duty of restitution, and if it is anticipated that he will not be willing
to make it, or that great difficulties will arise, the confessor ought
not to call his attention to this duty, but leave him in his state of
ignorance. For, by such exhortation, the material sin would become a
formal one, and the confessor’s duty is rather to guard against injury
to the soul of the penitent than to ward off a temporal injury from a
neighbor. If, however, the confessor is questioned by the sick person
concerning such a duty, he must give an answer, but give it with such
caution that neither truth nor justice suffer, and that the salvation of
the sick person be not imperiled.[1037] The confessor should then exhort
the sick person to forgive from his whole heart every one who has ever
offended him, and to beg pardon of those whom he has ever offended, or
injured.
3. If the sick person is in a _voluntary immediate occasion of sin_, he
must remove this at once, or form a firm purpose of doing so as soon as
possible. Without this resolve, even _in articulo mortis_, absolution
could not be given, for the necessary dispositions would be wanting. If
there is no danger in delay, the confessor must insist, with inexorable
severity, upon the removal of this occasion, if it is a public one,
and postpone absolution till it is removed.[1038] Such occasions may
be dangerous objects, or persons whom the sick man hates, or a person
with whom he maintains sinful intercourse. The latter occasion presents
greater difficulty, and it is to be disposed of according to the rules
laid down for those living in concubinage. If the matter has remained
secret, or is only known through confession, and if public scandal is to
be feared from immediate removal of the person, the penitent must form
the firm purpose either of marrying her, if no obstacles which cannot be
removed are in the way, or of dismissing her as soon as possible, and
till then, of keeping her at a distance as much as possible.[1039]
If the person were an _occasio necessaria_, that is, if the sick man had
no one else to wait upon him, the matter becomes still more difficult.
Supposing that the _occasio proxima_ has really lost its character in
this situation, the circumstances might call for some forbearance;
however, if the matter is notorious, some explanation should be made in
order that the scandal caused may be atoned for; that is, the sick man
should be obliged to declare, perhaps before witnesses, that he would
dismiss the person when he had recovered health; but this declaration
would not be necessary if the circumstances which make the dismissal of
the concubine impossible are publicly known.
This tolerance is the more justifiable if the immoral relationship
had not become generally known, but were only learnt through the
confessional, and difficulties stood in the way of contracting the
marriage _in extremis_. But here also the sick man must promise that he
will marry, or dismiss the person who is the occasion of sin to him, etc.
However, in all cases where the concubine cannot be dismissed, the sick
man must take care that she does not sleep near him, that she only goes
to him when it is necessary, in order to avoid dangerous intimacy and
temptation.
4. If the person who is dangerously ill is living in so-called “civil
matrimony,” and there is no canonical impediment, a promise to marry made
before the parish priest and two witnesses suffices, and the marriage
must take place as soon as possible. If there is a canonical impediment,
for which a dispensation can be obtained, let the confessor induce the
sick man to submit himself to the laws of the Church. On this condition
he may be absolved; the confessor should then procure the dispensation
if the patient is not already _in extremis_. If he is already very near
death, the bishop can dispense, in order that the marriage may proceed,
as it may, for many reasons, be desirable. If the impediment cannot be
removed by a dispensation, it suffices that the sick person promises
to submit to the laws of God and the Church, in case he is restored to
health. If he is not aware of the obstacle, he may be left in his _bona
fides_. If the matter is publicly known, the scandal given must be
repaired.
5. If a dying woman has separated from her husband on her own authority,
the confessor must demand that the separation should be revoked as soon
as possible; if the person does not wish this, and there is canonical
ground for separation, she must be left in peace. If the reasons
are futile, she must declare that she will resume married life upon
the restoration of health (if occasion requires, she must make this
declaration before witnesses, in order to remedy the scandal given). If
she had been divorced by the civil court _in bona fide_, she must not
be disturbed. Of course, the conduct of the confessor would be modified
according as he had learnt the matter through the confessional, or
previously, by general report. In the latter case the explanations and
promises in question must be duly given before the administration of the
Sacraments.[1040]
In respect to sick persons who have lived in habitual sin, or have
frequently or generally relapsed into the same grave sin, see §§ 67 and
68.
6. As soon as the confession is completed, the confessor should exhort
the sick person in a few forcible words, and awaken in him true sorrow
and firm purpose of amendment. The thought of death, vividly suggested by
the circumstances, is well calculated to move a man to a holy fear and
repentance. In most cases it is advisable to make an act of contrition
with the sick person.
7. Then, according to the express admonition of the Roman Ritual, a
slight penance should be imposed upon the sick person, which can be
performed at once. The confessor should help persons who are very ill,
and those who are dying, to perform the penance before, or after, the
absolution has been administered.[1041]
8. When the sick person’s spiritual condition has been set in order,
attention must be paid to the regulation of his temporal affairs (Is.
xxxviii. 1). If it is considered necessary or advisable, he should,
therefore, be admonished to put his worldly concerns in good order, if he
has not yet done so, that he may afterwards occupy himself with God in
undisturbed peace. But he must so regulate everything that he may be well
prepared for the account which he will be obliged to render to God.
III. The priest very often finds himself with sick persons who are
altogether uneducated and ignorant; or who, though well informed in
affairs of the world, are very ignorant in religious matters. Whilst he
can openly instruct the former class, he is often obliged to disguise
his instruction of the latter that they hardly observe it, so as not to
offend them and jeopardize the salvation of their souls. In this case
he can give an explanation of the truths of faith which are applicable:
(_a_) in the form of a prayer in which God is invoked; (_b_) in the form
of a thanksgiving; (_c_) in the form of a sacrifice, or (_d_) in the form
of an exhortation. Nevertheless, an explicit act of faith may be added.
The confessor should commit to memory different formulae by means of
which he can, when necessary, instruct ignorant patients in the truths
which they must know, and elicit the acts of the theological virtues with
them; he should also learn by heart short prayers and verses of Holy Writ
which contain acts of the different virtues necessary to the patient.
9. In order to provide more abundantly for the salvation of the sick
person, the zealous priest should not content himself with what is
necessary for a valid and fruitful reception of the Sacrament of Penance,
but should endeavor, in subsequent visits[1042] (which should be repeated
oftener as death approaches): (1) to remove all obstacles to salvation;
(2) to counteract the attacks of the evil one; (3) to suggest remedies
helpful in the dangerous passage to eternity.
(_a_) Such obstacles to salvation are, preëminently: attachment of life,
love of relatives, and care for earthly things. To remove these, it
is especially necessary to inform the sick person, prudently, and at
a suitable time, of the danger of death, at first by hints, but later
on, when death is nearer, openly and plainly.[1043] Then the priest
must explain to him how pleasing to God it is, and what great merits he
acquires for himself before God, if he submits to His will and makes the
sacrifice of his life. He should also be reminded of the miseries of the
life which he is leaving behind, and of the joys of heaven to which he is
passing; impressing upon him, moreover, that God who takes him away from
his own will provide for them.
(_b_) Against the temptations of the devil, which are usually more
violent and numerous in the hour of death than in life, the general
remedies—invocation of the names of Jesus and Mary, the sign of the
cross, and short prayers—are to be used. A crucifix and one or two
religious pictures should be placed near the sick bed. In temptations
_against faith_, the patient may exclaim, “Oh, my God! I believe all that
Thou, the eternal Truth, hast revealed!” or he may thank God for the
grace of the true faith, and protest that he will live and die in this
faith; or, finally,—and this is an excellent proceeding,—reject these
temptations energetically, and direct his attention to other things,
making other acts—acts of sorrow, of confidence, of love of God, etc. And
should the temptations continue to molest the sick person more violently,
the _motiva credibilitatis_ may be explained to him.
If the sick person is tormented by _temptations to despair_, the priest
must not speak to him of the justice of God, nor of the punishments of
the damned, nor of the gravity of sin, but of the exceedingly great mercy
of God, the sufferings of Christ, the divine promises, the intercession
of the most holy Virgin and the saints, and thus inspire him with
confidence.
If, on account of great pain, the sick person is tempted to _impatience_,
remind him of the rewards of patiently borne suffering of Our Savior, who
bore with patience the greatest torments; of the example of the saints,
especially of the Queen of martyrs; of the duty of doing penance for our
sins; of the pains of purgatory, which he may partly expiate by patient
endurance of suffering; also of the fact that patience soothes and
lessens pain. As a remedy against _temptations to hatred_ and _feelings
of hostility_ remind him of the precept of Christ to love all men, and
to exclude no one, not even our enemies, from this love; moreover, of
the offenses we commit against God, who forgives us over and over again;
of God’s promise to forgive us if we forgive others; and, finally, place
before his eyes the glorious example of Jesus.[1044]
(_c_) The confessor must assist the sick person by all the other means
which our holy faith so abundantly possesses, administer to him in
due time the last Sacraments, give him absolution repeatedly,[1045]
and (observing the precepts of the Church) frequently holy communion;
often suggest fervent ejaculatory prayers; say with him the acts of
faith, hope, and charity, and of perfect contrition for all past sins,
also of perfect resignation to God’s holy will; make him participate
in the indulgences of the Church, give him general absolution, let him
kiss the crucifix, sprinkle him with holy water, etc.[1046] And as it
is not certain that a priest will be with the sick person in his last
struggle and equally uncertain that the patient will not again commit
a sin, especially as the evil one continues his temptations till the
last moment, the priest should teach him to elicit acts of love and
contrition; he should also request a trustworthy person among those
around the patient to make frequent acts of perfect love and contrition
with him, especially during his agony.[1047]
86. Absolution of the Dying.
The general principles laid down in the preceding sections apply also
to this particular case. _If it is certain that anything essential
is wanting to the disposition of the moribund, absolution may not be
administered_; but if it is in any way, even _tenuiter_, probable, that
everything essential is present, absolution not only _can_ but _must_ be
given. This, however, is not to be understood as meaning that there may
not be cases in which absolution can be given, but where no obligation
exists under pain of sin of giving it. Most of the cases which occur can
be solved by the rules which follow:—
I. A dying person who, in the presence of the priest, has given a sign
of repentance, and has confessed any sin, or even only _in genere_ has
acknowledged himself to be a sinner, _must be absolved_, and that,
_absolute_, not _conditionate_. In this case the presence of sorrow is
sufficiently ascertained, and besides there is some sort of confession.
This is the express teaching of the Roman Ritual.[1048] The absolution
here bears directe on the sins confessed _generice_ by the signs of
repentance and the desire of absolution, and _indirecte_, on the special
sins, included in that _manifestatio doloris_. These sins, however, the
penitent must confess separately and distinctly when he has been restored
to health.[1049]
II. _A dying person who is unconscious_, and who, _by the testimony
of those present_, before he became unconscious, _expressed a wish to
confess_, and showed signs of repentance, _must_ be absolved. This is
the constant practice of the Church, and the unanimous teaching of
theologians. For the desire of receiving sacramental absolution, whether
this is made known to the priest directly, or indirectly, through
witnesses, includes a _confessio in genere_. Although moralists[1050]
teach that in this case also absolution may be given _absolute_,
and the Roman Ritual directs simply: “_absolvendus est_,” it seems,
nevertheless, safer to follow the opinion of those[1051] who require that
the absolution be given conditionally, at least when it may be prudently
doubted whether any indication of sorrow was really given, especially if
the dying person is a _homo rudis_. Absolution must also be given—but
conditionally—if there is _aliqua probabilitas doloris et desiderii
confessionis_.
III. According to the _sententia communis et probabilis_, absolution _sub
conditione_ _MAY_ be and _MUST_ be given to a dying person who _has shown
no sign of repentance_, and _of whom no witness has reported such sign
to the absent priest_, and in whom the priest, moreover, cannot detect
any such sign; provided the dying person is a _Catholic_. That he should
have lived a pious life is not necessary; it is also applicable to one
who has not lived very piously, and may be extended to all concerning
whose indisposition there is no certainty; for it may be presumed that in
their dangerous condition they would wish to receive the Sacrament.
The whole difficulty in this and the following cases is—how, without
express manifestation of sorrow, and desire of absolution, the essential
elements of the Sacrament of Penance can be supposed with some degree of
probability to exist. I say, with some degree of probability, for it is
not necessary to prove that these essential elements are _certainly and
positively_ present; it suffices to show that some probability (slight
though it be) exists for the supposition that the essential elements of
the Sacrament are realized.
