Article I: On the Necessity of Confession as a Means

St. Th., Suppl., q. 6, a. 1, 2, 6.

508. Errors. - Concerning the institution or necessity of confession many have erred:

a) Wycliffe in the fourteenth century held confession not as instituted by God, but as useless, saying: "if a man has been duly contrite, every external confession is superfluous and useless for him"; this proposition is the seventh among those condemned by the Council of Constance.

b) Peter de Osma taught that mortal sins are blotted out by contrition alone without order to the keys, prop. 1; that confession of sins in species is from the statute of the universal Church, not from divine right, prop. 2; and that confession is not to be made of manifest sins, but only of secret sins, prop. 4. These propositions were condemned by Sixtus IV on August 9, 1478, as false and contrary to the Catholic faith, and were retracted by the author.

c) Luther at first indeed retained confession of grave and manifest sins as most salutary (prop. 8 condemned by Leo X, June 15, 1520); afterward he not only denied that it had been instituted by Christ, but also attacked the ecclesiastical precept; indeed, he said that the manner in which it is done in the Church was a "most bloody slaughterhouse."

d) Calvin (Institutes III, 4) contended that auricular and distinct confession was instituted not by Christ, but by Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, and that it is harmful to the Church.

e) Erasmus also denied that such confession has a foundation in antiquity.

f) Eybel contended that penance was instituted in antiquity for the remission of sin as it is an offense against the Church; that secret confession did not exist except as a remedy by which works of penance were counseled, by which remission was obtained before God; and that the present custom of the Church is an abuse contrary to the institution of Christ. These things Pius VI condemned as false or even heretical, Constitution Mediator, November 11, 1784.

g) Rationalists and liberal Protestants teach that confession is an ecclesiastical institution from the slow evolution of primitive penitential discipline: to that discipline at the beginning there belonged some public confession; then, because of the usurpation by priests of the power of remitting sins, distinct confession was required; afterward it was made secret; and finally it was held as obligatory, which, after dispute, the Fourth Lateran Council sanctioned.

h) For the rest, all Protestants, even the most orthodox, such as the Ritualists, although they recognize the utility of confession, nevertheless deny its necessity.

509. Thesis. In the New Law, by divine right, for all those who have sinned gravely after Baptism, sacramental confession is necessary for the remission of sins and for salvation, and indeed confession of all and each mortal sin. - It is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5, can. 6 and 7, which defined three things:

1. the divine institution of confession;

2. its necessity for salvation, namely for the remission of sins; and therefore this is a necessity of means to the end, and since it concerns a human act to be posited, consequently there is also a necessity of precept;

3. its object, namely all and each mortal sin.

It is proved: I. From the Scriptures:

A. The divine institution of confession. Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance after the manner of a judgment (Mt. XVI, 18-19 and XVIII, 18; John XX, 23), so that ministers cannot bind or loose, remit sins or retain them, according to their own pleasure, but only according to the laws of equity and prudence. But such a judgment cannot be pronounced without the prior confession of all mortal sins. Therefore Christ instituted such confession as necessary for the sacrament of Penance.

1. For an equitable and prudent judgment cannot be borne unless the cause is known, and indeed distinctly and in particular, as is clear from human judgments. Moreover, each mortal sin by itself alone is a distinct cause. Besides, the cause regularly cannot be known without the confession of the penitent, who alone can a) reveal his secret sins, or b) also reveal the true malice of external sins, which depends on the internal act of knowledge and will, and c) reveal the proof of true penance.

2. Furthermore, the power conferred was that of remitting or retaining sins; and this certainly is not to be exercised indiscriminately according to the pleasure of the minister, but according to the state and interior dispositions of the penitent; concerning these it is likewise impossible to judge without the distinct and integral confession of grave sins.

3. Finally, the power of retaining is the power of imposing the conditions under which remission is granted, so that, with one or another condition posited, he who has sinned in this or that way is absolved. For this there is required a distinct and integral accusation of sins, without which equity could not be preserved in imposing punishments and assigning remedies.

Therefore Christ, by granting to the Church the power of remitting sins after the manner of a judgment, by that very fact instituted confession, and indeed distinct and integral confession.

