CHAPTER I

THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS

Sinful habits, and the immediate occasions of sin, are the nets with which the arch-enemy of mankind ensnares and holds innumerable souls. Especially in our own times have the occasions of sin become more numerous and dangerous, and carelessness with regard to them has increased. Many souls are thus lost! The more alarming this condition proves, the more should the priest be animated by zeal to prevent its fatal consequences. This requires great prudence and sound knowledge. For this prudence the priest must continually pray and consult wise and approved teachers. St. Alphonsus is recognized by all as a most safe guide amongst these teachers; for this eminent Doctor has been given to the Church by divine Providence in our days, that he might show us the middle path between opinions which are either too lax or too strict.[818]

ARTICLE I

63. Sinful Occasions and the Duty of avoiding them.

By “occasion of sin” (_occasio peccandi_) we mean, in general, a person, or some external object constituting for any one a danger of sinning. It comprises two elements: an external object which incites to sin, and an internal inclination to sin.

For a right understanding, we must distinguish between the _danger_ and the _occasion_ of sinning.[819]

Danger is the impulse to sin, and if this impulse proceeds from a person or an external object, this person, or this external object, is called an _occasion_ of sin; but if the impulse to sin comes from within only, namely from the devil or in consequence of a sinful habit, it is called simply _danger_.[820] There is a danger in every occasion but not every danger proceeds from an external occasion of sin.

1. The occasion of sin is either _immediate_ (_proxima_) or _remote_ (_remota_), according as the danger of sinning is great and probable, or slight. The immediate occasion is “absolutely immediate,” when for the generality of mankind it presents a serious and probable danger of sinning; or it is “relatively immediate” when the danger exists for some individual person on account of his particular disposition. A _per se proxima occasio_ may, therefore, be _remota_ for a very pious and prudent man, whereas an occasion _per se remota_ may be for a weak person and one much inclined to sin _proxima_.

The existence of an _occasio proxima_ may be inferred: (1) _a posteriori_ from a sad experience that the person did, in fact, generally, or at least often, fall into sin whenever the occasion presented itself. If, however, his trespasses were notably less numerous than his victories, the occasion cannot be called an _immediate_ one.[821] (2) _A priori_, from the attraction of the object, from the weakness of the person, from his passion, from a sinful habit, from the violence of the temptation to which he is exposed in this occasion. Although sin has not yet been committed, there is always great danger in _presumptuously_ exposing one’s self to violent temptation.[822]

It may be assumed that an _occasio proximo_ has become _remota_: (1) when it is known from experience that the sins have become less, and are no longer frequent; (2) when some circumstance has supervened which has caused the danger to be no longer a great one, such as a marriage, a quarrel, etc.

2. Furthermore, the occasion is _continua_, continual, _seu in esse_, or, with interruptions, _interrupta_, _non continua_, _non in esse_. It is present interruptedly, when one is not always exposed to it, but only occasionally, for instance in visits to dancing rooms, inns, etc.; it is present continuously when one is always, uninterruptedly exposed to it; for instance, in the case of a concubine or a servant living in the same house and with whom one is accustomed to sin; an obscene statue in one’s room.

3. Again, the immediate occasion is _voluntary_ (_voluntaria_), which can easily, and without much detriment, be given up; and necessary (_necessaria_) which the person cannot, even if he will, remove or relinquish. The necessary occasion is either physically or morally necessary; physically, when the person absolutely cannot remove it; morally, when it cannot be abandoned or avoided without sin, or great scandal, or great detriment to honor, or property, or without placing one’s self in a similar or worse danger of sin.

The following principles are to be laid down respecting the duty of avoiding the occasions of sin:—

I. The duty of avoiding mortal sin imposes upon us the strict duty of avoiding also the immediate danger of mortal sin.

He who is bound under grave sin to reach a certain end is also bound under grave sin to employ the means without which this end cannot be reached; but flight from the immediate occasion of sin is the morally necessary means of avoiding sin, consequently this immediate danger must be avoided. Further, as a man is bound by love for his own person not to expose his bodily life voluntarily to the danger of death, he is, _a fortiori_, bound by the law of charity not to expose his supernatural life voluntarily to the danger of death, that is, the danger of mortal sin. It is, therefore, _in re morali_, a sin of the same kind to place one’s self in an immediate occasion of sin, or to desire and commit the sin. It follows from this that a man sins grievously as often as he exposes himself without necessity to the immediate occasion of sin, even if he does not actually sin in this occasion. On the other hand, it is no sin to expose one’s self to a remote danger of sinning if there is a reason for so doing, or if precautionary measures are taken. For such danger can be easily overcome.[823]

II. It is allowed, in case of moral necessity, to expose one’s self to the immediate occasion of sin; only suitable means must then be employed to protect one’s self against the danger. In this case one does not love the danger, but incurs it unwillingly, and if a man strengthens himself by firm resolutions, prayer, etc., God will not suffer him to fall into sin, and in this manner the danger becomes a remote one. From this it results that a man is always bound to avoid _formal_ danger either by flight or by precautionary measures.[824]

III. From the duty to avoid the risk of sinning results _the duty to avoid the immediate occasions of sinning_ as these imply an immediate danger of sinning. This same conclusion, moreover, follows from two propositions condemned by Innocent XI: “The immediate occasion of sinning is not to be avoided when there is any _causa utilis aut honesta_ for not avoiding it” (Prop. 62). “It is permissible to seek directly an immediate occasion of sinning _pro bono spirituali vel temporali nostro vel proximi_” (Prop. 3).

On the other hand, this obligation is not incumbent in respect to _remote_ occasions, because they do not present an immediate danger of sinning, and because it is, for the most part, morally impossible to avoid all these occasions; we should be obliged simply to leave the world, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. v. 10), for they occur in all circumstances.

But it must here be observed that the occasions of sin may be avoided in two ways, according to the nature of the occasion. As this consists in an external object and an interior inclination to sin, occasions can be avoided: (1) _physically_ or _materially_ by separation from the external object, and (2) _morally_, or _formally_, when the danger is neutralized by other means which weaken the interior inclination without physical separation. The first method must come into operation in cases of _voluntary_ occasion, for he who _wishes_ to remain in immediate occasion of sin has no real intention of avoiding sin. And when it is a question of a really voluntary immediate occasion, where there is frequent sinning, or violent passion, or a sinful habit, or great incitement to sin, no success is to be hoped without separation, nor will the use of remedies convert the immediate into a remote occasion. For a great temptation cannot be overcome without the help of God’s grace, but God does not assist those who presumptuously expose themselves to temptation—as experience often shows. This is especially true of the immediate voluntary occasions of sin against purity.[825] The second method suffices in the case of the necessary occasion, for he who through _necessity_ remains in a danger of sin, may hope for the divine help to avoid sin.

From this consideration we deduce the following rules:—

1. An _occasio proxima libera_ of grave sin, whether _absolute_ or _relative proxima_, must absolutely be avoided; to remain voluntarily in such occasion or to seek it is itself a grave sin.

2. It is absolutely necessary to avoid or remove an _occasio proxima necessaria_; but for him who finds himself in it there exists a disjunctive duty, either of employing suitable means of reducing it to a remote occasion, or of removing it in spite of all difficulties and obstacles.

3. Not to remove a _remote occasion_, even when there is no particular reason for exposing one’s self to it, is, of itself, no grave sin; but this occasion must remain a _remote_ one, and he who finds himself exposed to it must be resolved to avoid the temptations possibly arising from it. For it is sometimes possible to foresee that what is now a remote danger will very soon become a grave and immediate danger; in this case it is the confessor’s duty to cut off such an occasion and to forbid it to the penitent lest he fall into formal sin. And when, on the contrary, the danger of a certain sin is _very remote_ and, in addition, there is a steadfast intention not to sin, the virtue to which that sin is opposed does not seem to suffer, even when this risk is incurred without cause. If the danger is in any way considerable, and it is incurred without cause, the virtue suffers; in a case of immediate danger of sin this is certainly the case.[826] But the venial sin which a man commits who is careless about keeping from a remote occasion increases in gravity in proportion to the danger. If a man exposes himself to the danger which such an occasion offers from a more or less weighty motive, he commits no sin at all, provided his resolution not to sin remains firm.

4. If danger of venial sin is to be apprehended, he who presumptuously exposes himself to it commits a venial sin; but if the danger of venial sin proceeds from an action _in se_ commendable and useful, this character of the action is sufficient ground for lawfully undertaking it; indeed, we ought to disregard the danger in a case of this kind, at the same time insuring ourselves against sin by employing preventive measures. If we did not adopt this counsel, innumerable actions which are useful would remain unperformed out of fear of sin, and this would bespeak timidity rather than prudence and conscientiousness. On the other hand, it is a mark of wisdom and zeal for perfection to avoid useless actions which, _ex se_, cannot be done without venial sin, and to avoid them the more because they may lead to other venial sins.[827]

64. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione Proxima Voluntaria.

Upon the foregoing explanations are based the following rules, according to which the confessor has to proceed with penitents _in occasione proxima libera_:—

I. Penitents who are _in occasione continua_ cannot, as a rule, be absolved, even the first time, before they have given up that which constitutes the occasion, however much they may promise to do so. For so long as a penitent remains under the influence of this occasion, he is in immediate danger of breaking his resolution to abandon it, as its removal, after an attachment to it has been formed and its fascination experienced, is very difficult and demands great self-command; so that there is reason for fearing that the presence of the sinful object will again enslave the penitent. Hence, the penitent who knows this and would, nevertheless, expose himself to the danger of breaking his resolution, must be regarded as not disposed, and the confessor who indulges him sins against his duty as judge by absolving an ill-disposed penitent, and also against his duty as physician of the soul by not applying the necessary means of amendment.[828]

To this rule there are, however, some exceptions, though in every case the penitent must faithfully promise to remove the occasion as soon as possible:—

1. When the penitent shows signs of extraordinary sorrow and firmness of purpose, thus giving hope that he will carry out his resolutions faithfully.

2. When the occasion is such that the penitent can give it up without doing great violence to himself.

3. When there is a solid reason for administering absolution at once; for it is allowed, where such reason exists, and if the necessary cautions are employed, to expose one’s self and another to a danger which then becomes a remote one; and if the penitent must receive absolution before he can remove the occasion, he is to be regarded as one _in occasione necessaria_, and he has a right, therefore, to immediate absolution. The following are held to be sufficient reasons: (_a_) _Danger of death_; that is, when the penitent is in danger of death and the occasion cannot be removed at once for want of time, or because great disgrace or scandal is to be feared. (_b_) _Difficulty in going to the same confessor again_; if this is the case, or if the penitent could not return till after a long time, nor repeat the confession to another confessor except under great difficulties, he may also be absolved before giving up the occasion. This holds good when the penitent confesses at a place far removed from his own domicile, so that it would be very difficult for him to go to the confessor again. (_c_) _Danger of disgrace_, if, on the same day or the following, he were obliged to contract a marriage, or receive holy communion, and could not withdraw without great disgrace. The case is similar if one confesses during the time of a mission, and cannot during this time remove the occasion without incurring infamy, as is frequently the case. Here the confessor may content himself with the removal of the occasion some weeks after the mission, but he must demand that the penitent should take the preliminary steps towards this at once if it can be done. (_d_) _Danger of spiritual injury_; that is, when the confessor has grounds for fearing that, on account of the postponement of absolution, the penitent would be estranged from the confessional and perish in his sins; in this case, postponement of absolution would rather increase the danger of not being faithful to his resolution.

In the above-named cases the confessor would be obliged to explain to the penitent that he must not hope to receive absolution in the future if he does not keep his promise.[829]

II. Those penitents who are _in occasione interrupta_ can be absolved _aliquoties_ (two or three times) before they have abandoned the occasion if they seriously promise to do so. They do not live _actu_ in the occasion, and their resolution not to seek the occasion may, therefore, be regarded as a firm one; but the confessor must urge them to abandon the occasion.

If the penitent does not subsequently amend, absolution must be deferred till he has really abandoned the occasion. As he could easily give up the occasion, and does not do so, according to his promise, doubts as to the firmness of his resolution arise; extraordinary signs of good dispositions would, however, remove these doubts.

