Confession

As the Council of Trent teaches, there is a divine law which prescribes that all who fall into grievous sin after receiving Baptism should confess such sin to a priest and receive absolution for it from him. This divine precept is contained in the institution of the sacrament of Penance, and will best be explained when we come to treat of that sacrament. Here we have to do with a positive ecclesiastical law which supposes the divine law, but further determines it according to time and the person to whom the confession is to be made. The divine law does not determine any precise time for making the confession nor does it limit the choice of confessor. This was done by the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 21: “‘ Let all the faithful of both sexes after they have come to years of discretion faithfully confess all their sins in private at least once a year to their own priest, and do their best to perform the penance which he shall enjoin them.”

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Ch. V, Article I. The Necessity of the Eucharist

According to the general rule, children become subject to and bound to obey the positive laws of the Church when they reach the age of seven. However, before the new Code of Canon Law came into force it was usual to defer a child’s first Communion until he had reached the age of nine or twelve. The Code (Can. 859) interprets the phrase “‘ years of discretion,” used by the Lateran Council, to mean the same as to attain the use of reason, and so, now, children are bound to make their Easter Communion when they are seven years of age, unless, indeed, for some good reason it is judged advisable to abstain for a time. This obligation, as far as it affects those under the age of puberty, falls chiefly on those who have care of them—that is, on parents, guardians, confessors, teachers, and parish priests (Can. 860).

Canon 863 prescribes that the faithful are to be exhorted to receive Holy Communion frequently, and even daily, according to the rules laid down in the decrees of the Holy See, and that those who attend Mass should dispose themselves to receive Holy Communion not only spiritually, but sacramentally.

Daily Communion may not be refused to anyone who is in the state of grace and who has a right intention. There should be suitable preparation and thanksgiving, and that daily Communion may be practised with more prudence and with greater fruit, the advice of the confessor should be asked.

It is a disputed point whether one who is now in danger of death and who has within the last few days received Holy Communion is bound by divine precept to receive Viaticum. Although any good Catholic would certainly receive it again, yet the obligation to do so is not clear, because the previous Communion in all probability satisfies the divine law, . If one becomes dangerously ill on the day on which he has received Holy Communion out of devotion, it was similarly a disputed point whether he might, or was bound to, receive it again as Viaticum. Ordinarily, indeed, no one should receive Holy Communion twice on the same day, but in this case he may do so, though he is not bound to do so, for the Code only says that it is very much to be desired (Can. 864, sec. 2).

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Chapter IV. Confession

CONFESSION, or the self-accusation of a penitent made to a priest with a view of obtaining sacramental absolution, is the second material element of Penance. Such confession is necessary because it is an essential element of the sacrament of Penance, which, as we have seen, is a necessary means of salvation for all who have fallen into grave sin after Baptism. The Council of Trent teaches that “ From the institution of the sacrament of Penance, as already explained, the universal Church has always understood that the entire confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and is of divine law necessary for all who have fallen after Baptism.’’¹

¹ Sess. xiv, c. 5.

This confession must be made by word of mouth according to the practice of the Church and the teaching of the Council of Florence.¹ However, oral confession is not absolutely necessary for the validity of the sacrament, for mutes or penitents who know no language known also to the confessor, or those who are dying and are unable to speak, may confess by signs. Moreover, for good reason, anyone may write his confession, hand it to the priest to read, and accuse himself in general terms, such as “‘ I confess all that is written there.” Although mutes and other penitents may thus confess in writing, yet there is no obligation to do so, for sacramental confession should be secret and auricular, whereas writing makes it to some extent public, litera scripta manet.

Clement VIII, by a decree dated June 20, 1602, condemned the opinion that it is lawful to confess by letter to an absent priest or to receive absolution in the same way from an absent priest, and forbade the opinion ever to be put in practice; whence theologians conclude that such confession or absolution would be invalid by divine law, else the Pope could not have condemned it in such absolute terms. It seems to follow that confession by telephone would also be invalid, for confession would be made by one who is absent, not present with the priest at the time of receiving this sacrament, as is required by the conditions of its valid administration.

¹ Decretum pro Armenis.

A full, entire, and specific confession of all the mortal sins which have been committed after Baptism is prescribed by divine law. According to the Council of Trent,¹ “ If anyone saith that in the sacrament of Penance it is not necessary by divine law for the remission of sins to confess all and singular the mortal sins which after due and diligent previous meditation are remembered, even those mortal sins which are secret, and those which are opposed to the two last commandments of the Decalogue, as also the circumstances which change the species of a sin ... let him be anathema.”

Theologians distinguish between the material and the formal integrity of confession. The material integrity consists in making known each and all the mortal sins which have been committed and which have not yet been confessed; the formal integrity consists in confessing all the mortal sins which occur to the mind after a diligent examination of conscience, or at least of all the sins which the penitent is bound under the circumstances to confess to the priest. It is formal integrity which is prescribed by divine law, and to procure it the penitent is bound before confession to make a diligent examination of his conscience. He should not be too anxious in making this examination; it will be sufficient if he employ that diligence which prudent men employ in worldly matters of importance. No general rule can be given to measure the length of time which the examination should occupy. Much depends upon the character of the individual, the length of time which has elapsed since the last confession, whether the penitent is accustomed to commit grave sins or not, and on similar circumstances. If the penitent cannot recollect the number of times that he has fallen into serious sin, he should mention the number as nearly as he can, and if he has fallen very frequently and almost continuously over a long period of time, it will be sufficient to mention the approximate number of times that he has fallen in the day or week, together with the length of time during which the habit has lasted.

¹ Sess. xiv, c. 7.

n. 4.

A number of special questions must here be considered which touch on the integrity which is required in confession.

The Council of Trent, as we have just seen, teaches that those circumstances which change the nature of a sin must be made known; the theft of a consecrated chalice, which is a sacrilege, would not be adequately confessed by simply saying, “I committed theft.” Not only circumstances which change the specific nature of a sin must be confessed, but also those which make a venial sin mortal and vice versa. The quantity in theft, then, must be indicated sufficiently to enable the priest to judge whether it was a mortal or a venial sin. Divines are not agreed whether circumstances which merely increase the malice of a sin but do not otherwise change its nature or moral quality are necessarily to be confessed. Many, with the Catechism of the Council of Trent, teach that there is an obligation to confess them, but as they give no convincing reason for their opinion and the contrary is held by many approved theologians, we may safely follow the more easy and the more lenient view.

It is not sufficient to confess as an internal sin one which was completed in external act. It would not be sufficient for a penitent to say that he desired to steal when he actually stole. For although the malice of sin is in the internal act of the will, and the external act adds nothing to it per se, yet, considered as human actions, an internal is different from an external act, and therefore as sins are bad human actions, an internal sin is specifically different from the same sin completed in external act.

It is a matter of controversy whether the mere effect of a sin must be confessed. If a man wounds another with the intention of killing him, and then repents and confesses unlawful wounding with the intention of killing, but afterward the man dies, will his assailant be obliged to go to confession again and confess homicide? The opinion is more probable that there is no such obligation, for such an effect of sin is not a sin, and we are only bound to confess sins; a sin is a human action, and when the victim dies his assailant does not act; he would now prevent the death if he could, and so he does not sin.

A vicious habit or custom of committing sin is a cause of sin rather than sin itself, and as sins are the matter of confession, per se it is not necessary to confess a sinful habit. If, however, the penitent did not use sufficient diligence to correct his bad habit, and this caused him inadvertently to commit sin, to blaspheme, for instance, then although the blasphemy, because inadvertent, is not sinful in itself, it is nevertheless voluntary and sinful in its cause, and so the uncorrected bad habit must be confessed. It is sometimes of importance for the confessor to know whether his penitent has contracted a habit of sin in order to be able to direct him, and so the confessor has a right to ask in confession whether a habit has been contracted, and the penitent is then under an obligation to tell the truth.

If many sins have been committed with others it is usually immaterial whether they were committed with one and the same or with different persons. However, if a sin against chastity is committed with a married person, that circumstance must be mentioned, as it causes the sin to be against justice as well as against chastity. Similarly, if one or both accomplices in such a sin are bound by a vow of chastity, that must. be mentioned. A religious who is a priest, and even if he is solemnly professed, would satisfy his obligation of confessing a sin against chastity by mentioning it, and adding that he is under a vow of chastity. For it is probable that there is no specific difference between the violation of a solemn and a simple and even private vow of chastity, and a priest, like a religious, is bound to chastity by vow.

Sins against chastity committed with relations have the special malice of incest, but with the exception of the first degree in the direct line of consanguinity, it is probable that the several degrees of kindred or affinity do not constitute a specific difference in the sin. There is a special malice and difformity in a sin of impurity committed with parent or child, but among civilized peoples this is happily of rare occurrence. Hatred against relations is not only against general charity, but is also contrary to piety, which binds relations to love each other with a special affection. Grave hatred will be a serious sin also against this virtue of piety if it is indulged in against near relations, not if it is against more remote kindred with regard to whom the obligation is not so strict.

Mere superiority or position of itself does not change the nature of a sin committed by rulers, magistrates, and people in authority. And so if a master sin with his servant, the sin does not of itself differ from ordinary fornication. If, however, the sin is also a violation of a special duty, then of course it will have a special malice, and so if a schoolmaster corrupt a youth committed to his care, he must mention this circumstance in confession.

The time at which a sin was committed does not change its nature, and so even though a sin which has been committed recently be confessed as though it were a sin of one’s past life, the confession will be valid, but of course the practice is not to be commended, nor should it be indulged in.

n. 5.

Integrity of confession is prescribed by divine law, but as even divine law does not bind to what is impossible, physical or moral impossibility of making a full confession will excuse the penitent from obeying the law. And so danger of death when the dying person has not the strength or time for making a full confession, or ignorance of any language known to the priest, or danger of violation of the seal of confession, or danger to life from pestilence or other cause, will excuse the penitent from making a full confession of all his sins. Innocent XI condemned the proposition that a large concourse of penitents on some great feast is a sufficient reason for absolving them without requiring a full confession. When a penitent has been absolved without making a full confession on account of the physical or moral impossibility of doing so, there always remains the obligation of supplying the defect in the next confession, unless the impossibility continues. A proposition asserting the contrary was condemned by Alexander VII. Moreover, that a penitent may lawfully ask for absolution without making a full confession, the following conditions must be verified:

(a) There must be some sort of necessity for making the confession here and now, as, for instance, the obligation of receiving the sacraments at Easter, or the hardship of remaining long without the sacraments or in a state of mortal sin.

(b) There must be no other confessor at hand to whom a full confession could be made without grave inconvenience.

(c) All sins must be confessed which can be mentioned without grave inconvenience, extrinsic to confession, which affects the penitent, the confessor, or some third person. The reason of this is because it cannot be supposed that Christ our Lord intended to bind penitents to make a full confession when it would entail such a hardship, whereas we know that he did command a full confession in spite of shame or other difficulties which are the natural accompaniments of confession of sin to a fellow-man.

n. 6.

By a general confession is meant a repetition of preceding confessions. Sometimes this is necessary, sometimes it is useful; otherwise it is harmful, likely to beget scruples, and lead the penitent to think about the past when he should be thinking about the present and the future, and so it should not be permitted.

A general confession is necessary when, through want of jurisdiction on the part of the confessor, or of a full confession or of sorrow for sin on the part of the penitent, former confessions were certainly invalid. In these cases all the invalid confessions must be repeated at least as far as the necessary matter is concerned, A general confession at certain times extending over a certain period is frequently prescribed to religious by rule, which, of course, should be dutifully observed. Moreover, it is useful for most people to make a general confession sometimes, especially when about to enter upon a new state of life, or when, while making a spiritual retreat and meditating upon sin, the grace of God moves the soul to greater sorrow for the past than one ordinarily feels. Sometimes a general confession may be allowed to allay doubts and scruples of conscience with regard to past sins.

Unless some notable spiritual fruit is to be hoped for, a general confession should in other cases besides the above be regarded as harmful, and should not be allowed.

Vol. II, Bk. VI, Chapter XIV. The Seal of Confession

By the seal of confession is understood the religious obligation to keep secret anything that is manifested in sacramental confession.

This obligation is imposed by the natural, the divine, and by positive ecclesiastical law. For the very fact that a penitent makes known his sins in secret to the confessor, with a view to obtaining absolution, lays upon the confessor the strictest obligation in justice and in charity not to violate the trust placed in him, much as a doctor or a lawyer when consulted about private matters is bound to observe secrecy with respect to what has been confided to him. Our Lord, who commanded all who fall into grave sin after Baptism to go to confession, could not have imposed such an obligation without requiring confessors to observe the strictest secrecy about what they hear in confession.

The Church, too, in the Fourth Council of Lateran (c. 21) forbids the confessor under grave penalties ever to betray by word, sign, or in any other way, what he has heard in sacramental confession. The Code punishes the confessor who presumes directly to violate the seal of confession with excommunication most specially reserved to the Holy See, if indirectly, with severe penalties. Others who violate the seal are to be severely punished (Can. 2369).

The obligation of the seal of confession differs from all other secrets in that it is never lawful under any circumstances to make known the least thing that has been manifested by a penitent in confession. If questioned about confessional matter, even in a court of justice, the priest must always answer that he knows nothing about it, as with perfect truth he may do, for what he knows as a confessor, he knows as the vicegerent of God, not as man. Not even to save his life or the lives of others may a priest violate the seal; like Fr. Henry Garnett, or St John of Nepomuk, he must be prepared to lay down his life rather than break the seal. He is never released from his obligation even by the death of the penitent, for people are unwilling that their secret sins should be mentioned even after their death.

A grave sacrilege would be committed by the direct manifestation of the least fault known from sacramental confession, but theologians allow that if the danger of confessional matter becoming known is very remote there may be only venial sin in indirect violation of the seal.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 20 passages

Vol. I, Bk. I, Tr. II, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. III, Ch. I, Art. II, § II. On Numerical Distinction

n. 254.

III. Plurality of acts. The general rule is this: there are as many sins as there are morally distinct acts, or as there are physical acts not morally united into some one thing. "According to the unity of the will," says St. Thomas, "judgment is to be taken concerning the unity of that which is said to be in the moral genus" (In II Sent., dist. 42, q. 1, a. 1). Therefore where there is a morally diverse act of the will, there is a distinct sin. It remains to inquire when there is a morally diverse act; the particular rules will provide this, i.e., rules which regard diverse acts considered specifically. Now in relation to this matter acts are distinguished into internal acts, i.e., acts to be consummated in the will alone, and external acts.

Internal acts are divided into acts which do not tend toward another act, such as morose delectations, hatred, etc.; and acts which tend toward another act, such as the purpose of perpetrating an internal or external sin.

External acts are distinguished into complete and incomplete acts. Complete acts are those which by their nature are not ordered to another act of the same species, such as self-pollution, fornication, homicide. Incomplete acts are called acts which by their nature are ordered to another more principal act of the same species; thus an immodest touch is ordered to intercourse or to self-pollution. Sins of the mouth are equated with incomplete acts. There are added acts which, considered according to the notion handed down, are neither complete nor incomplete, namely acts indifferent by their nature, which are employed by the agent as means of arriving at a sinful act, such as taking the road in order to steal, preparing weapons in order to commit homicide. With these things noted, take the particular rules which follow:

Internal acts which do not tend toward another act constitute a new sin as often as they are repeated after a moral interruption; in other words, as often as they are repeated: 1. after formal revocation, i.e., a contrary act either of efficacious unwillingness or of simple displeasure; 2. after voluntary cessation, namely when someone indeed does not formally revoke the prior act, but nevertheless, reflecting upon it, either simply turns himself away from it, for example, from weariness, or turns himself to a work incompatible with the prior act, as if someone deliberately ceases from morose delectation and applies himself to study; 3. after indeliberate cessation, i.e., through natural inadvertence and distraction to other things, of such a delay that the repeated act cannot be said to proceed from the same impulse of passion, and so to be united with the prior act or acts in the same cause; practically, after a cessation of some delay. I say, of some delay, because these sins, since they do not tend toward a work and therefore are plainly consummated in themselves, commonly do not proceed from the same impulse of passion as long as purposes do (St. Alphonsus, V, 37; Homo Apostolicus, tract. III, n. 58).
Internal acts which tend toward another act constitute a new sin as often as they are repeated after a moral interruption; in other words, as often as they are repeated: 1. after formal revocation; 2. after voluntary cessation; 3. after indeliberate cessation, if this is of so great a delay that the repeated purpose cannot be said to proceed from the same impulse of passion, and the purpose does not remain virtually in some effect leading to the intended work. It is said:

a) If this is of so great a delay that the repeated purpose cannot be said to proceed from the same impulse of passion. But how great a delay or sufficiently long interval is required depends on the intensity and firmness of the purpose. Nevertheless, according to St. Alphonsus, commonly an interval of two or three days suffices, because the same impulse of passion is with difficulty prolonged longer. "Hence he who perseveres in an evil will beyond two or three days must explain the time, so that in this way the number of internal acts concerning external sins may be morally understood" (St. Alphonsus, V, 39).

b) And the purpose does not virtually remain in some effect leading to the intended end. If this happens, the first purpose, whatever interval has intervened, is not morally interrupted. "Hence it is inferred: 1. that if someone proposes to kill a man, and for that reason prepares weapons, takes the road, and kills the enemy, he commits one sin, although he has sought him for many days and has repeated the will several times... 2. If someone resolves not to restore another's property, and always remains in the same will, even for a year, he commits one sin, because in that retention never retracted the first will virtually remains, as Roncaglia probably says... Nevertheless Diana rightly thinks... with authors cited by him, that if the thief becomes unable to restore, and then, having become able, does not restore when the opportunity is given, he commits a new sin. The reason is that in that case, through that time of inability, the will of not restoring does not persevere in the effect" (St. Alphonsus, V, 40). Understand this if the thief adverts that on account of inability he is not held to restitution and repudiates the depraved will which he had; otherwise the will morally perseveres in the effect, and it suffices for the penitent to declare the time during which he persisted in such a will (St. Alphonsus, III, 683). Finally, observe that a purpose not morally interrupted constitutes one sin in number with the external act.

Complete external acts constitute a new sin as often as they are repeated. Except if the acts, although complete in themselves, nevertheless constitute one whole with others and are not morally interrupted.

Corollary I. He commits several sins in number who twice defiles himself, twice fornicates, twice neglects Mass, etc.

Corollary II. Much more probably he commits several sins who successively absolves several persons. The reason is that each confecting of a sacrament constitutes an action complete in itself, nor do the diverse absolutions, although they may be done on the occasion of one session, constitute one whole. Thus, against several, St. Alphonsus (V, 50, q. 6), Billuart,¹ De Smet,² Pesch,³ Prummer,⁴ and others.

Corollary III. It is more doubtful how many sins are committed by one who celebrates in the state of mortal sin. Some think that only one is committed, because all these actions constitute or integrate one sacrifice. Others admit two sins, one of unworthy consecration, the other of unworthy communion. Others add a third, namely of ministration to an unworthy person. But with St. Alphonsus (V, 44; VI, 35) it seems it must be said that four sacrileges are committed by a celebrant of this kind, namely: being unworthy, he consecrates; being unworthy, he receives communion; being unworthy, he ministers; and he ministers to one unworthy. The reason is that the aforesaid acts, for example the reception, confecting, etc., of a sacrament, seem so disparate that it is scarcely admitted that they coalesce into one sin in number, although they integrate one sacrifice. There is added that, for example, unworthy consecration and unworthy reception are so diverse that they seem to constitute sins of diverse species and therefore also distinct in number.

Corollary IV. Sufficiently probably he commits only one sin who, in the state of mortal sin, distributes the Eucharist once to several persons. The reason is that all the administrations constitute one banquet (St. Alphonsus, V, cited place).

Corollary V. He who from one intention omits all the canonical hours commits one sin, because the different hours constitute one whole, i.e., the Office of the day (St. Alphonsus, IV, 148).

Corollary VI. He who, from the intention of stealing 100 florins, commits several successive thefts, or, having taken the purpose of reading a bad book, completes the reading over several times, seems to commit only one sin, because the stated acts by force of the intention seem sufficiently to constitute one whole, namely the theft of 100 florins, or the reading of the whole book. Except if in the cases brought forward the acts are morally interrupted, for instance through a rather long delay.

Incomplete external acts multiply sins in this way:

a) If they are ordered by the agent to a complete act, and the complete act follows, they constitute one sin in number with the complete act, unless they are morally interrupted. The reason is that on the part of the matter they form one moral whole with the complete act, and by reason of the intention they are placed as such. The same must be said of incomplete acts which immediately follow a complete act, because they can be regarded as the complement of the complete act (St. Alphonsus, V, 41). If in the case the complete act does not follow, the incomplete acts constitute one sin among themselves, unless they are morally interrupted.

Incomplete acts, however, are morally interrupted: 1. by formal revocation; 2. by voluntary cessation; 3. by indeliberate cessation, if this is of so great a delay that the incomplete acts cannot be said to proceed from the same impulse of passion, and the purpose of arriving at the complete act does not remain virtually in some effect (p. 200).

Concerning the manner of confessing the aforesaid incomplete acts not morally interrupted, it must be said as follows: 1. if the intended complete act followed, it suffices to confess: I committed fornication; or: I committed adultery; etc. (St. Thomas, In II Sent., dist. 42, q. 1, a. 1; St. Alphonsus, V, 41); 2. if the intended complete act did not follow, one can say, for example: From the intention of fornication, adultery, etc., I acted shamefully by kisses and touches (St. Alphonsus, V, 42).

b) If they are not ordered by the agent to a complete act, they constitute a new sin as often as they are repeated after a moral interruption; in other words, as often as they are repeated: 1. after formal revocation; 2. after voluntary cessation; 3. after indeliberate cessation of such a delay that the repeated act cannot be said to proceed from the same impulse of passion; practically, after an indeliberate cessation of a longer interval. Hence he commits one sin in number who "from the same impulse strikes several times, touches dishonestly several times, blasphemes the same saint or several holy days, reviles or detracts from someone several times in the same matter" (St. Alphonsus, V, 41).⁵

Concerning the manner of confessing the aforesaid incomplete acts not morally interrupted, it suffices to confess, for example: I acted shamefully with a girl by kisses and touches.

The things which have been said about incomplete acts not ordered to a complete act are valid even if, after those acts have been perpetrated, with lust boiling over, someone proceeds to the complete act. Hence "if someone, having kisses, touches, etc., had not from the beginning willed intercourse, but afterward, because lust had increased, completed intercourse, it does not suffice if he confesses only intercourse" (St. Alphonsus, V, 43); but he is held to declare that, independently of intercourse, he acted shamefully with a girl by kisses, touches, etc.

¹ De peccatis, diss. 2, art. 4.

² Collationes Brugenses, 1905, p. 555.

³ Tractatus dogmaticus, VI, n. 261.

⁴ Manuale Theologiae Moralis, I, n. 380.

⁵ Cf. p. 199, where we said that sins of the mouth are equated with incomplete acts.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. II, Part II. On Annual Confession

n. 1104.

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.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. I, Sect. II, Ch. II, Article II. On Confession

Vol. I, On Conscience, V. On Doubtful Conscience · Vol. I, On Laws, IV. On the Obligation of Law · Vol. I, On Laws, IX. Privileges of Clerics, Bishops, Regulars · Vol. I, On the Precept of Charity, V. On Fraternal Correction · Vol. II, On the Third and Fourth Precepts of the Church · Vol. III, On the Particular Obligati…, IV. On Profession · Vol. III, On Penance, IV. On Confession · Vol. III, On Penance, V. On the Integrity of Confession · Vol. III, On Penance, IX. On the Jurisdiction of the Confessor · Vol. III, On Penance, X. On Regulars and Nuns · Vol. III, On Penance, XII. On the Various Duties of the Minister

We shall speak first of confession considered in itself, then of the qualities of confession generally, and then of the quality of integrity specifically.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. I, Sect. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § I. On Confession Considered in Itself

n. 307.

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.

n. 308.

II. Division. Confession is distinguished:

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

n. 309.

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.

n. 310.

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.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. I, Sect. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § II. On the Qualities of Confession Generally

n. 311.

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.

n. 312.

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).

n. 313.

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.

n. 314.

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).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. I, Sect. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § III, Point II. On the Scope of Material Integrity

n. 319.

I. Mortal sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly remitted must be confessed. This follows from the cited documents.

Disputation 1. Whether a sin must be confessed: a) in doubt whether it was committed; b) in doubt whether it was grave.

Response 1. One who opines either that a sin was committed or that the sin which was committed was grave is bound to confess it. For according to the Council of Trent¹ and canon 901 penitents must confess mortal sins "of which, after diligent discussion of themselves, they have consciousness." But one who opines that he sinned has in some way consciousness or knowledge of the sin committed (t. I, n. 215). It is added that each person is bound to observe a law if he opines that the fact founding the law has taken place (t. I, nn. 232 and 233 at the end). But one who opines that he has sinned gravely opines that the fact, that is, sin, founding the law, namely of confessing, has taken place. Finally, one who opines that he has sinned gravely opines that he is liable to the ordinary means for obtaining remission of sin, that is, to the sacrament of Penance. But one who opines in this way seems to be bound to apply that means, with liberty excluded of using only the supplying means, that is, perfect contrition or charity.

Response 2. One who strictly doubts is bound in this way:

If he strictly doubts about the commission of sin, he is not bound to confess it. For, as we just noted, the Council of Trent and canon 901 teach that mortal sins of which consciousness is had must be confessed, so that a further obligation should at least practically be excluded. But in strict doubt there is not consciousness or knowledge of a committed sin. The reason seems to be this: one who strictly doubts about a committed sin is only doubtfully liable to the ordinary means for obtaining remission of sin, in the case, to Penance; indeed he is only doubtfully capable of that means in relation to that sin. But such a one, sufficiently probably, is not bound to apply that means, but enjoys liberty of using either the ordinary means or the extraordinary or supplying means, that is, perfect contrition or charity. In the case, if the sin truly took place, it is not remitted independently of the sacrament of Penance.
If he strictly doubts about the gravity of the committed sin, these things hold:

a) One who doubts about the gravity of the matter is bound to expose his doubt to the confessor, unless he himself is versed in moral matters.

b) One who doubts about full consent in a grave sin must confess it if he has been accustomed to consent fully, because he is presumed to have consented fully. Otherwise it must be said of the fearful and scrupulous. The former are only to be exhorted to expose doubts of this kind; the latter are to be prohibited from doing so (St. Alphonsus, VI, 473-476; Istruzione e Pratica, chapter 16, n. 30).

Disputation 2. Whether grave sins committed after Baptism doubtfully validly conferred must be confessed.

Response. It seems that this must be affirmed. For first the Holy Office, to the question whether Carolus Wippermann, doubtfully validly baptized, "is to be rebaptized; and insofar as affirmatively, whether confession is to be placed before or after Baptism to be conferred under condition," to that question, I say, responded:² "The Most Holy One, after the votes of the Most Eminent Fathers had been heard, said: Carolus Ferdinandus is to be rebaptized under condition, and, after Baptism has been conferred, let him confess the sins of his past life, and let him be absolved from them under condition." Besides, the same Congregation, to the request of the bishops of England, "whether sacramental confession must be required from neo-converts in England, and whether it must be integral," responded:³ "Affirmatively, and let the decree of June 14, 1715 be given." Moreover, the Holy Office seems to signify that obligation to be universal not only by responding the same thing, but also by referring to the first response. This is confirmed by the fact that the Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, in a response to the Archbishop of Quebec,⁴ declared that the decree of the year 1868 contains a universal law, and therefore obliges not only in England but also in other regions. Nor is it an obstacle that that response lacked explicit promulgation; for according to jurisprudence, especially that in force before the Code, it sufficed that such decisions were known.⁵ Besides, the Holy Office, in assigning the norm for reconciling heretics, seems to suppose the affirmative opinion.⁶ Next, one who certainly sinned gravely - which we now suppose to have been done by one doubtfully validly baptized after doubtful Baptism - is bound, if he can, to use at least with moral certainty some ordinary means for obtaining remission of that sin. But by receiving Baptism conditionally he uses only probably the ordinary means for obtaining remission of that sin, because that sin was probably committed after valid Baptism, and therefore probably must be remitted by Penance. Therefore it remains that he receive not only Baptism conditionally, but also conditionally Penance in relation to that sin.

Corollary I. The law explained is divine, as is clear from the intrinsic reason alleged; besides, a priori it is hard to admit that the Church has made a law of confessing sins to the confession of which Christ does not oblige.

Corollary II. What has been said about those doubtfully validly baptized must also be applied to those doubtfully baptized, since the same formal reason subsists.

Corollary III. Sins committed before the first doubtfully valid Baptism are not to be confessed; for if Baptism truly was valid, the aforesaid sins were remitted by the first Baptism; but if it was invalid, they are remitted by the second Baptism. Nor must sins committed and sacramentally declared after the first doubtfully valid Baptism be confessed again; for if the first Baptism was valid, the aforesaid sins were remitted through absolution; but if it was invalid, they will be remitted through the second Baptism.

¹ Session 14, on Penance, chapter 5.

² June 14, 1715 (Collectanea, n. 286).

³ December 17, 1868 (Collectanea, n. 1338).

⁴ July 12, 1869 (Collectanea, n. 1338, in note).

⁵ The Cardinal Secretary of the Holy Office indeed in 1898, in the customary conference of cases of conscience at St. Apollinaris, declared that the response of December 17, 1868 was not general. But the authority of the said Secretary - since he was another than the one who was secretary in 1868, and since he put forth his opinion 30 years after the decree had been issued - is not greater than another private authority. The same must be said of D'Annibale, who was Assessor of the Holy Office after the decree had been issued, and who holds the more benign opinion as probable.

⁶ July 20, 1859 (Collectanea, n. 1178); December 2, 1874 (Collectanea, n. 1426).

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. II, Chapter I. On the Confession of Children

n. 446.

I. "With children he ought to use every charity and gentler ways, as far as can be done" (Praxis, n. 90); nevertheless the confessor, especially as regards girls, should always be mindful of due gravity.

II. Sometimes it must be seen whether they enjoy sufficient use of reason, although those who present themselves to the confessor can commonly be presumed sufficiently instructed.

III. Let the confessor take care that from the beginning they learn to confess rightly according to species and number. In questioning let him be cautious, lest the child learn to sin; besides this, let him correct an erroneous conscience when they take for a sin, or for a grave sin, what is no sin or only a light sin. Let the confessor strive especially for this: that he excite the child to true contrition. If some child is found prone to a more harmful sin, for instance to a shameful sin, let him take pains that the vice be eradicated in time (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, nn. 90 and 91). Let the admonition be brief.

IV. As regards the sentence to be rendered, let the confessor follow this norm:

Those sufficiently certainly disposed are to be absolved, even if they have confessed only venial sins; since disposed children have a right to absolution just as adults do. Besides this, let him not easily defer absolution for a relapsing child sufficiently certainly disposed, lest, namely, the child be turned away from the sacrament or keep back sins.
Those doubtfully disposed are to be absolved under condition: 1. if they have certainly sinned gravely, they are to be absolved in the cases enumerated in n. 404; 2. in doubt whether they are guilty of grave sin, they are always to be absolved, whether the doubt proceeds from the matter of the sin, or from doubt about the full use of reason, or from suspicion of an erroneous conscience by which what is not grave is taken as grave; 3. if either they have sinned only venially, or it is doubted whether any sin was present, sometimes they are to be absolved (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 91; VI, 432). If they are dismissed with only a blessing, this should be signified to them.

Corollary I. Even to children there must be left the faculty of confessing to whomever they prefer; hence one who would establish that children should confess only to him who taught them Christian doctrine, or that girls should confess to the pastor and boys to the vicar, is especially to be reprehended.

Corollary II. A recent question was moved whether boys and girls before the years of puberty can sin gravely. Moreover, the affirmative answer must altogether be given. For first, the decree Quam singulari, issued by Pius X through the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments,² declares that children around the seventh year of age are bound by the precept of annual confession. But it would not declare these things unless it judged that children from that age are capable of mortal sin, because only those who have committed mortal sin are in fact bound to confession. There is added that the decree, with the Council of Trent, on one side teaches that children are held by the obligation of Communion "when by sinning they can lose grace"; in other words, when they can sin gravely; on the other side it declares that they are bound by the said obligation around the seventh year. Therefore, according to the mind of the one issuing the decree, grace can be lost at that age; in other words, grave sin can be committed. In addition, the decree disapproves delay of Communion for this reason, that it exposes children to the danger of losing their first innocence; this demonstrates that they are held as capable of grave sin. Finally, the whole manner of acting of children before the years of puberty shows sufficiently that they are capable of fully deliberate acts and therefore also of gravely sinful acts.

¹ Cf. Reuter, Neoconfessarius; Berger, Pastoraltheologie; Gaume, Manuel des confesseurs; Aertnys, Theologia Pastoralis; Krieg, Wissenschaft der Seelenleitung; Schuch-Polz, Pastoraltheologie.

² August 8, 1910.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. II, Chapter II. On the Confession of the Rude, the Slow, and the Semi-Feeble

n. 447.

I. The confession of the rude and the slow. Insofar as and in what manner they are to be instructed if perhaps they are ignorant of the things to be known by necessity of means and of precept, this has been said in n. 396. For the rest, in accusation and in eliciting contrition they must often be helped by the confessor. If they have omitted a diligent examination of conscience, they should not be dismissed so that they may search their conscience better.

Note. The things that have been said about the rude and the slow are also to be applied to deaf-mutes who are little instructed; for the rest, compare the things said in n. 396.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. II, Chapter III. On the Confession of Habituated Persons

n. 449.

I. Notion of the habituated person. A habituated or customary person is one who has contracted a habit of some sin. Moreover, a habit of sin is a quality stable of itself by which someone is disposed to sin (vol. I, n. 333). Furthermore:

A habit of sin is obtained by frequency of acts. Nevertheless, frequency by itself alone does not suffice; rather it is required that contrary acts not be opposed to the sinful acts leading to the habit, by which contrary acts the origin of the habit would be prevented (vol. I, n. 341). Hence those who commit sins which of themselves arise rather from frailty or from a passing passion do not contract a habit of sin so easily as those who perpetrate sins which of themselves proceed more from malice. The reason is that the former, after the sin has been committed, more easily come to their senses and exercise contrary acts. Sins of the former kind are, for example, pollution and blasphemies; of the latter kind are hatred, theft, conjugal onanism, transgressions of the precepts of the Church, and so forth.
The habituated person has the will in some way fixed in sin, and therefore sins from a bad will, that is, from a will constantly inclined to evil, and therefore promptly and even from slight concupiscence, and as though without an effort of resisting; whence he comes to his senses with difficulty. "When someone," says St. Thomas, "sins from habit, which is to sin from malice, then the will tends by itself into the act of sin, as though now totally inclined from habit by way of a natural inclination into the act of sin" (De malo, q. 3, a. 13; cf. I-II, q. 78, aa. 2, 3, and 4; II-II, q. 156, a. 3; St. Alphonsus, V, 4, 2, 3; VI, 459; Praxis Confessarii, nn. 70, 73).
It cannot be accurately defined what frequency of acts, and how much time, is required for someone to be able to be judged to have contracted a habit of sin.

a) As regards frequency of acts, a greater number of sins committed through a certain time is required if the discussion concerns internal sins, to which sins of the mouth are equated, than if the discussion concerns external sins; greater, if it concerns solitary external sins than if mutual ones are concerned. The reason for the distinction is that a habit is formed the more easily, the greater the deliberation that preceded, as is usually the case in external acts, especially in mutual ones; and the more intense the deliberate acts are, as likewise customarily happens in external acts, especially in mutual ones. Hence a lesser frequency is required in these.

b) As regards time, this likewise depends on the intensity of the acts; likewise on the manner of acting more or less uniformly. Hence, for example, you would more easily call habituated one who through a notable time pollutes himself every week than one who sins frequently in one or another week and in other weeks resists temptation.

Corollary. "One who, for example, fornicated once a month for a year can well be called habituated here" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 70); likewise one who for a year once a month has given himself to drunkenness; likewise one who through a notable time either commits pollution once a week, or two or three times a week indulges in morose delectations (St. Alphonsus, cited place).

¹ Cf. Cardinal van Rossum, Commentarius de iudicio sacramentali Ioan. B. Pighi ad trutinam vocatus; Berardi, De recidivis et occasionariis; Ter Haar, De occasionariis et recidivis.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. V, Diss. II, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. IV, Article I. On Those in Occasions in General

n. 455.

I. Notion of occasion. An occasion is a person or external thing which creates for a person a danger of sinning.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. IV, Article V. On Confession of the Dying

n. 475.

I. A dying person can be absolved who gives a sign of confession to the priest present, for example by a nod of the head, pressure of the hands, the eyes, etc. For all things required for validity, namely intention, manifested contrition, and confession, are present, or at least by law are presumed to be present.¹

II. Likewise a dying person deprived of the senses can be absolved who showed a desire of confession before the priest approached.²

It is disputed whether in this case the dying person is to be absolved absolutely or under condition. Several think that he is to be absolved absolutely, because the Roman Ritual, in the cited place, seems to equate this case with the prior case and makes no mention of a condition. Others teach that absolution must be given under condition, because the accusation required for the validity of the sacrament is not certainly present, and consequently one can also doubt about the disposition (St. Alphonsus, VI, 481).

III. A dying person deprived of the senses, who neither gives a manifest sign of confession to the priest present, nor showed a desire of confession before the arrival of the priest, can be absolved under condition, whenever it is somewhat probable that the things required for validity are present. For in extremities, extreme things are to be tried. Now commonly the intention of receiving the sacrament is not certainly lacking, and perhaps some sign of confession and sorrow is exhibited by the dying person, for example a sigh, although the priest does not notice it. Added to this is that the doctrine is not certainly false which teaches that internal contrition alone, or internal attrition alone, is the necessary condition for the validity of the sacrament. Hence the following can be absolved: 1. a Catholic, whether he lived in a Christian manner or did not live in a Christian manner; 2. a Catholic who is deprived of the senses in the very act of sin, for example drunkenness or suicide; 3. an apostate who before his defection did not reject the priest, because, placed in extreme danger, he perhaps came to his senses; 4. one concerning whom it is doubted whether or not he is Catholic (St. Alphonsus, VI, 482, 483).

Observe that hearing commonly persists longer than the other senses; hence let the priest address the dying person in a loud voice, and suggest to him a general accusation and an act of contrition.

¹ Council of Orange I, chapter 12 (in Labbe, vol. 4, col. 703 sq.); Council of Carthage IV, chapter 76 (in Labbe, cited place, col. 1443; cf. canon Is qui 8, cause 26, question 6); St. Leo the Pope, Epistle 108 (otherwise 83) to Theodore, chapter 5 (in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 54, col. 1013 sq.); Roman Ritual, title III, chapter 1, n. 25.

² Council of Orange I, chapter 12 (in Labbe, vol. 4, col. 703 sq.); Council of Carthage IV, chapter 76 (in Labbe, cited place, col. 1443; cf. canon Is qui 8, cause 26, question 6); St. Leo the Pope, Epistle 108 (otherwise 83) to Theodore, chapter 5 (in Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 54, col. 1013 sq.); Roman Ritual, title III, chapter 1, n. 25.

n. 476.

Question 1. Whether one can be absolved who, before he was deprived of the senses, rejected the priest.

Response. Having regard to the reverence due to the sacrament, it is better, as it seems, not to absolve him, unless the privation of the senses lasts rather long, or the dying person gives a sign which with some probability can be held as a declaration of a changed will.

Question 2. How often a dying person can be absolved.

Response 1. "While the sick person is still vigorous in his senses, it will help for absolution to be conferred on him several times after a brief reconciliation.

Response 2. "If the sick person now lacks the senses, it is not expedient that absolution be imparted to him more often within the same day. But in this matter the priest ought to direct himself by the conscience which they know of the sick person; for if he was habituated in evil thoughts, if he is dying from some wound, or is ensnared by some passion of hatred or impure love; if the illness is exceedingly bitter and he does not suffer with a willing spirit, then absolution can be given more often; but otherwise it suffices that a space of three or four hours intervene; more frequently, however, if he is already now about to die" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 276).

Note. "It will not be beside the point to warn the sick person, while he is in possession of his mind, that, if he cannot speak, he should give some determinate sign while he seeks absolution, or while the priest wishes to confer it on him: for example, let him close or open his eyes, raise his hand, incline his head, and the like" (St. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, n. 276).

n. 477.

IV. The apparently dead.¹ The instant of death, or of the separation of the soul from the body, can be determined by no one. As regards signs that death has followed, not even cadaveric rigidity, but only advanced putrefaction, is held as a certain sign of death. There have been and there are physicians who think that not only in a case of asphyxia, but also in other cases, life persists latently for some time after the ordinary signs of life have ceased; and this both in sudden cases and when disease has had its ordinary outcome.² As regards sudden cases, it is reported that several apparently dead persons have returned to the activity of life. As regards ordinary disease, they rely especially on experiments in higher animals. Therefore, having regard to those things which are asserted by some physicians, and which are not to be held as certainly false, it seems one must speak as follows:

In a case in which someone has died, apparently, whether from a sudden accident or from a disease which lasted for a brief time, it is strongly to be advised that the necessary sacraments - more safely first Extreme Unction, then Absolution - be administered under condition, and this even two or more hours after someone seems to have died.
In a case in which someone seems to have died in the ordinary way, they say that latent life commonly persists for a shorter time, say for a quarter hour or a half hour; hence during that time it is licit to administer the necessary sacraments.
Where there is suspicion that a case of asphyxia is present, a still longer time is admitted for administering the sacraments. Such a case can occur after uremia, epilepsy, and other diseases, concerning which Antonelli³ and Capellmann-Bergmann⁴ speak.

¹ Cf. Ferreres-Geniesse, La mort réelle et la mort apparente, et leurs rapports avec l'administration des Sacrements; Revue de Lille, 1905-1906, p. 442 sq., 481 sq.; Nouv. Rev. Théol., 1906, p. 606 sq.; 1907, p. 497 sq.

² Cf. Lacroix, De Poenitentia, VI, n. 1104.

³ Antonelli, Medicina pastoralis, II, n. 612 sq.

⁴ Capellmann-Bergmann, Pastoral-Medizin, p. 358 sq.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. III, Pt. II, Sect. II, Ch. IV, Article VI. On Confession of Baptized Non-Catholics

n. 478.

We are speaking of baptized non-Catholics who are in good faith, or at least are not certainly in bad faith. Now:

I. Outside danger of death, baptized non-Catholics cannot licitly be absolved. "It is forbidden," thus canon 731, § 2, "to minister the Sacraments of the Church to heretics or schismatics, even those erring in good faith and asking for them, unless first, having rejected their errors, they have been reconciled to the Church."

II. In danger of death. We distinguish between non-Catholics who admit confession and those who reject it.

Those who admit confession, as for example schismatics, can be absolved as follows:

a) If they are already deprived of the senses, they can be absolved, according to this response of the Holy Office:¹ "Whether absolution and extreme unction can be conferred on schismatics at the point of death when deprived of the senses? Response: under condition, affirmatively, especially if from the circumstances it may be lawful to conjecture that they at least implicitly reject their errors, scandal nevertheless being effectively removed, namely by making manifest to those standing by that the Church supposes that they returned to unity at the last moment."

b) If they are not deprived of the senses, of themselves they cannot be absolved, because of themselves they must first be taught revealed doctrine and fulfill the obligation of embracing it. Added to this is canon 731, § 2, cited above. They seem, however, scandal being removed, to be able to be absolved as if incidentally, whether, after warning has been given, they are judged to persevere in error in good faith, or whether they are not warned, lest perhaps they be deprived of good faith. For first, it is in no way clear what from the nature of the matter stands in the way of the defended opinion. But a merely positive prohibition, where the salvation of a person placed in danger of death is at issue, should not easily be admitted. Then the Holy Office², to the question "Whether material schismatics who are in good faith can ever be absolved," the Holy Office, I say, responded to that question: "Since scandal cannot be avoided: negatively; except in danger of death; and then, scandal having been effectively removed."

Objection 1. Canon 731, § 2 absolutely forbids administering the sacraments to schismatics unless first, having rejected their errors, they have been reconciled to the Church; therefore neither in danger of death is it licit.

Response. A priori it is difficult to admit that the canon cannot be combined with the response of the Holy Office. And in fact the canon can well be understood in such a way that it establishes what ought of itself to be done, which does not prevent departure from the rule on account of a very grave cause; and such a cause is certainly present in the case posited.

Objection 2. The Holy Office, on May 17, 1916, to question II, "Whether the sacraments of either absolution or extreme unction can be conferred on material schismatics placed at the point of death, asking for them in good faith, without abjuration of errors," responded: "Negatively, but it is required that, in the best manner possible, they reject their errors and make a profession of faith."³ Therefore schismatics, at least before they are deprived of the senses, cannot be absolved.

Response. Again, a priori it is difficult to admit that this response cannot be combined with the response of July 20, 1898. And indeed the response can be understood in such a way that schismatics of themselves cannot be absolved unless they reject their errors and make a profession of faith. Indeed the Holy Office, by adding that these things are to be performed "in the best manner possible," perhaps hints that an explicit rejection of errors and profession of faith is not always to be urged.

Those who reject confession should not be absolved. Nevertheless, I would not condemn one who conditionally absolves them after they have been incited to penance, according to what was said in n. 41; yet proceed prudently, and especially endeavor to bring them to perfect contrition.

Corollary I. In doubt whether a dying non-Catholic, deprived of the senses, admits confession, he can be absolved under condition.

Corollary II. One who assists a dying non-Catholic should not omit to bring him to perfect contrition and to an act of charity with the other preliminary acts, so that he may be saved more securely.

¹ May 17, 1916, to 2 (in Theol.-prakt. Quartalschrift, 1916, p. 692-695).

² July 20, 1898 (Collectanea, n. 2012).

³ In Theol.-prakt. Quartalschrift, 1916, p. 692-695.

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 8 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 3. Repentance; Penanc…, Confession

n. 2737.

Confession

Confession.—The second act of the penitent is confession, that is, the declaration of one’s sins made to a duly authorized priest with the purpose of obtaining absolution. Confession is obligatory both from divine and ecclesiastical law.

(a) According to divine law, the forgiveness of grave post-baptismal sins is subject to the power of the keys, which is exercised in the form of a judgment and requires confession (Matt., xviii, 18; John, xx. 23). This law obliges per se in danger of death, and occasionally during life; per accidens, when one in sin intends to receive Communion, when one is unable without confession to recover the necessary state of grace or overcome a serious temptation or bad habit.

(b) According to church law, the faithful must go to confession once a year (2590), and confession is also prescribed at times for those who wish to receive Communion (2705) or celebrate Mass (2701 c, 2711).

n. 2738.

The Qualities of Confession

The Qualities of Confession.—(a) Confession is an act of virtue and should have the conditions of a virtue; that is, it should be discreet (e.g., the penitent should not reveal the names or sins of others), willing, and pure in motive (e.g., the penitent should not confess for temporal ends, such as the good opinion of the confessor), and courageous (i.e., the penitent should not be deterred by shame).

(b) Confession is an act of penitence, and, as penitence includes hatred and regret for sin and abasement of self, confession should not be boastful, jocular or proud, but shamefaced, sorrowful and humble.

(c) Confession is essentially a declaration of fact, and hence it should avoid the defects that make a declaration valueless or imperfect, namely, falsehood, obscurity, digression, or concealment. Confession, then, should be truthful, clear, to the point, and entire.

(d) Confession belongs to the Sacrament of Penance, which is the forum of conscience, and hence the penitent accuses himself, submits to the judgment of the father confessor, and is heard in secret. Public confession is valid but not obligatory. Hence, one who does not speak the language of the confessor is not bound to use an interpreter. Regularly confession should be vocal, but for grave reasons (e.g., if the penitent is dumb, or the confessor is deaf, or there is danger of being heard by those nearby) it may be made by signs or in writing. In case of a written confession the penitent should declare orally, if possible, that the writing contains his confession (see Canon 903).

n. 2739.

Is it a Grave Sin to Lie to the Confessor?—(a) There is a grave sin when the lie deceives the confessor about necessary matter (e.g., when a circumstance changing the theological species of a sin is denied), or about free matter which is the only sin confessed (e.g., when a penitent lyingly accuses himself of only one sin and that a venial one), or about free matter which the confessor asks about and needs to know (e.g., about habits or occasions of sin). He who falsely accuses himself of a grave sin, or who exaggerates the number of his grave sins, per se sins mortally; but he is excused if he is ignorant or is under a momentary excitement or delusion. Not only is there grave sin in the cited cases, but the confession is made invalid by the defect in essential matter which the lie produces; for the confessor does not understand the true state of the penitent’s soul.

(b) There is mortal sin when the lie deceives the confessor about matter that is impertinent to the confession, but is grave in itself, as when the penitent seriously calumniates a neighbor to the priest. In this case the confession is made invalid by the want of disposition on the part of the penitent.

(c) There is light sin when the lie deceives the confessor about free matter which is not the only sin confessed, or which the confessor does not need to know in order substantially to pass judgment and give direction; also when the lie is not serious and is impertinent to the confession. In these cases the Sacrament is not made invalid, for the insincerity does not change the confessor’s decision.

n. 2740.

Integral Confession

Integral Confession.—The completeness or integrity of confession is twofold.

(a) Material completeness consists in the declaration of all mortal sins committed and not yet confessed and absolved. This kind of completeness is sometimes impossible, and therefore unnecessary. For completeness is obligatory in virtue of a positive law of Christ, and positive laws do not bind in case of impossibility (361).

(b) Formal completeness consists in the declaration of all the mortal sins which here and now, all things considered, one can and should mention. This kind of completeness is necessary for a valid and fruitful confession, because the law of Christ calls for a complete confession, as far as possible, and formal completeness is possible. Since he who is obliged by a law is also obliged to use the means to keep the law, those who are going to confession should examine their consciences beforehand, unless this is impossible or unnecessary. The time and diligence to be given this examination depends on the person and his circumstances; but all should be careful about it, while avoiding scrupulosity, and should also remember that contrition is even more important than confession.

n. 2741.

Manner of Confession

Manner of Confession.—Completeness of confession as regards mortal sins extends to the following points:

(a) the theological and the lowest moral species of a sin (197 sqq.) must be given, for otherwise the confessor does not understand the case before him. He who has committed a mortal theft does not satisfy by confessing a venial theft; he who is guilty of the specific sin of calumny does not satisfy by the generic accusation of sins of the tongue. But impossibility excuses, as when the penitent has only a general recollection about a sin;

(b) the number of the sins must be given exactly or, if this is impossible, approximately. He who unintentionally exaggerates the number or tells a sin of which he is not guilty, is not bound to correct this, but he who unintentionally lowers the number to a notable extent should tell in his next confession what was omitted (see 202 sqq.);

(c) the circumstances that change the species of a sin must be declared, for example, the fact that the person who was scandalized was one’s subject, that the person who was treated disrespectfully was one’s superior, that the amount stolen was large (see 72);

(d) the external act that completed an internal sin must be declared, and hence he who committed impurity does not confess properly by saying that he gave consent to impure desires (see 89-93).

n. 2742.

Disputed Cases

Disputed Cases.—(a) Circumstances that Notably Aggravate a Sin without Changing Its Species.—For the obligation of confessing these circumstances, it is argued that, if the confessor does not know them, he is unable to guide the penitent properly. Against obligation, it is argued that the species of the sin gives the confessor sufficient knowledge, and that the obligation of confessing aggravating circumstances would make the burden too heavy for the penitent. But all admit that per accidens there may be a duty of confessing a circumstance of this kind, as when it makes a sin reserved, or consists in an occasion of sin or evil habit, or when it produces a great change in reference to satisfaction (e.g., the theft of $10,000 is quite different from the theft of $1000).

(b) As to the Imputable External Effects of a Sin.—One opinion is that these must be confessed, since they are willed in their cause (96, 102); another opinion is that they need not be confessed since they are not sins, but results that followed on a sin; a third opinion answers that they must be confessed if the evil will was not retracted before they happened, but otherwise not. All agree, however, that the sinner in this case should confess that he sinned with foresight of the consequence, and that he should confess the consequence itself if there is attached to it something that should be known to the confessor (e.g., censure, irregularity, etc.).

