§ 3. On Confession

— Confession is required to be integral at least formally.

For integrity is distinguished as material and formal.

Material integrity, strictly taken, supposes an accusation so completed that it embraces all mortal sins truly committed and not yet directly remitted. But because no obligation is imposed except one tempered to human powers, he satisfies the obligation of material integrity who confesses all mortal sins of which, after diligent discussion, he has consciousness, with the circumstances which change the species (c. 901). He is said, in the broader sense, to make a materially integral confession.

And by a similar reason, formal integrity properly belongs to any penitent who truly accuses the sins to be accused by him, so that he who fulfills the obligation of material integrity furnishes at least formal integrity. But more strictly, a formally integral confession is often understood to be one which is knowingly but legitimately incomplete. Therefore it is furnished by him who, on account of a just cause excused from complete confession, makes the accusation which here and now he ought to make.

— On material integrity. Therefore the following must be indicated of themselves:

1. The lowest theological and moral species of sins. It suffices to indicate these spontaneously, with circumstances, even enormously aggravating ones, omitted. This now is clearly established from c. 901 itself, which is silent about these, while the controversy which remained before the Code was not unknown to the legislator. And besides, once the species has been declared, the whole substance of the sin has been accused.

And observe that species not known are not contracted and therefore are not to be accused.

But it is within the power of the judge to perfect his knowledge of the cause by opportune questions. Therefore, when asked about an aggravating circumstance, as about the quantity of theft, about a custom of sin, the penitent will have to confess it sincerely, and this under grave obligation, unless the slight utility of the question is evident to him. He who does not know or does not remember the lowest moral species should state the higher species or the genus which he knows.

2. The certain number. If this is not established, let the probable number be stated, adding more or less. He who has thus declared the number afterward does not have to repeat the certain number, unless it was notably greater.

St. Alphonsus estimates the matter thus: "about three is understood as two or four; about 10, as 8 or 12; about 30, as 27 or 33; about 100, 95 or 105; about 1000, 950-1050."

But these things are not to be taken rigorously, but are to be left to the judgment of the prudent man. Thus from Lehmk. himself, II, 407, "about a hundred" can perhaps but at most be understood as 90-110. If not even a probable number can be had, let there be stated the custom of sinning, the time, the frequency usual in a day, week, month, year. This is often more expedient with a habitual sinner. Nor let us torture penitents about stating the number, especially since little faith is to be had in the more certain numbers which, pressed by the confessor, they recite. Indeed a habitual sinner who sinned very frequently will be able to satisfy by indicating the space of time during which he was accustomed daily, on any occasion, to consent to sin.

And besides, when guilt consists only in the negligence by which a custom, for example of blasphemies, is maintained, because the individual acts are only material sins, solicitude is not to be had about their number.

Nor is it lawful to increase the number. Yet he who in good faith has increased it will not have to repair the error.

The more difficult accurate accusation is, the less is required: for the obligation must remain human, nor can confession become a "butchery" of souls. Wherefore concerning a prostitute some, for example Navarrus, Summa, c. 6, n. 5, judged it sufficient that she indicate the time during which she had exercised her trade. Yet something more can be furnished easily enough, by indicating the usual frequency, the principal species (whether with married persons, with sacred persons, and how often the rarer species occurred). Concerning internal sins it will be enough to indicate the time. By a similar reason the following will satisfy: one who everywhere lusts after women meeting him; one who fosters hatred or shameful thoughts; one who keeps a concubine at home; one who is accustomed to abuse marriage onanistically; one who habitually converses about shameful things; one who is a habitual thief.

3. Material integrity supposes diligent examination, according to the capacity of the penitent, according to the distance from the last confession, and according to the other circumstances. Moderate diligence suffices, such as a prudent man applies in serious affairs, or such as, morally speaking, learned and timorous persons are accustomed to have, even if you know that with greater diligence you would find more things. Confession can be rendered odious or too troublesome to no one. Wherefore today we require from no one an examination prolonged through several days, and we judge that a diligent examination for an hour suffices even for those who have not confessed for many years.

How the penitent is to be prudently helped by the confessor in this matter, and often also is to be left in good faith, we saw above, n. 539.

Already Lugo himself observed that "it can happen that a confessor finds that a penitent needs a general confession because of preceding invalid confessions, and yet the person is such that he can immediately be examined and heard about the whole life, because there is no hope that, left to himself, he will make a better examination than that which, with the confessor helping, he will be able to make there" (cf. Lugo, d. 16, n. 593; d. 22, n. 20).

