Confession after doubtful or conditional Baptism

A doubt may sometimes arise as to whether a person has ever been baptized, or as to whether his Baptism was valid, and after Baptism has been conditionally administered in such a case so as to make so important a matter secure the question remains whether this person must make a general confession of past sins or not. If a Catholic has been in the habit of going to confession and making good ones as far as he knows, there will be no necessity to repeat those confessions after conditional Baptism. For if he was baptized before, his confessions would be valid, and if he was not baptized, his past sins are not matter for confession, A non-Catholic, however, who receives conditional Baptism is in a different position. His past sins have not been confessed; if he was baptized before, he is bound to confess them; if he was not baptized before, they are not matter for the sacrament of Penance. What is he bound to do when the fact of Baptism is uncertain, and at most it can be said that there are probabilities on either side?

The First Synod of Westminster¹ prescribes that a non-Catholic already probably baptized who is received into the Catholic Church must, after conditional Baptism, make a full confession of the sins of his past life. This decree was confirmed by the Holy Office, December 17, 1868, and several other decrees and instructions in the same sense have been issued. In practice, then, and in countries which are bound by these decrees and instructions, as are England and the United States, the question is settled by positive law. With regard to other countries which are not directly subject to the foregoing decrees and instructions, it is still a matter of controversy among divines whether a full confession is obligatory. In the opinion of several, there is no universal law, divine or human, which makes confession obligatory in such a case.²

¹ D. xvi, n. 8.

² Ferreres, Comp. Theol. Mor., ii, n. 527.

“Can catechumens confess sacramentally before they are baptized, whether absolutely or conditionally?—Response. As regards confession before Baptism to be conferred absolutely: Negative. But if the catechumen nevertheless wishes to confess, he is to be instructed that this can in no way be regarded under the aspect of a sacrament, since absolution cannot be imparted, nor is the missionary bound to observe secrecy. But if it concerns those who must be baptized conditionally, then, for the greater facility of the ecclesiastical function, they can first be heard sacramentally as regards the accusation of their faults; then, after the conferral of Baptism under condition, the confessor, having again reviewed with the penitent under principal headings those things of which he has already made accusation, is to absolve him sacramentally, likewise under condition.” Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, 2 December 1874.

“Most Blessed Father: Among the decrees of the First Provincial Synod of Westminster, chapter 16, no. 8, where the abjuration of adult Protestants and Baptism to be conferred upon them under condition are discussed, this is added: ‘Sacramental confession also is always to be required in such a case.’ In the annotations which Father Ballerini added to the Roman edition of Father Gury’s moral theology, this confession is said to be more conformable to the Instruction issued by the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office concerning the manner of reconciling heretics, from which Instruction it is deduced that a complete confession of sins is opportune. In the text of Father Gury it is held that it is to be advised in practice.

“But since this author, both in his theology and in the cases of conscience, cited the opinion of other authors who teach that, because there exists a doubt concerning the first Baptism received by new converts in infancy—so that, if that was null, the true reception of Baptism is that which is bestowed conditionally on the occasion of the abjuration—the obligation of confessing sins completely before this conditional Baptism is doubtful, some confessors in England, following those authors, judged a doubtful obligation of complete confession to be no obligation; and because of the reluctance of converts to make it and because of the danger of an incomplete or even sacrilegious confession, they deemed it altogether expedient that converts set forth only some sins to the confessor, so that they might obtain from him the benefit of sacramental absolution, should there perhaps be need of it.

“On the other hand, there is the constant practice of the greater part of the confessors of the kingdom, both before and after the approval of the Provincial Council, not only advising but also requiring complete confession. There is the difficulty of converts bringing their understanding into captivity unto the obedience of the faith except through humility and submission of soul, which Christ the Lord deigned to place in the Sacrament of Penance. There is also the impossibility of knowing, except through a complete manifestation of sins, whether the new convert is duly disposed for Baptism itself, and whether, for example, he is willing to make restitution of reputation or goods (if he should happen to be bound to it), to avoid the proximate occasion of sin, and to withdraw from a marriage contracted invalidly, even if it cannot be sanated through a dispensation of the Holy See—as in the daily more frequent cases of a marriage contracted after civil divorce. There is, moreover, the necessity of providing for his salvation through justification in the Sacrament of Penance, from the integrity of which no one once baptized in infancy can be exempted, especially in view of the diligence of the younger members of the English clergy in faithfully observing the rite of baptizing, and hence in view of the greater number of those concerning the validity of whose infant Baptism it is not lawful to doubt.

