Article III. On the Repetition of Confession

511. Principles. - I. Every confession of mortal sins which is certainly invalid must necessarily be repeated. For all mortal sins must of themselves be subjected to the keys.

II. But a valid confession, even if it lacks integrity, need not necessarily be repeated; only the defect must be supplied. The reason is that the sins already declared were directly remitted by virtue of absolution. Therefore, there remains only the obligation of subjecting to absolution the omitted sins, which had been remitted only indirectly and concomitantly. - Thus all. - St. Lig., nos. 502, 504.

III. The repetition of an invalid confession must be made in its entirety if the penitent approaches a new Confessor, because otherwise he can perform here the role neither of judge nor of physician; but it is otherwise if he confesses to the same Confessor who still remembers the preceding confession in some manner. For then it suffices if he accuses himself summarily of the sins already accused, for example: I accuse myself of the sins already declared in such a confession. For this is sufficient that the sins invalidly declared be accused sacramentally, nor is it necessary for the Confessor, in order to fulfill his office, to hear the confession again. - Thus commonly. - St. Liguori, no. 502; Elbel, no. 253; Lacroix, no. 1216; Lugo, disp. 16, no. 638; Billuart, diss. 7, art. 2; and others against certain authors who require an integral repetition of the confession.

IV. A confession need not necessarily be repeated unless its invalidity is morally certain. The reason is: 1. because when an act has certainly been placed, if a doubt arises whether it was rightly placed, that rule of law obtains: One must stand for the validity of the act; 2. because the obligation of the divine law concerning making confession has already probably been satisfied. - St. Lig., no. 505; Lacroix, no. 1221; Elbel, no. 263; Mazzotta, etc.

512. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must an invalid confession be repeated in its entirety before the same Confessor if he remembers the sins accused only IN A CONFUSED MANNER, or has even entirely forgotten them?

Reply to the first. More probably, negative, even if the confession was invalid on the part of the penitent; a general repetition will suffice. The reason is that, for faults already accused, a general repetition joined with the knowledge previously possessed by the Confessor suffices for sacramental judgment, since the Confessor has already judged concerning each sin. - Thus commonly with St. Lig., no. 502.

Reply to the second. More probably, negative also, even if the Confessor in no way remembers that invalid confession; consequently it will suffice for the penitent to manifest his state so that the Confessor may have at least a confused knowledge of it. The reason follows from what has just been said. For if in the preceding case some confused memory of the state of the penitent suffices for the Confessor, it ought also to suffice in the present case, since the same reason applies in each. - St. Lig., ibid., and the others cited above, against others. Indeed, according to Suarez, it suffices that the Confessor remember that the penitent was disposed and accepted penance ¹. - Suarez, disp. 22, sect. 6; thus also Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 16, sect. 15, no. 636; V. Casus, no. 679.

¹ This last clause seems to pertain, rather than to the penitent who confessed invalidly, to him whose absolution had been deferred.

513. • QUESTION 2. Must a confession made with doubtful contrition be repeated?

Reply. Negative of itself; the reason is evident from what has been said. Nevertheless, in practice careful attention must be given to the condition of the penitent. For if the penitent is a man sufficiently prudent and grave in his ordinary actions or in his confessions, there is at least a probability, indeed also a legitimate presumption, of the validity of the confession; consequently he is not to be urged to repeat it. But if he is supposed to be a frivolous man and inconsiderate in most of his actions, counsel to repeat the confession must be given to him ². - Thus commonly. - Elbel, De Contritione, no. 74.

² The Author knowingly says counsel, from the general rule premised, namely, that there is no certain obligation of repeating the confession unless the invalidity of the preceding confession is morally certain.

** The VV. object here (p. 937, no. 116) those things which St. Alphonsus has in Homo Apostolicus (tract 15, no. 34), where the holy Doctor asks whether one who doubts whether or not he is in grace can receive Communion.

Reply. Those things do not pertain to the matter; for neither does the holy Doctor inquire there concerning a doubtful state of grace because of doubtful contrition, nor do those things which the holy Doctor has concerning this argument in bk. 6, nos. 432 and 475 require the confession necessarily to be repeated.