— On completing confession. 1. He who, having forgotten a grave sin which he in no way accused, afterward remembers the same, will have to accuse it with the others in the next following confession. Meanwhile, however, he will be able to approach the sacred table, nor on that account does he have to make a new confession sooner.

2. But he who applied moderate diligence in examining conscience ought in no way to think back over his former life. Indeed, if something occurs which merely seems not to have been explained in confession, he can act as if the thing had been accused, from the presumption of confession integrally made.

3. He who has confusedly manifested the state of conscience as, morally speaking, he could according to the things said above, afterward does not have to accuse more distinctly the sins whose number and species he remembers, because in that confused narration those sins were sufficiently understood by the confessor (cf. Reuter, 4, 313). Wherefore there is no obligation that a theologian repeat the confessions which, as an unlearned youth, he made according to his former capacity.

For this reason also a prudent confessor will be able to render secure a penitent who, after many sins, would scarcely dare to open his soul to another in such a way that he would be exposed to making a sacrilege: that nothing now has to be declared to another, "since he himself by his questions has procured so complete a confession that it needs no supplement. This is morally certain. If any necessity seems to arise, it will not be true but supposed from the ignorance of the penitent."

— But that confession will have been invalid and of itself sacrilegious which, from mortally culpable ignorance or negligence, was not integral.

If the negligence was light, or was not apprehended as mortal, the confession will be valid, at least on account of good faith, yet in its own time to be perfected by a better examination (cf. Suarez, d. 23, s. 4). Indeed, if the negligence was truly light, even then it seems to suffice that those sins be accused which recur to memory without a repeated examination.

— 1. Sins doubtfully committed are not necessarily to be accused, because concerning these there is no consciousness. Yet their accusation will have to be advised to those to whom in this way greater quiet of conscience will be obtained.

2. Sins certainly committed but doubtfully grave do not of themselves produce a certain obligation of accusation. In practice, from presumption, the lax penitent will have to be directed to accuse them, but the timorous one to consider himself immune from obligation.

3. Sins certainly grave and probably accused, and directly remitted, need not meanwhile be subjected to the keys, since in practice there must be said to be no obligation which you have probably satisfied. But if they cannot be judged probably accused and directly remitted, the obligation of accusation must be urged, since this has remained morally certain.

Several who do not know how to estimate these things prudently are driven by practical necessity to proposing their doubts, except the scrupulous, to whom accusation of things which are not most certain, like 2 + 2 = 4, must often be prohibited.

— On formal integrity. Integral confession is not essential to this sacrament, but is divinely prescribed. That positive precept admits its exceptions, at least in this way, that an accusation which at present cannot be made complete, or which would be too burdensome, can be deferred to another subsequent confession.

Therefore formal integrity suffices:

1. in those who labor under physical impotence of confessing integrally, either simply or through ordinary means.

By such an impediment are excused the mute, unless they confess to a priest with whom they can speak by signs, which occasion they ought of themselves to use; the deaf or half-deaf, whose accusation prudently, with the law of the seal attended to, cannot be completed by questions of the confessor in the course of confession, but from the beginning are of themselves to be brought to a more secret place; those ignorant of the language, who have some necessity of confessing; the dying, who are deprived of use of the tongue.

And note that, according to a probable opinion, writing and an interpreter are placed among extraordinary means, which no one is compelled to use. And if someone confesses through an interpreter, it is enough that he declare one venial sin. Yet there is a way of obtaining a complete accusation without an extraordinary means, if one who knows the language, turned to the other side, recites the individual precepts, and the penitent by a sign first defined indicates to the confessor that he has sinned and how often, for example by a nod of the head or by pressing the hand. In a similar way someone could, in a public place, for example in a hospital, even with a loud voice question the penitent; let the questions be read from a book, lest they seem to have been adapted to the conscience of the penitent;

2. in those who are impeded from material integrity by moral impotence, that is, when either danger of life threatens the confessor or the penitent, which does not permit materially integral confession.

