Section 2. On the Repetition of an Invalid Confession.

From an invalid confession must be distinguished an incomplete confession, in which from a just cause a mortal sin was omitted. A valid but incomplete confession does not necessarily have to be repeated, but only the defect must be supplied, by this, that sins not yet accused are subjected to the keys, so that by force of absolution they may be directly remitted.

290. Necessity of repetition. 1. A confession certainly invalid must always be repeated wholly, because sins declared in an invalid confession have not yet been duly remitted through the keys of the Church. But if the confession was only probably invalid, repetition is to be recommended, but cannot be strictly imposed: for an obligation is not to be imposed unless it is certainly established; but a law which has probably already been satisfied is no longer certain.

2. When the repetition of an invalid confession is made before another confessor, without doubt the whole confession must be repeated, because he must judge sacramentally concerning sins not yet remitted. But if it is made before the same confessor, it does not necessarily have to be repeated, but it suffices to accuse oneself in general concerning all things already said before, adding in particular those things which had formerly been omitted, provided the confessor either still has a confused knowledge of the state of the penitent or now acquires it by suitable interrogations.¹

If the penitent repeats before the same confessor confessions invalid on account of defect of sorrow, after this general confession has been made: I accuse myself of sins already confessed before, he can be validly and licitly absolved, even if the confessor does not distinctly remember the sins themselves or the penance imposed, provided he still has a confused knowledge of the state of the penitent, or now acquires it, so that he knows that he has already judged sacramentally concerning the sins and imposed penance. For although the knowledge of sins which the confessor now has is very imperfect and confused, nevertheless that knowledge joined with the former, which was distinct, seems to suffice so that absolution can be granted validly and licitly, if the confessor can now judge the penitent disposed: for the sacramental judgment previously begun distinctly is now completed by valid absolution.

¹ Lugo, disp. 16, n. 636; Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 276.

291. Causes of invalidity. Confession can be invalid on account of a defect which is found either on the part of the confessor or on the part of the penitent.

1. Defects on the part of the confessor: a. if he lacks jurisdiction; b. if he substantially changes the form; c. if he does not intend to absolve; d. if he understands no sin, so that he does not have matter from which he may absolve.

a. The confessor must judge sacramentally concerning the individual sins declared in confession and concerning their theological and moral species, and also concerning their number. Nevertheless a confession which in good faith is made to a confessor who cannot discern between mortal and venial, between species, between unity and plurality of sins, or who judges some mortal sin to be venial, is valid, provided the penitent faithfully sets forth his sins: for the penitent on his part in reality subjects all sins to the keys. But on the part of the confessor, for the licit administration of the sacrament, it is required that, as far as can be done, he judge rightly concerning the gravity, species, and number of sins; for the validity of the sacrament, however, it is not required that he truly judge concerning these things. But he who deliberately seeks an unlearned confessor so that his sins may not be understood by the confessor as is fitting, sins against the precept of confessing integrally and, from defect of disposition, confesses invalidly and must revalidate the confession.

b. Sins which the confessor did not understand, concerning which therefore he did not judge sacramentally, are not remitted by force of absolution. Nevertheless, a confession which in good faith is made to a confessor who, on account of deafness, sleep, or distraction, does not rightly understand sins, even mortal ones, is valid and therefore does not necessarily have to be repeated, provided the confessor perceived one or another mortal sin. And if after the confession has been completed the penitent indeed knows that certain sins were not understood by the confessor, but does not know which they are, a distinction must be made. If the confession was long, no obligation exists of confessing them again, because it is probable concerning each one that it was rightly understood; but if the confession was brief, it must be repeated, because probability cannot be had concerning each one that it was rightly understood.¹ Likewise, if the penitent knows which sins the confessor did not perceive, he is bound to explain them in the following confession, because those sins not perceived were not subjected to the keys nor directly remitted. In this case also this must be added: if the penitent deliberately seeks a confessor of this kind, he sins against the precept concerning the integrity of confession, and therefore from defect of disposition he is invalidly absolved and must repeat the confession.

2. Defects on the part of the penitent: a. if he lacked true sorrow and purpose; b. if he knowingly kept silent about a mortal sin; c. if he lied in a grave matter, falsely promised amendment; d. if in examining conscience he sinned gravely from negligence.

a. Penitents who fear that they have confessed invalidly for a long time, yet do not know a certain foundation for the fear, ought to repeat nothing, especially if they are of timorous conscience and are accustomed to employ diligence in confessions.

b. Those who admit that they omitted a sin committed in youth or boyhood are to be asked whether then, when it was committed, they knew that it was a sin and indeed grave, or whether only afterward did they finally come to know this: for what, when it was committed, they thought was a light sin or no sin does not afterward necessarily have to be declared, and much less must the other confessions made up to this point be repeated, since they were valid.

c. He who admits that he knowingly kept silent in confession about a sin which he regarded as mortal, or culpably omitted the number or a circumstance necessarily to be declared, is not bound to repeat the intervening confessions made in good faith and rightly performed, and therefore valid. Therefore he must be asked whether he knew that to conceal a mortal sin in confession was a grave sin, and that a sin concealed in confession was to be declared in the following confession; and whether in the following confessions he thought about the omitted sin and about declaring it: for if he omitted the sin either from ignorance or from forgetfulness, the intervening confessions were valid.²

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 269.

² Concerning general confession, see the appendix at the end of this volume.