Chapter III: Penitents in Extreme Danger (2)

[52] Suarez, Disp. 20, Sect. 3, n. 8, and Disp. 58, Sect. 1, n. 3; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Cap. III. Sect. 1, n. 258; Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. art. 1, n. 174. Without satisfaction the Sacrament is there in its essence, but it is not quite perfect, as a man without legs is, indeed, a man essentially, but not a complete and perfect one. For this Sacrament was instituted for the _complete_ removal of sin, both guilt and punishment; thus it produces not only remission of the guilt and of the eternal punishment (in which may be included a portion of the temporal punishment), in consequence of the absolution, but also remission of the temporal punishment by the performance of the penance imposed; hence the satisfaction is a part of the Sacrament which produces these effects. Cf. Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 12, n. 40.

[53] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 258.

[54] Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. art. 1, n. 174.

[55] Theologians do not agree as to whether the acts of the penitent are in truth matter belonging to the inner constitution of the Sacrament—in the same way, for instance, as the washing with water is an intimate element of Baptism—or whether they belong to the Sacrament only in a wider sense; in other words, whether the acts of the penitent are _materia ex qua_ or only _materia circa quam_ of the Sacrament. The Scotists place the whole essence of the Sacrament in the absolution, and teach that the acts of the penitent are only _materia circa quam_ and _conditio sine qua non_, in such a manner, however, that without these the absolution cannot be sacramental; hence they have no hesitation in considering these acts essential. The Thomists, and by far the greater number of theologians, consider the acts of the penitent as _materia ex qua_, because they do in fact belong essentially to the constitution of the external act which produces the interior grace. This doctrine unquestionably carries the day, “unless,” as Lehmkuhl says, “one chooses to call the acts of the penitent _materia ex qua_, not as having their origin in the penitent, but as matter presented judicially to the confessor, a question about which I do not wish to argue, for that acts of the penitent—sorrow and accusation—are necessary, and should be elicited, is beyond all doubt.” Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 256. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1, n. 14.

[56] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. Cap. III. n. 171.

[57] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[58] Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 595 ss.; Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tr. VI. Disp. l, q. 4, cp. 5. Hence Alexander VII condemned the proposition (Prop. II. damnata) that sins omitted in confession, whether they have been forgotten, or not confessed on account of danger of death, or for any other reason, need not be mentioned again in confession.

[59] S. Alph. l. c. n. 427, dub. 2; Gury (Ed. Rom.), n. 418; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 17; Müller, l. c. Sect. 111; Aertnys, l. c. n. 172. Q. I.

[60] Extravag. com. l. 5. tit. 7 (de privileg.), c. I. Const. “Inter cunctas.”

[61] Cf. Ballerini, l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 263.

[62] Lugo, De Pœnit. d. 13, n. 73.

[63] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 263.

[64] Reuter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. Cap. III. Art. IV. n. 117.

[65] _At accusare se de venialibus in genere dicendo v. g. Accuso me de multis venialibus, nihil aliud exprimendo, probabilius non videtur licere extra casum necessitatis; tum quia est contra praxim Ecclesiæ, tum quia hoc Sacramentum est institutum per modum accusationis et judicii, quod per se loquendo fieri debet circa materiam saltem in specie certam et determinatam._ Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II. Cf. Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10; Reuter, Neoconfessarius, P. II. C. III. Art. 4, n. 117.

[66] De Sacr. Pœnit. c. 5, n. 14.

[67] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. c. II.

[68] Suarez, Disp. 23, Sect. I. n. 10.

[69] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 266.

[70] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Moral. II. n. 421.

[71] On this matter see the eminently practical hints of Reuter in his Neoconfessarius, l. c. n. 117. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 266, 267.

[72] Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 3.

[73] Trident. l. c.

[74] III. Q. 84, a. 3.

[75] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430, Dub. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 32.

[76] S. Thom. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI.

[77] The S. C. de Propag. Fid., being asked if a baptism is valid in which _te_ is omitted from the form, replied (July 5, 1841): _Non valere baptisma, ideoque iterandum_. The same holds for the Sacrament of Penance.

[78] S. Thom. III. Q. 84, n. 1 ad 3. Cf. Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI. Disp. II. Q. IV. c. 1.

[79] Lugo, l. c. Dist. 13, Sect. 7; Lacroix, l. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 645, etc.

[80] Cf. Decr. S. R. C. Feb. 27, 1847.

[81] Cf. Stotz, Tribunal Pœnitentiæ, L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 268: _etiam in frequentioribus confessionibus expedit non omittere_. Though Tappehorn in his Anleitung zur Verwaltung des heiligen Buss-Sakramentes, third edition, p. 67, suggests that when, in accordance with the permission of the Roman Ritual, the prayer is omitted, it may be said after the last confession over all those who have confessed, as at the first absolution (_in confessionibus frequentioribus_) the prayers _Misereatur_ and _Indulgentiam_ (the plural _vestri, vestris_, etc., being used) may be said over all who are present, we must observe that the Roman Ritual mentions nothing about this practice. Holzmann recommends that the _Passio Domini nostri_, etc., should be said as the penitent leaves the box.

[82] It is not _de necessitate_ to raise the hand at the _Indulgentiam_, to make the sign of the cross at the _in nomine Patris_, etc., or to uncover the head in giving the absolution; and distinguished authors maintain that it is not sinful to omit these ceremonies; it is advisable, however, in this matter to conform to custom. Scavini, Theol. Moral. Universa, Tom. IV. n. 76.

[83] Rt. Rom. De Sacram. Pœnit.

[84] Sess. XIV. cp. 3. Cf. S. Alph. n. 430, Dub. 4.