“But since it is certain that after several years the obligation of complete confession will entirely lose its force if theologians are able in practice to follow as safe the opinion of the aforesaid authors, the Archbishop of Westminster and the bishops of England earnestly request that Your Holiness, in your benevolence toward the missions of England, deign to declare the mind of the Church concerning this most grave question:

“Whether, according to the decree of the Provincial Synod approved by the Holy See, sacramental confession must be required from new converts in England, and whether it must be complete?”

“Response. Affirmative; and the Decree issued on Thursday, 17 June 1715, is to be given.” Holy Office, 17 December 1868.

Decree of Thursday, 17 June 1715: “Is full credence to be given to Charles Wipperman of Rostock in the Duchy of Mecklenburg, preacher and lecturer of quietistic Lutheran theology, superintendent and principal doctor of the sect of the Lutheran quietists, reconciled to the holy Catholic faith at the Holy Office of Parma, concerning certain errors detected in his Baptism; is he to be believed concerning those things which he recounts? And insofar as the response is affirmative, so that provision may be made both for his salvation and also for the salvation of the others of that sect or region, especially if they should be ignorant, it is asked whether the said Wipperman is to be rebaptized; and insofar as the response is affirmative, whether absolutely or under condition; and insofar as the response is affirmative, whether he is bound to confess all the sins of his past life; and insofar as the response is affirmative, whether confession is to be placed before, or after, Baptism conferred under condition.—His Holiness, having heard the votes of the Most Eminent Fathers, said: Charles Ferdinand is to be rebaptized under condition, and, Baptism having been conferred, he is to confess the sins of his past life and to be absolved from them under condition.”

“The response of the Holy Office of 17 December of last year, although given only at the request of the bishops of England, contains a universal law, and therefore binds not only in England but also in other regions. Hence it is evident that it can in no way be permitted that an opinion contrary to the aforesaid decision be taught. From the offices of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 12 July 1869. Alexander Cardinal Barnabò, Prefect; John Simeoni, Secretary of the Sacred Congregation [the original prints ‘de P. I.’].”

The preceding Decree of the Holy Office of 17 December 1868 was also accepted by the most recent Plenary Council of Latin America, no. 559.

419. • QUESTION 2. Must an adult who is to be baptized conditionally because of doubt concerning a preceding Baptism confess sins already accused? Reply. Negative. The reason is that those sins have already been remitted through the Sacrament of Penance if the prior Baptism was valid; but if it was not valid, they are not matter for confession and will be remitted through the second Baptism. - Reuter, no. 118.

QUESTION 3. Must the aforesaid adult accuse sins not yet confessed, or committed since the last confession?

Reply. This was hitherto controverted among writers. The first probable opinion denied it, because, they said, given the probable invalidity of the prior Baptism, these sins are probably not matter capable of the Sacrament of Penance; therefore, they probably are not to be submitted to the keys either. For the obligation of confessing sins cannot follow except subsequently to Baptism duly conferred. Hence, if perhaps these sins are not remitted through the second Baptism, which is invalid because of the validity of the first, they can be remitted either through perfect contrition or indirectly through absolution with attrition. - Lacroix, no. 325, On Baptism, and others.

The second opinion, also probable, affirmed it, because the obligation of confessing sins urges whenever it is not established that they were committed before a valid Baptism. The Author therefore concluded that in practice confession was very much to be advised ⁴. But now attend to the most recent response of the S. Congregation which was issued on this matter toward the end of the year 1868.

⁴ This practice was furthermore presented in the preceding Edition as more conformable to the instruction which the Congregation of the Holy Office had given on another occasion, when it taught the order to be observed in reconciling these adults. This instruction indeed supposed confession, if not necessary, at least most opportune. Nevertheless, it was added that if the first opinion were in fact probable - which otherwise could seem consonant with the general principle that the obligation of Confession is not to be imposed when, morally speaking, as St. Alphonsus says, bk. 6, no. 505, it is not established - it should not have been permitted that one be urged to an unnecessary Confession to whom it appeared so hard that, perhaps overcome by the difficulty, he could be deterred from reconciliation.

But now, in favor of the second opinion, there has been added a Response of the S. Inquisition, Dec. 17, 1868. For to the Question proposed in the name of the Bishops of England, Must sacramental Confession be required of new converts in England, and must it be integral? the response to both parts of the doubt was: Affirmative; and the decree rendered on Thursday, June 14, 1715, was to be given.