If the penitent shows some improvement, although he has not yet completely given up the occasion, and if it is to be feared that deferring absolution would do more harm than good to the penitent, he may be absolved, seeing that his improvement indicates a firm resolve and preludes complete amendment.[830]

III. Penitents who have relapsed into an _occasio continua_, that is, those who have not kept their promise to remove the occasion, cannot be absolved unless they prove their worthiness by some extraordinary sign. But even in the latter case, that is, when these penitents give extraordinary signs of their good dispositions, the confessor where it seems feasible and useful may defer their absolution _ex officio medici_ till they have removed the occasion.[831]

65. The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione Necessaria.

The following are the rules for the treatment of this very numerous class of penitents:—

I. Penitents who are _in occasione proximo necessaria_ can be absolved without giving up the occasion if they are disposed and _are willing_ to adopt _means of amendment_. “For,” as St. Alphonsus says, “an opportunity of sinning is really, _in se_, no sin, and induces no necessity of sinning; true sorrow and a firm purpose not to relapse may, therefore, be quite consistent with an occasion; and although it is right that every one should be bound to remove the immediate occasion of sin, this simply means that no one may expose himself voluntarily to such risks. But if the occasion is necessary, the danger becomes, by the application of remedies, a remote one, and God does not withdraw the helps of His grace from him who is firmly resolved not to offend Him.”[832]

II. If penitents who live _in occasione proxima necessaria_ have relapsed, that is, have not employed the means prescribed by the confessor, absolution must be deferred till they have amended, unless they remove all doubts about their disposition by some extraordinary sign.[833] But how are penitents to be dealt with who have employed the means prescribed but yet have relapsed in the same way?

While many theologians believe that such persons can be absolved (and that _toties quoties_) if they seriously promise amendment, St. Alphonsus teaches (maintaining that this is the _sententia verior et communis_) that they must give up the occasion before they can be absolved, even if they suffer thereby great injury or detriment (_etiam, si opus sit, cum jactura vitæ_), provided that, _after many attempts, there is no improvement and no probable hope of improvement_. For in this case (he says) the danger of sin remains a formal one and cannot be separated from a sin. Physical separation from the occasion is, therefore (he continues), the only means of salvation, and the words of Christ are binding: “If thy eye scandalize thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee; for it is better to enter into life with one eye than in possession of both eyes, to be cast into hell fire.” (Matt, xviii. 9.) “What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul?” (Matt. xvi. 26.) The holy Doctor excepts the case in which the penitent gives such extraordinary signs of repentance that improvement can be reasonably hoped for.[834] Ballerini, however, urges the possibility of supposing that in the case of such penitents there is something more in question than the want of the necessary dispositions, namely, that the means prescribed and employed were not the right ones, and, therefore, that others should be prescribed. This, he says, is not to be understood of the general means simply, such as prayer and other pious exercises, almsgiving, and abstinence, and frequent reception of the holy Sacraments, etc., but much more of the special means which are adapted to overcome temptations and dangers, and which are to be determined according to circumstances; for if these were faithfully employed, they would make relapse morally impossible, especially when external sins were in question; for instance, avoiding of intercourse _solius cum sola_.

Ballerini urges, moreover, that, _ex lege naturæ_, the penitent is, indeed, bound to avoid the immediate danger, but this can be done in two ways, by employing suitable means by which the danger becomes a remote one, or by removing or avoiding the occasion; but the penitent, he says, is bound to only one of the two _ex lege naturæ_; with what right, therefore, can the confessor bind the penitent to the one more than to the other? Nor must we impose upon the penitent what is too difficult, indeed, in many cases morally impossible. Moreover, if the confessor is obliged to choose that course which removes the penitent from the danger of sinning, he will certainly never choose that means through which the penitent will certainly sin by refusing to make use of it. Another way is also open to the confessor, without insisting on this indiscreet obligation, namely, to defer absolution sometimes till the penitent has employed the suitable remedies with successful results. But in this case it is to be observed that complete amendment is not necessary in order that absolution may be given. It suffices that the number of sins should indicate that it can be truly said that the occasion is no longer immediate.[835]

“To put it in a few words, there is no need to deal with these penitents otherwise than with those who have contracted sinful habits. I will only add one remark, that if the confessor is harsh, strictly demanding the more difficult step, the only result will be that the penitent will become more entangled in sin; on the other hand, mildness and patience will at least save him from complete ruin; thus theologians speak of the confessions of a _meretrix_, a usurer, or of any other penitent who is not sufficiently disposed, but has a desire to amend.”[836]

As to the remedies for penitents _in occasione necessaria_, the confessor must endeavor:—

1. _To lessen the power of the sinful occasion._ A few resolute and boldly spoken words, a serious threat, or rebuke, a cry for help, a complaint at the proper place, will often suffice to discourage an insolent tempter and prevent any further annoyance. The confessor must, moreover, require that the penitent should no longer associate _solus cum sola_, that he should shun all intimacy, and, as far as is possible, avoid even the sight of the _complex_ and give up speaking and thinking of her, etc.

2. _To lessen the power of the passion_,—by work, fasting, and exercises of penance.

3. _To increase spiritual strength_,—by prayer, frequent reception of the Sacraments, meditation upon the eternal truths.[837]

It is, however, to be carefully observed that the penitent is bound to employ the means which he is able to employ; otherwise, though the occasion would be necessary, the danger would be voluntary. Let the confessor instruct the penitent as to this duty, select the means corresponding to the danger, the character, and the circumstances of the penitent, and also show him how to apply them.[838]

In the treatment of the _occasionarius_ the confessor must be very prudent. P. Segneri calls attention to a double trick by which penitents try to deceive themselves and the confessor. (_a_) They are wont generally so to represent the occasion that it seems to be only a remote one, or they pretend that shunning it would cause them great difficulties, whereas there is frequently no other difficulty than that their passion finds it hard to break chains that have become dear to them. When, therefore, penitents speak of the scandal or the great injury which removing or avoiding the occasion would cause, the confessor must not be too ready to believe them, but must carefully weigh the matter, for it is one of great importance. (_b_) The second, not less dangerous, deception, is that they declare themselves ready to leave the _occasio in esse_; but in reality this is only in words; when the confession is over they do not perform what they have promised to perform. “I know well that many teach that the penitent can be absolved the first time, if he has made the promise to discharge his duty as soon as possible. But I repeat what I have said: as a rule do not do so, for ... experience shows that penitents who have obtained absolution in this manner do not subsequently endeavor to break through the net of sin; they find a hundred evasions, and before the occasion has been removed the sins have been multiplied, till, at the expiration of the year, Easter approaches, when they proceed to another confessor, who is equally imprudent. If a penitent has already deceived you or other confessors, I declare to you that on no account may you or can you give him absolution. For he is not disposed. If you, nevertheless, should believe that the present words of the penitent ought to be esteemed as of more value than his former deeds, and if, without just grounds, you hold him sufficiently disposed and worthy of absolution, listen, at least, to what I say to you: you do not act like a good confessor, and even if you fulfill the duties of the judge, you neglect the duties of the physician which are also incumbent upon you. Even if the penitent is contrite, as he seems to you to be, it is not fair to leave him in the jaws of the dragon when you can snatch him from the terrible danger of relapse by means of that remedy which is the only one against this evil, namely, by forcing him first to do that which he is bound to do, and by deferring absolution till he has done it. This just severity is still more necessary in the case of public sinners, for with these scandal is added to the sin of occasion.”[839]

66. Some Commonly Occurring Occasions of Sin.

The application of the principles developed in the foregoing to many occasions of sin—such as concubinage, dancing, the theater, bad reading, and intimacies—presents to the young confessor at times no small difficulty. These occasions are, moreover, so numerous nowadays that they form a large part of the confessor’s work. We will, therefore, devote a short discussion to them.

I. _Concubinage._ That is, _frequentatus concubitus cum eadem femina, quam quis instar uxoris in propria vel aliena domo retinet_. It generally occurs with unmarried people, but also in any other species of unchastity. The confessor must devote a very special attention to this occasion, for public scandal usually accompanies it. Those who practice it are exposed to immediate danger of eternal damnation and are with great difficulty brought to amend and separate.[840]

As _remedy_, the confessor may (1) sometimes _recommend marriage_ when this is practicable. Marriage is often the only remedy for such unhappy people, as the occasion of sin is, in this way, removed. The confessor should especially encourage it in the following cases: (_a_) when the concubine lives in the house of her accomplice, is supported by him, and cannot otherwise procure her livelihood; (_b_) when the two parties love each other very much, and especially (_c_) when the concubinage has lasted a long time, is legalized, as regards the state, by a so-called civil marriage, when children have resulted from this sinful connection; and, finally (_d_), when one of the parties is in danger of death. On the other hand, separation will be preferable to marriage when the concubine lives in another house, and when not love but sensual passion is the motive of their sinful life.

But if marriage cannot be at once contracted, the confessor must urge separation if this is any way feasible, so that the occasion of sin may, in the meanwhile, be removed; if separation is impracticable, the confessor must prescribe suitable measures for diminishing the danger of sin.[841]

On the other hand, confessors and parish priests should not have recourse to a _matrimonium secretum_ or _conscientiæ_,[842] unless one of the two living in a state of concubinage is in danger of death, or when they are publicly regarded as married; for in other cases, _divortium_ is to be feared, and if the concubinage _is secret_, scandal will arise as soon as children are born, or there will be danger of a continued state of onanistic cohabitation in order that no scandal may arise.

2. If marriage is either morally impossible, or if an unhappy marriage is to be feared, the confessor must impose separation upon the parties, where separation can take place, as it is the necessary means of removing the occasion of sin. If immediate separation is impossible, let him prescribe the remedies given above for penitents _in occasione necessaria_. If, for instance, the concubine lives with the accomplice as a servant or in any other capacity, she must, in order to avoid sin in the meantime, tell the man plainly that she does not wish to live such a life any longer, and resist him in every possible way, lock the door of her bedroom at night, and apply the other remedies referred to above. If she is dismissed from her service on this account and left houseless and without sustenance, let the confessor (preserving his own honor and avoiding scandal) procure her admission into a house of refuge for women, or in some other way make provision for her need. If the parties live in separate houses, let the confessor forbid the man to visit his accomplice and have further intercourse with her. The woman must, in addition to the remedies already prescribed, employ the following: (_a_) never again to admit the accomplice to her dwelling; (_b_) to take rooms with some respectable woman, so as not to be found alone; and (_c_) to change her place of residence.

3. But if very weighty and insurmountable reasons prevent both marriage and separation, the confessor must have recourse to such measures as will remove the formal danger of sin; for in this case the occasion is a necessary one, and he must act accordingly.

4. If one of the parties living in concubinage is seriously ill or in danger of death, marriage must take place at once. If they cannot marry, and if the concubinage is _public_, the man must dismiss his accomplice and engage another respectable servant to wait upon him. If the woman is dangerously ill, she must, her illness and circumstances permitting, take steps to obtain admission into a public hospital if one is accessible. Where the concubinage is _not publicly_ known, a separation will present difficulties on account of the danger of disgrace. If it is not practicable, the confessor must take care that the danger of sin be removed as much as possible, and to this end prescribe the aforesaid remedies. The following measures are also to be recommended: removal of the portrait of the accomplice from the room; if such removal is not possible, the sick person should, either personally or through the confessor, beg pardon of the accomplice for the scandal given, and advise the latter to provide for his (or her) soul’s salvation by true repentance.[843]

5. As to the absolution of those living in concubinage, the following rules will be serviceable to the confessor: if a _public_ concubinage and a _voluntary occasion_ are in question, the parties cannot be absolved till they have really separated. To the reasons already given above is to be added the fact that it would cause scandal if the man who kept a concubine in his house or who often visited her at her house, or the woman who still lived with her accomplice or received him at her house, were seen approaching holy communion. A _peccator publicus_ also cannot be absolved till he has _publice_ done penance and atoned for his scandal.[844]

If it is a question of a _necessary_ occasion with a _public concubinage_, absolution must be deferred till the penitent has refrained from sin for some considerable time and has repaired the scandal given.[845] The confessor, however, must not readily believe that the occasion is a necessary one, for the attachment to sin of these unhappy people causes them to exaggerate the difficulties of separation, or, indeed, to suppose difficulties where they do not exist.[846] An occasion is only to be regarded as necessary when the penitent would suffer great injury by leaving it, when it might mean the surrender of the social position which he held at the time.[847] The public scandal might be regarded as atoned for if the parties caused it to be made known (if it were not already known) that they could not separate; furthermore, if they publicly gave signs of their conversion by attending divine service, receiving the Sacraments, etc., and, finally, if they marry, in case this were possible. An exception to the above rule could only be made in the following cases, certainly very rare ones: if the sinful intercourse had long ceased but was still a subject of talk and the scandal could not at once be removed, but the penitent were willing to atone for it as soon as possible, he might then be absolved before the scandal was made good if he promises not to go to holy communion, at least not in the place where his former sinful career was a matter of notoriety.[848]

When a man living publicly in concubinage falls seriously ill, or is in danger of death, he must be absolved _sub conditione_, if he is already unconscious, and Extreme Unction must also be given to him; for it cannot be maintained that he persists in manifest mortal sin, unless he had expressly refused the holy Sacraments before unconsciousness set in. If he is still conscious, but dying, and there is no time either for a marriage or for arranging a separation, he must be helped to make an act of contrition and absolved, and the other Sacraments should then be administered to him. But care must be taken that the accomplice does not come near him, and that, if it is still possible, the dying person asks pardon before witnesses in atonement for the scandal, either personally, or through the priest. If this form of atonement is not practicable, the priest should provide for it in some other way.[849] But if there is still sufficient time to atone for the scandal, and to remove the occasion of relapse (exterior and interior), either by marriage or separation, absolution must not be given till the scandal is atoned for and the occasion removed. If neither expedient is practicable, this impossibility must be declared before witnesses, so that it may become known, and the sick person must promise to bring about the separation as soon as he recovers.[850]

If the concubinage is not publicly known and the occasion is voluntary, the parties may not as a rule be absolved till they have actually separated, even if they give signs of great sorrow. An exception might be made to this rule when a prompt dismissal would be impossible, and the penitent would be under an urgent necessity of receiving holy communion in order to avoid great infamy or some equivalent injury, supposing also that the penitent were in very contrite dispositions in consequence of some external occurrence—the death of a friend, deliverance from death, etc., or if he and the accomplice did not live in the same house, or if there were well-grounded fear that, on account of the postponement of absolution, the penitent might become estranged from the confessional and perish in his sins.[851]

If, with secret concubinage, the occasion is a necessary one, the properly disposed penitent may be absolved, but absolution could be postponed in accordance with the rules here applicable (§ 52).[852] Let it be added that if the penitent maintains that the occasion is necessary to avoid scandal or disgrace, he should not, as a rule, be believed.