The things which the holy Doctor (bk. 6, no. 505) establishes thus as a general principle certainly pertain to the matter: Moreover, it must be carefully noted here that penitents are not to be compelled to repeat confessions unless it is morally certain that they were invalid, as Croix, Gobat, Holzmann, Mazzotta, and Elbel with Filliuccius and THE COMMON OPINION against Antoine rightly say.

And what the VV. (pp. 460-461) endeavor to object, that this common doctrine of St. Alphonsus and the Doctors has place where the doubt concerning the validity of the confession turns upon the ground of integrity, but not upon the ground of sufficient disposition, is exploded by St. Alphonsus himself, who in the same place discusses the use of this rule concerning recidivists. For the doubt concerning the validity of confession with regard to recidivists is derived not from doubtful integrity, but from doubtful disposition.

QUESTION 3. Are recidivists to be compelled to repeat preceding confessions?

Reply. Negative of itself. The reason is that a new fall is not of itself a certain argument that the recidivist previously lacked disposition. Sometimes, however, from the circumstances it can prudently be judged that some recidivist confessed invalidly ³. - St. Lig., no. 505.

³ Do you see the open way to exacting repetitions of confessions against the certain doctrine which had been established above in the fourth principle? From the context it is clearly inferred that the confession must be repeated if it is prudently judged that the recidivist confessed invalidly. But does a prudent judgment of this kind provide that moral certainty which was previously required for this in the fourth principle? The Author, in the first part of the reply, wished to depart from the doctrine which Louis Habert, the obstinate leader of the Jansenist faction (see the Note below at no. 633), inculcated with certain others, namely, that a confession is to be judged invalid when the penitent did not afterward produce worthy fruits of penitence; wherefore he required that these fruits precede absolution. But in the last part he thought that he was showing obedience to St. Alphonsus, in whom (loc. cit.) that passage of Habert is read. Yet this manner of tempering that opinion, while it does not avoid the inconveniences of the Jansenist principle, also overturns the principle placed fourth. Therefore, so that all things may cohere, let the mention of that prudent judgment be omitted, and let it be said that sometimes it can be sufficiently established that someone confessed invalidly; and it is manifest that this can occur both with a recidivist and with one who is not a recidivist.

** And in these things let the VV. also have their reply, who (p. 937, no. 117) object here with the same words of Habert related by St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 505).

514. • QUESTION 4. Must all the sins which were previously narrated to the Confessor merely historically, outside confession, be explicitly repeated?

Reply 1. Negative, if the Confessor still remembers them; for then it suffices if the penitent confesses them generally, saying: I accuse myself of all those things which I have already narrated to you. The reason is that through the summary confession those sins are sacramentally subjected to the Confessor as judge in relation to absolution; and the Confessor here and now judges sacramentally concerning all of them, since he remembers them.

Reply 2. Affirmative, if the Confessor does not clearly and distinctly remember all of them, even if he remembers them confusedly or in part. The reason is evident from what has been said ⁴. - Thus St. Lig., no. 502, and others commonly ⁵.

⁴ Indeed, from what was said above at no. 511, Principle III, the contrary seems to be proved. For it is there established that sins previously declared non-sacramentally are sufficiently declared sacramentally through a summary confession, even if the Confessor does not retain a distinct memory of those sins.

⁵ On the contrary, Cardinal De Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 16, nos. 637-638) presents the opposite opinion as common. And to the reason by which St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 502, doubt 1, at the end) indicates himself to be moved, namely, that since the preceding confession was not made to a judge, it does not seem that account is to be taken of it, but a distinct sacramental confession is to be made anew, since the prior one was not sacramental, he replies: To the contrary, however, is the common authority and practice. For almost all the Doctors universally say that afterward that confused memory suffices, from whatever source the defect of the prior confession proceeded.... The same usage appears when someone outside confession narrated some sins to a priest who was his friend for the sake of seeking counsel, and afterward confesses to the same priest, accusing himself briefly of all those things which he had said outside confession. In this case also there is not now in the priest so exact and distinct a knowledge as there would be if the penitent now accused himself distinctly; and indeed that prior narration had in no way been sacramental, nor an accusation made to a judge, but a narration made to a friend. It must therefore be admitted that even a prior non-sacramental narration persisting in a memory not altogether distinct can in some manner be made sacramental by a subsequent accusation, so that it can serve for the sacrament. Not that the prior narration truly becomes a sacramental accusation, but insofar as the subsequent accusation, referred to the memory which the Confessor has of those sins previously heard distinctly, is sufficient knowledge of the kind desired in the Confessor. Thus Lugo from the common opinion, who then aptly resolves the doubts of those who think otherwise.

