§ II. On Causes Excusing From Integrity In General, And Especially As Regards The Dying

1367. Principles. - I. Causes are sometimes given which excuse from the material integrity of Confession, because sometimes that integrity is physically or morally impossible.

II. In order that someone be judged excused from the material integrity of Confession by reason of moral impotence, although the sins occur to mind, these conditions must be observed: 1° that only those sins be omitted which cannot be declared, or from the manifestation of which grave harm would follow, whether spiritual or temporal, either to the penitent, or to the confessor, or to some third person; 2° that another confessor cannot be found to whom an integral Confession may be made without such harm; 3° that Confession be necessary here and now, as it is judged to be, a) if the precept of annual Confession or Communion must be fulfilled; b) if the reception of the Eucharist or the celebration of Mass cannot be omitted without notice or scandal; c) if otherwise someone would have to be deprived for a long time of the benefit of the Sacraments; d) if someone otherwise would have to remain in mortal sin, even for only one day.

III. Difficulty intrinsic to Confession itself, however grave it may be, never excuses. The reason is that Confession from its nature is essentially laborious, and therefore, if grave difficulty - e.g. great repugnance, or shame, or the loss of one's own reputation before the confessor - excused from integrity, the faithful would for the most part be excused from accusing mortal sins, and therefore the institution of the Sacrament of Penance would fall in greatest part. Moreover the Church could not reserve atrocious crimes, because this creates no light inconvenience for penitents.

IV. When the cause excusing from material integrity ceases, the divine precept of confessing all omitted mortal sins urges again; for when an impediment occurs, the obligation of Confession does not simply cease, but is only suspended; therefore, when the excusing cause ceases, the obligation of the whole law revives: and since the precept of Confession is not affixed to a time or circumstance, but affects the whole life, therefore sins not yet accused must afterward necessarily be accused, if this can be done. This is clear also from the 11th proposition condemned by Alexander VII. See p. XIII.

1368. Resolves. - The following chiefly excuse from the material integrity of Confession:

1° Grave infirmity, namely that in which integral Confession would bring great fatigue, or the proximate danger of it or of some other grave inconvenience, as for example often happens to women in childbirth when laborious delivery is imminent. Concerning the dying, n. 1370.

2° Defect of speech; thus from integrity are exempt the mute, who cannot confess integrally either by signs, or by writing, without danger of manifestation or without grave extraordinary inconvenience or great labor; likewise travelers wholly or almost wholly ignorant of the language of the region in which they confess. Hence, if there is question of a confessor who does not know sufficiently the language of the penitent, Kenrick learnedly teaches these things: once diligence has been applied to perceiving everything, "it is not necessary that one be more solicitous who has a less perfect knowledge of the language, provided there is a fair cause for exercising the sacred office, with another lacking who may execute it. Missionaries for this reason are not to be distressed in mind for the most part if, not knowing very well the language of the faithful, they do not fully understand Confessions; for necessity very often compels that they administer the Sacrament of Penance."

3° Defect of time, e.g. if soldiers must go immediately to battle. But the mere multitude of penitents does not excuse, as was said above, n. 1361. 5°.

4° Danger of life of the penitent, confessor, or a third person: e.g. if enemies arrive; if many are in danger of shipwreck or contagion; if in a contagious disease there is probable danger that the confessor be infected. Indeed sometimes in the highest danger of several persons, all, after some general sign of contrition and Confession has been shown, can be absolved by one utterance of the form thus: I absolve you, etc.

5° Danger of reputation, e.g. if a priest about to celebrate immediately, and needing general Confession, could not confess integrally without those standing by suspecting the matter. Say the same if there were question of a sick man confessed before the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament and now on the very point of being refreshed by Holy Communion, who, because past Confessions were invalid, asks again for Confession, which, since it would be rather lengthy, would expose the sick man to danger of infamy. Likewise concerning a boy prepared now to receive First Communion, and concerning one to be ordained prepared now to receive Orders, if they declare to the confessor that they have hitherto confessed sacrilegiously.

6° Danger of revelation, or violation of the seal, e.g. if the confessor could not confess integrally without manifesting sins heard in Confession, etc.; or if the penitent from a grave cause fears that the confessor may break the law of the seal. But this latter case, if indeed it should ever be said to occur, is most rare.

7° Danger of scandal or fall, both on the part of the penitent and on the part of the confessor, e.g. if a woman certainly knew the very great frailty of the confessor, etc. The case of the scrupulous person in n. 44 is related.

1369. Questions. - Query 1° Is there an obligation of confessing a mortal sin which cannot be explained without the manifestation of an accomplice?

