Chapter IV. Confession

CONFESSION, or the self-accusation of a penitent made to a priest with a view of obtaining sacramental absolution, is the second material element of Penance. Such confession is necessary because it is an essential element of the sacrament of Penance, which, as we have seen, is a necessary means of salvation for all who have fallen into grave sin after Baptism. The Council of Trent teaches that “ From the institution of the sacrament of Penance, as already explained, the universal Church has always understood that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine law necessary for all who have fallen after Baptism.’’¹

¹ Sess. xiv, c. 5.

This confession must be made by word of mouth according to the practice of the Church and the teaching of the Council of Florence.¹ However, oral confession is not absolutely necessary for the validity of the sacrament, for mutes or penitents who know no language known also to the confessor, or those who are dying and are unable to speak, may confess by signs. Moreover, for good reason, anyone may write his confession, hand it to the priest to read, and accuse himself in general terms, such as “‘ I confess all that is written there.” Although mutes and other penitents may thus confess in writing, yet there is no obligation to do so, for sacramental confession should be secret and auricular, whereas writing makes it to some extent public, litera scripta manet.

Clement VIII, by a decree dated June 20, 1602, condemned the opinion that it is lawful to confess by letter to an absent priest or to receive absolution in the same way from an absent priest, and forbade the opinion ever to be put in practice; whence theologians conclude that such confession or absolution would be invalid by divine law, else the Pope could not have condemned it in such absolute terms. It seems to follow that confession by telephone would also be invalid, for confession would be made by one who is absent, not present with the priest at the time of receiving this sacrament, as is required by the conditions of its valid administration.

¹ Decretum pro Armenis.

A full, entire, and specific confession of all the mortal sins which have been committed after Baptism is prescribed by divine law. According to the Council of Trent,¹ “ If anyone saith that in the sacrament of Penance it is not necessary by divine law for the remission of sins to confess all and singular the mortal sins which after due and diligent previous meditation are remembered, even those mortal sins which are secret, and those which are opposed to the two last commandments of the Decalogue, as also the circumstances which change the species of a sin ... let him be anathema.”

Theologians distinguish between the material and the formal integrity of confession. The material integrity consists in making known each and all the mortal sins which have been committed and which have not yet been confessed; the formal integrity consists in confessing all the mortal sins which occur to the mind after a diligent examination of conscience, or at least of all the sins which the penitent is bound under the circumstances to confess to the priest. It is formal integrity which is prescribed by divine law, and to procure it the penitent is bound before confession to make a diligent examination of his conscience. He should not be too anxious in making this examination; it will be sufficient if he employ that diligence which prudent men employ in worldly matters of importance. No general rule can be given to measure the length of time which the examination should occupy. Much depends upon the character of the individual, the length of time which has elapsed since the last confession, whether the penitent is accustomed to commit grave sins or not, and on similar circumstances. If the penitent cannot recollect the number of times that he has fallen into serious sin, he should mention the number as nearly as he can, and if he has fallen very frequently and almost continuously over a long period of time, it will be sufficient to mention the approximate number of times that he has fallen in the day or week, together with the length of time during which the habit has lasted.

¹ Sess. xiv, c. 7.

A number of special questions must here be considered which touch on the integrity which is required in confession.

The Council of Trent, as we have just seen, teaches that those circumstances which change the nature of a sin must be made known; the theft of a consecrated chalice, which is a sacrilege, would not be adequately confessed by simply saying, “I committed theft.” Not only circumstances which change the specific nature of a sin must be confessed, but also those which make a venial sin mortal and vice versa. The quantity in theft, then, must be indicated sufficiently to enable the priest to judge whether it was a mortal or a venial sin. Divines are not agreed whether circumstances which merely increase the malice of a sin but do not otherwise change its nature or moral quality are necessarily to be confessed. Many, with the Catechism of the Council of Trent, teach that there is an obligation to confess them, but as they give no convincing reason for their opinion and the contrary is held by many approved theologians, we may safely follow the more easy and the more lenient view.

It is not sufficient to confess as an internal sin one which was completed in external act. It would not be sufficient for a penitent to say that he desired to steal when he actually stole. For although the malice of sin is in the internal act of the will, and the external act adds nothing to it per se, yet, considered as human actions, an internal is different from an external act, and therefore as sins are bad human actions, an internal sin is specifically different from the same sin completed in external act.

It is a matter of controversy whether the mere effect of a sin must be confessed. If a man wounds another with the intention of killing him, and then repents and confesses unlawful wounding with the intention of killing, but afterward the man dies, will his assailant be obliged to go to confession again and confess homicide? The opinion is more probable that there is no such obligation, for such an effect of sin is not a sin, and we are only bound to confess sins; a sin is a human action, and when the victim dies his assailant does not act; he would now prevent the death if he could, and so he does not sin.

