§ I. On The Necessity Of Integrity: 1° In General; 2° Concerning Doubtful Sins; 3° Concerning The Circumstances Of Sins; 4° Concerning Forgotten Sins

1360. - I. All mortal sins, committed after Baptism, must be accused by divine law, as far as this can morally be done.

It is clear 1° from the very words of the institution of the Sacrament of Penance; for thus Christ the Lord says: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Hence the Council of Trent concludes in these words: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests, His own vicars, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal crimes should be brought, into which the faithful of Christ have fallen; that, according to the power of the keys, they might pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. For it is clear that priests could not have exercised this judgment, the cause being unknown, if they themselves had declared their sins only in general, and not rather in species and singly. From these things it is gathered that all mortal sins, of which, after a diligent discussion of themselves, they have consciousness, must be enumerated by penitents in Confession, even though they are most hidden."

It is clear 2° from the same Council of Trent, which thus defined: "If anyone shall say that in the Sacrament of Penance, for the remission of sins, it is not necessary by divine law to confess all and each mortal sin, of which memory is had after due and diligent premeditation, even hidden sins and those which are against the last two precepts of the Decalogue, and the circumstances which change the species of the sin, ... let him be anathema."

II. To material integrity belong grave sins as to - number, - moral species, - certain circumstances, - the external act, - bad effects joined with the action and morally imputable. This is clear from what has been said and from what is to be said below.

III. Material integrity is not always necessary for the validity and fruit of Confession; for sometimes it is morally impossible, either from inculpable forgetfulness, or from other causes. But God does not command impossible things. Therefore, etc. It is also clear from these words of Trent: "But the other sins, which do not occur to one who thinks diligently, are understood to be included in the same Confession universally; for these we faithfully say with the Prophet: From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord."

IV. For the integrity of Confession there is prerequired a diligent examination, according to the capacity of the penitent, concerning sins committed since the last valid Confession; for he who is held to the end is held also to the necessary means.

1361. Resolves. - 1° We are held, in the Confession of mortal sins, to accuse not only the generic species of sins, but also the lowest species; for these are properly called species; and the Council of Trent requires the accusation of all species.

2° He who cannot disclose the lowest species must manifest the higher, or generic, species: e.g. if someone, knowing that he sinned against chastity, does not remember the specific sin, he must say that he sinned gravely against chastity.

3° He who knows that he has sinned mortally, but is ignorant of, or does not remember, the species, even the generic species, of his sin, must say in general that he sinned gravely, but that he does not remember of what sin he is guilty.

4° He who cannot remember the certain number is held to accuse the more probable number, or the one which more nearly approaches the truth, adding the particle about. But he who cannot even give a likely sum of sins is held to say how often approximately in a month, in a week, in a day, etc. He who cannot even indicate this should say whether he always consented to the temptation and whether it occurred often. Cf. what was said n. 216-227 and what is to be said n. 1424. III. c).

5° The confessor cannot exempt from the obligation of confessing integrally on account of a great crowd of penitents, e.g. on some more solemn feast day. This is clear from what has been said, and also from the 59th proposition condemned by Innocent XI. See p. XVII.

6° A defect of sincerity concerning even one mortal sin, which is omitted, constitutes a grave sin; because the divine precept of Confession is violated in a grave matter.

1362. Questions. - Query 1° What number is judged to be comprehended in the particle about?

Resp. This cannot be determined by an entirely certain rule; nevertheless not every excess is comprehended, nor a notable defect: but only a moderate one, greater however or lesser proportionately to the number expressed. Thus Theologians commonly establish it: a moderate excess or defect will be, relatively to about five sins, to add or subtract one unit on either side; relatively to about ten, two; relatively to twenty, three or four; relatively to forty, four or five; relatively to one hundred, five or six; ... and prudently in the first case the penitent will be judged to have sinned four, five, or six times; in the second, to have sinned eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twelve times; and resolve similarly concerning the others.

Query 2° Must a notable excess afterward be declared, if it is found after Confession?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is clear from what has been said; for since a notable excess is not comprehended in the number declared by the particle about, the penitent has not satisfied the obligation of Confession as to that excess. Therefore... Thus all.

Query 3° If someone has erred notably by exaggerating the number, must he afterward declare this also in Confession?

Resp. Neg., if in good faith he expressed that notably greater number. The reason is that he fully and integrally satisfied the obligation of Confession; for the true number was comprehended in the greater one, and therefore remitted.

Query 4° Is it always a mortal sin to lie in Confession?