** Through ten columns (pp. 480-484) the VV. not only censure this brief Note, but at the same time undertake to attack Cardinal De Lugo, whom they moreover represent almost as a liar, or at least as carried away by empty fantasies. Let us dispatch the matter in a few words.

Therefore, as regards the present question and Lugo's opinion, they write thus (p. 483): The opinion which Lugo defends must be called common neither before nor afterward. Not before, because he first proposed it; not afterward, because no one, so far as we know, followed it except Aversa; and if perhaps others also did, they are certainly few. These words are referred to that which is transcribed from Lugo in the Note: The same usage appears when someone outside confession narrated to a priest who was his friend, etc.

Reply. Suarez (De Poenit., disp. 22, sect. 6, no. 5) has these things: If the repetition of Confession is made to the same priest who still retains a sufficient memory of the sins, it will not be necessary to state each individually, but to subject all in one word, supplying the defect. The reason is that, the prior narration being supposed, that one word is equivalent to a distinct confession, because it sufficiently makes all the sins present to the knowledge of the confessor. JUST AS, if the priest knows all the sins outside confession, they can be stated to him in confession by one word, namely, by accusing oneself of all those things which the other knows. AND IN THESE THINGS THE AUTHORS AGREE. But Suarez preceded Lugo; therefore, Lugo did not first propose this opinion. 2. Suarez adds that the Authors agree in these things; therefore Lugo said not falsely but most truly: The same usage, that is, common usage, holds, etc.

Likewise Aegidius Coninck (disp. 4, no. 45): A confession made without sufficient sorrow... avails for this, that the Confessor receives a perfect knowledge of the state of the penitent, so that afterward the latter can sufficiently confess all his sins in a few words by saying that he is sorry for the sins already narrated and desires to be absolved from them; and these words alone then have the true character of confession which is a part of the Sacrament. JUST AS, if someone had narrated all his sins for the sake of seeking counsel and afterward, sorrowing for them, wished to confess, it would suffice for him to say that he is sorry for the sins already stated and asks to be absolved from them. Moreover, Coninck also is earlier than Lugo.

That this doctrine was common also after Lugo, we have, for example, from Illsung (De Poenit., disp. 6, no. 152), who writes these things: In the second case, namely, when the Confessor has not so forgotten the sins that he does not retain at least a confused memory, the Doctors COMMONLY deny that anything by way of repetition must be done or exacted, and add that it suffices provided the penitent in general accuses himself of the sins stated before, if the prior confession was not a judicial accusation but, for example, ONLY A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL, or if it was made to one not having due jurisdiction; for then those sins over which jurisdiction was not given would likewise have to be repeated in general. THUS THE DOCTORS COMMONLY, whom Vasquez, Palao, Tanner, and Lugo report and follow; because through a generic repetition and approval of the specific confession, the prior distinct narration of sins is made judicial and sacramental. Therefore, others besides Aversa, and indeed not a few but most of the Doctors, handed down the same doctrine as Lugo.

We have the same from Dicastillo, who likewise appeals to the common opinion (tract 8, disp. 8, no. 120). Thus he: COMMON USAGE HAS, AND MOST OF THE DOCTORS ADMIT, that afterward that confused memory suffices, from whatever source the defect of the prior confession proceeded. And after bringing forward the example of one who had confessed to a priest not having jurisdiction, he adds: So also, if someone disclosed his sins to a priest who was a friend, not for the sake of confessing but of seeking counsel, and afterward, on that or another day, desires to be absolved from them, it suffices that he accuse himself briefly of those things which he had disclosed, even though knowledge or memory not wholly distinct still persists in the priest. Therefore, in these and similar cases that prior knowledge, as newly approved and referred by the penitent to sacramental confession, is judged in some manner sacramental.

And let these things, without bringing forward more, suffice to establish that this doctrine is not vainly called common in the Note, and that Cardinal De Lugo is censured gratuitously by the VV. as though he had called common that opinion which, otherwise, as the VV. say, he himself first proposed and scarcely any few followed.

