ARTICLE III: ON THE REPETITION OF CONFESSION

1375. Principles. - I. Every Confession of lethal sins morally certainly invalid must necessarily be repeated. For a Confession of this kind is altogether unfit for fulfilling the law of Confession.

II. But a valid Confession, even if it lacks integrity, is not to be repeated, but only integrated, namely by supplying the defect; the reason is that the sins already declared were directly remitted by force 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.

III. The repetition of an invalid Confession must be made from the whole, if the penitent approaches a new confessor; because otherwise he cannot here perform the parts either of judge or of physician. But otherwise, if he confesses to the same confessor still remembering the preceding Confession; then it suffices if he accuses himself summarily of the sins already accused, e.g. I accuse myself of the sins already declared in such a Confession: for this is enough that the sins invalidly declared be sacramentally accused, nor does the confessor need to hear the Confession again in order to fulfill his office. - Thus commonly. - St. Alphonsus and others against certain ones who require the whole repetition of the Confession.

IV. Confession is not necessarily to be repeated unless its invalidity is morally certainly established. See the reason n. 67. 2°.

1376. Questions. - Query 1° Must an invalid Confession be repeated from the whole before the same confessor, if he remembers only confusedly the sins accused, or even has altogether forgotten them?

Resp. to the 1st. Neg., more commonly, even if the invalid Confession was invalid on the part of the penitent; but a general repetition will suffice. The reason is that for faults already accused a general repetition joined with knowledge antecedently had by the confessor suffices for sacramental judgment, since concerning the individual sins the confessor has already judged.

Resp. to the 2nd. Neg. also, more commonly, even if the confessor does not in any way remember that invalid Confession; therefore it will suffice that the penitent manifest his state, so that the confessor may have at least a confused knowledge, which also the penance sometimes procures, concerning him. For if in the preceding case some confused memory of the state of the penitent suffices for the confessor, it ought to suffice also in the present case; since in both cases the same reason applies.

Query 2° Must a Confession made with doubtful contrition be repeated?

Resp. Neg. per se. The reason is clear from what was said n. 67. 2°. I said: per se; for in practice attention must carefully be paid to the condition of the penitent. For if the penitent is a man sufficiently prudent and serious in his ordinary actions, or in his Confessions, there is a legitimate presumption concerning the value of the Confession; nor therefore is he to be urged to repeat it. But otherwise, if he is supposed to be a frivolous man and inconsiderate in most of his actions, because then the presumption militates against him. See n. 67. 3°.

Query 3° Are relapsers to be compelled to repeat preceding Confessions?

Resp. See n. 67. 3°.

Query 4° Must all sins be repeated explicitly which before were narrated to the confessor merely historically outside Confession?

Resp. 1° Neg., if the confessor still remembers them distinctly; then it suffices if the penitent confess them generally by saying: I accuse myself of all those things which I have already narrated to you. The reason is that those sins through summary Confession are sacramentally subjected to the confessor as judge, in order to absolution; and the confessor here and now sacramentally judges concerning all of them, since he remembers them distinctly.

Resp. 2° Affirm., if the confessor does not distinctly remember all of them, even if he remembers them confusedly or in part. The reason is clear from what has been said.

Query 5° Must Confession be repeated if the confessor before absolution has forgotten the sins accused?

Resp. Neg., if the confessor remembers, at least confusedly, the state of the penitent; for he absolves over certain and sufficiently perceived matter; and besides he judged sacramentally concerning the individual sins while they were being exposed to him. If he does not remember even the state of the penitent, he will easily be able to explore him by a few questions.

Query 6° Is the penitent held to go over the whole Confession again if, when it has been finished, he notices that the confessor, on account of deafness, sleep, or another distraction, did not perceive the sins?

Resp. Affirm., if he perceived absolutely nothing. Otherwise neg. But per accidens the repetition of the whole Confession can be necessary, namely if the penitent does not know precisely which sins were not perceived, and at the same time there is question of a brief Confession; for material integrity must always be supplied where it can conveniently be supplied. Nevertheless, if there is question of a long Confession, its repetition is not to be required, since it cannot be presumed that Christ prescribed material integrity with so great a burden.

It is said in the question: if, when it has been finished, etc.; because he who in bad faith confessed to such a confessor, or even to an unlearned one, would be held to repeat the Confession, as sacrilegious, in every case.

1377. Resolves. - 1° For a confessor noticing at the beginning of Confession that the penitent had confessed badly in past years, it will suffice to have questioned him only concerning the last year, if on account of the uniform manner of life he can at the same time form judgment concerning preceding years. The same, with the same uniform manner of life supposed, is to be said if he notices the defect of past Confessions after the Confession of the last year has been heard, provided that he still remembers this distinctly; nevertheless in both cases it is required that the penitent accuse himself in a general manner concerning the other years.

2° If someone has confessed to a priest lacking jurisdiction, he will be held to repeat the Confession, if afterward he detects the defect. But those chiefly and regularly lacking jurisdiction are a simple priest (n. 1394. q. 7°), an accomplice (n. 1404), an excommunicated person to be avoided [n. 1676. 1°, Exc. b)], and a suspended person denounced (n. 1689. 4°).

3° In practice the confessor should distinguish carefully Confessions which were only null from those which were also sacrilegious. For it happens that both the nullity of Confessions which were not sacrilegious and the obligation of repeating them are unknown in good faith; in which case the admonition from which no fruit is hoped is to be omitted, or at least deferred to a more suitable time. But sometimes the penitent can be so questioned that, unknowing, he repeats the Confessions, and it can be declared to him that they have now been sufficiently repeated.

4° Doubtfully valid Confessions are or are not to be repeated, according as the presumption stands for their value or nullity.