Case LVI: Defective Confessions

Case.—A penitent accuses himself in confession that he formerly (bona fide) passed over essential things, as for instance the number and species of mortal sins, that is to say he was careless in his confessions, because he knew no better. In another case the confessor discovered defects of this kind through the manner in which a penitent accused himself. He concluded that previous confessions, or at least a part of them, had been similarly defective.

Question.—What is the confessor’s duty in such cases?

Solution.—The first mentioned case is dealt with by St. Alphonsus in his Moral Theology, L, vi, 504, where he says: “I. Tamburini says that country people and children who have confessed in good faith while omitting to explain the kinds and number of their sins are not to be compelled to repeat their confessions; but this is altogether improbable, because although country people of this kind are not bound to repeat their past confessions in their entirety, they are nevertheless bound to explain the kinds and number omitted, so that they may at least make the present confession complete. II. Segneri says that if a country person in past confessions stated his sins confusedly, in the manner of the uneducated, the confessor ought not to oblige him to repeat the confessions, because those sins were already directly absolved; but neither is this pleasing, for although those confessions were valid, they were nevertheless deficient with respect to material integrity, which must always be supplied.’ The holy doctor, in the question of a supplementary completion of the number and species of sins already confessed bona fide, takes a stand between those who in such case require a formal general confession, and those who, like Tamburini and Segneri, in this case make no demand upon the penitent. He requires that what was lacking in previous confessions quoad numerum et speciem peccatorum should now be completed; but he does not attack the validity of those confessions. For instance, if someone had ex inadvertentia, or otherwise guilelessly, confessed sins of incest, which in committing he knew to be such, as peccata fornicationis, then he must now state them specifically because they were not directly remitted.

Berardi in his work: “De recidivis et occasionariis’ (Vol. 1, pag. 209) takes a mild view of the duty to correct the number in a subsequent confession. He holds that if one bona fide understates merely the number of the mortal sins, he needs not correct his statement, for the confessor has at least in confuso apprehended the frequency of the sins confessed, and has absolved directly from the sins as many as there were. He refers to the authority of De Lugo, who writes (De Poen. S. 14, n. 579): “In the case in which a country person, because of greater knowledge which he later acquired, or a child now grown older, could now explain better the number which he had stated generally and in a rough manner in confessions already made in good faith, whether he must now do so and supply the defect then committed concerning the fuller declaration of integrity?... It seems harsh to impose this burden.... There is no obligation to bring again before this sacramental judgment that sin from which the penitent was already directly absolved in the same judgment by a lawful judge.”

This view regarding the number is certainly correct in those cases where the penitent declared the number only generally and approximately, and the confessor understood the frequency in confuso and in general, and gave absolution. It would be different if the penitent had declared a fixed number and later discovered a greater frequency. Here without doubt he would have to declare the larger number.

It is to be further remarked, with Lugo, that if a penitent reveals the state of his conscience to the best of his knowledge and ability, he is not obliged later to repeat individual sins which had been included in general statements, if later the same come to his memory in concreto, because they are included in the former accusations. Indeed, such repetition is not even advisable, nor must the confessor permit it, if the penitent is at all of a scrupulous nature. A person of this kind might, by repetition of sins not confessed, become a victim of uneasiness and doubt, all the more as the laity ordinarily cannot distinguish between actus principales and subordinati, and believe they must confess the latter also in detail, although it is known to be unnecessary if the former, of which they are part, are confessed.

From the above-mentioned we gather the following: If it is a question of former confessions that are not really invalid, but only incomplete, because of defects that happened bona fide, then the confessor has merely to demand that the penitent state the circumstances that must be stated, and that were previously omitted, of his grievous sins; further that he correct according to his present knowledge a fixed number that he stated too low; finally, that he mention those newly discovered sins, that are not part of any species of sins already confessed. But the penitent need not confess sins which he recalls now for the first time in concreto, if he has already confessed their genus and frequency. He need not repeat them if their number, mentioned in confuso to the best of his knowledge, now appears to him as much larger, and still less is he to be obliged to make a general confession to amend this incompleteness, as such obligation exists only when there is a moral certainty that his past confessions were really invalid (Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., vol. II., 345), which is here not the case.

