Chapter III: Penitents in Extreme Danger (4)

[564] Formerly, in accordance with the prescription of the canon law, the teaching universally held was that (_a_) one who is prevented during a very long time, or always (five years or longer) from going to the Superior or his delegate, is absolved by a subordinate priest without any further obligation, and (_b_) one who is prevented for a long time (from six months to five years) is absolved, with the duty of presenting himself before the Superior when the obstacle is removed, while one who is prevented only for a short time may not be absolved from reserved sins; but if necessity urges _hic et nunc_, absolution for the non-reserved sins can be given him, so that the reserved sins may be indirectly blotted out, the obligation of obtaining absolution from the reservation or censure from the Superior or delegated priest remaining in force. This theory was based upon the assumption that he who was not able to appear before the Pope was not bound to employ any other means of communication (a letter, for example) unless this were expressly prescribed by the legislator. Moreover, on July 8, 1860, in answer to the question: Are penitents who are prevented from going to Rome in person bound to seek absolution from reserved cases at least by letter or through the agency of another? the S. C. Officii replied that the decision of approved authorities, especially of St. Alphonsus of Liguori, should be adhered to. Now the latter teaches (Lib. VII. n. 89) as _sententia probabilior et communis_, that one is not bound to this. On June 23, 1886, another line of conduct in this matter was prescribed by the S. Officium. The questions there put were: 1. May one positively adopt and act upon the teaching that the absolution from reserved sins and censures, also from those _speciali modo_ reserved to the Pope, devolves upon the bishop, or upon any approved priest, when the penitent finds himself unable to go to the Pope? 2. If the answer to this question be in the negative, is one obliged to communicate by letter with the Prefect of the Penitentiary with regard to all cases reserved to the Pope, if the bishop has not a special Indult (the hour of death excepted), in order to receive the faculty to absolve? To these questions the above-named Congregation returned the following answer sanctioned and confirmed by the Pope (30 June, 1886): Ad I. With regard to the practice of the Sacred Penitentiary, especially since the appearance of the apostolical constitution of Pius IX which begins with the words “_Apostolicæ Sedi_,” _Negative_. Ad II. _Affirmative_; but in the really more urgent cases in which the absolution cannot be deferred without danger of great scandal or disgrace, as to which the confessor is answerable to his own conscience, the absolution can be administered, _injunctis de jure jungendis_, also from the censure _speciali modo_ reserved to the Pope; under pain, however, of “reincidence” in the same censures (that is, under pain of again incurring the censures) if the person absolved does not, at least within a month, and through the confessor, apply to the Holy See. (Linzer Theolog. prakt. Quartalschrift, 1887, S. 380. See Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 410; Müller, l. c. § 145; Bucceroni, Enchirid. Morale et Supplementum. Compendio Theol. Mor.; Gury-Ballerini, Commentar. IV. p. 224 ss.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 664, Nota p. 356; Aertnys, l. c. De Censuris, n. 27.) On this Lehmkuhl remarks: “The rule laid down by the Apostolic See is clear. It does not distinguish between reserved cases with censure and without censure, and to follow it is now everywhere allowed, without waiting for a further promulgation, in _all Papal_ reserved cases; indeed it seems to be becoming a general rule.” (L. c. n. 413.) Ballerini adds the remark: _Ergo_ (1) _urgente rationabili causa, quilibet confessarius absolv’d a censura, censuræ autem absolutio non est nisi directa: cessante autem censura cessat reservatio peccati, a quo proinde Confessarius directe absolvit. Absolutio proinde, quæ in casibus urgentibus diferri non posse dicitur, est absolutio directa. Jam vero vides_ (2) _heic de absolutione indirecta a peccatis reservatis, quia in casibus urgentioribus succurri potest necessitati pœnitentis ne verbumquidem fieri: Nimirum cum necessitati pœnitentis succurrendum est, absolutionem directam a reservatis dandam esse et hunc esse Ecclesiæ sensum supposuerunt Patres._

[565] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 584, Praxis Confess. n. 80. But see Ballerini on this point. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 664.

[566] Lugo, l. c.; Ballerini, l. c. n. 694.

[567] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 586; II. A. n. 134.

[568] Laymann, L. V. Tr. 6, c. 13; Lugo, Disp. 29, nn. 188 et 20, n. 141; Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 30, s. 4, n. 8; Busenbaum, l. c. n. 105; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 688, 689.

[569] Schneider, _Manuale Sacerdotum_ contains formularies for the request.

[570] S. Alph. l. c. n. 584.

[571] Lib. VII. n. 88.

[572] Cf. Mazzotta, De Pœnit. Q. 3, c. 3, § 1.

[573] See Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 667 ss.; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 265.

[574] Disp. 31, Sect. 4, n. 14, et seq. and n. 16.

[575] Suarez, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. n. 581, Notæ; Aertnys, l. c. n. 244, Q. II.

[576] Cf. Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 753 ss.; Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 581, Q. 10, et Vindiciæ Alphons. pp. 572-578.

[577] Cf. Prop. 59 damn. ab Innoc. XI; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 595; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 743.

[578] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 600, Q. 2; Gury, II. n. 581, Q. II.

[579] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 601; Scavini, Tract. X. Adnotationes, 236. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentarii De Casibus reservatis, Romæ, 1889.

[580] In the _first_ constitution addressed ad _Episcopos Lusitaniæ_, the Pope describes and condemns the crime of inquiring after the name of the _complex_; in the _second_, addressed to the same bishops, he decrees the punishment for the transgressors of the command, and prescribes the _Ordo procedendi_ against them; in the _third_ constitution he extends the two former decrees to the whole Church.

[581] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 500, Notæ.

[582] Lugo, Disput. 16, nn. 432 sq.; Ballerini, Not. ad Gury, II. n. 502; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 340; Aertnys, l. c. 248, Q. I and II. Although St. Alphonsus (Lib. VI. n. 492) admits that the penitent is sometimes obliged to make known the _complex_ in order to avert a great evil, yet he dares not maintain, in view of the strict prohibition of the Pope, that the confessor is ever allowed to ask the name of the _complex_. He has not sufficiently considered the word _passim_—and the other words, _doctrinas veras et sanas male applicando_—in the constitution of Benedict.

