Article III. On the Repetition of Confession

I say. A confession of mortal sins already made can be either certainly valid, although materially not integral, or certainly invalid, or finally only probably valid. If the first, it does not have to be repeated necessarily, but only the defect must be supplied; because the sins already declared have been directly remitted by force of absolution, and those which were omitted must be subjected to the keys. If the second, the whole confession must necessarily be repeated, and the reason is that all mortal sins must be subjected to the keys; but sins accused in a certainly invalid confession were not subjected to the keys. If finally the third happens, no obligation is given of repeating the confession, both because satisfaction has already probably been made to the divine law concerning making confession, and consequently the former obligation cannot now exist as whole and certain; and because when the act has certainly been placed, the rule of law obtains: Standum est pro valore actus, one must stand for the value of the act. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 502 and seq. Lugo, disp. 16, n. 638. Lacroix, nn. 1216 and seq.

You Will Resolve. 1°. The repetition of a certainly invalid confession must be made entirely, if the penitent approaches a new confessor, as is clear per se; but if he confesses before the same confessor still well remembering the previous invalid accusation, it suffices that it be said summarily: I accuse myself of the sins already declared in such a confession ... on such a day, etc. The reason is that all sins are sacramentally accused in this way. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 502. - Elbel, n. 253.

2°. Indeed, if the confessor remembers only confusedly the preceding confession invalidly made before him, then also, at least probably, the aforesaid summary repetition will suffice. The reason is that, since the confessor has already judged concerning the individual sins, the present general repetition joined with the knowledge previously had suffices for bearing sacramental judgment here and now. But if the confessor does not remember even confusedly the sins already accused, then it is required and suffices that the penitent manifest his state in such a way that the confessor comes at least to a confused knowledge. Here it must be observed that the aforesaid solution has force both if the confession is invalid on the part of the confessor, because, for example, he did not have jurisdiction or did not recite the words of the form, and if it is invalid on the part of the penitent, because, for example, he did not have sufficient attrition. The reason is that in all these cases the confession previously made was in some way sacramental, at least with the intention of the penitent considered. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 502 and 503.

3°. If all sins were manifested only historically, and afterward the desire of confessing is conceived, a summary confession suffices if the confessor still remembers the whole history. The reason is that then nothing would be lacking to prevent all sins from being said to have been subjected to the keys and sacramentally accused. But if the confessor retains only a confused knowledge of the history heard, according to St. Alphonsus the whole accusation of sins must more truly be repeated. The reason is that then there would be no sacramental confession: not the first, because the sins were not manifested in order to absolution, so that concerning them the confessor is not bound to the sacramental seal; not the second, because, as is supposed, it is only summary and generic, which indeed according to Trent does not suffice outside a case of necessity. Nor should you say that this solution contradicts the preceding under n. 2°; for there the confession previously made was supposed to be sacramental, at least on the part of the penitent. - Yet theologians are not lacking who deny the obligation of repeating the whole confession entirely; this opinion perhaps could sometimes be useful, at least so that absolution may be given conditionally. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 502. - Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 637 and 638. - Baller. note (b) p. 398.

4°. A penitent who fears that for a long time he has confessed invalidly is bound to repeat nothing, especially if he is of a fearful conscience and has been accustomed to employ sufficient diligence in confessions. The reason is that presumption stands for the value of confessions; otherwise, if the presumption against the penitent stands so grave that it is equivalent to moral certainty.

5°. If the confessor did not recognize a grave sin as grave, or judged a mortal sin to be venial, there is not on that account an obligation of repeating it, provided the penitent set forth the fact rightly and faithfully; because for the value of the sacrament and for the direct remission of the sin it is not necessary that the confessor judge this to be mortal; indeed he often cannot discern this. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 500.

6°. If the penitent notices that the confessor because of sleep did not perceive some sins and he does not know which ones, he is bound to repeat the whole confession, if it was brief, because then he can prudently doubt concerning each one whether they were understood by the confessor or not; otherwise, however, if the confession was lengthy and only a few seem not to have been perceived, because then he can prudently presume that each one was understood; nor does it appear likely that Christ imposed the precept of integrity with so great a burden. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 499.

I say. The penitent is bound per se under grave obligation, before he approaches confession, to institute a diligent examination of mortal sins. But this diligence, although it ought to be serious, and as great as is usually employed in affairs of great moment, nevertheless is not required equal for all, nor so exact that it should be prolonged as long as there is hope of finding some new sin. The reason of the first is, both because the Council of Trent expressly requires a diligent discussion of oneself, and because the obligation of the end imports the obligation of the means: but diligent examination is a means essentially ordered to procuring integrity in confession. But the reason of the second is that, from the very nature of the matter, those who confess frequently or lead a private and tranquil life need less examination than those who rarely approach this sacrament or are wholly entangled in worldly affairs. Finally, the reason of the third is that, as Card. de Lugo wisely admonishes, a most exact examination is not required, but a human one, that is, such that the sacrament is not rendered too grave and burdensome. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 5. - Lugo, disp. 16, n. 590. - Baller. note (b) p. 392.

You Will Resolve. 1°. He certainly satisfies who calls to mind where he was on any given day, what affairs he carried on, what in those circumstances he committed by thought, affection, word, and deed or omission, and how he conducted himself at home, in church, and in conversation with his neighbor. - Cf. Baller. note (b) p. 393.

2°. No one is bound, while preparing himself for confession, to write down his sins, even if he fears lest they fall from memory. The reason is that a means of this sort is extraordinary, burdensome, and liable to the danger of revelation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 471.

3°. He who is morally certain that he has not committed mortal sins since the last confession is not properly bound to examination, except insofar as it is required for supplying sufficient matter to the sacrament. In practice, however, pious penitents are to be advised to give attention to examination of conscience at least for five minutes, or for about half a quarter of an hour, namely for knowing and uprooting venial defects.

4°. In the timorous, a quite moderate diligence of examination is required, because conscience would not be silent if anything gravely culpable were hidden within; indeed in the scrupulous inquiry is to be omitted and sometimes entirely forbidden, as useless and often harmful: for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes.

5°. For the sick, an examination as accurate as for the healthy is not required; indeed sometimes none is to be demanded from them because of weakness of the head; nor is their custom easily to be indulged when they say that they are putting off confession from day to day, as though they had not yet sufficiently examined their conscience; but insofar as their condition permits, they are to be examined briefly by the confessor himself through the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church. For it is better to restore them to the state of grace through absolution, even when they have confessed imperfectly, than, with the sacraments of the Church delayed, to expose them to the danger of damnation. - Cf. Elbel, n. 153.

Question. What is to be done by the confessor if penitents approach without a sufficiently examined conscience?

Resp. If they are instructed, and unless circumstances counsel otherwise, they can kindly be sent away so that they may examine their conscience more accurately and return, at least if lengthy and involved confessions are in question. The reason is that it is almost impossible for someone suddenly asked to remember everything. But if they are uneducated, they are not easily to be sent away so that they may examine their conscience, because charity ought then to counsel the confessor to interpose his own labor. For by some questions he himself will obtain more than they, left to themselves, would accomplish by a long examination, although they would strive to recall all sins into memory. Besides, it is to be feared lest perhaps, terrified by the difficulty, they not return any more to confess. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 471.