§ I. On Confession Considered in Itself

I. Notion. Confession, insofar as it pertains to the sacrament, can be defined: The accusation of one's sins committed after Baptism, made to a priest having jurisdiction and - most add - in order to sacramental absolution. I said insofar as it pertains to the sacrament, for something slightly different must be said if the matter concerns confession insofar as it obliges to the seal; what things are required and suffice for confession considered in that way will be said later.

II. Division. Confession is distinguished:

1. By reason of mode, into secret or auricular and public, insofar as it is made to the priest alone or before a multitude.

2. By reason of object, into distinct and generic, insofar as someone confesses sin according to its lowest species, or only the genus of sins. Generic confession can be subdivided three ways, namely: 1. into confession of the proximate genus, that is, of the genus which has the lowest species under itself, for example, "I accuse myself of sins of lust against nature." To this is almost equivalent confession of the less proximate genus, that is, of that which contains several proximate genera, for example, "I accuse myself of sins of lust"; 2. into confession of the remote genus, that is, of that which contains proximate and less proximate genera, for example, "I accuse myself of mortal sins"; 3. into confession of the highest genus, that is, of that which contains all sins, for example, "I accuse myself of my sins." Confession of this kind, which is also called wholly generic, can also be made by a sign, for instance by sighs, striking of the breast, inclination of the head, etc.

III. Necessity of confession is clear first from the Council of Trent, which expressly teaches the necessity of confession.¹ Next, it is elicited from the fact that the sacrament of Penance was instituted after the manner of a judgment, and therefore, in order that it be rightly exercised, it requires in the judge knowledge of the matter with which it is concerned, that is, of sins. But this knowledge must be supplied by the penitent himself, since he alone is a suitable witness, namely of internal acts, of many external acts, and at least of culpability.

Corollary. Confession is necessary by necessity of means. For it is necessary, as follows from what has been said, from the fact that the sacrament of Penance was instituted by Christ after the manner of a judgment. But what is required because of the nature of the sacrament is necessary by necessity of means, because the sacrament itself is required by necessity of means (n. 358).

¹ Session 14, chapter 5 and canon 7.

Question. How far generic confession suffices.

Response 1. Confession, even wholly generic confession, suffices both for validity and for liceity: 1. in a case of necessity, that is, when someone cannot confess otherwise, whether because of defect in the use of the senses, for instance in one dying, or because of lack of time, for instance when shipwreck or battle is imminent;¹ 2. when someone knows that he has sinned gravely, but remembers neither the species nor the proximate or less proximate genus; 3. when someone is so uneducated that no distinct accusation can be drawn out.

As regards one dying, this is clear from the Roman Ritual,² from the First Council of Orange,³ from the Third⁴ and Fourth⁵ Councils of Carthage; namely, the cited documents declare that one deprived of the senses is to be absolved, although in the case there can be question only of wholly generic confession (St. Thomas, Opusculum 65, § on the Sacrament of Anointing; St. Alphonsus, VI, 481).

As regards the other cases enumerated, the same reason holds as in one dying, namely inability to confess distinctly.

Response 2. Outside the cases just assigned, confession, even wholly generic confession, suffices for validity if someone does not have necessary matter, but only, for example, venial sins or mortal sins already distinctly confessed and remitted.⁶ For: 1. that which in a case of necessity suffices for the essence of the sacrament, with the necessary conditions posited,⁷ is deservedly presumed also to suffice outside a case of necessity; 2. by the consent of all, a confession generic in some degree, that is, of the proximate and even the remote genus, suffices for validity, so that formally distinct confession is not required. But if we posit that formally distinct confession is not required, but a generic confession in some degree suffices, it is no longer apparent why a more generic confession does not suffice, especially because the arguments which are brought against wholly generic confession seem also to militate against generic confession in some degree, that is, of the proximate and less proximate genus, and therefore to prove less (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 502, doubt 3).