II. _Dancing._[853]

Dancing with persons of different sex, when there is no question of sinful circumstances, is, of itself, not forbidden, as it is not _ex se actus libidinis_.[854] But it may become very sinful: (_a_) through sinful intention; (_b_) through the danger of sinning; (_c_) by the scandal given, and (_d_) by the prohibition of parents or of an ecclesiastical law.[855]

Dancing is very sinful when those engaged in it have the intention of exciting _venereas delectationes_, of employing _tactus malitiosos_, or of indulging in _turpes sermones_. In this respect the so-called masked balls (_choreæ larvatæ_, _bals masqués_) are a source of great danger.[856]

Dancing may give rise to the following sins: (_a_) _malitiosæ manuum constrictiones affectu nempe impudico_, differing from the simple, and, of itself, not dangerous _manuum apprehensio_;[857] (_b_) _amplexus pressi_; (_c_) _tactus obscæni_ (especially, _extra actum saltandi_) before or after; (_d_) _amatorii et turpes sermones_; _aspectus malitiosi_ (in the _obscænæ choreæ_); (_e_) _delectationes morosæ et desideria turpia_. The confessor will, however, observe that the external sins referred to occur less frequently in respectable dancing assemblies.

If dancing is a _periculum proximum_ to those engaging in it, and if there is no _causa gravis_ for doing so, it must be avoided under grave sin; if it constitutes only a _periculum remotum_ or is excused by some _causa gravis_, it would be a venial sin only, or none at all. The confessor must, therefore, take into consideration the danger and its nature, as also the existence of a _causa gravis_.

He can judge if such danger is in question: (1) _from experience_,—that is, when the penitent has taken part in dancing, and has often (_frequenter_) sinned in consequence of it, and when the circumstances are the same in some given case; (2) from other circumstances,—especially the nature of the dance, too great frequency, the time of night, the moral character of the other persons present at the dance, _indecens feminarum pectoris nudatio_. General rules, applicable for all places and persons, cannot be given here. _Public_ dances to which all have access are, generally speaking, more dangerous than private ones.

If there is only _periculum remotum_ in question, any _causa rationabilis_ excuses from sin, certainly from grievous sin; for instance, to recreate one’s self, to have a little amusement (once and again in the year), to find more easily an opportunity of marrying, to show courtesy towards those who give invitations to the dance, to avoid the talk and ridicule of others, etc. If, however, there is question of _periculum proximum_, the _causa_ must be a _gravis_ to constitute an excuse; for instance, to avoid giving serious offense to wife, husband, parents, brothers and sisters, or to avoid family quarrels. But then there must be no other way of escaping these quarrels, and the penitent who exposes himself to these dangers must protect himself by suitable means.[858]

With reference to the confessor’s conduct in this matter, we may add the following remarks: (1) Let him equally avoid excess and deficiency of zeal; (2) let him estimate the danger to which dancing exposes his penitent, by asking him if he has committed sin at other dances, or been subjected to great temptation. If it results from this examination that the penitent is strictly bound to avoid these pleasures, let the confessor forbid them to him even under threat of refusing absolution; if no such obligation is evident, let him not show himself too ready in permitting indulgence in this dangerous and doubtful pleasure, and let him tell the penitent how he should conduct himself.[859]

III. _Frequenting theaters._

Theatrical performances (in the wider sense of the term) are, according to the teaching of St. Thomas,[860] _secundum se_, not sinful, but may become gravely so, by offending against religion and good morals, in the matter represented or in the manner of representing it. Very many modern dramas are of the latter kind, and full of dangers, treating as they do of anti-religious subjects or of such as are hostile to faith, or lascivious; degrading the Catholic faith, distorting historical facts to its detriment, extolling the enemies of the Church, holding up holy rites and even the Sacraments of the Church to mockery and contempt, calumniating priests, making vices, such as adultery, revenge, suicide, and sins of the flesh, appear lawful or even glorifying them; characterizing religion in general as ridiculous, superstitious, etc., treating not only of obscene and dangerous subjects, but also offending decency in the manner of representation.

If, therefore, the dramas in question are _Religioni notabiliter contraria_, or if the subject-matter or the manner of representing it are _nimis turpia_, attendance is certainly a grave sin. For what may not be seen, or heard, or read, _extra theatrum_, without great sin, cannot be, as the Angelic Master expresses himself, _ratione theatri leviora_.[861]

If they are _notabiliter_, but not _nimis turpia_, they may be _occasio relativa_, and frequenting them out of curiosity or for amusement (if there is no danger of consenting _in turpem delectationem_) may be free from grave sin. But this danger will, in the case of young people, be absent only when they have very tender consciences, conduct themselves very prudently, and when, after being repeatedly present at such performances, they are able to say that they have not committed mortal sin.[862] Performances, however, which are _non notabiliter turpia_, may be an _occasio proxima_ for those who know by experience their own weakness, the more so as nowadays doubtful attractions are introduced even into otherwise good or harmless plays.

The so-called _choreæ scenicæ_ (ballet), _quæ inter actus miscentur, utpote in quibus ob vestitum saltatricum, obscænos saltandi modos aut lascivas gesticulationes, maxima apparere solet turpitudo_, will probably be for many theatergoers an _occasio proximo_.

When, therefore, one goes to a theater without exercising any discrimination as to the choice of the play or the manner of its performance, he exposes himself to a probable danger of sin, _ex communiter contingentibus fit prudens præsumptio_. Some, however, maintain that they attend chiefly to the music, not to the plot and its representation; this, of course, would materially reduce the danger, but not wholly remove it.

Frequenting the theater may also become sinful on account of the _sinful intention_ connected with it, and by the scandal thereby given. Besides the actors and actresses in a bad play, those also give scandal who coöperate _in spectacula notabiliter turpia aut Religioni graviter adversa_, positively, by money or applause, and, negatively, by not preventing them when _ex officio_ they were bound to do so, or at least could have prevented them by some other means; for example, by refusing to coöperate, etc.[863] Moreover, parents and other superiors give scandal who do not effectually prevent their children and those under their care from being present at improper representations, or when they give permission to go there, without having previously ascertained the character of the play. Finally, those give scandal who encourage others (especially young people) by their example to attend theaters, also clerics and religious who, contrary to ecclesiastical regulations, are present at secular performances.[864]

If, therefore, by going to the theater, a person exposes himself to only _slight danger_, and only gives _slight scandal_, he is free from grave sin if he takes the necessary precautions.

But if he suffers great danger, or gives great scandal, only a _causa gravis_ would excuse him from grave sin if he takes the necessary precautions, and tries to the best of his power to make good the scandal. Such _causa gravis_ would be, for instance, a well-founded fear of great detriment, continued irritation of parents, of husband or wife, etc.; the loss of the subscription fee would not be a _causa sufficiens_. But even when there is a _causa_, and, in spite of precautions, faith is endangered, or if the person often succumbs to temptation, he is absolutely bound to avoid the occasion. Hence no _causa_ will excuse frequentation of a very immoral or godless performance, because it will not be possible to avoid the formal danger which accompanies it.

In cases where it is necessary, the penitent must be strictly bound to avoid the theater or certain plays; even where this obligation is not strictly binding, he must still be persuaded to avoid the theater, and if this is not possible or opportune, the priest must at least instruct the penitent cautiously to conduct himself.

The actors in immoral and godless plays cannot, of course, be admitted to the Sacraments till they have either given up their profession, or no longer take part in such performances, for they are _peccatores publici, publicum scandalum præbentes_.[865]

IV. _Bad reading._

The reading of bad books is a source of great danger, and this occasion of sin is very common, unceasingly estranging countless numbers from faith and robbing them of innocence.

We must distinguish between: (1) books which, _ex professo_, are written against religion and faith (defending the errors of heretics and infidels) and those which are not, _ex professo_, directed against it (only here and there attacking religion); (2) books which, _ex professo_, are obscene (which, if not wholly, yet to a great extent, treat of obscene things) and such as are _subobscæni_ (in which a good deal of obscenity is to be found).

Books _ex professo impii_ are very dangerous and pernicious.

Few persons who are not learned and pious theologians can read them without injury to their faith. Hence the Church (in the second rule of the Index) has strictly prohibited the reading of such books, and if they _hæresim propugnant_, reading them consciously entails censure of excommunication reserved to the Pope.[866] Books which are hostile to religion, but not so _ex professo_, are also a source of danger, and, therefore, reading them is permitted to no one without necessity. The degree of the danger depends upon the object which the reader has in view, upon his age, his religious sentiments, and knowledge.

Books _ex professo_ obscene are certainly dangerous, for they excite violent temptations, and they are still worse when, as is often the case, they are illustrated with obscene pictures. Reading such is strictly forbidden by the seventh rule of the Index.

The _libri erotici_ (_de amoribus agentes_), for instance many comedies, tragedies, dramas, novels, and romances, are sources of relative danger; the reading of them is, in many respects, injurious, especially to young people.

_Bad newspapers and periodicals_ must be classified in the same way as books, and what has been said above concerning the reading of bad books holds good as to newspapers and periodicals. If they are written _ex professo_ against faith and morals, they are even more dangerous than such books.

Accordingly, the confessor is bound: (1) when there is ground for suspicion that the penitent has sinned by such reading and has been silent about it, to ask him on the matter; omitting to do so would be very injurious to the penitent, as it would be leaving him in great danger, and if he had purposely concealed it, he would have confessed sacrilegiously.

The confessor is bound (2) to admonish penitents who have read bad books, etc., to refrain entirely from such reading, to buy no more books, etc., of the kind, not to borrow them, nor in future to have them in their possession. He must especially instruct parents and superiors on this head, and incite them to watchfulness. He is bound (3) to refuse absolution to those who will not refrain from such reading.[867] (4) To prescribe for the penitent who reads infidel writings _ex necessitate_ suitable safeguards in order that the poison may not injure him, such remedies as reading good books and newspapers, praying for the preservation of faith, frequent reception of the Sacraments, etc. (5) To do his best to keep young people from novel reading.[868]

The confessor must, to the best of his ability, endeavor to prevent the reading of so-called “liberal” books, newspapers, and periodicals, which are, indeed, bad, though not, _ex professo_, godless or obscene; especially (_a_) when the penitent is conscious of his duty to refrain from such reading, or is in doubt about it; (_b_) when, although not aware of this duty, good results are to be expected from exhortation; and (_c_) when the confessor perceives that such reading is beginning to harm the penitent. On the other hand, the confessor must be silent concerning the duty of avoiding such reading (_a_) when the penitent is _invincibiliter_ ignorant of this duty; (_b_) when the confessor could not hope that his admonition would be acted upon, or when, on the contrary, he would have to fear still greater evils; but he must then inspire his penitent with distrust of these newspapers, etc., and endeavor by exhortation and request to wean him from such dangerous reading.[869] A man of business might be permitted to keep and to read bad newspapers on account of the advertisements, when such advertisements are not to be found (or not so fully) in a good paper, but he must be admonished to subscribe for this end only, and not to leave the newspaper about for others, especially children, to read. It is not allowed to inn-keepers to have bad newspapers in their establishments in order to attract customers by such reading, for that would be an _actio ex se ordinata ad malum_. Under the heading of “bad newspapers” are not included those producing here and there incorrect judgments upon religion.[870]

V. _Intimacies_ (_procationes_).[871]

1. If this intimacy is begun with a view to matrimony it is not, _de se_, forbidden, for none is bound to marry a person who is unknown to him; he may, during a certain time, study the character and morals of the person by means of lawful intimacy.[872]

But such intimacies, _in praxi_, very easily become an _occasio proxima_ of grave sin amongst young people and those who have not much conscience, especially when greater familiarity and freedom of intercourse sets in, and the time of marriage approaches.[873] That an intimacy may not degenerate into an _occasio proxima_, or, having become such, may cease to be so, the following rules must be observed: Only such as wish, and are able, to contract marriage within a reasonable time (_tempus rationabile_) should be allowed this kind of intimacy. They must, therefore, be of proper age, so that the intimacy may not be too much prolonged; there must be no impediment in the way of their marriage, that is, they must possess the necessary liberty, being free from bondage of any kind; the parents must not (from just motives) be opposed to their child’s marriage, or to marriage with the particular person in question. Moreover, there must be a firm intention of marrying. This intention may be presumed to be wanting in the case of a rich young man who enters into such relationship with a poor girl, or one who, at the very outset of the acquaintance, induces her to sin, or neglects the necessary precautions, or who, at the expiration of a suitable time, shows no disposition whatever to contract marriage, etc. How long such intimacy may last (_rationabile tempus_) cannot be determined by hard and fast rules applicable to all cases; it must be left to the intelligent discretion of the persons in question; half a year, or a whole year, may generally be regarded as not too long. Let the confessor, therefore, take care that the intimacy is not prolonged for years with danger of sin, and if it has already lasted too long, let him provide that it should either be broken off, or interrupted for a time, or that marriage should take place as soon as possible.

