Note 665 — Chapter I · THE ESSENTIAL DUTIES OF THE CONFESSOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS OFFICE; OR, THE CONFESSOR CONSIDERED IN HIS OFFICE OF JUDGE

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.