(c) Sins Whose Commission, or Gravity, or Remission is Uncertain.—If the uncertainty is about the fact or gravity of the sin, there is no obligation to confess the sin, even though its commission or its gravity be probable; for the obligation cannot be proved. But if it is certain that grave sin has been committed and uncertain whether the sin has been confessed, a mere doubt or suspicion in favor of confession does not exempt from obligation; a probable opinion in favor of confession excuses according to Probabilism, but it does not excuse according to Equiprobabilism, unless the doubt is about a confession made long ago by one who was careful in making his confessions, or unless there is question of a scrupulous person (655 sqq., 708, 709).

n. 2743.

When Material Integrity Is Not Necessary

When Material Integrity Is Not Necessary.—Material integrity is not due because of real impossibility in the following cases:

(a) when there is physical impossibility, as when one is at the point of death and too weak to make confession, or is deaf and dumb, or cannot speak the confessor’s language correctly, or cannot finish confession on account of shipwreck or other great peril;

(b) when there is moral impossibility, as when material integrity cannot be had except at the expense of a great temporal or spiritual evil distinct from the inconvenience intrinsic to the confession itself, and there is some serious reason that makes it necessary to go to confession here and now (e.g., the desire of not remaining long in the state of sin). Examples are: great spiritual harm, as when a penitent is scrupulous; great temporal harm, as when the penitent has to flee to escape assassination. Some affirm, while others deny, the duty of mentioning a sin that will defame an accomplice with the confessor, and in practice it seems the duty cannot be insisted on (cfr. 2065).

n. 2744.

Completion or Repetition of Past Incomplete Confessions

Completion or Repetition of Past Incomplete Confessions.—(a) Completion of past confessions must be made when they lacked material integrity, if the impossibility has ceased.

(b) Particular repetition is necessary when a confession lacked formal integrity or other essential; that is, if a sin was unlawfully concealed or unrepented of in confession, the sacrilege must be confessed and the previous confession made over, since it was invalid. But if the new confession is made to the same confessor and he has a general remembrance of it, the new confession may be made summarily.

(c) General repetition is necessary when several past confessions were certainly invalid on account of lack of formal integrity or other defect. Thus, he who has made bad confessions for three months must make a general confession of that period of time. General confession is advisable when there is a prudent doubt about the worth of past confessions; it is permissible when it will help a penitent to be more contrite and lead a better life; it is not lawful when it will do harm, as when a scrupulous penitent will be harrowed and maddened by the thought of his past sins.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 22 passages

Vol. I, On Conscience, V. On Doubtful Conscience

n. 147.

In doubt a fact is not presumed, but must be demonstrated. L. 10 C. de Non numer. pec. - For no reason must be given for non-being, but for being; because non-being does not have its cause, but being does. But understand this of the principal fact, if it is doubtful: because, if the principal fact is certainly established and there is doubt about an accessory fact, then other principles have force: In doubt every fact is presumed rightly done; In doubt the fact which by law had to be done is presumed; In doubt one must stand for the value of the act; always excluding unjust damage to oneself or another or the community. For every being naturally tends toward its perfection and good. Therefore if nothing is established as obstructing, nature continues to pursue its course. The fact of a completed Confession is established; you doubt concerning the right, whether you confessed rightly with sorrow, with purpose; you can acquiesce. These three latter principles have force both for liberty and against liberty.

For liberty, if a contrary and certain presumption or the common good does not obstruct; for no obligation is to be imposed unless it is certainly established. Against liberty, namely if a contrary and certain presumption or the public good obstructs; for the common good prevails over private good. L. 1. 1. n. 26. 27. 137. 182. 251, l. 3. n. 201, l. 6. n. 505; L. Quoties 12 de Reb. dub. ff.

Vol. I, On Laws, IV. On the Obligation of Law

n. 222.

Resolves: He sins who on a fast day undertakes labor, although honorable, in order to be excused from the fast; although he, after he is gravely wearied, even with that evil end, is no longer held to the fast. L. 1. 3. n. 1022. But he does not at all sin who on the day before a fast spends the day hunting, foreseeing that through weariness it will not be licit for him to fast. He sins who, without a just cause, on the same feast day or one or another hour before it, begins a journey, foreseeing that he will not be able to hear Mass. But he does not sin if he does this on the preceding day. Gur. Ball. 111; Del Vecchio 161. But St. Alphonsus does not admit this, l. 3, n. 301, denying "that someone can set out on Saturday to hunt in a distant wood, although on Sunday he cannot hear Mass there."

"An excommunicated or interdicted person does not sin by omitting Mass, and likewise an imprisoned person, even if they neglect absolution or liberty, because these persons are not obliged to remove remote impediments," or extrinsic ones. L. 1. 3. n. 825; l. 1, n. 152; l. 7, n. 161. "Otherwise, however, they speak with respect to annual Confession and Communion, since this is one of the divine precepts, with regard to which we are held to remove impediments." L. 161; l. 6, n. 299. Excommunication and interdict, with relation to Confession and Communion, are not extrinsic impediments, but intrinsic, and therefore care must be taken that they be removed. "Tamb. and Viva, however, think that those detained in prison are not held to seek liberty in order that they may communicate." L. 1. 6. n. 299; Ithur., Cas. 3, n. 7.

Vol. I, On Laws, IX. Privileges of Clerics, Bishops, Regulars

n. 263.

As regards baptism, Confession, Communion. They can permit that, besides when danger of death is imminent or necessity urgent, baptism be administered to infants at home from a just and reasonable cause. S. C. de Sacram., 20 Dec. 1912. - They can choose for themselves a confessor outside the diocese, provided he is their subject, and they can take him with them to different places; but if he is not a subject he must be approved by his own Ordinary. - They can permit that the Holy Eucharist be carried privately to the sick from the church to the home, or without the prescriptions of the Ritual being observed. S. C. de Sacram., 20 Dec. 1912. - L. 65; l. 6, n. 565.

n. 274.

As regards Confession. - Regulars cannot confess licitly and validly except to Confessors deputed by their own Superiors. "With seculars, when the faculty of choosing a confessor for oneself is granted, it is always supposed that he is approved by the Bishop; but regulars, from express or tacit license of their own superior, can confess to any simple priest... Wherefore all regular superiors can choose for themselves as confessor any priest." L. 110.

As regards cases reserved in the order to be absolved, the faculty can and ought justly to be denied by the superior if there is question of harming others, i.e., when scandal or any harm whatever would perhaps be imminent either to religion, or to the house, or to another, or to the penitent himself; nor could it be met otherwise except by furnishing knowledge of the matter to the superior. But, "if the superior denies to the confessor of regulars, deputed for this, the faculty of absolving, but the confessor judges that it ought to be granted, he can absolve on that occasion," i.e., as often as that case occurs. This is established from the Decree of Clement VIII. Cf. Constitution of Urban VIII, Sanctissimus, 21 Sept. 1624; Ferraris, v. Praelatus regularis, n. 58; Pellizzar., de Monial., c. 9, n. 29.

Exempt Regulars are not subject to episcopal reservation, since they are exempt from the jurisdiction of the Bishop. Indeed neither novices nor familiars of regulars are subject to the reservation of Bishops. Thus from the Bull Superna of Clement X. But if a novice has fallen into a reserved case before entrance into religion, he can be absolved by the confessor of the religion by privilege. - L. 102, 103, 111, 112; l. 6, n. 583, 586, 602. Religious of Institutes of simple vows are altogether subject to episcopal jurisdiction as regards censures and reservation of cases, as also as regards dispensation of non-reserved vows and dispensations which local Ordinaries impart to their faithful.

C. cited Conditae a Christo. The Supreme Pontiff Pius X decreed that all Confessors approved in the City can hear the Confessions of all Regulars, of whatever Order, Congregation, Institute they may be, without any permission of Regular Superiors; and therefore they can also absolve them from all reserved cases in the same religious Orders, Congregations, Institutes, even with censure. S. C. de Relig., 8 Feb. 1903; Pagella Confessarior. in Urbe. The same Supreme Pontiff afterward extended this faculty to all Confessors of the whole world approved by local Ordinaries. S. C. de Relig., 5 Aug. 1913.

Vol. I, On the Precept of Charity, V. On Fraternal Correction

n. 418.

Resolves: Private persons among themselves are rarely bound to correction, at least under grave sin, unless they are familiarly joined to one another, because rarely are all the required conditions found; still more rarely toward superiors because of unsuitability. Prudence generally persuades that correction be omitted toward those whose character is wholly unknown, lest, receiving the correction with an unjust mind, they become worse. Scrupulous persons are ordinarily excused from making fraternal correction, because either they are too greatly wearied, or are unfit; for, disturbed by scruples and anxieties, they lack the necessary discretion for correcting, and are not able to attend to excusing causes.

Vol. II, On the Third and Fourth Precepts of the Church

n. 1553.

When are children judged to have attained the years of discretion, so that they are bound by the precept of Confession? - When they are capable of mortal sin; that is around the seventh year, which is to be judged not from age alone, but chiefly from the degree of understanding or discretion of good and evil. But the spirit of discretion is judged to be present in those who now apprehend that lying or disobedience is evil, or who are ashamed of certain impure actions, etc. Hence pastors of souls are held gradually to prepare these little children for Confession, and to absolve those in whom they observe mortal sin, even doubtful, at least within the year, by force of the Lateran Council. In doubt concerning discretion, let them be absolved conditionally. Therefore Confessors who never wish to absolve children committed to them gravely err and cannot be excused. But from the same age of discretion, that is around the seventh year, the obligation also of Communion begins. S. C. de Sacram. 8 Aug. 1910.; L. 1. 3, n. 370.; l. 6, n. 432-666.

Vol. III, On the Particular Obligati…, IV. On Profession

n. 277.

What things are required for religious profession? - For the value of profession there is required: 1. That the person be fit for entering religion. - 2. That the one professing has completed the sixteenth year, computing this time mathematically from moment to moment. For thus Trent decreed, s. 25, c. 15 de Reg., according to the S. C. and all the doctors. Laymen or conversi cannot be admitted to profession before they have arrived at the age of twenty-one completed years, from Clement VIII, C. Regularis disciplinae, March 19, 1603. But now from the Decree of the S. C. of Religious, January 1, 1911, they are admitted to solemn vows only when the thirtieth year of age has been completed, after a six-year period of simple vows, a year of Novitiate, and two years of Postulancy. Cf. 267 bis. - 3. That a whole year of probation has preceded. Trent ibid. - 4. That it be done with the intention of making profession; for it is a certain spiritual marriage with religion, which, just as carnal marriage, is itself lacking when consent is lacking.

That profession not be emitted because of fraud or deceit; otherwise true consent would be lacking. - 6. That it not be done from force or grave fear, unjustly inflicted from without to extort profession. C. 1 de His quae de vi metusve, etc.; C. ult. Qui clerici vel voventes; Trent s. 25, c. 18, 19 de Reg. - 7. That the three substantial vows be emitted; otherwise the essence of the religious state will not be present. - 8. That profession be made in some approved religion. - 9. That profession be accepted by one having power for this. Cf. Ferraris v. Moniales a. 1, n. 101 ff.; C. Ad Apostolicam de Regular. - 10. That the one professing attach no condition repugnant to the substance of religion. - 11. That express profession be made; for tacit profession as regards men has been abrogated by Pius IX, Decree of the S. C. Regular Discipline, June 12, 1858. Cf. Ferraris l. c. n. 109. By custom it has also been abrogated as regards nuns, and as regards more recent Institutes of simple vows. - 12. That both men and women first emit simple vows and remain in them for three whole years before solemn profession is to be emitted. From just and reasonable causes these vows can be extended up to the completed twenty-fifth year of age. Pius IX, Brief In universalis Ecclesiae, February 7, 1862; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902. Meanwhile they must remain in houses of the professed and of studies, and observe perfect common life, and they are held to the observance of the rule of the order as solemnly professed men and women are; and they enjoy the privileges and indulgences of the order or monastery as these do. The active and passive voice is computed from the day of emission of simple vows. Yet they do not have a suffrage in admission to solemn profession, and can be elected only to lesser offices, not also to offices of superiority. S. C. Regular Discipline, August 6, 1858; S. C. Bishops and Regulars, May 3, 1902; February 20, 1905. By this profession of simple vows, which precede solemn vows, residential benefices do not become vacant. S. C. Bishops and Regulars, March 30, 1908. - 13. If one vow, e.g., of poverty, is not solemn, neither are the other two solemn. S. Penitentiary 1820 to the Bishop of Limoges. - 14. As regards nuns, solemn profession is not had without papal enclosure, C. Periculoso un. de Stat. reg.; St. Pius V, C. Cura pastoralis, May 29, 1566. - Lugo, Resp. Mor. l. 4, d. 14, 18, 21, 43; l. 3, d. 16.

Concerning Religious bound to military service. - "... The S. C. of Religious ... decreed the following:

I. In Regular Orders in which solemn vows are emitted, young men who are not certainly established to be exempt from active military service, namely from that service which they, when first called to the military, must perform for one or more years, cannot be admitted to Sacred Orders or to solemn profession until they have completed military service and, this having been completed, have remained at least for a year, according to what is to be said below, in simple vows, with the decree Sacrosancta Dei Ecclesia, edited on this same day, observed as regards Laymen.

II. In Institutes of simple vows, the young men concerning whom in the preceding article will be able to be admitted only to temporary vows up to the time of military service; nor is it lawful for them, while they give service to the military, to renew profession. When they have been dismissed from military service, they will again emit profession, at least for a year, before they bind themselves by the bond of perpetual profession.

III. But let young men serving in the military take care lest they lose the gift of holy vocation, and let them always converse with that modesty and caution which befits religious men. Wherefore let them shrink from suspect places and little gatherings; let them abstain from theaters, dances, and other public spectacles; let them avoid the commerce of the bad, slippery conversations, things discordant with religion, men professing suspect doctrines, readings contrary to morals or faith according to the dictates of the Holy See, and other dangers of sinning; let them not omit, as much as is lawful for them, to frequent churches and the sacraments; let them approach Catholic circles or meetings for recreation and instruction of soul.

IV. Wherever their station is placed, if there is there a house of their Religion or Institute, let them frequent it and be under the immediate vigilance of the Superior. But if the aforesaid house is not present, or they cannot conveniently frequent it, let them approach a priest designated by the Bishop, and use his counsels and company, so that when it is necessary to leave the same station, they may be able to receive from him written testimony concerning the observance of all those things which are prescribed in the preceding article. But if a priest designated by the Bishop is not had, let them choose for themselves a prudent priest, to be indicated at once to their Superiors, who will procure for themselves from the Ordinary information about his morals, doctrine, and prudence. Furthermore, let them establish correspondence by letters and, as far as can be done, diligently pursue it with their respective Superior or another religious or member of their Institute designated for this, whom they are to make more certain concerning the manner and condition of their life, concerning each change of their station, and especially let them notify him of the name and domicile of that priest whose company and direction they use, as was prescribed above.

V. Superiors General or Provincial, even local according to the custom of each Institute, by themselves or by a delegated member, who in clerical Institutes is to be marked with the priestly order, are altogether held to inquire concerning the life, morals, and conduct of the pupils while military service lasts, especially by the work of the priest or priests concerning whom above, through secret letters if there is need, so that they may be made more certain whether these have preserved the right way of faith and morals, observed the cautions prescribed above, and shown themselves faithful to the divine vocation, their conscience being gravely burdened.

VI. When they have been definitively dismissed from active military service, let each one be held to return by a straight path to his own religious houses, and there, if it is certainly established concerning their good conduct, as was said in the preceding article, some days of holy recollection having been premised, those who are assigned to Institutes of simple vows are to be admitted to renewing temporary profession; but in Regular Orders, let them be placed among the younger clerics or professed, or at least in a house where perfect regular observance flourishes, under the special vigilance and direction of a religious commended for piety and prudence, who in clerical Institutes must be a priest. In that state they must complete the whole time, which, according to what has been said in articles I and II, will not be able to be less than a year, to be premised to solemn or perpetual vows according to the path of the Apostolic Prescriptions and of the Constitutions of their own Religious Family, yet in such a way that the time spent in simple or temporary vows from the first emission of vows up to departure from the religious house because of military service is indeed computed, but not that which was given to military service.

VII. At that time, let them give attention to studies and regular observance; but let the immediate Superiors and the members placed over the direction of the younger men consider them most diligently, investigate their morals, fervor of life, opinions, doctrines, and zeal for persevering, so that concerning them before the last profession they may be able to render an account under faith of oath to the higher Superiors.

VIII. If any, during military service or after it has ended, before they are admitted to solemn or perpetual profession, have given doubtful signs of perseverance, or have not obeyed the cautions prescribed during the time of military service, or have turned aside from purity of morals or faith, let them be dismissed by the Superior General with the consent of his Counselors or Definitors, and let their vows be held as dissolved by the very act of dismissal.

But if the young men themselves desire or spontaneously ask to be relaxed from the bond of vows, the faculty is given to the aforesaid Superiors, as delegates of the Apostolic See, of dissolving the vows, if it is a question of clerical Institutes; but if the matter concerns Institutes of laymen, let the vows be judged dissolved by letters of the Superiors, by which license is given to them to return to the world.

IX. Ecclesiastical Societies also are held by these prescriptions, which, although they do not use vows, neither solemn nor simple, nevertheless have simple promises by which their pupils are bound to those Societies.

X. If anything new, not foreseen in this Decree, or if anything doubtful in understanding it should occur, recourse is to be made in individual cases to this S. Congregation.... Anything contrary whatsoever notwithstanding." S. C. Religious, Decree Inter reliquas, January 1, 1911.

Declarations concerning the Decree Inter reliquas on the military service of religious. - "I. Whether perpetual vows emitted before the promulgation of the Decree Inter reliquas cease ipso facto when active military service is assumed?

II. Whether temporary vows likewise cease ipso facto when the same service is assumed?

III. Whether solemn profession in Orders, and perpetual profession in Institutes of simple vows, emitted in good faith by one who falsely thought himself exempt from military service, is valid?

IV. Whether solemn profession in Orders, and perpetual profession in Institutes of simple vows, emitted before a year has been completed from the day active military service was completed, is valid?

V. Whether a whole year must flow before he who was assigned to active military service for only three months is admitted to solemn or perpetual profession?

VI. Whether those Religious can be admitted to solemn or perpetual profession who, subject to active military service, nevertheless have and manifest the firm intention of giving themselves to foreign Missions, and of remaining in them up to the time established by civil law for obtaining perpetual exemption from military service, as, for example, in Italy it is the thirty-second year of age?

R. To I. In the negative. - To II. In the negative of itself, or, the vows do not cease ipso facto at the beginning of military service; nevertheless Religious can ask for dispensation from vows from the first day of military service, according to Art. VIII of the Decree Inter reliquas, if they do not intend to persevere; if they intend to persevere, in no case can they emit a new profession of vows unless military service has been completed, even if the time of profession has expired during military service. - To III. In the negative. - To IV. In the negative. - To V. In the negative; but it is necessary and sufficient in the case that there be three months, or a space of time shorter than a year, corresponding to the time spent in military service. - To VI. In the negative of itself. Yet the Sacred Congregation concedes that in the last year of the course of studies it is lawful to admit to solemn profession, or respectively to perpetual profession, and to promote to sacred Orders, young men about to set out for sacred Missions within a year, after an oath has first been emitted on the part of the candidate concerning service to be rendered to the Missions up to the time predefined by civil law for obtaining exemption, and with the conscience of Superiors burdened concerning its execution.

Concerning religious Profession in the article of death. - "... In any Order, or any Congregation or religious Society, or monastery whether of men or women, or even in Institutes in which, although vows are not emitted, nevertheless common life is lived after the manner of Religious, it is lawful thereafter to admit Novices or Probands, who by the judgment of the physician are gravely sick, so that they are judged to be constituted in the article of death, to profession or consecration or promise according to their own Rules or Constitutions, although they have not yet completed the time of novitiate or probation.

Yet, in order that novices or probands may be admitted to the above-said profession or consecration or promise, it is necessary:

That they have canonically begun the novitiate or probation.
That the Superior who admits the Novice or Proband to profession or consecration or promise be the one who actually governs the monastery or house of novitiate or probandate.
That the formula of profession or consecration or promise be the same which is in use in the Institute outside the case of sickness; and vows, if they are pronounced, are to be pronounced without determination of time or perpetuity.
That he who has emitted profession, consecration, or promise of this kind will be a participant in absolutely all the indulgences, suffrages, and graces which Religious truly professed dying in the same Institute obtain; and to the same there is mercifully conceded in the Lord plenary indulgence and remission of his sins in the form of a Jubilee.
This profession or consecration or promise, besides the graces declared in the preceding article, produces altogether no other effect. Therefore:

A) if the Novice or Proband after profession or consecration or promise of this kind dies intestate, the Institute will be able to claim for itself no goods or rights pertaining to him;

B) if he recovers before the time of novitiate or probandate expires, he is to be in altogether the same condition as if he had emitted no profession; and therefore: a) freely, if he wishes, he will be able to return to the world; and b) Superiors are able to dismiss him; c) he must complete the whole time of novitiate or probandate defined in individual Institutes, even if beyond a year; d) this time having been completed, if he perseveres, a new profession or consecration or promise will have to be emitted.

Anything contrary whatsoever notwithstanding." S. C. of Religious, September 10, 1912.

277 bis. What form of admission is to be observed? - When Novices are to be admitted to profession, "the Conventual Chapter ... is to declare by secret votes whether the Novice can be admitted to profession.... Then the Provincial and the Examiners (Provincial, at least three) are to define by secret votes whether the Novice ... can safely be admitted to profession. If the Novice has been approved, the Provincial is to render the Superior General instructed concerning everything, who ... is to revoke or confirm the approval ... yet so that he can never permit the profession of a Novice who has been rejected by the Provincial Examiners.... If the Constitutions and rules of some Order and Institute further require anything in admitting Novices to profession, that also will have to be observed only in that part which is by no means contrary to the tenor of this Decree." Decree Regulari disciplinae of the S. C. on the State of Regulars, January 25, 1848.

As regards nuns of solemn vows, those things are to be observed which are established in their proper Constitutions. As regards more recent Institutes of simple vows, the Norms of the Sacred Congregation and their own Constitutions approved by the Holy See are to be observed.

As regards the rite of making profession and renewing vows, the General Decree of the S. R. C., August 14, 1894, n. 3836, and June 5, 1896, n. 3912, is to be observed. - E. M.

Vol. III, On Penance, IV. On Confession

n. 695.

What is Confession? - Confession is the accusation of sins committed after baptism, made to an approved priest, in order to absolution. Trent, sess. 14, C. 1, 5; L. 445.

n. 696.

Is Confession necessary? and when does it oblige? - Confession is necessary by divine law for all who, after baptism, have fallen into mortal sin. Trent, sess. 14, C. 5, cc. 6, 7. - This precept certainly obliges of itself in danger, and all the more at the point of death, and at some time in life. The first reason is that all positive precepts oblige at least in a time of necessity; otherwise they would never oblige and would be imposed in vain. The second reason is that affirmative precepts do not oblige only in extreme necessity, but also when their fulfillment is reasonably judged necessary. It often obliges by accident, namely: 1. When the Eucharist is to be received. 2. When the precept of reconciling oneself with God urges, or the state of grace is required, e.g., for administering sacraments, or for receiving those which are called sacraments of the living, and an act of perfect contrition cannot be elicited.

When a grave temptation urges which otherwise cannot be overcome. But "scarcely can an occasion be thought of in which temptation cannot be overcome, or sin avoided, except through the means of Confession." Suarez, d. 35, s. 3, n. 10. Therefore a scruple about this obligation is not to be injected into the faithful. 4. If it is probable that one will never afterward have an opportunity of a confessor. L. 665. - E. M.

n. 697.

Does the divine precept of Confession oblige immediately when sin has been committed, or at what time does it urge? - It does not oblige immediately after sin. The reason is that such an obligation rests on no certain foundation. - It cannot easily be determined how often in life and at what precise time the divine precept urges. Whatever may be the case, there is no doubt that one satisfies it who confesses even only once in a year, because it is not established that the divine precept urges more frequently. According to many, Christ left the time of the obligation to be determined by the Church. Moreover the Church has prescribed that Confession be made once in the year. Lateran Council under Innocent III, C. Omnes utriusque sexus; Trent, sess. 14, c. 8; St. Thomas, Quodl. 1, a. 11.

n. 698.

Must Confession be vocal, or must it be made by the voice itself? - Resp. In the affirmative. Florence, Decr. pro Armen. "Holzmann and Sporer adduce the reason that, although Confession is prescribed by no law to be made vocally, nevertheless, since the manner of confessing thus has been received by the common use of the Church, hence it now obtains the force of a precept; and therefore without grave cause Confession made otherwise would be illicit." L. 429. - But a grave cause would be "if someone because of constriction of the throat, an impediment of the tongue, or if a girl exceedingly modest, should feel a very grave difficulty in explaining her sins by her voice." L. ibid.

Speaking of this last case Busemb., 493, says: "After the writing has been read by the confessor, let her add by voice: of these I accuse myself." And thus there will be no difficulty. St. Alphonsus, 493, besides says: "Tamburini thinks the same about a scrupulous person who thinks he explains himself better in writing." - Besides, Confession through writing to a present confessor is valid. Confession made by letters to an absent confessor is invalid, even if afterward absolution is given by the confessor when present. Decree of Clement VIII, June 20, 1602; Paul V, July 14, 1605; L. 428. - But one who cannot confess by voice, because he is, e.g., mute, is indeed bound to confess at least by gesture, according to the common opinion, L. 493; but he is not bound to confess by writing, both because of the danger of revelation, and because writing is an extraordinary means which in fact has never been held in the Church as prescribed, and because writing of itself is public while Confession of itself is secret.

Diana, t. 1, t. 3, r. 72, n. 2; Ithur., Cas. 38, nn. 6-10. Nevertheless the opposite seems more probable to St. Alphonsus, 479. But St. Thomas has these things, 4 d. 17, q. 3, a. 4, q. 3, ad 2: "It must be said that in one who does not have the use of the tongue, such as a mute, or one who is of another language, it suffices that he confess by writing, or gesture, or interpreter, because more is not demanded from man than he can do... and therefore, when we cannot confess in one way, we must confess according as we can." Cf. also Quodl. 1, a. 10. - E. M.

n. 699.

Resolutions: Mutes and the deaf are bound to confess in some way, at least by signs, unless they are so ignorant and dull that nothing can be drawn out from them. The reason is that the precept of Confession regards all the faithful who can manifest their sins in some way by reason. Hence mutes sufficiently instructed are bound to confess integrally, at least by signs, if these are understood by the confessor; but if they are less instructed, or can be understood by the confessor only with difficulty, it will suffice for them to manifest only one or another sin, or to confess only in general and to give signs of sorrow. But the deaf, having the use of the tongue, are bound on their part to confess the sins which occur to memory; but the confessor is not bound to question them in order to procure the integrity of Confession, because of the excessive difficulty of questioning and the danger of revelation. - Mutes who know how to write are not bound to confess in writing in order to procure the integrity of Confession. For the matter is at least disputed among the doctors, and therefore the law is doubtful.

Those ignorant of the language of the place in which they are staying, and lacking a confessor by whom they can be understood, are bound, when the precept of annual Confession urges and at the point of death, to confess in some way, at least by general signs. The reason is that the divine and ecclesiastical precept urges. For although they cannot confess integrally, they are nevertheless bound to what they can do. Nor indeed are they bound to confess through an interpreter; for this is a very grave burden and exposed to many dangers, e.g., revelation, mockery, etc. And the Lateran Council, C. Omnis utriusque sexus, de Poenit., says: "Let him alone confess his own sins." Likewise Trent, sess. 14, C. 5: "As to the manner of confessing secretly before the priest alone," etc. Ithur., Cas. 38, n. 11 ff.; L. 179. - E. M.

Vol. III, On Penance, V. On the Integrity of Confession

n. 700.

Must Confession be integral; what is this kind of integrity; what is its force? - Resp. Confession must be integral. The reason is that no judgment can be exercised when the cause is unknown; because the confessor must impose salutary penances and prescribe efficacious remedies; because the whole infirmity must be known in order that it may be healed. Trent, sess. 14, C. 5, c. 7; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 9, a. 2. - Integrity is one thing material, another formal. Material integrity is situated in the accusation of all mortal sins which were simply committed, or which after diligent examination of oneself occur to the mind. Formal integrity consists in the accusation of all sins which, after diligent examination of oneself, occur to the mind, and which one here and now, with the circumstances considered, morally can or is bound to confess. Material integrity is not always necessary; for sometimes it is morally impossible because of inculpable forgetfulness; and although sins occur to the mind, from other just causes Confession becomes morally impossible. Wherefore only formal integrity is necessary. Trent, sess. 14, C. 5. - By reason of integrity, the lowest species of sins and their exact number are to be accused under grave obligation, so that it is lawful neither to increase nor to diminish sins. If someone cannot confess the lowest species of sins, he must confess them according to the higher species or genus which he can. Likewise, if someone cannot confess the precisely determined number, he must confess the number which comes nearer to the truth, using, e.g., the particle "about," or, if he cannot even do this, he must say how often approximately in a year, in a month, in a week, in a day, whether frequently, whether rarely, etc. "Sporer rightly notes that the confessor should not be too anxious about seeking the number of sins in a habitual penitent, because it is often impossible to have such a certain number." L. 466; Ithur., Cas. 38, n. 3. - But the particle "about" is generally understood by theologians in this way: about three is 2-4; about ten is 8-12; about thirty is 27-33; about one hundred is 95-105; about one thousand is 950-1050. L. 466; Lugo, d. 16, nn. 78, 81, 94 ff., 644. - E. M.

n. 722.

What is the necessity and utility of general Confession? - General Confession must be judged necessary whenever preceding confessions were morally certainly invalid or sacrilegious, either on the part of the penitent because of a defect of contrition or integrity, or on the part of a confessor lacking jurisdiction; but in other cases it can never be prescribed.

The reason for each is clear. - It can be advised when, although the invalidity of preceding confessions is not established, nevertheless grave doubt can be had about this. For then it is useful for removing anxieties of soul which harm both peace of conscience and the exercise of virtues. General Confession is to be permitted, or even prudently advised, although not necessary, when, the circumstances considered, the penitent is going to perceive notable spiritual fruit from it, e.g., by reason of humility, devotion, fervor, knowledge of himself, manifestation of conscience for more perfect direction, or greater purity of soul, for obtaining divine helps more efficaciously, etc.; because the confessor from charity ought to promote the greater spiritual good of the penitent when he easily can. - It is to be prohibited in other cases as useless, and even harmful, when other inconveniences besides loss of time are prudently to be feared, namely scruples, anxieties, disturbance of conscience, etc. For if so great a burden for confessor and penitent is not to be undertaken without hope of notable fruit, all the more not with fear of notable harm. - Benedict XIV, Constitution Apostolica Constitutio, June 26, 1749, §§ 16, 17; Lugo, d. 16, s. 15.

Vol. III, On Penance, IX. On the Jurisdiction of the Confessor

n. 772.

Do heretics, schismatics, excommunicates to be avoided, etc., validly absolve in danger of death, when another priest is lacking? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that all priests can absolve in danger of death. Trent, sess. 14, C. 7; L. 560.

n. 773.

Can a simple priest validly absolve a dying person, even when an approved confessor is present? - St. Alphonsus, 562, denies it because of the authority of the Roman Ritual, de Sacr. poenit., at the beginning, where it is said thus: "But if danger of death threatens and an approved confessor is lacking, any priest can absolve from any censures and sins whatever." Several grave theologians hold this opinion. But also several other grave theologians affirm. A very strong argument indeed is available from Trent, sess. 14, C. 7, where that faculty is given absolutely and universally to all priests, for any penitents, and any sins and censures whatever; and the most universal reason is assigned, lest anyone perish. Wherefore where the law does not distinguish, neither must we distinguish, unless an exception is made by the law itself, as for the case of a priest who is an accomplice in a shameful sin, as is explained in its own place; and by this exception also, where it is a question of mere validity, the present doctrine is confirmed. Cf. 1282. Moreover the reason adduced by the Council, lest anyone perish, demonstrates every kind of breadth in this matter; for if this were excluded, someone certainly could sometimes perish because of lack of liberty. And this is added besides, that in the same Church of God it was always kept that there be no reservation at the point of death; but where there is no reservation, it is vainly asked who has power in reserved matters. Finally, before Trent no approbation of the Bishop was needed for hearing Confessions; therefore the old law, as regards the point of death, was not only not derogated, but confirmed, since the Council appeals to the old law itself when it says, "which in the same," etc. It is confirmed from the Response of the Holy Office, July 29, 1891. - Ithur., Cas. 12, 42; Lugo, d. 18, n. 23; L. 560; E. M.

n. 777.

Can a priest approved in some place receive the Confessions of travelers coming there? - Resp. In the affirmative absolutely as regards regular confessors, who have this special privilege from the Apostolic See. C. Inter cunctas of Paul III; C. Superna of Clement X. - In the affirmative also as regards secular priests. The reason is that such is the universal custom, which, having its origin at first from the tacit consent of Ordinaries, now, confirmed by long use, has been prescribed, and obtains the force of a universal law. - L. 569.

n. 780.

Can military chaplains absolve soldiers everywhere without approbation of the Bishop of the place? - Resp. In the affirmative, if they have been specially delegated by the Supreme Pontiff for the spiritual care of soldiers, or by a major chaplain approved by the Pope. - But if they lack this special delegation, they can indeed hear Confessions in the diocese of the approving Bishop, and also outside it on a journey and in camps, from the tacit consent of Bishops, as is clear from universal custom; nevertheless they cannot validly absolve in stations or in garrisons without the license of the Bishop of the place, because they have no jurisdiction. This is established from various Declarations of the S. C. C., March 6, 1694; June 29, 1707; A. S. S., vol. 1, p. 681; A. A. S., vol. 2, p. 501; Zacharia apud La-Croix 1518; L. 577; E. M.

The Major Chaplain or Vicar General of the armies exists in Spain, having all military jurisdiction. Chaplains approved by him absolve soldiers independently of the Ordinaries of places. It is not established that these chaplains in Spain are bound to Mass for the people. - A military Vicar, or Major Chaplain, has been constituted in the army of the Republic of Chile. Motu proprio of Pius X, May 3, 1910. - Military chaplains in England receive faculties from the Archbishop of Westminster. S. C. de Prop. Fid., May 15, 1806. "The Bishop of Verdun, under whose jurisdiction very many soldiers are contained, for the religious care of them in time of war and at the same time for forestalling difficulties, humbly asks Your Holiness that he command a suitable declaration of the following doubts and grant the requested faculties: "I. Whether any soldier whatever, constituted in the state of military convocation, or, as they say, mobilization, is by that very fact in danger of death, so that he can be absolved by any priest encountered? "If in the negative, may Your Holiness deign to impart to any priest who, at the time of the declared war, could by law celebrate Mass, the faculty of absolving from all cases any soldier from his own or a hostile nation, or even from a friendly one. "II. Whether irregularity is incurred by every cleric whom French law has forced actively to wage war or fight? "If in the affirmative, may it please the Most Holy One to remove the aforesaid irregularity in such a way that clerics exercising war can approach the Sacraments, and priests actively serving the work of war may be able both to receive and administer Sacraments. "III. Whether a cleric constituted in sacred orders, whom military convocation, or, as they say, mobilization, has assigned to the function of a soldier, either active or serving wounded comrades, exists free from the law of the Divine Office? "If in the negative, may Your Holiness deign to exempt the aforesaid clerics from the law of the Breviary during the war. "Resp. To the first: the doubt having been reformed: 'Whether any soldier whatever, constituted in the state of military convocation, or, as they say, mobilization, can by that very fact be equated with those who are in danger of death, so that he can be absolved by any priest encountered': In the affirmative, according to the rules handed down by approved authors. "To the second doubt: To the first part: Let the petitioner consult approved authors; to the second part: the Sacred Penitentiary benignly grants that military priests, other things being equal, during military operations, may say Mass and administer Sacraments, notwithstanding the irregularity which, by fighting, they perhaps incurred; but when the war has been settled, let them have recourse to the competent authority. But nothing stands in the way of the same priests and other military clerics, although perhaps they have fallen into irregularity, being admitted to the Sacraments. "To the third doubt: To the first part: during war and its proximate preparation, in the affirmative. To the second part: provision has been made in the first." Sacred Penitentiary, March 18, 1912, n. 780.

n. 781.

Can pastors, Bishops, Cardinals choose a confessor for themselves? - Resp. To the first: In the negative, from proposition 16 condemned by Alexander VII. - To the second: In the affirmative, from C. Ne pro dilatione, fin., de Poenit. et rem. But the Sacred Congregation apud Fagnanus, in the said chapter n. 62, declared that this is to be understood only that Bishops outside the diocese can choose a priest subject to themselves. - To the third: In the affirmative. For a privilege was granted to them by Pius X "of choosing for themselves and their familiars a priest for receiving confessions, who, if he lacks jurisdiction, obtains it by the law itself, even as regards sins and censures from which the same Cardinals can absolve." Cf. vol. 1, n. 260 bis. - L. 565; de Priv. 65; Lugo, d. 20, n. 64; E. M.

Vol. III, On Penance, X. On Regulars and Nuns

n. 790.

Can regulars freely choose a confessor for themselves? - Regulars living in a convent must confess, from regular discipline and from Apostolic privileges obtained, to priests of the order designated by the superior; nor can they be licitly and validly absolved by any others, whether within or outside the house, without the permission of the superior. "It is not lawful for superiors of regulars to hear the Confession of subjects, unless they have committed some reserved sin, or the subjects themselves spontaneously and of their own motion ask this from them." - "Both superiors existing for the time, and confessors who have been promoted to the grade of superior, are to beware most diligently lest they use for external governance that knowledge which they had of others' sins in confession." Decree of Clement VIII, May 26, 1593. - "Let superiors in individual houses depute two, three, or more confessors according to the greater or lesser number of subjects, and let them be learned, prudent, and endowed with charity, who absolve them from non-reserved cases; and to whom also absolution of reserved cases is to be committed when a case occurs in which the confessor himself judges first that it ought to be committed." Cited decree of Clement VIII. "But to the Master alone let the care of hearing the confessions of Novices be committed. Nevertheless it is lawful for the Superior, even the local one, if he judges it expedient, either by himself or through another to be deputed by him, once or twice in the year to hear the confessions of the same Novices." Clement VIII, March 19, 1603. - On a journey, if they have a suitable companion of the same Order, they must confess to him. But if a suitable companion is lacking, they can confess to any priest, whether regular or secular, whether approved or not, unless particular Constitutions of the order stand in the way. But this faculty does not have place with respect to reserved cases. A companion is suitable if he is neither excommunicated, suspended, irregular, nor lacks sufficient knowledge. Innocent IV, Cum supernae, April 26, 1247.

But under the name of regulars here are not comprehended religious of more recent Congregations, nor older Congregations which have only simple vows and are not Religions strictly so called, unless they have a special privilege in this matter. - L. 574, 575; App. de priv. 111; La-Croix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1524; Lugo, d. 20, nn. 66, 67; E. M.

By decree of the Holy Office, July 5, 1899, it was prohibited "that any superior of any religious community or seminary or college, whether major or minor, in the gracious City, except in some rare case of necessity, about which his conscience is burdened, dare in any way to hear the sacramental Confessions of his own pupils remaining in the same house." - By decree of the Holy Office, July 5, 1899, it was declared through the preceding decree that "nothing had been derogated from Apostolic Constitutions as regards Religious Orders." - By decree of the Holy Office, Dec. 20, 1899, it was declared that the preceding declaration was not valid for Religious Congregations of simple vows which have perpetual vows and common life and which have been approved by the Church.

From the Norms of the S. C. EE. et RR. for Italy it is prescribed under a formal and grave precept that no seminary lack a spiritual Director. But Superiors and Professors cannot at the same time exercise the office of spiritual Director, nor that of ordinary confessor. Besides the spiritual director, other pious and learned priests are also to be designated to hear the confessions of the pupils and to suggest suitable counsel to them. S. C. EE. et RR., Jan. 18, 1908.

From regular discipline, etc.; for the following decree on sacramental absolution to be imparted to religious members must be attended to. "In an audience had by the undersigned Cardinal Pro-Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Religious, on Aug. 5, 1913, our most holy Lord Pope Pius X, because of peculiar reasons of conscience, deigned to extend to all Confessors of the whole world approved by the Ordinaries of places the faculty which in the month of February of this year he had granted to all Confessors approved by the Ordinary of the City as regards absolution to be imparted to Religious. Therefore these Confessors, by the authority of our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius X, can receive the sacramental confessions of all members of any Order, Congregation, or Institute whatever without being bound to inquire about or seek permission obtained from the Superior, and can validly and licitly impart absolution from sins reserved in the Order or Institute even under censure. "Therefore His Holiness has commanded all superiors and presidents of every Order, Congregation, or Institute to observe faithfully the prescriptions of this decree in virtue of holy obedience, Constitutions, Apostolic ordinances, privileges granted in any more efficacious form, and any other contrary things whatever, even those worthy of special and individual mention, by no means standing in the way." S. C. de Relig., Aug. 5, 1912.

The aforesaid Decree of Aug. 5, 1913, also comprehends Confessions which Religious of the Latin rite make to Confessors of the Oriental rite and conversely; and also novices of any Order or Congregation. S. C. de Relig., May 3, 1914, A. A. S., vol. 6, p. 232.

The faculty previously granted at Rome was of the following tenor: "Vicariate of Rome - Office II. - By disposition of the Holy Father communicated to this Vicariate by letter of the Sacred Congregation of Religious dated Feb. 8, 1913, all priests approved for confessions in Rome, from now on, have the faculty of hearing the confession and absolving Religious belonging to any Order who have recourse to them, without need of any permission on the part of the respective Regular Superiors."

n. 791.

Do confessors of nuns need special approbation, and can nuns freely choose a confessor for themselves? - It does not pertain to nuns to choose a confessor for themselves, unless they have this right from foundation or custom, in which case the confessor chosen by them must be approved by the Ordinary. - If the nuns are not exempt, or if they are exempt and immediately subject to the Apostolic See, the deputation of the confessor belongs to the Bishop. If the nuns are exempt and subject to regular prelates, the deputation of the confessor, nevertheless of the same order, pertains to the regular prelate. But it is necessary that the Bishop approve him, and indeed specially for the Confessions of nuns; indeed also for such a convent, so that it does not suffice that he has already been approved by the Bishop for another convent. And he must be approved as often as he is deputed to that duty. - Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 5, d. 24, n. 5.

The S. C. EE. et RR., May 2, 1617; June 7, 1620; Sept. 2, 1642, etc., established that confessors of nuns must be above forty years of age, and that ordinary confessors must be changed every three years. By the decree Cum sacramentalibus the same was established. Yet this is not observed everywhere; and, if it is not done, it does not import invalidity of absolution. S. C. EE. et RR., July 20, 1875; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 436. Moreover the confessor is bound to come to hear the Confessions of nuns as often as he has been called. Besides, let him beware lest he conduct himself as superior of the monastery, since no such authority belongs to him in any way; and lest, after he has already fulfilled the office for three years, he mingle conversations with the nuns or send letters to them, even about those things which regard direction of conscience. This was prescribed at Rome both as regards ordinary confessors and as regards extraordinary ones, once their office had ended. Ferraris, v. Confessarius, a. 4, n. 37.

The deputation of extraordinary confessors pertains to him to whom the deputation of the ordinary pertains, and one or several must be offered at least twice or three times in the year. Trent, sess. 25, C. 10, de Reg. - Even from the sole reason of spiritual consolation and progress, a peculiar confessor whom she requests must be granted extraordinarily to a nun, provided that on the part of the nun and on the part of the confessor whom she asks for herself nothing appears from which the said spiritual progress is not to be hoped for. - If the regular prelate neglects to give an extraordinary confessor, the Bishop supplies his negligence. If the Bishop himself neglects to give an extraordinary confessor, nothing else is granted to the nuns than to have recourse to the S. C. de Relig. or to the Major Penitentiary. - But it is prescribed that the extraordinary confessor at least once in the year be either secular or of another order, and at that time the ordinary confessor is to hear the Confessions of no one, neither of the abbess nor of the novices. - All nuns are bound to present themselves to the extraordinary confessor, so that provision be made for the liberty of all; nevertheless they are not bound to confess to him. And therefore, during the whole time for which the office of extraordinary confessor lasts, the ordinary confessor must abstain from exercising his ministry and must not come to the monastery. S. C. EE. et RR., Jan. 1749; Bizzarri, p. 31. - But regular confessors of this kind, after they have fulfilled their office, are forbidden to come to the same monastery or to continue intercourse within it in any way whatever. Bizzarri, p. 294, ed. 1885. - S. C. EE. et RR., Dec. 7, 1906. The ordinary confessor cannot be constituted as extraordinary confessor unless a year has elapsed after the completed triennium. The extraordinary confessor is not held by this law of the triennium. And this extraordinary confessor, even permanently, is not to be denied to a nun who would obstinately refuse to confess to the ordinary. Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastoralis curae.

By decree of the S. C. EE. et RR., Dec. 17, 1790, art. VI, "His Holiness admonishes Prelates and superiors not to deny an extraordinary confessor to subjects as often as subjects are driven to this in order to provide for their own conscience, and the same superiors are in no way to inquire into the reason for the petition or show that they bear it unwillingly. And lest so provident a disposition become vain, the Ordinary is exhorted that in places of his own diocese in which communities of women exist, he designate suitable priests furnished with faculties, to whom they can easily have recourse for the sacrament of penance." But this, as is evident, does not progress so far that they may constantly have recourse to an extraordinary confessor without ever approaching the ordinary confessor. Hence it was declared: "The dispositions of art. IV of the decree Quemadmodum constitute only an exception to the common law for cases only of true and absolute necessity, as often as they are driven to this, that which is prescribed by the Sacred Council of Trent and by the Constitution Pastoralis curae of Benedict XIV remaining firm." S. C. EE. et RR., Feb. 1, 1892. Cf. the Norms of the same Sacred Congregation, nn. 144-146.

At the point of death, a particular confessor must be granted by the Bishop to any nun asking for one; and if the monastery is exempt, if the regular prelate does not grant him, he must be assigned by the Bishop, Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastoralis curae, or, if even the Bishop refuses, by the Major Penitentiary, if time is available. But if time is not available, provision has been made by the Council of Trent, sess. 14, C. 7.

Under the name of nuns here are properly understood only women living under rule in cloister; but not those who are not bound to observe strict enclosure. - But the cited decree Quemadmodum of the S. C. EE. et RR., Dec. 17, 1890, regards also the more recent sisters of only simple vows and without papal enclosure, to whom afterward those things which had been established for nuns were extended. And now especially from the decree Cum de Sacramentalibus, the same law exists for nuns and sisters. - Gregory XV, Constitution Inscrutabili, Feb. 5, 1622; Clement X, Superna; Benedict XIV, Constitution Pastoralis curae; Ithur., Cas. 16; Bouix, de Episc., vol. 2, p. 253; de Iure Reg., vol., p. 332; L. 576, 577; E. M.

Vol. III, On Penance, XII. On the Various Duties of the Minister

n. 831.

What of the obligation of the seal of Confession? - The seal of Confession is the religious obligation of preserving secrecy concerning those things which are known from sacramental Confession, namely of manifesting them to others neither directly nor indirectly, nor, outside confession, to the penitent himself. - There is a most strict obligation of preserving the seal of Confession inviolably.

This is clear 1. From natural law, and indeed under a threefold title, namely from charity, from justice, and from religion. 2. From positive divine law, at least implicit; for from the institution of Christ, Confession, imposed on all from necessity of precept and from necessity of means, must be secret: therefore by that very fact there has been imposed by Christ on confessors the obligation of preserving the seal. 3.

From ecclesiastical law, the Fourth Lateran Council, C. 21, Omnis utriusque sexus, etc. - The obligation of the seal of Confession always presses in every case, so that in no possible case is it lawful to reveal anything heard and received in Confession. The reason is manifestly clear; because if some exception could be given, men would always fear lest such a sin be that cause for licitly breaking the seal, and consequently the sacrament of penance would become odious. Moreover no cause of obtaining good or avoiding evil can compensate for that evil of hatred of the sacrament. - The obligation of the seal arises from every and only sacramental Confession, namely one made with the intention of accusing oneself and obtaining absolution. From every, because then the whole reason for the precept is present; and this holds even if absolution has not been conferred for whatever reason, since Confession is made in order to receive absolution at some time. From only, because only sacramental Confession induces the obligation of the seal, since any other manifestation has no relation with the sacrament of penance. - L. 634, 636; E. M.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 6 passages

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On Penance

n. 696.

The Usefulness of Confession for Piety

“59. The interior way is separated from confession, confessors, cases of conscience, theology, and philosophy.—60. For advanced souls, which begin to die to reflections and even arrive at the point that they are dead, God sometimes makes confession impossible and Himself supplies with so great a persevering grace as they would receive in the sacrament; and therefore it is not good for souls of this kind in such a case to approach the Sacrament of Penance, because that is impossible for them.” Propositions of Michael de Molinos condemned by Innocent XI.

On the Necessity, Integrity, and Presence of Confession

“7. If a man has been duly contrite, every external confession is superfluous and useless for him.” Proposition of John Wyclif condemned in the Council of Constance, Session 45, in 1418.

“9. When we wish to confess all things purely, we do nothing other than wish to leave nothing for the mercy of God to pardon.” Proposition of Martin Luther condemned by Leo X.

“2. Confession of sins in kind was useful to the Church by reason of some statute, not by divine law.—3. Evil thoughts ought not to be confessed, but are blotted out by displeasure alone without relation to the keys.—4. Confession ought to be secret, that is, concerning secret sins, not manifest ones.” Propositions of Master Peter of Osma condemned by Sixtus IV.

“59. It is lawful to absolve sacramentally those who have confessed only by halves, on account of a great concourse of penitents, such as can occur, for example, on the day of some great feast or indulgence.” Proposition condemned by Innocent XI.

“Our Most Holy Lord ..., the matter having been maturely and diligently considered, condemned and prohibited as at least false, rash, and scandalous this proposition, namely, that it is lawful to confess sins sacramentally by letters or by an intermediary to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent confessor; and he commanded that henceforth this proposition not be taught in public or private lectures, sermons, or assemblies, nor ever defended as probable in any case, printed, or brought into practice in any manner.” Clement VIII, Decree of 20 June 1602. On 14 July 1605, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, Paul V declared that this Decree also had force in the divided sense, that is, concerning confession or absolution separately. Clement VIII, however, by an oral pronouncement, declared that he did not intend the case in which a dying person deprived of his senses, whom the bystanders testify previously to have requested absolution, was to be absolved.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 17 passages

120. On Sins to be Confessed

Germana, an old woman, confesses thus: Father, she says, I performed the penance imposed on me; I faithfully recited morning and evening prayers; each day I also recited the rosary and attended Mass. Yet I have committed many imperfections, not obeying divine inspirations; perhaps I also had distractions in reciting prayers, but I do not know; I also sometimes had evil thoughts against the charity of neighbor; but I rejected them. I confess that we are all sinners, born in sin from Adam, and therefore I ask for absolution and penance. The confessor asks and urges Germana to declare some sin of her past life in species; but he obtains from her no other answer besides this: Father, I have already said everything; nothing remains for me to say.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Germana cannot be given the benefit of absolution from the preceding confession, because the certain matter of the sacrament is lacking. For the distractions in reciting prayers which she accuses, she accuses only doubtfully and with an entirely negative doubt. Generally, all uncertain or doubtful sins are insufficient matter; for upon them absolution cannot be given without exposing the sacrament to the danger of nullity. Although it is indeed best to accuse oneself also of non-correspondence to divine inspirations concerning works of counsel, nevertheless this does not constitute sufficient matter of absolution, because, speaking in itself, it is not a sin not to correspond to divine inspirations concerning works of counsel, contempt of them being excluded. But the rest which Germana accuses contains no sin, but an act of virtue. Therefore Germana, since she has accused no sin, even after the insistence of the confessor, is to be dismissed with only a blessing, leave being given to her that she may approach communion. G. 378; I. M. 666, 667.

