Article First. On remote matter.

a. The remote matter is all sins committed after baptism. It is also called the matter about which, because the acts of the penitent and the absolution of the priest are occupied about these sins themselves as to be detested and destroyed.

b. Remote matter is distinguished: alpha. necessary and free; beta. certain and doubtful; gamma. sufficient and not sufficient.

224. On necessary matter. Those sins are called necessary matter which by divine precept must necessarily be submitted to the keys of the Church through confession. This matter is constituted by all and only mortal sins committed after baptism and not yet directly remitted by force of the keys, or directly indeed remitted, but not accused as is required.¹

a. Sins are said to be directly remitted which are remitted by force of absolution; and in this way are remitted all those sins which by the penitent in themselves are rightly submitted to the keys of the Church and are pardoned by a confessor having jurisdiction over them. Sins are said to be indirectly remitted which are remitted by force of sanctifying grace infused through sacramental absolution. If, for example, a suitably disposed penitent omits a grave sin in confession from inculpable forgetfulness, the absolution of the confessor necessarily produces the remission of sins and the infusion of grace, but it itself cannot remit except sins submitted to the keys; yet grace cannot be infused unless all mortal sins are destroyed; therefore by force of the infused grace even the sin omitted in confession is remitted indirectly and by concomitance.

b. If a penitent because of a legitimate cause excusing from the integrity of confession, e.g., a dying man, accuses his sins only in general, these are directly remitted, but there remains the obligation of declaring them afterward more accurately, if it can be done, because the divine precept of declaring sins according to species and number has not yet been fulfilled.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5. Condemned proposition of Alexander VII, n. 11.

225. Whether an adult who has been rebaptized under condition is bound to confess sins committed before this baptism.

a. A Catholic adult who has again been baptized under condition is not bound to confess again sins already accused: for if the first baptism was valid, the sins have already been remitted through absolution; and if the baptism was not valid, they are remitted through the second baptism. But sins committed from the last confession and not yet accused must be declared integrally in confession.

Nor may it be said that, because these sins perhaps have already been remitted through the baptism now conferred, it is not certainly established that there is an obligation of confessing them; but a doubtful obligation is no obligation. For the obligation of confessing these sins is plainly certain, which will be evident from those things which must immediately be said concerning an acatholic adult baptized again.

b. An acatholic adult who, having been converted to the faith, because of baptism doubtfully conferred is baptized again under condition, must confess his sins integrally.

alpha. Several authors (D'Annibale, Ballerini-Palmieri, Bucceroni, Genicot) teach that confession indeed is to be advised, but is not to be imposed from obligation, except in those places in which it has been prescribed by the bishops. For baptism previously received is doubtfully valid and therefore the obligation of confessing the sins of the past life is doubtful; but a doubtful obligation is no obligation. But the sins themselves committed after the doubtfully valid baptism are certainly destroyed. For if the first baptism was invalid, they are destroyed through the second baptism; if it was valid, they are destroyed through perfect contrition or indirectly through confession performed with attrition.¹ But the decrees of the Holy See issued concerning this matter do not contain a universal law, but only a particular precept given for those to whom they referred, because of their special conditions.

beta. Nevertheless the opinion affirming the obligation of integral confession in the case under discussion seems to be held.

alpha. It is indeed true that there exists no decree of the Holy See by which the obligation of integral confession for those who are rebaptized under condition is expressly declared. For the four decrees of the Holy Office hitherto issued concerning this matter, by which the obligation of confession is proclaimed, are in reality particular: the first in the case of Carl Wippermann, 1715; the other to the bishop of Philadelphia, 1859; the third to the bishops of England, 1868; the fourth to the bishop of Vallispratensis, 1874. But the response of the S. C. de prop. fide, 10 July 1869, given to the bishop of Quebec and finally published in 1899, by which it is declared that the decree of the Holy Office to the bishops of England contains a universal law, is of private authority, published by the secretary of the congregation without the congregation itself having been consulted.² Yet it is rightly affirmed that the Church by these decrees, although in themselves particular, has virtually and equivalently declared that the sins of the doubtfully baptized constitute necessary matter of confession and must be declared in confession by divine law. For although the decrees refer to particular cases, nevertheless, since their circumstances are very diverse and yet the same decision is always presented, it is a sign that the same reason underlies all, which is no other than that the sins of the doubtfully baptized, from the will of Christ, constitute necessary matter of absolution and therefore must be submitted by all to the keys of the Church.