[583] Constit. Benedicti XIV, “Sacramentum Pœnit.,” 1 June, 1741, et Const. “Apostolici muneris,” 8 Feb., 1745; Constit. Pii IX, “Apostolicæ Sedis,” 12 Oct., 1869. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentarius in Constitutionem Benedicti XIV, “Sacram. Pœnit.,” Romæ, 1888; Pars altera, pp. 106-141.

[584] Cf. Declar. S. Pœnitent. 16 May, 1877.

[585] Cf. Constit. “Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ,” 1 June, 1741, Benedicti XIV.

[586] St. Thomas, Supplem. Q. 20, Art. 2, ad 1; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 555. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad 587; Gury, Edit. Ratisb. Notæ ad n. 587; Aertnys, l. c. n. 249.

[587] _Cum jurisdictionem in illud crimen nullam sacerdos complex habeat._ Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.

[588] _Non habita ratione peccati illius_ (_in quo complex fuit_) _cujus confessio ut quid impertinens consideranda erit._ Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absolut. complicis. n. 648.

[589] Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c.

[590] Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absol. compl. n. 654.

[591] Cf. C. Eos qui 22, De Sentent. Excomm. in VI; C. Ea noscitur 13, De Sent. Excomm., et C. Quamvis 58, eod. tit.

[592] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 655.

[593] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II. Lib. II. Tr. I. De Censuris, Sect. II. n. 937.

[594] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 554.

[595] S. Alph. l. c. Cf. Declar. S. C. Inq. 28 May, 1873, in Acta S. Sed. Vol. 10, append, p. 345. Aertnys, l. c. n. 249. Some wrongly exclude the _sermones impudici_; the most that can be urged for such a view is that there might be a doubt, _num fuerit peccatum mortale ex utraque parte_, and, on account of such a doubt, the _causa complicitatis_ which the law requires may the more easily be absent. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 935.

[596] This results from the tenor of the Bulls “Sacrament. Pœnitent.” of Benedict XIV and “Apostolicæ Sedis” of Pius IX. A simple, non-approved priest is, _per se_, to be preferred to the _sacerdos complex_ (if no defamation arises), but a _sacerdos publice suspensus, excommunicatus_, is not to be preferred, as it is not becoming to call such a one to the dying person, and in this case it will scarcely be possible to avoid suspicion.

[597] Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De absolut. compl. n. 652 ss.

[598] Cf. Constitutio Benedicti XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” and Pii IX, “Apostolicæ Sedis” (see § 43, p. 326).

[599] Cf. Berardi, Praxis conf. n. 1076.

[600] This question was before decided in the same sense by the S. Pœnit. 9 Jul., 1751, et Mart., 1878. Cf. Linzer Theol. Quartalschrift, 1882, p. 389. Revue theol. 1884, p. 363. St. Alphonsus had already (Lib. VI. n. 556) maintained, _eum, qui fingat absolutionem, non incurrere censuram_, deducing this from the words of the Constitution of Benedict XIV, and this interpretation of the Pope’s words was probable; this opinion of the sainted teacher seems still to coincide with the words of the Bull of Pius IX, which reads _Absolventes_. But the Sacred Penitentiary has declared otherwise. The latter evidently here takes the word _absolventes_ in the wider sense. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 656. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 936, Nota.

[601] Cf. Decret. S. C. Inq. 27 June, 1866, and the Instructio S. C. Inq. 20 Feb., 1867. (Gury, Cas. Conscient. T. 2, n. 647.) Revue des sciences ecclès. Vol. 18, p. 359.

[602] S. C. Inquis. 30 June, 1886, the decision which Leo XIII approved and confirmed. Cf. Revue theolog. 1886, p. 378.

[603] The Sacred Penitentiary is accustomed to add a few clauses to its Rescript, and it will be useful to explain them briefly:

1. Before the _confessarius delegatus_ can carry out the Rescript, the occasion of again sinning against the sixth commandment _cum persona vel personis complicibus_ must be removed. Hence the voluntary occasion (and there is generally such in this case) must be physically removed, and a necessary occasion morally removed. See § 63.

2. The _Confessarius complex_ must inform his _complex_, when he again comes to him to confess, of the invalidity of the former confessions and refer him to another confessor.

3. The duty of not again hearing the confessions of the _persona complex_ in the future will be imposed upon the _Confessarius complex_, when this can be done without great scandal, and he would, therefore, sin gravely if he should disobey this command. According to the number and gravity of the cases the Penitentiary subjoins still severer clauses: (_a_) those who _duas personas complices_ only once, or _unam bis a peccato in re turpi absolvere attentaverint_ the Sacred Penitentiary orders to give up their office as confessors. (_b_) But those _qui duas aut plures personas sive unam ter aut pluries absolvere ausi fuerint_, it commands to relinquish as soon as possible the office which they have so misused, and that within the time which is to be determined by the priest who administers the absolution, and which must not be prolonged beyond three months, if they are simple priests; if they are parish priests, the period may be longer, but not beyond six months. And if within this time the priest is unable, for weighty reason, to give up his office, the delegated confessor must again address himself to the Sacred Penitentiary, and lay the whole matter before him; in the meanwhile, however, the _sacerdos complex_ may not hear the confessions _cujuscunque personæ complicis_. The Sacred Penitentiary will, for weighty reasons, extend the period, and when, after a time, the unhappy priest seems to have amended, will allow him to continue to exercise the duties of a confessor.

4. The censures must be removed first, then the sins remitted, and finally the dispensation from the irregularity is given. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 250.

[604] The Constitutions, “Cum sicut nuper,” of Pius IV, “Dilecte fili,” of Paul V, “Universi Dominici gregis,” of Gregory XV, and in an especial manner, “Sacramentum pœnitentiæ,” and “Apostolici muneris,” of Benedict XIV, cover this matter. Cf. Bucceroni, Jan. Commentar. Constit. Benedicti XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” P. I. pp. 1-150. Romæ, 1888. Ed. altera.

[605] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. IV. n. 564, sub 3.

[606] Cf. Decl. S. C. Inq. 11 Febr., 1661, dub. 2 et 9, et Instruct. 20 Febr., 1867, n. 2.

[607] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 704.

[608] Cf. Resp. S. C. Inq. a. 1661 ad dub. 5, Instruct. a. 1867, sub 2.

[609] Cf. Propos. 6 ab Alex. VII damn.

[610] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 676-680.

