Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 2. On the Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance
320. The remote matter (or rather the matter to be removed) of the sacrament of penance consists of sins subsequent to baptism, not to be accepted but to be detested and destroyed.
Thus St. Thomas.37 It is, however, as is customarily said, the materia circa quam; for just as the matter of medicine is an infirmity to be cured, so the matter of penance consists of sins to be destroyed. This remote matter is distinguished as: 1. necessary and free; 2. certain and doubtful; 3. sufficient and insufficient.
37 S. theol. 3, q. 84, a. 2.
321. The necessary matter of the sacrament of penance consists of all mortal sins committed after baptism which have not yet been manifested in confession nor directly remitted through absolution.
It is said, first: all mortal sins. "For venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, although they may rightly and usefully and without any presumption be stated in confession, as the practice of pious men demonstrates, nevertheless can be kept silent without fault and expiated by many other remedies."38
It is said, second: committed after baptism. For sins committed before baptism are remitted by the sacrament of baptism itself when worthily received. Theologians do not agree concerning the manner in which sins committed before or in baptism are remitted if baptism is indeed received validly but unworthily because of an existing obstacle, for example, because of a defect of sufficient faith and sorrow for past sins. It seems that the answer must be given with a distinction:
a) Sins which were committed before baptism, for example, adulteries, thefts, and so forth, are never the necessary matter of the sacrament of penance, even if baptism was received sacrilegiously, and accordingly there is never a strict obligation to confess them. The reason is that these sins were committed at a time when the Church did not yet have jurisdiction over this sinner and the power of absolving him.
b) The sin of sacrilege which is committed at the very instant baptism is received virtually endures for at least one moment afterward. Therefore it is already the necessary matter of the sacrament of penance, and accordingly must be accused. When, therefore, this sacrilege, confessed with due sorrow, is absolved in the sacrament of penance, baptism revives and all the sins previously committed are blotted out.39
c) If someone receives baptism validly with an obstacle but without sacrilege, for example, he does not grieve over sins committed because he does not perceive the grave obligation of sorrow, then the sins committed before baptism are blotted out when the baptized person elicits sufficient sorrow even outside confession; but not even in this case is he bound to confess those sins.
If an adult Catholic, a serious doubt having arisen concerning the validity of the baptism received, is baptized again, he is not bound to repeat the confessions made before the second baptism. The reason is that, if the prior baptism was valid, then the sins committed afterward were remitted by the subsequent confessions; but if the prior baptism was invalid, then all sins are remitted through the second baptism. Therefore in every case the sins are remitted. But sins committed since the last confession and not yet accused must be declared in confession.
If an adult non-Catholic is baptized again conditionally, he must confess all the sins of his past life and be absolved conditionally. The reason is that those sins have not yet been accused in confession, nor are they certainly remitted through conditional baptism.40 The difference therefore arises from this, that a Catholic doubtfully baptized has already confessed all his sins, whereas the non-Catholic has not.
It is said, third: not yet manifested in confession and directly remitted. Those sins are said to be remitted directly which have been explicitly accused and thereafter directly received absolution from a confessor furnished with legitimate jurisdiction. A sin is sometimes remitted indirectly because of the valid absolution of other sins. For since one grave sin cannot be remitted to a sinner without all the others, when one has been duly absolved, all the others also must be absolved. For example, a penitent inculpably forgetting a mortal sin in confession and having universal contrition, with the direct absolution of the sins accused, is indirectly absolved from the sin omitted through forgetfulness. Indirect absolution sometimes also has place if reserved sins are involved.41
38 Council of Trent, Session 14, c. 5, On Penance (Denz., n. 899).
39 Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 69, a. 10 ad 2. St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 427) concedes that this opinion is the most common, but says that the reasons adduced for it are not convincing.
40 Cf. above, n. 139.
41 Cf. below, concerning the reservation of cases.
322. The free matter of the sacrament of penance consists of: a) venial sins committed after baptism; b) all sins, both mortal and venial, already directly remitted after baptism.
That venial sins are free and not necessary matter is evident from the words of the Council of Trent, Session 14, c. 5, cited above. The reason, however, is that venial sin on the one hand includes true fault and accordingly can be absolved in the sacrament of penance; on the other hand, the fault of venial sin is not so great and of such a kind that it cannot be remitted outside the sacrament of penance, for example, through acts of charity and of other virtues.
That sins, mortal and venial, already remitted are free matter of penance follows from the universal practice of the faithful, who submit sins of this kind again and again to the power of the Church. Concerning this matter Benedict XI42 already writes: "But although it is not of necessity to confess the same sins again, nevertheless ... on account of the shame, which is a great part of penance, we judge it salutary that the confession of the same sins be repeated." The chief reason why sins of this kind already remitted may salutarily be submitted again to the power of the keys seems to be this: Sacred Scripture admonishes: Concerning a forgiven sin, be not without fear. And without special revelation a man cannot know with certainty whether he is worthy of the love or hatred of God. Therefore, after a sin has been accused and absolved, a man can nevertheless fittingly ask pardon of God again, and God can through the mouth of the confessor again grant pardon of the same sins.
42 It is contained in c. 1, Inter cunctas, V, 7, Extrav. comm.
323. Certain matter is every true and certain sin, whether mortal or venial. But doubtful matter is a doubtful sin. A doubt concerning the existence of a sin can arise from diverse causes, for example, because of an erroneous conscience, doubtful advertence, doubtful consent, and so forth. Doubtful matter is insufficient matter, concerning which immediately.
