§ 3. On the Repetition of Confessions and on General Confession

1. A very careful distinction must be made between an invalid confession and an incomplete confession. A confession is invalid if something essential is lacking, for example, if formal integrity is lacking, that is, if someone culpably omitted a grave sin in confession. A confession is incomplete if material integrity alone is lacking, that is, when some grave sin was indeed omitted, but inculpably.

386. a) An incomplete confession must be completed by the accusation of that sin which was omitted.

If someone still remaining in the confessional after receiving absolution remembers a grave sin omitted, he must immediately accuse himself of it and receive a new absolution, as was already said above, n. 192. Thus holds the common practice. For the penitent must certainly accuse himself of this sin, and there is not customarily a sufficient reason for deferring its accusation until the following confession. If, however, a sufficient reason is present, for example, because the penitent thinks that he can better declare this sin to another confessor, he can refrain from accusing himself of it until the following confession. But if the penitent, now outside the confessional, remembers a sin omitted through forgetfulness, he can indeed, but is not bound to, return before Communion to accuse himself of this sin. The reason is that this sin, as indirectly remitted, does not obstruct the worthy reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, and only the obligation of confessing it in the following confession remains.²⁴¹

If the penitent knows with certainty that some grave sin of his was not understood by the confessor because of the latter's deafness, drowsiness, distraction, ignorance of the language, and so forth, he is bound to confess that sin again in the following confession. For the former confession was incomplete.

²⁴¹ Cf. above, n. 379.

387. b) A certainly invalid confession must be repeated in its entirety, for through it no sin was remitted; indeed, if the confession was not only invalid but also sacrilegious, besides the sins already committed, the grave sin of sacrilege must additionally be submitted to the keys of the Church.

A confession is invalid whenever an essential part of the sacrament of penance is lacking, which can happen chiefly in the following ways:

a) On the part of the confessor, who lacks the power of order or jurisdiction; who omitted or substantially changed the form of absolution; who does not have the intention of absolving; who understands no sin of the penitent at all because of sleep or ignorance of the language, so that he lacks matter for absolution.

b) On the part of the penitent, who did not have sufficient contrition; or who did not wish to fulfill the due satisfaction imposed; but especially who in confession sacrilegiously omitted a grave sin or its specific circumstance.

For the most part it is not the fault of the penitent if the confession was null because of an essential defect of the confessor. Therefore it is piously believed that the penitent who is in good faith then obtains sanctifying grace through contrition, which with the assistance of divine grace or by means of Holy Communion he will elicit. Nevertheless, if the penitent notices the nullity of the confession, he must submit the sins thus accused again to the keys of the Church.

If the confession was invalid because of a defect of the penitent, for the most part it is also sacrilegious, and therefore this sacrilege together with all other mortal sins not yet remitted must be accused again, either before the same or before another confessor. If the first confessor still remembers at least in a confused manner the sins heard, the penitent confesses sufficiently by saying: I accuse myself again of the sins already manifested in the former confession, and in addition I accuse myself of these sins sacrilegiously concealed. But if the first confessor does not remember, not even in a confused manner, the state of the penitent, then, as St. Alphonsus testifies,²⁴² "Suarez and St. Antoninus, Sylvester, and Paludanus in Croix say that it suffices if he remembers having imposed a penance"; but the Holy Doctor himself says: "I do not acquiesce in this, because the priest, when he pronounces sentence, must form a judgment at least concerning the state of the penitent's conscience.... If, however, he were then to absolve after a confession made in general, he would absolve validly." Therefore absolution in this case is valid, although the confessor knows nothing else except that the penitent made a confession before him. Indeed, several authors, such as Lugo,²⁴³ Ballerini-Palmieri,²⁴⁴ Tanquerey,²⁴⁵ and Génicot,²⁴⁶ think that the confessor can then absolve not only validly but also licitly. "For it seems to suffice that the priest knows that he previously judged concerning those sins, and indeed determined that the penitent was to be absolved." Thus Génicot in the place cited. Nevertheless, in practice one must not depart from the opinion of St. Alphonsus, since scarcely ever can there be a sufficient reason for treating so benignly a penitent who confessed sacrilegiously.

But an invalid confession must be repeated completely when the penitent approaches another confessor, since the latter certainly cannot judge concerning the state of a penitent who does not accuse himself of all grave sins not yet remitted.

