Chapter I

THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE; OR, THE CONFESSOR CONSIDERED IN HIS OFFICE OF JUDGE

As a judge, it is the priest’s duty rightly to understand the matter—that is the sin—upon which he has to pass a sentence, to investigate the dispositions of the penitent, and to pronounce judgment. These three duties are the essential duties of the confessor in his office as judge.

48. The Knowledge of the Sins.

Christ has declared that we should confess to His ministers, _i.e._, we shall make declaration of all grave sins, with their number and kind. By means of this self-accusation, the minister of the Sacrament of Confession is informed of the sins of the penitent upon which he must pass judgment. As the priest is mediator between God and the penitent, and is thus bound, on the one hand, to protect the rights of God and preserve the order of divine Justice, and, on the other hand, to support the penitent and lead him to reconciliation with God, he must take care that all that belongs to a complete confession is performed by the penitent and where it falls short of completeness to supply the defect by questions.

The following principles are to be observed with regard to the duty of questioning:—

I. The confessor is not bound to question the penitent, however uneducated the latter may be, if he seems to be sufficiently instructed in his Christian duties, and has, according to his power of understanding, carefully confessed his sins. The questioning would otherwise become troublesome and useless. Still less is he, as a rule, bound to question those who often confess, and seldom sin gravely, such as pious persons, members of Religious Orders, priests, etc., unless it is clear from their accusation, or suspicion arises, that they have failed to confess something which it is necessary to confess. If this is the case, questioning is the more necessary with Regulars and priests, because there is danger that they might adopt, when hearing confessions themselves, the example of the superficial practice tolerated by their own confessors.

II. The confessor is bound to put questions to the penitent if he clearly recognizes or conjectures that the penitent has not declared all that appertains to the completeness of the confession, and what the confessor ought to know in order to perform his duty as judge and physician. As minister of the Sacrament, he must take care that the confession is a complete one, and, as it belongs to his office as judge, to investigate thoroughly the matter on which he has to pronounce judgment, and, as it is the duty of the physician to probe the wounds of the patient, so must the confessor sound the conscience of the penitent, by questioning about the sins which he supposes the penitent to have committed, and to have kept back out of ignorance, or forgetfulness, or false shame; by determining more exactly the specified number of the sins, when it has been stated too inexactly or indefinitely, or by asking it, if it has not been mentioned at all, and by investigating the necessary circumstances of the sins. Moreover, the confessor must find out the condition of the sinner himself, by which he may learn what advice is to be given, and what remedies employed to bring about the cure of the penitent.[643]

The duty of the confessor in this regard is undoubted, and _ex genere suo gravis_. Therefore Benedict XIV did not hesitate to teach in his Constitution “_Apostolica_” (26 June, 1749): “Above all, confessors should bear in mind that they do not discharge the duties of the office which they have undertaken—indeed, that all those are guilty of a great sin, who, while exercising the office of judge in the sacred tribunal of penance, unconcernedly listen to the penitents, do not exhort them, do not question them, but, when they have heard their sins, forthwith pronounce the words of absolution. This is certainly not the conduct of the zealous physician who pours oil and wine into the wound. And yet every one who administers the Sacrament of Penance holds the office of a physician; he must, therefore, carefully investigate not only the circumstances of the sins, but the moral condition of the person who has fallen into them, in order that he may provide for him suitable remedies, by the use of which the cure of his soul may be effected.”[644]

Although this duty is one _in se gravis_, yet _parvitas materiæ_ may be more easily admitted in it than in the duty of the penitent to examine himself, even in those things which he must _per se_ confess under the head of grave sin, or in _materia necessaria confessionis_. As the confessor must give account to God of the confessions which he has heard, there rests upon him, because of the great number of confessions which he hears, a much greater burden with respect to their integrity than upon the individual penitent. Billuart, however, rightly teaches: If the confessor, through slight negligence, inattention, weakness of memory, absence of mind, weariness of spirit, etc., has forgotten to put a question, even on necessary matter, such omission would be no sin, or only a venial one; for no one is bound, in such great difficulty and moral impossibility, to remedy the defects of others. What Gury says seems also to be quite reasonable, viz. that the omission of one or other _per se_ necessary question, in a great number of confessions which a priest has heard, is, _ex ipsa materiæ parvitate_, no grave sin.[645]

III. As regards the completeness of the confession, the confessor is not bound to question the penitent with scrupulous exactitude; on the contrary, he must act with moderation and prudence according to the position, age, and power of comprehension of the penitent. The confessor need not, therefore, employ greater care in questioning than the penitent himself must employ in the examination of his conscience; but the latter is only bound to a _mediocris diligentia_ in the examination of conscience. Moreover, the penitent is bound, in the first place, to know his sins; in order to make a complete confession, the confessor is only bound to assist him. The duty of the latter to push inquiry is merely a secondary one; that is, it must come into operation _defectu pœnitentis_. The extent of the confessor’s obligation in this matter is, therefore, regarded strictly in accordance with the situation, station, and intelligence of the penitent, so that the confessor is not bound to ask more than the penitent (by virtue of his situation, station, and power of apprehension) is bound to confess. When, therefore, it is certain that the penitent does not know, or has not noticed that certain circumstances add a new sinfulness to an act, the confessor is not bound to ask about them.[646]

49. The Nature of the Questions to be put to the Penitent.

If the confessor is obliged to address questions to penitents, they must always be moderate, discreet, modest, and proper.

(_a_) The questions must be moderate; that is, he should not question the penitents concerning sins which, having regard to their station, their age, their circumstances in life and their moral condition, they have probably not committed. He must not put questions about all possible sins; he should rather ask first if the penitent has committed the sins which are generally committed by people of such age, education, and position. If the answers of the penitent give occasion for further questioning, he must proceed in his inquiry; if they do not give such occasion, the confessor should ask, quite in a general way, if there is anything else which troubles his conscience, and when, after a short reflection (for which the necessary time must always be allowed him) he answers that he has nothing more to say, there is no reason for further questioning. As for the rest, it would seem useful to drop, at a seasonable moment, an appropriately tactful exhortation concerning sincere confessions.[647]

The questions of the confessor must be (_b_) discreet; that is, he must use the necessary discrimination in his questions; he must question with great prudence and caution. He must bear in mind the rule of the Roman Ritual: “The confessor should detain no one with inquisitive and profitless questions, and, above all, let him not ask young people of what they are ignorant, lest they be scandalized, and made familiar with new sins.”[648] Let him, therefore, never address to penitents a question by which a sin of which they were ignorant might be made known to them. Especially should he be discreet in his questioning of children and young people, and in questions concerning sins of impurity (here special caution is necessary with regard to women), lest he awaken their curiosity and cause them to investigate further, lest he teach the penitent sins, and lest he expose himself and the penitent to the danger of sin. When harm of this kind is to be feared, it is preferable that there should be some lack of material completeness in the confession, in conformity with the rule: _melius est in multis deficere_ (_sc._ _relate ad integritatem_) _quam in uno abundare_ (i.e. _in probabilem ruinam pœnitentis_). Two probable dangers here confront each other, a detriment to the soul of the penitent, and (material) incompleteness of the confession. Of the two the welfare of the soul is certainly to be preferred.

