Chapter I: On the Licit and Necessary Use of the Sacrament

— 1. The suitable or capable subject of the sacrament of Penance is every baptized wayfaring man who has sinned after Baptism. He licitly seeks in this sacrament absolution from venial sins, and from mortal sins even already directly remitted by the power of the keys; but he must subject to the sacramental keys mortal sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly remitted through the keys of the Church.

2. As to the time of executing this obligation, it is urgent both in danger of death, in which case he would sin gravely who voluntarily exposes himself to grave danger of dying before confession has been completely made and absolution received; and, from the law of the Church, at least once in the year, for all who have come to the years of discretion.

3. From c. 901, which for the general obligation requires mortal sins committed after Baptism, compared with c. 906, which defines the time of fulfilling that obligation, it is now established, concerning what used to come into controversy, that only those are bound by the precept of annual confession who have committed mortal sins.

4. The year can be computed either as civil or from Easter to Easter, as was said concerning the precept of annual Communion, n. 403. Yet per accidens he will have to confess again who, having already confessed before the Paschal time, has committed some new mortal sin from which he is to be absolved so that he may be able to satisfy the precept of Paschal Communion.

5. Per accidens also he will be bound to make confession to whom use of the sacrament is a necessary means of avoiding grave sins. But the necessity itself either will not be demonstrated or will not be apprehended by the faithful person, so that the constant use of this remedy cannot prudently be declared by the confessor to be strictly necessary. Most opportunely, however, the confessor will exhort the sinful penitent to frequent confession. And that a custom may be generated, it will be best that, according to the gravity of the faults, as sacramental penance, he enjoin a new use of the sacrament, for example after a month, and that once or twice or three times, according to the good will of the penitent.

6. Finally, by c. 907 we are taught that the precept of confession is not satisfied by him "who makes a sacrilegious or voluntarily null confession."

A voluntarily null confession will for the most part at the same time be sacrilegious. Yet a case can be imagined of a man who, unjustly compelled to approach a definite priest, then does not wish seriously to receive the sacrament. The fault of the frustrated sacrament seems in that case to have to be imputed to the unjust compeller.

— Must mortal sins committed before Baptism be subjected to the keys of the Church by one whose Baptism is repeated under condition?

The matter is not free from controversy. Most say that these sins are necessary matter of confession. For, so they say, the conditional repetition of Baptism, which is permitted for the sake of security, does not prevent that common rule, "In doubt one must stand for the value of the act," from holding for participating in the obligations of Christian society. Wherefore he who probably is a citizen of the society is bound by all its obligations (cf. D'Ann., III, 252 [13]; Lehmk., II, 424). They confirm the response, both from the declaration of the Holy Office made in the case of Charles Wippermann, in Germany, June 14, 1715, and from the response of the Holy Office of December 17, 1868 (A. S. S., IV, 320), by which the neoconverts of England were commanded to confess integrally.

Wherefore Lehmk., II, 424, judges that the more benign opinion of Lacroix, l. 6, p. 1, n. 324, and of others, who contend that after doubtful Baptism there remains only a doubtful and therefore practically null obligation of accusing sins committed before the repeated Baptism, must now be altogether abandoned. Yet in his learned investigation, Ill. D. Mannaioli⁽¹⁾ confesses that the controversy has not yet been authentically removed, not even by way of discipline. He himself also thinks the arguments of Reuter and Lehmkuhl weak: for Baptism doubtfully valid certainly lacks a possessor, nor is that certain subjection to the laws of the Church demonstrated by which Lehmk. burdens him who certainly does not participate in the rights or benefits of the Church. Add that the internal forum is not governed by presumptions which are necessary in the external forum. Nevertheless, the learned writer judges that the obligation of observing all the precepts of Christians, and therefore of confessing all sins, is demanded by the public good of Christian society, and consequently is sanctioned by divine law, by the very force, I say, of "the divine law by which ecclesiastical society is constituted and governed." But it is demanded by the public good on account of the very grave disturbances which the contrary liberty would bring. For the neoconverts themselves would go on considering themselves immune from all laws of the Church, and Catholics themselves would be inclined to doubt about their Baptism so that they might escape the positive obligations of Christians. But what if, relying on doubt about the value of his Baptism, a bishop were to reject the law of celibacy? Yet these things do not seem so greatly to be feared. Neoconverts, shortly after conversion, are accustomed to receive certain Baptism, so that they would not enjoy any long-lasting immunity; that doubts about Baptism would frequently arise among Catholics from hope of declining obligations is not at all likely, since a simpler way of declining the yoke of the Church is open to badly disposed men; and the extraordinary scandal which a putative bishop would give by marrying a wife can be met otherwise through secret departure into a distant region. Nor would the difficulty be less if the bishop should discover that he had certainly been invalidly baptized, or if the very conferral of Baptism were doubtful: yet then the illustrious author abstains from imposing any obligation.

