Case LII: Hearing Confessions in Foreign Languages

Titus is priest in a large industrial town where there are workmen of various nationalities, who often know nothing of the language of the country. With the help of several priests who understand the various languages spoken in that town, he has compiled a scheme of confession in several languages, so as to be able, in case of necessity, to hear the confessions of people speaking a language unknown to him. His confrater Commodus asks him: " Why give yourself so much trouble? When they are in danger of death, I can validly absolve such people if they only give some sign of contrition; but otherwise I cannot hear confessions in a language that I do not properly understand."

What ought we to think of the theory and practise of these two priests respectively?

Commodus is wrong in fancying that danger of death is the only case in which a penitent, whose language the confessor does not understand, can validly receive absolution from him. He may receive it (1) whenever confession is necessary, and (2) whenever a confessor cannot be found who understands his language.

Confession is necessary especially in the following cases: (1) At the time for making the annual confession; (2) when it is essential to a worthy reception of Holy Communion, and this cannot be omitted or postponed without neglecting the Easter precept, or incurring a danger of scandal or suspicion. If the communicant in this case were sure of being truly contrite, he might communicate without confession. St. Alphonsus expressly says that a confessor speaking only a foreign language is equivalent to one who is absent (Homo Apost., XV. sect. n. 26, 3). (3) When the penitent wishes or requires to receive another Sacrament of the living, viz., Extreme Unction, or matrimony, and is not sure that he is in the necessary state of grace or of perfect contrition; (4) When the penitent, if deprived of the grace of the Sacrament of penance, is in danger of falling into grievous sin, or of losing the great benefits conferred by this Sacrament; (5) If he, being unable to make his confession at once, would be obliged to remain two or three days in the state of mortal sin (as St. Alphonsus says, 1. VI. n. 487), or even only one day, according to Marc, n. 1698. This would be still more true in a case where immediate confession was necessary because of some special danger or trouble of conscience.

The other condition required, in cases of necessity, to justify a priest in giving absolution without a full confession, is the circumstance "in which no confessor is available by whom the penitent can be understood" (Marca, n. 1697, 4). Copia confessarii ought probably to be understood here in the same way as in the rule that any one who has committed mortal sin must go to confession before receiving Holy Communion. In both cases a commandment has to be observed that binds de jure divino. In this sense the following rule may hold good: " Copia confessarii does not exist when there is no confessor at hand who knows the penitent's language, and when none can be found without great exertion, because the nearest is perhaps two or three hours' journey distant, or even less, if there are other difficulties besides distance, such as want of time, bad health, unfavorable weather, etc. (Cf. S. Alph., L VI. n. 264, and others.) This is the general rule. If circumstances permit, however, it is advisable to send ignorant and spiritually neglected penitents to a confessor who understands their language, and even to do so, if possible, also in cases where confession is necessary, since the assistance of such a priest is often essential not only to the completeness, but also to the validity, of their confession and to the amendment of their lives.

As to the plan devised by Titus in his zeal for souls, it is sanctioned and approved by several authors, for instance by Gury, Casus consc, II. n. 480, who discusses the right course to be adopted by a Catholic missionary who is the only priest in a large district where a language is spoken of which he is totally ignorant. In order that he may be able to some extent to hear confessions, Gury proposes to him to learn the words that denote the sins most frequently committed, and to repeat them interrogatively to his penitents, so that they, nutu capitis, or by some other sign, may answer affirmatively or negatively. In this way Gury thinks a confessor can form some general idea of the sins committed by each penitent. The method invented by Titus is in exact accordance with this advice, and he deserves all possible praise rather than the blame given him by Commodus. In order to make his method still more fruitful of results, Titus will do well to notice the following points:

(1) He must secure the validity of the confession by trying in the penitent's language to induce him to make an act of contrition, mentioning the chief grounds for imperfect as well as for perfect contrition. For still greater security he may require a short act of faith to be made before the act of contrition, especially in the necessaria fidei de necessitate medii, i. e., in the most holy Trinity, also in the Incarnation and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. The penitent is sufficiently reminded of Deus remunerator in the act of contrition.

(2) With regard to the completeness of the confession, Titus may follow Gury's method. As a rule no one can be bound to make a confession through an interpreter (S. Alph., 1. VI. n. 479, 3). Although it is generally not possible for a confessor, using questions and forms learnt by heart in a foreign language, to arrive at a completely satisfactory confession, which, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. 14. can. 7) is required de jure divino, still a confession of sins (although not complete) is advantageous to the penitent and quiets his conscience far more than would be the case if he received absolution after giving merely some sign of contrition.

(3) Finally, Titus should do his best to make his penitent understand that this confession is quite sufficient for the present to obtain pardon from God for all his sins, but that he is bound later on, when he finds a priest who understands his language, to make a fuller and more exact confession of sins that he has now been unable to confess properly. All theologians agree in recognizing this obligation on the part of the penitent, and the contrary opinion was expressly condemned by Pope Alexander VII, as sent, damnata. This obligation cannot be imposed in certain cases: (a) on the dying, when there is no probability of their ever again seeing a priest who knows their language; (b) on penitents who have only venial sins, and therefore no materia necessaria, to confess; (c) on such as had only one or two grievous sins on their conscience, and have succeeded in making a full confession of these sins by the method described above; and (d) on those who are bona fide unaware of this duty, and of whom there is good reason to fear that they would not accept the admonition, or would later neglect, by their own fault, to follow it, so that it would do them more harm than good, and might possibly render their confession altogether invalid.—Johann Schwienbacher, C.SS.R.