Cases are: a sick person who, after one or another sin has been stated, fails or is in danger of failing; a sick person who, wishing to confess while Viaticum is being brought to him, is discovered to have made many invalid confessions, if the gravity of the illness does not allow delay of absolution; a priest who, placed in danger, seems about to die before the penitent is absolved; in time of plague, if the confessor, lest he be infected, asks only an incomplete confession; when a conflict or destruction of many is imminent, for example in shipwreck. Then it is enough that, turned to soldiers or to those soon about to perish, the confessor ask from them some external sign of penitence, for example by striking the breast or by lifting the hand, and then absolve them with common absolution: "I absolve you from all censures and sins," unless time is at hand for pronouncing the complete form collectively. Yet it is better, if it can be done, to hear individuals even incompletely.

The case can also happen in foreign missions, if Christians who are rarely visited by a missionary present themselves to the confessor in too great a number for the individuals to be able to be heard before the one Mass, during which they wish to communicate. Then it will be better to hear several; then, with Mass pressing, to absolve others generally, and to take care that in following visits those confess distinctly who could not use the preceding occasion;

3. in those who from materially integral confession have grave damage to be feared either for themselves, or for the confessor, or for another: the divine but positive precept concerning confession does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

Understand inconvenience not as connected of itself with the confession of such a sin, as would be confusion, blush, the reproof of the confessor, but as extrinsic to confession.

Let examples be: a founded fear of violation of the seal of confession, if, for example, the confessor, having been warned, goes on speaking too loudly, so that by his questions he seems about to reveal to bystanders the genus of sins; danger of spiritual ruin, of consenting to depraved delectation on account of examined sins of the flesh; founded danger lest the confessor, from the sins heard, be incited to depraved solicitation. But the dangers of the confessor are not to be easily imagined. Wherefore it rather pertains to the confessor to restrain the penitent lest he turn certain matters over for too long; grave danger to reputation, if from peculiar, not common, adjuncts, for example from an urgent necessity of communicating or celebrating, a lengthy confession would be an almost certain argument of several sins; danger or grave damage of life or of temporal good to be feared, for example from the grave exhaustion of a sick person (D'Ann., III, 305 [33]); danger of violating the seal in accusing a sin, if ever there is such a case. For that he may accuse his own sin, it is enough that, the species of the sin having been manifested, the priest add that he is besides guilty of sacrilege in the administration of the sacrament. For example, one who unduly excused someone from restitution should say: I sinned gravely against justice and in exercising the office of confessor. For another example, cf. Ball.-Palm., V, 252.

4. On account of moral impotence understood more broadly, those are excused from material integrity who have a reserved case from which the confessor cannot directly absolve, namely the sin of an accomplice in a shameful matter; the scrupulous person concerning past confessions or faults; one who, before confession is finished, is absolved by an impatient confessor.

N.B. 1. That someone may confess incompletely, some necessity of confessing must be present: from the precept of annual confession or Communion, if the penitent has other grave sins or doubts about his perfect contrition; from the necessity of communicating or celebrating, to avoid scandal or disgrace; from a longer privation of the sacraments; from the great spiritual utility which the sacraments bring, for example lest the penitent be deprived of indulgences; from the inconvenience of remaining in the state of sin even for one day (St. Alph., l. 6, 490).

2. If the damage or inconvenience depends on the person of the confessor, it is required that opportunity of another priest be lacking, for example on account of distance, to be estimated from the various adjuncts (cf. D'Ann., III, 305 [36]).

3. One who, conscious of mortal faults, cannot confess integrally, must first, in secret confession, set forth necessary matter, that is, what falls under the precept, but he is not compelled, among grave matters, to choose the graver ones, since they are equally affected by the law of confession.

— What if a sin cannot be accused without defamation in the eyes of the confessor either of an accomplice or of another person?

Since defamation in the eyes of one discreet man is not of itself grave, and one sinning tacitly permitted confession to the accomplice of the sin, confession seems to have to be made integrally: a just cause is present for permitting this light detriment. And the mere consolation of confessing to a confessor whom one venerates then suffices so that another does not have to be sought. In a case of extraordinary defamation, if the cause is altogether special why the revelation of sin, made to such a one, is very hateful, then with the other probable opinion we shall respond that the natural precept of not defaming prevails over the positive precept of integral confession. For the opinion is twofold and probable: one commands, the other forbids this revelation, unless nevertheless it is necessary for spiritual direction. But often penitents disclose an accomplice without scruple.

