CHAPTER III

PENITENTS IN EXTREME DANGER

84. The Importance of the Priest’s Ministry at the Bedside of the Sick and the Dying.

As the grace of perseverance and eternal salvation depends upon a good death, as a bad death can never be remedied, and as man’s helplessness is never greater than in that terrible last struggle, in which a thousand things disturb and confuse him, the bitterest pains afflict and the most violent temptations beset him, it is a work most pleasing to God, and most conducive to the salvation of souls, to bring spiritual aid to the sick and dying. The good, zealous priest is an ardent friend of the sick and the dying, following in this the example of our divine Savior (Matt. ix. 35). It was always the glory of Catholic priests that they were to be found at the bedside of the sick and the dying, making no distinction, and undeterred by the worst infectious diseases. And when all flee, the priest remains and is prepared to sacrifice himself in order to save the sick one. Therefore Dr. Stöhr says most truly in his “Pastoral Medicine” (p. 241): “The chronicles of epidemic disease record upon each of their pages the most splendid examples of that joyful self-sacrificing courage with which the whole secular and Regular clergy have stood faithfully at their posts in the hour of the greatest need, in the days when a reign of terror dissolved all ties of society. For the Catholic pastor of souls this form of courage is just as much a principle of professional honor, and, therefore, I venture to say, as much a matter of course, as in an officer bravery before the enemy.” In the moment of greatest need (_in articulo mortis_) any priest, as already stated, can administer the consolations of religion; reserved cases and censures do not exist. And _every_ priest should, therefore, be solicitous to obtain the necessary knowledge in order to be able to administer the holy Sacraments to a dying person in case of necessity. As visiting the sick is, of itself, forbidden to no one, and, as St. Alphonsus remarks,[1020] “_Every_ priest, even he who has no talent for preaching, can engage upon it, rendering by so doing the greatest service, not only to the sick man himself, but also to his relations and friends,” _every_ priest should acquire a facility in comforting the sick according to their special needs and circumstances.

In order, therefore, that the priest may effectually assist the sick and the dying, he should, before he betakes himself to the sick-room, observe the following:—

1. Reflect that he is about to perform a work of the greatest importance, and that the errors which he commits in it are of the worst kind, and cannot, as a rule, be remedied.[1021]

2. Remember that in this most important work the help of God is necessary to him; he should not, therefore, trust in himself, but wholly in God.

3. Endeavor to awaken and preserve the purest and most perfect intention possible, the intention of saving a soul which Jesus Christ has purchased by His blood.

4. Earnestly pray for the success of his work.

5. Study well what he has to do and to say. He should consider the particular manner in which he has to treat the patient to whom he is going; for he is undertaking a more important work than preaching a sermon, and yet he must prepare for every sermon.[1022]

6. Learn the character, the habits, the circumstances, and the situation of the sick person, if he is not already in possession of this knowledge.[1023]

85. The Confessions of the Sick.

_I. Some preliminary remarks._

1. The confessions of the sick and the dying are of the greatest importance, as, in many cases, they open the gates of heaven to them, and prepare them for the worthy reception of the other Sacraments. On this account parish priests, and priests in general who have the care of souls, are strictly bound to hear the confessions of those in danger of death, even in face of great difficulties and of danger to their own lives. The priest may, in such a case, even interrupt Mass (even during the Canon) if no other priest is at hand.[1024] Let him, therefore, before he visits the sick person to hear his confession, earnestly pray for grace; let him enter upon this important duty with zeal and love, but also with great prudence and judgment, confiding in God, and where there is danger, let him face it with apostolic courage. Let him not forget that the eternal salvation of the sick person is in his hands, that he can save his soul; but that this soul may also be lost by his fault if his action is careless, tardy, imprudent, and faulty.

2. In the presence of the sick person, however the latter may be circumstanced, and, however he may have lived, the confessor must manifest for him a great love and a sincere sympathy.

3. If he were not called by the sick person to hear his confession, but by those around him, or if he went unsummoned,[1025] and if there is no danger of death, he should not mention confession at once during the first visit, but address the patient in a friendly manner, ask him sympathetically about his illness, etc., as sick people like to talk about these things. He should then admonish him to resign himself to the will of God, to unite his sufferings to the bitter sufferings of Jesus, and to bear them patiently in satisfaction for sin.[1026] In subsequent visits, he should gradually prepare him for confession; ask him when he made his last confession; remark that it is better to confess before the illness increases, because this will render it more difficult; that the graces of the holy Sacrament of Penance procure for the soul the peace which it desires; that they conduce to patience in suffering. Let the priest awaken in the sick person a hope that God will restore his health, but at the same time, be careful that he recognizes the gravity of his illness, and that he does not place undue confidence in doctors and their skill. In order not to expose the patient to the danger of dying without the Sacraments by misjudging the gravity of the case, the priest should ask the doctor whether the condition of the patient is precarious. The friends may also be privately asked if the sick person wishes to confess to another priest, adding that there would be no objection whatever to his doing so.[1027]

4. If the sick person is a _peccator publicus_, living, for example, in concubinage, or in the so-called “civil marriage,” the confession should not, as a rule, be heard before amendment and due satisfaction have been seriously promised; for if the priest hears the confession, and the person refuses to fulfill the conditions, the priest will, on account of the seal of the confessional, be obliged to allow viaticum and Extreme Unction to be administered to one who is unworthy,—indeed, perhaps be obliged to administer these Sacraments himself.

5. If the sick person begs that the confession may be deferred, and if danger of death, lethargy, or delirium is not imminent, this postponement should be granted, but the patient must at once fix a time for the confession, perhaps on the same or the following day. The priest should not consent to indefinite postponement. If, however, danger threatens, he should not consent to postponement at all, but use all his efforts to induce the patient to confess at once, firmly but kindly, and considerately removing all his objections; especially pointing out to him the great danger to which he exposes himself by this postponement; as God has promised pardon to the penitent sinner, but has not promised to give him the next day.[1028] The confessor must, therefore, investigate the patient’s reasons for wishing to postpone his confession. The real reason is generally either (1) because _his conscience is burdened with sin_, he has not confessed for a long time, or confessed badly, and therefore despairs of unburdening his conscience, the task being above his strength, as he thinks; or (2) because he has an _obdurate heart_, not caring about his salvation, or he so despairs of his salvation that he rejects all attempts from outside as useless and troublesome. The priest may not give up such a patient, nor leave him till the last moment; he must pray much, and cause others to pray for him, endure humiliations cheerfully, and exhaust every means that love, zeal for souls, and wisdom can possibly suggest.

In the first of the two cases, the priest should offer the sick person his help, and promise him to make the confession quite easy for him, telling him that with a little good will, he will certainly make a good confession, and so obtain pardon, grace, and salvation. The inexhaustible mercy of God should be especially and most earnestly impressed upon him; he should be reminded of the sufferings and death of Jesus for sinners; of the parables of the prodigal son, the lost sheep, the joy of the angels over _one_ sinner doing penance, of the great examples of mercy: Peter, Mary Magdalen, the thief on the cross, etc.

In the other case the difficulty is greater, for it is indeed difficult to soften an obdurate heart. Here, fervent, continued prayer is necessary. Those terrible and consoling truths which our faith supplies so abundantly should, at suitable intervals, and with eloquence and _unction_, be laid before him: the misery of the impenitent sinner, the severity of the divine judgment, the eternity of punishment, the happiness of the sinner reconciled to God, the peace of the soul adorned with sanctifying grace, the eternal joys which await him, etc. If all this does not produce upon the sick person the desired effect, he should be left to himself for some time, in order that he may reflect upon what he has heard. In the meantime, pray; then visit him again, and speak to him again, and proceed in this manner till success results, or till an impenitent death closes an impenitent life.[1029]

II. _The confession of the sick person._

1. If the sick person shows himself ready to make his confession, the confessor must help him in every way to fulfill the conditions necessary for the reception of the Sacrament of Penance; thus he should help him to examine his conscience, to elicit contrition, to make a complete confession, and to perform the penance.

And first, as to the completeness of the confession, the penitent’s condition must be taken into consideration. If the confession can be put off without danger, he should be admonished to examine his conscience according to his ability and to prepare for a general confession.[1030] If it cannot be put off, or if the confessor is under the necessity of supposing that the patient is not well able to make such an examination of conscience, he must help him. But he must be careful to avoid worrying him by asking too many questions.[1031]

The following cases deserve special attention:—

(_a_) If the sick person has lost the power of speech, and can thus only indicate a few sins by signs, or in some other way. In this case the priest will be able to elicit the confession of a few sins, and that suffices.

(_b_) If the sick person is so weak that he can only confess a few sins, or having confessed a few, faints, or seems about to faint, or when the patient has not confessed for some considerable time, or invalidly, and the gravity of the illness or the nearness of death does not permit of postponing the absolution.

(_c_) When the confessions of many dangerously sick or dying persons are to be heard, and there is no time for a complete confession.

(_d_) When the priest has arrived at the house of the sick person with the viaticum, and cannot, without endangering the good name of the sick person, hear a complete confession.[1032] In this case, let the priest visit the sick person as soon as possible after administering the Sacraments and supply what was wanting.

(_e_) When a dangerously sick or a wounded person, or _mulieres parturientes_, require the assistance of another even during the confession. In this case, the sick person may confess some sin of which he is not ashamed to accuse himself before others, or the confessor may ask him if he accuses himself of all the sins he has committed, and repents of them, because by them he has offended God, and ask him, in particular, if he has committed this or that (slight) sin, such as people of his class are generally guilty of.[1033] Similarly when the priest does not understand the language of the sick person, and the latter confesses through an interpreter.[1034]

(_f_) When the sick person has a contagious disease, and, in the opinion of experts, there would be danger of infection to the priest if the confession lasted long. Nevertheless, the priest would, in this case, do well to overcome the fear of infection, trusting in God and making use of the necessary precautions, and be ready to sacrifice his life in the service of God and his neighbor.

In all these and similar cases, the patient must duly repent of all grave sins, and have the will to confess the sins which he has omitted if he is able to make a new confession. Indeed, there are cases in which a purely general accusation by word or sign, or a request for absolution, expressed in any way, suffices for obtaining absolution, that is, when no other means of confession is available. Even if a wish expressed to others, or the desire for a priest, can be regarded as confession when the penitent has become unconscious.[1035]

2. The confessor should question the patient so that he need simply answer without being obliged to talk much. If he is not well acquainted with the state of his soul, let him ask the patient if he has always confessed validly (this question may also be put to all sick penitents), or if, in his past life, he always wished to confess well, if he ever voluntarily concealed a grave sin, and has not yet confessed it, if he has anything else upon his conscience which disturbs him. According to his character, and the state in which the confessor finds the penitent, he should, moreover, ask if he still has in his possession anything belonging to another, or if, for some other reason, he still has restitution to make of property, or honor and good name; if he harbors hatred and enmity toward any one; if he has ever lived in a sinful habit, and if he has expiated these sins in a general confession. If restitution has to be made, and he can make it at the time, the duty of so doing at once must be imposed upon him, and he must not be allowed to leave this duty to his heirs; unless the latter be thoroughly trustworthy, the dying person believing this to be sufficient and not easily being induced to another expedient. If the restitution cannot at once take place, he must, at least, have an actual intention of making it as soon as possible, and of taking the necessary steps toward insuring its being made—either by a will, or by an injunction to those belonging to him.[1036]

If the sick person is in a state of invincible ignorance concerning the duty of restitution, and if it is anticipated that he will not be willing to make it, or that great difficulties will arise, the confessor ought not to call his attention to this duty, but leave him in his state of ignorance. For, by such exhortation, the material sin would become a formal one, and the confessor’s duty is rather to guard against injury to the soul of the penitent than to ward off a temporal injury from a neighbor. If, however, the confessor is questioned by the sick person concerning such a duty, he must give an answer, but give it with such caution that neither truth nor justice suffer, and that the salvation of the sick person be not imperiled.[1037] The confessor should then exhort the sick person to forgive from his whole heart every one who has ever offended him, and to beg pardon of those whom he has ever offended, or injured.

3. If the sick person is in a _voluntary immediate occasion of sin_, he must remove this at once, or form a firm purpose of doing so as soon as possible. Without this resolve, even _in articulo mortis_, absolution could not be given, for the necessary dispositions would be wanting. If there is no danger in delay, the confessor must insist, with inexorable severity, upon the removal of this occasion, if it is a public one, and postpone absolution till it is removed.[1038] Such occasions may be dangerous objects, or persons whom the sick man hates, or a person with whom he maintains sinful intercourse. The latter occasion presents greater difficulty, and it is to be disposed of according to the rules laid down for those living in concubinage. If the matter has remained secret, or is only known through confession, and if public scandal is to be feared from immediate removal of the person, the penitent must form the firm purpose either of marrying her, if no obstacles which cannot be removed are in the way, or of dismissing her as soon as possible, and till then, of keeping her at a distance as much as possible.[1039]

If the person were an _occasio necessaria_, that is, if the sick man had no one else to wait upon him, the matter becomes still more difficult. Supposing that the _occasio proxima_ has really lost its character in this situation, the circumstances might call for some forbearance; however, if the matter is notorious, some explanation should be made in order that the scandal caused may be atoned for; that is, the sick man should be obliged to declare, perhaps before witnesses, that he would dismiss the person when he had recovered health; but this declaration would not be necessary if the circumstances which make the dismissal of the concubine impossible are publicly known.

This tolerance is the more justifiable if the immoral relationship had not become generally known, but were only learnt through the confessional, and difficulties stood in the way of contracting the marriage _in extremis_. But here also the sick man must promise that he will marry, or dismiss the person who is the occasion of sin to him, etc. However, in all cases where the concubine cannot be dismissed, the sick man must take care that she does not sleep near him, that she only goes to him when it is necessary, in order to avoid dangerous intimacy and temptation.

4. If the person who is dangerously ill is living in so-called “civil matrimony,” and there is no canonical impediment, a promise to marry made before the parish priest and two witnesses suffices, and the marriage must take place as soon as possible. If there is a canonical impediment, for which a dispensation can be obtained, let the confessor induce the sick man to submit himself to the laws of the Church. On this condition he may be absolved; the confessor should then procure the dispensation if the patient is not already _in extremis_. If he is already very near death, the bishop can dispense, in order that the marriage may proceed, as it may, for many reasons, be desirable. If the impediment cannot be removed by a dispensation, it suffices that the sick person promises to submit to the laws of God and the Church, in case he is restored to health. If he is not aware of the obstacle, he may be left in his _bona fides_. If the matter is publicly known, the scandal given must be repaired.

5. If a dying woman has separated from her husband on her own authority, the confessor must demand that the separation should be revoked as soon as possible; if the person does not wish this, and there is canonical ground for separation, she must be left in peace. If the reasons are futile, she must declare that she will resume married life upon the restoration of health (if occasion requires, she must make this declaration before witnesses, in order to remedy the scandal given). If she had been divorced by the civil court _in bona fide_, she must not be disturbed. Of course, the conduct of the confessor would be modified according as he had learnt the matter through the confessional, or previously, by general report. In the latter case the explanations and promises in question must be duly given before the administration of the Sacraments.[1040]

In respect to sick persons who have lived in habitual sin, or have frequently or generally relapsed into the same grave sin, see §§ 67 and 68.

6. As soon as the confession is completed, the confessor should exhort the sick person in a few forcible words, and awaken in him true sorrow and firm purpose of amendment. The thought of death, vividly suggested by the circumstances, is well calculated to move a man to a holy fear and repentance. In most cases it is advisable to make an act of contrition with the sick person.

7. Then, according to the express admonition of the Roman Ritual, a slight penance should be imposed upon the sick person, which can be performed at once. The confessor should help persons who are very ill, and those who are dying, to perform the penance before, or after, the absolution has been administered.[1041]

8. When the sick person’s spiritual condition has been set in order, attention must be paid to the regulation of his temporal affairs (Is. xxxviii. 1). If it is considered necessary or advisable, he should, therefore, be admonished to put his worldly concerns in good order, if he has not yet done so, that he may afterwards occupy himself with God in undisturbed peace. But he must so regulate everything that he may be well prepared for the account which he will be obliged to render to God.

III. The priest very often finds himself with sick persons who are altogether uneducated and ignorant; or who, though well informed in affairs of the world, are very ignorant in religious matters. Whilst he can openly instruct the former class, he is often obliged to disguise his instruction of the latter that they hardly observe it, so as not to offend them and jeopardize the salvation of their souls. In this case he can give an explanation of the truths of faith which are applicable: (_a_) in the form of a prayer in which God is invoked; (_b_) in the form of a thanksgiving; (_c_) in the form of a sacrifice, or (_d_) in the form of an exhortation. Nevertheless, an explicit act of faith may be added. The confessor should commit to memory different formulae by means of which he can, when necessary, instruct ignorant patients in the truths which they must know, and elicit the acts of the theological virtues with them; he should also learn by heart short prayers and verses of Holy Writ which contain acts of the different virtues necessary to the patient.

9. In order to provide more abundantly for the salvation of the sick person, the zealous priest should not content himself with what is necessary for a valid and fruitful reception of the Sacrament of Penance, but should endeavor, in subsequent visits[1042] (which should be repeated oftener as death approaches): (1) to remove all obstacles to salvation; (2) to counteract the attacks of the evil one; (3) to suggest remedies helpful in the dangerous passage to eternity.

(_a_) Such obstacles to salvation are, preëminently: attachment of life, love of relatives, and care for earthly things. To remove these, it is especially necessary to inform the sick person, prudently, and at a suitable time, of the danger of death, at first by hints, but later on, when death is nearer, openly and plainly.[1043] Then the priest must explain to him how pleasing to God it is, and what great merits he acquires for himself before God, if he submits to His will and makes the sacrifice of his life. He should also be reminded of the miseries of the life which he is leaving behind, and of the joys of heaven to which he is passing; impressing upon him, moreover, that God who takes him away from his own will provide for them.

(_b_) Against the temptations of the devil, which are usually more violent and numerous in the hour of death than in life, the general remedies—invocation of the names of Jesus and Mary, the sign of the cross, and short prayers—are to be used. A crucifix and one or two religious pictures should be placed near the sick bed. In temptations _against faith_, the patient may exclaim, “Oh, my God! I believe all that Thou, the eternal Truth, hast revealed!” or he may thank God for the grace of the true faith, and protest that he will live and die in this faith; or, finally,—and this is an excellent proceeding,—reject these temptations energetically, and direct his attention to other things, making other acts—acts of sorrow, of confidence, of love of God, etc. And should the temptations continue to molest the sick person more violently, the _motiva credibilitatis_ may be explained to him.

If the sick person is tormented by _temptations to despair_, the priest must not speak to him of the justice of God, nor of the punishments of the damned, nor of the gravity of sin, but of the exceedingly great mercy of God, the sufferings of Christ, the divine promises, the intercession of the most holy Virgin and the saints, and thus inspire him with confidence.

