Pœnit. P. III. cp. I. art. II. Append. n. 557. Scavini, Tract. III.
Disp. I. cp. 3, art. 3, 519. Aertnys on Approbation says: _in sensu
quo Concilium Tridentinum usurpat, approbatio dicenda videtur facultas
audiendi confessiones ab Episcopo facta Sacerdoti qui idoneus judicatus
est_—and he supposes that Regulars do not, as many maintain, receive
jurisdiction from the Pope. He appeals to the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar.,
1866, also Extrao. comm. cp. 2 de sepult ex clement., cp. 2 de sepult.
and Extrao. comm. cap. un. de judic., where the Pope gives jurisdiction
to a Regular only when it has been refused by the bishop, whence it would
seem that jurisdiction proceeds from the bishop except in the cases
where he refuses to give it. Still it remains to be proved that Regulars
do not receive jurisdiction from the Pope through their Superiors and
approbation from the bishop. Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V. in Germania, Nota
Editoris ad n. 557.
[457] Cf. Thesis 13 ab Alexand. VII. proscript.
[458] Const. Superna.
[459] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 382; cf. Gury, l. c.; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 583 ss.
[460] The case is solved by Aertnys, who quotes a decree S. C. Ep. et
Reg. 2 Mar., 1866 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. I. p. 683): “_An religiosus non
approbatus juxta leges proprii Ordinis a suo Superiore vel ipso invito
cum sola facultate ordinarii valide excipiat confessiones sæcularium._”
R. “_Affirmative._” It is needless to say, of course, that such conduct
is illicit.
[461] In accordance with the Rule of Boniface VIII, l. 5, tit. 10, cp. 2
in 6ᵒ.
[462] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 383.
[463] Cf. Gury, l. c. n. 555, Q. 13, Edit. Roman. Whether a bishop can
forbid his diocesans to make their confessions outside his diocese under
pain of invalidity.
[464] Gury, cf. l. c. Edit. Ratisb. ad nn. 554, 555, also Nota Edit.
[465] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 569: _spectato consensu Episcoporum et
consuetudine_.
[466] Zeitschrift für kathol. Theol., Innsbruck. 1881; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n.
385.
[467] See Müller, l. c. § 135, n. 5. Müller also appeals to St.
Alphonsus; Lugo, Disp. 20, Sect. 5, nn. 70, 72; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp.
30, Sect. 1, n. 4; and many others.
[468] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. ad n. 555, Q. 14; Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. vol. V. l. c. cp. II. nn. 613-627, _Appendix-Dissertatio_: De
absolutione peregrinorum, pp. 769-855, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 379 et 384.
[469] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf.
nn. 613-627.
[470] Decr. 4 Apr., 1900.
[471] Lessius, De justitia et jure, l. 2, cp. 29, nn. 65 and 68.
[472] A priest, for example, who has obtained a parish by simony, has,
according to canon law, an invalid title. But if he was appointed to the
parish by a lawful bishop, he has an “apparent title.”
[473] Cap. “infamis,” caus. 3, Q. 7 (c. 1).
[474] S. Alph. l. c. n. 572.
[475] In forming a judgment as to whether _error communis_> or _error
paucorum_ is in question, we must not consider if many or few seek
administration of the Sacrament of Penance from one possessing no lawful
power, but if many or few have been aware of the absence of power.
[476] S. Alph. n. 572.
[477] Instit. 84, n. 22.
[478] S. Alph. l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. ad n. 548, Q. II; Aertnys, l.
c. n. 226, Q. III; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 636-639.
[479] Lib. VI. nn. 571, 573.
[480] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 432; Lacroix, l. c. L. VI. P. I. n. 110 ss.;
Lessius, l. c. L. II. cp. 28, nn. 67 et 68; Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. n.
53.
[481] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 572; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 548, Edit.
Ratisb. l. c.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Jurisdict. nn.
628-636.
[482] Lehmkuhl adds the following case: when a priest has, _bona fide_,
began to hear a confession, and a doubt has arisen in his mind as to
whether the period of his approbation has expired, there being no
possibility of satisfying himself upon the point, this confession, begun
and considerably advanced, may be concluded if great inconvenience would
otherwise result to confessor and penitent; the confessor must, however,
inform the penitent that the absolution administered was of doubtful
validity; but if he could, without great inconvenience to either party,
break off the confession, he must do so. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 390, nota 1.
[483] L. c. n. 432.
[484] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 390 and 391.
[485] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 573, 600; H. A. n. 91, with Suarez, Gobat,
Elbel, Sporer, etc.
[486] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. c. 7, where reserved cases are spoken of,
and the following is decreed: “That no one may perish, it has always
been the usage of the Church that there should be no reservation at
the hour of death, and, therefore, that all priests may absolve any
penitent from any sins and censures whatever.” These words of the Council
are variously interpreted, some believing that all priests, without
exception, receive jurisdiction from the Church, others believing that
it is necessary to affix a limitation: when no other approved priest
is at hand to whom the dying person could easily and without danger
confess; these latter, therefore, limit the words “_omnes sacerdotes_”
on account of the intention expressed in the preceding words: “_ne quis
pereat_,” and the other ones: “_ut nulla sit reservatio_,” maintaining
that these words indicate that there is question of priests who otherwise
possessed jurisdiction, namely, “when no otherwise approved priest is
at hand.” According to the first interpretation, and the opinion based
upon it, a _sacerdos simplex_ (therefore _non approbatus_) could _valide_
administer absolution to a dying person in presence of approved priests.
A great number of theologians defend this opinion (Ballerini mentions
twenty-five in his notes to Gury, l. c. ad n. 551, Q. 8, and in his Opus.
Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf. n. 581), and St. Alphonsus
does not venture to reject it, though, in spite of the reasons advanced
by these authorities, he maintains that a _simplex sacerdos_ can only
absolve a dying person when no other approved priest is at hand, and
he is supported in this opinion by the authority of the Roman Ritual,
which (De Sacram. Pœnit. sub init.) teaches that: when danger of death
threatens, and an approved priest is not present, any priest can absolve
from all sins and censures. This opinion of St. Alphonsus is the most
general, though, according to Ballerini and Lehmkuhl, probability is not
to be denied to the other opinion, in view of the authority of so many
theologians, and in accordance with the rules of interpretation.
[487] Such a priest may _valide_ absolve a dying person if no other
priest be present, for the Tridentine says: _quilibet sacerdos_ may
absolve _in articulo mortis_. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 560 circa fin.;
Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 550. But it is not difficult to see why
_deficiente alio sacerdote_ is added here; for the _communicatio in
sacris_ with heretics and with excommunicated persons who are to be
avoided (_excommunicati vitandi_) is a grave sin, unless when excused
by necessity; a penitent, therefore, would himself commit a grave sin
if he should solicit absolution from a heretical priest, or one to be
avoided (a _vitandus_), unless no other priest should be at hand. To ask
the Sacrament of Penance from such an unhappy priest, and to receive it,
even when it is allowed, appears, however, to be in any case a dangerous
proceeding; evil influence at the most important moment of human life,
and also scandal to others, are to be feared.
[488] See § 46.
[489] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 562, 563.
[490] There is _periculum mortis_ when the illness is such as may,
according to the judgment of the physicians, and experience, result in
death, _sive id absolute, idest generatim pro omnibus verificetur, sive
respective propter circumstantias hujus infirmi_. Ballerini, l. c.
[491] S. Alph. l. c. n. 561.
[492] Const. Clem. VIII, Rom. Pontif. 1599.
[493] Decret. Clem. VIII, Sanctissimus.
[494] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. de Pœnit. Disp. 2, Q. 1, cp. 3, § 2.
[495] S. Alph. l. c. n. 575; Aertnys, l. c. n. 232, II. Q.; Lehmkuhl, l.
c. n. 395, ad II. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 640.
[496] This freedom, as Lehmkuhl remarks, exists for the members of the
Society of Jesus, so that they are not obliged, when on a journey, to
seek a priest of their own Order. Certain theologians, however, are
unwilling to concede this to all Orders. Benedict XIV, in the Brief “Quod
communi,” 30 March, 1742, allowed the Capuchins to confess to others not
of their Order, attaching the conditions, however, that the priest to
whom they confessed must be approved; the same condition was laid down
for members of the Augustinian Order on June 3, 1863 (Acta S. Sedis,
vol. 1, p. 677), and the S. Pœnitent., 18 April, 1867, the S. C. Ep. et
Regul., 3 July, 1862 and 27 Aug., 1852 (see Bucceroni, Enchirid. pp.
127 et 128), demand the same condition for the dispersed Regulars. From
which it is to be concluded that the _Sacerdotes idonei_, of whom the
privileges of Sixt. IV and Innoc. VIII speak, must be approved priests.
Cf. Aertnys, l. c. This seems also to hold for the congregations under
_vota simplicia_, who possess the privilege of exemption from episcopal
jurisdiction, as this regulation is based not upon the solemnity of the
vows, but upon the said exemption.
[497] This follows from the Bull Clem. X, Superna, 21 July, 1670,
already mentioned, partly printed in Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. ad n. 559.
According to the Council of Trent, all those lay persons are free from
episcopal jurisdiction who belong to the household of (real and exempted)
Religious Orders. But in order that the servants of a monastery may enjoy
this privilege, the following conditions must concur: (1) they must
really serve the religious of the monastery; (2) they must live within
the inclosure at the expense of the monastery; (3) they must be under
obedience to the religious of the Order; this obedience need not be the
obedience of the religious; it must, however, be such as servants owe to
their masters. Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. II. de ref.; Barbosa, de Parocho
cum animadvers.; Giraldi, p. 2, cp. 20, n. 12; Gury, l. c. ad 562.
[498] Cf. Bouix, de Regul. T. II. p. 5, Sect. 3, c. 2.
[499] Cf. Bouix, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 564, nota.
[500] Although, according to the rules of interpretation, by the word
_Moniales_ in the Papal Bulls, only _Moniales_ in the strict sense are to
be understood, that is, the members of a Religious Order approved by the
Holy See, who observe the Papal inclosure; yet Benedict XIV has expressly
declared, in his Bull “Pastoralis curæ,” that the ordinances of the Trid.
Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. which contain a part of the present
discipline, only apply _claustralibus monialibus_.
[501] This is clear from a note of the S. C. Ep. et Reg. to the
constitutions of the Sisters of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin
(23 July, 1860): “As regards the confessors, the Constit. Bened.
XIV, Pastoralis curæ is to be observed, in accordance with which the
confessors are to be appointed by the respective bishops.” In the
constitutions of the Sisters of Nazareth, who have no inclosure, the
same congregation decreed on 27 Sept., 1861: “As regards the _Confessor.
extraordin._, the ordinances of the Council of Trent are to be observed,
as also the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curæ.” Cf. Müller, l. c. S.
140.
[502] Cf. Const. Inscrutabili, Gregor. XV; Const. Superna, Clem. X (21
June, 1670); Const. Pastoralis Officii et Pastoralis curæ, Bened. XIV.
[503] Cf. Declarat. S. C. C. ad dub. 7 et 8, post Const. Inscrutabili, in
Bullario posita.
[504] Scavini, Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, art. 2, n. 123. Ferraris ad v.
Moniales, art. 5, n. 49.
[505] Gury, Ed. Ratisbon. T. II. l. c. ad n. 565.
[506] Cf. Decret. S. C. Ep. et Reg., 20 Sept., 1642.
[507] Const. Bened. XIV, Benedictus Deus, 25 Dec., 1750.
[508] Cf. Trident. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and Const. Bened.
XIV, Pastoralis curæ, 5 Aug., 1748.
[509] All these precepts are contained in the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de
Regul. et Mon. and the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curæ. Pope Leo
XIII, quoted above, has renewed the same _quoad confessarios ordinarios
et extraordinarios_ by a Decretum S. Congregat. Ep. et Regul. de
conscientiæ ratione Confessariis extraordinariis, etc., d. 17 Dec., 1890,
and exhorts _Præsules_ and _Superiores_, “_ne extraordinarium denegent
subditis Confessarium quoties ut propriæ conscientiæ consulant ad id
subditi adigantur, quin iidem Superiores ullo modo petitionis rationem
inquirant aut ægre id ferre demonstrent. Ac ne evanida tam provida
dispositio fiat, Ordinarios exhortatur_ (_sc._ _Sanctitas sua_), _ut in
locis propriæ Dioeceseos Sacerdotes facultatibus instructos designent, ad
quos pro Sacramento Pœnitentiæ recurrere eæ facile queant_.” This decree
was occasioned by precepts in the constitutions “_plurium Congregationum,
Societatum aut Institutionum sive mulierum, quæ vota simplicia aut
solemnia nuncupant, sive virorum professione ac regimine penitus
laicorum_.”