— On free matter. Although, by that reason which we stated in t. I, n. 448, venial sins, even outside confession, in one who is in the state of grace, are remitted through formal penitence, or the opposite act of charity or of another virtue, nevertheless use of the sacrament of Penance always has these utilities: a) of increasing sanctifying grace ex opere operato; b) of conferring sacramental grace for avoiding sins in the future; c) of remitting temporal punishments.

— On sufficient matter. The penitent ought of himself to bring matter certainly sufficient for absolution. Such is a sin already directly absolved, since in this forum nothing prevents the same cause from being judged twice, and a new absolution always profits the penitent. Such is not a doubtful sin. Wherefore then the penitent should add a general accusation of the sins of his former life. Although the general formula, "I accuse the sins of my whole life," added to the present accusation, suffices, yet it is better, so that attrition may be more certain, to indicate some species. The confessor will usefully suggest this to the penitent according to his condition or the knowledge which he has of him, lest the penitent hesitate in doubt.

It also seems sufficient to accuse simply in a general way one's whole life, with no sin indicated. Yet this is alien to received usages. Wherefore, outside necessity, it is better that the confessor demand some distinct accusation in order to give absolution.

Even positive imperfections, if such exist, are not in themselves sufficient matter. Yet we will not therefore prohibit pious penitents from declaring them, both on account of the venial sins very often mixed in, and on account of a fuller manifestation of themselves.

— On the remaining qualities of confession. 1. On account of the usage of the Church, which several, at least before the Code, judged to oblige gravely, let confession be vocal, unless a just cause is present, for example difficulty of confessing otherwise than in writing or by nod or another sign. Yet this obligation is pressed in silence in the Code; and confession is already vocal enough if the penitent, after handing over a written confession to be read, adds by voice: "I accuse all these things."

2. That it be secret is the right of the penitent, so that in the very article of death the penitent can be content with accusing a venial sin, if he cannot confess mortal sins secretly.

3. Let it also be true. Yet not every lie committed in confession is reputed a grave sin, by which confession becomes sacrilegious. But it would be grave in substantial and necessary matter, as if you deny a mortal sin to be accused, or state it so low that you are not heard. It would also be grave to deceive the confessor in a notable matter, when the confessor, as judge or physician, asks something about past sins or about a custom of sin or time of sin as necessary for the present confession.

Of itself, indeed, he cannot be reprehended, at least gravely, who deliberately mixes recent and old sins in a general confession. But one who positively declares recent matter, and that grave, to pertain to past confessions seems to us the author of a grave deception and therefore gravely sacrilegious. Yet there is one who judges more benignly the case of one lying about time, when it does not matter for knowing a custom or relapse.

N.B. Already in the time of St. Thomas, Suppl., 3 p., q. 9, art. 4, 1 obi., the sixteen qualities of confession were rendered in these verses:

"Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful, And frequent, naked and discreet, willing, shamefaced, Integral, secret, and tearful, hastened, Strong and accusing, and let it be prepared to obey."

— On repeating confession. 1. On necessary repetition. It is not only confession invalidly made that must be repeated as to grave sins not directly remitted by force of the keys; indeed, in another confession there must be repeated sins accused in vain, because the confessor did not hear them or could not directly absolve the same.

A confession will have been invalid and sacrilegious if it was made in bad faith to a confessor half-asleep or unaware, or by him who, in making confession, deliberately concealed a censure which was impeding the licit reception of the sacrament. A confession of this kind must be repeated whole.

On the part of the confessor, absolution will be invalid if it was given without jurisdiction, or with a substantially vitiated formula, or by a priest who understood nothing. To have understood nothing distinctly does not impede validity, since absolution can fall upon a general accusation. Yet that absolution will be illicit outside a case of necessity, or unless the priest can conjecture sufficiently that the penitent is guilty of no grave fault.

Indeed the absolution is valid, but confession must be repeated in part, if, without fault of the penitent, it was not perceived wholly because of deafness, sleep, or distraction, so that certain mortal sins were not understood.

If the penitent knows with moral certitude which they were, it is established that these alone and all of these must then be repeated. But if he does not know which they are, a brief confession must be repeated; a long one, according to Tamb., whom several approve, is not to be repeated, both because, if many things were accused and few not understood, the individual sins can probably be said to have been accused, and also, which seems the better reason, from a certain equity, lest the penitent have to bear twice the grave burden of accusing all things. Then it will be enough in another confession to say that certain sins were not understood by the confessor: for in the same way you would have accused sins which were known to you only by genus; but in the present case, the sins to be accused again are known only by genus. Yet if you hesitate among a few species, these will have to be indicated. Lugo, d. 16, n. 610.