The VV. insist (pp. 482-483) that what Lugo says is excessive, namely, that the Doctors almost universally teach that a confused recollection of sins suffices when the confession was invalid because of a defect of jurisdiction on the part of the Confessor, since not only Suarez but also Coninck and other grave Doctors defended the negative opinion.

I reply that this is not the case in which Suarez and the others deny that a confused recollection of sins suffices. Indeed, the words of Suarez brought forward above refer to such a confused recollection of sins, which he says suffices. But these embrace also the case of a confession made to a priest not having jurisdiction. Therefore.

Proof of the Major. For Suarez (ibid.) premises these things there: It remains that we explain how the confession of sins is to be repeated IN THESE CASES, namely, whether it is necessary to narrate them again distinctly and expressly, or to state in one word the defect of the prior confession and that he subjects again to the keys all those things which someone confessed badly. And we saw the answer above, that a distinct confession is required if it is made to another priest; it is not required if it is made to the same priest.

Proof of the Minor, namely, that among these cases is comprehended a confession made to a priest not having jurisdiction. For, enumerating these cases (ibid., no. 4), he says: The fifth heading is from a defect of jurisdiction in the minister. Therefore, this is not the case concerning which Suarez denies that a confused recollection suffices.

The case, therefore, in which Suarez denies that a confused recollection suffices is when, as he says (ibid., no. 6), the priest is the same but the sins HAVE ALREADY FALLEN FROM MEMORY. For after bringing forward three opinions of others, he explains his own thus (ibid., no. 7): But to me... it occurs that a different distinction is to be made. For either the confession was invalid by reason of itself, namely, because on its own part it had an essential defect either of sorrow or integrity, or of jurisdiction on the part of the Confessor; and then I judge that the confession must be repeated altogether and distinctly IF IT HAS FALLEN FROM MEMORY. The reason is that the prior confession was not matter of confession nor a true sacramental accusation;... but since it cannot be made with one confused word because of the reason given, it must necessarily be made distinctly. But what is that reason given on account of which the confession cannot be made with one confused word? Because, as he has in the preceding no. 6, the prior confession can effect nothing, since it remains neither in itself nor in memory; whence no word confusedly stated can then be equivalent to a distinct confession, because it is helped in no way by the preceding confession. Therefore, Suarez in the former case affirms that one confused word suffices because he supposes that at least some confused recollection of the sins remains in the memory of the Confessor; but he denies that it suffices in the latter case because he supposes that no knowledge or memory of the sins, not even confused, remains in the Confessor. Since, therefore, the hypothesis in Suarez differs from that in Lugo, there is no reason why one should be opposed to the other.

Nevertheless, it does not seem that it must be denied that the words of Suarez brought forward, by which he exacts a distinct confession, were accepted somewhat more broadly by Lugo, as though they have force even when the Confessor retains some memory of the sins; wherefore Lugo (loc. cit., no. 633) opposes the common practice both of the penitent who concealed a sin and soon returns and confesses his defect, and of the Confessor who, lacking jurisdiction over certain reserved sins, suspends absolution until the following day. For in neither case is a distinct confession imposed again.

But the VV. cannot rightly conclude therefrom that the doctrine of Suarez is in reality one thing and that of Lugo another. For in the hypothesis of a Confessor who retains no memory of the sins, Lugo agrees in the same judgment as Suarez. For he says thus (loc. cit., no. 641): Therefore, it does not suffice that the Confessor once had distinct knowledge of the sins if that past distinct knowledge afterward in no way directs, either mediately or immediately, toward forming the judgment; but distinct knowledge is required which directs the Confessor toward judging at least through a confused memory of itself. Therefore, if that past distinct knowledge in no way directs because the Confessor has now altogether forgotten and is directed only by the confused knowledge which the penitent now gives, it is of no service whatever that distinct knowledge preceded. Whence in that case... if that prior knowledge had not been given to a judge, because either he was not yet a priest or was not a legitimate judge, and nevertheless afterward he absolves with that confused knowledge which he receives anew, that absolution must be judged in the same way as that which is given to a dying person who does not confess his sins distinctly but gives similar confused knowledge, who certainly remains bound afterward to confess his sins distinctly. Thus it will be in that case, because the Confessor truly did not receive distinct knowledge from which he might exercise his office; and therefore, although he absolves validly, a distinct confession must afterward be repeated.

From these things it is sufficiently evident that the VV. vainly sought in Suarez, with Coninck or others, adversaries whom they might oppose to Lugo's doctrine.

