Case LVIII: Lying in Confession and Complete Confession

LVIII. LYING IN CONFESSION AND INTEGRA CONFESSIO

Case.—Titus, having read theological writings dealing with the Sacrament of Penance, has adopted the opinion that the time when a sin was committed need not be mentioned in confession, that this circumstance, as also the time of the last confession, may even intentionally be stated falsely without incurring invalidity of the absolution.

Hence he confesses: “I went to confession a week ago. I was distracted in prayer, was impatient, lied once, and include from my previous life twenty sins of fornication.” He receives for his penance three Our Fathers. As a matter of fact it is six months since he went to confession, and he has committed the “included” mortal sins since then.

Question.—Is the confession valid?

Solution.—Suarez, Konich, Sanchez, Tamburini, Gury, D’Annibale, Bucceroni, Genicot, Lugo, Noldin, declare the circumstantia temporis so unessential that one may dissemble it, if certain circumstantiae speciem mutantes, marriage for instance, do not depend upon it. Indeed, some declare the confession valid in spite of a direct lie. I think, nevertheless, that the present case might cause them no little perplexity. Many reasons are here in favor of an absolute inadequacy of such a confession; and it is more than probable that such an outright lie renders the confession invalid, although Ballerini and some other theologians think that such a lie is not grave. Sporer holds the confession in this case to be invalid.

Every confession must be so made that the confessor may be able to exercise his difficult and responsible office at least essentialiter. This office is threefold: Teacher (by exhortation, instruction), Physician (prescribing remedies), Judge (granting, delaying, denying absolution). The imposition of penance belongs, first of all, to the judicial office, but also to the physician’s. It is admitted that in the case of sufficiently instructed penitents, who know the necessary remedies and use them, and especially in the case of confessions of devotion, in which there 4s no materia necessaria, no grievous sins, possibly not even venial ones, the first two offices may be left out of consideration; but the office of. judge is in every case to be exercised. The penitent, therefore, sins grievously if, being in mortal sin, he renders impossible for the confessor the exercise of the judicial office and of the office of physician when this is strictly essential. This he may do by falsely stating the time.

In the present case, if an occasio proxima is not present, and in many cases where no ignorance prevails, the office of teacher is not important. But that of physician is here wholly frustrated. The confessor will not feel obliged to heal wounds that he considers healed long ago!

Innocent XI. condemned the proposition that in confession to a question about the consuetudo a penitent need not answer. Why this, when the number of sins since the last confession has been mentioned? Obviously because the penitent must not hinder the confessor from practising his office as physician, if the latter considers it expedient to do so in a special case! This, however, is the fact in our case, since the penitent excludes beforehand a question concerning his spiritual state. If one would concede to the penitent the right (salva secus integritate confessionis, in absence of every near occasion, etc.) of stating the time falsely, one with a prava consuetudo might reply; “I had this habit formerly.” Does this correspond with the intention of Innocent XI. in rejecting the proposition above mentioned?

Furthermore, the penitent by his false statement frustrates also the proper exercise of the judicial office. Not indeed because the sin committed in his past life is different from those committed recently; but because the confessor in this case did not as judge impose a penitentia congrua, which is his strict duty (unless important reasons cause him to depart from it), and the penitent guiltily put an obstacle in the way of his fulfilling this duty. To prevent one from doing one’s grave duty is manifestly a mortal sin. One cannot raise the objection that the penitent himself might perform a self-imposed severe penance, for, apart from all other consideration, he cannot impose upon himself without the confessor’s authority a sacramental penance. Nor may it be said that the penance is not essentialiter necessary to the Sacrament; for it is pars integralis, and for materia gravis is generally imposed sub gravi and as opus grave. Any deviation in this matter is the confessor’s responsibility. For “included” grievous sins the confessor will, of course, not give a severe penance.

Suppose a penitent falls once or twice a month into a sin of impurity, but confesses every time venial sins and includes the sin of impurity as committed three years ago. It is not the failure to mention the consuetudo, that renders the confession invalid, for this must be mentioned only when questioned about, but the circumstance that the insincerity of the penitent renders it impossible for the confessor to exercise his office as physician and judge! -

Hence we hold that the “including” of grievous sins, really committed shortly before, renders the absolution invalid. It may be asked when and under what conditions the circumstantia temporis may be dissembled. We say, whenever the intentional dissimulation or false statement of time, apart from cases of mutatio speciei, reservation, consuetudo, occasio proxima, etc., do not render the confessor’s administering of his office as physician and judge impossible, then such dissimulation does not render the absolution invalid. Therefore: (1) If a person confesses as materia necessaria a mortal sin, committed from momentary frailty (not ex consuetudine, or propter occasionem, as relapsus in a recidivus), but on being questioned states a wrong time (perhaps telling the sin as “previously forgotten” or through forgetfulness insufficiently stated quoad numerum), the absolution is probabilius valid; for the confessor does not need to exercise his office as physician in the case of an accidental sin of frailty, the repetition of which is not to be feared, and therefore, the frustration may hardly be called sinful; he will, or ought to, exercise his office as judge by imposing the proper penance, as the sin was mentioned as materia necessaria, (2) If in a general confession the penitent does not distinguish between recent and past mortal sins, the confession is valid provided there be no habit, occasion, change of species, etc. The confessor is able to exercise his office of physician and judge. Of course the penitent would sin gravely if he answered falsely regarding a still existing habit or occasion.