In order that absolution may be administered, there is required: (1) a
probable conjecture that the dying person has interior sorrow; (2) some
outward manifestation which, with some degree of probability, may be
regarded as a manifestation of inward sorrow, and (3) some outward sign,
which, with some probability, can be understood as an accusation, if only
a general one.
The question now is to what extent can we find these three things in
a dying person deprived of the use of his senses, who neither gives
perceptible signs himself, nor has previously given them to others?
Many theologians appeal to such signs as anxious breathing, sighing,
winking of the eyes, various movements of the mouth, by means of which
the dying person “perhaps” wishes to manifest his sorrow and his desire
of absolution. For, frequently, those who appear to be unconscious are
only deprived of the exterior use of their senses; they perceive and
understand everything, think, reflect, are also capable of sorrow, etc.,
as many declare, who have been in a similar state. As a man is more
withdrawn from the outer world, the more active is his inner life.
In the case of dying persons who have led _Christian_ lives, who are
mindful of their sins, and do not easily deceive themselves as to their
situation, who know that the decision of their eternity is near at hand,
as they will soon stand before their Judge—it is readily to be understood
that they should make attempts to reveal outwardly their interior sorrow,
and, therefore (the only conceivable course in a Catholic), their desire
for the absolution of the priest.[1052] Even if such signs are of
themselves no natural indication of repentance, we may assume that the
dying person wishes to make use of them for said purpose (which at the
time is to him of supreme importance), as he cannot reveal himself in
any other way. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, of St. Antonin, of
St. Alphonsus Liguori, of Sporer, Elbel, the Salmanticenses, Tamburini,
Lacroix, Aertnys, Müller, Gury, Konings, and others. The specified signs
may, therefore, be regarded as manifestations of sorrow and desire of
absolution. Now, it is allowed, in _urgente necessitate_, to administer
the Sacraments _sub conditione_, however doubtful the matter may be,
as, on the one hand, the reverence due to the Sacrament is preserved by
the appended condition, and on the other hand the salvation of a soul
is also provided for. When, therefore, the priest _can_ administer the
Sacraments, he is _bound_ to administer them _sub gravi peccato_.[1053]
He must, however, repeat to the dying person in a few words and in a
loud voice a general accusation and an earnest act of contrition, as
experience shows that the sense of hearing generally remains till death.
Other theologians thought to solve the difficulty more satisfactorily by
the doctrine that the _actus pœnitentis_ were not _materia sacramentorum
ex qua_, but _materia circa quam_. But this, of itself, does not
contribute anything to the solution of the difficulty. For even the
theologians who, following the teaching of Scotus, consider the _actus
pœnitentis_ as _materia circa quam_, demand an _outward manifestation_ as
an _essential condition_ of the validity of the Sacrament.
There may, however, be cases in which an _anxia respiratio_, _gemitus_,
etc., is not perceived. Some other probable marks of sorrow and of
accusation must then be sought. Lehmkuhl proposes the following:—
_A._ As far as the interior sorrow is concerned, we can and must presume
that it exists; we shall, at least, never have a certitude that it is
wanting. Persons who seemed to be deprived of their senses, or really
were so, and have afterwards recovered their use, have declared that in
their anxiety they elicited sorrow for their sins, although they could
not give outward expression of it; and there is no reason why this could
not also be true even of those unfortunate ones who have laid violent
hands on themselves, or who in the act of committing any other sin have
lost consciousness. This sorrow must, of course, be awakened after the
last mortal sin, and must extend to all mortal sins not yet remitted. We
must assume that these conditions exist, or are not certainly wanting,
especially as God never refuses sufficient grace to any one, and desires
and wills, not the death of the sinner, but his conversion.
_B._ We need not insist that the manifestation of _sorrow_ should
necessarily be the expression of _that_ sorrow which is an essential
disposition. It seems to be sufficient that the penitent indicates that
he either has had the necessary sorrow, or will have it before the
absolution, or wishes to have it. But this is _implicite_ contained in
the manifestation of a desire for absolution and, in reality, always
coexists with it. This manifestation of the desire for absolution also
contains, equivalently, the third element, a virtual accusation. We can,
therefore, deal with the two requisites at the same time.
_C._ The _accusatio aliqualis_, which is indispensable, is conveyed by
the fact that the man gives outward evidence of his wish to be reconciled
to God in the last moment by the services of the priest, for he thereby
acknowledges to be a sinner, and that in view of the priestly functions
which are to be exercised at the moment of his death.
Moreover, by the fact that the man has lived as a Christian, he seems
to indicate sufficiently his desire of being reconciled to God in the
last hour of his life through the ministry of a priest. He thus, in
truth, makes a general, public confession before the whole Church and
all priests by whom he can be absolved. All the Sacraments which he has
received, all the Christian virtues which he has practiced, could be
regarded as witnesses of his desire for absolution in the hour of death.
Nor is a similar manifestation of this desire altogether wanting in those
whose lives have been considerably below a Christian ideal, or who were
deprived of consciousness in the act of sinning; for, by remaining in the
Church, they show that they hoped and desired to be reconciled at the
hour of death. But it might be objected: is not this desire interrupted
and revoked by the mortal sin? If this were the case, our action would,
of course, be in vain; for, whilst absolution in such case would be valid
for him who does not need it, because he has committed no mortal sin,
yet for him who does need it, it would have no validity. However, we may
answer: The sorrow, in as far as it is a _necessary disposition_, is
revoked and interrupted, but the man’s declaration that he _wishes_ to
have contrition _at this time_ and desires absolution, is not repealed.
We admit that the case is hopeless, unless interior and true sorrow
is present. The validity of the absolution remains, therefore, _very
doubtful_. Nevertheless, that is not the point. That sorrow is “perhaps”
present, we are justified in assuming, and it is, therefore, allowed to
give absolution; it may possibly impart to the man who has only imperfect
sorrow sanctifying grace and eternal life. That the sorrow should coexist
with the absolution is certainly not necessary.[1054]
IV. In accordance with our previous inference, a dying person, who, up to
the moment of his coma, _refused to receive the Sacraments_ and rejected
the priest, may not be absolved, as it cannot be presumed that he had
the will to receive absolution. _To be able_ to absolve such a one we
must discover some sign which we may construe as indicating (according to
Lehmkuhl, n. 515) _a change in his sentiments_; for example, pressure of
the hand, a look, sighing, etc. If there is any indication of the kind,
however doubtful, conditional absolution may be given.
V. A dying person who was _deprived of his senses in actu peccati_,
for example, in adultery, a duel, drunkenness, _can_ be absolved _sub
conditione_, if he is a Catholic, and that on the same grounds as we have
specified above (n. III). For of a Catholic it may be presumed that,
in this utmost danger of eternal damnation, and under the influence
of divine grace, which never will be refused—he desires to secure his
eternal salvation.
A non-Catholic in this situation may not be absolved, even though he has
given signs of sorrow, unless he has expressly asked for absolution;
for it cannot be reasonably supposed that he has given these signs _in
ordine ad confessionem sacram_, as he does not believe in it, and, on
this account, the _materia Sacramenti_ would certainly be wanting. It may
thus be maintained that _to scarcely any dying Catholic MUST absolution
be refused_, and that to all dying Catholics it _MAY_ be given, at least
_sub conditione_.
We arrive at a different decision and must pursue another course with
regard to a Catholic, who, being born and brought up in the Catholic
religion, has apostatized and embraced heresy.
VI. _A heretic_, who is deprived of his senses, but who, while he was in
health, manifested an inclination towards the Catholic religion, may,
in this decisive moment, be absolved _sub conditione_ from censures and
sins if he has already been baptized in his sect; if doubt is entertained
as to the validity of his Baptism, he must, previously, be baptized
_sub conditione_. It may be presumed of such a one that he wishes to
close his life in the community of the true Church of Christ. Indeed, as
Lehmkuhl adds, one might also give conditional absolution to a baptized
non-Catholic of whom it might be presumed, upon any probable ground, that
he is _in bona fide_ and would gladly accept the help of a priest if he
knew it was necessary to him.
In such a case it is, of course, more difficult to produce anything out
of the past life which can, in any way, be construed as a confession,
and a desire for absolution, because he has not _explicite_ thought of
absolution, unless we are to be content with the man’s _bona fides_,
“_quam probabiliter adesse seu adfuisse, externe sit manifestatum_.” For,
if to this _bona fides_, sorrow has been added,—and it is not certain
that it has not been added,—it seems that there is, _implicite_, the
manifested desire to participate in those remedies which are necessary,
and, therefore, in the absolution of the priest.[1055] If we have
here, with Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, and Aertnys, proceeded to the utmost
limits, and if the arguments in favor of this extreme liberality in the
administration of absolution are not always cogent, let us not be accused
of laxity or of any want of reverence for the holy Sacrament of Penance.
Such liberality seems to have been fully intended by Him, “Who came to
seek and to save that which was lost,” and who wishes not the death but
the life of the sinner, who opened the gates of paradise even to the
thief on the cross, and who has placed the keys of heaven in our hands.
We safeguard the sanctity of the holy Sacrament by adding the condition,
and the Lord instituted His Sacraments for man; “_in extremis autem
extrema tentanda sunt_.”
We may _repeatedly_ administer absolution to the dying when the
conditions necessary for its validity are fulfilled. The following rules
are of service:—
1. If the dying person gives to the priest who is present undoubted signs
of a contrite disposition, it is advisable to administer absolution to
him as often as he renews these signs.[1056]
2. If the dying person is unconscious, one may administer conditional
absolution to him two or three times, with an interval of about three
or four hours. For, in order that a Sacrament may be administered
conditionally, a _causa gravis_ is necessary, which could not exist
if the absolution were administered at shorter intervals and more
frequently. If the state of unconsciousness should continue, and there
is actual danger of death, absolution may be frequently repeated; for
example, three or four times in a day.[1057] This proceeding is justified
by the endeavor to give more certain and efficacious assistance to the
dying person.
Such efforts in behalf of the dying person demand great zeal, but, as
Elbel rightly says,[1058] they are _very praiseworthy_, and form part of
our holy office. Our divine Redeemer deposited His graces in the hands of
His priests; faithful to their calling they will, with the greatest zeal,
dispense these graces to those who are worthy and in need of them.
“_Fratres charissimi, munus quod in Ecclesia Dei geritis plane eximium
est; enimvero tantam vobis Christus ad judicandas animas auctoritatem
elargitus est, ut sententiæ a vobis in terris juste prolatæ, ratæ
habeantur in cœlis. Ora vestra canales esse mysticos dico, per quos vera
de cœlo pax in homines bonæ voluntatis descendit. Verba oris vestri tubæ
sunt magni Jesu, quæ muros iniquitatis seu mysticæ Jericho evertunt._”
(_Ex monitis S. Francisci Salesii Ep. et Eccl. Doct. ad Confessarios._)
FOOTNOTES
[1] S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 84, art. 7 ad 7.
[2] S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 85, art. 3 ad 3.
[3] Cf. Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tit. II. § 106.
[4] Theol. Mor. Tom. II. § 1, De Pœnit. n. 251; cf. Palmieri, Tract. de
Pœnit. (Rome, 1879), p. 18 et seq.
[5] While theologians are united in admitting a _virtus generalis
pœnitentiæ_ having its own material and formal object, they fail to
agree on the definition of the formal object. Cf. Suarez, Lugo, and more
especially Palmieri, l. c.
[6] Cf. S. Th. III. Q. 85 et seq. _de pœnitentia secundum quod est
virtus_, Suarez, De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ Disp. per 2 Sectiones, _de
pœnitentia in communi_; Lugo, De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ, P. I. pp. 1-44
(Romæ, 1879); Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Sect. 106; Lehmkuhl, Theol.
Mor. Tom. II. Tract. V. De Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. 1; Aertnys, Theol. Mor.
Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. Pars I.
[7] Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 600 s.;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 255; Müller, l. c. Sect. 107, in fine.
[8] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2.
[9] Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. n. 600 s.
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 255; Müller, l. c. Sect. 107, in fine.
[10] See Sect. 4, p. 29.
[11] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 662, 665; Gury-Ball. II. n. 466; Ballerini,
Ant. S. J. Opus Theol. Mor. Vol. V.; Tract. X. Sect. V. De Sacram. Pœn.
cp. III. n. 1025 ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 229.
[12] Such is the teaching of nearly all the moralists; cf. S. Alph.
Lib. VI. n. 667; Gury, I. n. 478; Scavini, De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 35. St.
