Article — Koch–Preuss
Article 3: Confession
- NECESSITY. —The second essential constituent of the Sacrament of Penance is confession. By confession (confessio, ἐξομολόγησις)1 we understand the sorrowful declaration of sins made to a priest with the purpose of obtaining forgiveness through the power of the keys.2
1 Conc. Florent., Decretum pro Armenis: "The second part of penance is oral confession, to which it belongs that the sinner confess integrally to his priest all the sins of which he has memory." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 699).
2 Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 33: "They define confession as an accusation of sins belonging to the class of a Sacrament, undertaken so that we may obtain pardon by the power of the keys. It is rightly called an accusation, because sins are not to be recalled as though we were displaying our crimes, as those do who rejoice when they have done evil, nor merely narrated as though we were recounting some deed to idle hearers for their amusement. Rather they are to be enumerated with an accusing mind, so that we wish them to be punished even in ourselves. We confess sins for the sake of obtaining pardon, because this judgment is far unlike forensic trials for capital crimes, in which punishment and torment, not freedom from guilt and pardon of error, are appointed for confession." (Ed. Ratisb. 43, p. 225). Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. III, pp. 181 sqq.
Every Catholic who has attained to the use of reason, i. e., who is able to distinguish between good and evil, and has sinned grievously, is obliged to confess his sins once a year (annua confessio).4 Not age, but intellectual and moral development is the decisive factor in regard to this obligation. Of course, the precept of annual confession binds only those who have committed a mortal sin. Those who are guilty of venial sins only are not strictly obliged to go to confession at all.5 Because of the danger of selfdeception, however, and particularly on account of the respect due to the law of Easter Communion, every Catholic is advised to go to confession at least once a year, even though he be not conscious of mortal sin.
4 Conc. Lot. IV., c. 21: "Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit,... fideliter confiteatur...." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437). —Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 38: "It is evident that no one is bound by the law of confession before the age at which he can have the use of reason. Yet that age is not certainly defined by a particular number of years; rather, this seems to be laid down universally: confession is enjoined upon a child from the time when he has the power to distinguish between good and evil and deceit can enter his mind. For when anyone reaches that time of life at which eternal salvation must be considered, then for the first time he ought to confess his sins to a priest, since otherwise no one burdened by consciousness of crimes may hope for salvation." (Ed. Ratisb. 43, p. 228).
5 Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 667: "It is asked whether, in order to satisfy the precept of annual confession, one who has no mortal sins is bound to confess venial sins. The first opinion affirms it. The second opinion, however, which is common and truer, denies it. The reason is that by commanding annual confession the Church commands only that confession which is due from Christ’s institution. But Christ commands no confession other than that of mortal sins." —Supra, p. 138.
The obligation imposed by the precept of annual confession is not ad finiendam, but ad urgendam obligationem. Hence if a man surely foresees that he will not be able to comply with his duty later in the year, he is bound to do it now.
Sacramental confession, to be valid, must be made to the appointed priest in person, not by letter, telephone or messenger.6 The personal presence of the penitent is required even when oral confession is impracticable because the penitent is deaf or can speak no language known to the confessor. In the former case the avowal can be made by means of signs or in writing, in the latter, through an interpreter. In case of necessity, when oral confession is impossible, the penitent may manifest by signs the nature of his sins, his sorrow for them, and his wish to be absolved.6a II. PROPERTIES. —The properties of confession flow from the nature and purpose of the Sacrament. They are: (i) Integrity, (2) Sincerity, and (3) Clearness.7
6 Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 9, art. 3; Decree of Clement VIII, June 20, 1602; Declaration of Paul V, July 14, 1605 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 962, 963); Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 45. —To the query whether absolution given by telephone (per telephonium) would be valid, and, in case of necessity, licit, the S. Congregation of the Penitentiary replied: "Nothing is to be answered" (July 1, 1884). —Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. III, pp. 98 sqq. 6a No one is obliged to confess either in writing or through an interpreter. Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 318 sqq.
