Part II. On Annual Confession

(St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, book VI, nn. 662-674; Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, nn. 35-38.)

I. Existence of the precept. The precept of annual confession, enacted by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215,¹ confirmed by the Council of Trent,² is stated thus by can. 906: "Every one of the faithful of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, that is, the use of reason, is bound faithfully to confess all his sins at least once a year." For the rest, note that the precept of confessing is divine, as will be said in the treatise on the sacrament of Confession, but the precept of annual confession is ecclesiastical.

¹ Chapter Omnis.

² Session 14, De Poenitentia, canon 8.

II. The subject of the precept is those who have sinned mortally, and indeed - as is clear from can. 12, compared with can. 906 - even if they are not yet seven years old (St. Alphonsus, III, 270; VI, 686). It has been disputed whether those who have sinned only venially are held by the precept. This must be denied, considering, namely, the tenor of the law, which requires that the faithful "confess all their sins," so that if the aforesaid were held by the law, they would have to declare all venial sins; this cannot be admitted. It is confirmed by the fact that the Council of Trent¹ testifies that "nothing else is required in the Church from penitents than that... they confess those sins by which they remember having mortally offended their Lord and God" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 667).

Corollary. One who committed only venial sins and confessed them has not satisfied the precept for that year, since he was not bound by it. Yet sufficiently probably, by epikeia, he is not bound to confess again, even if during the same year he has committed a mortal sin: namely, the Church is not judged to oblige him to that. This is confirmed by the fact that otherwise he who had confessed only venial sins would be in a worse condition than he who had confessed a mortal sin. The same must be said about him who committed and confessed only doubtfully mortal sins.

¹ Session 14, De Poenitentia, chapter 5.

III. Time of fulfilling the precept. The precept obliges each year, but not at a determined time. Moreover, some compute the year from 1 January to 31 December;¹ others from Easter to Easter;² others say that it suffices that no greater interval of time than twelve months intervene between successive confessions.

In the internal forum the confessor can as it were extend the time of annual confession, and this for a reason which pertains to confession, for example if he judges that absolution must be deferred.

Corollary I. One who, once the useful time has begun, foresees that an obstacle will be placed to fulfilling the law is bound to anticipate (n. 167; St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 12, n. 40).

Corollary II. One who has not satisfied the precept is more probably still bound to confess for the elapsed year, and indeed as soon as possible, because the time affixed seems to be for urging the obligation, not for ending it (St. Alphonsus, VI, 297, 668).

Corollary III. One who has confessed for the elapsed year is more probably bound to confess again in the same year if he again falls into mortal sin. The reason is that by the prior confession he satisfied a fulfillment affixed per se to the elapsed year, and a man of this sort cannot by epikeia be judged immune from the burden of confessing again (St. Alphonsus, VI, 669).

¹ With the year understood in this way, per se someone who confessed on 1 Jan. 1915 could postpone confession until 31 Dec. 1916.

² With the year understood in this way, one who confessed at Easter of the year 1915 could per se defer confession until the Saturday before Easter of the year 1917.

IV. Mode of fulfilling the precept. 1. It is open to any one of the faithful to confess his sins to any legitimately approved confessor, even of another rite, whom he prefers. So says can. 905. For the rest, the obligation concerning which Lateran spoke, of confessing to one's own pastor or of asking permission from him so that confession could be made before another, has long since ceased.

St. Thomas had already written in his own time: "Moreover, a priest would sin if he were not ready to grant permission to confess to another, because many are so weak that they would rather die without confession than confess to such a priest. Hence those who are too solicitous to know through confession the consciences of their subjects cast many into a snare of damnation, and consequently themselves also... And therefore, if it seems expedient to superior prelates for promoting the salvation of the people and the honor of God, that they commit to others things which are of jurisdiction, no prejudice is done to inferior prelates, except to those who seek the things that are their own, not the things that are Jesus Christ's, and who preside over the flock not that they may feed it, but that they may be fed by it" (Supplementum, q. 8, arts. 4 and 5).

2. One who makes a sacrilegious or voluntarily null confession does not satisfy the precept of confessing sins (can. 907): sacrilegious, as if someone conceals sins; voluntarily null, suppose if a penitent, having confessed sacramentally and having been instructed by the confessor concerning a grave obligation, does not wish to fulfill it, so that he cannot be absolved.