Thomas (Suppl. Q. 6. a. 3) teaches that he who has only venial sins to
confess, satisfies the precept of the Church if he presents himself to
the priest and declares that his conscience is free from mortal sin; this
will be counted as a confession. This opinion of St. Thomas is, however,
contradicted by a large number of eminent theologians,—St. Antoninus,
Billuart, Laymann, Lugo, Suarez, etc.,—who appeal to the Tridentine
decree (Sess. 13. cp. 5), which says in respect to the Lateran decree
that it is _determinativum divini præcepti_.
[13] Suarez and Laymann teach the opposite. Cf. Scavini, l. c. n. 35,
nota 1.
[14] Cf. Decretum Lateran. Concilii IV. cp. 21.
[15] See Sect. 74, Children’s Confessions.
[16] Lehmkuhl, I. Tract VI. n. 1202, 3.
[17] S. Alph. l. c. n. 669; Gury, l. c. n. 479; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1204.
[18] S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 8, art. 5 ad 4, and St. Bonaventure, Compend.
Theol. Lib. VI. cp. 25, Confess. necessitas, support this view _saltem
tacite_. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1204.
[19] Cf. Scavini, De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 36, who follows Suarez, Laymann,
Lugo, Salmanticenses, etc. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1202.
[20] Lacroix, De præcepto Confess. n. 2003; S. Alph. l. c. n. 668;
Scavini, l. c. n. 36, Q. 4; Gury, l. c. n. 478, nota 3; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
n. 1206.
[21] Cf. Bened. XIV. De Syn. diœc. 1. II. cp. 14, 1-5. Hence a parish
priest, who would make his parishioners confess to him, is guilty of sin,
since such indiscreet zeal, or unworthy jealousy, might give occasion to
sacrilegious confessions. Compare what St. Thomas (l. c. art. 4 et 5)
wrote even before it was allowed to confess indifferently to any priest
having faculties; that a priest would sin, if he were not ready to give
leave to any individual to make his confession to another priest. It was
distinctly understood before that time that one might confess to any
priest who had been authorized by the _proprius sacerdos_ to hear the
confession. Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 118, n. 6-4; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1205.
[22] Pauli Segneri, S.J., Instructio Pœnitent. cp. XV: _Fructus percepti
ex frequenti confessione_.
[23] Sess. XIV. cp. 5.
[24] Cf. S. Th. De Malo, Q. 7, art. 12 ad 4, and Summa Theol. III.
Q. 87, art. 1. St. Thomas demands for the forgiveness of mortal sin
a _perfectior pœnitentia_, that is, that a man actually detest his
mortal sins so far as he can; _sed non hoc requiritur ad remissionem
venialium peccatorum; non tamen sufficit habitualis displicentia quæ
habetur per habitum caritatis, vel pœnitentiæ virtutis, quia, sic caritas
non compateretur peccatum veniale, quod patet esse falsum_.... Hence
follows, continues the holy Doctor, that there is required a _virtualis
displicentia, puta cum aliquis hoc modo fertur secundum affectum in
Deum et res divinas, ut, quidquid sibi occurreret, quod eum ab hoc motu
retardaret, displiceret ei et doleret, se commississe, etiamsi actu
de illo non cogitaret, quod tamen non sufficit ad remissionem peccati
mortalis nisi quantum ad peccata oblita post diligentem inquisitionem_.
III. Q. 87, art. 1. Scavini, l. c. n. 13. There is an apparent
opposition, but it is only apparent, between this teaching of St. Thomas
and that of Suarez (Disp. II. Sect. 3. n. 8 sq. in Sum. III. Q. 87, art.
2) and other theologians, who hold that venial sins can be forgiven
without formal contrition by an act of supreme love of God. For Suarez
distinguishes a twofold perfection in this love, an objective _secundum
extensionem ad venialia peccata_, and an intensive _ex conatu potentiæ_.
Only the objective love which extends to venial sin is, according to this
learned theologian, able to atone for venial sin, because it implies an
aversion of the will from sin in consequence of that love. Hence, it will
effect the remission of all venial sins _quoad culpam_ if it extends
virtually to all, or of some only, in so far as these are affected by the
act of love. This aversion of the will from sin is nothing else than a
_virtualis displicentia_; in other words, contrition.
[25] Cf. III. Q. 87, art. 4 et 2. On the diverging views of Scotus and
Durandus, compare Suarez, De Sacram. Pœnit. Disp. II. Sect. 2, n. 2.
[26] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.
[27] Disp. IX. Sect. 3, n. 53.
[28] Cf. S. Th. III. Q. 87, art. 1 et 3.
[29] Cf. Trid. Sess. V. Decr. de peccato orig. n. 5; Sess. XIV. de pœn.
cp. 3; S. Th. III. Q. 86, art. 2 ad 1.
[30] Sess. XIV. de Extr. Unct. cp. 2, can. 2.
[31] Sess. XIII. can. 5 et cp. 2.
[32] III. Q. 79, art. 4.
[33] Suarez, Comment, ad III. Thomæ, Q. 79, art. 4. Cf. Disputatio 63,
Sect. 10, n. 1.
[34] Cf. S. Thom. Q. 87, art. 2 et 3.
[35] Cf. S. Thom. Q. 72, art. 7 ad 2.
[36] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 26, art. 1 et 3.
[37] Trid. Sess. XXII. de Sacrif. Missæ, cp. 2.
[38] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 311.
[39] Tappehorn, Die lässliche Sünde, p. 55.
[40] Some theologians attribute to these two prayers an effect _ex opere
operato_. Suarez, Disp. 12, Sect. 2, n. 6.
[41] Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, art. 3.
[42] Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 110, II. n. 4.
[43] Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, a. 2; S. Bonaventure, In IV. Sent. Dist.
20, P. 1, a. 1, Q. 2 ad 3.
[44] Cf. Lugo, De Sacram. Pœnit. Disp. IX. Sect. 2, n. 29 et seq.;
Suarez, Disp. XI. Sect. 3; Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali, Tom. II. Lib.
IV. Disp. 97, Sect. 4 (Ed. nova, Parisiis, 1870).
[45] For the arguments of those who oppose this teaching, see Suarez,
Disp. XI. Sect. 3, n. 5; Gury, I. n. 457; Scavini, l. c. n. 11 ss.
[46] Cf. Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 3, nn. 8-10.
[47] There are three prayers which have quite a special efficacy in
this matter: one has come to us from the Holy Ghost through David, the
other from Our Lord, and the third from the Church; they are the seven
penitential psalms, the Our Father, and the Confiteor. Cf. S. Thom. III.
Q. 87, art. 3; I. II. Q. 74, art. 8 ad 6.
[48] On the remission of venial sins, defiling the faithful who die in
grace see S. Thom. De Malo, Q. 7, a. 11; Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 4;
Disp. 47, Sect. 1; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, p. 190 ss.; Oswald,
Eschatologie, p. 84 ss.; Tappehorn, Die lässliche Sünde, Sect. 11, p. 61
ss.
[49] Cat. Rom. P. II. Cap. V. Q. XII.
[50] Cat. Rom. l. c.
[51] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2, 3 et 4, can. 4; S. Thom. III. Q. 86,
art. 6; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1. n. 2 ss.
[52] Suarez, Disp. 20, Sect. 3, n. 8, and Disp. 58, Sect. 1, n. 3;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. Cap. III. Sect. 1, n. 258; Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. art.
1, n. 174. Without satisfaction the Sacrament is there in its essence,
but it is not quite perfect, as a man without legs is, indeed, a man
essentially, but not a complete and perfect one. For this Sacrament
was instituted for the _complete_ removal of sin, both guilt and
punishment; thus it produces not only remission of the guilt and of the
eternal punishment (in which may be included a portion of the temporal
punishment), in consequence of the absolution, but also remission of the
temporal punishment by the performance of the penance imposed; hence the
satisfaction is a part of the Sacrament which produces these effects. Cf.
Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 12, n. 40.
[53] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 258.
[54] Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. art. 1, n. 174.
[55] Theologians do not agree as to whether the acts of the penitent are
in truth matter belonging to the inner constitution of the Sacrament—in
the same way, for instance, as the washing with water is an intimate
element of Baptism—or whether they belong to the Sacrament only in
a wider sense; in other words, whether the acts of the penitent are
_materia ex qua_ or only _materia circa quam_ of the Sacrament. The
Scotists place the whole essence of the Sacrament in the absolution, and
teach that the acts of the penitent are only _materia circa quam_ and
_conditio sine qua non_, in such a manner, however, that without these
the absolution cannot be sacramental; hence they have no hesitation in
considering these acts essential. The Thomists, and by far the greater
number of theologians, consider the acts of the penitent as _materia ex
qua_, because they do in fact belong essentially to the constitution
of the external act which produces the interior grace. This doctrine
unquestionably carries the day, “unless,” as Lehmkuhl says, “one chooses
to call the acts of the penitent _materia ex qua_, not as having their
origin in the penitent, but as matter presented judicially to the
confessor, a question about which I do not wish to argue, for that acts
of the penitent—sorrow and accusation—are necessary, and should be
elicited, is beyond all doubt.” Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 256. Cf. Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1, n. 14.
[56] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. n. 171.
[57] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.
[58] Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 595 ss.; Mazzotta, Theol.
Moral. Tr. VI. Disp. l, q. 4, cp. 5. Hence Alexander VII condemned the
proposition (Prop. II. damnata) that sins omitted in confession, whether
they have been forgotten, or not confessed on account of danger of death,
or for any other reason, need not be mentioned again in confession.
[59] S. Alph. l. c. n. 427, dub. 2; Gury (Ed. Rom.), n. 418; Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 17; Müller, l. c. Sect. 111; Aertnys, l. c. n.
172. Q. I.
[60] Extravag. com. l. 5. tit. 7 (de privileg.), c. I. Const. “Inter
cunctas.”
[61] Cf. Ballerini, l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 263.
[62] Lugo, De Pœnit. d. 13, n. 73.
[63] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 263.
[64] Reuter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. Cap. III. Art. IV. n. 117.
[65] _At accusare se de venialibus in genere dicendo v. g. Accuso me de
multis venialibus, nihil aliud exprimendo, probabilius non videtur licere
extra casum necessitatis; tum quia est contra praxim Ecclesiæ, tum quia
hoc Sacramentum est institutum per modum accusationis et judicii, quod
per se loquendo fieri debet circa materiam saltem in specie certam et
determinatam._ Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II. Cf.
Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10; Reuter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. C. III.
Art. 4, n. 117.
[66] De Sacr. Pœnit. c. 5, n. 14.
[67] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II.
[68] Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10.
[69] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 266.
[70] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Moral. II. n. 421.
[71] On this matter see the eminently practical hints of Reuter in his
Neoconfessarius, l. c. n. 117. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 266, 267.
[72] Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 3.
[73] Trident. l. c.
[74] III. Q. 84, a. 3.
[75] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430, Dub. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.
n. 32.
[76] S. Thom. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract.
VI.
[77] The S. C. de Propag. Fid., being asked if a baptism is valid in
which _te_ is omitted from the form, replied (July 5, 1841): _Non valere
baptisma, ideoque iterandum_. The same holds for the Sacrament of Penance.
[78] S. Thom. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract.
VI. Disp. II. Q. IV. c. 1.
[79] Lugo, l. c. Dist. 13, Sect. 7; Lacroix, l. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 645,
etc.
[80] Cf. Decr. S. R. C. Feb. 27, 1847.
[81] Cf. Stotz, Tribunal Pœnitentiæ, L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 268: _etiam in frequentioribus confessionibus expedit
non omittere_. Though Tappehorn in his Anleitung zur Verwaltung des
heiligen Buss-Sakramentes, third edition, p. 67, suggests that when,
in accordance with the permission of the Roman Ritual, the prayer
is omitted, it may be said after the last confession over all those
who have confessed, as at the first absolution (_in confessionibus
frequentioribus_) the prayers _Misereatur_ and _Indulgentiam_ (the
plural _vestri, vestris_, etc., being used) may be said over all who are
present, we must observe that the Roman Ritual mentions nothing about
this practice. Holzmann recommends that the _Passio Domini nostri_, etc.,
should be said as the penitent leaves the box.
[82] It is not _de necessitate_ to raise the hand at the _Indulgentiam_,
to make the sign of the cross at the _in nomine Patris_, etc., or to
uncover the head in giving the absolution; and distinguished authors
maintain that it is not sinful to omit these ceremonies; it is advisable,
however, in this matter to conform to custom. Scavini, Theol. Moral.