7 St. Thomas mentions no less than sixteen, but they can all be reduced to the three mentioned in the text: "Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful, and frequent, unadorned, discreet, willing, modest, complete, secret, tearful, prompt, courageous and accusing, and let it be ready to obey." Th. M. J. Gousset (Theol. Mor., I, 256) enumerates four: integritas, simplicitas, humilitas, caritas. Gury (Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 352) thinks that only two of these qualities are essential: "Many qualities of confession are assigned by various authors, namely, that it be integral, sorrowful, humble, prudent, simple, unadorned, modest, brief, secret, and vocal. Of these qualities of confession only the first two are essential; the rest pertain to its manner and perfection and need no special explanation."
- INTEGRITY. —Confession is entire or complete if the penitent avows all the mortal sins he has committed since Baptism or his last previous confession, together with their number and spe- cific circumstances.8 To be able to do this properly he must examine his conscience.
8 Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5, can. 7; Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 40 sq.
The integrity of confession (integritas confessionis) may be material or formal. It is material (integritas materialis) if the penitent actually confesses all his mortal sins; it is formal (integritas formalis) if he is willing to make a complete avowal, but is prevented by physical or moral causes. a) The material integrity of confession requires:
α) That the penitent mention all those mortal sins which he has not yet validly confessed. When he is in doubt whether or not he has confessed a mortal sin, or whether some particular sin is mortal or venial, the penitent is not bound, but (cases of scrupulousness and urgent necessity excepted) earnestly advised to mention it. If the existing doubt is founded on weighty reasons (dubium prudens), it is advisable that the sin (peccatum dubium) be confessed. Mortal sins which have been inadvertently omitted (forgotten) in one confession, must be declared in the next. If a penitent has purposely concealed a mortal sin, his confession is invalid, and he must, besides confessing his sacrilege, repeat all the mortal sins mentioned in his invalid confession, unless the confessor has at least a dim recollection of them.
- That the number of mortal sins committed be given as accurately as possible. If the exact number cannot be ascertained, it is sufficient to give an approximate estimate, declaring, for instance, how many times the sin has been committed each day, week, or month. y) That the circumstances be mentioned which change the species of a sin or add a new species (circumstantiae speciem mut antes vel addentes), and especially those by which a venial sin becomes grievous (e. g., scandal). Circumstances that merely increase the guilt of a sin within the same species (circumstantiae notabiliter aggravantes) as a rule need not be confessed, though it is advisable to do so. They must be expressly mentioned if they entail a censure or reservation, or if the confessor inquires about them with a view to ascertaining the disposition of the penitent or deciding whether restitution has to be made.9
9 Cfr. Prop, Damnat. sub Innoc. XI., prop. 58: "We are not bound to disclose to a confessor who asks us a habit of some sin." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1208).
Circumstances which might change an objectively grievous sin (i. e., one that is grievous merely from its object) into a venial sin should also be mentioned. This is not necessary for the integrity of the Sacrament, but advisable because it may enable the confessor to form a better idea of the penitent's state of mind.
The mortal sins a man has committed, together with their number and specific circumstances, constitute the necessary matter of Penance (materia necessaria). Venial sins are merely materia libera et sufficiens, that is to say, they need not be, but may and, considering the importance of the Sacrament, should be confessed. Previously confessed sins, whether mortal or venial, may be confessed again, and if properly regretted, constitute sufficient matter for absolution. All "the other sins, which do not occur [to the penitent] after diligent thought, are understood to be included as a whole in that same confession," and are summarily included in the usual declaration: "For these and all other sins of which I am not now conscious, I am heartily sorry," and so forth.10
10 "The remaining sins which do not occur to one who thinks diligently are understood to be included as a whole in that same confession."—Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5; cfr. Ps. XVIII, 13.
In order to be able to confess his sins properly, the penitent, before approaching the sacred tribunal, should carefully and earnestly examine his conscience.11 No time limit can be set for this important task. Circumstances of individuality, time, place, etc., must be taken into consideration. The only general rule that may be laid down is that the time and care devoted to the examination of conscience should be equal to that which is usually bestowed by prudent men upon important matters of business, and that there be no exaggeration or carelessness, lest the validity of the Sacrament be endangered and it become what Protestants have unjustly called it,—a "slaughter-house of consciences."
11 "A diligent examination of oneself or due and diligent forethought." (Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5, can. 7).—Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 339 sqq.
Material integrity of confession in the strict sense is not always possible because God alone knows the hearts of men and can judge them infallibly.12 b) Confession is formally complete or entire if the penitent tells all the sins he is able to remember and confess, thereby proving his willingness to make a full avowal.
