verbera a dæmone ipsis illata; aliæ ementitæ sunt visiones
et revelationes, necnon extases simularunt aliaque portenta fabricatæ
sunt._ By such cunning contrivances these persons wish to draw the
attention of others towards themselves, and to be honored and admired, or
to excite the pity of priests, _vel, quod pejus est, castitati alicujus
Sacerdotis insidias struere volunt_. The best remedy against all this is
not to believe such things, and to ignore the persons in question.[922]
72. Scrupulous Penitents.
No little trouble is caused to confessors by scrupulous persons. The word
“scruple,” in its real and primary sense, means a little stone which
inconveniences the wayfarer. Similarly, in its transferred sense, it
means some little spiritual obstacle which prevents a man from performing
an action because, for some vain and worthless reason, he fears that
he will commit sin. A scruple is, therefore, fear of sinning, where no
ground for fear exists. The confessor must know the signs of scruples,
their causes, and their remedies.
I. Marks of scrupulosity:—
We will premise that: (1) a person is not scrupulous because he has a
scruple occasionally, but only when he is habitually subject to them;
(2) frequently a man himself cannot tell if he is scrupulous or only of
an anxious conscience; he must, therefore, rely upon the judgment of a
prudent confessor; (3) the confessor himself cannot always positively
decide when he first treats a penitent if he is scrupulous or not; he
must, therefore, abide and observe till he knows the penitent better,
for as it is dangerous to treat a scrupulous person according to general
rules, it is injurious to guide others by the rules applicable only to
the scrupulous; (4) the confessor must use very great discretion and
prudence in dealing with penitents who are scrupulous on one point but
lax as regards other things.
The characteristic signs of a scrupulous person show themselves in this:
(_a_) that, upon slight grounds, or none at all, he changes his judgment,
holding the same thing to be allowable one moment, and forbidden the
next; (_b_) that he fears to commit sin by doing something which a
competent confessor has already told him to be allowed, and which he
sees other conscientious men do and which he himself would, in his own
judgment, consider to be allowed if he were not obliged or did not wish
to do it at that time; (_c_) that he is agitated for fear he should sin,
and cannot account to himself for this anxiety; (_d_) that he clings
obstinately to his own judgment, placing no confidence in the decisions
of learned men, or the confessor; (_e_) that he repeatedly asks whether
a thing is allowed, although he has several times received an answer
on the point; (_f_) that he ponders over circumstances connected with
an act which exercise no influence at all upon the moral value of the
action, and which other men generally disregard altogether; (_g_) that
he holds for a sin that which the most conscientious men commonly do
without thinking of sin; (_h_) that he is perpetually anxious about
his confessions, lest they should be invalid, although the confessor
has declared them to be valid, even after a careful repetition of the
confessions has already taken place.[923]
From these indications the confessor is able to judge if his penitent
is scrupulous. We must not mistake them, however, for the following
circumstances, which would be of little assistance in recognizing the
malady, as they are found not only with the scrupulous, but also with
those who have tender consciences.
1. If the penitent is concerned, and reasonably anxious, not to offend
God even in the slightest degree or to atone immediately for a sin
committed, he is not on this account a scrupulous person.
2. If some one after living a long time in grave sin is converted, makes
a good confession to the best of his ability, and, within a moderate
period, say half a year, for example, still thinks he cannot do enough
and wishes two or three times to reconfess his sins, he must not be at
once set down as scrupulous. After that time, however, the penitent must
be forbidden to say anything about former sins, or even to investigate
whether he has confessed everything correctly. Only if the penitent was
accustomed to conceal sins in the confessional might he be allowed to
continue during a longer time to confess sins which might occur to his
mind after the general confession.[924]
3. If a person doubts whether he has sinned in some particular instance
we are not to conclude that he is scrupulous; for a doubt may be
absolutely, or relatively, reasonable.[925]
If the confessor tells the penitent that he is scrupulous, the latter
must certainly believe him; but it is often very difficult to convince
the penitent. He is rather disposed to consider others thoughtless and
less conscientious, not excluding the confessor, or to think that the
latter does not properly know him or has misunderstood him. Here the
cunning of the devil is seen, who is wont to instill into perplexed
souls a peculiar presumption and obstinacy of judgment. This error is
very pernicious; it springs from pride and makes the penitent scorn the
remedies which are offered to him.
II. The causes of scruples:—
Scruples may proceed from God, from the devil, and from a natural
disposition.
1. God sometimes permits scruples (_permissive_), withdrawing from just
motives His supernatural light. If the trials thus proceed from God, they
are, _per se_, useful, produce a profounder contrition, humility, and
detachment from the world.