Universa, Tom. IV. n. 76.
[83] Rt. Rom. De Sacram. Pœnit.
[84] Sess. XIV. cp. 3. Cf. S. Alph. n. 430, Dub. 4.
[85] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. cp. IV. art. 1; Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract.
VI. Disp. II. Q. IV. cp. I; Stotz, l. c. L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1, n.
215; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. I. cp. III. § 3, n. 270.
[86] The word _Deinde_ which connects the absolution from censures with
that from sins appears, from the latest edition of the Roman Ritual as
revised and approved by the S. R. C., to belong to the form (cf. Edit. I.
post typicam Ratisbon, 1888, specialiter a S. R. C. recognita); formerly
the word was printed in red and regarded as a rubric (cf. Edit. Romæ ex
typogr. Prop. 1876). As to the _forma deprecatoria_ which, according to
Frank (Bussdisciplin), was in use till the twelfth century, see Frank, B.
5, K. 4; Morinus, De Pœnitent.; Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten, Bd. 5, Teil
1, K. 6, § 3; S. Thom. III. Q. 84, a. 3; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 269, nota 2.
[87] With regard to this matter Clement VIII in Const. data d. 20 Jun.
1602 condemned the following proposition: It is permitted to confess
one’s sins to an absent confessor by means of a letter or a messenger,
and to receive absolution from the same confessor though still absent.
Moreover, he forbade under pain of excommunication any one to teach this
doctrine or to make use of it as a probable opinion. The condemnation of
this proposition by the Pope involves evidently an absolute command, and
the conclusion is fairly drawn that the confession made to an absentee,
as well as the absolution given to an absentee, are both illicit and
invalid; otherwise one might in a case of extreme necessity allow the
practice. The Clementine decree is to be taken not only _collectively_,
that is, as legislating for the case where both confession and absolution
are conveyed by absentees, but also _disjunctively_, that is, as
legislating for the case where confession has been made to an absentee,
the absolution being given when the penitent presents himself, and _vice
versa_. This was decreed by Paul V, July 14, 1605. More information may
be found in Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. pp. 141-143 (Rom. 1879). Cf.
Reuter, Neoconfessar. P. l. n. 31; Müller, l. c. L. III. T. II. § 132;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 32 s. Absolution from censure,
apart from the absolution from sin, may be conveyed by writing and the
presence of the penitent is not required; similarly censures may be
inflicted on one who is absent. Without grave necessity, however, the
absolution from censures ought not to be given in the absence of the
penitent. S. Alph. L. VII. n. 117.
[88] S. Alph. l. c. n. 429.
[89] Though all theologians agree in requiring the moral presence of the
penitent for valid absolution, they vary in assigning the limits of that
presence. Many theologians suppose that a penitent stationed at twenty
paces from the priest may be regarded as morally present; this distance
is thought by St. Alphonsus to be too great.
[90] S. Alph. l. c. VI. n. 429.
[91] The priest is, however, strongly advised not to be too nervous
in exercising his office for a penitent struck down by an infectious
disease; confidence in God joined to a little prudent foresight and
courage will be more useful to him than a cowardly nervousness.
[92] Cf. Reuter, Neoconfess. l. c. n. 31; Scavini, Theologia Moralis
Universa, Tom IV. n. 77; Müller, l. c. § 132; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI.
Tom. V. cp. IV. n. 215, Q. 6. In accordance with this teaching we
must solve the question raised whether absolution given by telephone
is valid. (Aloys. Sabetti, S.J., in Collegio SS. Cordis ad Woodstock,
Th. Mor. Prof., Compend. Theol. Moral. Gury ... ad breviorem formam
redactum, etc. Benziger, 1884; Alphons. Eschbach e Cong. S. Spiritus et
Imm. Cord. M. Rectoris Sem. Gall. Romæ, La Confession par téléphone;
Melata, Manuale Theol. Moralis, De Pœnit. cp. II. art. I.) It is certain
that the use of the telephone for giving absolution is _extra casum
necessitatis_ a grave sin because it introduces into the administration
of the Sacraments a practice which is novel and liable to misuse. The
case is limited to the question whether in urgent need the use of
such a method can be tolerated—if, for instance, a member of a secret
society, seized with a dangerous illness and anxious to be reconciled
with the Church, but debarred by his associates from the sight of a
priest, could make use of the telephone placed in his room to call up a
friendly priest and make his confession to him and receive absolution
through the telephone. Eschbach, in his work mentioned above, teaches
that such an absolution is quite invalid. Sabetti acknowledges that the
solution of the question involves many difficulties, and that it ought
to be submitted to the decision of the Holy See; he appears, however, to
incline to an affirmative answer. He says: Though it is true that moral
presence and a connection between matter and form are necessary in every
Sacrament, yet this exigency varies. Since Penance has been instituted
on the lines of an earthly tribunal, in which judge and accused must
be so far present to one another as to be able to speak together, the
absolution in the given case cannot be said for certain to be invalid,
since one might always argue that the priest and the penitent could speak
together. Against this, it may be objected that the illustration of an
earthly tribunal is not quite applicable, since here the presence of the
accused is not necessary, for he may be condemned _in contumaciam_. To
the question whether _in casu extremæ necessitatis dari possit absolutio
per telephonium_? the Pœnitentiaria replied, July 1, 1884: _Nihil esse
respondendum_.—Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale (Romæ, 1887), p. 119.
[93] Scavini, Theologia Moralis Universa, Tom. III. n. 479 (Ed. Par.
1867).
[94] Cf. Gury, II. l. c. n. 432, 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp.
I. n. 27.
[95] Lehmkuhl, P. II. L. I. Tr. V. Sect. I. n. 272.
[96] Cf. Gury, II. n. 434.
[97] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 25; Stotz, l. c. L. II. Q. III. art.
I. § 4.
[98] Cf. Declar. S. Inquis. 17 Juni 1715, 17 Dec. 1868, 20 Jul. 1859.
[99] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432, etc.
[100] Colletus, “_acerrimus probabilismi impugnator_.”
[101] Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 217; Concina, according to the testimony
of St. Alphonsus, _in severas sententias generatim deflectens_.
[102] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 273.
[103] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432; Lacroix, L. VI. p. 2, n. 1797; Mazzotta,
Theol. Moralis, Tract. IV. Disp. II. Q. IV. cp. II.; Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. I. n. 27; Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 217;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 273; Gury, l. c. II. n. 435.
[104] Compare S. Alph. De Sacram. in genere, n. 28, 29, 57, and De
Conscientia, n. 49; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. I. n. 27: “hæc
est _sententia certa_, licere in necessitate administrare sacramenta sub
conditione.”
[105] He says: “Necessity is but very seldom a ground for giving
absolution to one who is doubtfully disposed; for a dying man, with only
an instant to spare, and in the possession of his faculties, has only
himself to blame if he cannot produce an act of perfect contrition; it
is an article of faith that God never refuses the means of salvation if
they are asked with confidence, and for such a soul perfect contrition
is a most necessary condition for salvation. If, therefore, he has only
doubtful contrition, it is his own fault, and in such case he is not
merely doubtfully, but certainly, unworthy, and cannot in consequence
be absolved. There remain, then, only the cases in which the dying man
cannot express his sentiments even by signs, and then the principle
holds: _sacramenta propter homines_.”
[106] Gousset, Lettres à M. le Curé ... Lettre 8. Cf. Gury, l. c. II.
Tract. de Sacram. Pœnit. P. I. n. 430-439; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral.
l. c. cp. I. nn. 27 et 26, where he signalizes these objections as
_inanes objectiones nonnullorum, etiam recentiorum in Gallia, qui antiqua
præjudicia janseniana incaute ebiberunt_.
[107] Sess. XIV. cp. 4.
[108] Compare on this subject the lengthy discussions of Suarez, De
Pœnitentia, Disp. 3, Sect. 2; Lugo, De Pœnitentia, Disp. 4, Sect. 1;
Reuter, Theol. Moral. P. IV. n. 243; and particularly the very lucid
exposition of Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. (Roma, 1879) cap. IV. De act.
pœnit. art. I. § 1, p. 214 sq.
[109] L. c. L. VI. n. 435. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. de
Contritione, n. 14.
[110] Stotz, Tribunal Pœnitent. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. art. II.
[111] This is the distinction given by the Council of Trent in Sess. 14,
cp. 4: Perfect contrition is very aptly and simply called _contritio_ in
its restricted meaning, while imperfect contrition is called _attritio_.
The figure is taken from solid bodies which, when pounded to dust, are
_contrita_, but when broken into fragments are _attrita_. “The heart of
man may be compared to wood for kindling. By contrition (_contritio_
and _attritio_) the heart is rubbed; as the rubbing is increased, the
heart, like wood, becomes drier and warmer, till there bursts forth a
flame; this flame is sanctifying grace; and just as fire consumes wood,
so charity consumes the crushed heart (_cor contritum_) and burns out its
sin.” (Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heilig. Sakramenten, II. Bd.
Fünft. Teil, Zweit. Abschnitt, Erst. Hauptst. § 7, S. 82.)
[112] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disput. V. Sect. 9, n. 132; Palmieri, Tract. de
Pœnit. l. c. th. 21, p. 223.
[113] Since perfect contrition arises from perfect love, it is of great
importance, after considering the infinite goodness and dignity of God,
to make an act of love and then an act of sorrow. The synod assembled in
1725 under Benedict XIII offers a form of contrition which was composed
for the use of children: “My Lord and my God, who art infinitely good
and holy, I love Thee above all things and repent with my whole heart of
having offended Thee so often by my sins. I detest them above all other
evils. I humbly beg Thy forgiveness, and I promise with the help of Thy
grace never more to offend Thee.” (Collect. Lacensis Conc., Tom. I. p.
458, Fribourg, 1870.) Another form is given by St. Alphonsus: “My God,
Thou art infinitely good; therefore I love Thee above all things; and
because I love Thee I am sorry for all the sins which I have committed
against Thee, O infinite Goodness. My God, I will never more sin against
Thee; I will rather die than offend Thee again.” Perfect contrition might
be aroused also in the following manner: “O Heart of Jesus, most worthy
of all love, I love Thee above all things, and therefore I am sorry for
all my sins and detest them above all things, because by them I have
offended Thee and incurred Thy anger. I am firmly resolved never more to
offend Thee.” (Müller, Theol. Moral. l. c. § 112.)
[114] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 106, a. 5.
[115] Compare Deharbe, Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, § 6, pp. 139-179.
[116] See Perfect Contrition by Von den Driesch, translated by Father J.
Slater, S.J.
[117] Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. Lib. I. Tract. I. cp. III. § 1.
[118] Deharbe, Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, p. 158.
[119] Cf. S. Thomas, Supplem. Q. 5. a. 3; S. Alphons. Lib. VI. n. 441;
Gury, II. n. 453; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, Thes. XXIV. p. 262 sq.
[120] Cat. Roman. P. II. cp. 5, n. 27.
[121] Compare Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakramenten,
Fünfter Teil, Zweiter Abschnitt, § 7, III. Aufl. S. 71 ff.; Deharbe,
Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, §§ 2, 3, 6, 8; Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. II.
Sect. 3 et Disp. IV. Sect. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 35-42;
Palmieri, Tract. de Pœn. Thes. IV, V; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. L. I.
Tr. I. n. 318.
[122] Sess. XIV. cp. 4.
[123] The proof is well developed by P. Palmieri, S.J., Tract, de
Pœnitent. Theses XXII et XXIII, p. 224 (Romæ, 1879). Cf. S. Thomas, II.
II. QQ. 23-27.
[124] I. John iv. 16.
[125] Supplem. Q. 5, a. 3. _Quantumcunque parvus sit dolor, dummodo ad
contritionis rationem sufficiat, omnem culpam delet._
[126] Lib. VI. n. 441.
[127] S. Thom. Supplem. Q. 5. a. 2 ad 1. _Contritio vera non fuit, nisi
propositum confitendi habuerit annexum; quod debet ad effectum reduci
etiam propter præceptum quod est de confessione datum._
[128] John xiv. 23.
[129] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 437, Dub. 4.
[130] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 275; Müller, l. c. § 113, 2.
[131] S. Thom. III. Q. 89, a. 4; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. X. Sect. 2.
[132] Sess. VI. c. 14; Sess. XIV. c. 8 et can. 12.