12 Acts I, 24; XV, 8; 1 Cor. IV, 4.
The obstacles to material integrity are partly physical and partly moral. Physical obstacles are, e. g., deafness or inability to speak, impossibility of finding a confessor who understands one's language, immediate danger of death, inculpable ignorance or forgetfulness. Moral obstacles are: extraordinary difficulty, grave spiritual or temporal injury threatening the penitent, the confessor, or a third person; e. g., the danger of losing one's good name (not, however, before the confessor), serious scandal, violation of the seal, etc. Such obstacles dispense from material integrity, provided, of course, it is morally impossible for the penitent to wait or to find another priest to whom he could make a full confession. Physical exertion, crowding of the confessionals,13 intense shame14 or the necessity of indirectly revealing an ac- complice do not excuse a penitent from making a full confession of his sins.
13 The following proposition was condemned under Innocent XI: "It is lawful sacramentally to absolve those only partially confessed because of a great concourse of penitents, such as can occur, for example, on the day of some great feast or indulgence." (Prop. Damnat. sub Innoc. XI., prop. 59; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1209).
14 Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5: "The very difficulty of such confession and the shame of disclosing sins might indeed seem grave were it not relieved by so many and such great advantages and consolations, which are most certainly conferred through absolution upon all who worthily approach this Sacrament." —Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol., Mor,, II, n. 377: "A difficulty intrinsic to confession never excuses, however grave it may be. The reason is that confession by its nature is essentially laborious, and therefore, if a grave difficulty—for example, great repugnance or shame—excused from integrity, the faithful would very often be excused from accusing themselves of mortal sins, and consequently the institution of the Sacrament of Penance would for the most part collapse. Moreover, the Church could not reserve atrocious crimes, because that creates no slight inconvenience for penitents."
Under no pretext is the confessor permitted to inquire formally for the name of an accomplice or associate in crime (complex peccati aut socius criminis), his place of residence,15 or any circumstance that might reveal his identity. Nay, more, the penitent should not be allowed to disclose the name of his accomplice because confessor and penitent are both under obligation to protect the good name of others. But the penitent must divulge the degree of relationship of his accomplice if this is rendered necessary by some circumstance changing the species of his sin, e. g., incest, and the fact that a priest is involved when the confessional has been abused for soliciting to impurity. The laws of the Church require that a priest guilty of this crime be reported by name to the ecclesiastical authorities. If a penitent can, without great inconvenience, choose a confessor to whom his accomplice is unknown, he is in duty bound to do so.16
15 Benedict XIV., Const. "Suprema omnium," July 7, 1745; "Ubi primum," June 2, 1746; "Ad eradircandum," Sept. 28, 1746; "Apostolid ministerii," Dec. 9, 1749 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1474). —Cfr. Gury, II, 379, 382.
16 Cfr. Gopfert, III, 235 sqq. — Noldin, III, 338 sq.
If for some physical or moral reason the penitent has forgotten or otherwise omitted a mortal sin in confession, he must mention it in his next confession, —not to obtain forgiveness (as such sin has been forgiven indirectly by the grace of absolution), but to submit the forgotten sin formally to the power of the keys.17
17 Gury, II, n. 377: "When the cause excusing from material integrity ceases, the divine precept of confessing all omitted mortal sins again becomes urgent; for the excuse from the divine law of confession does not cease merely when an impediment occurs but is only suspended. Therefore, when the excusing cause ceases, the obligation of the law revives in its entirety; for the precept of confession is attached neither to a time nor to a circumstance but affects the whole of life, so that sins not yet accused must afterward necessarily be accused if this can be done. Nor is it an objection that the Church has determined the time of confession, for this determination is not for ending but for enforcing the obligation. It is evident, moreover, from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII, which reads thus: “We are not bound in a subsequent confession to disclose sins omitted or forgotten in confession because of imminent danger of death or another cause.” Therefore the contradictory of this proposition is true: consequently sins passed over through forgetfulness must necessarily be accused, although they have already been blotted out."