The questions of the confessor must, moreover, be (_c_) modest. If the confessor is obliged to put to the penitent a question concerning _res inhonestæ_, let him do this as modestly and prudently as he possibly can, and quite shortly. Of course he will often be obliged to put questions concerning the sins against purity, because penitents accuse themselves of these unwillingly, and very many do not properly confess their sins unless the confessor helps them. The confessor has, therefore, need of great prudence, in order, on the one hand, to elicit from the penitents what they conceal, and, on the other hand, not to teach them (especially the young) what they did not know before. He must here observe the following rules: (1) Let him avoid all curiosity, even the appearance of it, and all superfluous questions. When he fears that, out of anxiety of conscience, the penitent thinks that he has not fully confessed something, because he has not told all the circumstances, it is advisable to say to him at the end of the confession: “I have perfectly well understood your sins; do not, therefore, be anxious about not having fully declared the manner in which you sinned.” And if the penitent himself, out of ignorance or anxiety, wishes to describe the manner in which the sins were committed, the confessor must admonish him that this is not necessary. On the other hand, if the confessor has to question the penitent, he can inform him that these questions are necessary in order to learn the species of the sin. (2) In putting these questions let him make use of only perfectly modest expressions; when he speaks of the virtue of purity, let him always call it the angelic virtue, holy purity, in order to preserve the esteem and love of this virtue in himself, and inspire the penitent with it. And if the penitent should make use of improper, coarse expressions in confessing these sins, the confessor should gently admonish him, and teach him to express himself more becomingly. As long as it is doubtful whether the penitent has sinned against purity, the confessor should make use of general terms only, so that if the penitent has sinned, he may know it, and if he has not, may learn nothing new and dangerous. The confessor should generally begin with the lesser sins, and gradually proceed to the greater ones. He should begin with impure thoughts, wishes, listening to, or uttering, impure words, and ask if he has had temptations against holy purity, etc., and proceed thus to questions about acts. If the penitent denies having willingly entertained impure thoughts, he must not ask if he has sinned by impure actions; if the penitent confesses interior sins of impurity, let the confessor ask if he has listened to impure talk, or uttered such himself, if he has been guilty of immodesty by looking or touching. If he answers this also in the affirmative, he should ask (if the penitent is an adult) if he has committed any immodest act, or wished to do so; for there are penitents who, if they are not asked, conceal such sins, believing that they satisfy their duty if, by some remark, they give the confessor opportunity to question them. The confessor must sometimes deviate from this order, when, for instance, the penitent has already, of himself, confessed that he has committed grave sins against purity, or when he is ill informed. For the common people often do not consider the _delectationes morosas_ and the _desideria_ as sins, at least when they did not wish to proceed to acts; it is the same with immodest talk, which they call joking. Such penitents must, as a rule, be questioned, and, in the first place, if they have done anything immodest, then if they have carried on talk of this kind, and lastly concerning the interior sins. The confessor will sometimes observe that those who accuse themselves of sins of thought only, have also sinned by impure talk and actions, either because they scarcely distinguish the thoughts from the actions, and believe that they confessed the actions also by accusing themselves of the sinful thoughts, or that they wish to give the confessor an opportunity of questioning them about the actions of which they do not venture to accuse themselves, unless they are helped by the confessor.[649]

But with all these questions let the confessor be prudent and cautious. An imprudent confessor who neglects the necessary measures of precaution, may easily draw upon himself a denunciation, _ac si sollicitationis reus sit_.

On this account he must not ask married people bluntly and without preliminary question if they have rendered to each other the _debitum conjugale_, unless a valid reason or grounded suspicion justifies such question. He can, perhaps, in quite a general way, ask a wife if she has been obedient to her husband in all her duties, or if they have lived their married lives in a truly Christian manner. If anything _in conjugali debito_ that troubles the conscience has really taken place, opportunity is given to the penitent of saying so himself, and then it is for the confessor either to investigate further, or to instruct, which should, however, be generally done in only a few words.[650] Finally, the questions must be asked at (_d_) the right time. Some questions are, as a rule, to be put before the accusation begins, for example (if the penitent does not say it of himself), when he last confessed; for this question contributes much towards a better knowledge of the number of the sins, and as to whether the penitent seldom or often receives the holy Sacraments, and whether greater or less care is necessary with him; this is, too, the almost general practice of confessors. Questions concerning the position, age, etc., of the penitent are more expediently asked in the course of the confession, when, on account of some sin, occasion offers itself, or, which seems to be preferable, at the end of the accusation. Other questions which appear necessary for the completion of the confession or for better understanding the state of the penitent’s soul, the confessor would best put when the accusation is finished. Penitents are often confused by being interrupted with questions, and cannot properly complete their confession. Let the confessor, therefore, keep in his mind the individual sins concerning which he must ask questions for the purpose of completeness. Let it be, therefore, the rule, not to interrupt the penitent in his confession, unless a question should be immediately necessary.[651]

After the confession the confessor should ask the penitent if anything still weighs upon his conscience; especially let him ask illiterate people who seldom confess, if they are heartily sorry for their sins, and if they purpose firmly to avoid sin.

On all occasions let the confessor avoid putting many questions, and confine himself to necessary ones. In an especial manner let him avoid all that does not appertain to the confession. He must remember that there are many penitents, especially men of some position, to whom much questioning by the confessor is irritating.