[611] Illud immediate (ante vel post) aliqui moraliter intelligi volunt, ita ut, si physice tantum aliquid intermediat, seu intervallum adeo breve sit, ut pro nihilo debeat computari, confessarius adhuc vi harum clausularum sollicitans dicendus, ergo denuntiandus sit. Communis sententia, quam sequitur St. Alph. (n. 677) illud stricte, _i.e._ physice accipit. Ex praxi tribunalis S. Officii non censetur confessarius sollicitasse immediate post confessionem, si sollicitatio post transactum integrum diem accidet, dummodo nullo modo pravum animum suum in confessione indicaverit. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 590. Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. Appendix De Sollicitatione, n. 1094 ss.

[612] Illud: “occasione” duplici hic significatione sumitur: altera opportunitatis, altera motivi.

[613] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 678; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1098. Ballerini, Not. ad Gury, II. n. 590; Nouv. Rev. Theolog. Tom. 12, p. 31 ss. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 976.

[614] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 678 and 679. Hinc sollicitans dicendus est Confessarius, si mulier, nulla conventione præmissa prætextu confessionis vocet ipsum in domum suam, qui cum accesserit, a muliere sollicitatus turpiter peccat eum illa; nam juxta decreta S. C. Inq. sollicitatio etiam a pœnitente emanare potest. Etiam sollicitans dicendus est Confessarius, qui extra confessionem sollicitat feminam huicque renuenti ob timorem diffamationis, suadet, ut fingens se ægrotam eum ad peccandum accerseret. S. Alph. n. 679; vide Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1102.

[615] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 680. Ballerini, Opus. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1107.

[616] Compare the above-cited Constitutions of the Popes, and the Instruction of the S. C. Inquis. 20 Feb., 1867.

[617] Cf. Instr. S. C. Inq. 1867, sub 11.

[618] Cf. Instruct. cit.

[619] Amort. Theol. Mor. De Pœn. Q. 19.

[620] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 687. Cf. Resp. S. C. Inq. a. 1661, ad dub. 13.

[621] Lib. VI. n. 701, II. A. Tr. 16, n. 175. Bucceroni, Commentar. in Constit. Bened. XIV, “Sacrament. Pœnit.” art. II. Sect. 2, p. 66.

[622] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. p. 66.

[623] Not, be it remarked, _virtute Constitutionum Pontificiarum contra sollicitantes, but virtute præcepti denuntiandi intra mensem hæreticos et suspectos de hæresi_. Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 1, p. 56.

[624] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 698. They are not bound to denounce: (_a_) when the solicited person has already given the information; (_b_) when they would suffer great detriment by so doing, except in the case of a priest of great influence who had already solicited many persons; (_c_) when the person soliciting is related to them within the fourth degree. Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Tr. 2, Disp. 1, Q. 1, cp. 2, Sect. 4; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1136 ss.

[625] Cf. S. Alph. nn. 700, 697, 695. Bucceroni, l. c. p. 65.

[626] Compare the Constitutions of the Popes and the above-cited Instr. S. C. Inq. S. Alph. nn. 686, 688.

[627] Cf. Instruct. nn. 3 and 4.

[628] Cf. Instruct. S. C. Inq. a. 1661, ad dub. 12, 16.

[629] Constitutiones cit. et Instruct. Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 615-694, ratio: _ob vitandum damnum commune_.

[630] The denunciation must be made to the _Episcopus loci_, where the penitent is staying, even when the _Confessarius sollicitans_ belongs to another diocese; it is then the duty of this bishop to receive the sworn denunciation, and to forward it to the bishop of the confessor. Cf. Gury, Cas. Cons. Tom. II. n. 652; Kenrick, Theol. Moral. Tract. 18, 245.

[631] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 7; Marc, Institut. Alph. Tom. II. n. 1800.

[632] Cf. Bucceroni, Commentar. in Constit. Bened. XIV, “Sacram. Pœnit”, Romæ, 1888, art. II. § 3, p. 74.

[633] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 7.

[634] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 699.

[635] Cf. Instruct. 1867, n. 6.

[636] Cf. Instr. 1867, n. 6.

[637] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 2, p. 62 ss.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1141.

[638] Cf. Instruct. 1867, nn. 5 et 7; S. Alph. l. c. n. 693; Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 1, n. 35.

[639] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 2, n. 38; Decr. S. C. S. Off. 21 Febr., 1630, etc.

[640] Const. Pii IX, “Apostolicæ Sedis.”

[641] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. Sect. 1, n. 36, p. 61 s. For the _Modus recipiendi denuntiationem_, see Instruct. cit. 1867, n. 6 ss. Acta S. Sedis, Vol. III. pp. 505 seq. The Instr. cit. nn. 9-16 describes the _Modus procedendi contra Sollicitantes_; cf. Bucceroni, l. c. art. II. § 4, pp. 86-100. In this place the learned Roman professor also treats the question: can the bishop make a law _denuntiandi sollicitantes extra confessionem_—or a law _denuntiandi sollicitantes in confessione ad alia peccata quam ad turpia_? p. 99, etc.

[642] Instruct. 1867, n. 12.

[643] Cf. Rituale Roman. Sacram. Pœnit. tit. 3, cp. 1, n. 15. Concil. Later. IV. cp. 21, in Cap. 12 de Pœnit. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 607, 629. H. Ap. n. 102.

[644] Cf. n. 19.

[645] Gury, Casus Conscient. II. n. 669. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sacram. Pœnit. Sect. III. n. 419.

[646] Moreover, the confessor must not only take care that the confession be complete; he must also have regard for human weakness, lest through much questioning the confession become troublesome and odious. Cf. Lacroix, l. c. n. 1748; Aertnys, l. c. n. 276; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 419, ad 1, 3.

[647] St. Alphonsus teaches: “The confessor should not be too solicitous in questioning; let him ask the penitent about that which, having regard to his position, probably concerns him.” And in another place his advice is: “Let him ask only about the sins which the penitents might easily commit, considering their station and intelligence.” And Billuart says: “The confessor must make his investigations in a humane and temperate way, but not in every imaginable way. For the priest is not bound to examine the penitent more than the latter is bound to examine himself.... Nor is it to the point to say that the priest would perhaps find more if he sought more, for we have not only to consider the material completeness of the confession, but also that the Sacrament of Penance must not be made irksome and odious to penitents by overgreat and exaggerated anxiety in questioning; it, therefore, suffices if the confessor can be prudently convinced that the penitent is omitting nothing that he ought to confess.” Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 607; H. Ap. Tract. 16, n. 102; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. Not. ad n. 615.