beta. The internal reason by which the certain obligation of confessing sins committed after baptism not certainly valid is proved is this. From the certain conferral of baptism there arises a certain right of the Church over him who received baptism (even if perhaps invalid), and this because of the very grave harms which would follow if the doubtfully baptized were not judged her subjects and subject to all her laws. The very same judgment must be borne in doubt concerning the value of a marriage certainly contracted, in doubt concerning the value of a religious profession certainly emitted, in doubt concerning the value of sacred ordination certainly received, and this because of the grave evils which would otherwise follow.

¹ Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 1, n. 323.

² Cf. Mannajoli, De obligationibus christianorum propriis, quibus in genere dubie baptizati obstringuntur (Rome: Pustet, 1913), p. 139 ff., p. 197.

226. Sins committed in baptism itself can practically be counted among the doubtful matter of the sacrament of penance; wherefore they need not necessarily be declared in confession, nor can they alone be remitted absolutely through absolution.¹

The sin of fiction or unworthy reception of baptism, or another sin, e.g., of doubt in faith, committed in the very act of baptism, does not indeed impede the value but nevertheless impedes the effect of baptism. Now it is asked whether these sins are destroyed by force of baptism, which revives when the obstacle has been removed, or whether they must be accused in the following confession, so that they may be remitted by force of absolution. Commonly authors, making no distinction between the sin of fiction and other sins, affirm that all sins committed in the reception itself of baptism constitute necessary matter of penance: for these sins must be said to have been committed after baptism; therefore they must be destroyed through penance. - For it can scarcely happen that sin is completed in the very instant of baptism conferred in such a way that it does not continue after baptism has been received; but if nevertheless it were already completed in the very instant of baptism conferred, it could not be destroyed through penance. Since, however, some doubt concerning the obligation of confessing these sins,² others deny it,³ and finally since it can scarcely be discerned whether the sin had already been terminated in the very instant of baptism or also endured afterward, these sins in practice are rightly counted among doubtful matter.

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri, V, n. 18.

² St. Alphonsus, n. 427.

³ D'Annibale, III, n. 164; Lugo, disp. 16, n. 2.

227. On free matter. Those sins are called free matter which can be submitted to the keys of the Church, but need not be. This is constituted by venial sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted, and by sins both mortal and venial already directly remitted.

a. Venial sins are matter of this sacrament, because they are true sins committed against the law of God and therefore can be remitted through the power of the keys, which is not restricted to some genus of sins; but free matter, because in confession they can be concealed without fault and in many other ways they can be destroyed.¹

b. Sins already remitted are matter of this sacrament, because nothing prevents the pardon of a committed sin from being sought and given repeatedly, as will be said below; but they are free matter, because sins already remitted do not need repeated accusation.

c. Since sins both venial and mortal already once remitted are not necessary matter but free matter, it follows that in the confession of mortal sins venial sins may licitly be omitted, whether all or several; but in the confession of venial sins some, even most venial sins, may be omitted; finally in a general confession which is not necessary, not only venial sins, but also mortal sins, whether some or several, whose confession has already once been duly made, may be omitted.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5.

228. On certain and doubtful matter. Certain matter is every true sin certainly committed, whose absolution therefore (with the things to be supposed supposed) is certainly valid; doubtful matter is a doubtful sin, i.e., either one not certainly committed, or one which is not certainly a true sin, whose absolution therefore (even with the other requisites supposed) cannot be called certainly valid. Therefore, if nothing is submitted to the keys except a doubtful sin, of which kind is alpha. a sin doubtfully committed; beta. a doubtfully mortal sin; gamma. a sin doubtfully accused, absolution will be valid if guilt really underlies it, and will be invalid if no guilt underlies it.

a. He who brings nothing except doubtful matter (whether because he doubts concerning consent or because he narrates mere imperfections) of itself can never be absolved absolutely, nor even conditionally without an urgent cause, because the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity. For this reason, if a penitent confesses only doubtful sins, he must be induced to accuse from his past life some certain sin already remitted, whether mortal or at least venial, either by saying: I accuse myself of sins committed formerly against charity, religion, chastity; or by responding affirmatively to the confessor asking: do you accuse yourself and are you sorry for sins committed formerly against charity, religion, chastity?

