Chapter III: Penitents in Extreme Danger (5)

[873] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65; S. Leonard a Port-Maur. Disc. mist. nn. 23, 24.

[874] Theol. Mor. l. c. Append. P. III. n. 340.

[875] Notæ ad Gury, Tom. I. n. 413.

[876] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 65; S. Leonard, Disc. mist. n. 23 s.; Berardi, l. c. nn. 233-238; Konings, l. c. n. 1453; Aertnys, l. c.

[877] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 204; H. Ap. Append. IV. n. 6; Benedict XIV, Inst. 46, nn. 17, 21; Sporer, De Matrim. n. 429.

[878] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. 7, n. 32; Praxis Conf. n. 52.

[879] S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 65; S. Leon. Disc. mist. n. 24.

[880] Therefore, _quando fiunt inter eos, qui sunt disparis conditionis propter scandalum et periculum mortaliter peccandi; si fiant cum illis, cum quibus impossible est contrahi matrimonium, ut sunt uxorati, claustrales et in sacris ordinibus constituti ... si fiat in ecclesia, tum propter irreverentiam, tum propter periculum audiendi sacrum sine debita attentione, tum etiam propter scandalum; si adsit præceptum patris vel matris aut tutoris rationabiliter prohibens talem amorem_.

[881] _Quando clam fiunt et occulte, tempore nocturno, si eo modo fiat, ut ex se involvat periculum proximum osculorum, tactuum, etc., etiam si aliunde ille amor esset licite exercitus, quia est inter solutos et causa matrimonii ... si amator animadvertat, complicem amoris esse graviter tentatum vel alterum urgere verbis turpibus vel alio modo ad inhonesta etc., etiamsi alter complex nihil tentetur et nullam sentiat inclinationem ad peccandum; denique universaliter loquendo, quotiescunque ob causam amoris amator vel amatrix frequenter labitur in aliquam gravem noxam; tunc amor induit rationem occasionis proximæ mali et est omnino illicitus._—From the decree of Cardinal Pico de Mirandola. Cf. Gaume, l. c.

[882] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 65; Aertnys, l. c.; Gousset, Moraltheologie, II. n. 567.

[883] Handbook for Confessors, chap. III. art. 5, n. 328.

[884] See Ballerini’s Discussion of the definition of St. Alphonsus (Lib. VI. n. 453) and Gury’s (l. c. n. 632) in his Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1, n. 214; on the other hand, Aertnys, l. c. Append. P. II. cp. 1, n. 310.

[885] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 490.

[886] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 459.

[887] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 8.

[888] Instr. sacerd. Lib. V. c. 13, n. 6.

[889] Lib. VI. n. 464.

[890] St. Alphonsus distinguishes between _formal_ relapsing sinners and _material_. A _formal_ relapsing sinner is one who, having been instructed and having promised amendment, has returned to his former sin in the same, or nearly the same way, and with the same ease; that is, without having endeavored to amend, and without having adopted any one of the prescribed remedies. A _material_ relapsing sinner is one who was never seriously admonished, or who, in spite of efforts toward improvement, and in consequence of inconstancy of will, has again fallen into the sins already confessed. H. Ap. Tr. ult. n. 9 (cf. Vind. Alph. P. VI. cp. 1, Tom. II. p. 276). In a word, a relapsing sinner is one who has contracted a sinful habit, and, after confession, has fallen into the same sin. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 457. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 310; Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 632; Op. Theol. Mor. l. c.; Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 166; Salmant. Tr. 17, cp. II. n. 167. According to the concurrent teaching of theologians, the following elements are included in the idea of relapse in the theological sense: (1) _frequens relapsus post plures confessiones_; (2) _relapsus in eadem_ (_specie_) _peccata_; (3) _defectus omnis, etiam inchoatæ, emendationis_. (Suarez, Tr. V. Lib. III. c. 8, n. 7.)

[891] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 491.

[892] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 313; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 493. St. Alphonsus teaches that such penitents can only be absolved when, by extraordinary signs, they have removed the prejudice against their actual disposition (as we have learnt above, § 50); and the holy Doctor, whom many later theologians follow, represents this teaching as _sententia communis_. Lib. VI. nn. 459 and 505; Prax. Conf. n. 20 in fine. But Ballerini questions this, remarking that even of the authors cited by St. Alphonsus not all held this opinion. Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 232-313; Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 636. Only the theologians of Salamanca teach, indeed, that these extraordinary signs are a help in forming a judgment as to the penitent’s preparation, or that, when they are present, postponement is not to be resorted to, while they recommend this remedy as occasionally profitable and beneficial in uprooting the evil habit. Moreover, they always teach that to the habitual sinner the general rule of the Roman Catechism may be applied: “When (the priest), after hearing the confession, judges that neither diligence in the confession of the sins nor sorrow in their detestation has been wholly wanting in the penitent, he can absolve him,” without limiting (as does St. Alphonsus, n. 459) these and similar expressions to the habitual sinner who confesses the sinful habit for the first time. The confessor need not be convinced, they add, that the penitent will keep his resolution, if only he believes that the latter is, at the time, really and firmly resolved to amend. But if they sometimes maintain that habitual sinners cannot be absolved, it is clear from the context (Ballerini continues) either that only those are meant who are quite certainly unworthy and not disposed, or that they prescribe this in order to avoid scandal. Ballerini remarks further that relapse does not show positively that the purpose of amendment in former confessions was not sufficiently efficacious; the human will is liable to alteration; still less can want of sorrow and purpose of amendment in the actual confession be inferred (at least directly). Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V. 1874. According to Ballerini, the controversy turns upon the question, When has the confessor obtained a _judicium prudens seu probabile_ concerning the disposition of the relapsing penitent? and declares (after emphatically rejecting the teaching of St. Alphonsus, who finds this _judicium_ in the _signis extraordinariis_), that there are two things indicating the actual disposition of the penitent: _modus confessionis et confessio seu testimonium pœnitentis_. As to the _signa extraordinaria_—after having characterized most of them as deceptive and untrustworthy, and only admitting a few as partly or wholly conducive to a better knowledge of the disposition of the penitent, Ballerini observes: “_Hisce indiciis utique utendum esse at neque iis insistendum adeo esse, ut alia, quæ insita sunt ipsius sacramenti naturæ, negligantur neque propter eorum defectum debere Confessarium desperare de cognoscenda pœnitentis dispositione ac multo minus certum de defectu dispositionis inde judicium ferre._” Cf. n. 310. It is not to be denied that the relapsing habitual sinner _can_ be truly repentant and firmly resolved in the actual confession; the confessor must also believe the penitent, whether he speaks in his own favor or against himself. But, on the other hand, it is not to be denied that the penitent has shaken belief in his declaration as to his repentance and resolution, by not amending at all and by not adopting remedies; that he is, therefore, to be regarded as a _dubie dispositus_. Finally, the confessor must provide for the reverence due to the Sacrament and for the salvation of the penitent, and therefore must not straightway content himself with the latter’s assertion that he is sorry, etc. According to Gury (Ratisb. edit.) the teaching of St. Alphonsus may, without difficulty, be reconciled with the general view of the older theologians. For the signs which he calls extraordinary are not supposed to be different from those which others call regular and usual. From all this it is plainly evident that St. Alphonsus and the later theologians do not demand anything more than what the older theologians demanded; namely, _sufficient signs of true repentance_; sufficient, also, making allowance for the circumstances. Gury, II. Edit. Ratisb. n. 640. Appendix. De dilatione absolut., etc.