Resp. Of itself one sins mortally only when the lie is concerned with necessary matter of Confession concealed without a just cause, or with grave matter falsely supposed, namely by advertently, not from scruple or simplicity, accusing what was not committed, or what is doubtful as certain, or by exaggerating the number.

A lie therefore concerning things not pertaining to Confession or to the conscience of the penitent is not of itself mortal; because neither is it gravely harmful to the penitent, as is supposed, nor gravely injurious to the Sacrament, since it is not referred to it. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus against a few who say that every lie in Confession is mortal. - But if the penitent lies concerning sins, even sins already confessed and absolved, when the confessor as judge or physician asks something about them, as necessary for the present Confession, he sins gravely, because he deceives in substantial matters. Cf. pp. 58a. among the propositions condemned by Innocent XI, p. XVII.

Query 5° Does it prejudice the integrity of Confession if someone accuses venial sins to his ordinary confessor, but mortal sins to another?

Resp. 1° Neg., speaking per se, provided that he never receives absolution unless he has manifested all mortal sins to one confessor and is absolved by the same. The reason is that that Confession is integral which includes all mortal sins, since venial sins are not necessarily to be accused.

Resp. 2° In practice, however, attention must be paid to the circumstances of penitents and to the motives by which they are led. For those are not to be condemned who sometimes confess graver sins to an unknown confessor, but submit lighter sins to the ordinary one, if, from the shame with which they would be suffused with a confessor familiarly known, they would put themselves in danger of confessing sacrilegiously. Wherefore the confessor should never inquire curiously about this, and much less vex with questions a penitent perhaps trying to conceal it, nor, if he knows it, show that this displeases him, but rather that the use of the liberty which the Church permits most amply is approved by him, while she makes available to the faithful an abundance of several confessors. - Nevertheless they would sin gravely, and because of defect of due disposition would confess invalidly, who for that reason remained in the occasion or habit of sin, or went around for this reason, that they might sin more freely. Say the same with Bouvier concerning a seminarian who with a base habit (n. 1523. q. 13°) wishes to ascend to Holy Orders and for this reason approaches an unknown confessor, lest he be troubled.

Query 6° Does it prejudice integrity if someone feigns another voice, lest he be recognized by the Confessor?

Resp. Neg. per se; for provided that he opens all mortal sins, he accomplishes an integral Confession.

Doubt here can be concerned chiefly, 1° with the act of sin, or with the sin committed; 2° with the gravity of the sin, both on the part of the matter and on the part of consent; 3° with the Confession of a sin certainly committed.

1363. Questions. - Query 1° Must mortal sins doubtfully committed necessarily be accused?

Resp. Neg. most commonly, if, after a diligent examination has been made beforehand, the doubt perseveres: and this holds even if the doubt is truly positive, or if a true probability is given concerning the sin committed. The reason is that here there is question of a doubtful law, which consequently does not oblige. And indeed from Trent those mortal sins must be accused of which consciousness is had; but there is not consciousness of doubtful sins; for to have consciousness imports certain knowledge of sin, since conscience is nothing other than knowledge of the heart and judgment concerning a sin committed. Therefore.

Others nevertheless contradict; because, as they say, it is gathered from the words of Trent that all mortal sins are to be accused as they are in conscience; and therefore, if they are doubtful in conscience, they are also to be confessed as doubtful. - But indeed it must be answered that in Trent it is not said that sins are to be accused as they are in conscience, but of which we have consciousness. In practice, however, an accusation of this kind is to be advised, says St. Alphonsus.

It is more common to teach that negatively doubtful sins are to be accused; but the denying opinion of St. Alphonsus is more probable; for there cannot be given an obligation of confessing negatively doubtful sins, since a doubt of this kind rests on no solid foundation, nor does it arise except from an empty suspicion, or fear of a sin committed, as frequently happens to the scrupulous or to those of timid conscience. - If however someone is in a positive doubt in the article of death, - knowing that he has not received the Sacrament of Penance or another Sacrament in good faith and being attrite after such a sin, - in order to escape the danger of damnation he would certainly be obliged either to receive absolution (yet he is not held to confess that doubtful sin), or at least to elicit an act of contrition.

What if he wishes to receive Communion? See n. 67. 12 a); 1307. q. 3°.

Query 2° Are sins doubtfully grave to be accused?

Resp. Neg. more probably per se, at least speculatively, even if a true probability is given concerning the gravity of the sin. The reason is the same as for the preceding question: for it is not established that a grave sin was committed; nor therefore can the obligation of Confession be established.