2. In order that the intimacy may proceed honorably, the persons must adopt suitable measures of precaution. Those therefore, between whom such intimacy exists, _must not live in the same house_; they must, as soon as possible, obtain the consent of the parents or their representatives, for if they frequently meet without the knowledge, or against the will of their parents, they will do it secretly, and in this lies a great danger. If the parents are opposed to the marriage without just reason, the confessor must suggest some other means for their honorable intercourse. They must not associate solus cum sola, especially secretly in retired places at night time—“_id quippe, si non fortuito sed consulto fiat, nonnisi ex fine libidinis aut cum summo periculo libidinis fiet_,” remarks Aertnys,[874] and Ballerini[875] says: “Those especially who have care of the persons in question must pay attention to this. Parents, and particularly mothers, must be very earnestly appealed to, and their strict duty of watchfulness and care most forcibly insisted upon. And in this they must be influenced not only by conscience, but by the fear that the daughters ‘_semel corruptæ in paterna domo dehonestatæ consenescant_.’” Moreover, their visits must not be too frequent nor too long; and if they should be alone, they must not offend against the rules of morality, but conduct themselves honorably in every respect; and, lastly, they must procure for themselves the necessary graces in this dangerous time by prayer and the reception of the Sacraments.[876]

3. Still greater prudence is necessary after engagement, as the danger of sin becomes greater, _cum sponsus respiciat sponsam tanquam suam, magna familiaritas sit quasi inevitabilis, imaginatio copulæ conjugalis brevi secuturæ libidinem commoveat et timor prægnationis evanescat_, etc.[877] Therefore, let the confessor, to the best of his ability, bring about that the time of betrothal may not be deferred too long.[878]

4. If they have fallen into sin _ob causam amoris_, the intimacy assumes the character of an _occasio proxima_, and it must be dealt with according to the principles applicable to it.[879] They must, therefore, _break off_ the intimacy if they can, without great detriment, forego the intended marriage, and wait for the occasion of contracting another, or they must set their relations with each other on a _better footing_ if they cannot forego the marriage without sin and without great detriment.

It results from the foregoing that all “intimacies” are to be regarded as sinful and as _occasiones proximæ_, which: (1) are entered upon without any intention of marriage, but only for the sake of pleasure, sensuality, and sin; (2) which are begun without hope of speedy marriage,[880] or (3) in spite of the justifiable opposition of parents, (4) which are secretly carried on,[881] and (5) which exist between persons who live in the same house. Persons who maintain such relations, and will not break them off, or refuse to amend, may not be absolved. Even if it happens that they do not at first sin grievously, they will not, later on, remain free from sin. And if they maintain that they have done nothing wrong, the confessor must not at once trust their assurances, but instruct them in their duty with the necessary circumspection and prudence.[882] “We admonish all confessors,” writes Gaume, “not to absolve those who are carrying on love affairs, when such things are for them gravely sinful, when after three warnings from their own or other confessors (concerning which penitents are always to be questioned) they have not really amended. They must be given plainly to understand that, until they have really amended, they cannot expect absolution from their own confessors, nor claim it from others.”[883]

ARTICLE II

HABITUAL AND RELAPSING SINNERS

67. Definition and Treatment of Habitual Sinners.

An habitual sinner is one who, in consequence of a disposition or tendency which he has acquired by oft-repeated sinful acts of a definite kind,—such as blasphemy, cursing, perjury, impurity,—frequently falls into that sin.[884]

How many acts suffice to constitute a sinful habit (_habitus seu consuetudo_) depends upon the nature of the sin which has been often committed and upon the manner in which it is committed, for instance, by thought, word, or action; also upon the difficulty or ease with which the sin is committed—so that the more easily a sin is committed the more acts are required to constitute a habit. Sins of thought and speech are more easily committed than sins of act, those which are incomplete than those which are completed; and in completed acts, those which are committed alone are more easily committed than those which have an accomplice. Moreover, we must take into consideration the length of time which elapses between the separate sinful acts of the same kind, as also the disposition and temperament of the person, and the greater or less intentness of the will in committing the sin.

Thus, according to the words of St. Alphonsus, the repetition of an external sin five times in a month, if between the separate acts there is any interval, may produce a habit. In sins of _luxuria consummata_, with a _complex_, for instance, _fornicatio_, _sodomia_, a much smaller number of repetitions of the same sin are enough to constitute a habit of this sin. A much greater number is necessary in sins of speech and thought. He must undoubtedly be regarded as an habitual sinner, who, during a considerable time, has not resisted but yielded to temptation of a definite kind. “However, when the administration or postponement of absolution is in question,” remarks Lehmkuhl, “it does not so very much depend upon the more or less accurate definition of a habit,” seeing that there is no reason for excluding a penitent from absolution on account of a sinful habit if he has a real wish to resist it or lay it aside.[885] Nevertheless, this habit—like the occasion of sin—often excites a _suspicion that the penitent is not disposed_ and inspires apprehensions of relapse. The confessor must, therefore, be cautious in administering absolution.

As a rule, the habitual sinner who is not in immediate occasion of sin, must receive absolution if there is reason to believe that he has the necessary dispositions. In this case absolution is to be given when there has been no previous improvement, but the penitent must faithfully promise to adopt the measures prescribed for his amendment.

In the case of such a penitent we must not presume at once that he intends to receive the holy Sacrament in bad dispositions; we may infer from the fact of his confessing his sins that he is disposed, as spontaneous confession is a sign of repentance, unless there is positive ground to presume the contrary. Nor may we say that the sinful habit is a sign of indisposition, for although the sinful _habitus_ may make the sinner more inclined to sin, it does not justify the supposition that he has no firm wish to amend.[886]

But if (1) the habit is already _deeply rooted_ (as it generally is with those who are habitual sinners _ex mala voluntate_, and always with those who have been addicted to any vice—especially that of lust—for a long time), the confessor could defer absolution for a short time, in accordance with the principles guiding such postponement, unless some other circumstance demands the immediate administration of absolution; this he could do, both in order to learn how the penitent applies the prescribed means of amendment, as also that the penitent himself may conceive a greater horror of sin.[887]

(2) If the habitual sinner (_in peccato mortali habituatus_) is a cleric who will soon receive Holy Orders, absolution must also be postponed; for _positive_ goodness is necessary in such a penitent. An habitual sinner who _refuses_ to confess _several_ times in the year, cannot, _per se_, be refused absolution on that account; for, on the one hand, there is no command to confess several times in the year, and, on the other hand, there are other means which could be prescribed for uprooting the habit and which are very suitable and efficacious for that purpose. A different course, however, would have to be taken if the other remedies were inefficacious; for many penitents can only find a suitable remedy in frequent confession. Hence Toletus says very justly (in speaking of those who habitually practice pollution), “I believe that there is scarcely any other efficacious remedy for these than frequent confession, as this Sacrament is the strongest curb.”[888] And still more clearly and decisively does St. Alphonsus express himself,[889] saying, “He to whom a grave sin, especially pollution, has become a habit, and who does not frequently confess, may expect amendment only through a miracle.”

68. Relapse, and the Treatment of Relapsing Sinners.

Relapse into sin signifies literally the repeated commission of a sin already confessed. In the theological sense, those are called relapsing sinners, who, after several confessions, fall into the same sins again. From this it results that a relapsing sinner is also an habitual sinner, but not every habitual sinner is a relapsing sinner.[890]

In order that a confessor may arrive at a correct judgment concerning a penitent who seems to be a relapsing sinner, he must investigate: (1) if the sinful habit already exists; (2) if the penitent has already been admonished by another confessor, and if he has known the means of amendment; (3) if he has applied them and how; (4) how often, and under what circumstances he has relapsed, if as often, or more often, or less often, than before; if immediately, or almost immediately, after the confession, if in severe temptation, or after long resistance, and when he sinned last. From the answers he receives to these questions he will recognize if he has to deal with a relapsing sinner, and, at the same time, if the relapse is a sign of want of proper dispositions. The relapsing sinner in the specified theological sense is not to be confounded with one who relapses into a _single sin_ without habit, or into an _occasio peccati_, that is, one who has not kept a promise to give up an occasion of sin, has not removed the occasion, or has again sought it (§ 64, III), whether he now has a habit of sinning or not. Here we are only considering the _recidivi consuetudinarii_; those, therefore, who have relapsed into the habit of sin, either from internal weakness, or in consequence of external occasion.

Another distinction between relapsing sinners is not to be overlooked: those who sin only in consequence of the force of passion, or of weakness, in such sort that their will is generally opposed to sin, and, therefore, when the storm of passion is over, immediately regret having committed the sin, as it generally happens with blasphemies, curses, and often with pollution,—these are _incontinentes seu habituati in peccato tantum_; whilst those who sin in consequence of an habitual attachment to sin, or from malice, and therefore without the preceding violent impulse of passion,—these are the _intemperati seu habituati in voluntate peccandi_ who are not so easily led to contrition.

The following principles are to be observed in absolving relapsing sinners:—

I. The confessor must carefully examine the actual dispositions of a relapsing sinner who has already been instructed and admonished sufficiently, and who again returns, burdened with the same sinful habit, without having made any attempt at amendment, or applied any of the remedies prescribed for him by the confessor. Relapse under the specified circumstances is, of course, no _direct_ argument against the actual disposition of the sinner, though it is a direct argument against the sorrow and purpose of amendment of preceding confessions. He who is _truly_ sorry, and firmly purposes to avoid a sin, will refrain from it at least for a time, and will not allow himself to be overcome in the very first struggle with the enemy. It is, as Lehmkuhl rightly says, legitimate to draw an indirect conclusion against the actual disposition if the penitent gives only the same signs of sorrow as before.[891] His disposition is, therefore, doubtful, and he must give better proofs of it, although no definite rule can be laid down as to how, and to what extent, this proof must be forthcoming.[892]

If, however, the confessor can form a _probabile et prudens judicium_ concerning the actual disposition of the relapsing penitent, he may absolve him even if he has often relapsed, unless perhaps the duty of giving up an occasion or making a restitution has to be previously fulfilled. For even if the contrition of the penitent is only _momentary_, not _persistent_, it is yet _true_ contrition. Because this contrition is not persistent, it is not sufficient with respect to its final operation,—namely, the attainment of eternal salvation; but because it is true sorrow it is sufficient with respect to its immediate effect, namely, that of procuring for the penitent absolution. As absolution conveys sacramental grace, it increases the strength of the penitent, enabling him to persevere; moreover, it remits mortal sin, so that if the penitent died before he relapsed, he would be saved, and if he died after relapse, _in statu impœnitentiæ_, he would be at least less guilty in God’s sight, as his former sins would have been effaced by absolution. Moreover, a sinner of this kind—accustomed to the reception of the Sacraments, frequently instructed by his confessor, and admonished concerning the danger of dying in mortal sin, the punishments of hell and their eternal duration, the divine mercy and goodness, and the frequent eliciting of sorrow and firm purpose—will, in the hour of death, if no priest can help him, be more easily able to save himself from eternal damnation by an act of perfect contrition. Hence the confessor must be careful to exercise, with relapsing sinners, that great prudence spoken of in the Roman Catechism, lest, having been accustomed to receive the Sacraments, they be debarred from them by refusal of absolution, or by imprudent postponement, to the great danger of their eternal salvation.[893]

But if, as remarked above, the duty of abandoning some occasion of sin or of making restitution, etc., be incumbent on the penitent, it may be made a rule, for the first time, to put off absolution till he has performed this duty, if it is easier for him to come to confession again than to perform it; and this procedure will be still more in place if the penitent had already once failed to keep his promise; indeed, in this latter case, the penitent should only rarely be trusted before he has really accomplished his duty. He may occasionally and by the way of exception be trusted if, for instance, he shows special signs of a firmer resolution, and if, on the other hand, it would be very difficult for him to come again—having, perhaps, made a long journey, or for some other similar reason.