[893] Cf. Bucceroni, Comment. III. De absolut. danda, etc., § 5, De absol. consuetud, et recidiv. This author points out, in his excellent treatise, that this is the teaching of the great theologians, Lugo and Suarez, and the practice of the saints.

[894] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 608; Const. Leonis XII, “Charitate Christi,” 25 Dec., 1825.

[895] Cf. Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 311.

[896] Berardi, l. c. n. 116. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 460.

[897] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 459; Praxis Conf. n. 5; Leo XII, Const. citat.; Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. n. 313 ss. Compare § 52, Postponement of absolution.

[898] L. c. nn. 431, 28.

[899] S. Alph. l. c. n. 432. Cf. Berardi, De recidivis, etc., n. 119 ss.

[900] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 494.

[901] Cf. § 52, IV.

[902] Cf. S. Alph. n. 459; cf. 432.

[903] L. c. nn. 463, 464; Praxis Conf. nn. 76, 77.

[904] See above, IV.

[905] Confess. Lib. VIII. cp. 11.

[906] Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 181; cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 314, Q. 8.

[907] Compare Capellmann, Pastoral Medicine, B. The sixth commandment I.

[908] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 209, Lib. V. n. 8, Lib. VI. nn. 464, 75; Prax. Conf. n. 6, nn. 16, 124; Segneri, Instr. Conf. cp. 12; S. Leonard a Port-Maur. Discors. mist. n. 19; Aertnys, l. c. n. 314, Q. 7.

[909] Suppl. Q. 35, a. 1, ad 3.

[910] II. II. Q. 184, a. 8.

[911] S. Alph. H. Ap. Tr. ult. nn. 16, 17, Lib. VI. nn. 63-77; Benedict XIV, De Synod. Lib. XI. c. 2, n. 17.

[912] Suppl. Q. 36, art. 4, ad 1. Cf. Innoc. III. in cap. 14, de act. et qual.

[913] Cf. Collectanea S. Sedis, nn. 497, 494.

[914] Praxis Conf. cp. 9, n. 121. Compare the excellent treatise in Benger’s Pastoral Theology, Book 4, § 172. Perfection.

[915] Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 245. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 499; Benger, § 174, n. 5, I.

[916] Cf. Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 16, Sect. 2, n. 103.

[917] Cf. S. Franc. Sales. Philoth. P. III. cp. 1 et 2.

[918] Franc. Sal. _ibid._, cp. 35.

[919] Reuter says: “It is indeed true, as the Apostle remarks in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, that the Spirit of God is wont to instruct us Himself and through the ministry of His good angels. Not seldom, however, Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, deceiving men with the intention of ruining their souls. Those become easily entangled in these snares who are presumptuous in spiritual matters.” Neo-Conf. n. 247.

[920] Scaramelli, Directorium mysticum; S. Alph. Praxis Confess. nn. 247-251; St. Ignatius of Loyola, Book of Exercises; Comp. Zenner, Instr. pract. Confess. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 1, § 261; the Monita S. Philippi Nerii.

[921] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 505. Compare Benger, Pastoraltheologie, (1 Ed.) Vol. III. § 174, (2 Ed.) Vol. II. Book 4, § 174.

[922] Cf. Aertnys, Instr. pract. P. III. cp. 6, art. 2, n. 213; Benger, l. c.; Stöhr, Pastoral Medicine, 2 Ed. p. 334; Kerschbaumer, Paterfamilias, Part IV. chap. 7, 8.

[923] S. Alph. Lib. I. n. 11; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. I. Tract. II. n. 49; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Gener. Tract. II. n. 57; Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. I. P. V. Q. III. n. 176.

[924] Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 266.

[925] Cf. Lacroix, l. c. Lib. I. n. 519 ss.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Gener. Tr. II. n. 58.

[926] S. Alph. De Mor. Syst.

[927] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. l. c. Lib. III. § 159; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 55; Aertnys, l. c. n. 50; Müller, l. c. II. § 159; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, a. a. O. § 174, n. 5; Scaramelli, Direct. ascet. Tom. III. nn. 433-440; Zenner, Instr. pract. Conf. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 1, § 256.

[928] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. l. c. n. 260; S. Ignat. l. c. Regula 5; Benger, l. c.; Scaramelli, l. c.; Zenner, Instr. pract. Conf. P. II. Sect. II cp. 1. § 255.

[929] S. Alph. l. c. n. 13; Reuter, Neo-Conf. l. c. n. 261; Aertnys, l. c. n. 51.

[930] S. Alph. Lib. I. n. 13; Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 262; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 61; Aertnys, l. c. n. 53.

[931] Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confess. n. 263 ss.; Stotz, l. c. n. 185; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 63; Aertnys, l. c.; Zenner, Instructio pract. Confess. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 1, § 257.

[932] S. Alph. Lib. IV. n. 177; Reuter, Neo-Conf. n. 268; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 64.

[933] Cf. S. Congreg. S. Offic. 20 Jul., 1859 (Coll. Lacens. Concil. Tom. III. p. 550).

[934] Cf. Instr. S. C. Inq. 20 Jul., 1859 et 20 Nov., 1878; Bucceroni, Enchirid. p. 84. There is an (abridged) _professio fidei_, which the S. C. S. Officii, 20 July, 1859 gave for America; the wording of the Instruction clearly indicates that it may be used in all places where the diocesan law does not decide to the contrary.

[935] Thus Lehmkuhl. Aertnys, however, does not assent to this teaching, _quia voluntas conditionalis confitendi non est reapse confessio, atque adeo prorsus deesse videtur materia_. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 196, Q. 4, 5. Lehmkuhl rejects the opinion that a dying person in this state must be asked whether he would confess and receive absolution; for here the question is not what the man would wish, but what he wishes; at most it might be said of this velleity that it includes a certain will and actual accusation. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 515.

[936] Zenner, Instr. pract. Confess. l. c. cp. 2, § 263: _Summi momenti munus subit confessarius, dum puerorum confessionibus se offert excipiendis_. Dubois, “The Practical Pastor,” Pt. 2, chap. 18, n. 381; Frassinetti, “Practical Instruction for Young Pastors,” Pt. 2, Chap. 3, n. 411 (in the Italian); Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, Book 1, Pt. 1, § 84, p. 240.