Moreover, let the confessor ask clearly, according to the intelligence of the penitents, so that these may perfectly understand and be able to answer correctly and shortly; the questions should, therefore, as a rule, not be of a general nature, but concrete, brief, and simple. Sometimes, when the penitents are of very limited mental capacity, the questions must be repeated in different words. He must ask in good order, proceeding from the beginnings of sin to the completed acts, from the lighter to the more grievous; from the usual to the extraordinary; before asking about the species and the number, he must satisfy himself as to whether there was consent. The confessor must ask kindly and gently, so that the penitent may feel that the confessor is treating him with truly paternal love. His special pattern must be the love and gentleness of Jesus towards sinners of which the Gospel furnishes so many examples; in this way the confessor wins for himself that confidence which is so necessary, and induces the penitent to confess all his sins sincerely, whereas harshness intimidates the penitent and seals his mouth. The insincerity of the penitent, and consequently the incompleteness of the confession, would thus be the fault of the confessor, who has to see that there is integrity. Let the confessor, therefore, refrain from every harsh word, make the penitent no reproach before the confession is complete, show no sign of displeasure or surprise. Illiterate penitents, those who have not confessed for a long time, and find confession hard, should be encouraged in a kindly manner to accuse themselves sincerely of all their known sins, before the confession begins.[652]

As to questions in particular, some refer to the object, others to the circumstances, and others to the number of the sins. With regard to the object, it is advisable that the confessor, keeping in view the different classes in life, should arrange questions for himself in the order of the Commandments, and impress them upon his memory, so that he may make a right use of them when necessary. But whether the penitent is likely to have committed other sins besides those which he has confessed, touching which the confessor may be bound to put questions to him, must be inferred from the penitent’s occupation and manner of life, as also from the circumstances by which certain sins become the motives, or concomitants, of other sins (for example, drunkenness is generally the cause of quarreling, blasphemy, impure thoughts, words, etc.). Moreover, it may happen that the penitent has a false conscience, a thing from which illiterate penitents not seldom suffer, and, in consequence, confesses as grave sins, what, upon questioning, prove to be only venial sins. On the other hand, in order to form a sure judgment as to the gravity of the sins, the confessor should not ask uneducated people whether they regarded the sins as venial or mortal, for such people say just what comes into their heads, as St. Alphonsus testifies (“_ut ego millies observavi_”), and if the confessor repeats the same question in a different way afterwards, they will answer the exact opposite.[653]

As to the circumstances the confessor must see that the accusation of the penitent and his own questions are confined to those which ought of necessity to be mentioned; nor should he ask about such circumstances as are unlikely to occur in the case of his penitents.[654]

As to the number of the sins, the confessor must inquire if the penitent does not mention it when confessing mortal sins, and it is beneficial to admonish him to give in future the number, when he believes the sins to be mortal.[655] If interior sins, such as hatred, impurity, etc., have become habitual, the confessor has, in most cases, performed his duty when he has found out the greater or less frequency in the day or the week, because a more exact enumeration of these sins is hardly possible. And if some one confesses _multa desideria erga quaslibet feminas obvias_, the number is sufficiently indicated by the penitent confessing, _se modo nuptas modo innuptas concupivisse_. Moreover, when, with habitual sinners, the confessor himself suggests a number, in order to obtain an estimate of the real number, let him choose a number higher than he expects to hear, so that the penitent may be able to reduce it, or to add only slightly to it, according to circumstances; if he merely assent to the number, the confessor can then propose a higher one. In addition, the confessor must, where it is necessary, inquire into the dispositions of the penitent—as a necessary preparation for absolution; if he is willing, for instance, to make restitution, to remove the immediate occasion of sin, if he is willing to forgive, etc. He must ask a relapsing sinner, during what length of time, from the last confession, he refrained from sin, how long he resisted temptation, employed the remedies, etc., for the guilt is not the same if the penitent overcame himself for a considerable time, or if he did not sin because the occasion was wanting, or he was not assailed by great temptation.[656]

For younger and inexperienced confessors we would suggest that penitents not seldom[657] conceal sins. This generally happens: (1) from false shame in confessing certain sins of impurity, sacrilegious confessions and communions, and acts of injustice; this shame is greatly increased by a certain natural shyness, especially in young women; (2) from fear of losing the respect of the confessor, and (3) from fear of reproof or of refusal of absolution.

The confessor must devote special care to these unhappy penitents. “It cannot be described how much the zeal of an experienced confessor can effect with them,” says the venerable Paul Segneri, and entering into the practical treatment of these penitents, he writes: “Through a little opening, that is, after the penitent has confessed some lesser fault, let the confessor procure for himself further access to his heart, and, having gained entrance, seek what hidden sins there are to be found.” And, giving an example, he proceeds: “When a youth comes to you to confess, and accuses himself of carrying on love affairs, indulging in frivolous talk, allowing his eyes too much liberty, and adds nothing more to this, let the confessor proceed skillfully from the talk and the looks, and examine into the impure thoughts, and the consent given to them; from these to the immodest acts which the penitent has committed with himself or with others. But prudence is necessary that mistakes may not be made. For here a wound is to be cleansed, there care to be taken that the healthy, uncontaminated part be not infected, that evil still unknown may not be learnt. Doubt not that light from heaven, which you must invoke, and experience constantly increasing with practice, will show you the safe way between these two rocks.... It is scarcely to be believed how useful it is to so formulate the questions yourself that the penitent has nothing to say but, ‘Yes,’ or ‘No.’ What a comfort it was to the Samaritan woman to be able to declare: ‘I have found some one who has told me all that I have done.’ If she had been called upon to confess her sins herself, who knows if she could ever have been brought to do so? But when she saw herself with such gentleness probed and fathomed by Christ, it was no longer difficult for her to confess.” ... “But in such confessions,” adds Segneri, “refrain from every sign by which the penitent could infer that the sins confessed to you seem very grave. Remind him of the joy in heaven over the conversion of a single sinner, and of the peace of mind with which he can go home, blessing a thousand times the day on which he delivered his conscience from such a burden.”[658]

Whilst the confessor cannot always prevent the concealment of sins; yet in many cases he will by prudent inquiry succeed in procuring sincere confessions. To this end, he must receive penitents with cordial friendliness, benevolence, and gentleness, reminding them that a confession which is not made with full sincerity is invalid and sacrilegious; and that Satan, crafty and envious, awakens false shame in penitents, in order to rob them of the effects of grace in this Sacrament.