[648] Tit. III. cp. 1, De Sacrum. Pœn. n. 16.

[649] Cf. Aertnys, Practic. Inst. Confessar. P. II. Cap. II. art. 1, § 1, p. 27, n. 30; Theol. Moral. l. c. n. 276; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 420; Gury, l. c. II. n. 616; Reuter, Neo-Confessar. P. 1, cp. 3. Cf. P. II. cp. II. art. 1, 2, 3, cp. 3, art. 1; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 895 (where also some examples are given); Benger, Pastoraltheologie, II. Vol. 4 Book, § 162, p. 412 ff. (2 ed.); Zenner, l. c. P. II. Sect. 1, cp. 1, art. II. § 83-96. Segneri’s most appropriate instruction deserves to be taken to heart by the confessor: _Cupio magnopere, te parcum, gravemque esse interrogando circa materiam luxuriæ, ne tibi accidat, quod pictori, qui cum Helenam exquisita diligentia depingeret, ejusdem cupiditate exardescere cœpit et accendi. Utere proinde verborum modestia, et quamvis subinde circumstantia maneret tecta, quæ alioquin ad integritatem materialem spectaret, nihil interest: aliud enim majus bonum prævalet. Adeo fœtet palus ista, ut consultum non sit, vel a Pœnitente vel a Confessario ubi opus non sit, moveri: sufficit requirere speciem patrati sceleris, non vero modum: et si ipsi vel ex irreverecundia vel ex ignorantia hunc vellent declarare, suaviter mone, necessarium non esse. Expediret hac in re imitari Philosophum illum, qui veritus, ne loquendo os conspurcaret, carbone descripsit._ Instruct. Confessar. cap. II. Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, Sect. 14, n. 595; Coninck, De Sacram. Disp. 8, dub. 17, n. 121.

[650] Cf. S. Pœnit. 8 June, 1842; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 420.

[651] An exception can be made when the penitent has written his sins, and reads them, moreover, when the penitent is not able to make known his sins, and the confessor is obliged from the beginning of the confession to help by means of questions, he should not in that case proceed to another point till he is quite clear as to the one in question. When the penitent wishes to explain something to the confessor, the latter should not prevent him (unless it is concerning things which are useless, not to the point, or mere excuses, or which incriminate others), he should rather allow him time to reveal his misery and his scruples; this especially applies when the penitent seldom confesses, or has come from a distance, or is making a general confession; the confessor must then receive him with all love and kindness, and must see that his conscience is quite set at rest.

[652] Cf. Monita S. Francisci Salesii ad Confessarios, cp. 1, art. 2, § 7. Aertnys, Instr. pract. Confess. l. c. n. 29, Q. 2.

[653] Praxis Confess. n. 20.

[654] Stang, Pastoral Theology, Book II. c. 4, § 25.

[655] _Ibid._ § 33, n. 3.

[656] Cf. Aertnys, Institut. pract. l. c. n. 30.

[657] Cf. S. Alph. Silva, part 3, cp. 10; Segneri, Instructio Pœnitent. cp. 16 _et seq._

[658] Instructio Confessar. cp. 2.

[659] Cf. Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. § 1, p. 32 s. Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Confess. n. 19 ss.

[660] See Stang, Pastoral Theol. l. c. on general confession.

[661] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 631; S. Thom. Opusc. 12, Q. 6, and Quodlib. 1, a. 12 et 17. Cf. Gury, II. n. 618. Ed. Ratisb.

[662] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 631; H. Ap. n. 120; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1969; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. Tr. II. § 152; Scavini, Lib. III. n. 381; Kenrick, Tract. 18, n. 216; Schneider, Manuale Sacerd. Ed. VI. pp. 428-429; Konings, etc. This opinion and practice was first introduced by Illsung (a German Jesuit, who died in 1695), Theol. practica univers. Tract. 6, Disp. 6, Q. 4, art. 7, § 4, n. 128, erroneously appealing to the testimony of Suarez, who (De Pœn. Disp. 32, Sect. 3, n. 9), however, teaches the exact opposite: _Respondetur, regulariter standum esse confessioni et dicto pœnitentis: unde quantumcunque confessor sciat peccatum pœnitentis ex aliorum relatione_ (therefore, _in confessione_ also) _tenetur, in hoc judicio magis credere ipsi pœnitenti, propter rationem factam_. Lacroix took this opinion from Illsung with the alleged testimony of Suarez, adding, _ex inadvertentia_, Dicastillo as a further witness, whom Illsung had quoted for another purpose. St. Alphonsus reckons Viva also among these, who, however, does not adhere to this opinion. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 619, who finally remarks: _Ista opinio igitur tota debetur hallucinationi, quæ perperam Suaresii, Dicastilli et Vivæ auctoritatem adduxit_. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 890-895.

[663] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 22, n. 22; Elbel, De Sacram. in gen. confer. 2, n. 44 et de Pœnit. n. 453; Laymann, Lib. V. Tract. 6, cp. 14, n. 24; Mazzotta, Tr. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 2, cp. 2, § 3; Billuart, Diss. 6, art. 10, § 2; Gury, l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 278. Lehmkuhl (l. c. n. 429) says that, considered by itself, the confessor may but is not obliged to adopt the opinion of St. Alphonsus; that there is only this point in its favor, that without inconveniencing the penitent, or without revealing the other confession, sacrilege can be avoided. But the penitent commits a sacrilege whether the confessor gives him absolution or not. On the other hand, the administration of the absolution by the confessor is only a material coöperation, and one cannot oblige him, in order to avoid this, to make use of knowledge gained from the confession of another. Cf. Gobat, l. c. Tract. 7, n. 875.

[664] L. c. n. 627; H. Ap. n. 104.