[937] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 432, 666; Gury, l. c. I. n. 478; Stang, Pastoral Theol. Bk. II. 4, § 31. Schulze, Pastoral Theol. Sect. I. 4, n. 3.

[938] Cf. Statut. Leod. n. 344.

[939] Stang, Pastoral Theol. Bk. II. 4, § 31.

[940] The question whether a formula of an Examination of Conscience should be placed in the hands of children, is treated by Dubois, l. c. Certainly not in the hands of the younger children; and Examinations, such as are contained in prayer-books for grown-up people, should not be given to older ones. Nor are all Examinations for Children to be recommended. The instruction is the most important thing; an Examination is a poor substitute for good instruction. Certain it is that these Examinations are very often misused by children.

[941] Aertnys says in his Institut. practica, cp. 2, art. 1, n. 122, that the confessor must ask the children if they know the articles of faith which every Christian is bound to know, and if they do not, he must, if time allows, patiently instruct them concerning these articles, at least concerning the doctrines necessary to salvation, etc., but this can only happen in exceptional cases, scarcely when there has been given a good course of previous instruction.

[942] Prax. Conf. cp. 6, n. 90.

[943] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 90.

[944] Cf. Catech. Roman. P. III. cp. 7; Renninger, l. c.

[945] Aertnys writes upon this point (Instr. pract. cp. 2, art. 1, n. 127): _Actiones inhonestæ puerorum, qui luxuriæ adhuc ignari sunt, plerumque non sunt habendæ ut peccata mortalia; quia vel commotionem veneream non habuerunt vel hujus malitiam nondum apprehendunt_. And St. Alphonsus teaches (Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 1, n. 14): _Sunt quædam actiones naturales, quas manifestare puderet, attamen declarare propterea non tenemur. Sic. e. c. si quis commiserit in pueritia levitates aut jocos indecentes, quorum malitiam ignorabat, non tenetur ea confiteri. Neque ex eo, quod actio secreto facta fuerit, concludere licet conscium quem fuisse ejusdem malitiæ; quasdam namque faciunt pueri actiones naturales secreto, quamvis non sint peccata._ But there are children, and in towns especially not a few of them, who are early corrupted, and in whom wickedness and impure knowledge are in advance of their age, with reference to whom it must, alas! be said: _Tantillus puer et tantus peccator!_ Cf. Aertnys, l. c.

[946] Whether immodest acts and jokes which children have practiced be sins or not, let the confessor admonish them, in accordance with the principle _principiis obsta_, to avoid carefully for the future these things and everything impure. But let him do so with fatherly love, in order that, should they do these things again, the children may not be afraid to confess them.

[947] The reason which Aertnys (Instr. pract. l. c.) adds to this: _quia hanc obligationem non intelligunt_, can certainly not be allowed to hold in the case of older and more educated children.

[948] Tappehorn, l. c., says that _in all cases_ the confessor _must_ insist that the thing stolen should, if possible, in some way or other, even with the help of the confessor, be restored; but, surely, this is too severe, even with the limitation “if possible,” and the addition that absolution might rather be deferred till the restitution had been made, must be limited to the case of a more considerable theft, when the stolen object is still in the possession of the penitent, and, perhaps, to the case of a child who had repeatedly committed thefts.

[949] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 432; Prax. Conf. n. 91; Aertnys, l. c. n. 126.

[950] Tappehorn, Anleitung zur Verwaltung des Buss-Sakramentes, § 48; Aertnys, Instr. pract. cp. 2, art. 1, nn. 120-128. Dubois, The Practical Confessor; Frassinetti, The Confession of Children.

[951] Hom. 59 in Matt. xviii, n. 7.

[952] It is good to invite them at stated times to monthly communions in regular turns, and if a number of the young people of the parish approach holy communion every Sunday, it will edify, and will induce older persons to frequent reception of the holy Sacraments. Attendance at the regular communion should be urged again and again; the latter should also be celebrated with some exterior solemnity.

[953] Here we will only insert the _Notanda_ from the Instr. pract. P. III. art. II. § 1, n. 131, by Aertnys: (1) _Animadvertat confessarius, quod docuit experientia, nempe nullum cœlibem, qui ad provectam ætatem usque in habitu hujus vitii vixerit, ad frugem redire posse nisi extraordinaria Dei gratia præveniatur; principiis ergo obstet, ne malum per multas invaleat moras et sero medicina paretur._ (2) _Interdum inveniuntur juvenes utriusque sexus, qui habitu pollutionis antehac irretiti, valde cupiunt hac miseria soluti esse, sed vehementer tentantur, et, quamvis resistant et orent, pollutio nihilominus sæpe evenit. Idem aliquando contingit ob corporis complexionem nervosam aut sanguinosam, quæ vehementes tentationes causat. Qui doceantur pollutionem omnino involuntariam non esse peccatum._ Nevertheless, the confessor must be careful, and not _readily_ believe that the penitent had sufficiently resisted, but duly investigate if this has been the case. (3) Others resist at the beginning, but lose courage if the temptation does not cease, wrongly imagining that resistance is in vain. Such must be encouraged to further resistance; _si tamen pollutio sequitur sua sponte, involuntaria censenda est utpote præter voluntatem secuta_, and, therefore, there is no sin. (4) _Alii demum timoratæ conscientiæ, sed nervosæ complexionis, in lecto vehementes commotiones carnis identidem patiuntur; si positivam resistentiam opponere pergant, obdormiscere nequeunt, et, si tandem sopiantur, pollutio in somno evenit._ These should be admonished to pray for divine help, to make a firm act of disapproval, and then, with a quiet conscience, to assume a passive attitude, in accordance with the teaching of St. Alphonsus, Lib. V. _de peccato_, n. 9.

[954] Aertnys, l. c. art. II. § 1, nn. 128-133; Tappehorn, Anleitung zur Verwaltung des Buss-Sakramentes, 4 Abschn. § 85.

[955] Serm. super Ecce nos.

[956] Praxis Confess. n. 92.

[957] To deny absolutely the existence of a vocation under such circumstances is too severe a doctrine; higher and purer motives may exist along with those of a distinctly lower order, and the aim of the confessor should then be to foster the higher motives while eliminating the lower ones. Great caution, unquestionably, should be used where inferior motives are detected, but we should never lose sight of the possibility of God’s grace being granted to those whose ideals are not at first of the very highest order.

[958] Cf. S. Thomas, Quodlib. III. art. 14.

[959] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 92; Aertnys, l. c. n. 134.

[960] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 93; Aertnys, l. c. n. 135; Tappehorn, Anleitung, etc., § 85; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. VII. nn. 398, 408.

[961] “_Unde concludes, gravissimi momenti esse munus tum Seminarii directoris, tum alumnorum confessarii, ut mature alumnos dirigant, eorum animos efforment, defectum aptitudinis aperiant, imo nisi de confessario confessionisque sigillo vel simili secreto agitur, ineptos etiam relegendos curent._”—Lehmkuhl, l. c.

