§ I. On the Obligation of Correcting Defects Committed in Confession

I say 1°. An error concerning the value of the sacrament committed with grave fault or grave negligence, supposing grave harm of the penitent from the fact that, for example, he is about to die or about to undertake a dangerous journey, must be repaired even with grave inconvenience of the confessor. The reason is because the confessor, from office and from the quasi-contract entered upon with the penitent, is held to administer the sacrament rightly to him; therefore, if from his own fault he does not administer it rightly, he is an unjust damager and is held to reparation, even with his own grave inconvenience. But if the error is inculpable or lightly culpable, the confessor is not obligated by reason of harm inflicted or of confession heard, but by reason of the necessity alone of the neighbor, whom indeed each person must assist from charity, but not with his own grave inconvenience. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 619. - Baller. note (a), p. 624.

I say 2°. An error concerning the accidents of the sacrament, for example, concerning the integrity of confession, is not to be repaired outside confession if the confessor in this has conducted himself only negatively, although culpably. The reason is because the confessor is not held to procure the integrity of the sacrament and the utility of the penitent except in confession, as spiritual physician and minister of the sacrament. - But it must be repaired even outside confession if it was committed positively and with grave fault, provided this can be done without scandal and grave inconvenience of the confessor himself; because by natural law each person must remove a cause of violating a precept, even materially, which he positively and voluntarily placed for another, unless an inconvenience is present which of itself would suffice for excusing from the observance itself of the precept. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 620.

You Will Resolve. 1°. If the confessor from malice or vincible ignorance or grave negligence unduly released the penitent from making restitution, he is held to correct the error; but if he does not correct it, or if the penitent, who otherwise would have made restitution, has meanwhile become unable for restitution, the confessor himself is held to restore in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely by impeding the restitution due to him. - Likewise, if from malice or ignorance or grave negligence he obligated the penitent to undue restitution, he is held from justice to retract the error; and if the penitent has already restored, he himself is held to repair the harm of the penitent.

2°. But if inculpably or only from light negligence he unduly obligated the penitent or released him from obligation, he is indeed held from justice to correct the error, yet not with grave inconvenience. The reason is because, on the one hand, each person is held from justice to impede lest by his own action, even inculpable, he bring forth harm to another which he can easily forestall; and, on the other hand, from light fault or only material fault an obligation ordinarily does not arise with grave inconvenience. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 621.

3°. But if in the aforesaid case the confessor neglects to correct the error by admonishing the penitent, when he easily can, he himself is held to making restitution. The reason is because, although he acted without fault, at least grave fault, when he gave the first decision, nevertheless he would sin gravely against justice if, since the matter is grave, he did not correct that first decision when he could easily perform this. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 622.

4°. The confessor who did not properly and positively release the penitent, but merely omitted to warn him concerning restitution to be made, is held to correct his error within confession with some inconvenience, if no fault or only light fault intervened; but with greater inconvenience if in the omission he sinned gravely. - But he is not held to restitution, at least according to the more probable opinion, even if by omitting the warning he sinned gravely. The reason is because the confessor could not even be called a negative cooperator with relation to him to whom restitution is owed; for in order that someone be a negative cooperator, it is required that from justice he be held to impede harm; and the confessor certainly is not held to this, because he enters upon a quasi-contract with penitents alone. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 621.

Question. Whether the confessor can speak outside confession with the penitent concerning a defect committed in confession without the penitent's permission?

Resp. Negatively, according to St. Alphonsus and Cardinal de Lugo, who says that the contrary is repugnant to the common sense of theologians. The reason is because that warning, made after the judgment has already been completed, now cannot be joined with it; therefore it will necessarily be a certain extrajudicial reproach of sin, very burdensome, and by its nature it would tend toward rendering confession odious. Nevertheless, if the confessor has not absolved, either because he forgot to give absolution or because he pronounced it badly, he certainly will be able, even without permission sought, to open his error, saying, for example, that he did not absolve; both because by this reason no reasonable offense of the penitent can be present, and because the preceding judgment, absolution being lacking, could not be completed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 622. - Lacroix, n. 1776.