That this response does not concern only the special circumstances of England is proved by the preceding response of the year 1715. For the following Doubt was proposed: whether full credence is to be given to Charles Wipperman of Rostock in the Duchy of Mecklenburg, a preacher and lecturer of quietistic Lutheran theology, superintendent and principal doctor of the sect of quietistic Lutherans, reconciled to the holy faith in the Holy Office of Parma, concerning certain errors detected in his Baptism; whether he is to be believed concerning the things which he relates; and, insofar as the reply is affirmative, that provision may likewise be made both for his salvation and for that of the others of that sect or region, especially if they are ignorant.

It is asked whether the said Wipperman is to be rebaptized; and, insofar as the reply is affirmative, whether absolutely or conditionally; and, insofar as the reply is affirmative, whether he is bound to confess all the sins of his past life; and, insofar as the reply is affirmative, whether the confession is to precede or follow the Baptism to be conferred conditionally.

The Most Holy Father, having heard the votes of the Most Eminent, said: Charles Ferdinand is to be rebaptized conditionally; and, after Baptism has been conferred, let him confess the sins of his past life and be absolved from them conditionally.

** Although this question appears to have nothing to do with the Vindiciae Alphonsianae, since St. Alphonsus the Doctor has not even one word concerning it, nevertheless, the VV. did not judge that they should remain silent concerning it, and they devote four columns to this argument (pp. 463-465), perhaps so that, from the example of this doctrine set forth in Gury's Compendium, which afterward appears less consonant with the preceding Decree, no one may wonder that in the moral Work of St. Alphonsus also certain opinions are approved which are found to have been condemned by preceding or subsequent Decrees of the Church.

What is now of interest is the conclusion, worthy of notice, which the VV. deduce from the Decree adduced. The Decree of the S. Inquisition, they say (p. 465), proves that a doubtful obligation of confession is not always to be regarded as nonexistent. But if the matter is thus, no more evident apology for Gury's Compendium could now be desired. For the VV., unless you say that their words are devoid of meaning, suppose that the obligation of Confession is in itself doubtful. But it cannot be called doubtful unless the opinion which denies the obligation is judged truly probable. Therefore, by the suffrage of the VV. themselves, Gury must now rightly be said to have written after Lacroix that the opinion which denies the obligation of integral Confession is probable!

But further. That a doubtful obligation is not to be regarded as nonexistent can be effected only by the force of some principle which establishes that in the case the safer side must necessarily be followed. But if the integrity of Confession is at issue, behold St. Alphonsus meets us, saying (Homo apostolicus, tr. 16, no. 29): No one is bound to doubtful laws.... Nor does it stand in the way to say here that in the matter of the Sacraments we cannot follow merely probable opinions; because this holds when the validity of the Sacrament is at issue, but otherwise concerning the integrity [of confession]. But the present question is whether confession, and indeed integral confession, is to be required of a neophyte.

But still further. The Decree of the S. Inquisition must here be taken either as a new law of merely ecclesiastical right or as a Declaration of divine right. Yet who would affirm that a new law was enacted by the Church in this case? Where was this law promulgated? It will therefore be a Declaration of divine right. But truly I do not know to whom it could occur to attribute to the S. Inquisition a declaration by force of which a doubtful obligation, with no higher principle supervening, cannot in itself be called nonexistent.

Accordingly, as it seems, the VV. would have devoted their efforts more wisely to bringing forward reasons by which it might be demonstrated, not that a doubtful obligation of Confession is not nonexistent, but rather that the obligation of confession in the case is not doubtful. But, what is to be regretted, they have provided none of these things.

However, we do indeed see certain reasons adduced in the petition which was presented to the Apostolic See concerning this question in the year 1868, and part of which the VV. also relate (loc. cit.). Yet you will perhaps not without reason suspect that those reasons pertain to the special circumstances of England. For it presented the following as necessary reasons for requiring of neophytes an integral confession of their whole life: There is the difficulty of converts in bringing the intellect into the obedience of faith itself, unless through humility and submission of soul, which Christ the Lord deigned to place in the Sacrament of Penance. There is also the impossibility of knowing, except through an integral manifestation of sins, whether the newly converted person is rightly disposed for Baptism itself and is willing, for example, to make restitution of reputation or goods (if he happens to be bound to it), to avoid the proximate occasion of sin, to withdraw from a marriage invalidly contracted, even if through a dispensation of the Holy See (as in the daily more frequent cases of a marriage contracted after a civil divorce) it cannot be convalidated. There is, moreover, the necessity of providing for his salvation through justification

in the Sacrament of Penance, from the integrity of which no one once baptized in infancy can be exempted, regard being had especially to the diligence of the younger members of the English Clergy in faithfully observing the rite of baptizing, and consequently to the greater number of those concerning the validity of whose infant Baptism it is not lawful to doubt. But since it is certain that after several years the obligation of integral confession will lose its force if Theologians are able in practice to follow as safe the opinion of the aforesaid authors (who say with Lacroix, namely, that the obligation of confession in the case is doubtful), the Archbishop of Westminster and the Bishops of England earnestly petition, etc. Thus indeed reads the petition.