[962] Concerning purity of heart, compare § 69. “_De divina vocatione hic imprimis nota, debere positiva probatione constare de vitæ probitate tum Superiori, ut ad Ordines, maxime sacros, admittere possit, tum ipsi candidato, ut sacrum ordinem suscipere sibi liceat._”— Lehmkuhl, l. c. And very justly Aertnys writes (Instr. pract. l. c. n. 135 fin.): _Nisi juvenes innocentiam servent, dum in Seminario ad sacerdotales virtutes efformantur, vix spes est fore, ut illam servent in Sacerdotio constituti. Unde turpiter seipsos illi decipiunt, qui arbitrantur, se in Sacerdotii gradu positos emendaturos esse vitia, in quibus laici vel clerici sorduerunt._

[963] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 802-804; Examen Ord. n. 45.

[964] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 93. Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tract. II. n. 112. We may suggest that the following distinctions are to be made: (1) _votum non nubendi seu cælibatus_; (2) _votum virginitatis_; (3) _votum_ (_perpetuæ_) _castitatis_. The first prohibits marriage (_ergo non formaliter sed consequenter tantum inducit obligationem perfectæ castitatis_); the second, any _peccatum consummatum_, by which virginity is violated, _i.e. voluntariam seminis effusionem, si de viro agitur, sive per copulam, sive per pollutionem fit; si de muliere agitur, copulam aut innaturalem corporalis integritatis læsionem culpabiliter factam_; the third forbids (_formaliter et per se_) every interior or exterior act which is contrary to chastity _ex motivo religionis_. Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. II. Lib. I. Tract. VIII. n. 719.

[965] See the following section. But he must by no means meddle with engagements; every pastor, every priest, should be on his guard against this, “for the zeal of relations in this matter is already great enough,” remarks Frassinetti, who continues: “In matrimonial matters the world wishes to act independently; and it is well that it does. Priests who do not interfere in these matters act well in the eyes of God, and meet with the approbation of men” (Frassinetti, l. c. VI. chap. On the Sacrament of Matrimony, § 1, n. 458). On the other hand, it would be no dangerous interference, and would not be taken ill by any one, if the confessor endeavored to induce a man who had dishonored a young woman to marry her as soon as possible. However, one cannot speak of an _absolute_ duty to marry the woman under these circumstances, nor may one always adopt this remedy. For if the woman were so immoral that infidelity toward her husband might be safely presupposed, or if the seducer were such a dissolute man that he would hear nothing about the bond of marriage, and it was to be presumed that he would abandon or illtreat his wife if he were forced into marriage, it would be highly imprudent to bring about such a marriage. The same applies to all other cases in which it could be foreseen that the marriage would result in misery. This would be trying to remedy one misfortune, as seduction certainly is, by a lasting evil, namely, a wretched marriage. The confessor must, therefore, first investigate the circumstances.

[966] Theologians teach that, _per se loquendo_, children are not _bound_ to obey their parents in the matter of their vocation (they might, _per accidens_, be sometimes bound to this, _non vi præcepti, sed ex charitate_), that children who wish to join a Religious Order are _not_ always bound to obtain the advice and assent of their parents, etc. Children should, however, take into consideration the objections raised by their parents against their choice of a partner in life. This duty of children to ask their parents’ advice and consent is one which ordinarily binds under grave sin, _quia gravis contemptus est ac signum diffidentiæ, tantam rem sine eorum consensu aggredi ac nurum aut generum ipsis insciis adducere_. Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 849; Lib. VII. n. 335; Lib. IV. n. 68; S. Thom. II. Q. 104, art. 5, Suppl. Q. 47, art. 6. Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tract. IV. n. 153.

[967] Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 1 de ref. Compare the Ordinances of many provincial and diocesan synods, many diocesan regulations, and even civil legislation.

[968] Compare the doctrine of the _occasio proxima, præsens libera_. S. Alph. H. A. Tract. VII. n. 32; Scavini, Theol. Mor. Univ. Tract. X. n. 262. This is especially necessary when a dispensation for the intended marriage is sought, as this dispensation generally contains the clause, _dummodo separate vivant_. Cf. Bangen, Instr. pract. de spousal. et matrim. I. p. 27 ss.

[969] Cf. Benedict XIV, Inst. pastor. _Sponsos eorumque parentes_ (_parochi_) _admoneant, ne unquam sponsi sine testibus ac præsertim consanguineis, colloquium simul ineant, si illud aliquando permittendum videtur; indecorum esse vetitumque eos simul habitare, graviter puniendos, si de hac re certiores facti fuerimus._

[970] Cf. H. A. Tract. 7, n. 32; Tract, ult. n. 3; Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 452; Praxis Confess. n. 204. Cf. n. 65.

[971] Cf. Sanchez, De Matrimon. Lib. IX. Disp. 46, n. 52; Salmant. Tr. 26, cp. 3, n. 59; Sporer, De Matrim. n. 429; S. Leonard, Disc. mist. nn. 23, 24; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Append. _De prax. serv. cum occas. et recidivis_, P. III. cp. VII. n. 340 ss. The question whether _sponsis amplexus et oscula honesta in signum amoris_ are allowed is answered by theologians _affirmative communiter, si fiant honesto modo juxta morem patriæ sicut solutis permittantur; sunt enim connaturalia signa amoris. Non licent vero oscula pressa sæpiusque repetita, neque diuturnæ manuum constrictiones._ Cf. S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 854.

[972] Hence, engagements which are entered into without prospect of speedy marriage are much to be disapproved. See § 66, V.

[973] Cf. Bened. XIV, Instr. 46; S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 846.

[974] Concerning dissolution of betrothal, see S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. VI. De matrim. Dub. III. quomodo dissolvantur sponsalia, n. 855 ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. VIII. De Matrim. n. 433 ss.

[975] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 1, de ref. mat. Rit. Rom. Tit. VII. cp. 1.

[976] “_Optimum et ut plurimum etiam necessarium erit confessionis generalis consilium, ut sponsi labes suas plenius abluant et sanioribus instituantur principiis atque impedimenta occulta et defectus, quibus non raro laborant, quosque alteri parti aperire tenentur, sincere detegantur._”—Instr. Eyst. p. 352.

[977] Compare § 8; Gury, Casus Conscientiæ, II. nn. 733, 394.

[978] Scavini, l. c. de Matrim. Disp. 4, Q. 3; Gury, Theol. Mor. II. 640.

[979] Compare above, § 44. Absolution from reserved sins, S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. nn. 584, 585; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. n. 245; Gury, l. c. II. n. 575.

[980] Or, as is the common custom in many places, not at once to set up house together, but to wait till the dispensation has been granted.

[981] _Prouti in aliis Legibus, quando aditus ad Papam est impossibilis et periculum in mora_ (cf. Bened. XIV, De. Syn. Lib. IV. cp. 2, nn. 2, 3); indeed according to the probable opinion of some theologians, the bishop can delegate this power, as a _potestas ordinaria_, to others, _etiam generaliter pro omnibus casibus occurrentibus_. S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 613; Prax. Conf. n. 8.