2. Scruples proceed from the devil also (_effective_), who has a peculiar
skill in producing them by confusing the imagination with false shows
and suggestions. He does not plague great sinners with scruples, because
he is content to leave them in their state of presumption, and so cast
them ever deeper and deeper into ruin. Nor are great saints troubled by
him, because in them fear has been conquered by perfect love. It is only
those who have begun to give themselves to God, and chiefly those who
have abandoned great sins and entered upon the right road. His object is
to perplex and hamper them in their spiritual progress, to plunge them
into despair, or, at least, to disturb their interior peace. Scruples
emanating from Satan must, therefore, be combated with all energy, _for
they tend to evil_.
3. Scruples may also be traced to natural causes (_dispositive_), the
individual having a keener and more sensitive perception of evil, or a
wavering, unsettled judgment.
These natural causes are partly physical and partly moral: (_a_)
Bodily constitution: a melancholy temperament may incline an otherwise
sagacious man to suspicion, obstinacy and scrupulosity. Others who in
consequence of a physical disposition are low-spirited, despondent, and
timid, readily conceive an unreasonable fear of sin, and if they do
not quickly banish this fear, they frequently fall a prey to scruples.
(_b_) Nervousness and disease of the brain: the imagination becomes
excited and perplexed, so that vivid conceptions of the imagination
are not sufficiently distinguished from the judgments of reason. This
affection may be hereditary, or it may arise from overwork, late hours,
or immoderate fasting. (_c_) Dullness of mind, which cannot adequately
distinguish real from seeming motives; but acuteness of intellect, if the
judgment is not well balanced, may produce the same result. (_d_) Hidden
pride and obstinacy of private judgment: a man subject to these moral
defects becomes easily entangled in doubts and scruples. (_e_) Too great
anxiety to avoid everything—I will not say in any way evil, for that we
must avoid, but which has even the appearance of evil; thus is formed the
habit of adopting the stricter and the speculatively more certain view,
a proceeding which in practice does not by any means tend to the safer
course.[926] (_f_) Intercourse with scrupulous people, reading books in
which only the stricter opinions are advanced, confessing to a scrupulous
confessor.[927]
III. The following considerations will show when the scruples proceed
from God: (1) when they excite sincere detestation of sin; (2) when they
do not last long and end in great calm of mind; (3) when they are called
forth by hatred of sin.
Scruples may be recognized as proceeding from the evil one: (1) when they
produce lukewarmness and despair of salvation; (2) when the scruples
occur in connection with the holiest actions, especially where a man is
otherwise not accustomed to be much troubled with them; (3) when a man
detests only this or that kind of sin—others not so much; God detests all
sin; (4) when a man yields to grave temptations while at the same time he
is anxious about trifles.[928]
But when, without apparent reason, the heart becomes uneasy and the head
affected, when a sudden tremor takes possession of the limbs and the mind
is filled with scruples, we may justly assume that the latter proceed
from natural causes, and this sign is the more certain if in all places
and in all actions the penitent is molested by them.
IV. Scruples are _very pernicious_, causing perplexity and dejection of
spirit, placing obstacles in the way of the soul’s progress towards
virtue, closing the heart to the consolation of the Holy Ghost, producing
dryness of spirit, aversion to prayer, and neglect of the ordinary
duties. Scruples frequently undermine health, not seldom exposing the
subject of them to the danger either of becoming insane or of falling
into great sins of impurity, despair, blasphemy, or suicide.[929]
St. Alphonsus distinguishes three kinds of scruples, and theologians
universally follow him in this division: (_a_) scruples concerning
former confessions, the person being always uneasy about them, although
they have been made properly and completely; this kind of scruple is
not so difficult to overcome; (_b_) scruples concerning the consent to
sinful thoughts about different matters; here the scruple as a rule
comes after the action—these scruples may be a heavy burden; (_c_)
scruples concerning all actions, or at least innumerable things about
which other men do not at all trouble themselves. These are the worst
scruples. The remedies which the confessor has to employ for the cure
of scruples are the following: (1) He must find out if the penitent is
scrupulous about everything, or only some things, and what is the cause
of the scruples. (2) He must convince the penitent that, where sin is not
evident, the safest course for him is obedience to his confessor; and
that, on the other hand, it is very dangerous not to obey his confessor.