[133] S. Bonavent. Theol. verit. L. VI. c. 24. S. Thomas, Suppl. Q. 5, a.
2. Ballerini, De Pœnit. L. VI. c. 6.
[134] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. l. c., from which we infer that penance is
necessary for salvation _necessitate medii_.
[135] Ballerini deals excellently with this point in his Op. Theol. Mor.
in cp. III. De præc. et oblig. confession, n. 138 ss. Cf. Suarez, De
Pœnit. Disp. 15, Sect. 6, n. 7; Sporer, De Pœn. n. 186.
[136] In Ezechiel, Lib. I. Hom. 11, n. 24.
[137] I. II. Q. 109, a. 8.
[138] Lib. VI. n. 437.
[139] Tract. 16, cp. 2, n. 10.
[140] The question raised by theologians as to whether it is a distinct
sin to put off eliciting the act of perfect contrition and reconciliation
with God, must be answered in the affirmative, for Holy Scripture enjoins
us not to delay our conversion or to put off penance from day to day,
because the anger of God may come upon us when we are so unprepared (cf.
Ecclus. v. 8, 9, where, however, no express command is laid down), and
because the _præceptum caritatis_ which we ought to obey _sæpius in vita_
calls for an act of contrition.
Aertnys reconciles this affirmative opinion of Lugo, Suarez, St.
Alphonsus, etc., with the opposite view of Navarro, Vasquez, Soto,
etc., declaring the latter to be probable _per se loquendo_, while the
former is true _de obligatione per accidens_, so that the sinner who
fails to elicit an act of perfect contrition within a reasonable period
is not to be acquitted of incurring a new mortal sin. Aertnys, l. c.
Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. 3, n. 168. St. Alphonsus expressly condemns the
view of Concina and Roncaglia that a delay of a week is a considerable
period; and similarly he rejects the opinion of Laymann, Lugo, the
Salmanticenses, Elbel, etc., who maintain that sin has been incurred only
by the neglect of contrition for a whole year. This latter view he cannot
accept, even if there were no other reason than the duty of eliciting an
act of love once in the month. Finally, he rejects the opinion of some
theologians that a sinner must elicit acts of contrition on feast-days
in order to fulfill the object of sanctifying the festival; the general
answer is made that the object of any given precept does not fall under
the precept. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. III. n. 1035 ss.
[141] Müller, l. c. Lib. III. I. II. § 115, I; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 278;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 168, Q. I.
[142] H. A. l. c. n. 11, Lib. VI. n. 437, Dub. 2; Suarez, Disp. 15, Sect.
4, n. 19; Lacroix, Lib. II. n. 142, etc.
[143] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5, which is directed against
Luther’s doctrine that all fear of punishment is wicked, and that
imperfect contrition, founded on the fear of hell, by making a man a
hypocrite, makes him a greater sinner. Cf. Bellarmin, De Pœn. Lib. II.
cp. 2; Möhler, Symbolism, § 33. Luther’s error was in part adopted by
Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel. Cf. Prop. 60, 61, 62 et 67 Quesnellii a
P. M. Clem. XI in Bulla “Unigenitus,” proscript; Prop. 15 et 16 damn. ab
Alexandro VIII, in which some of Quesnel’s errors are again condemned.
[144] Cf. Bellarmin, l. c. Lib. II. cp. 17; Perrone, De Pœnitent. n.
46 s.; Ripalda, De Ente supernaturali, Tom. IV. Disp. 22, Sect. 4-11,
et Lib. VI. Disp. ult. n. 458-460; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia,
pp. 280-353 (Rom. 1879); Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. De
sufficientia attritionis, n. 42-50.
[145] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 440; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I.
Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. a. VI; Aertnys,
l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 176; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. Thes. XXV. p.
286 ss.
[146] II. II. Q. 19, a. 2-9.
[147] II. II. Q. 19, a. 2; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I.
[148] Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trid. L. XIII. c. 10. Palmieri tries to
weaken the force of this argument; see Tract. de Pœnit. Thesis XXX. p.
331 ss.
[149] “They [adults] dispose themselves for justification when, being
urged and supported by God’s grace, receiving faith by hearing, they
approach God of their own free will, believing that to be true which
is revealed and promised by God, and especially this, that the sinner
is justified by God through His grace, through the redemption in Jesus
Christ; and while they acknowledge their sins, they are led by fear
of the divine justice, of which they have a wholesome dread, to the
consideration of God’s mercy, and thence are encouraged to hope, so that
they trust that God will be gracious to them for Christ’s sake, and they
will begin to love Him as the source of all justice.” Sess. VI. cp. 6;
cf. can. 3: “If any one say that a man without previous inspiration of
the Holy Ghost and without His help can believe, hope, love, and do
penance as is required in order to attain the grace of justification, a.
s.”
[150] Cf. _Proœmium_ to the Fourth Session _de s. Pœnitent. sacram._:
“Although the œcumenical ... synod in its decisions on justification
(Sess. VI.) has repeatedly spoken in the same urgent manner of the
Sacrament of Penance on account of its intimate connection with the
matter in hand, yet none the less,” etc.
[151] Sess. XIV. cp. IV.
[152] The words at the beginning of the fourth chapter: “_non solum
cessationem a peccato et vitæ novæ propositum et inchoationem et_ ...”
need not of necessity be understood of perfect contrition, which is
discussed later. In this place it is more likely that the question of
contrition in general is under discussion.
[153] Compare § 12.
[154] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 442. Objic. III; Scavini, Theol. Moralis
Universa, T. IV. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. I. n. 23; Mazzotta,
l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Aertnys, l. c. n. 177;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sect. II. cp. I, § 2, n. 288 et
289; Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakrament. II. Bd. Fünfter
Teil, Zweiter Abschn. Erst. Hauptst. § 7, p. 86 ff. III. Aufl.; Müller,
l. c. Lib. III. Tr. II. § 114; Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral. § 243;
Tappehorn, Anleitung zur Verwalt. des Buss-Sakramentes, § 11, p. 89 ff.
This doctrine was adopted by all the schools after the Council of Trent,
as Benedict XIV affirms, De Syn., etc., Lib. VII. c. 13; and Alexander
VII published in a decree of May 5, 1657, that this view _hodie inter
scholasticos communis videtur_.
[155] Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Adnotat. n. 188 et 189.
[156] S. Thom. De Spe, a. 3; and St. Francis de Sales writes: “La
pénitence nait dedans l’amour et plusieurs fois la pénitence venant en
nos esprits l’amour vient en la pénitence.” Theot. L. II. c. 20.
[157] Reuter, S.J., Theol. Moral. P. IV. n. 2, § 3; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n.
442 in fine.
[158] Compare Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5.
[159] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. De attritione existimata,
n. 51 ss.
[160] Matt. xv. 19.
[161] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 449; Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I.
cap. II. art. I. n. 12; Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 666;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. De attritione, n. 77 ss. Cf. Suarez, De
Pœn. Disp. 9, Sect. 1; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 4, n. 93.
[162] Cf. Busenbaum, Theol. Moral. Tract. IV. (de Sacram. pœnit.) c. 1,
d. 11, resolv. 1 et 2; Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sect. II.
§ 2, n. 284; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.
[163] Theol. Mor. p. IV. n. 247.
[164] Cf. Vasquez, De Pœnit. Q. 86, Dub. 4, de proposito; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Tract. V. De Sacram. Pœn Sect. II. § 2, n. 284.
[165] Theol. Moral. l. c. n. 286; similarly Aertnys, l. c. Cf. Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. cp. I. n. 141; Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 4, Sect. 2, n. 7.
[166] S. Alph. l. c. n. 439; Reuter, Theol. Mor. p. II. n. 36 et p. IV.
n. 247.
[167] De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect. 2, n. 10. Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 5, n.
137; S. Alph. L. VI. n. 443; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n.
105-110.
[168] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. (Sacr. Pœnit.) Sect. II. § 2, n. 287;
Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. III. art. 2, n. 179; Scavini, l.
c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. 1; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. Tract. De
Sacram. Pœnit. n. 452, Q. VII; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. 3,
cp. 3, § 1, n. 2.
[169] Ezechiel xviii. 21.
[170] C. 22.
[171] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 449, Dub. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.
cp. I. De dolore venialiam, n. 96-105.
[172] Suarez (De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect. 6, n. 7) and Lugo (Disp. 14, n.
48) teach clearly that a penitent who confesses (venial) sins for which
there is no sorrow, along with others without indicating the known defect
of sorrow, would sin venially by mixing up proper and improper matter.
Their view, however, is singular and is combated by other theologians.
In particular Mazzotta (l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. § 2, v. f.)
gives the correct solution to the objection that to confess venial sins
for which there is no sorrow, is a lie and a nullifying of the Sacrament,
because the act of confessing these sins is _exercite_ a declaration of
sorrow for them. He replies that, even granting the objection, it is in
any case a lie in a matter of less moment, and so at the most a venial
sin, whence there can be no nullifying of the Sacrament. He denies also
that such confession is a lie, for, in accordance with the feeling and
practice of the faithful, the penitent by such confession of venial
sins states _exercite_ that he is sorry for _some_ of them and wishes
to be absolved; with regard to the rest he reveals them for his greater
humiliation and shame, or in order to disclose the state of his soul,
just as he may also reveal his evil inclinations and irregular desires,
though they are not sins. Even when a penitent is sorry only for the
greater sins, and yet says at the end of his confession, “For these and
all my other sins I am sorry,” he tells no lie, for these words have no
other meaning in their ordinary acceptance than this, that he is sorry
for all the sins from which he can and wants to be absolved. It is just
the same when a man confesses many venial sins and is sorry only on
account of their great number, for he can easily see a peculiar malice
in the habit of committing such venial sins, and on that account can
more easily excite himself to sorrow for them. Mazzotta, l. c.; Lugo and
Suarez, l. c.; Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. Lib. I. Pars II. Q. I. art. 4, n. 20;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 290, 291.
[173] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 3, art. 1; Stotz, Tribunal Pœnit. l. c. art.
IV. n. 16, 17; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 110.
[174] S. Thom. Quodlib. 1, art. 9 (_non modo imprudentiæ sed stultitiæ
eum morem arguit_); S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 433; Stotz, l. c.; Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 116 s.
[175] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 3, art. 2; Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral.
§ 243.
[176] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 111; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Tract. V. Sacr. Pœn. Sect. II. cp. I. § 2, n, 285, 3. On the subject of
the _dolor quo non doleas_ see Ballerini, l. c. n. 114 s.
[177] This is in accordance with the Roman Ritual, which, Tit. III. cp.
I (Ordo ministrandi Sacr. Pœnit. n. 17), says: “After the confessor has
heard the confession ... he should try by earnest exhortation to move the
penitent to contrition.”
[178] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 447; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I:
_an dolor ordinandus ad sacramentum_, n. 120-129; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect.
II. cp. I. § 1, n. 280; Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Mor. Tract. de
Sacr. Pœn. art. I. § 1, n. 447, Q. 7; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect.
4, n. 29; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 37-40; Vindic. Alph. p. 935, n.
108 et pp. 411-418; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. III. art. II.
n. 179, Q. 4.
[179] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 446; H. Ap. Tract. 16, n. 20.
[180] Cf. Tamburini, Method. conf. Lib. I. cp. 3, § 4; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Sect. II. cp. I. § 1, n. 281.
[181] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. l. c. n. 448; Baller. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.
cp. I. n. 129 ss.; Aertnys, l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 282; Mazzotta, l.
c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. q. I. § 3.
[182] Müller (l. c. Lib. III. Tract. II. § 116) founds his advice as to
renewing the act of sorrow on the rule _in praxi tutius est sequendum_,
since it is a case of securing the validity of a Sacrament. He is in
error, however, for the other (affirmative) opinion hardly deserves to
be considered probable on account of the very weak grounds on which it
rests. We must at the same time remember that the penitent in this case
is certainly justified, and that he has fulfilled the divine precept of
demanding direct absolution for all his sins when he confesses his sins
in accordance with the first opinion.
[183] Compare § 42; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. This doctrine is pushed still
farther, and it is taught that a man may be absolved several times from
sins, even though he has confessed them or other sins two or three times
without renewing his contrition, so long as he has not revoked the
contrition, and so long as it remains habitual and virtual. This is not
to be understood as though the absolution may be given after the lapse
of weeks and months on the strength of a single act of contrition; this
would be a very doubtful proceeding, since the virtual continuance of the
sorrow which is required is not to be understood of the mere habitual
disposition of the heart, but only of the virtual existence which may
still intentionally unite the sorrow with the absolution. Cf. Tamburini,
l. c. Lib. I. cp. 2, § 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 282.