It is disputed whether wholly generic confession in the case of which we are speaking is also licit. Those who deny this argue from the nature of a judgment, which of itself must be instituted concerning determined matter; likewise from the practice of the faithful; likewise from the inconveniences that would follow from admitted liceity. The sacrament would be exposed to danger of nullity because of defect of sorrow; penitents would lack admonitions and counsels, etc. But since all admit that confession of the lowest species, or even of the proximate genus, is not prescribed if the matter is free, it is no longer clear that wholly generic knowledge does not suffice. Next, the practice of the faithful proves an obligation in this matter no more than, for example, as regards the accusation of doubtful sins. Finally, the confessor must watch lest the assigned danger persist; and the admonitions and counsels of which there is question here pertain to perfection, not to necessity. Nevertheless, because of the reasons alleged, it is better to accuse oneself more determinately, and that custom should be promoted.

Objection 1. From the fact that wholly generic confession is valid in a case of necessity, it does not necessarily follow that it is also valid outside a case of necessity; this is clear from the fact that confession made through a messenger in the article of death is valid, but otherwise is not valid.

Response. I deny that confession made through a messenger in the article of death is valid; you may see that it is not valid proved in n. 312.

Objection 2. The sacrament of Penance is a moral institution, namely it has itself after the manner of a judgment. But a moral institution accommodates itself to the condition of things and persons, or according to circumstances now requires these things, now those, for validity. Hence from the fact that wholly generic confession sometimes suffices for validity, it is undeservedly deduced that it always suffices.

Response. The sacrament of Penance certainly was instituted after the manner of a judgment; nevertheless, of a judgment which is of its own kind, that is, primarily reconciliatory. Moreover, I concede that even from such a moral institution, from such a judgment, now these things and now those are required so that it may be exercised prudently. But that for validity also now these things and now those are required needs proof; until it is proved, it is permitted to presume the contrary. It is added that the contrary can also be demonstrated positively. Namely, from the fact that confession of the proximate and even of the remote genus, in other words quasi-generic confession, suffices for validity even when the circumstances bear a more determined confession, from this, I say, it is rightly deduced that by no means, according to the circumstances, now these things and now those are required for the validity of this moral institution.

Objection 3. More distinct knowledge is required for the validity of a judgment; therefore also for the validity of Penance, which was instituted after the manner of a judgment.

Response. I distinguish the major: more distinct knowledge is required for the validity of a secular judgment, I concede; for the validity of a sacramental judgment, which is primarily reconciliatory, more distinct knowledge is required, I deny, because of the arguments alleged.

Objection 4. According to the Council of Trent,⁸ a sacramental judgment cannot be instituted when the case is unknown.

Response. The Council treats of the prudent institution of this judgment, not of its valid institution. For it speaks of wholly distinct knowledge, that is, knowledge of sins according to their lowest species; but no one admits that this is required for validity.

¹ In circumstances of this kind let the confessor stir all to elicit a brief act of contrition and to repeat mentally what he himself is about to say; 2. to signify by a sign, for example by inclination of the head, the will of receiving absolution. Then let him say: I absolve you from all your censures and sins; in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

² Title 3, chapter 1, n. 24.

³ Chapter 12, in Labbe, t. 4, col. 703 and following; cf. Decretum Gratiani, canon Qui recedunt 7, cause 26, question 6.

⁴ Chapter 34, in Labbe, t. 2, col. 1404.

⁵ Chapter 76, in Labbe, at the cited place, col. 1443; cf. canon Is qui 8, cause 26, question 6.

⁶ If someone has necessary matter, he is bound under grave obligation to confess distinctly, and therefore, if he confessed only generically, he would receive the sacrament invalidly because of defect of disposition. Except if he proceeded in good faith.

⁷ With the necessary conditions posited, namely that the penitent has sufficient sorrow and purpose.

⁸ Session 14, on Penance, chapter 5.