In practice, however, a twofold rule is to be followed:

Rule I. - In doubt whether the matter of the sin is grave. Boys and the unlearned ordinarily must accuse doubts, 1° because they can scarcely form a conscience by themselves; 2° because for the most part they do not know how to distinguish venial sins from mortal. Except, however, the scrupulous, who do not frequently tend to commit mortal sins. But instructed penitents are not held to accuse doubtfully grave sins, because they can form a conscience by themselves; nevertheless they are ordinarily to be gently exhorted to accuse these also, so that the confessor, observing the dangers in which the penitent is placed, may be able both to warn him and to remove them.

Rule II. - In doubt concerning full consent or perfect advertence: 1° if the penitents are of timid conscience and are not accustomed to sin gravely, they are by no means held to confess doubtful sins, because the presumption favors them which is had from things ordinarily occurring; indeed they are often to be prevented from this accusation if they seem inclined to scruples; 2° if the penitents keep a middle way between a timid and lax conscience, they are indeed not to be obliged, but certainly to be induced to declare doubtful consent, because it profits for tranquility of conscience, etc.; 3° if the penitents are of lax conscience, they scarcely ever ought not to declare doubtful sins, because the presumption scarcely ever is not opposed to them.¹

Query 3° Must grave sins, indeed certainly committed, concerning which however you doubt whether you have confessed them, necessarily be accused?

Resp. Affirm. See n. 67. 1°. Except, 1° if doubt occurs concerning the omission of a sin already committed long ago in one who was diligent in confessing his sins, because the presumption taken from things commonly occurring favors him; 2° if there is question of a scrupulous person, to whom the rule handed down in n. 44. II. 8° must be applied.

Query 4° Must he who confessed some sin as doubtful repeat it, if afterward he knows it as certain?

Resp. It is controverted. The "true and most common" opinion, says St. Alphonsus, "affirms." The reason is that that sin was not truly accused as to substance: for a certain accusation is not included in a doubtful one. - Otherwise, if someone afterward recognizes as mortal what, without any doubt added, he confessed.²

Circumstances of various kinds are distinguished in sins. (See n. 27.)

1364. Principles. - I. It is certain that circumstances changing the species are to be accused, if the malice of a diverse species which the circumstance induces is grave (for if it was light, e.g. a light irreverence of him who in a Church steals the image of another, it is not necessary, as is established concerning venial sins, to express it in Confession). The reason is that they constitute a new sin, and indeed a mortal one, of itself; and this is clear from Trent.¹

II. It is certain that circumstances lightly aggravating, or diminishing, are not necessarily to be accused, although to expose them is of itself better. The reason is that venial sins are not necessary matter of the Sacrament of Penance.

III. It is also certain that circumstances must be expressed by reason of which a sin venial from its kind becomes mortal. Likewise circumstances are to be opened which so diminish the sin that what, with them set aside, would have been mortal, becomes by reason of them either no sin, or only venial (n. 204).

1365. Questions. - Query 1° Must circumstances notably aggravating the malice of mortal sins within the same species necessarily be accused?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion.

Opinion I, the more common and more probable, denies absolutely. The reason is: 1° because Trent requires nothing else than the Confession of the number and species of sins, and therefore seems to exclude the obligation of confessing other circumstances.² 2° Because otherwise Confessions made in good faith would have to be repeated, and penitents would have to be commonly admonished for the future about explaining aggravating circumstances. But a precept so doubtful does not oblige.

But per accidens even aggravating circumstances are also to be declared, namely by reason - either of number, and thus the circumstance of quantity of time through which hatred or concupiscence toward a woman endured is to be declared; - or of censure or reservation; - or of necessary direction, as in the case of those in habit, those in occasion, and generally when there is question of the obligation to restitution.³

Opinion II affirms. The reason is, 1° because the same reason holds for accusing aggravating circumstances as for accusing circumstances changing the species; 2° because a sin increased by notably aggravating circumstances is equivalent to several sins; 3° because, if they were not accused, the confessor could not impose a proportionate penance; 4° because the Roman Catechism teaches thus.¹ - But the patrons of the first opinion reply:

To the 1st reason: "If the reasons proved equally concerning both circumstances, without cause the Council would have limited that whole doctrine to the circumstances which change the species: for it ought to have spoken concerning both in general without limitation and discrimination." Thus Lugo.²

To the 2nd. No one ever sought the multiplication of sins in the same act from the possible division of the matter.