[510] Cf. Declar. S. C. C. ad dub. I. poss. Const. Inscrutabili et
Constit. Clem. X, Superna.
[511] “Reservatio est: ablatio seu nonconcessio jurisdictionis ad
absolvendum ab aliquo peccato, quamvis circa alia concedatur.” Ballerini,
Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 657.
[512] Sess. XIV. cp. 7, can. II. Cf. Perrone, De Pœn. cp. 5; Zenner,
Instruct. pract. P. 1, cp. II. § 44; Palmieri, Tract. De Pœn. Thes. XVII.
p. 178 ss.
[513] Const. Bened. XIV, Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ, 1 June, 1741.
[514] Const. Clem. VIII, Religiosæ Congregationes, 19 June, 1594, et
Urban VIII, Nuper a Congregat. 16 Oct., 1640. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 580,
693; H. A. Tr. 13, nn. 8, 9; Ferrar, ad v. Regular, art. I. nn. 67-69.
[515] S. Alph. l. c. n. 583; H. A. n. 130. These specified cases are the
following: 1. Apostasy from the Order, even when the habit of the Order
is still retained. 2. Secretly absenting one’s self from the monastery
at night. 3. Three forms of superstition: _Veneficia_, _incantationes_,
_sortilegia_. 4. Possession of property against the vow of poverty,
which constitutes a mortal sin. 5. Theft (to the extent of mortal sin)
of goods belonging to the monastery. 6. _Lapsus carnis voluntarius
opere consummatus._ 7. Perjury before a lawful judge. 8. _Procuratio,
consilium vel auxilium ad abortum fœtus animati._ 9. Killing or wounding
or severely beating any one. 10. Forging the handwriting or the seal of
the officials of the monastery. 11. Maliciously obstructing, delaying,
or opening written communications from Superiors to subordinates, or
subordinates to Superiors. The confessors of Regulars must know these
cases, so that, should one of them occur, they may send the penitent
to the Superior or to a confessor possessing the necessary faculties
for absolution; or that they may, according to circumstances, procure
for themselves the necessary faculties for this case. But if a Regular
priest confesses to a secular priest or to a priest of another Order (for
example, on a journey—see above), it is disputed whether this confessor
possesses the power to absolve from the reserved cases of the monastery.
For Capuchins sojourning out of their monastery the power has been given
by Benedict XIV (30 March, 1742) and confirmed by Pius IX (1852), with
the understanding, however, that the penitent appears before his Superior
or the confessor appointed by him as soon as possible and receives
absolution anew. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 575-583.
[516] S. Alph. n. 579; Bened. XIV, De Synodo, Lib. V. cp. 5. The Pope
says: “Although in this matter no absolute and universal standard can
be established, the general exhortations and decrees which the Sacred
Congregations at Rome have issued upon the subject may serve as a guide:—
“On January 9, 1601, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars
issued the following exhortation to the bishops: In order that the
bishops who are empowered to reserve may not unduly burden their subjects
and confessors with reserved cases, they are all exhorted to reserve
only a few cases, and those only which they believe themselves bound to
reserve in the interests of Christian morality, and for the welfare of
the souls committed to them, according to the condition and character
of each diocese. This exhortation was repeated on Nov. 26. On the same
day, the same Congregation issued a circular letter to the bishops, in
which the following exhortations are addressed to them: The bishops
should take care that they do not indiscriminately reserve those cases
to which the greater excommunication is by law attached, absolution for
which is reserved to no one, except when the special reservation of such
cases appears necessary on account of frequent scandal, or some other
urgent ground; nor those cases in which absolution is granted only when
restitution has been made, or that performed which the penitents are
bound to perform; nor should they reserve those cases which, although
great sins, are yet matters of lesser importance, and of frequent
occurrence amongst uneducated people; such as cases of _damnificatio
injusta_, etc. In reserving sins of the flesh they must proceed with
great circumspection on account of the danger of scandal, especially
when suspicion might fall upon persons either from their going to
extraordinary confessors, or frequently recurring to the bishop. Finally
the bishops are admonished to adopt and adhere to that course of action,
which, after mature consideration of the customs, natural disposition and
tendency of the neighborhood and people appears to them to be the best
before the Lord. The decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council
are couched in a similar strain. This Council ordered a bishop who had
accumulated too many reserved cases to choose ten or at most twelve of
the more considerable offenses, as he thought proper, and to strike out
the rest.”
[517] Reuter, Theol. Mor. De Pœnitent. n. 371. Cf. Stotz, Trib. Pœnit.
Lib. II. Q. 2, § 5, n. 64. Schmalzgrueber, l. c. Lib. I. Tit. 29, n.
31, and many others. This is, in fact, the doctrine which is generally
received as valid amongst the older moralists. Many of the later ones,
it is true, teach that a stranger cannot be absolved from a sin which
is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses, falsely assuming that
the priest who hears the confession of a penitent coming from a strange
diocese is restrained by his own bishop from absolving. See Ballerini,
Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 573, and Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservat.
Casuum, n, 709 ss.
[518] If the strange penitent confesses a sin which is reserved in his
own diocese but not in that in which he confesses, he can undoubtedly be
absolved by a priest of a Religious Order, in virtue of the privilege
granted by the Pope to Regulars, Const. “Superna,” Clem. X. As regards
secular priests, the older theologians maintain that they could not
absolve the stranger in this case (they appeal to the Caput Si Episcop. 2
de Pœnit. in 6ᵒ), while the later theologians unreservedly allow secular
priests to participate in the privileges of the priests of Religious
Orders; for there exists, they say, a general custom that strangers,
in this case also, are absolved by secular priests, and as the bishops
approve of this proceeding, the strangers would be _valide et licite_
absolved. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 573, notæ; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 239, in both cases decides otherwise Princ. III; and
Marc, l. c. n. 1771, Quæsit. III.
[519] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 3, Sect. 2 in fine;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 404; Ballerini adds, “_si Episcopus expresse invitus
sit_.” Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 573, Q. 5, nota II in fine. Cf. S. Alph. n.
589.
[520] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403. Aertnys teaches otherwise, l. c. n. 239.
[521] L. c. n. 602.
[522] Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 570.
[523] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 583; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403; Aertnys, l. c.
III. 2, n. 239.
[524] Sess. XIV. cp. 7. Cf. Decr. S. C. Conc. 26 Nov., 1602.
[525] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservatione
Casuum, n. 661 ss.
[526] L. c. n. 600.
[527] S. Alph. l. c. n. 600; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 405; Aertnys, l. c. n.
242.
[528] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582, with Suarez, Lugo, Tamburini, and others.
[529] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582.
[530] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad n. 571, Q. 1, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c.
cp. II. nn. 724-735.
[531] This reason is plainly not a valid one, since all theologians,
including the opponents of this view, admit that reservation directly
limits jurisdiction; these latter, however, declare that certain
circumstances are required to make a sin reserved, and that it is
questionable if the knowledge of the reservation is such a circumstance
or not.
[532] This is not convincing; for as soon as the penitent confesses a
reserved sin, the confessor will tell him of the reservation, and thus a
check will be put upon the relaxation of morality for the future; for the
sins that have been already committed, neither one opinion nor the other
can offer any preventive remedy.
[533] The Theol. of Salamanca, Tr. 18, cp. 6, n. 12; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp.
20, n. 11; Sanchez, De Matrim. l. 9, Disp. 32, nn. 17, 18; Sporer, De
Pœnit. n. 735; Mazzotta, Tract. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 2, § 2, and many
others; see Gury-Ballerini, l. c.
[534] L. c. n. 407. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. This may at least
constitute a rule for most dioceses. We must, in fact, assume that the
bishop has reserved sins in the manner in which they are generally
understood by the confessor to be reserved, unless it is shown by
positive evidence that the bishop adopts the opinion of those theologians
who teach that a reservation is not incurred by one who is not aware of
its existence. Till the later controversy, however, it was always the
general conviction that reservation was understood to be incurred by
one who did not know of it; this is testified by many authors. We must,
therefore, assume that the legislator so understood his law. But if,
with the knowledge of the bishop and without protest on his part, it be
anywhere taught that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved for one who
does not know of the reservation, this may be considered a sufficiently
valid indication that the bishop does not wish to bind those who are
ignorant of the reservation. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 571.
[535] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 580, 581, dub. 2; Lacroix l. c. n. 1614; Gury,
Ed. Ratisb. V. n. 571.
[536] Cf. Archive für Kirchenrecht (1871), XXV. 148. The other sources of
the Papal reserved cases are the Council of Trent, of which the censures
still remain in force which were directly imposed by this Council and are
not touched by the Bull “Apost. Sed.,” and those Papal decrees which have
been issued for the imposition of censures since the appearance of the
Bull “Apost. Sed.,” that is, after the year 1869.
[537] The two Papal cases spoken of above in which the sin is reserved,
are, therefore, not quoted in it, but are in force.
[538] They are (1) those which, in an especial manner (_speciali modo_)
are reserved to the Pope, (2) those which are _simply_ reserved to the
Pope, (3) those which are reserved to the bishops, and (4) those which
are reserved to no one. The two first classes are to be kept apart from
each other, for a person possessing the faculty to absolve from the Papal
cases does not necessarily possess the faculty to absolve from the cases
which are _speciali modo_ reserved, if this addition is not expressly
made. By virtue of the _jus commune_ (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 6) it
belongs to the bishop to absolve from the second class if the cases are
secret.
[539] Jan. Bucceroni (S.J.), Commentar. de Constitut. Ap. Sed. (Romæ,
1888); Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. Tract. I. II. III.; Lehmkuhl,
Theol. Mor. P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n. 920 ss.; Avanzini, De Constit.
Ap. Sed. Commentarii (Rom., 1872); Heiner, Die Kirchlichen Censuren.
Paderb. 1884, S. 52 ff.; Kirchenlexikon (2. Aufl.) Apost. Sed. Vol. I. 1,
1125 ff.
[540] There are twelve of them in the Bull “Ap. Sed.” which were all,
with the exception of the tenth, contained in the Bull “Cænas,” but not
all _eodem modo_; to these is added the thirteenth ex Constit. Pii IX,
Romanus Pontifex, 28 Aug., 1873.
[541] Cf. Pruner, Moraltheol. p. 121; Heiner, a. a. O. § 53, p. 53.
[542] Cf. S. Thom. II. II. Q. 11, art. 1; Suarez, De virt. Theol. Disp.
19, Sects. 1 and 5.
[543] Pastoral Theology, a. a. O. § 57, p. 158.
[544] Cf. Suarez, De Fide, 20, 2, 18.
[545] Regula juris in VI.
[546] The _gravitas materiæ_ is here to be estimated both _ex re quæ
tractatur_ and _ex quantitate_; if the exposition or defense of a
heretical doctrine is read, the half, or the third, of a page suffices.
[547] Some authors, as d’Annibale and Melata, restrict the censures to
printed books.
[548] But if these lesser publications are parts of a book of the same
contents, they are (subject to the above-mentioned conditions) in the
category of forbidden books, especially if they are bound together in
one volume. Periodical publications, therefore, of which every separate
number is regarded as a part of the whole yearly issue, fall under the
reserved censure; but not newspapers, as with these there is no question
of parts belonging to each other, each separate number being regarded as
complete in itself. (Act. S. Sed. Vol. VI. fasc. 5, p. 9, Append. 3, p.
133.)
[549] It remains to be remarked that the ten rules of the Index itself
are not touched by this ordinance of the Bull, but that the _Excomm.
lat. sent._ attached at the end of the regul. X falls away, as it was
not directly attached by the Council of Trent itself, but by Pius IV.
Consequently the reading and keeping of heretical books, or of such as
are condemned by a decree of the Congregation of the Index remains,
indeed, still forbidden in the future, but the punishment of the now
specially reserved excommunication is incurred only in two cases: (_a_)
when the author of the book is an apostate or a heretic, and the book,
moreover, not only contains heresy, but _ex professo_ defends it,
and (_b_) when the latter, be the author who he may, is, with exact
specification of the title, forbidden by a Papal Brief, or a Bull, or
an Encyclical Letter. Although the Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum
of Leo XIII (25 Jan., 1897) has considerably mitigated the prohibitions
of Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, in regard to the
reading and propagating of noxious literature, nevertheless the warnings
against the intellectual and moral dangers of bad books, which the
Index Congregation addresses to Catholics, retain their full force. The
confessor should of course remember that the censures attached to the
reading of forbidden books are applicable only where there is a conscious
violation of the prohibition; furthermore, that not only ignorance, but
also a general _consuetudo_ lessening the danger to faith or morals,
constitute a mitigating circumstance which demands wise discrimination
on the part of confessors who apply the laws of the Index. Few Catholics
in English-speaking countries know what books are on the Index, and that
fact itself is a reason for moderate judgment.
[550] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. nn. 295, 284, 292.