Now, if this alone is considered, namely, that such diligence is employed by the younger English Clergy in observing the rite of Baptism that it is not lawful to doubt the validity of infant Baptism, who does not now see that, whenever it is established that Baptism was duly conferred upon someone in this manner, the matter is thereby brought to this point: since scarcely any cause or necessity for repeating Baptism then appears, the integrity of sacramental confession is altogether necessary for justification from sins afterward committed? Nor should it be judged that the other reasons adduced lack their own force because of the circumstances of England. For although the reasons drawn from the necessity either of overcoming the difficulty in bringing the intellect into the obedience of faith, or of knowing whether the neophyte is rightly disposed for Baptism and bears a ready mind to fulfill whatever obligations may perhaps be present of restoring reputation or another's goods, of avoiding proximate occasions of sin, or of withdrawing from an illegitimate marriage which otherwise cannot be convalidated - although, I say, reasons of this kind, if considered in themselves, might generally appear of little efficacy for inferring the necessity of sacramental confession, all the more because they would induce the same necessity of confession even if the neophyte had been converted to the faith from Judaism, Mohammedanism, or idolatry; since such disposition of soul must be established in all neophytes whatsoever who approach Baptism; although, furthermore, if we adhere strictly to the Decree of the Inquisition, confession would appear to contribute little toward the aforesaid ends, namely, toward foreknowing the suitable dispositions of the neophyte for receiving Baptism, because according to the tenor of the Decree confession must not precede but follow Baptism; and, furthermore, even if it preceded, nevertheless, since the knowledge obtained through sacramental confession is certainly not of such a kind that it may be used in the external forum to determine whether or not the neophyte is rightly disposed to receive Baptism - nevertheless, it does not seem doubtful that the very special condition of affairs in England makes it impossible to meet those necessities except through sacramental confession. The same certainly can also be said of the very grave inconvenience which is touched upon in the last place, namely, of the danger that the obligation of confession would for this reason gradually lose its force. And certainly nowhere else has fear come upon theologians that, while they establish that one who has only doubtful or even doubtfully necessary matter is not bound to confession (see St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, nos. 473-474), and add that this matter may be passed over at pleasure if indeed he wishes to confess while presenting other matter, it would therefore come about in the course of time that the obligation of integral confession would entirely lose its force. Yet the words of the Postulation or petition attest as certain that this would have happened in England. Otherwise, no one certainly will be able to deny that, even if no Decree concerning these matters had been issued, nevertheless the manifest utility of this practice appears for this reason, that the Neophyte, vigorously denying himself in a sufficiently difficult matter according to the words of Christ, no differently, namely, than those who, having left all things, followed Christ, will afterward easily, after that victory over himself and strengthened by more abundant powers of grace, walk constantly in the way of the Lord, and indeed will run.

Moreover, since the Decree of the year 1715 related in the Note, upon which the more recent response of the year 1868 rests, referred not to England but to Germany, and nevertheless, as is read there: The Most Holy Father, having heard the votes of the Most Eminent, said: Charles Ferdinand is to be rebaptized conditionally; and, after his Baptism has been conferred, let him confess the sins of his past life and be absolved from them conditionally; it now sufficiently appears that the state of the question altogether required of the VV., not that they contend that a doubtful obligation in the case is not nonexistent, but certainly that they show that the obligation here cannot be called doubtful from an intrinsic reason. But concerning these things in their proper place.

Question 2. Whether an adult to be baptized under condition, in doubt of a preceding Baptism, must confess sins already accused? Resp. Negatively, and the reason is that those sins have already been remitted through the sacrament of Penance, if the prior Baptism was valid; but if it was not valid, they are not matter of confession and will be remitted through the second Baptism. - Cf. Reuter, n. 118.

Question 4. When must confession be made by neo-converts, before or after conditional Baptism? Resp. According to the Instruction of the Congregation of the Holy Office recently cited, one must proceed in this order:

"(A) Abjuration or profession of faith,

(B) Conditional Baptism,

(C) Sacramental confession with conditional absolution."

But just as the practice of those priests who hear the confession properly so called, or the accusation of sins, either before or after the abjuration has been received, then confer conditional Baptism, and finally impart absolution, does not seem to be against the spirit of the aforesaid Instruction, so the practice of those who, when a just cause occurs, defer confession and absolution for a few days does not seem to be out of harmony with the very words of the Instruction.