Nor does knowledge of the dispositions of the penitent suffice, because judgment is made not only concerning dispositions and culpability, but also concerning sins; for the question concerns sins to be remitted or retained. And without knowledge of these, a right estimation of culpability and dispositions would be impossible; for this supposes knowledge of the crimes and of the gravity of the crimes. Therefore for a judicial sentence there must be known that from which one is absolved, and that on account of which one is absolved.

B. The necessity of confession. Christ instituted that all mortal sins committed after Baptism would not be remitted otherwise than through the judicial sentence of the absolving priest in the judgment of the sacrament of Penance, according to John XX, 23: Whose sins you shall remit, they are remitted them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

1. For Christ established in the Church a tribunal for the remission or retention of sins. But when a prince in his kingdom establishes a tribunal for the knowledge of causes which regard not private lawsuits but society itself and the observance of laws, by that very fact he manifests his will that it be the necessary way for terminating these causes, and that guilty persons be compelled to present themselves before the tribunal to terminate lawsuits with the law; for otherwise the power of judges would be vain and illusory, since it would be contemned with impunity. Therefore.

2. The power of remitting and retaining sins is nothing other than a special exercise of the power of the keys. But the power of the keys supposes the force of obliging all the faithful who have fallen into sin, so that they may have recourse to it for the loosing of this bond and for the opening of the kingdom of heaven. For what would it profit to have the power of the keys or of binding and loosing, if others could open or loose? Therefore.

3. Sin is not remitted by God while the Apostles and priests retain it: "whose sins you shall retain, they are retained," i.e., if you retain, I also retain; if you shall not remit, I also will not remit. Therefore the sinner cannot obtain remission except by having recourse to the power granted to the Apostles and to the tribunal of the sacrament of Penance; for otherwise they would retain in vain, and the words of Christ would be vain or false (cf. above, n. 437).

Briefly: a judicial sentence is borne concerning those things which have been brought forward in the judgment, and therefore, as regards the sacrament of Penance, concerning declared sins. But according to what has already been proved, all and each mortal sin must be subjected to the sacrament of Penance or to the power of the keys. Therefore all and each must be declared in confession. - And therefore from the first times confession was held as necessarily connected with the due exercise of the power of the keys, and thus implicitly was held to be of divine right; as now must be shown.

II. From Tradition, or from the practice and faith of the Church.1 In this there is recognized implicitly or explicitly both the existence of confession under public or secret form, and the necessity of confession, and indeed from divine right.

1. The existence of confession: a) at the beginning implicitly, insofar as juridical knowledge of the offense is placed before the public imposition of penance (Didasc. II, in which three cases are reported, n. 16-18, n. 38-41, and n. 42-43), or public knowledge of error or schism (Ep. Corn.; P.L. III, p. 718 sq.), or the examination of the cause (Council of Carthage, in the year 251; Cyprian ep. 55 and 57, and this also is supposed in the epistle of Dionysius of Corinth, H.E., l. IV, 23);

b) then explicitly under public form: thus Irenaeus, Against Heresies I, c. 13, n. 5; Tertullian, On Penance, c. 9; Cyprian, On the Lapsed, c. 28 and 29; Origen, Hom. II on Lev. 4; Lactantius, Divine Institutes, l. IV, 30; Ambrose, On Penance, l. II, c. 1 and 6, which also in the life of Ambrose, n. 39, Paulinus reports;

c) and also under secret form, namely auricular or private confession: thus Origen, hom. II on Ps. XXXVII, n. 6; Peter of Alexandria (apud Mai, Spic. Rom. vol. VII, p. 465); Athanasius, fragment against Novatian; Aphraates, Dem. VII, n. 3-4; Socrates and Sozomen (in H.E., l. VII, c. 16); Basil, ep. 217, can. 34; Gregory of Nyssa, ep. can., can. 6; Ambrose, On Penance, l. II, c. 6 and 9;

d) finally the distinction between each form: as Augustine, serm. 351, n. 9; Innocent I, ep. to Decentius XXV, 7, 10; Leo the Great, ep. 168.