[551] This does not add a new condition for incurring the censure leveled
against the _impedientes exercitium jurisdictionis_, but only introduces
another class of the same offenders (as Avanzini and Heiner, p. 87,
assume).
[552] As to the disputed question whether one is included amongst the
_cogentes_ who denounces and prosecutes a cleric before the civil court,
so that the judge, in consequence of this denunciation, is officially
compelled to summon the accused cleric, and pronounce sentence upon
him according to the provisions of existing law, we refer the reader
to Heiner, who discusses this point. According to him, the _sententia
communior et fere communis_ teaches that such a one falls under the
censure, while the negative opinion is not improbable. Moreover, a
declaration of the S. C. Inq. 23 Jan., 1886, favors this latter opinion.
Cf. Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VII. Tract. 1, n. 82; d’Annibale (Melata) Manuale
Theol. Mor. p. 260.
[553] Cf. Heiner, a. a. O. S. 124 ff.; Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 973.
Aertnys, l. c. n. 88.
[554] Heiner, a. a. O. S. 127 ff.
[555] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 945. The bishop can _jure_ absolve, if the
_percussio_ was _levis, etiam publica_ (thus the vicars-general also
can absolve), and when the _percussio_, no matter whether _enormis_,
_gravis_, or _levis_, is a _delictum occultum_. The _Prælati regulares_
can, _ex privilegio_, absolve their subordinates from this censure.
[556] By a decree of the S. O. 20 Aug., 1894, the American societies of
Odd Fellows, Good Templars, and Knights of Pythias were condemned; v.
Bucceroni, Supplementum bibliothecæ; Ferraris, s. v. Sectarii; S. C. Inq.
12 Jan., 1870. Cf. Gen. Index _Ecclesiastical Review_.
[557] Heiner, a. a. O. S. 226; Aertnys, l. c. 103.
[558] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXII. cp. 11 de ref.
[559] By the name “_Ordinarii_” are to be understood not only the bishops
and capitular-vicars, but also vicars-general, _Prælati regulares_
and others who possess episcopal jurisdiction. The _confessarii
regulares_ also can absolve from this class of excommunication in _foro
conscientiæ_. Pius IX has only revoked the privileges to absolve _a
casibus R. Pontifci reservatis; ex sententia probabiliori_. Regulars can,
_vi complurium privilegiorum a S. Sede concessorum_, absolve from the
censures reserved by the _common_ law to the bishops. Cf. S. Alph. l.
c. n. 99, and De Privil. n. 100. Those censures are excepted which the
Ordinaries have reserved to themselves.
[560] It is _verus abortus_ which is here punished, that is, _fœtus
immaturi ejectio adeo ut mors ipsius inde secuta sit_, therefore, not the
_partus præmaturus fœtus vitalis_, when procured for just motives. Pius
IX abolished the old distinction between _fœtus animatus et inanimatus_.
It is the _procuratio abortus_, moreover, that is punished, that is, _per
se sive per alias interpositas personas_—_studiose_ or _ex industria_.
The censure is, therefore, not incurred by one who employed the means
without the effect resulting. Compare Heiner, a. a. O. S. 243 ff.;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 109; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 192; Lehmkuhl, Theol.
Mor. P. I. Lib. II Tract. II. n. 840 ss.; P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n.
970.
[561] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. de ref. cp. 6, “Liceat” and the Constit.
Apostolicæ Sedis Pii IX.
[562] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. n. 84. Corpus jur. can. cp. “Eos qui” de
sent. excomm. in 60. Whether bishops and others possess still greater
powers, is to be gathered from the special faculties which the Apostolic
See may have granted them.
[563] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservat. cas. n.
772 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 411, ad II. Concerning the privilege of the
Mendicants as regards the absolution from the _Casus Episcopal._, and
from the _Casus qui Episcopis tantum a jure reservatur_, see Ballerini,
l. c.
[564] Formerly, in accordance with the prescription of the canon law,
the teaching universally held was that (_a_) one who is prevented
during a very long time, or always (five years or longer) from going
to the Superior or his delegate, is absolved by a subordinate priest
without any further obligation, and (_b_) one who is prevented for a
long time (from six months to five years) is absolved, with the duty of
presenting himself before the Superior when the obstacle is removed,
while one who is prevented only for a short time may not be absolved
from reserved sins; but if necessity urges _hic et nunc_, absolution
for the non-reserved sins can be given him, so that the reserved sins
may be indirectly blotted out, the obligation of obtaining absolution
from the reservation or censure from the Superior or delegated priest
remaining in force. This theory was based upon the assumption that he
who was not able to appear before the Pope was not bound to employ any
other means of communication (a letter, for example) unless this were
expressly prescribed by the legislator. Moreover, on July 8, 1860, in
answer to the question: Are penitents who are prevented from going to
Rome in person bound to seek absolution from reserved cases at least
by letter or through the agency of another? the S. C. Officii replied
that the decision of approved authorities, especially of St. Alphonsus
of Liguori, should be adhered to. Now the latter teaches (Lib. VII.
n. 89) as _sententia probabilior et communis_, that one is not bound
to this. On June 23, 1886, another line of conduct in this matter was
prescribed by the S. Officium. The questions there put were: 1. May one
positively adopt and act upon the teaching that the absolution from
reserved sins and censures, also from those _speciali modo_ reserved to
the Pope, devolves upon the bishop, or upon any approved priest, when
the penitent finds himself unable to go to the Pope? 2. If the answer
to this question be in the negative, is one obliged to communicate by
letter with the Prefect of the Penitentiary with regard to all cases
reserved to the Pope, if the bishop has not a special Indult (the hour
of death excepted), in order to receive the faculty to absolve? To
these questions the above-named Congregation returned the following
answer sanctioned and confirmed by the Pope (30 June, 1886): Ad I. With
regard to the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the
appearance of the apostolical constitution of Pius IX which begins with
the words “_Apostolicæ Sedi_,” _Negative_. Ad II. _Affirmative_; but in
the really more urgent cases in which the absolution cannot be deferred
without danger of great scandal or disgrace, as to which the confessor
is answerable to his own conscience, the absolution can be administered,
_injunctis de jure jungendis_, also from the censure _speciali modo_
reserved to the Pope; under pain, however, of “reincidence” in the
same censures (that is, under pain of again incurring the censures) if
the person absolved does not, at least within a month, and through the
confessor, apply to the Holy See. (Linzer Theolog. prakt. Quartalschrift,
1887, S. 380. See Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 410; Müller, l. c. § 145; Bucceroni,
Enchirid. Morale et Supplementum. Compendio Theol. Mor.; Gury-Ballerini,
Commentar. IV. p. 224 ss.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n.
664, Nota p. 356; Aertnys, l. c. De Censuris, n. 27.) On this Lehmkuhl
remarks: “The rule laid down by the Apostolic See is clear. It does not
distinguish between reserved cases with censure and without censure, and
to follow it is now everywhere allowed, without waiting for a further
promulgation, in _all Papal_ reserved cases; indeed it seems to be
becoming a general rule.” (L. c. n. 413.) Ballerini adds the remark:
_Ergo_ (1) _urgente rationabili causa, quilibet confessarius absolv’d a
censura, censuræ autem absolutio non est nisi directa: cessante autem
censura cessat reservatio peccati, a quo proinde Confessarius directe
absolvit. Absolutio proinde, quæ in casibus urgentibus diferri non posse
dicitur, est absolutio directa. Jam vero vides_ (2) _heic de absolutione
indirecta a peccatis reservatis, quia in casibus urgentioribus
succurri potest necessitati pœnitentis ne verbumquidem fieri: Nimirum
cum necessitati pœnitentis succurrendum est, absolutionem directam a
reservatis dandam esse et hunc esse Ecclesiæ sensum supposuerunt Patres._
[565] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 584, Praxis Confess. n. 80. But see
Ballerini on this point. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 664.
[566] Lugo, l. c.; Ballerini, l. c. n. 694.
[567] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 586; II. A. n. 134.
[568] Laymann, L. V. Tr. 6, c. 13; Lugo, Disp. 29, nn. 188 et 20, n. 141;
Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 30, s. 4, n. 8; Busenbaum, l. c. n. 105; Ballerini,
Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 688, 689.
[569] Schneider, _Manuale Sacerdotum_ contains formularies for the
request.
[570] S. Alph. l. c. n. 584.
[571] Lib. VII. n. 88.
[572] Cf. Mazzotta, De Pœnit. Q. 3, c. 3, § 1.
[573] See Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 667 ss.; S. Alph.
Lib. VI. n. 265.
[574] Disp. 31, Sect. 4, n. 14, et seq. and n. 16.
[575] Suarez, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. n. 581, Notæ; Aertnys, l. c.
n. 244, Q. II.
[576] Cf. Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 753 ss.; Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 581,
Q. 10, et Vindiciæ Alphons. pp. 572-578.
[577] Cf. Prop. 59 damn. ab Innoc. XI; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 595;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 743.
[578] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 600, Q. 2; Gury, II. n. 581, Q. II.
[579] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 601; Scavini, Tract. X. Adnotationes, 236. Cf.
Bucceroni, Jan. Commentarii De Casibus reservatis, Romæ, 1889.
[580] In the _first_ constitution addressed ad _Episcopos Lusitaniæ_, the
Pope describes and condemns the crime of inquiring after the name of the
_complex_; in the _second_, addressed to the same bishops, he decrees the
punishment for the transgressors of the command, and prescribes the _Ordo
procedendi_ against them; in the _third_ constitution he extends the two
former decrees to the whole Church.
[581] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 500, Notæ.
[582] Lugo, Disput. 16, nn. 432 sq.; Ballerini, Not. ad Gury, II. n. 502;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 340; Aertnys, l. c. 248, Q. I and II. Although St.
Alphonsus (Lib. VI. n. 492) admits that the penitent is sometimes obliged
to make known the _complex_ in order to avert a great evil, yet he dares
not maintain, in view of the strict prohibition of the Pope, that the
confessor is ever allowed to ask the name of the _complex_. He has not
sufficiently considered the word _passim_—and the other words, _doctrinas
veras et sanas male applicando_—in the constitution of Benedict.
[583] Constit. Benedicti XIV, “Sacramentum Pœnit.,” 1 June, 1741, et
Const. “Apostolici muneris,” 8 Feb., 1745; Constit. Pii IX, “Apostolicæ
Sedis,” 12 Oct., 1869. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentarius in Constitutionem
Benedicti XIV, “Sacram. Pœnit.,” Romæ, 1888; Pars altera, pp. 106-141.
[584] Cf. Declar. S. Pœnitent. 16 May, 1877.
[585] Cf. Constit. “Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ,” 1 June, 1741, Benedicti XIV.
[586] St. Thomas, Supplem. Q. 20, Art. 2, ad 1; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 555.
Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad 587; Gury, Edit. Ratisb. Notæ ad n. 587;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 249.
[587] _Cum jurisdictionem in illud crimen nullam sacerdos complex
habeat._ Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.
[588] _Non habita ratione peccati illius_ (_in quo complex fuit_) _cujus
confessio ut quid impertinens consideranda erit._ Ballerini, Opus Theol.
Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absolut. complicis. n. 648.
[589] Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c.
[590] Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absol. compl. n.
654.
[591] Cf. C. Eos qui 22, De Sentent. Excomm. in VI; C. Ea noscitur 13, De
Sent. Excomm., et C. Quamvis 58, eod. tit.
[592] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 655.
[593] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. II. Tr. I. De Censuris, Sect. II.
n. 937.
[594] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 554.
[595] S. Alph. l. c. Cf. Declar. S. C. Inq. 28 May, 1873, in Acta S. Sed.
Vol. 10, append, p. 345. Aertnys, l. c. n. 249. Some wrongly exclude the
_sermones impudici_; the most that can be urged for such a view is that
there might be a doubt, _num fuerit peccatum mortale ex utraque parte_,
and, on account of such a doubt, the _causa complicitatis_ which the law
requires may the more easily be absent. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 935.
[596] This results from the tenor of the Bulls “Sacrament. Pœnitent.” of
Benedict XIV and “Apostolicæ Sedis” of Pius IX. A simple, non-approved
priest is, _per se_, to be preferred to the _sacerdos complex_ (if no
defamation arises), but a _sacerdos publice suspensus, excommunicatus_,
is not to be preferred, as it is not becoming to call such a one to the
dying person, and in this case it will scarcely be possible to avoid
suspicion.
[597] Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absolut. compl. n. 652
ss.
[598] Cf. Constitutio Benedicti XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” and Pii IX,
“Apostolicæ Sedis” (see § 43, p. 326).
[599] Cf. Berardi, Praxis conf. n. 1076.
[600] This question was before decided in the same sense by the S. Pœnit.
