Chapter II. On the Matter of the Sacrament of Penance

I say 1°. As in the other sacraments, so in the sacrament of Penance, the matter is twofold, one remote, the other proximate. The remote matter is all sins committed after Baptism; these are called the matter about which, because absolution is concerned with destroying them. But it is either necessary or merely sufficient and free. Necessary remote matter is all mortal sins committed after Baptism, and never yet directly remitted by force of the keys; because by divine precept sins of this kind are to be subjected to the keys. But sufficient and free matter is all venial sins not yet accused and, as will be said below, mortal and venial sins also already duly subjected to the keys. - It is called sufficient, because any sins, even the least, can be the object of sacramental pardon. But it is called free, because there is no precept of subjecting them to the keys. These things are clear from the perpetual practice and tradition of the Church, as well as from the doctrine of the Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 5.

I say 2°. The proximate matter of the sacrament of Penance is the three acts of the penitent, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are called the quasi-matter of this sacrament, because they are like the sensible matter which in the other sacraments is subjected to the form; for through these acts sins are proposed to be destroyed by the words of the form. This is clear especially from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 4. - Cf. De Augustinis, part. 2, Thes. 18, p. 227.

Question 1. Whether sins already duly confessed and remitted through absolution are sufficient matter of the sacrament of Penance? Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is that sin, although remitted, is always a committed sin; but Christ indefinitely subjected every sin to the power of the keys; and besides He had to give to the sacrament that it should have efficacy in all those things to which the virtue of penance extends. Therefore, just as contrition and confession of the same sin can be repeated with fruit, so also absolution. Nor does it obstruct this that then the sacrament does not destroy this sin; for it suffices that it have its effect in first act, namely, that it furnish grace destructive of sin, although by accident in second act it does not destroy sin. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 427. - De Augustinis, part. 2, art. 6, p. 221.

Question 2. Whether an adult to be baptized under condition, in doubt of a preceding Baptism, must confess sins already accused? Resp. Negatively, and the reason is that those sins have already been remitted through the sacrament of Penance, if the prior Baptism was valid; but if it was not valid, they are not matter of confession and will be remitted through the second Baptism. - Cf. Reuter, n. 118.

Question 3. Whether the aforesaid adult must accuse sins not yet confessed, or committed since the last confession? Resp. This was formerly controverted, as may be seen from the opposed opinions of theologians, for example, Lacroix, lib. 6, part. 1, n. 323; and Billuart, on Baptism, diss. 1, art. 5. For when the probable invalidity of the prior Baptism is posited, subsequent sins probably are not matter capable of the sacrament of Penance; therefore also probably they are not to be subjected to the keys; for the obligation of confessing sins cannot follow except consequently to Baptism duly conferred. - But as regards practice, and restricting the question to heretical neo-converts, one must stand altogether by decree 242 of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, which has itself thus: "In receiving converts from heresy to the faith, we will that that manner be observed exactly which is contained in the Form handed down by the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, on the 20th day of July, in the year 1859." The Fathers of the Third Plenary Council repeat and confirm this same thing, where in n. 122 it is thus established: "After an investigation has been made, the neo-convert will be received according to the manner described in the Instruction of the Holy Office of the year 1859." - Moreover this manner of which both Councils speak is expounded thus by the Congregation of the Holy Office: "If Baptism is to be repeated under condition, one must proceed in this order: 1°. abjuration or profession of faith; 2°. conditional Baptism; 3°. sacramental confession with conditional absolution." Therefore whenever heretics conditionally to be rebaptized are received into the true Church, of whom alone there can be question here, it is not free to our missionaries to exempt them from the obligation of sacramental confession; but that this must be entire is drawn from the fact that, among both the faithful and theologians and in the decrees of Councils, the obligation of confession always carries integrity with it. To these is added both the universal practice of our missionaries, and the response which S. C. Inquis. gave to the Bishops of England on 17 Dec. 1868, and which Cardinal Barnabo, Prefect of S. C. de Prop. Fide, in letters given to the Archbishop of Quebec on 12 July 1869, testified "to contain a general law."

Observe, however, that the case of some Catholic who would have to be rebaptized under condition because it is prudently doubted concerning the validity of the preceding Baptism is not to be resolved in the same way, because the reasons given cannot be extended to him; and therefore in the preceding solution the question was restricted to heretical neo-converts. Therefore a Catholic of this kind could neither be obliged to a general confession of his whole life, nor to confessing those sins which he committed since his last confession.

Question 4. When must confession be made by neo-converts, before or after conditional Baptism? Resp. According to the Instruction of the Congregation of the Holy Office recently cited, one must proceed in this order:

"(A) Abjuration or profession of faith,

(B) Conditional Baptism,

(C) Sacramental confession with conditional absolution."

But just as the practice of those priests who hear the confession properly so called, or the accusation of sins, either before or after the abjuration has been received, then confer conditional Baptism, and finally impart absolution, does not seem to be against the spirit of the aforesaid Instruction, so the practice of those who, when a just cause occurs, defer confession and absolution for a few days does not seem to be out of harmony with the very words of the Instruction.