2. Moreover, the necessity of confession: implicitly Clement, ep. to the Corinthians, c. 44 and 57; ps.-Clement, II to the Corinthians VIII, 3; Irenaeus, l. I, c. 13, n. 7, and Origen, hom. 2 on Ps. XXXVII, n. 2 and 6; hom. 3 on Lev., n. 4; hom. 17 on Luke; explicitly Methodius, On Leprosy, 6, 7-9; Aphraates, l. c.; Socrates and Sozomen, l. c.; Chrysostom, hom. 30 on Genesis, n. 1 and 3; Gregory of Nyssa, l. c.; Basil, Regulae brevius tractatae, n. 228; Ambrose, On Penance, l. II, 7; Jerome, on Ecclus., c. X; Pacian, Paraenesis ad Poenitentiam, n. 8; Augustine, serm. 351, n. 9; on Ps. CI, 2-3; serm. 67, n. 1-2; on John, tr. XXII, 7; serm. on Penance (ap. Mai, N. Bibl. P., vol. I, p. 455); Leo the Great, ep. 168, c. 2.

3. Finally, the necessity of confession is from divine right, by force of the institution of Christ, because it is connected with the power of the keys granted by Christ, as can be seen in Cyprian, ep. 55, c. 29; Ambrose and Pacian, l. c.; Augustine, serm. 392, n. 3; Leo the Great, ep. 108, etc.

From these things it follows that all and each mortal sin must be confessed. Even hidden and internal sins must be confessed, as Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Basil, Pacian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Innocent I, etc., explicitly hand down; and all implicitly, since they propose the doctrine concerning confession as connected with the power of the keys, outside which there is no remission of sins.

Therefore, at least at the beginning of the third century, from Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian, we know that in the universal Church there is the practice of confession as proper to the Catholic Church and apostolic, with no one contradicting. Hence it is not of recent institution; otherwise, in a matter of such great importance and such great burden, opposition and dissent would have been made. Therefore it already existed in this way, at least from the middle of the second century. But at this age there were still living hearers of the apostles or their immediate disciples, under whose eyes such a practice would not have been introduced without their crying out against the novelty; of which thing no indication appears.

1. One may consult Morinus, De San, Pignataro, Battifol, Vacandard; from the manuals: Tanquerey, op. cit., n. 101-121; Galtier, op. cit., n. 421-435; Van Noort, op. cit., n. 76-82 and 87.

III. It is confirmed from the fittingnesses of reason.¹ The act of confession is most fittingly required from the penitent, whether it is considered on the part of God, or on the part of man, or on the part of society.

¹ Cf. P. Felix, Pourquoi on se confesse et pourquoi on ne se confesse pas?; Bougaud, Le Christianisme et les temps presents, vol. V, ch. 6; Tanquerey, op. cit., n. 123-125; Ferrerius Companus, De Biecht. Een groote maatschappelijke weldaad; M. Lamarche, O.P., De la Confession, in Revue Dominicaine, May 1923; Dictionnaire apologetique, art. Penitence.

a) On the part of God offended, because painful confession, as a humiliation sufficiently hard, on the one hand in some measure repairs the injury of pride and disobedience inflicted on God by sin, and on the other hand even among men has great force for meriting pardon.

b) On the part of the penitent man, to whom it is very useful for the facility of pardon, security, and consolation. Before sin, the foreseen burden of searching out and confessing all internal secrets deters man from sin; after sin, attentive consideration of them and sincere confession wonderfully contributes to the peace and consolation of the soul, and helps toward amendment of life. But since no one is judge in his own cause, we need a friend and guide, both for opening to him and more securely judging the secrets of the heart and healing wounds, and for the practice of virtues, and for progress in the spiritual life.

c) On the part of society, both domestic and civil, to which it is useful. For confession is the cause or occasion that lawsuits and dissensions are settled, enmities are laid aside, goods taken away are restored, scandals are prevented or repaired, etc. In one word, it renders the observance of laws and morality easy.

But abuses are not provoked by confession itself, but by the frailty or malice of men. And because the Church proceeds most cautiously in this matter, they are relatively rare; and they are abundantly compensated by much greater benefits.

510. Corollaries. - 1. From the aforesaid it appears that there was a certain progress and evolution in the practice and in the exposition of the dogma. The divine institution and necessity of confession are contained in the Scriptures not explicitly but implicitly; the matter of confession is designated only in a general and confused way; and nothing is established concerning the time when confession urges or the manner in which it is to be instituted.