If, on account of great pain, the sick person is tempted to _impatience_, remind him of the rewards of patiently borne suffering of Our Savior, who bore with patience the greatest torments; of the example of the saints, especially of the Queen of martyrs; of the duty of doing penance for our sins; of the pains of purgatory, which he may partly expiate by patient endurance of suffering; also of the fact that patience soothes and lessens pain. As a remedy against _temptations to hatred_ and _feelings of hostility_ remind him of the precept of Christ to love all men, and to exclude no one, not even our enemies, from this love; moreover, of the offenses we commit against God, who forgives us over and over again; of God’s promise to forgive us if we forgive others; and, finally, place before his eyes the glorious example of Jesus.[1044]

(_c_) The confessor must assist the sick person by all the other means which our holy faith so abundantly possesses, administer to him in due time the last Sacraments, give him absolution repeatedly,[1045] and (observing the precepts of the Church) frequently holy communion; often suggest fervent ejaculatory prayers; say with him the acts of faith, hope, and charity, and of perfect contrition for all past sins, also of perfect resignation to God’s holy will; make him participate in the indulgences of the Church, give him general absolution, let him kiss the crucifix, sprinkle him with holy water, etc.[1046] And as it is not certain that a priest will be with the sick person in his last struggle and equally uncertain that the patient will not again commit a sin, especially as the evil one continues his temptations till the last moment, the priest should teach him to elicit acts of love and contrition; he should also request a trustworthy person among those around the patient to make frequent acts of perfect love and contrition with him, especially during his agony.[1047]

86. Absolution of the Dying.

The general principles laid down in the preceding sections apply also to this particular case. _If it is certain that anything essential is wanting to the disposition of the moribund, absolution may not be administered_; but if it is in any way, even _tenuiter_, probable, that everything essential is present, absolution not only _can_ but _must_ be given. This, however, is not to be understood as meaning that there may not be cases in which absolution can be given, but where no obligation exists under pain of sin of giving it. Most of the cases which occur can be solved by the rules which follow:—

I. A dying person who, in the presence of the priest, has given a sign of repentance, and has confessed any sin, or even only _in genere_ has acknowledged himself to be a sinner, _must be absolved_, and that, _absolute_, not _conditionate_. In this case the presence of sorrow is sufficiently ascertained, and besides there is some sort of confession. This is the express teaching of the Roman Ritual.[1048] The absolution here bears directe on the sins confessed _generice_ by the signs of repentance and the desire of absolution, and _indirecte_, on the special sins, included in that _manifestatio doloris_. These sins, however, the penitent must confess separately and distinctly when he has been restored to health.[1049]

II. _A dying person who is unconscious_, and who, _by the testimony of those present_, before he became unconscious, _expressed a wish to confess_, and showed signs of repentance, _must_ be absolved. This is the constant practice of the Church, and the unanimous teaching of theologians. For the desire of receiving sacramental absolution, whether this is made known to the priest directly, or indirectly, through witnesses, includes a _confessio in genere_. Although moralists[1050] teach that in this case also absolution may be given _absolute_, and the Roman Ritual directs simply: “_absolvendus est_,” it seems, nevertheless, safer to follow the opinion of those[1051] who require that the absolution be given conditionally, at least when it may be prudently doubted whether any indication of sorrow was really given, especially if the dying person is a _homo rudis_. Absolution must also be given—but conditionally—if there is _aliqua probabilitas doloris et desiderii confessionis_.

III. According to the _sententia communis et probabilis_, absolution _sub conditione_ _MAY_ be and _MUST_ be given to a dying person who _has shown no sign of repentance_, and _of whom no witness has reported such sign to the absent priest_, and in whom the priest, moreover, cannot detect any such sign; provided the dying person is a _Catholic_. That he should have lived a pious life is not necessary; it is also applicable to one who has not lived very piously, and may be extended to all concerning whose indisposition there is no certainty; for it may be presumed that in their dangerous condition they would wish to receive the Sacrament.

The whole difficulty in this and the following cases is—how, without express manifestation of sorrow, and desire of absolution, the essential elements of the Sacrament of Penance can be supposed with some degree of probability to exist. I say, with some degree of probability, for it is not necessary to prove that these essential elements are _certainly and positively_ present; it suffices to show that some probability (slight though it be) exists for the supposition that the essential elements of the Sacrament are realized.

In order that absolution may be administered, there is required: (1) a probable conjecture that the dying person has interior sorrow; (2) some outward manifestation which, with some degree of probability, may be regarded as a manifestation of inward sorrow, and (3) some outward sign, which, with some probability, can be understood as an accusation, if only a general one.

The question now is to what extent can we find these three things in a dying person deprived of the use of his senses, who neither gives perceptible signs himself, nor has previously given them to others?

Many theologians appeal to such signs as anxious breathing, sighing, winking of the eyes, various movements of the mouth, by means of which the dying person “perhaps” wishes to manifest his sorrow and his desire of absolution. For, frequently, those who appear to be unconscious are only deprived of the exterior use of their senses; they perceive and understand everything, think, reflect, are also capable of sorrow, etc., as many declare, who have been in a similar state. As a man is more withdrawn from the outer world, the more active is his inner life. In the case of dying persons who have led _Christian_ lives, who are mindful of their sins, and do not easily deceive themselves as to their situation, who know that the decision of their eternity is near at hand, as they will soon stand before their Judge—it is readily to be understood that they should make attempts to reveal outwardly their interior sorrow, and, therefore (the only conceivable course in a Catholic), their desire for the absolution of the priest.[1052] Even if such signs are of themselves no natural indication of repentance, we may assume that the dying person wishes to make use of them for said purpose (which at the time is to him of supreme importance), as he cannot reveal himself in any other way. This is the teaching of St. Augustine, of St. Antonin, of St. Alphonsus Liguori, of Sporer, Elbel, the Salmanticenses, Tamburini, Lacroix, Aertnys, Müller, Gury, Konings, and others. The specified signs may, therefore, be regarded as manifestations of sorrow and desire of absolution. Now, it is allowed, in _urgente necessitate_, to administer the Sacraments _sub conditione_, however doubtful the matter may be, as, on the one hand, the reverence due to the Sacrament is preserved by the appended condition, and on the other hand the salvation of a soul is also provided for. When, therefore, the priest _can_ administer the Sacraments, he is _bound_ to administer them _sub gravi peccato_.[1053] He must, however, repeat to the dying person in a few words and in a loud voice a general accusation and an earnest act of contrition, as experience shows that the sense of hearing generally remains till death.

Other theologians thought to solve the difficulty more satisfactorily by the doctrine that the _actus pœnitentis_ were not _materia sacramentorum ex qua_, but _materia circa quam_. But this, of itself, does not contribute anything to the solution of the difficulty. For even the theologians who, following the teaching of Scotus, consider the _actus pœnitentis_ as _materia circa quam_, demand an _outward manifestation_ as an _essential condition_ of the validity of the Sacrament.

There may, however, be cases in which an _anxia respiratio_, _gemitus_, etc., is not perceived. Some other probable marks of sorrow and of accusation must then be sought. Lehmkuhl proposes the following:—

_A._ As far as the interior sorrow is concerned, we can and must presume that it exists; we shall, at least, never have a certitude that it is wanting. Persons who seemed to be deprived of their senses, or really were so, and have afterwards recovered their use, have declared that in their anxiety they elicited sorrow for their sins, although they could not give outward expression of it; and there is no reason why this could not also be true even of those unfortunate ones who have laid violent hands on themselves, or who in the act of committing any other sin have lost consciousness. This sorrow must, of course, be awakened after the last mortal sin, and must extend to all mortal sins not yet remitted. We must assume that these conditions exist, or are not certainly wanting, especially as God never refuses sufficient grace to any one, and desires and wills, not the death of the sinner, but his conversion.

_B._ We need not insist that the manifestation of _sorrow_ should necessarily be the expression of _that_ sorrow which is an essential disposition. It seems to be sufficient that the penitent indicates that he either has had the necessary sorrow, or will have it before the absolution, or wishes to have it. But this is _implicite_ contained in the manifestation of a desire for absolution and, in reality, always coexists with it. This manifestation of the desire for absolution also contains, equivalently, the third element, a virtual accusation. We can, therefore, deal with the two requisites at the same time.

_C._ The _accusatio aliqualis_, which is indispensable, is conveyed by the fact that the man gives outward evidence of his wish to be reconciled to God in the last moment by the services of the priest, for he thereby acknowledges to be a sinner, and that in view of the priestly functions which are to be exercised at the moment of his death.

Moreover, by the fact that the man has lived as a Christian, he seems to indicate sufficiently his desire of being reconciled to God in the last hour of his life through the ministry of a priest. He thus, in truth, makes a general, public confession before the whole Church and all priests by whom he can be absolved. All the Sacraments which he has received, all the Christian virtues which he has practiced, could be regarded as witnesses of his desire for absolution in the hour of death. Nor is a similar manifestation of this desire altogether wanting in those whose lives have been considerably below a Christian ideal, or who were deprived of consciousness in the act of sinning; for, by remaining in the Church, they show that they hoped and desired to be reconciled at the hour of death. But it might be objected: is not this desire interrupted and revoked by the mortal sin? If this were the case, our action would, of course, be in vain; for, whilst absolution in such case would be valid for him who does not need it, because he has committed no mortal sin, yet for him who does need it, it would have no validity. However, we may answer: The sorrow, in as far as it is a _necessary disposition_, is revoked and interrupted, but the man’s declaration that he _wishes_ to have contrition _at this time_ and desires absolution, is not repealed. We admit that the case is hopeless, unless interior and true sorrow is present. The validity of the absolution remains, therefore, _very doubtful_. Nevertheless, that is not the point. That sorrow is “perhaps” present, we are justified in assuming, and it is, therefore, allowed to give absolution; it may possibly impart to the man who has only imperfect sorrow sanctifying grace and eternal life. That the sorrow should coexist with the absolution is certainly not necessary.[1054]

IV. In accordance with our previous inference, a dying person, who, up to the moment of his coma, _refused to receive the Sacraments_ and rejected the priest, may not be absolved, as it cannot be presumed that he had the will to receive absolution. _To be able_ to absolve such a one we must discover some sign which we may construe as indicating (according to Lehmkuhl, n. 515) _a change in his sentiments_; for example, pressure of the hand, a look, sighing, etc. If there is any indication of the kind, however doubtful, conditional absolution may be given.

V. A dying person who was _deprived of his senses in actu peccati_, for example, in adultery, a duel, drunkenness, _can_ be absolved _sub conditione_, if he is a Catholic, and that on the same grounds as we have specified above (n. III). For of a Catholic it may be presumed that, in this utmost danger of eternal damnation, and under the influence of divine grace, which never will be refused—he desires to secure his eternal salvation.

A non-Catholic in this situation may not be absolved, even though he has given signs of sorrow, unless he has expressly asked for absolution; for it cannot be reasonably supposed that he has given these signs _in ordine ad confessionem sacram_, as he does not believe in it, and, on this account, the _materia Sacramenti_ would certainly be wanting. It may thus be maintained that _to scarcely any dying Catholic MUST absolution be refused_, and that to all dying Catholics it _MAY_ be given, at least _sub conditione_.

We arrive at a different decision and must pursue another course with regard to a Catholic, who, being born and brought up in the Catholic religion, has apostatized and embraced heresy.

VI. _A heretic_, who is deprived of his senses, but who, while he was in health, manifested an inclination towards the Catholic religion, may, in this decisive moment, be absolved _sub conditione_ from censures and sins if he has already been baptized in his sect; if doubt is entertained as to the validity of his Baptism, he must, previously, be baptized _sub conditione_. It may be presumed of such a one that he wishes to close his life in the community of the true Church of Christ. Indeed, as Lehmkuhl adds, one might also give conditional absolution to a baptized non-Catholic of whom it might be presumed, upon any probable ground, that he is _in bona fide_ and would gladly accept the help of a priest if he knew it was necessary to him.

In such a case it is, of course, more difficult to produce anything out of the past life which can, in any way, be construed as a confession, and a desire for absolution, because he has not _explicite_ thought of absolution, unless we are to be content with the man’s _bona fides_, “_quam probabiliter adesse seu adfuisse, externe sit manifestatum_.” For, if to this _bona fides_, sorrow has been added,—and it is not certain that it has not been added,—it seems that there is, _implicite_, the manifested desire to participate in those remedies which are necessary, and, therefore, in the absolution of the priest.[1055] If we have here, with Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, and Aertnys, proceeded to the utmost limits, and if the arguments in favor of this extreme liberality in the administration of absolution are not always cogent, let us not be accused of laxity or of any want of reverence for the holy Sacrament of Penance. Such liberality seems to have been fully intended by Him, “Who came to seek and to save that which was lost,” and who wishes not the death but the life of the sinner, who opened the gates of paradise even to the thief on the cross, and who has placed the keys of heaven in our hands. We safeguard the sanctity of the holy Sacrament by adding the condition, and the Lord instituted His Sacraments for man; “_in extremis autem extrema tentanda sunt_.”

We may _repeatedly_ administer absolution to the dying when the conditions necessary for its validity are fulfilled. The following rules are of service:—

1. If the dying person gives to the priest who is present undoubted signs of a contrite disposition, it is advisable to administer absolution to him as often as he renews these signs.[1056]

2. If the dying person is unconscious, one may administer conditional absolution to him two or three times, with an interval of about three or four hours. For, in order that a Sacrament may be administered conditionally, a _causa gravis_ is necessary, which could not exist if the absolution were administered at shorter intervals and more frequently. If the state of unconsciousness should continue, and there is actual danger of death, absolution may be frequently repeated; for example, three or four times in a day.[1057] This proceeding is justified by the endeavor to give more certain and efficacious assistance to the dying person.

Such efforts in behalf of the dying person demand great zeal, but, as Elbel rightly says,[1058] they are _very praiseworthy_, and form part of our holy office. Our divine Redeemer deposited His graces in the hands of His priests; faithful to their calling they will, with the greatest zeal, dispense these graces to those who are worthy and in need of them.

“_Fratres charissimi, munus quod in Ecclesia Dei geritis plane eximium est; enimvero tantam vobis Christus ad judicandas animas auctoritatem elargitus est, ut sententiæ a vobis in terris juste prolatæ, ratæ habeantur in cœlis. Ora vestra canales esse mysticos dico, per quos vera de cœlo pax in homines bonæ voluntatis descendit. Verba oris vestri tubæ sunt magni Jesu, quæ muros iniquitatis seu mysticæ Jericho evertunt._”

(_Ex monitis S. Francisci Salesii Ep. et Eccl. Doct. ad Confessarios._)

FOOTNOTES

[1] S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 84, art. 7 ad 7.

[2] S. Th. S. Theol. III. Q. 85, art. 3 ad 3.

[3] Cf. Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Tit. II. § 106.

[4] Theol. Mor. Tom. II. § 1, De Pœnit. n. 251; cf. Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnit. (Rome, 1879), p. 18 et seq.

[5] While theologians are united in admitting a _virtus generalis pœnitentiæ_ having its own material and formal object, they fail to agree on the definition of the formal object. Cf. Suarez, Lugo, and more especially Palmieri, l. c.

[6] Cf. S. Th. III. Q. 85 et seq. _de pœnitentia secundum quod est virtus_, Suarez, De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ Disp. per 2 Sectiones, _de pœnitentia in communi_; Lugo, De Sacramento Pœnitentiæ, P. I. pp. 1-44 (Romæ, 1879); Müller, Theol. Mor. Lib. III. Sect. 106; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. Tom. II. Tract. V. De Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. 1; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. Pars I.

[7] Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 600 s.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 255; Müller, l. c. Sect. 107, in fine.

[8] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2.

[9] Cf. S. Th. Quodl. I. a. 12; S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. n. 600 s. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 255; Müller, l. c. Sect. 107, in fine.

[10] See Sect. 4, p. 29.

[11] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 662, 665; Gury-Ball. II. n. 466; Ballerini, Ant. S. J. Opus Theol. Mor. Vol. V.; Tract. X. Sect. V. De Sacram. Pœn. cp. III. n. 1025 ss.; Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. n. 229.

[12] Such is the teaching of nearly all the moralists; cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 667; Gury, I. n. 478; Scavini, De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 35. St. Thomas (Suppl. Q. 6. a. 3) teaches that he who has only venial sins to confess, satisfies the precept of the Church if he presents himself to the priest and declares that his conscience is free from mortal sin; this will be counted as a confession. This opinion of St. Thomas is, however, contradicted by a large number of eminent theologians,—St. Antoninus, Billuart, Laymann, Lugo, Suarez, etc.,—who appeal to the Tridentine decree (Sess. 13. cp. 5), which says in respect to the Lateran decree that it is _determinativum divini præcepti_.

[13] Suarez and Laymann teach the opposite. Cf. Scavini, l. c. n. 35, nota 1.

[14] Cf. Decretum Lateran. Concilii IV. cp. 21.

[15] See Sect. 74, Children’s Confessions.

[16] Lehmkuhl, I. Tract VI. n. 1202, 3.

[17] S. Alph. l. c. n. 669; Gury, l. c. n. 479; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1204.

[18] S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 8, art. 5 ad 4, and St. Bonaventure, Compend. Theol. Lib. VI. cp. 25, Confess. necessitas, support this view _saltem tacite_. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1204.

[19] Cf. Scavini, De Sacram. Pœnit. n. 36, who follows Suarez, Laymann, Lugo, Salmanticenses, etc. Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1202.

[20] Lacroix, De præcepto Confess. n. 2003; S. Alph. l. c. n. 668; Scavini, l. c. n. 36, Q. 4; Gury, l. c. n. 478, nota 3; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1206.

[21] Cf. Bened. XIV. De Syn. diœc. 1. II. cp. 14, 1-5. Hence a parish priest, who would make his parishioners confess to him, is guilty of sin, since such indiscreet zeal, or unworthy jealousy, might give occasion to sacrilegious confessions. Compare what St. Thomas (l. c. art. 4 et 5) wrote even before it was allowed to confess indifferently to any priest having faculties; that a priest would sin, if he were not ready to give leave to any individual to make his confession to another priest. It was distinctly understood before that time that one might confess to any priest who had been authorized by the _proprius sacerdos_ to hear the confession. Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 118, n. 6-4; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 1205.

[22] Pauli Segneri, S.J., Instructio Pœnitent. cp. XV: _Fructus percepti ex frequenti confessione_.

[23] Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

[24] Cf. S. Th. De Malo, Q. 7, art. 12 ad 4, and Summa Theol. III. Q. 87, art. 1. St. Thomas demands for the forgiveness of mortal sin a _perfectior pœnitentia_, that is, that a man actually detest his mortal sins so far as he can; _sed non hoc requiritur ad remissionem venialium peccatorum; non tamen sufficit habitualis displicentia quæ habetur per habitum caritatis, vel pœnitentiæ virtutis, quia, sic caritas non compateretur peccatum veniale, quod patet esse falsum_.... Hence follows, continues the holy Doctor, that there is required a _virtualis displicentia, puta cum aliquis hoc modo fertur secundum affectum in Deum et res divinas, ut, quidquid sibi occurreret, quod eum ab hoc motu retardaret, displiceret ei et doleret, se commississe, etiamsi actu de illo non cogitaret, quod tamen non sufficit ad remissionem peccati mortalis nisi quantum ad peccata oblita post diligentem inquisitionem_. III. Q. 87, art. 1. Scavini, l. c. n. 13. There is an apparent opposition, but it is only apparent, between this teaching of St. Thomas and that of Suarez (Disp. II. Sect. 3. n. 8 sq. in Sum. III. Q. 87, art. 2) and other theologians, who hold that venial sins can be forgiven without formal contrition by an act of supreme love of God. For Suarez distinguishes a twofold perfection in this love, an objective _secundum extensionem ad venialia peccata_, and an intensive _ex conatu potentiæ_. Only the objective love which extends to venial sin is, according to this learned theologian, able to atone for venial sin, because it implies an aversion of the will from sin in consequence of that love. Hence, it will effect the remission of all venial sins _quoad culpam_ if it extends virtually to all, or of some only, in so far as these are affected by the act of love. This aversion of the will from sin is nothing else than a _virtualis displicentia_; in other words, contrition.

[25] Cf. III. Q. 87, art. 4 et 2. On the diverging views of Scotus and Durandus, compare Suarez, De Sacram. Pœnit. Disp. II. Sect. 2, n. 2.

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

[27] Disp. IX. Sect. 3, n. 53.