Justinus, distinguished for piety and fervor, frequently wishes to confess in order to obtain the benefit of absolution. But, since rather often he finds in his conscience no fault voluntarily admitted, he is accustomed to accuse himself thus: I accuse myself of all the sins by which I offended God in my past life, chiefly of sins formerly committed against chastity. If he confesses before his ordinary confessor, he says only: I accuse myself of the sins of my whole life, especially of the graver ones, which at other times I have already confessed. Indeed sometimes he says only: I accuse myself of sins committed in my whole life, and I ask for holy absolution.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Since Justinus is free from mortal sins, his accusation is sufficient. For there is question not of necessary matter, but of free matter; and therefore he is not bound to declare sins in their lowest species. "The lowest species of each sin," says D'Annibale, n. 303, "is to be explained, and, if the lowest is lacking or has slipped away, the highest; and if this also has slipped away, the sin in general, e.g., I detracted - I sinned against justice - I sinned mortally. - Wherefore for him who does not have necessary matter, it is enough to say, I have sinned." It is useful, however, in order that the sacrament of penance may be received with greater fruit, to declare at least some sins in species. G. 381-383; I. M. 666, 673.

Hence it is clear that a penitent is to be absolved who, on account of ignorance and rudeness and natural stupidity, on account of old age and weakness of memory, has absolutely no knowledge or memory of any sin in species or in particular, and confesses that he has sinned by thoughts, words, and deeds. The confessor is then bound to supply the defect of the penitent by proposing to him some specific sins into which it may prudently be suspected that he formerly fell; e.g., do you not accuse yourself of all sins committed against God, against neighbor; against charity, against chastity, against justice; by lies, imprecations, blasphemies, etc. And if the penitent answers that he accuses himself of all, and is sorry for all, let him be absolved. For although so general and too confused an accusation does not suffice in itself, nevertheless on account of moral impotence it is sufficient. The confessor, moreover, will act very well if he helps such a person, especially if he is sick and in danger of death, to elicit not only an act of contrition, but also acts of faith, hope, and charity, before he absolves him. G. 384, 385; Elbel 15; Reuter 303.

Sins after doubtful baptism - Titius, a Frenchman by nation, but a Lutheran by religion, staying at Rome and very desirous of embracing the Catholic faith, approaches Caius the parish priest and opens his mind to him. Caius, from conversations had with him, seriously doubts the validity of the baptism conferred on him by a Lutheran minister. Hence he exhorts him to dispose himself both to receive baptism again under condition, and to make a general confession of his whole life. Titius promises that he will do the first, but he is very much afraid of the confession of the sins of his past life; yet he is prepared in mind duly to accuse all sins into which he may fall after baptism has without doubt been validly received. Caius indeed would wish still to insist; yet, fearing lest Titius, because of the difficulty of confession, be deterred from conversion, he judges it better to desist from his proposal.

After some days another parish priest, a friend of Caius, learning these things, rebukes him, as if he had conducted himself badly, and urges the obligation of an integral confession in Titius, especially on account of the very recent decree issued by the Congregation of the Holy Office under the date Dec. 17, 1868; after which decree he thinks that the controversy previously agitated among theologians must be held as already defined. But Caius on the contrary objects that the general controversy was not settled by a decree of this kind, since it was given for Neo-Converts in England, on account of special reasons of that region. Hence he infers that it has no force for Gaul; indeed neither is it to be applied to Catholics as regards sins not yet confessed by them, if perhaps in doubt of a preceding baptism they are to be rebaptized under condition.

It is asked: 1. Whether an integral sacramental confession is to be required from neo-converts to be rebaptized under condition? - 2. Whether confession, if it is made, is to be put before or after baptism? - 3. Whether Caius rightly interpreted the aforesaid decree?

R. to the 1st. An integral sacramental confession is indeed to be required from neo-converts in England who are to be rebaptized under condition. This is clear first from the Decree of the first Provincial Synod of Westminster, approved by the Holy See. The same, moreover, is clear from the Decree of the Holy Office of Dec. 17, 1868. But as regards other regions the matter is controverted, and the case is still under judgment. Indeed, whether in general an adult to be baptized under condition, and whether in general a heretic to be baptized under condition, must confess the things they have committed since the last confession before repeated baptism, there are still two probable opinions among the doctors, even after the praised Decree of the Holy Office. For a Decree of this kind is not general, but is a Response for Neo-Converts in England. In that Response indeed the Sacred Congregation says that a similar Decree, issued on June 17, 1715, is to be given. But even this Decree is a particular Response. Indeed, when in the Question the question was concerning a certain Charles Wipperman, a German to be rebaptized, and the question was extended and made general - for it is said in the Question, both that care be taken for the salvation of him (Wipperman), and also that equal care be taken for the salvation of the others of that sect or religion, especially if they are ignorant - the Sacred Congregation with the greatest caution replied: "that Charles Ferdinand is to be rebaptized," evidently restricting its Decision to the individual person. Whence it is that this preceding Decree most evidently is not General. There is added that His Eminence Cardinal D'Annibale, who was Assessor of the Holy Office, certainly could, by consulting the Documents of the Holy Office, know the mind of the Sacred Congregation. Now in the last Edition made by the Author himself, namely in ed. 3 of the Summula Theologiae Moralis, p. 3, n. 301, note 3, these things are found: "Must, therefore, a heretic who, having returned to the faith, is rebaptized, confess the things which he admitted since the last confession before repeated baptism? Formerly Our men denied it, because the S. U. I. formerly seemed rather to advise this than to prescribe it. But on Dec. 17, 1868, consulting with the bishops of England, it judged that confession from neo-converts in England, and that integral, is to be required. Nevertheless, as regards other regions, I still think probable what Our men previously taught; 1. because the bishops of England had reported, among other things, that the younger men of the Anglican clergy faithfully observe the rite of baptizing... that most of them are those concerning the value of whose infant baptism it is not licit to doubt, etc.; 2. because the S. U. I. very cautiously replied: From Neo-Converts in England, etc."

Prescinding from heretics and Protestants, if there is discussion of others, no obligation of confession at all has been imposed by the S. C. And thus for catechumens in the Case of doubtful baptism, the Holy Office, Jan. 27, 1892, handing on the preceding Instruction of Aug. 1, 1860, decrees that there be added to this Instruction, "that if the catechumen has been invalidly baptized, he is to be baptized absolutely; but if he has been doubtfully baptized, he is to be baptized under condition." A. S. S. vol. 29, p. 570. Nor is anything had concerning confession. And in another Resolution, Dec. 2, 1874, soon to be reported in the Response to the 2nd, it indeed indicates the order to be followed in the confession and absolution itself, if confession is made, but makes no precept of confession.

Fr. Gury, Case 424, or rather his editor, Lyons 1885, assigns these reasons for that Decree for the English: "either because where there is question of the reception of sacraments which are necessary by necessity of means, the safer course is to be followed; or because baptism once certainly conferred is in possession, although there is doubt about its value, and therefore induces the obligation of confessing sins committed after it, so long as it is not certainly proved to have been invalid." But both these reasons are weak and by no means subsisting. For salvation in the Case is altogether placed in safety; since those sins committed before the repeated baptism, if they are not remitted by the repeated baptism, are certainly remitted indirectly by sacramental absolution, when he thereafter approaches to receive the sacrament of penance. But the possession of the prior baptism is probably doubtful; otherwise baptism could not be repeated. From that doubtful possession, therefore, a certain obligation cannot be drawn. For the rest, if that possession of the preceding baptism is of such force that it imposes a certain obligation of confession, then it can by no means at the same time admit the repeated conferral of baptism. And, if baptism is repeated, since it is not repeated except while the probability of its validity stands, the sins committed before it probably are not valid matter of absolution, and therefore again no certain obligation of confession can be given. Therefore the reason of the preceding Decree is to be drawn only from particular circumstances. Hence the Holy Office answered most cautiously: for neo-converts in England, etc.; Charles Ferdinand, etc. I. M. 672; Gury, Cases, ed. Lyons, year 1868.

To the 2nd. The response to the 2nd question is had from the S. C. itself in the cited Decree of June 17, 1715, where it is said: "that Charles Ferdinand is to be rebaptized under condition, and, baptism having been conferred, he is to confess the sins of his past life, and from them he is to be absolved under condition." Therefore baptism is to be put first, and then confession is to be made, as the right order of things demands, since penance presupposes baptism. But this does not prevent it from being possible to proceed otherwise also, namely that the confession first be heard, by which perhaps someone can be better disposed for baptism itself; but afterward, after baptism has been received, the confession being resumed summarily, he can be absolved. And this is also had from another Response of the same S. C., Dec. 2, 1874. "Can catechumens confess sacramentally before they are baptized, either absolutely or conditionally? - R. As regards confession before baptism to be conferred absolutely, Negatively; but if nevertheless the catechumen wishes to confess himself, let him be instructed that this can by no means be had under the character of a sacrament, since absolution cannot be imparted, nor is the missionary bound to observe secrecy. But if there is question of those who must be baptized under condition, then, for the greater facility of the ecclesiastical function, they can first be heard sacramentally as to the accusation of their faults; then after the conferral of baptism under condition, the confessor, again resuming with the penitent by summary heads those things of which he has already made accusation, absolves sacramentally likewise under condition." - Cf. Collect. S. C. de P. F. n. 644, 955, 957.

To the 3rd. It appears from what has been said that Caius is not to be disturbed because he thought that the aforesaid Decree did not contain a general law. Nor indeed, at least on account of parity of reason, does the aforesaid Decree seem to comprehend also the Case of Titius. For that Decree treats first generally of baptized Neo-Converts in England who are to be baptized again. It treats, moreover, of baptized Neo-Converts concerning the value of whose baptism it is for the most part not licit to doubt. But the Case of Titius is a certain altogether particular Case, and the validity of his baptism is seriously doubted. But given the difficulty of confession, which Titius openly manifested, Caius seems to have acted altogether prudently by not insisting on it, namely lest from this a very grave evil follow, that Titius be deterred from conversion. Nor indeed can another Decree of the Holy Office for Charles Wipperman be urged against Caius on account of identity of case, since his baptism had truly been doubtful, as appears from the exposition itself. For first, identity of case is not had from only one or another circumstance of cases, but from the complex of all the circumstances. Moreover, if identity of case is invoked, by that very fact it is affirmed that in reality in that Response there is question of a Resolution given for a singular case, which therefore does not pertain to another singular case. Moreover the Decision of the Sacred Congregation is of counsel and economy rather than preceptive, since those words let him confess, let him be absolved do not necessarily import a precept. And this indeed pertains to the prudence by which the S. C. is accustomed to define questions. For that which can be useful in one case and in one region on account of special circumstances is perhaps not useful, indeed perhaps could even be harmful, on account of other diverse circumstances, in another case and in another different region. Whence it is that unless there is first certainty concerning the general usefulness or necessity, the Sacred Congregations are not accustomed to issue a General Decree. But to assert that all Decrees of the Sacred Congregations have general force for all persons and for every place is against the very manner of proceeding of the same Sacred Congregations, which even in the titles themselves distinguish between particular Decrees and General Decrees. How many Responses indeed have come forth from the Sacred Congregation of the Council concerning the invalidity of clandestine marriages which are contracted by heretics where the Tridentine law is in force? Whence Fr. Gury, Comp. n. 841, judged that their validity must altogether be denied. But Benedict XIV, notwithstanding all those Decisions, affirms that nothing had yet been defined by the Apostolic See in any General Decree; and that the Responses of the Sacred Congregation are referred only to certain peculiar and various circumstances, and therefore were not always mutually conformable, since they were particular. See Const. Matrimonia, Nov. 4, 1741, § 2; de Synodo, l. 6, c. 6, n. 4. Likewise, how many Responses in more recent times did not come forth from the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars against the account of conscience to be rendered? Nevertheless the prohibition was not general, nor was there one, until the General Decree Quemadmodum came forth, Dec. 17, 1890. Indeed, as the S. Congregation itself declared by letter Jan. 20, 1891, even this Decree does not comprehend all religious Orders and all religious Congregations, but institutes of men by nature and governance entirely ecclesiastical are openly excepted. Likewise, how many Responses did not come forth from the Holy Office itself and from the Sacred Penitentiary concerning the illicitness of a sentence of divorce to be pronounced by a lay judge? Yet it was also positively declared that those decisions do not contain a General Decree for every region. See Enchiridion Morale, 3rd ed., p. 149. And, to pass over other things, the Sacred Congregation of Rites also, in the most recent Collection of Decrees which at present is being published in print, expressly distinguishes between General and Particular Decrees; and among the norms of this most recent Collection this was established in the 6th place: "The new general Decrees will have the title of Decretum or Decretum Generale according to the importance of the matter. The particular ones, however, will be named Dubii, Dubiorum, Romana, etc." To assert therefore that all Decrees of the Sacred Congregations are General, insofar namely as they contain a general force of comprehending all cases and of obliging all persons, is an assertion against the very Decrees of the same Sacred Congregations.

Nor finally, to demonstrate the universality if not of the Decree, at least of the matter itself, can there be objected the Decision of the Holy Office of July 20, 1859, by which, in the conversion of heretics, if baptism is to be repeated under condition, after abjuration or profession of faith, and after conditional baptism, sacramental confession with conditional absolution is established. For first, neither is this Decree of the Holy Office a General Decree, but a Response given to the Rt. Rev. Bishop of Philadelphia. But then what is said concerning the order to be observed in the conversion of heretics, if baptism is to be repeated under condition, is not a General Decree of the Sacred Congregation, but, as is expressly said there, it is an Instruction, and pertains to the Instruction. Hence it is clear that there is not had a universal law promulgated, nor a universal precept, but only an Instruction, to be most prudently observed where it can be done. And since in reality there is no universal law of this kind, and no universal precept, especially at present one must abstain from affirming it; since the Supreme Pontiff is expending every effort to recall Protestants and heretics into the bosom of the Catholic Church. Therefore judgment concerning this most grave matter is to be left to the same Supreme Pontiff when he himself judges it opportune, lest perhaps that desired return be impeded or rendered more difficult.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, First Part. On the Essence…, Chapter II. On the Matter of the Sacrament of Penance · Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. II, Chapter II. On Confession · Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. II, Ch. II, Article II. On the Qualities of Confession · Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. II, Ch. II, Art. II, Appendix I. On the Examination of Conscience

When a Case of this kind was proposed in the year 1897 in the public Conference of Cases of Conscience at St. Apollinaris, the Most Eminent Cardinal Vicar of the City, and Secretary of the Holy Office, President of the Conference, with several other wise observations added, altogether approved and confirmed the preceding Resolution. - Cf. I. M. 672.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 40 passages

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, First Part. On the Essence…, Chapter II. On the Matter of the Sacrament of Penance

n. 421.

- QUESTION 5. Is a sin accused only in general sometimes sufficient matter for the VALIDITY or LICEITY of confession ⁶; for example, if someone says: I HAVE SINNED, or, I accuse myself OF ALL MY SINS?

⁶ The question of liceity can be separated from the question of validity only with regard to the priest, who indeed can sometimes absolve validly and at the same time illicitly. For as regards the penitent, if he acts here in bad faith, the confession will be both illicit and invalid; but if he acts in good faith, the confession will not be illicit.

Moreover, in order to elucidate this question clearly, it is best to distinguish what is required and sufficient for the intrinsic essence of sacramental judgment, and what pertains to the necessity imposed by divine precept. If, therefore, only the essence of this judgment is considered, it can now be doubtful to no one that not merely the formulas adduced by the Author, I have sinned, I accuse myself of all my sins, etc., but also any other sign of penance suffices. Hence all agree that, for soldiers when battle is imminent, or sailors when shipwreck threatens, or the sick at the point of death, etc., to be validly absolved, it suffices that they furnish an indication of penance, for example, by grasping a hand, striking the breast, or in any other manner whatsoever.

The entire question, therefore, turns upon the obligation which the positive law of Christ imposes. But the solution will not be very difficult if it is sought from its native and proper source, namely, from the authentic interpretation of the same law which is found in the doctrine of the Council of Trent. And indeed, from the necessity of a judgment to be rendered by the priest with knowledge of the cause, the Holy Synod (sess. 14, ch. 5) certainly concludes that sins must be declared not merely in general, but individually in species; it concludes that not only all sins, but also those circumstances which change the species of the sin, must be explained in confession. Nevertheless, it never fails to add expressly that it affirms this concerning necessary matter, namely, mortal sins which have never been duly subjected to the keys. For as regards merely sufficient matter, it teaches that venial sins are laudably told by pious men in confession, but at the same time may be concealed without fault; and if the substance of this merely sufficient matter can be concealed, a fortiori its genus and species, and even circumstances which change the species within the slightness of the fault, can be concealed. Indeed, this doctrine shines forth so clearly set out there that, although some have raised many difficulties against the sufficiency of the confession of sin in common (see Lugo, De Poenitentia, disp. 17, from no. 6), not one has ever existed who thought that assistance against it could be sought from the doctrine of the same Synod.

The difficulties were drawn, namely, either from the fact that a confession of this kind gives no new knowledge to the confessor, since it manifests only that the person is a sinner in general, which the confessor already knew, since we are all sinners; or from the fact that a judge cannot judge prudently unless the cause is known in particular; or finally from the fact that in the case nothing appears to which absolution is directly terminated. After Cardinal de Lugo (loc. cit., no. 11 ff.) easily solves these objections even when necessary matter for confession in a case of necessity is at issue, he then extends the doctrine (ibid., no. 17) to the confession of venial sin in general. Hence it is plain that John de Dicastillo (De Sacr. Poenit., disp. 9, no. 760) rightly concluded from these things that not only in a case of necessity, but also speaking per se, the confession of venial sin in general (say the same of even grave sins remitted at another time through absolution) is in itself sufficient matter for absolution in one who has only venial sins. And Suarez agrees (De Poenit., disp. 23, sect. 2, no. 10), both because there is no precept of confessing venial sins in species, and because the confession of venial sin in species declares the conscience no more than if someone should say in general that he had sinned venially, nor does it vary the judgment of the confessor any more. But to what Suarez (ibid.) had added, that this is true speculatively, but that in practice the species must be declared so that the matter may be certain, Dicastillo excellently replies (loc. cit., no. 762): If this is true speculatively, it will also be true practically. For only then in a moral matter is something said to be true speculatively indeed but not practically, when that which is considered in speculation cannot be exhibited in practice without some variation occurring. But when it can be reduced to practice altogether unchanged in the manner in which it is considered in speculation, if it is true speculatively, it must also be judged true practically. Wherefore, since the confession of venial sin in general can be exhibited in practice in the manner which is judged sufficient speculatively, it must also be judged such practically. Otherwise, however, it scarcely appears what Suarez means when he requires certain matter. Is it not certain that there is a sin, or is it not certainly subjected to the keys? But if he wishes the matter to be certain insofar as the safer opinions must be followed in setting forth the circumstances of the sin, this is indeed asserted contrary to the common opinion of all and the common practice, which holds that the precept of confession is satisfied when the precept is probably fulfilled, according to what was said in vol. 1, no. 80.

These things had to be noted, not only so that the rights of truth might be preserved, but also because they can sometimes be usefully serviceable in practice, as will be evident from what is to be said in the resolutions.

** 1. The VV. here object (p. 954, no. 104), as though opposed to this doctrine, the following doctrine of St. Alphonsus: Let the Confessor take care, if he wishes to absolve a penitent without sin, either to dispose him to sorrow especially for some light fault..., or to suggest to him that he confess some graver sin of his past life against some precept; for it suffices that he confess in general without number, so that he may have certain matter upon which absolution can rest.

Reply. Let all of it pass; and I deny the consequence. For we concede that this care of the Confessor is laudable, and likewise that the confession of some sin of one's past life against some precept suffices. But we deny either that the sorrow of the penitent cannot otherwise be established, or that certain matter is lacking for absolution if in the case the particular precept which was violated is not expressed.

2. The VV. relate (pp. 479-480, in the Note) that the doctrine handed down here had already been refuted in the periodical Nouvelle Revue theologique, Tournai, 1869, vol. 1, p. 67; and they refer the reader to it.

Reply. Let it be permitted also to us to refer both the illustrious VV. and others to the excellent little Work of the priest Stephen Apicella, entitled: Ai Confessori, studio sull'Assoluzione a darsi a chi nell'attual confessione non offre materia necessaria. Scafati: Tipogr. Pompeiana, 1874. There they will find the difficulties against our thesis very learnedly solved. Meanwhile, we shall weigh two drawn from it which the VV. put forward as the chief difficulties.

3. After the Tournai authors, therefore, the VV. object (p. 480, in the Note) that only through a logical fault is it deduced from the absolution which is given either to soldiers when battle is imminent or to the dying that a general accusation is valid and licit outside a case of necessity.

Reply. That it is deduced through a logical fault as regards validity, I deny; as regards liceity, let it pass. Namely, as is said in the Note, certain things pertain to the intrinsic essence of the Sacrament, namely, apt and sufficient matter, both proximate and remote, and the form; but certain other things pertain only to the necessity of precept, as, for example, the integrity of confession. Now, as regards the essence, it is false that elements which suffice in necessity do not suffice to effect the Sacrament outside necessity; for the essence is not mutable and of itself always retains the same intrinsic power. Therefore, as regards the sufficiency of the essential elements, an argument is logically made from a case of necessity to other cases. Certainly, one would argue defectively from a case of necessity to other cases as regards things of mere precept, because one can be excused from observing laws in necessity, but not outside necessity. Yet an argument of this kind is falsely ascribed to us. For in the case we say that confession in general is licit, not because one is then excused from a law, but because the law itself requires nothing further.

4. The VV. add (loc. cit.) with the Tournai authors: The nature of the Sacrament, which is effected after the manner of a judgment, requires that the matter be altogether determined through a distinct accusation of sins.

Reply. It requires this according to the norm proposed by the Holy Council of Trent, I concede; otherwise, I deny. See what was said in the Note concerning the doctrine of the Council of Trent.

5. The VV. subjoin with the Tournai authors (loc. cit.): This manner of confessing, which otherwise savors of Protestant usage, favors the laxity and negligence both of the penitent and of the Confessor.

Reply. Objections of this kind, or perhaps better, taunts, savor little of the theological method. Accordingly, as regards Protestant usage, let them consult Bellarmine, Valencia, etc., etc., etc., and learn from them what Protestant usage means. As regards the rest, let it suffice to have replied that those who observe the norm proposed by the Holy Council of Trent cannot be accused either of laxity or of negligence.

6. The VV. insist with the Tournai authors: Even if the doctrine under discussion were probable, nevertheless it would not be lawful to use it, because Proposition 1 among those condemned by Innocent XI stands in the way: It is not illicit in conferring the Sacraments to follow a probable opinion concerning the validity of the Sacrament, with the safer opinion abandoned.

Reply. I deny the supposition, namely, that the validity of the Sacrament is at issue here. For when the essentials are observed, no doubt concerning the validity of the Sacrament remains. But, as has often been said, the essentials are observed here. The present question, therefore, concerns not the essence of the Sacrament but the matter of precept; wherefore what St. Alphonsus replies concerning questions of this kind applies here (Homo apostolicus, tr. 16, no. 29): 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; otherwise concerning integrity.

7. Finally, against the opinion of Suarez related in the Note, namely, that the confession of venial sin in species no more declares the conscience nor varies the judgment of the confessor, the VV. object that the judgment of the Confessor can be varied: 1. because he can deny absolution to one relapsing into venial sins; 2. because perhaps that which the penitent judges venial will sometimes be mortal; 3. because venial sins, for example in children, can be insufficiently certain.

Reply. Let all of it pass, and I deny the consequence, since it extends immensely more widely than the premises. For from the fact that sometimes per accidens it is useful to know some fault specifically, it is not lawful to conclude that this is always necessary; but it will belong to the prudence of the Confessor, whenever there is need, to inquire into the things pertinent to the matter. Moreover, from what the VV. observe, namely, that the fault which the penitent believes venial could perhaps be mortal, would this tedious method not bring the matter to the point that the confession of all venial sins would always be judged necessary? But what is the principal point, the VV. cannot be ignorant that this question chiefly concerns whether the specific confession of some sin is necessary when a generic confession of the sins of one's past life is added to the specific confession of light faults, with no sin specifically expressed. For as regards customary confessions of venial sins, the question must rather be called merely speculative, since it is altogether contrary to the custom of the faithful to accuse only venial faults generically. But it happens otherwise with that generic confession of the sins of one's past life. Now, it is manifest that, as regards this confession, the preceding observations of the VV. are not even minimally pertinent. And concerning this argument the cited little Work of the Rev. D. Apicella is worthy of being read. For, among other things, he shows by most apt reasons how vainly certain persons require in this general accusation the confession of some sin in species for the reason that the Confessor might exercise a suitable judgment.

n. 421.

Reply 1. As regards validity: 1. Affirmative, certainly in a case of necessity, or when the penitent, for example, a dying person, cannot accuse any sin in species. - Thus very commonly with St. Thomas. - 2. Affirmative, at least much more probably, even outside a case of necessity, if necessary matter, or matter to be declared in species, is lacking. The reason is that the essence of the Sacrament is not changed for varying cases. - Lacroix, no. 620. - Reuter, no. 303. - Lugo, disp. 17, no. 8.

n. 421.

Reply 2. As regards liceity also, affirmative, at least probably. The reason is that where mortal sins are lacking, there is no obligation to declare the other sins in species, since venial sins can be omitted altogether. For the Council of Trent determined absolutely nothing concerning this except that mortal sins alone are necessary matter for confession. Nevertheless, generally in practice it is expedient (as is also commonly done by all) to confess venial sins in species also, by reason of the direction to be given by the Confessor, etc. But as regards the general accusation of the sins of one's past life which pious penitents are accustomed to submit at the end of confession in order to render the matter of the Sacrament more certain, it is certainly sufficient if someone says: I accuse myself of the sins of my past life, or of my whole life.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. II, Chapter II. On Confession

Confession is the accusation of sins committed after Baptism, made to an approved Priest, in order to receive absolution.

Three things pertain here, namely: 1. necessity; 2. qualities; 3. repetition of confession.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. II, Ch. II, Article II. On the Qualities of Confession

Many qualities of confession are assigned by authors, which for the most part do not pertain to its validity; the chief, however, are contained in these little verses:

Let it be integral, simple, humble, discreet, faithful,

Vocal, sorrowful, pure, and prepared to obey.

Integral; that is, let it embrace all mortal sins not yet confessed, as will presently be said.

Simple; that is, not intermingled with impertinent discourses, nor painted with words, nor adorned with figures; but a naked, clear, and brief declaration of sins.

Humble; that is, it ought to be made with true humility of heart and body, namely, on bended knees unless infirmity excuses, and with head uncovered if a man confesses; humility ought also to appear in the tone of voice, so that the penitent relate his sins with shame, and not in the manner of a fable or a bare history.

Discreet; that is, it ought to be made in honorable and discreet words, especially in explaining sins against chastity; nor ought the sins or defects of others be manifested without necessity.

Faithful; that is, sincere, without a lie, especially in grave matter and matter necessary for the sacramental judgment. But fidelity or sincerity consists not only in sins being rightly declared, which pertains to integrity, but also in their not being exaggerated or supposed sins being added.

Vocal; that is, confession itself ought to be made by voice, and not by writing or by other signs, without necessity or a grave cause, for example, because of most vehement shame, because of an impediment of the tongue, etc. - St. Lig., nos. 492, 493.

Moreover, confession by writing is indeed valid of itself; nevertheless, confession and absolution by letters would be invalid. For the form consists in words, as Eugene IV defined in the Decree for the Armenians; moreover, the form must be applied to matter that is present. This is evident, moreover, from a proposition condemned by Clement VIII in the year 1602.

Whatever certain theologians may have said to the contrary, it is certain that confession made in writing is valid. Nor does the aforesaid Decree of Clement VIII stand in the way, because by it only a proposition concerning both a confession made in writing and absolution likewise given and sent in writing or through an intermediary is prohibited. Suarez disputed excellently and solidly concerning this in little works first brought to light by the Bishop of Bruges, D.D. Malou, of pious memory (Brussels, 1859). Lugo, Coninck, Viva, St. Lig., bk. 5, no. 489, and others also agree ¹.

¹ The Decree of Clement VIII must be understood not only collectively, namely, when both confession and absolution were made and given in absence, but also divisively, namely, when confession is made in absence but absolution is given by a Priest who is present, and conversely, as Paul V declared on July 14, 1605, in the Congregation of the Holy Office.

Sorrowful, or accompanied by sorrow, as was said above concerning contrition, no. 442 ff.

Pure; namely, for an honorable end, or for obtaining the pardon of sins and sacramental graces, and not for moving the compassion of the Confessor, or for gaining his benevolence or esteem, etc. ².

² Nevertheless, some secondary end, if it is not dishonorable, does not impede the primary end; and although it is by no means praiseworthy, it must not therefore immediately be pronounced that confessions of this kind are invalid.

Prepared to obey; that is, the penitent ought to be disposed to obey the admonitions of the Confessor as a judge ³ pronouncing sentence, for example, in fleeing occasions, employing remedies, making restitution, accepting penance, etc.

³ The Confessor as judge does not give admonitions, as the Author teaches below, but takes cognizance of the case and, according to the merits of the case, either imparts absolution, denies it, or even defers it. But the things which the Author adds pertain to the Confessor as a doctor or teacher. Obedience, moreover, is owed to them, not because the Confessor commands, for he has authority to command only as regards enjoining satisfaction, but because those things are indicated to the penitent which some law, whether natural or positive, requires.

Among the aforesaid qualities of confession, the principal ones are integrity and contrition. Enough has now been said concerning the latter; but now the former must be discussed specifically.

On the Integrity of Confession

A twofold integrity is distinguished, one material, the other formal.

Material integrity consists in the accusation of all mortal sins which occur to the mind ⁴.

⁴ Others say that material integrity is present when in reality all the sins which have been committed are expressed. But if anything falls from memory, they teach that formal integrity is then preserved. Thus, for example, Laymann (De Poenitentia, ch. 8, no. 5), whom the Author also seems to have followed below, no. 470, II, where he attributes the defect of material integrity to forgetfulness.

Formal integrity consists in the accusation of all mortal sins which someone, here and now, considering the circumstances, morally can or is bound to confess.

Hence whenever material integrity is present, formal integrity also is present; but not conversely. We shall speak: 1. of the necessity of integrity; 2. of causes excusing from it.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Sacrament …, Pt. II, Ch. II, Art. II, Appendix I. On the Examination of Conscience

Principles. - I. A penitent, speaking per se, is bound under grave sin to make a diligent examination of mortal sins before confession. This follows from the precept of procuring, insofar as it can be done, even the material integrity of confession. For since he is bound to confess the number and species of sins, by that very fact he is bound to recall them to memory insofar as he can with moral diligence, and therefore to make a diligent examination; because he who is bound to the end is also bound to the means necessary for it. This is established also from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 5, where it is said that all mortal sins of which penitents have consciousness AFTER A DILIGENT EXAMINATION OF THEMSELVES must be recounted in confession....

II. Diligence in the examination must be serious, or as great as is customarily employed in serious matters of great importance ¹. The reason is evident; for there is question of the grave precept of confession. This is established also from the words of the Council of Trent just cited: after a diligent examination of themselves.

¹ As regards those who are accustomed to be excessively anxious about the sufficiency of their examination, the things which Lugo has from the common doctrine are pertinent (De Poenit., disp. 16, no. 590): It is certain, he says, that the penitent himself is not bound to a most exact examination of his sins, but to a human one, that is, one of such a kind that this sacrament is not rendered too grave and burdensome.... Hence it is not a good rule if you say...: if this man were to think for another hour about his sins, he would remember some sin which he does not remember, or could calculate the number of sins better; therefore, he is bound to think for another hour still. But the reason is the same, because attention must not be given only to an exact and integral confession of sins, but very great attention must also be given to the human condition, lest on that account the Sacrament be rendered grave and odious, or cause be given to shameless and ignorant heretics to call it the torture chamber of conscience.

III. Nevertheless, equal diligence is not required of all. For those who confess frequently need a lesser examination than those who confess rarely ²; but those who are involved in worldly affairs need a greater examination than those who lead a private life. Likewise, country people and the uneducated cannot employ that accurate diligence which the intelligent and learned can. - Billuart, ibid., and others commonly.

² Concerning these things, however, note the wise admonition of Cardinal De Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 16, no. 594): Finally, it must also be noted that he who has more sins is to be questioned more lightly and less exactly concerning each than he who has fewer. The reason is gathered from what has been said; because, since only human diligence and examination is required, and this is that which does not of itself generate disgust and weariness with this Sacrament, it follows that less distinct knowledge is required from one who, because of... the multitude of sins... could with greater difficulty render an exact account. For to one who must confess the sins of his whole life, which he spent in every kind of sin, that examination would be most difficult and of itself apt to render confession odious and excessively grave to him, which would not be difficult but easy for another making a monthly confession. And this is the reason why from a prostitute, a concubinary, and similar persons we seek the number of sins less exactly and distinctly than if, for example, he had persisted in that sin only for a month or a week; because, namely, the diligence which would suffice for distinctly confessing the sins of one week, if the same were employed for examining a long time, would introduce such difficulty and trouble as the precept of integral confession does not oblige one to, because it would render the precept itself and confession excessively troublesome and grave.

Resolutions. - 1. He who, from grave negligence in the examination of conscience, omits some mortal sin, sins mortally per se ³ and is bound to repeat the confession as invalid. Yet in a defect of examination there can be slightness of matter, even if a grave sin is thereby omitted, for example, because of some inadvertence; and then the confession is certainly valid.

³ Note the words of itself; because grave negligence in this matter, considered in itself, truly cannot be excused from grave guilt. But it must also be recalled here that which all teach: advertence to the gravity of the fault is required for a grave sin. It is therefore necessary that someone have known that at that time he was sinning gravely by negligence. Since this is not very frequent, because that would be equivalent to advertently consenting to a sacrilegious confession, it can be gathered therefrom that the necessity of repeating confessions for this reason rarely occurs.

He who is morally certain that he has not committed mortal sins since the last confession is not bound to a rigorous examination before confession, except insofar as is required for supplying sufficient matter for the Sacrament. In practice, however, pious penitents are to be counseled to devote themselves to an examination of conscience for at least five minutes, or about half a quarter-hour, namely, for recognizing and uprooting venial defects.

Entirely moderate diligence in examination is required in the timorous, because the conscience would not remain silent if anything gravely culpable lay hidden within; indeed, in the scrupulous an inquiry is to be omitted and sometimes altogether forbidden as useless and often harmful; for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes. - Thus commonly.

Generally, he satisfies who reflects upon where he was on each day, what affairs he transacted, in what he failed amid those circumstances by thought, affection, word and deed, or omission; how he conducted himself at home, in church, and in conversation with his neighbor ⁴. Nor is it necessary that, retracing the same footsteps, he search them again and again. - Reuter.

⁴ This manner of examining the conscience can rightly seem not merely sufficient but rather exquisite and most diligent.

An examination as accurate as for the healthy is not required for the sick; indeed, sometimes none is to be exacted from them because of weakness of the head. Nor should they readily be indulged when they say that they defer confession from day to day as though they had not yet sufficiently examined their conscience; but, insofar as their condition permits, they are to be examined briefly by the Confessor himself through the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church; for it is better to restore even those who have confessed imperfectly to the state of grace by absolution than, by deferring the Sacraments of the Church, to expose them to the danger of damnation. - Elbel, no. 153.

Questions. - QUESTION 1. Is a penitent who fears that sins may fall from his memory bound to write them down and read what has been written?

Reply. Negative. The reason is that no one is bound to procure the integrity of confession through extraordinary means and through such exquisite diligence. Moreover, this is foreign to the common practice of the timorous. - St. Lig., no. 471, etc. ⁵.

⁵ Add the danger, by no means infrequent as experience testifies, of losing papers of this kind, and hence also scandals by no means light and contempt of the Sacrament.

QUESTION 2. What order is to be followed in the examination of conscience?

Reply 1. With respect to the matter: if someone has not confessed for a long time, it is expedient that he run through in order the precepts of God and the Church, the capital sins ⁶, and the special obligations of his state; otherwise, it suffices to attend to evil habits, to the more customary sins, or summarily to sins against God, one's neighbor, and oneself.

⁶ Whenever the order of the precepts of God and the Church is observed, an examination according to the order of the capital sins, or better, capital vices, will scarcely furnish any further necessary matter for confession; and unless there is question of penitents diligently instructed, an examination of this kind is accustomed to produce no moderate confusion rather than utility, and to induce useless repetitions; for the capital vices scarcely ever introduce sins which do not bear before them a transgression of divine or human law.

Reply 2. With respect to the manner: 1. divine light is humbly to be sought; 2. an examination of conscience is to be made; 3. then the baseness of sins and the gravity of the divine offense are to be considered especially, and thus one must devote oneself to eliciting sorrow and a purpose of amendment.

n. 510.

- QUESTION 3. What is to be done by the Confessor if penitents approach without having sufficiently examined their conscience?

n. 510.

Reply 1. If they are instructed, they can kindly be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience more accurately and return, at least if there is question of lengthy and involved confessions. The reason is that it is almost impossible for someone suddenly questioned to remember everything. - St. Lig., no. 471, and others commonly. Except, however, unless the circumstances counsel otherwise.

n. 510.

Reply 2. If they are uneducated or little instructed in spiritual matters, they are not readily to be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience, at least if they have employed some diligence. The reason is that the Confessor will easily supply for these persons. For by a few questions he himself will obtain more than they, left to themselves, would accomplish by a long examination, although they tried to recall all their sins to memory. Moreover, it is to be feared that perhaps, terrified by the difficulty, they will not return again to confess ⁷.

⁷ Thus the Roman Catechism (De Poenit., no. 60): There are others who, either because they are accustomed to confess their sins rarely or because they have employed no care and thought

into searching out their crimes, and when they have come to confession they know neither how to proceed nor sufficiently where the beginning of this duty is to be taken. These certainly must be rebuked more sharply, where the circumstances permit, and first of all taught that, before anyone approaches the priest, every effort must be made that he be moved by contrition for his sins; but that this can in no way be accomplished unless, by remembering them, he endeavors to recognize them individually. Wherefore, if the priest recognizes men of this kind as wholly unprepared, let him dismiss them from himself with most humane words, and exhort them to take some time for thinking about their sins and then to return. But if perhaps they affirm that they have devoted every effort to this matter, since the priest must greatly fear lest, once dismissed, they no longer return, they are to be heard, especially if they display some desire of amending their life and can be induced to accuse their negligence, which they promise to compensate for at another time by accurate meditation. And most worthy of attention are the things which immediately follow: In this, however, great caution must be employed. For if, after hearing the confession, he judges that neither diligence in enumerating sins nor sorrow in detesting them was wholly lacking in the penitent, he can be absolved; but if he notices that both are wanting in him, he shall be his adviser and counselor that he employ greater care, as was said before, in examining his conscience; and having treated the man as kindly as he can, he shall dismiss him.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 46 passages

Vol. I, Matrimony, and Holy Orders, On Penance (Volume I), Moral Part — Chapter I: On the Duties of the Penitent

n. 243.

1° On the divine precept. Although Christ did not explicitly define when the precept of confession obliges, from the very nature of this precept and from the doctrine of the Fathers it can be inferred that the divine law of confession obliges sometimes, both per se and per accidens.

(A) It obliges per se: (a) certainly in the article and in very probable danger of death, from whatever cause this danger arises, whether from illness, or from battle, or dangerous childbirth, or from a surgical operation; for he who, placed in such danger, does not fulfill the divine law, rashly exposes himself to the danger of never fulfilling it: and this certainly is the same as violating the divine precept.

Hence the same must be said concerning the case, most rare today, in which someone would foresee that for the rest of his life he would have no opportunity of a confessor.

(b) Probably, according to St. Alphonsus (n. 663) and many others, that precept also obliges sometimes in life, because a sinner is bound not to remain long in mortal sin. - But not a few theologians, both ancient and modern, deny this, because the sinner can be reconciled to God in another way, namely by perfect contrition with the will of receiving the sacrament at a suitable time. - Whatever may be the case, in practice there is no difficulty, since the Church has decreed that all the faithful are bound to confess once a year.

(B) But per accidens it obliges: (a) when holy communion is to be received, if the one about to communicate is in mortal sin, as we said in the Treatise on the Eucharist, n. 140; (b) when the state of grace is required, and at the same time the sinner cannot elicit an act of perfect contrition; (c) when a grave temptation or a depraved habit cannot be overcome without confession; this, however, rarely occurs, since there are other means for overcoming temptations. Whence sinners are to be exhorted, but not compelled, to frequent reception of this sacrament.

n. 244.

2° On the ecclesiastical precept.¹ There have been various ecclesiastical laws concerning this matter at various times; but already from the thirteenth century there has been in force the universal law² of confessing sins once a year, promulgated by the Fourth Lateran Council (1215),³ and its words, somewhat changed in the Code (can. 906), are reported thus: "Every faithful person 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." Four things are declared there:

¹ Suarez, disp. XXXVI; Lugo, disp. XV, n. 88-183; Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 1059-1084; Lehmkuhl, vol. 1, n. 1202-1205; Marc, n. 1685; Konings, n. 547-548; Genicot, n. 323.

² I say universal, for particular laws were already in force before, by which the faithful were commanded to confess sins to their own bishop or priest: concerning this see P. A. Kirsch, in Archiv fur katholisches Kirchenrecht, 4th trim. 1904: Des sacerdos proprius in der abendlandischen Kirche vor 1215.

³ In Denzinger, n. 363.

(a) The subject of the precept: "Every faithful person of either sex"; by these words are indicated all the faithful, or the baptized, who are conscious of mortal sin not yet declared in a valid confession; also children who have reached the years of discretion, that is, who are capable of mortal sin. Hence pastors of souls are bound to instruct children concerning confession already from the seventh year of age, and sometimes before they have reached it, if they already enjoy the use of reason; they must absolve those who have accused a mortal sin, even a doubtful one, provided they are well disposed, lest perhaps they waste away in sin. This obligation especially presses in danger of death. But in doubt whether or not they have attained sufficient discretion, they can be absolved conditionally. Therefore confessors who refuse to absolve children committed to them before solemn first communion gravely err: this abuse, already reproved by Pius IX in the year 1855, Pius X again condemned by a decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments, August 8, 1910.

n. 245.

(b) The object of the precept: "let him confess all sins." This certainly is to be understood of mortal sins alone; for the Church by its precept only determined the time at which the divine precept obliges; now the divine precept obliges only to the confession of mortal sins, as Trent openly declares, below, n. 256.

From this it follows that he who has not sinned mortally during the year is not bound, strictly speaking, to confess. Yet it is expedient that even those who have committed venial sins only not abstain from annual confession, lest perhaps, deprived of the grace of the sacrament, they more easily fall into mortal sin.

From this also theologians more probably and more commonly infer that the law of annual confession is not satisfied by a confession of venial sins. Therefore, if at the beginning of the year or at Easter time someone has confessed only venial sins, and afterward, before the end of the same year, falls into mortal sin, he is bound to confess again; for, by accusing venial sins in the previous confessions, he did not fulfill the precept of annual confession, which is restricted to mortal sins. - Some theologians,¹ however, both ancient and modern, with probability think that the law is fulfilled by any valid confession whatever, even of venial sins: and in truth the faithful who have confessed once, whatever sins they have accused, generally think that they have satisfied the precept. Whence in practice a new confession is indeed to be counseled in this case, but not strictly urged.

¹ Thus Palaus, tract. 23, disp. unic., punct. 20, § 3, n. 3, p. 177, where likewise Victor, Reginald, Coninck, Laymann, Bonacina are cited. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 1061 and Genicot, n. 323.

n. 246.

(c) The manner of confessing: "let him confess faithfully"; by this is signified that the precept is not satisfied by a voluntarily invalid confession, as is clear from the Code, can. 907: "He does not satisfy the precept of confessing sins who makes a sacrilegious or voluntarily null confession."¹ And deservedly; for he who voluntarily makes an invalid confession, by that very fact commits sacrilege; now the ecclesiastical law of confession, which is determinative of the divine precept, cannot be fulfilled by the sin of sacrilege.

¹ Cf. Viva, Damnatae Theses, Alex. VII, prop. 14; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., I, col. 737.

n. 247.

(d) The frequency of confession is determined by these words: "at least once a year." But since the Council does not determine the time at which this obligation must be fulfilled, there are various opinions concerning the manner of computing the year. Some think the year begins from the time at which the first mortal sin is committed, - others from January to the following January, - others finally from Easter to the following Easter. This last opinion seems more probable, and in practice easier; for since the faithful are bound to receive communion at Easter time, the usage prevailed that annual confession be made at the same time; this custom Trent approved as pious and deservedly to be retained.²

² Sess. XIV, ch. 5, at the end.

Hence he who, with the year begun, foresees that he will not have thereafter an opportunity of a confessor before the year has elapsed, and besides is conscious of mortal sin, is bound to make confession while he has the opportunity of a confessor; for since the precept obliges once a year, it must be fulfilled at the time when this is morally possible.

If someone, conscious of mortal sin, has not confessed within the prescribed time, he must confess as soon as morally possible, according to the common opinion, since the law assigns the time for determining the obligation, but not for ending it. A few grave Doctors³ indeed contradict this, who think that when the time fixed has passed the obligation ceases. But in practice there can scarcely be a difficulty; for St. Alphonsus more probably teaches (n. 669) that he who had not confessed his sins in the preceding year, and in confession manifests mortal sins of both the preceding and the present year, satisfies the obligation of each year, and consequently is not bound to confess twice.

³ See them apud St. Alphonsus, n. 297 and 668.

n. 248.

(e) Formerly it was prescribed to confess to "one's own priest," or pastor, or at least to obtain his permission for confessing to another; but today, the new law being silent, this disposition has been abrogated, so that anyone can confess to any duly approved priest. Whence pastors not only ought not oblige their parishioners to confess to them, but act rightly if they advise them sometimes to approach another confessor, so that sacrilegious confessions may thus more easily be avoided.¹

¹ St. Thomas, writing at the time when the law of confessing to one's own priest was still in force, has this: "a priest would sin if he were not easy in granting permission to confess to another, because many are so weak that they would rather die without confession than confess to such a priest. Whence those who are too solicitous to know the consciences of subjects through confession cast a snare of damnation upon many, and consequently upon themselves." (Supplement, q. 8, a. 4 ad 6.)

(f) Finally, a twofold penalty was inflicted upon those transgressing the precept, namely prohibition from entrance into the church, or excommunication, and privation of ecclesiastical burial; but each, which was ferendae sententiae, has likewise been abrogated.

n. 249.

3° On the qualities of confession. Confession, which Christ and the Church require, must be clothed with certain qualities, of which some are necessary, others useful. No fewer than sixteen are numbered by theologians, expressed in these verses:

Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful,
And frequent, bare, discreet, willing, modest,
Integral, secret, tearful, hastened,
Strong and accusing, and let it be ready to obey.²

² In St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 9, a. 4, where you will find these conditions accurately explained; cf. Opusculum LVII (ed. Rom. LXIV), p. 416-444: t. XXVIII, ed. Vives, De modo confitendi.

But since certain of these qualities almost fall back into others, we shall explain only the principal ones. Confession, namely, must be:

n. 250.

(a) Pure, that is, made with a right intention, not for moving the compassion of the confessor, or for capturing his benevolence, a fortiori not from jest or mockery, but for obtaining the remission of sins. Hence if it is made exclusively for a mortally evil end, for example, for extorting a sum of money from the confessor, or for seducing him, it will be invalid; but if it is made principally for a good end, and secondarily for an evil end, for example, on account of vainglory or from excessive affection for the confessor, it will be valid although illicit.

(b) Simple and bare, namely not artfully composed, nor embracing superfluous things which do not pertain to confession, such as, for example, the sins of others, or long narrations altogether useless; hence the confessor should not ask concerning the name and family of the penitent, but only concerning his state and condition, insofar as these can serve for knowledge of his sins.

n. 251.

(c) Humble and sorrowful, or with a sense of one's own unworthiness and sincere sorrow, after the example of the publican, who struck his breast, saying: "O God, be merciful to me a sinner";¹ not however by boasting about sins or good acts; hence penitents should not excuse their sins by attributing their malice to others (for example, to a spouse, parents, brothers, neighbors).

¹ Luke 18:13.

But if someone has already narrated his sins to a priest in a historical manner, without sorrow, he is not bound distinctly to accuse the same sins to the same priest, who afterward is chosen as confessor, provided that this priest retains a distinct memory of these sins; but it suffices to accuse universally what had previously been narrated. But if the confessor has retained only a confused knowledge of them, it is controverted whether a new distinct accusation is required: St. Alphonsus affirms (n. 502), because the first confession was not sacramental, while the second is not integral unless it is distinct; Lugo,² however, denies this, because "the later accusation, referred to the memory which the confessor has of those sins distinctly heard before, is sufficient knowledge, such as is desired in the confessor." - Whence the matter is truly doubtful, and consequently the penitent is not to be compelled, but is to be exhorted to accuse his sins distinctly anew, especially since the confessor can from this make suitable questions and provide salutary admonitions.

² Lugo, disp. XVI, n. 638; cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 468-471; see, however, what the Vindiciae Alphonsianae, p. 480-484, teach to the contrary.

(d) Faithful and integral, that is, true and sincere, retaining no grave sin, nor likewise accusing sins which in reality were not committed, but candidly setting forth certain things as certain, doubtful things as doubtful, as they are known; concerning which more fully below.

(e) Discreet or prudent, not manifesting the sins or defects of others without necessity; expressing even shameful sins with modest and cautious words, insofar as can be done; omitting useless circumstances, especially if they are dangerous, odious, or scandalous.

n. 252.

(f) Vocal, that is, expressed in words, but not by nod, signs, or writings; this is required not from the very essence of the sacrament, or by divine precept, but from custom which has obtained the force of law, so that, according to the common opinion, he would sin gravely who, without any cause, wished to confess only by a sign or writing, when he can easily use his voice. But when a just cause exists, confession can licitly be made by signs or in writing, for example, if the penitent is mute or, on account of illness, can speak only with great difficulty; - or, on account of excessive shame or scruples, could not declare his sins integrally; - likewise if the confessor is somewhat deaf and cannot hear the penitent without bystanders also hearing him. In these cases, however, the penitent, if he is not mute, should at least say: "I accuse myself of the sins which are written on this paper": yet this is not absolutely required for validity.

n. 253.

(g) Secret, but not public, and made to the priest alone. Public confession would indeed be valid, and in truth it flourished in the first centuries: but, with Trent as witness (ch. 5), no one is held by divine precept to confess his offenses publicly, nor would it be sufficiently advisable for this to be prescribed by any human law, namely that offenses, especially secret ones, should be opened in public confession. This indeed is so true that, according to the common doctrine of theologians, the penitent is dispensed from the law of integrity when he cannot confess his sins except publicly, with others hearing.

n. 254.

§ II. On the Integrity of Confession — I. On the Necessity of Integrity in Confession

1° State of the question. (A) A twofold integrity can be found in confession: (a) material, or objective, which is the accusation made to one and the same priest of all and each of the grave sins which have been committed after baptism and have never been declared in a valid confession; (b) formal, or subjective, which is the accusation of all mortal sins which the penitent here and now morally can and is bound to confess. Indeed it can happen that, on account of a just cause, for example, ignorance, forgetfulness, or moral impossibility, someone does not confess all the mortal sins committed since the last confession: then the confession will indeed be formally, but not materially, integral.

¹ St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 6, a. 1-3; q. 9, a. 2; Suarez, disp. XXII; Lugo, disp. XVI; Salmantic., cap. 8; Lacroix, n. 915-1139; Billuart, diss. V; St. Alphonsus, n. 465-478; Elbel-Bierbaum, Confer. VI-VII; Konings, n. 1359-1366; Kenrick, n. 36-57; Lehmkuhl, n. 301-326; Ballerini-Palmieri, n. 346-364; Berardi, Praxis, n. 4488-4531; Genicot, n. 283-291; Noldin, n. 261-270.

Now material integrity is not always required for valid absolution: for Christ, according to His wisdom and mercy, did not will to oblige us to that which is physically or morally impossible; and therefore there are causes excusing from material integrity, as we shall say below. But formal integrity is necessary by divine right for valid absolution of sins, as will appear from the following principle.

n. 255.