[184] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 447, Nota a.
[185] Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. I. Adnot.
[186] Cf. Stotz, l. c. art. VI. n. 114.
[187] Cf. Scavini, l. c. Adnotat. n. 191, and Trucchi, Metodo practico
per la facile e sicura amministrat. del Sacr. della Penit.
[188] Sess. XIV. cp. IV.
[189] De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 52 s.
[190] Ballerini points out particularly that the older theologians,
as Petrus Lombardus, St. Thomas, Blessed Albert, Scotus, Durandus,
were quoted without reason as upholders of this view, for, though they
insisted on the necessity of some sort of purpose of amendment, they made
no distinction between a formal and a virtual purpose. Cf. Bellarmin, De
Pœnit. Lib. II. cp. 6. Moreover, Suarez, Cajetan, Bonacina, Henriquez,
and Gregory of Valentia are wrongly quoted in favor of this view; they
taught the very opposite. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ, l. c. ad n. 462.
[191] The purpose of amendment must be universal, and, as we shall show
later, with a universality distinct from that of the contrition. If the
sorrow proceeded from a particular motive which _nec actu nec virtute_
extended to the other sins, it is clear that the resolution to amend
implied in such sorrow could hardly be universal. If, for example, a man
conceived sorrow for the sin of impurity only on account of the peculiar
ugliness of that vice, the purpose of amendment contained in such a
sorrow would suffice indeed so far as it applied to impurity, but not
for other sins, because the motive is a particular one not extending to
other sins. If, then, the sorrow is based on some particular motive, an
explicit purpose of amendment must be made extending to all sins.
If the sorrow proceed from a general motive applicable to all sins (if a
man, for example, is sorry for having committed a serious theft because
it is a grave offense against God), it is impossible that he should be
willing to offend God again by any other grave sin, for in consequence of
his act of contrition he hates and detests whatever offends God. Whoever
heartily detests his sins from a universal motive will be slow ever
to fall into them again; for no man will do that which he hates as an
offense against God. “But when the Council of Trent speaks of the purpose
of amendment, it speaks of it in the same way as of the resolution to go
to confession and make satisfaction, and this need not be explicit. As it
is sufficient that this resolution be virtual, it is also enough to make
a virtual resolution of reforming one’s life and sinning no more; it is
always a real resolution, though it be only a ‘virtual one.’ And since
eminent authorities interpret the Council of Trent in this manner, we may
without misgiving follow their decision.” Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q.
II. art. III n. 88 ss.
[192] Ballerini, Notæ ad n. 462, pp. 348-356 (Ed. Romana, 1887), and Opus
Theolog. Morale, l. c. (_An sufficiat propositum virtuale_), n. 143-155.
[193] This is also the doctrine of the Council held at Rome in 1725 under
Benedict XIII in the Lateran Basilica.
[194] Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 20, Sect. 4, n. 33.
[195] S. Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. n. 450.
[196] The Turin edition of his Moral Theology defends the doctrine
held in the present work, and shows that the holy Doctor was always
expending labor on the text of the Moral Theology and correcting it up
to the end of his life. Aertnys, moreover, declares (appealing to S.
Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. I. n. 53, Lib. III. n. 700, and Lib. VI. n.
505) that there is no obligation of repeating the confession; and Marcus
(Institut. Moral. Alphons. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. cp. I. art. II.
n. 1680) adopts Scavini’s view: _In praxi_ no one need be disturbed in
this matter, since it can hardly happen that a really contrite penitent
will omit the formal purpose of amendment. Müller (l. c. § 117) requires
for the validity of the confession a formal resolution to amend, and
maintains that confessions made without the formal resolution are to be
repeated.
[197] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 298. Cf. Stotz, l. c. n. 92.
[198] Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 32, Sect. 2, n. 2.
[199] Cajetan, Card. Sum. V. Confess. ad 12 qualit.
[200] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 7, n. 238.
[201] Compare Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœnit, Sect. II. cp. I. §
3, n. 295.
[202] S. Thomas, III. Q. 84, a. 10 ad 4. Compare S. Bonaventure in IV.
Sent. Dist. 14, p. 1, d. 4; S. Alph. Praxis Confess. cp. 1, n. 20; Theol.
Mor. Lib. VI. n. 451.
[203] Tit. III. cp. I. De Sacr. Pœn. n. 19.
[204] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459.
[205] Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Pœn. n. 451. Cf. Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 162.
[206] Medulla Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Sacr. Pœn. cp. 1.
[207] Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 1822.
[208] This may be regarded as the _communis theologorum doctrina_;
indeed many theologians (St. Alphonsus mentions among others _loco
citato_ Laymann, Sporer, Suarez, Henriquez) hold that a penitent who
believes (_credat_) that he will fall again can always and absolutely
be considered as being in good disposition. They do not mean by this a
despair of reform, but rather a grave fear which may be consistent with
a firm hope in the aids of grace and a fixed determination of never
sinning. Besides, as Lacroix explains, the phrase _si credat_ must be
taken in a mitigated sense and be understood of the misgiving natural to
a careful person. It is the duty of the penitent to take courage and free
himself from this misgiving. Compare Lacroix, l. c., and Gury-Ballerini,
l. c. Tract. de Pœn. P. II. cp. I. art. II. n. 461, Nota a, and Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 159 ss.
[209] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c.
[210] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 451; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q.
II. art. V. n. 102 s.
[211] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4; S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 451.
[212] The reason for this doctrine is very clearly put in Lugo’s
_Responsa Moralia_, Lib. I. dub. 29, where he answers the difficulty
how a man may make an efficacious and sufficient act of contrition with
respect to one species of sin, excluding other species. The learned
author remarks:—
1. That if a man repent of his sins from a universal and general motive,
he embraces of necessity all his sins in this act of contrition. If,
then, such a motive excite a man to repentance, he is of necessity moved
to shun all sin.
2. Such motives, however,—and this is a point well worth noticing,—may
excite contrition in a more restricted manner; for instance, the graver
the sins, the more they displease and offend God; hence a man may be
led to hate this excess of wickedness. In this case “the motive of the
contrition is not the offense of God as such, but that gravity of the
offense which is not found in other venial sins.”
3. All this being now assumed, the difficulty remains whether a penitent,
for instance, who is contrite for slight lies, must at least virtually
repent of other venial sins of another species, which are graver
than, or at least as grave as, that class of lies, or whether he can
have contrition sufficient for sacramental absolution for those lies
without repenting virtually of venial sins of another species as great
or greater. This may be the case if the formal motive of sorrow is a
particular one; for instance here the hatred which God, the Eternal
Truth, must have for lies. It does not hold if the sorrow proceed from
the motive of penance, for we could not hate anything as offensive
to God and at the same time be ready to offend Him in other matters.
The same holds true if we are really sorry for sin through fear of
hell-fire. “There are occasions, however, when the motive of sorrow may
be particular—when, for instance, a man is sorry for the irreverence done
to God because it is an injury to His divine Majesty (such a motive is
called a motive of religion); he is not obliged even virtually to repent
of graver or equally grave venial sins of another species, except they
involve an irreverence equally incompatible with the virtue of religion.”
Lugo also shows that a similar case happens when a man repents of some
particular species of sin, _e.g._ of lying, not on account of the
disobedience to God which every sin includes, but on account of the
disobedience involved in transgressing a special command of God, or
rather on account of the opposition of these sins to the special law of
God which forbids us to violate the truth.
Moreover, he adds that the same holds true in regard of the special
temporal sufferings which God inflicts for particular species of sins,
_e.g._ disrespect to parents.
[213] S. Alph. Praxis Confessarii, n. 71; Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 449.
Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, a. 1.
[214] Compare above, § 3.
[215] Sess. XIV. cp. 2.
[216] Compare § 46.
[217] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. I. § 2, n. 313,
314; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. art. 3, n. 457.
[218] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 495-497; H. Apost. Tr. 16, n. 28.
[219] See §§ 47, 54.
[220] Philothea, Part I. Chap. 4.
[221] Suarez, Disp. 28; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. I. Q. II. art. II.
[222] Ecclus. vi. 14 ss.
[223] Compare Philothea, _ibid._
[224] Cf. Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. I. Q. II. art. II. n. 116-124.
[225] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.
[226] Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus.
[227] Cf. Declar. S. C. S. Off. 28 Feb. 1633 et 10 Feb. 1668; item S. C.
Prop. Fid. 1633 in Collectan. S. Sedis, n. 476-478.
[228] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. XV. Sect. V; Aertnys,
l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 196.
[229] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 328.
[230] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 429, 493; Suarez, Opusc., Lugo, Coninck, etc.,
Konings, Theol. Mor. T. II. Tract. De Sacram. Pœn. cp. II. art. II. n.
1358.
[231] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479; H. A. n. 35; Gury-Ballerini (l. c.
II. n. 503) and Lehmkuhl (l. c. n. 328) object to binding the dumb to a
written confession; _a fortiori_ the confessor may refrain from putting
questions in writing with a view of making the confession more complete.
If, however, a dumb person desire to confess in writing, the confessor is
at liberty to comply with his wish.
[232] The following well-known definition is much like the above: the
confession is materially entire in which nothing is wanting which _per se
loquendo_ ought to be confessed, _i.e._ when nothing is wanting which _de
se_ forms the necessary matter of confession; the confession is formally
entire when nothing is wanting in the accusation through the fault of the
penitent. Cf. Konings, l. c. n. 1359.
Moralists are not of one mind on the definition of formal and material
integrity; some understand by material integrity the avowal of all
mortal sins not yet confessed which occur to the mind (after a careful
examination of conscience, as Müller expressly adds, l. c. 120), since
they form the _materia necessaria sacramenti et confessionis_; formal
integrity, on the other hand, consists in the avowal of all mortal sins
which here and now (_hic et nunc_), taking all the circumstances into
consideration, can and ought to be confessed. Thus Gury, l. c. Edit.
Romana (Ballerini) et Edit. Lugd. (Dumas), n. 468 (where, however, the
author is not quite consistent, cf. n. 470); while on the other hand
the Edit. Ratisb. as also Laymann, De Pœnitent. cp. 8, n. 5, and Stotz,
l. c. Lib. I. P. III. Q. II. art. IV; Scavini, l. c. Tom. IV. Tract.
X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. II. n. 38, have the above definition. We give
the preference to it on grounds which will appear in the course of the
treatise; moreover, it is more common and is in harmony with the teaching
of the Council of Trent. The words which St. Alphonsus employs in the
definition of material integrity seem to favor the latter view. Cf. Lib.
VI. n. 465.
[233] Sess. XIV. cp. 5, De Confessione.
[234] Sess. XIV. can. 7.
[235] L. c. cp. 5.
[236] Trid. l. c. cp. 5. Compare Palmieri, l. c. Thes. XXXIII; Gury, l.
c. II. n. 469; Aertnys, l. c. n. 185; Lehmkuhl, l. c. cp. II. (Confessio)
art. I. n. 302.
[237] It is to be noted that in speaking of the classification of sins
we abstract from the _physical_, we confine ourselves to the _moral_
species which indicates the peculiar _malice_ of the sin; for instance,
the ordeal by fire is _physically_ distinct from the ordeal by water, but
_morally_ they are in the same species, because the malice is the same in
both sins. Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, Sect. 2, n. 3.
[238] Sess. XIV. cp. 5.
[239] Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp.
II. art. I. § 2, n. 307.
[240] _Cum actu interno a quo procedit facit unum complete individuum
in genere moris, actus enim externus se habet veluti materia, internus
veluti forma unius operationis humanæ._ Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp.
I. Q. IV. cp. III.
[241] Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. Tract. V. De Confess. Q. VI. n. 317;
Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. III.
[242] The effect of a mortal sin is _omne id quod consequitur ad totum
peccatum completum in individuo_; _e.g._ the wish to kill is externally
completed _in esse peccati_ by the giving of poison; the death which
ensues is called the _effectus peccati_.
[243] Mazzotta, l. c. cp. III. with Lugo, Salm., Tamb., etc. Cf. Marc, P.
Cl., Institut. Moral. Alphons. Tom. II. P. III. Tract. V. De Pœnit. n.
1692.
[244] This is _communis theologorum doctrina_. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib.