[665] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 421. He also cites some examples from other authors, for instance, Gobat (Tract. 7, n. 338): “_Si religiosus, a castitate mihi notus, diceret, se semel turpia locutum esse, præsumerem, hæc esse scurrilia, non contra castitatem_.” _Attamen hæc potius per exceptionem dicuntur; nam generalis regula est ut, si brevi interrogatione confessarius dubium de gravi aut levi peccato solvere possit, hanc instituere debeat._ Mazzotta furnishes a further example (l. c. Q. II. cp. 2, § 2): “A confessor who (involuntarily or accidentally) is distracted, and, because knowing the state of the conscience of his penitent, can presume that what he missed was something unimportant, may remain silent about it and absolve, if questions would be regarded as troublesome.” Indeed, Gobat adds: If the confessor knew from experience that his penitent generally committed no mortal sins, but (_e.g._) only accused himself of little falsehoods, he can absolve him even if, on account of distraction, he does not know a single sin of which the penitent accused himself; but it is advisable in practice to make the penitent repeat at least a venial sin, perhaps the last, and then absolve. Lehmkuhl’s caution, however, is to be observed, namely, not to apply in a more general way that which is prescribed for an extraordinary case. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 421.

[666] Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, s. 6, n. 7; Mazzotta, l. c.

[667] Cf. S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 117.

[668] De Pœnit. Disp. 32, s. 2.

[669] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 461; Bucceroni, Commentar. III. De absolut. danda, etc. Edit. alt. Romæ. 1889. § 1, n. 3.

[670] De Pœnit. n. 82.

[671] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279, III. Nota 1.

[672] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459, Prax. Conf. n. 71; Bucceroni, l. c. n. 4; S. Thom. in 4, Dist. 17, Q. 5, a. 3.

[673] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 424, who remarks on this: _Attamen in re aliqua “extraordinaria” insistendum non est. Neque quodlibet horum signorum in quibuslibet adjunctis certam probationem facit._

[674] Cf. Lib. VI. n. 460.

[675] Neo-Confessar. n. 177. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 279 and Append. de recidivis. n. 314. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 427.

[676] See in Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 624.

[677] See § 63.

[678] It is not enough to say to indisposed penitents something of this kind: “Well, beg pardon of God for all your sins” (this is no true act of sorrow), or, “Are you heartily sorry for all your sins?” Effort must, above all things, be directed towards awakening in penitents (who have committed grave sins) a real abhorrence of sin; to this end they must first be prepared by an act of imperfect contrition, and then we must seek to bring them to perfect contrition.

[679] Instruct. Confess. cp. 8.

[680] Cf. Polancus, Directorium Confessarii, cp. 2.

[681] S. Alph. Praxis conf. cp. 1, nn. 7 et 10. He says, very aptly: _Perpauci sunt pœnitentes, præsertim rudes et magni peccatores, qui dolore et proposito prius elicito ad confessionem accedunt. Hos igitur quoad potest confessarius disponere fortiter et suaviter adlaboret._

[682] H. Ap. Tr. 16, n. 105.

[683] Prax. Conf. cp. 1, n. 7; Lib. VI. n. 608. Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1, nn. 313-323.

[684] Cf. Reuter, Neo-conf. P. 1, cp. V. n. 11.

[685] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 603; H. Ap. n. 117; Suarez, De Pœn. D. 32, S. 5, n. 2; cf. Lugo, Disp. 14, n. 166; Marc, Instit. Alph. P. III. Tr. V. Diss. III. cp. 3, art. 1, n. 1813; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 428; Bucceroni, Commentar. III. De Absolut danda, etc. § 1, n. 2, § 3, n. 13.

[686] See § 50, V. The confessor, therefore, must not absolve a penitent who will not fulfill an important duty incumbent upon him, who does not heartily repent of his past sins, and has not a firm purpose to sin no more in future. Cf. Bucceroni, l. c § 4, n. 15; Leo XII, Encycl. Charitate Christi, Kal. Jan. 1826.

[687] Cf. B. Humbertus, General. Mag. Prædicatorum, Instructio, et Bartholomæus Medina ex Ord. Præd. Instruct. Confessar. Lib. I. cp. 3.

[688] Leonard of P. M., Instructions for Confessors (Regensburg, 1878), p. 97, etc.

[689] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 430. Cf. Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 34.

[690] Upon the origin of this practice, of which no trace is found in the works of the older theologians, Ballerini enlarges in his notes on Gury, II. n. 621. He does not discover it in the practice and teaching of the Jansenists, but rather in the endeavor of the younger theologians to find means by which the faithful may be better assisted in laying aside a bad habit, roused from indolence and negligence, and moved to holy zeal.

[691] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 431. Cf. Marc, l. c. n. 1816; Aertnys, l. c. n. 280. The benefit which the confessor expects from the postponement of absolution, must, however, always be greater than that which the disposed penitent receives from actual reception of the holy Sacrament.

[692] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. n. 10, _ad brevissimum tempus. Nam per se loquendo magis prodest absolutio statim data quam ejus dilatio._ “For,” so he continues, “it is burdensome to remain in a state of mortal sin even one or two days: (1) on account of the danger of death, against which we are never safe, etc., and (2) on account of the priceless blessings of which we are deprived,—grace and merit. Moreover, the penitent is better prepared by absolution for again receiving the Sacrament, than by postponement of absolution, etc.” Gury (II. n. 622) remarks that, where it can be easily done, absolution may be deferred for one day or for a few hours.

[693] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 463 and 464.

[694] Cf. Salmant. Tract. 26, cp. 2, p. 2, § 1, n. 37.

[695] Cf. Bucceroni, l. c. § 2, n. 8; Suarez, Lugo, Sanchez, Filliucius, Palaus, Toletus, Gury, II. n. 621.

[696] Cf. Epistol. S. Francisci Xaver. Lib. IV. Epist. IV.

[697] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. P. 1, cp. 8, n. 34.

[698] S. Leonard a P. M., Discorso mistico e morale, § 11.

[699] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. IV. Sect. 10, n. 166; Suarez, l. c. Disp. 32, Sect. 5, n. 2, who adds: _quod prudenti judicio confessoris relinquendum est, qui hoc sine gravi causa et magna consideratione facere non debet_; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 642.

[700] Segneri, l. c. cp. IV (in fine).

[701] Cf. S. Alph. De Sacrament, n. 36.

[702] Cf. S. Leonard a Port-Maur., Instruction, etc., pp. 15-16.

[703] Instructions for Confessors, n. 3, p. 24 ff.

[704] Monita ad Confessarios, cp. 1. art. 1.

[705] Praxis Conf. n. 3.

[706] Sensa pretiosa, P. 6, n. 17, sqq.

