Scholion I. On Repeating Confessions in General

Preliminary I. The obligation of repeating confessions in which necessary matter is involved can arise from a defect either of validity or of integrity, for instance if someone previously confessed sins without species and number, or if the confessor, because of deafness or sleep, did not hear or understand the things confessed.¹ But an invalid confession can be either simply invalid, or invalid and sacrilegious. It is also sacrilegious at the same time when the penitent sinned gravely in the very reception of the sacrament.

Preliminary II. Defect of validity can come:

1. From the confessor, for example if he lacked jurisdiction, if he omitted the form or changed it substantially.

2. From the penitent, for example if he was ignorant of things to be known and believed by necessity of means, if he lacked contrition or purpose, if in bad faith he kept back a grave sin.

¹ In the case, for the most part at least generic confession is had, so that one cannot seriously doubt about validity.

I. The obligation of repeating confessions is had:

1. If someone confessed very incompletely, that is, without species and number. Nevertheless, this is not presumed, since the confessor must be presumed to have helped the penitent sufficiently.

2. If it is morally certain that someone confessed invalidly, as if someone continually and in the same way relapsed into a habit.

3. Disputation 1. Whether one who doubts whether he confessed invalidly is bound to repeat confessions. Moreover, it seems it must be said thus:

a) If the doubt about validity comes from doubt about the way in which someone confessed, for example whether with true contrition, the penitent is not bound to repeat the confessions, because he can presume that he confessed rightly according to that principle: in doubt, what has been done is presumed to have been rightly done (St. Alphonsus, VI, 505).

b) If the doubt does not come from doubt about the way in which someone confessed, but from the fact that it is doubted whether confession instituted in that way is valid,¹ the penitent seems to be bound to repeat the confession. For then there is no reason for presuming that the confession was valid, so that it is truly doubtfully valid and remains so. But one who, all things considered, seriously doubts whether he confessed validly seems to be bound to repetition. For one who certainly sinned gravely must take care that he enjoys, at least with moral certainty, the means prescribed of itself for obtaining pardon, that is, direct absolution from sin, or such an absolution as the sacrament of Penance confers by reason of itself, not merely insofar as remission of one mortal sin necessarily brings with it the expulsion of the others. But in the hypothesis posited direct absolution from sins is uncertain and remains uncertain until the sins are again subjected to the keys (St. Alphonsus, II, 2; VI, 450).² Whether in a following confession the sins must again be declared distinctly, or whether it suffices to confess them generally, draw from what is to be said in n. 334.

4. Disputation 2. How far there is an obligation of repeating confession if the confessor, because of deafness or sleep, understood the things confessed only in part. Now:

a) if the penitent knows which sins were not understood, he is bound to repeat these (n. 397).

b) if the penitent does not know that, he is bound to repeat the confession if it was brief, because as regards the individual sins he doubts whether they were understood; nor is there an inconvenience which excuses. But if the confession was long, the inconvenience of repeating it and consequently many sins already confessed and understood seems to excuse from integrity, or from renewing a distinct confession; and it suffices that the penitent declare in general that there are certain sins which the confessor did not perceive (St. Alphonsus, VI, 499).

¹ For instance, if someone, having confessed two sins, was contrite solely from a particular motive of one sin; or if he confessed while ignorant of the mysteries which probably must be known by necessity of means.

² What St. Alphonsus teaches here coheres very well with what is said in book VI, n. 595, where he teaches that the faithful are not to be compelled to repeat confessions unless it is morally established that they were invalid. The latter is generally true, and therefore can be stated in that way; but in the exceptional case discussed by the Holy Doctor in book II, n. 2, the principle cannot be applied, as otherwise it commonly can: in doubt one must stand for the validity of the act. "If," Gaude adds, "there were a contradiction between the two places, those things which are handed down in the present place would certainly seem to be preferred, and it is clear that the Holy Doctor changed his opinion on this matter. For what is here asserted about necessarily repeating confession is absent in the first five editions of the Theologia Moralis, and is first found in the sixth edition printed in 1767; whereas, on the contrary, the doctrine taken from the tract on Penance had already obtained a place in the earlier editions of the Theologia Moralis" (note in this place). But, as I noted, there is no contradiction.

II. The manner of repeating confessions. 1. If the repetition is made before the same confessor before whom the invalid confessions were made, then:

a) If the confessor has retained at least confused knowledge of the state of the penitent, it suffices, as regards the sins confessed, that these be subjected to the keys by a general accusation. For in the case there are had, or rather previously were had, confession and distinct judicial knowledge; besides, here and now there are had confession at least generic and confused judicial knowledge. That more is required is commonly and quite soundly denied. Note also that confused knowledge can sometimes be gathered from the penance itself imposed and retained in memory (St. Alphonsus, VI, 502).

b) If the confessor has not retained even confused knowledge, nor can gather it from the penance imposed and known, it suffices, but more probably is also required, that he resume confused knowledge; or that the penitent again expose in a confused way the sins previously confessed, for example by saying that he sinned against chastity, temperance, justice, religion. That this suffices is clear from what was said under a). That this is required, with St. Alphonsus (VI, 502) against several more recent authors,¹ we hold as more probable, and indeed: 1. because sentence does not seem to be pronounced unless the judge has at least confused knowledge of the state of the penitent, that is, has retained it or now resumes it; 2. because otherwise a sufficiently fitting penance cannot be imposed.

2. If the repetition is made before a different confessor, the confessions must be repeated integrally. The reason is that the confessor who pronounces sentence must have or have had distinct judicial knowledge of the sins. Nevertheless, sometimes it will suffice to question the penitent, for example, about the last year; namely if, because of a uniform manner of life, a sufficient judgment can at the same time be formed about the preceding years - that is, one equal to what would be obtained by a repetition of the confessions. The same is to be applied if the confessor, after hearing the confession of the last year, detects a defect of past confessions; in which case it suffices that the confessor has retained knowledge of the sins heard, and from that knowledge forms a sufficient judgment about the past years. In either case, however, let the penitent accuse himself in a general way concerning the preceding years (St. Alphonsus, VI, 504).

Corollary I. Whether the repetition is made before the same confessor or before a different confessor, those things which perhaps were lacking to integrity in the prior confessions must always be added by the penitent. Besides, if the prior confessions were sacrilegious, let the penitent declare how often he received the sacrament of Penance and Holy Communion, likewise whether he received other sacraments, namely Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction; finally whether and how often he injured the precepts of annual Confession and Communion, whether by neglecting them or by receiving the sacraments sacrilegiously.²

Corollary II. It sometimes happens that prior confessions were invalid, but not later ones; for instance if the penitent at first confessed without contrition but in good faith, and afterward with due disposition; likewise if at first sacrilegiously, but afterward, having forgotten the sacrilege, he validly received the sacrament. Now it is clear that these things are to be attended to in the repetition of confessions.

¹ They say that it suffices that the confessor remember that this penitent had confessed and been judged.

² Many, however, are ignorant that by sacrilegiously receiving the sacraments they injure that twofold precept.