[982] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. and H. A. n. 114; Scavini, l. c.; Gury, l. c. II. 771; Cas. Consc. II. n. 1045; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 273.

[983] Benger holds that confession affords the most suitable occasion for giving the necessary instruction concerning the _sacredness_ of the matrimonial duties. Dubois (l. c.) urges that persons about to be married should be well instructed in what concerns that state, in order that they may never do anything which is against their conscience, or concerning which they are in doubt, and that they should obtain advice from pious and judicious people, or _from their confessor_; Aertnys (Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 515) speaks of an _officium parochi et confessarii_, to instruct married people concerning _licita et illicita in matrimonio_. The confessions of married people and the questions which they put to the confessor, may afford reason and occasion for instructing them concerning the _debitum conjugale_. The confessor must, therefore, be prepared for this; he should also be able to impart necessary information in a becoming manner; and it requires judgment and skill so to instruct in this difficult matter as to convey the information without giving offense or saying more than is necessary. We append the wise remark of Cardinal Gousset (Moral Theology, II. n. 897).... _Sacerdos, qui, ut ait Apostolus, debet exemplum esse fidelium in castitate, tacebit, etiam in sacro tribunali, de modo utendi matrimonio, seu de circumstantiis ad actum conjugalem spectantibus, nisi forte fuerit interrogatus. Explicare fusius, quæ licita sunt conjugibus aut illicita, ipsis æque ac confessariis periculosum foret._ Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 41.

[984] Everything is allowed which is necessary, or conducive, to the furtherance and attainment of the object of matrimony. The chief object of matrimony is the _procreatio prolis_; the secondary object _remedium concupiscentiæ_, and _mutuum adjutorium et solatium in vitæ societate_. All that is necessary, and conducive, to the attainment of the principal object, or which serves these secondary objects, having regard for the first, is allowed; whatever _frustrates_ the principal object is mortally sinful, whatever goes beyond this principal object, without counteracting it, is venial sin. For further particulars upon this subject, the confessor should consult the compendiums of moral theology; for example, Aertnys, De Matrim. P. IV. cp. 2, n. 479 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. De Matrim. Sect. IV. n. 834 ss.

[985] Cf. S. Alph. Praxis Conf. n. 94; Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n. 137; Frassinetti, Practical Instruction for Young Confessors (Lucerne, 1874), 2. Pt. 6 Chap. §§ 4, 5; Dubois, The Practical Confessor, 2 Pt. 19 chap. n. 402, etc.

[986] Benedict XIV, Decl. 4 Nov., 1741; Pius VII, Bull 27 Feb., 1809; Gregory XVI, Encycl. 27 May, 1832, to the archbishops and bishops of Bavaria. Finally, Leo XIII, Circular 10 Feb., 1880 declares: “A warning voice must also be raised against marriage lightly contracted with a person of another faith; for where the souls are disunited in religion, union in other matters is scarcely to be expected. It is clear that such marriages must be particularly shunned, for the reason that they give occasion for unlawful communication and participation in religious exercises, that they are a source of danger for the religion of the Catholic party, an obstacle to the good education of the children and not infrequently a temptation to hold all religions equally justified, denying all difference between true and false.” Even Protestant divines and authorities have frequently expressed themselves decidedly against mixed marriages, and earnestly warned people against them.

[987] Ex facultat. a Pio. IX. datis. See Bangen, De Sponsalibus et de Matrimonio, II. p. 161.

[988] Brief of Pius VIII, 25 March, 1830. Instruction of Pius IX, 15 Nov., 1858.

[989] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 715, justifies the dispensation of the Church, under the conditions laid down, upon the following grounds: 1. _Propter magnum bonum publicum_, such mixed marriages may be allowed even when there is some risk, only the Catholic party must have the firm intention not to yield to this danger (cf. Lugo, De sacr. in gen. Disp. 8, sect. ult., et De Fide Disp. 32, n. 33). 2. But when on account of circumstances those dangers disappear, or become slight, a _magnum bonum privatum_, such as the hope of leading the non-Catholic party to the true faith, can also make such a marriage permissible. 3. When they cannot be entirely removed, but yet are not really grave; or, on the other hand, when a _bonum_, though no very great _bonum_, is to be hoped for from the mixed marriage, it may happen that contracting such a marriage is not a grave sin against the natural law, but a venial sin.

[990] The Roman Congregation demands _pacta notoria, de quibus spes est servari_, that is, a documentary declaration made before the parish priest, or a legal contract at the hand of a notary.

[991] Cf. Instructio. S. Congregat. Inquisit. 17 Febr., 1864; Decret. S. Congr. Inq. 29 Aug., 1888.

[992] _Si quando connubium sine cautionibus necessariis initum fuerit, non propterea_ (_parochi_) _conjugem catholicam negligant, sibique ac suo peccato relinquant, sed studeant earn ad pœnitentiam adducere, ut suæ obligationi quoad catholicam educationem prolis, quantum potest, satisfaciat; quod quamdiu non præstiterit aut saltem sincere promiserit, sacramentis suscipiendis utique imparatus censeri debet._ (_S. Congreg. Officii 29 Jul., 1880 ad Cardin. Primatum et Archiep. Strigon._)

[993] Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. nn. 637, 654, 664.

[994] Cf. Bangen, Instructio practica, Tit. 4, p. 29. “_Si pater est catholicus, sane liberorum educatio in ipsius potestate est: Ergo quod potest facere debet; promittens coram testibus vel jurato vel juramenti loco, se prolem educaturum in catholica religione; sed id de facto etiam præstare tenetur. Excipe tamen, si proles jam in ea ætate sit, ut a patre jam non dependeat; tunc enim sufficit, ut vere sit attritus atque in hujus doloris signum id quod pro viribus efficere possit, peragere sit paratus. Si mater est catholica, distinguendum videtur. Aut adducere potest virum, ut in catholicam prolium educationem consentiat; et tunc ambo conjuges formaliter expositas cautiones emittant coram parocho; aut virum ad hoc movere nequit; tum attendatur, an indubitata ediderit contritionis signa idque præstare pro liberorum educatione sit parata, quod in ipsius viribus est._”

[995] See above, p. 603, Remark 2.

[996] Compare chiefly § 71 and § 49.