To the 3rd. "So exact an equality is not always required in the penance to be imposed." Thus the same Lugo.³

To the 4th. The text objected here is: "Nor indeed is it necessary only to explain grave sins by narrating them, but also those things which surround each sin and greatly increase or diminish its depravity." But it can be replied that these words are explained in the same place in such a way that it is not necessary to understand them concerning merely aggravating circumstances. And indeed - a) immediately the Catechism adds: "For some circumstances are so grave that the nature of mortal sin consists from them alone: wherefore it is always necessary to confess all these." But the nature of lethal fault is not had from a circumstance alone, unless this changes either the moral or the theological species. - b) This is confirmed from the fact that it prescribes that circumstances greatly diminishing are to be confessed. For even the adversaries concede that this holds only when the diminution changes the theological species.⁴ - c) The Catechism confirms its doctrine from the necessity of expressing the circumstance of a sacred person in homicide, and of Matrimony in intercourse. But these pertain to circumstances changing the moral species.

Query 2° Must the circumstance of the degree of incest committed with blood relatives or relatives by affinity be declared?

Resp. 1° More probably, incest between blood relatives and relatives by affinity does not differ in species, since it makes no difference whether the conjunction arises from blood or from Matrimony; for intercourse with blood relatives is prohibited from the same motive from which it is prohibited with relatives by affinity: therefore the circumstance of consanguinity or affinity is not necessarily to be expressed.¹

Resp. 2° According to the common opinion of Doctors, the circumstance of conjunction in the first degree of the direct line is to be opened, namely between father and daughter; mother and son; father-in-law and daughter-in-law; mother-in-law and son-in-law; stepmother and stepson; stepfather and stepdaughter (p. 258), on account of the debt of reverence. Indeed it must be explained whether a son has sinned with his mother, by reason of the special reverence owed to the mother. - They say the same concerning the circumstance of the first degree of consanguinity in the collateral line, namely between brother and sister. Nevertheless St. Alphonsus calls the contrary opinion equally probable.²

Resp. 3° More probably, however, the other degrees of consanguinity or affinity are not necessarily to be declared.³ Cf. n. 495.

Query 3° Must the circumstance of the dignity of the person necessarily be accused, e.g. if the one sinning is a Superior, Magistrate, Priest, etc.?

Resp. Neg. more probably per se, i.e. with the reason of scandal, of office, or of a particular obligation set aside. The reason is that the circumstance of the dignity of the person sinning does not change the species of sin per se, but at most aggravates the sin.

Query 4° Must the circumstance of a sin committed by a confessor with a penitent necessarily be declared?

Resp. Neg. more probably, provided that it has no relation to Confession. The reason is that by this sin no injury is done to the Sacrament, since it has no respect to Confession.⁴ Nevertheless it is easily clear that both such a penitent is wholly to be deterred from further confessing to that priest, and such a confessor from further admitting that penitent to Confession.

Query 5° Must the circumstance of sacred time necessarily be accused?

Resp. Neg. This is clear from the universal practice both of confessors and of penitents; indeed it is certain that the former are not solicitous about asking concerning such a circumstance, nor the latter accustomed to declare it. The circumstance of sacred time does not seem to have to be explained, unless certain things are specially prohibited on account of reverence for the time, e.g. lest someone on Good Friday present public games, comedies, or ludicrous spectacles.¹

Query 6° Does he who accuses a recent sin as committed long ago satisfy the integrity of Confession?

Resp. 1° Affirm. per se. "The reason,... because the sin is the same, whether he had confessed it before or not, unless perhaps the change of time brings with itself a circumstance diverse in species," or the reservation, as regards this confessor, of a sin not confessed, or the occasion or habit of sin demands something else, and provided that a sufficient penance is imposed. ... "Nor is it an obstacle that" the penitent "says that he wishes to make a general Confession; for by this he does not say that he wishes to confess only old sins, but that he wishes also to comprehend those," i.e. old ones; "for a general Confession includes all sins up to this hour. Nor also does it matter that the confessor understands that that is an old sin, for the penitent has not said this. ... Finally it does not matter that the penitent seems implicitly to indicate that they are old sins; for he truly has the intention of speaking about new sins, and wishes to speak of them, although he desires not to be understood as to this by the confessor," ... who "intends to absolve from the sins which the penitent has brought forward."²

Resp. 2° But if the penitent lies about the time, e.g. if he denies that he sinned today; and declares the sin as committed at another determined and remote time, the Doctors more commonly think that he does not satisfy his obligation. The reason is that the act which the penitent placed today is not an act placed in the past year. Hence he lies in two ways, namely by concealing the sin committed today, and by accusing a sin committed at another time. - Thus Tamburinus.³ Yet Theologians are not lacking who think this lie light. - See Lugo.⁴

Query 7° Must the external act of sin necessarily be accused?