Mr. N., a convert to the Catholic faith, was baptized, as a child, in the Lutheran Church. He is now 50 years of age. There exists reasonable doubt as to the validity of his baptism received in the Lutheran Church, and for this reason he is rebaptized, conditionally, on his reception into the Catholic Church. But now there arises this question: Must Mr. N. make a full confession of all the mortal sins he may have committed, since his baptism as a Lutheran? Or may he be excused from making a full confession, because since his first baptism is doubtful, the sins committed after it are materia dubia for confession, and therefore need not necessarily be confessed. Would it not be sufficient for Mr. N. to confess a few sins, after his baptism as a Catholic, and thus receive a valid absolution, indirect for all his sins committed since his first baptism? It will be a great hardship for Mr. N. to repeat the sins of half a century, and it seems unreasonable to subject him to this hardship, since he has only doubtfully contracted, in his first baptism, the obligation of confessing his sins. Moreover, Ballerini and other authors assert that it is not of strict necessity that converts should make a complete confession of their lives. Therefore we ask, may Mr. N. be excused, under the circumstances, from making a full confession of his whole life?

Answer.—Mr. N. will have to make a full confession of all his sins from the day of his baptism in the Lutheran Church. This may appear a hardship, nevertheless it is so ordained by the second and third plenary councils of Baltimore, and by repeated declarations of the Holy See.

Lehmkuhl treats of this matter at some length, and maintains that after the recent decisions of the Holy See, concerning this matter, there can remain no doubt about it. Many theologians were inclined to exempt converts from this obligation, when they were rebaptized sub conditione, on entering the Catholic Church, because since the validity of their Catholic baptism was doubtful, it remained also doubtful whether the sins committed before it were really remitted by sacramental absolution, or by the Catholic baptism. Hence these theologians thought that to such converts, if they confessed matter sufficient for absolution, although they made no general confession of their lives, absolution might be given conditionally, and that thus all their sins would be remitted indirectly, provided their first baptism in Protestantism was valid. And thus they tried to save the convert from the hardship of a life-confession on his entering the true Church.

But against all this reasoning of the theologians (cf. Ball. ad Gury, tom. II, 231, n. 4), the Holy See has expressly declared that converts who receive conditional baptism must confess all the mortal sins of their past lives, quoad speciem et numerum, and be absolved from them conditionally. The Holy See gave this decision in 1715, in the well known case of Charles Wippermann. And again, in 1868, when the bishops of England, through Cardinal Manning, asked the Holy See for a ruling on the question. The case of Charles Wippermann, of course, was a particular case laid before the Holy Office. But the intention of the Holy Office, in deciding it, was to pass a sentence and to give a decision, which might apply to all cases coming under this head, and which might be regarded in the future as the law on this matter; for the decree must be regarded as an authentic interpretation of the divine law by the Holy See, and not merely as a local law or as a disciplinary measure of the Church. The Church will not, and can not, prescribe anything as necessary matter for confession which is not so by divine law. In accordance therefore with the divine law, sins committed after a doubtfully valid baptism must be submitted to the power of the keys in the tribunal of Penance. This we learn from the positive declaration of the Church. Reason, likewise, confirms it. For, though one who is doubtfully baptized has not a certainty, but only a probability of receiving sacramental absolution of his sins, it does not follow that the obligation to confess them is only probable, and may be disregarded; for the duty of confessing and performing the penance received is for all more certain than that probability of receiving the effects of the Sacrament. Whether the penitent receives the sacramental effects of the absolution depends on the validity of his first baptism, so that doubt may be always entertained about it.

But the duty of confessing and doing the penance admits of no such doubt, since it is based upon grounds morally certain and sufficiently evident. If this were not so there would be an end of all human obligations. By baptism men come under the jurisdiction of the Church. This is the external rite by which men are admitted as members. But no one doubts that a man remains subject to the jurisdiction of a social body, into which he has been admitted by the acknowledged external rites, till that reception is proved to be invalid. All, therefore, who have been baptized, and who were desirous of receiving baptism validly, though there exist doubt about the validity, are subject to the jurisdiction of the Church and to her laws, and are bound to comply with the divine command of confessing their sins. In other words, the doubt about the baptism has this effect, that the baptism may be regarded as invalid in the sense that it ought to be repeated conditionally, lest the man risk his eternal salvation; but not in the sense that a doubtfully valid baptism impairs or wipes out all a man's obligations toward the laws and regulations of the Church, among which is the precept of confessing all one's mortal sins committed after baptism. (cf. Schieler, Theory and Practice of the Confessional, p. 190.)