[28] Cf. S. Th. III. Q. 87, art. 1 et 3.

[29] Cf. Trid. Sess. V. Decr. de peccato orig. n. 5; Sess. XIV. de pœn. cp. 3; S. Th. III. Q. 86, art. 2 ad 1.

[30] Sess. XIV. de Extr. Unct. cp. 2, can. 2.

[31] Sess. XIII. can. 5 et cp. 2.

[32] III. Q. 79, art. 4.

[33] Suarez, Comment, ad III. Thomæ, Q. 79, art. 4. Cf. Disputatio 63, Sect. 10, n. 1.

[34] Cf. S. Thom. Q. 87, art. 2 et 3.

[35] Cf. S. Thom. Q. 72, art. 7 ad 2.

[36] Cf. S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 26, art. 1 et 3.

[37] Trid. Sess. XXII. de Sacrif. Missæ, cp. 2.

[38] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 311.

[39] Tappehorn, Die lässliche Sünde, p. 55.

[40] Some theologians attribute to these two prayers an effect _ex opere operato_. Suarez, Disp. 12, Sect. 2, n. 6.

[41] Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, art. 3.

[42] Cf. Müller, l. c. Sect. 110, II. n. 4.

[43] Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, a. 2; S. Bonaventure, In IV. Sent. Dist. 20, P. 1, a. 1, Q. 2 ad 3.

[44] Cf. Lugo, De Sacram. Pœnit. Disp. IX. Sect. 2, n. 29 et seq.; Suarez, Disp. XI. Sect. 3; Ripalda, De Ente Supernaturali, Tom. II. Lib. IV. Disp. 97, Sect. 4 (Ed. nova, Parisiis, 1870).

[45] For the arguments of those who oppose this teaching, see Suarez, Disp. XI. Sect. 3, n. 5; Gury, I. n. 457; Scavini, l. c. n. 11 ss.

[46] Cf. Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 3, nn. 8-10.

[47] There are three prayers which have quite a special efficacy in this matter: one has come to us from the Holy Ghost through David, the other from Our Lord, and the third from the Church; they are the seven penitential psalms, the Our Father, and the Confiteor. Cf. S. Thom. III. Q. 87, art. 3; I. II. Q. 74, art. 8 ad 6.

[48] On the remission of venial sins, defiling the faithful who die in grace see S. Thom. De Malo, Q. 7, a. 11; Suarez, Disp. 11, Sect. 4; Disp. 47, Sect. 1; Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, p. 190 ss.; Oswald, Eschatologie, p. 84 ss.; Tappehorn, Die lässliche Sünde, Sect. 11, p. 61 ss.

[49] Cat. Rom. P. II. Cap. V. Q. XII.

[50] Cat. Rom. l. c.

[51] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 2, 3 et 4, can. 4; S. Thom. III. Q. 86, art. 6; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. 1. n. 2 ss.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[62] Lugo, De Pœnit. d. 13, n. 73.

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

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

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

[66] De Sacr. Pœnit. c. 5, n. 14.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[73] Trident. l. c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[83] Rt. Rom. De Sacram. Pœnit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[100] Colletus, “_acerrimus probabilismi impugnator_.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

[107] Sess. XIV. cp. 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[122] Sess. XIV. cp. 4.

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

[124] I. John iv. 16.

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

[126] Lib. VI. n. 441.

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

[128] John xiv. 23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[138] Lib. VI. n. 437.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[151] Sess. XIV. cp. IV.

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

[153] Compare § 12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[160] Matt. xv. 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[169] Ezechiel xviii. 21.

[170] C. 22.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[188] Sess. XIV. cp. IV.

[189] De Pœnit. Disp. 14, n. 52 s.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[214] Compare above, § 3.

[215] Sess. XIV. cp. 2.

[216] Compare § 46.

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

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

[219] See §§ 47, 54.

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

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

[222] Ecclus. vi. 14 ss.

[223] Compare Philothea, _ibid._

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

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

[226] Cap. Omnis utriusque sexus.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[234] Sess. XIV. can. 7.

[235] L. c. cp. 5.

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

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

[238] Sess. XIV. cp. 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[252] L. c. 1060, etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[263] Propos. 58 damn.

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

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

[266] De considerat. II. 13.

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

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

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

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

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

[272] De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 115.

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

[274] P. II. De Pœnit. cp. 5, n. 47.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[283] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Mazzotta, l. c. De oris confessione, cp. 4. St. Alphonsus declares very precisely that St. Thomas’ doctrine on this matter is not against us: “He does not speak of a penitent who after diligent examination of conscience comes to the conclusion that his sin is doubtfully mortal and then lays aside his doubt in accordance with the rule that there is no certain obligation where it is question of a doubtful transgression; he is rather considering the case of the penitent who is certain that he has performed a sinful act but cannot decide whether it was gravely sinful or not; such a penitent is, of course, obliged to take pains to remove the doubt, and if he cannot settle he must submit it to the judgment of his confessor, whose office it is to distinguish between sin and sin.” S. Alph. l. c. n. 474 (fin.).

[284] S. Alph. l. c. n. 475.

[285] Habert, t. 3 de consc. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 476.

[286] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 476; Reuter, l. c. P. IV. n. 306 ss.

[287] Cf. Lacroix, l. c. Lib. VI. P. 2, n. 612; S. Alph. l. c. n. 476.

[288] S. Alph. l. c. n. 478. Cf. H. A. De Sacr. Pœnit. cp. 3, n. 34.

[289] Lugo, l. c. Disput. 16, n. 52, n. 87, n. 78.

[290] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. n. 480, and Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 380 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 318; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. V. P. II. cp. 3, art. 3, n. 193, Q. 4; Müller, l. c. Lib. III. T. II Sect. 121, is wrong in calling the affirmative opinion _communissima et vera_.

[291] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 319. Cf. Aertnys: _In praxi, præsumptio amovet dubitationem_; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 379.

[292] Suarez, Bonacina, Lugo, Salmanticenses, Lacroix, etc.

[293] S. Alph. l. c. n. 477. Thus the holy Doctor does not express a general obligation of confessing the sins in this case. In the _Quæst. rec. reform._ n. 16 he appeals from Suarez, Lugo, etc., to Concina, who, along with others, teaches the obligation of confession _cum dubia sit confessio et certa sit confessionis obligatio_ (see _Vindiciæ Alphonsianæ_). Meanwhile, as Ballerini shows, St. Alphonsus in the Roman edition of his Moral Theology of the year 1757, which is dedicated to Benedict XIV, releases the penitent from the obligation of repeating the confession _ut etiam communiter dicunt Suarez, Sanchez, Lugo_, etc., etc. And Lugo writes (De Pœnit. Disp. 16, n. 58): _Communiter docent omnes non teneri_ (_quempiam_) _ad confitendum illud_ (_peccatum_) _quod probabiliter judicat se ... confessum jam fuisse_. Cf. n. 59, where the same subject is treated of: _nihil frequentius apud theologos_, etc. Hence the _sententia communis_ of theologians is that within the given limits there is no obligation, so that Ballerini justly exclaims: “Who would not rather abide by St. Alphonsus when he follows those great theological luminaries than when he clings to Concina!” “And has Concina thereby taught anything new? Indeed, since the whole question rests on a general principle, are we to rate so low the common teaching of such great theologians as to grant the privilege of clearer intuition to the judgment of the rigorist Concina?” Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. n. 479. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 382 ss.

[294] S. Alph. l. c. n. 478; Sanchez, l. c. Lib. I. c. 10, n. 69; Suarez, l. c., etc. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 193, Q. 4.

[295] Cf. S. Antonin. Summa, P. III. Tit. 14, c. 19, § 14.

[296] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 321 ss.; Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnitent. Art. III. Confessio, n. 187, Q. 1, and Acta S. Sedis, Vol. 4, p. 320. Cf. the note of Fr. Haringer, C.SS.R., to St. Alphonsus’ Moral Theology, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Pœnit. n. 488; Wilmers, Lehrbuch der Religion, Fourth Edition, 1886, Vol. IV. § 74, p. 674.

[297] Cf. _Appendix ad Concil. plen. Baltim._ II. in _Collect. Lac._ T. III. col. 550.

[298] See § 27.

[299] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. De Oris Confess. cp. 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 323 s.; Gury-Baller. II. De Pœn. n. 494 s.

[300] Lugo, De Euchar. n. 126; Suarez, Disputat. 66 s. 3; Lacroix, n. 539; Salmanticenses, De Euch. c. 7, p. 3, n. 30, etc.

[301] Sess. XIII. cp. 7.

[302] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. III. De Euchar. cp. II. Dub. II. n. 257; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 325; Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VI. Tract. IV. De Euchar. Art. III. n. 98, Q. II.

[303] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 495; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 326.

[304] Sess. XIII. cp. 5.

[305] Cf. Gury, l. c. n. 497; Aertnys, l. c. n. 104; and Lehmkuhl, l. c. art. III. n. 327.

[306] S. Alph. l. c. L. VI. n. 485.

[307] Reuter, Theol. Moral. Quadripartita, Tom. IV. Tract. V. Q. IX. n. 331, exempl.

[308] Reuter, l. c. n. 331, exempl. 5; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 329.

[309] Compare § 20, Confessions of the Dumb who are Able to Write.

[310] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 644; Prax. Conf. n. 104; H. Ap. n. 155; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. II. n. 503, Not.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 297, Q. III.

[311] Aertnys, l. c. n. 195, Q. I; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 330.

[312] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 195, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 332.

[313] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 331; Stotz, l. c. Lib. I. P. III. Q. II. nn. 68 et 69.

[314] S. Alph. l. c. n. 488; Aertnys, l. c.; Elbel, Theol. Moral. Vol. III. P. IX. De Pœnit. n. 150. See § 72, Treatment of the Scrupulous in Confession.

[315] S. Alph. l. c.; Stotz and Aertnys, l. c.

[316] L. c. n. 331. Cf. St. Alph. l. c. n. 487.

[317] Cf. Aertnys, Lib. III. Tract. VIII. De octavo Præcepto Decalogi, n. 534, Q. 2.

[318] Lugo, l. c. n. 398.

[319] In IV. dist. 16, Q. 3, a. 2.

[320] Disp. 34, Sect. 2.

[321] Disp. 16, n. 398 sq.

[322] Q. 91, dub. 3, a. 2.

[323] C. 8, n. 128.

[324] P. IV. n. 321.

[325] L. c. n. 489.

[326] S. Alph. l. c. 490; Gury-Baller. II. 500, Q. II.

[327] De Pœnit. Disp. I. Q. IV. cp. 7, § 1 _ab initio_.

[328] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, l. c.; Tamburini, Meth. conf. 1. 2, c. 9, § 2.

[329] Thus Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 334 ss.; cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 196, Q. 10; Lugo, l. c. Ballerini, however, l. c. n. 499, Q. I, concludes thus in his notes: Ergo, seclusis aliis incommodis, _integra manere videtur obligatio_ circumstantiam illam tacendi quando ex ejusdem confessione alterius infamia consequatur. Cf. Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. (_de Complicis manifestat._) n. 439-450.

[330] Cf. Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 420; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 502; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 338.

[331] Sess. XIV. cp. 5 et can. 7 (examen diligens).

[332] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 590-594; cf. Laym. Lib. V. Tr. 6, 8.

[333] L. c. n. 366.

[334] Mazzotta, l. c. Disput. I. Q. II. cp. I.

[335] Part II. cp. 5, n. 60.

[336] L. c. n. 311.

[337] Theol. Sacram. Tom. III. De Pœnit. n. 365.

[338] Instructio Pœnit. cp. II.

[339] Mazzotta, l. c.; cf. Suarez, Disp. 22.

[340] Mazzotta l. c.; Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. cp. III. § 2, n. 186.

[341] Aertnys, l. c. De Pœnit. cp. III. art. III. § 2, n. 186.

[342] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 344.

[343] Cf. Stotz, _Tribunal Pœnitentiæ_, Lib. I. P. I. Q. I. art. 9, _Praxis examinis pro Confessione_, and Lib. I. P. III. Q. III. art. 1 ss. _Syllabus peccatorum_.

[344] Mazzotta, l. c. Disp. I. Q. II. cp. I (Lacroix); Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. n. 311; Sporer, l. c. n. 367.

[345] Compare Renninger-Göpfert, Pastoraltheologie, I Bd. I Tl. § 66.

[346] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, II. De Censuris, n. 960, Not. 1-4, also n. 430, Q. 7; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 430, in fine; Aertnys, l. c. De Censuris, n. 39.

[347] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 498, 499; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 607; Suarez, Disp. 28, s. 2, n. 12 (_sententia communis_).

[348] Cf. §§ 63, 64, where the _recidivi_ are treated of, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sacr. Pœnit. Sect. II. cp. II. Confessio, art. III. § 2, n. 347.

[349] S. Alph. l. c. n. 502; H. A. n. 44; Lacroix, l. c. n. 216; Lugo, Disp. 16, n. 638; Elbel, n. 253, etc.

[350] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 502, dub. 2; also Suarez, Lugo, Vasquez, Laymann, and other theologians.

[351] Suarez, Disp. 22, Sect. 6, and Lugo, Disp. 16, Sect. 15, n. 636.

[352] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 637, 638. Cf. Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 22, Sect. 6, n. 5; Coninck, Disp. 4, n. 45; Illsung, De Pœnit. Disp. 6, n. 152, etc.

[353] Aertnys, l. c. art. III. Confessio, § 4, n. 203, Q. 2.

[354] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 348.

[355] Silva, part 3, cp. 6.

[356] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. cp. 9. If the confessor is morally certain that the former confessions were bad, he must unquestionably insist on their repetition; if he has only doubts, he cannot impose on the penitent an absolute obligation. _In dubio standum est pro valore actus._ Cf. S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20; Segneri, Instr. pœn. cp. 15; Carol. Borom. Act. Med. p. 877; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. II. § 70, S. 470, 2. Auflage.

[357] S. Alph. Praxis Confess. n. 22; cf. Aertnys, Theol. Pastor. complectens Practicam Institut. Confessarii, P. III. cp. VIII. art. II. n. 245.

[358] S. Franc. Sal. Oper. Ed. Paris 1669. Tom I. p. 914, n. 6.

[359] Benedict XIV. Const. Apostolica, 26 Jun. 1749, nn. 16, 17.

[360] Instruct. pœnit. cp. 16.

[361] Instit. catech. P. II. cp. 5, n. 11.

[362] Cf. Reuter, Neo-confessarim, P. III. cp. 2, n. 191; Müller, Theol. moral. Lib. III. T. II. § 124.

[363] H. A. app. IV. § 1, n. 15.

[364] S. Alph. Prax. Conf. n. 20.

[365] S. Alph. Vera Sponsa, cp. 18, § 2.

[366] Marc, Instit. Morales, II. T. II. P. III. Tract. V. Diss. II. n. 1712.

[367] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 90-92.

[368] Cf. Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confess. l. c. art. II. n. 247.

[369] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 504; cf. Lugo l. c. Disput. 16, nn. 600, 640; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, II. Bd. § 171, S. 479 (2. Aufl.).

[370] Praxis Confess. cp. I. n. 20, 4.

[371] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 64-70.

[372] S. Alph. l. c. Lib. VI. n. 425, H. A. n. 4; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 16, nn. 46-49; Aertnys, l. c. n. 200, Q. 2.

[373] P. Heilig, _Methodus Confess. generales ... excipiendi_; Gury-Baller. l. c. II. Tract. de Sacr. Pœnit. n. 519; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. II. art. III. nn. 346, 349; Aertnys, Pract. Instit. Confessor. P. III. cp. VIII. art. III.

[374] See § 24.

[375] See § 49.

[376] Anleitung zur Generalbeichte, S. 88-90.

[377] Leonard von Port Maur., Anleitung zur Generalbeichte; Benger, Pastoraltheologie, Bd. III. S. 607-619 (1. Aufl.), Bd. II. S. 475-486 (2. Aufl.); Schüch, Pastoraltheologie, § 320.

[378] Some experienced confessors advise to begin with these commandments, because sins against holy purity are frequently the cause of invalid confessions. Many penitents, however, would be shocked and disgusted at such a proceeding.

[379] The greatest prudence should be employed in putting these questions for fear of teaching evil or giving scandal. In this matter it is better that the completeness of the accusation should suffer. For instance, Ballerini disapproves of asking directly whether the accomplice is bound by vows, since such cases are rare, and when they occur the penitent would be certain to mention the circumstance spontaneously, while to put such a question would frequently cause astonishment and give scandal.

[380] Aertnys, l. c. cp. 8, art. 4, nn. 251, 252; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 351; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 520; Heilig, Methodus Conf. gen. n. 40 ss.

[381] Sess. XIV. De Pœnit. cp. 8.

[382] S. Thom. _Amplius valet ad expiandum peccatum quam si proprio arbitrio homo faceret idem opus._ Quodl. Lib. 3, Q. 14. Summa Theol. Supplem. Q. 12-15; Suarez, De Sacr. Pœnit. Disp. 37 per 10 Sectiones, Disp. 38, Sect. 1 and 2; Lugo, De Sacr. Pœnit. Disp. 24 per 5 Sectiones; Billuart, Compend. Theol. Tom. VI. De Sacr. Pœnit. Diss. VIII. a. I. 6-8; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. Vol. V. Tract. X. Sect. V. cp. I. n. 478 ss.; Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, II. Tl. § 42, Die Genugthuung, S. 538 ss.

[383] Sess. XIV. cp. 8.

[384] S. Alph. Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. nn. 506, 507; H. Ap. n. 47.

[385] Busenbaum, Medulla, Lib. VI. Tract. IV. cp. I. De Satisfact. Art. I; S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513; Lugo, Disp. 25, n. 50.

[386] Sess. XIV. cp. 8.

[387] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. II. cp. III. Satisfactio, n. 355.

[388] Rituale Rom. De Sacram. Pœnit.

[389] S. Thom. Suppl. Q. 15, a. 3.

[390] S. Alph. _cum communi sententia_. Lib. VI. l. c.

[391] S. Alph. _ibid._; Scavini, l. c. n. 383; S. Thom. Quodl. 3, a. 28.

[392] This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus _cum innumeris scriptoribus contra paucos_ (n. 513).

[393] S. Alph. l. c. n. 524.

[394] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 512.

[395] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 356 (8).

[396] Homil. 43 in Matth. c. 23.

[397] Cf. Martin, Moral. S. 591.

[398] S. Alph. l. c. n. 516, H. A. n. 55; Sporer, l. c. n. 588.

[399] Cf. Rit. Roman. tit. III. cp. I. n. 25.

[400] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 513.

[401] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 509, 510, 526; H. Ap. nn. 49, 50; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, n. 60; Reuter, l. c. p. 4, nn. 591, 404; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. nn. 489, 493.

[402] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 517, 518.

[403] Thus, among others, Lugo.

[404] Thus, among others, Suarez, Fillince, Segneri, St. Alphon. l. c. n. 518.

[405] Aertnys, Theol. Moral. Lib. VI. Tract. V. De Pœnit. cp. III. art. IV n. 206, Q. 4.

[406] S. Alph. l. c. n. 514 (in fine).

[407] Gury-Ballerini, l. c. Appendix, n. 535. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 200; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 368.

[408] Summa Theol. P. III. tit. 17, s. 20.

[409] Instruct. Confess. cp. 20.

[410] Quodl. 3, a. 28; cf. Opusc. 65, § 4.

[411] Lib. VI. n. 510.

[412] S. Alph. l. c. n. 517.

[413] S. Alph. l. c. n. 521.

[414] S. Alph. l. c. n. 521; H. A. n. 57; Mazzotta, l. c. Tract. VI. Disp. I. Q. V. cp. 2.

