Article I: On The Obligation Of Correcting Errors Committed

The errors which escape the confessor can be occupied: 1. about the value of the Sacrament, e.g. if he did not absolve, or if he absolved without jurisdiction; 2. about the integrity of confession, e.g. if he doubts whether he omitted questions that should have been asked; 3. about the obligations of the penitent, as if he left him in an occasion of sin, if he did not oblige him to due restitution, or obliged him to an undue one.

Wherefore the following things are established:

1856. Principles. I. An error about the VALUE OF THE SACRAMENT, committed with grave fault of the confessor and with grave DAMAGE of the penitent, must be repaired by the confessor, even with his own GRAVE inconvenience. The reason is that, although the confessor from charity alone took upon himself the burden of hearing the confession of the penitent, nevertheless, after he has heard it, he is bound from office, and from a quasi-contract, to administer the Sacrament to him rightly. Hence, if he administers it invalidly, he is an unjust damager.¹

It was said, 1. with grave fault; because from light fault there does not arise a grave obligation of repairing damage (cf. n. 950, qu. 1 and 3). - Exceptions: 1. If the confessor is a pastor; for he, from another title, i.e. by reason of the stipend received, is bound to avert spiritual damage from his subjects; 2. if the penitent were in grave danger of dying in the state of mortal sin, i.e. if he were in the article of death, or in probable danger of not confessing any more; for then the obligation of charity urges.

It was said, 2. with grave damage, namely a persevering damage, which needs reparation. - Hence, if the penitent afterwards has confessed to another priest, or if he has received the Eucharist or Extreme Unction, he need not necessarily be admonished concerning the error, since he is supposed already to have been morally certainly justified.

1857. II. An error about the INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION must be repaired in a diverse mode, according as namely the confessor bore himself NEGATIVELY or POSITIVELY. For:

1. If he bore himself NEGATIVELY, whether from forgetfulness, or even from culpable negligence, e.g. by not questioning (when he should have done so) concerning the species and number of sins, he is not bound to repair the error outside confession. And the same must be said if he omitted imposing a penance or handing down salutary admonitions and remedies. The reason is that the obligation of procuring the integrity of the Sacrament directly affects the penitent, not the confessor, who therefore is not censured to be the efficacious cause of the omission, nor is he bound to repair it, except per accidens, in another confession, as spiritual physician and minister of the Sacrament.²

2. If POSITIVELY, and with grave fault, he erred, e.g. by inducing the penitent not to explain otherwise the number or species of sins, he is bound, with the previous permission of the penitent, to repair the error, even outside confession; for, by natural right, each one must remove a cause of evil which he positively and voluntarily posited (cf. n. 513). Understand this, however, provided he can do it without his own grave damage and scandal; for just as grave damage excuses the penitent, so also it excuses the confessor from the integrity of confession.³

1858. III. An error about the OBLIGATIONS OF THE PENITENT, tending to his damage or that of a third party, must be repaired by the confessor, even with his own grave inconvenience, if he POSITIVELY and with GRAVE fault induced the penitent into error. But otherwise, if he induced him with no fault, or with fault only light, or if he bore himself negatively. - The reason for the first assertion is that by his counsel or doctrine, in reality, he existed as an unjust and efficacious cause of the damage (cf. n. 980 and 981). - As regards the latter, if indeed he positively, but inculpably, or with light fault, drew the penitent into a damaging error, he is bound (as he who inculpably moved fire to another's house) to impede the damage with some inconvenience to himself, but not with grave inconvenience. And the same must be said if the confessor, not having been questioned, bore himself negatively; for in this case he cannot be called an efficacious cause of the damage, and therefore he is not bound from justice, and with grave inconvenience, to repair the damage; nevertheless he is bound from charity, and with some inconvenience to himself, namely one proportioned to the gravity of the damage brought on, and to his negligence or fault, as is clear from the things said at n. 989.⁴

From these things it is inferred: the confessor is sometimes bound to make RESTITUTION in the place of the penitent, namely in the two following cases:

1. If he positively, and with his own grave fault, exempted him from the obligation of restitution, and afterwards either never recalled the error committed by himself, or recalled it later, namely at a time when the faculty or will of making restitution was now lacking to the penitent, because previously he could have made restitution and would have willed to do so.

2. If indeed inculpably, or without grave fault, he positively exempted him from restitution, and afterwards, when he could have admonished him concerning the error and could conveniently have done so, from grave negligence he did not admonish him. And the same must be held if the confessor culpably obliged the penitent to pay what he did not owe, and he has now paid it; for then, on account of the same reasons, he is bound to repair his damage.⁵

1859. Questions. Q. 1. Whether the confessor can, without the permission of the penitent, OUTSIDE CONFESSION, speak with him concerning a defect committed in confession?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If the judgment has been completed through the conferring of absolution, he cannot, without his permission, speak concerning the error; because such an admonition would be a reproach of sin, which would render confession odious. - 2. If the confessor did not absolve, either because he forgot to give absolution, or because he pronounced it badly, he can admonish the penitent concerning this defect, even outside confession, because then no reproach of sin intervenes.⁶

Q. 2. Whether the confessor ought, if the same penitent RETURNS to confession, to ADMONISH him concerning the defect committed in the preceding confession?

Resp. In the affirmative, with light or grave inconvenience, according to the principles established above; for then the confessor must again, from office, question and teach the penitent, and therefore correct errors committed by himself.