(3) He must, therefore, ask the penitent if he has confidence in him,
and if he will obey him even against his own judgment; the confessor
must undertake to guide the penitent only after these questions have
been answered in the affirmative, otherwise he must tell him plainly
to apply to another confessor in whom he has confidence and whom he is
willing to obey. If this is not done, the confessor’s pains would be
simply thrown away. (4) The confessor in most cases ought to be kind
to the scrupulous penitent, though severity is sometimes necessary,
especially where obstinacy in private judgment is manifested, or when
the penitent presses for repetition of a confession against the advice
of the confessor. Under no pretext whatever, not even when tears are
added, should the confessor allow this. This extreme severity is a
kindness; but it should be tempered with gentleness. (5) To doubts, let
the confessor answer _without hesitation_ and _without much questioning_,
and interpret everything according to the more lenient view. He should,
in most cases, give no reasons for his answers, lest the penitent might
think that after all his scruples were not to be despised, and because
the latter will weigh these reasons, and make them doubtful by opposing
to them his futile objections. Nor should he listen to new doubts and
scruples, but when he is morally certain that a scruple is in question,
he should sometimes without listening to the penitent order him to lay
aside all anxiety and quickly to receive holy communion. (6) He should
give the penitent some general rules to follow; the more general and
the easier the application of these rules and the more comprehensive of
individual circumstances, the better they are.[930] Such general rules to
be given to the penitent are the following: (1) He must be convinced that
he really is scrupulous—but that scruples by no means lead to holiness;
he should, therefore, firmly resolve to combat them. (2) He should pray
with great humility, confidence, and resignation to the divine Will for
light and peace of conscience. (3) He should cling to one and the same
confessor in whose learning and goodness he trusts, and whom he must obey
most strictly, as the representative of God. The confessor’s decisions
must be regarded as final by the penitent. Never should the penitent
seek a solution of his doubts elsewhere than from his confessor. He
should abide with this decision even if doubts again arise. (4) He must
accustom himself to consider God as infinitely good, and occupy himself
with thoughts which awaken confidence in God, avoiding any which have
the opposite effect. (5) He should flee idleness, so that the devil may
always find him busy. He should avoid intercourse with scrupulous people,
as also reading about things which excite scruples. (6) As soon as a
scruple arises, he should banish it, and think of something else, as if
it were a temptation to evil. He should not allow his mind to dwell upon
his scruples by opposing reasons to them, but energetically lay aside all
doubt. (7) He must not give way to a scruple by obeying its suggestions;
on the contrary, he must act boldly in opposition to the scruple, and
not fear that he will sin, even when his conscience does not seem to him
to be very clear about the matter. For a scrupulous person it should
suffice to know that he must despise his scruples, and that in spite
of them, he may do any act of which he cannot say _positively at first
sight_ that it is a sin; and that, in order to commit a mortal sin, it
is necessary for him to be able to say at once, without hesitation and
without examination, that the thing in question is forbidden under mortal
sin. (8) Let him be assured that he is by no means obliged to confess
his doubts; indeed, that this is not even useful and must be forbidden.
_Doubtful sins_ a scrupulous person is _certainly_ not bound to confess.
Speculative doubts the scrupulous person is not bound to regard; for what
for others is a reasonable motive for investigation, is not so for the
scrupulous. From this results:—
(1) For a scrupulous person an act which he does not recognize at once as
a sin is not a sin; (2) he may do that which he sees other conscientious
people do without scruple, even when it is contrary to his own judgment
or his own opinion; (3) scruples are, for him, no reasonable ground for
doing or for not doing an action, or for hesitating; and this applies to
the doubt as to whether a scruple or a valid reason is in question.[931]
With regard to different kinds of scruples Reuter gives the following
good rules:—
1. He who is troubled with doubts _as to whether he has consented to
interior temptations_, and is otherwise conscientious, may regulate his
conduct according to the following principles: (_a_) He is never to
believe that he has consented to a mortal sin if he does not positively
know that he fully recognized the gravity of the sin, and fully consented
to it. (_b_) If the person tempted is seized with fear, abhors the object
of the temptation as he considers it more closely and remains determined
not to offend God, he has not completely consented. This applies to
non-scrupulous persons also; and theologians maintain that he who has
a God-fearing conscience, and is not accustomed to consent to sin with
full attention, may believe, in a case of doubt, that consent has not
been complete, for _ex communiter contingentibus fit prudens præsumptio_.
(_c_) Nor may we conclude that he has fully consented because the
temptation lasted a long time, or because the sensual excitement was
violent, for this is material and involuntary, and sometimes appears more
considerable than it really was.