[997] “_Sed est aliud feminarum ingenium, quod considerationem nostram meretur, nimirum, cum factæ fuerint propter virum, libenter hujus societate gaudent et ea animi propensio, qua se in virum ferri sentiunt, et vice versa, laqueus est non minus suæ, quam Confessarii saluti periculosus. Ideo necesse est, ut Confessariis monita demus et præcautiones indicemus, quibus pericula evitent in frequentibus et prolixis mulierum confessionibus latentia. Verum enimvero adhæsio mulieris personæ Confessarii tantum est malum, ut morte ipsa diligentius est evitandum._” Aertnys, Instruct. practica, P. III. cp. II. art. 3, n. 139. _Mulier sensibili affectu magis succenditur et instinctu cordis magis quam rationis usu sese dirigit ... uti debilior astutiâ finem intentum assequitur ... si cui passioni se dedit, magis insanit, ... tempore menstruorum et prægnationis mulieres obnoxiæ sunt variis motibus passionum, puta morositatis, iracundiæ, anxietatis, et.... Horum consideratio juvabit sane Confessarium in directione mulierum._ Aertnys, l. c.

[998] Frassinetti, Pract. Instr. l. c. § 5, p. 280.

[999] Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 119.

[1000] Even those theologians who teach that the _aggravating_ circumstances must also be stated in confession, admit, _in puncto VI præcepti_, especially in the confessions of women, an exception. “Heedless questioners! have care for yourselves, have care for weak souls, respect the holy Sacrament,” exclaims Frassinetti; and the Angel of the Schools says, “_Potius estis contaminatores quam confessores_.” Cf. Gousset, Moral Theol. for the use of parish priests and confessors, II. n. 424; Gury, l. c. n. 1261.

[1001] Praxis Confess. n. 119.

[1002] Cf. Gaume, Handbook for Confessors, Third Chapter, nn. 156-159; Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n. 141; Ricardi, Dei doveri et dello spirito degli eccles. 15 a 15 in Le Noir; S. Alph. Praxis Confess. l. c.; Zenner, Instructio practica Confessor. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 2, §§ 270, 271.

[1003] Frassinetti, l. c. p. 283. We will not leave unnoticed two special dangers to which Aertnys calls attention: (1) _Siquando Confessarius, junior præsertim advertat pœnitentem aliquam carnali amore sibi adhærere asperis verbis eam retundat, et si hoc non sufficiat ad alium Confessarium remittat, idque tum præcipue faciendum est, cum et Confessarius sensualem affectum in se sentit; alioquin incautus Confessarius seipsum et pœnitentem magno periculo exponet._ (2) He then reminds confessors that the devil especially likes to direct his efforts against priests, as, at one blow, he ruins not only one, but many other souls if he succeeds in corrupting a priest. _Inde nonnunquam contingit, ut procaces feminæ consilium ceperint insidias parandi virtuti alicujus Sacerdotis, simulando conversionem, infirmitatem, aut quid aliud excogitando, ut paulatim ad seductionem devenirent. Evenit quoque, ut salax puella prolixam seriem obscænitatum in Confessione enarret et inverecunde describat, eo animo, ut turpes commotiones in Confessario suscitet. Confessarius debere ejusmodi serpentes a se repellere, res ipsa monet._ And Berardi (Praxis Confess. n. 1099) adds: “_Cavendum quoque est ab illis puellis, quæ ex curiositate malitiosa cupiunt interrogari a Confessariis, ut addiscant ea quæ adhuc ignorant et in hunc finem semper affirmative respondent. Sunt etiam aliæ adhuc magis malitiosæ, quæ, sive ex libidine, sive ut postea in conversationibus rideant de Confessario, non solum ad quaslibet interrogationes affirmative respondent, sed etiam ruborem fingunt et enixe petunt, ut interrogentur. Ab his scopulis interdum difficile est cavere; sed utile erit, quod Confessarii juniores sciant, quousque malitia feminæ pertinqere possit._” Cf. Eccle. 25, 26.

[1004] On this account the Provincial Council of Bordeaux (Conc. Burdigal. 1556, Tit. III. c. 5, in Coll. Lacens. Tom. IV. p. 711) declares that, in our times especially, solicitude for men constitutes a principal part of the priest’s work. “_Sane hoc ævi nostri opus præcipuum reputamus, viros videlicet quam solertissima industria et quovis indefesso zelo provocare, ut ad meliorem vitæ christianæ rationem instituendam, ad exequenda integrius cujusque status et conditionis officia, tandem se recipiant. Non saperet sacerdos, qui laboris difficultatibus solummodo intentus, de divinis promissionibus et virtute gratiæ diffidens, hoc opus aggrederetur segniter aut minus strenue prosequeretur._” This care for men the priest will especially exercise in the confessional. “The divine authority with which the priest is invested, the reverence with which the penitent appears before him, the candor with which he unbosoms himself, the obedience which he shows him, _give an efficacy to the confessor’s work in the confessional, such as he is unable to exercise in any other place or occasion_.” Göpfert.

[1005] Praxis Confess. n. 120.

[1006] Cf. Göpfert, l. c. p. 283.

[1007] L. c. p. 278, n. 397; also Dubois, l. c. n. 368, p. 434, and Göpfert, l. c. p. 284.

[1008] He should not be repelled if the penitent—as is peculiar to many men, generally less from malice than from awkwardness or embarrassment—shows a rough, sullen, insolent disposition; if his expressions are blunt, short, and ill chosen; indeed, the priest should be impressed favorably by the fact that men generally confess their sins with a certain honest fearlessness. Cf. Synod vic. Sutchuensis, 1803; Coll. Lac. Tom. VI. p. 608; and Conc. Aqu. 1850, Tit. VII. c. 5. Coll. Lac. Tom. IV. p. 992: _Alacri animo et in multa patientia suscipiat pœnitentes, præsertim viros, qui ad sacrum tribunal summo studio omnique charitatis industria alliciendi sunt._ Conc. Baltim. 1866, Tit. V. c. 5 (Coll. Lac. Tom. III. p. 40).

[1009] Zenner, Instructio pract. Conf. l. c. §§ 273, 274; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sacram. Pœn. Sect. III. cp. 4, art. 3, nn. 506-510; Aertnys, Instruct. pract. l. c. art. II. n. 148; Gaume, Handbook for Confessors, n. 185.

[1010] See § 41.

[1011] For this purpose he should make a diligent study of those ascetic books which treat of these matters; for example, the works of St. Alphonsus, Rodriguez, Scaramelli.

[1012] _Idque_, proceeds Lehmkuhl, _adeo verum est, ut in extraordinariis donis divinis, teste Sancta Theresia, Deus, non raro directorem vel confessarium experientia instruat, ut alios, qui ejusmodi charismatibus dotati sint, recte instruere et dirigere possit._ The more, therefore, the confessor sees himself deprived of the extraordinary gifts, the more prudent and cautious he must be; if he should have a penitent who enjoys a special intercourse with God, such penitent must not be lightly treated. But even in the treatment of ordinary, everyday matters, the confessor of nuns must proceed with great prudence, in order to give wholesome advice and correct answers; “_quo enim sagacioris et suspicacioris indolis sint feminæ et quo majus otium ruminandi et indagandi monialibus relinquatur, eo cautior et prudentior esse debet illarum confessarius, ne errorum det ansam_.” Lehmkuhl. It is also a part of prudence to content himself with what devolves upon him as confessor, and not to interfere in the temporal affairs of the nuns, lest, by more familiar intercourse with one or other of them, he expose himself or her to danger, or give occasion for ill feeling or petty jealousy.