[85] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. cp. IV. art. 1; Mazzotta, Theol. Moral. Tract. VI. Disp. II. Q. IV. cp. I; Stotz, l. c. L. II. Q. III. art. 1, § 1, n. 215; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. I. cp. III. § 3, n. 270.

[86] The word _Deinde_ which connects the absolution from censures with that from sins appears, from the latest edition of the Roman Ritual as revised and approved by the S. R. C., to belong to the form (cf. Edit. I. post typicam Ratisbon, 1888, specialiter a S. R. C. recognita); formerly the word was printed in red and regarded as a rubric (cf. Edit. Romæ ex typogr. Prop. 1876). As to the _forma deprecatoria_ which, according to Frank (Bussdisciplin), was in use till the twelfth century, see Frank, B. 5, K. 4; Morinus, De Pœnitent.; Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten, Bd. 5, Teil 1, K. 6, § 3; S. Thom. III. Q. 84, a. 3; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 269, nota 2.

[87] With regard to this matter Clement VIII in Const. data d. 20 Jun. 1602 condemned the following proposition: It is permitted to confess one’s sins to an absent confessor by means of a letter or a messenger, and to receive absolution from the same confessor though still absent. Moreover, he forbade under pain of excommunication any one to teach this doctrine or to make use of it as a probable opinion. The condemnation of this proposition by the Pope involves evidently an absolute command, and the conclusion is fairly drawn that the confession made to an absentee, as well as the absolution given to an absentee, are both illicit and invalid; otherwise one might in a case of extreme necessity allow the practice. The Clementine decree is to be taken not only _collectively_, that is, as legislating for the case where both confession and absolution are conveyed by absentees, but also _disjunctively_, that is, as legislating for the case where confession has been made to an absentee, the absolution being given when the penitent presents himself, and _vice versa_. This was decreed by Paul V, July 14, 1605. More information may be found in Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. pp. 141-143 (Rom. 1879). Cf. Reuter, Neoconfessar. P. l. n. 31; Müller, l. c. L. III. T. II. § 132; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 32 s. Absolution from censure, apart from the absolution from sin, may be conveyed by writing and the presence of the penitent is not required; similarly censures may be inflicted on one who is absent. Without grave necessity, however, the absolution from censures ought not to be given in the absence of the penitent. S. Alph. L. VII. n. 117.

[88] S. Alph. l. c. n. 429.

[89] Though all theologians agree in requiring the moral presence of the penitent for valid absolution, they vary in assigning the limits of that presence. Many theologians suppose that a penitent stationed at twenty paces from the priest may be regarded as morally present; this distance is thought by St. Alphonsus to be too great.

[90] S. Alph. l. c. VI. n. 429.

[91] The priest is, however, strongly advised not to be too nervous in exercising his office for a penitent struck down by an infectious disease; confidence in God joined to a little prudent foresight and courage will be more useful to him than a cowardly nervousness.

[92] Cf. Reuter, Neoconfess. l. c. n. 31; Scavini, Theologia Moralis Universa, Tom IV. n. 77; Müller, l. c. § 132; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tom. V. cp. IV. n. 215, Q. 6. In accordance with this teaching we must solve the question raised whether absolution given by telephone is valid. (Aloys. Sabetti, S.J., in Collegio SS. Cordis ad Woodstock, Th. Mor. Prof., Compend. Theol. Moral. Gury ... ad breviorem formam redactum, etc. Benziger, 1884; Alphons. Eschbach e Cong. S. Spiritus et Imm. Cord. M. Rectoris Sem. Gall. Romæ, La Confession par téléphone; Melata, Manuale Theol. Moralis, De Pœnit. cp. II. art. I.) It is certain that the use of the telephone for giving absolution is _extra casum necessitatis_ a grave sin because it introduces into the administration of the Sacraments a practice which is novel and liable to misuse. The case is limited to the question whether in urgent need the use of such a method can be tolerated—if, for instance, a member of a secret society, seized with a dangerous illness and anxious to be reconciled with the Church, but debarred by his associates from the sight of a priest, could make use of the telephone placed in his room to call up a friendly priest and make his confession to him and receive absolution through the telephone. Eschbach, in his work mentioned above, teaches that such an absolution is quite invalid. Sabetti acknowledges that the solution of the question involves many difficulties, and that it ought to be submitted to the decision of the Holy See; he appears, however, to incline to an affirmative answer. He says: Though it is true that moral presence and a connection between matter and form are necessary in every Sacrament, yet this exigency varies. Since Penance has been instituted on the lines of an earthly tribunal, in which judge and accused must be so far present to one another as to be able to speak together, the absolution in the given case cannot be said for certain to be invalid, since one might always argue that the priest and the penitent could speak together. Against this, it may be objected that the illustration of an earthly tribunal is not quite applicable, since here the presence of the accused is not necessary, for he may be condemned _in contumaciam_. To the question whether _in casu extremæ necessitatis dari possit absolutio per telephonium_? the Pœnitentiaria replied, July 1, 1884: _Nihil esse respondendum_.—Bucceroni, Enchiridion Morale (Romæ, 1887), p. 119.

[93] Scavini, Theologia Moralis Universa, Tom. III. n. 479 (Ed. Par. 1867).

[94] Cf. Gury, II. l. c. n. 432, 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 27.

[95] Lehmkuhl, P. II. L. I. Tr. V. Sect. I. n. 272.

[96] Cf. Gury, II. n. 434.

[97] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 25; Stotz, l. c. L. II. Q. III. art. I. § 4.

[98] Cf. Declar. S. Inquis. 17 Juni 1715, 17 Dec. 1868, 20 Jul. 1859.

[99] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432, etc.

[100] Colletus, “_acerrimus probabilismi impugnator_.”

[101] Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 217; Concina, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus, _in severas sententias generatim deflectens_.

[102] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 273.