²⁴² L.c., n. 502, dub. 3.

²⁴³ De sacr. poenit., disp. 16, n. 636.

²⁴⁴ Opus theol., De poenit., n. 472.

²⁴⁵ Synopsis Theol. mor., De poenit., n. 324.

²⁴⁶ Theol. mor. II, 306.

388. 2. General confession is the repetition of some or all the confessions of one's past life. Sometimes it is a) necessary; b) harmful; c) useful.

a) General confession is necessary whenever it is morally certain that some former confessions were invalid, for example, because of a culpable defect of contrition or of the formal integrity of confession. In a necessary general confession, those things which were stated above are to be observed. The confessor should procure equally the formal integrity and the sincere contrition of the penitent, so that when the confession has been completed it may be morally certain to the penitent that all his sins are now truly remitted.

b) General confession is harmful when new anxieties or other inconveniences arise from it. Hence general confession is to be prohibited for those who are scrupulous and have already made general confessions repeatedly without greater peace of soul having arisen from them. Likewise, general confession, or at least an accurate accusation, is often to be prohibited for those who have sinned much and gravely against chastity. For it is established by experience that a man who thinks over in detail sins of lust committed often falls into new temptations. Therefore, in these cases, when all carnal sins have already once been submitted to the power of the keys, it is not expedient to think them over again in detail and confess them. Let the accusation then be generic, but the contrition very intense.

c) General confession is useful and therefore to be counseled to all those who indeed are not bound to it but receive great fruits of soul from it. The utility of a general confession duly made is manifold: contrition is more intense and efficacious; the state of one's own soul is known more clearly; a firmer purpose is elicited; peace of soul and confidence in divine mercy are increased. Therefore general confession is to be counseled:

a) To penitents who reasonably doubt the validity of past confessions, in order to obtain greater security. The scrupulous and fearful are excepted, as was said above.

b) In dangerous illness, provided, however, that the strength of the sick person is not thereby too greatly consumed. For when death is imminent, a man must strive with all his strength that all sins and their punishment be destroyed.

c) At certain periods of life in which a greater infusion of grace is desired, for example, before First Communion, before contracting matrimony, before receiving major orders, during a mission, spiritual exercises, a jubilee, and so forth.

389. Note. In counseling or permitting a general confession, the following things are to be observed:

a) General confession, unless it is necessary, is to be forced upon no one, because a general confession not willingly accepted is customarily harmful rather than profitable. Therefore those confessors act badly who, whenever they obtain a new penitent, immediately or soon impel him to make a general confession, as though it were necessary for rightly directing him in the spiritual life. Therefore the confessor should wait until the penitent himself expresses a desire to make a general confession.

b) If the penitent expresses a desire of this kind, the confessor must beware of two opposite extremes: one is that he not immediately deny this faculty to the penitent, as though he were tormented by empty scruples; the other is that he not immediately admit an unknown penitent to general confession, because perhaps it will not merely be useful but rather harmful. Therefore the confessor should first inquire with most humane words from what motives the penitent desires a general confession; if these are sufficient, he should admit it, but otherwise deny it.

The method to be observed in general confession is different according as it is necessary or only useful. If general confession is only useful, the confessor should admonish the penitent explicitly that the integrity of the accusation is not so necessary, and indeed that sins already accused elsewhere can freely be omitted. But if general confession is necessary, then both integrity and contrition must be procured diligently. By suitable questions and exhortations the confessor should assist the penitent in this sufficiently arduous work. In every general confession, sins perpetrated since the last confession are first to be accused, so that the confessor can better judge both concerning the present state of the penitent and concerning the formal integrity of the confession.

390. Scholion. On a catalogue of sins useful for general confession. Certain authors, for example, Gury and Lehmkuhl, here append a catalogue of sins according to which the confessor may question penitents while hearing confessions. Every confessor is truly bound to know in some measure a catalogue of sins of this kind, but it is much better that he himself, with the counsel of a prudent priest, write for himself such a catalogue in the vernacular language. For it is of great importance that the confessor know not only what things are to be asked, but also how they are to be asked. But especially the manner of questioning in the matter of the sixth commandment must be learned with great prudence and differs according to diverse languages. Therefore I judge a Latin catalogue of sins less useful and accordingly omit it. He who desires a Latin catalogue should consult Gury or Lehmkuhl.