(B) The necessary matter of confession is all and each mortal sin, committed after baptism and not yet declared in a valid confession. But venial sins committed after baptism, and sins already remitted, are sufficient and free matter, insofar as they can be subjected to the power of the keys and absolved. Whence there will be a twofold principle: the first concerning necessary integrity, the second concerning sufficient and free matter.

n. 256.

2° First principle: By divine right it is necessary to confess all and each mortal sin, even hidden ones, committed after baptism, of which memory is had after diligent examination.

(A) Trent¹ thus defines this necessity of integral confession: "If anyone shall say that in the sacrament of Penance, for the remission of sins, it is not necessary by divine right to confess all and each mortal sin, of which memory is had with due and diligent premeditation, even hidden sins, and those which are against the last two precepts of the Decalogue, and the circumstances which change the species of the sin... let him be anathema." Yet the Council acknowledges that sins which escape the memory are remitted by God:² "But the remaining sins, which do not occur to one diligently thinking, are understood to be included universally in the same confession: for which we faithfully say with the Prophet:³ 'Cleanse me, O Lord, from my hidden sins.'" Concerning this exception and others of this kind we shall speak below.

¹ Sess. XIV, can. 7.

² Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 5.

³ Ps. 18:13.

n. 257.

(B) The reason for this necessity is drawn from the very will of Christ, who decreed it thus, as is clear from what was said above, n. 97. - But the fittingness of this perfect integrity is drawn from the twofold office of the confessor: (a) insofar as he is judge, the priest cannot render an equitable sentence unless the case has been known integrally, at least substantially; and this indeed is so true that, in human judgments, if some substantial omission is found, the judgment is declared null or is reformed by a higher authority; but the confessor cannot know the case integrally, even substantially, unless the penitent manifests all and each mortal sin, even hidden ones; for one mortal sin is of such great moment that it is able to cause eternal damnation; besides, one is not remitted without the others; therefore all and each must be sincerely set forth.

(b) As physician, the priest cannot heal the spiritual wounds of the penitent unless he knows at least all those which are able to bring death upon the soul; for a bodily physician generally cannot heal a wound or illness unless he has known the other grave ailments of the sick person, since one disease is made worse by the addition of another, and the medicine which is suited to one disease can furnish harm to another; so likewise the spiritual physician can scarcely cure the penitent unless he knows all his grave spiritual diseases, or all mortal sins, since one is likewise aggravated by the addition of others, and that which would be a suitable medicine for one sin would furnish an incentive to another. Therefore it is necessary to declare all mortal sins, so that remedies may be proportioned to the various sins.¹

¹ Thus almost St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 9, a. 2.

n. 258.

Note. Since material integrity of confession is necessary by necessity of precept, but not by necessity of means, truly and solidly probable opinions can be admitted in the interpretation of this law, as St. Alphonsus² rightly notes: "Nor does it avail to say here that in the matter of the sacraments we cannot follow opinions only probable, because this proceeds when there is question of the value of the sacrament, otherwise concerning integrity; and as regards the value, it is certain that formal integrity suffices."

² St. Alphonsus, H. A., tr. XVI, n. 29.

n. 259.

Corollaries. From this two questions disputed among theologians can be solved: (A) Whether sins committed in baptism itself must be accused,¹ for example on account of a defect of faith or of attrition in an adult baptized person?

¹ St. Thomas, 3, q. 69, a. 10, ad 2; Lugo, disp. XVI, sect. 1; St. Alphonsus, n. 427; Lehmkuhl, n. 262; Genicot, n. 258; Noldin, n. 224; Muller, lib. III, § III, n. 6.

In this case baptism is indeed valid and imprints the character, but does not produce grace, on account of the obstacle. According to the principle explained above, the sin which was completed before the impression of the character ought not be accused, because it was truly committed before baptism; but the sin which persevered after the impression of the character must be accused, as having been committed after baptism or at least continued. Now the sin of sacrilege, committed in the reception of baptism, was indeed begun before the impression of the character, but, at least for the most part, endured after the character had been received; and consequently under this respect it must be accused. - Some, however, say that it can scarcely be discerned whether a sin of this kind persevered after baptism had been received or not, and therefore that it must be regarded as doubtful matter and need not necessarily be declared. But it is certainly expedient that it be accused in the following confession; and for the most part the faithful who are conscious of such a sin think that they are bound to declare it.

n. 260.

(B) Whether an adult who has been rebaptized conditionally is bound to confess sins committed before the conditional baptism?

A distinction must be made: (a) A Catholic adult, rebaptized conditionally, is not bound again to confess sins already sincerely accused: for if the prior baptism was valid, the absolutions given were likewise valid; but if it was invalid, the later baptism will wash away all sins. - But sins not yet accused by him must be declared, on account of the reason soon to be given concerning a non-Catholic.

(b) A non-Catholic adult, converted to the true faith and rebaptized conditionally, must regularly confess the sins of his past life. For the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, in the case of Charles Wipperman, who was rebaptized conditionally after conversion from Lutheran errors, declared on June 17, 1715:¹ "let him confess the sins of his past life, and let him be absolved from them conditionally." So likewise it was decreed in the First Synod of Westminster, for England, with the approval of the Holy Office, December 17, 1868;² for the United States of America, in the Instruction given to the bishop of Philadelphia, July 20, 1859.³

¹ Acta S. Sedis, IV, 320-324; cf. Collectanea P. F., n. 644.

² Ibid., n. 955.

³ Ibid., n. 1689.

In the aforesaid regions, therefore, confession is regularly to be imposed, yet with that moderation which is proper to positive laws. In other regions, this confession is strongly to be counseled, so that the remission of sins previously committed may be more certain.⁴

⁴ Recently indeed there was published (Analecta eccles., 1899, p. 489) a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, already given July 12, 1869, where it is said: "As regards the doubt proposed by letters of the 29th day of last May, and touching sacramental confession to be required from new converts, it occurs that the response of the Holy Office, feria V, place IV, of the day December 17 of the past year, although given only to the bishops of England who were asking, contains a universal law, and therefore obliges not only in England, but also in other regions." But Roman professors of moral theology think that this is not properly a decree, but only a private response of the Eminent Prefect of this Congregation, and therefore does not have the force of law. Cf. Bucceroni, Casus conscientiae, 120, p. 517-521.

The reason for this decision seems to be this: he who receives baptism, whether certainly or doubtfully valid, is presumed validly baptized until the contrary is proved, and therefore is subject to the jurisdiction of the Church; for, by receiving the external rite, he has entered the visible Church, and subjects himself to all the obligations by which the members of the Church are bound, and is bound to fulfill them until it is proved that the baptism was invalid; but one of these obligations is to confess sins; therefore he is bound to fulfill this obligation.

The order to be followed in the reconciliation of heretics concerning whose baptism there is doubt is this: let them abjure heresy and make profession of faith; then let them be baptized conditionally, and finally absolved conditionally. Yet the confession itself can precede baptism, provided that absolution is given after baptism, the penitent summarily repeating the sins accused before baptism.⁵

⁵ Thus the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, December 7, 1874, apud Collectanea P. F., n. 957.

n. 261.

Second principle: All venial sins committed after baptism, and sins both mortal and venial sins already directly remitted are sufficient and free matter of confession.

(A) That sins of this kind are free matter, that is, not necessarily to be accused, is manifestly clear; since Trent declares that venial sins can be kept silent without fault and expiated by many other remedies;¹ but sins already remitted, by the very fact that they have been remitted, need not necessarily be subjected again to the keys of the Church.

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 5.

(B) That the same sins are sufficient matter, that is, matter from which absolution can be obtained, is demonstrated thus.

(a) With respect to venial sins, we have first of all the practice of the faithful, who for a long time have accused venial sins: moreover the Church not only does not reprove this practice, but rather promotes it; for Trent says:² "Venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God, and into which we fall more frequently, although they are rightly and usefully, and without any presumption, said in confession, as the usage of pious men demonstrates, nevertheless can be kept silent without fault and expiated by many other remedies." And deservedly indeed venial sins are sufficient matter of sacramental confession; for if only mortal sins were accused, whoever had recourse to the sacred tribunal would be judged guilty of grave faults; and thus the burden of confession would be made more grave.³

² Sess. XIV, ch. 5.

³ St. Francis de Sales discusses excellently the utility of accusing venial sins, Introduction a la vie devote, p. II, ch. 19.

(b) With respect to sins already remitted, Benedict XI has these words:⁴ "For the rest, although it is not of necessity to confess the same sins again; nevertheless ... on account of shame, which is a great part of penance, we consider it salutary that the confession of the same sins be repeated." In truth, since acts of penance can be repeated so that the remnants of sins may more and more be wiped away, why cannot faults already remitted be subjected again to the keys, so that they may more and more be blotted out and expiated? Nor should it be said that in human matters no one can be judged and absolved twice in the same tribunal; for, since the remission of sin is made through the infusion of grace, and at the same time is joined with the diminution of punishment, sins already remitted can be accused again for a greater infusion of grace and remission of punishment; besides, the judgment can be repeated, insofar as the confessor is able to judge whether the dispositions of the penitent suffice for absolution or not.

⁴ Const. Inter cunctas, 1304, Extravag. Comm., l. 5, t. 7, c. 1.

n. 262.

From this it follows that in ordinary confession venial sins, either all or a few, can licitly be omitted; likewise, in general confession, not necessarily, those mortal sins can be omitted which have already been directly remitted by sacramental absolution. Besides, if free matter is declared, it is not necessary that the lowest species of each sin be set forth; for if there is no obligation of accusing these sins, a fortiori it is not necessary to declare them in species.

n. 263.

Corollaries. (A) But insufficient matter of confession consists of all those moral defects, or imperfections,¹ which do not reach the malice of sin, or indeliberate acts, for example, neglect of a divine inspiration concerning a work of supererogation, involuntary distractions whether in themselves or in their cause. For an imperfection is a voluntary action or omission which is opposed to a divine counsel, but not to a precept; for example, when someone, solicited by grace, neglected to hear Mass during the week, or to visit the Most Blessed Sacrament, while he was being drawn by grace to do this; now such an act, since it is not opposed to a precept, is not a sin. Likewise an indeliberate act, even if it is opposed to a law or precept, is not a sin, because it is not a human act. Now whatever is not a sin cannot be matter of the sacrament of Penance.

¹ On the concept of imperfection cf. L'Ami du Clerge, 1901, p. 337-342; Revue du Clerge Francais, Dec. 1900, p. 71-84.

Yet often in these imperfections there lies hidden some venial sin of a slightly evil intention, for example, of vanity, of sloth, of which penitents who accuse themselves of these things are more or less conscious. Hence the confessor ought not prevent pious penitents from declaring these imperfections, both because venial fault is accustomed to be mixed with them, and so that they may be better directed; but rather they are to be exhorted to say by what motive they performed these acts; and, if they accuse nothing else, they should kindly be induced to confess again some sin of their past life.

n. 264.

(B) The matter of confession is called doubtful if it is not clear whether the act is a sin or not, whether, for example, it is deliberate or not, whether it is a venial sin or a mere imperfection.

Now he who accuses only doubtful matter cannot be absolved absolutely, because the sacrament would be exposed to the danger of nullity; indeed he ought not regularly to be absolved conditionally without a sufficient reason, as we shall explain below where conditional absolution is treated.

Therefore in practice, when a penitent either accuses no sin, or only a sin doubtfully committed, (a) let the confessor ask him about sins which are more commonly committed, for example, against charity, or patience, or truthfulness, or the duties proper to his state; (b) if he obtains nothing certain, let him advise the penitent to declare some certain sin of his past life, whether mortal or venial; this will be easier if the confessor himself proposes these or similar questions: "Have you not in your past life sinned against obedience due to parents, or charity toward neighbor? Have you not consented to motions of anger, etc.?" - If the penitent then accuses no certain sin, let him be questioned concerning the things necessary for salvation; for there is a not improbable suspicion that perhaps he is ignorant of those things which are necessary by necessity of means: in which case, he cannot be absolved unless he is first instructed, as will be said below.¹

¹ Cf. Reuter, Neo-Confessarius, n. 117.

n. 265.

There can be a threefold accusation of this kind: (a) an accusation altogether vague and indeterminate, expressed by words or signs, for example, I have sinned, I accuse myself of all the sins of my past life, without its being determined whether these sins were grave or not; this can likewise be done by signs, for example, by striking the breast, or by sighs or tears; (b) accusation of a grave sin in general, for example, I have sinned gravely, without however the genus or species of the sin being determined; (c) generic accusation simply, by indicating the virtue or law against which offense was committed, without the lowest species being determined, for example, I have sinned against charity, against justice, or against the fourth precept.

(a) If there is question of an altogether indeterminate accusation, there is a threefold opinion:

Some, with Ballerini,² think that this accusation suffices both for validity and for liceity. For that which in necessity suffices for the validity of the sacrament must suffice even outside necessity, since the essence of the sacrament remains the same in each case. Besides, it suffices for liceity; for, as Bucceroni says,² with the certain validity of the sacrament standing, illicitness can arise from no other source than from a positive divine precept; but this precept is not had in the case of free matter; therefore in this case an indeterminate accusation is licit. - 2) Others, on the contrary, hold that an indeterminate accusation not only is not licit, but even renders the validity of the sacrament doubtful; thus Laymann, Suarez, Lehmkuhl:¹ for, from the usage and practice of the Church, specific confession of sins, even venial ones, has flourished for a long time outside the case of necessity; now this custom seems to be the interpreter of the divine law; therefore, although accusation of venial sins is not necessary, if someone wishes to be absolved from them he is bound to explain them in species. - Besides, the sacrament of Penance is conferred after the manner of a judgment; but the nature of a judgment demands that the matter be determined, insofar as can be done; in the case of necessity, essential formalities indeed can suffice, but in the ordinary case even less essential ones are required: whence from the fact that in the article of death an indeterminate accusation suffices, it by no means follows that the same suffices outside the case of necessity, even for validity.

² Gury-Ballerini, n. 421, n. b.

² Bucceroni, n. 675.

¹ Laymann, lib. V, tr. 6, ch. 5, n. 14; Suarez, disp. XXIII, sect. 1, n. 10; Lehmkuhl, n. 255.

Finally, a third opinion, which Noldin (n. 228-229) defends, contends that an indeterminate accusation of this kind does indeed suffice for validity, on account of the arguments of the first opinion, but not for liceity, as is clear from the arguments of the second opinion.

Whence in practice it is altogether to be advised that, even in free matter, at least one sin be declared specifically; for thus the validity of the sacrament is better provided for, and also the spiritual good of penitents, since they conceive contrition more easily and are able to receive more practical counsels if they accuse sins more determinately. - Yet, if penitents are so rude or lacking in memory that nothing can be drawn from them except a generic confession, they can sometimes be absolved conditionally, lest otherwise they remain long without the benefit of the sacrament.

n. 266.

(b) An accusation of the second kind, namely I have sinned gravely, or I accuse myself of my mortal sins, is much more probably valid, indeed also licit, when it is made as a safeguard, after sins not yet remitted have been declared; for mortal sin, even declared in a general way, is not indeterminate matter, but sufficiently concrete, so that judgment can be rendered concerning it; besides, since there is question of free matter, by no law

is it prescribed that sins be declared more specifically. Thus Lehmkuhl (n. 264) with many others.

n. 267.

(c) According to all, the accusation of the third kind, namely "I have sinned against such a virtue," without the lowest species and number being declared, altogether suffices in free matter, since certainly a judgment can be pronounced concerning such matter. Indeed this practice is to be recommended to all who accuse only venial sins, especially if they were doubtfully committed, so that the validity and efficacy of absolution may thus be more safely provided for. Yet let care be taken that this declaration not be made by mere custom, but with due attention and with sorrow sincerely conceived.

n. 312.

1° Necessity of this examination: A penitent who has sinned gravely is regularly bound under grave obligation to make a diligent examination before confession. It is certain.

(A) It is proved. This obligation is logically deduced from the very law of integrity, as is clear from Trent itself:¹ "From these things it is gathered that all mortal sins, of which after diligent discussion of themselves they have consciousness, must be recounted by penitents in confession."

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 5.

For he who is bound to an end, by that very fact is bound to the means necessary per se for attaining the end; but a diligent examination, regularly speaking, is a necessary means for procuring the integrity of confession for those who have sinned gravely; for if they have committed several mortal sins, they generally cannot remember all of them, on account of the weakness of human memory, unless for some time they have diligently explored the inner recesses of conscience.

Moreover, if a penitent of this kind fails in examination, many inconveniences follow: loss of time for the confessor, who then must propose many questions, and also for other penitents who are compelled to wait longer, - and for the penitent himself the danger of omitting mortal sins through forgetfulness, with the anxieties which follow from this and the obligation of accusing sins so omitted. - Therefore the faithful should be carefully instructed concerning this obligation.

(B) It is explained. It was said: (a) who has sinned gravely; for he who is morally certain that since the last confession he has not sinned mortally is not bound, strictly speaking, to a diligent examination, but only to detecting sufficient matter for the validity of the sacrament; yet he is to be exhorted to make a diligent examination concerning venial sins, so that he may receive richer fruits from absolution.

(b) He is regularly bound; for exceptions are given from a twofold head, both because time is lacking, as can happen with the dying, and because this examination is not necessary, considering the dispositions of the penitent, for example, because he is accustomed daily to examine his sins seriously, or, after their commission, immediately to have recourse to confession.

n. 313.

2° Diligence to be had in the examination: For that examination there is required that diligence which prudent men are accustomed to employ in a grave matter; that is, the highest diligence is not strictly required, which in a matter of the greatest moment is employed by the most cautious men, but ordinary, or moderate, diligence suffices, such as prudent men have in matters of grave moment.

For Christ did not will confession to be a grave and hateful burden, but willed to adapt it to the human condition and infirmity; but if the highest diligence were required in the examination of conscience, confession would be too troublesome and would offer occasion for many anxieties concerning the validity of the sacrament, since there are few who are habitually capable of this diligence. - Hence someone is not strictly bound to the highest diligence, even if he foresees that new mortal sins could thus be detected. - Likewise no one is bound to write his sins, especially since there is some danger that the writing might fall into the hands of others.

Whence he who commits grave negligence in the examination concerning mortal sins, per se sins gravely and is guilty of sacrilege, since he knowingly and willingly exposes himself to the danger of omitting certain mortal sins in his confession. But slight negligence does not invalidate the sacrament, even if in fact certain mortal sins were omitted. But for discerning whether the negligence was grave or slight, this rule is handed down by some theologians:¹ if after confession it is found that more mortal sins were omitted than accused, the negligence can be regarded as grave; but if many more were declared than omitted, the negligence can be judged slight. This is the objective rule; but attention must also be paid to the subjective dispositions of the penitent, whether or not, at the time of the examination, he was conscious of grave negligence, and foresaw that he would omit several mortal sins.

¹ Stoz, l. c., 16; Sporer, n. 367; Noldin, n. 2.

I said per se sins gravely; because not a few are excused from grave sin by the fact that, on account of ignorance or levity of soul, they thought it enough to respond sincerely to the questions of the confessor: these indeed must be instructed; but, good faith standing, they were not guilty of grave sacrilege.

n. 314.

Corollary. The diligence required is different according to the different conditions of penitents, namely according to the different state of conscience, the length of time which has elapsed from the last confession, bodily health, and the diverse instruction of penitents.

(a) Those who confess frequently, rarely commit mortal sins, and daily examine their conscience, can be content with a shorter examination, because grave sins, if perhaps they were committed, will easily occur to the memory. - Yet in practice they are gently to be induced to a diligent discussion of conscience, so that they may detect not only the principal venial sins, but also the causes of the same, by which they may more easily root out their defects.

Hence the timid and the scrupulous ought not spend a long time in examination: for if they had sinned gravely, this certainly would be before their eyes; besides, minute examination can increase scruples. Whence sometimes it is expedient to determine the time which they are prohibited from exceeding in such an examination.

(b) Those who confess rarely, especially if they are involved in various secular affairs and live among many occasions of sin, must examine themselves longer, and diligently reconsider the principal occasions in which they are accustomed to sin; for otherwise they would omit several sins.

n. 315.

(c) The sick are not bound to an examination as accurate as those in good health; indeed sometimes they are dispensed from every examination, on account of their excessive weakness; in this case they are kindly to be questioned by the confessor himself with respect to substantial things, since the dying are in some way excused from material integrity, on account of the grave harm which then often arises from a long examination and a lengthy confession. - Therefore the sick should not easily be permitted to defer confession from day to day, under the pretext that they have not sufficiently examined their conscience; but they should be kindly questioned at once by the confessor; it is certainly better to restore them, even imperfectly confessed, at once to the state of grace than, by deferring from day to day, to leave them in the state of damnation. For the rest, if they survive, they will afterward be able to complete their confession.¹

¹ Cf. Elbel-Bierbaum, Conf. VI, n. 153; Genicot, n. 302.

n. 316.

(d) If penitents, otherwise sufficiently instructed, approach the sacred tribunal prepared by no or by insufficient examination, they can kindly be dismissed, so that they may discuss their conscience more accurately before they begin confession, especially if there is question of a long confession; for it is almost impossible that a penitent respond accurately to the confessor asking questions without a prior examination. Yet if it could be foreseen that they would not return, they are to be examined by the confessor himself in the best way that can be done; and if they grieve over their negligence and show forth some zeal for amending life, they can be absolved.²

² To the point the Roman Catechism, De Paenit., n. 50: "Wherefore if the priest has known that men of this kind are wholly unprepared, he will dismiss them from himself with most humane words, and will exhort them to take some space for thinking about sins, and then return: but if perhaps they affirm that they have applied all their zeal and diligence to that matter (since the priest must fear greatly lest, once dismissed, they return no more), they are to be heard, especially if they show forth some zeal for amending life... For if, once the confession has been heard, he judges that neither diligence in enumerating sins, nor sorrow in detesting them, was altogether lacking in the penitent, he can be absolved."

But if there is question of the uneducated and ignorant, who already made some examination beforehand, although insufficient, generally it is not expedient to dismiss them, because they can scarcely examine themselves better; whence the confessor, by prudent questioning, will obtain more than penitents could detect by a long examination; besides, especially in our times, a dismissal of this kind would often be regarded as a great injury and would keep not a few away from confession. Hence penitents in this case are not to be dismissed unless it is impossible to prepare them for a good confession.

n. 319.

1° On Repetition of Confession

Things to be noted beforehand. Confession can be only incomplete, or invalid. (A) It is called incomplete, or materially not integral, when some mortal sin has been omitted from a legitimate cause, for example, from ignorance or inculpable forgetfulness. In this case the confession must indeed be completed by declaring the sin not yet accused; but properly it is not to be repeated, since it was valid, and consequently sins already accused are not necessarily to be repeated.

If a penitent, immediately after absolution, confesses a mortal sin inculpably omitted, he must be absolved again, so that this sin may be remitted directly by absolution. For although, strictly speaking, this absolution could be deferred to the next confession, if it is foreseen that the penitent will return to the same confessor, nevertheless it is better to repeat the formula of absolution; for otherwise the penitent is compelled either to return to the same confessor, or, if he approaches another confessor, to accuse the same sin.

n. 320.

(B) A confession, moreover, is invalid when one of the essential conditions necessary for its validity is lacking. Now such invalidity can occur either on the part of the confessor, or on the part of the penitent: -

(a) On the part of the confessor, if he lacked the power of order or of jurisdiction, - or omitted the form or changed it substantially, - or did not have the intention of absolving, - or heard or understood no sin, because of deafness, sleep, drunkenness, distraction, or some other reason of this kind. Yet the penitent cannot and is not bound to correct these defects except insofar as they are known to him.

(b) On the part of the penitent, by defect of examination, if he was gravely negligent in investigating mortal sins, - by defect of sincerity in confession,¹ if knowingly and willingly he concealed some grave sin, or lied in a grave matter pertaining to confession, - by defect of contrition or of firm purpose, - by defect of knowledge, if someone was ignorant of truths which are necessary by necessity of means.

¹ This defect of sincerity, which occurs not rarely, especially in the young and in women even devout ones, with regard to shameful sins, arises chiefly (a) from a certain shame, by force of which penitents blush to declare sins of this kind to a confessor to whom they are known, especially in places where there is only one confessor; (b) from a certain haste in hearing confessions, or harshness or rigor, or on the contrary from the custom of excusing penitents (by saying, for example, you did not do it voluntarily, etc.), so that they, not wishing to contradict the confessor, scarcely dare to confess consent really given. Cf. Camele, Opusc. de reticentia peccatorum, 1897; Zelle, La Confession, Paris, 1897, book I, p. 15-81; Drahm, Opusc. de Reticentia volunt. peccat., Brussels, 1900; Mach, Tresor du Pretre, Treatise XIV, ch. 10. - Yet certain authors exaggerate the frequency of sacrilegious confessions, because from a few facts known to them, at the time when a mission is being given, they infer that the practice is common; this is contradicted by most experienced and most pious confessors, as Bucceroni rightly notes, at the end of Instit. Theol. Moral., vol. II, p. 537, ed. 1900; cf. Genicot, n. 305, at the end, note 1.

Again, confession is either simply invalid, when the penitent, at the time when he receives absolution, is not conscious of this substantial defect; or invalid and at the same time sacrilegious, when the penitent knows and wills such a defect, so that he truly commits sacrilege by receiving absolution.

n. 321.

Principle: Sacramental confession per se must be repeated whenever it is morally certain that it is sacrilegious or invalid. It is certain.

For by the precept of Christ all mortal sins must be subjected to the keys of the Church, so that by virtue of absolution they may be absolved directly; but sins declared in a sacrilegious or invalid confession were not remitted by virtue of absolution; therefore they must again be subjected to the power of the keys, so that they may be absolved.

But if there is only doubt concerning the validity of confession, the repetition of confession is to be counseled, but not strictly imposed; for when an act has certainly been placed, and there is doubt whether it is valid or not, one must stand for its value until the contrary is proved. In practice, moreover, when such a doubt arises, it can be resolved from the manner of acting and the dispositions of the penitent: if he is diligent and of a timorous conscience, he is not bound to repeat the confession, because he is deservedly presumed not to have lacked the essential dispositions; if he is of a lax conscience and very negligent in preparing for confession, the presumption stands against him, and therefore he is to be gently induced to repeat the confessions.

It was said: per se must be repeated; because if the penitent is in good faith (which easily occurs when the confession was simply invalid), and at the same time it is foreseen that perhaps he will not assent to the command of repeating the confession, it is expedient not to warn him concerning the invalidity of this confession, at least here and now: for then he does not sin formally, and the sins not yet validly accused are remitted indirectly through the absolution which he receives in good faith in a subsequent confession.

n. 322.

The mode by which confession is to be repeated. (A) If the confession is repeated before a new confessor, one must distinguish: (a) if the confession was not only invalid, but also sacrilegious, the sacrilege voluntarily committed in the previous confession must be accused, - then the sin or sins concealed in that same confession, if it was invalid from defect of sincerity, - afterward all mortal sins invalidly declared in this and in subsequent confessions, and also the various sacrileges which were committed by receiving the sacraments in the state of mortal sin. The reason is that the new confessor, having no knowledge of the previous confessions, must know all mortal sins which have not yet been duly accused in a valid confession.

Yet I said that all mortal sins must be accused which were invalidly declared; for, if someone, unmindful of the sacrilege because of weakness of memory or levity of soul, made certain valid confessions, he is not bound to repeat them, since the sins accused in these were duly absolved.

(b) But if the confession was only invalid, and not sacrilegious, that confession alone must be repeated when such a defect is recognized, but not the subsequent ones, which were valid.

n. 323.

(B) If the confession is made before the same confessor, who has already heard the individual sins, has already judged concerning them, and remembers them at least confusedly, or at least remembers the penance imposed for them, one must distinguish thus: - (a) when the confession was sacrilegious, it suffices for the penitent to say: I accuse myself of the sacrilege which I committed in such a confession, by keeping silent about such a sin, which I now accuse (if it was sacrilegious from defect of sincerity), and again I accuse myself of all sins already declared in that same confession and in subsequent confessions, and also of the sacrileges which I committed, for example, by receiving absolution and communion ten times ... The reason is that the preceding confessions, although invalid, were sacramental; hence if the confessor remembers at least confusedly the sins previously accused, he has knowledge sufficient for passing judgment.

(b) If the confession was not sacrilegious, but simply invalid, it suffices for the penitent to accuse himself in a general way of the mortal sins accused in such a confession, which was invalid for such or such a reason, which he explains.

n. 324.

But if the confessor does not remember the state of the penitent, nor the penance imposed, and cannot be informed of these things by the penitent, all indeed admit that the absolution will be valid without the distinct confession being repeated; but it is disputed whether in this case the confessor absolves licitly: St. Alphonsus denies it (n. 502), because the priest must form for himself a judgment, at least confusedly, concerning the state of the penitent before he absolves; Lugo and Ballerini affirm it,¹ because it suffices that the priest know that he previously judged concerning these sins and determined that the penitent was to be absolved. This opinion is truly probable, and therefore, since there is question of what is licit, penitents are not to be compelled to repeat a distinct confession.

¹ Lugo, disp. XVI, n. 636; Ballerini P., n. 472; Genicot, n. 306.

n. 325.

Corollaries. (A) If a penitent declares sins to a deaf, or hard-of-hearing, or distracted, or sleeping confessor, one must distinguish: (a) if he did this in good faith, the confession is valid, provided the confessor understood at least some sins, and then only those sins must be repeated which it is clear were not heard; but if it is not known which were heard, the whole confession must be repeated, if it is shorter; but if it is longer, it is not necessarily to be repeated integrally, because the law of integrity is not judged to oblige with so great an inconvenience. (b) But if someone deliberately confesses to a deaf, or distracted, or sleeping confessor, so that he cannot hear all the sins, the confession per se is sacrilegious, because of defect of sincerity, and therefore is to be repeated. It is said per se, because if someone did this because of ignorance, not knowing such a confession to be sacrilegious, the same can be said as concerning him who is in good faith.

n. 326.

(B) Rustics, children, and the unlearned, who in good faith confessed their sins only in a confused way, not distinctly explaining the species and number, were indeed validly absolved, because material integrity does not pertain to the essence of the sacrament; but the question is whether afterward they are bound to complete their confessions, if they become more learned, by explaining the species and number omitted. St. Alphonsus (n. 504) affirms it with most theologians, because otherwise the present confession would not be truly integral; yet a few deny it with Tamburini, Berardi, Ballerini,² for various reasons: (a) because, since these rustics are accustomed to have a uniform life, a prudent confessor, from the confession of one year, can easily conjecture how much they sinned in preceding years; (b) because sins accused in a confused way, as they were then known, were directly absolved, and therefore do not need to be subjected to the power of the keys. - Therefore in practice these certainly are to be induced, if it can be done, to complete past confessions; but if this seems too burdensome to them, they are not to be disturbed.

² Tambur., Methodus Confess., book 3, c. 2, n. 9; Berardi, n. 4522; Ball. P., n. 475; Genicot, n. 307. - Lugo, however (disp. XVI, n. 588), distinguishes between number and species: if the number was accused in a confused way in good faith, the penitent is bound to nothing, as we said above (n. 158); but if the confusion concerns species, the penitent, having become more learned, must complete his confession; for in the former case the sins, as having been accused specifically, were remitted directly; in the latter, only indirectly.

n. 327.

(C) When the penitent has frequently relapsed into the same mortal sins, without any amendment, and without any resistance to the first temptations which occur, it must often be presumed that the previous confessions were made without sufficient sorrow and purpose, and therefore are to be repeated; for he who in confession truly grieves and resolves amendment applies at least some effort before the relapse, and generally abstains from sin for some time. But it must be said otherwise if he has persevered for some time, or before the fall resisted the first temptations.³

³ Thus St. Alphonsus, n. 505; concerning this more fully it will be said below, where there is question of recidivists.

n. 328.

2° On General Confession

Notion and usefulness. General confession is the repetition of all or of several confessions, and therefore completes either the whole life, or a notable part of life. It can be necessary, useful, or harmful according to various circumstances.

¹ Besides the authors cited where the repetition of confession was treated, cf. Aertnys, Theol. Pastoralis, n. 245-261; Marc, Tresor du Pretre, Tr. XIV, c. 10; Gousset, n. 443-447; Gaume, Manuel des Confesseurs, ch. V, a. 10, where (n. 428) you will find a method of making a general confession, taken from the works of St. Leonard of Port Maurice.

(A) It is necessary, and therefore regularly to be enjoined, when it is morally certain that several of the previous confessions were invalid or sacrilegious, as was explained above (n. 211).

(B) It is useful, and therefore to be counseled, for all those who, although they are not strictly bound to it, can receive richer fruits from it, namely: -

(a) For those who reasonably doubt concerning the value of past confessions, in order to obtain peace of conscience and to remove anxieties of soul, which often hold one back from good, provided however that they are not scrupulous.

(b) For those who wish to establish a new and more perfect manner of living, for example, recent converts, those who enter the religious or clerical state; for by making a general confession then, the malice of sin appears much more manifestly, and a greater horror against sin arises; humility greatly increases from the knowledge of our infirmity; more intense contrition and a firmer purpose are conceived; occasions of sin are better foreseen and guarded against; greater graces are received, and therefore strength is increased; a most pleasant peace and tranquility comes to the soul, and a new impulse is given for leading a more perfect life.

…and 6 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 23 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Ch. II, Sect. 5, Article 3: Confession

NECESSITY. —The second essential constituent of the Sacrament of Penance is confession. By confession (confessio, ἐξομολόγησις)¹ we understand the sorrowful declaration of sins made to a priest with the purpose of obtaining forgiveness through the power of the keys.²

¹ Conc. Florent., Decretum pro Armenis: "The second part of penance is oral confession, to which it belongs that the sinner confess integrally to his priest all the sins of which he has memory." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 699).

² Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 33: "They define confession as an accusation of sins belonging to the class of a Sacrament, undertaken so that we may obtain pardon by the power of the keys. It is rightly called an accusation, because sins are not to be recalled as though we were displaying our crimes, as those do who rejoice when they have done evil, nor merely narrated as though we were recounting some deed to idle hearers for their amusement. Rather they are to be enumerated with an accusing mind, so that we wish them to be punished even in ourselves. We confess sins for the sake of obtaining pardon, because this judgment is far unlike forensic trials for capital crimes, in which punishment and torment, not freedom from guilt and pardon of error, are appointed for confession." (Ed. Ratisb. 43, p. 225). Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. III, pp. 181 sqq.

Sacramental confession is of divine institution and has been embodied among the commandments of the Church.³

³ Cfr. John XX, 21 sqq. —Cone, Trid., Sess. VI, ch. 14; Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5, can. 6-8.

Every Catholic who has attained to the use of reason, i. e., who is able to distinguish between good and evil, and has sinned grievously, is obliged to confess his sins once a year (annua confessio).⁴ Not age, but intellectual and moral development is the decisive factor in regard to this obligation. Of course, the precept of annual confession binds only those who have committed a mortal sin. Those who are guilty of venial sins only are not strictly obliged to go to confession at all.⁵ Because of the danger of selfdeception, however, and particularly on account of the respect due to the law of Easter Communion, every Catholic is advised to go to confession at least once a year, even though he be not conscious of mortal sin.

⁴ Conc. Lot. IV., c. 21: "Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, postquam ad annos discretionis pervenerit,... fideliter confiteatur...." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437). —Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 38: "It is evident that no one is bound by the law of confession before the age at which he can have the use of reason. Yet that age is not certainly defined by a particular number of years; rather, this seems to be laid down universally: confession is enjoined upon a child from the time when he has the power to distinguish between good and evil and deceit can enter his mind. For when anyone reaches that time of life at which eternal salvation must be considered, then for the first time he ought to confess his sins to a priest, since otherwise no one burdened by consciousness of crimes may hope for salvation." (Ed. Ratisb. 43, p. 228).

⁵ Cfr. St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 667: "It is asked whether, in order to satisfy the precept of annual confession, one who has no mortal sins is bound to confess venial sins. The first opinion affirms it. The second opinion, however, which is common and truer, denies it. The reason is that by commanding annual confession the Church commands only that confession which is due from Christ’s institution. But Christ commands no confession other than that of mortal sins." —Supra, p. 138.

The obligation imposed by the precept of annual confession is not ad finiendam, but ad urgendam obligationem. Hence if a man surely foresees that he will not be able to comply with his duty later in the year, he is bound to do it now.

Sacramental confession, to be valid, must be made to the appointed priest in person, not by letter, telephone or messenger.⁶ The personal presence of the penitent is required even when oral confession is impracticable because the penitent is deaf or can speak no language known to the confessor. In the former case the avowal can be made by means of signs or in writing, in the latter, through an interpreter. In case of necessity, when oral confession is impossible, the penitent may manifest by signs the nature of his sins, his sorrow for them, and his wish to be absolved.6a II. PROPERTIES. —The properties of confession flow from the nature and purpose of the Sacrament. They are: (i) Integrity, (2) Sincerity, and (3) Clearness.⁷

⁶ Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 9, art. 3; Decree of Clement VIII, June 20, 1602; Declaration of Paul V, July 14, 1605 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 962, 963); Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 45. —To the query whether absolution given by telephone (per telephonium) would be valid, and, in case of necessity, licit, the S. Congregation of the Penitentiary replied: "Nothing is to be answered" (July 1, 1884). —Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. III, pp. 98 sqq. 6a No one is obliged to confess either in writing or through an interpreter. Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 318 sqq.

⁷ St. Thomas mentions no less than sixteen, but they can all be reduced to the three mentioned in the text: "Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful, and frequent, unadorned, discreet, willing, modest, complete, secret, tearful, prompt, courageous and accusing, and let it be ready to obey." Th. M. J. Gousset (Theol. Mor., I, 256) enumerates four: integritas, simplicitas, humilitas, caritas. Gury (Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 352) thinks that only two of these qualities are essential: "Many qualities of confession are assigned by various authors, namely, that it be integral, sorrowful, humble, prudent, simple, unadorned, modest, brief, secret, and vocal. Of these qualities of confession only the first two are essential; the rest pertain to its manner and perfection and need no special explanation."

INTEGRITY. —Confession is entire or complete if the penitent avows all the mortal sins he has committed since Baptism or his last previous confession, together with their number and spe- cific circumstances.⁸ To be able to do this properly he must examine his conscience.

⁸ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5, can. 7; Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 40 sq.

The integrity of confession (integritas confessionis) may be material or formal. It is material (integritas materialis) if the penitent actually confesses all his mortal sins; it is formal (integritas formalis) if he is willing to make a complete avowal, but is prevented by physical or moral causes. a) The material integrity of confession requires:

α) That the penitent mention all those mortal sins which he has not yet validly confessed. When he is in doubt whether or not he has confessed a mortal sin, or whether some particular sin is mortal or venial, the penitent is not bound, but (cases of scrupulousness and urgent necessity excepted) earnestly advised to mention it. If the existing doubt is founded on weighty reasons (dubium prudens), it is advisable that the sin (peccatum dubium) be confessed. Mortal sins which have been inadvertently omitted (forgotten) in one confession, must be declared in the next. If a penitent has purposely concealed a mortal sin, his confession is invalid, and he must, besides confessing his sacrilege, repeat all the mortal sins mentioned in his invalid confession, unless the confessor has at least a dim recollection of them.

That the number of mortal sins committed be given as accurately as possible. If the exact number cannot be ascertained, it is sufficient to give an approximate estimate, declaring, for instance, how many times the sin has been committed each day, week, or month. y) That the circumstances be mentioned which change the species of a sin or add a new species (circumstantiae speciem mut antes vel addentes), and especially those by which a venial sin becomes grievous (e. g., scandal). Circumstances that merely increase the guilt of a sin within the same species (circumstantiae notabiliter aggravantes) as a rule need not be confessed, though it is advisable to do so. They must be expressly mentioned if they entail a censure or reservation, or if the confessor inquires about them with a view to ascertaining the disposition of the penitent or deciding whether restitution has to be made.⁹

⁹ Cfr. Prop, Damnat. sub Innoc. XI., prop. 58: "We are not bound to disclose to a confessor who asks us a habit of some sin." (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1208).

Circumstances which might change an objectively grievous sin (i. e., one that is grievous merely from its object) into a venial sin should also be mentioned. This is not necessary for the integrity of the Sacrament, but advisable because it may enable the confessor to form a better idea of the penitent's state of mind.

The mortal sins a man has committed, together with their number and specific circumstances, constitute the necessary matter of Penance (materia necessaria). Venial sins are merely materia libera et sufficiens, that is to say, they need not be, but may and, considering the importance of the Sacrament, should be confessed. Previously confessed sins, whether mortal or venial, may be confessed again, and if properly regretted, constitute sufficient matter for absolution. All "the other sins, which do not occur [to the penitent] after diligent thought, are understood to be included as a whole in that same confession," and are summarily included in the usual declaration: "For these and all other sins of which I am not now conscious, I am heartily sorry," and so forth.¹⁰

¹⁰ "The remaining sins which do not occur to one who thinks diligently are understood to be included as a whole in that same confession."—Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5; cfr. Ps. XVIII, 13.

In order to be able to confess his sins properly, the penitent, before approaching the sacred tribunal, should carefully and earnestly examine his conscience.¹¹ No time limit can be set for this important task. Circumstances of individuality, time, place, etc., must be taken into consideration. The only general rule that may be laid down is that the time and care devoted to the examination of conscience should be equal to that which is usually bestowed by prudent men upon important matters of business, and that there be no exaggeration or carelessness, lest the validity of the Sacrament be endangered and it become what Protestants have unjustly called it,—a "slaughter-house of consciences."

¹¹ "A diligent examination of oneself or due and diligent forethought." (Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5, can. 7).—Cfr. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 339 sqq.

Material integrity of confession in the strict sense is not always possible because God alone knows the hearts of men and can judge them infallibly.¹² b) Confession is formally complete or entire if the penitent tells all the sins he is able to remember and confess, thereby proving his willingness to make a full avowal.

¹² Acts I, 24; XV, 8; 1 Cor. IV, 4.

n. ¶14.

The obstacles to material integrity are partly physical and partly moral. Physical obstacles are, e. g., deafness or inability to speak, impossibility of finding a confessor who understands one's language, immediate danger of death, inculpable ignorance or forgetfulness. Moral obstacles are: extraordinary difficulty, grave spiritual or temporal injury threatening the penitent, the confessor, or a third person; e. g., the danger of losing one's good name (not, however, before the confessor), serious scandal, violation of the seal, etc. Such obstacles dispense from material integrity, provided, of course, it is morally impossible for the penitent to wait or to find another priest to whom he could make a full confession. Physical exertion, crowding of the confessionals,¹³ intense shame¹⁴ or the necessity of indirectly revealing an ac- complice do not excuse a penitent from making a full confession of his sins.

¹³ The following proposition was condemned under Innocent XI: "It is lawful sacramentally to absolve those only partially confessed because of a great concourse of penitents, such as can occur, for example, on the day of some great feast or indulgence." (Prop. Damnat. sub Innoc. XI., prop. 59; Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1209).

¹⁴ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 5: "The very difficulty of such confession and the shame of disclosing sins might indeed seem grave were it not relieved by so many and such great advantages and consolations, which are most certainly conferred through absolution upon all who worthily approach this Sacrament." —Cfr. Gury, Comp. Theol., Mor,, II, n. 377: "A difficulty intrinsic to confession never excuses, however grave it may be. The reason is that confession by its nature is essentially laborious, and therefore, if a grave difficulty—for example, great repugnance or shame—excused from integrity, the faithful would very often be excused from accusing themselves of mortal sins, and consequently the institution of the Sacrament of Penance would for the most part collapse. Moreover, the Church could not reserve atrocious crimes, because that creates no slight inconvenience for penitents."

n. ¶15.

Under no pretext is the confessor permitted to inquire formally for the name of an accomplice or associate in crime (complex peccati aut socius criminis), his place of residence,¹⁵ or any circumstance that might reveal his identity. Nay, more, the penitent should not be allowed to disclose the name of his accomplice because confessor and penitent are both under obligation to protect the good name of others. But the penitent must divulge the degree of relationship of his accomplice if this is rendered necessary by some circumstance changing the species of his sin, e. g., incest, and the fact that a priest is involved when the confessional has been abused for soliciting to impurity. The laws of the Church require that a priest guilty of this crime be reported by name to the ecclesiastical authorities. If a penitent can, without great inconvenience, choose a confessor to whom his accomplice is unknown, he is in duty bound to do so.¹⁶

¹⁵ Benedict XIV., Const. "Suprema omnium," July 7, 1745; "Ubi primum," June 2, 1746; "Ad eradircandum," Sept. 28, 1746; "Apostolid ministerii," Dec. 9, 1749 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1474). —Cfr. Gury, II, 379, 382.

¹⁶ Cfr. Gopfert, III, 235 sqq. — Noldin, III, 338 sq.

n. ¶16.

If for some physical or moral reason the penitent has forgotten or otherwise omitted a mortal sin in confession, he must mention it in his next confession, —not to obtain forgiveness (as such sin has been forgiven indirectly by the grace of absolution), but to submit the forgotten sin formally to the power of the keys.¹⁷

¹⁷ Gury, II, n. 377: "When the cause excusing from material integrity ceases, the divine precept of confessing all omitted mortal sins again becomes urgent; for the excuse from the divine law of confession does not cease merely when an impediment occurs but is only suspended. Therefore, when the excusing cause ceases, the obligation of the law revives in its entirety; for the precept of confession is attached neither to a time nor to a circumstance but affects the whole of life, so that sins not yet accused must afterward necessarily be accused if this can be done. Nor is it an objection that the Church has determined the time of confession, for this determination is not for ending but for enforcing the obligation. It is evident, moreover, from the proposition condemned by Alexander VII, which reads thus: “We are not bound in a subsequent confession to disclose sins omitted or forgotten in confession because of imminent danger of death or another cause.” Therefore the contradictory of this proposition is true: consequently sins passed over through forgetfulness must necessarily be accused, although they have already been blotted out."

n. ¶17.

The assertion of a recent Protestant writer that the Church in the Middle Ages compelled the faithful to "confess each and every sin they had committed" is false.¹⁸

¹⁸ Cfr. E. Fischer, Zur Geschichte der evangelischen Beichte, Vol. I, pp. 24, 34, 47; P. A. Kirsch, Zur Geschichte der katholischen Beichte, pp. 186 sqq.

n. ¶18.

SINCERITY. —The second quality required for a valid confession is sincerity. Confession is sincere (fidelis aut sincera) if the penitent truthfully declares all his mortal sins with their number and specific circumstances. Any wilful attempt to misrepresent seriously the nature of a mortal sin committed, or the moral state of the soul, is sacrilegious and renders confession invalid, because such an act not only destroys the integrity of confession, but is incompatible with true contrition, and, moreover, makes it impossible for the confessor to judge his penitent properly.

n. ¶19.

CLEARNESS. —Confession must be clear, that is, the penitent must declare his sins so as to enable the confessor to understand him perfectly and to form a correct opinion of the state of his soul. The nature of the Sacrament requires that the avowal of sins be made simply, clearly, humbly, and contritely, for it is essentially an act of self-accusation, by which the penitent expects to obtain forgiveness and grace through the power of the keys confided by Christ to His Church.¹⁹ Needless to add, it requires courage and mortification to make a complete, sincere, and clear confession. ²⁰ Regarding the form of sacramental confession, the Catechism of the Council of Trent says: "We must take care that our confession be plain, simple, and undisguised, not clothed in that artificial language which some employ, who seem rather to give an outline of their manner of life than to confess their sins; for our confession should be such as to disclose ourselves to the priest as we know ourselves to be, representing as certain that which is certain, and as doubtful that which is doubtful. This good quality our confession are not enumerated or if topics are introduced that are foreign to the matter of confession. They who, in explaining things, observe prudence and modesty, are also very much to be commended, for a superfluity of words is to be avoided, but whatever is necessary to make known the nature and quality of every sin, is to be explained briefly and modestly." ²¹ One who is morally certain that he has made an unworthy confession, must confess the same sins again.

¹⁹ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 38: "Sins are to be enumerated with an accusing mind, so that we wish them to be punished even in ourselves."

²⁰ St. Ambrose, Apol. Proph. David, I, c. 4, n. 15: "David sinned, as kings are accustomed to do, but he did penance, wept, and groaned, as kings are not accustomed to do. He confessed his fault, begged pardon, lay prostrate and bewailed his misery, fasted, prayed, and transmitted the testimony of his confession to perpetual ages by making his grief public. What private persons blush to do, the king did not blush to confess. Those who are bound by laws dare to deny their sin and disdain to ask pardon, which he who was bound by no human laws sought. That he sinned belongs to his condition; that he made supplication, to his correction. Thus to have fallen into fault belongs to nature; to have washed it away, to virtue." (Migne, P. L., XIV, 857). —IDEM, ibid., II, c. 3, n. 7: "David sinned, as kings are accustomed to do, but did penance and wept, as kings are not accustomed to do. Conscious of his weakness and not arrogating power, he asked pardon; prostrate on the ground, he covered himself with sackcloth, forgetful of his sovereignty and mindful of his guilt." (P. L., XIV, 890).

²¹ Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, qu. 43 (ed. 4a Ratisb., p. 230).

n. ¶20.

The term general confession has two meanings: ( I ) a declaration of guilt in general terms, as contained, e. g., in the Confiteor; (2) a confession in which the penitent repeats all or some of his former confessions.

n. ¶21.

A general confession in the last-mentioned sense may extend over one's whole life or some particular period thereof.

n. ¶22.

A general confession becomes necessary when former confessions were sacrilegious, either through want of sincerity, sorrow, resolution, or integrity, or through grave negligence in the examination of conscience, etc. A general confession is useful, though not necessary, at the beginning of each new epoch in life, e. g., in preparing for first Communion or on entering a new state of life, in a dangerous illness, at the time of a jubilee or mission. The scrupulous should be dissuaded from making frequent general confessions, as this practice is apt to aggravate rather than improve their condition.²²

²² Cfr. Gury, II, n. 393-401; J. M. Haringer, Anleitung zur Verwaltung des hl. Bussakramentes, pp. 210 sqq.

n. ¶23.

Reapincs.—St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 6-10.—J. P. Gury, Compendium Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, n. 348- 401. —P. Schanz, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, pp. 498 sqq., 564 sqq.—Chr. Pesch, S.J., Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Vol. VII, 3rd ed., pp. 76 sqq. —A. Tanquerey, Synopsis Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 82 sqq. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. III, pp. 315 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 238 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, S.J., Comp. Theol. Mor., pp. 656 sqq.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 17 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. V, Ch. II, § 3. On Confession

n. 583.

— Confession is required to be integral at least formally.

For integrity is distinguished as material and formal.

Material integrity, strictly taken, supposes an accusation so completed that it embraces all mortal sins truly committed and not yet directly remitted. But because no obligation is imposed except one tempered to human powers, he satisfies the obligation of material integrity who confesses all mortal sins of which, after diligent discussion, he has consciousness, with the circumstances which change the species (c. 901). He is said, in the broader sense, to make a materially integral confession.

And by a similar reason, formal integrity properly belongs to any penitent who truly accuses the sins to be accused by him, so that he who fulfills the obligation of material integrity furnishes at least formal integrity. But more strictly, a formally integral confession is often understood to be one which is knowingly but legitimately incomplete. Therefore it is furnished by him who, on account of a just cause excused from complete confession, makes the accusation which here and now he ought to make.

n. 584.

— On material integrity. Therefore the following must be indicated of themselves:

The lowest theological and moral species of sins. It suffices to indicate these spontaneously, with circumstances, even enormously aggravating ones, omitted. This now is clearly established from c. 901 itself, which is silent about these, while the controversy which remained before the Code was not unknown to the legislator. And besides, once the species has been declared, the whole substance of the sin has been accused.

And observe that species not known are not contracted and therefore are not to be accused.

But it is within the power of the judge to perfect his knowledge of the cause by opportune questions. Therefore, when asked about an aggravating circumstance, as about the quantity of theft, about a custom of sin, the penitent will have to confess it sincerely, and this under grave obligation, unless the slight utility of the question is evident to him. He who does not know or does not remember the lowest moral species should state the higher species or the genus which he knows.

The certain number. If this is not established, let the probable number be stated, adding more or less. He who has thus declared the number afterward does not have to repeat the certain number, unless it was notably greater.

St. Alphonsus estimates the matter thus: "about three is understood as two or four; about 10, as 8 or 12; about 30, as 27 or 33; about 100, 95 or 105; about 1000, 950-1050."

