Article II. On the Qualities of Confession

467. Many qualities of confession are assigned by authors, which for the most part do not pertain to its validity; the chief, however, are contained in these little verses:

Let it be integral, simple, humble, discreet, faithful,

Vocal, sorrowful, pure, and prepared to obey.

1. Integral; that is, let it embrace all mortal sins not yet confessed, as will presently be said.

2. Simple; that is, not intermingled with impertinent discourses, nor painted with words, nor adorned with figures; but a naked, clear, and brief declaration of sins.

3. Humble; that is, it ought to be made with true humility of heart and body, namely, on bended knees unless infirmity excuses, and with head uncovered if a man confesses; humility ought also to appear in the tone of voice, so that the penitent relate his sins with shame, and not in the manner of a fable or a bare history.

4. Discreet; that is, it ought to be made in honorable and discreet words, especially in explaining sins against chastity; nor ought the sins or defects of others be manifested without necessity.

5. Faithful; that is, sincere, without a lie, especially in grave matter and matter necessary for the sacramental judgment. But fidelity or sincerity consists not only in sins being rightly declared, which pertains to integrity, but also in their not being exaggerated or supposed sins being added.

6. Vocal; that is, confession itself ought to be made by voice, and not by writing or by other signs, without necessity or a grave cause, for example, because of most vehement shame, because of an impediment of the tongue, etc. - St. Lig., nos. 492, 493.

Moreover, confession by writing is indeed valid of itself; nevertheless, confession and absolution by letters would be invalid. For the form consists in words, as Eugene IV defined in the Decree for the Armenians; moreover, the form must be applied to matter that is present. This is evident, moreover, from a proposition condemned by Clement VIII in the year 1602.

Whatever certain theologians may have said to the contrary, it is certain that confession made in writing is valid. Nor does the aforesaid Decree of Clement VIII stand in the way, because by it only a proposition concerning both a confession made in writing and absolution likewise given and sent in writing or through an intermediary is prohibited. Suarez disputed excellently and solidly concerning this in little works first brought to light by the Bishop of Bruges, D.D. Malou, of pious memory (Brussels, 1859). Lugo, Coninck, Viva, St. Lig., bk. 5, no. 489, and others also agree ¹.

¹ The Decree of Clement VIII must be understood not only collectively, namely, when both confession and absolution were made and given in absence, but also divisively, namely, when confession is made in absence but absolution is given by a Priest who is present, and conversely, as Paul V declared on July 14, 1605, in the Congregation of the Holy Office.

7. Sorrowful, or accompanied by sorrow, as was said above concerning contrition, no. 442 ff.

8. Pure; namely, for an honorable end, or for obtaining the pardon of sins and sacramental graces, and not for moving the compassion of the Confessor, or for gaining his benevolence or esteem, etc. ².

² Nevertheless, some secondary end, if it is not dishonorable, does not impede the primary end; and although it is by no means praiseworthy, it must not therefore immediately be pronounced that confessions of this kind are invalid.

9. Prepared to obey; that is, the penitent ought to be disposed to obey the admonitions of the Confessor as a judge ³ pronouncing sentence, for example, in fleeing occasions, employing remedies, making restitution, accepting penance, etc.

³ The Confessor as judge does not give admonitions, as the Author teaches below, but takes cognizance of the case and, according to the merits of the case, either imparts absolution, denies it, or even defers it. But the things which the Author adds pertain to the Confessor as a doctor or teacher. Obedience, moreover, is owed to them, not because the Confessor commands, for he has authority to command only as regards enjoining satisfaction, but because those things are indicated to the penitent which some law, whether natural or positive, requires.

Among the aforesaid qualities of confession, the principal ones are integrity and contrition. Enough has now been said concerning the latter; but now the former must be discussed specifically.

468. A twofold integrity is distinguished, one material, the other formal.

1. Material integrity consists in the accusation of all mortal sins which occur to the mind ⁴.

⁴ Others say that material integrity is present when in reality all the sins which have been committed are expressed. But if anything falls from memory, they teach that formal integrity is then preserved. Thus, for example, Laymann (De Poenitentia, ch. 8, no. 5), whom the Author also seems to have followed below, no. 470, II, where he attributes the defect of material integrity to forgetfulness.

2. Formal integrity consists in the accusation of all mortal sins which someone, here and now, considering the circumstances, morally can or is bound to confess.

Hence whenever material integrity is present, formal integrity also is present; but not conversely. We shall speak: 1. of the necessity of integrity; 2. of causes excusing from it.