Let the confessor also observe the following special remedies: 1. In order to remove false shame, let the penitent understand that a priest often hears much more shameful and serious sins; that the penitent is not known to him; let the priest encourage the penitent and defer reproof till the end of the confession; remind him of the seal of the confessional to which the confessor is most strictly bound, but also of the certain disclosing of the concealed sins before the whole world at the Last Judgment. 2. In order to remove fear of losing the esteem of the confessor, the confessor should avoid familiarity with his penitents, not visit them at their homes without urgent necessity, and not permit them to come to his house to speak about matters of conscience, as such things are to be treated in the confessional. Moreover, he must not object to his usual penitents occasionally confessing to another confessor; and if they have done so, he should commend them for it; an exception is to be made here in the case of scrupulous persons, who, by so doing, might only become the more confused, because another confessor would not know them as scrupulous persons.—“_Caveat Confessarius, ne motiva naturalia et humana adhibeat ad fiduciam pœnitentium, mulierum præcipue, sibi conciliandam; id quippe periculosum est._”[659]

It follows from the above, that the confessor, at the end of the confession, may, and should, kindly ask unknown penitents (whose sincerity he justly doubts) if anything in their past lives still troubles their conscience, and encourage them to confess everything. By such questions not a few persons, especially of the uneducated class, and women, and children, are saved from sacrilege,—that is to say, they are induced to confess sins hitherto concealed; or the confessor may take occasion, from the silence or a confused answer, prudently to investigate the matter further. If, however, he discovers some defect in former confessions, he must admonish the penitent to repeat these invalid confessions by a general confession and assist him in doing so.[660]

If the penitent declares that he has nothing more of which to accuse himself, absolution must be given him—if he is, in other respects, worthy of it; for in cases of doubt as to the honesty of a penitent, there is no other means of arriving at the truth than by the testimony of the penitent himself, as he, himself, is defendant and witness.[661]

But what is the confessor to do if he knows _positively_ that the penitent has concealed or denied a sin?

1. If he has obtained this knowledge outside of the confessional, and that (_a_) by his own observation (_ex propria experientia_), having himself seen or heard the sin of the penitent, he cannot absolve him as long as, on the one hand, the latter, when questioned, obstinately denies having committed the sin, and while, on the other hand, the confessor knows positively that the sin in question has not in the meantime been confessed to another priest. For then defect in formal integrity has been demonstrated. If the confessor has obtained his knowledge (_b_) on the statement of another, he must, as a rule, absolve the penitent, even if he when carefully questioned denies, for here the declaration of the penitent himself is to be preferred to the testimony of others; these latter may have been in error. Moreover, the confessor can assume that the penitent, if he really committed the sin, has forgotten it, or confessed it to another priest, or has some lawful ground for concealing it now. But if the witnesses were so trustworthy that no doubt could be entertained as to their statements, and if the confessor knew positively that since committing the sin the penitent had not confessed to another priest, and also that he could not have forgotten it, he cannot, as long as the penitent denies the sin, absolve him, because, in this case, a lie on the part of the penitent, quite inconsistent with the integrity of the confession, has been demonstrated; this case, however, will seldom occur.

2. If the confessor has obtained his knowledge from the confession of the accomplice (_complex_) he is not allowed specially to question the penitent concerning this sin, if he has not received from the accomplice express permission to do so, or if this sin does not generally occur with people in that station, or in those circumstances; otherwise he may only ask the penitent in a general way, as he would in any case have done, or should have done,—for example, if anything more troubles his conscience; and he can, in a general way, without letting his knowledge be suspected, exhort him to confess his sins sincerely; but the danger of breaking the seal of the confessional—by, perhaps, asking the penitent the same thing several times—must be carefully avoided. As to whether he can absolve such a penitent is a controverted point. After quoting the opinion of others on the subject, St. Alphonsus teaches: “In my judgment the opinion of Lacroix is to be preferred, that is, the confessor should not absolve, not even _sub conditione_, but should say a prayer, to conceal the fact that absolution is refused, because, in this manner, he, on the one hand, saves the seal—revealing nothing and inconveniencing no one—and, on the other hand, he has regard for the reverence due to the Sacrament by preventing its frustration.”[662]

Other theologians teach with Suarez that absolution may only be refused when it is quite evident that the penitent is telling a lie to the prejudice of the integrity of the confession. Indeed, not a few teach that absolution must, in every case, be given to the penitent who denies his sin, when the knowledge of this sin was obtained only from the confession of another, as this knowledge is to be regarded as not existing. This opinion is sufficiently probable, and deserves the preference, especially as it safeguards the _sigillum_. We must, moreover, consider that we can scarcely have a certainty that the penitent is confessing sacrilegiously, quite apart from the consideration that it is not lawful to make use of knowledge gained in the confessional for the spiritual guidance of another. Absolution _sub conditione_ can also be given in this case, as this course preserves the reverence due to the Sacrament.[663]

But it is the confessor’s duty not only to understand the sins and to supplement the confession; he must also form for himself a judgment concerning the gravity of sins which he has heard. Although he must hear and understand all the sins of the penitent, and would sin if he absolved, and had failed through his own fault to take cognizance of a mortal sin, it is not necessary for him to pass judgment on everything he hears from the penitent. It is sufficient if he is able to do this in regard to the sins which usually occur; for the rest let him hear, take note, and then absolve. Thus St. Alphonsus,[664] and other theologians. Lehmkuhl remarks, that this necessary judgment is formed as soon as the confessor hears the sins, provided that he has an habitual knowledge which enables him to distinguish objectively grave and venial sins, and to apprehend their specific sinfulness. Whether the subjective malice has any proportion to the sin considered objectively cannot always be ascertained, though it may generally be presumed; nor is it always possible to discover it. Such questions, therefore, should not be asked (unless, perhaps, in the case of well-instructed penitents), for they are quite useless. It is a different matter with questions regarding the advertence and the consent of the will, and the objective gravity of the sins, in so far as it depends upon the circumstances. Such questions the confessor must ask _per se_, when the confession of the penitent leaves it doubtful if the _materia_ has been _gravis_ or _levis_, and no penitent, be he who he may, can be offended by such questions; nevertheless, it is not always necessary to put these questions, as, sometimes, a confessor may content himself with a presumption based upon the conscience of the penitent well known to him, or other indications.[665] The priest must pronounce judgment, as we have said, on the gravity of the sins, and have in his memory the sins confessed by the penitent, not as Suarez states, in order to absolve, but in order to form a correct judgment of the moral state of the penitent, and of his dispositions for the reception of absolution, and in order to impose a suitable penance.[666]

50. The Examination of the Dispositions of the Penitent.

The dispositions of the penitent consist in true sorrow and firm purpose of amendment. They are at the same time the _quasi materia_ of this Sacrament, so that if they are wanting the absolution is invalid. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance must, therefore, make it a point to determine whether the penitent is properly disposed. But as this disposition is an interior matter, there arises for the confessor the great difficulty of knowing by what sign he may recognize it.