II. Relapsing sinners whom the confessor sees to be insufficiently disposed must, to the best of his ability, be helped to a proper state of mind by his fatherly and zealous admonitions. He should not, therefore, dismiss such penitents by at once postponing absolution, still less by a prompt refusal of it. He should rather put before them the hideousness of sin, the value of divine grace, and the danger of eternal damnation.[894] Such admonition will, if imparted in the proper manner, have the desired effect, at least if the sinner is not too much addicted to sin.[895]

If the penitent should respond to these exhortations of the confessor with some _unusual_ utterance, such as: “Now I see the greatness of my misfortune,” “Give me a severe penance,” “This time I am very sorry for my sins,” the confessor may hope that success has attended them. On the other hand, he would have to fear that he had labored in vain if the penitent should answer nothing more than that he is sorry, that he wished to avoid sin, or if to the confessor’s questions he only gave cold and indifferent answers. But here also the character and education of the penitent are to be considered, and there is room for deception.[896]

III. If, in spite of the exhortation, the penitent remains indisposed, the confessor must postpone absolution till he has received satisfactory proof of amendment. This he must do as judge in order to preserve the Sacrament from nullity, and also as physician in order to move the penitent to an effectual amendment.

If the confessor finds himself obliged to postpone absolution, he must inform the penitent of it in the gentlest manner, for the good physician endeavors to make bitter medicine taste pleasant.[897] If, however, there is a solid reason, absolution may be given to a doubtfully disposed relapsing sinner _sub conditione_. For if more harm than benefit is to be anticipated from the postponement, the salvation of the penitent demands, as St. Alphonsus says,[898] that the Sacrament be exposed even to the risk of nullity.

The confessor may act in accordance with the above principles in the following cases:—

1. In danger of death, that the penitent may not be lost.

2. On account of imperfect use of reason, when the penitent is weak in mind, or is a child not yet arrived at an adequate use of reason, and has relapsed into doubtfully grave sins; for such penitents require absolution in order not to remain in a state of mortal sin, and on the other hand postponement would have no effect with them.

3. When the confessor fears that the penitent will not return. This is much to be dreaded by reason of the weak faith of many people and their scanty zeal for the welfare of their souls.

4. On account of the urgency of contracting a marriage on the same or the following day, or of receiving holy communion, in order to avoid great scandal; and even if a doubtfully disposed person ought not to communicate, prudence will often suggest to the confessor not to inform him of this.

5. On account of the difficulty of going to confession again, that is, if the penitent would not be able to confess again for a long time, as a prolonged postponement of absolution would remain without fruit, and leave the penitent during that time in a state of mortal sin. This reason, however, does not suffice in the case of relapsing sinners who have neglected to make restitution, to terminate an enmity, or to give up some occasion of sin.[899]

IV. Relapsing sinners, as to whose dispositions the confessor has satisfied himself, may be, _toties quoties_, absolved, inasmuch as he is judge.

It is to be remarked, however, that (_a_) a relapsing sinner who returns for the first time can be more easily absolved than if he comes a second and a third time to confession after having relapsed. The more numerous the relapses after confession, the stronger is the presumption against dispositions. (_b_) If some external occasion is the cause of this relapse, the confessor must the more seriously consider if it would not be better to postpone absolution, in order to test the sincerity of one who has so often broken his promise to remove or abandon this occasion; and he must not give credit to mere promises, or even to tears. For the obligation is rather to remove an external occasion of sin than to reduce it to a remote occasion, because experience proves abundantly that this latter course is very difficult, and it is in many cases easier to abandon the occasion.[900]

If, however, the relapse is the result of internal weakness, and the penitent does not seem sufficiently disposed for the reception of absolution, the confessor should employ all his zeal and charity in preparing him for absolution. For the grace of the holy Sacraments is very necessary to such penitents, and postponement of absolution would not be helpful in their case. These are the penitents who yield to violent temptations, or the stress of passion, in consequence of internal weakness (we have designated them above _recidivi incontinentes_). Nevertheless, there may be cases in this class of penitents also, in which severity is to be used, or in which holy communion at least must be forbidden, when it is evident, or to be presumed, from the frequent relapses accompanying the frequent reception of the Sacraments, that detestation of sin and firm resolution have been or are wanting. But if it is to be presumed that the relapse takes place rather in consequence of the Sacraments being seldom received, the penitent must be encouraged to more frequent reception.[901]

V. Even if the relapsing sinner could absolutely be absolved, the confessor may sometimes postpone absolution for a short time as a remedy, if he believes that such postponement is necessary, or will be useful. For, of two suitable remedies, the physician must choose that one from which the better effect may be expected. Now it is universally admitted and proved by experience that an occasional postponement of absolution for a short time contributes much to the improvement of the habitual sinner by increasing his detestation of sin and exciting his zeal in the work of amendment. But great prudence is demanded in venturing upon this experiment, especially in our times, when difficulty of any kind induces weak people to absent themselves from the holy Sacraments.[902]

The postponement of absolution in the case of a sufficiently disposed relapsing sinner without his consent is certainly not allowable, if it either failed to benefit his soul, or if it were to bring disgrace, or even the danger of it, to his reputation. Except in these two cases, postponement of absolution is left to the discretion of the confessor. St. Alphonsus[903] distinguishes here between those who relapse in consequence of _internal weakness_, and those who relapse on account of an _occasion_,[904] and teaches that postponement is seldom beneficial with the first class; for here a better result is to be anticipated from the graces of the Sacrament than from postponement. For those especially who relapse into the sin of pollution there is no more efficacious means of amendment than frequent confession; indeed, without this, improvement is scarcely to be hoped for. But an opportune threat of deferring absolution will always prove beneficial. With sinners of the second class postponement is useful because the external occasion is a stronger incitement to sin, and a more powerful remedy must be opposed to a more powerful agency of seduction; moreover, the removal of the occasion is more under the control of the will than the uprooting of a sinful habit. With relapsing sinners of the first class a postponement of from eight to ten days generally suffices; from two to three weeks would be the longest period during which absolution should be deferred. With those of the second class a postponement of ten to fifteen days will generally not suffice, but the experience obtained within the space of a month will always be sufficient. The postponement should not extend over a month, if the penitent cannot come under the influence of the occasion during the course of this time, because delay under the circumstances would be useless.

69. Relapsing Sinners requiring Special Care.

There are two classes of relapsing sinners to whom the confessor must devote special care: those who are _despondent_, and those who are always relapsing into the sin of pollution.

I. As to the first, he must endeavor to find out the cause of their despondency. If this proceeds (1) from the strength of the sinful habit, the confessor must take care not to excite fear in one whose will is good but who makes little progress; on the contrary, he must praise him even if he sees only a slight improvement, and inspire him with hope of finally achieving complete amendment with the help of divine grace. Courage, hope of victory, and perseverance are necessary to such a penitent. If he falls a hundred times, he must rise a hundred times and renew the struggle; victory will not fail him who perseveres. But if (2) an effeminate disposition accompanies these relapses, the confessor must stimulate the penitent. He must teach him that everything is possible to us with the help of divine grace, if we earnestly _will and wish_ to succeed; for so St. Augustine encouraged himself in his struggle against the flesh. “When,” he writes,[905] “the rooted habit said: Do you think you can live without these things? Hope spoke encouragingly: Can you not do what these young men and women do? And are they able to do it of their own strength, and not in the Lord, their God?” The confessor should urge the penitent, not in temptation only, but in all his doings, to act bravely and manfully; he should seek to divert him from everything that enervates the mind. If the despondency has its origin in carelessness, let the confessor point to the terrible punishments of sin and endeavor thus to arouse salutary fear.[906]

II. Pollution is a truly murderous vice, and, according to the testimony of all confessors and physicians, appallingly prevalent. Its consequences are as ruinous as its cure is difficult.

If the confessor purposes to terrify unhappy penitents by depicting the dreadful consequences of this vice, let him proceed with caution, for not all who are addicted to it experience them in full measure, and those who do not would give him the lie. Some of these consequences are: nervous prostration, consumption, epilepsy, spinal diseases; excess saps physical vigor, dulls the understanding, impairs the memory, and hastens death. Depression of spirits is also a characteristic of such people, a result partly of nervous exhaustion and partly of remorse. Rarely, indeed, is the conversion of such a man effected without the higher motives of religion. That he must be treated with extreme prudence is evident. Earnest but loving admonition instilling moral strength will soonest attain to the desired end. The origin of the evil and the causes which form the occasions of the individual sins (which must be investigated) will suggest appropriate precautions.[907]

Here are some rules for the confessor of such penitents:—

1. Let him excite in them a great longing to be freed from the vice, and inspire them with courage for the struggle and hope of ultimate victory; otherwise his remedies will be fruitless. To this end, let him point out the danger of eternal damnation; for the more the sins accumulate the more difficult salvation becomes, and the stronger the habit the weaker the will. To inspire courage let the priest reawaken in him a feeling and sense of his dignity as a man and a Christian, which is outraged by this vice.

2. The penitent must shun all dangerous occasions, avoid idleness and solitude; take no part in improper amusements, theaters, and dancing, as they excite impure fancies and enfeeble the mind.

3. Further remedies are: frequent prayer—especially the “Hail Mary” in honor of the most pure Virgin, each time renewing before her picture the resolution to sin no more. Meditation on the eternal truths will always prove very efficacious.

4. When temptation arises the penitent should turn away his mind from it at once; and if it persists, confidently pray, pronouncing the names of Jesus and Mary. He may also reflect upon the sufferings of Our Savior, on the eternal flames of hell, the presence of God. Very useful also is a fervent act of love, accompanied by a resolution rather to die than to sin.

5. One of the surest remedies is, undoubtedly, marriage—as the Apostle also teaches (1 Cor. vii. 2, 9). Add to these other natural remedies in support of the supernatural ones, such as: moderation in eating and drinking—especially abstinence from wine and stimulating food in the evening; moderation in sleep; physical exercise; early rising; at night, prayer till sleep sets in.

But in order that the confessor may select suitable remedies, he must know the physical constitution of the penitent and the circumstances of his sins; namely, when, where, and under what conditions he generally sins. The confessor should not omit to prescribe or recommend such of the above-mentioned remedies as are adapted to the penitent.[908]

III. From the rule given above, according to which relapsing habitual sinners can be absolved when they are sufficiently disposed, clerics, who wish to receive Holy Orders immediately after absolution, form an exception. They may not, as a rule, be absolved till satisfactory proof be given of their self-restraint. Such a penitent must first have laid aside his bad habit during a considerable time, at least during several months. For a sacred minister would be unworthy to assist at the altar if he did not possess the virtue of confirmed purity, seeing that the higher Orders demand perfection in those who enter them, both on account of the sacredness of the duties connected with the Orders, as also on account of the good example which they are bound to give to the faithful. “As those,” says St. Thomas, “who receive Orders, are, by virtue of their dignity, placed above the people, so must they be conspicuous also by the merit of holiness.”[909] And in another place he enforces this still more, saying: “As the minister is by his ordination set apart for the highest office, in which he serves Christ Himself in the Sacrament of the Altar, a greater interior holiness is demanded for this than even the religious state requires.”[910] Therefore, it by no means suffices for the worthy reception of Holy Orders to be in a state of grace; _positive_ and _habitual_ holiness is required. St. Alphonsus establishes this abundantly from Holy Writ, from the definitions of the Church, and from the teaching of the holy Fathers.

If, therefore, a cleric sincerely promises that he will not receive Holy Orders while addicted to such bad habit, he may be absolved; still it would be preferable, if no obstacle presented itself, to postpone absolution for a time. If, however, he should persist in his purpose of receiving Holy Orders, he would thereby make himself unworthy of both Sacraments. An exception is to be made in the case of a person favored by God with such extraordinary compunction that he is quite transformed by it and delivered from the old weakness,—such a one the confessor _can_ absolve and admit without any further probation to Holy Orders. But in this case also the confessor should endeavor by every means to induce the penitent to postpone the reception of Holy Orders, so that he may better purify himself from the bad habit and carry out the resolutions he has made. Indeed, if the penitent will not postpone the reception of Holy Orders, the confessor, as physician, may, for this purpose and for his spiritual profit, delay absolution so as to force the former to put off his ordination. This applies when no danger of disgrace arises from such postponement, for, otherwise, the penitent who gives signs of _extraordinary_ sorrow is entitled to immediate absolution. “_Ceterum Confessarii debent esse difficiles, quantum fieri potest, in absolvendis hujusmodi ordinandis, qui postmodum ordinarie pessimi evadunt presbyteri et sic populis et Ecclesiæ perniciem magnam afferunt._”

The above holds good not only with respect to the _vitium luxuriæ_, but also with regard to any other vice.