2. From this also it happened that there are few explicit testimonies of the primitive Church, and that the faithful confessed less frequently, especially because for the most part they were more fervent, and because the doctrine concerning several grave sins was not yet perfectly determined. But those who were immune from grave sins, or thought themselves so, did not approach the sacrament, for the custom of accusing venial sins was not yet vigorous; and not a few who had fallen were deterred because of the labor and duration of Penance, and therefore delayed more than was just.

3. Nevertheless all the essential elements are present from the beginning and the obligation of confession is recognized, although the manner was very different in different times. Therefore confession was not instituted by Innocent III in the Lateran Council, nor introduced by Leo the Great.

4. In demonstrating the thesis, one must abstain from certain testimonies of Scripture or Tradition which, although at first glance, or perhaps more probably, seem to allude to sacramental confession, nevertheless strictly do not prove it. Thus, e.g., Acts XIX, 18; Jas. V, 16; I John I, 8-9; but these respectively can be understood of a certain general accusation made to the community, or of confession made to a prudent man for the sake of counsel, or of confession before God alone. And similarly Didache IV, 14; Clement of Rome, to the Corinthians 51; ep. Barn., c. XIX, 12; for these also can aptly be understood of ritual confession before Holy Communion, such as is still in use today.

5. The sentence of Chrysostom is not opposed to the doctrine concerning the necessity of confession.² He reports that Nectarius, on the occasion of an abuse, abolished in the Church of Constantinople, in the year 386, not indeed the use of confession, but a) the office of penitentiary, who presided over public penitents, b) the denunciation of hidden crimes to the ecclesiastical judge, c) the obligation of doing public penance and of public confession for crimes accused before the penitentiary. For elsewhere he himself also inculcates the necessity of confession, as is clear both from his words, as in hom. 30 on Genesis, n. 1, or when he warns that penitents should not blush or be ashamed to do penance (hom. 4 on Lazarus, c. 4; hom. 2 on Penance, n. 1), or says: "manifest the wound to the priest" (hom. 3 to the people of Antioch, n. 5); and from the approval of his doctrine, which suggests no suspicion to his contemporaries, who all admitted confession. But if he says that confession must be made before God alone, from parallel places and the similar words of others it is clear that he did not exclude confession to be made to a priest, but must be understood of confession which is made in secret, before the legate of God alone, and not before the whole church, or "in theaters," as he himself says in hom. 4 on Lazarus, c. 4.

² On this one may consult Tanquerey, op. cit., n. 111-112; Galtier, op. cit., n. 438-452; Van Noort, op. cit., n. 81.

6. Nor is the Decree of Gratian opposed, in which it is read: "Some say that sins ought to be confessed to God alone, as the Greeks; but some judge that they must be confessed to priests; each of which is done within holy Church not without great fruit" (C. XXXIII, q. III on Penance, d. 1, c. 90). He does not deny the necessity of confession, about which no question was being raised at this time, and which he absolutely affirms; but he alludes to the question whether contrition alone justifies the impious man before he has confessed and made satisfaction, or whether anyone can satisfy God by contrition of heart alone without confession. And he responds a) that there are some who say that pardon can be obtained without confession made to a priest; b) then that the opposite is the opinion; c) finally, reserving his own opinion, he recites the aforesaid conclusion. For seeing, on the one hand, that by the whole tradition the necessity of confession is affirmed, and on the other hand that many are justified without confession on account of perfect contrition, not finding a suitable way of reconciliation, he left the matter in the middle.³

³ Thus nearly Kiselstein in Revue Eccl. de Liege, March 1928, alleging d'Ales, De Sacr. Poenitentiae (1926), p. 105; Galtier, De Poenitentia (1923), n. 367 and 372; Teetaert, La confession aux laiques dans l'Eglise latine (1926), p. 127 and 237; Hugueny, Gratien et la confession, in Revue des Sc. phil. et theol., 1912, p. 81; Debil, La premiere distinction du de Poenitentia de Gratien, in Revue d'Hist. eccl., 1914, p. 251, 442; Cavallera, A propos de l'histoire du sacrement de Penitence, in Bull. de litt. eccl., 1923, p. 172.