Hence the following principles:—

I. It is the duty of the confessor diligently to examine whether the penitent is properly disposed. This is evident from our introductory remarks, also from the fact that the confessor is a judge, and it is the duty of a judge to form an opinion of the worthiness or unworthiness of the accused. Finally, it results from the fact that he has to discharge his important office as a _dispensator fidelis_, and, as such, may not give _Sanctum canibus_.[667] Therefore, Suarez says: “Before the confessor absolves he must _prudenter et probabiliter judicare_, if the penitent is disposed, because he would otherwise expose himself to the danger of making mistakes, and would act without sufficient knowledge.”[668]

II. The confessor must arrive at a _certitudo moralis_, that is, a reasonable and probable judgment, that the penitent is disposed. This _judicium prudens et probabile_ is necessary, as it is not allowed (except in case of necessity) to administer the Sacrament _cum prudenti dubio_ as to its validity; but, on the other hand, it is also sufficient because the disposition of the soul is an interior matter, the exterior signs and indications of which produce, generally, only a moral certainty, a probability. The proper disposition of the penitent must, therefore, be presumed, unless circumstances directly suggest suspicion of the contrary.[669]

III. The confessor may regard as indicating proper dispositions the fact that the penitent comes to confession of his own accord, and not on account of the law of the Church, or with a view to receiving some other Sacrament, or under compulsion from parents or others; voluntary confession (_confessio libera_) alone, or in connection with a protestation of sorrow and a purpose of amendment, is the usual sign (_signum ordinarium_) of good dispositions, except when this protestation is rendered suspicious by some other circumstance. The confession itself affords ground for the presumption that the penitent is disposed, sorrow being made manifest by the confession and the principle holding good: _nemo malus præsumendus est_. We may not, therefore, presume that a penitent comes to confession indisposed; there must first be ground for such presumption. Therefore, the Roman Catechism teaches:[670] _Si audita confessione, judicaverit_ (_Sacerdos_) _neque in enumerandis peccatis diligentiam nec in detestandis dolorem omnino defuisse_, which means that the penitent can be absolved when _dolor tam contritionis quam attritionis_ is not wanting in him, for if neither is present there is no sorrow at all.[671] When the priest has heard the confession, and assured himself that the penitent has carefully examined his conscience and confessed his sins, and that he is sorry for them, he must absolve him.[672] When, therefore, the penitent shows by the manner of his self-accusation that he has contrition, and when his demeanor is worthy of the Sacrament and becoming a penitent, and his confession is sincere, the confessor must not doubt as to his dispositions, unless, as before said, there is positive presumption for the contrary. The presumption in favor of his dispositions derived from the confession will be neutralized by the opposite presumption which well-founded indications of indisposition produce. That in the case of contrary presumption the confessor may again decide in favor of the penitent and credit his assertion, “certain other, more or less weighty, arguments must be superadded” which tend to weaken the first suspicion or to destroy it totally. These arguments are called “_signa doloris extraordinaria_.”[673] But the confessor must not attach too much importance to these extraordinary signs, and must bear in mind that no one of those usually given by the theologians supplies, under all circumstances, complete proof of the penitent’s disposition. As such signs (which, when necessary, may furnish a stronger and special proof of the penitent’s sorrow and purpose of amendment) St. Alphonsus,[674] Reuter,[675] and other authors enumerate the following: (1) any striving after amendment which the penitent has shown; (2) any special manifestation of sorrow on the part of the penitent himself, or due to the exhortation of the confessor (for instance, tears, sighs, etc., although tears and sighs are not always to be trusted); (3) that the penitent was induced to confess by some special, extraordinary motive; (4) that, upon the exhortation of the confessor, he has attained to a better apprehension of sin, and an abhorrence of it; (5) that he has now ultimately confessed to the confessor long concealed sins; (6) that the number of the sins has become considerably less, although the circumstances remained the same (for if the penitent had been prevented from sinning by illness, or a similar circumstance, this would be no _signum extraordinarium_); (7) that restitution has been really made, the habit overcome, or some other difficult duty fulfilled; (8) that, in view of the confession which he wishes to make, he has increased prayer, given alms, undertaken fasting or other good works; (9) that he has voluntarily sought the means of amendment at the hands of the confessor, gladly adopted those proposed to him, or sincerely promised to adopt them; (10) that he willingly undertakes a severe penance, and offers to make satisfaction to God; (11) voluntary, spontaneous confession may often be a sufficient sign.

IV. The question for us now is: in what cases a serious “_præjudicium_” against the disposition of the penitent arises. According to the teaching of St. Leonard of Port Maurice, they are the following: (1) when the penitent always relapses in the same sins, and there is no visible trace or hope of amendment; (2) when the penitent answers coldly that he is sorry, especially when he has often relapsed; (3) when he has not applied the remedies given by the confessor; (4) when the penitent has made constant and unusual efforts for the gratification of his passions; (5) when the penitent receives the holy Sacraments only if commanded to do so by parents or teachers, or out of mere custom on feast-days, or out of human considerations; (6) when the penitent presumptuously excuses his sins, or enters into dispute with his confessor, _a fortiori_ if he should even boast of his sins; (7) when the penitent refuses to accept a reasonable penance, for punishment or for amendment; (8) when the penitent shows a great inclination to sin, or covets the profit or great pleasure obtained from the sin.[676]

V. A penitent is to be regarded as _completely indisposed_ who positively has no supernatural sorrow, and no real purpose of amendment, especially one who refuses to undertake a difficult obligation; one, for example: (l) who does not remove the immediate and willful occasion of sin;[677] (2) who will not lay aside enmity and hatred, and will not be reconciled; (3) who will not make restitution and repair injury; (4) who will not give up sinful occupations; (5) who will not promise to exert himself to lay aside a bad habit; (6) who does not employ the necessary means of amendment; (7) who is not willing to remove scandal that he has given or still gives to others.

VI. That penitent is _doubtfully disposed_ against whom there is a well-founded “_præjudicium_,”—one arising from positive indications,—which _præjudicium_ he has not wholly removed, so that there is still valid ground for considering him as not yet sufficiently disposed.