But these things are not to be taken rigorously, but are to be left to the judgment of the prudent man. Thus from Lehmk. himself, II, 407, "about a hundred" can perhaps but at most be understood as 90-110. If not even a probable number can be had, let there be stated the custom of sinning, the time, the frequency usual in a day, week, month, year. This is often more expedient with a habitual sinner. Nor let us torture penitents about stating the number, especially since little faith is to be had in the more certain numbers which, pressed by the confessor, they recite. Indeed a habitual sinner who sinned very frequently will be able to satisfy by indicating the space of time during which he was accustomed daily, on any occasion, to consent to sin.

And besides, when guilt consists only in the negligence by which a custom, for example of blasphemies, is maintained, because the individual acts are only material sins, solicitude is not to be had about their number.

Nor is it lawful to increase the number. Yet he who in good faith has increased it will not have to repair the error.

The more difficult accurate accusation is, the less is required: for the obligation must remain human, nor can confession become a "butchery" of souls. Wherefore concerning a prostitute some, for example Navarrus, Summa, c. 6, n. 5, judged it sufficient that she indicate the time during which she had exercised her trade. Yet something more can be furnished easily enough, by indicating the usual frequency, the principal species (whether with married persons, with sacred persons, and how often the rarer species occurred). Concerning internal sins it will be enough to indicate the time. By a similar reason the following will satisfy: one who everywhere lusts after women meeting him; one who fosters hatred or shameful thoughts; one who keeps a concubine at home; one who is accustomed to abuse marriage onanistically; one who habitually converses about shameful things; one who is a habitual thief.

Material integrity supposes diligent examination, according to the capacity of the penitent, according to the distance from the last confession, and according to the other circumstances. Moderate diligence suffices, such as a prudent man applies in serious affairs, or such as, morally speaking, learned and timorous persons are accustomed to have, even if you know that with greater diligence you would find more things. Confession can be rendered odious or too troublesome to no one. Wherefore today we require from no one an examination prolonged through several days, and we judge that a diligent examination for an hour suffices even for those who have not confessed for many years.

How the penitent is to be prudently helped by the confessor in this matter, and often also is to be left in good faith, we saw above, n. 539.

Already Lugo himself observed that "it can happen that a confessor finds that a penitent needs a general confession because of preceding invalid confessions, and yet the person is such that he can immediately be examined and heard about the whole life, because there is no hope that, left to himself, he will make a better examination than that which, with the confessor helping, he will be able to make there" (cf. Lugo, d. 16, n. 593; d. 22, n. 20).

n. 585.

— On completing confession. 1. He who, having forgotten a grave sin which he in no way accused, afterward remembers the same, will have to accuse it with the others in the next following confession. Meanwhile, however, he will be able to approach the sacred table, nor on that account does he have to make a new confession sooner.

But he who applied moderate diligence in examining conscience ought in no way to think back over his former life. Indeed, if something occurs which merely seems not to have been explained in confession, he can act as if the thing had been accused, from the presumption of confession integrally made.
He who has confusedly manifested the state of conscience as, morally speaking, he could according to the things said above, afterward does not have to accuse more distinctly the sins whose number and species he remembers, because in that confused narration those sins were sufficiently understood by the confessor (cf. Reuter, 4, 313). Wherefore there is no obligation that a theologian repeat the confessions which, as an unlearned youth, he made according to his former capacity.

For this reason also a prudent confessor will be able to render secure a penitent who, after many sins, would scarcely dare to open his soul to another in such a way that he would be exposed to making a sacrilege: that nothing now has to be declared to another, "since he himself by his questions has procured so complete a confession that it needs no supplement. This is morally certain. If any necessity seems to arise, it will not be true but supposed from the ignorance of the penitent."

n. 586.

— But that confession will have been invalid and of itself sacrilegious which, from mortally culpable ignorance or negligence, was not integral.

If the negligence was light, or was not apprehended as mortal, the confession will be valid, at least on account of good faith, yet in its own time to be perfected by a better examination (cf. Suarez, d. 23, s. 4). Indeed, if the negligence was truly light, even then it seems to suffice that those sins be accused which recur to memory without a repeated examination.

n. 587.

— 1. Sins doubtfully committed are not necessarily to be accused, because concerning these there is no consciousness. Yet their accusation will have to be advised to those to whom in this way greater quiet of conscience will be obtained.

Sins certainly committed but doubtfully grave do not of themselves produce a certain obligation of accusation. In practice, from presumption, the lax penitent will have to be directed to accuse them, but the timorous one to consider himself immune from obligation.
Sins certainly grave and probably accused, and directly remitted, need not meanwhile be subjected to the keys, since in practice there must be said to be no obligation which you have probably satisfied. But if they cannot be judged probably accused and directly remitted, the obligation of accusation must be urged, since this has remained morally certain.

Several who do not know how to estimate these things prudently are driven by practical necessity to proposing their doubts, except the scrupulous, to whom accusation of things which are not most certain, like 2 + 2 = 4, must often be prohibited.

n. 588.

— On formal integrity. Integral confession is not essential to this sacrament, but is divinely prescribed. That positive precept admits its exceptions, at least in this way, that an accusation which at present cannot be made complete, or which would be too burdensome, can be deferred to another subsequent confession.

Therefore formal integrity suffices:

in those who labor under physical impotence of confessing integrally, either simply or through ordinary means.

By such an impediment are excused the mute, unless they confess to a priest with whom they can speak by signs, which occasion they ought of themselves to use; the deaf or half-deaf, whose accusation prudently, with the law of the seal attended to, cannot be completed by questions of the confessor in the course of confession, but from the beginning are of themselves to be brought to a more secret place; those ignorant of the language, who have some necessity of confessing; the dying, who are deprived of use of the tongue.

And note that, according to a probable opinion, writing and an interpreter are placed among extraordinary means, which no one is compelled to use. And if someone confesses through an interpreter, it is enough that he declare one venial sin. Yet there is a way of obtaining a complete accusation without an extraordinary means, if one who knows the language, turned to the other side, recites the individual precepts, and the penitent by a sign first defined indicates to the confessor that he has sinned and how often, for example by a nod of the head or by pressing the hand. In a similar way someone could, in a public place, for example in a hospital, even with a loud voice question the penitent; let the questions be read from a book, lest they seem to have been adapted to the conscience of the penitent;

in those who are impeded from material integrity by moral impotence, that is, when either danger of life threatens the confessor or the penitent, which does not permit materially integral confession.

Cases are: a sick person who, after one or another sin has been stated, fails or is in danger of failing; a sick person who, wishing to confess while Viaticum is being brought to him, is discovered to have made many invalid confessions, if the gravity of the illness does not allow delay of absolution; a priest who, placed in danger, seems about to die before the penitent is absolved; in time of plague, if the confessor, lest he be infected, asks only an incomplete confession; when a conflict or destruction of many is imminent, for example in shipwreck. Then it is enough that, turned to soldiers or to those soon about to perish, the confessor ask from them some external sign of penitence, for example by striking the breast or by lifting the hand, and then absolve them with common absolution: "I absolve you from all censures and sins," unless time is at hand for pronouncing the complete form collectively. Yet it is better, if it can be done, to hear individuals even incompletely.

The case can also happen in foreign missions, if Christians who are rarely visited by a missionary present themselves to the confessor in too great a number for the individuals to be able to be heard before the one Mass, during which they wish to communicate. Then it will be better to hear several; then, with Mass pressing, to absolve others generally, and to take care that in following visits those confess distinctly who could not use the preceding occasion;

in those who from materially integral confession have grave damage to be feared either for themselves, or for the confessor, or for another: the divine but positive precept concerning confession does not oblige with so great an inconvenience.

Understand inconvenience not as connected of itself with the confession of such a sin, as would be confusion, blush, the reproof of the confessor, but as extrinsic to confession.

Let examples be: a founded fear of violation of the seal of confession, if, for example, the confessor, having been warned, goes on speaking too loudly, so that by his questions he seems about to reveal to bystanders the genus of sins; danger of spiritual ruin, of consenting to depraved delectation on account of examined sins of the flesh; founded danger lest the confessor, from the sins heard, be incited to depraved solicitation. But the dangers of the confessor are not to be easily imagined. Wherefore it rather pertains to the confessor to restrain the penitent lest he turn certain matters over for too long; grave danger to reputation, if from peculiar, not common, adjuncts, for example from an urgent necessity of communicating or celebrating, a lengthy confession would be an almost certain argument of several sins; danger or grave damage of life or of temporal good to be feared, for example from the grave exhaustion of a sick person (D'Ann., III, 305 [33]); danger of violating the seal in accusing a sin, if ever there is such a case. For that he may accuse his own sin, it is enough that, the species of the sin having been manifested, the priest add that he is besides guilty of sacrilege in the administration of the sacrament. For example, one who unduly excused someone from restitution should say: I sinned gravely against justice and in exercising the office of confessor. For another example, cf. Ball.-Palm., V, 252.

On account of moral impotence understood more broadly, those are excused from material integrity who have a reserved case from which the confessor cannot directly absolve, namely the sin of an accomplice in a shameful matter; the scrupulous person concerning past confessions or faults; one who, before confession is finished, is absolved by an impatient confessor.

N.B. 1. That someone may confess incompletely, some necessity of confessing must be present: from the precept of annual confession or Communion, if the penitent has other grave sins or doubts about his perfect contrition; from the necessity of communicating or celebrating, to avoid scandal or disgrace; from a longer privation of the sacraments; from the great spiritual utility which the sacraments bring, for example lest the penitent be deprived of indulgences; from the inconvenience of remaining in the state of sin even for one day (St. Alph., l. 6, 490).

If the damage or inconvenience depends on the person of the confessor, it is required that opportunity of another priest be lacking, for example on account of distance, to be estimated from the various adjuncts (cf. D'Ann., III, 305 [36]).
One who, conscious of mortal faults, cannot confess integrally, must first, in secret confession, set forth necessary matter, that is, what falls under the precept, but he is not compelled, among grave matters, to choose the graver ones, since they are equally affected by the law of confession.

n. 589.

— What if a sin cannot be accused without defamation in the eyes of the confessor either of an accomplice or of another person?

Since defamation in the eyes of one discreet man is not of itself grave, and one sinning tacitly permitted confession to the accomplice of the sin, confession seems to have to be made integrally: a just cause is present for permitting this light detriment. And the mere consolation of confessing to a confessor whom one venerates then suffices so that another does not have to be sought. In a case of extraordinary defamation, if the cause is altogether special why the revelation of sin, made to such a one, is very hateful, then with the other probable opinion we shall respond that the natural precept of not defaming prevails over the positive precept of integral confession. For the opinion is twofold and probable: one commands, the other forbids this revelation, unless nevertheless it is necessary for spiritual direction. But often penitents disclose an accomplice without scruple.

n. 590.

— On free matter. Although, by that reason which we stated in t. I, n. 448, venial sins, even outside confession, in one who is in the state of grace, are remitted through formal penitence, or the opposite act of charity or of another virtue, nevertheless use of the sacrament of Penance always has these utilities: a) of increasing sanctifying grace ex opere operato; b) of conferring sacramental grace for avoiding sins in the future; c) of remitting temporal punishments.

n. 591.

— On sufficient matter. The penitent ought of himself to bring matter certainly sufficient for absolution. Such is a sin already directly absolved, since in this forum nothing prevents the same cause from being judged twice, and a new absolution always profits the penitent. Such is not a doubtful sin. Wherefore then the penitent should add a general accusation of the sins of his former life. Although the general formula, "I accuse the sins of my whole life," added to the present accusation, suffices, yet it is better, so that attrition may be more certain, to indicate some species. The confessor will usefully suggest this to the penitent according to his condition or the knowledge which he has of him, lest the penitent hesitate in doubt.

It also seems sufficient to accuse simply in a general way one's whole life, with no sin indicated. Yet this is alien to received usages. Wherefore, outside necessity, it is better that the confessor demand some distinct accusation in order to give absolution.

Even positive imperfections, if such exist, are not in themselves sufficient matter. Yet we will not therefore prohibit pious penitents from declaring them, both on account of the venial sins very often mixed in, and on account of a fuller manifestation of themselves.

n. 592.

— On the remaining qualities of confession. 1. On account of the usage of the Church, which several, at least before the Code, judged to oblige gravely, let confession be vocal, unless a just cause is present, for example difficulty of confessing otherwise than in writing or by nod or another sign. Yet this obligation is pressed in silence in the Code; and confession is already vocal enough if the penitent, after handing over a written confession to be read, adds by voice: "I accuse all these things."

That it be secret is the right of the penitent, so that in the very article of death the penitent can be content with accusing a venial sin, if he cannot confess mortal sins secretly.
Let it also be true. Yet not every lie committed in confession is reputed a grave sin, by which confession becomes sacrilegious. But it would be grave in substantial and necessary matter, as if you deny a mortal sin to be accused, or state it so low that you are not heard. It would also be grave to deceive the confessor in a notable matter, when the confessor, as judge or physician, asks something about past sins or about a custom of sin or time of sin as necessary for the present confession.

Of itself, indeed, he cannot be reprehended, at least gravely, who deliberately mixes recent and old sins in a general confession. But one who positively declares recent matter, and that grave, to pertain to past confessions seems to us the author of a grave deception and therefore gravely sacrilegious. Yet there is one who judges more benignly the case of one lying about time, when it does not matter for knowing a custom or relapse.

N.B. Already in the time of St. Thomas, Suppl., 3 p., q. 9, art. 4, 1 obi., the sixteen qualities of confession were rendered in these verses:

"Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful, And frequent, naked and discreet, willing, shamefaced, Integral, secret, and tearful, hastened, Strong and accusing, and let it be prepared to obey."

n. 593.

On Repeating or Completing Confession

— On repeating confession. 1. On necessary repetition. It is not only confession invalidly made that must be repeated as to grave sins not directly remitted by force of the keys; indeed, in another confession there must be repeated sins accused in vain, because the confessor did not hear them or could not directly absolve the same.

A confession will have been invalid and sacrilegious if it was made in bad faith to a confessor half-asleep or unaware, or by him who, in making confession, deliberately concealed a censure which was impeding the licit reception of the sacrament. A confession of this kind must be repeated whole.

On the part of the confessor, absolution will be invalid if it was given without jurisdiction, or with a substantially vitiated formula, or by a priest who understood nothing. To have understood nothing distinctly does not impede validity, since absolution can fall upon a general accusation. Yet that absolution will be illicit outside a case of necessity, or unless the priest can conjecture sufficiently that the penitent is guilty of no grave fault.

Indeed the absolution is valid, but confession must be repeated in part, if, without fault of the penitent, it was not perceived wholly because of deafness, sleep, or distraction, so that certain mortal sins were not understood.

If the penitent knows with moral certitude which they were, it is established that these alone and all of these must then be repeated. But if he does not know which they are, a brief confession must be repeated; a long one, according to Tamb., whom several approve, is not to be repeated, both because, if many things were accused and few not understood, the individual sins can probably be said to have been accused, and also, which seems the better reason, from a certain equity, lest the penitent have to bear twice the grave burden of accusing all things. Then it will be enough in another confession to say that certain sins were not understood by the confessor: for in the same way you would have accused sins which were known to you only by genus; but in the present case, the sins to be accused again are known only by genus. Yet if you hesitate among a few species, these will have to be indicated. Lugo, d. 16, n. 610.

But a penitent who has uttered a clear accusation can presume that the same was perceived, so that he ought not to be solicitous about this matter, unless it is morally established to him that the matter escaped the confessor. Nor, because the confessor erred in his judgment, judging light what was grave, is the burden of a new accusation therefore imposed on him. Yet if, concerning a connected obligation of denouncing or restoring, the sentence of the confessor was gravely suspected by him of error, then prudence will demand that he seek counsel from a skilled man, especially if the confessor is not of outstanding doctrine.

n. 594.

— You ask, what memory of the accusation must the confessor bear at the moment of absolution?

All agree that it is not necessary that he distinctly remember the sins accused, but that a confused knowledge either preserved or then resumed suffices (cf. Lugo, d. 16, n. 639; St. Alph., l. 6, n. 502; D'Ann., III, 327 [II 10]). And because he could judge about the individual sins when they were being declared, nothing more seems to have to be required except that the confessor know that absolution is to be given, that a connected obligation, if there is any, is to be imposed, and that such a mode of penance is opportune.

Indeed, although several, St. Alphonsus and D'Ann., l. c., contradict it, if someone has distinctly narrated his sins to a priest as to a friend and then confesses to the same priest, Lugo, d. 16, n. 638, appealing to received usage itself, judges that the confused accusation which the penitent refers to the memory which the confessor had of those sins previously distinctly heard is sufficient. This will certainly be able to come into use if the priest, while he was hearing the narration, already thought in some way about a probable confession. For then the narration gave judicial knowledge to the recipient.

n. 595.

— On the manner of repeating an invalid confession.

Before another confessor the accusation previously made in vain must be repeated from the beginning. This is manifest. - 2. But before the same confessor, on account of the reason just explained in n. 594, it is enough in a few words to recall the sins previously known to him, provided the confessor has preserved a confused knowledge either of the sins, or of the state and tenor of life, or remembers the penance given by him (cf. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 502). Indeed several, to whom Ball.-Palm., V, n. 276, adheres, think it enough that the priest "know that he has already formed the judgment and judged that absolution was to be given." St. Alph., l. c. dub. 3, does not admit that the penitent can thus be absolved by a confessor who does not remember at least the penance given. Yet even in this case the reason which the holy Doctor himself gives for the prior cases seems to have force: "The ratification of the preceding confession, which was sacramental, while the penitent then in general accuses himself of the faults confessed, joined with the knowledge antecedently had by the confessor, is reputed well sufficient."

But if the confession was invalid because it was made to a confessor not yet a priest or lacking jurisdiction, then it is necessary that the confessor have retained at least a confused memory of the distinctly made accusation, so that this, at least through confused recollection, can direct him to a truly sacramental judgment now first to be effected. Therefore to such a confessor who has preserved no memory of the past confession, a distinct accusation will have to be made. Cf. Suarez, Paen., d. 22, s. 6, n. 6; Lugo, Paen., d. 16, n. 141; Ball.-Palm., V, n. 275.

But legitimate confessions which were made in good faith after an invalid confession, as is clear, are in no way to be repeated.

Finally observe: since in doubt one must stand for the value of the act, confession is not to be repeated unless it is morally established that the former was invalid. And, on account of the difficulty of the matter, those who in good faith think that they have confessed rightly are for the most part not to be disturbed.

n. 596.

— On the manner of supplying an incomplete confession. 1. It is established that it suffices for omitted things to be supplied. Wherefore if a circumstance changing the species was omitted, the sin which it surrounded is not to be repeated if the specific malice can be declared without mention of that sin. Wherefore, one who, bound by vow, sinned against the sixth precept will be able to supply the defect by accusing either personal sacrilege or a grave violation of a certain vow; but one who violently knew a married woman will not be able to accuse the circumstance of violence separately, since this is specified by the very right violated.

He who accused a sin merely in genus will have to accuse the species which he afterward remembered; but nothing is to be supplied by him who indicated the few species among which he was hesitating in doubt. For in the latter case the true species was indicated as doubtful and was directly absolved; the contrary holds in the former case.

Nor does a habitual sinner who accused his sins confusedly as he could afterward have to accuse more distinctly the species which could sufficiently have been understood by the confessor in the confused narration.

If, what is not to be presumed, it is established that confessions were made by an unlearned person whose life was sufficiently uniform in such a way that certain species were not perceived, a prudent confessor, from a present confession of one month, or half-year, or year, will easily gather what the penitent did through the rest of life.

n. 597.

— On general confession to be prudently advised.

General confession, or repetition of all or several confessions, is useful and to be commended: a) when it seems likely to bring greater peace and quiet to a non-scrupulous penitent to whom a grave doubt has occurred about the value of past confessions; b) so that past things may be more perfectly expiated; so that, from more perfect knowledge of oneself, greater fervor may be conceived; so that, before acts of greater moment in which an immense outpouring of graces is deservedly hoped for or is more necessary, a man may dispose himself better and adapt himself to the grace to be received.

Wherefore in the principal periods of life, before first Communion, before the assumption of a state, in dangerous illness, a general confession of the whole life is prudently advised: this counsel is strengthened by the authority of the Code itself for those entering religion.

That greater fruit may be gathered, let it be made as if it were going to be the last: this, at the point of death, will be a great consolation. Yet confession of the whole life does not seem to have to be repeated more often.

But it is better after stated intervals, for example after individual years, to make a general confession from the last general confession.

Approach to a new confessor furnishes no cause for repeating an accurate confession of the whole life. Insofar as it helps spiritual direction, certain principal notes can usefully be indicated.

But a general confession will be harmful if it would be for a penitent prone to anxiety a cause of disturbance or scruples, or if, for one tempted, from past facts being rubbed raw again, it would nourish passions.

Asked for counsel, the confessor should inquire why the penitent wishes to make a general confession. Then he will decline or admit the proposal. If it is made for the sake of devotion, let him immediately warn the penitent that he is held by no necessity to declare all things.

n. 598.

— 1. Concerning the manner of making a general confession, cf. the things said above, n. 539. Several, after Gobat, tr. 6, n. 498, who transcribes Stoz, advise that he who has led a life of sufficiently uniform tenor consider three times: one weekday, or week, what he did in it; similarly one feast day; extraordinary times of journeys, business, weddings, banquets, occasions. Often it will profit to divide life into a few stages, and to explain what kind he was in each, noting if anything extraordinary besides occurs (cf. Lehmk., II, 442).

That it may be briefer, let it be made in an ordered way according to the precepts and offices; that he may perceive the consolation of a confession completely made, let the penitent help his memory by certain written notes.

In a less extensive accusation, let the penitent "consider thoughts, words, works, in order to God, neighbor, himself." Lehmk., II, 449.
By the sick a less complete examination is to be made than by the healthy; indeed, sometimes, on account of weakness of head, they are to be relieved from every preparation of examination.
To the timorous a graver sin will occur of itself if any has been committed. Wherefore they have no strict obligation, if they confess frequently, of an examination properly so called. Yet they are to be exhorted that they piously discuss conscience and signify habitual propensities. Nor is it of itself to be tolerated that habitually, every accusation of present life having been omitted, they merely accuse past faults against some virtue. Gen., II, 262, judges that a confessor sins venially who permits this to happen, since he habituates penitents to receiving the sacrament perfunctorily.

n. 599.

— On absolving a dying person. 1. A dying person possessing the use of the senses is to be treated according to his disposition. If he is a non-Catholic who cannot prudently be warned about the error of his sect, let him be stirred up to eliciting an act of perfect contrition; then let him declare himself a sinner before God and the priest, and, with sorrow conceived, let him also declare that it is pleasing to him that the priest, insofar as he can, help him. This done, let him be absolved under condition. Those acts which the penitent makes absolutely are judged better and more useful than a conditioned will expressed thus: "if I knew that this was necessary, I would wish to confess and be absolved" (Lehmk., II, 651). Yet the non-Catholic will be helped more certainly by perfect contrition and Extreme Unction.

A dying person deprived of the senses, if others can testify to an express will of absolution from him, can be absolved absolutely, although the condition "if you are capable" can also be added. For he is judged to have confessed as it were through interpreters. From present usage, all other Catholics must be absolved under condition. And even those who rejected the sacraments, or baptized non-Catholics, can be absolved under condition.

In the age of Suarez, Lugo, etc., they denied that, with accusation lacking, an absolution of this kind, given to him who had made no confession, could have validity or be conferred. They explain the present usage in various ways: often there is present a sign of confession not perceived; confession, in that case of impotence, is not of the necessity of the sacrament; but in these extreme matters, a lesser probability suffices for administering the sacrament licitly.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 1 passage

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. V, Ch. II, Article II. On Confession

n. ¶49.

We divide this article into three paragraphs: 1. on the essence and necessity of confession; 2. on its qualities; 3. on its repetition.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 39 passages

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Chapter II: On Confession

n. ¶1682.

SACRAMENTAL CONFESSION is the accusation of one's own sins, made to a priest legitimately approved, for receiving their pardon by the power of the keys. - By the power of the keys, that is, by force of the power which the priest received from Christ the Lord of remitting sins, by opening heaven and closing hell.¹³ (cf. n. 1651.)

That all things pertaining to this matter may be treated suitably, we shall speak: 1. of the necessity of confession; 2. of its conditions; 3. of invalid confessions and those to be repeated.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Ch. II, Article I: On The Necessity Of Confession

Confession is prescribed both by divine law and by ecclesiastical law. Wherefore the following things are established:

n. ¶1683.

Principles. I. Sacramental confession, by DIVINE law, is NECESSARY for salvation for all who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism. For it is of faith that confession is of divine institution (n. 1650).

Hence: 1. No baptized person can be saved after a grave fall unless he has at least the implicit desire of confessing; for no one can be saved unless he wishes to fulfill all the commands of God (cf. n. 1652).

Only the baptized who are guilty of mortal sin are bound, of themselves, to confession; for only mortal sins committed after Baptism are the necessary matter of the Sacrament of Penance. We say of themselves, because accidentally it can happen that those guilty only of venials are bound to confession, for example by reason of scandal which could arise in the time of precept; or by reason of danger of falling into presumption or into graver sins, especially as the danger of death approaches.

n. ¶1684.

This precept: 1. Obligates of itself in danger, and so much more in the article, of death; likewise, in foresight of some probable case which can afterwards take away the faculty of confessing, lest it happen that this precept is never fulfilled, and lest those things which by divine precept are necessary for salvation be neglected, among which sacramental confession is numbered. Thus he is bound to confess who is "entering a dangerous voyage or conflict; a delicate woman about to give birth for the first time, or one who is accustomed to have difficult births; one condemned to death; a sick person who has signs of natural death"; likewise a sinner, if he probably believes that he will no longer have the availability of a confessor through his whole life. But otherwise, if he fears only forgetfulness of sin.¹⁴

It is doubtful whether it obligates, of itself, more often in life. - St. Thomas, Scotus, and others deny it, because the sinner can be reconciled to God through contrition. - But the Salmanticenses, Croix, and others more commonly affirm it. And this seems more probable, because according to what was said concerning the similar precept, namely of Communion, since the precept is divine, Christ left it to be determined by the Church, which determined that it obliges at least once a year.¹⁵

It obligates accidentally: 1. if one about to receive the Eucharist is in mortal sin (cf. n. 1548); - 2. if it is necessary for overcoming a grave temptation, or for extirpating an evil habit; 3. if someone must be in the state of grace, for example for receiving or administering some Sacrament, and cannot elicit perfect contrition, or is not morally certain concerning it; - 4. if within a year one defiled by mortal sin does not become contrite; for he is bound to confess by reason of charity toward himself, lest he remain long in mortal sin; yet it is common that he is not bound immediately after sin.¹⁶ (cf. n. 1647.)

n. ¶1685.

II. The ECCLESIASTICAL precept, issued by the Fourth Lateran Council, sounds thus: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has come to the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins at least once a year to his own priest, and shall strive according to his own strength to fulfill the penance enjoined on him." This precept was afterward confirmed by Trent in sess. 14, cap. 5.

It is said, 1. Every faithful person; it is understood, every baptized person, even a heretic or apostate, unless inability excuses them.¹⁷

It is said, 2. after he has come to the years, etc.; it is understood, one who has come to the knowledge of God, at least in a crude way, and has deserved eternal punishment for himself through mortal sin. Wherefore: 1. Children are bound by this precept, even before the seventh year, if, having already attained the use of reason, they have sinned gravely. In doubt, let them be absolved under condition, lest perhaps they remain in mortal sin and be deprived of sacramental grace. 2. Confessors err gravely who never absolve children committed to them before the age of first Communion; for one discretion suffices for sin and for confession, and another is required for Communion.¹⁸ Pope Pius IX openly reprobated this dangerous use prevailing in some places.¹⁹ (cf. n. 1663, q. 5, Rule II.)

It is said, 3. all his sins. Here the question is raised whether those who have not sinned mortally in that year are bound to confess within the year. Sylvester and others with St. Bonaventure affirm; but the common and truer opinion

denies it with St. Antoninus, Suarez, etc., because the Church, in prescribing confession, prescribes that confession which is to be made according to the institution of Jesus Christ. But the Lord prescribes only the confession of mortals, as Trent declared (sess. 14, cap. 5). And this very thing is deduced from the cited text Omnis utriusque; for by prescribing confession of all sins, it certainly understands the confession of mortals only, because it is certain among all that there is no obligation of confessing all venials.¹

It is said, 4. once a year. "This year properly ought to begin from January and end in December; but, according to common custom, it is taken from Easter to Easter."² Hence: 1. He who, when the time of Easter has already begun, foresees that he will not in the future have the convenience of confessing through the whole year, must anticipate confession, if he has sinned mortally, because he has already contracted the obligation. - 2. But he who has not satisfied the precept within the year, even involuntarily, is bound, from the more probable and more common opinion, to satisfy it as soon as possible in the following year; because the term is not set to end the obligation, but to urge it; and therefore, as often as he neglects an offered occasion, so often does he sin mortally, as Suarez, Lugo, etc., probably say; and the reason is that "that sin does not persevere in some effect, but only in an evil purpose, because of which sins are now multiplied when it endures for a long time."³ Yet the opposite opinion, which says there is one sin, is not to be contemned (cf. n. 328, Rule 2).

It is said, 5. shall faithfully confess; and therefore satisfaction is not made through an invalid confession, and much less through a sacrilegious one. For this reason, the 14th proposition, which said: "He who makes a voluntarily null confession satisfies the precept of the Church," was deservedly condemned by Alexander VII.⁴ Nor is satisfaction made, as Gousset rightly notes, by a confession in which absolution is not given; because reconciliation with God is prescribed, not a new accusation of sins.⁵

It is said, 6. to his own priest, namely to any approved priest.⁶ "One's own priest," says the Angelic Doctor,⁷ "is not only the parochial priest, but also the Bishop or Pope; hence he who has confessed to his Bishop, or to someone holding his place, has confessed to his own priest." And the S. C. of Bishops declared in the year 1584 that if a Bishop ordered that no Confessor at Easter hear the confessions of penitents without license of the Curate, no account was to be taken of such a decree.⁸

n. ¶1686.

Questions. Q. 1. Who are EXCUSED from the precept of confession?

Resp. The following are excused: 1. those who are in physical inability; for example, those who do not have the availability of a confessor, or those who are absolutely ignorant of the confessor's language; 2. those who are in moral inability, for example those who prudently fear revelation of the seal, or who cannot confess without notable inconvenience of life, fortune, etc. But once the cause has been removed, they are bound as soon as possible to fulfill the precept. - The sick, to whom a confessor can be called, are not excused.⁹

Q. 2. Whether a penitent who in the following year confesses the sins of the past year satisfies the precept of both years?

Resp. Some affirm, but others deny. Yet the truer opinion thus distinguishes: 1. If he confesses the mortal sins both of the past and of the present year, he satisfies both obligations; because he fulfills the whole end of the precept, which is reconciliation with God. 2. If he confesses only the grave sins of the past year, for example because in the current year he has only venials, he satisfies only for the past year. - Hence, if after the confession has been made he falls into mortal sins, he is bound to confess again, so that he may satisfy the precept of the present year.¹⁰

Q. 3. What are the PENALTIES imposed upon transgressors?

Resp. In the chapter Omnis utriusque it is thus sanctioned: "Otherwise, while living, let him be barred from entrance into the church, and, dying, let him lack Christian burial." But those penalties are not incurred except after the sentence of the judge. The prepubescent are universally excused, from the common interpretation of the Doctors.¹¹

Note. Several Doctors say that Religious and Nuns are bound under grave obligation to make confession EVERY MONTH, even if they are not subject to grave sins, from the Clementine Ne in agro, § Sane. De statu monach. - But more commonly it is taught that this is not grave, unless it is clear that the constitutions of the Religion oblige under grave obligation. Indeed Suarez says that the aforesaid decree does not import a precept, but only counsel. And Trent, sess. 25, cap. 10, intimates the same thing both for confession and also for Communion.¹²

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Ch. II, Article II: On The Conditions Of Confession

n. ¶1687.

There are four conditions of confession, namely: it must be VOCAL, SECRET, TRUE, and INTEGRAL.¹³ A few things must be said about the first three conditions; but more about the fourth.

I. Confession must be VOCAL, that is, it must not be made in writing or by sign, but by the voice of the penitent himself, as is clear both from the common use of the Church and from the Bull of Benedict XI Inter cunctas, in which (§ 1) it is said: "Unless an article of necessity occurs, confession of the mouth must be made to the priest." - Except if there is a grave cause, for example excessive and extraordinary shame, or an impeded tongue, and things of this sort; because in such a case it suffices, after the confessor has read the confession, that the penitent say: "I accuse myself of all these sins." Thus commonly.¹⁴

Let it be noted: 1. He who cannot confess by voice, for example a mute, is bound at least to confess by signs or writing as often as he can do so conveniently and without danger. The reason is that he who is bound to an end is also bound to means that are not difficult.¹⁵ And thus teaches the more probable and common opinion with St. Thomas.¹⁶ - 2. He who without grave cause makes the whole confession by nod or in writing sins mortally, and consequently is not absolved, unless good faith excuses him.¹⁷

n. ¶1688.

II. Confession must be SECRET, or auricular, that is, made to the priest alone; not indeed from necessity of the Sacrament, but from the use of the Church. - Public confession through an interpreter is indeed licit if it is done from a reasonable cause and abuse is guarded against; but it does not seem ever to oblige of itself, by force of divine or ecclesiastical precept; hence it must never be imposed.¹⁸ - Except if a sinner placed in the article of death and not able to confess secretly doubted whether he was perfectly contrite; in this case he would be bound, from charity owed to himself, to choose what is safer; but with universal attrition it would suffice to confess one or another less infamous sin, or even only venial fault.¹⁹

Let it be noted: 1. Public confession, which once flourished in the Church, was not sacramental except insofar as it was imposed as satisfaction and reparation for sins previously confessed to a priest. 2. If someone wishes to confess integrally through an interpreter, care must be taken that responses be given by signs rather than by words, namely so that the interpreter does not understand them. The interpreter must also be warned of the obligation of observing secrecy.

n. ¶1689.

III. Confession must be TRUE, or faithful, that is, stained by no hypocrisy or falsity, so that the penitent does not fall short in rightly declaring sins committed, nor exceed in exaggerating them or in adding fictitious faults. This sincerity is required absolutely in grave and necessary matter; otherwise in free matter, or matter not necessarily pertaining to the present judgment of the confessor.

Hence: 1. It is a GRAVE sin containing the malice of pernicious lying and sacrilege to deny in confession a mortal sin not yet confessed, or to cover it in such a way that it cannot be understood by the confessor; or to confess what is certainly mortal as doubtful; or to increase the number of mortal sins, unless perhaps this is done from scruple, from disturbance of soul, or from simplicity, as often happens.

It is of itself VENIAL falsely to accuse oneself of a light sin which was not committed, or to deny a venial sin which was committed; likewise, to deny a mortal sin which has already been accused; or to narrate a false story which is extraneous to confession. But accidentally such lies would be mortal sins and would render the Sacrament void, if the penitent denied things which he is bound to confess for the confessor's judgment to be rightly formed, for example with respect to an evil habit, proximate occasion, if he brought fictitious matter of absolution, etc.²⁰
There is no sin, nor is sincerity harmed, speaking of itself, "if someone, after having fallen more gravely, first confesses this to another, and then only venials to his ordinary confessor; unless, however, on that occasion he remains in a moral occasion of sinning, or goes around for this reason, that he may sin more freely; for then he will sin gravely, and on account of the defect of attrition, the confession will be null."²¹

It is asked: Whether sins ALREADY CONFESSED must necessarily be distinguished from sins NOT CONFESSED?

Resp. No, of itself. But otherwise, if this were necessary "on account of a proximate occasion to be removed, or on account of a reserved case, or on account of another circumstance," for example so that the confessor can render a just judgment and impose a congruous penance (cf. n. 1716). "Yet it is safer to separate new sins from old ones."²²

n. ¶1690.

IV. Confession must be INTEGRAL, that is, it must comprehend all things which, from the will of Christ, are to be declared in sacramental confession (cf. n. 1656).

A twofold integrity is distinguished, namely material and formal. Confession is materially integral when in it are set forth all and each of the mortal sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly remitted by the power of the keys. It is formally integral when the penitent sincerely declares all things which, here and now, in view of the circumstances, he can and is bound to accuse, although some sins are omitted from forgetfulness, or invincible ignorance, or on account of another just cause.

But since this question is of great moment, it must be carefully weighed. And therefore we must treat: 1. of material integrity; 2. of formal integrity; 3. of the manner of procuring integrity.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § 1. On The Material Integrity Of Confession

n. ¶1691.

Principles. I. MATERIAL integrity in confession is NECESSARY from divine precept, but not from the necessity of the Sacrament.

Thus all. The FIRST is clear: 1. From Trent, sess. 14, can. 7: "If anyone shall say that, in the Sacrament of Penance, for the remission of sins, it is not necessary by divine law to confess all and each mortal sin of which memory is had with due and diligent premeditation, even hidden sins, and those which are against the last two precepts of the Decalogue, and the circumstances which change the species of sin: let him be anathema." 2. From reason; for without such integrity, neither can sacramental judgment rightly be exercised, nor equity be preserved in establishing punishments.²³ The SECOND is proved from these words of the same Council (sess. 14, cap. 5): "The other sins which do not occur to one thinking diligently are understood to be included in the same confession in general." From this declaration it is clear that formal integrity sometimes suffices, and material integrity is not always required (cf. n. 1697).

From these things you will deduce: 1. Since the precept of material integrity is positive, it sometimes admits excusing causes, and to it, as to other positive precepts, that general rule can be applied: "A doubtful law does not oblige." 2. Nevertheless accidentally, or indirectly, material integrity is also required for the value of the Sacrament, as often namely as it can be had physically and morally. The reason is that transgression of the precept, when it becomes voluntary and culpable, also takes away formal integrity, and thus redounds into an essential defect and renders the confession invalid and sacrilegious.

n. ¶1692.

II. In order that confession be materially integral, there MUST BE EXPRESSED the species and number of all mortal sins, the circumstances changing the species, the external act of sin, and the morally evil effect of sin. This is clear from the praised words of Trent and from other arguments to be expounded below.²⁴

We said, 1. species, namely the lowest species, such as is set forth in the Treatise on Sins (n. 324); otherwise mortal sins would not be declared as they are, since not all agree in one genus of malice. Hence the 25th proposition was condemned by Alexander VII: "He who has had intercourse with an unmarried woman satisfies the precept of confession by saying: I committed with an unmarried woman a grave sin against chastity, without explaining intercourse."

But he who cannot reveal the lowest species

is bound to reveal the superior, or generic, species; for example if someone knows that he sinned against chastity, but does not remember the specific sin, he is bound to say that he gravely offended against chastity. Likewise, he who knows that he sinned mortally, but is ignorant even of the generic species of the sin, ought to say that he sinned gravely, but does not remember of what sin he is guilty.

We said, 2. number; for the Council says that individual sins are to be confessed. Therefore, if a certain number can be had, it must be indicated so that it is neither increased nor diminished. - If a certain number cannot be had, the more likely number must be indicated, with this word added: about. If the more likely cannot be had, it suffices to say about how often the sin was committed in a day, in a week, in a month, or even in a year. - But if even this cannot be indicated, at least it must be said whether consent was always given, and whether the temptation or occasion of such sin often occurred.¹ (cf. n. 1705.)

But it must be noted: 1. He who, after a confession made in good faith, discovers that the true number is greater than the approximate one which he denoted with the particle about, is not bound to confess the true number again as often as it was contained in the approximate one. But this is to be judged from the arbitration of the prudent. Behold the NORM which St. Alphonsus hands down:² "About three, understand two or four; about 10, understand 8 or 12; about thirty, 27 or 33; about one hundred, 95 or 105; about one thousand, 950 or 1050." From this general norm you will conclude that the included number increases the more, the greater the number denoted by the particle about has been. 2. He who discovers that the number is less is not bound to retract himself, both because by exaggerating the number in good faith he did not sin, and because thus he harmed no one except himself alone. 3. He who expressed a certain number without the particle about, saying for example, I blasphemed three times, and afterward remembers that he blasphemed four times, is bound to declare this omitted time, because it was not included in the accusation.

We said, 3. circumstances changing the species; for it is of faith that these also must be declared with the number and species of sins, as is clear from Trent (loc. cit.); and the reason is that they constitute a special malice. Understand this if the malice of a diverse species which the circumstance induces is grave; for if it is light, for example the light irreverence of one who in church steals another's book, it is not necessary to express it in confession, as is established concerning venials.

And this same thing must be said of those circumstances which are called general, such as ingratitude toward God, disobedience, sloth, etc.; for from the very fact that they are general and common to any mortal sin, they are already understood of themselves. It is otherwise, however, if they were formally and reflexively intended.³ (cf. n. 180, q. 2, and n. 302.)

We said, 4. the external act of sin; because it perfects the internal act and differs from it morally; hence, without declaration of the external act, for example fornication, the confession of sin would not be integral.⁴ - Besides, without declaration of the external act the confessor could not, for the most part, discharge his office as is fitting concerning absolution to be granted or deferred, admonitions to be given, etc. This is also clear from the universal custom of the faithful, which explains the law in this sense (cf. n. 328).

We said, 5. and the morally evil effect, namely one which followed from a cause advertently placed and not retracted. Thus, for example, he who inflicted a lethal wound from which death followed must say: I committed homicide. Likewise, he who made himself drunk, foreseeing that because of drunkenness he would omit Mass, is bound to confess both the drunkenness and the omission of the Sacrifice. The reason is that such an effect, as being evil and indirectly willed, is a sin in itself according to the truer opinion, and therefore the same reason stands for its accusation as for the accusation of the external act of sin (cf. n. 314). Exception is made if before the effect the perverse will had been retracted; because in this case the effect follows merely materially and is not morally evil; hence it is probable that the penitent is not bound to confess it.⁵ (cf. n. 322, q. 2; n. 760, q. 5; n. 796.)

These things having been explained, it remains that we weigh two questions of great moment: namely, 1. whether notably aggravating circumstances within the same species must be declared; 2. whether doubtful sins must be declared.

I. On Aggravating Circumstances

n. ¶1693.

Circumstances are called notably aggravating when they increase not lightly the malice of the sinful act within the same species, for example by reason of duration, intensity, degree, manner, time, person, place, etc.

Now, it is certain that aggravating circumstances must sometimes be declared: 1. by reason of censure or reservation, for example if theft is reserved when it reaches such a quantity, if the striking of a cleric was grave or enormous, etc.; - 2. by reason of the number of sins, and thus the circumstance of length of time through which hatred or concupiscence toward a woman endured must be declared; because, from the nature of passion, a longer space becomes a circumstance multiplying sins, as was seen in the Treatise on Sins (n. 328); - 3. by reason of necessary direction, namely when the confessor asks about custom, occasion, or even the obligation of restitution. Thus all (cf. 1689).

But, apart from a reason of this sort, which is accidental, Theologians dispute gravely on both sides whether circumstances NOTABLY AGGRAVATING must be opened necessarily and of themselves. - There are three probable opinions. - The FIRST, which Suarez, Soto, Gonet, Sanchez, Concina, etc., hold, and which the Roman Catechism with the Ritual seems to favor, affirms, saying that the same reason which obliges one to open circumstances changing the species also obliges one to open aggravating circumstances, because both notably change the judgment of the confessor. The SECOND, which Laymann, Sporer, Busenbaum, etc., hold, similarly affirms, but restricts the obligation only to those circumstances which regard the substantial integrity of the sin in the individual, as is the quantity of theft and the degree of conjunction in incest; otherwise, they say, the confessor cannot form for himself a due judgment concerning the substance of the sin. Finally the THIRD opinion, more common and more probable, absolutely denies with St. Thomas, St. Antoninus, St. Bernardine of Siena, Scotus, Navarrus, Lugo, the Salmanticenses, and not a few others. The reason is: 1. because the Council of Trent mentions no other circumstances to be opened except those which change the species of sin; therefore it seems not obscurely to intimate that their manifestation suffices for this, that the Confessor form for himself a right judgment concerning the gravity of crimes and the punishment to be imposed. For here not every equality, but only a certain equality, is required; 2. because otherwise penitents would always fluctuate among anxieties, since they could always doubt about the integrity of their confessions in determining which circumstances are, and which are not, notably aggravating; - 3. especially because no one must be obligated to observing a doubtful law, as we have often said; but the law of confessing notably aggravating circumstances is at least doubtful, since very grave Doctors dispute on both sides; therefore.⁶

Nor is it an obstacle here to say that in the matter of the Sacraments we cannot follow only probable opinions; because this proceeds when the value of the Sacrament is at issue, but otherwise concerning integrity; and as regards value, it is certain that formal integrity suffices.⁷

n. ¶1694.

We note: 1. Ordinarily it is expedient to open the more notable circumstances in confession; for this contributes not only to greater peace and humility of soul, but also to obtaining more abundant grace. Therefore the Christian faithful are usefully exhorted to open such circumstances generally, although they are not obligated to this. - Yet except shameful matter, in which this is very rarely expedient. Indeed the confessor would be a scandal to the penitent and would create danger for himself if, without just cause, he inquired about circumstances of this sort.

"Of diminishing circumstances, only those must be explained which either altogether remove malice, or make mortal into venial, as smallness of matter, indeliberation, etc., for example if on Friday, in ignorance, you had eaten meat, or which otherwise notably change the judgment of the confessor, at least as to species."⁸

It is asked: Whether the penitent must declare the number of PERSONS with whom he sinned?

Resp. No, of itself. The reason is that it suffices to declare the number of sins with their various species; but a sin does not change species from the fact that it was perpetrated with several persons. Hence, he who has fornicated with three different women, or three times with the same woman, satisfies by saying that he fornicated three times; nor is he bound to say whether they were prostitutes or others. Yet if he is in a proximate occasion of sin, for example because he sinned several times with the same person, he is bound to open such a circumstance. Thus commonly with Bonacina,⁹ Croix,¹⁰ etc.

Note. Whether the circumstance of sacred time in which a sin was committed must be manifested, see n. 580, end. - Whether the degree in incest must be manifested, see n. 786.

II. On Doubtful Sins

n. ¶1695.

The penitent can doubt: 1. Whether he has confessed a sin certainly committed; 2. Whether he has committed a grave sin certainly to be confessed, namely being uncertain either about the fact itself or about the gravity of the fact. Wherefore the following rules must be established:¹¹

Rule 1. If it is doubted whether a sin certainly committed has been declared in confession, it must be declared. The reason is that the certain obligation of confession possesses in this case, and therefore satisfaction is not made to it by doubtful confession. And all agree in this opinion if a negative doubt is at issue. - But if the doubt is positive, namely so that the confession of the sin is equally probable with its omission, although several deny the obligation of confession, St. Alphonsus nevertheless affirms it, relying on this reason, that satisfaction is not made to a certain obligation except by fulfillment at least morally certain.¹² (cf. n. 96 and 97.) "Nor yet do I reprove," the Blessed Doctor adds,¹³ "what those authors hand down, namely that he who was diligent in confessing his sins, if afterward, after much time has elapsed from when he perpetrated it, he doubts whether he omitted some sin, is not bound to confess, since he can believe, in that case, morally certainly that he has already confessed it. And Concina adds: 'Those who have led a right life for a longer time, although before they had been habituated in vices, if afterwards they doubt that they omitted some sin or circumstance in a general or particular confession, due diligence having preceded, the confessor ought to impose that they no more confess concerning those things, and that they never apply the mind to them.'" If scruples are at issue, see n. 1838.

Rule 2. If it is doubted whether a sin was committed, or whether it reaches mortal sin, and after due inquiry the doubt cannot be overcome: from the more probable opinion, whether the doubt is negative or even positive, from nearly equiprobable conjectures, there is not, I say, an obligation of itself of confessing such a sin. The reason is: 1. because the Council of Trent does not impose, as the adversaries suppose, the confession of sins as they are in conscience, but of sins of which penitents have consciousness, that is, certain knowledge or memory; - 2. because a certain burden is not to be imposed for a doubtful offense, nor, in doubt whether a law exists, is the obligation of the law present, as Benedict XIV wisely says.¹⁴ And this runs even if someone wished to communicate, as we have already said (n. 1548, dic. 2).¹⁵

It was said of itself, for: 1. in the article or danger of death, if someone positively doubts whether he is guilty of grave sin, "he must either elicit contrition, or receive absolution, by confessing at least other certain matter."¹⁶ - 2. In a practical doubt whether something is licit or not, the penitent must seek counsel, lest afterward he act in bad faith and sin gravely (cf. n. 42).

n. ¶1696.

St. Alphonsus admonishes,¹⁷ writing: 1. In practice, ordinarily speaking, it is more advisable to persuade penitents, for greater quiet of their conscience, to confess all doubtful sins, provided they are not scrupulous. 2. Those who are of a timid conscience, and for a long time have never, or only very rarely, sinned mortally, when they doubt whether they consented to a temptation, especially if they remember that, when the temptation rushed in, they resisted; or when they doubt whether they were in perfect wakefulness: these can hold as certain that they did not sin mortally, since it is morally impossible that the will, confirmed in a good purpose,

is changed without such a change becoming clearly known.

If sinners who from an evil habit consent to temptations doubt whether they consented, they are presumed to have consented and are bound to confess; because, if they had resisted, they would certainly remember the effort in repelling the temptation. Therefore a mere doubt about consent given or denied scarcely ever subsists (cf. n. 337, q. 3).

It is asked: Whether he who has confessed some mortal sin as DOUBTFUL is bound afterward to repeat it when he recognizes it as CERTAIN?

Resp. Distinguish. 1. If the doubt was about the existence of the fact, he is bound to repeat it, according to the very common and true opinion. And the reason is that the whole substance of the sin was not explained; for it was declared only as doubtful, although it was certainly committed. Hence Dominicus Viva writes:¹ "The negative opinion, which Father Pellizzarius followed, although it has not been condemned, nevertheless was expurgated from that codex (tr. 5, c. 3, n. 56) by the S. Congregation of the INDEX, which does not wish to tolerate it; wherefore in practice one must abstain from it."

If the doubt was about the quality of the sin, that is, if the penitent confessed a sin whose gravity either he himself, or the confessor, or both did not know, but afterward, having read or heard Theologians, recognized it to be mortal, he is not bound to repeat it; because no circumstance occurs which was not expressed, nor is it necessary that the confessor determinately know whether the sin which he hears is mortal or not. Thus very commonly.²

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § 2. On Formal Integrity

n. ¶1697.

FORMAL integrity, as was said (n. 1660), consists in this: that the penitent confess all sins which, in view of the circumstances, he can morally confess. This, as is evident, does not fulfill the whole law, but the part of the law possible here and now, with the burden of supplying the defect once the impediment has been removed.³ The following things will make the matter clear.

Principles. I. Formal integrity suffices whenever the penitent is in PHYSICAL inability of furnishing material integrity. The reason is that no one is bound to the impossible (recall what was said at n. 221 sqq.). - Moreover, ON ACCOUNT OF PHYSICAL INABILITY, besides those who are ignorant of sins or have forgotten them, the following are excused:

The dying, or others placed in danger of death, on account of defect of time or failure of mind.⁴ We shall treat of these in particular below (n. 1720, 2, and n. 1854, 5).
Mutes, on account of defect of speech. Therefore these, having signified by nods one or another sin, can be absolved both at the time of death and at the time of the paschal precept. Yet if by writing or signs they are able to reveal all sins, they are bound to this, provided danger of manifestation or another grave inconvenience is absent, as was already said (n. 1687).
The deaf, who cannot respond to the confessor, nor know how to declare all their sins. - But otherwise the hard of hearing; for these must be led into some remote place, yet with due cautions used as to time and place, if women are at issue.
Those ignorant of the language of the region in which they are, and who do not have the availability of a confessor by whom they can be understood. These, if they manifest sorrow for their sins by signs, can, like mutes, be absolved in the time of precept or of another necessity. Nor are they bound to use an interpreter, as was shown above⁵ (n. 1688).

n. ¶1698.