VI. n. 466; Reuter, l. c. Tract. V. De Confess. n. 312; Lugo, Disp. 16,
Sect. 2.
[245] Lehmk. l. c. cp. II. Confessio, art. I. § 1, n. 305.
[246] S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 20. Compare Casus Bened. XIV, pro anno
1744, mens. Jun. cas. 3. A man confesses that for a month he has
been harboring evil thoughts against his friend, and during the same
time entertaining impure thoughts about a woman; the question is put
whether such a confession is sufficiently complete. The answer is
given _distinguendo_: 1. If the penitent has occasionally recalled his
unfriendly wishes or impure desires, and has not fallen into them very
often, the confession is not sufficient. 2. If he has never retracted
in either case and has fallen frequently into those sins every day, the
statement will suffice as it stands.
[247] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, n. 573; Sporer, Theolog. Moral. Sacram.
P. III. cp. III. Q. IV. n. 452.
[248] Lugo, l. c. n. 574; Sporer, l. c. n. 453; Reuter, l. c. n. 313.
[249] Lugo, l. c. n. 575; Sporer, l. c. n. 453.
[250] Cf. Lugo, l. c., and Sporer, l. c.
[251] Disp. 16, n. 146 et seq.
[252] L. c. 1060, etc.
[253] De matrimon. L. 7, Disp. 27 et seq.
[254] Editio in Germania V (Ratisb. 1874), P. II. Tract. de Confess. n.
492.
[255] Gury-Ballerini, Ed. IX (Romæ, 1887), P. II. Tract. de Confess. n.
492, Q. 12 et P. I. n. 286.
[256] L. c. Tract. V. De Sacram. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confess. art.
I. Sect. 2, n. 310, and P. I. L. I. Tract. II. cp. II. art. II. n. 385,
and cp. III. art. II. n. 455.
[257] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 88, art. 3; Suarez, l. c. n. 1 et seq.,
Tract. VI. l. 5, c. 3, n. 2 et seq.
[258] Cf. Gury, ed. Ratisbon, l. c.
[259] Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 298.
[260] Gury-Ballerini, I. n. 286, and Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 466 sqq.
[261] Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 213 sqq.
[262] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœn. Sect. II. cp. II. Conf.
art. I. § 2, n. 308, and Th. M. Gen. Tract. I. cp. III. § 2, n. 31.
[263] Propos. 58 damn.
[264] See § 48, The Duty of the Confessor with regard to asking
Questions. Compare §§ 64, 65.
[265] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. De Confess, cp. 3;
Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 485.
[266] De considerat. II. 13.
[267] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 186, art. 9 ad 3.
[268] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 2.
[269] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 5; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 59-63;
Gury-Dumas, I. n. 153; Scavini, I. n. 734.
[270] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 1 et 2; S. Alph. l. c. n. 54;
Gury-Dumas, l. c.
[271] On this controversy see, in addition to S. Alph. Lib. VI. n.
468-471 and Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, Sect. 3, Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l.
c. cp. I (de integr. mat.), n. 352-365.
[272] De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 115.
[273] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. P. II. cp. III. art. 3, n. 192.
[274] P. II. De Pœnit. cp. 5, n. 47.
[275] S. Alph. l. c. n. 468 ad prob. 3 ex ratione.
[276] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. P. II. cp. 2, art. II. n. 484; Aertnys, l. c.
[277] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 484, nota c.
[278] S. Alph. l. c. n. 473 and H. A. n. 30; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI.
Disp. 1. Q. IV. de Conf. cp. 4. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. (de
peccatis dubiis) n. 374.
[279] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 58.
[280] Compare in particular Sanchez, Suarez, Lugo, Laymann, Sporer, etc.
[281] Nearly all the later theologians hold this doctrine. Ballerini
(Not. ad Gury et Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 377) calls the opinion that one
is obliged to confess _peccata dubia_ downright false. Cf. Müller, l. c.
Sect. 121; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 317; Gury, l. c. n. 477; Marc, l. c. Tract.
V. De Pœnit. Diss. II. cp. II. art. II. Sect. l, n. 1695, etc.
[282] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 317.
[283] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Mazzotta, l. c. De oris confessione, cp. 4.
St. Alphonsus declares very precisely that St. Thomas’ doctrine on this
matter is not against us: “He does not speak of a penitent who after
diligent examination of conscience comes to the conclusion that his sin
is doubtfully mortal and then lays aside his doubt in accordance with
the rule that there is no certain obligation where it is question of a
doubtful transgression; he is rather considering the case of the penitent
who is certain that he has performed a sinful act but cannot decide
whether it was gravely sinful or not; such a penitent is, of course,
obliged to take pains to remove the doubt, and if he cannot settle he
must submit it to the judgment of his confessor, whose office it is to
distinguish between sin and sin.” S. Alph. l. c. n. 474 (fin.).
[284] S. Alph. l. c. n. 475.
[285] Habert, t. 3 de consc. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 476.
[286] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 476; Reuter, l. c. P. IV. n. 306 ss.
[287] Cf. Lacroix, l. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 612; S. Alph. l. c. n. 476.
[288] S. Alph. l. c. n. 478. Cf. H. A. De Sacr. Pœnit. cp. 3, n. 34.
[289] Lugo, l. c. Disput. 16, n. 52, n. 87, n. 78.
[290] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. n. 480, and Op. Theol. Mor. l.
c. n. 380 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 318; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V.
P. II. cp. 3, art. 3, n. 193, Q. 4; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. T. II Sect.
121, is wrong in calling the affirmative opinion _communissima et vera_.
[291] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 319. Cf. Aertnys: _In praxi, præsumptio amovet
dubitationem_; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 379.
[292] Suarez, Bonacina, Lugo, Salmanticenses, Lacroix, etc.
[293] S. Alph. l. c. n. 477. Thus the holy Doctor does not express a
general obligation of confessing the sins in this case. In the _Quæst.
rec. reform._ n. 16 he appeals from Suarez, Lugo, etc., to Concina,
who, along with others, teaches the obligation of confession _cum dubia
sit confessio et certa sit confessionis obligatio_ (see _Vindiciæ
Alphonsianæ_). Meanwhile, as Ballerini shows, St. Alphonsus in the Roman
edition of his Moral Theology of the year 1757, which is dedicated to
Benedict XIV, releases the penitent from the obligation of repeating the
confession _ut etiam communiter dicunt Suarez, Sanchez, Lugo_, etc.,
etc. And Lugo writes (De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 58): _Communiter docent
omnes non teneri_ (_quempiam_) _ad confitendum illud_ (_peccatum_) _quod
probabiliter judicat se ... confessum jam fuisse_. Cf. n. 59, where the
same subject is treated of: _nihil frequentius apud theologos_, etc.
Hence the _sententia communis_ of theologians is that within the given
limits there is no obligation, so that Ballerini justly exclaims: “Who
would not rather abide by St. Alphonsus when he follows those great
theological luminaries than when he clings to Concina!” “And has Concina
thereby taught anything new? Indeed, since the whole question rests on
a general principle, are we to rate so low the common teaching of such
great theologians as to grant the privilege of clearer intuition to the
judgment of the rigorist Concina?” Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. n. 479.
Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 382 ss.
[294] S. Alph. l. c. n. 478; Sanchez, l. c. Lib. I. c. 10, n. 69; Suarez,
l. c., etc. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 193, Q. 4.
[295] Cf. S. Antonin. Summa, P. III. Tit. 14, c. 19, § 14.
[296] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 321 ss.; Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnitent. Art.
III. Confessio, n. 187, Q. 1, and Acta S. Sedis, Vol. 4, p. 320. Cf. the
note of Fr. Haringer, C.SS.R., to St. Alphonsus’ Moral Theology, Lib.
VI. Tract. IV. De Pœnit. n. 488; Wilmers, Lehrbuch der Religion, Fourth
Edition, 1886, Vol. IV. § 74, p. 674.
[297] Cf. _Appendix ad Concil. plen. Baltim._ II. in _Collect. Lac._ T.
III. col. 550.
[298] See § 27.
[299] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. De Oris Confess. cp. 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 323
s.; Gury-Baller. II. De Pœn. n. 494 s.
[300] Lugo, De Euchar. n. 126; Suarez, Disputat. 66 s. 3; Lacroix, n.
539; Salmanticenses, De Euch. c. 7, p. 3, n. 30, etc.
[301] Sess. XIII. cp. 7.
[302] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. III. De Euchar. cp. II. Dub. II.
n. 257; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 325; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De
Euchar. Art. III. n. 98, Q. II.
[303] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 495; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 326.
[304] Sess. XIII. cp. 5.
[305] Cf. Gury, l. c. n. 497; Aertnys, l. c. n. 104; and Lehmkuhl, l. c.
art. III. n. 327.
[306] S. Alph. l. c. L. VI. n. 485.
[307] Reuter, Theol. Moral. Quadripartita, Tom. IV. Tract. V. Q. IX. n.
331, exempl.
[308] Reuter, l. c. n. 331, exempl. 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 329.
[309] Compare § 20, Confessions of the Dumb who are Able to Write.
[310] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 644; Prax. Conf. n. 104; H. Ap. n. 155;
Gury-Ballerini, l. c. II. n. 503, Not.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q. III.
[311] Aertnys, l. c. n. 195, Q. I; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 330.
[312] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 195, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 332.
[313] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 331; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. III. Q. II. nn. 68
et 69.
[314] S. Alph. l. c. n. 488; Aertnys, l. c.; Elbel, Theol. Moral. Vol.
III. P. IX. De Pœnit. n. 150. See § 72, Treatment of the Scrupulous in
Confession.
[315] S. Alph. l. c.; Stotz and Aertnys, l. c.
[316] L. c. n. 331. Cf. St. Alph. l. c. n. 487.
[317] Cf. Aertnys, Lib. III. Tract. VIII. De octavo Præcepto Decalogi, n.
534, Q. 2.
[318] Lugo, l. c. n. 398.
[319] In IV. dist. 16, Q. 3, a. 2.
[320] Disp. 34, Sect. 2.
[321] Disp. 16, n. 398 sq.
[322] Q. 91, dub. 3, a. 2.
[323] C. 8, n. 128.
[324] P. IV. n. 321.
[325] L. c. n. 489.
[326] S. Alph. l. c. 490; Gury-Baller. II. 500, Q. II.
[327] De Pœnit. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. 7, § 1 _ab initio_.
[328] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, l. c.; Tamburini, Meth. conf. 1. 2, c. 9, § 2.
[329] Thus Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 334 ss.; cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q.
10; Lugo, l. c. Ballerini, however, l. c. n. 499, Q. I, concludes thus
in his notes: Ergo, seclusis aliis incommodis, _integra manere videtur
obligatio_ circumstantiam illam tacendi quando ex ejusdem confessione
alterius infamia consequatur. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. (_de Complicis
manifestat._) n. 439-450.
[330] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 420; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 502; Lehmkuhl,
l. c. n. 338.
[331] Sess. XIV. cp. 5 et can. 7 (examen diligens).
[332] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 590-594; cf. Laym. Lib. V. Tr. 6, 8.
[333] L. c. n. 366.
[334] Mazzotta, l. c. Disput. I. Q. II. cp. I.
[335] Part II. cp. 5, n. 60.
[336] L. c. n. 311.
[337] Theol. Sacram. Tom. III. De Pœnit. n. 365.
[338] Instructio Pœnit. cp. II.
[339] Mazzotta, l. c.; cf. Suarez, Disp. 22.
[340] Mazzotta l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. cp. III. § 2, n. 186.
[341] Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. cp. III. art. III. § 2, n. 186.
[342] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 344.
[343] Cf. Stotz, _Tribunal Pœnitentiæ_, Lib. I. P. I. Q. I. art. 9,
_Praxis examinis pro Confessione_, and Lib. I. P. III. Q. III. art. 1 ss.
_Syllabus peccatorum_.
[344] Mazzotta, l. c. Disp. I. Q. II. cp. I (Lacroix); Reuter, Theol.
Mor. P. IV. n. 311; Sporer, l. c. n. 367.
[345] Compare Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, I Bd. I Tl. § 66.
[346] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. De Censuris, n. 960, Not. 1-4, also n. 430,
Q. 7; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430, in fine; Aertnys, l. c. De Censuris, n.
39.
[347] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 498, 499; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 607; Suarez,
Disp. 28, s. 2, n. 12 (_sententia communis_).
[348] Cf. §§ 63, 64, where the _recidivi_ are treated of, and Lehmkuhl,
l. c. Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. III. § 2, n. 347.