51. The Confessor’s Duty in Disposing his Penitents.

The confessor must, with fatherly love and care, to the best of his ability, dispose those penitents whom, after instruction and exhortation, he sees to be insufficiently disposed; and he is bound to this _ex rigoroso religionis et charitatis officio_. Magnificent is the discourse on this subject which Leo XII in his Encyclical letter of Dec. 25, 1825, extending the Jubilee to the whole Church, addressed to all the bishops. In § 5 the Pope writes: “You know well how necessary and salutary the labor of those priests is to whom the faithful must confess their sins, in order that they may be able to perform with fruit what they have been taught. Therefore it must be your zealous care that those priests appointed by you to hear confessions do not forget what our predecessor Innocent III prescribed with regard to the minister of the Sacrament of Penance; namely, that he should be _discretus et cautus_, in order to pour wine and oil, like the experienced physician, into the wounds of the stricken one, to give him good advice, and to prescribe what means of improvement he must employ.” And, after remarking (with a reference to the words of the Roman Ritual) that the priest must exercise great care as to whom he administers absolution, to whom he refuses it, and when he postpones it, especially emphasizing to whom it may not be given, he goes on to say that every one can easily see how totally different from this the procedure of those priests is, “who, as soon as they perceive that a person is burdened with many sins, at once declare that they cannot give him absolution, thus refusing to heal those for whose healing they were in a special manner appointed by Him who said: ‘Those who are whole need not the physician, but those who are sick,’ or to whom the least effort in eliciting sorrow and good purpose seems sufficient, and only then believe that they have taken a safe decision when they send the penitent away, to absolve him at some other time. For if ever the golden mean is to be observed, it is eminently in this case, so that too great ease of obtaining absolution may not engender carelessness in committing sin, and that too great difficulty may not estrange souls from the confessional and plunge them into despair of salvation. For many present themselves before the ministers of the Sacrament of Penance who are quite unprepared, but are in such dispositions that they might become prepared if only the priest, equipped with the compassion of Jesus Christ, who came to call not the just but sinners, understood how to treat them with zeal, patience, and gentleness. Those are not to be regarded as unprepared who have committed very grave offenses, or who have not confessed for very many years—for the mercy of the Lord knows no bounds, and inexhaustible is the treasure of His goodness—or who, ignorant, of humble condition, and slow of perception, have not duly examined themselves, for without the help of the priest they are unable to do this; but only those who, after being questioned by the confessor concerning their sins with necessary care (but not with a minuteness immoderately troublesome to them), and after the confessor has exhausted all the zeal which love can inspire, accompanied with fervent prayer, to move them to sorrow for their sins, are found to be wholly and entirely devoid of that sorrow by which they should at least become disposed to obtain grace in the Sacrament. In whatever dispositions those may be who approach the minister of the Sacrament of Penance, they should not be allowed to despair on account of their guilt, and to go away estranged from the goodness of God or the Sacrament of reconciliation.... St. Raymond of Pennafort, whom the Church calls the eminent minister of the Sacrament of Penance, may serve as a fitting example of this love. ‘After the confessor has heard the sins,’ he says, ‘let him comfort the sinner and bear his burden with him, let him be tender of heart, forbearing towards the penitent in his sins, let him distinguish with prudence, assist the person confessing with his prayers, give alms, and perform other good works for him, ever aid him with gentle exhortation, suggesting grounds for consolation, encouraging him to hope and also remonstrating with him when necessary.’” With these golden words, born of love for sinners and burning zeal for souls, the Pope admonishes confessors to take most benevolent interest in their penitents in order to dispose them. This is, indeed, a strict duty of love; love of God and of the poor sinner must move the confessor to use every exertion in his power to rescue him from his unhappy situation, and reconcile him with God. The confessor must thus act as the attorney of God and the father of the penitent; and as physician of the soul he is bound, after the example of the good Samaritan, to apply promptly for the sick soul of the penitent a suitable remedy, and the only suitable remedy here is the valid reception of absolution.[678]

It is true, as Segneri[679] says, that the heart of the sinner not seldom becomes as hard as stone (Job xli. 15); nevertheless, we must try to soften it, and to arouse in these wretched men—the more unhappy as their wretched state is of their own choice—sorrow for past sin, and a sincere determination never more to return to it. But in order to move them to sorrow and penance, powerful motives for sorrow must be proposed, and it is well to support these by one or more passages from Scripture, or utterances of a saint. These generally refer to the nature, the effects, and the consequences of sin—sin as the most terrible wrong done to the majesty of God (Jer. ii. 2); as the blackest ingratitude towards God, our best Father, and most generous benefactor (Deut. xxxii. 5, 18; Is. i. 3; v. 4; 2 Kings xii. 7); as the most execrable faithlessness towards Jesus, our most loving Redeemer (Heb. vi. 6; John x. 22); as an evil which brings with it the loss of grace and of the happiness of heaven (Wis. vii. 14; 2 Cor. ii. 9); leading to hell (Is. xxxiii. 14; Matt. xxvi. 26); and preparing a terrible death (Prov. vi. 34; Heb. x. 31); which is most hateful and disgraceful in itself; making the sinner an abomination before God and a slave of the devil (Ps. v. 6; Wis. xiv. 9). The peculiar hatefulness, the evil consequences, and danger of special sins may be described, as, for example, impurity, robbing man of innocence, ruining him in body and soul, surrendering him to disgrace and shame, making him the object of God’s especial abhorrence, and exposing him to severe punishment. But, in a particular manner, let the confessor seek to deter the penitent from relapse, impressing upon him the great truth that the difficulty of effecting his salvation increases in the same proportion as the number of his sins; that bad habits always become stronger, the mind more darkened, the will weaker, also that he is always becoming more unworthy of divine grace, that the evil one obtains more power over a man as the sinner’s resistance grows less. It is, however, neither necessary nor useful to set forth these motives indiscriminately; they must be chosen with a view to suit the penitent,[680] and not only stored in the memory, but, by meditation, deeply imprinted on the heart of the confessor, that he may bring them home to the penitent with the warmth of conviction and a persuasive unction.