But a penitent who has uttered a clear accusation can presume that the same was perceived, so that he ought not to be solicitous about this matter, unless it is morally established to him that the matter escaped the confessor. Nor, because the confessor erred in his judgment, judging light what was grave, is the burden of a new accusation therefore imposed on him. Yet if, concerning a connected obligation of denouncing or restoring, the sentence of the confessor was gravely suspected by him of error, then prudence will demand that he seek counsel from a skilled man, especially if the confessor is not of outstanding doctrine.

— You ask, what memory of the accusation must the confessor bear at the moment of absolution?

All agree that it is not necessary that he distinctly remember the sins accused, but that a confused knowledge either preserved or then resumed suffices (cf. Lugo, d. 16, n. 639; St. Alph., l. 6, n. 502; D'Ann., III, 327 [II 10]). And because he could judge about the individual sins when they were being declared, nothing more seems to have to be required except that the confessor know that absolution is to be given, that a connected obligation, if there is any, is to be imposed, and that such a mode of penance is opportune.

Indeed, although several, St. Alphonsus and D'Ann., l. c., contradict it, if someone has distinctly narrated his sins to a priest as to a friend and then confesses to the same priest, Lugo, d. 16, n. 638, appealing to received usage itself, judges that the confused accusation which the penitent refers to the memory which the confessor had of those sins previously distinctly heard is sufficient. This will certainly be able to come into use if the priest, while he was hearing the narration, already thought in some way about a probable confession. For then the narration gave judicial knowledge to the recipient.

— On the manner of repeating an invalid confession.

1. Before another confessor the accusation previously made in vain must be repeated from the beginning. This is manifest. - 2. But before the same confessor, on account of the reason just explained in n. 594, it is enough in a few words to recall the sins previously known to him, provided the confessor has preserved a confused knowledge either of the sins, or of the state and tenor of life, or remembers the penance given by him (cf. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 502). Indeed several, to whom Ball.-Palm., V, n. 276, adheres, think it enough that the priest "know that he has already formed the judgment and judged that absolution was to be given." St. Alph., l. c. dub. 3, does not admit that the penitent can thus be absolved by a confessor who does not remember at least the penance given. Yet even in this case the reason which the holy Doctor himself gives for the prior cases seems to have force: "The ratification of the preceding confession, which was sacramental, while the penitent then in general accuses himself of the faults confessed, joined with the knowledge antecedently had by the confessor, is reputed well sufficient."

But if the confession was invalid because it was made to a confessor not yet a priest or lacking jurisdiction, then it is necessary that the confessor have retained at least a confused memory of the distinctly made accusation, so that this, at least through confused recollection, can direct him to a truly sacramental judgment now first to be effected. Therefore to such a confessor who has preserved no memory of the past confession, a distinct accusation will have to be made. Cf. Suarez, Paen., d. 22, s. 6, n. 6; Lugo, Paen., d. 16, n. 141; Ball.-Palm., V, n. 275.

But legitimate confessions which were made in good faith after an invalid confession, as is clear, are in no way to be repeated.

Finally observe: since in doubt one must stand for the value of the act, confession is not to be repeated unless it is morally established that the former was invalid. And, on account of the difficulty of the matter, those who in good faith think that they have confessed rightly are for the most part not to be disturbed.

— On the manner of supplying an incomplete confession. 1. It is established that it suffices for omitted things to be supplied. Wherefore if a circumstance changing the species was omitted, the sin which it surrounded is not to be repeated if the specific malice can be declared without mention of that sin. Wherefore, one who, bound by vow, sinned against the sixth precept will be able to supply the defect by accusing either personal sacrilege or a grave violation of a certain vow; but one who violently knew a married woman will not be able to accuse the circumstance of violence separately, since this is specified by the very right violated.

He who accused a sin merely in genus will have to accuse the species which he afterward remembered; but nothing is to be supplied by him who indicated the few species among which he was hesitating in doubt. For in the latter case the true species was indicated as doubtful and was directly absolved; the contrary holds in the former case.

Nor does a habitual sinner who accused his sins confusedly as he could afterward have to accuse more distinctly the species which could sufficiently have been understood by the confessor in the confused narration.

