Images de page
PDF
ePub

by the Holy Office. For it was asked whether Catholics in out of the way places and who had not been to confession for many years could be absolved by a priest who did not know their language, if they merely made signs that they wished for absolution, and did not employ an interpreter. The answer given was that there was no need of an interpreter in the case; and that the priest could, and was bound to give absolution if the signs were sufficient to lead him to the knowledge of some sin in particular. Moreover, if the only signs that the penitent was able to give were too indefinite for this, it was decided that the confessor could absolve in virtue of a generic confession.

It is quite certain, then, that a penitent whom the confessor does not understand is not bound to employ an interpreter-although it can be easily contrived that the latter should understand nothing of the confession. But Lehmkuhl says it is advisable when a person is dying in such a case to indicate through the interpreter some definite matter for which he is really sorry-even though it be only a venial sin-in order to remove what he calls the aliquale dubium, which some entertain about the sufficiency of generic confession.

As may be expected from the strictness of his view about mutes, Lehmkuhl allows a priest to give absolution to one whose language or signs he is wholly unable to understand only when there is some necessity-either a grave necessity; or a lesser one, induced, for instance, by a law of the Church, or by doubt as to whether the penitent is in the state of mortal sin or has an uneasy conscience.

Noldin tries to steer a middle course between those who hold that a generic confession of free matter is always valid and lawful; and those who deny its sufficiency, at least outside cases where absolution may be supposed to be necessary, and where the meagreness of the confession is due to some incapacity on the part of the penitent.

He holds that generic confession of free matter is always valid, but is unlawful if the person could be more explicit.

1'Utrum in regionibus longinquis, Catholicus multis annis inconfessus, signis duntaxat ob idiomatis defectum, petens absolutionem possit absolvi absque ope interpretis ?-R. Non esse opus interprete in casu proposito, sicut etiam posse et debere absolutionem peccatorum impertiri exhibenti signa quae potest. dummodo sufficiant ad exprimendum aliquod peccatum in specie. În casu vero quo quis conatur quantum potest exhibere signa peccatorum in specie, nequeant autem omnino intelligi, absolvi posse per solam manifestationem peccatorum in genere.' Apud Tanquerey, op. cit. Note to n. 392. 3 De Sacramentis, n. 230 sqq.

[ocr errors]

2 Casus, ii. n. 361.

VOL. X-11

He bases his view in favour of its validity on the arguments I have given already; and his view against its lawfulness on a precept of the Church which he says has arisen from the habit people have of accusing themselves in detail, even of their venial sins. In this connexion he makes much also of alleged inconveniences that attach to an indeterminate accusation of sin.

As regards the custom of which he speaks, while not questioning its existence, I very much doubt if it has the proper attributes for inducing a law in this matter. For what we are bound to tell and what we are not bound to tell in confession is regulated by the Divine law; and any action of penitents would seem quite incapable not only of overriding but of supplementing it.

As for the practical inconveniences that would arise if this vague way of confessing were ordinarily recognized, Noldin says, in the first place, that penitents resorting to it lack the advice and warning and spiritual direction that may be appropriate to their case. But are penitents—at least, if they have only free matter to confess-bound to ask for this spiritual direction when they go to confession? Who will admit this, or admit that the confessor is similarly bound to give it always? And yet this is a clear corollary of Noldin's argument. Again, what of those who receive spiritual direction altogether independently of confession?

Another inconvenience Noldin mentions is that penitents making a purely generic confession would not distinguish venial sins from imperfections; and so, perhaps, embracing merely the latter in their declaration of sorrow, would submit what is only doubtful matter to the operation of the keys; whereas, if they are bound to make a detailed confession, the priest may be relied on to secure that this will not occur. But, on the other hand, it may be reasonably said that a person confessing generically will have both sins and imperfections in his mind, or at least the former. For why should anyone have such an amount of perverse ignorance as to fancy that mere imperfections are sins, and sins mere imperfections? Besides, imperfections have very often a taint of sin connected with them; and so, though they do not per se constitute sufficient matter for the Sacrament, they may do so per accidens.2

1 Although it is or was the more common opinion that the Church could, if it wished, order the confession of some venial sins. See Billuart, vol. 18, diss. v. art. ii. 2 Lehmkuhl, Theol. Moralis, ii. n. 360.

[ocr errors]

Another objection to generic confession in ordinary circumstances is that if it were admissible it would be an occasion of people not telling their mortal sins; inasmuch as, often mistaking these sins for venial ones, they would believe that they were discharging their duty by accusing themselves in a general way, even when there was mortal sin on their souls. But, according to any theory, if a person thinks, however mistakenly, that a mortal sin is only a venial one, he is not bound to tell it. Besides the supposition that people generally would be so mistaken is as gratuitous as that at the basis of another objection of Noldin's. This is, that priests that are rather indulgent would, if generic confession of free matter were lawful, be satisfied with this even in the case of mortal sins. A more plausible objection is that people are not likely to be really sorry for their sins, if they have not these definitely in mind and do not specify them in detail. But I suppose every confessor has met people who are deeply and sincerely sorry for having led careless and indifferent lives, and who cannot specify or call to mind any particular sin on which they may specially direct their sorrow.