Question 5. Whether a sin accused only in general is sufficient matter for the validity or liceity of confession; for example, if someone says: I have sinned, - or, I accuse myself of all my sins? Resp. In a case of necessity, or when a penitent, for example, one dying, can accuse no sin in species, such a confession is certainly valid and licit; both because no one is held to the impossible, and because the most common opinion of theologians, and the sense of the faithful, so bears. But outside a case of necessity it must be said that such a confession is more probably valid, if necessary matter is lacking. The reason is that more is not required either by force of the nature of sacramental judgment, since this nature must be the same outside necessity and in a case of necessity, or by force of the precept of integrity, which then presses only when grave sins are present. But several theologians doubt the validity of an accusation of this kind, because the nature of this sacrament, which is after the manner of a judgment, requires determinate matter; but he who only says that he is a sinner submits nothing determinate to the keys. From this it follows that a confession of this kind is certainly illicit outside a case of necessity, because, while the probability of this reason is not to be despised, he who would perform it would expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity without a just cause. Add that this manner of confessing is opposed to the practice of the Church and offers occasion for many inconveniences; for penitents would lack the warnings, counsels, and direction of the confessor, and would be less moved to contrition; nor could the confessor make a judgment concerning sufficient matter subjected to the keys. For a penitent saying, I accuse myself of my sins, not rarely would have mere imperfections in mind. In distant regions, can a Catholic who has been unconfessed for many years, and who only by signs, on account of lack of language, asks for absolution, be absolved without the help of an interpreter? Resp. S. Off. 28 Feb. 1633: "There is no need of an interpreter in the proposed case, just as also absolution of sins can and must be imparted to one showing the signs which he can ... provided that they suffice for expressing some sin in species. But in the case in which someone strives as much as he can to show signs of sins in species but cannot be understood at all, he can be absolved through a manifestation in general alone." Collec. S. S. ad usum Oper. Apost. Soc. Miss. n. 476. - Cf. Suarez, disp. 23, sect. 1. - Lugo, disp. 17, n. 8. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part. 2, n. 620. Nouvelle Revue Theol., vol. 1, p. 67. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 264 and seq. - Amer. Eccl. Review, vol. 13, p. 241.

Question 6. Whether, when the penitent provides only doubtful sufficient matter, the confessor is bound to inquire for certain matter from the past life, so that he can absolve him? Resp. Affirmatively, if he wishes to absolve, because otherwise the sacrament would be exposed to danger of nullity; unless, however, a case occurs in which the penitent can be absolved conditionally, as will be said below. But one would have to respond otherwise if he does not wish to absolve, but only to impart a blessing. But no one doubts that this can be done, since a penitent of this kind does not have a right to absolution.

Question 7. Whether a penitent who does not bring necessary matter, but nevertheless certainly sufficient matter, is necessarily to be absolved? Resp. Affirmatively, and indeed from justice, yet supposing that he is rightly disposed, and no extrinsic reason is present which would advise that absolution is not to be imparted. Nor should you say that such a penitent does not suffer a great inconvenience because he is already in the state of grace; for by refusing absolution you deprive him of an increase of sanctifying grace and of that immense heap of heavenly gifts which are the fruits of this sacrament duly received. - Cf. Lacroix, lib. 6, part. 2, n. 1885. Baller. note (a) p. 297.

You Will Resolve. 1°. The sufficient and licit matter of confession is venial sins, or mortal sins otherwise confessed, according to their species, even generic, for example, I accuse myself of past sins against chastity, charity, etc., prescinding from number and from any circumstances. - The reason is that thus there is had a confession of sin and indeed of determinate sin, at least of one in species; nor is there an obligation of adding the number of venial sins, or of mortal sins already remitted.

2°. If someone accuses himself of no sin in particular, and says, for example, I know nothing, except that I have often had to sin like other men, he is to be examined as children are commonly examined. If nothing can be elicited from the last confession, he is to be questioned about his past life, according to his state and condition. Likewise with little women, little devout persons, and others of this kind, who confess only confusedly and of very slight things, care must be taken that they add some fault from their past life, either in species or at least in genus. But if, after suitable questions have been put, it is possible to draw out nothing determinate, and yet time presses because of the multitude of penitents, there seems to be present a moral necessity which would suffice for giving absolution at least under condition.

3°. For greater security and for receiving a more certain fruit, penitents are to be advised that, besides doubtful sins or even slight daily sins, they always append, from those already confessed, at least generically, some other certain sin concerning which they grieve more vehemently, lest perhaps the sacrament be exposed to danger of frustration.

4°. But penitents who observe the aforesaid practice are to be warned not to subject again to the keys a sin of their past life merely from a certain custom, especially if that sin is slight; because there is fear lest they do not grieve enough, and consequently do not attain the purpose of providing for the validity and fruit of the sacrament.

5°. According to all, confession in general suffices if the confessor plainly knows the penitent from elsewhere, for example, from a recent confession of the whole life, etc., and knows that he wishes to accuse himself of sins already known to him; for then it will be enough to say: I accuse myself of all my sins already known to you; or simply: of all the sins of my past life.