Answers to Certain Doubts Arising from the Above

ROM what has been said certain doubts arise, which may possibly occur to anyone. The first is this. We have said that on the one hand it is better to give the account of conscience out of confession; and on the other that this account of conscience should be not only of temptations and evil inclinations, but also of failings and falls, if there are any; and if declaration is not made of them, it will not be a good account of conscience. Then I ask: “Tf, which God forbid, one is overcome by the force of temptation so far as to have a grave and shameful fall, is it possible that the rule should require him to give an account of that to the superior out of confession? ‘That, it would seem, is a difficult and very uphill thing, and commonly could not be endured.” To that I say that in such a case it is not the intention of the rule, nor of our Father, that that should be told out of confession; rather, this was one of the chief reasons why the rule gives an alternative, allowing one to do this under ordinary secrecy or in confession, as shall be for the individual’s greater comfort. And this is declared expressly in one of the rules of the Provincial, where on the question of giving and taking an account of conscience, after the subject has had his say, it is said that the Provincial may ask him any question that he thinks proper, but with this reserve, that “questions that would put the man to great shame are not to be asked out of confession”—quae hominem pudore multum afficerent, ea extra confessionem interroganda non essent. Such things as these, not only should not the superior, or the spiritual father either, ask about out of confession, but neither should they allow the other so to tell them. Chaste ears should not hear such things out of confession, so it is better to reserve them for that occasion. And that is what our Father General means to say in the words we quoted in the last chapter, where, after saying that they do better who give their account out of confession, he adds, “apart from certain things that are properly kept for confession.”

The second doubt is more serious. We have said on the one hand, and our Father says it expressly in his Constitutions, that the purpose of giving an account of conscience to superiors is that so they may be able better to rule and govern their subjects, by not being ignorant of anything concerning them, and may be able to order and provide what is fitting, as well for individuals as for the whole body of the Society; and on the other hand, according to the same Constitutions, anyone may give this account in confession: hence it seems to follow that the government of the Society and of its superiors is done through the confessional. This difficulty has given no little food for thought to some through their not understanding how the thing works in the Society. To make it understood, I say in the first place that so far is the Society from governing through the confessional, that even what some theologians say the confessor may do without breaking the seal in the way of availing himself sometimes of what he knows in confession, is a doctrine which our Father General Claudius Aquaviva most severely forbids anyone to teach in the Society, or in any way put in practice; confessors are to behave in these things as though any knowledge they happen to have in confession were non-existent. This is in accordance with a decree and mandate on this matter issued four years after by His Holiness Clement VIII, which decree is quoted by Father Francis Suarez and others. And the Society does more than that, for even of the account of conscience given out of confession she orders secrecy to be observed with great care, aS we said in the ninth chapter. Now, when such a great caution is observed over things that are known out of confession, what will be done in matters relating to confession, so as not to render it odious, and not to commit any sacrilege against the seal?

Now to meet the exact point of the difficulty, I say that it is nowise undesirable that the spiritual and interior government of souls be carried on by means of confession, but rather that is just one of the great fruits and advantages of the sacrament. By the penitent’s clear declaration of all his wounds, ailments, and weaknesses, the confessor, acting as physician of the soul, can apply to it the treatment and give it the remedy that is most to the purpose and direct it as it ought to be directed. In so high a degree is this true that in the canon law Pope Alexander III orders that, for this end alone of guiding and directing souls and giving them the advice that suits them, the confessions should be heard of those persons who are so wicked and sinful as to be incapable of absolution. Such people say that it is impossible for them to observe continence or keep from sinning, and therefore they have not a true purpose of amendment. Yet, though they cannot be absolved, the sovereign pontiff then advises their going to confession and confessing all their sins, and giving an account of their evil life and their want of the requisite dispositions for this confession. And he bids the confessor receive and hear them kindly in order to give them wholesome advice and remedy; for perchance thereby their heart will be touched, and they will give up the occasions of sin; and by this act of humility, and sundry good works which they will be directed to practise, the Lord will open their eyes so that they shall entirely give over their sin and make a good confession. Thus it is no new thing, but a very ancient and usual and well-approved practice of the Church, to take confession for a means of guiding and directing souls in this manner.

