Section — Konings, Theologia Moralis
§ I. On the Obligation of Correcting Defects Committed in Confession
1487. Principles. - I. An error gravely culpable and gravely harmful to the penitent himself, by the confessor, from justice, and therefore also with damage relatively grave to himself, speaking per se, must be repaired.
I say: 1° gravely culpable, because an inculpable or lightly culpable error must be repaired from charity alone, and therefore per se with only light inconvenience.
I say: 2° from justice, as is clear from what was said n. 746. For the error, as in the principle is supposed, was an efficacious and theologically gravely culpable cause of damage; it was moreover an unjust cause, even in him who heard the penitent's Confession from charity alone, because to the obligation of charity there was added the obligation of justice, namely by force of the quasi-contract concerning the Sacrament to be administered rightly, by which contract the confessor is bound by the very fact that he undertakes the Confession of anyone.
I say: 3° speaking per se: for the case is to be excepted in which he could not repair the error without injuring the seal, for example because he would gravely offend the penitent by renewing discourse about the Confession; likewise the case of a penitent invalidly absolved who afterward either had confessed to another or had received the Most Holy Eucharist, because in either case he is presumed with moral certainty to have been justified (n. 1208. q. 2°), and the damage was repaired.
II. An error harming some third party is to be repaired according to the rules concerning cooperation in damage: namely from justice, if the confessor positively, by command or counsel, cooperated in the damage of the third party (n. 1438. q. 1°. R. 1°. 3°); but from charity alone, if negatively, by not admonishing concerning restitution to be made, since, as confessor, he is bound toward that third party by no bond of office or quasi-contract (n. 774. q. 1°).
III. An error, even gravely culpable, concerning the integrity of Confession is committed either negatively (when the penitent was not questioned concerning species or number, though he ought to have been questioned concerning them), or positively (by inducing him not to explain them).
In the former case it is not to be corrected outside Confession: for the obligation of confessing integrally directly affects not the confessor, but the penitent; hence, although the former is held to question the latter within Confession concerning species and number, nevertheless when the judgment has been finished this obligation ceases in the confessor.
In the latter case a gravely culpable error must be corrected even outside Confession: for by natural law everyone is held to remove the cause why another violates a grave precept, namely of integral Confession. Except if the error cannot be repaired without scandal or grave damage to the confessor; for these things excuse the penitent from integrity, and therefore also the confessor. "But if the error shall not have been gravely culpable, a much slighter cause will excuse from correcting it outside Confession, and this cause will never not be present, since the confessor can never admonish the penitent concerning the error admitted without inconvenience and shame."
Notes to nn. 1487-1488 - note sequence 1. (1) For instance, absolution invalidly conferred; a decision affecting the penitent with grave damage, even only temporal; counsel exposing one's neighbor to the danger of formal sin. (2) It seems otherwise must be said concerning a pastor, since he is held from justice and independently of an error committed to avert grave spiritual damage from subjects. L. VI. 619. (3) Per se, I say; because, if the penitent invalidly absolved were in the article of death or in grave danger of no longer confessing, charity would oblige with even grave inconvenience to the reparation of the error: for there would be question of a neighbor constituted in extreme necessity (n. 279. 2° and 3° Reg.). (4) L. VI. 619. Notes to nn. 1487-1488 - note sequence 2. (1) L. VI. 620. Notes to nn. 1487-1488 - note sequence 3. (1) L. VI. 621. (2) Ib. (3) Ib. (4) Ib. 622. Notes to nn. 1487-1491 - note sequence 1. (1) L. VI. 622. (2) L. V. Decr. T. XXXVIII. c. 12. (3) L. VI. 635. 661. Notes to nn. 1487-1491 - note sequence 2. (1) L. VI. 634. (2) Ib. 636 sq. Notes to nn. 1487-1493 - note sequence 1. (1) L. VI. 647. 648. (2) Ib. 647. (3) Ib. 651 sq. Notes to nn. 1487-1496 - note sequence 1. (1) L. VI. 640. 641. (2) Ib. 642. (3) Ib. 641 sq. Notes to nn. 1487-1491 - note sequence 3. (1) L. VI. 635. (2) Ib. 638. (3) H. A. Tr. XVI. 148. Notes to nn. 1487-1493 - note sequence 2. (1) L. VI. 650. (2) Ib. (3) Ib. 649. (4) Ib. 640. Notes to nn. 1487-1496 - note sequence 2. (1) H. A. Tr. XVI. 154. (2) Ib. (3) L. VI. 643. H. A. Tr. XVI. 154. (4) L. VI. 638. Notes to nn. 1487-1496 - note sequence 3. (1) L. VI. 639.
1488. Questions. - Quaer. 1° To what is a confessor held who unduly released a penitent from making restitution, or on the contrary obliged him to it?
Resp. 1° If with grave fault he unduly released the penitent, he is held to correct the error; but if he does not correct it, or the penitent, who otherwise would have made restitution, meanwhile has become unable to make restitution, the confessor himself is held to restore in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely by impeding the restitution due to him. I said: who otherwise would have made restitution. For if, although admonished, he would not have made restitution before the inability, neither will the confessor be bound.
Resp. 2° If with grave fault he obliged the penitent to undue restitution, he is held from justice to retract the error; and, if the penitent has already restored, he is held to make good the damage to him.
Resp. 3° If inculpably or from light negligence he unduly obliged or released the penitent from the obligation, he is held from justice to correct the error, not however with so grave an inconvenience. The reason is that on the one hand everyone is held from justice to impede lest by his action, even inculpable, he cause damage to another which he can easily forestall; but on the other hand from light or only material fault ordinarily there does not arise an obligation with grave inconvenience.
Quaer. 2° To what is a confessor held who omitted to admonish the penitent concerning restitution to be made?
Resp. 1° He is held to admonish the penitent within Confession concerning the obligation, with some inconvenience, if no or only light fault intervened, at least by reason of charity; but with greater inconvenience if in the omission he sinned gravely, or perhaps also if he to whom restitution is to be made would suffer very grave damage thence, although the confessor sinned in no way or only lightly in the omission.
Resp. 2° Whether in that case the confessor is held to restore, see n. 774. q. 1°. and what was said n. 1487. under II.
Quaer. 3° Whether he is held to restitution who from only light fault released the penitent from the obligation of restoring, if afterward he neglects to admonish him, when he easily can?
Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that, although the confessor without fault, at least grave, exempted the penitent from restitution, nevertheless, since his counsel continues to influence the damage of the creditor, he himself, the error being known, is held from justice to remove the cause of the damage, if he easily can (n. 749. q. 3°).
Quaer. 4° Whether a confessor, without the license of the penitent, can speak with him outside Confession concerning a defect committed?
Resp. Negatively, according to the more probable opinion, to which St. Alphonsus subscribes and which Lugo calls common, if the penitent has already departed; the reason is that that admonition outside Confession is burdensome to the penitent. Besides, since after absolution the judgment has been completed, that admonition would be separated from Confession. Nevertheless, if the confessor had not absolved the penitent, or had not absolved him rightly, i.e. with the form badly pronounced, even without license asked he could, and speaking per se ought, to disclose his error, saying, for example, that he did not absolve; by which manner indeed neither is the seal broken, nor can there be a reasonable offense of the penitent.