Resp. Affirm., because it is one and the same thing with the internal act in the genus of morals, and these two constitute one total thing. Moreover the external act is directly prohibited by divine law, e.g. You shall not commit homicide. Besides, without the declaration of the external act the confessor generally could not perform his office, as is fitting, concerning admonitions to be given, etc. This is also clear from the universal custom of the faithful, which explains the law in this sense.

Query 8° Must the penitent declare the number of persons with whom he sinned?

Resp. Neg. per se. - Thus Bonacina,¹ Tamburinus,² Lacroix,³ and others commonly.

The reason is that it suffices that the number of sins and their species be declared; but sins do not change species because they were committed with several persons. Hence he who fornicated with three different persons, or three times with the same, satisfies by saying that he fornicated three times; nor is he held spontaneously to say whether the accomplice was one, or several; whether they were prostitutes, or others. - Nevertheless the penitent is held to declare it if there is a proximate occasion of sinning, as because sin was committed several times with the same person.

Query 9° Must the nearness of persons be declared in sins of grave hatred?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if there is question of nearer nearness, on account of the strict bond of piety. Hence hatred against parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, spouse, relatives by affinity in the first degree of the direct line, and, at least if very grave evil is wished, brothers must be declared.⁴

Resp. 2° But neg. more probably, if there is question of remote nearness, namely among the other blood relatives or relatives by affinity. - Lugo,⁵ and others, against others who think the circumstance of nearness must be declared even in the fourth degree of consanguinity.

Sins omitted from inculpable forgetfulness must be accused, if they return into the memory of the penitent. For by divine precept all sins committed after Baptism must be declared in Sacramental Confession; nor can present forgetfulness excuse from so great an obligation even for the future. This is clear from the 11th proposition condemned by Alexander VII. See p. XIII.

1366. Questions. - Query 1° Must sins omitted from forgetfulness or another just cause be accused as soon as possible?

Resp. Neg. more probably. For an obligation of this kind is to be understood morally, especially since these sins have already been blotted out, and therefore there is no danger to the soul in delay. - Thus more commonly.

Indeed according to several grave Theologians the penitent probably can defer the Confession of these sins until from the force of another obligation he is held to confess again. Thus it could be deferred for several months, and even to the time of annual Confession. Bon.¹ (6) p. 405. But more probably another Confession, with these omitted, cannot be interposed. The reason is that it belongs to the integrity of Confession to declare in the actual accusation all mortal sins not yet accused, which occur to memory, or of which consciousness is had, as Trent says.²

Query 2° Must sins omitted from forgetfulness be accused before Communion, if they first occur to the mind?

Resp. Neg. very probably, even if the penitent can confess without inconvenience (n. 1307. q. 3°).

Query 3° Is a penitent, who remembers a forgotten sin and cannot, or does not wish to, confess before Communion, held to elicit an act of contrition?

Resp. Neg. with St. Alphonsus,³ Lugo,⁴ and with others commonly against certain others. - The reason is that no foundation appears why this contrition should be required. For it is not required from precept, because this is found prescribed nowhere; nor from the necessity of probation, because the sin has already been indirectly blotted out through the preceding Confession, and therefore does not need remission.

Query 4° Must a penitent accusing a grave sin, omitted in the preceding Confession from forgetfulness or another legitimate cause and already indirectly remitted, necessarily be absolved again?

Resp. Affirm. with the most common opinion. The reason is that all mortal sins, from the institution of Christ, must be subjected to the keys, so that they may be directly remitted. For although they have already been remitted, nevertheless they have not been remitted by the force of the Sacrament, or by the force of absolution, but only by the force of grace infused through the Sacrament, and concomitantly with other sins. - Sporer,¹ Collat. Andeg.² - Yet it happens that penitents confess as omitted from forgetfulness sins which, through the accusation of other sins in which they are necessarily contained, have already been sufficiently declared; in which case there will be no obligation of absolving.

The confessor may omit absolution with penitents who will return to him; since they will be directly absolved in another Confession; nevertheless it is better to impart absolution to all, when this can easily be done, for the consolation and tranquility of the penitent's mind, and also on account of the fruit to be received from the Sacrament. Add the danger lest the penitent may not be able to approach the same confessor any more.