If, what is not to be presumed, it is established that confessions were made by an unlearned person whose life was sufficiently uniform in such a way that certain species were not perceived, a prudent confessor, from a present confession of one month, or half-year, or year, will easily gather what the penitent did through the rest of life.

— On general confession to be prudently advised.

General confession, or repetition of all or several confessions, is useful and to be commended: a) when it seems likely to bring greater peace and quiet to a non-scrupulous penitent to whom a grave doubt has occurred about the value of past confessions; b) so that past things may be more perfectly expiated; so that, from more perfect knowledge of oneself, greater fervor may be conceived; so that, before acts of greater moment in which an immense outpouring of graces is deservedly hoped for or is more necessary, a man may dispose himself better and adapt himself to the grace to be received.

Wherefore in the principal periods of life, before first Communion, before the assumption of a state, in dangerous illness, a general confession of the whole life is prudently advised: this counsel is strengthened by the authority of the Code itself for those entering religion.

That greater fruit may be gathered, let it be made as if it were going to be the last: this, at the point of death, will be a great consolation. Yet confession of the whole life does not seem to have to be repeated more often.

But it is better after stated intervals, for example after individual years, to make a general confession from the last general confession.

Approach to a new confessor furnishes no cause for repeating an accurate confession of the whole life. Insofar as it helps spiritual direction, certain principal notes can usefully be indicated.

But a general confession will be harmful if it would be for a penitent prone to anxiety a cause of disturbance or scruples, or if, for one tempted, from past facts being rubbed raw again, it would nourish passions.

Asked for counsel, the confessor should inquire why the penitent wishes to make a general confession. Then he will decline or admit the proposal. If it is made for the sake of devotion, let him immediately warn the penitent that he is held by no necessity to declare all things.

— 1. Concerning the manner of making a general confession, cf. the things said above, n. 539. Several, after Gobat, tr. 6, n. 498, who transcribes Stoz, advise that he who has led a life of sufficiently uniform tenor consider three times: one weekday, or week, what he did in it; similarly one feast day; extraordinary times of journeys, business, weddings, banquets, occasions. Often it will profit to divide life into a few stages, and to explain what kind he was in each, noting if anything extraordinary besides occurs (cf. Lehmk., II, 442).

That it may be briefer, let it be made in an ordered way according to the precepts and offices; that he may perceive the consolation of a confession completely made, let the penitent help his memory by certain written notes.

2. In a less extensive accusation, let the penitent "consider thoughts, words, works, in order to God, neighbor, himself." Lehmk., II, 449.

3. By the sick a less complete examination is to be made than by the healthy; indeed, sometimes, on account of weakness of head, they are to be relieved from every preparation of examination.

4. To the timorous a graver sin will occur of itself if any has been committed. Wherefore they have no strict obligation, if they confess frequently, of an examination properly so called. Yet they are to be exhorted that they piously discuss conscience and signify habitual propensities. Nor is it of itself to be tolerated that habitually, every accusation of present life having been omitted, they merely accuse past faults against some virtue. Gen., II, 262, judges that a confessor sins venially who permits this to happen, since he habituates penitents to receiving the sacrament perfunctorily.

— On absolving a dying person. 1. A dying person possessing the use of the senses is to be treated according to his disposition. If he is a non-Catholic who cannot prudently be warned about the error of his sect, let him be stirred up to eliciting an act of perfect contrition; then let him declare himself a sinner before God and the priest, and, with sorrow conceived, let him also declare that it is pleasing to him that the priest, insofar as he can, help him. This done, let him be absolved under condition. Those acts which the penitent makes absolutely are judged better and more useful than a conditioned will expressed thus: "if I knew that this was necessary, I would wish to confess and be absolved" (Lehmk., II, 651). Yet the non-Catholic will be helped more certainly by perfect contrition and Extreme Unction.

2. A dying person deprived of the senses, if others can testify to an express will of absolution from him, can be absolved absolutely, although the condition "if you are capable" can also be added. For he is judged to have confessed as it were through interpreters. From present usage, all other Catholics must be absolved under condition. And even those who rejected the sacraments, or baptized non-Catholics, can be absolved under condition.

In the age of Suarez, Lugo, etc., they denied that, with accusation lacking, an absolution of this kind, given to him who had made no confession, could have validity or be conferred. They explain the present usage in various ways: often there is present a sign of confession not perceived; confession, in that case of impotence, is not of the necessity of the sacrament; but in these extreme matters, a lesser probability suffices for administering the sacrament licitly.