Case XXVIII: Shortening of Confessions When Many Penitents Are Waiting

(1) Father Anastasius, pastor of a large parish, has during Easter time on many days a large number of people at his confessional. It happens then that persons come to Confession, who, as Father Anastasius realizes, are in need of a General Confession. Father Anastasius considers that he has not time for this now, and he knows a way out. He makes with such persons an appointment when they are to come and make a General Confession, and for the present bids them awaken contrition, bestows absolution and dismisses them.

(2) Sophia, a woman of wealth and position, comes to Confession. To the question whether she had ever concealed a mortal sin in Confession, without having since made reparation, Sophia answers in the affirmative. Father Anastasius directs her to make good this wrong now by the required repetition of Confessions. Sophia objects that she cannot possibly stay longer in the Confessional, nor omit holy Communion, both because of a grave danger to her reputation, because friends have come with her and are waiting. She promises, however, to come soon for a General Confession. Father Anastasius thereupon listens to the necessary materia absolutionis and absolves Sophia, as he would one seriously sick who for the time being cannot make a complete confession.

Father Anastasius submits his procedure in these cases to his confessor for approval. What is to be said to cases 1 and 2.

The confessor must say, as regards case 1, that Father Anastasius, who, on account of a great number of penitents, releases them and himself from the obligation of material completeness of Confession, commits a grave sin. This is clear from the condemnation by Innocent XI. of the opinion: It is lawful to absolve sacramentally those who have confessed only by halves because of a great concourse of penitents, such as, for example, can occur on the day of some great feast or indulgence. It is true that in Father Anastasius’ case Confessions at Easter time are concerned, not those on the occasion of a great festival, or Indulgence, to which the condemned proposition refers. But the prohibition has reference to the practise generally, and the great festival, or Indulgence, are merely quoted as examples of occasions upon which a great many Confessions may occur. The fact that a great number of penitents surround the confessional is not of itself sufficient reason to disturb the proper order of the tribunal of penance. According to the unanimous teaching of theologians there can excuse from the material integrity of Confession only a very (omnino) great and casual harm, that might arise out of the material completeness to either penitent, confessor, or a third person. A great number of penitents does not necessarily involve such harm for anybody. Some of these penitents may not be in need of Confession, others may be well able to go to Confession elsewhere, and the insistence upon material completeness would not cause them great harm. On the other hand, the habit of curtailing Confessions on such occasions, will put the confessor in danger of absolving insufficiently disposed penitents, Whenever theologians enumerate reasons that excuse from material completeness of Confession, they take it for granted that this danger is not encountered, and this is something which Father Anastasius seems to have ignored. There is no possible injury important enough to justify the absolution of a penitent not sufficiently disposed, and, as Segneri (Confessore Istruito II.) very correctly remarks, it is far better that few are healed than that many are dealt with and not one healed. For this reason Father Anastasius, in our case, cannot excuse himself from the obligation to insist on the material completeness of Confession, ob defectum temporis, time was wanted by him only on account of the large number of waiting penitents; he can release himself from this duty still less because of the danger of absolving penitents not well disposed.

We will not maintain, however, that, with a throng of penitents waiting, the confessor is never allowed to prefer the interest of waiting penitents to the completeness of Confession. He will be permitted to follow this course in a case when the waiting penitents would be exposed to great harm. This is evident from the opinion of theologians dispensing with the material integrity of Confession. This opinion is not included in the condemned proposition. It is not declared that it is never allowed to curtail Confession when there is a large number of penitents, but that it is not allowed to do so merely on account of the great crowd, or, as Berardi (Prax. Conf. n. 1048, VII.) states it: The condemnation concerns the case in which the confessor, because of the said concourse, routinely halves confessions, hearing only one or another sin and immediately giving absolution. Nor is opposed to this opinion the admonition of St. Alphonsus to confessors in the event of a great crowd of penitents: He ought not to be concerned that other penitents are waiting, for then the confessor is not bound to attend to the good of others, but only to that of his own penitent; for him alone at that time, and not for the others, he will have to render an account to God.

