Article III: Concerning the Obligation of Supplying Defects or Correcting Errors

I. A threefold defect or error can occur: 1) either the error vitiates the very value of the sacrament, for example, forgetfulness of absolution, an invalid form, indisposition of the penitent, lack of jurisdiction; - or 2) the error offends the mere integrity of confession or of the sacrament, for example, a due question omitted concerning the species or number of sins, satisfaction not enjoined; - or 3) the error regards the obligations of the penitent and inflicts damage on the penitent or on a third party, for example, a proximate occasion which is not removed, undue restitution imposed, due restitution not imposed.

II. An error invalidating the sacrament and gravely damaging to the penitent is of itself and regularly to be corrected, and indeed under grave obligation and from justice; - indeed even with grave inconvenience, if it was committed from grave fault of the confessor. For the confessor, from a quasi-contract with the penitent and therefore from justice, is bound to impart absolution to one rightly disposed; from charity indeed he hears confession, but once it has been heard, now from justice he is obliged to furnish the remaining necessary things. Therefore if he erred as to the value of the sacrament, he is bound from justice to correct it if he can, and if he erred from grave fault, even with great inconvenience: for then he is an unjust damager, and consequently he is bound to repair grave damage unjustly inflicted even with grave inconvenience; - otherwise without grave inconvenience, unless nevertheless the penitent were in grave danger of dying in the state of sin, as if he were placed in the article of death or in probable danger of not confessing any more, in which case the confessor would be obliged even with grave inconvenience, but from charity.

Therefore justice does not always oblige in an equal mode, but when wounded from fault it obliges more strictly than when wounded without fault, as appears in the case of one holding a thing of another in good or bad faith as regards restitution. Hence the gravity of the obligation and of the inconvenience to be undergone is to be measured both from the gravity of the damage and from the gravity of culpability or negligence.

The principle supposes 1) that the error is still gravely damaging to the penitent; for if the damage is light, for example, because the penitent had not accused mortal sins, or if the damage does not persevere, because the penitent approached another confessor by whom he was validly absolved, or because he was justified in another way (namely by Extreme Unction or perfect contrition), the obligation now does not urge;

2. that the error comes from the part of the confessor; for if the error comes from the fault of the penitent, because for example he was knowingly indisposed, the confessor indeed is bound to repair the damage as a cooperator, but not so strictly, - except in the case of extreme necessity, - because the penitent could otherwise provide for himself by instituting a new confession.

III. The apt mode of repairing the defect is diverse:

1. If because of defect of jurisdiction the sacrament is invalid, let the confessor induce the penitent to confess again, and, if it is necessary for this, admonish him concerning the invalidity of absolution, even without permission of speaking about confession previously obtained from the penitent: for since the reason of nullity is exclusively on the part of the confessor, not from defect of the penitent, there is no use there of things heard in confession.

2. If because of omission or defect of absolution, and a) this is detected immediately or shortly after confession and the penitent is still morally present, he can be absolved again, even without previous admonition, provided that it is clear he is duly disposed; b) and if he is too distant, let him be called back to the sacred tribunal, while it can be done without inconvenience; otherwise let the confessor himself approach the penitent and absolve him; c) but if the error was not repaired immediately or after a short time, let the confessor induce the penitent to confess again; let him exhort him to grieve not only concerning the sins accused in the present confession, but also concerning past sins, especially concerning those accused in the last confession; and let him duly absolve him.

3. If because of the indisposition of the penitent, let the confessor approach the penitent and induce him to confess again as has been said; but if this cannot be done efficaciously, the confessor, having first obtained the permission of the penitent to speak with him about a matter pertaining to confession, should admonish him concerning the invalidity, so that the error can be repaired.

IV. In a case of error touching only the integrity of the sacrament: 1) If the confessor negatively impeded integrity by omission (whether from forgetfulness or from culpable negligence), he is not bound to repair the damage or admonish the penitent outside confession, because the obligation of procuring integrity affects the confessor as minister of the sacrament, that is, within confession, and on the other hand admonition outside confession is of itself and generally troublesome to the penitent; - yet in another confession, where the confessor is spiritual physician and minister of the sacrament, the error is to be corrected if it can be done without great inconvenience.

2. If he positively impeded integrity, the confessor is bound to admonish even outside confession (the permission of the penitent having first been obtained), provided that he can do so without scandal and grave inconvenience, and more strictly if he erred culpably than if inculpably.

The reason is that each one is bound to repair damage which he positively inflicted, and to remove the cause of it which he placed; namely, he is bound lest from his positive action others take damage, even from material sin. Yet not with grave inconvenience, because if grave damage excuses the penitent from preserving integrity, a fortiori it excuses the confessor from procuring it; thence a somewhat lesser cause will excuse him who erred inculpably. And in fact the confessor is rarely bound to correct.

V. In the case of an error which inflicts damage on the penitent or on a third party, a principle similar to that in the preceding case is valid:

A) If he erred negatively by omission, from office the confessor is bound toward the penitent, even outside confession, to admonish and correct, if from that omission the penitent is moved to believing licit and doing that which is illicit or to the damage of a third party: more strictly or less strictly, with greater or lesser inconvenience, according to the gravity of the damage and culpability. But he is not bound from justice to repair the damage of the third party, because from office the confessor is not bound to procure the good of the third party.

B) But if he positively induced the penitent into error, for example, if, when questioned, the confessor pronounced that restitution was to be made, where there existed no obligation of making restitution, or the converse; and

1. the error was culpable (for example, from malice, vincible ignorance, grave negligence), the confessor is bound from justice, even outside confession, and in grave matter under grave obligation, to repair and restore either to the penitent or to the third party: for he was positively cooperating with the damage of another through counsel;

2. if the error was inculpable, likewise the confessor is bound, if he can without grave inconvenience, to repair; but if he does not do this, he will be bound to restore.

The reason is that everyone is bound from justice, not only not to inflict damage directly and deliberately on a neighbor, but also to procure that from his action damage not come to the neighbor; but if he does not correct the error when he can, he is bound to restore by reason of omitted retraction, which is truly an unjust and efficacious cause of damage by which that damage becomes voluntary and culpable. But he is bound only without grave inconvenience, because the damage does not arise from an unjust injury, since the action was inculpable.