Finally, the VV. censure (p. 483) that in the Note it is said that the reason by which St. Alphonsus indicates himself to have been moved to follow the opposite opinion after Croix is this: that since the preceding confession was not made to a judge, it does not seem that account is to be taken of it..., since that prior confession was not sacramental. And they add: But you will seek these words in vain in the holy Doctor.

Reply. In the Note it is said that this is the reason by which the holy Doctor seems to have been moved; but it is not said that these are the words of the holy Doctor. The words of the holy Doctor are these (loc. cit.): The reason is that no sacramental confession was then present. Moreover, since the holy Doctor had indicated a little before that confession is not sacramental from a twofold cause, either because it was sacrilegious or because it was made to one who was not a judge; but now this can be understood only in the second sense, because there is question of one who by a mere narration, for example, for the sake of seeking counsel, told his sins to the Confessor; plainly, in order that the reason of St. Alphonsus might be truly reported in the Note, the matter itself required that the reason also be indicated why that prior knowledge could not of itself be judged sacramental. Is not the genuine mind of the holy Doctor thus expressed? It is, namely, the reason which the holy Doctor borrowed from that unfortunate paragraph of Lacroix, just as he took from Croix himself that historical falsehood, as is manifest from what has been said, namely, that Lugo's opinion concerning this question is singular, into which Aversa almost alone went after Lugo; which the VV. also repeat.

QUESTION 5. Must a confession be repeated if the Confessor, before absolution, forgot the sins accused?

Reply. Negative, if the Confessor remembers, at least confusedly, the state of the penitent; for he absolves upon certain and sufficiently perceived matter, and moreover he judged sacramentally concerning the individual sins while they were being explained to him. Otherwise an intolerable burden would be imposed upon both the Confessor and the penitent. - St. Lig., no. 502.

515. • QUESTION 6. Is the penitent bound to unfold the whole confession again if he notices that the Confessor, because of sleep, did not perceive certain sins and he does not know which ones?

Reply. Affirmative, if the confession was brief, because he can prudently doubt concerning each sin whether it was understood by the Confessor or not. But it is otherwise if the confession was lengthy and only a few things seem not to have been perceived, because then he can prudently presume that each was understood; nor does it appear likely that Christ imposed the precept of integrity with so great a burden. Nevertheless, if the doubt concerned only one or another sin, it would have to be repeated. - St. Lig., no. 499.

516. Resolutions. - 1. A Confessor hearing the confession of a countryman who confessed badly in previous years will satisfy his office by questioning him only about the last year, if, because of the uniform manner of life, he can at the same time form a judgment concerning the preceding years. The same must be said if, having heard the confession of one year, the Confessor detects a defect in the preceding confessions and from this last confession has sufficient knowledge of the preceding sins; nevertheless, it is required that the penitent accuse himself in a general manner concerning the other years. - St. Lig., no. 504.

2. If someone confessed to a Priest lacking jurisdiction, he will be bound to repeat the confession if he afterward discovers the defect ⁶.

⁶ Understand this if he confesses to another priest; for if the confession is to be made with the same priest who, for example, had previously been suspended from hearing confessions, the principles established above will have force.

3. If the Confessor did not recognize a grave sin as grave, or judged a mortal sin to be venial, there is not for that reason an obligation of repeating it, provided the penitent explained the fact rightly and faithfully; because for the validity of the Sacrament and the direct remission of the sin it is not necessary that the Confessor judge this to be mortal; indeed, he often cannot discern it. - St. Lig., no. 500, and others commonly.

4. A penitent who fears that he confessed invalidly for a long time is bound to repeat nothing, especially if he is of a timorous conscience ⁷ and has been accustomed to employ sufficient diligence ⁸ in confessions. The reason is that the presumption stands for the validity of the confessions. It is otherwise if there stands against the penitent a presumption so grave that it is equivalent to moral certainty.

⁷ Whether the penitent is of a timorous or less timorous conscience, the rule of Principle IV must remain fixed, that no one is to be obliged to repeat confessions unless moral certainty concerning their invalidity is present. The foregoing distinction contributes in some manner to a judgment or to conjectures; but conjectures do not produce certainty.

⁸ This sufficiency is not excluded by light negligence which does not exceed a venial fault, as was said above (no. 508, resolution 1).