§ 1. On Invalid Confession To Be Repeated

1706. Principles. I. Confession is INVALID as often as something essential is lacking to it, whether on the part of the CONFESSOR or on the part of the PENITENT.

This follows from what was said concerning matter and form, and concerning the minister. - Therefore:

1. On the part of the CONFESSOR, confession is invalid: 1. If he lacks the power of jurisdiction; for example because he has received it in no way; or because it has been taken from him by law, for example toward an accomplice in a shameful sin; or because he is impeded by censure, namely if he himself is an excommunicated person to be avoided, or a denounced suspended person; or because, restricted by reservation of the case, it does not extend to that case which the penitent alone confesses, etc. - 2. If he substantially vitiated the form, or if he did not have the will of absolving. - 3. If he understood no sin. We say no sin, because if he understood some sin, the absolution is valid, if the penitent received it in good faith; for him there remains only the obligation of confessing the sins which the confessor did not hear.¹⁸ - 4. If he remembers nothing when he absolves, that is, neither the sins, nor the state of the penitent, nor the penance enjoined; for then he is not a judge, since he absolutely does not know the cause; hence he absolves neither validly nor licitly. But after a confession made by the penitent in common, he would already absolve validly, although not yet licitly.¹⁹

2. On the part of the PENITENT, confession is invalid: - 1. If he was incapable, for example invalidly baptized, or ignorant of things necessary by necessity of means. - 2. If he was indisposed: that is, if he approached as one excommunicated, knowingly violating the prohibition of the Church; if he kept silent a mortal sin from malice or grave negligence, or falsely accused himself of it; if he voluntarily omitted the number of sins, or the species, or a specifying circumstance; if he told a grave lie; if he was gravely negligent in examining conscience; if he was not attrite, which is usually clear from this, that he sought a deaf or unlearned confessor, etc.; if he did not have true purpose; if he did not wish to remove the occasion, to forgive an enemy, to make restitution; if he was a recidivist in the same evil habit, etc.²⁰

1707. Let it be noted: 1. Confession can be invalid without being sacrilegious. It is simply invalid or null if sorrow or purpose is lacking without the penitent noticing such a defect. - It is null and sacrilegious if he notices the defect and acts in bad faith.

2. Some confession can be invalid, indeed sacrilegious, without all subsequent confessions therefore being invalid. For perfect forgetfulness of the defect committed in the preceding confession, and good faith which accompanies later confessions, bring it about that these are valid of themselves, and they remove indirectly the defect of invalidity included in the antecedent confession. In this case, only the invalid confession must be repeated, but not the later confessions.²¹

1708. II. Every confession of mortal sins about whose invalidity it is MORALLY CERTAIN must be REPEATED. The reason is clear from what was said at n. 1706; for through a confession of this sort the sins were not remitted; therefore their confession must be repeated.

We said morally certain; for in morals absolute certainty is not required in order that an obligation be imposed or removed, but moral certainty suffices (cf. n. 33 and 34). "If someone, for example, immediately after confession, without any effort, falls, he exhibits a morally certain sign that his past confessions were null, because sorrow and purpose were lacking."²² Therefore such a one must repeat confessions of this sort.

But in doubt about the validity of confession, this TWO-FOLD RULE must be established and held: - 1. If it is prudently doubted about the existence of an act essential for the validity of confession, for example if it is positively doubted whether the confessor placed the form, whether he had jurisdiction, etc., whether the penitent elicited an act of contrition: confession must be repeated from that principle: "Satisfaction is not made to a certain precept by doubtful satisfaction." - 2. If it is doubted about the manner of the act, that is, if it is doubted whether an act was rightly placed, as it was to be placed by law, for example whether a purpose certainly elicited was sufficiently efficacious, whether sins certainly confessed as to substance were sufficiently declared: in such a case, confession must not be repeated, because the rule of law is valid: "In doubt, one must stand for the value of the act." Hence St. Alphonsus²³ with Fr. Segneri says: "Penitents are not bound to repeat confessions as often as presumption, and consequently possession, stands for their value, unless nullity is clear." Thus, for example, a penitent who after confession avoided occasions and for some time resisted temptations can well judge that his confessions were valid, nor is he bound to repeat them (cf. n. 50 and 51).

1709. Questions. Q. 1. HOW is an invalid confession to be repeated?

Resp. 1. If it is made before another confessor, it is a new confession, and therefore all and each sins must be accused.

Resp. 2. If it is made before the same confessor, from the more probable and more common opinion, it suffices if the penitent accuses himself in general of sins already revealed, provided the confessor remembers them at least confusedly. - But if he has preserved the memory of no sin, it suffices if he remembers the state of the penitent, or reassumes confused knowledge of his conscience. The reason is: 1. because such a confession, although invalid or even sacrilegious, was nevertheless made in order to receive absolution, and can well be called sacra-

mental, since it already obliges to the sacramental seal; 2. because, although it had not been sacramental on the part of the penitent, nevertheless its ratification or general repetition joined with the knowledge which the confessor previously had concerning the individual sins is reckoned sufficient for sacramental judgment, and for making it valid and integral.¹ - And this holds a fortiori if, absolution having been delayed for some time, the penitent again presents himself to the confessor.

Q. 2. What if the confessor remembers only the PENANCE enjoined?

Resp. 1. If he remembers the penance itself, he can absolve, even if he no longer knows the state of the penitent. For many grave Doctors concede this, and the reason seems to be that from the very knowledge of the penance he can form for himself a judgment concerning the state of the penitent.

Resp. 2. If he recalls that he did impose a penance, but does not know what it was, nor can this be taught him by the penitent, it is controverted whether he can licitly absolve. - Several with St. Antoninus affirm; but St. Alphonsus denies. For such an opinion seems to him too extended, because the priest must form for himself a judgment, at least confusedly, concerning the state of the penitent, both for giving absolution and for enjoining a penance, which indeed must be imposed in order to make the Sacrament integral (cf. n. 1715).²

Q. 3. Whether and how confession made to a confessor NOT ATTENTIVE or inept must be repeated?

Resp. 1. If it was made in bad faith, for example if the penitent noticed that the confessor either was not hearing, or was sleeping, or was ignorant, or did not understand the gravity of the sin, the confession certainly must be repeated; because the penitent sinned by the act by which he confessed.³

Resp. 2. If it was made in good faith, a distinction must be made: 1. If it is clear that the confessor heard nothing, the whole confession must be repeated, as is clear from what was said (n. 1706). - 2. If it is clear that the sins were not declared as to number or species, or that some certain sin was not understood, the integrity of confession must be supplied. - 3. "Finally, if when the confession is finished you understand that the confessor did not perceive some sins, whether because of sleep or distraction, but you do not know which those are, you are bound, according to the very common opinion, to repeat it if the confession was brief, because you can prudently doubt concerning the individual sins. But if it was long, you are not bound, on account of the contrary reason," and because, in that case, God is presumed not to oblige to the integrity of confession with such great inconvenience.⁴ Hence it will be enough to confess those things concerning which you doubt whether they were understood by the confessor.

Q. 4. Whether sins narrated HISTORICALLY outside confession must be repeated?

Resp. 1. If the confessor has preserved distinct knowledge of all of them, they are not to be repeated, but it suffices if the penitent says: "I accuse myself of all these things which I have already narrated to you." 2. If the confessor remembers them confusedly or only in part, they must be repeated in full; otherwise neither the first nor the second confession would be sacramental: not the first, because it was not made in order to absolution and without the burden of the sacramental seal; not the second, because the sins were not declared individually, as is required by the Council of Trent.⁵