9 Jul., 1751, et Mart., 1878. Cf. Linzer Theol. Quartalschrift, 1882, p.
389. Revue theol. 1884, p. 363. St. Alphonsus had already (Lib. VI. n.
556) maintained, _eum, qui fingat absolutionem, non incurrere censuram_,
deducing this from the words of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, and
this interpretation of the Pope’s words was probable; this opinion of
the sainted teacher seems still to coincide with the words of the Bull
of Pius IX, which reads _Absolventes_. But the Sacred Penitentiary
has declared otherwise. The latter evidently here takes the word
_absolventes_ in the wider sense. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c.
n. 656. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 936, Nota.
[601] Cf. Decret. S. C. Inq. 27 June, 1866, and the Instructio S. C. Inq.
20 Feb., 1867. (Gury, Cas. Conscient. T. 2, n. 647.) Revue des sciences
ecclès. Vol. 18, p. 359.
[602] S. C. Inquis. 30 June, 1886, the decision which Leo XIII approved
and confirmed. Cf. Revue theolog. 1886, p. 378.
[603] The Sacred Penitentiary is accustomed to add a few clauses to its
Rescript, and it will be useful to explain them briefly:
1. Before the _confessarius delegatus_ can carry out the Rescript, the
occasion of again sinning against the sixth commandment _cum persona vel
personis complicibus_ must be removed. Hence the voluntary occasion (and
there is generally such in this case) must be physically removed, and a
necessary occasion morally removed. See § 63.
2. The _Confessarius complex_ must inform his _complex_, when he again
comes to him to confess, of the invalidity of the former confessions and
refer him to another confessor.
3. The duty of not again hearing the confessions of the _persona complex_
in the future will be imposed upon the _Confessarius complex_, when this
can be done without great scandal, and he would, therefore, sin gravely
if he should disobey this command. According to the number and gravity
of the cases the Penitentiary subjoins still severer clauses: (_a_)
those who _duas personas complices_ only once, or _unam bis a peccato
in re turpi absolvere attentaverint_ the Sacred Penitentiary orders
to give up their office as confessors. (_b_) But those _qui duas aut
plures personas sive unam ter aut pluries absolvere ausi fuerint_, it
commands to relinquish as soon as possible the office which they have
so misused, and that within the time which is to be determined by the
priest who administers the absolution, and which must not be prolonged
beyond three months, if they are simple priests; if they are parish
priests, the period may be longer, but not beyond six months. And if
within this time the priest is unable, for weighty reason, to give up his
office, the delegated confessor must again address himself to the Sacred
Penitentiary, and lay the whole matter before him; in the meanwhile,
however, the _sacerdos complex_ may not hear the confessions _cujuscunque
personæ complicis_. The Sacred Penitentiary will, for weighty reasons,
extend the period, and when, after a time, the unhappy priest seems to
have amended, will allow him to continue to exercise the duties of a
confessor.
4. The censures must be removed first, then the sins remitted, and
finally the dispensation from the irregularity is given. Cf. Aertnys, l.
c. n. 250.
[604] The Constitutions, “Cum sicut nuper,” of Pius IV, “Dilecte fili,”
of Paul V, “Universi Dominici gregis,” of Gregory XV, and in an especial
manner, “Sacramentum pœnitentiæ,” and “Apostolici muneris,” of Benedict
XIV, cover this matter. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentar. Constit. Benedicti
XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” P. I. pp. 1-150. Romæ, 1888. Ed. altera.
[605] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. IV. n. 564, sub 3.
[606] Cf. Decl. S. C. Inq. 11 Febr., 1661, dub. 2 et 9, et Instruct. 20
Febr., 1867, n. 2.
[607] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 704.
[608] Cf. Resp. S. C. Inq. a. 1661 ad dub. 5, Instruct. a. 1867, sub 2.
[609] Cf. Propos. 6 ab Alex. VII damn.
[610] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 676-680.
[611] Illud immediate (ante vel post) aliqui moraliter intelligi volunt,
ita ut, si physice tantum aliquid intermediat, seu intervallum adeo
breve sit, ut pro nihilo debeat computari, confessarius adhuc vi harum
clausularum sollicitans dicendus, ergo denuntiandus sit. Communis
sententia, quam sequitur St. Alph. (n. 677) illud stricte, _i.e._ physice
accipit. Ex praxi tribunalis S. Officii non censetur confessarius
sollicitasse immediate post confessionem, si sollicitatio post transactum
integrum diem accidet, dummodo nullo modo pravum animum suum in
confessione indicaverit. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 590. Opus Theol.
Mor. l. c. Appendix De Sollicitatione, n. 1094 ss.
[612] Illud: “occasione” duplici hic significatione sumitur: altera
opportunitatis, altera motivi.
[613] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 678; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n.
1098. Ballerini, Not. ad Gury, II. n. 590; Nouv. Rev. Theolog. Tom. 12,
p. 31 ss. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 976.
[614] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 678 and 679. Hinc sollicitans dicendus est
Confessarius, si mulier, nulla conventione præmissa prætextu confessionis
vocet ipsum in domum suam, qui cum accesserit, a muliere sollicitatus
turpiter peccat eum illa; nam juxta decreta S. C. Inq. sollicitatio etiam
a pœnitente emanare potest. Etiam sollicitans dicendus est Confessarius,
qui extra confessionem sollicitat feminam huicque renuenti ob timorem
diffamationis, suadet, ut fingens se ægrotam eum ad peccandum accerseret.
S. Alph. n. 679; vide Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1102.
[615] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 680. Ballerini, Opus. Theol. Mor. l. c. n.
1107.
[616] Compare the above-cited Constitutions of the Popes, and the
Instruction of the S. C. Inquis. 20 Feb., 1867.
[617] Cf. Instr. S. C. Inq. 1867, sub 11.
[618] Cf. Instruct. cit.
[619] Amort. Theol. Mor. De Pœn. Q. 19.
[620] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 687. Cf. Resp. S. C. Inq. a. 1661, ad dub. 13.
[621] Lib. VI. n. 701, II. A. Tr. 16, n. 175. Bucceroni, Commentar. in
Constit. Bened. XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” art. II. Sect. 2, p. 66.
[622] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. p. 66.
[623] Not, be it remarked, _virtute Constitutionum Pontificiarum contra
sollicitantes, but virtute præcepti denuntiandi intra mensem hæreticos et
suspectos de hæresi_. Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 1, p. 56.
[624] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 698. They are not bound to denounce: (_a_)
when the solicited person has already given the information; (_b_) when
they would suffer great detriment by so doing, except in the case of a
priest of great influence who had already solicited many persons; (_c_)
when the person soliciting is related to them within the fourth degree.
Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tr. 2, Disp. 1, Q. 1, cp. 2, Sect. 4; Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1136 ss.
[625] Cf. S. Alph. nn. 700, 697, 695. Bucceroni, l. c. p. 65.
[626] Compare the Constitutions of the Popes and the above-cited Instr.
S. C. Inq. S. Alph. nn. 686, 688.
[627] Cf. Instruct. nn. 3 and 4.
[628] Cf. Instruct. S. C. Inq. a. 1661, ad dub. 12, 16.
[629] Constitutiones cit. et Instruct. Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 615-694,
ratio: _ob vitandum damnum commune_.
[630] The denunciation must be made to the _Episcopus loci_, where the
penitent is staying, even when the _Confessarius sollicitans_ belongs to
another diocese; it is then the duty of this bishop to receive the sworn
denunciation, and to forward it to the bishop of the confessor. Cf. Gury,
Cas. Cons. Tom. II. n. 652; Kenrick, Theol. Moral. Tract. 18, 245.
[631] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 7; Marc, Institut. Alph. Tom. II. n. 1800.
[632] Cf. Bucceroni, Commentar. in Constit. Bened. XIV, “Sacram. Pœnit”,
Romæ, 1888, art. II. § 3, p. 74.
[633] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 7.
[634] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 699.
[635] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 6.
[636] Cf. Instr. 1867, n. 6.
[637] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 2, p. 62 ss.; Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. n. 1141.
[638] Cf. Instruct. 1867, nn. 5 et 7; S. Alph. l. c. n. 693; Bucceroni,
l. c. art. II. § 1, n. 35.
[639] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 2, n. 38; Decr. S. C. S. Off. 21
Febr., 1630, etc.
[640] Const. Pii IX, “Apostolicæ Sedis.”
[641] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. Sect. 1, n. 36, p. 61 s. For the
_Modus recipiendi denuntiationem_, see Instruct. cit. 1867, n. 6 ss. Acta
S. Sedis, Vol. III. pp. 505 seq. The Instr. cit. nn. 9-16 describes the
_Modus procedendi contra Sollicitantes_; cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II.
§ 4, pp. 86-100. In this place the learned Roman professor also treats
the question: can the bishop make a law _denuntiandi sollicitantes extra
confessionem_—or a law _denuntiandi sollicitantes in confessione ad alia
peccata quam ad turpia_? p. 99, etc.
[642] Instruct. 1867, n. 12.
[643] Cf. Rituale Roman. Sacram. Pœnit. tit. 3, cp. 1, n. 15. Concil.
Later. IV. cp. 21, in Cap. 12 de Pœnit. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 607, 629.
H. Ap. n. 102.
[644] Cf. n. 19.
[645] Gury, Casus Conscient. II. n. 669. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sacram.
Pœnit. Sect. III. n. 419.
[646] Moreover, the confessor must not only take care that the confession
be complete; he must also have regard for human weakness, lest through
much questioning the confession become troublesome and odious. Cf.
Lacroix, l. c. n. 1748; Aertnys, l. c. n. 276; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 419, ad
1, 3.
[647] St. Alphonsus teaches: “The confessor should not be too solicitous
in questioning; let him ask the penitent about that which, having
regard to his position, probably concerns him.” And in another place
his advice is: “Let him ask only about the sins which the penitents
might easily commit, considering their station and intelligence.” And
Billuart says: “The confessor must make his investigations in a humane
and temperate way, but not in every imaginable way. For the priest is
not bound to examine the penitent more than the latter is bound to
examine himself.... Nor is it to the point to say that the priest would
perhaps find more if he sought more, for we have not only to consider
the material completeness of the confession, but also that the Sacrament
of Penance must not be made irksome and odious to penitents by overgreat
and exaggerated anxiety in questioning; it, therefore, suffices if the
confessor can be prudently convinced that the penitent is omitting
nothing that he ought to confess.” Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 607; H. Ap.
Tract. 16, n. 102; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. Not. ad n. 615.
[648] Tit. III. cp. 1, De Sacrum. Pœn. n. 16.
[649] Cf. Aertnys, Practic. Inst. Confessar. P. II. Cap. II. art. 1, § 1,
p. 27, n. 30; Theol. Moral. l. c. n. 276; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 420; Gury,
l. c. II. n. 616; Reuter, Neo-Confessar. P. 1, cp. 3. Cf. P. II. cp. II.
art. 1, 2, 3, cp. 3, art. 1; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II.
n. 895 (where also some examples are given); Benger, Pastoraltheologie,
II. Vol. 4 Book, § 162, p. 412 ff. (2 ed.); Zenner, l. c. P. II. Sect.
1, cp. 1, art. II. § 83-96. Segneri’s most appropriate instruction
deserves to be taken to heart by the confessor: _Cupio magnopere, te
parcum, gravemque esse interrogando circa materiam luxuriæ, ne tibi
accidat, quod pictori, qui cum Helenam exquisita diligentia depingeret,
ejusdem cupiditate exardescere cœpit et accendi. Utere proinde verborum
modestia, et quamvis subinde circumstantia maneret tecta, quæ alioquin ad
integritatem materialem spectaret, nihil interest: aliud enim majus bonum
prævalet. Adeo fœtet palus ista, ut consultum non sit, vel a Pœnitente
vel a Confessario ubi opus non sit, moveri: sufficit requirere speciem
patrati sceleris, non vero modum: et si ipsi vel ex irreverecundia vel ex
ignorantia hunc vellent declarare, suaviter mone, necessarium non esse.
Expediret hac in re imitari Philosophum illum, qui veritus, ne loquendo
os conspurcaret, carbone descripsit._ Instruct. Confessar. cap. II. Cf.
Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, Sect. 14, n. 595; Coninck, De Sacram. Disp. 8, dub.
17, n. 121.
[650] Cf. S. Pœnit. 8 June, 1842; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 420.
[651] An exception can be made when the penitent has written his sins,
and reads them, moreover, when the penitent is not able to make known his
sins, and the confessor is obliged from the beginning of the confession
to help by means of questions, he should not in that case proceed to
another point till he is quite clear as to the one in question. When
the penitent wishes to explain something to the confessor, the latter
should not prevent him (unless it is concerning things which are useless,
not to the point, or mere excuses, or which incriminate others), he
should rather allow him time to reveal his misery and his scruples; this
especially applies when the penitent seldom confesses, or has come from
a distance, or is making a general confession; the confessor must then
receive him with all love and kindness, and must see that his conscience
is quite set at rest.