[103] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432; Lacroix, L. VI. p. 2, n. 1797; Mazzotta, Theol. Moralis, Tract. IV. Disp. II. Q. IV. cp. II.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. I. n. 27; Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 217; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 273; Gury, l. c. II. n. 435.

[104] Compare S. Alph. De Sacram. in genere, n. 28, 29, 57, and De Conscientia, n. 49; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. I. n. 27: “hæc est _sententia certa_, licere in necessitate administrare sacramenta sub conditione.”

[105] He says: “Necessity is but very seldom a ground for giving absolution to one who is doubtfully disposed; for a dying man, with only an instant to spare, and in the possession of his faculties, has only himself to blame if he cannot produce an act of perfect contrition; it is an article of faith that God never refuses the means of salvation if they are asked with confidence, and for such a soul perfect contrition is a most necessary condition for salvation. If, therefore, he has only doubtful contrition, it is his own fault, and in such case he is not merely doubtfully, but certainly, unworthy, and cannot in consequence be absolved. There remain, then, only the cases in which the dying man cannot express his sentiments even by signs, and then the principle holds: _sacramenta propter homines_.”

[106] Gousset, Lettres à M. le Curé ... Lettre 8. Cf. Gury, l. c. II. Tract. de Sacram. Pœnit. P. I. n. 430-439; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. I. nn. 27 et 26, where he signalizes these objections as _inanes objectiones nonnullorum, etiam recentiorum in Gallia, qui antiqua præjudicia janseniana incaute ebiberunt_.

[107] Sess. XIV. cp. 4.

[108] Compare on this subject the lengthy discussions of Suarez, De Pœnitentia, Disp. 3, Sect. 2; Lugo, De Pœnitentia, Disp. 4, Sect. 1; Reuter, Theol. Moral. P. IV. n. 243; and particularly the very lucid exposition of Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. (Roma, 1879) cap. IV. De act. pœnit. art. I. § 1, p. 214 sq.

[109] L. c. L. VI. n. 435. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. de Contritione, n. 14.

[110] Stotz, Tribunal Pœnitent. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. art. II.

[111] This is the distinction given by the Council of Trent in Sess. 14, cp. 4: Perfect contrition is very aptly and simply called _contritio_ in its restricted meaning, while imperfect contrition is called _attritio_. The figure is taken from solid bodies which, when pounded to dust, are _contrita_, but when broken into fragments are _attrita_. “The heart of man may be compared to wood for kindling. By contrition (_contritio_ and _attritio_) the heart is rubbed; as the rubbing is increased, the heart, like wood, becomes drier and warmer, till there bursts forth a flame; this flame is sanctifying grace; and just as fire consumes wood, so charity consumes the crushed heart (_cor contritum_) and burns out its sin.” (Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heilig. Sakramenten, II. Bd. Fünft. Teil, Zweit. Abschnitt, Erst. Hauptst. § 7, S. 82.)

[112] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disput. V. Sect. 9, n. 132; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. l. c. th. 21, p. 223.

[113] Since perfect contrition arises from perfect love, it is of great importance, after considering the infinite goodness and dignity of God, to make an act of love and then an act of sorrow. The synod assembled in 1725 under Benedict XIII offers a form of contrition which was composed for the use of children: “My Lord and my God, who art infinitely good and holy, I love Thee above all things and repent with my whole heart of having offended Thee so often by my sins. I detest them above all other evils. I humbly beg Thy forgiveness, and I promise with the help of Thy grace never more to offend Thee.” (Collect. Lacensis Conc., Tom. I. p. 458, Fribourg, 1870.) Another form is given by St. Alphonsus: “My God, Thou art infinitely good; therefore I love Thee above all things; and because I love Thee I am sorry for all the sins which I have committed against Thee, O infinite Goodness. My God, I will never more sin against Thee; I will rather die than offend Thee again.” Perfect contrition might be aroused also in the following manner: “O Heart of Jesus, most worthy of all love, I love Thee above all things, and therefore I am sorry for all my sins and detest them above all things, because by them I have offended Thee and incurred Thy anger. I am firmly resolved never more to offend Thee.” (Müller, Theol. Moral. l. c. § 112.)

[114] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 106, a. 5.

[115] Compare Deharbe, Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, § 6, pp. 139-179.

[116] See Perfect Contrition by Von den Driesch, translated by Father J. Slater, S.J.

[117] Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. Lib. I. Tract. I. cp. III. § 1.

[118] Deharbe, Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, p. 158.

[119] Cf. S. Thomas, Supplem. Q. 5. a. 3; S. Alphons. Lib. VI. n. 441; Gury, II. n. 453; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, Thes. XXIV. p. 262 sq.

[120] Cat. Roman. P. II. cp. 5, n. 27.

[121] Compare Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakramenten, Fünfter Teil, Zweiter Abschnitt, § 7, III. Aufl. S. 71 ff.; Deharbe, Die vollkommene Liebe Gottes, §§ 2, 3, 6, 8; Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. II. Sect. 3 et Disp. IV. Sect. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 35-42; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœn. Thes. IV, V; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. L. I. Tr. I. n. 318.

[122] Sess. XIV. cp. 4.

[123] The proof is well developed by P. Palmieri, S.J., Tract, de Pœnitent. Theses XXII et XXIII, p. 224 (Romæ, 1879). Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. QQ. 23-27.

[124] I. John iv. 16.

[125] Supplem. Q. 5, a. 3. _Quantumcunque parvus sit dolor, dummodo ad contritionis rationem sufficiat, omnem culpam delet._

[126] Lib. VI. n. 441.

[127] S. Thom. Supplem. Q. 5. a. 2 ad 1. _Contritio vera non fuit, nisi propositum confitendi habuerit annexum; quod debet ad effectum reduci etiam propter præceptum quod est de confessione datum._

[128] John xiv. 23.