[1013] Decretum 17 Dec., 1890.

[1014] Compare on this point S. R. C. 2 Dec., 1885; S. C. Ep. et Reg. 4 Aug., 1888; Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, Theol. Mor. II. n. 241; moreover, S. Rom. et Univ. Inquis. 2 July, 1890; Linzer Theol-prakt. Quartalschrift, 1889, S. 630; 1893, S. 138 (both articles by W. E. Hubert). According to these decisions, the right to give permission to nuns to receive holy communion oftener (than on the days fixed by the constitutions) belongs, not to their director or their Superioress, but only to the usual confessor, who, in the exercise of his right, is free and independent. Only in one case could the Superioress forbid holy communion, namely, when a nun had _publicly_ committed a _serious_ fault which had caused _scandal_ to the other sisters (cf. S. C. Ep. et Reg. 27 June, 1876); this prohibition, however, would only hold good till the next confession. When the _Confessor ordinarius_ has given permission for special occasions, it need not be referred to the Superiors; but if the permission is granted once for all, the Superior should be informed; the penitent herself ought to do so, but only once. Cf. S. Rom. et Univ. Inq. 2 July, 1890.

[1015] St. Alphonsus wishes that such a priest (_conscientiæ parum meticulosæ_) should be asked: 1. _Si distulerit celebrationem missarum per mensem, præsertim si sint defunctorum_ (cf. H. A. Append. III. n. 107). 2. _Si festinanter celebravit_ (H. A. Tract. 15, nn. 84 ad 86). 3. _Si satisfecit obligationi divini officii, præsertim si est beneficiatus._ H. A. Append. IV. § 1, n. 9; Prax. Conf. n. 183. Cf. Aertnys. Instr. pract. P. III. cp. 2, 3, art. 3, n. 154 and P. II. cp. 2, n. 42; Gaume, Handbook, 4. chap. 2. art. §§ 182, 183, 184.

[1016] H. A. Append. IV. § 1, n. 9.

[1017] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 183.

[1018] Prax. Conf. nn. 122, 127, 219. _Contemplatio in ceteris hominibus quæritur per consilium, in sacerdotibus vero exigitur per præceptum._ Rup. Tuit. Lib. II. in Lev. cp. 40. St. Gregory trembles for those bishops who admit to the service of the sanctuary men who have neither reverence nor love for prayer. St. Bernard admonishes Pope Eugenius to impose hands upon those only who have taste and zeal for meditation. St. Charles Borromeo objects to ordaining any priest without being certain that he possesses the science of meditation.... And everything that has been written upon this subject since the days of St. Vincent de Paul, St. Francis of Sales, and Olier, may be summed up as follows: “If one becomes a priest only by ordination, one becomes a good priest only by meditation.” Compare Chaignon, Meditations, Introduction, p. x ff.

[1019] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 48 ss.; Aertnys, Instr. pract. l. c. n. 156 ss.; Zenner, Instr. pract. Conf. §§ 276, 277.

[1020] The Priest in Solitude, Div. I. chap. ix. n. 30.

[1021] Rit. Rom. Tit. V. cp. 4, n. 1; S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 228.

[1022] Rit. Rom. Tit. V. cp. 4, n. 7.

[1023] Cf. Polancus, Methodus juvandi moribundos (Dilling, 1578); Scupoli, The Manner of Comforting the Sick, and Preparing Them for a Good Death (3. Supplement to the Spiritual Combat); Carol. Borrom. Instructiones de cura et visit. infirm. (Act. Med. pp. 595-608); S. Alph. Prax. Conf. nn. 227-292; H. A. II. Append.; Hettinger, Herr, den du liebst, er ist krank. Wurzburg, 1854; Aertnys, Instruct. pract. P. III. cp. 5, art. 2; Zenner, Instruct. etc. P. II. Sect. II. cp. 2, §§ 301-311; Schüch, § 317; Frassinetti, a. a. O. 2. Teil. 2. Cap. I. anh. §§ 1-7; Dubois, The Practical Pastor of Souls, 2. Part, 12. Chap. pp. 317-336, etc.; Stang, Pastoral Theology.

[1024] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 354; De Herdt, Sacræ Liturg. praxis, Tom. II. P. III. n. 20, IV.

[1025] Cf. Rit. Rom. l. c. _Quum primum noverit, quempiam ex fidelibus curæ suæ commissis ægrotare, non expectabit, ut ad eum vocetur: sed ultro ad illum accedat, idque non semel tantum, ted sæpius, quatenus opus fuerit: horteturque Parochiales suos, ut ipsum admoneant, quum aliquem in parochia sua ægrotare contigerit, præcipue si morbus gravior fuerit._ The sick person should, therefore, be visited _early_, the visit should be repeated, but with _discretion_, so that he may not be in any way inconvenienced. Various circumstances, however, cause patients or those belonging to them to conceal the illness from the priest, such as, fear of troubling him, the erroneous idea that his visit will entail expense, anxiety lest his appearance might have an injurious effect upon the patient’s condition; lack of conscientiousness on the part of the doctor, malice, unbelief. In such cases the priest must endeavor to remove these objections, and to obtain timely access to the sick person.

[1026] Cf. Rit. Roman. l. c.

[1027] The priest should not forget the exhortation of the Rit. Rom.: “_Ægrotos visitans ea ex qua Sacerdotes Domini decet honestate et gravitate se habeat, ut non ægris solum, sed sibi et domesticis verbo et exemplo prosit ad salutem._” Special care is necessary in visiting persons of the other sex. The sick-room should not be entered without due notice, the visits should take place as much as possible during the day, and not be too frequent nor too long; the priest should avoid being alone; even when hearing the confession the door should be left open, so that others can always see from a distance; certainly the door should not be locked, and he should never remain in the dark, nor alone longer than is unavoidably necessary. Everything of the nature of tenderness or sentimentality should be avoided, and holy decorum and gravity be observed. Comp. Benger, Pastoraltheologie, a. a. O.; Frassinetti, Practical Instruction, chap. 2, Appendix I. § 3, nn. 353-356.

[1028] S. Aug. Enarrat. in psalm. 144, n. 11.

[1029] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. nn. 231, 232.

[1030] See §§ 30, 31, 32, General Confession.

[1031] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, sect. 14, n. 598.

[1032] Comp. § 27, S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 260; H. Ap. Tract. 15, n. 24; Tract. 16, n. 39; Gury, l. c. II. n. 498.

[1033] S. Alph. Hom. Ap. Tract, ult. n. 46, Prax. Conf. n. 105.

[1034] Compare § 27; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 479.

[1035] See § 86.

[1036] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. III. n. 682; Prax. Conf. n. 105; Reuter, n. 235. Cf. 211, 6.