[415] Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, Sect. 5, n. 92; Sanchez in decalog. l. 4, c. 10, n. 21; Elbel, de Pœnit. n. 229.

[416] Mazzotta, l. c.; Gury II. n. 535; S. Alph. H. A. n. 57.

[417] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 364.

[418] Lib. VI. n. 523.

[419] Suarez, De Pœn. Disp. 38, s. 8, n. 5; Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, s. 3, n. 39; Laymann, Theol. Mor. Lib. V. Tract. VI. cp. 15, n. 15; Lacroix, Theol. Mor. Lib. VI. P. II. n. 1245, and many others.

[420] Mazzotta, l. c. Q. 5; cf. 2 Suarez, l. c. Disp. 38, s. 7. Lugo, l. c. Disp. 25, n. 68, says that this doctrine is _verum et certum_, and is a direct consequence of the teaching of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. cp. 8); cf. Elbel, l. c. n. 227.

[421] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 515, 516; Mazzotta, l. c.

[422] Lugo, l. c. n. 77.

[423] Lugo, De Pœnit. Disp. 25, nn. 107-110. Cf. Disp. 15, n. 107.

[424] L. c. n. 529, dub. III.

[425] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 366.

[426] S. Alph. l. c. n. 529, dub. I; Aertnys, l. c. n. 213, Q. I; Müller, l. c. § 128.

[427] S. Alph. l. c. n. 529, dub. II; H. A. n. 61.

[428] S. Alph. l. c. n. 520; H. A. n. 59.

[429] H. A. Tr. 6, n. 33, in fine.

[430] S. Alph. H. A. n. 58; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 700, Q. 2.

[431] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. I. n. 369.

[432] Trid. Sess. XIV. cp. 7.

[433] Suarez, Disp. 16, s. 3.

[434] Palmieri, Tract. de Pœnitentia, cp. II. Thes. XVI. p. 172 ss.

[435] Trid. Sess. XXIII. cp. 15, reform.

[436] Ben. XIV. De Syn. Lib. 9, cp. 16, n. 7; Instit. n. 14 ss. et Instit. 86; S. Carol. Borrom. Conc. Provinc. I. part 2 et VI. part 3, etc.

[437] Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 546 ss.

[438] Cf. Palmieri, l. c. Thes. XVI; Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. III. cp. I. art. II. n. 374.

[439] Benedict XIV, Notificatione 9, n. 16; Scavini, l. c. Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, n. 96, nota 229. Cf. Decr. S. C. Concil. quoted by Scavini. The same author goes on to observe that by a decision of the Rota a _causa sufficiens_ for a new examination may be _libitum et sola quies episcopi_ when there is question of priests who have been examined by his predecessors; as for those whom he has himself examined, he is justified in calling them to account again _quando adest vehemens suspicio de illorum imperitia_, nor is it necessary that judicial proof of this _imperitia_ be forthcoming. Decr. 15 Jan., 1667 et 22 Sept., 1668. Cf. Bened. XIV, De Synod. diœc. l. 13, cp. 9, n. 21.

[440] Scavini, l. c. n. 98, nota 230; S. Alph. l. c. nn. 555-558; H. A. n. 81.

[441] Sess. XXIV. cp. 8 de reform.

[442] Scavini, l. c. n. 231; Benedict XIV, Quoniam, 28 Maj., 1746.

[443] Acta S. Sed. Vol. I. p. 681, Resp. 6 Mart., 1694, 29 Jan., 1707, in Frising.

[444] Bouix, De Parocho, p. iv. cp. 14.

[445] Gobat, l. c. Tract. 7, n. 45; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. not. ad n. 552.

[446] After the Council of Trent, a lengthy controversy arose among the theologians as to which bishop ought to give the approbation to the confessor; many thought it was the confessor’s bishop, others the penitent’s; with regard to exempted Regulars, it seemed probable that a single approbation, without restrictions from any bishop at all, was sufficient, since they are not the subjects of the bishops; this had been granted by Clement VII and Sixtus V; moreover, Gregory XIII gave Religious, when on a journey, the power of hearing confessions, provided they had the sanction of their Superior and approbation from any bishop; this privilege, however, was not to be made use of in the towns or places where the bishop was actually residing, without the latter’s permission. Innocent XII, however, withdrew all privileges contrary to his bull. S. Alph. l. c. n. 458.

[447] Trid. l. c. and the Constit. “Superna,” Clem. X, etc.

[448] S. Alph. l. c. n. 552; H. A. 75.

[449] S. Alph. l. c. n. 570; H. A. n. 83. Lehmkuhl is of opinion that a priest who is convinced of the bishop’s consent to his demand for approbation, may give absolution validly, but not licitly, when the paper granting the faculties has been signed and sent off, so that it cannot be reclaimed or changed except by a message directed to the priest himself, or when the bishop has given the paper containing the approbation to the priest’s messenger, who has not yet delivered it. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 380, nota.

[450] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 543, 582; H. A. 76, 132.

[451] Confirmed by Greg. XIII, 1 Dec., 1582.

[452] Cf. S. Alph. and the other authors quoted above. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c., _Quid sit approbatio et a quo petenda_, n. 546 ss.

[453] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 544; H. A. n. 77.

[454] S. Alph. n. 551; H. A. n. 75.

[455] Whenever both jurisdiction and approbation are granted on account of the office which the priest exercises as a subject of the bishop, they lapse on the office being surrendered. Hence a secular priest who has had faculties to hear confessions in some diocese in virtue of a chaplaincy or other appointment, is deprived of these faculties on being changed to another diocese unless the bishop is distinctly understood to wish to continue them. The same holds true for a Religious who has received faculties from his local Superior; his faculties lapse when he is removed to another diocese and do not revive merely by his return to the scene of his former labors. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 381, nota 1.

[456] Lehmkuhl, l. c. Sect. I. art. III. n. 379. Gury, II De Sacram. Pœnit. P. III. cp. I. art. II. Append. n. 557. Scavini, Tract. III. Disp. I. cp. 3, art. 3, 519. Aertnys on Approbation says: _in sensu quo Concilium Tridentinum usurpat, approbatio dicenda videtur facultas audiendi confessiones ab Episcopo facta Sacerdoti qui idoneus judicatus est_—and he supposes that Regulars do not, as many maintain, receive jurisdiction from the Pope. He appeals to the S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar., 1866, also Extrao. comm. cp. 2 de sepult ex clement., cp. 2 de sepult. and Extrao. comm. cap. un. de judic., where the Pope gives jurisdiction to a Regular only when it has been refused by the bishop, whence it would seem that jurisdiction proceeds from the bishop except in the cases where he refuses to give it. Still it remains to be proved that Regulars do not receive jurisdiction from the Pope through their Superiors and approbation from the bishop. Cf. Gury, Edit. Ratisb. V. in Germania, Nota Editoris ad n. 557.

[457] Cf. Thesis 13 ab Alexand. VII. proscript.

[458] Const. Superna.

[459] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 382; cf. Gury, l. c.; cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 583 ss.

[460] The case is solved by Aertnys, who quotes a decree S. C. Ep. et Reg. 2 Mar., 1866 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. I. p. 683): “_An religiosus non approbatus juxta leges proprii Ordinis a suo Superiore vel ipso invito cum sola facultate ordinarii valide excipiat confessiones sæcularium._” R. “_Affirmative._” It is needless to say, of course, that such conduct is illicit.

[461] In accordance with the Rule of Boniface VIII, l. 5, tit. 10, cp. 2 in 6ᵒ.

[462] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 383.

[463] Cf. Gury, l. c. n. 555, Q. 13, Edit. Roman. Whether a bishop can forbid his diocesans to make their confessions outside his diocese under pain of invalidity.

[464] Gury, cf. l. c. Edit. Ratisb. ad nn. 554, 555, also Nota Edit.

[465] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 569: _spectato consensu Episcoporum et consuetudine_.

[466] Zeitschrift für kathol. Theol., Innsbruck. 1881; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 385.

[467] See Müller, l. c. § 135, n. 5. Müller also appeals to St. Alphonsus; Lugo, Disp. 20, Sect. 5, nn. 70, 72; Suarez, De Pœnit. Disp. 30, Sect. 1, n. 4; and many others.

[468] Cf. Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c. ad n. 555, Q. 14; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. vol. V. l. c. cp. II. nn. 613-627, _Appendix-Dissertatio_: De absolutione peregrinorum, pp. 769-855, and Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 379 et 384.

[469] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Moral. l. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf. nn. 613-627.

[470] Decr. 4 Apr., 1900.

[471] Lessius, De justitia et jure, l. 2, cp. 29, nn. 65 and 68.

[472] A priest, for example, who has obtained a parish by simony, has, according to canon law, an invalid title. But if he was appointed to the parish by a lawful bishop, he has an “apparent title.”

[473] Cap. “infamis,” caus. 3, Q. 7 (c. 1).

[474] S. Alph. l. c. n. 572.

[475] In forming a judgment as to whether _error communis_> or _error paucorum_ is in question, we must not consider if many or few seek administration of the Sacrament of Penance from one possessing no lawful power, but if many or few have been aware of the absence of power.

[476] S. Alph. n. 572.

[477] Instit. 84, n. 22.

[478] S. Alph. l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. ad n. 548, Q. II; Aertnys, l. c. n. 226, Q. III; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 636-639.

[479] Lib. VI. nn. 571, 573.

[480] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 432; Lacroix, l. c. L. VI. P. I. n. 110 ss.; Lessius, l. c. L. II. cp. 28, nn. 67 et 68; Reuter, Theol. Mor. P. IV. n. 53.

[481] Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 572; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 548, Edit. Ratisb. l. c.; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Jurisdict. nn. 628-636.

[482] Lehmkuhl adds the following case: when a priest has, _bona fide_, began to hear a confession, and a doubt has arisen in his mind as to whether the period of his approbation has expired, there being no possibility of satisfying himself upon the point, this confession, begun and considerably advanced, may be concluded if great inconvenience would otherwise result to confessor and penitent; the confessor must, however, inform the penitent that the absolution administered was of doubtful validity; but if he could, without great inconvenience to either party, break off the confession, he must do so. Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 390, nota 1.

[483] L. c. n. 432.

[484] Cf. Lehmkuhl, l. c. nn. 390 and 391.

[485] S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 573, 600; H. A. n. 91, with Suarez, Gobat, Elbel, Sporer, etc.

[486] Cf. Trid. Sess. XIV. c. 7, where reserved cases are spoken of, and the following is decreed: “That no one may perish, it has always been the usage of the Church that there should be no reservation at the hour of death, and, therefore, that all priests may absolve any penitent from any sins and censures whatever.” These words of the Council are variously interpreted, some believing that all priests, without exception, receive jurisdiction from the Church, others believing that it is necessary to affix a limitation: when no other approved priest is at hand to whom the dying person could easily and without danger confess; these latter, therefore, limit the words “_omnes sacerdotes_” on account of the intention expressed in the preceding words: “_ne quis pereat_,” and the other ones: “_ut nulla sit reservatio_,” maintaining that these words indicate that there is question of priests who otherwise possessed jurisdiction, namely, “when no otherwise approved priest is at hand.” According to the first interpretation, and the opinion based upon it, a _sacerdos simplex_ (therefore _non approbatus_) could _valide_ administer absolution to a dying person in presence of approved priests. A great number of theologians defend this opinion (Ballerini mentions twenty-five in his notes to Gury, l. c. ad n. 551, Q. 8, and in his Opus. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De jurisdict. Conf. n. 581), and St. Alphonsus does not venture to reject it, though, in spite of the reasons advanced by these authorities, he maintains that a _simplex sacerdos_ can only absolve a dying person when no other approved priest is at hand, and he is supported in this opinion by the authority of the Roman Ritual, which (De Sacram. Pœnit. sub init.) teaches that: when danger of death threatens, and an approved priest is not present, any priest can absolve from all sins and censures. This opinion of St. Alphonsus is the most general, though, according to Ballerini and Lehmkuhl, probability is not to be denied to the other opinion, in view of the authority of so many theologians, and in accordance with the rules of interpretation.

[487] Such a priest may _valide_ absolve a dying person if no other priest be present, for the Tridentine says: _quilibet sacerdos_ may absolve _in articulo mortis_. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 560 circa fin.; Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 550. But it is not difficult to see why _deficiente alio sacerdote_ is added here; for the _communicatio in sacris_ with heretics and with excommunicated persons who are to be avoided (_excommunicati vitandi_) is a grave sin, unless when excused by necessity; a penitent, therefore, would himself commit a grave sin if he should solicit absolution from a heretical priest, or one to be avoided (a _vitandus_), unless no other priest should be at hand. To ask the Sacrament of Penance from such an unhappy priest, and to receive it, even when it is allowed, appears, however, to be in any case a dangerous proceeding; evil influence at the most important moment of human life, and also scandal to others, are to be feared.

[488] See § 46.

[489] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 562, 563.

[490] There is _periculum mortis_ when the illness is such as may, according to the judgment of the physicians, and experience, result in death, _sive id absolute, idest generatim pro omnibus verificetur, sive respective propter circumstantias hujus infirmi_. Ballerini, l. c.

[491] S. Alph. l. c. n. 561.

[492] Const. Clem. VIII, Rom. Pontif. 1599.

[493] Decret. Clem. VIII, Sanctissimus.

[494] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. de Pœnit. Disp. 2, Q. 1, cp. 3, § 2.

[495] S. Alph. l. c. n. 575; Aertnys, l. c. n. 232, II. Q.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 395, ad II. 2; Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. n. 640.

[496] This freedom, as Lehmkuhl remarks, exists for the members of the Society of Jesus, so that they are not obliged, when on a journey, to seek a priest of their own Order. Certain theologians, however, are unwilling to concede this to all Orders. Benedict XIV, in the Brief “Quod communi,” 30 March, 1742, allowed the Capuchins to confess to others not of their Order, attaching the conditions, however, that the priest to whom they confessed must be approved; the same condition was laid down for members of the Augustinian Order on June 3, 1863 (Acta S. Sedis, vol. 1, p. 677), and the S. Pœnitent., 18 April, 1867, the S. C. Ep. et Regul., 3 July, 1862 and 27 Aug., 1852 (see Bucceroni, Enchirid. pp. 127 et 128), demand the same condition for the dispersed Regulars. From which it is to be concluded that the _Sacerdotes idonei_, of whom the privileges of Sixt. IV and Innoc. VIII speak, must be approved priests. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. This seems also to hold for the congregations under _vota simplicia_, who possess the privilege of exemption from episcopal jurisdiction, as this regulation is based not upon the solemnity of the vows, but upon the said exemption.

[497] This follows from the Bull Clem. X, Superna, 21 July, 1670, already mentioned, partly printed in Gury, Ed. Ratisb. II. ad n. 559. According to the Council of Trent, all those lay persons are free from episcopal jurisdiction who belong to the household of (real and exempted) Religious Orders. But in order that the servants of a monastery may enjoy this privilege, the following conditions must concur: (1) they must really serve the religious of the monastery; (2) they must live within the inclosure at the expense of the monastery; (3) they must be under obedience to the religious of the Order; this obedience need not be the obedience of the religious; it must, however, be such as servants owe to their masters. Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. II. de ref.; Barbosa, de Parocho cum animadvers.; Giraldi, p. 2, cp. 20, n. 12; Gury, l. c. ad 562.

[498] Cf. Bouix, de Regul. T. II. p. 5, Sect. 3, c. 2.

[499] Cf. Bouix, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 564, nota.

[500] Although, according to the rules of interpretation, by the word _Moniales_ in the Papal Bulls, only _Moniales_ in the strict sense are to be understood, that is, the members of a Religious Order approved by the Holy See, who observe the Papal inclosure; yet Benedict XIV has expressly declared, in his Bull “Pastoralis curæ,” that the ordinances of the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. which contain a part of the present discipline, only apply _claustralibus monialibus_.

[501] This is clear from a note of the S. C. Ep. et Reg. to the constitutions of the Sisters of the Visitation of the Blessed Virgin (23 July, 1860): “As regards the confessors, the Constit. Bened. XIV, Pastoralis curæ is to be observed, in accordance with which the confessors are to be appointed by the respective bishops.” In the constitutions of the Sisters of Nazareth, who have no inclosure, the same congregation decreed on 27 Sept., 1861: “As regards the _Confessor. extraordin._, the ordinances of the Council of Trent are to be observed, as also the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curæ.” Cf. Müller, l. c. S. 140.

[502] Cf. Const. Inscrutabili, Gregor. XV; Const. Superna, Clem. X (21 June, 1670); Const. Pastoralis Officii et Pastoralis curæ, Bened. XIV.

[503] Cf. Declarat. S. C. C. ad dub. 7 et 8, post Const. Inscrutabili, in Bullario posita.

[504] Scavini, Tract. X. Disp. I. cp. 4, art. 2, n. 123. Ferraris ad v. Moniales, art. 5, n. 49.

[505] Gury, Ed. Ratisbon. T. II. l. c. ad n. 565.

[506] Cf. Decret. S. C. Ep. et Reg., 20 Sept., 1642.

[507] Const. Bened. XIV, Benedictus Deus, 25 Dec., 1750.

[508] Cf. Trident. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and Const. Bened. XIV, Pastoralis curæ, 5 Aug., 1748.

[509] All these precepts are contained in the Trid. Sess. XXV. cp. 10 de Regul. et Mon. and the Constit. Benedict XIV, Pastoralis curæ. Pope Leo XIII, quoted above, has renewed the same _quoad confessarios ordinarios et extraordinarios_ by a Decretum S. Congregat. Ep. et Regul. de conscientiæ ratione Confessariis extraordinariis, etc., d. 17 Dec., 1890, and exhorts _Præsules_ and _Superiores_, “_ne extraordinarium denegent subditis Confessarium quoties ut propriæ conscientiæ consulant ad id subditi adigantur, quin iidem Superiores ullo modo petitionis rationem inquirant aut ægre id ferre demonstrent. Ac ne evanida tam provida dispositio fiat, Ordinarios exhortatur_ (_sc._ _Sanctitas sua_), _ut in locis propriæ Dioeceseos Sacerdotes facultatibus instructos designent, ad quos pro Sacramento Pœnitentiæ recurrere eæ facile queant_.” This decree was occasioned by precepts in the constitutions “_plurium Congregationum, Societatum aut Institutionum sive mulierum, quæ vota simplicia aut solemnia nuncupant, sive virorum professione ac regimine penitus laicorum_.”

[510] Cf. Declar. S. C. C. ad dub. I. poss. Const. Inscrutabili et Constit. Clem. X, Superna.

[511] “Reservatio est: ablatio seu nonconcessio jurisdictionis ad absolvendum ab aliquo peccato, quamvis circa alia concedatur.” Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. n. 657.

[512] Sess. XIV. cp. 7, can. II. Cf. Perrone, De Pœn. cp. 5; Zenner, Instruct. pract. P. 1, cp. II. § 44; Palmieri, Tract. De Pœn. Thes. XVII. p. 178 ss.

[513] Const. Bened. XIV, Sacramentum Pœnitentiæ, 1 June, 1741.

[514] Const. Clem. VIII, Religiosæ Congregationes, 19 June, 1594, et Urban VIII, Nuper a Congregat. 16 Oct., 1640. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. nn. 580, 693; H. A. Tr. 13, nn. 8, 9; Ferrar, ad v. Regular, art. I. nn. 67-69.