[129] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 437, Dub. 4.

[130] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 275; Müller, l. c. § 113, 2.

[131] S. Thom. III. Q. 89, a. 4; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. X. Sect. 2.

[132] Sess. VI. c. 14; Sess. XIV. c. 8 et can. 12.

[133] S. Bonavent. Theol. verit. L. VI. c. 24. S. Thomas, Suppl. Q. 5, a. 2. Ballerini, De Pœnit. L. VI. c. 6.

[134] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. l. c., from which we infer that penance is necessary for salvation _necessitate medii_.

[135] Ballerini deals excellently with this point in his Op. Theol. Mor. in cp. III. De præc. et oblig. confession, n. 138 ss. Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 15, Sect. 6, n. 7; Sporer, De Pœn. n. 186.

[136] In Ezechiel, Lib. I. Hom. 11, n. 24.

[137] I. II. Q. 109, a. 8.

[138] Lib. VI. n. 437.

[139] Tract. 16, cp. 2, n. 10.

[140] The question raised by theologians as to whether it is a distinct sin to put off eliciting the act of perfect contrition and reconciliation with God, must be answered in the affirmative, for Holy Scripture enjoins us not to delay our conversion or to put off penance from day to day, because the anger of God may come upon us when we are so unprepared (cf. Ecclus. v. 8, 9, where, however, no express command is laid down), and because the _præceptum caritatis_ which we ought to obey _sæpius in vita_ calls for an act of contrition.

Aertnys reconciles this affirmative opinion of Lugo, Suarez, St. Alphonsus, etc., with the opposite view of Navarro, Vasquez, Soto, etc., declaring the latter to be probable _per se loquendo_, while the former is true _de obligatione per accidens_, so that the sinner who fails to elicit an act of perfect contrition within a reasonable period is not to be acquitted of incurring a new mortal sin. Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. 3, n. 168. St. Alphonsus expressly condemns the view of Concina and Roncaglia that a delay of a week is a considerable period; and similarly he rejects the opinion of Laymann, Lugo, the Salmanticenses, Elbel, etc., who maintain that sin has been incurred only by the neglect of contrition for a whole year. This latter view he cannot accept, even if there were no other reason than the duty of eliciting an act of love once in the month. Finally, he rejects the opinion of some theologians that a sinner must elicit acts of contrition on feast-days in order to fulfill the object of sanctifying the festival; the general answer is made that the object of any given precept does not fall under the precept. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. III. n. 1035 ss.

[141] Müller, l. c. Lib. III. I. II. § 115, I; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 278; Aertnys, l. c. n. 168, Q. I.

[142] H. A. l. c. n. 11, Lib. VI. n. 437, Dub. 2; Suarez, Disp. 15, Sect. 4, n. 19; Lacroix, Lib. II. n. 142, etc.

[143] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5, which is directed against Luther’s doctrine that all fear of punishment is wicked, and that imperfect contrition, founded on the fear of hell, by making a man a hypocrite, makes him a greater sinner. Cf. Bellarmin, De Pœn. Lib. II. cp. 2; Möhler, Symbolism, § 33. Luther’s error was in part adopted by Baius, Jansenius, and Quesnel. Cf. Prop. 60, 61, 62 et 67 Quesnellii a P. M. Clem. XI in Bulla “Unigenitus,” proscript; Prop. 15 et 16 damn. ab Alexandro VIII, in which some of Quesnel’s errors are again condemned.

[144] Cf. Bellarmin, l. c. Lib. II. cp. 17; Perrone, De Pœnitent. n. 46 s.; Ripalda, De Ente supernaturali, Tom. IV. Disp. 22, Sect. 4-11, et Lib. VI. Disp. ult. n. 458-460; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, pp. 280-353 (Rom. 1879); Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. De sufficientia attritionis, n. 42-50.

[145] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 440; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I. a. VI; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 176; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. Thes. XXV. p. 286 ss.

[146] II. II. Q. 19, a. 2-9.

[147] II. II. Q. 19, a. 2; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. I.

[148] Pallavicini, Hist. Concil. Trid. L. XIII. c. 10. Palmieri tries to weaken the force of this argument; see Tract. de Pœnit. Thesis XXX. p. 331 ss.

[149] “They [adults] dispose themselves for justification when, being urged and supported by God’s grace, receiving faith by hearing, they approach God of their own free will, believing that to be true which is revealed and promised by God, and especially this, that the sinner is justified by God through His grace, through the redemption in Jesus Christ; and while they acknowledge their sins, they are led by fear of the divine justice, of which they have a wholesome dread, to the consideration of God’s mercy, and thence are encouraged to hope, so that they trust that God will be gracious to them for Christ’s sake, and they will begin to love Him as the source of all justice.” Sess. VI. cp. 6; cf. can. 3: “If any one say that a man without previous inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without His help can believe, hope, love, and do penance as is required in order to attain the grace of justification, a. s.”

[150] Cf. _Proœmium_ to the Fourth Session _de s. Pœnitent. sacram._: “Although the œcumenical ... synod in its decisions on justification (Sess. VI.) has repeatedly spoken in the same urgent manner of the Sacrament of Penance on account of its intimate connection with the matter in hand, yet none the less,” etc.

[151] Sess. XIV. cp. IV.

[152] The words at the beginning of the fourth chapter: “_non solum cessationem a peccato et vitæ novæ propositum et inchoationem et_ ...” need not of necessity be understood of perfect contrition, which is discussed later. In this place it is more likely that the question of contrition in general is under discussion.

[153] Compare § 12.