[652] Cf. Monita S. Francisci Salesii ad Confessarios, cp. 1, art. 2, §
7. Aertnys, Instr. pract. Confess. l. c. n. 29, Q. 2.
[653] Praxis Confess. n. 20.
[654] Stang, Pastoral Theology, Book II. c. 4, § 25.
[655] _Ibid._ § 33, n. 3.
[656] Cf. Aertnys, Institut. pract. l. c. n. 30.
[657] Cf. S. Alph. Silva, part 3, cp. 10; Segneri, Instructio Pœnitent.
cp. 16 _et seq._
[658] Instructio Confessar. cp. 2.
[659] Cf. Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. § 1, p. 32 s. Cf. S. Alph. Praxis
Confess. n. 19 ss.
[660] See Stang, Pastoral Theol. l. c. on general confession.
[661] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 631; S. Thom. Opusc. 12, Q. 6, and Quodlib. 1,
a. 12 et 17. Cf. Gury, II. n. 618. Ed. Ratisb.
[662] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 631; H. Ap. n. 120; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P.
II. n. 1969; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. Tr. II. § 152; Scavini, Lib. III.
n. 381; Kenrick, Tract. 18, n. 216; Schneider, Manuale Sacerd. Ed. VI.
pp. 428-429; Konings, etc. This opinion and practice was first introduced
by Illsung (a German Jesuit, who died in 1695), Theol. practica univers.
Tract. 6, Disp. 6, Q. 4, art. 7, § 4, n. 128, erroneously appealing to
the testimony of Suarez, who (De Pœn. Disp. 32, Sect. 3, n. 9), however,
teaches the exact opposite: _Respondetur, regulariter standum esse
confessioni et dicto pœnitentis: unde quantumcunque confessor sciat
peccatum pœnitentis ex aliorum relatione_ (therefore, _in confessione_
also) _tenetur, in hoc judicio magis credere ipsi pœnitenti, propter
rationem factam_. Lacroix took this opinion from Illsung with the alleged
testimony of Suarez, adding, _ex inadvertentia_, Dicastillo as a further
witness, whom Illsung had quoted for another purpose. St. Alphonsus
reckons Viva also among these, who, however, does not adhere to this
opinion. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 619, who finally remarks:
_Ista opinio igitur tota debetur hallucinationi, quæ perperam Suaresii,
Dicastilli et Vivæ auctoritatem adduxit_. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II.
nn. 890-895.
[663] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 22, n. 22; Elbel, De Sacram. in gen. confer. 2,
n. 44 et de Pœnit. n. 453; Laymann, Lib. V. Tract. 6, cp. 14, n. 24;
Mazzotta, Tr. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 2, cp. 2, § 3; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 10,
§ 2; Gury, l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 278. Lehmkuhl (l. c. n. 429) says
that, considered by itself, the confessor may but is not obliged to
adopt the opinion of St. Alphonsus; that there is only this point in its
favor, that without inconveniencing the penitent, or without revealing
the other confession, sacrilege can be avoided. But the penitent commits
a sacrilege whether the confessor gives him absolution or not. On the
other hand, the administration of the absolution by the confessor is only
a material coöperation, and one cannot oblige him, in order to avoid
this, to make use of knowledge gained from the confession of another. Cf.
Gobat, l. c. Tract. 7, n. 875.
[664] L. c. n. 627; H. Ap. n. 104.
[665] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 421. He also cites some examples from
other authors, for instance, Gobat (Tract. 7, n. 338): “_Si religiosus,
a castitate mihi notus, diceret, se semel turpia locutum esse,
præsumerem, hæc esse scurrilia, non contra castitatem_.” _Attamen hæc
potius per exceptionem dicuntur; nam generalis regula est ut, si brevi
interrogatione confessarius dubium de gravi aut levi peccato solvere
possit, hanc instituere debeat._ Mazzotta furnishes a further example (l.
c. Q. II. cp. 2, § 2): “A confessor who (involuntarily or accidentally)
is distracted, and, because knowing the state of the conscience of his
penitent, can presume that what he missed was something unimportant, may
remain silent about it and absolve, if questions would be regarded as
troublesome.” Indeed, Gobat adds: If the confessor knew from experience
that his penitent generally committed no mortal sins, but (_e.g._)
only accused himself of little falsehoods, he can absolve him even
if, on account of distraction, he does not know a single sin of which
the penitent accused himself; but it is advisable in practice to make
the penitent repeat at least a venial sin, perhaps the last, and then
absolve. Lehmkuhl’s caution, however, is to be observed, namely, not to
apply in a more general way that which is prescribed for an extraordinary
case. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 421.
[666] Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, s. 6, n. 7; Mazzotta, l. c.
[667] Cf. S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 117.
[668] De Pœnit. Disp. 32, s. 2.
[669] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 461; Bucceroni, Commentar. III. De absolut.
danda, etc. Edit. alt. Romæ. 1889. § 1, n. 3.
[670] De Pœnit. n. 82.
[671] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279, III. Nota 1.
[672] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459, Prax. Conf. n. 71; Bucceroni, l. c.
n. 4; S. Thom. in 4, Dist. 17, Q. 5, a. 3.
[673] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 424, who remarks on
this: _Attamen in re aliqua “extraordinaria” insistendum non est. Neque
quodlibet horum signorum in quibuslibet adjunctis certam probationem
facit._
[674] Cf. Lib. VI. n. 460.
[675] Neo-Confessar. n. 177. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279 and Append. de
recidivis. n. 314. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 427.
[676] See in Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 624.
[677] See § 63.
[678] It is not enough to say to indisposed penitents something of this
kind: “Well, beg pardon of God for all your sins” (this is no true act
of sorrow), or, “Are you heartily sorry for all your sins?” Effort must,
above all things, be directed towards awakening in penitents (who have
committed grave sins) a real abhorrence of sin; to this end they must
first be prepared by an act of imperfect contrition, and then we must
seek to bring them to perfect contrition.
[679] Instruct. Confess. cp. 8.
[680] Cf. Polancus, Directorium Confessarii, cp. 2.
[681] S. Alph. Praxis conf. cp. 1, nn. 7 et 10. He says, very aptly:
_Perpauci sunt pœnitentes, præsertim rudes et magni peccatores, qui
dolore et proposito prius elicito ad confessionem accedunt. Hos igitur
quoad potest confessarius disponere fortiter et suaviter adlaboret._
[682] H. Ap. Tr. 16, n. 105.
[683] Prax. Conf. cp. 1, n. 7; Lib. VI. n. 608. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. cp. 1, nn. 313-323.
[684] Cf. Reuter, Neo-conf. P. 1, cp. V. n. 11.
[685] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 603; H. Ap. n. 117; Suarez, De Pœn. D. 32,
S. 5, n. 2; cf. Lugo, Disp. 14, n. 166; Marc, Instit. Alph. P. III. Tr.
V. Diss. III. cp. 3, art. 1, n. 1813; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 428; Bucceroni,
Commentar. III. De Absolut danda, etc. § 1, n. 2, § 3, n. 13.
[686] See § 50, V. The confessor, therefore, must not absolve a penitent
who will not fulfill an important duty incumbent upon him, who does not
heartily repent of his past sins, and has not a firm purpose to sin
no more in future. Cf. Bucceroni, l. c § 4, n. 15; Leo XII, Encycl.
Charitate Christi, Kal. Jan. 1826.
[687] Cf. B. Humbertus, General. Mag. Prædicatorum, Instructio, et
Bartholomæus Medina ex Ord. Præd. Instruct. Confessar. Lib. I. cp. 3.
[688] Leonard of P. M., Instructions for Confessors (Regensburg, 1878),
p. 97, etc.
[689] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 430. Cf. Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 34.
[690] Upon the origin of this practice, of which no trace is found in the
works of the older theologians, Ballerini enlarges in his notes on Gury,
II. n. 621. He does not discover it in the practice and teaching of the
Jansenists, but rather in the endeavor of the younger theologians to find
means by which the faithful may be better assisted in laying aside a bad
habit, roused from indolence and negligence, and moved to holy zeal.
[691] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 431. Cf. Marc, l. c. n. 1816; Aertnys, l. c. n.
280. The benefit which the confessor expects from the postponement of
absolution, must, however, always be greater than that which the disposed
penitent receives from actual reception of the holy Sacrament.
[692] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. n. 10, _ad brevissimum tempus. Nam per se
loquendo magis prodest absolutio statim data quam ejus dilatio._ “For,”
so he continues, “it is burdensome to remain in a state of mortal sin
even one or two days: (1) on account of the danger of death, against
which we are never safe, etc., and (2) on account of the priceless
blessings of which we are deprived,—grace and merit. Moreover, the
penitent is better prepared by absolution for again receiving the
Sacrament, than by postponement of absolution, etc.” Gury (II. n. 622)
remarks that, where it can be easily done, absolution may be deferred for
one day or for a few hours.
[693] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 463 and 464.
[694] Cf. Salmant. Tract. 26, cp. 2, p. 2, § 1, n. 37.
[695] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. § 2, n. 8; Suarez, Lugo, Sanchez, Filliucius,
Palaus, Toletus, Gury, II. n. 621.
[696] Cf. Epistol. S. Francisci Xaver. Lib. IV. Epist. IV.
[697] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. P. 1, cp. 8, n. 34.
[698] S. Leonard a P. M., Discorso mistico e morale, § 11.
[699] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. IV. Sect. 10, n. 166; Suarez, l. c. Disp. 32,
Sect. 5, n. 2, who adds: _quod prudenti judicio confessoris relinquendum
est, qui hoc sine gravi causa et magna consideratione facere non debet_;
S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 642.
[700] Segneri, l. c. cp. IV (in fine).
[701] Cf. S. Alph. De Sacrament, n. 36.
[702] Cf. S. Leonard a Port-Maur., Instruction, etc., pp. 15-16.
[703] Instructions for Confessors, n. 3, p. 24 ff.
[704] Monita ad Confessarios, cp. 1. art. 1.
[705] Praxis Conf. n. 3.
[706] Sensa pretiosa, P. 6, n. 17, sqq.
[707] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 432.
[708] Tract. 21, nn. 1, 2, 3.
[709] Instruction, pp. 121-123.
[710] Praxis Conf. n. 3.
[711] Cf. Lugo in Benedict. XIV, Const. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n.
20; S. Alph. Homo Ap. Tr. 21, n. 4.
[712] Orat. 8, advers. Judæos in Migne Ser. græca, T. 48, col. 932.
[713] S. Alph. Praxis, n. 77. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 434; Aertnys,
Instruct. pract. P. I. cp. IV. nn. 18-25.
[714] Cf. S. Bernard. De Considerat. IV; S. Bonavent. De sex alis, cp. 5.
[715] Praxis Confess. n. 18. Cf. Rituale Rom. Tit. III. cp. 1, De Sacram.
Pœnit.
[716] De Pœnit. Disp. 21, n. 70.
[717] Cf. Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1789; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 627;
Marc, l. c. n. 1787; Aertnys, l. c. n. 266; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 439.
[718] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 18.
[719] Rituale Roman. Tit. III. cp. 1, n. 3.
[720] Praxis Confess. n. 18.
[721] Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, I. Buch, I. Tl. § 82, S. 225
f.
[722] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 21, n. 70.
[723] Lugo, l. c.
[724] Praxis Conf. n. 18.
[725] De Episc. p. 3, c. 4.
[726] Praxis Conf. n. 17.
[727] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 438.
[728] Hobert, Praxis Sacra. Pœnit. Tract. 1, cp. 4. Cf. Aertnys, Instr.
pract. P. 1, cp. 1, n. 7.
[729] Cf. Aertnys, Instit. pract. l. c. n. 8.
[730] Homo Apost. Tr. 16, cp. 6, n. 127.
[731] II. II. Q. 14, art. 3.
[732] S. Thom. II. II. Q. 47, art. 4.
[733] Stang, Pastoral Theol. l. c. IV. 28.
[734] Cf. Aertnys, Instit. pract. P. 1, cp. II. n. 9.
[735] Praxis Confessar. Cf. Marc, Instit. Moral. l. c. n. 1788.
[736] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 605; Marc, Inst. Mor. l. c. n. 1789.
[737] Marc, Inst. mor. l. c. n. 1791.
[738] Constit. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n. 21.
[739] Aertnys, Instruct pract. l. c. n. 10.
[740] _Necessitate medii_ the Christian must believe those truths
without the knowledge and express belief of which, justification and,
in consequence, the attainment of everlasting salvation, is never
possible for any one having the use of reason. Certainly necessary is
the explicit belief: (1) in one God; (2) the Rewarder of good and the
Avenger of evil. Although it is quite probable that _fides explicita_ is
necessary in these truths only, it is, nevertheless, not certain that
_fides explicita_ is not also necessary (3) in the mystery of the Blessed
Trinity and (4) in the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption.