⁽¹⁾ On the Proper Obligations of Christians by Which, in General, the Doubtfully Baptized Are Bound, and in Particular on the Integral Sacramental Confession to Be Made by Divine Law by Heretical Neoconverts and by Catholic Adults Who Are Rebaptized under Condition. A Theological-Moral Investigation. Rome, 1913.

Thus the matter seems to us to have to be stated briefly.

1. In England, for which the decree of the Holy Office was issued, and in the United States of North America, to which it was extended by the Council of Baltimore, the discipline of integral confession is to be observed (insofar as these decrees bind after the Code), but as ecclesiastical, so that it is to be prudently urged as other ecclesiastical laws. Nor say with Lehmk., II, 424, that there is had there an authentic interpretation of divine law, since the Church cannot make some matter necessarily to be accused. For it is not so established that a reasonable condition of this kind, of a confession probably necessary, cannot be imposed by the Church as a law by which she reconciles heretics to herself; and those responses could have been given on account of the moral certitude of the value of Baptism in the concrete case. For in the petition concerning converted Anglicans, the bishops as petitioners alleged that the younger Anglican clergy consult the validity of Baptism with great diligence. And thus we approach the intrinsic response.

2. Since Baptism is repeated under condition even for a slight cause, we judge that the causes must be distinguished. If there was a grave reason for doubting about the value of the prior Baptism, there exists only a probable obligation of confessing sins, which certainly cannot be urged unless, in danger of death, confession alone gives security. If truly Baptism is repeated because of a slight doubt, the other obligations of the baptized cannot therefore be shaken. Therefore the obligation of making integral confession will then be morally certain.

— Free choice of a legitimately approved confessor is permitted to any faithful person, even if the confessor belongs to another rite (c. 905).

This reason seems to us to be grounds for interpreting rather strictly the laws which restrict the liberty of religious and Sisters, since they derogate from a faculty commonly granted.

How absolution can be direct or indirect we saw above, n. 510, 3. And it will be indirect on account of a twofold cause: on account of defect of jurisdiction over certain sins; the case will not occur unless an accomplice in a shameful sin is to be absolved outside danger of death; on account of an incomplete accusation excused by forgetfulness or just cause.

Since no infusion of grace formally accompanies absolution from censure, absolution from censure can only be direct.

— But the penitent, at least one who is sane, in order to receive the sacrament of Penance fruitfully, must make a sorrowful accusation of his sins. Hence now the acts of the penitent must be treated distinctly.

— I. The suitable subject of Penance is every baptized wayfaring man who, after Baptism, has sinned. He can subject venial sins to the keys, which he will do usefully, on account of sacramental grace and the remission of punishments; and mortal sins already remitted by force of the keys. But he must subject mortal sins not yet directly remitted, either in danger of death, in which it would be mortal to expose oneself to grave danger of dying without absolution, or, from the precept of the Church, once in the year. The year is computed as civil, or from Easter to Easter. By sacrilegious confession the precept is not satisfied. Per accidens he is obliged at Paschal time who then must be absolved so that he may be able to make Paschal Communion; and also at another time, he to whom use of the sacrament would be a necessary means of avoiding grave sins. And repeated use of the sacrament is to be counted among the best sacramental penances. Defect of jurisdiction over certain sins or incomplete confession are causes why, in a good confession, certain sins are remitted only indirectly.

If at any time, on account of a doubt that is not slight, Baptism must be repeated conditionally, it is not established that there is a general law which obliges to integral confession of sins which were committed before Baptism repeated under condition.

But choice of a confessor, even of another rite, is permitted to any faithful person.