324. Sufficient matter is that which suffices for receiving sacramental absolution validly. It consists of all necessary and free matter, provided that it is certain.43 Insufficient matter consists of imperfections and all those things which do not certainly have the character of sin; or in other words: insufficient matter is everything which does not constitute even free matter. He who brings to confession only insufficient matter cannot be validly absolved, because sufficient matter belongs to the essence of the sacrament.
By the name of imperfections in this matter are understood less good acts which, considered objectively, constitute no certain transgression of the eternal law.44 Indeed, since indifferent acts do not exist in the individual, such so-called imperfections are in reality either evil acts or good acts; but because the confessor ordinarily cannot judge with certainty concerning their sinfulness, they are not sufficient matter for absolution. Thus, for example, he who accuses himself of having sometimes omitted morning prayers, of having suffered involuntary distractions in prayer, or of having had sudden and involuntary movements of anger or concupiscence brings insufficient matter for sacramental absolution. Penitents can indeed laudably declare imperfections of this kind so that the confessor may be able to judge better concerning the state of their soul and give good counsels, but they are altogether to be induced to accuse, besides these imperfections, at least some sin of their past life, even if not described according to its lowest species; for example, they ought to say: Moreover, I accuse myself of the sins of my past life against chastity, against charity, and so forth.
43 Code of Canon Law, c. 902.
44 Cf. above, I, n. 131.
325. Scholion. On sins accused only in general. The essence of the sacrament of penance consists in this, that it is a judgment, and indeed a reconciliatory one. Now a judge cannot pronounce a just judgment unless he knows the offenses committed sufficiently. But so great a knowledge of offenses is not required in the sacrament of penance as in human judgments, because in it God, Himself the searcher of hearts, is the principal judge, and because the end of penance is a reconciliatory and liberating sentence. Nevertheless at least some knowledge on the part of the confessor is required for the validity of the sacrament.
In extreme necessity a generic accusation suffices. For example, when battle is imminent for soldiers,45 or shipwreck for sailors, or for a dying man deprived of his senses, absolution is lawfully given if by some external sign they manifest themselves generically as contrite sinners, insofar as this is possible. Thus holds the universal practice of the Church. The reason, however, is that Christ, by an affirmative precept in the sacrament of penance, required a moral act of confession so that the confessor might be able to judge concerning the state of the penitent. Now an affirmative precept does not oblige in extreme necessity, provided that the essence of the sacrament is preserved. But the essence of penance consists in a judgment, which is present in some manner even after a merely general accusation.
Outside a case of extreme necessity a somewhat more determinate accusation is altogether required (although perhaps not for validity). But the determination of the accusation has diverse degrees, namely:
a) I accuse myself of all the sins of my life.
b) I accuse myself of all mortal sins.
c) I accuse myself of all sins committed against such a virtue, for example, chastity, charity, and so forth.
d) I accuse myself of having once injured the virtue of justice by secretly taking 1,000 Marks from the civil government.
These distinctions having been premised, the following two propositions seem true:
1. If necessary matter is involved, outside a case of necessity the accusation indicated under a), b), and c) does not suffice, but determination according to the lowest species and number is required. The reason is that by divine law mortal sins must be accused according to species and number, as the Council of Trent46 declared: "If anyone says that in the sacrament of penance for the remission of sins it is not necessary by divine law to confess each and every mortal sin of which memory is had with due and diligent premeditation, ... let him be anathema." The manner of accusation indicated under d) is certainly the best and is sometimes necessary, as will be stated below, n. 370 (c), but of itself it suffices that the penitent accuse himself of having stolen grave matter.
2. If free matter is involved, the accusation indicated under c) is valid and lawful; indeed, even outside a case of necessity, the generic accusation under a) and b) is valid, but at least venially unlawful. That the absolution is valid in this case can scarcely be denied. For there is no divine precept to accuse free matter, and moreover one thing is not to be required as essential for a case of necessity and another outside this case. Therefore, since a general accusation is valid in a case of necessity, it must also be valid in other cases. Nor may anyone say that it follows from this that a general accusation of necessary matter also is valid, which nevertheless was denied above. For if necessary matter is involved, there is added the grave divine precept of declaring the individual sins, which is not present if free matter is involved.
That a merely general accusation of free matter is unlawful is very commonly taught by theologians, with a few exceptions, for example, Gury-Ballerini,47 Génicot,48 and Bucceroni.49 The reason is manifold: 1. the universal practice of almost all confessors, who require that at least the species of free matter be declared; therefore there exists a legitimate binding custom; 2. there would be a danger of deficient contrition, since it is sufficiently difficult to elicit sorrow for sins accused only generically; 3. without sufficient reason the judgment of the confessor would remain too imperfect, as is evident. Hence in practice it is to be required of penitents who accuse only free matter that they employ at least the determination indicated under c), namely, that they say they have sinned against such or such a virtue. This obligation does not seem grave, and therefore, if the penitent is so uneducated or so infirm of memory that he remembers no determinate sin, the confessor ought not torture him in order to obtain more determinate matter. He can therefore say to him, for example: Be willing to include all the sins of your past life and especially to elicit contrition for sins against charity or due devotion in exercises of piety, and so forth.
45 Thus the Sacred Penitentiary expressly established on February 6, 1915 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis VII, 72). Soldiers thus absolved can also receive the Most Holy Eucharist; but afterward, if they escape the danger, they must make an integral confession.
46 Session 14, can. 7, On Penance (Denz., n. 917).
47 Comp. Theol. mor. II, 421.
48 Theol. mor. II, 262.
49 Inst. Theol. mor. 4th ed., III, n. 673.