The assertion of a recent Protestant writer that the Church in the Middle Ages compelled the faithful to "confess each and every sin they had committed" is false.18
18 Cfr. E. Fischer, Zur Geschichte der evangelischen Beichte, Vol. I, pp. 24, 34, 47; P. A. Kirsch, Zur Geschichte der katholischen Beichte, pp. 186 sqq.
- SINCERITY. —The second quality required for a valid confession is sincerity. Confession is sincere (fidelis aut sincera) if the penitent truthfully declares all his mortal sins with their number and specific circumstances. Any wilful attempt to misrepresent seriously the nature of a mortal sin committed, or the moral state of the soul, is sacrilegious and renders confession invalid, because such an act not only destroys the integrity of confession, but is incompatible with true contrition, and, moreover, makes it impossible for the confessor to judge his penitent properly.
- CLEARNESS. —Confession must be clear, that is, the penitent must declare his sins so as to enable the confessor to understand him perfectly and to form a correct opinion of the state of his soul. The nature of the Sacrament requires that the avowal of sins be made simply, clearly, humbly, and contritely, for it is essentially an act of self-accusation, by which the penitent expects to obtain forgiveness and grace through the power of the keys confided by Christ to His Church.19 Needless to add, it requires courage and mortification to make a complete, sincere, and clear confession. 20 Regarding the form of sacramental confession, the Catechism of the Council of Trent says: "We must take care that our confession be plain, simple, and undisguised, not clothed in that artificial language which some employ, who seem rather to give an outline of their manner of life than to confess their sins; for our confession should be such as to disclose ourselves to the priest as we know ourselves to be, representing as certain that which is certain, and as doubtful that which is doubtful. This good quality our confession are not enumerated or if topics are introduced that are foreign to the matter of confession. They who, in explaining things, observe prudence and modesty, are also very much to be commended, for a superfluity of words is to be avoided, but whatever is necessary to make known the nature and quality of every sin, is to be explained briefly and modestly." 21 One who is morally certain that he has made an unworthy confession, must confess the same sins again.
19 Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 38: "Sins are to be enumerated with an accusing mind, so that we wish them to be punished even in ourselves."
20 St. Ambrose, Apol. Proph. David, I, c. 4, n. 15: "David sinned, as kings are accustomed to do, but he did penance, wept, and groaned, as kings are not accustomed to do. He confessed his fault, begged pardon, lay prostrate and bewailed his misery, fasted, prayed, and transmitted the testimony of his confession to perpetual ages by making his grief public. What private persons blush to do, the king did not blush to confess. Those who are bound by laws dare to deny their sin and disdain to ask pardon, which he who was bound by no human laws sought. That he sinned belongs to his condition; that he made supplication, to his correction. Thus to have fallen into fault belongs to nature; to have washed it away, to virtue." (Migne, P. L., XIV, 857). —IDEM, ibid., II, c. 3, n. 7: "David sinned, as kings are accustomed to do, but did penance and wept, as kings are not accustomed to do. Conscious of his weakness and not arrogating power, he asked pardon; prostrate on the ground, he covered himself with sackcloth, forgetful of his sovereignty and mindful of his guilt." (P. L., XIV, 890).
21 Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 43 (ed. 4a Ratisb., p. 230).
The term general confession has two meanings: ( I ) a declaration of guilt in general terms, as contained, e. g., in the Confiteor; (2) a confession in which the penitent repeats all or some of his former confessions.
A general confession in the last-mentioned sense may extend over one's whole life or some particular period thereof.
A general confession becomes necessary when former confessions were sacrilegious, either through want of sincerity, sorrow, resolution, or integrity, or through grave negligence in the examination of conscience, etc. A general confession is useful, though not necessary, at the beginning of each new epoch in life, e. g., in preparing for first Communion or on entering a new state of life, in a dangerous illness, at the time of a jubilee or mission. The scrupulous should be dissuaded from making frequent general confessions, as this practice is apt to aggravate rather than improve their condition.22
22 Cfr. Gury, II, n. 393-401; J. M. Haringer, Anleitung zur Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes, pp. 210 sqq.
Reapincs.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 6-10.—J. P. Gury, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, n. 348- 401. —P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, pp. 498 sqq., 564 sqq.—Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VII, 3rd ed., pp. 76 sqq. —A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 82 sqq. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 315 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 238 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., pp. 656 sqq.