II. Formal integrity likewise suffices if the penitent is in MORAL inability of making a materially integral confession. The reason is that the precept of confession, since it is positive, does not oblige with grave inconvenience extrinsic to confession (cf. n. 223). - We say extrinsic; for no difficulty intrinsic to confession itself, however grave, ever excuses, because confession is by its own nature laborious. Hence, if intrinsic difficulty excused, its precept would vanish.

Moreover, MORAL INABILITY is then judged to be had when two conditions are verified. The first is when the necessity of confessing presses: for example because the paschal precept must be satisfied, or because the reception of the Eucharist or the celebration of Mass cannot be omitted without note of infamy or scandal; or even because otherwise the penitent would have to remain in mortal sin, even if only through one day. The other is if, from the declaration of all mortal sins to this priest, grave spiritual or temporal damage would threaten the penitent, or the confessor, or some third person.⁶ Therefore, in the aforesaid necessity, the following EXCUSES:

Danger to the life of the penitent, confessor, or third person; for example if in time of plague the priest himself prudently fears infection, and therefore does not allow the penitent to confess integrally; if enemies arrive, for example immediately before battle, in which case all, after exhibiting some general sign of contrition and confession, could be absolved by this single form of absolution: I absolve you [plural], etc.⁷
Danger of scandal or fall, both on the part of the penitent and on the part of the confessor; for example if a woman certainly knew the very great frailty of the confessor, etc.
Danger of revelation, or violation of the seal; for example if the confessor cannot confess integrally without manifesting the sins of some person heard in confession; - likewise if one who is hard of hearing confesses while others stand by; or if a gravely wounded man or a woman giving birth confesses, who cannot be left by those serving them; or if the penitent from grave cause fears that the confessor may break the law of the seal. But this case, if it must ever be said to happen, is very rare.
Danger to reputation; for example if a priest about to celebrate immediately, and needing general confession, could not confess integrally without those standing by suspecting the matter. Say the same of a sick person who has confessed before the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament, and is now just about to be refreshed through Holy Communion, if he then, because the past confessions were invalid, had to make a more lengthy confession. In this case, the confessor, having heard some sin, should absolve the sick person, give him Communion, and afterward return to receive the integral confession.⁸
Danger for the scrupulous person of grave detriment, both in spiritual progress and in health of body and mind (cf. n. 28 and 1835).
Reservation of sin or censure, according to those things which are found at n. 1551 and n. 1775, note 2. But:

The multitude of affairs does not excuse. For the 59th proposition, which sounds thus, was condemned by Innocent XI: "It is licit sacramentally to absolve those who have confessed only by halves, by reason of a great concourse of penitents, such as, for example, can happen on the day of some great festivity or indulgence."⁹ Nor can an exception be admitted if, on account of the prolixity of confession, others would easily suspect that the penitent is burdened by many faults.¹⁰ But whether danger of manifesting an accomplice excuses will be weighed below (n. 1702).

n. ¶1699.

III. When the excusing cause ceases, the penitent is bound to SUPPLY the defect of confession, not immediately, but when he will again be obliged or will wish to confess.¹¹ The reason is that an actual impediment does not simply remove the obligation of integral confession, but only suspends it. Hence, when the impediment has been removed, the divine precept revives in whole. It is otherwise clear from the 11th proposition condemned by Alexander VII, which said: "Sins omitted or forgotten in confession, on account of imminent danger of life or on account of another cause, we are not bound to express in the following confession."

It was said, 1. not immediately; for the obligation must be accepted morally, especially because sins inculpably omitted have already been destroyed, and because delay brings the soul into no danger. Thus commonly.

It was said, 2. but when he will be obliged or will wish. For: - 1. The obligation of supplying is not affixed of itself to a time or circumstances, and therefore does not of itself press, except when the precept of confessing again presses, for example at the time of annual confession (cf. n. 1548). - 2. When the impediment ceases, it is not licit to keep silent sins forgotten or omitted in the confession which first follows. For the Doctors more commonly interpret thus the sense of the proposition condemned by Alexander VII;¹² and the reason is that it pertains to the integrity of the subsequent confession to declare all mortal sins of which consciousness is had, as Trent speaks.¹³

n. ¶1700.

It is asked: To what are those bound who in GOOD FAITH have made confessions lacking integrity?

Resp. They are not indeed bound to repeat them integrally, "because for such confessions all things essentially required were already present. - Yet they are bound to explain the species and number omitted, so that they may at least make the present confession integral." Thus commonly.¹⁴

But let it be noted: 1. He who held a uniform manner of living and inculpably omitted declaring the number of sins satisfies the law of integrity if "at the beginning of confession he has revealed to the present confessor that in past years he has always confessed badly by omitting number, and the confessor, by receiving the confession of that year from the beginning, at the same time forms a judgment concerning past years." Likewise, if, after the confession has been received, the confessor has distinct knowledge of the sins of the present year, "he will indeed be able, without the prior confessions being repeated, at the same time to form for himself a distinct judgment concerning past years." 2. Otherwise it must be said "if from the present confession he has only confused knowledge of the faults confessed, as often happens in longer and involved confessions; in that case, as Lugo well says,¹⁵ he is bound to take distinct knowledge of the species and number omitted in past confessions."¹⁶

Scholium

On The Manifestation Of An Accomplice

n. ¶1701.

It is certain, 1. That an accomplice must be concealed as often as confession can be materially integral without his manifestation. Therefore it is not licit, for declaring a venial sin or a mortal sin already confessed, to reveal the grave sin of another.¹⁷

It is certain, 2. That a penitent guilty of mortal sin not yet confessed is bound to go to a confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown, if he can go to him

without temporal or spiritual inconvenience. - For then the precept of guarding the reputation of the neighbor presses, especially if a more infamous crime is at issue.

It is certain, 3. That, generally, it is not licit for the confessor to inquire for the name of the accomplice, even for a good end, for example for correction; for this is opposed to charity and renders the Sacrament of Penance odious. - This is clear from the Bull of Benedict XIV Ubi primum, in which the Pontiff, speaking of confessors who under penalty of denying absolution require the name of the accomplice, declares: 1. that they sin gravely and incur suspension from hearing confessions, but only of ferendae sententiae; 2. that they are to be denounced within a month, not indeed by the penitent himself, but by another who knows them, if nevertheless on account of this they denied absolution and did not act from simplicity; 3. that those teaching this detestable practice to be licit incur by the fact itself excommunication reserved to the Supreme Pontiff,¹ which same thing Pius IX sanctioned in the Constitution Apostolicae Sedis (cf. n. 1328). These things having been premised, let the following be:

n. ¶1702.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether there is an obligation of confessing a mortal sin which CANNOT be explained without manifestation of the accomplice?

Resp. Yes, when another confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown cannot conveniently be had. Thus the common opinion against some who say that the natural precept of preserving the reputation of the neighbor must be preferred to the positive precept of preserving the integrity of confession. But the reason for the affirmative opinion is "because the divine precept of confessing integrally must be observed whenever it can licitly be observed; and it can be observed sufficiently licitly in our case, since the manifestation of another's crime is not illicit when it is done from a reasonable cause"; and therefore the natural precept then ceases (cf. n. 1198). - Add that "the accomplice, by consenting to the sin, has already lost the right to his reputation in order to the confession of that sin."²

Q. 2. What are the CAUSES EXCUSING from seeking another confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown?

Resp. According to the opinion of very many, they are the following: - 1. If danger of death or the precept of annual confession presses. - 2. If it is grave for the penitent to omit confession or Communion. - 3. If he would open his conscience with difficulty to another than his accustomed confessor. - 4. If otherwise he would be deprived of the benefits of some extraordinary indulgence. - 5. If otherwise he would have to remain in sin even for one day. - 6. If, by going to a confessor to whom the accomplice is known, he will have better direction or will receive notably greater consolation. - 7. If it is believed that the accomplice has yielded the right to his reputation, as if a brother sinned with a sister whom he knows cannot be separated from the company of the mother in order to go to another confessor. Hence, mothers and wives are often excused who manifest the sins of husbands and sons to a confessor who knows them, by reason of seeking counsel, alleviating sorrow, etc.; for it would be too hard for them if they were bound to seek another confessor.³ - Yet the advantage of direction must be compared with the infamy.⁴

Q. 3. Whether it is EVER licit for the confessor to INQUIRE for the name or knowledge of the accomplice?

Resp. 1. The confessor can, indeed must, although from this he comes into knowledge of the accomplice, inquire about circumstances which change the species of sins, or which are necessary for better consulting the conscience of the penitent; for example, whether the accomplice in a shameful sin is in the first or second degree of consanguinity or affinity, whether he is bound by a vow of chastity, whether he lives in the same house, etc.

Resp. 2. A penitent who would not wish to reveal the accomplice cannot be absolved when this is necessary for averting or repairing public damage. Therefore in a case of this sort, the confessor will be able to impose on the penitent in general that he reveal the accomplice to him who can avert the damage or scandal. But while the prohibition of Benedict XIV stands, that is, as often as revelation can usefully be made to another,⁵ it will never be licit for the confessor to say: Reveal him to me. But if the penitent of himself and by his own will asks the confessor that he himself take these parts upon himself and reveal the accomplice voluntarily, the confessor does not sin, and can certainly use that knowledge for applying a remedy; but for the most part this is not expedient on account of the danger of scandal and offense of the sacred ministry.⁶

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § 3. On The Manner Of Procuring The Integrity Of Confession

The obligation of procuring the integrity of confession pertains both to the penitent and to the confessor. - Wherefore the following things are established:

n. ¶1703.

Principles. I. The PENITENT is bound, and indeed, speaking of itself, under grave obligation, to premise before confession a diligent EXAMINATION of all mortal sins which he has committed. The reason is that without such an examination he could not, to use the words of Trent, search out all the recesses of his soul.⁷

The diligence of this examination is to be estimated according to the capacity of the penitent, the delay of time, and the other circumstances. "For this a middling diligence suffices, such as a prudent man employs in arduous affairs; or such as, morally speaking, learned and timorous persons are accustomed to employ, even if someone thinks that by greater diligence he would find more."⁸ The penitent can satisfy this obligation without excessive labor if, after imploring God's help, he recalls to mind the precepts of the Decalogue and the precepts of the Church, the capital sins, the obligations of his own state, and at the same time inquires whether and how often he offended regarding all these things, by thought, word, and deed. - And he will more easily attain this if he turns over in his mind the places to which he went, the persons with whom he conversed, the business which he transacted, and the affections of soul to which he was accustomed to yield.⁹

Let it be noted FOR PRACTICE: 1. Danger of publication being removed, it is useful to write sins, lest they slip from memory; but excessive anxiety is to be avoided; and therefore this should be prohibited to the scrupulous.¹⁰

Those who are morally certain that they are immune from mortal sins are not bound to spend much time in searching their conscience, provided they can supply matter which truly suffices for the Sacrament. - Nevertheless they are to be exhorted not to hurry too much through the examination of conscience, and to spend at least five minutes on it, by which they may be better able to recognize their defects and to extirpate those recognized.¹¹
Those who are scrupulous ought not to search their conscience much; indeed, diligent investigation must sometimes be interdicted to them; for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes.
The sick are not bound to an accurate examination as the healthy are, as is clear. Therefore one must watch carefully lest they defer their confession under the pretext that they have not yet sufficiently searched their conscience; let the confessor himself examine them. For it is better to restore them to the state of grace through absolution, even if they have confessed imperfectly, than, the Sacraments of the Church being delayed, to expose them to certain danger of damnation.¹² (cf. n. 1854.)

n. ¶1704.

II. The CONFESSOR can, indeed sometimes MUST, supply the examination of conscience, and himself procure the integrity of confession. To the point the Holy Doctor says thus: "Although the duty of examining conscience is principally the penitent's, nevertheless, whatever other Doctors may have said, it must not be doubted that if the confessor has recognized that the penitent has not discussed his conscience diligently enough, he himself is bound to question him, first about sins into which he could likely have fallen, and afterward about their species and number, as is proved from chapter Omnis utriusque on Penance and from the Roman Ritual."¹³

But he is bound to this as judge, that he may know the cause, and as minister of the Sacrament, that he may procure its integrity (cf. n. 1834).

n. ¶1705.

It is asked: What must the confessor do if penitents approach without sufficiently discussing their conscience?

Resp. 1. If they are sufficiently instructed, they are to be sent away to another time: "With most humane words," says the Roman Catechism,¹⁴ "he will send them away from himself, and will exhort them to take some space of time for thinking over their sins, and then to return." The reason is that it can scarcely happen that someone, at least if a longer confession is at issue, being suddenly asked, remembers all things.¹⁵ Except if circumstances suggest otherwise.

Resp. 2. If they are rude, they are not easily to be sent away. "They act wrongly," says St. Alphonsus,¹⁶ "who dismiss the rude, that they may examine themselves better." And he gravely adds: "Fr. Segneri calls this an intolerable error, and by the best right, because men of this sort, however much they labor, will with difficulty examine themselves as is fitting, and as exactly as the confessor himself can examine them; and on the contrary, when they have been dismissed, there will be danger lest, terrified by the difficulty of examining themselves, they be drawn back from confessing and harden in sins. - Nevertheless let the confessor notice that he is not bound to question these so minutely; let him ask only about sins into which they can easily fall, in view of their condition and capacity. Indeed, when the penitent, although rude, seems to be sufficiently instructed and diligent in confessing his sins with circumstances..., then the confessor is bound to ask nothing else."

Resp. 3. If they are customary sinners, the confessor should not spend too much time by anxiously inquiring about the number of sins; because often it is impossible to find such a number. Many, because of the importunity of the confessor, respond only by guessing: one hundred times, one thousand times; but what prudent man will give faith to them? - The confessor does better if he diligently inquires into the state of the penitent, "namely the manner of living, the application which he expends on other affairs, the time of the custom with the accomplice, the place where he especially stayed; and then he should inquire about the number by asking the penitent about how often he sinned in a day, in a week, or month, proposing to him several numbers, for example three or four times, eight or ten times, so that he may see to which number he rather adheres. And if the penitent adheres to the greater number, it will be best done if he is again asked about a greater number." But in this the confessor should take care not to form a certain judgment about the number; let him note the frequency in general, and make judgment confusedly, apprehending the sins, whatever number they are before God.¹⁷ (cf. n. 1805.)

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Ch. II, Article III: On The Repetition Of Confession

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, CHAPTER II: ON CONFESSION · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE I: ON THE NECESSITY OF CONFESSION · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE II: ON THE QUALITIES OF CONFESSION · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, Ch. II, Art. II, § I. On The Necessity Of Integrity: 1° In General; 2° Concerning Doubtful Sins; 3° Concerning The Circumstances Of Sins; 4° Concerning Forgotten Sins · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, Ch. II, Art. II, § II, And Especially As Regards The Dying · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, APPENDIX: ON THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, APPENDIX: ON THE EXAMINATI…, ARTICLE III: ON THE REPETITION OF CONFESSION

In this article we shall treat: 1. in general, of confession to be repeated; 2. in particular, of general confession.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Ch. II, Art. III, § 1. On Invalid Confession To Be Repeated

n. ¶1706.

Principles. I. Confession is INVALID as often as something essential is lacking to it, whether on the part of the CONFESSOR or on the part of the PENITENT.

This follows from what was said concerning matter and form, and concerning the minister. - Therefore:

On the part of the CONFESSOR, confession is invalid: 1. If he lacks the power of jurisdiction; for example because he has received it in no way; or because it has been taken from him by law, for example toward an accomplice in a shameful sin; or because he is impeded by censure, namely if he himself is an excommunicated person to be avoided, or a denounced suspended person; or because, restricted by reservation of the case, it does not extend to that case which the penitent alone confesses, etc. - 2. If he substantially vitiated the form, or if he did not have the will of absolving. - 3. If he understood no sin. We say no sin, because if he understood some sin, the absolution is valid, if the penitent received it in good faith; for him there remains only the obligation of confessing the sins which the confessor did not hear.¹⁸ - 4. If he remembers nothing when he absolves, that is, neither the sins, nor the state of the penitent, nor the penance enjoined; for then he is not a judge, since he absolutely does not know the cause; hence he absolves neither validly nor licitly. But after a confession made by the penitent in common, he would already absolve validly, although not yet licitly.¹⁹
On the part of the PENITENT, confession is invalid: - 1. If he was incapable, for example invalidly baptized, or ignorant of things necessary by necessity of means. - 2. If he was indisposed: that is, if he approached as one excommunicated, knowingly violating the prohibition of the Church; if he kept silent a mortal sin from malice or grave negligence, or falsely accused himself of it; if he voluntarily omitted the number of sins, or the species, or a specifying circumstance; if he told a grave lie; if he was gravely negligent in examining conscience; if he was not attrite, which is usually clear from this, that he sought a deaf or unlearned confessor, etc.; if he did not have true purpose; if he did not wish to remove the occasion, to forgive an enemy, to make restitution; if he was a recidivist in the same evil habit, etc.²⁰

n. ¶1707.

Let it be noted: 1. Confession can be invalid without being sacrilegious. It is simply invalid or null if sorrow or purpose is lacking without the penitent noticing such a defect. - It is null and sacrilegious if he notices the defect and acts in bad faith.

Some confession can be invalid, indeed sacrilegious, without all subsequent confessions therefore being invalid. For perfect forgetfulness of the defect committed in the preceding confession, and good faith which accompanies later confessions, bring it about that these are valid of themselves, and they remove indirectly the defect of invalidity included in the antecedent confession. In this case, only the invalid confession must be repeated, but not the later confessions.²¹

n. ¶1708.

II. Every confession of mortal sins about whose invalidity it is MORALLY CERTAIN must be REPEATED. The reason is clear from what was said at n. 1706; for through a confession of this sort the sins were not remitted; therefore their confession must be repeated.

We said morally certain; for in morals absolute certainty is not required in order that an obligation be imposed or removed, but moral certainty suffices (cf. n. 33 and 34). "If someone, for example, immediately after confession, without any effort, falls, he exhibits a morally certain sign that his past confessions were null, because sorrow and purpose were lacking."²² Therefore such a one must repeat confessions of this sort.

But in doubt about the validity of confession, this TWO-FOLD RULE must be established and held: - 1. If it is prudently doubted about the existence of an act essential for the validity of confession, for example if it is positively doubted whether the confessor placed the form, whether he had jurisdiction, etc., whether the penitent elicited an act of contrition: confession must be repeated from that principle: "Satisfaction is not made to a certain precept by doubtful satisfaction." - 2. If it is doubted about the manner of the act, that is, if it is doubted whether an act was rightly placed, as it was to be placed by law, for example whether a purpose certainly elicited was sufficiently efficacious, whether sins certainly confessed as to substance were sufficiently declared: in such a case, confession must not be repeated, because the rule of law is valid: "In doubt, one must stand for the value of the act." Hence St. Alphonsus²³ with Fr. Segneri says: "Penitents are not bound to repeat confessions as often as presumption, and consequently possession, stands for their value, unless nullity is clear." Thus, for example, a penitent who after confession avoided occasions and for some time resisted temptations can well judge that his confessions were valid, nor is he bound to repeat them (cf. n. 50 and 51).

n. ¶1709.

Questions. Q. 1. HOW is an invalid confession to be repeated?

Resp. 1. If it is made before another confessor, it is a new confession, and therefore all and each sins must be accused.

Resp. 2. If it is made before the same confessor, from the more probable and more common opinion, it suffices if the penitent accuses himself in general of sins already revealed, provided the confessor remembers them at least confusedly. - But if he has preserved the memory of no sin, it suffices if he remembers the state of the penitent, or reassumes confused knowledge of his conscience. The reason is: 1. because such a confession, although invalid or even sacrilegious, was nevertheless made in order to receive absolution, and can well be called sacra-

mental, since it already obliges to the sacramental seal; 2. because, although it had not been sacramental on the part of the penitent, nevertheless its ratification or general repetition joined with the knowledge which the confessor previously had concerning the individual sins is reckoned sufficient for sacramental judgment, and for making it valid and integral.¹ - And this holds a fortiori if, absolution having been delayed for some time, the penitent again presents himself to the confessor.

Q. 2. What if the confessor remembers only the PENANCE enjoined?

Resp. 1. If he remembers the penance itself, he can absolve, even if he no longer knows the state of the penitent. For many grave Doctors concede this, and the reason seems to be that from the very knowledge of the penance he can form for himself a judgment concerning the state of the penitent.

Resp. 2. If he recalls that he did impose a penance, but does not know what it was, nor can this be taught him by the penitent, it is controverted whether he can licitly absolve. - Several with St. Antoninus affirm; but St. Alphonsus denies. For such an opinion seems to him too extended, because the priest must form for himself a judgment, at least confusedly, concerning the state of the penitent, both for giving absolution and for enjoining a penance, which indeed must be imposed in order to make the Sacrament integral (cf. n. 1715).²

Q. 3. Whether and how confession made to a confessor NOT ATTENTIVE or inept must be repeated?

Resp. 1. If it was made in bad faith, for example if the penitent noticed that the confessor either was not hearing, or was sleeping, or was ignorant, or did not understand the gravity of the sin, the confession certainly must be repeated; because the penitent sinned by the act by which he confessed.³

Resp. 2. If it was made in good faith, a distinction must be made: 1. If it is clear that the confessor heard nothing, the whole confession must be repeated, as is clear from what was said (n. 1706). - 2. If it is clear that the sins were not declared as to number or species, or that some certain sin was not understood, the integrity of confession must be supplied. - 3. "Finally, if when the confession is finished you understand that the confessor did not perceive some sins, whether because of sleep or distraction, but you do not know which those are, you are bound, according to the very common opinion, to repeat it if the confession was brief, because you can prudently doubt concerning the individual sins. But if it was long, you are not bound, on account of the contrary reason," and because, in that case, God is presumed not to oblige to the integrity of confession with such great inconvenience.⁴ Hence it will be enough to confess those things concerning which you doubt whether they were understood by the confessor.

Q. 4. Whether sins narrated HISTORICALLY outside confession must be repeated?

Resp. 1. If the confessor has preserved distinct knowledge of all of them, they are not to be repeated, but it suffices if the penitent says: "I accuse myself of all these things which I have already narrated to you." 2. If the confessor remembers them confusedly or only in part, they must be repeated in full; otherwise neither the first nor the second confession would be sacramental: not the first, because it was not made in order to absolution and without the burden of the sacramental seal; not the second, because the sins were not declared individually, as is required by the Council of Trent.⁵

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. V, Diss. II, Ch. II, Art. III, § 2. On General Confession

n. ¶1710.

DEFINITION. General confession is the repetition of several confessions. It embraces either the whole life or a notable part of it, for example one or several years.

DIVISION. One general confession is NECESSARY, namely one which must be made on account of the invalidity of past confessions; another is SPONTANEOUS or free, which is made from the counsel of the confessor or from the devotion of the penitent. This latter, moreover, can be, according to the character of the persons and circumstances, either useful, useless, or even harmful.

PRACTICAL RULES. - I. General confession, UNDER GRAVE OBLIGATION, regularly, must be enjoined upon all who have confessed sacrilegiously or invalidly. This is clear from what was said in the preceding section.

We said regularly, because the penitent must not always be warned about the invalidity of past confessions, namely when he is in good faith and it is foreseen that he will not consent to repeating them. For in this case, absolution indirectly extends itself to confessions made invalidly. Yet sometimes a prudent confessor will be able so to examine the penitent that he, even not knowing it, makes a general confession. Once this has been made, nothing now seems to stand in the way of manifesting to him the invalidity of past confessions, so that he may depart with perfect serenity of soul.

But if the penitent shows himself DISPOSED, it must be gathered from the circumstances whether confession is to be begun immediately, or deferred to another time. - In this matter it must be considered: whether the penitent himself desires delay in order to consult a more perfect preparation; whether he is truly suited to making a good examination of conscience; whether some obstacle, either on the part of the penitent or on the part of the confessor, could arise by which confession would be impeded.

These things considered, if confession truly seems TO BE PROCRASTINATED, let the penitent be taught the manner of rightly preparing himself and the method of making an examination of conscience, with an admonition added that in this affair he proceed accurately indeed and diligently, but not scrupulously; let him be admonished about applying diligence, which consists in this, that through prayer and frequent repetition of acts of contrition he procure true contrition for himself; and finally, for raising his soul, let there be shown the ease with which a general confession, which grants great peace to the mind, is usually made, especially because the opportune and paternal help of the confessor will not be lacking to him.

But if the penitent is altogether unable to return, or not except after a long time, or if the necessity of communicating presses, general confession must be received IMMEDIATELY. - If there were a great concourse of penitents, or a brief space of free time, the confessor will be able to restrict himself to things altogether necessary, by contracting instructions and exhortations; yet with the admonition added that the penitent either return to him later, even after a longer time, in order to hear the other instructions which are necessary; or at least that, as soon as he can, he meet another zealous confessor by whom he may be instructed.⁶

n. ¶1711.

II. General confession, although not necessary, is ordinarily TO BE CONCEDED to those asking it; and to very many, even not asking, prudently TO BE ADVISED. Hence the following admonition of St. Alphonsus to the people:⁷ "I exhort each one, unless he has already done it, to confess all the sins which he has ever committed in his life: and I speak not only for those who have confessed sacrilegiously... or invalidly... but also concerning anyone who wishes to betake himself to a good life."

We said, 1. ordinarily to be conceded: for if you except the scrupulous and certain others concerning whom it will be said below, general confession, or at least a partial repetition of confessions, profits much for conceiving greater sorrow for sins, for peace and tranquility of soul, and for a persevering change of life.⁸ Indeed, it not rarely happens that what at first was judged only useful is afterward recognized as truly necessary.

We said, 2. prudently to be advised: for it is licit neither to thrust it upon all indiscriminately, nor upon anyone by importunate exhortations, when it is not necessary.⁹ But it is to be advised opportunely, whether total or partial, as will seem expedient: - 1. to those whose prior confessions are judged doubtfully valid; - 2. to those who need more accurate instruction for a Christian manner of life, especially if they are men of good will who are foreseen to receive counsel with a ready soul; - 3. to those whom the desire of a more perfect life holds; - 4. to those who are in danger of life, or are forced to commit themselves to such danger; - 5. to spouses, and to all ending or beginning a part of life of graver moment; - 6. to all the faithful, universally, on extraordinary occasions which, according to the mind of the Church, are offered to them for expiating consciences and producing worthy fruits of penance, such as Jubilee and Missions; - 7. to pious persons who make a sacred retreat, in which they do a useful thing by repeating the confessions of the whole year.¹⁰

n. ¶1712.

III. General confession is not to be conceded, but is TO BE PROHIBITED to all those to whom it is judged notably harmful. - Such are: 1. The scrupulous, to whom one general confession indeed may be of profit, but repeated confession will harm; hence they are not to be heard in this, but are earnestly exhorted to blind obedience. - 2. Penitents who have sinned much against the sixth precept and cannot, without danger of again defiling themselves, repeat a confession already validly made; hence it suffices if they sorrow for the sins and renew the accusation summarily. 3. Certain occasionaries and recidivists, who are not truly disposed and sometimes ask for general confession so that they may more easily catch at absolution. These betray themselves by the manner in which they accuse themselves of sins committed from the last confession; and therefore they are to be warned and kindly instructed to leave the occasion and to fight strenuously against the evil habit, and afterward to make general confession with fruit (cf. n. 1822 and 1823).

n. ¶1713.

It is asked: What is the MANNER of receiving a general confession?

Resp. 1. BEFORE CONFESSION, the confessor must take care to know the explicit state of the penitent and the various circumstances from which he can be directed toward questioning prudently and fruitfully. Hence: 1. let him examine whether a necessary confession is at issue or not, according to what was said at n. 1710; for if it is necessary, the penitent must be heard, questioned, and helped with much greater diligence and care; but if it is not necessary, he must certainly be warned that so great a diligence is not required, indeed that he is free to keep some things silent. 2. Let him prudently inquire concerning the condition of the penitent, whether he is celibate or not, about his age, occupations or offices, about his manner of living, etc.; if he is married, from what time, whether he has children, etc. 3. Let him ask about the state of conscience, whether here and now he is entangled in some evil custom or by some evil affection of soul; whether perhaps he has been enrolled in some condemned society; whether he has frequently approached the Sacraments, and with what dispositions; whether he concealed sins; at what time; for how long; whether he confessed them afterward, and repeated sacrilegious confessions; and how often? - But to obtain these notions, ordinarily, it is expedient first to receive the particular confession.¹¹

IN THE CONFESSION ITSELF, let the confessor help the penitent, not disturb him. If the penitent is prepared, let him confess in his own way. - If he is scarcely prepared or rude, first let him ask from him the sins which weigh most upon him, that he may proceed more securely; then let him himself immediately supply the necessary things, according to a uniform order, for example of the Decalogue, the precepts of the Church, and particular obligations, unless a special reason suggests otherwise.
AT THE END OF CONFESSION, let the general question not be omitted: whether the penitent still has something in mind. Wherefore we notice that, for greater peace and purity of soul, especially if a confession only useful is at issue, even matter not necessary can rightly be declared and asked about, that is, doubtful mortal sins, graver venials, aggravating circumstances, except in shameful matter, and generally all things which apprehensively, or from the mind of the penitent, can be grave. Otherwise a little-instructed penitent, who does not know how to distinguish light things from grave in the manner of theologians, and necessary circumstances from non-necessary, always thinks that many things were lacking to his confessions which had necessarily to be declared.¹² - See the rest at n. 1804 sqq.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 31 passages

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, CHAPTER II: ON CONFESSION

Confession is the accusation of sins committed after Baptism, made to an approved priest, in order to absolution.

Three things pertain here, namely 1° necessity; 2° qualities; 3° repetition of Confession.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE I: ON THE NECESSITY OF CONFESSION

n. ¶1356.

1356. Principles. - I. Sacramental Confession by divine law is necessary for all who after Baptism have fallen into mortal sin. See the arguments among the Dogmaticians.

II. It is necessary also by ecclesiastical law, at least once in the year, according to custom to be computed from Easter to Easter. See n. 547. 548. L. VI. 662.

n. ¶1357.

1357. Questions. - Query 1° When does the divine precept of Confession urge?

Resp. 1° It certainly obliges per se in danger, and still more in the article, of death, and often in life. - The reason of the first is that all positive precepts oblige at least in the time of necessity; otherwise they would never oblige, and would be imposed in vain. The reason of the second is that affirmative precepts do not oblige only in extreme necessity, but also when their fulfillment is judged reasonably necessary.

Resp. 2° It often obliges per accidens, namely 1° when the Eucharist is to be received (n. 1306. II.); 2° when the precept of reconciling oneself with God urges, or the state of grace is required, e.g. for administering Sacraments, or for receiving those which are called of the living, and an act of perfect contrition is not elicited (n. 1223. q. 7°; n. 1241. I.; n. 1347. II.); 3° when a grave temptation or depraved habit cannot otherwise be overcome.

Query 2° Does the divine precept of Confession oblige immediately once sin has been committed; or at what time does it urge?

Resp. 1° It does not oblige immediately after sin. The reason is that such an obligation rests on no certain foundation.

Resp. 2° It cannot easily be determined how often in life and at what precise time the divine precept urges. Whatever be the case, without doubt he satisfies who confesses even only once in the year; because it is not established that the divine precept urges more often, and, according to the more common opinion and, as it seems, the more probable one, Christ left the time of the obligation to be determined by the Church.¹

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE II: ON THE QUALITIES OF CONFESSION

n. ¶1358.

1358. - Many qualities of Confession are assigned by authors, which for the most part do not pertain to its validity; but they are chiefly contained in these little verses:

Let it be entire, simple, humble, discreet, faithful,
Vocal, sorrowing, pure, and ready to obey.

1° Entire, i.e. let it comprehend all mortal sins not yet confessed, as will soon be said.

2° Simple, i.e. not intermingled with impertinent conversations, nor painted with words, nor adorned with figures; but a naked, clear, and brief declaration of sins.

3° Humble, i.e. it ought to be made with true humility of heart and body, namely with knees bent, unless infirmity excuses, and with head uncovered, if a man confesses; humility ought to appear also in the manner of the voice, so that the penitent narrates his sins with shame, but not in the manner of a fable or bare history.

4° Discreet, i.e. it ought to be made in honest and discreet words, especially in explaining sins against chastity; nor ought the sins or defects of others to be manifested without necessity.

5° Faithful, i.e. sincere, without a lie, especially in grave matter and what is necessary for sacramental judgment. But faithfulness or sincerity consists not only in sins being duly declared, which pertains to integrity, but also in not exaggerating them or in not adding supposed sins.

6° Vocal, i.e. Confession ought to be made by the voice itself, but not by writing, nor by other signs, without necessity or grave cause, e.g. on account of very vehement shame, on account of an impediment of the tongue, etc.; in which case, the writing having been read by the confessor, let the penitent add: "of these I accuse myself."

Moreover Confession by writing is indeed valid per se; yet Confession or absolution by letters would be invalid. For the form consists in words, as Eugene IV defined in the Decree for the Armenians; moreover the form must be applied to present matter. - It is clear besides from the proposition condemned by Clement VIII (see p. XVIII), and from the declaration of Paul V, 14 July 1605, in the Congregation of the Holy Office. - Absolution given to him who without grave cause had made the whole Confession by nod or writing would also be invalid; for he would have sinned mortally,¹ unless he had acted thus in good faith.

7° Sorrowing, or sorrowful, as was said above n. 1348. q. 4°.

8° Pure, namely for an honest end, or for obtaining pardon of sins and sacramental graces, but not for moving the compassion of the confessor, or for capturing his benevolence or esteem, etc.

9° Ready to obey, i.e. the penitent ought to be disposed to obey the admonitions of the confessor, for example in fleeing occasions, in applying remedies, in making restitution, in accepting penance, etc.

Among the aforesaid qualities of Confession, integrity and contrition are especially principal. Enough has now been said concerning the latter; but now we must speak particularly concerning the former.

On The Integrity Of Confession.

n. ¶1359.

1359. - Integrity is distinguished as twofold, one material, the other formal.

1° That integrity is called material to which in reality nothing at all is lacking of those things which, speaking per se, are to be exposed, that is, of those things which of themselves constitute the necessary matter of Confession.

2° But that is formal to which nothing of the things said is lacking through grave fault of the penitent.

Hence whenever material integrity is had, formal integrity is also had; but not vice versa.

We shall speak 1° concerning the necessity of integrity; 2° concerning the causes excusing from it.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, Ch. II, Art. II, § I. On The Necessity Of Integrity: 1° In General; 2° Concerning Doubtful Sins; 3° Concerning The Circumstances Of Sins; 4° Concerning Forgotten Sins

Point I. On The Necessity Of Integrity In General.

n. ¶1360.

1360. - I. All mortal sins, committed after Baptism, must be accused by divine law, as far as this can morally be done.

It is clear 1° from the very words of the institution of the Sacrament of Penance; for thus Christ the Lord says: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. Hence the Council of Trent concludes in these words: "Our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests, His own vicars, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal crimes should be brought, into which the faithful of Christ have fallen; that, according to the power of the keys, they might pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. For it is clear that priests could not have exercised this judgment, the cause being unknown, if they themselves had declared their sins only in general, and not rather in species and singly. From these things it is gathered that all mortal sins, of which, after a diligent discussion of themselves, they have consciousness, must be enumerated by penitents in Confession, even though they are most hidden."

It is clear 2° from the same Council of Trent, which thus defined: "If anyone shall say that in the Sacrament of Penance, for the remission of sins, it is not necessary by divine law to confess all and each mortal sin, of which memory is had after due and diligent premeditation, even hidden sins and those which are against the last two precepts of the Decalogue, and the circumstances which change the species of the sin, ... let him be anathema."

II. To material integrity belong grave sins as to - number, - moral species, - certain circumstances, - the external act, - bad effects joined with the action and morally imputable. This is clear from what has been said and from what is to be said below.

III. Material integrity is not always necessary for the validity and fruit of Confession; for sometimes it is morally impossible, either from inculpable forgetfulness, or from other causes. But God does not command impossible things. Therefore, etc. It is also clear from these words of Trent: "But the other sins, which do not occur to one who thinks diligently, are understood to be included in the same Confession universally; for these we faithfully say with the Prophet: From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord."

IV. For the integrity of Confession there is prerequired a diligent examination, according to the capacity of the penitent, concerning sins committed since the last valid Confession; for he who is held to the end is held also to the necessary means.

n. ¶1361.

1361. Resolves. - 1° We are held, in the Confession of mortal sins, to accuse not only the generic species of sins, but also the lowest species; for these are properly called species; and the Council of Trent requires the accusation of all species.

2° He who cannot disclose the lowest species must manifest the higher, or generic, species: e.g. if someone, knowing that he sinned against chastity, does not remember the specific sin, he must say that he sinned gravely against chastity.

3° He who knows that he has sinned mortally, but is ignorant of, or does not remember, the species, even the generic species, of his sin, must say in general that he sinned gravely, but that he does not remember of what sin he is guilty.

4° He who cannot remember the certain number is held to accuse the more probable number, or the one which more nearly approaches the truth, adding the particle about. But he who cannot even give a likely sum of sins is held to say how often approximately in a month, in a week, in a day, etc. He who cannot even indicate this should say whether he always consented to the temptation and whether it occurred often. Cf. what was said n. 216-227 and what is to be said n. 1424. III. c).

5° The confessor cannot exempt from the obligation of confessing integrally on account of a great crowd of penitents, e.g. on some more solemn feast day. This is clear from what has been said, and also from the 59th proposition condemned by Innocent XI. See p. XVII.

6° A defect of sincerity concerning even one mortal sin, which is omitted, constitutes a grave sin; because the divine precept of Confession is violated in a grave matter.

n. ¶1362.

1362. Questions. - Query 1° What number is judged to be comprehended in the particle about?

Resp. This cannot be determined by an entirely certain rule; nevertheless not every excess is comprehended, nor a notable defect: but only a moderate one, greater however or lesser proportionately to the number expressed. Thus Theologians commonly establish it: a moderate excess or defect will be, relatively to about five sins, to add or subtract one unit on either side; relatively to about ten, two; relatively to twenty, three or four; relatively to forty, four or five; relatively to one hundred, five or six; ... and prudently in the first case the penitent will be judged to have sinned four, five, or six times; in the second, to have sinned eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twelve times; and resolve similarly concerning the others.

Query 2° Must a notable excess afterward be declared, if it is found after Confession?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is clear from what has been said; for since a notable excess is not comprehended in the number declared by the particle about, the penitent has not satisfied the obligation of Confession as to that excess. Therefore... Thus all.

Query 3° If someone has erred notably by exaggerating the number, must he afterward declare this also in Confession?

Resp. Neg., if in good faith he expressed that notably greater number. The reason is that he fully and integrally satisfied the obligation of Confession; for the true number was comprehended in the greater one, and therefore remitted.

Query 4° Is it always a mortal sin to lie in Confession?

Resp. Of itself one sins mortally only when the lie is concerned with necessary matter of Confession concealed without a just cause, or with grave matter falsely supposed, namely by advertently, not from scruple or simplicity, accusing what was not committed, or what is doubtful as certain, or by exaggerating the number.

A lie therefore concerning things not pertaining to Confession or to the conscience of the penitent is not of itself mortal; because neither is it gravely harmful to the penitent, as is supposed, nor gravely injurious to the Sacrament, since it is not referred to it. - Thus commonly with St. Alphonsus against a few who say that every lie in Confession is mortal. - But if the penitent lies concerning sins, even sins already confessed and absolved, when the confessor as judge or physician asks something about them, as necessary for the present Confession, he sins gravely, because he deceives in substantial matters. Cf. pp. 58a. among the propositions condemned by Innocent XI, p. XVII.

Query 5° Does it prejudice the integrity of Confession if someone accuses venial sins to his ordinary confessor, but mortal sins to another?

Resp. 1° Neg., speaking per se, provided that he never receives absolution unless he has manifested all mortal sins to one confessor and is absolved by the same. The reason is that that Confession is integral which includes all mortal sins, since venial sins are not necessarily to be accused.

Resp. 2° In practice, however, attention must be paid to the circumstances of penitents and to the motives by which they are led. For those are not to be condemned who sometimes confess graver sins to an unknown confessor, but submit lighter sins to the ordinary one, if, from the shame with which they would be suffused with a confessor familiarly known, they would put themselves in danger of confessing sacrilegiously. Wherefore the confessor should never inquire curiously about this, and much less vex with questions a penitent perhaps trying to conceal it, nor, if he knows it, show that this displeases him, but rather that the use of the liberty which the Church permits most amply is approved by him, while she makes available to the faithful an abundance of several confessors. - Nevertheless they would sin gravely, and because of defect of due disposition would confess invalidly, who for that reason remained in the occasion or habit of sin, or went around for this reason, that they might sin more freely. Say the same with Bouvier concerning a seminarian who with a base habit (n. 1523. q. 13°) wishes to ascend to Holy Orders and for this reason approaches an unknown confessor, lest he be troubled.

Query 6° Does it prejudice integrity if someone feigns another voice, lest he be recognized by the Confessor?

Resp. Neg. per se; for provided that he opens all mortal sins, he accomplishes an integral Confession.

Point II. On Doubtful Sins.

Doubt here can be concerned chiefly, 1° with the act of sin, or with the sin committed; 2° with the gravity of the sin, both on the part of the matter and on the part of consent; 3° with the Confession of a sin certainly committed.

n. ¶1363.

1363. Questions. - Query 1° Must mortal sins doubtfully committed necessarily be accused?

Resp. Neg. most commonly, if, after a diligent examination has been made beforehand, the doubt perseveres: and this holds even if the doubt is truly positive, or if a true probability is given concerning the sin committed. The reason is that here there is question of a doubtful law, which consequently does not oblige. And indeed from Trent those mortal sins must be accused of which consciousness is had; but there is not consciousness of doubtful sins; for to have consciousness imports certain knowledge of sin, since conscience is nothing other than knowledge of the heart and judgment concerning a sin committed. Therefore.

Others nevertheless contradict; because, as they say, it is gathered from the words of Trent that all mortal sins are to be accused as they are in conscience; and therefore, if they are doubtful in conscience, they are also to be confessed as doubtful. - But indeed it must be answered that in Trent it is not said that sins are to be accused as they are in conscience, but of which we have consciousness. In practice, however, an accusation of this kind is to be advised, says St. Alphonsus.

It is more common to teach that negatively doubtful sins are to be accused; but the denying opinion of St. Alphonsus is more probable; for there cannot be given an obligation of confessing negatively doubtful sins, since a doubt of this kind rests on no solid foundation, nor does it arise except from an empty suspicion, or fear of a sin committed, as frequently happens to the scrupulous or to those of timid conscience. - If however someone is in a positive doubt in the article of death, - knowing that he has not received the Sacrament of Penance or another Sacrament in good faith and being attrite after such a sin, - in order to escape the danger of damnation he would certainly be obliged either to receive absolution (yet he is not held to confess that doubtful sin), or at least to elicit an act of contrition.

What if he wishes to receive Communion? See n. 67. 12 a); 1307. q. 3°.

Query 2° Are sins doubtfully grave to be accused?

Resp. Neg. more probably per se, at least speculatively, even if a true probability is given concerning the gravity of the sin. The reason is the same as for the preceding question: for it is not established that a grave sin was committed; nor therefore can the obligation of Confession be established.

In practice, however, a twofold rule is to be followed:

Rule I. - In doubt whether the matter of the sin is grave. Boys and the unlearned ordinarily must accuse doubts, 1° because they can scarcely form a conscience by themselves; 2° because for the most part they do not know how to distinguish venial sins from mortal. Except, however, the scrupulous, who do not frequently tend to commit mortal sins. But instructed penitents are not held to accuse doubtfully grave sins, because they can form a conscience by themselves; nevertheless they are ordinarily to be gently exhorted to accuse these also, so that the confessor, observing the dangers in which the penitent is placed, may be able both to warn him and to remove them.

Rule II. - In doubt concerning full consent or perfect advertence: 1° if the penitents are of timid conscience and are not accustomed to sin gravely, they are by no means held to confess doubtful sins, because the presumption favors them which is had from things ordinarily occurring; indeed they are often to be prevented from this accusation if they seem inclined to scruples; 2° if the penitents keep a middle way between a timid and lax conscience, they are indeed not to be obliged, but certainly to be induced to declare doubtful consent, because it profits for tranquility of conscience, etc.; 3° if the penitents are of lax conscience, they scarcely ever ought not to declare doubtful sins, because the presumption scarcely ever is not opposed to them.¹

Query 3° Must grave sins, indeed certainly committed, concerning which however you doubt whether you have confessed them, necessarily be accused?

Resp. Affirm. See n. 67. 1°. Except, 1° if doubt occurs concerning the omission of a sin already committed long ago in one who was diligent in confessing his sins, because the presumption taken from things commonly occurring favors him; 2° if there is question of a scrupulous person, to whom the rule handed down in n. 44. II. 8° must be applied.

Query 4° Must he who confessed some sin as doubtful repeat it, if afterward he knows it as certain?

Resp. It is controverted. The "true and most common" opinion, says St. Alphonsus, "affirms." The reason is that that sin was not truly accused as to substance: for a certain accusation is not included in a doubtful one. - Otherwise, if someone afterward recognizes as mortal what, without any doubt added, he confessed.²

Point III. On The Circumstances Of Sins.

Circumstances of various kinds are distinguished in sins. (See n. 27.)

n. ¶1364.

1364. Principles. - I. It is certain that circumstances changing the species are to be accused, if the malice of a diverse species which the circumstance induces is grave (for if it was light, e.g. a light irreverence of him who in a Church steals the image of another, it is not necessary, as is established concerning venial sins, to express it in Confession). The reason is that they constitute a new sin, and indeed a mortal one, of itself; and this is clear from Trent.¹

II. It is certain that circumstances lightly aggravating, or diminishing, are not necessarily to be accused, although to expose them is of itself better. The reason is that venial sins are not necessary matter of the Sacrament of Penance.

III. It is also certain that circumstances must be expressed by reason of which a sin venial from its kind becomes mortal. Likewise circumstances are to be opened which so diminish the sin that what, with them set aside, would have been mortal, becomes by reason of them either no sin, or only venial (n. 204).

n. ¶1365.

1365. Questions. - Query 1° Must circumstances notably aggravating the malice of mortal sins within the same species necessarily be accused?

Resp. There is a twofold probable opinion.

Opinion I, the more common and more probable, denies absolutely. The reason is: 1° because Trent requires nothing else than the Confession of the number and species of sins, and therefore seems to exclude the obligation of confessing other circumstances.² 2° Because otherwise Confessions made in good faith would have to be repeated, and penitents would have to be commonly admonished for the future about explaining aggravating circumstances. But a precept so doubtful does not oblige.

But per accidens even aggravating circumstances are also to be declared, namely by reason - either of number, and thus the circumstance of quantity of time through which hatred or concupiscence toward a woman endured is to be declared; - or of censure or reservation; - or of necessary direction, as in the case of those in habit, those in occasion, and generally when there is question of the obligation to restitution.³

Opinion II affirms. The reason is, 1° because the same reason holds for accusing aggravating circumstances as for accusing circumstances changing the species; 2° because a sin increased by notably aggravating circumstances is equivalent to several sins; 3° because, if they were not accused, the confessor could not impose a proportionate penance; 4° because the Roman Catechism teaches thus.¹ - But the patrons of the first opinion reply:

To the 1st reason: "If the reasons proved equally concerning both circumstances, without cause the Council would have limited that whole doctrine to the circumstances which change the species: for it ought to have spoken concerning both in general without limitation and discrimination." Thus Lugo.²

To the 2nd. No one ever sought the multiplication of sins in the same act from the possible division of the matter.

To the 3rd. "So exact an equality is not always required in the penance to be imposed." Thus the same Lugo.³

To the 4th. The text objected here is: "Nor indeed is it necessary only to explain grave sins by narrating them, but also those things which surround each sin and greatly increase or diminish its depravity." But it can be replied that these words are explained in the same place in such a way that it is not necessary to understand them concerning merely aggravating circumstances. And indeed - a) immediately the Catechism adds: "For some circumstances are so grave that the nature of mortal sin consists from them alone: wherefore it is always necessary to confess all these." But the nature of lethal fault is not had from a circumstance alone, unless this changes either the moral or the theological species. - b) This is confirmed from the fact that it prescribes that circumstances greatly diminishing are to be confessed. For even the adversaries concede that this holds only when the diminution changes the theological species.⁴ - c) The Catechism confirms its doctrine from the necessity of expressing the circumstance of a sacred person in homicide, and of Matrimony in intercourse. But these pertain to circumstances changing the moral species.

Query 2° Must the circumstance of the degree of incest committed with blood relatives or relatives by affinity be declared?

Resp. 1° More probably, incest between blood relatives and relatives by affinity does not differ in species, since it makes no difference whether the conjunction arises from blood or from Matrimony; for intercourse with blood relatives is prohibited from the same motive from which it is prohibited with relatives by affinity: therefore the circumstance of consanguinity or affinity is not necessarily to be expressed.¹

Resp. 2° According to the common opinion of Doctors, the circumstance of conjunction in the first degree of the direct line is to be opened, namely between father and daughter; mother and son; father-in-law and daughter-in-law; mother-in-law and son-in-law; stepmother and stepson; stepfather and stepdaughter (p. 258), on account of the debt of reverence. Indeed it must be explained whether a son has sinned with his mother, by reason of the special reverence owed to the mother. - They say the same concerning the circumstance of the first degree of consanguinity in the collateral line, namely between brother and sister. Nevertheless St. Alphonsus calls the contrary opinion equally probable.²

Resp. 3° More probably, however, the other degrees of consanguinity or affinity are not necessarily to be declared.³ Cf. n. 495.

Query 3° Must the circumstance of the dignity of the person necessarily be accused, e.g. if the one sinning is a Superior, Magistrate, Priest, etc.?

Resp. Neg. more probably per se, i.e. with the reason of scandal, of office, or of a particular obligation set aside. The reason is that the circumstance of the dignity of the person sinning does not change the species of sin per se, but at most aggravates the sin.

Query 4° Must the circumstance of a sin committed by a confessor with a penitent necessarily be declared?

Resp. Neg. more probably, provided that it has no relation to Confession. The reason is that by this sin no injury is done to the Sacrament, since it has no respect to Confession.⁴ Nevertheless it is easily clear that both such a penitent is wholly to be deterred from further confessing to that priest, and such a confessor from further admitting that penitent to Confession.

Query 5° Must the circumstance of sacred time necessarily be accused?

Resp. Neg. This is clear from the universal practice both of confessors and of penitents; indeed it is certain that the former are not solicitous about asking concerning such a circumstance, nor the latter accustomed to declare it. The circumstance of sacred time does not seem to have to be explained, unless certain things are specially prohibited on account of reverence for the time, e.g. lest someone on Good Friday present public games, comedies, or ludicrous spectacles.¹

Query 6° Does he who accuses a recent sin as committed long ago satisfy the integrity of Confession?

Resp. 1° Affirm. per se. "The reason,... because the sin is the same, whether he had confessed it before or not, unless perhaps the change of time brings with itself a circumstance diverse in species," or the reservation, as regards this confessor, of a sin not confessed, or the occasion or habit of sin demands something else, and provided that a sufficient penance is imposed. ... "Nor is it an obstacle that" the penitent "says that he wishes to make a general Confession; for by this he does not say that he wishes to confess only old sins, but that he wishes also to comprehend those," i.e. old ones; "for a general Confession includes all sins up to this hour. Nor also does it matter that the confessor understands that that is an old sin, for the penitent has not said this. ... Finally it does not matter that the penitent seems implicitly to indicate that they are old sins; for he truly has the intention of speaking about new sins, and wishes to speak of them, although he desires not to be understood as to this by the confessor," ... who "intends to absolve from the sins which the penitent has brought forward."²

Resp. 2° But if the penitent lies about the time, e.g. if he denies that he sinned today; and declares the sin as committed at another determined and remote time, the Doctors more commonly think that he does not satisfy his obligation. The reason is that the act which the penitent placed today is not an act placed in the past year. Hence he lies in two ways, namely by concealing the sin committed today, and by accusing a sin committed at another time. - Thus Tamburinus.³ Yet Theologians are not lacking who think this lie light. - See Lugo.⁴

Query 7° Must the external act of sin necessarily be accused?