This admonition has reference to the case when the required disposition is wanting in the penitent, and when it is the confessor’s duty so to dispose him that he may be validly absolved. We are speaking here of the material integrity in the Confession of a penitent who is well disposed. As a rule, it is also the duty of confessors to supply a deficiency in integrity, but this duty is neither so absolute nor so great as the former, because material integrity in the Confession of a well-disposed penitent is required not for valid, but for lawful absolution. There is, therefore, in our case not, as St. Alphonsus presumes in the passage cited, the good of one penitent opposed to the good of others, but, rather, the material integrity of the Confession opposed to the good of the waiting penitents, and hence our case is quite different from the one St. Alphonsus presupposes. Indeed, the holy Doctor teaches (H. A. tr., XVI, n. 30), that a penitent is excused from material integrity of Confession (and that the confessor is to take care of it) whenever there is to be feared from it great harm for the penitent or others. Hence, it is allowed beyond doubt to curtail the Confession, whenever, and to the extent in which, the completeness of Confession causes great harm to waiting penitents. An example of this is found in Lehmkuhl, Vol. II., n. 329. There can be dispute only of the required extent of the harm that would excuse.

To resume the case of Father Anastasius, our opinion follows: If the time for Easter Communion draws to an end and Father Anastasius knows that it will be impossible for the waiting penitents to comply elsewhere, or later, with the precept, then we consider that for this reason it is permissible to absolve a well-disposed penitent with neglect of the material completeness of the Confession, provided, of course, that absolution is necessary to this penitent. The obligation to fulfil the commandment makes absolution so necessary to this penitent that it would be lawful to absolve him even upon incomplete confession. That the same necessity is present in the case of the waiting penitents supplies the defectus temporis which excuses from the material completeness of the Confession in the individual case. It cannot be objected that the confessor might extend the Easter time for the waiting penitents, for this might be objected also regarding the individual penitent, which the theologians, however, omit to do.

Nevertheless, we believe that a case where it would for this reason be allowed to neglect the material completeness of the Confession will seldom occur, because the confessor cannot easily have knowledge of the condition of the waiting penitents, and, moreover, particularly at Easter time there must many penitents be supposed wanting in the proper disposition. For this reason it is at such time better to tarry than to hurry.

In regard to case 2, the confessor will approve of Father Anastasius’ opinion that Sophia may, in this case, be absolved after a materially imperfect confession. The opinion of Father Anastasius is obviously based on the teaching of theologians, and Segneri solves the same case (l. c.) in the same manner. Father Anastasius erred, however, in concluding that, because Sophia was excused from making a complete confession, she was likewise excused from accusation of recent sins further than what was sufficient for the materia absolutionis, though she could confess these without grave danger to her reputation. This certainly is not correct. The obligation of material integrity of the Confession refers not modo indiviso upon the totality of the grievous sins committed by the penitent, but modo diviso upon the individual ones. It follows that even if the penitent for some reason is excused from the accusation of some particular sins, nevertheless, the obligation of the material integrity of the Confession in regard to other grievous sins committed continues. For this reason Berardi says in the passage quoted: Care must be taken that material integrity suffer detriment as little as possible. And Segneri, in a case identical with that of Father Anastasius, does not state it as the rule to require only the necessary materia absolutionis and then absolve, but to require of the penitent the accusation of as many grievous sins as is possible in the available time and only then to absolve. So should Father Anastasius have acted in the case of Sophia. Therefore, he was not justified in dealing with Sophia as with “one grievously sick, who, for the time being, cannot make a complete confession.” In the case of a person grievously sick there is physical or moral impossibility of speaking, which is not to that extent the case with Sophia. While she stated that “she could not possibly remain at this time longer in the confessional,” she evidently meant the length of time needed for repetition of former Confessions.

We are finally of the opinion that Father Anastasius should have considered it his duty to make use of the time which evidently. was available to assist this willing penitent in a Confession, which, though perhaps not in the opinion of Sophia, but according to the requirements of the Sacrament of Penance, would have been a complete one.