b. But if this cannot be done, whether because he has committed nothing certain or because from simplicity or weakness he does not remember them, he is to be absolved under condition (if you are capable), if the doubtful sins proposed are mortal. But if the doubtful sins which he confesses are venial and nothing certain from prior life can be added, he is not to be absolved even under condition except rarely, because on the one hand from absolution denied no great spiritual damage arises, and on the other hand the sacrament is not to be exposed to danger of nullity unless spiritual damage is feared which otherwise cannot conveniently be avoided.

c. The practice has grown strong in the Church that penitents, especially pious ones who confess rather often, add to the sins committed since the last confession at least generically one or another sin of the past life; and this is usually done for a twofold reason: first, that certain matter of confession may be had, if perhaps the sins committed since the last confession are only doubtful; then that sorrow for the sins declared in confession may be conceived more certainly, if perhaps true and sincere sorrow is lacking concerning light daily defects. Now, lest the end of this practice be frustrated, namely of providing for the validity and fruit of the sacrament, penitents must be warned that from the sins of their past life they add those which more burden their conscience and for which they truly and sincerely grieve and propose amendment.

d. Not rarely penitents accuse themselves with this or a similar formula: I had doubts against faith, or I had temptations against chastity; of these I accuse myself insofar as before God I am guilty. Ordinarily by this formula they intend to signify a doubt concerning a sin committed. Wherefore if they have not accused other certain sins, they cannot be absolved unless from past life they submit to the keys some certain sin for which they grieve and propose amendment.

229. On sufficient and not sufficient matter. Sufficient matter is said to be sins from which the penitent can validly be absolved; but insufficient matter is said to be sins from which he cannot validly be absolved. Every true personal sin constitutes sufficient matter; but what is not a true personal sin, such as an imperfection, constitutes insufficient matter, cn. 902.

1. That sins already remitted through absolution constitute sufficient matter of absolution is established from the use and practice of the Church: for it would be impious to doubt the value of some sacramental action which the whole Church throughout the world frequents.

That sins already remitted can be matter of absolution is certain and can be declared in this way. Just as we can truly renounce several times a right which we have already once renounced, e.g., by renewing religious vows, so God can truly renounce several times the right to vengeance which he had acquired from our sins. And just as a father, who has already given pardon of an offense to a son, if the son asks again, truly and properly grants the same pardon again, so God grants it again to a sinner asking pardon again in confession, even truly and properly. But the granting of pardon from divine institution is done through the infusion of grace. Nor can it be said that the words of absolution in this case are not true, since no sins are present to be absolved: for the words of absolution signify not only the remission of sin, but also the infusion of grace, which of itself and by its nature is remissive of sin and therefore would remit it if it were present; but since it is not present, the grace itself alone is conferred by accident.¹

2. By the name of imperfection here is understood both an indeliberate transgression of a precept and an action or omission which is opposed not to a precept but to a counsel.² Therefore imperfections of themselves are not sins, and accordingly do not constitute sufficient matter of penance; nevertheless penitents are not to be prevented from confessing their imperfections, both because ordinarily they have an attached venial sin, and because from knowledge of them the confessor can better direct the penitent. But mere imperfections which are submitted to the keys of the Church constitute only doubtful matter, because perhaps they are joined with venial sins.³

a. Imperfections which are committed by this, that counsels or more perfect things are neglected, have an attached sin when the more perfect things are omitted from a disordered affection, not from a reasonable motive.⁴ Now in order that these defects constitute apt matter of absolution, they must in some way be declared in confession, and true sorrow must be conceived concerning them.

b. Although imperfections as such cannot be the object of sacramental absolution, nevertheless they are moral defects concerning which we can grieve, so that we may render God more propitious and beneficent to us. For since God is accustomed to be more liberal toward those who perform even works of supererogation and of mere counsel, but ordinarily denies more abundant helps of grace and providence to those who neglect works of this kind, nothing prevents those desiring more abundant graces from grieving concerning negligences of this kind, so that God may more certainly become more beneficent toward them.