[154] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 442. Objic. III; Scavini, Theol. Moralis Universa, T. IV. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. I. n. 23; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. cp. III. § 2; Aertnys, l. c. n. 177; Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sect. II. cp. I, § 2, n. 288 et 289; Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre von den heil. Sakrament. II. Bd. Fünfter Teil, Zweiter Abschn. Erst. Hauptst. § 7, p. 86 ff. III. Aufl.; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. Tr. II. § 114; Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral. § 243; Tappehorn, Anleitung zur Verwalt. des Buss-Sakramentes, § 11, p. 89 ff. This doctrine was adopted by all the schools after the Council of Trent, as Benedict XIV affirms, De Syn., etc., Lib. VII. c. 13; and Alexander VII published in a decree of May 5, 1657, that this view _hodie inter scholasticos communis videtur_.

[155] Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Adnotat. n. 188 et 189.

[156] S. Thom. De Spe, a. 3; and St. Francis de Sales writes: “La pénitence nait dedans l’amour et plusieurs fois la pénitence venant en nos esprits l’amour vient en la pénitence.” Theot. L. II. c. 20.

[157] Reuter, S.J., Theol. Moral. P. IV. n. 2, § 3; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 442 in fine.

[158] Compare Trident. Sess. XIV. cp. 4 et can. 5.

[159] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. De attritione existimata, n. 51 ss.

[160] Matt. xv. 19.

[161] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 449; Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cap. II. art. I. n. 12; Lacroix, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 666; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. De attritione, n. 77 ss. Cf. Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 9, Sect. 1; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 4, n. 93.

[162] Cf. Busenbaum, Theol. Moral. Tract. IV. (de Sacram. pœnit.) c. 1, d. 11, resolv. 1 et 2; Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sect. II. § 2, n. 284; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.

[163] Theol. Mor. p. IV. n. 247.

[164] Cf. Vasquez, De Pœnit. Q. 86, Dub. 4, de proposito; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. De Sacram. Pœn Sect. II. § 2, n. 284.

[165] Theol. Moral. l. c. n. 286; similarly Aertnys, l. c. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. cp. I. n. 141; Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 4, Sect. 2, n. 7.

[166] S. Alph. l. c. n. 439; Reuter, Theol. Mor. p. II. n. 36 et p. IV. n. 247.

[167] De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect. 2, n. 10. Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 5, n. 137; S. Alph. L. VI. n. 443; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 105-110.

[168] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. (Sacr. Pœnit.) Sect. II. § 2, n. 287; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. III. art. 2, n. 179; Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. 1; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. Tract. De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 452, Q. VII; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. 3, cp. 3, § 1, n. 2.

[169] Ezechiel xviii. 21.

[170] C. 22.

[171] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 449, Dub. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. De dolore venialiam, n. 96-105.

[172] Suarez (De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect. 6, n. 7) and Lugo (Disp. 14, n. 48) teach clearly that a penitent who confesses (venial) sins for which there is no sorrow, along with others without indicating the known defect of sorrow, would sin venially by mixing up proper and improper matter. Their view, however, is singular and is combated by other theologians. In particular Mazzotta (l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. § 2, v. f.) gives the correct solution to the objection that to confess venial sins for which there is no sorrow, is a lie and a nullifying of the Sacrament, because the act of confessing these sins is _exercite_ a declaration of sorrow for them. He replies that, even granting the objection, it is in any case a lie in a matter of less moment, and so at the most a venial sin, whence there can be no nullifying of the Sacrament. He denies also that such confession is a lie, for, in accordance with the feeling and practice of the faithful, the penitent by such confession of venial sins states _exercite_ that he is sorry for _some_ of them and wishes to be absolved; with regard to the rest he reveals them for his greater humiliation and shame, or in order to disclose the state of his soul, just as he may also reveal his evil inclinations and irregular desires, though they are not sins. Even when a penitent is sorry only for the greater sins, and yet says at the end of his confession, “For these and all my other sins I am sorry,” he tells no lie, for these words have no other meaning in their ordinary acceptance than this, that he is sorry for all the sins from which he can and wants to be absolved. It is just the same when a man confesses many venial sins and is sorry only on account of their great number, for he can easily see a peculiar malice in the habit of committing such venial sins, and on that account can more easily excite himself to sorrow for them. Mazzotta, l. c.; Lugo and Suarez, l. c.; Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. Lib. I. Pars II. Q. I. art. 4, n. 20; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 290, 291.

[173] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 3, art. 1; Stotz, Tribunal Pœnit. l. c. art. IV. n. 16, 17; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 110.

[174] S. Thom. Quodlib. 1, art. 9 (_non modo imprudentiæ sed stultitiæ eum morem arguit_); S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 433; Stotz, l. c.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 116 s.

[175] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 3, art. 2; Martin, Lehrbuch der kath. Moral. § 243.

[176] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 111; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœn. Sect. II. cp. I. § 2, n, 285, 3. On the subject of the _dolor quo non doleas_ see Ballerini, l. c. n. 114 s.

[177] This is in accordance with the Roman Ritual, which, Tit. III. cp. I (Ordo ministrandi Sacr. Pœnit. n. 17), says: “After the confessor has heard the confession ... he should try by earnest exhortation to move the penitent to contrition.”

[178] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 447; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I: _an dolor ordinandus ad sacramentum_, n. 120-129; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. II. cp. I. § 1, n. 280; Gury-Ballerini, Compend. Theol. Mor. Tract. de Sacr. Pœn. art. I. § 1, n. 447, Q. 7; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 20, Sect. 4, n. 29; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 37-40; Vindic. Alph. p. 935, n. 108 et pp. 411-418; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. III. art. II. n. 179, Q. 4.

[179] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 446; H. Ap. Tract. 16, n. 20.

[180] Cf. Tamburini, Method. conf. Lib. I. cp. 3, § 4; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. II. cp. I. § 1, n. 281.