[707] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 432.

[708] Tract. 21, nn. 1, 2, 3.

[709] Instruction, pp. 121-123.

[710] Praxis Conf. n. 3.

[711] Cf. Lugo in Benedict. XIV, Const. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n. 20; S. Alph. Homo Ap. Tr. 21, n. 4.

[712] Orat. 8, advers. Judæos in Migne Ser. græca, T. 48, col. 932.

[713] S. Alph. Praxis, n. 77. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 434; Aertnys, Instruct. pract. P. I. cp. IV. nn. 18-25.

[714] Cf. S. Bernard. De Considerat. IV; S. Bonavent. De sex alis, cp. 5.

[715] Praxis Confess. n. 18. Cf. Rituale Rom. Tit. III. cp. 1, De Sacram. Pœnit.

[716] De Pœnit. Disp. 21, n. 70.

[717] Cf. Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1789; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 627; Marc, l. c. n. 1787; Aertnys, l. c. n. 266; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 439.

[718] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 18.

[719] Rituale Roman. Tit. III. cp. 1, n. 3.

[720] Praxis Confess. n. 18.

[721] Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, I. Buch, I. Tl. § 82, S. 225 f.

[722] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 21, n. 70.

[723] Lugo, l. c.

[724] Praxis Conf. n. 18.

[725] De Episc. p. 3, c. 4.

[726] Praxis Conf. n. 17.

[727] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 438.

[728] Hobert, Praxis Sacra. Pœnit. Tract. 1, cp. 4. Cf. Aertnys, Instr. pract. P. 1, cp. 1, n. 7.

[729] Cf. Aertnys, Instit. pract. l. c. n. 8.

[730] Homo Apost. Tr. 16, cp. 6, n. 127.

[731] II. II. Q. 14, art. 3.

[732] S. Thom. II. II. Q. 47, art. 4.

[733] Stang, Pastoral Theol. l. c. IV. 28.

[734] Cf. Aertnys, Instit. pract. P. 1, cp. II. n. 9.

[735] Praxis Confessar. Cf. Marc, Instit. Moral. l. c. n. 1788.

[736] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 605; Marc, Inst. Mor. l. c. n. 1789.

[737] Marc, Inst. mor. l. c. n. 1791.

[738] Constit. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n. 21.

[739] Aertnys, Instruct pract. l. c. n. 10.

[740] _Necessitate medii_ the Christian must believe those truths without the knowledge and express belief of which, justification and, in consequence, the attainment of everlasting salvation, is never possible for any one having the use of reason. Certainly necessary is the explicit belief: (1) in one God; (2) the Rewarder of good and the Avenger of evil. Although it is quite probable that _fides explicita_ is necessary in these truths only, it is, nevertheless, not certain that _fides explicita_ is not also necessary (3) in the mystery of the Blessed Trinity and (4) in the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption.

[741] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 608-610; Prop. damnat. 64 ab Innoc. XI.

[742] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 22; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. II. Tr. 1, n. 4; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 442.

[743] Cf. S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. II. n. 3, Praxis Conf. n. 22; Salm. Tract. 21, cp. 2, nn. 62, 63; Aertnys, l. c. n. 4.

[744] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 22.

[745] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 608, 609.

[746] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 616.

[747] Cf. S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. 16, n. 115.

[748] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 611; H. Ap. n. 113.

[749] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 614.

[750] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 612; H. Ap. n. 113.

[751] Cf. Benedict XIV, De Syn. Lib. 9, cp. 2, nn. 2, 3; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 613; H. Ap. n. 114, Prax. Conf. n. 8; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 273; Marc, l. c. n. 1810.

[752] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 616 (fin.). Cf. n. 614.

[753] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 610.

[754] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 615. Cf. Praxis Conf. n. 9.

[755] Constit. “Apostolica,” 26 June, 1749, n. 20.

[756] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 615, Praxis Conf. n. 9.

[757] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 39.

[758] Praxis Conf. nn. 6, 180.

[759] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 8.

[760] Praxis Conf. n. 7.

[761] Benedict XIV, “Apostolica,” § 22.

[762] Cf. Polancus, l. c.; Segneri, l. c.

[763] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. nn. 148-155; Hom. Ap. App. 1, nn. 28-36; Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 3; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Eucharist. nn. 93-95; this author discusses also the difference between the teaching of St. Alphonsus and that of St. Francis of Sales. Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. II L. I. Tr. IV. De Euchar. n. 156.

[764] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 15 (Ed. Le Noir, Par. 1880); Lacroix, Lib. VI. p. 2, n. 1825; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 447; Aertnys, Instruct. pract. Pars II. cp. 3, art. 1, n. 59.

[765] Reuter, Neo-Confessar. P. II. cp. 1, art. 1-8, nn. 56-99. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 448-455; Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n. 62; Theol. Mor. Lib. I. nn. 245-261.

[766] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 22, n. 50; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 619 ss.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 2, De officio et obligat. Confess. nn. 836-862; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. cp. 4, art. 2, nn. 282-285.

[767] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 619. Lehmkuhl proposes the following case: If I had invalidly absolved any one—especially from grave sins—and met him shortly afterwards, I should be bound to absolve him without, however, intimating it, if I could presume that he had not committed any other grave sin in the meantime. Whether I should be bound to seek this person, _cum gravi meo incommodo_, would depend both upon the risk to the penitent’s salvation, and also upon the error of which I had been guilty; I should also be obliged to avoid endangering the seal of the confessional. If some time had elapsed since the confession, I could not give the absolution till I had exhorted the penitent to dispose himself by a new act of contrition. To give such an exhortation or to make an avowal to the penitent of the error made in the confession, would not of itself be a breach of the seal; for every penitent, whether he has confessed mortal or venial sins, is entitled to absolution. But if, on account of circumstances, it might be considered a disclosing of a grave sin heard in the confessional, the confessor would be obliged previously to ask the penitent’s permission to speak to him concerning matters of the confessional; in so doing, he should explain that something very salutary and profitable to the penitent was in question. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 471; Ballerini, l. c. n. 840.

[768] Cf. Gobat, Theolog. experimental. de VII. Sacram. Tract. VII. n. 298. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 473. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, n. 65 seq. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 32, s. 6.

[769] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 620.

[770] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 621; H. A. n. 122; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 472; Aertnys, l. c. n. 284.

