§ 2. On the Qualities of Confession

363. Some qualities of confession are necessary, while others are merely useful. St. Thomas¹⁷⁸ and other ancient theologians enumerated sixteen qualities of confession:

Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful,

And frequent, naked, discreet, willing, shamefaced,

Complete, secret, tearful, prompt,

Strong and accusing, and let it be prepared to obey.

Among all the qualities the most necessary is integrity, which will be treated specially below. A few things concerning the other qualities:

1. Confession should be simple and naked, and therefore free from all useless words and narratives.

The confessor should in no way permit the penitent during confession to relate certain things which do not pertain to confession. Nor should he himself make useless speeches or questions. St. Antoninus¹⁷⁹ rightly teaches: penitents who need consolation because of tribulations or counsel because of doubts should say such things after confession has been made and absolution given, and should not mingle them in confession, lest the force of contrition be diminished.

2. Confession should be humble (that is, both in words and in gestures) and prepared to obey.

During confession the penitent should kneel as a sign of humility, unless he is impeded by infirmity or in another way; he should be with head uncovered if he is a man; soldiers should put aside their arms during confession. The penitent should humbly receive the admonitions, and even the just rebukes, of the confessor, since he must obey the just commands of the confessor.

3. Pure, that is, undertaken with a right intention, namely, in order to receive sacramental grace.

Therefore one sins who, in confessing, seeks earthly ends, for example, the goodwill of the confessor, pleasant conversation, and so forth. A confessor perceiving that the penitent's intention is not so pure should admonish him, indeed in a paternal but also vigorous manner, concerning the dignity of confession and the need to have a pure intention.

4. Discreet and shamefaced, that is, the penitent should not disclose the sins of others, and especially should not reveal the name of his accomplice. Moreover, when speaking of sins against the sixth commandment, he should employ modest words, yet without thereby injuring objective truth.

5. Strong and accusing, that is, however much the penitent may be ashamed, he should nevertheless strongly accuse himself of his sins, saying to himself: If I was not ashamed to commit them, neither ought I to be ashamed to confess the sins committed.

¹⁷⁸ Suppl., q. 9, a. 4.

¹⁷⁹ S. theol. P. 3, c. 19, tit. 14, § 12.

364. 6. Faithful, that is, without any lie. Concerning a lie made in confession the following things are to be noted: if someone lies about a grave matter which must necessarily be declared, he commits grave sacrilege. But to lie about some matter which does not necessarily pertain to confession is a sin according to the quality of the matter.

Thus, for example, he sins gravely who in confession denies a circumstance changing the species of a grave sin, and likewise he who speaks a grave calumny concerning his neighbor; but he who denies some venial sin committed or a mortal sin already previously remitted, or lies about indifferent matters, sins venially, at least per se. Nevertheless, every lie made in confession, even one objectively light, introduces an aggravating circumstance, since it is great irreverence toward the sacrament to sin at the same time at which remission of sins is sought.¹⁸⁰ A penitent does not per se sin against fidelity if he confesses mortal sins to an unknown confessor and afterward tells venial sins to his ordinary confessor, provided that he never receives this second absolution before he has been duly absolved from the mortal sins. In practice, however, attention must be given to the motive for which this manner is chosen. If the penitent intends the deception of his ordinary confessor, his own glory, or something else inordinate, he certainly commits a more or less grave sin; but if he acts thus from the shame with which he would be suffused because he knows the confessor familiarly, he does not sin. Therefore the confessor should never inquire curiously concerning a confession made elsewhere, nor show that it displeases him if the penitent has confessed to another priest.

There are still several other ways in which fidelity is more or less injured, for example, if someone accuses a recent sin as an old one, or if the penitent makes a general confession in which he deliberately does not distinguish sins perpetrated since the last confession from those which were committed previously. Indeed, per se the circumstance of time does not gravely violate the fidelity of confession; per accidens, however, when, namely, the confessor's right judgment concerning the present state of the penitent is thereby impeded, it is a grave violation. That such a manner of acting is always blameworthy is evident of itself; but after Lugo certain authors, such as Gury, D'Annibale, Bucceroni, and especially Noldin-Schmitt,¹⁸¹ teach that the penitent neither sins gravely nor gravely injures the fidelity of confession, although he deliberately deceives the confessor by declaring that a sin which he actually committed recently and has not yet confessed was committed a long time ago. Everyone sees that by such a manner of acting the confessor is deceived so gravely that he can no longer judge rightly concerning the present state of the penitent. Therefore the reasons adduced for this opinion seem to be specious rather than solid, and it would be most dangerous if this opinion were reduced to practice. But the fidelity of confession is injured little and not gravely if the penitent disguises his voice or employs other means lest he be recognized by the confessor. When a legitimate cause exists and a right intention is had, however, such disguise is not sinful.