A confessor administering absolution according to the above principles provides for the interests of the Church, as well as for those of the faithful and for those of the persons to be ordained.[911] If it is objected that the person to be ordained would be brought into evil repute by such proceeding, it may be answered, in denial of this, that ordination may be postponed for many reasons and that pious youths not infrequently desire such postponement. And if the consequences stated in the objection were really to supervene, the evils resulting from hasty ordination are by far more fatal. Nor is the want of priests, which prevails nearly everywhere in our days, reason for rejecting the above teaching, which is entirely based upon the principles of the saints and of the Church. It would be a dangerous remedy to apply to the evil of scarcity of priests. Moreover, experience of centuries proves that the number of priests increases when and where the discipline of the Church is strictly enforced. St. Thomas remarks, “God never so abandons His Church that worthy servants of the altar in sufficient numbers are not to be found, if only the worthy are ordained and the unworthy debarred from ordination.”[912]

To conclude this very important section, we will call the attention of the confessor to two Instructions given by the Congregation de Propag. Fide. In these the practice of “_indiscriminatim_” absolving relapsing sinners, adopted by some confessors, is strongly rebuked and condemned. One Instruction (Aug. 1827) appeals first to the twofold power of absolving and remitting sin to which this practice is entirely opposed, and then to the teaching of the Rituale Roman. (Tit. De Sacram. Pœnit.): “But let the priest take heed when and to whom absolution is to be administered or refused.” Now this would not be prescribed if absolution were to be given to all without distinction, including relapsing sinners and penitents living in a habit of sin. The penitents being divided (as above specified) into three classes, to whom absolution is to be given, or postponed, or refused, respectively, the Instruction concludes: “Thus teach prudent theologians, the Instructions given to confessors by St. Charles Borromeo, and by St. Francis of Sales. Confessors must reflect that, from too great ease in obtaining absolution, there results a great ease in sinning.” In the other Instruction (April, 1784) the confessor is reminded of his duty to examine into the gravity of the sins, the obstinacy of the malady, and the dispositions of the penitent. He must, therefore, carefully inquire if the penitent has true sorrow; if he has entered upon a new life, detesting the former; if he promises amendment with the heart, and not with the mouth alone; if he has abandoned the occasions of sin; if he has applied the remedies previously recommended to him; if he has laid aside the habit of sinning; if, having previously received absolution, he has relapsed into the same sins in consequence of his depravity; if he is ready to repair injury inflicted. These, and many other things, the confessor must examine before he confers upon the penitent the blessing of absolution.[913]

70. Penitents aiming at Perfection.

As we have seen in previous sections, the confessor must treat with great care and zeal those penitents who are stained with grave sins and vices; but he must not, on that account, neglect those who are striving after virtue and perfection. A penitent who has preserved himself free from grave sin and is capable of perfection claims, as St. Alphonsus teaches, all the confessor’s care as guide along the path to perfection and divine love.[914]

But as this is no light and easy matter, and as it involves responsibility on the part of the confessor, he must pray to God for light and endeavor to learn the natural disposition of the penitent and the operation of the Holy Ghost in his soul. _For all are not to be led in the same manner._ The phlegmatic, the choleric, the melancholy, and the sanguine must all be differently treated. While the phlegmatic must be spurred on that they may not become lukewarm, the choleric must be restrained that they may not go too far, whilst they are guided to the nobler and more exalted works and exercises in the service of God. With the melancholy, care must be exercised that they do not give way to sadness, do not isolate themselves, and imagine everything more difficult than it is in reality; the sanguine must be prevented from allowing themselves to be hurried by natural impulse into what exceeds their strength; the confessor must insist upon their weighing everything well, and then acting with firmness.[915] The guide of souls seeks to recognize the operation of the Holy Ghost in his penitents, and he will carefully follow up this operation. For the Holy Ghost dwells in the soul of the just man; He is the teacher of the interior life and the invisible guide to perfection. The confessor’s duty is to coöperate with the Holy Ghost. St. Ignatius remarks wisely: “To wish to lead all to perfection by the same road is full of danger; such a one does not understand how manifold and abundant the gifts of the Holy Ghost are.”

Nevertheless, there are certain general principles and rules which are useful to all in obtaining Christian perfection. As the saints, approved theologians, and masters of the spiritual life have laid them down, we reproduce them here in brief:—

1. Perfection consists for each one in performing well his ordinary work; and he does it well who does it because, and when, and as God wishes—His most holy Will being the source and rule of all perfection.

2. Penitents must be led gradually and regularly (_non per saltum_) to perfection; for example, they must first act with the right purpose and intention and learn to imitate the actions of Christ before they contemplate higher things; they should first learn to bear easier trials patiently before demanding more difficult ones.

3. The confessor should admonish them constantly to cherish the desire for greater perfection, even if in certain instances they never seem to attain to it; for such a desire will have this effect, that they will at least reach that perfection of which they are capable and they will acquire greater merit.

4. He must instruct them to confess every week, and induce them to avoid even venial sins which are voluntary and deliberate, also to give up any attachment to these sins. Those who confess venial sins which they have _not committed with deliberation, but from human weakness_, must always be absolved; those who have committed _venial sins with deliberation_, but not from habitual attachment to them, must be absolved, but, at the same time, helped and incited earnestly and zealously to endeavor, by employing the means recommended by the confessor, to avoid them; those who are accustomed to confess venial sins which they have committed without any resistance, from _habitual attachment or custom_, give rise to the suspicion that they are not properly disposed; the confessor, therefore, must dispose them to true sorrow for at least _one_ venial sin, and to a firm purpose of amendment, in order that they may be absolved without sacrilege. Occasionally, however, as in the case of other relapsing sinners, absolution may be postponed. The confessor should not easily forbid them to confess their imperfections,—for example, that they have not consecrated their actions of the day to God, nor said the prayers of a confraternity, etc.,—because such self-accusations contribute to a better knowledge of the penitent’s spiritual state, exercise humility, and produce tenderness of conscience; besides these imperfections often go along with some venial sin.[916] The same applies to the transgression of those rules in a Religious Order which do not bind under sin. And if the penitent confesses only imperfections which do not positively amount to venial sins, or other doubtful sins, let the confessor observe what we have said above (§ 6). Let him see that they always go to holy communion well prepared and not from mere custom; for a single communion after good preparation is worth more than many communions received in a state of tepidity. The confessor, however, must distinguish carefully true zeal and fervor from sensible devotion.

5. The confessor should teach them _to master their passions_; especially their predominant ones, for which purpose the particular examination is eminently adapted. He should induce them to _practice virtues_, and that in the right order, namely: (_a_) first the virtues demanded by their position and profession; he should not, therefore, permit young women to hurry from one Church to another, or to remain there longer than is right and necessary, thus neglecting important duties, their families, etc. He should exhort them rather to perform their household work faithfully and zealously; (_b_) they should be instructed to practice more zealously _those virtues against which they are tempted_; finally (_c_), he should exhort them not to prefer those virtues which are more conspicuous and more esteemed by men, but to strive after those which are in themselves more excellent and useful and more pleasing to God, such as humility, obedience, meekness, patience.[917] (_d_) He should also urge them to be _faithful in small things_; for God does not generally ask great things from us.[918]

6. He should not impose upon them extraordinary exercises; indeed, he should not even permit them easily. At the same time he must not prevent mortifications and practices of penance, even exterior ones; but they must be proportioned to the corporal and spiritual powers of the penitent. What saints have sometimes done, or allowed others to do, cannot serve as a rule, but is more to be admired than imitated.

The confessor must also have regard for the special dangers and temptations which may attend those who are striving after perfection:—

1. Those who at first were, by God’s grace, cheered with spiritual consolation easily lose courage and relax in their zeal when He, for their trial, and to lead them to higher things, withdraws from them sensible devotion. If the confessor observes this, he must instruct them in what true progress and true virtue consist; but penitents must be warned in advance of this state of the soul.

2. The devil seeks to make those who are progressing in virtue believe that they have advanced far enough, and endeavors to produce within them the beginnings of lukewarmness. They become negligent in their accustomed pious exercises, lay aside first one and then another mortification, and begin to disregard slight faults. In this there is a great danger lest, gradually relaxing in zeal, they at length fall into grave sin at the first temptation, which the devil prepares for them when they have become sufficiently tepid. It is difficult to perceive the beginning of lukewarmness, but not its progress, and when the evil shows itself, the confessor must endeavor with zeal and prudence to check it and prevent it from becoming worse. To this end the penitent may be ordered to resume all the pious exercises which he has neglected; he should be reminded of the loss of grace, of its value, the dangers of lukewarmness. If the penitent, before his relapse, had made considerable progress in virtue, he should be admonished to make a retreat. The confessor should not abandon hope even if the penitent has seriously failed. He must receive him in a friendly manner and show compassion, for in this case severity would be poison. He should remind him of Peter and Magdalen, who obtained so many graces by their tears of sorrow and rendered themselves worthy of the special love of Our Savior. On the other hand, the confessor must urge the penitent to love God more, to develop greater zeal in His service, and to repair his shortcomings by redoubled obedience, to adore the divine Justice, to humble himself deeply, and to live more carefully in the future.

If the penitent informs the priest that he has had extraordinary consolations, and that his methods of prayer are unusual, the latter should not show himself altogether incredulous in these matters; but should calmly and carefully examine if any signs of hallucination are present.[919]

Whilst there would be danger in promoting the deceptions of Satan by imprudent credulity, very great injury might be done, on the other hand, by incredulity and contempt. That he may not be taken unawares, the confessor should familiarize himself with treatises on spiritual life; for even in the humblest station of life God may manifest His special graces.[920]

We give a few general rules:—

1. We must be more careful when the sense of spiritual consolation in a penitent has been preceded by some external cause, or when some object which, in the natural course of things might produce such consolation, has been presented to the senses, than in the case of consolation by which suddenly, and without any previously existing cause, the higher powers of the soul seem filled with great light. The cause of the latter can only be God (St. Ignatius). For only God can directly influence the higher faculties of the soul—the understanding and the will. The devil can only do so indirectly; he can cause sensible devotion, excite tears and other effects which depend upon the bodily powers (Reuter).

2. The good Spirit suggests nothing which is opposed to truth, to Holy Writ, the doctrines of the Church, the practices of the saints, the life of Christ; nor anything frivolous, idle, inappropriate.

3. The good Spirit incites to self-denial, to mortification, endurance of adversity, imitation of Christ, resignation to the will of God, submission of private judgment, perfect obedience, humility.

4. The good Spirit is modest, and, therefore, proceeds to all its work in an orderly manner; it incites, as a rule, only to what is usual and ordinary and adapted to each one’s powers, without the intervention of miracles. For the ordinary road to heaven is God’s own design; and if, nevertheless, He sometimes inspires extraordinary things, it is almost exclusively in the case of souls who are already rooted in humility and do not strive after empty honors.

5. It is a sign of the operations of the Holy Spirit when the penitent is humble of heart, not desiring extraordinary things, not aspiring to astonishing exercises, making his holiness consist in the faithful performance of the ordinary duties of life, holding himself unworthy of the gifts of God, not exalting himself above others on account of these gifts, rejoicing to be despised if the confessor treats his lights as pure illusions, maintaining secrecy about his gifts.

6. But even when an emotion does come from God, a temptation from the devil or some inordinate natural affection may intrude itself, so that one might conclude that the consolation or the light which the penitent has received is not from God; as, for instance, would be the case where signs of pride were visible.

But whatever be the origin of these interior emotions and illuminations, the individual must always employ them for the purpose of increasing his contempt of self, both in his own eyes and those of others, in intensifying his longing to imitate Christ in His poverty, humility, and suffering; and if he zealously pursues this object, the purposes of the devil will be defeated if the inspirations emanated from him.

7. Obedience, even against the proper judgment, is a good sign, and absolutely necessary. Gladly and readily revealing what seems to redound to one’s credit, seeking praise by means of extraordinary gifts, displeasure if the confessor hesitates, are bad signs.