[771] L. c. n. 299. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 475.

[772] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 635. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 23, nn. 1-16.

[773] Cap. 21.

[774] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 635. Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 902.

[775] The duty is here considered in so far as it belongs to _virtus religionis_, for the defamation arising from breaking the seal may be very slight, or wholly absent, and the breach of confidence may easily be of small significance. But _levitas periculi_ of breaking the seal is by no means to be confounded with _parvitas materiæ_; for there exists no duty to avoid every slight and improbable danger of breaking it; this would cause too great anxiety of conscience. Nevertheless every confessor will be very careful to preserve this seal intact. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 633, 661.

[776] L. c. n. 634.

[777] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 634, 635, 651; H. Ap. n. 147.

[778] S. Alph. l. c.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 457; Aertnys, l. c. n. 288.

[779] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 148; Lib. III. n. 153.

[780] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 651.

[781] S. Alph. l. c. n. 651; H. Ap. n. 156.

[782] S. Alph. l. c. n. 651.

[783] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 976 ss.

[784] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 455.

[785] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 636; H. A. n. 156.

[786] S. Alph. l. c.

[787] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 633; H. Ap. n. 164; Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 650; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 458; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 901 ss.

[788] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. nn. 645, 648.

[789] S. Alph. l. c. n. 647; Stotz, l. c. Lib. II. n. 199.

[790] Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disput. 23, n. 29.

[791] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 650. Cf. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 47 ss. Laymann, De Pœnit. cp. 14, n. 19. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 3, n. 971 ss.

[792] S. Alph. l. c. n. 647. Cf. Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 33, Sect. 4, n. 2; Ballerini, l. c. n. 975.

[793] S. Alph. l. c. n. 657.

[794] Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 926 ss.; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 68.

[795] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 947-948; Lugo, l. c. n. 54; Suarez, l. c. Disp. 33, Sect. 3, n. 5.

[796] Cf. Ballerini, l. c. nn. 956-960.

[797] Cf. Reuter, Theol. Mor. Tom. IV. n. 377; Lugo, l. c. n. 57; Sporer, De Pœnit. n. 833; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 460.

[798] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 644; Lugo, l. c. n. 60; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 460; Aertnys, l. c. n. 293; Ballerini, l. c. n. 960.

[799] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 643, 659 (in fine); Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 959.

[800] S. Alph. l. c. n. 641.

[801] S. Alph. l. c. n. 661. Cf. Stotz, l. c. Lib. II. art. V. s. 1-8.

[802] Lugo, l. c. n. 61; Lacroix, Reuter, and Stotz, however, explain the matter thus: The confessor is not ordinarily allowed to say that the penitent had not been absolved; but if the penitent were to say casually, in presence of the confessor and others, that he had not been absolved, permission would thereby be given to the latter to say it also; but the confessor is by no means allowed to disclose the reason for refusing the absolution, if the indisposition of the penitent has been the motive of it, or if the disclosure is in any way unpleasant to the penitent.

[803] Cf. Lugo, l. c. n. 61; Reuter, l. c. n. 378.

[804] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 156.

[805] S. Alph. l. c. n. 657; Gury, l. c. nn. 665-666; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 983. Cf. 976 ss.

[806] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 657, 638.

[807] S. Alph. H. Ap. n. 156.

[808] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 652.

[809] It is not necessary to tell those whom one consults for advice that the case occurred in the confessional, nor should the matter be discussed publicly before many, but only before those who are capable of giving suitable advice. Mazzotta adds another notable limitation (Tract. VI. Disp. 2, Q. 5, c. 2): “Therefore, let confessors ask judicious men everywhere for advice in cases which have come before them in the confessional, and, in so doing, conceal the name of the penitent. But they have no right to do so if any suspicion should fall upon the person in question, or were there even a danger of this.” But what is to be done in the latter case when the confessor requires advice? Let him either present the case as an imaginary one, or let him request permission of the penitent to make use of the knowledge gained in the confessional, or let him seek a judicious man to whom the penitent is unknown, or let him send the penitent to another confessor. If none of these methods can be used without breaking the seal, let him trust to the divine assistance, employ other suitable means,—such as prayer and study,—and then let him solve the difficulty himself in the best way he can.

[810] S. Alph. l. c. n. 654; H. Ap. n. 158.

[811] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 654; H. Ap. n. 157. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 666, et Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 987 ss., et Vindiciæ Alphons. Par. V. Q. 24; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 469; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q. II.

[812] S. Alph. l. c. n. 659; H. A. n. 161. Cf. Lugo, l. c.

[813] Cf. Decret. Clementis VIII. 26 May, 1594 et Decr. S. C. Inq. 18 Nov., 1682 (auctor. Innoc. XI). Cf. Gury, II. Ed. Ratisb. n. 670.

[814] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 656-658; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 1000; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 23, n. 93.

[815] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 639 et 661. Cf. Gury, II. Ed. Ratisb. nn. 660, 661; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 916; Laymann, De Pœnit. cp. 14, n. 8; Sporer, De Pœn. n. 839; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1914.

[816] S. Alph. l. c. n. 659; H. A. n. 160. Cf. Ballerini, l. c. n. 1012 ss.

[817] Cf. Theol. Mechlin, n. 117, Q. 3; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q. 9.

[818] Cf. Aertnys, Tract. De praxi servanda cum occasionariis et recidivis Theol. Mor. II. Appendix, nn. 298-350.

[819] Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Append. (ut supra cit.). Ballerini, Opus Theol. Moral. Tom. V. n. 167 ss.; Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 628 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 485 ss.; Marc. Inst. Mor. Tract. V. Dissert. III. n. 1818 ss.

[820] Some theologians call that which incites to sin from within the “interior occasion,” but, generally, only a person or external object is defined as _occasio_.