I venture to draw the conclusion from what I have said that, though for accidental reasons-for purposes of advice, direction, etc.—it is generally desirable for a penitent to confess his free matter in detail, there is no reason of any weight why a vague confession would not be both valid and lawful. Consequently, if one were to abstract from the authority of theologians a confessor need have no scruple in giving absolution to a penitent on the strength of such a confession. In practice, however, it is not lawful to lose sight of the views of any group of theologians, especially as there is question of the validity of a Sacrament. And so as a matter of fact one cannot go beyond what the strictest school allows, and that is to give absolution only when there is grave necessity, v.g., when the penitent is in danger of death; or at least some sort of necessity such as may be presumed to exist aliquoties in anno,1 which may be interpreted to mean once a month.2 Outside such cases, then, it is not lawful to give absolution unless the confessor can, by judicious questioning, make the penitent commit himself to some definite accusation.

1 Lehmkuhl, Casus, ii. n. 363.

DAVID BARRY.

2 See St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract. 16, n. 6 (quoted by Lehmkuhl, Theol. Moralis, n. 371).

CORRESPONDENCE

THE IRISH CATHOLIC DIRECTORY

REV. DEAR SIR,-The Irish Catholic Directory in its enumeration of the Dioceses and Parishes of Ireland (pages 134-303) makes no mention of the Patrons or Titulars of the dioceses of Ireland, and next to no mention of the Patrons or Titulars of the churches. The number of 'Parochial and District Churches' is given as 2,466 (page 486), while the number of cases in which the name of the Patron or Titular is mentioned is, according to my reckoning, only 69, i.e., less than 3 per cent. As far as I know, this omission of the Patrons or Titulars of churches in our Irish Directory is quite exceptional.

In the Catholic Directory for England, the names of the Patrons or Titulars are given in all cases, even in small places like Bakewell in Derbyshire or Barmouth in Wales. In the Directory for Scotland, the same information is supplied even in places so far away as the Orkney and Shetland Islands. The same rule seems to hold in the United States, America, with their 14,000 churches.

If the question be asked, Why is Ireland an exception in this matter? -the answer is probably to be found in the fact that, in Ireland, all but the essentials of divine worship were allowed to fall into disuse under the penal laws of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries; and that the custom of distinguishing churches by their Patrons or Titulars, then allowed to lapse, has never been fully restored.

It may be urged with reason that there is much to be said for the restoration. The expense and labour involved would not be great, while the information supplied would be both interesting and useful. In many cases the Patrons are Irish Saints whose names are seldom heard of by the ordinary faithful-perhaps are completely unknown to them. If the names were published in the Directory in connexion with the churches of which they are Patrons, the ordinary faithful would have at least one channel of information open to them.

The Irish Catholic Directory is published in English. It is to be found in the National Library, in the libraries of the Irish Academy and of the Dublin Society, and, I presume, in the Carnegie and other public libraries in the city and through the country.

And this omission of the Titulars of churches is not confined to the Directory. For instance, in the lists of the Forty Hours' Exposition of the Most Blessed Sacrament' the same omission is noticeable. In most cases no mention is made of the Titulars. Their names, as

I have said, may be unfamiliar to many Irish ears; but surely that is all the more reason for publicly associating them with our churches, and, I would add, with some of the altars in our churches.

May I further suggest, with all due deference, whether the Cathedral Church, coupled with the name of the Patron of the diocese, should not be printed in special type and stand apart by itself? The Cathedral is the mother-church of the whole diocese, and as such may well claim special prominence.

In the Irish Catholic Directory there are only two dioceses which make mention of their Cathedrals. In the other dioceses we are told there are "Bishops' Parishes'; but as in most dioceses there are two parishes enjoying this title, there is, strictly speaking, nothing to indicate in which parish the Cathedral is situated.

It may be said that the chief church of the principal town of the diocese may be taken to be the Cathedral, but this does not always hold good. There is one diocese in Ireland in which the principal town stands out in a marked way. It takes its name from the county. It has double the population of any other town in the diocese. The Assizes are held there. The County Council administration is centred there. Moreover, the official residence of the Bishop and the Diocesan College are there. Still the Cathedral is in another and less important town, but the Catholic Directory does not supply this information. The town, with its' Bishop's Parish,' is placed first in the list of parishes, but this, to a stranger, does not tell that it is the Cathedral town.

Whatever the explanation, the word cathedral is rarely used in the Irish Catholic Directory, while the word metropolitan, as far as I can see, appears to be completely ignored.-Faithfully yours,

July 10, 1917.

PETER BYRNE, C.M.

« PrécédentContinuer »