[741] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 608-610; Prop. damnat. 64 ab Innoc. XI.
[742] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 22; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. II. Tr.
1, n. 4; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 442.
[743] Cf. S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. II. n. 3, Praxis Conf. n. 22; Salm.
Tract. 21, cp. 2, nn. 62, 63; Aertnys, l. c. n. 4.
[744] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 22.
[745] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 608, 609.
[746] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 616.
[747] Cf. S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. 16, n. 115.
[748] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 611; H. Ap. n. 113.
[749] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 614.
[750] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 612; H. Ap. n. 113.
[751] Cf. Benedict XIV, De Syn. Lib. 9, cp. 2, nn. 2, 3; S. Alph. Lib.
VI. n. 613; H. Ap. n. 114, Prax. Conf. n. 8; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib.
VI. n. 273; Marc, l. c. n. 1810.
[752] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 616 (fin.). Cf. n. 614.
[753] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 610.
[754] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 615. Cf. Praxis Conf. n. 9.
[755] Constit. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n. 20.
[756] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 615, Praxis Conf. n. 9.
[757] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 39.
[758] Praxis Conf. nn. 6, 180.
[759] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 8.
[760] Praxis Conf. n. 7.
[761] Benedict XIV, “Apostolica,” § 22.
[762] Cf. Polancus, l. c.; Segneri, l. c.
[763] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. nn. 148-155; Hom. Ap. App. 1, nn.
28-36; Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 3; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De
Eucharist. nn. 93-95; this author discusses also the difference between
the teaching of St. Alphonsus and that of St. Francis of Sales. Lehmkuhl,
l. c. P. II L. I. Tr. IV. De Euchar. n. 156.
[764] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 15 (Ed. Le Noir, Par. 1880); Lacroix,
Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 1825; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 447; Aertnys, Instruct. pract.
Pars II. cp. 3, art. 1, n. 59.
[765] Reuter, Neo-Confessar. P. II. cp. 1, art. 1-8, nn. 56-99. Cf.
Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 448-455; Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n. 62; Theol.
Mor. Lib. I. nn. 245-261.
[766] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 22, n. 50; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 619 ss.;
Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 2, De officio et obligat. Confess.
nn. 836-862; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. 4, art. 2, nn.
282-285.
[767] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 619. Lehmkuhl proposes the following
case: If I had invalidly absolved any one—especially from grave sins—and
met him shortly afterwards, I should be bound to absolve him without,
however, intimating it, if I could presume that he had not committed any
other grave sin in the meantime. Whether I should be bound to seek this
person, _cum gravi meo incommodo_, would depend both upon the risk to
the penitent’s salvation, and also upon the error of which I had been
guilty; I should also be obliged to avoid endangering the seal of the
confessional. If some time had elapsed since the confession, I could not
give the absolution till I had exhorted the penitent to dispose himself
by a new act of contrition. To give such an exhortation or to make an
avowal to the penitent of the error made in the confession, would not
of itself be a breach of the seal; for every penitent, whether he has
confessed mortal or venial sins, is entitled to absolution. But if, on
account of circumstances, it might be considered a disclosing of a grave
sin heard in the confessional, the confessor would be obliged previously
to ask the penitent’s permission to speak to him concerning matters of
the confessional; in so doing, he should explain that something very
salutary and profitable to the penitent was in question. Lehmkuhl, l. c.
n. 471; Ballerini, l. c. n. 840.
[768] Cf. Gobat, Theolog. experimental. de VII. Sacram. Tract. VII. n.
298. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 473. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, n. 65 seq. Suarez,
De Pœnit. Disp. 32, s. 6.
[769] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 620.
[770] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 621; H. A. n. 122; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 472;
Aertnys, l. c. n. 284.
[771] L. c. n. 299. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 475.
[772] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 635. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 23, nn. 1-16.
[773] Cap. 21.
[774] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 635. Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 902.
[775] The duty is here considered in so far as it belongs to _virtus
religionis_, for the defamation arising from breaking the seal may be
very slight, or wholly absent, and the breach of confidence may easily
be of small significance. But _levitas periculi_ of breaking the seal is
by no means to be confounded with _parvitas materiæ_; for there exists
no duty to avoid every slight and improbable danger of breaking it; this
would cause too great anxiety of conscience. Nevertheless every confessor
will be very careful to preserve this seal intact. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn.
633, 661.
[776] L. c. n. 634.
[777] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 634, 635, 651; H. Ap. n. 147.
[778] S. Alph. l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 457; Aertnys, l. c. n. 288.
[779] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 148; Lib. III. n. 153.
[780] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 651.
[781] S. Alph. l. c. n. 651; H. Ap. n. 156.
[782] S. Alph. l. c. n. 651.
[783] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 976 ss.
[784] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 455.
[785] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 636; H. A. n. 156.
[786] S. Alph. l. c.
[787] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 633; H. Ap. n. 164; Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad
Gury, II. n. 650; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 458; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l.
c. n. 901 ss.
[788] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. nn. 645, 648.
[789] S. Alph. l. c. n. 647; Stotz, l. c. Lib. II. n. 199.
[790] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disput. 23, n. 29.
[791] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 650. Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 47 ss.
Laymann, De Pœnit. cp. 14, n. 19. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 3,
n. 971 ss.
[792] S. Alph. l. c. n. 647. Cf. Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 33, Sect. 4, n. 2;
Ballerini, l. c. n. 975.
[793] S. Alph. l. c. n. 657.
[794] Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 926 ss.; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 68.
[795] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 947-948; Lugo, l. c. n.
54; Suarez, l. c. Disp. 33, Sect. 3, n. 5.
[796] Cf. Ballerini, l. c. nn. 956-960.
[797] Cf. Reuter, Theol. Mor. Tom. IV. n. 377; Lugo, l. c. n. 57; Sporer,
De Pœnit. n. 833; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 460.
[798] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 644; Lugo, l. c. n. 60; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n.
460; Aertnys, l. c. n. 293; Ballerini, l. c. n. 960.
[799] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 643, 659 (in fine); Ballerini, Op. Theol.
Mor. l. c. n. 959.
[800] S. Alph. l. c. n. 641.
[801] S. Alph. l. c. n. 661. Cf. Stotz, l. c. Lib. II. art. V. s. 1-8.
[802] Lugo, l. c. n. 61; Lacroix, Reuter, and Stotz, however, explain
the matter thus: The confessor is not ordinarily allowed to say that the
penitent had not been absolved; but if the penitent were to say casually,
in presence of the confessor and others, that he had not been absolved,
permission would thereby be given to the latter to say it also; but the
confessor is by no means allowed to disclose the reason for refusing the
absolution, if the indisposition of the penitent has been the motive of
it, or if the disclosure is in any way unpleasant to the penitent.
[803] Cf. Lugo, l. c. n. 61; Reuter, l. c. n. 378.
[804] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 156.
[805] S. Alph. l. c. n. 657; Gury, l. c. nn. 665-666; Ballerini, Op.
Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 983. Cf. 976 ss.
[806] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 657, 638.
[807] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 156.
[808] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 652.
[809] It is not necessary to tell those whom one consults for advice
that the case occurred in the confessional, nor should the matter be
discussed publicly before many, but only before those who are capable of
giving suitable advice. Mazzotta adds another notable limitation (Tract.
VI. Disp. 2, Q. 5, c. 2): “Therefore, let confessors ask judicious
men everywhere for advice in cases which have come before them in the
confessional, and, in so doing, conceal the name of the penitent. But
they have no right to do so if any suspicion should fall upon the person
in question, or were there even a danger of this.” But what is to be done
in the latter case when the confessor requires advice? Let him either
present the case as an imaginary one, or let him request permission of
the penitent to make use of the knowledge gained in the confessional, or
let him seek a judicious man to whom the penitent is unknown, or let him
send the penitent to another confessor. If none of these methods can be
used without breaking the seal, let him trust to the divine assistance,
employ other suitable means,—such as prayer and study,—and then let him
solve the difficulty himself in the best way he can.
[810] S. Alph. l. c. n. 654; H. Ap. n. 158.
[811] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 654; H. Ap. n. 157. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad
Gury, II. n. 666, et Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 987 ss., et Vindiciæ
Alphons. Par. V. Q. 24; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 469; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q.
II.
[812] S. Alph. l. c. n. 659; H. A. n. 161. Cf. Lugo, l. c.
[813] Cf. Decret. Clementis VIII. 26 May, 1594 et Decr. S. C. Inq. 18
Nov., 1682 (auctor. Innoc. XI). Cf. Gury, II. Ed. Ratisb. n. 670.
[814] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 656-658; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n.
1000; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 93.
[815] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 639 et 661. Cf. Gury, II. Ed. Ratisb. nn. 660,
661; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 916; Laymann, De Pœnit. cp. 14,
n. 8; Sporer, De Pœn. n. 839; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1914.
[816] S. Alph. l. c. n. 659; H. A. n. 160. Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 1012
ss.
[817] Cf. Theol. Mechlin, n. 117, Q. 3; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q. 9.
[818] Cf. Aertnys, Tract. De praxi servanda cum occasionariis et
recidivis Theol. Mor. II. Appendix, nn. 298-350.
[819] Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Append. (ut supra cit.). Ballerini, Opus
Theol. Moral. Tom. V. n. 167 ss.; Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 628 ss.; Lehmkuhl,
l. c. n. 485 ss.; Marc. Inst. Mor. Tract. V. Dissert. III. n. 1818 ss.
[820] Some theologians call that which incites to sin from within the
“interior occasion,” but, generally, only a person or external object is
defined as _occasio_.
[821] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 628, et Opus Theol. Moral. Tom.
V. n. 167. Theologians do not agree in defining the _occasio proxima_.
Departing from the above definition, some teach—and in this they are
in accordance with St. Alphonsus—that, “to constitute the _occasio
proxima_, it is not necessary that a person should, _fere semper aut
frequentius_, sin in that occasion, but that it suffices if he often,
_frequenter_, falls, as _frequens lapsus_ in the past makes a fall in
the future probable.” Aertnys, l. c. n. 302, Q. 1; Marc, l. c. n. 1820;
Berardi, De occas. n. 13. The _frequentia lapsuum_ is either _relativa_
or _absoluta_. Relative frequency is reckoned according to the number of
cases in which the person has been exposed to the occasion; so it would
be, for instance, an _occasio proximo_ if in twelve visits a person has
sinned five or six times. Similarly, if a man should visit a woman only
three or four times in two years, and generally sinned with her; or
when the visit took place only once a year during three years and each
time sin was committed. On the other hand, the frequency is absolute
when the number of cases is, in itself, considerable; for instance,
if two persons meet every Sunday, and sin ten or twelve times in the
year. However, this stricter definition does not seem to be that of St.
Alphonsus; at least he defines the _occasio proximo_ in two passages
of his works (Homo Apost. Tr. ult. n. 1, and Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n.
452) as that in _qua communiter ut plurimum deficiunt_, while into one
definition he also introduces the _frequenter peccare_ in contrast to
_frequentius_. According to Ballerini these conflicting passages may be
reconciled with each other, and Lugo’s definition is, he says, the basis
of the agreement: that constitutes an immediate occasion of which a man
never, or scarcely ever, _consideratis circumstantiis_ makes use without
sinning. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 149. Cf. Vindic. Alph. n. 140, p.
942.
[822] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 168.
[823] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. V. n. 63; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 157;
Sanchez, Decal. Lib. I. cp. 8, n. 4.
[824] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. V. n. 63.
[825] Cf. S. Thomas, Summ. Theol. II. II. Q. 154, art. 3, ad 1.
[826] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 486.
[827] Cf. Lehmkuhl, n. 486, IV; Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. Tom. V.
Tract. X. Sect. V. n. 172.
[828] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 454. Prax. Conf. n. 66.
[829] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 454; Prax. Conf. nn. 67, 68;
Berardi, l. c. nn. 44, 45, 49, 50; S. Leonard a Port-Maur. Disc. mist. n.
22. Cf. Proposit. 61 damn. ab Innoc. XI et Proposit. 41 damn. ab Alex.
VII; Aertnys, l. c. n. 306, III.
[830] S. Alph. l. c. n. 454. Prax. Conf. n. 66.
[831] S. Alph. l. c, nn. 456, 463, 464; Prax. Conf. n. 69; Berardi, l. c.
nn. 53, 54; Aertnys, l. c. n. 306, IV. V.
[832] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 6. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. n.
185.
[833] S. Alph. l. c. n. 456.
[834] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 456, 457; H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 7; Prax. Conf.
n. 69. Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 156 ss.
[835] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 456; Prax. Conf. n. 69.