[1037] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 609, 614, 616.

[1038] See § 66, 1. Those living in concubinage.

[1039] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 454; Reuter, n. 211, 6. Cf. 173; Gury, Cas. consc. II. nn. 722-725; Gaume, Handbook, n. 376.

[1040] Compare Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, § 100; Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tract. II. § 167.

[1041] See also § 33, III.

[1042] It would be very wrong to take no further trouble about the sick after they have received the last Sacraments. Benger, a. a. O. n. 17; Dubois, n. 264; and others.

[1043] It would be best that the physician should tell the patient of this danger. But if none else will do it, the priest must perform this service of love, and that, not only when the patient is in a dangerous condition as to his soul, but also when he is well prepared.

[1044] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. nn. 237-253.

[1045] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 276, n. 11. See § 86.

[1046] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 234, 235; 267, 368. Rit. Rom. Tit. V. cp. 4, nn. 6, 13, 14.

[1047] With regard to the Indulgence for the dying we append the following from the various decrees: The sick person can gain only once the Plenary Indulgence for the dying _in eodem mortis articulo_. S. C. Ind. 5 Febr., 1841. And it is forbidden to give the General Absolution more than once (whether it be by the same or by different priests) _in eodem mortis articulo_, or to grant the Plenary Indulgence for the dying repeatedly on the plea that the patient has claims to it from various titles, for instance, by membership in the confraternities of the Rosary and of the Scapular. S. C. Ind. 12 Mar., 1855, 22 Mar., 1879. The formula prescribed by Benedict XIV must be used by all under pain of invalidity, and according to a declaration of Leo XIII, 1882, even by Regulars and Tertiaries, yet with mention of the founder of their Order in the _Confiteor_. Compare Schneider-Beringer, Die Ablässe, 10. Aufl. S. 473 f.

[1048] Ordo ministrandi Sacr. Pœn. n. 24.

[1049] Cf. Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. n. 196, Q. 1; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. l. c. Sect. III. art. IV. n. 510; Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. T. II. § 166.

[1050] Lehmkuhl, l. c., who, however, adds: “_Attamen culpandus non est, qui forte conditionem” si capax es “adjungat, quum possint occurrere circumstantiæ, quæ absolutionis valorem dubium reddant._”

[1051] Aertnys, l. c., S. Antoninus, Suarez, Bonacina, etc. Müller, also, recommends the _absol. condit._

[1052] “_Moraliter fieri nequit in hac nostra natura composita, ut dolor et desiderium, se subjiciendi clavibus Ecclesiæ, quæ interne habentur, nullo actu sensibili se manifestent, licet ab aliis forte non animadvertatur, vel quia præsentes non sunt vel quia signa non valent distinguere. Hinc sicut in moribundo sensibus destituto potest præsumi pœnitentia, ita pari omnino jure præsumitur pœnitentia manifestata in ordine ad se subjiciendum clavibus._”—Franzelin, De Sacr. in genere. Romæ, 1868, p. 39.

[1053] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 482; Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q. 3; Müller, l. c. § 166, II.

[1054] Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 512-515; Lacroix, Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1162; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1, _De absolutione morientium_, nn. 394-420.

[1055] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q. IV et V, Müller, l. c. § 166, II. _b_ and _c_, and his dissertation upon the sacramental absolution of the dying in the Linzer Theol-prakt. Quartalschrift, 1884, pp. 259-264; Kenrick, Theol. Mor. Tract. 18, n. 211; Konings, Theol. Mor. II. n. 1371. Concerning dying non-Catholics who are still conscious, see § 73 (Conclusion).

[1056] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 480.

[1057] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 482; Prax. Conf. n. 276; H. Ap. n. 37; Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q. VI; Müller, l. c. § 168.

[1058] De Sacram. Pœnit. Conf. VIII. n. 219. Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 276.

TOPICAL INDEX

A

Abortionists, excommunicated, 339.

“About” as a numerical qualification of sin, 163.

Absence of penitent when absolution is given (note), 57.
of contrition, how known, 120.

Absolution, form of, 50-53.
from censures, 54.
presence of penitent for, 55.
in writing, 56.
conditional, 59-69, 645.
objections urged against conditional, 66-69.
given at a distance, 58.
by telephone (note), 59.
from reserved sins, 340-350.
direct and indirect, 345.
of _complex in peccato turpi_, 354-363.
of those who refuse to denounce a _sollicitans_, 375.
postponement of, 529.
to the dying, 645-654.
repeated in cases of the dying, 653.

_Absolventes complicem in peccato turpi_, 333.

Abuse of the sacrament, 351.

Apostates, excommunicated, 328.

_Apostolicæ Sedis_, bull on censures, 326.

Appeal to secular judge in ecclesiastical cases, 332.

Appreciative sorrow for sin, 108.

Approbation of confessors, 279-283.
for hearing confessions of nuns, 311.

_Articulus mortis_, removes reservation, 347.

_Attritio_, 74, 88-98.

Attritionists, teaching of, 96.

Avarice, remedies of, 456.

B

Bad confessions, 391, 394.

Banns, dispensation from, 604.

Baptism, sins before, 39.
sins after, doubtfully valid, 190.
of converts, 558.

Betrothals, 592.

Blessing before confession, 53.

_Bona fide_ penitents, 443.

Books, _ex professo_ bad, 512.
on the Index (note), 331.
reading of good, 580.

C

Careless examination of conscience, signs of, 220.

Cases reserved, 316, 327.

Casuistry, study of, necessary, 432.

Catholics, dying, as a rule to be absolved, 651.

Censures, absolution from, 54.
reserved, 326.

Certain and doubtful matter for absolution, 40.

Change of penance, 275.

Child, age of, for receiving sacraments, 25.

Children’s confessions, how to be heard, 561.

Choice of state of life, 583.

Circumstances of sins to be confessed, 166-180.
changing venial into mortal, 173.

_Circumstantiæ aggravantes_, 174.
_speciem mutantes_, 175.

Civil government pastors, 335.
marriages, 607, 640.

Clandestine marriages, impediment of, 607.

Classification of sins (note), 158.

Commerce, missionaries forbidden to engage in, 338.

_Communicatio in sacris_, by clerics, 338.
mixed marriages, 600, 603.

Communion, frequent, 453.

Communion, frequent, for young unmarried people, 577.

Commutation of penance, 274-276.

Company-keeping of young people, 592.

Complete, sin to be reserved must be, 324.

Completeness of confession, 158, 198.
reasons excusing from, 200, 203.

_Complex absolvens_, excommunicated, 333.

_Complex in peccato turpi_, absolution of, 354.
inquiring the name of, unlawful, 351.

Concealing sins, habit of, 391, 394.

_Concina_, favors rigorous views (note), 65.

Concubinage, 501.

_Conditio de præsenti et de præterito_, 62.

Conditional absolution, 59-69.

Conditions placed in mixed marriages, 601.

_Confessio ficta ex pravo fine_, 367.