2. If the penitent is tempted against _faith_, or against _hope_, let him
ignore the temptation, turn his mind to other things, especially to God,
but let him not be perplexed by trying to awaken a positive act of these
virtues. And if he thinks that he has had blasphemous thoughts, let him
proceed in the same manner, despising them, and disbelieving that he has
consented to them, although he may have felt a certain pleasure in these
thoughts and emotions; indeed, the devil can create in the imagination a
certain semblance of consent, while the individual himself and his will
are far removed from the criminal act. When the soul has been calmed it
is always useful to make an act of the love of God.
3. If the temptation refers to conditional events in the future, for
instance, “what would you do if you were obliged either to sin or to
endure this or that evil?” let him turn away energetically from such
thoughts, not answering directly or positively but rather indirectly, “I
will not offend God now; and should I ever be so situated, the grace of
God will help me to do His will.” With this answer let him calm himself,
and not rashly entangle himself in difficulties, lest he suffer the
punishment of presumption, like the Apostle Peter.
4. If, _when looking at perfectly innocent things, impure images and
emotions_ arise, let him look at them boldly if they are objects and
pictures (for example, holy pictures), modestly and transiently if human
beings; let him act as other conscientious men do in these things and
despise the emotions or thoughts. He should proceed in the same manner if
these things happen when he is saying certain prayers; let him not omit
the prayers on this account, but devoutly proceed with them.
5. The _Divine Office_ may be a source of scruples. The penitent may
doubt whether he had the intention of reciting it; this scruple is
ridiculous, for the very fact of his saying it shows that the intention
is there. He may doubt that he has recited it properly, having mutilated
words, or been voluntarily distracted; in this case he should not repeat
anything at all, for since he honestly wished to perform his duty, it is
to be presumed that he did it properly. While he is saying his Office
he must not stop, but proceed according to previous intention without
hesitation, without straining the mind, without hurry, without anxiety.
As the requisite attention is not prevented by any action which, of its
nature, is consistent with interior attention, the person should not be
troubled if he has done such an action, unless it were of a kind which
conscientious men would, during prayer, be careful to avoid. After the
completion of the Office, an anxious person should repeat nothing, even
if he fears that he has said it badly. If he is very scrupulous, and
requires too much time for saying his Office, his Superior or confessor
can fix a certain time in which conscientious clerics are accustomed
to say it conveniently, and if, after devoting this time to it, he has
not quite finished it, he shall omit the part still remaining. Indeed,
according to the same author, and Gobat, whom St. Alphonsus quotes (in
approval of his opinion), the Office could even be absolutely _forbidden_
to such a person till it could be assumed that he was able to recite it
without such worry; for grave inconvenience releases from obedience to
the commandments of the Church.[932]
73. Converts.
As it is not every belief that saves, but only the true faith taught by
Christ, the zealous priest will be anxious to contribute, as much as he
is able, to the conversion of heretics. He will, therefore, in continued
prayer, implore for them the light of grace, that they may recognize
their error and seek the truth; he will, when occasion presents itself,
exhort them to avoid sin, “because error does not produce sins, but sins
produce error,” and “darkness does not comprehend the light.” He will
also, in a judicious manner, encourage them to attend our religious
services, to hear sermons, to read books in which the Catholic doctrine
is exposed and explained; he will not object to friendly intercourse
with them, in order to lead them gradually to a recognition of their
errors, as they begin to doubt of the truth of their teachings, and
salutary scruples arise in them. When a heretic wishes to accept the
Catholic faith and be instructed, he should: I. Be received with great
love and kindness and be asked discreetly why he wishes to change his
religion and embrace the Catholic faith. Whatever motive he assigns,
caution is necessary,—because there are designing people who, under the
cloak of piety, seek, not the salvation of their souls, nor the truth,
but temporal advantages, such as marriage, sustenance, etc., and,
having obtained these, live bad lives, and return to their old vices, as
examples both amongst Jews and heretics teach us. He has, therefore, to
be taught that, in returning to the true Church, he must seek simply and
solely the kingdom of God, and the salvation of his soul. If, however,
he should say that he is poor and deprived of the means of sustenance,
he should not be promised assistance till there is proof of his good
intentions. But, in order that the priest may not be deceived, he should,
if he does not already know the man sufficiently, examine him by various
questions at different times, and only when he finds him sincere,
recommend him to others. The priest should not show familiarity, nor do
or say anything in private intercourse, which he would regret if the
catechumen should, perchance, return to heresy.
Moreover, he should endeavor to acquire the confidence of the convert,
so that the latter may gladly unfold to him all his errors, doubts, and
wounds.
The convert must be admonished to attach great importance to the business
of his conversion, as upon it depends his eternal salvation; he should,
therefore, often and fervently pray for its happy issue, and perform good
works; the priest himself should also most zealously pray and induce
others to pray for him.