Resp. Affirm. more probably, with the common opinion, which we follow, says St. Alphonsus, provided that there is question of a mortal sin, and one not yet, or not yet rightly, confessed. The reason is, 1° because no legitimate excuse is given by which derogation would be made from the precept of integrity: for it cannot be said that a positive precept is restricted by the natural precept of not defaming one's neighbor; for this precept only prohibits that the crime of another be manifested without cause; but here there is a cause, and indeed a grave one, namely the procuring of the integrity of Confession, and the direction of conscience; 2° the accomplice, by committing the sin, loses every right to reputation which he could have had before the confessor, in order to the Confession of this sin; and he himself implicitly consents of his own accord to this harm to reputation, when he sins.

But the penitent is held, if he conveniently can, to approach another confessor to whom the person of the accomplice is unknown.

Query 2° What are the causes excusing from seeking another confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown?

Resp. 1° If danger of death urges, or the precept of annual Confession or Communion; 2° if it would be grave for the penitent to omit Confession or Communion; 3° if someone would with difficulty open his conscience to another confessor; 4° if someone otherwise would have to remain in mortal sin, even for one day; 5° if someone otherwise would be deprived of the benefit of some extraordinary indulgence; 6° if by approaching the confessor to whom the accomplice is known, there would be better direction, notably greater consolation, etc.

Hence by reason of seeking counsel, of relieving sorrow, etc., mothers and wives are often excused when they manifest to the confessor the sins of sons or husbands, even though he may know them. For it would be exceedingly hard that they should be held to seek another confessor. Therefore, generally, there is no grave obligation of approaching another confessor for the sake of concealing the accomplice, unless perhaps there is question of a very grave and extraordinary crime.

Query 3° Is it lawful for the confessor himself to ask the name of the accomplice, e.g. for correction, etc.?

Resp. Neg., at least speaking generally, because this both induces one without just cause to detract from the neighbor, and makes the Sacrament of Penance odious. This is clear from Benedict XIV: C. Suprema omnium ecclesiarum, 7 July 1745, and Ubi primum, 2 July 1746, both of which were given for the kingdoms of Portugal and the Algarves, but which afterward through C. Ad eradicandum, 28 Sept. 1746, he extended to the whole world, and in which the Pontiff, speaking of confessors who under penalty of denying absolution require the name of the accomplice, declares that they sin gravely, and incur suspension from hearing Confessions, but only ferendae sententiae.

Query 4° Through the aforesaid letters of Benedict XIV has asking the name of the accomplice been so forbidden that in no case is it lawful?

Resp. Neg., 1° because Benedict XIV himself supposes cases in which this is lawful according to true, as he says, and sound opinions; 2° because sometimes the penitent must necessarily reveal the accomplice, and nevertheless cannot furnish this except through the confessor.

Query 5° Is there an obligation of confessing a sin which cannot be declared without the defamation of another, who was the occasion of the sin, e.g. if someone killed his own sister pregnant from a crime?

Resp. Affirm., according to the opinion set forth above in this number, q. 1°.

Query 6° Are the deaf and mute at the same time held to confess, and how?

Resp. The mute and deaf are held in some way to confess, at least by signs, unless they are so ignorant and dull that nothing can be drawn out from them. The reason is that the precept of Confession regards all the faithful who can manifest their sins by some means. - It will be best that the confessor inquire from the relatives of such mute persons to what vices they are given, and what mode is to be held so that he may be understood by them and he himself may understand them.

Hence: 1° Mute persons sufficiently instructed are held to confess integrally, at least by signs, if these are understood by the confessor; but if they are less instructed, or could with difficulty be understood by the confessor, it will suffice for them to manifest only one or another sin, or to signify in general that they are sinners and wish to avoid sin; but these, unless there is present a certain moral certitude concerning their disposition, are to be absolved conditionally.

2° The deaf, having the use of speech, are held on their own part to confess the sins which occur to memory; but the confessor is scarcely, or hardly at all, held to question them for procuring the integrity of Confession, on account of the excessive difficulty of questioning; which reason of excessive difficulty would not exist where they could easily be questioned in writing. - But the partially deaf, or those who are not wholly deaf, should either confess with an acoustic horn employed, or be led to a remote place, whether at once or at another suitable time. But if this cannot be done without danger of the seal, because the deafness became known not at the beginning but only in the progress of Confession, after a light penance has been imposed, those certainly disposed are to be absolved absolutely, those doubtfully disposed conditionally.

Query 7° Are mute persons who know how to write held to confess by writing for procuring the integrity of Confession?