2. The case of merely suspected incompleteness of former confessions.—The supplementing of previous bona fide confessions is obligatory only when their incompleteness is manifest. The severe view of St. Alphonsus that the material integrity is always to be supplied (“quae semper supplenda est”) refers to the case when incompleteness is known without doubt, but not to the case in which it is merely suspected. Here is more applicable another direction of the holy doctor: “Those who have confessed in good faith are not to be questioned too much about past confessions, unless it is understood that something necessary was lacking” (L. VI.,n. 471). Therefore, if the confessor has weighty reasons to suspect that the penitent has not properly stated the number and circumstances in previous confessions, he should ascertain whether the penitent is at ease in regard to his previous confessions. If the answer is affirmative he will inquire no further, nisi intelligat aliquid necessarium defuisse; for if the confessor would have to put questions to most penitents about former confessions for fear of insufficient accusation, this would be quite a burden for the confessor, and also for the penitent. The latter probably would dislike to be subjected to such examination, especially when they go to confession so seldom that one must be glad to see them in the confessional at all.

This burden would be greater for the confessor; for while the penitent would only bear the burden for his person, the task would be imposed upon the confessor in regard to all who come to confess. There applies here the maxim, “It is not well to insist upon material integrity at any price.” The rules of prudence must here guide, according to the other universally accepted principle: “Care must be taken lest the Sacrament of Penance be made too burdensome or hateful.”

We are confirmed in this view by another consideration. Berardi teaches op. cit. p. 210 that a habitual sinner who has taken little or no pains to amend during a long life of sin is obviously obliged to repeat his confessions, because they are to be regarded as invalid. Whether there does exist in such a case a positive obligation to make a general confession is somewhat doubtful. There prevails on this point another, milder, view. Noldin says: “Those who have lived for a long time in an evil habit of sinning and, although they have approached the sacraments rather often, have nevertheless always relapsed into the same sins without a serious effort at amendment, cannot be strictly obliged to make a general confession, because it is not certainly established that their past confessions were invalid; nevertheless, since their validity may be doubted not imprudently, they are earnestly to be exhorted to a general confession” (Summa Theol. Mor., ed. V. P. III. n. 437). However, if the penitent is in good faith, the confessor should be careful in mentioning an obligation of a more complete confession. First of all he must ascertain whether it be opportune to make the obligation known to him. “Indeed, in order that a penitent ought to be compelled to a general confession, it is not enough that he himself be bound to it, but it is also required that the same obligation can prudently be disclosed to him.” Frassinetti and Gousset are quoted by Berardi in support of this view.

To conclude, if according to these authorities a general confession, even though necessary to revalidate previous confessions, must not under certain circumstances be demanded, so much the less should the administrator of the Sacrament of Penance, merely for the material completeness of the confession, insist on a proceeding which is calculated to make the Sacrament of Penance odious. Should, therefore, the confessor have reason to fear that in previous confessions not everything had been satisfactorily told quoad numerum et speciem, he must not question the penitent about his past life if he must fear that it would be distasteful to the penitent, which is often the case. It were best here, too, to take the golden mean. If the confessor for good reasons considers that he ought not ask his penitent to make a general confession, he may at least cause him to accuse himself summatim et generaliter of the sins which he fears are not confessed, and consequently not directly remitted. The confessor will inquire, then, how often the penitent used to confess during the period in which he fears that the confessions have been incomplete or invalid, and will help him to arouse a sincere contrition.

This procedure can certainly not prove irksome or hard for a penitent, and it will serve to put the confessor at ease, in as much as it will help to supply the defects of previous confessions in case a general confession is not to be insisted on,