II. Having convinced himself of the good dispositions and steadfastness
of the convert, the priest should readily offer to supply him with the
necessary instruction, or, if he is really prevented from doing so,
provide for his instruction at the hands of some other reliable person.
In the matter of the instruction the following points must be observed:—
1. First of all it must be ascertained if the convert is a material
or a formal heretic. He is a formal heretic if he has knowingly and
voluntarily adhered to any error against the truth of the Catholic
faith, after that truth had been adequately exposed to him, and he
had recognized it as truth. A material heretic is one who professes
error through ignorance, or in consequence of perverse instruction or
education. Perhaps most of the non-Catholics of the lower classes belong
to the latter kind; seeing that, from childhood, they have been reared
in every prejudice and calumny against our religion. But when reasonable
doubts arise in them, they are bound to investigate, to pray for divine
light, to search for the truth, and as soon as they recognize it to adopt
it. Otherwise they become formal heretics, because they adhere with
obstinacy to error.
2. Then we must investigate to what extent the convert has been
instructed in the tenets of his sect, and what doubts trouble him with
regard to the Catholic doctrine. For there are mainly two classes of
heretics who become converts; the first consists of simple uneducated
people, who require sound instruction in Christian truth, but who should
be informed of points of controversy with great caution, in order that
they may not learn new errors and hence new doubts. The other class is
formed of educated people whom one must instruct especially on all points
of divergence, so that their doubts are dispelled.
3. But as faith must be the rational and invincible assent to all
revealed truths, the credibility of our dogmas must first be demonstrated
to the heretic; and these are to be accepted if the Catholic Church
alone is the true Church of Christ. He should, therefore, be taught that
the true faith is necessary to salvation, and that there is only _one_
true religion, and only _one_ Church of Christ, as the true religion
must come from God, and God who is truth itself cannot reveal what
is self-contradictory. He should then be shown that the true Church
of Christ must have definite marks which distinguish her from every
false sect, and that these marks of the true Church of Christ are only
possessed by the Catholic Church. After this we may expose particular
doctrines, especially those articles in which Catholics differ from
heretics, namely: the Sacraments, the Real Presence of Christ in the
Holy Eucharist, purgatory, veneration of the saints, the infallibility of
the Pope.
III. When the convert has been (according to his intelligence) fully
instructed, he must be prepared for the reception of Baptism, if he be
not baptized, of the Sacrament of Penance, and holy communion, and for a
profession of faith. As converts generally dread confession, the priest
must endeavor to remove their fear by reminding them of the seal of
confession, the peace of mind following upon a good confession, and by
lessening the difficulties of the examination of conscience. The manner
of making a good preparation and thanksgiving for holy communion should
be well explained. Finally, give him a formula of confession of faith in
his native language, and explain it to him.
IV. Not till the priest is satisfied as to the convert’s knowledge and
constancy should he receive him into the communion of the Church. _The
reception itself_ may take place in three different ways, according to
the circumstances of the convert:—
1. If he has not been baptized, or if the nullity of his Baptism is
certain, Baptism is administered to him _absolutely_; but then no
abjuration of heresy on the part of the convert takes place, nor is
absolution given to him, because the Sacrament of Regeneration cleanses
from all sins.
2. If Baptism has to be repeated _sub conditione_, the _abjuratio
hæresis_, or the _professio fidei_ takes place in the vernacular, then
Baptism is administered _sub conditione_, after which the convert
confesses and receives absolution _sub conditione_.
3. If the Baptism which the convert formerly received is regarded as
valid, he abjures his heresy by pronouncing the profession of faith, and
is then absolved from the ecclesiastical censures.[933]
An _abjuratio hæresis_ is not to be demanded from children who have not
arrived at the age of puberty, _i.e._ about their fourteenth year; nor
is absolution from the censures to be administered, as they have not
incurred any; they need only make the _professio fidei catholicæ_ before
they are admitted to the Sacraments. For these young converts the Symbol
of the Apostles seems to suffice. But from such as have passed this age,
a formal abjuration of the sect to which they have hitherto belonged is
to be demanded.[934] Although a _material_ heretic can be absolved by
every confessor _pro foro interno_, it is more advisable and safer to
procure from the bishop the _facultas absolvendi ab hæresi_, as there are
difficulties in the matter, and the confessor may easily be deceived in
his judgment. This faculty is always to be requested _pro foro externo_.
If, at his conversion, a heretic must be baptized, his admission to the
Church belongs to the right of the _parochus loci_. The bishop must be
consulted as to the repetition of Baptism _sub conditione_.