[515] S. Alph. l. c. n. 583; H. A. n. 130. These specified cases are the following: 1. Apostasy from the Order, even when the habit of the Order is still retained. 2. Secretly absenting one’s self from the monastery at night. 3. Three forms of superstition: _Veneficia_, _incantationes_, _sortilegia_. 4. Possession of property against the vow of poverty, which constitutes a mortal sin. 5. Theft (to the extent of mortal sin) of goods belonging to the monastery. 6. _Lapsus carnis voluntarius opere consummatus._ 7. Perjury before a lawful judge. 8. _Procuratio, consilium vel auxilium ad abortum fœtus animati._ 9. Killing or wounding or severely beating any one. 10. Forging the handwriting or the seal of the officials of the monastery. 11. Maliciously obstructing, delaying, or opening written communications from Superiors to subordinates, or subordinates to Superiors. The confessors of Regulars must know these cases, so that, should one of them occur, they may send the penitent to the Superior or to a confessor possessing the necessary faculties for absolution; or that they may, according to circumstances, procure for themselves the necessary faculties for this case. But if a Regular priest confesses to a secular priest or to a priest of another Order (for example, on a journey—see above), it is disputed whether this confessor possesses the power to absolve from the reserved cases of the monastery. For Capuchins sojourning out of their monastery the power has been given by Benedict XIV (30 March, 1742) and confirmed by Pius IX (1852), with the understanding, however, that the penitent appears before his Superior or the confessor appointed by him as soon as possible and receives absolution anew. S. Alph. Lib. VI. nn. 575-583.

[516] S. Alph. n. 579; Bened. XIV, De Synodo, Lib. V. cp. 5. The Pope says: “Although in this matter no absolute and universal standard can be established, the general exhortations and decrees which the Sacred Congregations at Rome have issued upon the subject may serve as a guide:—

“On January 9, 1601, the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars issued the following exhortation to the bishops: In order that the bishops who are empowered to reserve may not unduly burden their subjects and confessors with reserved cases, they are all exhorted to reserve only a few cases, and those only which they believe themselves bound to reserve in the interests of Christian morality, and for the welfare of the souls committed to them, according to the condition and character of each diocese. This exhortation was repeated on Nov. 26. On the same day, the same Congregation issued a circular letter to the bishops, in which the following exhortations are addressed to them: The bishops should take care that they do not indiscriminately reserve those cases to which the greater excommunication is by law attached, absolution for which is reserved to no one, except when the special reservation of such cases appears necessary on account of frequent scandal, or some other urgent ground; nor those cases in which absolution is granted only when restitution has been made, or that performed which the penitents are bound to perform; nor should they reserve those cases which, although great sins, are yet matters of lesser importance, and of frequent occurrence amongst uneducated people; such as cases of _damnificatio injusta_, etc. In reserving sins of the flesh they must proceed with great circumspection on account of the danger of scandal, especially when suspicion might fall upon persons either from their going to extraordinary confessors, or frequently recurring to the bishop. Finally the bishops are admonished to adopt and adhere to that course of action, which, after mature consideration of the customs, natural disposition and tendency of the neighborhood and people appears to them to be the best before the Lord. The decrees of the Sacred Congregation of the Council are couched in a similar strain. This Council ordered a bishop who had accumulated too many reserved cases to choose ten or at most twelve of the more considerable offenses, as he thought proper, and to strike out the rest.”

[517] Reuter, Theol. Mor. De Pœnitent. n. 371. Cf. Stotz, Trib. Pœnit. Lib. II. Q. 2, § 5, n. 64. Schmalzgrueber, l. c. Lib. I. Tit. 29, n. 31, and many others. This is, in fact, the doctrine which is generally received as valid amongst the older moralists. Many of the later ones, it is true, teach that a stranger cannot be absolved from a sin which is reserved in the diocese in which he confesses, falsely assuming that the priest who hears the confession of a penitent coming from a strange diocese is restrained by his own bishop from absolving. See Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 573, and Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservat. Casuum, n, 709 ss.

[518] If the strange penitent confesses a sin which is reserved in his own diocese but not in that in which he confesses, he can undoubtedly be absolved by a priest of a Religious Order, in virtue of the privilege granted by the Pope to Regulars, Const. “Superna,” Clem. X. As regards secular priests, the older theologians maintain that they could not absolve the stranger in this case (they appeal to the Caput Si Episcop. 2 de Pœnit. in 6ᵒ), while the later theologians unreservedly allow secular priests to participate in the privileges of the priests of Religious Orders; for there exists, they say, a general custom that strangers, in this case also, are absolved by secular priests, and as the bishops approve of this proceeding, the strangers would be _valide et licite_ absolved. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. n. 573, notæ; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403; Aertnys, l. c. n. 239, in both cases decides otherwise Princ. III; and Marc, l. c. n. 1771, Quæsit. III.

[519] Cf. Mazzotta, l. c. Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 3, Sect. 2 in fine; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 404; Ballerini adds, “_si Episcopus expresse invitus sit_.” Notæ ad Gury, II. n. 573, Q. 5, nota II in fine. Cf. S. Alph. n. 589.

[520] Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403. Aertnys teaches otherwise, l. c. n. 239.

[521] L. c. n. 602.

[522] Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 570.

[523] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 583; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 403; Aertnys, l. c. III. 2, n. 239.

[524] Sess. XIV. cp. 7. Cf. Decr. S. C. Conc. 26 Nov., 1602.

[525] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservatione Casuum, n. 661 ss.

[526] L. c. n. 600.

[527] S. Alph. l. c. n. 600; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 405; Aertnys, l. c. n. 242.

[528] S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582, with Suarez, Lugo, Tamburini, and others.

[529] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VI. n. 582.

[530] Cf. Gury-Ballerini, Notæ ad n. 571, Q. 1, Opus Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. nn. 724-735.

[531] This reason is plainly not a valid one, since all theologians, including the opponents of this view, admit that reservation directly limits jurisdiction; these latter, however, declare that certain circumstances are required to make a sin reserved, and that it is questionable if the knowledge of the reservation is such a circumstance or not.

[532] This is not convincing; for as soon as the penitent confesses a reserved sin, the confessor will tell him of the reservation, and thus a check will be put upon the relaxation of morality for the future; for the sins that have been already committed, neither one opinion nor the other can offer any preventive remedy.

[533] The Theol. of Salamanca, Tr. 18, cp. 6, n. 12; Lugo, De Pœn. Disp. 20, n. 11; Sanchez, De Matrim. l. 9, Disp. 32, nn. 17, 18; Sporer, De Pœnit. n. 735; Mazzotta, Tract. 6, Disp. 2, Q. 3, cp. 2, § 2, and many others; see Gury-Ballerini, l. c.

[534] L. c. n. 407. Cf. Gury-Ballerini, l. c. This may at least constitute a rule for most dioceses. We must, in fact, assume that the bishop has reserved sins in the manner in which they are generally understood by the confessor to be reserved, unless it is shown by positive evidence that the bishop adopts the opinion of those theologians who teach that a reservation is not incurred by one who is not aware of its existence. Till the later controversy, however, it was always the general conviction that reservation was understood to be incurred by one who did not know of it; this is testified by many authors. We must, therefore, assume that the legislator so understood his law. But if, with the knowledge of the bishop and without protest on his part, it be anywhere taught that a sin is not to be regarded as reserved for one who does not know of the reservation, this may be considered a sufficiently valid indication that the bishop does not wish to bind those who are ignorant of the reservation. Lehmkuhl, l. c.; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. ad n. 571.

[535] S. Alph. l. c. nn. 580, 581, dub. 2; Lacroix l. c. n. 1614; Gury, Ed. Ratisb. V. n. 571.

[536] Cf. Archive für Kirchenrecht (1871), XXV. 148. The other sources of the Papal reserved cases are the Council of Trent, of which the censures still remain in force which were directly imposed by this Council and are not touched by the Bull “Apost. Sed.,” and those Papal decrees which have been issued for the imposition of censures since the appearance of the Bull “Apost. Sed.,” that is, after the year 1869.

[537] The two Papal cases spoken of above in which the sin is reserved, are, therefore, not quoted in it, but are in force.

[538] They are (1) those which, in an especial manner (_speciali modo_) are reserved to the Pope, (2) those which are _simply_ reserved to the Pope, (3) those which are reserved to the bishops, and (4) those which are reserved to no one. The two first classes are to be kept apart from each other, for a person possessing the faculty to absolve from the Papal cases does not necessarily possess the faculty to absolve from the cases which are _speciali modo_ reserved, if this addition is not expressly made. By virtue of the _jus commune_ (Conc. Trid. Sess. XXIV. cp. 6) it belongs to the bishop to absolve from the second class if the cases are secret.

[539] Jan. Bucceroni (S.J.), Commentar. de Constitut. Ap. Sed. (Romæ, 1888); Aertnys, Theol. Mor. Lib. VII. Tract. I. II. III.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n. 920 ss.; Avanzini, De Constit. Ap. Sed. Commentarii (Rom., 1872); Heiner, Die Kirchlichen Censuren. Paderb. 1884, S. 52 ff.; Kirchenlexikon (2. Aufl.) Apost. Sed. Vol. I. 1, 1125 ff.

[540] There are twelve of them in the Bull “Ap. Sed.” which were all, with the exception of the tenth, contained in the Bull “Cænas,” but not all _eodem modo_; to these is added the thirteenth ex Constit. Pii IX, Romanus Pontifex, 28 Aug., 1873.

[541] Cf. Pruner, Moraltheol. p. 121; Heiner, a. a. O. § 53, p. 53.

[542] Cf. S. Thom. II. II. Q. 11, art. 1; Suarez, De virt. Theol. Disp. 19, Sects. 1 and 5.

[543] Pastoral Theology, a. a. O. § 57, p. 158.

[544] Cf. Suarez, De Fide, 20, 2, 18.

[545] Regula juris in VI.

[546] The _gravitas materiæ_ is here to be estimated both _ex re quæ tractatur_ and _ex quantitate_; if the exposition or defense of a heretical doctrine is read, the half, or the third, of a page suffices.

[547] Some authors, as d’Annibale and Melata, restrict the censures to printed books.

[548] But if these lesser publications are parts of a book of the same contents, they are (subject to the above-mentioned conditions) in the category of forbidden books, especially if they are bound together in one volume. Periodical publications, therefore, of which every separate number is regarded as a part of the whole yearly issue, fall under the reserved censure; but not newspapers, as with these there is no question of parts belonging to each other, each separate number being regarded as complete in itself. (Act. S. Sed. Vol. VI. fasc. 5, p. 9, Append. 3, p. 133.)

[549] It remains to be remarked that the ten rules of the Index itself are not touched by this ordinance of the Bull, but that the _Excomm. lat. sent._ attached at the end of the regul. X falls away, as it was not directly attached by the Council of Trent itself, but by Pius IV. Consequently the reading and keeping of heretical books, or of such as are condemned by a decree of the Congregation of the Index remains, indeed, still forbidden in the future, but the punishment of the now specially reserved excommunication is incurred only in two cases: (_a_) when the author of the book is an apostate or a heretic, and the book, moreover, not only contains heresy, but _ex professo_ defends it, and (_b_) when the latter, be the author who he may, is, with exact specification of the title, forbidden by a Papal Brief, or a Bull, or an Encyclical Letter. Although the Constitution Officiorum ac Munerum of Leo XIII (25 Jan., 1897) has considerably mitigated the prohibitions of Clement VIII, Alexander VII, and Benedict XIV, in regard to the reading and propagating of noxious literature, nevertheless the warnings against the intellectual and moral dangers of bad books, which the Index Congregation addresses to Catholics, retain their full force. The confessor should of course remember that the censures attached to the reading of forbidden books are applicable only where there is a conscious violation of the prohibition; furthermore, that not only ignorance, but also a general _consuetudo_ lessening the danger to faith or morals, constitute a mitigating circumstance which demands wise discrimination on the part of confessors who apply the laws of the Index. Few Catholics in English-speaking countries know what books are on the Index, and that fact itself is a reason for moderate judgment.

[550] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. nn. 295, 284, 292.

[551] This does not add a new condition for incurring the censure leveled against the _impedientes exercitium jurisdictionis_, but only introduces another class of the same offenders (as Avanzini and Heiner, p. 87, assume).

[552] As to the disputed question whether one is included amongst the _cogentes_ who denounces and prosecutes a cleric before the civil court, so that the judge, in consequence of this denunciation, is officially compelled to summon the accused cleric, and pronounce sentence upon him according to the provisions of existing law, we refer the reader to Heiner, who discusses this point. According to him, the _sententia communior et fere communis_ teaches that such a one falls under the censure, while the negative opinion is not improbable. Moreover, a declaration of the S. C. Inq. 23 Jan., 1886, favors this latter opinion. Cf. Aertnys, l. c. Lib. VII. Tract. 1, n. 82; d’Annibale (Melata) Manuale Theol. Mor. p. 260.

[553] Cf. Heiner, a. a. O. S. 124 ff.; Gury-Ballerini, II. n. 973. Aertnys, l. c. n. 88.

[554] Heiner, a. a. O. S. 127 ff.

[555] Cf. Aertnys, l. c. n. 945. The bishop can _jure_ absolve, if the _percussio_ was _levis, etiam publica_ (thus the vicars-general also can absolve), and when the _percussio_, no matter whether _enormis_, _gravis_, or _levis_, is a _delictum occultum_. The _Prælati regulares_ can, _ex privilegio_, absolve their subordinates from this censure.

[556] By a decree of the S. O. 20 Aug., 1894, the American societies of Odd Fellows, Good Templars, and Knights of Pythias were condemned; v. Bucceroni, Supplementum bibliothecæ; Ferraris, s. v. Sectarii; S. C. Inq. 12 Jan., 1870. Cf. Gen. Index _Ecclesiastical Review_.

[557] Heiner, a. a. O. S. 226; Aertnys, l. c. 103.

[558] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXII. cp. 11 de ref.

[559] By the name “_Ordinarii_” are to be understood not only the bishops and capitular-vicars, but also vicars-general, _Prælati regulares_ and others who possess episcopal jurisdiction. The _confessarii regulares_ also can absolve from this class of excommunication in _foro conscientiæ_. Pius IX has only revoked the privileges to absolve _a casibus R. Pontifci reservatis; ex sententia probabiliori_. Regulars can, _vi complurium privilegiorum a S. Sede concessorum_, absolve from the censures reserved by the _common_ law to the bishops. Cf. S. Alph. l. c. n. 99, and De Privil. n. 100. Those censures are excepted which the Ordinaries have reserved to themselves.

[560] It is _verus abortus_ which is here punished, that is, _fœtus immaturi ejectio adeo ut mors ipsius inde secuta sit_, therefore, not the _partus præmaturus fœtus vitalis_, when procured for just motives. Pius IX abolished the old distinction between _fœtus animatus et inanimatus_. It is the _procuratio abortus_, moreover, that is punished, that is, _per se sive per alias interpositas personas_—_studiose_ or _ex industria_. The censure is, therefore, not incurred by one who employed the means without the effect resulting. Compare Heiner, a. a. O. S. 243 ff.; Aertnys, l. c. n. 109; Theol. Mor. Lib. III. n. 192; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor. P. I. Lib. II Tract. II. n. 840 ss.; P. II. Lib. II. Tract. I. n. 970.

[561] Cf. Trid. Sess. XXIV. de ref. cp. 6, “Liceat” and the Constit. Apostolicæ Sedis Pii IX.

[562] Cf. S. Alph. Lib. VII. n. 84. Corpus jur. can. cp. “Eos qui” de sent. excomm. in 60. Whether bishops and others possess still greater powers, is to be gathered from the special faculties which the Apostolic See may have granted them.

[563] Cf. Ballerini, Op. Theol. Mor. l. c. cp. II. De Reservat. cas. n. 772 ss.; Lehmkuhl, l. c. n. 411, ad II. Concerning the privilege of the Mendicants as regards the absolution from the _Casus Episcopal._, and from the _Casus qui Episcopis tantum a jure reservatur_, see Ballerini, l. c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[571] Lib. VII. n. 88.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[589] Ballerini, Notæ ad Gury, l. c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[618] Cf. Instruct. cit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[642] Instruct. 1867, n. 12.

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

[644] Cf. n. 19.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[653] Praxis Confess. n. 20.

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

[655] _Ibid._ § 33, n. 3.

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

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

[658] Instructio Confessar. cp. 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[668] De Pœnit. Disp. 32, s. 2.

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

[670] De Pœnit. n. 82.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[677] See § 63.

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

[679] Instruct. Confess. cp. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[705] Praxis Conf. n. 3.

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

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

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

[709] Instruction, pp. 121-123.

[710] Praxis Conf. n. 3.

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

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

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

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

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

[716] De Pœnit. Disp. 21, n. 70.

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

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

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

[720] Praxis Confess. n. 18.

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

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

[723] Lugo, l. c.

[724] Praxis Conf. n. 18.

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

[726] Praxis Conf. n. 17.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[760] Praxis Conf. n. 7.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[773] Cap. 21.

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

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

[776] L. c. n. 634.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[786] S. Alph. l. c.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[863] _Ibid._

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[875] Notæ ad Gury, Tom. I. n. 413.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[889] Lib. VI. n. 464.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[901] Cf. § 52, IV.

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

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

[904] See above, IV.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[955] Serm. super Ecce nos.

[956] Praxis Confess. n. 92.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[996] Compare chiefly § 71 and § 49.

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

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

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

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

[1001] Praxis Confess. n. 119.

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

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

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

[1005] Praxis Confess. n. 120.

[1006] Cf. Göpfert, l. c. p. 283.

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

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

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

[1010] See § 41.

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

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

[1013] Decretum 17 Dec., 1890.

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

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

[1016] H. A. Append. IV. § 1, n. 9.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1035] See § 86.

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

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

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

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

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

[1041] See also § 33, III.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TOPICAL INDEX

A

Abortionists, excommunicated, 339.

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

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

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

_Absolventes complicem in peccato turpi_, 333.

Abuse of the sacrament, 351.

Apostates, excommunicated, 328.

_Apostolicæ Sedis_, bull on censures, 326.

Appeal to secular judge in ecclesiastical cases, 332.

Appreciative sorrow for sin, 108.

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

_Articulus mortis_, removes reservation, 347.

_Attritio_, 74, 88-98.

Attritionists, teaching of, 96.

Avarice, remedies of, 456.

B

Bad confessions, 391, 394.

Banns, dispensation from, 604.

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

Betrothals, 592.

Blessing before confession, 53.

_Bona fide_ penitents, 443.

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

C

Careless examination of conscience, signs of, 220.

Cases reserved, 316, 327.

Casuistry, study of, necessary, 432.

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

Censures, absolution from, 54. reserved, 326.

Certain and doubtful matter for absolution, 40.

Change of penance, 275.

Child, age of, for receiving sacraments, 25.

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

Choice of state of life, 583.

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

_Circumstantiæ aggravantes_, 174. _speciem mutantes_, 175.

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

Clandestine marriages, impediment of, 607.

Classification of sins (note), 158.

Commerce, missionaries forbidden to engage in, 338.

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

Communion, frequent, 453.

Communion, frequent, for young unmarried people, 577.

Commutation of penance, 274-276.

Company-keeping of young people, 592.

Complete, sin to be reserved must be, 324.

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

_Complex absolvens_, excommunicated, 333.

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

Concealing sins, habit of, 391, 394.

_Concina_, favors rigorous views (note), 65.

Concubinage, 501.

_Conditio de præsenti et de præterito_, 62.

Conditional absolution, 59-69.

Conditions placed in mixed marriages, 601.

_Confessio ficta ex pravo fine_, 367.

Confession, annual, 24, 26. necessity of, 137. in writing, 151. of children, 561. of women, 608.

Confessor, regular, 145-148. of religious, 308, 309. of nuns, 311.

Confirmation, blots out venial sin, 34.

Conscience, examination of, 215. erroneous, 568.

Constituent parts of penance, 37.

Contracting marriage before Protestant minister, 603.