We read of our blessed Father Ignatius in his Life that, when he was elected General of the Society by the votes of all the first fathers, again and again he stood out against the election, saying that he was not fit for the post. He was greatly importuned on all hands to accept, and told that his refusal was a resistance to the will of God, well declared by the unanimous choice of all. In the end, for all that they could do, they could not get him to acquiesce at the time. They had to come to a compromise with him, and accept an expedient which he proposed, which was this. He said: “I will put the whole business in the hands of my confessor; I will give him an account of the sins of my whole life, and declare the bad habits and inclinations of my soul, my weaknesses and miseries, past and present, spiritual and corporal; and if with all that he shall command and counsel me in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to take on me so great a charge, I will obey him.” He did so. He went into retreat for some days, made his general confession to a holy man named Friar Theophilus, of the Order of St. Francis, and then asked him what he thought of it. He replied that his opinion was that he should undertake the charge of the government of the Society, and that in resisting the election he would be resisting the Holy Ghost. Thereupon he accepted the charge which they wanted to put upon him. Now I ask, will anyone be found, how malevolent soever, to open his mouth against this act of our blessed Father Ignatius, to slander it or see any sign of artifice in it? There is none, I believe, who could open his mouth otherwise than to praise it; and so it is related in his Life to his great praise and credit. Now the manner in which our Lord raised our Father to be head and founder of this order, is exactly the manner in which he teaches us to proceed; and so he prescribes to us this practice of declaring to the superior in confession, or simply under secrecy, all our bad inclinations, vices, and passions, and all our faults and imperfections, that so the superior may the better direct us in the way of virtue and perfection which we profess.

So I say that the public and exterior government of the Society is not and cannot be through the confessional; but it is very suitable, and sometimes necessary for the spiritual and interior government of souls, that it should be by way of confession in the manner that has been said. Thus we see it to be the practice throughout the Church of God that, when anyone has doubts and difficulties as to his behavior in any particular conjuncture, he chooses a prudent and learned confessor, and in confession or simply under seal of secrecy, as may be for his greater comfort, gives him an account of the business, to get counsel and direction therein. That is just what our Father means when he says that this account of conscience may be given in confession if it be to the greater comfort of the subject to do so. Thus Rectors in the Society are not appointed or deposed from anything known in confession, nor professed, nor professors, nor any other officials; that would be an error, a great error, and it would also be an error on the part of anyone who thought such a thing of the Society. But it must be observed here as a thing of great importance, that such a conjuncture may arrive and such circumstances concur as to warrant the confessor to oblige his penitent, whoever he be, in conscience and under pain of sin, to put it to the superior not to place him in such an office, or send him on such a mission, and remove him from such an occasion of sin, declaring to him the cause and the manifest danger which he feels would be incurred therein, considering his weakness. In such a case, I ask, what better or more honorable means could be given to the person than to tell him to go and declare the case to the superior in confession? For then, with all honor to the party concerned and to his order, the superior can remove him from the occasion, and not expose him to dangers too great for his strength; so the remedy will be found and his honor saved. And all this the superior then does, not only with the leave and consent of the party concerned, but even at his request, the importance of the matter calling for it. And at other times, though the penitent is not so sure whether he is being exposed to danger or not, and yet is in fear and doubt about it, in such cases it is a great relief and consolation to declare your doubt and difficulty to the superior and put yourself in his hands; for then if you are put in that situation, the danger will not fall on you, as it would have done had you not declared yourself, but it will be all laid to the charge of the superior; and God will concur with the obedient man and give him strength to come well out of what they have commanded him, since he has done what in him lay.

In the third place I say that, though it is true that a man can give his account of conscience in confession, according to the rule, yet the better and more praiseworthy course is to do it out of confession, as has been said. And as all now know this, they commonly wish to choose the better part, which is to give it out of confession. That puts an end to all scruples and murmurs and suspicions that might arise about superiors’ governing by what they know in confession, since all commonly give this account out of it. And even in the case that we spoke of in the first doubt, of one choosing to give this account in confession, there is no religious, however imperfect he be, who would not be glad, and ask for it, that in view of what will make for the good of his soul, and to deliver him from occasions of sin and not expose him to dangers, the superior should be able to make use of what he says in confession, provided it be in such a way that no harm may come upon him thereby, but only good, and that others should not be able to get wind of any fault or imperfection of his; for in this way he loses nothing and gains much, and obliges the superior to look even more carefully to the saving of his honor. And thus it comes to be that even that spiritual and interior government of souls, which might be lawfully and holily based upon what is known only by confession, is not usually practised in the Society, but we go only by what is known out of confession, as has been said. For all rejoice and find more comfort in giving their account out of confession of all that is needful for this purpose, that so the superior may be able more easily, and without any consideration arising out of confession, to guide them and help them in the way of perfection.

St. Bonaventure lays down this doctrine explicitly, and says that is is very proper for the superior to know right well the consciences of his subjects, their inclinations and habits; and also that he should be well acquainted with the corporal and spiritual strength of each, that so he may be able better to rule and govern them, portioning out and entrusting to everyone the task and charge that suits him according to his strength, for not all are alike equal to all things. He quotes to this effect that saying of Scripture: Aaron and his sons shall enter into the sanctuary, and they shall arrange the labors of all, and apportion the burden which each one is to bear (Num. iv. 19). St. Bonaventure says that Aaron and his sons are prelates and superiors, higher and lower, whose office it is to enter there into the interior of their subjects, and know the virtue, strength, and capacity of each, that so they may be able to portion out and distribute offices, charges, and ministries of religion according to the virtue and capacity of each one, to everyone according to his proper ability (Matt. xxv. 15).

sui T WENTY-FOURTH TREATISEiwws EIN.