The confessor must not be concerned at the fact that other penitents have to wait a long time and end by going away; for, in this case, he must not look to the welfare of others, but solely to that of the penitent with whom he is dealing at the moment. It is of his welfare and not that of the rest that he has to render account, and, as St. Francis Xavier used to say, it is better to hear the confessions of a few penitents well, than those of many hastily and without fruit. The confessor must very often dispose illiterate penitents (_pœn. rudes_) and children[681] by moving them to sorrow and purpose of amendment, because these latter do not sufficiently consider the necessity of these acts, and therefore neglect them. He must also frequently dispose penitents who have relapsed into sinful habits without endeavoring to amend, as with such people there is ground for the presumption that they are not truly disposed. “How many penitents have come to me not disposed, and I have endeavored, with the help of divine grace to dispose them, and I have certainly done so, and, to my very great comfort, dismissed them with absolution,” cries out St. Alphonsus.[682] Justly, therefore, does this sainted doctor and zealous guide of souls, blame those “indolent confessors” who send away a penitent without having shown any zeal in preparing him.[683]

If the confessor judges that the penitent is well disposed, he has no obligation with regard to his dispositions. For the rest, he will do well to exhort penitents who are unknown to him again to elicit sorrow and purpose of amendment aroused by his words, or at least to ask them if they heartily detest their sins. If they answer in the affirmative, the confessor can set his mind at rest, unless circumstances suggest otherwise.[684]

52. The Duty of the Confessor to administer, to defer, or to refuse Absolution.

After examining the dispositions of the penitent, and after endeavoring to make sure of them, the confessor, as we have seen in the last section, will find three classes of penitents: those who are certainly disposed, those who are doubtfully disposed, those who are not disposed.

His duty with regard to these different classes will form the subject-matter of this section.

I. Absolution must, in justice, be given to the penitent who is certainly disposed, so that the confessor would, generally speaking, _sin gravely_ and against justice if he should refuse to absolve such a penitent. After hearing a case (_causa_), the judge must pronounce sentence on the accused, and in the tribunal of penance (the worthiness of the penitent being presupposed) the sentence can only be one of acquittal. Accordingly, if the penitent is worthy of acquittal, in other words, certainly disposed, absolution must be given him. This results also from the character of the confessor as representative of God; but God acquits the sinner who does worthy penance, therefore God’s representative must do likewise. This follows, further, from the aim of the institution of the Sacrament. It was instituted for the faithful and for their spiritual benefit; now, if the faithful are well disposed, they have a right to this Sacrament, and it would be injustice to withhold it from them. Finally, the confessor binds himself by admitting a penitent to confession, _ex quasi-contractu_, to pronounce judgment in accordance with the injunctions of Christ.[685] Absolution must also be given to a certainly disposed penitent when he has accused himself of venial sins only. In the latter case, however, it is, _ex se_, no great injustice not always to give absolution, but only the blessing, and if there is reasonable ground for this proceeding it is no sin at all.

II. Absolution must always be _refused_ to penitents who are _certainly not disposed_. The confessor would be guilty of sacrilege if he administered absolution to penitents whose indisposition was certain, in whatever state of need the penitent might be; for, in this case, the confessor would utter the sacramental formula in vain, and such abuse is sinful. What penitents are certainly not disposed we have learnt above.[686] The strict duty of the confessor to dispose those penitents whom he has recognized as not disposed has also been treated of (§ 51). Not till all his pains and zeal have proved vain may he dismiss them as indisposed; and even then the confessor must not treat them harshly and reject and repel them, but clearly and eloquently lay before them their sad state, and the very great danger of incurring eternal damnation, and assure them that it would always afford him the greatest joy if they should at last do real penance, and that he would be ready at all times to receive them in the confessional as soon as they should be willing to obey the divine precepts.[687]

III. Absolution must, as a rule, be deferred in the case of those penitents who are altogether doubtfully disposed (_plane dubie dispositi_). For the confessor must take care that he does not presumptuously expose the Sacrament to the danger of nullity and commit a great sacrilege. Penitents are to be regarded as doubtfully disposed who, having a duty to fulfill _sub gravi_, such, for example, as removing an immediate occasion of sin, laying aside a vicious habit, making restitution, giving up an enmity, have promised to do their duty and failed to keep the promise. Failure to comply with the obligation does not point infallibly to a lack of proper dispositions, but it necessarily gives rise to well-founded doubts.

As a rule, absolution must be deferred in the case of such penitents, but if there is a _causa gravis_, it _may_ be given to them _sub conditione_, or, according to circumstances, it _must_ be so given to them.

For the Sacraments were instituted for men. When, therefore, more evil than good results from postponement of absolution, the welfare of the penitent demands that the Sacrament should be administered to him, even with the danger of nullity; regard for the Sacrament being preserved by the subjoined condition.

If dying persons are doubtfully disposed, they must be absolved _sub conditione_; on this point there can be no controversy.

It is universally admitted and also approved by St. Alphonsus that a doubtfully disposed penitent can be absolved, _sub conditione_, of course, when he himself, _bona fide_, believes that he is sufficiently disposed, and when there is a _causa gravis_ for believing that the refusal or postponement of absolution would cause him to fall into a worse state; for example, commit another sacrilege, or become totally estranged from the Sacraments. In this case the confessor must use every means in prudence, and with holy, enlightened zeal, to dispose the penitent fittingly, and then—mindful of the mercy of Him whose place he fills, and who does not break the bruised reed nor quench the smoking flax (Is. xlii. 3)—administer the absolution.

But in other cases where such evils are not to be feared, the confessor must defer absolution for doubtfully disposed penitents till they have shown themselves to be better disposed. This applies especially to relapsing sinners and to _occasionarii_. “Do not refuse absolution to the penitent, but postpone it,” is the exhortation of Segneri to confessors. “He must come again within a fixed time. In the meanwhile he may make himself more worthy and then give more trustworthy signs of sorrow.” Let it not be objected that the penitents would not return. “If they do not come to you, they will go to others, and will be better prepared and absolved with greater profit. If they neither come back to you nor go to another, you need not be concerned about it, for it is a clear sign that they are quite obdurate in sin, that they were not disposed, and had not the will to render themselves disposed. And yet, even in such cases the deferring of absolution is not without benefit; since a germ of holy fear remains in their hearts, which in time will bring forth fruits of penance. For, as the learned Aversa assures us, a wise postponement is of the greatest profit to the sinner, and experience itself proves that this postponement is mostly beneficial.”[688]

IV. Even in the case of a well-disposed penitent, absolution can, and sometimes must be, deferred, when this appears necessary to, or profitable for, his improvement. Although the well-disposed penitent has a right to absolution, yet the confessor, as a physician, must have regard for the cure of the penitent, nor has the penitent always a right to _immediate_ absolution. The deferring of absolution is a grave duty when postponement is a necessary measure; it is not so imperative when it serves only as a measure of utility.