[349] S. Alph. l. c. n. 502; H. A. n. 44; Lacroix, l. c. n. 216; Lugo,
Disp. 16, n. 638; Elbel, n. 253, etc.
[350] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 502, dub. 2; also Suarez, Lugo, Vasquez,
Laymann, and other theologians.
[351] Suarez, Disp. 22, Sect. 6, and Lugo, Disp. 16, Sect. 15, n. 636.
[352] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 637, 638. Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22,
Sect. 6, n. 5; Coninck, Disp. 4, n. 45; Illsung, De Pœnit. Disp. 6, n.
152, etc.
[353] Aertnys, l. c. art. III. Confessio, § 4, n. 203, Q. 2.
[354] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 348.
[355] Silva, part 3, cp. 6.
[356] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. cp. 9. If the confessor is morally certain that
the former confessions were bad, he must unquestionably insist on their
repetition; if he has only doubts, he cannot impose on the penitent an
absolute obligation. _In dubio standum est pro valore actus._ Cf. S.
Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20; Segneri, Instr. pœn. cp. 15; Carol. Borom. Act.
Med. p. 877; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. II. § 70, S. 470, 2. Auflage.
[357] S. Alph. Praxis Confess. n. 22; cf. Aertnys, Theol. Pastor.
complectens Practicam Institut. Confessarii, P. III. cp. VIII. art. II.
n. 245.
[358] S. Franc. Sal. Oper. Ed. Paris 1669. Tom I. p. 914, n. 6.
[359] Benedict XIV. Const. Apostolica, 26 Jun. 1749, nn. 16, 17.
[360] Instruct. pœnit. cp. 16.
[361] Instit. catech. P. II. cp. 5, n. 11.
[362] Cf. Reuter, Neo-confessarim, P. III. cp. 2, n. 191; Müller, Theol.
moral. Lib. III. T. II. § 124.
[363] H. A. app. IV. § 1, n. 15.
[364] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20.
[365] S. Alph. Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 2.
[366] Marc, Instit. Morales, II. T. II. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. n.
1712.
[367] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 90-92.
[368] Cf. Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confess. l. c. art. II. n. 247.
[369] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 504; cf. Lugo l. c. Disput. 16, nn. 600, 640;
Benger, Pastoraltheologie, II. Bd. § 171, S. 479 (2. Aufl.).
[370] Praxis Confess. cp. I. n. 20, 4.
[371] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 64-70.
[372] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 425, H. A. n. 4; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16,
nn. 46-49; Aertnys, l. c. n. 200, Q. 2.
[373] P. Heilig, _Methodus Confess. generales ... excipiendi_;
Gury-Baller. l. c. II. Tract. de Sacr. Pœnit. n. 519; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
Sect. II. art. III. nn. 346, 349; Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confessor. P.
III. cp. VIII. art. III.
[374] See § 24.
[375] See § 49.
[376] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 88-90.
[377] Leonard von Port Maur., Anleitung zur Generalbeichte; Benger,
Pastoraltheologie, Bd. III. S. 607-619 (1. Aufl.), Bd. II. S. 475-486 (2.
Aufl.); Schüch, Pastoraltheologie, § 320.
[378] Some experienced confessors advise to begin with these
commandments, because sins against holy purity are frequently the cause
of invalid confessions. Many penitents, however, would be shocked and
disgusted at such a proceeding.
[379] The greatest prudence should be employed in putting these questions
for fear of teaching evil or giving scandal. In this matter it is better
that the completeness of the accusation should suffer. For instance,
Ballerini disapproves of asking directly whether the accomplice is bound
by vows, since such cases are rare, and when they occur the penitent
would be certain to mention the circumstance spontaneously, while to put
such a question would frequently cause astonishment and give scandal.
[380] Aertnys, l. c. cp. 8, art. 4, nn. 251, 252; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 351;
Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 520; Heilig, Methodus Conf. gen. n. 40 ss.
[381] Sess. XIV. De Pœnit. cp. 8.
[382] S. Thom. _Amplius valet ad expiandum peccatum quam si proprio
arbitrio homo faceret idem opus._ Quodl. Lib. 3, Q. 14. Summa Theol.
Supplem. Q. 12-15; Suarez, De Sacr. Pœnit. Disp. 37 per 10 Sectiones,
Disp. 38, Sect. 1 and 2; Lugo, De Sacr. Pœnit. Disp. 24 per 5 Sectiones;
Billuart, Compend. Theol. Tom. VI. De Sacr. Pœnit. Diss. VIII. a. I.
6-8; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. Vol. V. Tract. X. Sect. V. cp. I. n.
478 ss.; Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, II. Tl. § 42, Die
Genugthuung, S. 538 ss.
[383] Sess. XIV. cp. 8.
[384] S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. nn. 506, 507; H. Ap. n. 47.
[385] Busenbaum, Medulla, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. cp. I. De Satisfact. Art.
I; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513; Lugo, Disp. 25, n. 50.
[386] Sess. XIV. cp. 8.
[387] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. II. cp. III. Satisfactio, n. 355.
[388] Rituale Rom. De Sacram. Pœnit.
[389] S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 15, a. 3.
[390] S. Alph. _cum communi sententia_. Lib. VI. l. c.
[391] S. Alph. _ibid._; Scavini, l. c. n. 383; S. Thom. Quodl. 3, a. 28.
[392] This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus _cum innumeris scriptoribus
contra paucos_ (n. 513).
[393] S. Alph. l. c. n. 524.
[394] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 512.
[395] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 356 (8).
[396] Homil. 43 in Matth. c. 23.
[397] Cf. Martin, Moral. S. 591.
[398] S. Alph. l. c. n. 516, H. A. n. 55; Sporer, l. c. n. 588.
[399] Cf. Rit. Roman. tit. III. cp. I. n. 25.
[400] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513.
[401] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 509, 510, 526; H. Ap. nn. 49, 50; Lugo, l. c.
Disp. 25, n. 60; Reuter, l. c. p. 4, nn. 591, 404; Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. nn. 489, 493.
[402] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 517, 518.
[403] Thus, among others, Lugo.
[404] Thus, among others, Suarez, Fillince, Segneri, St. Alphon. l. c. n.
518.
[405] Aertnys, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. cp. III. art.
IV n. 206, Q. 4.
[406] S. Alph. l. c. n. 514 (in fine).
[407] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. Appendix, n. 535. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 200;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 368.
[408] Summa Theol. P. III. tit. 17, s. 20.
[409] Instruct. Confess. cp. 20.
[410] Quodl. 3, a. 28; cf. Opusc. 65, § 4.
[411] Lib. VI. n. 510.
[412] S. Alph. l. c. n. 517.
[413] S. Alph. l. c. n. 521.
[414] S. Alph. l. c. n. 521; H. A. n. 57; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI.
Disp. I. Q. V. cp. 2.
[415] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, Sect. 5, n. 92; Sanchez in decalog. l. 4, c.
10, n. 21; Elbel, de Pœnit. n. 229.
[416] Mazzotta, l. c.; Gury II. n. 535; S. Alph. H. A. n. 57.
[417] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 364.
[418] Lib. VI. n. 523.
[419] Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 38, s. 8, n. 5; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, s. 3,
n. 39; Laymann, Theol. Mor. Lib. V. Tract. VI. cp. 15, n. 15; Lacroix,
Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1245, and many others.
[420] Mazzotta, l. c. Q. 5; cf. 2 Suarez, l. c. Disp. 38, s. 7. Lugo, l.
c. Disp. 25, n. 68, says that this doctrine is _verum et certum_, and is
a direct consequence of the teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV.
cp. 8); cf. Elbel, l. c. n. 227.
[421] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 515, 516; Mazzotta, l. c.
[422] Lugo, l. c. n. 77.
[423] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 25, nn. 107-110. Cf. Disp. 15, n. 107.
[424] L. c. n. 529, dub. III.
[425] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 366.
[426] S. Alph. l. c. n. 529, dub. I; Aertnys, l. c. n. 213, Q. I; Müller,
l. c. § 128.
[427] S. Alph. l. c. n. 529, dub. II; H. A. n. 61.
[428] S. Alph. l. c. n. 520; H. A. n. 59.
[429] H. A. Tr. 6, n. 33, in fine.
[430] S. Alph. H. A. n. 58; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 700, Q. 2.
[431] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. I. n. 369.
[432] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 7.
[433] Suarez, Disp. 16, s. 3.
[434] Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, cp. II. Thes. XVI. p. 172 ss.
[435] Trid. Sess. XXIII. cp. 15, reform.
[436] Ben. XIV. De Syn. Lib. 9, cp. 16, n. 7; Instit. n. 14 ss. et
Instit. 86; S. Carol. Borrom. Conc. Provinc. I. part 2 et VI. part 3, etc.
[437] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 546 ss.
[438] Cf. Palmieri, l. c. Thes. XVI; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. III. cp. I.
art. II. n. 374.
[439] Benedict XIV, Notificatione 9, n. 16; Scavini, l. c. Tract. X.
Disp. I. cp. 4, n. 96, nota 229. Cf. Decr. S. C. Concil. quoted by
Scavini. The same author goes on to observe that by a decision of the
Rota a _causa sufficiens_ for a new examination may be _libitum et sola
quies episcopi_ when there is question of priests who have been examined
by his predecessors; as for those whom he has himself examined, he
is justified in calling them to account again _quando adest vehemens
suspicio de illorum imperitia_, nor is it necessary that judicial proof
of this _imperitia_ be forthcoming. Decr. 15 Jan., 1667 et 22 Sept.,
1668. Cf. Bened. XIV, De Synod. diœc. l. 13, cp. 9, n. 21.
[440] Scavini, l. c. n. 98, nota 230; S. Alph. l. c. nn. 555-558; H. A.
n. 81.
[441] Sess. XXIV. cp. 8 de reform.
[442] Scavini, l. c. n. 231; Benedict XIV, Quoniam, 28 Maj., 1746.
[443] Acta S. Sed. Vol. I. p. 681, Resp. 6 Mart., 1694, 29 Jan., 1707, in
Frising.
[444] Bouix, De Parocho, p. iv. cp. 14.
[445] Gobat, l. c. Tract. 7, n. 45; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. not. ad n. 552.
[446] After the Council of Trent, a lengthy controversy arose among
the theologians as to which bishop ought to give the approbation to
the confessor; many thought it was the confessor’s bishop, others the
penitent’s; with regard to exempted Regulars, it seemed probable that
a single approbation, without restrictions from any bishop at all, was
sufficient, since they are not the subjects of the bishops; this had
been granted by Clement VII and Sixtus V; moreover, Gregory XIII gave
Religious, when on a journey, the power of hearing confessions, provided
they had the sanction of their Superior and approbation from any bishop;
this privilege, however, was not to be made use of in the towns or places
where the bishop was actually residing, without the latter’s permission.
Innocent XII, however, withdrew all privileges contrary to his bull. S.
Alph. l. c. n. 458.
[447] Trid. l. c. and the Constit. “Superna,” Clem. X, etc.
[448] S. Alph. l. c. n. 552; H. A. 75.
[449] S. Alph. l. c. n. 570; H. A. n. 83. Lehmkuhl is of opinion that
a priest who is convinced of the bishop’s consent to his demand for
approbation, may give absolution validly, but not licitly, when the paper
granting the faculties has been signed and sent off, so that it cannot be
reclaimed or changed except by a message directed to the priest himself,
or when the bishop has given the paper containing the approbation to the
priest’s messenger, who has not yet delivered it. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 380,
nota.
[450] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 543, 582; H. A. 76, 132.
[451] Confirmed by Greg. XIII, 1 Dec., 1582.
[452] Cf. S. Alph. and the other authors quoted above. Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c., _Quid sit approbatio et a quo petenda_, n. 546 ss.
[453] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 544; H. A. n. 77.
[454] S. Alph. n. 551; H. A. n. 75.
[455] Whenever both jurisdiction and approbation are granted on account
of the office which the priest exercises as a subject of the bishop, they
lapse on the office being surrendered. Hence a secular priest who has had
faculties to hear confessions in some diocese in virtue of a chaplaincy
or other appointment, is deprived of these faculties on being changed
to another diocese unless the bishop is distinctly understood to wish
to continue them. The same holds true for a Religious who has received
faculties from his local Superior; his faculties lapse when he is removed
to another diocese and do not revive merely by his return to the scene of
his former labors. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 381, nota 1.