Contrition, 19, 36. extent and efficacy of, 71. perfect and imperfect, 74, 88-98. qualities of, 98-111. motives of, 105. in children, 570.

Converts, treatment of, 555. baptism of, 558.

D

_Damnificator injustus_, confessor as, 464.

Dancing, 506.

Danger to life of confessor, 201.

Dangerous intimacies, 514-518, 592.

Deaf penitents, 202.

Death, danger of, 65, 645.

_Debitum conjugale_, questions concerning, 387, 599.

Defenders of heretics, 329, 331.

Deferring absolution, duty of, 407, 411, 413.

Deficient jurisdiction, 300.

Definite matter for absolution, 48.

_Deinde_, in the form of absolution (note), 55.

Delegated jurisdiction not to be presumed, 288-290.

Denouncing the _sollicitans_, 372.

_Deprecatoria forma_, not in use in Latin Church, 55.

Desire of pleasing in women, 579.

Despair, temptation to, in the dying, 643.

Different spiritual conditions, penitents in, 487.

_Diligentia moralis_, required in examining conscience, 215.

Direct and indirect absolution, 345. remission of sin, 41.

Discretion in penitent, 145. in imposing penance, 270. in questioning the penitent, 383.

_Disparitas cultus_, impediment of, 600.

Disposition of penitents, 49, 398.

Distance, absolution given at a, 58.

Distracted confessor (note), 397.

_Doctoris munus_ in the sacrament, 438.

Dogmatic theology, knowledge of, 428.

_Dolor intellectivus_, not contrition, 72. _in fieri et in facto esse_, 112.

Doubt of jurisdiction, 64. disposition, 49, 65, 402, 412.

Doubtful matter for absolution, 40. sins to be confessed, 180.

Duellists, 336.

Duty of denouncing the _confessarius sollicitans_, 368-371. confessor to dispose penitent, 402.

Dying penitents doubtfully disposed, 409. ministry of confessor to the, 630-632, 645. penitents, in the act of sin, 651.

E

Effects of perfect contrition, 81. sins, evil, 161.

Efficacious resolution, 131.

Efficacy of contrition, 71.

_Efficax affectu_, 131. _executione_, 131.

Engaged people, how to treat, 592.

Engagements of marriage, pastors not to meddle in (note), 591.

Envy, remedies of, 457.

_Epikeia_, 445.

_Error communis_, about jurisdiction, 302. _privatus_, about jurisdiction, 302.

Errors committed by confessor, 460.

Essential form of sacrament, 50.

Eucharist removes venial sin, 33.

Examination of conscience, 215-221, 452. for children, 565.

Excommunication by neglect of annual confession, 28. reserved to the Pope, 327. _latæ sententiæ_, 335. reserved to the ordinary, 339.

_Excommunicationes non reservatæ_, 339.

Excusing, reasons, from complete confession, 198.

Exempted from going to Rome in reserved cases, 346.

Exhorting the penitent, duty of, 438.

Experience not a substitute for science, 432.

Extraordinary confessors of nuns, 313-315. jurisdiction, 300.

F

_Facultas absolvendi a censuris_, 604.

Faith (implicit) essential for contrition, 73, 102.

Faults peculiar to youth, 578.

Fear as an element of attrition, 90. of relapse, 130.

Fenians excommunicated, 336.

_Ficta confessio ex pravo fine_, 367.

Forbidden books, 512.

Forgotten penance, 277. sins, 116, 195. reservation, 348.

Form of sacrament, 50. essential, 50, 51. sufficient, 52.

Formal heresy, 328.

Freemasons excommunicated, 336.

Free matter of confession, 45.

Frequent confession, 28. communion, 453.

G

General accusation, 44. confession, 228-236. manner of hearing a, 238. plan for making a, 245-255.

Good works blot out venial sin, 36.

_Gousset_, Cardinal, defends St. Alphonsus, 68.

H

Habitual sinners, 518-520.

Hearing words of absolution not essential, 56.

Heretics excommunicated, 328.

Hypocritical penitents, 543-545.

I

Ignorance of reservation, 324.

Ignorant penitents, 185, 439, 441, 447, 642.

Impediment, occult, in marriage, 597.

Imperfect contrition, 88-98.

Imposition of penance, 256.

Impurity, remedies against, 457. habit of, in children, 572.

_Index_ of forbidden books (note), 331.

Indications of true sorrow for sin, 119.

Indirect violation of the _sigillum_, 477.

_Indulgentiam_ in the form of absolution, 53.

Inquiring the name of accomplice, 351.

Insincere confessions, 394. of children, 567.

Institution of penance, 22.

Instruction of children, 25, 569. penitents, 438. those about to be married, 591.

Integrity of confession, 153.

Intemperance, remedy against, 457.

Interdict, 340.

Intimacies, dangerous, 514.

Invalid confessions, 222. absolution in reserved cases, 348.

Invincible ignorance, 442.

J

Jansenist teaching about amendment, 128.

Judge, the confessor as, 379.

Judging of child’s disposition, 574. of penitent’s disposition, 398.

Judicial power and process, 20.

_Jurisdictio dubia_, 303. _in articulo mortis_, 305.

Jurisdiction of confessors, 279-283. delegated, 288. directly limited by reservation, 325.

K

Knowledge of sins requisite for absolution, 226, 379. necessary, of the confessor, 424.

L

_Læsio sigilli_, danger of, 204, 466-476.

_Lex disciplinaris_, reservation a, 325.

_Libri erotici_, 512.

_Librorum Index_, 331.

Lies told in confession, 141, 143, 571.

Long marriage-engagements, 594.

Love, degrees of, in contrition, 76. of pleasure in youth, 578.

M

_Malus effectus peccati_, whether to be confessed, 162.

Marriage, instruction for, 600. secret, 502. vocation to, 590. mixed, 600. before Protestant minister, 603.

Married people, confessions of young, 599.

_Materia proxima_, _remota_, _ex qua_, _circa quam_, 39, 40, 112.

_Matrimonium secretum_, 502.

Matrimony, destroys venial sin, 34. call to, 590.

Matter of sacrament, 37, 40, 112, 197.

_Medicinalis pœna_, reservation a, 325.

Members of religious orders as penitents, 307.

Men, confessions of, 614.

Mildness in giving penances, 263.

Minister of sacrament, 279, 378. Protestant, contracting marriage before, 603.

_Misereatur_ in absolution, 35.

Mistakes of confessor, 421.

Mixed marriages, 600, 602.

_Mixtæ religionis_, impediment, 603.

Moral theology, study of, 427.

_Mortalia negative dubia_, 184.

Mothers, confessor’s care of, 613.

Motives of contrition, 103.

_Mulieres devotæ_, 422, 610. _parturientes_, 637.

_Munus doctoris_, 438.

N

Name of accomplice not to be asked, 351.

Natural inclinations to be repressed, 421.

Necessary matter of penance, 40. qualities of contrition, 98-111.

_Nemo malus præsumendus_, 399.

_Notitia confusa_ of sins, 226.

Number of sins to be expressed, 163, 241, 390.

Nuns, confessors of, 311, 618-623.

O

Objections against conditional absolution, 66.

Obligation to receive the sacrament, 23. of annual confession, 24, 26. procuring perfect contrition, 81-88.

_Occasio proximo peccati_, 488. _remota_, 488, 492. _continua_, 489. _immediata_, 491. _voluntaria_, 493, 639. _interrupta_, 495. _necessaria_, 496, 499, 639.

Occasion of sin, duty of avoiding the, 487.

“Odd Fellows” condemned, 336.

Office, divine, as a source of scruples, 554.

Omission of sins to be confessed, 41.

Omitted, sins, through forgetfulness, 193.

Order, vocation to a religious, 585.

Orders, sacred, blot out venial sin, 34. as a requisite for jurisdiction, 278. confessors of religious, 307.

_Ordinarius_, includes vicar-general, 339.

Ordinary, excommunication reserved to, 339. jurisdiction, 284. confessor of nuns, 313.

P

Papal reservations, 326.

Parish priest can hear his subjects anywhere, 287. has ordinary jurisdiction, 285. as confessor, 213.

“_Passio Domini_,” prayer after absolution, 52.

Pastors appointed by civil government, 335.

Patience requisite in confessor, 423.

_Peccata externa_ reserved, only, 324.

_Peccator publicus_, 504, 634.

Penalties imposed on _sollicitans_, 377.

Penance, virtue of, 17. act of the will, 19. sacrament, 20. imposition of, 256. public, 261.

Penances repugnant to penitent to be avoided, 262. for venial sins, 266. commutation of, 274. object of the _sigillum_, 474.

Penitents aiming at perfection, 536-543.

_Percussores clericorum_, 335.

_Peregrini_ may be absolved, 296.

Perfect contrition, 76. obligation of, 84.

_Periculum scandali_, 205. _læsionis sigilli_, 204.

Persons prevented from going to Rome, 346.

Physician, confessor as, 448.

Pollution, the vice of, 531, 582.

Pope has universal jurisdiction, 284.

Postponement of absolution, 411, 415, 529.

_Potestas jurisdictionis_, 280. _ordinis_, 279.

Practical knowledge required in confessor, 431.

Precept of confession, 23.

Predominant passion to be discovered, 450.

Preparation for making confession, 126. for hearing confession, 416.

Presence, moral, of penitent, 55, 57, 58.

Preserving the seal of confession, 466-470.

Pride, remedy against, 456.

Priesthood, signs of vocation to the, 588.

Priests, confessions of, 624-629.

Profession of faith by converts, 558, 560. at the hour of death, 560.

Promises required in mixed marriages, 601.

Properties of confession, 139.

_Propositum non peccandi_, 121.

_Proprio sacerdoti_, meaning of, 28.

_Proxima materia_, 39.

Prudence of confessor, 434, 436.

Public sinners, 504.

Purpose of amendment, 126, 639.

Pythias, Knights of, condemned, 336.

Q

Qualities of contrition, 98.

_Quasi-materia_, 37.

Questions not to be answered by penitent, 142. to be put to penitent, 214, 380, 435. for general confession, 244, 248.

R

Raising the hand at _Indulgentia_ (note), 53.

Readers of heretical books, 330.

Reading, bad, 511. of good books, 580.

Reasons excusing from complete confession, 198.

_Receptores_ of heretics, excommunicated, 329.

Recipient of penance, 70.

Refusing absolution, 407.

Regular confessor advisable for the young, 581.

Regulars receive jurisdiction from the Pope, 292. may receive it conditionally from the ordinary, 295. require approbation from ordinary, 293. may be deprived of faculties by ordinary, 294. confessors of, 308.

Relapsing sinners, 448-459, 521-536.

Relation of contrition to the sacrament, 111.

Religious order, vocation to a, 585.

Remedies against relapse, 448. scruples, 550.

Remorse of conscience, not contrition, 72.

Repeating confession, when necessary, 224.

Reproving penitent, duty of, 451.

Reservation in case of strangers, 320. ceases, when, 347. forgotten by confessor, 348.

Reserved cases, 316. not to be multiplied unduly, 319. papal, 326.

_Retinentes libros hæreticos_, 330.

Retractation of heresy _in foro externo_, 329.

Revealing the accomplice, 208.

Rules for confessors, 465. scrupulous penitents, 552.

S

Sacramental seal, 466-476.

Sacramentals destroy sin, 35.

_Sanatio in radice_, 443, 604.

Satisfaction, 38.

Schismatics, excommunicated, 332.

Science of perfection, 428. required in confessor, 424.

Scruples as object of the _sigillum_, 475. kinds of, 550. remedies against, 550.

Scrupulosity, causes of, 547. marks of, 545.

Scrupulous penitents, how to treat them, 545-552.

Seal of confession, 466.

Sensible contrition, 118.

Servile fear, 91.

Sick, confessor’s ministry to the, 630, 632-645.

_Sigillum sacramentale_, 466.

Signs of repentance, 20, 645. in the dying, 649. proper disposition, 400. vocation to priesthood, 588.

Simulation of confession, 368.

Sincerity in confession, 27.

Sinful occasions, 487.

Sins forgiven may be again confessed, 42.

Sloth, remedies against the sin of, 458.

Small penances, 264.

_Sollicitatio proprii pœnitentis_, 364, 368.

Sorrow for sin, quality of, 72. supreme (appreciative), 108. test of, 119.

Special care of relapsing sinners, 530-536.

_Species infima_, 159.

State of life, choice of a, 583.

Stealing relics, 337. habit of, in children, 571.

Striking a cleric _suadente diabolo_, 335.

Sufficient matter for absolution, 40.

_Supplet ecclesia_, 300.

Supplying deficient jurisdiction, 300.

Suspension, 340.

_Suspensionis_ in the form of absolution, 52.

T

Teacher, the confessor as, 438-448.

Telephone, absolution by (note), 59.

Testifying to confession made, 483.

Theaters, frequenting, 509.

Tickets, certifying to confession made, 483.

_Timor mundanus_, _naturalis_, _servilis_, _filialis_, _mixtus seu initialis_, 90.

Timorous conscience, 186.

_Titulus coloratus_, 300-302.

Travelers on sea, who absolves, 299.

Treatment of scrupulous penitents, 545-555.

Trial, penance a judicial, 21.

Tribunal, difference between civil and sacramental, 21.

Trusting statements of penitent, 395.

U

Unconscious penitents, at the hour of death, 646.

Uncouth penitents, 447.

Universality of purpose of amendment, 132. sorrow for sin, 106.

Unmarried, confessions of young, people, 575.

Urgent confessions, what to omit in, 52.

Usurpers of ecclesiastical rights, 333.

_Usus matrimonii_, instruction regarding the, 599.

V

Vagrants (_vagi_) may be absolved anywhere, 299.

Vague accusations in confession, 44, 48.

Valid absolution requires pronouncing of words, 56.

Venial sin, how forgiven, 29, 32. purpose of amendment in case of, 183. penance for, 266.

Vicars-general have jurisdiction, 285.

Violation of the _sigillum_, 476.

Virginity, state of, in the world, 589.

Virtual contrition, 30.

Virtues required in confessor, 416.

Visits to the sick to be repeated, 642.

_Vitium pollutionis_, 531, 582.

Vocation, choice of a, 583. to the priesthood, signs of, 588.

Vow of virginity, 589.

Vows of nuns, 620.

W

Wedding, confessions immediately before, 596.

Women, conduct of confessor toward, 608.

Words required for valid absolution, 56.

Worthy preparation for marriage, 595.

Writing, absolution by, invalid, 55. absolution by, from censures, valid (note), 57.

Y

Young men, love of pleasure in, 579.

Young unmarried people, confessions of, 575.

Youth, faults peculiar to, 578.

STANDARD CATHOLIC BOOKS

PUBLISHED BY BENZIGER BROTHERS,

CINCINNATI: 343 MAIN ST.

NEW YORK: 36-38 BARCLAY ST.

CHICAGO: 211-213 MADISON ST.

Books marked _net_ are such where ten per cent. must be added for postage. Thus a book advertised at _net_ $1.00 will be sent postpaid on receipt of $1.10. Books not marked _net_ will be sent postpaid on receipt of advertised price.

DOCTRINE, INSTRUCTION, DEVOTION.