[181] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. l. c. n. 448; Baller. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. n. 129 ss.; Aertnys, l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 282; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. III. q. I. § 3.

[182] Müller (l. c. Lib. III. Tract. II. § 116) founds his advice as to renewing the act of sorrow on the rule _in praxi tutius est sequendum_, since it is a case of securing the validity of a Sacrament. He is in error, however, for the other (affirmative) opinion hardly deserves to be considered probable on account of the very weak grounds on which it rests. We must at the same time remember that the penitent in this case is certainly justified, and that he has fulfilled the divine precept of demanding direct absolution for all his sins when he confesses his sins in accordance with the first opinion.

[183] Compare § 42; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. This doctrine is pushed still farther, and it is taught that a man may be absolved several times from sins, even though he has confessed them or other sins two or three times without renewing his contrition, so long as he has not revoked the contrition, and so long as it remains habitual and virtual. This is not to be understood as though the absolution may be given after the lapse of weeks and months on the strength of a single act of contrition; this would be a very doubtful proceeding, since the virtual continuance of the sorrow which is required is not to be understood of the mere habitual disposition of the heart, but only of the virtual existence which may still intentionally unite the sorrow with the absolution. Cf. Tamburini, l. c. Lib. I. cp. 2, § 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 282.

[184] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 447, Nota a.

[185] Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. I. Adnot.

[186] Cf. Stotz, l. c. art. VI. n. 114.

[187] Cf. Scavini, l. c. Adnotat. n. 191, and Trucchi, Metodo practico per la facile e sicura amministrat. del Sacr. della Penit.

[188] Sess. XIV. cp. IV.

[189] De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 52 s.

[190] Ballerini points out particularly that the older theologians, as Petrus Lombardus, St. Thomas, Blessed Albert, Scotus, Durandus, were quoted without reason as upholders of this view, for, though they insisted on the necessity of some sort of purpose of amendment, they made no distinction between a formal and a virtual purpose. Cf. Bellarmin, De Pœnit. Lib. II. cp. 6. Moreover, Suarez, Cajetan, Bonacina, Henriquez, and Gregory of Valentia are wrongly quoted in favor of this view; they taught the very opposite. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ, l. c. ad n. 462.

[191] The purpose of amendment must be universal, and, as we shall show later, with a universality distinct from that of the contrition. If the sorrow proceeded from a particular motive which _nec actu nec virtute_ extended to the other sins, it is clear that the resolution to amend implied in such sorrow could hardly be universal. If, for example, a man conceived sorrow for the sin of impurity only on account of the peculiar ugliness of that vice, the purpose of amendment contained in such a sorrow would suffice indeed so far as it applied to impurity, but not for other sins, because the motive is a particular one not extending to other sins. If, then, the sorrow is based on some particular motive, an explicit purpose of amendment must be made extending to all sins.

If the sorrow proceed from a general motive applicable to all sins (if a man, for example, is sorry for having committed a serious theft because it is a grave offense against God), it is impossible that he should be willing to offend God again by any other grave sin, for in consequence of his act of contrition he hates and detests whatever offends God. Whoever heartily detests his sins from a universal motive will be slow ever to fall into them again; for no man will do that which he hates as an offense against God. “But when the Council of Trent speaks of the purpose of amendment, it speaks of it in the same way as of the resolution to go to confession and make satisfaction, and this need not be explicit. As it is sufficient that this resolution be virtual, it is also enough to make a virtual resolution of reforming one’s life and sinning no more; it is always a real resolution, though it be only a ‘virtual one.’ And since eminent authorities interpret the Council of Trent in this manner, we may without misgiving follow their decision.” Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. II. art. III n. 88 ss.

[192] Ballerini, Notæ ad n. 462, pp. 348-356 (Ed. Romana, 1887), and Opus Theolog. Morale, l. c. (_An sufficiat propositum virtuale_), n. 143-155.

[193] This is also the doctrine of the Council held at Rome in 1725 under Benedict XIII in the Lateran Basilica.

[194] Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 20, Sect. 4, n. 33.

[195] S. Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. n. 450.

[196] The Turin edition of his Moral Theology defends the doctrine held in the present work, and shows that the holy Doctor was always expending labor on the text of the Moral Theology and correcting it up to the end of his life. Aertnys, moreover, declares (appealing to S. Alph. Theol. Moral. Lib. I. n. 53, Lib. III. n. 700, and Lib. VI. n. 505) that there is no obligation of repeating the confession; and Marcus (Institut. Moral. Alphons. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. cp. I. art. II. n. 1680) adopts Scavini’s view: _In praxi_ no one need be disturbed in this matter, since it can hardly happen that a really contrite penitent will omit the formal purpose of amendment. Müller (l. c. § 117) requires for the validity of the confession a formal resolution to amend, and maintains that confessions made without the formal resolution are to be repeated.

[197] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 298. Cf. Stotz, l. c. n. 92.

[198] Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 32, Sect. 2, n. 2.

[199] Cajetan, Card. Sum. V. Confess. ad 12 qualit.

[200] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 7, n. 238.

[201] Compare Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœnit, Sect. II. cp. I. § 3, n. 295.

[202] S. Thomas, III. Q. 84, a. 10 ad 4. Compare S. Bonaventure in IV. Sent. Dist. 14, p. 1, d. 4; S. Alph. Praxis Confess. cp. 1, n. 20; Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 451.

[203] Tit. III. cp. I. De Sacr. Pœn. n. 19.

[204] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459.

[205] Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Pœn. n. 451. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 162.

[206] Medulla Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Sacr. Pœn. cp. 1.

[207] Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 1822.