[821] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 628, et Opus Theol. Moral. Tom. V. n. 167. Theologians do not agree in defining the _occasio proxima_. Departing from the above definition, some teach—and in this they are in accordance with St. Alphonsus—that, “to constitute the _occasio proxima_, it is not necessary that a person should, _fere semper aut frequentius_, sin in that occasion, but that it suffices if he often, _frequenter_, falls, as _frequens lapsus_ in the past makes a fall in the future probable.” Aertnys, l. c. n. 302, Q. 1; Marc, l. c. n. 1820; Berardi, De occas. n. 13. The _frequentia lapsuum_ is either _relativa_ or _absoluta_. Relative frequency is reckoned according to the number of cases in which the person has been exposed to the occasion; so it would be, for instance, an _occasio proximo_ if in twelve visits a person has sinned five or six times. Similarly, if a man should visit a woman only three or four times in two years, and generally sinned with her; or when the visit took place only once a year during three years and each time sin was committed. On the other hand, the frequency is absolute when the number of cases is, in itself, considerable; for instance, if two persons meet every Sunday, and sin ten or twelve times in the year. However, this stricter definition does not seem to be that of St. Alphonsus; at least he defines the _occasio proximo_ in two passages of his works (Homo Apost. Tr. ult. n. 1, and Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 452) as that in _qua communiter ut plurimum deficiunt_, while into one definition he also introduces the _frequenter peccare_ in contrast to _frequentius_. According to Ballerini these conflicting passages may be reconciled with each other, and Lugo’s definition is, he says, the basis of the agreement: that constitutes an immediate occasion of which a man never, or scarcely ever, _consideratis circumstantiis_ makes use without sinning. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 149. Cf. Vindic. Alph. n. 140, p. 942.

[822] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 168.

[823] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. V. n. 63; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 157; Sanchez, Decal. Lib. I. cp. 8, n. 4.

[824] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. V. n. 63.

[825] Cf. S. Thomas, Summ. Theol. II. II. Q. 154, art. 3, ad 1.

[826] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 486.

[827] Cf. Lehmkuhl, n. 486, IV; Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. Tom. V. Tract. X. Sect. V. n. 172.

[828] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 454. Prax. Conf. n. 66.

[829] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 454; Prax. Conf. nn. 67, 68; Berardi, l. c. nn. 44, 45, 49, 50; S. Leonard a Port-Maur. Disc. mist. n. 22. Cf. Proposit. 61 damn. ab Innoc. XI et Proposit. 41 damn. ab Alex. VII; Aertnys, l. c. n. 306, III.

[830] S. Alph. l. c. n. 454. Prax. Conf. n. 66.

[831] S. Alph. l. c, nn. 456, 463, 464; Prax. Conf. n. 69; Berardi, l. c. nn. 53, 54; Aertnys, l. c. n. 306, IV. V.

[832] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 6. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. n. 185.

[833] S. Alph. l. c. n. 456.

[834] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 456, 457; H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 7; Prax. Conf. n. 69. Cf. Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 156 ss.

[835] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 456; Prax. Conf. n. 69.

[836] Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 196, 197. Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 631, et Vindiciæ Alph. pp. 603-620.

[837] Cf. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 68; Berardi, l. c. nn. 79-83.

[838] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. V. n. 63; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cap. 5; Berardi, l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 308, Q. 1.

[839] Segneri, Conf. Instr. cp. 5.

[840] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 8, _ref. matrim._

[841] Compare § 65, Penitents in _occasione necessaria_, for the same principles apply to this case.

[842] See Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Vol. II. Book 4, § 191, n. 28, p. 665 (2 ed.).

[843] Cf. Berardi, De occas. n. 117 ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. II. Lib. VI. Tract. V. Append. Part III. n. 315 ss.

[844] Segneri, Instruct. Conf. cp. 5; S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436.

[845] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436.

[846] Cf. Segneri, Instruct. Conf. cp. 5 et 6.

[847] Cf. Gobat, l. c. Tract. VII. cas. 16, n. 530; Sporer, Theol. sacr. P. III. n. 328; S. Alph. Lib. III. nn. 437, 441, Lib. II. n. 31, Lib. VI. n. 455.

[848] Segneri, l. c. cp. 5; Berardi, l. c. n. 151.

[849] Cf. Rit. Rom. Tit. IV. cp. 4, n. 1.

[850] Cf. Berardi, l. c. n. 148; Aertnys, l. c. n. 319, Q.

[851] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 436; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cp. 5.

[852] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. nn. 437, 441.

[853] “If, considering the present corruption of our society and the manner in which dancing entertainments are conducted, a priest publicly protests against them, he may be perfectly justified. But the place in which he can exercise his influence against this evil is the confessional. Here he can positively forbid dancing to the young man or girl for whom it is an _occasio proxima_ of sin, whether the sin consists in bad thoughts and desires, or in external acts, or he will proceed in accordance with the principles laid down above (concerning the _occasio necessaria_).” Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoral Theology, Vol. I. Part I. § 90, p. 265.

[854] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429.

[855] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429; Berardi, l. c. n. 155.

[856] Cf. Berardi, l. c. n. 156.

[857] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429; _certe veniale non excedit_.

[858] Cf. Konings, Theol. Mor. Compend. n. 1441; S. Francisc. Sales. Instit. vit. devot. P. III. cp. 34; Aertnys, l. c. n. 323, Q. II; Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. I. Lib. II. cp. 3, n. 643.

[859] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 112; Franc. Sales. Inst. vit. devot. l. c. cp. 33; Berardi, l. c. nn. 167-169; Aertnys, l. c. art. II. n. 324, Q. 1.

[860] II. II. Q. 168, art. 3.

[861] S. Thom. 4 Sent. dist. 16, Q. 4. art 2.

[862] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 427.

[863] _Ibid._

[864] Benedict XIV, De Synod. Lib. II. cp. 10, n. 11. Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 427.

[865] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 327; Lehmkuhl, l. c. P. I. L. II. cp. 3, n. 644.

[866] Compare § 43; S. Alph. App. de prohib. libr. cp. 1; cf. Benger, Pastoraltheologie (2 Ed.), Vol. II. § 129, n. 7, p. 53 ff.; Clement XIII, Encycl. 1766; Pius IX, “Qui Pluribus,” 20 Nov., 1846; many pastorals of bishops.

[867] Cf. Propos. 61 damn. ab Innoc. XI.

[868] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 429.

[869] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 331, Q. II.

[870] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 330, Q. II; Gury, Tom. I. n. 256; Varceno, Theol. Mor. Tract. 8, cp. 2, art. 3; Berardi, Praxis Conf. nn. 66 et 240; Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. II. § 36, n. 6.

[871] By “intimacies” is here understood friendly intercourse established between two persons of different sex.

[872] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65. Cf. Roncaglia, in S. Alph. _ibid._; Gousset, Moraltheologie, II. n. 566.