The penitent is also bound to respond faithfully and sincerely to a confessor legitimately questioning him; but he can decline illegitimate questions, for example, concerning his name, country, or place of residence, by refusing an answer or by employing a broad mental restriction.

¹⁸⁰ Cf. Concina, De poenit. l. 1, diss. 4, c. 3, n. 6.

¹⁸¹ De sacr.¹⁷ III, n. 283.

365. 7. Vocal, that is, expressed in words, but not by a nod, signs, or writings, unless a just cause is present.

Theologians commonly teach that he who without a just cause confesses in writing or by nods sins gravely, because he acts against the universal and most just custom of the Church. But he who physically or morally cannot confess vocally can confess in other ways whenever the precept of confession urges. The reason is that vocal accusation does not belong to the essence of confession. For Christ, in instituting confession, strictly requires nothing other than a sorrowful manifestation of sins. Therefore the confession of the mouth which is required by the Council of Florence is nothing other than any confession externally manifested. Theologians commonly teach that in a case of physical or moral impossibility of speech a man not only can but also must confess by writings or nods,¹⁸² because the inconvenience of writing sins is not customarily so great that it excuses from the grave divine precept of confession. Nor should anyone say: A man is not bound to write sins lest they fall from his memory. Therefore he is never bound to confess by writings. For the necessity of confession itself in itself is much greater than the necessity of its material integrity.¹⁸³ Thus, for example, a mute person is accustomed to confess by writings or signs; likewise, if the confessor is somewhat deaf, confession can be made by writings or signs, lest bystanders hear the accusation. Always, however, insofar as it is possible, the penitent should say vocally these or similar words: I accuse myself of the sins which I have manifested to you, and I ask for absolution,¹⁸⁴ as was already said above.

8. Secret. Although in ancient times public confession was in use, nevertheless today no one is obliged to confess sins if this cannot be done except publicly.

Hence, for example, no one ignorant of the language of the confessor is bound to confess through an interpreter. The Code of Canon Law, c. 903, establishes that one who wishes to confess through an interpreter is not to be prohibited; indeed, certain theologians, for example, Faustinus Scarpazza, O.P.,¹⁸⁵ teach that at the point of death a sinner must confess through an interpreter if this can easily be done. An interpreter employed in this case is bound to preserve secrecy concerning the sins heard. By employing some shrewdness, it can be obtained that the interpreter knows almost nothing of the confession heard. For if the confessor puts questions which the interpreter repeats in the language of the penitent, and to which the penitent responds not by voice but by signs which the confessor alone sees or perceives, but not the interpreter, sufficient integrity of confession can be had without the interpreter knowing the answers given by the penitent.

The principal quality of confession is its integrity. Three points concerning it must be explained individually: I. the necessity and extent of integrity; 2. excusing causes; 3. means for obtaining integrity.

¹⁸² St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. 17, q. 3, a. 4, sol. 3 ad 2; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 479. The contrary is taught by Gopfert, Moraltheol. III, n. 117; Noldin-Schmitt, De sacr.¹⁷, n. 279.

¹⁸³ Cf. Billuart, De poenit., diss. 7, a. 3, § 1.

¹⁸⁴ Already Gratian (c. 88, dist. 1 De poenit.; this canon is taken from the book De vera et falsa poenitentia, which is falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) indicates the reason why confession should be vocal, namely, as a sign of true penance: "The Lord commanded those to be cleansed that they show their mouths to the priests, teaching that sins are to be confessed by bodily presence, not manifested through a messenger, not through writing.... You who have sinned through yourselves, be ashamed through yourselves. For shame itself has a part in remission. Indeed, from mercy the Lord commanded this, that no one should repent in secret. For in this, that he tells it to the priest through himself and conquers shame through fear of Him offended, the pardon of the crime is effected. He has offered much satisfaction who, mastering shame, denied nothing of those things which he committed to the messenger of God." Concerning this matter, see the decrees of Clement VIII and Paul V above, n. 330.

¹⁸⁵ Theol. mor. IX, 89.