Article Eight. Concerning the Obligation of Correcting Defects.

401. Prenotions. 1. Defects committed by the confessor can be of three kinds: either they concern a. the value of the sacrament, as if the confessor did not absolve or absolved an indisposed person; b. the integrity of the sacrament, as if he did not question concerning the species and number of sins or did not impose penance; c. the obligations of the penitent, and indeed either to the temporal harm of the penitent himself or of a third party, as if he unduly obligated him to restitution or released him from making it, or without temporal harm to anyone, as if he did not warn him about abandoning an occasion.

2. In order that the degree of obligation in repairing defects can rightly be determined, several circumstances of the defect committed must be considered.

a. The defect committed can be culpable or inculpable; it is called culpable if it is committed with grave fault of the confessor, and inculpable if it is committed without fault of the confessor or with his slight fault. It is clear that the obligation of him who committed the defect culpably is much greater than the obligation of him who committed the defect without fault.

b. A defect can be committed either positively by doing something, or negatively by omitting something which had to be done. To determine the obligation of reparation, when the defect is committed to the temporal harm of the penitent or of a third party, one must advert whether the defect was committed positively or negatively, by omitting a due action.

c. The confessor can be bound to correct defects either from justice or only from charity. Because the obligation of justice is graver than the obligation of charity, it also obliges with grave inconvenience if the defect was committed with grave fault.

He is bound from justice to repair a defect if the defect concerns the value of the sacrament, or if by a positive action he influenced harm to the penitent or to a third party. He is bound from charity alone if the defect does not concern the value of the sacrament, and if he influenced harm to the penitent or a third party only negatively.

d. It can happen that from the defect committed the penitent undergoes no danger of soul, as if one healthy and existing in good faith is absolved invalidly; for if afterward, being attrite, he approaches holy communion, he obtains sanctifying grace, or at least by the following absolution those sins are remitted indirectly. But it can also happen that from the error committed the penitent is brought into danger of salvation, as if a dying person, who cannot receive another sacrament, is absolved invalidly.

Note. 1. In the individual following cases two things come into question: a. how great is the obligation of correcting the defect committed; b. in what way the defect is to be corrected.

2. As to the manner: a. Some defects can be corrected without the penitent knowing, as if one not absolved returns to the same confessor. b. If it is necessary to speak with the penitent himself, one must consider whether the matter to be spoken of is under the seal; for in this case it is not licit to speak unless the permission of the penitent has first been sought and obtained. c. Some defects must be repaired even outside confession; for others it is enough that they be repaired within confession. As far as can be done, reparation outside confession must be avoided, because it is troublesome both to the confessor and to the penitent. Wherefore if it is foreseen that the penitent will return to the confessor, and there is no danger in delay, it is preferable to settle the matter in the following confession. d. Finally, it can happen that the confessor does not know the penitent or the third person to whom harm was inflicted; in this case nothing remains except that the confessor repent of the fault, if he committed any, and otherwise commend the whole matter to God.

402. If There Is Question of the Value of the Sacrament. 1. A culpable defect concerning the value of the sacrament must be repaired even with grave inconvenience, if otherwise the penitent would suffer grave harm, because here there occurs an obligation of justice. But if grave spiritual harm in the penitent is not to be feared, he can be left in good faith; for in the following confession those sins will be remitted.

Therefore a confessor who, e.g., did not absolve a penitent guilty of mortal sins, either because he forgot to absolve or pronounced absolution badly, or who absolved without jurisdiction, with danger to salvation supposed in the penitent, ought to approach him even with grave inconvenience to himself. And in this case indeed, in which there is question of giving absolution, he can reveal the error even without permission having been sought, by saying that he did not absolve, because the obligation of the seal does not intervene here. But in other cases, where, e.g., he did not say or said badly those things which had to be said by reason of the obligations of the penitent, permission to speak concerning matters pertaining to confession must always first be sought, both because the sacramental judgment has already been completed, and because the warning is considered to be as it were a reproach of sin made outside confession, which would be troublesome to the penitent and would render the sacrament odious.

2. An inculpable defect concerning the value of the sacrament, even with grave harm of the penitent supposed, need not be repaired with grave inconvenience, unless the penitent is in danger of dying in the state of sin; for here there is only an obligation of charity, which does not urge with grave inconvenience except in extreme necessity, if, e.g., a dying person had been invalidly absolved.

a. If for this end (namely, to absolve him) the sick person not absolved had to be approached, he would have to be warned about the defect and induced to elicit sorrow for sins, to confess sins if any had been committed in the meantime, and to accuse again by a general formula the sins already previously declared; when this has been done, he could be absolved. But if the warning is very troublesome and it can be supposed that no mortal sin was committed in the meantime, absolution can be granted even without the penitent being warned, since the moral union between confession and absolution still endures both by reason of time (even after several days) and by reason of sorrow. Likewise if the penitent not absolved returned to the same confessor, he would not necessarily have to be warned about the error, but it would suffice to induce him to elicit sorrow for the sins accused in the last confession and to accuse them again in general; for in this way he is directly absolved also from them.

b. If a sick person of this kind, not absolved, afterward received viaticum, and especially if he received extreme unction, he would not necessarily have to be warned about the defect, because he would not suffer grave harm, since through extreme unction he can now certainly be supposed to have been justified.