[208] This may be regarded as the _communis theologorum doctrina_; indeed many theologians (St. Alphonsus mentions among others _loco citato_ Laymann, Sporer, Suarez, Henriquez) hold that a penitent who believes (_credat_) that he will fall again can always and absolutely be considered as being in good disposition. They do not mean by this a despair of reform, but rather a grave fear which may be consistent with a firm hope in the aids of grace and a fixed determination of never sinning. Besides, as Lacroix explains, the phrase _si credat_ must be taken in a mitigated sense and be understood of the misgiving natural to a careful person. It is the duty of the penitent to take courage and free himself from this misgiving. Compare Lacroix, l. c., and Gury-Ballerini, l. c. Tract. de Pœn. P. II. cp. I. art. II. n. 461, Nota a, and Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 159 ss.

[209] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c.

[210] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 451; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. II. Q. II. art. V. n. 102 s.

[211] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 4; S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 451.

[212] The reason for this doctrine is very clearly put in Lugo’s _Responsa Moralia_, Lib. I. dub. 29, where he answers the difficulty how a man may make an efficacious and sufficient act of contrition with respect to one species of sin, excluding other species. The learned author remarks:—

1. That if a man repent of his sins from a universal and general motive, he embraces of necessity all his sins in this act of contrition. If, then, such a motive excite a man to repentance, he is of necessity moved to shun all sin.

2. Such motives, however,—and this is a point well worth noticing,—may excite contrition in a more restricted manner; for instance, the graver the sins, the more they displease and offend God; hence a man may be led to hate this excess of wickedness. In this case “the motive of the contrition is not the offense of God as such, but that gravity of the offense which is not found in other venial sins.”

3. All this being now assumed, the difficulty remains whether a penitent, for instance, who is contrite for slight lies, must at least virtually repent of other venial sins of another species, which are graver than, or at least as grave as, that class of lies, or whether he can have contrition sufficient for sacramental absolution for those lies without repenting virtually of venial sins of another species as great or greater. This may be the case if the formal motive of sorrow is a particular one; for instance here the hatred which God, the Eternal Truth, must have for lies. It does not hold if the sorrow proceed from the motive of penance, for we could not hate anything as offensive to God and at the same time be ready to offend Him in other matters. The same holds true if we are really sorry for sin through fear of hell-fire. “There are occasions, however, when the motive of sorrow may be particular—when, for instance, a man is sorry for the irreverence done to God because it is an injury to His divine Majesty (such a motive is called a motive of religion); he is not obliged even virtually to repent of graver or equally grave venial sins of another species, except they involve an irreverence equally incompatible with the virtue of religion.”

Lugo also shows that a similar case happens when a man repents of some particular species of sin, _e.g._ of lying, not on account of the disobedience to God which every sin includes, but on account of the disobedience involved in transgressing a special command of God, or rather on account of the opposition of these sins to the special law of God which forbids us to violate the truth.

Moreover, he adds that the same holds true in regard of the special temporal sufferings which God inflicts for particular species of sins, _e.g._ disrespect to parents.

[213] S. Alph. Praxis Confessarii, n. 71; Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 449. Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, a. 1.

[214] Compare above, § 3.

[215] Sess. XIV. cp. 2.

[216] Compare § 46.

[217] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. I. § 2, n. 313, 314; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I. art. 3, n. 457.

[218] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 495-497; H. Apost. Tr. 16, n. 28.

[219] See §§ 47, 54.

[220] Philothea, Part I. Chap. 4.

[221] Suarez, Disp. 28; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. I. Q. II. art. II.

[222] Ecclus. vi. 14 ss.

[223] Compare Philothea, _ibid._

[224] Cf. Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. I. Q. II. art. II. n. 116-124.

[225] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[226] Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus.

[227] Cf. Declar. S. C. S. Off. 28 Feb. 1633 et 10 Feb. 1668; item S. C. Prop. Fid. 1633 in Collectan. S. Sedis, n. 476-478.

[228] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. XV. Sect. V; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 196.

[229] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 328.

[230] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 429, 493; Suarez, Opusc., Lugo, Coninck, etc., Konings, Theol. Mor. T. II. Tract. De Sacram. Pœn. cp. II. art. II. n. 1358.

[231] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479; H. A. n. 35; Gury-Ballerini (l. c. II. n. 503) and Lehmkuhl (l. c. n. 328) object to binding the dumb to a written confession; _a fortiori_ the confessor may refrain from putting questions in writing with a view of making the confession more complete. If, however, a dumb person desire to confess in writing, the confessor is at liberty to comply with his wish.

[232] The following well-known definition is much like the above: the confession is materially entire in which nothing is wanting which _per se loquendo_ ought to be confessed, _i.e._ when nothing is wanting which _de se_ forms the necessary matter of confession; the confession is formally entire when nothing is wanting in the accusation through the fault of the penitent. Cf. Konings, l. c. n. 1359.

Moralists are not of one mind on the definition of formal and material integrity; some understand by material integrity the avowal of all mortal sins not yet confessed which occur to the mind (after a careful examination of conscience, as Müller expressly adds, l. c. 120), since they form the _materia necessaria sacramenti et confessionis_; formal integrity, on the other hand, consists in the avowal of all mortal sins which here and now (_hic et nunc_), taking all the circumstances into consideration, can and ought to be confessed. Thus Gury, l. c. Edit. Romana (Ballerini) et Edit. Lugd. (Dumas), n. 468 (where, however, the author is not quite consistent, cf. n. 470); while on the other hand the Edit. Ratisb. as also Laymann, De Pœnitent. cp. 8, n. 5, and Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. III. Q. II. art. IV; Scavini, l. c. Tom. IV. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. II. art. II. n. 38, have the above definition. We give the preference to it on grounds which will appear in the course of the treatise; moreover, it is more common and is in harmony with the teaching of the Council of Trent. The words which St. Alphonsus employs in the definition of material integrity seem to favor the latter view. Cf. Lib. VI. n. 465.