[836] Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 196, 197. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ
ad Gury, II. n. 631, et Vindiciæ Alph. pp. 603-620.
[837] Cf. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 68; Berardi, l. c. nn. 79-83.
[838] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. V. n. 63; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cap. 5;
Berardi, l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 308, Q. 1.
[839] Segneri, Conf. Instr. cp. 5.
[840] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 8, _ref. matrim._
[841] Compare § 65, Penitents in _occasione necessaria_, for the same
principles apply to this case.
[842] See Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Vol. II. Book 4, § 191, n. 28, p.
665 (2 ed.).
[843] Cf. Berardi, De occas. n. 117 ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. II. Lib.
VI. Tract. V. Append. Part III. n. 315 ss.
[844] Segneri, Instruct. Conf. cp. 5; S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436.
[845] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436.
[846] Cf. Segneri, Instruct. Conf. cp. 5 et 6.
[847] Cf. Gobat, l. c. Tract. VII. cas. 16, n. 530; Sporer, Theol. sacr.
P. III. n. 328; S. Alph. Lib. III. nn. 437, 441, Lib. II. n. 31, Lib. VI.
n. 455.
[848] Segneri, l. c. cp. 5; Berardi, l. c. n. 151.
[849] Cf. Rit. Rom. Tit. IV. cp. 4, n. 1.
[850] Cf. Berardi, l. c. n. 148; Aertnys, l. c. n. 319, Q.
[851] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cp. 5.
[852] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. nn. 437, 441.
[853] “If, considering the present corruption of our society and
the manner in which dancing entertainments are conducted, a priest
publicly protests against them, he may be perfectly justified. But the
place in which he can exercise his influence against this evil is the
confessional. Here he can positively forbid dancing to the young man or
girl for whom it is an _occasio proxima_ of sin, whether the sin consists
in bad thoughts and desires, or in external acts, or he will proceed in
accordance with the principles laid down above (concerning the _occasio
necessaria_).” Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoral Theology, Vol. I. Part I. §
90, p. 265.
[854] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429.
[855] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429; Berardi, l. c. n. 155.
[856] Cf. Berardi, l. c. n. 156.
[857] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429; _certe veniale non excedit_.
[858] Cf. Konings, Theol. Mor. Compend. n. 1441; S. Francisc. Sales.
Instit. vit. devot. P. III. cp. 34; Aertnys, l. c. n. 323, Q. II;
Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. I. Lib. II. cp. 3, n. 643.
[859] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 112; Franc. Sales. Inst. vit. devot. l.
c. cp. 33; Berardi, l. c. nn. 167-169; Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 324, Q.
1.
[860] II. II. Q. 168, art. 3.
[861] S. Thom. 4 Sent. dist. 16, Q. 4. art 2.
[862] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 427.
[863] _Ibid._
[864] Benedict XIV, De Synod. Lib. II. cp. 10, n. 11. Cf. S. Alph. Lib.
III. n. 427.
[865] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 327; Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. I. L. II. cp. 3, n.
644.
[866] Compare § 43; S. Alph. App. de prohib. libr. cp. 1; cf. Benger,
Pastoraltheologie (2 Ed.), Vol. II. § 129, n. 7, p. 53 ff.; Clement XIII,
Encycl. 1766; Pius IX, “Qui Pluribus,” 20 Nov., 1846; many pastorals of
bishops.
[867] Cf. Propos. 61 damn. ab Innoc. XI.
[868] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429.
[869] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 331, Q. II.
[870] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 330, Q. II; Gury, Tom. I. n. 256; Varceno,
Theol. Mor. Tract. 8, cp. 2, art. 3; Berardi, Praxis Conf. nn. 66 et 240;
Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. II. § 36, n. 6.
[871] By “intimacies” is here understood friendly intercourse established
between two persons of different sex.
[872] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65. Cf. Roncaglia, in S. Alph. _ibid._;
Gousset, Moraltheologie, II. n. 566.
[873] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65; S. Leonard a Port-Maur. Disc. mist.
nn. 23, 24.
[874] Theol. Mor. l. c. Append. P. III. n. 340.
[875] Notæ ad Gury, Tom. I. n. 413.
[876] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 65; S. Leonard, Disc. mist. n. 23 s.;
Berardi, l. c. nn. 233-238; Konings, l. c. n. 1453; Aertnys, l. c.
[877] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 204; H. Ap. Append. IV. n. 6; Benedict
XIV, Inst. 46, nn. 17, 21; Sporer, De Matrim. n. 429.
[878] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. 7, n. 32; Praxis Conf. n. 52.
[879] S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 65; S. Leon. Disc. mist. n. 24.
[880] Therefore, _quando fiunt inter eos, qui sunt disparis conditionis
propter scandalum et periculum mortaliter peccandi; si fiant cum illis,
cum quibus impossible est contrahi matrimonium, ut sunt uxorati,
claustrales et in sacris ordinibus constituti ... si fiat in ecclesia,
tum propter irreverentiam, tum propter periculum audiendi sacrum sine
debita attentione, tum etiam propter scandalum; si adsit præceptum patris
vel matris aut tutoris rationabiliter prohibens talem amorem_.
[881] _Quando clam fiunt et occulte, tempore nocturno, si eo modo fiat,
ut ex se involvat periculum proximum osculorum, tactuum, etc., etiam
si aliunde ille amor esset licite exercitus, quia est inter solutos
et causa matrimonii ... si amator animadvertat, complicem amoris esse
graviter tentatum vel alterum urgere verbis turpibus vel alio modo ad
inhonesta etc., etiamsi alter complex nihil tentetur et nullam sentiat
inclinationem ad peccandum; denique universaliter loquendo, quotiescunque
ob causam amoris amator vel amatrix frequenter labitur in aliquam gravem
noxam; tunc amor induit rationem occasionis proximæ mali et est omnino
illicitus._—From the decree of Cardinal Pico de Mirandola. Cf. Gaume, l.
c.
[882] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65; Aertnys, l. c.; Gousset,
Moraltheologie, II. n. 567.
[883] Handbook for Confessors, chap. III. art. 5, n. 328.
[884] See Ballerini’s Discussion of the definition of St. Alphonsus (Lib.
VI. n. 453) and Gury’s (l. c. n. 632) in his Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1,
n. 214; on the other hand, Aertnys, l. c. Append. P. II. cp. 1, n. 310.
[885] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 490.
[886] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 459.
[887] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 8.
[888] Instr. sacerd. Lib. V. c. 13, n. 6.
[889] Lib. VI. n. 464.
[890] St. Alphonsus distinguishes between _formal_ relapsing sinners
and _material_. A _formal_ relapsing sinner is one who, having been
instructed and having promised amendment, has returned to his former
sin in the same, or nearly the same way, and with the same ease; that
is, without having endeavored to amend, and without having adopted any
one of the prescribed remedies. A _material_ relapsing sinner is one
who was never seriously admonished, or who, in spite of efforts toward
improvement, and in consequence of inconstancy of will, has again fallen
into the sins already confessed. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 9 (cf. Vind. Alph.
P. VI. cp. 1, Tom. II. p. 276). In a word, a relapsing sinner is one who
has contracted a sinful habit, and, after confession, has fallen into the
same sin. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 457. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 310; Ballerini,
Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 632; Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp.
14, n. 166; Salmant. Tr. 17, cp. II. n. 167. According to the concurrent
teaching of theologians, the following elements are included in the
idea of relapse in the theological sense: (1) _frequens relapsus post
plures confessiones_; (2) _relapsus in eadem_ (_specie_) _peccata_; (3)
_defectus omnis, etiam inchoatæ, emendationis_. (Suarez, Tr. V. Lib. III.
c. 8, n. 7.)
[891] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 491.
[892] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 313; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 493. St. Alphonsus
teaches that such penitents can only be absolved when, by extraordinary
signs, they have removed the prejudice against their actual disposition
(as we have learnt above, § 50); and the holy Doctor, whom many later
theologians follow, represents this teaching as _sententia communis_.
Lib. VI. nn. 459 and 505; Prax. Conf. n. 20 in fine. But Ballerini
questions this, remarking that even of the authors cited by St. Alphonsus
not all held this opinion. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. nn.
232-313; Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 636. Only the theologians of Salamanca
teach, indeed, that these extraordinary signs are a help in forming
a judgment as to the penitent’s preparation, or that, when they are
present, postponement is not to be resorted to, while they recommend
this remedy as occasionally profitable and beneficial in uprooting the
evil habit. Moreover, they always teach that to the habitual sinner
the general rule of the Roman Catechism may be applied: “When (the
priest), after hearing the confession, judges that neither diligence
in the confession of the sins nor sorrow in their detestation has been
wholly wanting in the penitent, he can absolve him,” without limiting
(as does St. Alphonsus, n. 459) these and similar expressions to the
habitual sinner who confesses the sinful habit for the first time. The
confessor need not be convinced, they add, that the penitent will keep
his resolution, if only he believes that the latter is, at the time,
really and firmly resolved to amend. But if they sometimes maintain
that habitual sinners cannot be absolved, it is clear from the context
(Ballerini continues) either that only those are meant who are quite
certainly unworthy and not disposed, or that they prescribe this in
order to avoid scandal. Ballerini remarks further that relapse does not
show positively that the purpose of amendment in former confessions was
not sufficiently efficacious; the human will is liable to alteration;
still less can want of sorrow and purpose of amendment in the actual
confession be inferred (at least directly). Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V.
1874. According to Ballerini, the controversy turns upon the question,
When has the confessor obtained a _judicium prudens seu probabile_
concerning the disposition of the relapsing penitent? and declares
(after emphatically rejecting the teaching of St. Alphonsus, who finds
this _judicium_ in the _signis extraordinariis_), that there are two
things indicating the actual disposition of the penitent: _modus
confessionis et confessio seu testimonium pœnitentis_. As to the _signa
extraordinaria_—after having characterized most of them as deceptive and
untrustworthy, and only admitting a few as partly or wholly conducive
to a better knowledge of the disposition of the penitent, Ballerini
observes: “_Hisce indiciis utique utendum esse at neque iis insistendum
adeo esse, ut alia, quæ insita sunt ipsius sacramenti naturæ, negligantur
neque propter eorum defectum debere Confessarium desperare de cognoscenda
pœnitentis dispositione ac multo minus certum de defectu dispositionis
inde judicium ferre._” Cf. n. 310. It is not to be denied that the
relapsing habitual sinner _can_ be truly repentant and firmly resolved
in the actual confession; the confessor must also believe the penitent,
whether he speaks in his own favor or against himself. But, on the other
hand, it is not to be denied that the penitent has shaken belief in his
declaration as to his repentance and resolution, by not amending at all
and by not adopting remedies; that he is, therefore, to be regarded as a
_dubie dispositus_. Finally, the confessor must provide for the reverence
due to the Sacrament and for the salvation of the penitent, and therefore
must not straightway content himself with the latter’s assertion that
he is sorry, etc. According to Gury (Ratisb. edit.) the teaching of St.
Alphonsus may, without difficulty, be reconciled with the general view of
the older theologians. For the signs which he calls extraordinary are not
supposed to be different from those which others call regular and usual.
From all this it is plainly evident that St. Alphonsus and the later
theologians do not demand anything more than what the older theologians
demanded; namely, _sufficient signs of true repentance_; sufficient,
also, making allowance for the circumstances. Gury, II. Edit. Ratisb. n.
640. Appendix. De dilatione absolut., etc.
[893] Cf. Bucceroni, Comment. III. De absolut. danda, etc., § 5, De
absol. consuetud, et recidiv. This author points out, in his excellent
treatise, that this is the teaching of the great theologians, Lugo and
Suarez, and the practice of the saints.
[894] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 608; Const. Leonis XII, “Charitate Christi,”
25 Dec., 1825.
[895] Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 311.
[896] Berardi, l. c. n. 116. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 460.
[897] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459; Praxis Conf. n. 5; Leo XII, Const.
citat.; Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. n. 313 ss. Compare § 52, Postponement
of absolution.
[898] L. c. nn. 431, 28.
[899] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432. Cf. Berardi, De recidivis, etc., n. 119 ss.
[900] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 494.
[901] Cf. § 52, IV.
[902] Cf. S. Alph. n. 459; cf. 432.
[903] L. c. nn. 463, 464; Praxis Conf. nn. 76, 77.
[904] See above, IV.
[905] Confess. Lib. VIII. cp. 11.
[906] Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 181; cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 314, Q. 8.
[907] Compare Capellmann, Pastoral Medicine, B. The sixth commandment I.
[908] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 209, Lib. V. n. 8, Lib. VI. nn. 464, 75;
Prax. Conf. n. 6, nn. 16, 124; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cp. 12; S. Leonard a
Port-Maur. Discors. mist. n. 19; Aertnys, l. c. n. 314, Q. 7.
[909] Suppl. Q. 35, a. 1, ad 3.