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. 13, n. 73.

² Cf. De principiis, n. 286.

³ Lugo, disp. 16, n. 103.

⁴ Cf. De principiis, n. 92.

230. On sins accused only in general. a. The confession of sins is generic if sins are not accused in that specific mode (in the lowest species) in which from the will of Christ they must be accused. Therefore a generic confession of sins can be instituted in three diverse ways: alpha. if the penitent only says that he has sinned, and does not determine whether he has sinned gravely or lightly: I accuse myself of my sins, or if he gives only signs of sorrow without any confession of sin, e.g., by striking the breast or by sighs; beta. if the penitent only says that he has sinned gravely, and does not determine the genus or species of the sin: I accuse myself of my mortal sins; gamma. if the penitent only says the genus or subaltern species of the sin, and does not determine the lowest species: I accuse myself of sins committed against justice, against religion, against the fourth or sixth precept. Concerning the first mode especially the question is instituted, whether sins accused only in general are sufficient matter of valid absolution; for if that accusation suffices for valid absolution, a fortiori the others will be sufficient.

b. To solve the question, one must distinguish between the matter which is required from the precept of Christ, and that which from the essence of the sacrament instituted by way of judgment is required and suffices for valid absolution. Besides this, one must distinguish the case of necessity, where namely specific confession of sins is impossible and absolution is necessary, from the case in which either specific confession is possible or absolution is not necessary.

1. Outside the case of necessity a generic confession of mortal sins does not suffice for receiving valid absolution. For from the precept of Christ grave sins must be declared distinctly and determinately as to species and number, in order that absolution be valid: for Christ willed that absolution, which has the character of a judicial sentence, outside the case of necessity be an exact and perfect judgment, which cannot be instituted without accurate knowledge of the cause. Therefore he who does not confess sins distinctly fails in the precept of Christ, and therefore from defect of disposition is incapable of valid absolution.

2. In a case of necessity, where accurate confession is impossible, for valid absolution it suffices that sins be declared only in general: for impotence excuses from affirmative precepts; wherefore in a case of necessity no other confession is required except that which the essence of the sacrament or judicial sentence demands. But a judgment cannot indeed be had without any knowledge of the cause; nevertheless a true judgment, although imperfect, can be instituted, provided some confused and indistinct knowledge of the judicial cause is supplied; therefore, looking to the essence of judgment, generic and indistinct confession of sins suffices for valid absolution. These things are well confirmed from the practice of the Church, which is the authentic interpreter of the institutions of Christ: for the Church not only permits that, e.g., to soldiers when battle is imminent, or to sailors when shipwreck is threatening, after a generic confession has first been made, absolution be given; but also commands that the dying who can confess only generically be absolved not conditionally, but absolutely.¹ From these things it is rightly inferred that, for certainly valid absolution in a case of necessity, generic confession of sins suffices.

In human judgment, which primarily and principally consists in the condemnatory sentence of the delinquent through the imposition of a punishment suitable to the crime, determinate and perfect knowledge of the cause is required essentially; but in sacramental judgment, which primarily and principally consists in the reconciliatory and absolutory sentence of the penitent, determinate and perfect knowledge of the cause is not essentially demanded. Although of itself a punishment suitable to the crime must also be imposed, nevertheless this is not required for the essence of sacramental judgment.

3. Outside the case of necessity, for valid absolution generic confession of sins seems to suffice where free matter is concerned, and especially where venial sins are concerned: for in the confession of venial sins and of free matter generally, for receiving valid absolution no other confession is required besides that which is necessary for the essence of the sacrament; for there is no precept of confessing venial sins. But for the essence of the sacrament generic confession of sins is sufficient: for the essence of the sacrament is one and immutable; therefore what suffices in necessity for instituting a valid sacramental judgment must also suffice outside necessity. Therefore in the confession of free matter, and specifically of venial sins, generic confession of sins is sufficient.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 1, n. 24.

