Chapter I. On Remote Matter

I. Object. Remote matter, or that around which the sacramental action is concerned, is sins committed after Baptism, and these alone and all of them (n. 287).

Question 1. Whether the sacrilegious reception of Baptism is remote matter of Penance.

Response. Most affirm it, because the reception is sacrilegious insofar as it places an obstacle to the infusion of grace. But what here and now prevents the sacrament from infusing grace seems to be posterior to the sacrament. Others deny or doubt, because the argument adduced does not convince them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 427). The same seems to have to be said of other sins, such as hatred or lust, if perhaps they are committed in the very reception. For the rest, it is certain that both sacrilegious reception and other sins are matter of penance insofar as, as usually happens, after Baptism has been received the will actually continues to adhere to them. If you posit that sacrilegious reception or other sins are at least by nature prior to Baptism itself, it must be said that they are remitted by the force of Baptism afterward reviving.

Question 2. Whether sins committed after doubtfully valid Baptism, but before the sacrament has been repeated under condition, are remote matter of Penance.

Response. They are or are not remote matter according as Baptism was in fact valid or not valid. But it is another question whether there is an obligation of confessing such sins; concerning this, later.

II. Division. Remote matter is chiefly distinguished into necessary and free.

1. Necessary matter is called that which must be confessed by divine precept. This is constituted by mortal sins committed after Baptism, but not yet duly submitted to the keys, or not yet directly remitted by absolution.

Moreover, a sin directly remitted is called that which - whether completely or not completely¹ - has been subjected to the keys and remitted by absolution. A sin indirectly remitted is one which was not subjected to the keys, but nevertheless was remitted by absolution insofar as the infusion of grace also carries with it the expulsion of mortal sins which are not subject to the power of the keys.

Therefore necessary matter is:

1. Mortal sins not yet submitted to the keys; and it is the same whether they have been omitted culpably or inculpably,² and likewise whether they have already been remitted (namely through perfect contrition or through attrition together with a sacrament of the living) or have not been remitted.

2. Mortal sins submitted to the keys, but not completely declared, as can happen, for example, in a case of necessity.

3. Mortal sins submitted to the keys, and indeed completely, but not remitted by the judge, for example because of omission of absolution, or because of defect of contrition (St. Alphonsus, VI, 425, 480).

2. Free matter is that which can, but need not, be subjected to the keys. This is constituted by:

a) Mortal sins committed after Baptism, and both duly submitted to the keys and remitted by absolution. That these can again be remitted by absolution is clear both from tradition, from the consensus of theologians and the practice of the faithful, and from canon 902. Some deduce this from the fact that the total remission of punishment is not established, and therefore the sin can again be subjected to the keys; others from the fact that one can again and again remit an injury inflicted (St. Alphonsus, VI, 425, 427, doubt 2); these things will be explained more fully in their own place.

b) Any venial sins whatever, whether already declared and remitted, or not yet declared or not yet remitted. That venial sins also are matter of Penance is clear: 1. from the Council of Trent³ and from canon 902; 2. from the consensus of theologians and the practice of the faithful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 425).

Corollary I. Sufficient matter is any sin whatever committed after Baptism, whether remitted or not yet remitted (canon 902).

Corollary II. Not sufficient matter are moral defects which lack the nature of sin. Nevertheless, "confessors should not be rebuked because they do not hinder penitents in saying these things; both because many of those things which seem mere imperfections are not done without some venial fault, and also because it is not necessary that all the things which the penitent says in confession be determinately and absolutely matter of absolution. For many things are said because it belongs more to the confessor to discern what is and what is not matter of absolution, and so that the confessor may have a clearer view of the penitent's conscience and be able to judge better concerning his whole state, in order to apply the due remedy."⁴

¹ For example, if some sin (for instance, in a case of necessity) is declared only generically. Nevertheless, according to some authors, in that case absolution falls directly upon the generic aspect, but not upon the specific aspect of the sin, and therefore it is not called directly remitted by them.

² The following proposition was condemned by Alexander VII: "Sins omitted in confession or forgotten because of imminent danger of life or because of another cause, we are not bound in the following confession to subject to the absolution of the priest" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1111).

³ Session 14, chapter 5 and chapter 7.

⁴ De Lugo, Disputation XVI, Section II, n. 103.