ABANDONMENT. CAUSSADE, S.J. _net_, 0.50 ADORATION OF BLESSED SACRAMENT. TESNIERE. _net_, 1.25 ALPHONSUS LIGUORI, WORKS OF, ST. 22 vols. Each, _net_, 1.50 ANECDOTES ILLUSTRATING THE CATECHISM. SPIRAGO. _net_, 1.50 ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS. SEMPLE. _net_, 0.35 ART OF PROFITING BY OUR FAULTS. TISSOT. _net_, 0.50 BIBLE HISTORY. 0.50 BIBLE HISTORY. EXPLANATION. NASH. _net_, 1.60 BIBLE STORIES. Paper, 0.10; cloth, 0.20 BIBLE, THE HOLY. 1.00 BOOK OF THE PROFESSED. Vol. I, II & III. Each, _net_, 0.75 BOYS’ AND GIRLS’ MISSION BOOK. By the Redemptorist Fathers. 0.35 BREAD OF LIFE, THE. Complete Communion Book. _net_, 0.75 CATECHISM EXPLAINED, THE. SPIRAGO-CLARKE. _net_, 2.50 CATHOLIC BELIEF. FAA DI BRUNO. Paper, _net_, 0.15; cloth, _net_, 0.35 CATHOLIC CEREMONIES. DURAND. Paper, _net_, 0.15; cloth, _net_, 0.35 CATHOLIC GIRLS’ GUIDE. LASANCE. _net_, 1.00 CATHOLIC PRACTICE AT CHURCH AND AT HOME. KLAUDER. Paper, _net_, 0.20; cloth, _net_, 0.40 CATHOLIC TEACHING FOR CHILDREN. WRAY. 0.40 CATHOLIC WORSHIP. BRENNAN, LL.D. Paper, 0.20; cloth, 0.30 CEREMONIAL FOR ALTAR BOYS. BRITT, O.S.B. _net_, 0.35 CHARACTERISTICS OF TRUE DEVOTION. GROU, S.J. _net_, 0.75 CHILD OF MARY. Prayer-Book for Children. 0.60 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. DEVIVIER. _net_, 2.00 CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, SPIRAGO’S METHOD OF. _net_, 1.50 CHRISTIAN EDUCATION. O’CONNELL. _net_, 0.60 CHRISTIAN FATHER. CRAMER. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth, _net_, 0.25 CHRISTIAN MOTHER. CRAMER. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth, _net_, 0.25 CHRISTIAN SCHOOL. MCFAUL. Paper, 0.10 CONFESSION. Paper, 0.05 CONFESSION AND ITS BENEFITS. GIRARDEY. 0.25 CONFIRMATION. Paper, 0.05 COUNSELS OF ST. ANGELA. _net_, 0.25 DEFENCE OF THE SEVEN SACRAMENTS, HENRY VIII. O’DONOVAN. _net_, 2.00 DEVOTION TO SACRED HEART OF JESUS. NOLDIN, S.J. _net_, 1.25 DEVOTIONS AND PRAYERS FOR THE SICK-ROOM. KREBS, C.SS.R. Cloth, _net_, 1.25 DEVOTIONS AND PRAYERS OF ST. ALPHONSUS. _net_, 1.25 DEVOTIONS FOR FIRST FRIDAY. HUGUET. _net_, 0.40 DIGNITY AND DUTIES OF THE PRIEST. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 DIVINE GRACE. WIRTH. _net_, 1.60 DIVINE OFFICE. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 EDUCATION OF OUR GIRLS. SHIELDS. _net_, 1.00 EPISTLES AND GOSPELS. Large print. _net_, 0.25 EUCHARISTIC CHRIST. TESNIERE. _net_, 1.25 EUCHARISTIC SOUL ELEVATIONS. STADELMAN. _net_, 0.50 EXPLANATION OF THE BALTIMORE CATECHISM. KINKEAD. _net_, 1.00 EXPLANATION OF THE GOSPELS. LAMBERT. Paper, _net_, 0.15; cloth, _net_, 0.35 EXPLANATION OF THE HOLY SACRAMENTS. ILLUSTR. _net_, 1.00 EXPLANATION OF THE MASS. COCHEM. _net_, 1.25 EXPLANATION OF THE OUR FATHER AND THE HAIL MARY. BRENNAN, LL.D. _net_, 0.75 EXPLANATION OF THE PRAYERS AND CEREMONIES OF THE MASS, ILLUSTRATED. LANSLOTS, O.S.B. _net_, 1.25 EXPLANATION OF THE SALVE REGINA. LIGUORI. _net_, 0.75 EXTREME UNCTION. Paper, 0.10 FIRST COMMUNICANT’S MANUAL. 0.50 FLOWERS OF THE PASSION. TH. DE JESUS-AGONISANT. 0.50 FOLLOWING OF CHRIST. KEMPIS. With Reflections, 0.50 Without Reflections, 0.45 Edition de Luxe, 1.25 FOUR LAST THINGS, THE. Meditations. COCHEM. _net_, 0.75 GARLAND OF PRAYER. With Nuptial Mass. Leather. 0.90 GENERAL CONFESSION MADE EASY. KONINGS, C.SS.R. Flexible. 0.15 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF RELIGIOUS LIFE. VERHEYEN, O.S.B. _net_, 0.30 GIFT OF THE KING. 0.60 GLORIES OF DIVINE GRACE. SCHEEBEN. _net_, 1.60 GLORIES OF MARY. LIGUORI. 2 vols. _net_, 3.00 Popular ed. 1 vol. _net_, 1.25 GLORIES OF THE SACRED HEART. HAUSHERR, S.J. _net_, 1.25 GOFFINE’S DEVOUT INSTRUCTIONS. 140 Illustrations. Cloth, 1.00 GOLDEN SANDS. Little Counsels for the Sanctification and Happiness of Daily Life. Third, Fourth and Fifth Series. Each, _net_, 0.50 GREAT ENCYCLICAL LETTERS OF POPE LEO XIII. _net_, 2.25 GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 GREAT SUPPER OF GOD, THE. COUBE, S.J. _net_, 1.25 GREETINGS OF THE CHRIST-CHILD—Poems. 0.60 GUIDE FOR SACRISTANS. _net_, 0.85 GUIDE TO CONFESSION AND COMMUNION. _net_, 0.50 HANDBOOK OF THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION. WILMERS, S.J. _net_, 1.50 HARMONY OF THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. HEUSER. _net_, 1.25 HELP FOR THE POOR SOULS IN PURGATORY. _net_, 0.50 HELPS TO A SPIRITUAL LIFE. SCHNEIDER, S.J. _net_, 1.25 HIDDEN TREASURE. ST. LEONARD of Port Maurice. _net_, 0.50 HISTORY OF ECONOMICS. DEWE. _net_, 1.50 HISTORY OF CATHOLIC EDUCATION IN THE U. S. BURNS. _net_, 1.25 HISTORY OF THE MASS. O’BRIEN. _net_, 1.25 HOLY EUCHARIST. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 HOLY HOUR OF ADORATION. STANG. _net_, 0.50 HOLY MASS. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 HOW TO COMFORT THE SICK. KREBS, C.SS.R. _net_, 1.25 HOW TO MAKE THE MISSION. By a Dominican Father. Paper, 0.10 ILLUSTRATED PRAYER-BOOK FOR CHILDREN. 0.35 IMITATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. BENNETT-GLADSTONE. Plain Edition, _net_, 0.50 Edition de luxe, _net_, 1.50 IMITATION OF THE SACRED HEART. ARNOUDT, S.J. _net_, 1.25 IMMACULATE CONCEPTION, THE. LAMBING, LL.D. 0.35 INCARNATION, BIRTH, AND INFANCY OF CHRIST. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 INDULGENCES. A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO. BERNAD, O.M.I. _net_, 0.75 IN HEAVEN WE KNOW OUR OWN. BLOT, S.J. _net_, 0.60 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CATHOLIC FATHER. EGGER. _net_, 0.50 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CATHOLIC MOTHER. EGGER. _net_, 0.50 INSTRUCTIONS FOR CATHOLIC YOUTH. _net_, 0.50 INSTRUCTIONS FOR FIRST COMMUNICANTS. SCHMITT. _net_, 0.60 INSTRUCTIONS ON COMMANDMENTS AND SACRAMENTS. LIGUORI. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth, _net_, 0.25 INTERIOR OF JESUS AND MARY. GROU. 2 vols. _net_, 2.00 INTRODUCTION TO A DEVOUT LIFE. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES. _net_, 0.50 LESSONS OF THE KING. 0.60 LETTERS OF ST. ALPHONSUS DE LIGUORI. 4 vols., each vol., _net_, 1.50 LIGHT FOR NEW TIMES. FLETCHER. _net_, 0.60 LITTLE ALTAR BOYS’ MANUAL. 0.25 LITTLE BOOK OF SUPERIORS. _net_, 0.75 LITTLE CHILD OF MARY. A Small Prayer-Book. 0.35 LITTLE MANUAL OF ST. ANTHONY. LASANCE. Illustrated. 0.25 LITTLE MANUAL OF ST. JOSEPH. LINGS. 0.25 LITTLE MONTH OF MAY. MCMAHON. Flexible. _net_, 0.25 LITTLE MONTH OF THE SOULS IN PURGATORY. _net_, 0.25 LITTLE OFFICE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. 0.05 LITTLE PICTORIAL LIVES OF THE SAINTS. New cheap edition. 1.25 LOVER OF SOULS, THE. BRINKMEYER. _net_, 1.00 MANUAL OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. LASANCE. _net_, 0.75 MANUAL OF THE HOLY FAMILY. _net_, 0.60 MANUAL OF THE HOLY NAME. 0.50 MANUAL OF THE SACRED HEART, NEW. 0.50 MANUAL OF ST. ANTHONY, NEW. _net_, 0.50 MANUAL OF THEOLOGY FOR THE LAITY. GEIERMANN. Paper, _net_, 0.20; cloth, _net_, 0.40 MARIAE COROLLA. Poems. HILL. _net_, 1.25 MARY THE QUEEN. 0.60 MASS DEVOTIONS AND READINGS ON THE MASS. LASANCE. _net_, 0.75 MEDITATIONS FOR ALL DAYS OF YEAR. HAMON, S.S. 5 vols. _net_, 5.00 MEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY. BAXTER. _net_, 1.50 MEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY. VERCRUYSSE, S.J. 2 vols. _net_, 3.50 MEDITATIONS FOR MONTHLY RETREATS. _net_, 1.25 MEDITATIONS FOR USE OF SECULAR CLERGY. CHAIGNON. _net_, 4.50 MEDITATIONS FOR THE USE OF SEMINARIANS AND PRIESTS. Vol. I. BRANCHEREAU. _net_, 1.00 MEDITATIONS FOR RETREATS. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES. _net_, 0.75 MEDITATIONS ON THE LIFE, THE TEACHINGS, AND THE PASSION OF JESUS CHRIST. ILG-CLARKE. 2 vols. _net_, 3.50 MEDITATIONS ON THE MONTH OF OUR LADY. _net_, 0.75 MEDITATIONS ON THE PASSION OF OUR LORD. 0.50 METHOD OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, SPIRAGO’S. MESSMER. _net_, 1.50 MIRACLES OF OUR LORD. 0.60 MISCELLANY. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 MISSION BOOK FOR THE MARRIED. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R. 0.50 MISSION BOOK FOR THE SINGLE. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R. 0.50 MISSION BOOK OF REDEMPTORIST FATHERS. LIGUORI. 0.50 MOMENTS BEFORE THE TABERNACLE. RUSSELL, S.J. _net_, 0.50 MONTH, NEW, OF THE HOLY ANGELS. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES. _net_, 0.25 MONTH OF MAY. DEBUSSI, S.J. _net_, 0.50 MONTH OF THE SOULS IN PURGATORY, The Little “Golden Sands.” _net_, 0.25 MORAL BRIEFS. STAPLETON. _net_, 1.25 MORES CATHOLICI; or, Ages of Faith. DIGBY. 4 vols. 25.00 (Easy payment plan, $1.00 down; $2.00 a month.) MOST HOLY ROSARY. CRAMER, D.D. _net_, 0.50 MY FIRST COMMUNION, the Happiest Day of My Life. BRENNAN. _net_, 0.75 MY LITTLE PRAYER-BOOK. Illustrated. 0.12 NEW MONTH OF THE HOLY ANGELS. _net_, 0.25 NEW SUNDAY-SCHOOL COMPANION. 0.25 NEW TESTAMENT. Cheap Edition. 32mo, flexible cloth, _net_, 0.15 NEW TESTAMENT. Illustrated Edition. 16mo, printed in two colors, with 100 full-page illustrations, _net_, 0.60 NEW TESTAMENT. India Paper Edition. American Seal, limp, round corners, gilt edges, _net_, 0.90 NEW TESTAMENT. Large Print Edition. 12mo, large, _net_, 0.75 NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES. CONATY, D.D. 0.60 OFF TO JERUSALEM. BENZIGER. _net_, 1.00 OFFICE, COMPLETE, OF HOLY WEEK. 0.45 Cheap Edition, cloth, cut flush, 0.20 OUR FAVORITE DEVOTIONS. LINGS. _net_, 0.75 OUR FAVORITE NOVENAS. LINGS. _net_, 0.75 OUR MONTHLY DEVOTIONS. LINGS. _net_, 1.25 OUR OWN WILL. ALLEN, D.D. _net_, 0.75 PARADISE ON EARTH OPENED TO ALL. NATALE, S.J. _net_, 0.50 PARISH PRIEST ON DUTY, THE. HEUSER. _net_, 0.60 PASSION, A FEW SIMPLE AND BUSINESS-LIKE WAYS OF DEVOTION TO THE. HILL, C.P. 0.25 PASSION AND DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 PASSION FLOWERS. Poems. HILL. _net_, 1.25 PASSION, THOUGHTS AND AFFECTIONS ON, FOR EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. BERGAMO. _net_, 2.00 PEARLS FROM FABER. BRUNOWE. _net_, 0.50 PEARLS OF PRAYER. 0.35 PERFECT RELIGIOUS, THE. DE LA MOTTE. _net_, 1.00 PIOUS PREPARATION FOR FIRST HOLY COMMUNION. LASANCE. Cloth, _net_, 0.75 POCKET MANUAL. A Vest-Pocket Prayer-Book in very large type. 0.25 POPULAR INSTRUCTIONS ON MARRIAGE. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth, _net_, 0.25 POPULAR INSTRUCTIONS ON PRAYER. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth, _net_, 0.25 POPULAR INSTRUCTIONS TO PARENTS. GIRARDEY, C.SS.R. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth, _net_, 0.25 PRAYER-BOOK FOR RELIGIOUS. LASANCE. _net_, 1.50 PREACHING. Vol. XV. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 PREPARATION FOR DEATH. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 QUEEN’S FESTIVALS. 0.60 RELIGION OF SOCIALISM, THE CHARACTERISTICS AND. MING, S.J. _net_, 1.50 RELIGIOUS STATE, THE. LIGUORI. _net_, 0.50 ROSARY, THE CROWN OF MARY. By a Dominican Father. 0.10 ROSARY, THE. Scenes and Thoughts. GARESCHE, S.J. _net_, 0.50 ROSARY, THE MOST HOLY. Meditations. CRAMER. _net_, 0.50 SACRAMENTALS. LAMBING, D.D. Paper, _net_, 0.15; cloth, _net_, 0.35 SACRAMENTALS—Prayer, etc. MÜLLER, C.SS.R. _net_, 1.00 SACRED HEART BOOK, THE. LASANCE. _net_, 0.75 SACRED HEART, DEVOTION TO, FOR FIRST FRIDAY OF EVERY MONTH. By PERE HUGUET. _net_, 0.40 SACRED HEART, NEW MANUAL OF. 0.50 SACRIFICE OF MASS WORTHILY CELEBRATED. CHAIGNON, S.J. _net_, 1.50 ST. ANTHONY. KELLER. _net_, 0.75 ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI. Social Reformer. DUBOIS, S.M. _net_, 1.00 SECRET OF SANCTITY. ST. FRANCIS DE SALES. _net_, 1.00 SERAPHIC GUIDE, THE. A Manual for the Members of the Third Order of St. Francis. By a Franciscan Father. 0.60 SHORT CONFERENCES ON THE LITTLE OFFICE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. RAINER. _net_, 0.50 SHORT STORIES ON CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. From the French by MCMAHON. _net_, 1.00 SHORT VISITS TO THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. LASANCE. 0.25 SICK CALLS. MULLIGAN. _net_, 1.00 SOCIALISM AND CHRISTIANITY. STANG, D.D. _net_, 1.00 SOCIALISM. CATHREIN, S.J. _net_, 1.50 SODALIST’S VADE MECUM. 0.50 SPIRIT OF SACRIFICE, THE. GIRAUD. _net_, 2.00 SPIRITUAL DESPONDENCY AND TEMPTATIONS. MICHEL, S.J. _net_, 1.25 SPIRITUAL EXERCISES FOR TEN DAYS’ RETREAT. SMETANA. _net_, 1.00 SPIRITUAL PEPPER AND SALT. STANG. Paper, _net_, 0.20; cloth, _net_, 0.40 ST. ANTHONY. KELLER. _net_, 0.75 ST. FRANCIS OF ASSISI, Social Reformer. DUBOIS, S.M. _net_, 1.50 STORY OF THE FRIENDS OF JESUS. 0.60 STORIES FOR FIRST COMMUNICANTS. KELLER, D.D. 0.50 STRIVING AFTER PERFECTION. BAYMA, S.J. _net_, 1.00 SUNDAY SCHOOL TEACHER’S GUIDE TO SUCCESS. _net_, 0.75 SURE WAY TO A HAPPY MARRIAGE. TAYLOR. Paper, _net_, 0.13; cloth, _net_, 0.25 TALKS WITH LITTLE ONES ABOUT APOSTLES’ CREED. 0.60 THOUGHTS ON THE RELIGIOUS LIFE. LASANCE. _net_, 1.50 TRUE POLITENESS. DEMORE. _net_, 0.75 TRUE SPOUSE OF JESUS CHRIST. LIGUORI. 2 vols. _net_, 3.00 The same, one-volume edition, _net_, 1.25 VENERATION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN. ROHNER, O.S.B. _net_, 1.25 VEST-POCKET GEMS OF DEVOTION. 0.20 VICTORIES OF THE MARTYRS. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 VISITS, SHORT, TO BLESSED SACRAMENT. LASANCE. 0.25 VISITS TO JESUS IN THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. LASANCE. _net_, 0.50 VISITS TO JESUS IN THE TABERNACLE. LASANCE. _net_, 1.25 VISITS TO THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT and to the Blessed Virgin Mary. LIGUORI. _net_, 0.50 VOCATIONS EXPLAINED. 0.10 WAY OF INTERIOR PEACE. DE LEHEN, S.J. _net_, 1.50 WAY OF SALVATION AND PERFECTION. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50 WAY OF THE CROSS. Paper, 0.05 WAY OF THE CROSS. By a Jesuit Father. _net_, 0.15 WAY OF THE CROSS. According to Method of St. Francis Assisi. _net_, 0.15 WAY OF THE CROSS. According to Eucharistic Method. _net_, 0.15 WAY OF THE CROSS. According to Method of St. Alphonsus Liguori. _net_, 0.15 WHAT THE CHURCH TEACHES. DRURY. Paper, _net_, 0.20; cloth, _net_, 0.40

JUVENILES.

ADVENTURE WITH THE APACHES. FERRY. 0.45 ARMORER OF SOLINGEN. HERCHENBACH. 0.45 AS TRUE AS GOLD. MANNIX. 0.45 BELL FOUNDRY, THE. VON SCHACHING. 0.45 BERKELEYS, THE. WIGHT. 0.45 BEARNE, REV. DAVID, S.J. SHEER PLUCK. 0.85 MELOR OF THE SILVER HAND. 0.85 THE GUILD BOYS’ PLAY AT RIDINGDALE. 0.85 NEW BOYS AT RIDINGDALE. 0.85 THE WITCH OF RIDINGDALE. 0.85 RIDINGDALE FLOWER SHOW. 0.85 CHARLIE CHITTYWICK. 0.85 BISTOURI. By A. MELANDRI. 0.45 BLACK LADY AND ROBIN RED BREAST. By CANON SCHMID. 0.25 BLISSYLVANIA POST-OFFICE. By MARION AMES TAGGART. 0.45 BOB O’LINK. WAGGAMAN. 0.45 BOYS IN THE BLOCK. By MAURICE F. EGAN. 0.25 BUNT AND BILL. CLARA MULHOLLAND. 0.45 BUZZER’S CHRISTMAS. By MARY T. WAGGAMAN. 0.25 BY BRANSCOMBE RIVER. By MARION AMES TAGGART. 0.45 CAKE AND THE EASTER EGGS. By CANON SCHMID. 0.25 CANARY BIRD. By CANON SCHMID. 0.45 CARROLL DARE. By MARY T. WAGGAMAN. 1.25 THE CHILDREN OF CUPA. MANNIX. 0.45 COLLEGE BOY, A. By ANTHONY YORKE. 0.85 COPUS, REV. J. E., S.J.: HARRY RUSSELL. 0.85 SHADOWS LIFTED. 0.85 ST. CUTHBERT’S. 0.85 TOM LOSELY: Boy. 0.85 DADDY DAN. WAGGAMAN. 0.45 DAUGHTER OF KINGS, A. HINKSON. 1.25 DIMPLING’S SUCCESS. By CLARA MULHOLLAND. 0.45 DOLLAR HUNT, THE. MARTIN. 0.45 DOUBLE KNOT AND OTHER STORIES, A. WAGGAMAN AND OTHERS. 1.25 EVERY-DAY GIRL, AN. By MARY C. CROWLEY. 0.45 FATAL DIAMONDS. By E. C. DONNELLY. 0.25 FINN, REV. F. J., S.J. HIS FIRST AND LAST APPEARANCE. Illustrated. 1.00 THE BEST FOOT FORWARD. 0.85 THAT FOOTBALL GAME. 0.85 ETHELRED PRESTON. 0.85 CLAUDE LIGHTFOOT. 0.85 HARRY DEE. 0.85 TOM PLAYFAIR. 0.85 PERCY WYNN. 0.85 MOSTLY BOYS. 0.85 “BUT THY LOVE AND THY GRACE.” 1.00 MY STRANGE FRIEND. 0.25 FIVE O’CLOCK STORIES; or, The Old Tales Told Again. 0.75 FLOWER OF THE FLOCK, THE, and the Badgers of Belmont. EGAN. 0.85 FOR THE WHITE ROSE. HINKSON. 0.45 FRED’S LITTLE DAUGHTER. SMITH. 0.45 GODFREY THE HERMIT. SCHMID. 0.25 GOLDEN LILY, THE. HINKSON. 0.45 GREAT CAPTAIN, THE. HINKSON. 0.45 HALDEMAN CHILDREN, THE. MANNIX. 0.45 HARMONY FLATS. WHITMIRE. 0.85 HEIR OF DREAMS, AN. O’MALLEY. 0.45 HOP BLOSSOMS. SCHMID. 0.25 HOSTAGE OF WAR, A. BONESTEEL. 0.45 HOW THEY WORKED THEIR WAY. EGAN. 0.75 INUNDATION, THE. SCHMID. 0.45 “JACK.” By a Religious of The Society of The Holy Child Jesus. 0.45 JACK HILDRETH AMONG THE INDIANS. 2 vols., each, 0.85 JACK HILDRETH ON THE NILE. TAGGART. Cloth, 0.85 JACK O’LANTERN. WAGGAMAN. 0.45 JUVENILE ROUND TABLE. First, Second, Third Series. Each, 1.00 KLONDIKE PICNIC. DONNELLY. 0.85 LAMP OF THE SANCTUARY. WISEMAN. 0.25 LEGENDS OF THE HOLY CHILD JESUS from Many Lands. LUTZ. 0.75 LITTLE MISSY. WAGGAMAN. 0.45 LOYAL BLUE AND ROYAL SCARLET. TAGGART. 0.85 MADCAP SET AT ST. ANNE’S. BRUNOWE. 0.45 MARY TRACY’S FORTUNE. SADLIER. 0.45 MASTER FRIDOLIN. GIEHRL. 0.25 MILLY AVELING. SMITH. Cloth. 0.85 MORE FIVE O’CLOCK STORIES. In Prose and Verse. By a Religious of The Society of The Holy Child Jesus. 0.75 MYSTERIOUS DOORWAY. SADLIER. 0.45 MYSTERY OF CLEVERLY. BARTON. 0.85 MYSTERY OF HORNBY HALL. SADLIER. 0.85 MY STRANGE FRIEND. FINN. 0.25 NAN NOBODY. WAGGAMAN. 0.45 OLD CHARLMONT’S SEED-BED. SMITH. 0.45 OLD ROBBER’S CASTLE. SCHMID. 0.25 ONE AFTERNOON AND OTHER STORIES. TAGGART 1.25 OUR BOYS’ AND GIRLS’ LIBRARY. 14 vols., each. 0.25 OVERSEER OF MAHLBOURG. SCHMID. 0.25 PANCHO AND PANCHITA. MANNIX 0.45 PAULINE ARCHER. SADLIER. 0.45 PETRONILLA. DONNELLY. 0.85 PICKLE AND PEPPER. DORSEY. 0.85 PILGRIM FROM IRELAND. CARNOT. 0.45 PLAYWATER PLOT, THE. WAGGAMAN. 0.60 QUEEN’S PAGE. HINKSON. 0.45 RECRUIT TOMMY COLLINS. BONESTEEL. 0.45 ROSE BUSH. SCHMID. 0.25 ROUND THE WORLD. Vols. I, II, III, IV. Each, 0.85 SEA-GULL’S ROCK. SANDEAU. 0.45 SHADOWS LIFTED. COPUS, S.J. 0.85 SPALDING, REV. H., S.J.: THE MARKS OF THE BEAR CLAWS. 0.85 CAVE BY THE BEECH FORK. 0.85 THE SHERIFF OF THE BEECH FORK. 0.85 THE RACE FOR COPPER ISLAND. 0.85 STRONG-ARM OF AVALON. WAGGAMAN. 0.85 SUMMER AT WOODVILLE. SADLIER. 0.45 TALES AND LEGENDS OF THE MIDDLE AGES. DE CAPELLA. 0.75 TALISMAN, THE. SADLIER. 0.60 TAMING OF POLLY. DORSEY. 0.85 THREE GIRLS AND ESPECIALLY ONE. TAGGART. 0.45 THREE LITTLE KINGS. GIEHRL. 0.25 TOM’S LUCKPOT. WAGGAMAN. 0.45 TOORALLADY. WALSH. 0.45 TRANSPLANTING OF TESSIE. WAGGAMAN. 0.60 TREASURE OF NUGGET MOUNTAIN. TAGGART. 0.85 TWO LITTLE GIRLS. MACK. 0.45 VIOLIN MAKER, THE. SMITH. 0.45 WAGER OF GERALD O’ROURKE, THE. FINN-THIELE. _net_, 0.35 WAYWARD WINIFRED. SADLIER. 0.85 WHERE THE ROAD LED AND OTHER STORIES. SADLIER and others. 1.25 WINNETOU, THE APACHE KNIGHT. TAGGART. 0.85 WRONGFULLY ACCUSED. HERCHENBACH. 0.45 YOUNG COLOR GUARD, THE. BONESTEEL. 0.45

