§ II. On the Qualities of Confession Generally

Confession must be made: 1. to a priest as judge; 2. to a present priest; 3. secretly; and 4. vocally. Let it be made, I say:

I. To a priest as judge, so that, for example, confession, or rather a narration of sins, made to a priest as friend does not suffice. For the word "confession," which the Council of Trent uses, considering both its obvious sense and the very matter treated there,¹ signifies the exposition of sins made in sacramental judgment. Nevertheless, it suffices for validity if someone, after a friendly narration has been made, says: "I accuse myself of the sins just narrated."

Question. Whether an accusation of this kind also suffices for liceity.

Response 1. Affirmatively, if the confessor has retained a distinct memory of the sins narrated. The reason is that then the subsequent accusation, although in appearance indistinct, is in reality distinct (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 44).

Response 2. Otherwise it is disputed. Now with St. Alphonsus (VI, 502, doubt 1) it seems it must be said that this manner of acting does not suffice for liceity. For the Council of Trent declares that confession is required,² and that, in order that judgment be exercised prudently, it is required according to species and number.³ But in the hypothesis posited there is no confession according to species and number: the prior narration is not such, since it was not confession; nor is the general accusation that follows such, since it was not confession according to species and number. It is added that the confessor, before he gives sentence, must have had distinct judicial knowledge. But this is not had in our case: neither by force of the prior narration, since it was made before the confessor could exercise the office of judge in relation to this person; nor by force of the subsequent confession, since it was not distinct and therefore did not supply distinct judicial knowledge. Some indeed judge that judicial knowledge is present if the priest, as friend receiving the narration of sins, already suspected in some degree that he could lead the man, who then was thinking nothing of confession, to sacramental confession. But a suspicion, or even persuasion, of this kind does not suffice for the confessor to be constituted here and now as the judge of this man.

¹ Session 14, on Penance, chapters 3 and 5.

² Session 14, on Penance, chapter 3.

³ Session 14, on Penance, chapter 5.

II. To a present priest. For Clement VIII¹ condemned the proposition: "that it is licit, by letters or by an intermediary, to confess sins sacramentally to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same while absent"; and at the same time he prohibited that "it ever be defended as probable in any case, printed, or in any way brought into practice." Moreover, from the fact that this opinion can never be brought into practice, not even in a case of necessity, it is deservedly deduced that confession of this kind is invalid; for no other reason can be assigned for that absolute prohibition. Nor should it be said that the particle "and" in the condemned proposition is to be taken in a copulative sense, not in a disjunctive one; since the Holy Office² declared: "The Most Holy One, namely Paul V, decreed that the said interpretation does not stand and therefore must be removed from his [Suarez's] books" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 428).

Nor from the fact that one dying, deprived of the senses, who before deprivation of the senses manifested a desire of confessing while the priest was absent, can afterward be absolved by a present priest, nor, I say, from that fact should you deduce that confession made to an absent priest in the article of death is valid. For one dying in this way can be absolved either because the testimony of the said desire, brought forward by a witness, is judged to be the confession of the dying person himself; or because the confession of the dying person, made while the priest was absent, morally perseveres when the priest is present, and as such is made here and now to the present priest; or because the dying person, with the priest present, perhaps expresses by some sign the desire of absolution. This suspicion suffices so that absolution may at least be granted conditionally (St. Alphonsus, VI, 481). From these things it is clear that our case is not comprehended by the condemnation of Clement VIII, namely because there is not, or at least probably there is not, confession made to an absent priest.

¹ July 20, 1602 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1088).

² July 14, 1605; likewise June 7, 1603 and January 24, 1632 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1089).

III. Secretly, that is, let confession be made to the priest alone, considering a usage which is not destitute of force.¹ Nevertheless, those who cannot confess otherwise are not prohibited, if they wish, from confessing through an interpreter, with abuses and scandals guarded against (canon 903). For the rest, confession through an interpreter can be made in such a way that the interpreter does not know the responses given by the penitent; for instance, if the confessor questions the penitent, the interpreter repeats the questions in the language of the penitent, and the penitent responds to them by signs perceived by the confessor alone.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, session 14, on Penance, canon 6; response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 10, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 43); likewise Lateran Council, chapter Omnis utriusque sexus.

IV. Vocally. The precept of confessing vocally was introduced by custom beyond the law,¹ and therefore is judged to persist.² It is also more commonly taught that the precept obliges at least under grave obligation insofar as one who, without an excusing cause, does not make the whole confession vocally sins mortally. A moderate cause suffices so that it is licit to confess by nods, signs, or writing, for example if someone because of shame cannot express a sin by mouth, or because of an impediment of the tongue confesses with difficulty by mouth; if the confessor is somewhat deaf, so that confession made by mouth could be heard by others (St. Alphonsus, VI, 493). Indeed, a just cause seems to suffice so that someone, after handing over a written confession and after it has been read by the confessor, may add: "I accuse myself of the sins read by you." Nor in practice should those who confess in writing be disturbed, nor should the confessor inquire why they proceed in that way.

¹ "Unless," as in the Extravagant Inter cunctas, on privileges, "an article of necessity occurs, oral confession is to be made to a priest."

² Cf. response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 10, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 43).