The confessor should not wish to have as penitents persons who lay claim to extraordinary gifts, nor, prompted by vanity, should he take pleasure in the flatteries which such persons offer to him. If he is so foolish and vain, he can only ascribe it to a just judgment of God if he at last discovers that, in punishment of his vanity and imprudence, persons who suffered from illusions have deluded him also.[921]

71. Hypocritical Penitents.

The confessor must be able to distinguish penitents who seriously strive after perfection, truly pious penitents, from those whose piety is merely a cloak. The piety of these latter consists entirely in outward practices; they visit churches a great deal, say many prayers, go to confession often, and receive holy communion several times in the week. And yet they neither know anything of true and solid virtue, nor strive after it, but, on the contrary, are full of faults. They remain longer in church than is necessary, with the result that parents, husband, or wife are inconvenienced, and household duties are neglected. They receive the Sacraments often—to be seen and praised by men; and if the confessor does not allow them to approach holy communion as often as they wish, they are angry with him. In the confessional they wish to talk much to the confessor when there is neither use nor necessity for it. The spirit of mortification is utterly wanting in them; they are, therefore, attached to the pleasures of the table, dislike work, and are loquacious. They are neither humble nor obedient; they do not submit to the guidance of their confessor, but act as though he should rather obey them; they deceive him by confessing trivial sins and concealing grave ones. They seek praise and honor, are impatient under correction, despise others, and blame them arrogantly. They are wanting in charity, and, consequently, cause trouble among their familiars; they envy others, are given to anger, have no care for the honor and good name of others, etc. With these hypocritical persons must be classed those, particularly women, who wish to unite piety to a worldly life.

But there is another class of women who adorn themselves with a show of piety; namely, those _quæ sunt captæ amore Confessarii. Malum profecto, quo non ipsæ tantum in perniciem ruunt, sed etiam Confessarium, nisi eos dimittat, ruinæ participem reddunt. Persona talis nullam habet requiem; torquet eam desiderium colloquendi cum Confessario unde, quoties facultas ipsi est, ad Confessarium redit; torquet eam sollicitudo, qua illi placere gestit, diffidentia et metus ne ab ipso deseratur, zelotypia ne aliæ apud ilium gratia magis polleant._ The confessor must reprimand them in season or out of season, that they may enter into themselves, and strive after true and solid piety. If he is not successful, he must endeavor to rid himself of them, or dispatch their confessions quickly. There are, moreover, _extraordinary_ possibilities of _hypocrisy_ in some women. “All malice is short compared to the malice of a woman,” according to Jesus Sirach (25, 26). _Inde contigit, ut feminæ falso devotæ finxerint se infirmas, postea miraculo sanatas atque publicas gratiarum actiones impetrarint pro valetudine sic recuperata; aliæ finxerunt vexationes et verbera a dæmone ipsis illata; aliæ ementitæ sunt visiones et revelationes, necnon extases simularunt aliaque portenta fabricatæ sunt._ By such cunning contrivances these persons wish to draw the attention of others towards themselves, and to be honored and admired, or to excite the pity of priests, _vel, quod pejus est, castitati alicujus Sacerdotis insidias struere volunt_. The best remedy against all this is not to believe such things, and to ignore the persons in question.[922]

72. Scrupulous Penitents.

No little trouble is caused to confessors by scrupulous persons. The word “scruple,” in its real and primary sense, means a little stone which inconveniences the wayfarer. Similarly, in its transferred sense, it means some little spiritual obstacle which prevents a man from performing an action because, for some vain and worthless reason, he fears that he will commit sin. A scruple is, therefore, fear of sinning, where no ground for fear exists. The confessor must know the signs of scruples, their causes, and their remedies.

I. Marks of scrupulosity:—

We will premise that: (1) a person is not scrupulous because he has a scruple occasionally, but only when he is habitually subject to them; (2) frequently a man himself cannot tell if he is scrupulous or only of an anxious conscience; he must, therefore, rely upon the judgment of a prudent confessor; (3) the confessor himself cannot always positively decide when he first treats a penitent if he is scrupulous or not; he must, therefore, abide and observe till he knows the penitent better, for as it is dangerous to treat a scrupulous person according to general rules, it is injurious to guide others by the rules applicable only to the scrupulous; (4) the confessor must use very great discretion and prudence in dealing with penitents who are scrupulous on one point but lax as regards other things.

The characteristic signs of a scrupulous person show themselves in this: (_a_) that, upon slight grounds, or none at all, he changes his judgment, holding the same thing to be allowable one moment, and forbidden the next; (_b_) that he fears to commit sin by doing something which a competent confessor has already told him to be allowed, and which he sees other conscientious men do and which he himself would, in his own judgment, consider to be allowed if he were not obliged or did not wish to do it at that time; (_c_) that he is agitated for fear he should sin, and cannot account to himself for this anxiety; (_d_) that he clings obstinately to his own judgment, placing no confidence in the decisions of learned men, or the confessor; (_e_) that he repeatedly asks whether a thing is allowed, although he has several times received an answer on the point; (_f_) that he ponders over circumstances connected with an act which exercise no influence at all upon the moral value of the action, and which other men generally disregard altogether; (_g_) that he holds for a sin that which the most conscientious men commonly do without thinking of sin; (_h_) that he is perpetually anxious about his confessions, lest they should be invalid, although the confessor has declared them to be valid, even after a careful repetition of the confessions has already taken place.[923]

From these indications the confessor is able to judge if his penitent is scrupulous. We must not mistake them, however, for the following circumstances, which would be of little assistance in recognizing the malady, as they are found not only with the scrupulous, but also with those who have tender consciences.

1. If the penitent is concerned, and reasonably anxious, not to offend God even in the slightest degree or to atone immediately for a sin committed, he is not on this account a scrupulous person.

2. If some one after living a long time in grave sin is converted, makes a good confession to the best of his ability, and, within a moderate period, say half a year, for example, still thinks he cannot do enough and wishes two or three times to reconfess his sins, he must not be at once set down as scrupulous. After that time, however, the penitent must be forbidden to say anything about former sins, or even to investigate whether he has confessed everything correctly. Only if the penitent was accustomed to conceal sins in the confessional might he be allowed to continue during a longer time to confess sins which might occur to his mind after the general confession.[924]

3. If a person doubts whether he has sinned in some particular instance we are not to conclude that he is scrupulous; for a doubt may be absolutely, or relatively, reasonable.[925]

If the confessor tells the penitent that he is scrupulous, the latter must certainly believe him; but it is often very difficult to convince the penitent. He is rather disposed to consider others thoughtless and less conscientious, not excluding the confessor, or to think that the latter does not properly know him or has misunderstood him. Here the cunning of the devil is seen, who is wont to instill into perplexed souls a peculiar presumption and obstinacy of judgment. This error is very pernicious; it springs from pride and makes the penitent scorn the remedies which are offered to him.

II. The causes of scruples:—

Scruples may proceed from God, from the devil, and from a natural disposition.

1. God sometimes permits scruples (_permissive_), withdrawing from just motives His supernatural light. If the trials thus proceed from God, they are, _per se_, useful, produce a profounder contrition, humility, and detachment from the world.

2. Scruples proceed from the devil also (_effective_), who has a peculiar skill in producing them by confusing the imagination with false shows and suggestions. He does not plague great sinners with scruples, because he is content to leave them in their state of presumption, and so cast them ever deeper and deeper into ruin. Nor are great saints troubled by him, because in them fear has been conquered by perfect love. It is only those who have begun to give themselves to God, and chiefly those who have abandoned great sins and entered upon the right road. His object is to perplex and hamper them in their spiritual progress, to plunge them into despair, or, at least, to disturb their interior peace. Scruples emanating from Satan must, therefore, be combated with all energy, _for they tend to evil_.

3. Scruples may also be traced to natural causes (_dispositive_), the individual having a keener and more sensitive perception of evil, or a wavering, unsettled judgment.

These natural causes are partly physical and partly moral: (_a_) Bodily constitution: a melancholy temperament may incline an otherwise sagacious man to suspicion, obstinacy and scrupulosity. Others who in consequence of a physical disposition are low-spirited, despondent, and timid, readily conceive an unreasonable fear of sin, and if they do not quickly banish this fear, they frequently fall a prey to scruples. (_b_) Nervousness and disease of the brain: the imagination becomes excited and perplexed, so that vivid conceptions of the imagination are not sufficiently distinguished from the judgments of reason. This affection may be hereditary, or it may arise from overwork, late hours, or immoderate fasting. (_c_) Dullness of mind, which cannot adequately distinguish real from seeming motives; but acuteness of intellect, if the judgment is not well balanced, may produce the same result. (_d_) Hidden pride and obstinacy of private judgment: a man subject to these moral defects becomes easily entangled in doubts and scruples. (_e_) Too great anxiety to avoid everything—I will not say in any way evil, for that we must avoid, but which has even the appearance of evil; thus is formed the habit of adopting the stricter and the speculatively more certain view, a proceeding which in practice does not by any means tend to the safer course.[926] (_f_) Intercourse with scrupulous people, reading books in which only the stricter opinions are advanced, confessing to a scrupulous confessor.[927]

III. The following considerations will show when the scruples proceed from God: (1) when they excite sincere detestation of sin; (2) when they do not last long and end in great calm of mind; (3) when they are called forth by hatred of sin.

Scruples may be recognized as proceeding from the evil one: (1) when they produce lukewarmness and despair of salvation; (2) when the scruples occur in connection with the holiest actions, especially where a man is otherwise not accustomed to be much troubled with them; (3) when a man detests only this or that kind of sin—others not so much; God detests all sin; (4) when a man yields to grave temptations while at the same time he is anxious about trifles.[928]

But when, without apparent reason, the heart becomes uneasy and the head affected, when a sudden tremor takes possession of the limbs and the mind is filled with scruples, we may justly assume that the latter proceed from natural causes, and this sign is the more certain if in all places and in all actions the penitent is molested by them.

IV. Scruples are _very pernicious_, causing perplexity and dejection of spirit, placing obstacles in the way of the soul’s progress towards virtue, closing the heart to the consolation of the Holy Ghost, producing dryness of spirit, aversion to prayer, and neglect of the ordinary duties. Scruples frequently undermine health, not seldom exposing the subject of them to the danger either of becoming insane or of falling into great sins of impurity, despair, blasphemy, or suicide.[929]

St. Alphonsus distinguishes three kinds of scruples, and theologians universally follow him in this division: (_a_) scruples concerning former confessions, the person being always uneasy about them, although they have been made properly and completely; this kind of scruple is not so difficult to overcome; (_b_) scruples concerning the consent to sinful thoughts about different matters; here the scruple as a rule comes after the action—these scruples may be a heavy burden; (_c_) scruples concerning all actions, or at least innumerable things about which other men do not at all trouble themselves. These are the worst scruples. The remedies which the confessor has to employ for the cure of scruples are the following: (1) He must find out if the penitent is scrupulous about everything, or only some things, and what is the cause of the scruples. (2) He must convince the penitent that, where sin is not evident, the safest course for him is obedience to his confessor; and that, on the other hand, it is very dangerous not to obey his confessor. (3) He must, therefore, ask the penitent if he has confidence in him, and if he will obey him even against his own judgment; the confessor must undertake to guide the penitent only after these questions have been answered in the affirmative, otherwise he must tell him plainly to apply to another confessor in whom he has confidence and whom he is willing to obey. If this is not done, the confessor’s pains would be simply thrown away. (4) The confessor in most cases ought to be kind to the scrupulous penitent, though severity is sometimes necessary, especially where obstinacy in private judgment is manifested, or when the penitent presses for repetition of a confession against the advice of the confessor. Under no pretext whatever, not even when tears are added, should the confessor allow this. This extreme severity is a kindness; but it should be tempered with gentleness. (5) To doubts, let the confessor answer _without hesitation_ and _without much questioning_, and interpret everything according to the more lenient view. He should, in most cases, give no reasons for his answers, lest the penitent might think that after all his scruples were not to be despised, and because the latter will weigh these reasons, and make them doubtful by opposing to them his futile objections. Nor should he listen to new doubts and scruples, but when he is morally certain that a scruple is in question, he should sometimes without listening to the penitent order him to lay aside all anxiety and quickly to receive holy communion. (6) He should give the penitent some general rules to follow; the more general and the easier the application of these rules and the more comprehensive of individual circumstances, the better they are.[930] Such general rules to be given to the penitent are the following: (1) He must be convinced that he really is scrupulous—but that scruples by no means lead to holiness; he should, therefore, firmly resolve to combat them. (2) He should pray with great humility, confidence, and resignation to the divine Will for light and peace of conscience. (3) He should cling to one and the same confessor in whose learning and goodness he trusts, and whom he must obey most strictly, as the representative of God. The confessor’s decisions must be regarded as final by the penitent. Never should the penitent seek a solution of his doubts elsewhere than from his confessor. He should abide with this decision even if doubts again arise. (4) He must accustom himself to consider God as infinitely good, and occupy himself with thoughts which awaken confidence in God, avoiding any which have the opposite effect. (5) He should flee idleness, so that the devil may always find him busy. He should avoid intercourse with scrupulous people, as also reading about things which excite scruples. (6) As soon as a scruple arises, he should banish it, and think of something else, as if it were a temptation to evil. He should not allow his mind to dwell upon his scruples by opposing reasons to them, but energetically lay aside all doubt. (7) He must not give way to a scruple by obeying its suggestions; on the contrary, he must act boldly in opposition to the scruple, and not fear that he will sin, even when his conscience does not seem to him to be very clear about the matter. For a scrupulous person it should suffice to know that he must despise his scruples, and that in spite of them, he may do any act of which he cannot say _positively at first sight_ that it is a sin; and that, in order to commit a mortal sin, it is necessary for him to be able to say at once, without hesitation and without examination, that the thing in question is forbidden under mortal sin. (8) Let him be assured that he is by no means obliged to confess his doubts; indeed, that this is not even useful and must be forbidden. _Doubtful sins_ a scrupulous person is _certainly_ not bound to confess. Speculative doubts the scrupulous person is not bound to regard; for what for others is a reasonable motive for investigation, is not so for the scrupulous. From this results:—