Resp. See n. 1368. 2°.

Query 8° Are those ignorant of the language of the place in which they wish to confess held to confess, and how?

Resp. Those ignorant of the language of the place in which they are staying, and lacking a confessor by whom they can be understood, are held, when the precept of annual Confession urges and in the article of death, to confess in some way, at least by general signs. The reason is that the divine and ecclesiastical precept urges. For although they cannot confess materially integrally, nevertheless they are held to that which they can do.

Query 9° Are those ignorant of the language held to confess through an interpreter, if they can?

Resp. Neg., because to confess through an interpreter is a very grave burden and subject to many dangers, e.g. of revelation, mockery, etc. Except if in danger of death the penitent ignorant of the language doubts concerning perfect contrition, because in that case Confession would be a means altogether necessary for salvation; but then it will suffice to confess one venial sin, so that in this way the other sins may be indirectly remitted.

1370. - I. Any dying person who in some way, by voice or sign, confesses, or asks for absolution, can and must be absolved, and indeed absolutely. The reason is that all requisites are present for the Sacrament and for Confession formally integral.

II. Any dying person in whom attrition and Confession can be presumed in some way, however slightly probable, can and must be absolved, but conditionally; because in a case of extreme necessity, even in the administration of the Sacraments, it is lawful to use even a slightly founded opinion. - St. Alphonsus and others more commonly against others.

III. A dying person who altogether refuses the Sacrament of Penance, or who can in no way be presumed attrite or to have wished or to wish Confession, can in no way be absolved. The reason is most plainly clear.

1371. Resolves. - 1° All dying persons not yet deprived of the senses and consenting to absolution, and obeying the commands of the confessor, are to be absolved: absolutely indeed, if they spontaneously ask for Confession, or if with a willing mind they propose to confess; but conditionally, if with difficulty they are scarcely induced to some Confession, or if there is prudent doubt concerning their sufficient disposition. - Thus commonly.

2° All dying persons deprived of the senses, who before the deprivation of the senses expressly showed a desire of Confession, e.g. by ordering a priest to be called, etc., are to be absolved, but more safely conditionally. The reason is that in the case Confession becomes known sufficiently sensibly to the confessor through the testimony of another, even of one person or mediately. This is clear from Councils and from the Roman Ritual.

3° All dying persons wholly destitute of the senses, who lived as Christians, are to be absolved under condition, even if at that time they gave no sign either of sorrow or of desire for Confession. The reason is that in these persons sorrow and the desire of absolution can be presumed through sensible signs, e.g. through sighs, motions of the body, anxious breathing, which were manifested although not perceived by the confessor.

4° For the same reason other dying persons destitute of the senses, who lived little as Christians, are also to be absolved conditionally.

5° For the same reason, sufficiently probably, a Catholic dying person, destitute of the senses in the very act of sin, e.g. in a duel, adultery, theft, etc., can and must be absolved under condition.

6° "Those who, although they have never professed the Catholic faith, have shown a will inclined toward it, can in that crisis," i.e. if they are dying and destitute of the senses, "be absolved under condition, ... if they have already been baptized in their sects" (but in doubt concerning the value of this Baptism, after Baptism has been repeated under condition); "for there is some reason for conjecturing that they wish to finish life in the communion of the Church. But if no indication of his will has been given, they are not to be absolved, even if they give signs of sorrow": because such persons can never prudently be presumed to give those signs in order to Confession, from which they greatly abhor.

Note. - Absolution is usefully conferred several times on a sick person still enjoying his senses after a brief Confession; for thus he is rendered more secure concerning the state of grace, he receives an increase of grace, and purgatorial punishments are diminished for him. - But to one destitute of the senses and giving no sign of sorrow and of desire for absolution, "it is not expedient to impart absolution very often within the same day," i.e. more often than every three or four hours, even if only conditionally; for the grave and urgent cause which is required in order that a Sacrament be administered under condition does not exist per se for this kind of absolution "repeated very often within the same day."

I say: per se; for it could be given more frequently to a dying person habituated in evil thoughts, or entangled in some passion of hatred or impure love, or not bearing a very bitter infirmity with a willing mind, or also now on the very point of dying. - "Moreover, it will not be beside the matter to warn the sick man, while he is in possession of mind, that" when "he will not be able to speak," he should "give some determinate sign," or one agreed upon with him, "when he seeks absolution, or when the priest wishes" to confer it "upon him," e.g. to close or open the eyes, lift the hand, incline the head, and the like. Thus St. Alphonsus in Praxis Conf., where he treats the matter more explicitly than in Theol. Mor. or in Hom. Apost.