1. Postponement of absolution is _necessary_:—

(_a_) With penitents who have to remove a _public scandal_. This duty must be done before they are admitted to holy communion, and generally also before absolution. (_b_) With penitents who have been, in any respect, public sinners,—till they have publicly shown themselves to have amended; except, perhaps, when it is advisable to give absolution at once for their greater comfort and spiritual profit; yet with postponement of holy communion. (_c_) With penitents who are under some great obligation, who have to make considerable restitution, to be reconciled to an enemy, or to remove an occasion of sin, and of whom it is to be feared that they may not be true to their resolution on account of its great difficulties. (_d_) With a penitent who has not confessed for a long time, has often fallen back into the old sins, and has not so far employed any diligence in the examination of his conscience; for, in this case, he runs great risk (as, by his own fault, the declaration of his sins is incomplete) of being invalidly absolved. But if such a penitent does not know how to examine his conscience better, the confessor must aid him, and absolve him if he considers him otherwise capable and worthy of it.

For the cases cited Lehmkuhl and Reuter give this good rule: If it is more difficult for the penitent to come to the confessor again than to fulfill his heavy obligation, let him be at once absolved, unless he has already promised to fulfill his obligation and has not kept his promise; but if it is more difficult for him to fulfill the obligation than to come again, let the absolution be deferred. Here, however, the confessor must have regard for the relative or subjective difficulty which his penitent finds in removing the occasion of sin, on account of rooted habit, or the strength of a violent passion. That he may overcome this, the penitent must be stimulated by postponement of absolution; otherwise he will easily forget his purpose and his promise.[689]

2. Postponement of absolution, even when it is not necessary, may sometimes be profitable to the penitent. Between the _certa_ and the _plane dubia dispositio_ there are degrees, and the case may thus occur that the disposition of the penitent is not so certain that absolution must be given at once; on the other hand, it may not be so doubtful that absolution ought to be refused or postponed.[690] This applies to penitents to whom, in view of their dispositions and other circumstances, absolution, strictly speaking, may be given, but to whom postponement is useful in helping them to recognize more clearly the enormity of sin and the necessity of improvement. Thus they are more effectually strengthened against relapse, their sorrow for sin becomes deeper, their purpose of amendment firmer. Here the confessor, as physician before God, must consider whether it is more profitable for the penitent to give him absolution or to defer it. In determining this, he must consider the character of the penitent, and the circumstances of time and place in which we live. “When faith has become cold, and the penitent can scarcely be moved to make a confession, it is dangerous to defer absolution; this itself, indeed, may be a ground for giving absolution to a doubtfully disposed penitent. Thus it is that the confessor in our times must be more inclined to give absolution than in former times when faith was lively.”[691] The confessor must not postpone absolution when postponement is hurtful to the penitent, and this is the case when holy communion cannot be omitted without exciting remark; or when an indulgence can be gained at that time; when the danger is foreseen that the penitent would be obliged to confess the same sins to another confessor, which would be an unfair burden; or when the penitent, by this proceeding, would be exposed to the risk of dying without absolution; or if he could not come again for a long time.

But absolution should be deferred only for a short time—three, five, or eight days. For a sufficiently disposed penitent the postponement should never be long, especially when it is uncertain whether he has perfect contrition, or whether he would gain real profit from it.[692] St. Alphonsus is of this opinion also in the case when relapse is interior, for instance, a bad habit. But if it be exterior, for example, an immediate occasion of sin, whether voluntary, or necessary, absolution is always to be deferred till the immediate voluntary occasion has been removed or the necessary occasion become remote. For the exterior cause has greater influence on the will than the evil habit or interior weakness.[693] Moreover, the interior cause is not so easily removed, simply because it is interior, and clings to a man.[694] Hence St. Alphonsus also gives this advice: “One should not, I think, deviate from the usual view, according to which absolution is not to be deferred in the case of a penitent who relapses from interior weakness, because for him more profit is to be hoped from the sacramental grace than from postponement of absolution.”

Finally the postponement _must not be very irksome_ to the penitent. For, on the one hand, the penitent, as sufficiently disposed, has a right to absolution, and, on the other, the postponement, if very displeasing to him, would, _per se loquendo_, not help him, or certainly not help him more than the absolution given to him at once. If, therefore, the penitent has a desire to receive absolution, he will be offended by the postponement. This desire manifests a very good will, which, when supported by the grace of the Sacrament, allows better things to be hoped for than would be the case if he were deprived of the sacramental grace. But that, _absolute_, absolution may be deferred in the case of a sufficiently disposed penitent, _even without his consent_, is demonstrated by the unanimous teaching of theologians[695] as also by the recommendations and practice of the saints.[696]

Moreover, the frequent awakening of love and sorrow is to be earnestly recommended to the penitent if absolution has been deferred, that he may thus be strengthened against temptation, and later, when better prepared, acquire more abundant graces. A penance is also to be imposed upon the penitent, and he must be reminded that it is not necessary for him to confess again the sins already confessed when he comes back to the same confessor. The latter can absolve, though not remembering the sins, if he has imposed a suitable penance previously and adds a new one.[697]

In conclusion, we may remark that the postponement of absolution depends entirely upon the judgment of the confessor, that neither general nor special rules can be laid down concerning it. Everything should be left to the discretion of the confessor, who is to be guided neither by the suggestions of his own private judgment nor by the example of others, but only by the unction of the Holy Ghost, imparted to the priest by study and prayer.[698]

Concerning postponement of absolution, Segneri remarks: “This remedy, when employed at the right time, produces great effects; like a burning coal it rouses the soul from that lethargy which threatened to become the sleep of death. Shamed and startled, the penitent recognizes the greatness of his misfortune, is placed upon his guard, and reflects upon his condition; if it finds him repentant, it increases his repentance in an indescribable manner, so that his sorrow, which before was transient and weak, and might easily have yielded to the simple allurements of some present object, now becomes strong and powerful and is able to withstand violent assault. And so this wholesome remedy is generally prescribed by the masters of asceticism,[699] and employed by circumspect confessors with much benefit, especially in those cases in which other remedies have proved ineffectual.”[700]