Case LIX: General Confession

Case.—At a recent mission in our church a very zealous missionary, in his talk on Confession, advised the congregation to make a general Confession as a preparation for death, which might be imminent, and as a means of making sure of the mission indulgences. After hearing Confessions for many hours, I, a parish priest, concluded that a general Confession was an unnecessary tax upon priest and penitent. Thereafter I allowed only an ordinary Confession.

Question.—Was I justified in my action?

Solution.—Theologians teach that there are times when a general Confession is necessary; times when it is useful; and again times when it is neither necessary nor useful. When it is necessary by reason of some defect in past Confessions, it becomes the duty of the confessor as the minister of the Sacrament to see that it is made —made integrally and validly. Hence, in such circumstances he must insist on a general Confession. Where there is a well-founded doubt as to the validity of former Confessions, he may advise general Confession, but cannot impose it, as no one is obliged to repeat Confessions, unless he is morally sure of the worthlessness of prior ones. Even in cases where there is not even the shadow of a doubt about the validity of former absolutions, it may be very advisable to recommend a general Confession for various reasons. The ultimate object of such advice would of course be the betterment of the penitent’s spiritual condition. In these days when men are taken up more and more with the things of the world, to the detriment of the things of the soul, when the service of mammon has been substituted for the service of God, it is clearly the duty of the followers of Christ to protect themselves from the dangers surrounding them by leading a more spiritual life. This can be accomplished by means of Confession, even by making from time to time general Confessions. Reviews (general in a sense) have ever been used by religious communities as a means of attaining greater perfection. Such Confessions beget greater humility, greater contrition, greater purity of heart, and hence a greater desire for the more perfect service of God. Particularly is this the case when they are preceded by meditations on sin, death, eternity, etc., as happens in time of retreat or of missions, jubilees, etc. This is spoken of by Benedict XIV. in his Apostolic Constitution of 1749. “Thus the whole course of life is reviewed in the mind; from this arise fear and humility in the person and a greater horror of sin: strength is increased, so that whatever provokes to evil may be repelled; a most delightful peace and tranquility enter the soul; and the injuries inflicted by past confessions are repaired.” It is evident the Supreme Pontiff was strongly in favor of general Confession at such times as those of mission and jubilee, as this constitution was issued in preparation for the jubilee of 1750.

It follows that it is a good plan to advise general Confessions at such seasons of grace as a means to an end. Where general Confessions are neither necessary nor useful, they are not to be permitted. This is the case when penitents wish to make a general Confession for some outside motive; from vanity or pseudo-humility, or because the confessor is new to them and they foolishly think that such a Confession is necessary that their true spiritual condition may be known to him; or more frequently where the penitent is given to scrupulosity; in such instances this kind of Confession only begets greater difficulties. From what has been said above, the solution of the case is obvious. The missionary was giving evidence of his zeal for souls and of his wholesome practical judgment. He did well in preaching general Confession during the mission; his advice would be more practical if he encouraged a general Confession not of the whole life, but of the sins committed since the last general Confession. This simplifies matters by removing occasion of confusion, worry, doubt, anxiety, etc., the natural concomitants of all drastic search into one’s past life, thus leading to more certain and more beneficial results. With this modification, the holy man’s action is extremely commendable. The parish priest did not look at the facts from the proper angle. His judgment was obscured by the personal element he introduced. His consideration for the penitent was fraught with spiritual disadvantages to the penitent, and led him into a violation of the virtue, if not of justice, at least of charity.