[910] II. II. Q. 184, a. 8.
[911] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. nn. 16, 17, Lib. VI. nn. 63-77; Benedict
XIV, De Synod. Lib. XI. c. 2, n. 17.
[912] Suppl. Q. 36, art. 4, ad 1. Cf. Innoc. III. in cap. 14, de act. et
qual.
[913] Cf. Collectanea S. Sedis, nn. 497, 494.
[914] Praxis Conf. cp. 9, n. 121. Compare the excellent treatise in
Benger’s Pastoral Theology, Book 4, § 172. Perfection.
[915] Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 245. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 499; Benger, §
174, n. 5, I.
[916] Cf. Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 16, Sect. 2, n. 103.
[917] Cf. S. Franc. Sales. Philoth. P. III. cp. 1 et 2.
[918] Franc. Sal. _ibid._, cp. 35.
[919] Reuter says: “It is indeed true, as the Apostle remarks in the
First Epistle to the Corinthians, that the Spirit of God is wont to
instruct us Himself and through the ministry of His good angels. Not
seldom, however, Satan transforms himself into an angel of light,
deceiving men with the intention of ruining their souls. Those become
easily entangled in these snares who are presumptuous in spiritual
matters.” Neo-Conf. n. 247.
[920] Scaramelli, Directorium mysticum; S. Alph. Praxis Confess. nn.
247-251; St. Ignatius of Loyola, Book of Exercises; Comp. Zenner, Instr.
pract. Confess. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 1, § 261; the Monita S. Philippi
Nerii.
[921] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 505. Compare Benger, Pastoraltheologie, (1 Ed.)
Vol. III. § 174, (2 Ed.) Vol. II. Book 4, § 174.
[922] Cf. Aertnys, Instr. pract. P. III. cp. 6, art. 2, n. 213;
Benger, l. c.; Stöhr, Pastoral Medicine, 2 Ed. p. 334; Kerschbaumer,
Paterfamilias, Part IV. chap. 7, 8.
[923] S. Alph. Lib. I. n. 11; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. I. Tract. II. n. 49;
Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Gener. Tract. II. n. 57; Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. I. P.
V. Q. III. n. 176.
[924] Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 266.
[925] Cf. Lacroix, l. c. Lib. I. n. 519 ss.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Gener.
Tr. II. n. 58.
[926] S. Alph. De Mor. Syst.
[927] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. l. c. Lib. III. § 159; Lehmkuhl, l.
c. n. 55; Aertnys, l. c. n. 50; Müller, l. c. II. § 159; Benger,
Pastoraltheologie, a. a. O. § 174, n. 5; Scaramelli, Direct. ascet. Tom.
III. nn. 433-440; Zenner, Instr. pract. Conf. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 1, §
256.
[928] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. l. c. n. 260; S. Ignat. l. c. Regula 5;
Benger, l. c.; Scaramelli, l. c.; Zenner, Instr. pract. Conf. P. II.
Sect. II cp. 1. § 255.
[929] S. Alph. l. c. n. 13; Reuter, Neo-Conf. l. c. n. 261; Aertnys, l.
c. n. 51.
[930] S. Alph. Lib. I. n. 13; Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 262; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
n. 61; Aertnys, l. c. n. 53.
[931] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 263 ss.; Stotz, l. c. n. 185; Lehmkuhl,
l. c. n. 63; Aertnys, l. c.; Zenner, Instructio pract. Confess. P. II.
Sect. II. cp. 1, § 257.
[932] S. Alph. Lib. IV. n. 177; Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 268; Lehmkuhl, l. c.
n. 64.
[933] Cf. S. Congreg. S. Offic. 20 Jul., 1859 (Coll. Lacens. Concil. Tom.
III. p. 550).
[934] Cf. Instr. S. C. Inq. 20 Jul., 1859 et 20 Nov., 1878; Bucceroni,
Enchirid. p. 84. There is an (abridged) _professio fidei_, which the
S. C. S. Officii, 20 July, 1859 gave for America; the wording of the
Instruction clearly indicates that it may be used in all places where the
diocesan law does not decide to the contrary.
[935] Thus Lehmkuhl. Aertnys, however, does not assent to this teaching,
_quia voluntas conditionalis confitendi non est reapse confessio, atque
adeo prorsus deesse videtur materia_. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 196, Q. 4,
5. Lehmkuhl rejects the opinion that a dying person in this state must
be asked whether he would confess and receive absolution; for here the
question is not what the man would wish, but what he wishes; at most it
might be said of this velleity that it includes a certain will and actual
accusation. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 515.
[936] Zenner, Instr. pract. Confess. l. c. cp. 2, § 263: _Summi momenti
munus subit confessarius, dum puerorum confessionibus se offert
excipiendis_. Dubois, “The Practical Pastor,” Pt. 2, chap. 18, n. 381;
Frassinetti, “Practical Instruction for Young Pastors,” Pt. 2, Chap. 3,
n. 411 (in the Italian); Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, Book 1,
Pt. 1, § 84, p. 240.
[937] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 432, 666; Gury, l. c. I. n. 478; Stang,
Pastoral Theol. Bk. II. 4, § 31. Schulze, Pastoral Theol. Sect. I. 4, n.
3.
[938] Cf. Statut. Leod. n. 344.
[939] Stang, Pastoral Theol. Bk. II. 4, § 31.
[940] The question whether a formula of an Examination of Conscience
should be placed in the hands of children, is treated by Dubois, l. c.
Certainly not in the hands of the younger children; and Examinations,
such as are contained in prayer-books for grown-up people, should not
be given to older ones. Nor are all Examinations for Children to be
recommended. The instruction is the most important thing; an Examination
is a poor substitute for good instruction. Certain it is that these
Examinations are very often misused by children.
[941] Aertnys says in his Institut. practica, cp. 2, art. 1, n. 122, that
the confessor must ask the children if they know the articles of faith
which every Christian is bound to know, and if they do not, he must, if
time allows, patiently instruct them concerning these articles, at least
concerning the doctrines necessary to salvation, etc., but this can only
happen in exceptional cases, scarcely when there has been given a good
course of previous instruction.
[942] Prax. Conf. cp. 6, n. 90.
[943] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 90.
[944] Cf. Catech. Roman. P. III. cp. 7; Renninger, l. c.
[945] Aertnys writes upon this point (Instr. pract. cp. 2, art. 1, n.
127): _Actiones inhonestæ puerorum, qui luxuriæ adhuc ignari sunt,
plerumque non sunt habendæ ut peccata mortalia; quia vel commotionem
veneream non habuerunt vel hujus malitiam nondum apprehendunt_. And
St. Alphonsus teaches (Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 1, n. 14): _Sunt quædam
actiones naturales, quas manifestare puderet, attamen declarare propterea
non tenemur. Sic. e. c. si quis commiserit in pueritia levitates aut
jocos indecentes, quorum malitiam ignorabat, non tenetur ea confiteri.
Neque ex eo, quod actio secreto facta fuerit, concludere licet conscium
quem fuisse ejusdem malitiæ; quasdam namque faciunt pueri actiones
naturales secreto, quamvis non sint peccata._ But there are children,
and in towns especially not a few of them, who are early corrupted, and
in whom wickedness and impure knowledge are in advance of their age,
with reference to whom it must, alas! be said: _Tantillus puer et tantus
peccator!_ Cf. Aertnys, l. c.
[946] Whether immodest acts and jokes which children have practiced be
sins or not, let the confessor admonish them, in accordance with the
principle _principiis obsta_, to avoid carefully for the future these
things and everything impure. But let him do so with fatherly love, in
order that, should they do these things again, the children may not be
afraid to confess them.
[947] The reason which Aertnys (Instr. pract. l. c.) adds to this: _quia
hanc obligationem non intelligunt_, can certainly not be allowed to hold
in the case of older and more educated children.
[948] Tappehorn, l. c., says that _in all cases_ the confessor _must_
insist that the thing stolen should, if possible, in some way or other,
even with the help of the confessor, be restored; but, surely, this is
too severe, even with the limitation “if possible,” and the addition that
absolution might rather be deferred till the restitution had been made,
must be limited to the case of a more considerable theft, when the stolen
object is still in the possession of the penitent, and, perhaps, to the
case of a child who had repeatedly committed thefts.
[949] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 432; Prax. Conf. n. 91; Aertnys, l. c. n.
126.
[950] Tappehorn, Anleitung zur Verwaltung des Buss-Sakramentes, § 48;
Aertnys, Instr. pract. cp. 2, art. 1, nn. 120-128. Dubois, The Practical
Confessor; Frassinetti, The Confession of Children.
[951] Hom. 59 in Matt. xviii, n. 7.
[952] It is good to invite them at stated times to monthly communions in
regular turns, and if a number of the young people of the parish approach
holy communion every Sunday, it will edify, and will induce older persons
to frequent reception of the holy Sacraments. Attendance at the regular
communion should be urged again and again; the latter should also be
celebrated with some exterior solemnity.
[953] Here we will only insert the _Notanda_ from the Instr. pract. P.
III. art. II. § 1, n. 131, by Aertnys: (1) _Animadvertat confessarius,
quod docuit experientia, nempe nullum cœlibem, qui ad provectam
ætatem usque in habitu hujus vitii vixerit, ad frugem redire posse
nisi extraordinaria Dei gratia præveniatur; principiis ergo obstet,
ne malum per multas invaleat moras et sero medicina paretur._ (2)
_Interdum inveniuntur juvenes utriusque sexus, qui habitu pollutionis
antehac irretiti, valde cupiunt hac miseria soluti esse, sed vehementer
tentantur, et, quamvis resistant et orent, pollutio nihilominus sæpe
evenit. Idem aliquando contingit ob corporis complexionem nervosam aut
sanguinosam, quæ vehementes tentationes causat. Qui doceantur pollutionem
omnino involuntariam non esse peccatum._ Nevertheless, the confessor
must be careful, and not _readily_ believe that the penitent had
sufficiently resisted, but duly investigate if this has been the case.
(3) Others resist at the beginning, but lose courage if the temptation
does not cease, wrongly imagining that resistance is in vain. Such must
be encouraged to further resistance; _si tamen pollutio sequitur sua
sponte, involuntaria censenda est utpote præter voluntatem secuta_, and,
therefore, there is no sin. (4) _Alii demum timoratæ conscientiæ, sed
nervosæ complexionis, in lecto vehementes commotiones carnis identidem
patiuntur; si positivam resistentiam opponere pergant, obdormiscere
nequeunt, et, si tandem sopiantur, pollutio in somno evenit._ These
should be admonished to pray for divine help, to make a firm act of
disapproval, and then, with a quiet conscience, to assume a passive
attitude, in accordance with the teaching of St. Alphonsus, Lib. V. _de
peccato_, n. 9.
[954] Aertnys, l. c. art. II. § 1, nn. 128-133; Tappehorn, Anleitung zur
Verwaltung des Buss-Sakramentes, 4 Abschn. § 85.
[955] Serm. super Ecce nos.
[956] Praxis Confess. n. 92.
[957] To deny absolutely the existence of a vocation under such
circumstances is too severe a doctrine; higher and purer motives may
exist along with those of a distinctly lower order, and the aim of the
confessor should then be to foster the higher motives while eliminating
the lower ones. Great caution, unquestionably, should be used where
inferior motives are detected, but we should never lose sight of the
possibility of God’s grace being granted to those whose ideals are not at
first of the very highest order.
[958] Cf. S. Thomas, Quodlib. III. art. 14.
[959] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 92; Aertnys, l. c. n. 134.
[960] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 93; Aertnys, l. c. n. 135; Tappehorn,
Anleitung, etc., § 85; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. VII. nn.
398, 408.
[961] “_Unde concludes, gravissimi momenti esse munus tum Seminarii
directoris, tum alumnorum confessarii, ut mature alumnos dirigant, eorum
animos efforment, defectum aptitudinis aperiant, imo nisi de confessario
confessionisque sigillo vel simili secreto agitur, ineptos etiam
relegendos curent._”—Lehmkuhl, l. c.
[962] Concerning purity of heart, compare § 69. “_De divina vocatione
hic imprimis nota, debere positiva probatione constare de vitæ probitate
tum Superiori, ut ad Ordines, maxime sacros, admittere possit, tum ipsi
candidato, ut sacrum ordinem suscipere sibi liceat._”— Lehmkuhl, l.
c. And very justly Aertnys writes (Instr. pract. l. c. n. 135 fin.):
_Nisi juvenes innocentiam servent, dum in Seminario ad sacerdotales
virtutes efformantur, vix spes est fore, ut illam servent in Sacerdotio
constituti. Unde turpiter seipsos illi decipiunt, qui arbitrantur, se
in Sacerdotii gradu positos emendaturos esse vitia, in quibus laici vel
clerici sorduerunt._