403. If There Is Question of the Integrity of the Sacrament. 1. A defect, whether culpable or inculpable, positively committed concerning integrity, if the confessor, e.g., is the cause why the penitent thinks that he ought not to accuse the number and species of sins, must be repaired, with previous permission of the penitent, even outside confession, provided it can be done without grave harm or scandal: the reason for the first is that each one is bound to remove the cause of evil which he himself has put; the reason for the second is that grave harm excuses the penitent from preserving integrity, and therefore a fortiori also the confessor from procuring integrity.

2. A defect, whether culpable or inculpable, negatively committed concerning integrity, if, e.g., he did not question concerning species and number, did not impose penance, did not prescribe remedies, need not be repaired outside confession; for the obligation of procuring integrity per se and directly affects the penitent, and the confessor only indirectly; or if it affects the confessor per se, it affects him as minister of the sacrament in confession. Therefore, since in this case he himself is not the efficacious cause of the harm, it suffices that in another confession, as minister of the sacrament, he repair the defect, if he can do so without grave inconvenience.

In practice, however, where the defect concerns only the integrity of confession without harm to a third party, the confessor is ordinarily bound to nothing else except that he grieve for the fault, if he committed any; for first, even apart from warning, the penitent will be untaught the error in the following confession by another confessor, who will question concerning the species and number of sins. Then, scarcely ever will grave inconvenience be lacking, both on the part of the penitent, to whom the warning brings annoyance, and on the part of the confessor, who will not be able to warn without detriment to honor and reputation.¹

¹ Suarez, disp. 32, s. 6, n. 8.

404. If There Is Question of an Obligation of the Penitent. 1. A defect concerning the obligations of the penitent which yields to the temporal harm of the penitent himself or of a third party must be repaired from justice, even with grave inconvenience, if the confessor culpably and positively induced the penitent into error, because the confessor is the unjust and efficacious cause of the harm. And it must indeed be repaired in confession if it is hoped that the penitent will return, and (permission first having been sought) outside confession if it is not hoped that he will return to the same confessor.

2. But if the confessor induced the penitent into error inculpably, he is indeed bound from justice to repair the defect; for everyone is bound from justice to prevent harm from following to another from his own action, but not with grave inconvenience, because he inflicted the harm with slight or only material fault.

3. Finally, if the confessor behaved only negatively, he is not bound from justice but only from charity to repair the harm, and therefore not with grave inconvenience, but with greater or lesser inconvenience proportioned to the gravity of the harm and fault.

If the defect committed by the confessor concerns an obligation imposed by an ecclesiastical or natural precept, whose violation nevertheless harms no one in temporal goods, as if he had falsely said that tomorrow is not a fast, or that this book is not harmful, he himself, like anyone else, is bound to correct the error if he conveniently can, lest he be the cause on account of which the law is violated by the penitent, even if only materially.

405. Obligation of Restitution on the Part of the Confessor. From these things it is gathered when the confessor is bound to restitution, either toward the penitent or toward another in place of the penitent, if namely the penitent himself would have made restitution.

a. If with grave fault he positively released the penitent from making restitution and afterward did not retract the error.

Indeed in this case, first, under grave sin and from justice, even with grave inconvenience, he is bound to retract the false resolution, because each person is bound to guard lest harm follow to others from his own action; but if he either could not do this or omitted to do it, he is bound to repair the harm itself which followed from his error; for he himself is the efficacious, culpable, and unjust cause of the harm.

b. If without fault he positively released the penitent from making restitution and afterward, with grave fault, did not retract the error, although he could conveniently have recalled it.

Indeed in this case, first, he is bound under grave sin and from justice to retract the error if he can do so without grave inconvenience. If he cannot retract it without grave inconvenience, he is not bound to restitution: not by reason of the false resolution, because it was not culpable, nor by reason of the omitted retraction for the same reason. But if he does not retract the error although he conveniently can, he is bound to repair the harm, not indeed by reason of the error, which was inculpable, but by reason of the omitted retraction, which is gravely culpable against justice.

c. If with grave fault he positively obligated the penitent to make restitution to which he was not bound.

In the same way, in this case he is first bound under grave sin and from justice, even with grave inconvenience, to retract the error; but if he either cannot or does not wish to accomplish this, he is bound to repair the harm itself, of which he himself is the efficacious, unjust, and gravely culpable cause.

d. But if, even with grave fault, he merely did not warn the penitent concerning restitution to be made, he is not bound to make restitution himself; for in order that he who did not prevent another's harm can be obligated to restitution, it is required that he be bound from office to prevent the harm; but the confessor is not bound from justice to prevent harm which happens to another from the omitted restitution of the penitent.¹

¹ Cf. De praeceptis, n. 497.