(1) For a scrupulous person an act which he does not recognize at once as a sin is not a sin; (2) he may do that which he sees other conscientious people do without scruple, even when it is contrary to his own judgment or his own opinion; (3) scruples are, for him, no reasonable ground for doing or for not doing an action, or for hesitating; and this applies to the doubt as to whether a scruple or a valid reason is in question.[931]

With regard to different kinds of scruples Reuter gives the following good rules:—

1. He who is troubled with doubts _as to whether he has consented to interior temptations_, and is otherwise conscientious, may regulate his conduct according to the following principles: (_a_) He is never to believe that he has consented to a mortal sin if he does not positively know that he fully recognized the gravity of the sin, and fully consented to it. (_b_) If the person tempted is seized with fear, abhors the object of the temptation as he considers it more closely and remains determined not to offend God, he has not completely consented. This applies to non-scrupulous persons also; and theologians maintain that he who has a God-fearing conscience, and is not accustomed to consent to sin with full attention, may believe, in a case of doubt, that consent has not been complete, for _ex communiter contingentibus fit prudens præsumptio_. (_c_) Nor may we conclude that he has fully consented because the temptation lasted a long time, or because the sensual excitement was violent, for this is material and involuntary, and sometimes appears more considerable than it really was.

2. If the penitent is tempted against _faith_, or against _hope_, let him ignore the temptation, turn his mind to other things, especially to God, but let him not be perplexed by trying to awaken a positive act of these virtues. And if he thinks that he has had blasphemous thoughts, let him proceed in the same manner, despising them, and disbelieving that he has consented to them, although he may have felt a certain pleasure in these thoughts and emotions; indeed, the devil can create in the imagination a certain semblance of consent, while the individual himself and his will are far removed from the criminal act. When the soul has been calmed it is always useful to make an act of the love of God.

3. If the temptation refers to conditional events in the future, for instance, “what would you do if you were obliged either to sin or to endure this or that evil?” let him turn away energetically from such thoughts, not answering directly or positively but rather indirectly, “I will not offend God now; and should I ever be so situated, the grace of God will help me to do His will.” With this answer let him calm himself, and not rashly entangle himself in difficulties, lest he suffer the punishment of presumption, like the Apostle Peter.

4. If, _when looking at perfectly innocent things, impure images and emotions_ arise, let him look at them boldly if they are objects and pictures (for example, holy pictures), modestly and transiently if human beings; let him act as other conscientious men do in these things and despise the emotions or thoughts. He should proceed in the same manner if these things happen when he is saying certain prayers; let him not omit the prayers on this account, but devoutly proceed with them.

5. The _Divine Office_ may be a source of scruples. The penitent may doubt whether he had the intention of reciting it; this scruple is ridiculous, for the very fact of his saying it shows that the intention is there. He may doubt that he has recited it properly, having mutilated words, or been voluntarily distracted; in this case he should not repeat anything at all, for since he honestly wished to perform his duty, it is to be presumed that he did it properly. While he is saying his Office he must not stop, but proceed according to previous intention without hesitation, without straining the mind, without hurry, without anxiety. As the requisite attention is not prevented by any action which, of its nature, is consistent with interior attention, the person should not be troubled if he has done such an action, unless it were of a kind which conscientious men would, during prayer, be careful to avoid. After the completion of the Office, an anxious person should repeat nothing, even if he fears that he has said it badly. If he is very scrupulous, and requires too much time for saying his Office, his Superior or confessor can fix a certain time in which conscientious clerics are accustomed to say it conveniently, and if, after devoting this time to it, he has not quite finished it, he shall omit the part still remaining. Indeed, according to the same author, and Gobat, whom St. Alphonsus quotes (in approval of his opinion), the Office could even be absolutely _forbidden_ to such a person till it could be assumed that he was able to recite it without such worry; for grave inconvenience releases from obedience to the commandments of the Church.[932]

73. Converts.

As it is not every belief that saves, but only the true faith taught by Christ, the zealous priest will be anxious to contribute, as much as he is able, to the conversion of heretics. He will, therefore, in continued prayer, implore for them the light of grace, that they may recognize their error and seek the truth; he will, when occasion presents itself, exhort them to avoid sin, “because error does not produce sins, but sins produce error,” and “darkness does not comprehend the light.” He will also, in a judicious manner, encourage them to attend our religious services, to hear sermons, to read books in which the Catholic doctrine is exposed and explained; he will not object to friendly intercourse with them, in order to lead them gradually to a recognition of their errors, as they begin to doubt of the truth of their teachings, and salutary scruples arise in them. When a heretic wishes to accept the Catholic faith and be instructed, he should: I. Be received with great love and kindness and be asked discreetly why he wishes to change his religion and embrace the Catholic faith. Whatever motive he assigns, caution is necessary,—because there are designing people who, under the cloak of piety, seek, not the salvation of their souls, nor the truth, but temporal advantages, such as marriage, sustenance, etc., and, having obtained these, live bad lives, and return to their old vices, as examples both amongst Jews and heretics teach us. He has, therefore, to be taught that, in returning to the true Church, he must seek simply and solely the kingdom of God, and the salvation of his soul. If, however, he should say that he is poor and deprived of the means of sustenance, he should not be promised assistance till there is proof of his good intentions. But, in order that the priest may not be deceived, he should, if he does not already know the man sufficiently, examine him by various questions at different times, and only when he finds him sincere, recommend him to others. The priest should not show familiarity, nor do or say anything in private intercourse, which he would regret if the catechumen should, perchance, return to heresy.

Moreover, he should endeavor to acquire the confidence of the convert, so that the latter may gladly unfold to him all his errors, doubts, and wounds.

The convert must be admonished to attach great importance to the business of his conversion, as upon it depends his eternal salvation; he should, therefore, often and fervently pray for its happy issue, and perform good works; the priest himself should also most zealously pray and induce others to pray for him.

II. Having convinced himself of the good dispositions and steadfastness of the convert, the priest should readily offer to supply him with the necessary instruction, or, if he is really prevented from doing so, provide for his instruction at the hands of some other reliable person.

In the matter of the instruction the following points must be observed:—

1. First of all it must be ascertained if the convert is a material or a formal heretic. He is a formal heretic if he has knowingly and voluntarily adhered to any error against the truth of the Catholic faith, after that truth had been adequately exposed to him, and he had recognized it as truth. A material heretic is one who professes error through ignorance, or in consequence of perverse instruction or education. Perhaps most of the non-Catholics of the lower classes belong to the latter kind; seeing that, from childhood, they have been reared in every prejudice and calumny against our religion. But when reasonable doubts arise in them, they are bound to investigate, to pray for divine light, to search for the truth, and as soon as they recognize it to adopt it. Otherwise they become formal heretics, because they adhere with obstinacy to error.

2. Then we must investigate to what extent the convert has been instructed in the tenets of his sect, and what doubts trouble him with regard to the Catholic doctrine. For there are mainly two classes of heretics who become converts; the first consists of simple uneducated people, who require sound instruction in Christian truth, but who should be informed of points of controversy with great caution, in order that they may not learn new errors and hence new doubts. The other class is formed of educated people whom one must instruct especially on all points of divergence, so that their doubts are dispelled.

3. But as faith must be the rational and invincible assent to all revealed truths, the credibility of our dogmas must first be demonstrated to the heretic; and these are to be accepted if the Catholic Church alone is the true Church of Christ. He should, therefore, be taught that the true faith is necessary to salvation, and that there is only _one_ true religion, and only _one_ Church of Christ, as the true religion must come from God, and God who is truth itself cannot reveal what is self-contradictory. He should then be shown that the true Church of Christ must have definite marks which distinguish her from every false sect, and that these marks of the true Church of Christ are only possessed by the Catholic Church. After this we may expose particular doctrines, especially those articles in which Catholics differ from heretics, namely: the Sacraments, the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, purgatory, veneration of the saints, the infallibility of the Pope.

III. When the convert has been (according to his intelligence) fully instructed, he must be prepared for the reception of Baptism, if he be not baptized, of the Sacrament of Penance, and holy communion, and for a profession of faith. As converts generally dread confession, the priest must endeavor to remove their fear by reminding them of the seal of confession, the peace of mind following upon a good confession, and by lessening the difficulties of the examination of conscience. The manner of making a good preparation and thanksgiving for holy communion should be well explained. Finally, give him a formula of confession of faith in his native language, and explain it to him.

IV. Not till the priest is satisfied as to the convert’s knowledge and constancy should he receive him into the communion of the Church. _The reception itself_ may take place in three different ways, according to the circumstances of the convert:—

1. If he has not been baptized, or if the nullity of his Baptism is certain, Baptism is administered to him _absolutely_; but then no abjuration of heresy on the part of the convert takes place, nor is absolution given to him, because the Sacrament of Regeneration cleanses from all sins.

2. If Baptism has to be repeated _sub conditione_, the _abjuratio hæresis_, or the _professio fidei_ takes place in the vernacular, then Baptism is administered _sub conditione_, after which the convert confesses and receives absolution _sub conditione_.

3. If the Baptism which the convert formerly received is regarded as valid, he abjures his heresy by pronouncing the profession of faith, and is then absolved from the ecclesiastical censures.[933]

An _abjuratio hæresis_ is not to be demanded from children who have not arrived at the age of puberty, _i.e._ about their fourteenth year; nor is absolution from the censures to be administered, as they have not incurred any; they need only make the _professio fidei catholicæ_ before they are admitted to the Sacraments. For these young converts the Symbol of the Apostles seems to suffice. But from such as have passed this age, a formal abjuration of the sect to which they have hitherto belonged is to be demanded.[934] Although a _material_ heretic can be absolved by every confessor _pro foro interno_, it is more advisable and safer to procure from the bishop the _facultas absolvendi ab hæresi_, as there are difficulties in the matter, and the confessor may easily be deceived in his judgment. This faculty is always to be requested _pro foro externo_. If, at his conversion, a heretic must be baptized, his admission to the Church belongs to the right of the _parochus loci_. The bishop must be consulted as to the repetition of Baptism _sub conditione_.

V. After his reception into the bosom of the Church the convert, if his former Baptism was valid, or if he was rebaptized _sub conditione_, must make a complete confession of the sins of his former life. Let the confessor treat him with all charity, assist him with questions, being careful, however, not to institute a rigid examination. The confessor may ask him if he has uttered blasphemies or insults against the Catholic Church, or induced others to do so; if he has entertained doubts concerning his religion and how long he despised or neglected the truth. If the penitent has committed many grave sins, the confessor must be careful not to reprove him severely or harshly, rather praise his good disposition in confessing them, exhort him kindly but earnestly, henceforth to lead a truly Christian and good life. No great penance should be imposed at first, so as not to dispirit the penitent. Finally, the confessor administers absolution, _absolute_ or _sub conditione_, according as Baptism was either not repeated or was again administered _sub conditione_.

If a non-Catholic in the hour of death wishes to embrace the Catholic faith, he must make the _professio fidei_ before two witnesses, at least with regard to the doctrines which must be believed _necessitate medii et præcepti_. To avoid difficulties later this act should be taken down in writing, and the document signed. After which the dying person may be prepared by acts of faith, hope, and charity, contrition, and purpose of amendment; he should then confess; absolution from excommunication and from sin should be given him; after this the viaticum and Extreme Unction.

But if the dying person shows no disposition to accept the Catholic faith, the priest should seek to gain his confidence, and then gradually approach the question of his salvation. Let the priest endeavor first to awaken in the dying man an act of faith in all that God has revealed, especially in all that must be believed _necessitate medii_, then an act of hope, of perfect contrition, and resignation. In such a case it is not prudent to ask the man bluntly to join the true Church, for fear of exposing him to a great temptation. In order, however, to be able to administer to him the conditional absolution, he should be induced to acknowledge himself a sinner before God, and, having elicited contrition, to declare also that he wished to be assisted as much as possible by the services of the priest the better to obtain eternal life.[935] Absolution _sub conditione_ can then be administered to the dying man, by secretly pronouncing the form of words, without making the sign of the cross.