NOVELS AND STORIES.

“BUT THY LOVE AND THY GRACE.” FINN, S.J. 1.00 CARROLL DARE. WAGGAMAN. 1.25 CIRCUS RIDER’S DAUGHTER, THE. BRACKEL. 1.25 CONNOR D’ARCY’S STRUGGLES. BERTHOLDS. 1.25 CORINNE’S VOW. WAGGAMAN. 1.25 DION AND THE SIBYLS. KEON. 1.25 FABIOLA. WISEMAN. Illustrated. 0.90 FABIOLA’S SISTER. CLARKE. 1.25 FATAL BEACON, THE. BRACKEL. 1.25 HEARTS OF GOLD. EDHOR. 1.25 HEIRESS OF CRONENSTEIN, THE. Countess HAHN-HAHN. 1.25 HER BLIND FOLLY. HOLT. 1.25 HER FATHER’S DAUGHTER. HINKSON. _net_, 1.25 IDOLS; or, The Secrets of the Rue Chaussee d’Antin. DE NAVERY. 1.25 IN THE DAYS OF KING HAL. TAGGART. _net_, 1.25 IN GOD’S GOOD TIME. ROSS. 1.25 “KIND HEARTS AND CORONETS.” HARRISON. 1.25 LET NO MAN PUT ASUNDER. MARIÉ. 1.00 LINKED LIVES. DOUGLAS. 1.50 MARCELLA GRACE. Mulholland. Illustrated Edition. 1.25 MIRROR OF SHALOTT. BENSON. _net_, 1.25 MISS ERIN. FRANCIS. 1.25 MONK’S PARDON. THE. DE NAVERY. 1.25 MR. BILLY BUTTONS. LECKY. 1.25 “NOT A JUDGMENT.” KEON. 1.25 OTHER MISS LISLE, THE. MARTIN. 1.25 OUT OF BONDAGE. HOLT. 1.25 OUTLAW OF CAMARGUE, THE. LAMOTHE. 1.25 PASSING SHADOWS. YORKE. 1.25 PERE MONNIER’S WARD. LECKY. 1.25 PILKINGTON HEIR, THE. SADLIER. 1.25 PRODIGAL’S DAUGHTER, THE. By LELIA HARDIN BUGG. 1.00 RED INN OF ST. LYPHAR, THE. A Romance of La Vendée. SADLIER. 1.25 ROMANCE OF A PLAYWRIGHT. By Vte. HENRI DE BORNIER. 1.00 ROSE OF THE WORLD. MARTIN. 1.25 ROUND TABLE OF AMERICAN CATHOLIC NOVELISTS. Complete Stories, with Biographies, Portraits, etc. 1.50 ROUND TABLE OF FRENCH CATHOLIC NOVELISTS Complete Stories, with Biographies, Portraits, etc. 1.50 ROUND TABLE OF GERMAN CATHOLIC NOVELISTS. Illustrated. 1.50 ROUND TABLE OF IRISH AND ENGLISH CATHOLIC NOVELISTS. Complete Stories, Biographies. Portraits, etc. Cloth, 1.50 RULER OF THE KINGDOM, THE, and other Phases of Life and Character. KEON. 1.25 SECRET OF THE GREEN VASE. COOKE. 1.25 SENIOR LIEUTENANT’S WAGER. 1.25 SOGGARTH AROON. GUINAN, C.C. 1.25 THAT MAN’S DAUGHTER. ROSS. 1.25 TRAIL OF THE DRAGON. 1.25 TRAINING OF SILAS, THE. DEVINE, S.J. 1.25 TRUE STORY OF MASTER GERARD, THE. SADLIE. 1.25 UNRAVELING OF A TANGLE, THE. TAGGART. 1.25 VOCATION OF EDWARD CONWAY. EGAN. 1.25 WAY THAT LED BEYOND. By J. HARRISON. 1.25 WHEN LOVE IS STRONG. KEON. 1.25 WOMAN OF FORTUNE, A. By CHRISTIAN REID. 1.25 WORLD WELL LOST. By ESTHER ROBERTSON. 0.75

LIVES AND HISTORIES.

AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ST. IGNATIUS LOYOLA. Edited by O’CONOR, S.J. _net_, 1.25 ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS. SEMPLE, S.J. _net_, 0.35 BEGINNINGS OF CHRISTIANITY. SHAHAN. _net_, 2.00 CHURCH HISTORY. BUSINGER. 0.75 GOLDEN BELLS IN CONVENT TOWERS. _net_, 1.00 HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. BRUECK. 2 vols., _net_, 3.00 HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. SHEA. _net_, 1.50 HISTORY OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION. COBBETT. _net_, 0.75 LIFE OF BLESSED VIRGIN. Illustrated. ROHNER. _net_, 1.25 LIFE OF CHRIST. Illustrated. COCHEM. _net_, 1.25 LIFE OF POPE PIUS X. 2.00 LIFE OF MOST REV. JOHN HUGHES. BRANN. _net_, 0.75 LIFE OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST AND OF HIS VIRGIN MOTHER MARY. BRENNAN. 4to. _net_, 10.00 (Easy payment plan, $1.00 down, $1.00 a month.) LIFE OF SISTER ANNE KATHERINE EMMERICH. WEGENER, O.S.A. _net_, 1.75 LIFE OF VEN. MARY CRESCENTIA HOESS. DEGMAN, O.S.F. _net_, 1.25 LITTLE LIVES OF SAINTS FOR CHILDREN. BERTHOLD. Ill. Cloth, 0.60 LITTLE PICTORIAL LIVES OF SAINTS. New, cheap edition. 1.25 LOURDES. CLARKE, S.J. 1.00 MIDDLE AGES, THE. SHAHAN. _net_, 2.00 PATRON SAINTS FOR CATHOLIC YOUTH. 3 vols. Each, 0.60 PICTORIAL LIVES OF THE SAINTS. _net_, 2.00 ST. ANTHONY, THE SAINT OF THE WHOLE WORLD. WARD. Cloth. _net_, 0.75 STORY OF JESUS. Illustrated. _net_, 0.60 STORY OF THE DIVINE CHILD. LINGS. 0.60 VICTORIES OF THE MARTYRS. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.50

THEOLOGY, LITURGY, SERMONS, SCIENCE, AND PHILOSOPHY.

ANGLICAN ORDINATIONS. SEMPLE, S.J. 0.35 BENEDICENDA. SCHULTE. _net_, 1.50 BREVE COMPENDIUM THEOLOGIAE. BERTHIER. _net_, 2.50 BUSINESS GUIDE FOR PRIESTS. STANG. _net_, 1.30 CANONICAL PROCEDURE. DOSTE. _net_, 1.50 CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS. DEVIVIER. _net_, 2.00 CHRISTIAN PHILOSOPHY: God. DRISCOLL. _net_, 1.50 CHRIST IN TYPE AND PROPHECY. MAAS, S.J. 2 vols., _net_, 4.00 CHURCH TREASURER’S PEW COLLECTION AND RECEIPT BOOK. _net_, 1.00 COMPENDIUM JURIS CANONICI. SMITH. _net_, 2.00 COMPENDIUM JURIS REGULARIUM. BACHOFEN. _net_, 2.50 COMPENDIUM SACRAE LITURGIAE. WAPELHORST. _net_, 2.50 CONSECRANDA. SCHULTE. _net_, 1.50 DATA OF MODERN ETHICS EXAMINED. MING, S.J. 2.00 DIARY, ORDO AND NOTE-BOOK. Cloth, _net_, 1.00; flexible leather, _net_, 1.50 ELEMENTS OF ECCLESIASTICAL LAW. SMITH, D.D. 3 vols., each, _net_, 2.50 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES. GIGOT, S.S. _net_, 2.50 GENERAL INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF HOLY SCRIPTURES. Abridged Edition. GIGOT, S.S. _net_, 1.50 GOD KNOWABLE AND KNOWN. RONAYNE, S.J. _net_, 1.50 GOOD CHRISTIAN, THE. ALLEN, D.D. 2 vols. _net_, 5.00 HISTORY OF THE MASS AND ITS CEREMONIES IN THE EASTERN AND WESTERN CHURCH. O’BRIEN. _net_, 1.25 HUNOLT’S SERMONS. 12 vols., _net_, 25.00 INTRODUCTION TO STUDY OF OLD TESTAMENT. Vol. I and II. GIGOT. Each, _net_, 1.50 JESUS LIVING IN THE PRIEST. MILLET-BYRNE. _net_, 2.00 LIBER STATUS ANIMARUM; or Parish Census Book. _Pocket Edition, net_, 0.25; _Large Edition_, half-leather, _net_, 3.00 MARRIAGE PROCESS IN THE UNITED STATES. SMITH. _net_, 2.50 MANUAL OF THEOLOGY FOR THE LAITY. GEIERMANN. Paper, _net_, 0.20; cloth, _net_, 0.40 MEDULLA FUNDAMENTALIS THEOLOGIAE MORALIS. STANG. _net_, 1.00 MORAL PRINCIPLES AND MEDICAL PRACTICE. COPPENS, S.J. _net_, 1.00 NATURAL LAW AND LEGAL PRACTICE. HOLAIND, S.J. _net_, 2.00 OUTLINES OF DOGMATIC THEOLOGY. HUNTER, S.J. 3 vols., _net_, 1.50 OUTLINES OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. GIGOT. Cloth. _net_, 1.50 OUTLINES OF SERMONS. SCHUEN. _net_, 2.00 PASTORAL THEOLOGY. STANG, D.D. _net_, 1.50 PHILOSOPHIA MORALI, DE. RUSSO. _net_, 2.00 POLITICAL AND MORAL ESSAYS. RICKABY, S.J. _net_, 1.50 PRAXIS SYNODALIS. _net_, 0.75 PRIEST IN THE PULPIT. SCHUECH-LUEBBERMANN. _net_, 1.50 REGISTRUM BAPTISMORUM. _net_, 3.50 REGISTRUM MATRIMONIORUM. _net_, 3.00 RELATION OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY TO PHILOSOPHY. DE MERCIER. _net_, 0.35 RIGHTS OF OUR LITTLE ONES. CONWAY, S.J. Paper, 0.10 RITUALE COMPENDIOSUM. _net_, 0.90 SANCTUARY BOYS’ ILLUSTRATED MANUAL. MCCALLEN, S.S. _net_, 0.50 SERMONS, ABRIDGED, FOR SUNDAYS. LIGUORI. _net_, 1.25 SERMONS FOR CHILDREN OF MARY. CALLERIO. _net_, 1.50 SERMONS FOR CHILDREN’S MASSES. FRASSINETTI-LINGS. _net_, 1.50 SERMONS FOR THE SUNDAYS AND CHIEF FESTIVALS OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL YEAR. POTTGEISSER, S.J. 2 vols. _net_, 2.50 SERMONS FROM THE LATINS. BAXTER. _net_, 2.00 SERMONS ON DEVOTION TO THE SACRED HEART. BIERBAUM. _net_, 0.75 SERMONS ON THE BLESSED SACRAMENT. SCHEUER-LASANCE. _net_, 1.50 SERMONS ON THE ROSARY. FRINGS. _net_, 1.00 SHORT SERMONS FOR LOW MASSES. SCHOUPPE, S.J. _net_, 1.25 THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL. SHIELER. 3.50 VADE MECUM SACERDOTUM. Cloth, _net_, 0.25; Morocco, _net_, 0.50

MISCELLANEOUS.

ACROSS WIDEST AMERICA. DEVINE, S.J. _net_, 1.50 BENZIGER’S MAGAZINE. The Popular Catholic Family Magazine. Subscription per year, 2.00 BONE RULES; or, Skeleton of English Grammar. TABB. 0.50 CATHOLIC HOME ANNUAL. Stories by Best Writers. 0.25 CORRECT THING FOR CATHOLICS. BUGG. _net_, 0.75 ELOCUTION CLASS. O’GRADY. _net_, 0.50 GENTLEMAN, A. EGAN. _net_, 0.75 HOW TO GET ON. FEENEY. _net_, 1.00 HYMN-BOOK. 0.35 LADY, A. Manners and Usages. BUGG. _net_, 0.75 LITTLE FOLKS’ ANNUAL. 0.10 READINGS AND RECITATIONS FOR JUNIORS. O’GRADY. _net_, 0.50 RECORD OF BAPTISMS. 14×10 inches, 3 styles. 3.00, 4.00, 6.00 RECORD OF MARRIAGES. 14×10 inches, 3 styles. 3.00, 4.00, 6.00 SELECT RECITATIONS FOR CATHOLIC SCHOOLS AND ACADEMIES. O’GRADY. 1.00 SONGS AND SONNETS. EGAN. 1.00 SURSUM CORDA. Hymns. Paper, 0.15; cloth, 0.25 SURSUM CORDA. With English and German Text. 0.45 VISIT TO EUROPE AND THE HOLY LAND. FAIRBANKS. 1.50 WHAT CATHOLICS HAVE DONE FOR SCIENCE. BRENNAN. _net_, 1.25 PRAYER BOOKS. Benziger Brothers publish the most complete line of prayer-books in this country, embracing Prayer-books for Children; Prayer-books for First Communicants; Prayer-books for Special Devotions; Prayer-books for General Use. Catalogue will be sent free on application. SCHOOL-BOOKS. Benziger Brothers’ school text-books are considered to be the finest published. They embrace New Century Catholic Readers (Illustrations in Colors); Catholic National Readers; Catechisms; History; Grammars; Spellers; Elocution; Charts.

A HOME LIBRARY FOR $1 DOWN.

_Original American Stories for the Young, by the Very Best Catholic Authors._

20 COPYRIGHTED BOOKS and a YEAR’S SUBSCRIPTION to BENZIGER’S MAGAZINE (in itself a library of good reading.)

Regular Price of Books, $11.70 } Regular Price, Regular Price of Benziger’s Magazine, 2.00 } $13.70 ------

_Special Net Price, $10.00_ _$1.00 Down._ _$1.00 a Month._

You get the books at once, and have the use of them, while making easy payments. Send us only $1.00, and we will forward the books at once. $1.00 entitles you to immediate possession. No further payment need be made for a month. Afterward you pay $1.00 a month.

THIS IS THE EASY WAY TO GET A LIBRARY.

_And remember these are the Best Books that can be placed in the hands of Catholic Youth AT ANY PRICE._

ANOTHER EASY WAY OF GETTING BOOKS.

Each year we publish four New Novels by the best Catholic authors. These novels are interesting beyond the ordinary; not strictly religious, but Catholic in tone and feeling.

We ask you to give us a Standing Order for these novels. The price is $1.25 a volume postpaid. The $5.00 is not to be paid at one time, but $1.25 each time a volume is published.

As a Special Inducement for giving us a standing order for these novels, we will give you _free_ a subscription to Benziger’s Magazine. This Magazine is recognized as the best and handsomest Catholic magazine published. The regular price of the Magazine is $2.00 a year.

Thus for $5.00 a year—paid $1.25 at a time—you will get four good books and receive in addition _free_ a year’s subscription to Benziger’s Magazine. The Magazine will be continued from year to year, as long as the standing order for the novels is in force, which will be till countermanded.

Send $1.25 for the first novel and get your name placed on the subscription list of Benziger’s Magazine.

_THE BEST STORIES AND ARTICLES_

1000 ILLUSTRATIONS A YEAR

BENZIGER’S MAGAZINE

_The Popular Catholic Family Monthly_

RECOMMENDED BY 70 ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS

Subscription, $2.00 a Year

What Benziger’s Magazine Gives its Readers:

Three complete novels of absorbing interest—equal to three books selling at $1.25 each.

Fifty complete stories by the best writers—equal to a book of 300 pages selling at $1.25.

One thousand beautiful illustrations.

Forty large reproductions of celebrated paintings.

Twenty articles—equal to a book of 150 pages—on travel and adventure; on the manners, customs and home-life of peoples; on the haunts and habits of animals.

Twenty articles—equal to a book of 150 pages—on historic events, times, places, important industries.

Twenty articles—equal to a book of 150 pages—on the fine arts; celebrated artists and their paintings, sculpture, music, etc., and nature studies.

Twelve pages of games and amusements for in-doors and out-of-doors.

Seventy-two pages of fashions, fads, and fancies, gathered at home and abroad, helpful hints for home workers, household column, cooking recipes, etc.

“Current Events,” the important happenings over the whole world, described with pen and pictures.

Twelve prize competitions, with valuable prizes.