Article I. On the Necessity of Confession

I say. Confession, or the manifestation of sins made to a priest in order to obtain absolution of them, is altogether necessary for all who after Baptism have fallen into some mortal sin, both by divine law and by ecclesiastical law. The first is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 6, where it is read thus: "If anyone shall deny that sacramental confession is necessary unto salvation by divine law; or shall say that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed and observes from the beginning, is foreign to the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention, let him be anathema." But the other is clear from many Councils, but especially from the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III, in these words: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his own sins alone at least once in the year to his own priest, and shall strive to fulfill with his own strength the penance enjoined upon him ...; otherwise while living let him be barred from entrance into the Church, and when dying let him lack Christian burial."

Question 1. How and when does the divine precept of confession press? Resp. Always supposing some mortal sin, the precept of confession obliges both per se and per accidens; per se indeed in danger, and still more in the article of death, and sometimes in life. The reason for the first is that all positive precepts oblige at least in time of necessity, for otherwise they would be imposed in vain; and the reason for the second is that, if Christ had obligated only the dying to confession, it could no longer be said, as is commonly taught and must certainly be held, that the Church, by obligating the faithful to annual confession, more explicitly determined the divine precept itself. - But per accidens it obliges 1°. when the Eucharist is to be received; 2°. when the precept of reconciling oneself with God presses, or the state of grace is required, for example, for administering sacraments or for receiving those which are called of the living, and an act of perfect contrition cannot be elicited; 3°. when grave temptation presses, which otherwise cannot be overcome. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 663. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part. 2, n. 2020.

Question 2. Whether confession can ever be made by writing, or by nods or signs? Resp. It is certain that confession can be made validly by nods or signs; and with a just cause intervening, even licitly. But as regards writing, three cases must be carefully distinguished. The first is when confession and absolution are both made by writing. The second case is when either confession or absolution is made separately through a letter. Finally, the third is when the penitent, having written the confession, gives or sends it to the confessor so that he may read it, and afterward, kneeling before him, says: I accuse myself of all the sins which you have read. - Moreover, in the first and second case the sacrament would be not only illicit but also invalid, both because, at least in the first case, no form would be had, and because this is clear from the Decree of Clement VIII given 20 June 1602, which has itself thus: "Our Most Holy Lord ... condemned and prohibited, at least as false, rash, and scandalous, this proposition, namely, that it is lawful by letters or by an intermediary to confess sins sacramentally to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent confessor, and he commanded that henceforth that proposition not be taught in public or private lectures, sermons, and meetings, nor ever be defended, printed, or in any way brought into practice as probable in some case." That this Decree must be understood not only copulatively but also disjunctively, namely when either absolution or confession alone is made by writing, is clear from the authentic declaration made by Paul V in the Congregation of the Holy Office, on 14 July 1605. But that the Supreme Pontiff willed to declare the sacrament to be not only illicit, but also invalid, is clear from the tenor of the words and from the common interpretation of theologians. - But in the third case the sacrament would be valid and, given a just cause, for example, a most vehement repugnance, even licit. The reason is that then confession would properly be made by words to a priest present through that formula: I accuse myself of all the sins which you have read. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 428 and 429. Viva, vol. 3, p. 577. De Augustinis, part. 2, Thes. 21, p. 266. - Lehmkuhl, n. 271, note 1.