231. Whether a wholly generic confession of venial sins only is licit. - No one denies that a wholly generic confession, whether of mortal or venial sins, is licit in a case of necessity: for what is valid is also licit in a case of necessity. But a wholly generic confession of venial sins only (if, for example, a pious penitent who is not guilty of mortal sin only says: I accuse myself of my venial sins and ask absolution) outside a case of necessity is not licit, because it is contrary to the practice of the Church, which has the force of law.

a. From the first centuries of the Church up to these times, by the use and practice of the Church outside a case of necessity, specific confession even of venial sins has flourished; but this long-lasting custom has obtained the force of law in the same manner in which vocal confession of sins has obtained the force of law from custom. Therefore, from a precept of the Church introduced by legitimate custom, a specific confession of venial sins must be made. b. The sacrament of penance was instituted by Christ by way of judgment, which of itself and ordinarily ought to be concerned with matter determined at least in species, as is clear from the obligation of confessing mortal sins according to species and number. But the dignity and fittingness of the sacrament demands that outside a case of necessity, whether mortal or venial sins are submitted to the keys, the sacrament always be administered in that mode in which it was instituted by Christ, namely so that a judgment can be borne concerning determinate matter. c. If once a merely generic confession of venial sins were admitted, several inconveniences would follow: alpha. penitents would lack the admonitions, counsels, and spiritual direction of the confessor; beta. the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity, for several penitents, not distinguishing imperfections from sins, would easily submit only imperfections and therefore doubtful matter to the keys; gamma. several would not satisfy the precept of confession, for holding mortal sins to be venial they would not declare them in species; delta. more indulgent confessors would easily admit a generic confession even of mortal sins.¹

There are indeed some (Gury-Ballerini, Eschbach, Bucceroni, Apicella, Genicot, and among the older authors Dicastillo) who judge that a generic confession of venial sins is licit. But their opinion does not seem probable and therefore is illicit in practice. For they bring no other argument except this: "With the certain validity of the sacrament standing, illicitness cannot arise from elsewhere than from a positive divine precept; but this precept is not had. Therefore, where grave sins necessarily to be accused in confession are lacking, there is no obligation of accusing the remaining sins in determinate number and defined species" (Bucceroni). But the obligation does not arise from an explicit divine precept, but from the reasons brought forward above, especially from custom, which has obtained the force of law. Nor is an exception to be taken against this reason, that it is not established whether the faithful confessing venial sins in species indicate a strict obligation or only that which is better, because they confess only from devotion. For those confessing from devotion know that they can licitly abstain from confession; but if they confess, they think that they must confess in species.

¹ Cf. Laymann, l. 5, tr. 6, c. 5, n. 15.

232. Corollaries: a. From these things this instruction is gathered for practice: if someone, to render absolution more certain, joins to doubtful or lighter sins which he has committed since the last confession sins of the past life already remitted, absolutely speaking it suffices that they be added generically and indeterminately (I accuse myself also of the sins of my whole life). Nevertheless it is to be advised that the genus or subaltern species of one or another sin also be declared (I accuse myself also of sins committed against charity, religion, or against the fourth or sixth precept). And this must especially be advised when the sins declared from the last confession are truly doubtful, so that the sacramental judgment may be more determinate.

b. Therefore generic confession of sins in a case of necessity suffices both for valid and for licit absolution. A case of necessity is present if, on the one hand, specific accusation is impossible, and on the other hand, absolution is necessary. This happens in the following cases: alpha. if a dying man deprived of speech expresses by signs in some way confession and desire of absolution; beta. if soldiers with battle imminent or sailors with shipwreck threatening can confess only generically because of lack of time; gamma. if deaf-mutes or those whose language the confessor does not know ask for absolution; delta. if rude men, or those of failing memory because of old age, come to confession, who can accuse no sin in particular and respond nothing to questions posed except that they are sinners like other men. Therefore penitents of this kind can validly and licitly be absolved, because on account of moral impossibility they are excused from a more accurate accusation just as the dying deprived of speech are excused; but only rarely (three or four times in a year), because only in a case of necessity are they excused from specific confession. For the rest, if the confessor proposes to a penitent of this kind some sins into which he can be presumed once to have fallen, in this way: do you grieve for sins ever committed, but especially for lies, for negligences in divine service, etc., and if the penitent responds that he grieves, a more determinate accusation is also had, since it can certainly be supposed that the penitent formerly committed one or another of the sins proposed.¹ With this effort used, these can be absolved as often as they ask for absolution.

¹ Elbel-Bierbaum, III, pr. 9, n. 15.