[233] Sess. XIV. cp. 5, De Confessione.

[234] Sess. XIV. can. 7.

[235] L. c. cp. 5.

[236] Trid. l. c. cp. 5. Compare Palmieri, l. c. Thes. XXXIII; Gury, l. c. II. n. 469; Aertnys, l. c. n. 185; Lehmkuhl, l. c. cp. II. (Confessio) art. I. n. 302.

[237] It is to be noted that in speaking of the classification of sins we abstract from the _physical_, we confine ourselves to the _moral_ species which indicates the peculiar _malice_ of the sin; for instance, the ordeal by fire is _physically_ distinct from the ordeal by water, but _morally_ they are in the same species, because the malice is the same in both sins. Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, Sect. 2, n. 3.

[238] Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[239] Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp. II. art. I. § 2, n. 307.

[240] _Cum actu interno a quo procedit facit unum complete individuum in genere moris, actus enim externus se habet veluti materia, internus veluti forma unius operationis humanæ._ Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. III.

[241] Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. Tract. V. De Confess. Q. VI. n. 317; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. III.

[242] The effect of a mortal sin is _omne id quod consequitur ad totum peccatum completum in individuo_; _e.g._ the wish to kill is externally completed _in esse peccati_ by the giving of poison; the death which ensues is called the _effectus peccati_.

[243] Mazzotta, l. c. cp. III. with Lugo, Salm., Tamb., etc. Cf. Marc, P. Cl., Institut. Moral. Alphons. Tom. II. P. III. Tract. V. De Pœnit. n. 1692.

[244] This is _communis theologorum doctrina_. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 466; Reuter, l. c. Tract. V. De Confess. n. 312; Lugo, Disp. 16, Sect. 2.

[245] Lehmk. l. c. cp. II. Confessio, art. I. § 1, n. 305.

[246] S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 20. Compare Casus Bened. XIV, pro anno 1744, mens. Jun. cas. 3. A man confesses that for a month he has been harboring evil thoughts against his friend, and during the same time entertaining impure thoughts about a woman; the question is put whether such a confession is sufficiently complete. The answer is given _distinguendo_: 1. If the penitent has occasionally recalled his unfriendly wishes or impure desires, and has not fallen into them very often, the confession is not sufficient. 2. If he has never retracted in either case and has fallen frequently into those sins every day, the statement will suffice as it stands.

[247] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, n. 573; Sporer, Theolog. Moral. Sacram. P. III. cp. III. Q. IV. n. 452.

[248] Lugo, l. c. n. 574; Sporer, l. c. n. 453; Reuter, l. c. n. 313.

[249] Lugo, l. c. n. 575; Sporer, l. c. n. 453.

[250] Cf. Lugo, l. c., and Sporer, l. c.

[251] Disp. 16, n. 146 et seq.

[252] L. c. 1060, etc.

[253] De matrimon. L. 7, Disp. 27 et seq.

[254] Editio in Germania V (Ratisb. 1874), P. II. Tract. de Confess. n. 492.

[255] Gury-Ballerini, Ed. IX (Romæ, 1887), P. II. Tract. de Confess. n. 492, Q. 12 et P. I. n. 286.

[256] L. c. Tract. V. De Sacram. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confess. art. I. Sect. 2, n. 310, and P. I. L. I. Tract. II. cp. II. art. II. n. 385, and cp. III. art. II. n. 455.

[257] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 88, art. 3; Suarez, l. c. n. 1 et seq., Tract. VI. l. 5, c. 3, n. 2 et seq.

[258] Cf. Gury, ed. Ratisbon, l. c.

[259] Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 298.

[260] Gury-Ballerini, I. n. 286, and Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 466 sqq.

[261] Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 213 sqq.

[262] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Tract. V. Sacr. Pœn. Sect. II. cp. II. Conf. art. I. § 2, n. 308, and Th. M. Gen. Tract. I. cp. III. § 2, n. 31.

[263] Propos. 58 damn.

[264] See § 48, The Duty of the Confessor with regard to asking Questions. Compare §§ 64, 65.

[265] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. IV. De Confess, cp. 3; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 485.

[266] De considerat. II. 13.

[267] Cf. S. Thomas, II. II. Q. 186, art. 9 ad 3.

[268] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 2.

[269] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 5; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 59-63; Gury-Dumas, I. n. 153; Scavini, I. n. 734.

[270] Cf. S. Thomas, I. II. Q. 88, art. 1 et 2; S. Alph. l. c. n. 54; Gury-Dumas, l. c.

[271] On this controversy see, in addition to S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 468-471 and Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, Sect. 3, Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. I (de integr. mat.), n. 352-365.

[272] De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 115.

[273] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. P. II. cp. III. art. 3, n. 192.

[274] P. II. De Pœnit. cp. 5, n. 47.

[275] S. Alph. l. c. n. 468 ad prob. 3 ex ratione.

[276] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. P. II. cp. 2, art. II. n. 484; Aertnys, l. c.

[277] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 484, nota c.

[278] S. Alph. l. c. n. 473 and H. A. n. 30; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. 1. Q. IV. de Conf. cp. 4. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. (de peccatis dubiis) n. 374.

[279] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 58.

[280] Compare in particular Sanchez, Suarez, Lugo, Laymann, Sporer, etc.

[281] Nearly all the later theologians hold this doctrine. Ballerini (Not. ad Gury et Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 377) calls the opinion that one is obliged to confess _peccata dubia_ downright false. Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 121; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 317; Gury, l. c. n. 477; Marc, l. c. Tract. V. De Pœnit. Diss. II. cp. II. art. II. Sect. l, n. 1695, etc.

[282] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 317.