Resp. Affirm., because it is one and the same thing with the internal act in the genus of morals, and these two constitute one total thing. Moreover the external act is directly prohibited by divine law, e.g. You shall not commit homicide. Besides, without the declaration of the external act the confessor generally could not perform his office, as is fitting, concerning admonitions to be given, etc. This is also clear from the universal custom of the faithful, which explains the law in this sense.

Query 8° Must the penitent declare the number of persons with whom he sinned?

Resp. Neg. per se. - Thus Bonacina,¹ Tamburinus,² Lacroix,³ and others commonly.

The reason is that it suffices that the number of sins and their species be declared; but sins do not change species because they were committed with several persons. Hence he who fornicated with three different persons, or three times with the same, satisfies by saying that he fornicated three times; nor is he held spontaneously to say whether the accomplice was one, or several; whether they were prostitutes, or others. - Nevertheless the penitent is held to declare it if there is a proximate occasion of sinning, as because sin was committed several times with the same person.

Query 9° Must the nearness of persons be declared in sins of grave hatred?

Resp. 1° Affirm., if there is question of nearer nearness, on account of the strict bond of piety. Hence hatred against parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, spouse, relatives by affinity in the first degree of the direct line, and, at least if very grave evil is wished, brothers must be declared.⁴

Resp. 2° But neg. more probably, if there is question of remote nearness, namely among the other blood relatives or relatives by affinity. - Lugo,⁵ and others, against others who think the circumstance of nearness must be declared even in the fourth degree of consanguinity.

Point IV. On Forgotten Sins.

Sins omitted from inculpable forgetfulness must be accused, if they return into the memory of the penitent. For by divine precept all sins committed after Baptism must be declared in Sacramental Confession; nor can present forgetfulness excuse from so great an obligation even for the future. This is clear from the 11th proposition condemned by Alexander VII. See p. XIII.

n. ¶1366.

1366. Questions. - Query 1° Must sins omitted from forgetfulness or another just cause be accused as soon as possible?

Resp. Neg. more probably. For an obligation of this kind is to be understood morally, especially since these sins have already been blotted out, and therefore there is no danger to the soul in delay. - Thus more commonly.

Indeed according to several grave Theologians the penitent probably can defer the Confession of these sins until from the force of another obligation he is held to confess again. Thus it could be deferred for several months, and even to the time of annual Confession. Bon.¹ (6) p. 405. But more probably another Confession, with these omitted, cannot be interposed. The reason is that it belongs to the integrity of Confession to declare in the actual accusation all mortal sins not yet accused, which occur to memory, or of which consciousness is had, as Trent says.²

Query 2° Must sins omitted from forgetfulness be accused before Communion, if they first occur to the mind?

Resp. Neg. very probably, even if the penitent can confess without inconvenience (n. 1307. q. 3°).

Query 3° Is a penitent, who remembers a forgotten sin and cannot, or does not wish to, confess before Communion, held to elicit an act of contrition?

Resp. Neg. with St. Alphonsus,³ Lugo,⁴ and with others commonly against certain others. - The reason is that no foundation appears why this contrition should be required. For it is not required from precept, because this is found prescribed nowhere; nor from the necessity of probation, because the sin has already been indirectly blotted out through the preceding Confession, and therefore does not need remission.

Query 4° Must a penitent accusing a grave sin, omitted in the preceding Confession from forgetfulness or another legitimate cause and already indirectly remitted, necessarily be absolved again?

Resp. Affirm. with the most common opinion. The reason is that all mortal sins, from the institution of Christ, must be subjected to the keys, so that they may be directly remitted. For although they have already been remitted, nevertheless they have not been remitted by the force of the Sacrament, or by the force of absolution, but only by the force of grace infused through the Sacrament, and concomitantly with other sins. - Sporer,¹ Collat. Andeg.² - Yet it happens that penitents confess as omitted from forgetfulness sins which, through the accusation of other sins in which they are necessarily contained, have already been sufficiently declared; in which case there will be no obligation of absolving.

The confessor may omit absolution with penitents who will return to him; since they will be directly absolved in another Confession; nevertheless it is better to impart absolution to all, when this can easily be done, for the consolation and tranquility of the penitent's mind, and also on account of the fruit to be received from the Sacrament. Add the danger lest the penitent may not be able to approach the same confessor any more.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, Ch. II, Art. II, § II, And Especially As Regards The Dying

Point I. On Causes Excusing From Integrity In General.

n. ¶1367.

1367. Principles. - I. Causes are sometimes given which excuse from the material integrity of Confession, because sometimes that integrity is physically or morally impossible.

II. In order that someone be judged excused from the material integrity of Confession by reason of moral impotence, although the sins occur to mind, these conditions must be observed: 1° that only those sins be omitted which cannot be declared, or from the manifestation of which grave harm would follow, whether spiritual or temporal, either to the penitent, or to the confessor, or to some third person; 2° that another confessor cannot be found to whom an integral Confession may be made without such harm; 3° that Confession be necessary here and now, as it is judged to be, a) if the precept of annual Confession or Communion must be fulfilled; b) if the reception of the Eucharist or the celebration of Mass cannot be omitted without notice or scandal; c) if otherwise someone would have to be deprived for a long time of the benefit of the Sacraments; d) if someone otherwise would have to remain in mortal sin, even for only one day.

III. Difficulty intrinsic to Confession itself, however grave it may be, never excuses. The reason is that Confession from its nature is essentially laborious, and therefore, if grave difficulty - e.g. great repugnance, or shame, or the loss of one's own reputation before the confessor - excused from integrity, the faithful would for the most part be excused from accusing mortal sins, and therefore the institution of the Sacrament of Penance would fall in greatest part. Moreover the Church could not reserve atrocious crimes, because this creates no light inconvenience for penitents.

IV. When the cause excusing from material integrity ceases, the divine precept of confessing all omitted mortal sins urges again; for when an impediment occurs, the obligation of Confession does not simply cease, but is only suspended; therefore, when the excusing cause ceases, the obligation of the whole law revives: and since the precept of Confession is not affixed to a time or circumstance, but affects the whole life, therefore sins not yet accused must afterward necessarily be accused, if this can be done. This is clear also from the 11th proposition condemned by Alexander VII. See p. XIII.

n. ¶1368.

1368. Resolves. - The following chiefly excuse from the material integrity of Confession:

1° Grave infirmity, namely that in which integral Confession would bring great fatigue, or the proximate danger of it or of some other grave inconvenience, as for example often happens to women in childbirth when laborious delivery is imminent. Concerning the dying, n. 1370.

2° Defect of speech; thus from integrity are exempt the mute, who cannot confess integrally either by signs, or by writing, without danger of manifestation or without grave extraordinary inconvenience or great labor; likewise travelers wholly or almost wholly ignorant of the language of the region in which they confess. Hence, if there is question of a confessor who does not know sufficiently the language of the penitent, Kenrick learnedly teaches these things: once diligence has been applied to perceiving everything, "it is not necessary that one be more solicitous who has a less perfect knowledge of the language, provided there is a fair cause for exercising the sacred office, with another lacking who may execute it. Missionaries for this reason are not to be distressed in mind for the most part if, not knowing very well the language of the faithful, they do not fully understand Confessions; for necessity very often compels that they administer the Sacrament of Penance."

3° Defect of time, e.g. if soldiers must go immediately to battle. But the mere multitude of penitents does not excuse, as was said above, n. 1361. 5°.

4° Danger of life of the penitent, confessor, or a third person: e.g. if enemies arrive; if many are in danger of shipwreck or contagion; if in a contagious disease there is probable danger that the confessor be infected. Indeed sometimes in the highest danger of several persons, all, after some general sign of contrition and Confession has been shown, can be absolved by one utterance of the form thus: I absolve you, etc.

5° Danger of reputation, e.g. if a priest about to celebrate immediately, and needing general Confession, could not confess integrally without those standing by suspecting the matter. Say the same if there were question of a sick man confessed before the carrying of the Most Holy Sacrament and now on the very point of being refreshed by Holy Communion, who, because past Confessions were invalid, asks again for Confession, which, since it would be rather lengthy, would expose the sick man to danger of infamy. Likewise concerning a boy prepared now to receive First Communion, and concerning one to be ordained prepared now to receive Orders, if they declare to the confessor that they have hitherto confessed sacrilegiously.

6° Danger of revelation, or violation of the seal, e.g. if the confessor could not confess integrally without manifesting sins heard in Confession, etc.; or if the penitent from a grave cause fears that the confessor may break the law of the seal. But this latter case, if indeed it should ever be said to occur, is most rare.

7° Danger of scandal or fall, both on the part of the penitent and on the part of the confessor, e.g. if a woman certainly knew the very great frailty of the confessor, etc. The case of the scrupulous person in n. 44 is related.

n. ¶1369.

1369. Questions. - Query 1° Is there an obligation of confessing a mortal sin which cannot be explained without the manifestation of an accomplice?

Resp. Affirm. more probably, with the common opinion, which we follow, says St. Alphonsus, provided that there is question of a mortal sin, and one not yet, or not yet rightly, confessed. The reason is, 1° because no legitimate excuse is given by which derogation would be made from the precept of integrity: for it cannot be said that a positive precept is restricted by the natural precept of not defaming one's neighbor; for this precept only prohibits that the crime of another be manifested without cause; but here there is a cause, and indeed a grave one, namely the procuring of the integrity of Confession, and the direction of conscience; 2° the accomplice, by committing the sin, loses every right to reputation which he could have had before the confessor, in order to the Confession of this sin; and he himself implicitly consents of his own accord to this harm to reputation, when he sins.

But the penitent is held, if he conveniently can, to approach another confessor to whom the person of the accomplice is unknown.

Query 2° What are the causes excusing from seeking another confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown?

Resp. 1° If danger of death urges, or the precept of annual Confession or Communion; 2° if it would be grave for the penitent to omit Confession or Communion; 3° if someone would with difficulty open his conscience to another confessor; 4° if someone otherwise would have to remain in mortal sin, even for one day; 5° if someone otherwise would be deprived of the benefit of some extraordinary indulgence; 6° if by approaching the confessor to whom the accomplice is known, there would be better direction, notably greater consolation, etc.

Hence by reason of seeking counsel, of relieving sorrow, etc., mothers and wives are often excused when they manifest to the confessor the sins of sons or husbands, even though he may know them. For it would be exceedingly hard that they should be held to seek another confessor. Therefore, generally, there is no grave obligation of approaching another confessor for the sake of concealing the accomplice, unless perhaps there is question of a very grave and extraordinary crime.

Query 3° Is it lawful for the confessor himself to ask the name of the accomplice, e.g. for correction, etc.?

Resp. Neg., at least speaking generally, because this both induces one without just cause to detract from the neighbor, and makes the Sacrament of Penance odious. This is clear from Benedict XIV: C. Suprema omnium ecclesiarum, 7 July 1745, and Ubi primum, 2 July 1746, both of which were given for the kingdoms of Portugal and the Algarves, but which afterward through C. Ad eradicandum, 28 Sept. 1746, he extended to the whole world, and in which the Pontiff, speaking of confessors who under penalty of denying absolution require the name of the accomplice, declares that they sin gravely, and incur suspension from hearing Confessions, but only ferendae sententiae.

Query 4° Through the aforesaid letters of Benedict XIV has asking the name of the accomplice been so forbidden that in no case is it lawful?

Resp. Neg., 1° because Benedict XIV himself supposes cases in which this is lawful according to true, as he says, and sound opinions; 2° because sometimes the penitent must necessarily reveal the accomplice, and nevertheless cannot furnish this except through the confessor.

Query 5° Is there an obligation of confessing a sin which cannot be declared without the defamation of another, who was the occasion of the sin, e.g. if someone killed his own sister pregnant from a crime?

Resp. Affirm., according to the opinion set forth above in this number, q. 1°.

Query 6° Are the deaf and mute at the same time held to confess, and how?

Resp. The mute and deaf are held in some way to confess, at least by signs, unless they are so ignorant and dull that nothing can be drawn out from them. The reason is that the precept of Confession regards all the faithful who can manifest their sins by some means. - It will be best that the confessor inquire from the relatives of such mute persons to what vices they are given, and what mode is to be held so that he may be understood by them and he himself may understand them.

Hence: 1° Mute persons sufficiently instructed are held to confess integrally, at least by signs, if these are understood by the confessor; but if they are less instructed, or could with difficulty be understood by the confessor, it will suffice for them to manifest only one or another sin, or to signify in general that they are sinners and wish to avoid sin; but these, unless there is present a certain moral certitude concerning their disposition, are to be absolved conditionally.

2° The deaf, having the use of speech, are held on their own part to confess the sins which occur to memory; but the confessor is scarcely, or hardly at all, held to question them for procuring the integrity of Confession, on account of the excessive difficulty of questioning; which reason of excessive difficulty would not exist where they could easily be questioned in writing. - But the partially deaf, or those who are not wholly deaf, should either confess with an acoustic horn employed, or be led to a remote place, whether at once or at another suitable time. But if this cannot be done without danger of the seal, because the deafness became known not at the beginning but only in the progress of Confession, after a light penance has been imposed, those certainly disposed are to be absolved absolutely, those doubtfully disposed conditionally.

Query 7° Are mute persons who know how to write held to confess by writing for procuring the integrity of Confession?

Resp. See n. 1368. 2°.

Query 8° Are those ignorant of the language of the place in which they wish to confess held to confess, and how?

Resp. Those ignorant of the language of the place in which they are staying, and lacking a confessor by whom they can be understood, are held, when the precept of annual Confession urges and in the article of death, to confess in some way, at least by general signs. The reason is that the divine and ecclesiastical precept urges. For although they cannot confess materially integrally, nevertheless they are held to that which they can do.

Query 9° Are those ignorant of the language held to confess through an interpreter, if they can?

Resp. Neg., because to confess through an interpreter is a very grave burden and subject to many dangers, e.g. of revelation, mockery, etc. Except if in danger of death the penitent ignorant of the language doubts concerning perfect contrition, because in that case Confession would be a means altogether necessary for salvation; but then it will suffice to confess one venial sin, so that in this way the other sins may be indirectly remitted.

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Third Part: On the Parts o…, Chapter II: On Confession · Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Third Part: On the Parts o…, Ch. II, Question Two: On the Essence of Confession · Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Third Part: On the Parts o…, Ch. II, Question Four: On the Effect of Confession

Point II. On The Confession And Absolution Of The Dying.

n. ¶1370.

1370. - I. Any dying person who in some way, by voice or sign, confesses, or asks for absolution, can and must be absolved, and indeed absolutely. The reason is that all requisites are present for the Sacrament and for Confession formally integral.

II. Any dying person in whom attrition and Confession can be presumed in some way, however slightly probable, can and must be absolved, but conditionally; because in a case of extreme necessity, even in the administration of the Sacraments, it is lawful to use even a slightly founded opinion. - St. Alphonsus and others more commonly against others.

III. A dying person who altogether refuses the Sacrament of Penance, or who can in no way be presumed attrite or to have wished or to wish Confession, can in no way be absolved. The reason is most plainly clear.

n. ¶1371.

1371. Resolves. - 1° All dying persons not yet deprived of the senses and consenting to absolution, and obeying the commands of the confessor, are to be absolved: absolutely indeed, if they spontaneously ask for Confession, or if with a willing mind they propose to confess; but conditionally, if with difficulty they are scarcely induced to some Confession, or if there is prudent doubt concerning their sufficient disposition. - Thus commonly.

2° All dying persons deprived of the senses, who before the deprivation of the senses expressly showed a desire of Confession, e.g. by ordering a priest to be called, etc., are to be absolved, but more safely conditionally. The reason is that in the case Confession becomes known sufficiently sensibly to the confessor through the testimony of another, even of one person or mediately. This is clear from Councils and from the Roman Ritual.

3° All dying persons wholly destitute of the senses, who lived as Christians, are to be absolved under condition, even if at that time they gave no sign either of sorrow or of desire for Confession. The reason is that in these persons sorrow and the desire of absolution can be presumed through sensible signs, e.g. through sighs, motions of the body, anxious breathing, which were manifested although not perceived by the confessor.

4° For the same reason other dying persons destitute of the senses, who lived little as Christians, are also to be absolved conditionally.

5° For the same reason, sufficiently probably, a Catholic dying person, destitute of the senses in the very act of sin, e.g. in a duel, adultery, theft, etc., can and must be absolved under condition.

6° "Those who, although they have never professed the Catholic faith, have shown a will inclined toward it, can in that crisis," i.e. if they are dying and destitute of the senses, "be absolved under condition, ... if they have already been baptized in their sects" (but in doubt concerning the value of this Baptism, after Baptism has been repeated under condition); "for there is some reason for conjecturing that they wish to finish life in the communion of the Church. But if no indication of his will has been given, they are not to be absolved, even if they give signs of sorrow": because such persons can never prudently be presumed to give those signs in order to Confession, from which they greatly abhor.

Note. - Absolution is usefully conferred several times on a sick person still enjoying his senses after a brief Confession; for thus he is rendered more secure concerning the state of grace, he receives an increase of grace, and purgatorial punishments are diminished for him. - But to one destitute of the senses and giving no sign of sorrow and of desire for absolution, "it is not expedient to impart absolution very often within the same day," i.e. more often than every three or four hours, even if only conditionally; for the grave and urgent cause which is required in order that a Sacrament be administered under condition does not exist per se for this kind of absolution "repeated very often within the same day."

I say: per se; for it could be given more frequently to a dying person habituated in evil thoughts, or entangled in some passion of hatred or impure love, or not bearing a very bitter infirmity with a willing mind, or also now on the very point of dying. - "Moreover, it will not be beside the matter to warn the sick man, while he is in possession of mind, that" when "he will not be able to speak," he should "give some determinate sign," or one agreed upon with him, "when he seeks absolution, or when the priest wishes" to confer it "upon him," e.g. to close or open the eyes, lift the hand, incline the head, and the like. Thus St. Alphonsus in Praxis Conf., where he treats the matter more explicitly than in Theol. Mor. or in Hom. Apost.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, APPENDIX: ON THE EXAMINATION OF CONSCIENCE

n. ¶1372.

1372. Principles. - I. The penitent, speaking per se, is held under grave obligation to institute a diligent examination of mortal sins before Confession. This follows from the precept of procuring also material integrity, as far as can be done. For since he is held to confess the number and species of sins, by that very fact he is held to recall them into memory as far as he can by moral diligence, and therefore to institute a diligent examination; because he who is obliged to the end is also obliged to the means necessary for it. It is clear also from Trent.

II. Diligence in the examination ought to be serious, or such as is usually applied in serious matters and matters of great moment. The reason is clear; for there is question of the grave precept of Confession. - Nevertheless it is not required that it be the greatest diligence, even if someone thinks that through it, for example by thinking for another hour, he would find still other sins. - Likewise, due diligence having once been applied, no one is obliged afterward to think expressly about his past life further.

III. Nevertheless equal diligence is not required from all. For those who confess frequently need less examination than those who confess rarely; but those who are involved in worldly business need more than those who lead a private life. Likewise country people and the unlearned cannot apply that accurate diligence which the skillful and learned can.

n. ¶1373.

1373. Resolves. - He sins per se mortally who from gravely culpable negligence in the examination omits some mortal sin, and he is held to repeat the Confession, as sacrilegious. Nevertheless in defect of examination there can be smallness of matter, even if a grave sin is omitted from it, e.g. on account of some inadvertence; and then the Confession is certainly valid. I said: per se; for per accidens that obligation can either cease or be greatly diminished, namely:

1° He who is morally certain that he has not committed mortal sins since the last Confession is not held to a rigorous examination before Confession, except insofar as is required for furnishing sufficient matter for the Sacrament. In practice, however, it is to be advised to pious penitents that they give attention to an examination of conscience at least for five minutes, or for about half a quarter of an hour, namely for knowing and rooting out venial defects.

2° An entirely middling diligence of examination is required in those of timid conscience, because conscience would not be silent if anything gravely culpable lay hidden within; indeed in the scrupulous inquiry is to be omitted, and sometimes altogether forbidden, as useless and often harmful: for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes.

3° For the sick, an examination so accurate as for the healthy is not required; indeed sometimes none is to be demanded from them on account of weakness of the head; nor should compliance easily be made with them when they say they are putting off Confession from day to day, as if they have not yet sufficiently discussed their conscience; but as far as their state permits, they are to be examined briefly by the confessor himself through the precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church; for it is better to restore them to the state of grace through absolution, even if confessed imperfectly, than, with the Sacraments of the Church delayed, to expose them to the danger of damnation.

n. ¶1374.

1374. Questions. - Query 1° Is a penitent who fears lest sins fall from memory held to write them and read the writings?

Resp. Neg. The reason is that no one is held to procure the integrity of Confession through extraordinary means, and through diligence so exquisite. Besides, this is foreign to the common practice of those who fear God, and can even be prohibited to the scrupulous.

Query 2° What order is to be followed in the examination of conscience?

Resp. 1° By reason of matter: if someone has not confessed for a long time, it is expedient that he run through the order of the precepts of God and of the Church, and the special obligations of his state; otherwise it suffices to attend to evil habits, to sins more customary, or summarily to sins against God, one's neighbor, and oneself.

Resp. 2° By reason of manner: 1) divine light is to be humbly sought; 2) discussion of conscience is to be made; 3) afterward the baseness of sins and the gravity of the divine offense are especially to be considered, and thus one must insist upon eliciting sorrow and purpose.

Query 3° What is to be done by the confessor if penitents approach without their conscience having been sufficiently discussed?

Resp. 1° If they are instructed, they must kindly be dismissed, so that they may discuss their conscience more accurately and return, at least if there is question of lengthy and complicated Confessions. The reason is that it is almost impossible that someone suddenly, when asked, remember all things. Except, however, unless circumstances advise otherwise.

Resp. 2° If they are unlearned or little instructed in matters of Religion, they are not easily to be dismissed so that they may examine their conscience, at least if they have applied some diligence. The reason is that the confessor will easily supply for these. For by some questions he himself will obtain more than they, left to themselves, would furnish by a long examination, although they should strive to recall all sins into memory. Besides, it is to be feared lest perhaps, terrified by the difficulty, they may not return any more to confess.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE SACRAMENT …, PART SECOND: ON THE SUBJEC…, OR ON THE ACTS OF THE PENI…, APPENDIX: ON THE EXAMINATI…, ARTICLE III: ON THE REPETITION OF CONFESSION

n. ¶1375.

1375. Principles. - I. Every Confession of lethal sins morally certainly invalid must necessarily be repeated. For a Confession of this kind is altogether unfit for fulfilling the law of Confession.

II. But a valid Confession, even if it lacks integrity, is not to be repeated, but only integrated, namely by supplying the defect; the reason is that the sins already declared were directly remitted by force of absolution. Therefore there remains only the obligation of subjecting to absolution the omitted sins, which had been remitted only indirectly and concomitantly. - Thus all.

III. The repetition of an invalid Confession must be made from the whole, if the penitent approaches a new confessor; because otherwise he cannot here perform the parts either of judge or of physician. But otherwise, if he confesses to the same confessor still remembering the preceding Confession; then it suffices if he accuses himself summarily of the sins already accused, e.g. I accuse myself of the sins already declared in such a Confession: for this is enough that the sins invalidly declared be sacramentally accused, nor does the confessor need to hear the Confession again in order to fulfill his office. - Thus commonly. - St. Alphonsus and others against certain ones who require the whole repetition of the Confession.

IV. Confession is not necessarily to be repeated unless its invalidity is morally certainly established. See the reason n. 67. 2°.

n. ¶1376.

1376. Questions. - Query 1° Must an invalid Confession be repeated from the whole before the same confessor, if he remembers only confusedly the sins accused, or even has altogether forgotten them?

Resp. to the 1st. Neg., more commonly, even if the invalid Confession was invalid on the part of the penitent; but a general repetition will suffice. The reason is that for faults already accused a general repetition joined with knowledge antecedently had by the confessor suffices for sacramental judgment, since concerning the individual sins the confessor has already judged.

Resp. to the 2nd. Neg. also, more commonly, even if the confessor does not in any way remember that invalid Confession; therefore it will suffice that the penitent manifest his state, so that the confessor may have at least a confused knowledge, which also the penance sometimes procures, concerning him. For if in the preceding case some confused memory of the state of the penitent suffices for the confessor, it ought to suffice also in the present case; since in both cases the same reason applies.

Query 2° Must a Confession made with doubtful contrition be repeated?

Resp. Neg. per se. The reason is clear from what was said n. 67. 2°. I said: per se; for in practice attention must carefully be paid to the condition of the penitent. For if the penitent is a man sufficiently prudent and serious in his ordinary actions, or in his Confessions, there is a legitimate presumption concerning the value of the Confession; nor therefore is he to be urged to repeat it. But otherwise, if he is supposed to be a frivolous man and inconsiderate in most of his actions, because then the presumption militates against him. See n. 67. 3°.

Query 3° Are relapsers to be compelled to repeat preceding Confessions?

Resp. See n. 67. 3°.

Query 4° Must all sins be repeated explicitly which before were narrated to the confessor merely historically outside Confession?

Resp. 1° Neg., if the confessor still remembers them distinctly; then it suffices if the penitent confess them generally by saying: I accuse myself of all those things which I have already narrated to you. The reason is that those sins through summary Confession are sacramentally subjected to the confessor as judge, in order to absolution; and the confessor here and now sacramentally judges concerning all of them, since he remembers them distinctly.

Resp. 2° Affirm., if the confessor does not distinctly remember all of them, even if he remembers them confusedly or in part. The reason is clear from what has been said.

Query 5° Must Confession be repeated if the confessor before absolution has forgotten the sins accused?

Resp. Neg., if the confessor remembers, at least confusedly, the state of the penitent; for he absolves over certain and sufficiently perceived matter; and besides he judged sacramentally concerning the individual sins while they were being exposed to him. If he does not remember even the state of the penitent, he will easily be able to explore him by a few questions.

Query 6° Is the penitent held to go over the whole Confession again if, when it has been finished, he notices that the confessor, on account of deafness, sleep, or another distraction, did not perceive the sins?

Resp. Affirm., if he perceived absolutely nothing. Otherwise neg. But per accidens the repetition of the whole Confession can be necessary, namely if the penitent does not know precisely which sins were not perceived, and at the same time there is question of a brief Confession; for material integrity must always be supplied where it can conveniently be supplied. Nevertheless, if there is question of a long Confession, its repetition is not to be required, since it cannot be presumed that Christ prescribed material integrity with so great a burden.

It is said in the question: if, when it has been finished, etc.; because he who in bad faith confessed to such a confessor, or even to an unlearned one, would be held to repeat the Confession, as sacrilegious, in every case.

n. ¶1377.

1377. Resolves. - 1° For a confessor noticing at the beginning of Confession that the penitent had confessed badly in past years, it will suffice to have questioned him only concerning the last year, if on account of the uniform manner of life he can at the same time form judgment concerning preceding years. The same, with the same uniform manner of life supposed, is to be said if he notices the defect of past Confessions after the Confession of the last year has been heard, provided that he still remembers this distinctly; nevertheless in both cases it is required that the penitent accuse himself in a general manner concerning the other years.

2° If someone has confessed to a priest lacking jurisdiction, he will be held to repeat the Confession, if afterward he detects the defect. But those chiefly and regularly lacking jurisdiction are a simple priest (n. 1394. q. 7°), an accomplice (n. 1404), an excommunicated person to be avoided [n. 1676. 1°, Exc. b)], and a suspended person denounced (n. 1689. 4°).

3° In practice the confessor should distinguish carefully Confessions which were only null from those which were also sacrilegious. For it happens that both the nullity of Confessions which were not sacrilegious and the obligation of repeating them are unknown in good faith; in which case the admonition from which no fruit is hoped is to be omitted, or at least deferred to a more suitable time. But sometimes the penitent can be so questioned that, unknowing, he repeats the Confessions, and it can be declared to him that they have now been sufficiently repeated.

4° Doubtfully valid Confessions are or are not to be repeated, according as the presumption stands for their value or nullity.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 12 passages

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions, VI. Questions Concerning Various Sins to Be Healed in Sacramental Confession (1935), Concerning Various Sins — To Be Healed in Sacramental Confession

n. ¶4126.

The sins which are to be healed can all easily be reduced to those which are directly opposed to the duties of the several states, to the more principal sins which are opposed to the diverse virtues and to the precepts of the Decalogue, and to those which are wont to be the cause of many others and which therefore are called capital.

n. ¶4127.

It is certainly not our mind to speak concerning all and each of these, but only concerning some which present a peculiar difficulty, or demand special attention or care of healing. Therefore concerning the manner of healing them and concerning remedies to be suggested against them, we here set forth certain things from approved authors.¹

¹ Cf. the list of authors which we gave in the little work Concerning Various Categories of Penitents, in the introduction.

n. ¶4128.

Moreover the questions to be treated can be reduced to the following:

n. ¶4129.

I. Concerning diverse sins according to state and condition of life:

n. ¶4130.

Concerning spouses.
Concerning children and parents.
Concerning masters and servants.
Concerning public officials.
Concerning physicians and pharmacists.
Concerning merchants and soldiers.
Concerning priests and pastors.
Concerning religious and nuns.

n. ¶4131.

II. Concerning various sins against the virtues and the precepts of the Decalogue:

n. ¶4132.

Section A. Concerning sins against God:

n. ¶4133.

Concerning certain sins against faith.
Concerning certain sins against reverence for God.
Concerning the sin against the service of God, or concerning the violation of Sunday.

n. ¶4134.

Section B. Concerning sins against one's neighbor:

n. ¶4135.

Concerning sins against the internal goods of life and body.
Concerning scandal, which is opposed to spiritual goods.
Concerning adultery, which is opposed to the good of marriage.
Concerning sins against the external goods of fortune and concerning restitution owed for them.
Concerning hatred of neighbor, which is a cause of harming reputation, honor, and friendship.

n. ¶4136.

III. Concerning capital sins, which are the cause of other sins:

n. ¶4137.

Concerning pride and vain-glory.
Concerning avarice.
Concerning gluttony.
Concerning lust.
Concerning sloth.
Concerning envy.
Concerning anger.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 28 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Third Part: On the Parts o…, Chapter II: On Confession

507. Confession is required for the sacrament of Penance, because it was instituted after the manner of a judgment. For a judgment an accusation is required. But in this judgment there is no accuser, nor plaintiff, nor witness, except the guilty party himself, who therefore must manifest his offenses. This is done by confession, by which he subjects his sins to God, through His minister.

Before Christ there was no sacrament of Penance, and therefore no sacramental confession; nevertheless there existed a certain confession of sins as an act of the virtue of penance. And indeed:

a) In the Old Law it was threefold, namely: 1) confession made to God in order to obtain more easily the remission of sins (Prov. XXVIII, 13; Ecclus. IV, 31); 2) a general confession by which the high priest publicly recited once a year the impurities of the people of Israel, as is described in Lev. XVI, 20-21; 3) a distinct confession of some sin, which was made to priests, who offered sacrifice for a determinate sin, because the victim was different according to the diversity of sins, or also when restitution had to be made (Lev. IV, 3-31; V, 1-13; VI, 1-7; Num. V, 6-7).

b) When John was already announcing and preparing the proximate coming of Christ, the Jews who were seeking the baptism of John unto penance confessed their sins, that they might more efficaciously manifest the purpose of doing penance (Mt. III, 6; Mk. I, 5).

c) But after Christ, specific and distinct confession made to a priest is now necessary for the validity of Penance as a sacrament (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5), whence it was called exomologesis, i.e., declaration.¹ This confession was instituted by Christ the Lord Himself, and by divine right is necessary for all and each mortal sin (ibid., can. 6 and 7). Yet the manner of confessing publicly, although it is not forbidden and has been used by some for the humiliation of sins and of self, for the example of others, or for the edification of the Church, is not of precept; and therefore from the beginning of the Church there also existed secret confession, which is not alien from the mind of Christ, nor a human invention. Thus defined the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5, at the same time giving the theological reason for the necessity of distinct and specific confession of all sins: "For it is clear that priests could not have exercised this judgment, the cause being unknown, nor indeed could they have kept equity in imposing punishments, if penitents had declared their sins only in general, and not rather in species and one by one. From these things it is gathered that all mortal sins, of which penitents after diligent examination of themselves have consciousness, must be recounted in confession, even if they are most hidden."

¹ Yet the word is also used for the whole and laborious action of penance, as we said, p. 367.

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Third Part: On the Parts o…, Ch. II, Question Two: On the Essence of Confession

St. Th., Suppl., q. 7.

514. Definition of confession. - Sacramental confession is the voluntary accusation of one's own sins committed after Baptism, made by the penitent to a legitimate priest in order to obtain pardon by the power of the keys. There is indicated:

the genus: accusation, not a simple narration performed in a historical manner, or a fortiori made for excuse or ostentation, but a manifestation by which someone declares his sins as a guilty person, and which is made after the manner of reprehension and vindication upon himself;

the quality: voluntary or spontaneous, not coerced, so that it may be distinguished from that which is made in the external forum;

the object or matter: one's own sins, namely actual sins committed after Baptism; for the matter is not original sin, nor the sins of another, nor mere imperfections;

the subject: by the penitent, i.e., with sorrow and contrition, without which it would not be an act of penance;

the end to which: made to a legitimate priest, as to the proper judge of this tribunal, namely to a priest legitimately designated and who legitimately has the power of order and jurisdiction; hence confession made to a layman or to a priest not having jurisdiction is not truly sacramental but only thought to be so;

the end which, or the effect: in order to obtain pardon. Hence if it is made only for the sake of counsel or consolation, or with the intention of mocking or of drawing the confessor into sin, it is not truly sacramental confession;

the cause by which the effect is obtained: by the power of the keys, i.e., of sacramental absolution; so that the general sacramental confession which is recited in the divine office or before Holy Communion is not sacramental confession (art. 1).

n. 515.

515. Confession is an act of virtue. - The reason is both because it is commanded, and because in its own nature it implies a condition which pertains to virtue, namely that the one confessing brings forth by mouth what he holds in mind; otherwise it would not be true confession but fiction. Therefore of itself it is an act of virtue, although it can become evil if it is not clothed with due circumstances (art. 2).

n. 515.

It is an act of the virtue of penance. For although confession of truth absolutely and of itself pertains to the virtue of truth, confession of truth to which there is added a special notion of good and which imports a special difficulty pertains to a special virtue; e.g., confession of faith pertains to faith, confession of God's benefits to religion, confession made in judgment to justice. But confession of sins imports a special notion of good, because it is for the recognition and amendment of fault, and a special difficulty. Therefore it is an act of a special virtue. But this is penance, to which pertains the recognition of one's own sin, which is the way to confession itself and the very shame of confession. Therefore (art. 3).

n. 516.

516. Observation. - Because an act of natural virtue is of natural right, confession considered in general is of natural right insofar as the penitent is naturally inclined to confession. Yet the determination of the circumstances is of divine right. Hence natural right inclines to confession, through divine right by which the circumstances are determined (art. 2, ad 1).

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On Penance, Third Part: On the Parts o…, Ch. II, Question Four: On the Effect of Confession

St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 10.

532. Several effects are attributed to confession. - According to St. Thomas:

It truly frees from the death of sin. This it does by the force of absolution together with the other parts of penance, as the matter of the sacrament by the force of the form; and yet it belongs more to confession than to contrition and satisfaction.

"Penance, insofar as it is a sacrament, is chiefly completed in confession, because through it man subjects himself to the ministers of the Church, who are the dispensers of the sacraments. For contrition has the vow of confession joined to it, and satisfaction is measured according to the judgment of the priest to whom confession is made. And because in the sacrament of Penance grace is infused, through which remission of sins is made, as in Baptism, therefore in that mode confession remits fault by the force of the absolution joined to it, as also Baptism does. But Baptism frees from the death of sin not only according as it is actually received, but also according as it is had in vow... And similarly it must be said of confession joined to absolution" (a. 1).

Hence a) contrition, if it has been perfect, does not free from fault except insofar as it contains the vow of confession joined to absolution;

b) and nevertheless afterward, in the act of confession and absolution, grace is increased;

c) but if sorrow has not been sufficient for perfect contrition, but there is only attrition, in the act of confession and absolution remission of sin will be given, provided an obstacle is not placed to grace.

Confession also frees from punishment, and indeed in two ways: a) by the very force of absolution, and thus, existing in vow in perfect contrition, it frees from eternal punishment as from fault; existing in reality through the power of the keys, it does the same with imperfect contrition; and besides it obtains a diminution of temporal punishment: "this punishment remains to be suffered in purgatory,... and is disproportionate to the powers of the penitent living in this world; but through the power of the keys it is diminished to such an extent that it remains proportionate to the powers of the penitent, so that by satisfying he can purge himself in this life"; - b) "from the very nature of the act of confessing, which, as being a work of satisfaction and penal, has the punishment of shame joined to it; and therefore the more often someone confesses the same sins, the more the punishment is diminished" (a. 2).

Therefore it opens paradise: for one is prohibited from the entrance of paradise by fault and by liability to punishment; but confession removes these impediments; and therefore it is said to open paradise (a. 3). It does this by the power of the keys, which are the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. II, Ch. II, Article II. On the Integrity of Confession · Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § I. On the Necessity of the Integrity of Confession · Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § II. On Causes Excusing from Integrity · Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. II, Ch. II, Article III. On the Repetition of Confession

And it gives hope of salvation: for hope of the remission of sins is not ours except through Christ. But through confession man subjects himself to the keys of the Church, which have force from the passion of Christ. Therefore it is rightly said that confession gives hope of salvation (a. 4). And although "from acts there cannot be hope of salvation principally, but from the grace of the Redeemer,... because confession rests upon the grace of the Redeemer, therefore it gives hope of salvation, not only as a meritorious act, but also as a part of the sacrament" (ad 1).

n. 533.

533. Remark. - Billot notes, o.c., de Poen., th. 18: "From the premises it follows... that there is not given a valid and unformed sacrament from a defect of confession itself. The reason is that either the man is conscious, while confessing, that he is committing a grave defect against the law of confession, or he is not. If he is conscious, then the confession is no longer formally integral, and that which is essentially required in the notion of a part is lacking; whence the validity of the sacrament is taken away. If he is not conscious, then by this very fact nothing is lacking on the part of confession to prevent the sacrament from existing, not only valid, but also fruitful. - Only one could doubt about the case in which the confession was not integral because of preceding culpable negligence, but then the defect would be reduced to a defect of attrition, concerning which above," n. 506.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 47 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. II, Ch. II, Article II. On the Integrity of Confession

n. 741.

A twofold integrity is distinguished, one material, the other formal. The first is situated in the accusation of all mortal sins which have been committed; but the other, namely formal, consists in the accusation of all mortal sins which someone here and now, with the circumstances considered, morally can or is bound to confess. Hence as often as material integrity is had, formal integrity is also had; but not vice versa.

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § I. On the Necessity of the Integrity of Confession

n. 742.

Point I. On the Necessity of Integrity in General

I say. Although material integrity is not always required, because it is sometimes either physically or morally impossible, and God does not command impossibilities; nevertheless formal integrity is absolutely necessary by divine law. This is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 5, where these things are had: "The universal Church has always understood that the entire confession of sins was instituted by the Lord, and that it exists as necessary by divine law for all fallen after Baptism; because our Lord Jesus Christ, about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests, His own vicars, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal crimes into which the Christian faithful have fallen are to be brought; so that, according to the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. For it is clear that priests could not have exercised this judgment, the case being unknown, ... if they had declared their sins only in general, and not rather in species and one by one. From these things it is gathered that all mortal sins of which penitents have consciousness after diligent examination of themselves must be recounted in confession, even if they are most hidden." And in can. 7 it was defined thus: "If anyone shall say that, in the sacrament of Penance, for the remission of sins it is not necessary by divine law to confess all and individual mortal sins of which memory is had with due and diligent premeditation, even hidden sins and those which are against the last two precepts of the Decalogue, and the circumstances which change the species of sin ... let him be anathema."

He who after baptism has perpetrated mortal sins, which have not yet been directly remitted through the keys of the Church, must confess all of which he has consciousness after diligent examination of himself, and explain in confession the circumstances which change the species of sin (Can. 901).

n. 743.

Questions

Question 1. Whether the necessity of integrity requires accusation of sins according to the lowest species? Resp. Affirmatively, altogether, because the lowest species are properly called species, and the Council of Trent speaks properly of their accusation; and consequently it does not suffice to manifest only generic species, namely that you have injured chastity or religion, but it is necessary to add all circumstances inducing a proper species. But this does not import that if someone cannot or is not bound here and now to manifest the lowest species, he is also excused from manifesting the generic species. Therefore if someone, knowing that he has sinned against chastity, cannot or is not bound here and now to say whether it was with a male or female, with an unmarried or married person, nevertheless he is bound to say that he sinned against chastity. The reason is that otherwise formal integrity would not be had.

n. 743, Q. 2.

Question 2. In what way is satisfaction to be made to integrity, when someone cannot arrive at a precise number? Resp. He who cannot remember a certain number is bound to accuse the more probable number, or the number which comes nearer to the truth, adding the particle about; because where certainty is lacking, that which is more likely must be accused. Moreover St. Alphonsus well admonishes that the confessor ought not be too anxious about inquiring into the number of sins in a customary penitent, because it is often impossible to have such a certain number. Rather, let him diligently inquire into the state of conscience, by asking whether he has sinned frequently or rarely; how many times about in a month, in a week, in a day, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 466. - Lehmkuhl, nn. 304 and 305.

n. 743, Q. 3.

Question 3. What number is judged to be comprehended in the particle "about"? Resp. This cannot be determined by an altogether certain rule; nevertheless not just any excess is comprehended, nor a notable defect, but only a moderate one, yet greater or lesser in proportion to the number expressed. Thus, however, it is established by St. Alphonsus: a moderate excess or defect will be, relative to about five sins, to add or subtract one unit on either side; relative to about ten, two; relative to twenty, three or four; relative to forty, four or five; relative to a hundred, five or six ...; and prudently in the first case the penitent will be judged to have sinned four, five, or six times; in the second, however, to have sinned eight, nine, ten, eleven, or twelve times; and similarly concerning the others you will resolve. Observe, however, that sometimes from the very state of the penitent the number of sins can easily be drawn out. Thus, for example, where a man accuses himself that he lived for three years in concubinage, or a woman that for six months she practiced the gain of the body, there is nothing for which the number of sins committed in that state should be inquired further. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 466.

n. 743, Q. 4.

Question 4. To what is a penitent bound who, after completing a confession in which he used the particle about, finds the exact number of sins? Resp. A distinction must be made: if the sins which he now remembers are certainly more numerous than the number accused together with the particle about, then in the next confession he must add the exceeding number, because that number was in no way manifested; otherwise he is bound to nothing. Likewise he is bound to nothing if he finds that the sins committed were fewer and he exaggerated the number in good faith. I said in good faith; for if he acted in bad faith, he committed, per se, a grave sacrilege. For although a lie uttered in confession itself, and which does not touch the necessary matter of the confession itself, is excused from grave sin because it is neither harmful to the penitent nor gravely injurious to the sacrament, nevertheless one must speak otherwise if the lie is concerned with matter necessarily to be expressed in confession itself. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap. n. 34. - Reuter, n. 313.

n. 743, Q. 5.

Question 5. Whether it hinders the integrity of confession if someone accuses venial sins to the ordinary confessor, but mortal sins to another? Resp. Negatively, provided that he never receives absolution without having manifested all mortal sins to one confessor and being absolved by the same. The reason is that that confession is entire which embraces all mortal sins, since venial sins do not have to be accused necessarily. Therefore in practice those are not to be condemned for integrity not preserved who sometimes confess graver sins to an unknown confessor, but subject lighter sins to their ordinary one, if from shame, with which they would be suffused with a confessor familiarly known, they would commit themselves to danger of confessing sacrilegiously. - I said for integrity not preserved, because certainly they would have to be condemned for another reason, for example, if young men about to embrace the clerical or religious state acted thus, deceiving their own confessor. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 471.

n. 743, Q. 6.

Question 6. Whether it hinders integrity if someone feigns another voice, lest he be recognized by the confessor? Resp. Negatively, per se; for provided he opens all mortal sins, he makes an entire confession. Nor is it necessary that he be known by name by the confessor; for it suffices that the confessor intends to absolve the present sinner: but the intention of the confessor is per se always determined to the present penitent. Cf. Lacroix, de Sacram. in genere, n. 68.

n. 743.

Point II. On Doubtful Sins

Doubt here can be concerned chiefly 1°. with the act of sin or with the sin committed; 2°. with the gravity of the sin, both on the part of the matter and on the part of consent; 3°. with the confession of a sin certainly committed.

n. 744.

Questions

Question 1. Whether mortal sins, not certainly but only probably committed, must necessarily be accused? Resp. Negatively, more probably, if, after a diligent examination has been previously made, the doubt perseveres. The reason is that an obligation cannot be imposed unless it is certainly established concerning it. And indeed from Trent, mortal sins of which consciousness is had must be accused; but consciousness of doubtful sins is not had; for to have consciousness imports certain knowledge of sin, since consciousness is nothing else than certain knowledge and judgment concerning sin committed. Therefore ... - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 473 and 476. - Sporer, n. 389. - Roncaglia, chap. 2, question 7. - Reuter, n. 305.

n. 744, Q. 2.

Question 2. Whether sins certainly committed, but concerning whose gravity only probable reason is had, are to be accused? Resp. Negatively, more probably, per se, namely with the principles of probabilism inspected. The reason is the same as for the preceding question; for since it is not established concerning a grave sin committed, neither can it be established concerning the obligation of confession. But in practice attention must be paid to the two following rules:

Rule I. In doubt whether the matter of sin is grave, rude penitents ordinarily must accuse doubts, 1°. because they almost cannot form conscience by themselves, 2°. because for the most part they do not know how to distinguish venial sins from mortal sins. Except, however, the scrupulous, who are not often accustomed to commit mortal sins. But instructed penitents are not bound to accuse doubtfully grave things, because they can form conscience by themselves; nevertheless they too are ordinarily to be gently exhorted to accuse these things.

Rule II. In doubt concerning full consent or perfect advertence, 1°. if the penitents are of a fearful conscience and are not accustomed to sin gravely, they are in no way bound to confess doubtful sins, because the presumption which is had from things ordinarily happening favors them; indeed often they are to be hindered from this accusation if they seem inclined to scruples; 2°. if penitents keep a middle way between a fearful and lax conscience, they are not indeed to be obliged, but certainly are to be induced to declare doubtful consent, because this is useful for the tranquility of conscience, etc.; 3°. if penitents are of a lax conscience, generally they must declare doubtful sins, because the presumption is opposed to them. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 476.

n. 744, Q. 3.

Question 3. Whether sins certainly committed and certainly also grave, but only probably confessed, must necessarily be accused? Resp. It is greatly controverted: some, among whom is St. Alphonsus, say that sins of this kind must be declared, because the obligation of confession is certain, but its fulfillment doubtful. But several other Doctors deny it, so that Lugo could affirm: "All commonly teach that [someone] is not bound to confess a sin which he probably judges that he has already confessed." But the reason is that a law to which satisfaction has probably already been made, since it is no longer certain and entire, cannot claim entire obedience for itself and bring forth a certain obligation. Thus indeed as to obligation; for in practice the repetition of confession is to be advised for procuring peace of conscience and removing anxieties of soul: unless, however, it happens that in this way anxiety is added to anxiety. - Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 58 and seq. - Baller. note (c) p. 367; and note (a) p. 368. - St. Alphonsus, n. 477.

n. 744, Q. 4.

Question 4. Whether one who has confessed some sin as doubtful must repeat it if afterward he knows it as certain? Resp. Formerly the Doctors commonly affirmed; but today it is greatly controverted, and the negative opinion appears solidly probable. The reason is deduced from those things which were said above about declaring the number of sins; for just as, after the doubtful number of sins has once been exposed with the particle about, you are no longer bound to declare in confession the certain number which you afterward discovered, provided the excess is not notable; so neither are you bound to repeat in confession a sin which you accused as doubtful, afterward known as certain. For there is no difference between either case, since also in a doubtful number certain sins are declared as doubtful; nor must the species be opened more than the number of sins. Besides, the doubtful sin was directly remitted, since it was remitted by force of absolution, to which, as it was in conscience, it was subjected. Therefore it is not necessary to subject it again to the keys. - Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, n. 78. - Sporer, n. 397. - Elbel, n. 274. - Reuter, n. 332. - Baller. note (b) p. 368.

n. 745.

Point III. On the Circumstances of Sins

The circumstances of sins are distinguished in various ways. For 1°. some change the species, namely those which by reason of themselves add to the act a malice distinct in species from that which the act has by reason of its object; thus the circumstance of a vow or of marriage adds to fornication the malice of sacrilege or adultery; 2°. others are only aggravating, but notably or lightly, according as, notably or lightly, within the same species they increase the malice of the sinful act by reason of duration, intensity, degree, mode, time, person, place, etc.; and finally 3°. others are diminishing, as those which render the malice of sin less, for example, defect of advertence, etc. - Consult what was said above, n. 26.

n. 746.

I say. Just as it is certain that circumstances changing the species are to be accused, if they draw the sin into another species of lethal sin, so it is likewise certain that circumstances lightly aggravating do not have to be accused necessarily, although to expose them is sometimes better. The reason for the first is that then there is properly a new mortal sin; but the reason for the second is that venial sins are not necessary matter of the sacrament of Penance.

n. 747.

Questions

Question 1. Whether circumstances NOTABLY aggravating the malice of mortal sins within the same species must necessarily be accused? Resp. Negatively, more commonly and more probably. The reason is that the Council of Trent speaks only of circumstances which change the species of sin, and consequently seems to exclude the obligation of confessing other circumstances. Add that otherwise both penitents and confessors would always fluctuate amid straits, since it is difficult to distinguish which circumstances are notably aggravating; for no rule, at least for the most part, can be assigned by which they are discerned, for example, for duration, intensity, mode, etc. Besides, the reasons on which the affirmative opinion rests are easily dissolved. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 467. - Baller. note (d) p. 372; and notes (a) and (b) p. 373.

Moreover in practice the faithful ordinarily, speaking ordinarily, are wont to declare the more notable circumstances; and this indeed contributes, as to greater peace of conscience, so also to receiving more abundant fruit, both by reason of humility in the confession itself and by reason of the direction which they receive more suitably. - But if the discussion is about circumstances of sins against the sixth precept, not only is inquiry not to be made about them, but it is not even to be permitted that they be exposed, on account of the danger which both the confessor and the penitent could suffer in treating this muddy matter. Indeed Doctors commonly warn that this danger can sometimes require that even inquiry into the species be spared. Cf. Baller. note (c) p. 373.

n. 747, Q. 2.

Question 2. Whether the circumstance of the custom of sin must necessarily be accused? Resp. Negatively, more probably, whether under this name a bad habit is understood, or whether the simple repetition of the same sin is understood: for custom taken as a habit introduced from repeated evil acts, although it is a vice, nevertheless per se is not a sin; but custom taken as repetition of the same sin already declared elsewhere does not make the sin again admitted, and here and now to be confessed, either graver on the part of the object or different in its species. - Except, however, if the confessor asks, as is clear from prop. 58 condemned by Innocent XI, which is read thus: "We are not bound to confess to a questioning confessor the custom of some sin."

n. 747, Q. 3.

Question 3. Whether the circumstance of the degree of incest committed with blood-relatives or relatives by affinity must be declared? Resp. The circumstance of conjunction in the first degree of the direct line, whether by reason of consanguinity or by reason of affinity, must certainly be declared, as is clear per se and as theologians more commonly teach: namely between father and daughter, mother and son, father-in-law and daughter-in-law, mother-in-law and son-in-law, or stepmother and stepson, stepfather and stepdaughter; but it is not necessary to declare the origin of that incest, namely whether it proceeds from affinity or from consanguinity, nor the circumstance of other degrees, even including the first degree in the collateral line. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 469 and 470; and Hom. Ap. tract. 9, nn. 17 and 18.

n. 747, Q. 4.

Question 4. Whether the circumstance of the dignity or office of the person must necessarily be accused, for example, if the sinner is a superior, magistrate, priest, etc., or a physician, confessor, etc., or the circumstance of sacred time?

Resp. Negatively, to all, with the reason of scandal or of an altogether particular obligation or of deceit and force on the part of the physician excluded; likewise, on the part of the confessor, with any relation of the sin to confession excluded. The reason is that all the said circumstances at most aggravate the sin, but do not change its species. - Cf. St. Alphonsus on the third precept of the Decalogue, n. 273; and on the sixth precept of the Decalogue, n. 451. - Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 359, 451, and 520.

n. 747, Q. 5.