A vicious habit or custom of committing sin is a cause of sin rather than sin itself, and as sins are the matter of confession, per se it is not necessary to confess a sinful habit. If, however, the penitent did not use sufficient diligence to correct his bad habit, and this caused him inadvertently to commit sin, to blaspheme, for instance, then although the blasphemy, because inadvertent, is not sinful in itself, it is nevertheless voluntary and sinful in its cause, and so the uncorrected bad habit must be confessed. It is sometimes of importance for the confessor to know whether his penitent has contracted a habit of sin in order to be able to direct him, and so the confessor has a right to ask in confession whether a habit has been contracted, and the penitent is then under an obligation to tell the truth.

If many sins have been committed with others it is usually immaterial whether they were committed with one and the same or with different persons. However, if a sin against chastity is committed with a married person, that circumstance must be mentioned, as it causes the sin to be against justice as well as against chastity. Similarly, if one or both accomplices in such a sin are bound by a vow of chastity, that must. be mentioned. A religious who is a priest, and even if he is solemnly professed, would satisfy his obligation of confessing a sin against chastity by mentioning it, and adding that he is under a vow of chastity. For it is probable that there is no specific difference between the violation of a solemn and a simple and even private vow of chastity, and a priest, like a religious, is bound to chastity by vow.

Sins against chastity committed with relations have the special malice of incest, but with the exception of the first degree in the direct line of consanguinity, it is probable that the several degrees of kindred or affinity do not constitute a specific difference in the sin. There is a special malice and difformity in a sin of impurity committed with parent or child, but among civilized peoples this is happily of rare occurrence. Hatred against relations is not only against general charity, but is also contrary to piety, which binds relations to love each other with a special affection. Grave hatred will be a serious sin also against this virtue of piety if it is indulged in against near relations, not if it is against more remote kindred with regard to whom the obligation is not so strict.

Mere superiority or position of itself does not change the nature of a sin committed by rulers, magistrates, and people in authority. And so if a master sin with his servant, the sin does not of itself differ from ordinary fornication. If, however, the sin is also a violation of a special duty, then of course it will have a special malice, and so if a schoolmaster corrupt a youth committed to his care, he must mention this circumstance in confession.

The time at which a sin was committed does not change its nature, and so even though a sin which has been committed recently be confessed as though it were a sin of one’s past life, the confession will be valid, but of course the practice is not to be commended, nor should it be indulged in.

Integrity of confession is prescribed by divine law, but as even divine law does not bind to what is impossible, physical or moral impossibility of making a full confession will excuse the penitent from obeying the law. And so danger of death when the dying person has not the strength or time for making a full confession, or ignorance of any language known to the priest, or danger of violation of the seal of confession, or danger to life from pestilence or other cause, will excuse the penitent from making a full confession of all his sins. Innocent XI condemned the proposition that a large concourse of penitents on some great feast is a sufficient reason for absolving them without requiring a full confession. When a penitent has been absolved without making a full confession on account of the physical or moral impossibility of doing so, there always remains the obligation of supplying the defect in the next confession, unless the impossibility continues. A proposition asserting the contrary was condemned by Alexander VII. Moreover, that a penitent may lawfully ask for absolution without making a full confession, the following conditions must be verified:

(a) There must be some sort of necessity for making the confession here and now, as, for instance, the obligation of receiving the sacraments at Easter, or the hardship of remaining long without the sacraments or in a state of mortal sin.

(b) There must be no other confessor at hand to whom a full confession could be made without grave inconvenience.

(c) All sins must be confessed which can be mentioned without grave inconvenience, extrinsic to confession, which affects the penitent, the confessor, or some third person. The reason of this is because it cannot be supposed that Christ our Lord intended to bind penitents to make a full confession when it would entail such a hardship, whereas we know that he did command a full confession in spite of shame or other difficulties which are the natural accompaniments of confession of sin to a fellow-man.

By a general confession is meant a repetition of preceding confessions. Sometimes this is necessary, sometimes it is useful; otherwise it is harmful, likely to beget scruples, and lead the penitent to think about the past when he should be thinking about the present and the future, and so it should not be permitted.

A general confession is necessary when, through want of jurisdiction on the part of the confessor, or of a full confession or of sorrow for sin on the part of the penitent, former confessions were certainly invalid. In these cases all the invalid confessions must be repeated at least as far as the necessary matter is concerned, A general confession at certain times extending over a certain period is frequently prescribed to religious by rule, which, of course, should be dutifully observed. Moreover, it is useful for most people to make a general confession sometimes, especially when about to enter upon a new state of life, or when, while making a spiritual retreat and meditating upon sin, the grace of God moves the soul to greater sorrow for the past than one ordinarily feels. Sometimes a general confession may be allowed to allay doubts and scruples of conscience with regard to past sins.

Unless some notable spiritual fruit is to be hoped for, a general confession should in other cases besides the above be regarded as harmful, and should not be allowed.