Note 892 — Chapter I · THE TREATMENT OF PENITENTS IN DIFFERENT SPIRITUAL CONDITIONS

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.