Question 5. Whether he satisfies the integrity of confession who accuses a recent sin as committed formerly? Resp. Affirmatively, per se, because the circumstance of time in no way pertains to confession. Hence a penitent satisfies the obligation of confession who mixes new sins with old ones, or who, establishing a general confession, does not distinguish from the others the mortal sins committed since the last confession, although he does this deliberately to cover the time at which he committed the sins. Yet he must explain whether, by reason of the time at which he admitted the sin, he is still subject to reservation or censure, or whether by force of some circumstance, for example, of a vow or of marriage, the sin itself is different. But if the penitent lies concerning the time, for example, if he denies that he sinned today and declares the sin as if committed at another determinate and remote time, the Doctors more commonly think that he does not satisfy his obligation. The reason is that the act which the penitent placed today is not an act placed in the past year. Hence he lies in two ways, namely by concealing a sin committed today, and by accusing a sin as admitted at another time. Yet theologians are not lacking who, probably, as it seems, think this lie to be light, and their opinion pleases us. - Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 53 and seq. - Tamburini, Method. conf. lib. 2, chap. 1. - Baller. note (a) and (b) p. 376.

n. 747, Q. 6.

Question 6. Whether a penitent must declare the different persons with whom he sinned? Resp. Negatively, per se, because it suffices that the number of sins and their species be declared; but sins do not on that account change species because they were committed with several persons. Hence one who fornicated with three different persons or three times with the same person satisfies by saying that he fornicated three times; nor is he bound spontaneously to say whether the accomplice was one or several, whether they were prostitutes or others. Yet if the confessor asks about this, the penitent is bound to respond, because it is expedient that the confessor know whether perhaps there is present a proximate occasion of sinning, as is likely if the sin was committed several times with the same person. - Cf. Bonac. disp. 5, q. 5, sect. 2, punct. 2, § diff. 3, n. 14. - Tamburini, in Dec. lib. 7, chap. 7. - Lacroix, n. 1040.

n. 747, Q. 7.

Question 7. Whether a priest or religious sinning against chastity must open his condition, or only the circumstance of the vow of chastity? Resp. It is controverted, but probably it must be said that it suffices if each manifests the circumstance of the vow, because the species of obligation does not seem to be changed by the special condition either of priest or of religious. - Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, n. 149.

n. 747, Q. 8.

Question 8. Whether nearness of persons in sins of hatred must be declared? Resp. Affirmatively, if there is question of nearer kinship, on account of the strict bond of the virtue of piety. Hence grave hatred against parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, relatives by affinity in the first degree, godparents, godchildren, a spouse, and siblings must be declared; but otherwise if there is question of remote kinship, namely among the other blood-relatives or relatives by affinity. Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 303 and seq.

n. 748.

Point IV. On Forgotten Sins

I say. Mortal sins omitted from inculpable forgetfulness must be accused if they return to the memory of the penitent. The reason is that by divine precept all mortal sins committed after Baptism must be declared in sacramental confession; nor can present forgetfulness excuse from so great an obligation even for the future. This is also clear from prop. 11 condemned by Alexander VII, which has itself thus: "Sins omitted in confession, or forgotten because of imminent danger of life or because of another cause, we are not bound to express in a following confession."

n. 749.

Questions

Question 1. Whether sins omitted from forgetfulness or another just cause must be accused as soon as possible? Resp. Negatively, more probably; for an obligation of this kind must be taken morally, especially since these sins have already been destroyed, and consequently there is no danger of soul in delay. Indeed, according to several grave theologians, the penitent probably can defer the confession of these sins until he is bound to confess again by force of another obligation, and consequently he could defer it for several months and even to the time of annual confession. Yet no other confession can be interposed with these omitted. The reason is that it pertains to the integrity of confession to declare in the actual accusation all mortal sins not yet accused, which occur to memory or of which consciousness is had, as the Council of Trent speaks. But, as Suarez says, "those sins are in present consciousness which, committed after Baptism, have not been duly subjected to the keys through another confession." Therefore. Cf. Suarez, disp. 22, sect. 1, n. 1. - Bonac. disp. 5, q. 5, sect. 2, punct. 4, n. 32.

n. 749, Q. 2.

Question 2. Whether a penitent accusing a grave sin omitted in the preceding confession from forgetfulness or another legitimate cause, and already indirectly remitted, must necessarily be absolved again? Resp. Affirmatively, with the most common opinion. The reason is that all mortal sins from the institution of Christ are to be subjected to the keys, that they may be directly remitted. For although they have already been remitted, nevertheless they have not been remitted by force of the sacrament or by force of absolution, but only by force of grace infused through the sacrament and concomitantly with other sins. And although, absolutely speaking, the confessor could omit absolution with penitents who are accustomed to return to the same confessor, since these would be directly absolved in another confession; nevertheless it is better to impart absolution to all when it can easily be done, for the consolation of the penitent and tranquility of soul, as well as on account of the fruit to be received from the sacrament. Add the danger that the penitent may not be able to approach the same confessor again. - Cf. Sporer, n. 627.

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. II, Ch. II, Art. II, § II. On Causes Excusing from Integrity

n. 750.

Point I. On Causes Excusing from Integrity in General

I say. A difficulty intrinsic to confession itself, however grave it may be, never excuses from the integrity of confession; but a grave extrinsic difficulty excuses, or rather suspends the obligation, namely some moral inability, and a fortiori physical inability. The reason for the first is that, since confession by its nature and essentially is laborious, if any difficulty intrinsic to it, for example, great repugnance or shame, excused from integrity, for the most part the faithful would be excused from accusing mortal sins, and consequently the institution of the sacrament of Penance would collapse in great part. But the reason for the second is taken from the general principle that those things which are from positive institution do not oblige with a most grave inconvenience, as often as that inconvenience is extrinsic and is joined to them per accidens. - Yet it is required 1°. that only those sins be omitted which cannot be declared; 2°. that another confessor cannot be found, with whom present that extrinsic inconvenience would cease; 3°. that confession be necessary here and now, for example, because of Easter communion or the necessity of celebrating, or if someone living in the state of mortal sin would have to wait for another confessor for several days or even for one day. The reason for these conditions is that otherwise true moral inability would not be present. - Yet I said excuses, or rather suspends the obligation, because, when that most grave inconvenience ceases, the whole obligation of integrity again revives and presses. The reason is that the precept of confession is not fixed to some determinate time, but affects the whole life. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 487; and Hom. Ap. tract. 16, n. 39. - Baller. note (a) p. 381. De Augustinis, part. 2, Thes. 21, p. 266. Viva, on prop. 11 condemned by Alexander VII.

n. 751.

Questions

Question 1. What are the chief examples of inability, whether physical or moral? Resp. They are the following: 1°. Extreme infirmity, that is, when a dying person can express only one or another sin, or, already deprived of the use of the tongue, shows penance and asks absolution only by some sign. 2°. Defect of speech, as happens in the mute, who cannot confess integrally even by signs; or in foreigners, who are entirely or almost entirely ignorant of the language of the region in which they confess. 3°. Defect of time, for example, if soldiers must immediately go to battle. But the multitude of penitents alone does not excuse; for prop. 59 was condemned by Innocent XI, which has itself thus: "It is lawful to absolve sacramentally those only half-confessed, by reason of the great concourse of penitents, such as, for example, can happen on the day of some great festivity or indulgence." 4°. Danger to the life of the penitent, the confessor, or a third person; for example, if enemies arrive, if many are in danger of shipwreck or contagion. Indeed sometimes in the supreme danger of many persons, all, after exhibiting some general sign of contrition and confession, can be absolved thus by one utterance of the form: I absolve you all, etc. The Sacred Penitentiary responded on 6 Feb. 1915:

"Nothing prevents those thus absolved in the aforesaid circumstances from being admitted to receiving the sacred Eucharist. But let the chaplains of soldiers not omit, when opportunity is given, to teach them that absolution thus to be imparted will not profit unless they have been rightly disposed, and that the obligation remains for the same persons to make an integral confession in its own time, if they escape the danger."

5°. Danger to reputation, for example, if a priest about to celebrate soon, and needing a general confession, could not confess integrally without those standing by suspecting the matter. 6°. Danger of revelation or violation of the seal; for example, if a confessor cannot confess integrally without manifesting sins heard in confession, etc.; or if a penitent from a grave cause fears that the confessor may infringe the law of the seal. But this latter case, if nevertheless it should ever be said to happen, is very rare. 7°. Danger of scandal or fall, both on the part of the penitent and on the part of the confessor; for example, if a woman certainly knew the greatest fragility of the confessor, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 479 and seq.

n. 751, Q. 2.

Question 2. Whether there is an obligation of confessing a mortal sin which cannot be explained without manifestation of the accomplice? Resp. Affirmatively, more probably, and the reason is that no legitimate excuse is given by which derogation may be made from the precept of integrity: for a positive precept cannot be said to be restricted by the natural precept of not defaming one's neighbor; for justice and charity prohibit only that another's crime be manifested without a reasonable cause; but here a cause is had, and indeed a grave one, namely the procuring of the integrity of confession and the direction of conscience. Besides, the accomplice, by committing sin, loses every right to reputation which he could have with the confessor in order to the confession of this sin; and he implicitly consents of his own accord to this detriment of reputation when he sins. Thus St. Alphonsus, n. 489, with many others. Yet other Doctors probably deny it, teaching that the circumstance from which the accomplice would be detected can, indeed according to some must, be omitted until another confessor is found; nor are they moved by the reasons of the prior opinion, which they say are a begging of the question. - But the patrons of both opinions agree in affirming the obligation of seeking another confessor. - Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, n. 395. Baller. note (b) pp. 382 and seq. Lehmkuhl, nn. 333 and seq.

n. 751, Q. 3.

Question 3. What are the causes excusing from the obligation of seeking another confessor, to whom the accomplice is unknown? Resp. They are the following: 1°. if danger of death or the precept of annual confession presses; 2°. if it would be grave for the penitent to omit confession or communion; 3°. if someone would open his conscience to another confessor with difficulty; 4°. if someone otherwise would have to remain in sin even for one day; 5°. if someone otherwise would be deprived of the benefit of some extraordinary indulgence; 6°. if by approaching the confessor to whom the accomplice is known there would be had better direction or notably greater consolation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 490. - Baller. note (b) p. 383.

n. 751, Q. 4.

Question 4. Whether it is lawful for the confessor to ask the name of the accomplice, for example, for correction, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, at least generally speaking, both because this without a just cause induces one to detract from one's neighbor, and because it renders the sacrament of Penance odious. Thus the Code: Let him beware altogether lest he inquire into the name of the accomplice ... Can. 888, §2. It is further clear from Benedict XIV, Const. Suprema Omnium, Const. Ubi primum, Const. Ad eradicandam.

n. 751, Q. 5.

Question 5. Whether by the aforesaid declarations of Benedict XIV it is so forbidden to seek the name of the accomplice that in no case is this lawful? Resp. Negatively, both because Benedict XIV himself supposes cases in which this is lawful according to true, as he says, and sound opinions; and because sometimes the penitent must necessarily reveal the accomplice, and nevertheless cannot do this except through the confessor. - Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 424 and seq. Baller. note (a) p. 386.

n. 751, Q. 6.

Question 6. Whether and in what way the mute and the deaf are bound to confess? Resp. The mute are certainly bound to confess in some way, at least by signs, unless they are so ignorant and dull that nothing can be drawn from them. The reason is that the precept of confession regards all the faithful who can manifest their sins in some manner. Hence the sufficiently instructed mute are bound to confess integrally, at least by signs, if these are understood by the confessor; but if they are less instructed or can be understood by the confessor only with difficulty, it will suffice for them to manifest only one or another sin, or to signify in general that they are sinners and wish to avoid sin. But the deaf, having the use of the tongue, are bound on their part to confess the sins which occur to memory; but the confessor is not bound to question them for procuring the integrity of confession, on account of excessive difficulty of questioning and danger of revelation.

n. 751, Q. 7.

Question 7. Whether mute persons who know how to write are bound to confess by writing for procuring the integrity of confession? Resp. No one doubts that this can be permitted; but theologians warn that then care must be taken that the writing be destroyed. But if there is question of obligation, not a few very probably deny it, both on account of the danger of revelation, and because writing is an extraordinary means which has never been held in the Church as prescribed, and also because such a mode of confession is of itself public, since writing is of itself public. - Cf. Baller. note (a) p. 388.

n. 751, Q. 8.

Question 8. Whether and in what way those ignorant of the language of the place in which they wish to confess are bound to confess? Resp. Those ignorant of the language of the place in which they are living, and lacking a confessor by whom they can be understood, are bound, when the precept of annual confession presses and in the article of death, to confess in some way, at least by general signs; because although materially they cannot confess integrally, nevertheless they are bound to that which they can do. - But they are not bound to confess through an interpreter, because this is a most grave burden and liable to many dangers, for example, of revelation, ridicule, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 479. - Baller. note (a) p. 389.

n. 751, Q. 9.

Question 9. Whether it is lawful for those who cannot confess otherwise to confess through an interpreter? Resp. Those who cannot confess otherwise are not prohibited, if they wish, from confessing through an interpreter, with abuses and scandals being guarded against, the prescription of can. 889, §2 remaining firm (Can. 903).

n. 752.

Point II. On the Confession and Absolution of the Dying

I say. Although in no way can a dying person be absolved who altogether refuses the sacrament of Penance, or who can in no way be presumed attrite; nevertheless any other dying person can and must be absolved, either absolutely or conditionally; absolutely indeed if in some way by voice or sign he confesses; conditionally, however, if attrition and confession can be presumed on some foundation, however slightly probable. The reason for the first is that otherwise the form of the sacrament would be placed without the dispositions essentially required. The reason for the second is that then confession would be formally integral. Finally, the reason for the third is that in extreme necessity it is lawful to administer a sacrament conditionally with an opinion even slightly probable. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 480 and seq.

n. 753.

You Will Resolve. 1°. All dying persons not yet deprived of the senses and consenting to absolution, and obeying the commands of the confessor, are to be absolved: absolutely indeed if they ask for confession of their own accord or if with a willing soul they propose to confess; but conditionally, if they are with difficulty and scarcely induced to some confession, or if there is prudent doubt concerning their sufficient disposition.

2°. At least conditionally, all dying persons deprived of the senses are to be absolved who before the privation of the senses expressly showed a desire for confession, for example, by ordering a priest to be called, etc. The reason is that they are judged truly to confess through the testimony of those standing by; for then it seems to be done as if a confession through an interpreter. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 481.

3°. Under condition all dying persons altogether deprived of the senses who have lived as Christians are to be absolved, even if then they gave no sign either of sorrow or of desire for confession. The reason is that these can always be presumed to have or to have had some lucid interval, in which by truly sensible signs, such as sighs, motion of the body, etc., they sought absolution. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 482. - Lacroix, n. 1162. - Elbel, n. 208.

4°. Other dying persons deprived of the senses who have lived little as Christians are also to be absolved conditionally; because in them too penance and a desire for confession, which they may have signified outwardly, can still be presumed in some way. - Cf. Lacroix, ibid. - Baller. note (b) p. 390.

5°. A dying person deprived of the senses in the very act of sin, for example, in a duel, adultery, theft, etc., can probably be absolved under condition. The reason is that even he can be sufficiently disposed. This especially has place for one who perhaps was led to the sin by fear, human respect, etc. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 483. Elbel, n. 211.

6°. Indeed, probably and under condition, those can be absolved who up to the privation of the senses rejected the ministry of the priest. For these sometimes even in that state can know those standing by, indeed even perceive the things which are said, and wish sighs, etc., to be taken as signs of a petition for absolution because of their evil will changed through divine help. More strictly, Bucceroni, n. 754bis.

7°. It is also lawful to give absolution to a dying schismatic existing in good faith, scandal being removed; for thus the Holy Office responded to a certain case. A schismatic woman made a confession in a Church before a priest who found that she was not of the body of the Church, but was very well instructed in the principal truths of faith, and evidently existing in good faith. Fearing lest further inquiry would be harmful to her, he absolved her as confessed and contrite. To the question: "Whether material schismatics, who are in good faith, can ever be absolved?" the response was: "When scandal cannot be avoided, Negatively, except in the article of death; and then with scandal effectively removed." 20 July 1898. Gennari, Consultazioni, v. 1, p. 563.

8°. Conditional absolution can be given to a material heretic deprived of the senses. Thus altogether many. Gury, Cas. n. 488. "Because it can be presumed in some measure that here and now, recognizing the truth, he wishes to die in the Catholic religion, and consequently to confess and to be absolved. For this can happen absolutely. ..." "Then, in a case of necessity," says Bucceroni with Gury, "it is lawful to use even a slightly probable opinion in favor of one in danger." Bucceroni, Casus 2, n. 127. 5. Lehmkuhl, n. 651. Gennari, ibid.

9°. With a heretic not deprived of the senses a zealous priest can act thus, according to Lacroix:

"If a Catholic priest understands that a non-Catholic man has been brought to extremes, he acts prudently, unless something else prevents, if he approaches him ... he can elicit with him acts of faith, hope, and charity, and of perfect contrition for sins. But if the circumstances allow, he can afterward ask whether, if he knew that he was not in the true faith, he would not wish to embrace another, and to do all things necessary for salvation, whether he would not wish to confess and be absolved, if this were necessary for salvation. If he assents to this ... he can be absolved under condition." Lacroix, l. 6, p. 2, n. 1866. - Cf. Bucceroni, Cas. 2, n. 127, 6. - Lehmkuhl, 11th ed. n. 651. - Gennari, Consultazioni, v. 1, 260. - Varceno, Com. Theol. Mor. De Poen. art. v. - Ball.-Palm. Op. Mor. v. 5, n. 394, 4°.

Let Saint Augustine be heard, "de Conj. adult." lib. 1, chap. 26, n. 33 (M. 40, c. 469): "Therefore for catechumens placed at the end of this life, if by illness or some accident they are so oppressed that, although still alive, nevertheless they cannot ask Baptism for themselves or respond to the questions, let the fact that their will is already known in the Christian faith profit them, so that they may be baptized in the same way in which infants are baptized, whose will has not yet appeared at all. Yet not on that account ought we to condemn those who act more timidly than it would seem to us ought to be done. ... But not only is it incredible that a catechumen should not wish to be baptized at the end of this life; but also if his will is uncertain, it is far better to give to one unwilling than to deny to one willing, where whether he wishes or does not wish is not apparent, yet in such a way that it is more credible that he, if he could, would say that he would rather receive those Sacraments without which he already believed he ought not to go out from the body." And chap. 28, 35: - "I think that not only other catechumens, but even those themselves who, being joined to living spouses, retain adulterous unions, although when sound in body we do not admit them to Baptism; nevertheless, if they lie desperate and cannot respond for themselves, must be baptized, so that even this sin may be washed away by the laver of regeneration. For who knows whether perhaps they had determined to be detained by the enticement of adulterous flesh up to Baptism? But if, having recovered from that desperation, they are able to live, either they will do what they determined, or, having been taught, they will obey, or there will be done concerning them as contemners what ought to be done concerning such baptized persons. But the same reason which belongs to Baptism belongs also to reconciliation, if perhaps the danger of ending life has overtaken one doing penance. For Mother Church ought not to wish even these to go out from this life without the pledge of their peace."

And these principles of solutions can indeed be most useful in this tremendous moment of death. Think of a priest called to a dying man who lives with a concubine, he himself now separated by divorce from his true wife: he repents of the deed; he promises separation, which now becomes impossible; the priest has before him one disposed. But if he can obtain the assistance of witnesses so that his repentance may be publicly established, so much the better. But if he cannot obtain even this, let him absolve the dying man, visit him frequently, and strengthen his dispositions. - Cf. "Nouvelle Rev. Theolog." v. 46, n. 415.

Vol. II, Tr. XV, Pt. II, Ch. II, Article III. On the Repetition of Confession

n. 754.

I say. A confession of mortal sins already made can be either certainly valid, although materially not integral, or certainly invalid, or finally only probably valid. If the first, it does not have to be repeated necessarily, but only the defect must be supplied; because the sins already declared have been directly remitted by force of absolution, and those which were omitted must be subjected to the keys. If the second, the whole confession must necessarily be repeated, and the reason is that all mortal sins must be subjected to the keys; but sins accused in a certainly invalid confession were not subjected to the keys. If finally the third happens, no obligation is given of repeating the confession, both because satisfaction has already probably been made to the divine law concerning making confession, and consequently the former obligation cannot now exist as whole and certain; and because when the act has certainly been placed, the rule of law obtains: Standum est pro valore actus, one must stand for the value of the act. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 502 and seq. Lugo, disp. 16, n. 638. Lacroix, nn. 1216 and seq.

n. 755.

You Will Resolve. 1°. The repetition of a certainly invalid confession must be made entirely, if the penitent approaches a new confessor, as is clear per se; but if he confesses before the same confessor still well remembering the previous invalid accusation, it suffices that it be said summarily: I accuse myself of the sins already declared in such a confession ... on such a day, etc. The reason is that all sins are sacramentally accused in this way. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 502. - Elbel, n. 253.

2°. Indeed, if the confessor remembers only confusedly the preceding confession invalidly made before him, then also, at least probably, the aforesaid summary repetition will suffice. The reason is that, since the confessor has already judged concerning the individual sins, the present general repetition joined with the knowledge previously had suffices for bearing sacramental judgment here and now. But if the confessor does not remember even confusedly the sins already accused, then it is required and suffices that the penitent manifest his state in such a way that the confessor comes at least to a confused knowledge. Here it must be observed that the aforesaid solution has force both if the confession is invalid on the part of the confessor, because, for example, he did not have jurisdiction or did not recite the words of the form, and if it is invalid on the part of the penitent, because, for example, he did not have sufficient attrition. The reason is that in all these cases the confession previously made was in some way sacramental, at least with the intention of the penitent considered. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 502 and 503.

3°. If all sins were manifested only historically, and afterward the desire of confessing is conceived, a summary confession suffices if the confessor still remembers the whole history. The reason is that then nothing would be lacking to prevent all sins from being said to have been subjected to the keys and sacramentally accused. But if the confessor retains only a confused knowledge of the history heard, according to St. Alphonsus the whole accusation of sins must more truly be repeated. The reason is that then there would be no sacramental confession: not the first, because the sins were not manifested in order to absolution, so that concerning them the confessor is not bound to the sacramental seal; not the second, because, as is supposed, it is only summary and generic, which indeed according to Trent does not suffice outside a case of necessity. Nor should you say that this solution contradicts the preceding under n. 2°; for there the confession previously made was supposed to be sacramental, at least on the part of the penitent. - Yet theologians are not lacking who deny the obligation of repeating the whole confession entirely; this opinion perhaps could sometimes be useful, at least so that absolution may be given conditionally. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 502. - Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 637 and 638. - Baller. note (b) p. 398.

4°. A penitent who fears that for a long time he has confessed invalidly is bound to repeat nothing, especially if he is of a fearful conscience and has been accustomed to employ sufficient diligence in confessions. The reason is that presumption stands for the value of confessions; otherwise, if the presumption against the penitent stands so grave that it is equivalent to moral certainty.

5°. If the confessor did not recognize a grave sin as grave, or judged a mortal sin to be venial, there is not on that account an obligation of repeating it, provided the penitent set forth the fact rightly and faithfully; because for the value of the sacrament and for the direct remission of the sin it is not necessary that the confessor judge this to be mortal; indeed he often cannot discern this. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 500.

6°. If the penitent notices that the confessor because of sleep did not perceive some sins and he does not know which ones, he is bound to repeat the whole confession, if it was brief, because then he can prudently doubt concerning each one whether they were understood by the confessor or not; otherwise, however, if the confession was lengthy and only a few seem not to have been perceived, because then he can prudently presume that each one was understood; nor does it appear likely that Christ imposed the precept of integrity with so great a burden. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 499.

…and 7 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 3 passages

Diss. I, Chapter I — Propositions condemned by the Holy See

n. 20.

20. Confessions made to religious are for the most part either sacrilegious or invalid.

n. XX.

XX. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 1, no. 944: “Death, the burning of a house, the privation of reason, and venereal motions are called effects of sin; and it is asked concerning them whether and when they are to be explained in confession; whether it be enough to say: "I transfixed him, intending the death of my neighbour"; "I burned my neighbour's house"; "I drank, foreseeing the danger of drunkenness"; "I procured base things, foreseeing venereal motions" — keeping silence that all these things really followed. It seems more probable that there is no obligation, speaking per se, of confessing such an effect. So Vásquez, Salas, Granado, de Lugo, Bonacina, and so forth. … Although the effect was in sin, as foreseen or even intended as a cause, nevertheless such an effect cannot properly be called a sin, as was proved in Book 5, no. 33; since it is neither in itself a sin, nor does it externally complete the sin, according to what was said at no. 945. Therefore there is no obligation of confessing it, because there is no obligation of confessing anything other than sin. Nor is it an objection that he did not retract the cause. For whether he retracted it or not, the effect remains in its own manner equally unchangeable, not as a fault, but only as the effect of a past fault, as was explained in Book 5, no. 42. And consequently such a man will satisfy by saying: "I cast away my Breviary, foreseeing that for so long a time I could not pray"; "I held out poison to my neighbour, intending his death" — keeping silence whether he did not pray for the hours, and whether the death followed or not.”

n. LXII.

LXII. The same in the place cited, tract 1, disputation 2, chapter 4, § 2: “It is at least not grave in sacramental confession (especially if it be general, though voluntary) to feign past grave sins never laid open in confession, as though it were done before.”

Slater, Cases II

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 13 passages

Slater, Cases II, Penance, Case 2. A Convert's Confession

Albert, an Anglican, was received into the Church at Rome by a certain Roman priest who did not require from him, as one doubtfully baptized in the Anglican sect, an integral confession. Returning to his native country, Albert related this to Titius, his parish priest and confessor, who was thereafter tormented by scruples. For he had read in a recent author that the question of requiring an integral confession from those doubtfully baptized when they are received into the Church had been practically resolved, and that it was now established that such persons must make an integral confession by divine law. If this opinion is true, Albert seems to be bound by divine law by an obligation which he has not yet satisfied. Titius therefore wishes to know whether he ought to warn him of this obligation. Hence it is asked:

What is the matter of the sacrament of Penance?

What ought a confessor who receives a new convert into the Church to do?

What principal documents have emanated concerning the confession to be required in such a case?

What is to be said of the case?

Solution

The first question is answered above, p. 151.

What ought a priest to do when he receives a convert into the Church?

He must first of all see to his instruction in the Catholic faith, and then inquire about his Baptism. If the convert was never baptized, he is only required to make a profession of faith. If he has been validly baptized, besides a profession of faith he must be absolved from censures, and then be absolved in confession from his sins. If there be a doubt about his Baptism, he must make a profession of faith and be baptized conditionally, in England with holy water in secret without the ceremonies. He must, furthermore, make a full confession of all the mortal sins of his life, and receive conditional absolution from them. In some dioceses leave from the bishop is required to receive a convert. 1

What are the chief documents that have been issued about, requiring a full confession in such a case?

The following: I Westmon. d. XI, n. 8; S. 0. 17 Junii 1715, 17 Dec. 1868, 20 Julii 1859; S. C. de P. F. 12 Julii 1869; Tanquerey, De Poenit. n. 133; Collectanea S.C.deP.F.

The case. Albert, an Anglican doubtfully baptized, was received into the Church by a priest in Rome who did not require him to make a full confession of his life. When Albert returned to England, he told this to Titius, his parish priest, who was in doubt whether a full confession was not still obligatory by divine law.

According to the principles laid down by some theologians (v.g. Lehmkuhl, Casus, II, n. 288; Tanquerey, De Poenit. n. 34,) Albert would seem still to be under the obligation of making a full confession. It is advisable that he should do so, but the strict obligation is difficult to prove. The arguments adduced to prove it are not conclusive. The Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda indeed 1 Form for the Reception of a Convert, C. T. S., 1901.

Vol. I, Case XVI: A Case of Confession · Vol. IV, Case LXIV: Confessions of the Clergy · Vol. IV, Case LXXV: Confession Before Celebration

did declare July 10, 1869, that the answer of the Holy Office Dec. 17, 1868, “ contained a universal law,” but a private assertion made by a Prefect of Propaganda could not make it a universal law if it was not one already. No universal legislative authority has ever made such a law. Nor is there a presumption of law with regard to the matter in hand. There is such a presumption with regard to a question of the validity of marriage. It is a well-recognized rule of law that doubtful Baptism is presumed valid in questions concerning the validity of subsequent marriage, but this presumption of law must not be transferred to quite another matter such as this is. And if it be said that the Church has jurisdiction over those who are doubtfully baptized, this has to be proved. If in fact the person is not baptized, the Church has no jurisdiction over him: “ For what have I to do to judge them that are without?” (1 Cor. v. 12).¹ It seems still to be probable that a full confession is only necessary by positive law, and in places where such positive law binds, as in Great Britain and in the United States of America. But as Albert was received in Rome where there is no positive law on the point, he need not be required to make a full confession after his return to England.

1 Cf. Wernz, Jus Decretalium, iv, n. 508.

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 30 passages

Vol. I, Case XVI: A Case of Confession

In a certain church the confessional is placed in a somewhat 'dark corner. On a certain Sunday morning the place is even darker than usual, owing to the rainy day. To the confessional there comes an aged woman, as the confessor learns by her voice and speech. She is just through confessing, when at the near altar the bell is rung for elevation. The confessor tells the woman to pause a little while, until after the elevation, and the woman answers, "Yes, father." The confessor makes the sign of the cross and gathers his thoughts for admonition. After the elevation he turns again to the woman, admonishes and consoles her, etc., gives her her penance and pronounces absolution, ending with his customary "Blessed be the Lord" to the penitent, from whom, to his great surprise, comes the word Amen in a man's deep voice. The confessor, quickly looking up, perceives a young man leave the confessional and disappear. How did this young man get there in place of the aged woman? There is only one explanation. The aged woman must have misunderstood her confessor when he suggested to wait until after the elevation. When the confessor then made the sign of the cross, she probably understood this to be the absolution. Softly she left the place, and just as softly it was taken by the young man, who received the absolution of the priest probably in some astonishment. He may have been agreeably surprised by the imagined fact that this confessor did not even require the telling of his sins.

This would raise now the following questions: 1. Has the confessor rendered himself guilty of laesio sigilli, by addressing his admonition, referring to sins of the aged woman, to the young man?

Has the woman been absolved? 3. Has the young man been absolved?

The confessor may safely be exonerated from the offense of laesio sigilli. It is probable that the young man was not able to get any sense out of the admonition addressed to him by the confessor. Nor is it likely that he connected the admonition with the person who preceded him in the confessional. It may therefore be assumed that the confessor has not revealed anything; but even if this be the case the confessor would have to be declared not guilty ob errorem invincibilem. He could not possibly presume that some one else had taken the place of the woman.

The question, Has the woman been absolved? is to be answered in the affirmative. Though the words "Ego te absolve" were spoken to the young man, the "te" was nevertheless meant for the woman, who, we may assume, was still morally present during absolution. Several at least of our moralists have so held in similar cases. In our instance it is moreover very likely that the aged woman was still in church when absolution was pronounced for her. It is therefore, and for these reasons, at least probable that she was absolved.

The third question, however, must be answered in the negative. The young man has not been absolved. He did not conform to the essentials of the sacrament, he did not confess his sins, nor had the confessor any intention of giving him absolution.

Suppose, however, the young man thought bona fide he had been absolved, and with this thought, although possibly in the state of mortal sin, went to receive Holy Communion? In this case it isto be held that through Holy Communion his mortal sins were forgiven per accidens if he approached the Holy Sacrament bent attritus.

Vol. IV, Case LXIV: Confessions of the Clergy

Two points seem to us very important, if matters are to be improved, viz., the place where the confession is made, and frankness on the part of the penitent.

Let us consider first the need of frankness. Confidence begets confidence, and what comes from the heart goes to the heart, and calls forth the right sentiments and the right words. It is not easy for every one to speak frankly to another, even to a confessor. We all like to keep our innermost thoughts secret, and to confess them frankly is more difficult to one who is otherwise on terms of friendly intimacy with his confessor. Nevertheless he must do so, if both confessor and penitent are to do their parts successfully and to their own satisfaction. We require frankness of our penitents. What can we find to say to a person who always accuses himself of trifles that are as a rule things which are scarcely matter for the Sacrament? Can we rouse him to the pursuit of virtue? This is often a difficult task if he lives an ordinary life, doing nothing particularly bad or particularly good. A priest is in a similar case who always accuses himself of having said his prayers without devotion, of having committed small faults in the administration of the Sacraments, and of having given way to vain thoughts, but never mentions such things as envy of his confratres, neglect of important duties belonging to his position, such as carelessness about study, indifference to his schools and teachers, want of zeal in instructing his people, etc. A confessor, if he felt that he was being treated with confidence, would often find it possible to single out some point as a subject for admonition.

I do not mean to imply that priests as a rule make bad preparation for confession, but that by force of habit they are apt to make mistakes and omissions, which they almost overlook, if they are not accustomed to be frank with their confessor.

If a priest is in all important matters a faithful servant and an honest steward,—and this is generally the case,—there are still manyways in which he may attain greater perfection. Some one perhaps feels in his heart a real desire to practise some virtue or to impose upon himself some mortification; why does he not speak of this desire to his best friend and counselor in the confessional? It would give the confessor an opportunity for giving useful advice. Confession should be not only a means of purification, it should be in the highest degree a means of sanctification. I must admit that it is not easy to be frank. The difficulty was felt even by St. Teresa.

Frankness is essential for one who really strives to follow Christ, as it is no easy matter to guide oneself to perfection. Man must be guided by man. We often say this to others, and they may retort: " Physician, heal thyself; do thyself what thou dost counsel others to do." Imagine a physician who would write a prescription after scarcely seeing the patient. If he is to treat him successfully, he must begin by making an exact diagnosis of his case, and asking the sick man to explain cause and symptoms of his malady. A confessor can do a great deal to encourage a confrater who seems reserved, and to help him to make not only a good confession, but one that will be really helpful to him. All the banal and meaningless phrases will then fall away of their own accord; they are things to which the penitent pays hardly any attention.

If we are to promote frankness and give an opportunity for instruction, encouragement, and admonition, we must be careful about the place where the confession is made.

A young priest told me lately how he and his friend managed. They lived in a large town with a very mixed population. Every three or four weeks they went to the priest of another church, and he generally guessed what they came for, and went into an adjoining room. First one went in and made his confession, and then the other. There were no admonitions, corrections, or instructions at all. Immediately after their confessions, the confessor called to his servant to bring refreshments, and a comfortable gossip followed the brief confession.

It is not a good plan to make one's confession in the priest's room; it is far better to make it in the church or sacristy. What does it matter if there are other people in the church? There is no harm in their seeing priests go to confession. Priests are frail mortals like themselves, and to see them confessing their sins and shortcomings to God's representative tends to edification. If any one objects to being seen, let him choose the sacristy. In the seminary all of us, alumni as well as young priests, had to go to confession every week at the same time and place as other people. One or two objected to it, but it had to be done, and certainly the plan had its advantages.

Many priests make it a rule to spend some time in silent recollection before the tabernacle, and then to go home, without entering the confessor's house. This can easily be done in a town or village where there are several churches and priests. Others make their thanksgiving in the church and then visit their friend and confessor. There can be no harm in this, especially if they have come some considerable distance, and need refreshment for soul and body.

In a time like the present, when shallowness and worldliness prevail, we priests must strive above all things to be " good salt." A good confession on the part of a priest will certainly help the salt to retain its savor.

Vol. IV, Case LXXV: Confession Before Celebration

Peregrinus, a parish priest, invited his nephew Juvenal to spend a few days with him. Juvenal had been recently ordained and had just been appointed to the cure of souls. He gladly accepted the invitation, for he regarded his uncle as his greatest benefactor, and owed him a debt for having in many ways shown himself a wise friend and counselor. On the last day before his nephew's departure (Saturday), Peregrinus committed a peccatum turpe ex fragilitate carnis, and this caused him the greatest distress.

What was he to do? As parish priest he was well aware of the strict command of the Church, requiring him to confess a mortal sin before saying Mass; but it was unspeakably repugnant to him to confess such a peccatum turpe to his young nephew, to whom he has stood in so close a spiritual relationship.

As there was a vera necessitas celebrandi on the following Sunday, Peregrinus did not feel himself bound under the circumstances to make his confession to Juvenal before celebrating, so he contented himself with perfect contrition. Quid ad casum?

Answer.—The rule laid down by the Council of Trent (sess. 13, c. 7), that mortal sins must be confessed before a priest celebrates Mass (Holy Communion), is generally regarded as a lex ecclesiastica, but not as a praeceptum divinum, perhaps in the sense of an official explanation of the probatio required by St. Paul (1 Cor. xi, 28). A difficulty connected internally and inseparably with the fulfilment of such an order certainly forms no ground of excuse, e. g., no kind of shame, however great, justifies a breach of the law; otherwise no priest would be bound to confess any particularly shameful sin. It is, however, possible for a verecundia extraordinaria not to have its origin so much in confession of the sin as in some external circumstance, not essentially connected with the confession, but conditioned by some peculiar chain of events. This is true in the case under consideration. We have present in it the near relationship (uncle, nephew), and the particular bond of affection between Peregrinus and Juvenal (the former has been the benefactor, friend, and spiritual adviser). These circumstances give rise to a verecundia extraordinaria, and many of the more important recent moralists regard them as a ratio excusans a lege Tridentina. Father Génicot, S.J., in his Institutiones theol. mor., II. n. 193, says: “We judge the opinion of certain authors sufficiently probable: that extraordinary and truly invincible shame excuses, for example, if an uncle had to confess a very shameful sin to his nephew. The reason is that in such cases making a confession is exceedingly difficult because of the enormous repugnance that must be overcome. For, as St. Thomas testifies: ‘Many are so weak that they would rather die without confession than confess to such a priest.’ Nor does this hardship seem intrinsic to confession. For loss of reputation before the confessor is indeed intrinsic to it, but by no means the difficulty arising from the fact that here and now someone has no other confessor besides this one, whom for just reasons he greatly dreads. Or, even if it should seem intrinsic to someone, it does not appear why, in a law that is probably merely ecclesiastical and in which authors admit excuses for a cause not so grave—for example, a distance of one or two leagues—a case most harsh to human weakness cannot be excepted by epikeia.”

Aemilius Berardi, the well-known Italian writer on pastoral theology, expresses himself in very much the same way in his Praxis Confessariorum (p. 558, etc.); he denies that the copia confessarii, presupposed by the rule of the Council of Trent, exists in a case where a confessor was indeed at hand, but invincible repugnance prevented confession from being made to him. For what if an uncle were forced to make confession of a most shameful sin to his nephew? Uncles are not accustomed to make confession to nephews, and consequently the means in question would be excessively abnormal. Besides, contrary to Gury and others who think most rigorously on this point, the following theologians speak more leniently. Voit openly supposes that shame alone can sometimes be so great that it excuses.... Gousset (n. 193) ait: “A confessor would be judged lacking when only such a priest was present before whom confession could not be made because of a more or less legitimate but insurmountable repugnance.... I would say that truly great and extraordinary shame suffices so that, in urgent necessity, Mass may on some occasion be celebrated with contrition alone, with the intention of approaching one’s proper confessor as soon as possible. Nor is the reasoning valid that shame alone never suffices for making a partial confession; for it can more readily be conceded that some Mass be celebrated with contrition alone, provided the sin is certainly accused as soon as possible, than that an opening be made for partial confessions from a motive of shame.... Finally, what if the wretched priest, in so straitened a case, were prepared rather to undergo disgrace or permit other disadvantages than to endure so hard a sacrifice?”

Views equally lenient are taken by Fr. Kenrick, who died in 1863 as Archbishop of Baltimore (Theol. mor. de euch., p. 1, c. 4, § 2) and Noldin (Summa theol. mor., III. n. 141); the latter refers to Berardi and Génicot (ll. cc.) in support of his opinion.

The reasons adduced by these eminent theologians certainly enable us to claim probability for their theory. In the case under consideration there is an incommodum gravissimum due, not to the confession itself, but to purely exterior considerations of kinship and affection, and therefore we may probably apply here the general principle: "lex humana (positiva) non obligat cum gravi incommodo." The Council of Trent, in making this law, certainly had in view ordinary circumstances, in which a verecundia extraordinaria is connected internally with the duty of confession, not those in which it is connected with this duty in a purely external way.

It is true that this distinction may be abused, and the plea of verecundia extraordinaria be put forward too lightly; such an abuse, however, would not be due to the theory, but to too lax an application of it in practice.

The question resolves itself finally into this:

Rigorism when pushed too far (as Berardi says, and as was suggested even by St. Thomas, l. c.) often leads to sacrilege, because a priest cannot make up his mind to go to confession; ought we not therefore to prefer to avoid it, by adopting a rational and justifiable application of a theory which, though less stringent, is probable, both for internal and external reasons?

Such a case of verecundia extraordinaria occurs very seldom, and priests may be trusted to have enough prudence and conscientiousness to prevent too lax an application of the principle. In my opinion Peregrinus was quite justified in being contented with contritio perfecta, although he was bound nevertheless to confess the sin committed quam primum, i. e., within three days.

This more lenient opinion is obviously not to be limited to priests. For instance, a priest's sister, acting as his housekeeper, after making her confession on the day before Communion to a priest in another parish, might commit a similar peccatum probrosissimum. Could she be bound to confess it to her own brother? No one could seriously require this of her; there is not only such a thing as vera necessitas celebrandi, but also necessitas communicandi.

We are far from wishing to tolerate laxity too freely, but a knowledge that there is a more lenient view may be of assistance to confessors and help priests, who are their penitents, to avoid a conscientia erronea.—Dr. Johann Gföllner.

Müller, Public School Education

Michael Müller, C.SS.R. — 46 passages (filed under the subtopics)

CHAPTER XV. Zeal of the Priest for the Catholic Education of Our Children

It is a matter of fact that the Protestant movement was chiefly directed against the Papacy, and that it involved a hundred years of so-called religious wars. This movement gave the princes who took the side of the Church an opportunity, of which they were not slow to avail themselves, to extend and consolidate their power over their Catholic subjects, and to establish in their dominions monarchical absolutism, or what we may choose to call modern Cæsarism.

Under plea of serving religion, they extended their power over matters which had hitherto either been left free, or subject only to the jurisdiction of the spiritual authority. They were defenders of the faith against armed heretics; and they pretended that this excess of power was necessary, in order to succeed in their undertaking. A habit of depending on them as the external defenders of religion and her altars, of the freedom of conscience, and of the Catholic civilization itself, was generated; the king took the place in the thoughts and affections of the people that was due to the Soverign Pontiff, and by giving the direction to the schools and universities in all things not absolutely of faith, they gradually became the lords of men's minds as well as bodies. In France, Spain, Portugal, and a large part of Italy, all through the seventeenth century, the youth were trained in the maxim—the Prince is the State, and his pleasure is law. Bossuet, in his politics, did only faithfully express the political sentiments and convictions of his age, shared by the great body of Catholics as well as of non-Catholics. Rational liberty had few defenders, and they were excluded, like Fenelon, from the Court. The politics of Philip II. of Spain, of Richelieu, Mazarin, and Louis XIV. in France, which were the politics of Catholic Europe, scarcely opposed by any one, except by the Popes, through the greater part of the sixteenth and the whole of the seventeenth centuries, tended directly to enslave the people, and to restrict the freedom and influence of the Church.

Trained under despotic influences by the skilful hand of despotism, extending to all matters not absolutely of the sanctuary, and sometimes daring, with sacrilegious foot, to invade the sanctuary itself, the people were gradually formed interiorly, as well as exteriorly, to the purposes of the despot. They grew up with the habits and beliefs which Cæsarism, when not resisted, is sure to generate.

The clergy, sympathizing, as is the case with every national clergy, with the sentiments of their age and nation in all things not strictly of faith, had little disposition to labor to keep alive the spirit of freedom in the hearts of the people, and would not have been permitted to do it, even if they had been so disposed. Schools were sustained, but, affected by the prevailing despotism, education declined; free thought was prohibited; and it is hard to find a literature tamer, less original and living, than that of Catholic Europe all through the eighteenth century, down almost to our own times.

As the Catholic religion was professedly patronized by the sovereigns, the Church, in superficial minds, seemed to sanction the prevailing Cæsarism. The clergy, because they preached peace, and thought to fulfil their mission without disturbing the State, came, for the first time in history, to be regarded as the chief supporters of the despot.

They who retained some reminiscences of the liberties once enjoyed by Catholic Europe, and the noble principles of freedom, asserted in the Middle Ages by the monks in their cells, and the most eminent Doctors of the Church from their chairs, became alienated from Catholicity in proportion as they cherished the spirit of resistance, and, unhappily, imbibed the fatal conviction that to overthrow the despot's throne they must break down the altar. Rightly interpreted, the old French Revolution, although bitterly anti-Catholic and infidel, was not so much hatred of religion, and impatience of her salutary restraints, as the indignant uprising of a misgoverned people against a civil despotism that affected injuriously all orders, ranks and conditions of society. The sovereigns had taken good care that an attack on them should involve an attack on religion, and to have it deeply impressed on their subjects that resistance to them was rebellion against God. The priest, who should have labored publicly to correct the issue made up by the sovereigns in accord with unbelievers, would have promoted sedition, and done more harm than good; besides, he would have been at once reduced to silence, in some one of the many ways despotism has usually at its command.

The horrors of the French Revolution, the universal breaking up of society it involved, the persecution of the Church and of her clergy, and her religious, which it shamelessly introduced in the name of liberty, the ruthless war it waged upon religion, virtue, all that wise and good men hold sacred, not unnaturally, to say the least, tended to create in the minds of the clergy and the people, who remained firm in their faith, and justly regarded religion as the first want of man and society, a deeper distrust of the practicability of liberty, and a deeper horror of all movements attempted in its name. This, again, as naturally tended to alienate the party clamoring for political and social reform still more from Catholicity; which, in its turn, has reacted with new force on the Catholic party, and made them still more determined in their anti-liberal convictions and efforts. These tendencies, on both sides, have been aggravated by the European revolutions and repressions, till now almost everywhere the lines are well defined, and the so-called Liberals are, almost to a man, bitterly anti-Catholic, and the sovereigns seem to have succeeded in forcing the issue: The Church and Cæsarism, or Liberty and Infidelity.

Certainly, as religion is of the highest necessity to man and society, infinitely more important than political freedom and social well-being, I am unable to conceive how the Catholic party, under the circumstances, could well have acted differently. Their error was in their want of vigilance and sagacity in the beginning, in suffering the political Cæsarism to revive and consolidate itself in the State, or the sovereigns, in the outset, to force upon the Catholic world so false an issue, or to place them in so unnatural and so embarrassing a position. The truth is, the Catholic party, yielding to the sovereigns, lost, to some extent, for the eighteenth century, the control of the mind of the age, and failed to lead its intelligence—they who should always be first and foremost in every department of human thought and activity.

That the struggles in Europe have an influence on the Catholic clergy and laity in this country, cannot be denied. As yet many of our Catholics, whether foreign-born or native-born, seem scarcely to realize the fact that they are freemen, and possess, in this land of freedom, equal rights with their fellow-citizens of every other denomination. They have so long been an oppressed people, that their freedom here seems hardly real. And unhappily even some of the clergy seem to be too timid and backward in defending boldly and publicly those doctrines of our holy faith which are opposed to the popular errors of our infidel age. So far we have, thank God, been enjoying full religious liberty; but it will depend mainly on the Catholic clergy to maintain this liberty, by upholding the religious principles upon which all true liberty is based. In order to maintain these principles they must defend liberty of education to the utmost, and must not cease to remind the State that it is its solemn duty to govern a free Christian people in a Christian manner, and according to the Constitution of the Republic; and that, under no pretence whatever, can it violate this Constitution in so vital a point as is the education of our children; and that it is a constant and crying injustice to tax Catholics for the support of godless schools. We must not yield any of our constitutional rights; if we do, the Church will be implicated, by degrees, in the same kind of struggle which is now becoming so serious in Europe.

Now in order to meet with success, let us take up the press. In our country, unfortunately, an unchristian press is guaranteed the fullest liberty, and the evils that flow from that liberty are widely spread. It is certain that this unrestricted freedom of the press, which every one is ready to abuse, and which allows every one to constitute himself a teacher of the public, can be defended neither on principles of reason nor of faith. It becomes, therefore, not only our privilege, but our solemn duty, to combat the unchristian by a really Christian press—a matter on which the Church, and the Head of the Church, have spoken in an unmistakable manner. If Catholics have not thorough Catholic papers, they will take periodicals which are not Catholic. To have even one good paper, through which we can give expression to our thoughts, is a great blessing and a great gain; but that certainly does not enable us to give our voice that weight in the questions of the day to which it is entitled. A great deal has, of late years, been done for the establishment of Catholic journals, and much good has been accomplished by them. But far more might have been done had the Catholic press received more support both from the clergy and laity. It is so easy for the clergy to give this support by encouraging the Catholics in general, but especially the members of so many excellent Catholic associations, to subscribe to such periodicals. One word from the priest on the usefulness of having a good Catholic paper and magazine in the family, will induce a hundred times more Catholics to become subscribers, than the longest appeal of a newspaper editor. The stronger the Catholic press becomes, the more the attention of the nation is called to it, the more shall we secure their respect for us and our religion. Yes, it is absolutely necessary in a country like ours, where religious tracts from Protestant societies, and pamphlets and periodicals of the most obscene character, are flying over the land like leaves before the autumn wind, that Catholic journals should be called into existence on every hand, and that no sacrifice should be spared to do so, and to encourage those already in existence. If the clergy only take the matter in hand, they will find those willing and able to carry the matter through. Let us use our talents, as God shall grant us grace and ability, that we may, by so powerful a means as is the press, disseminate the principles of truth, in order to contend with error. The light of truth is far more calculated to dispel the darkness of error, than the light of the sun is to disperse the darkness of the night. Why are there so many talents lying idle among us? Why so many pens that move not, when they should be burning with love for God, and for the welfare of their fellow-men? Why so many tongues that are ever silent, when they might, day after day, preach the good tidings of the Gospel of Christ? Let us rest assured God has given to us, to every man his vocation, his sphere of action and holy influence, wherein he can proclaim to those around him that faith which maketh wise unto salvation. Let us not be cowards,—let us show as much determination and courage, let us sacrifice as much for the propagation of truth as its enemies do for the dissemination of error; bearing, however, always in mind that the manner in which we must combat error ought to be charitable; for otherwise it is not calculated to command respect, and make a salutary impression. It is thus that our fellow-citizens of other denominations will come to understand that we appreciate our liberty, and know how to use it for the benefit of the public.

But all rights and liberties avail nothing, in the end, if Catholic education itself is not what it ought to be. And the great battle that is waging, that education may not be deprived of its Christian character, can be won by us only on condition that teachers, and educators themselves, as well as parents and the clergy, understand precisely the full bearing of the question.

To-day, more than ever, we need a thorough Catholic education. The enemies of our religion are now making war upon its dogmas more generally and craftily than at any former period. Their attacks, for being wily and concealed, are all the more pernicious. The impious rage of a Voltaire, or the "solemn sneer" of a Gibbon, would be less dangerous than this insidious warfare. They disguise their designs under the appearance of devotion to progressive ideas, and hatred of superstition and intolerance, all the better to instil the slow but deadly poison. By honeyed words, a studied candor, a dazzle of erudition, they have spread their "gossamer nets of seduction" over the world. The press teems with books and journals in which doctrines subversive of religion and morality are so elegantly set forth, that the unguarded reader is very apt to be deceived by the fascination of false charms, and to mistake a most hideous and dangerous object for the very type of beauty. The serpent stealthily glides under the silken verdure of a polished style. Nothing is omitted. The passions are fed, and the morbid sensibilities pandered to; firmness in the cause of truth or virtue is called obstinacy; and strength of soul, a refractory blindness. The bases of morality are sapped in the name of liberty; the discipline of the Church, when not branded as sheer "mummery," is held up as hostile to personal freedom; and her dogmas, with one or two exceptions, are treated as opinions which may be received or rejected with like indifference.