Invalid Confessions and General Confession

From an invalid confession must be distinguished an incomplete confession, in which from a just cause a mortal sin was omitted. A valid but incomplete confession does not necessarily have to be repeated, but only the defect must be supplied, by this, that sins not yet accused are subjected to the keys, so that by force of absolution they may be directly remitted.

290. Necessity of repetition. 1. A confession certainly invalid must always be repeated wholly, because sins declared in an invalid confession have not yet been duly remitted through the keys of the Church. But if the confession was only probably invalid, repetition is to be recommended, but cannot be strictly imposed: for an obligation is not to be imposed unless it is certainly established; but a law which has probably already been satisfied is no longer certain.

2. When the repetition of an invalid confession is made before another confessor, without doubt the whole confession must be repeated, because he must judge sacramentally concerning sins not yet remitted. But if it is made before the same confessor, it does not necessarily have to be repeated, but it suffices to accuse oneself in general concerning all things already said before, adding in particular those things which had formerly been omitted, provided the confessor either still has a confused knowledge of the state of the penitent or now acquires it by suitable interrogations.¹

If the penitent repeats before the same confessor confessions invalid on account of defect of sorrow, after this general confession has been made: I accuse myself of sins already confessed before, he can be validly and licitly absolved, even if the confessor does not distinctly remember the sins themselves or the penance imposed, provided he still has a confused knowledge of the state of the penitent, or now acquires it, so that he knows that he has already judged sacramentally concerning the sins and imposed penance. For although the knowledge of sins which the confessor now has is very imperfect and confused, nevertheless that knowledge joined with the former, which was distinct, seems to suffice so that absolution can be granted validly and licitly, if the confessor can now judge the penitent disposed: for the sacramental judgment previously begun distinctly is now completed by valid absolution.

¹ Lugo, disp. 16, n. 636; Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 276.

291. Causes of invalidity. Confession can be invalid on account of a defect which is found either on the part of the confessor or on the part of the penitent.

1. Defects on the part of the confessor: a. if he lacks jurisdiction; b. if he substantially changes the form; c. if he does not intend to absolve; d. if he understands no sin, so that he does not have matter from which he may absolve.

a. The confessor must judge sacramentally concerning the individual sins declared in confession and concerning their theological and moral species, and also concerning their number. Nevertheless a confession which in good faith is made to a confessor who cannot discern between mortal and venial, between species, between unity and plurality of sins, or who judges some mortal sin to be venial, is valid, provided the penitent faithfully sets forth his sins: for the penitent on his part in reality subjects all sins to the keys. But on the part of the confessor, for the licit administration of the sacrament, it is required that, as far as can be done, he judge rightly concerning the gravity, species, and number of sins; for the validity of the sacrament, however, it is not required that he truly judge concerning these things. But he who deliberately seeks an unlearned confessor so that his sins may not be understood by the confessor as is fitting, sins against the precept of confessing integrally and, from defect of disposition, confesses invalidly and must revalidate the confession.

b. Sins which the confessor did not understand, concerning which therefore he did not judge sacramentally, are not remitted by force of absolution. Nevertheless, a confession which in good faith is made to a confessor who, on account of deafness, sleep, or distraction, does not rightly understand sins, even mortal ones, is valid and therefore does not necessarily have to be repeated, provided the confessor perceived one or another mortal sin. And if after the confession has been completed the penitent indeed knows that certain sins were not understood by the confessor, but does not know which they are, a distinction must be made. If the confession was long, no obligation exists of confessing them again, because it is probable concerning each one that it was rightly understood; but if the confession was brief, it must be repeated, because probability cannot be had concerning each one that it was rightly understood.¹ Likewise, if the penitent knows which sins the confessor did not perceive, he is bound to explain them in the following confession, because those sins not perceived were not subjected to the keys nor directly remitted. In this case also this must be added: if the penitent deliberately seeks a confessor of this kind, he sins against the precept concerning the integrity of confession, and therefore from defect of disposition he is invalidly absolved and must repeat the confession.

2. Defects on the part of the penitent: a. if he lacked true sorrow and purpose; b. if he knowingly kept silent about a mortal sin; c. if he lied in a grave matter, falsely promised amendment; d. if in examining conscience he sinned gravely from negligence.

a. Penitents who fear that they have confessed invalidly for a long time, yet do not know a certain foundation for the fear, ought to repeat nothing, especially if they are of timorous conscience and are accustomed to employ diligence in confessions.

b. Those who admit that they omitted a sin committed in youth or boyhood are to be asked whether then, when it was committed, they knew that it was a sin and indeed grave, or whether only afterward did they finally come to know this: for what, when it was committed, they thought was a light sin or no sin does not afterward necessarily have to be declared, and much less must the other confessions made up to this point be repeated, since they were valid.

c. He who admits that he knowingly kept silent in confession about a sin which he regarded as mortal, or culpably omitted the number or a circumstance necessarily to be declared, is not bound to repeat the intervening confessions made in good faith and rightly performed, and therefore valid. Therefore he must be asked whether he knew that to conceal a mortal sin in confession was a grave sin, and that a sin concealed in confession was to be declared in the following confession; and whether in the following confessions he thought about the omitted sin and about declaring it: for if he omitted the sin either from ignorance or from forgetfulness, the intervening confessions were valid.²

¹ Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 269.

² Concerning general confession, see the appendix at the end of this volume.

422. Its Necessity. General confession is the repetition of all or of many confessions. Considering the ordinary circumstances of penitents, general confession must be said to be necessary for two kinds of men:

a. For those who with grave fault concealed a mortal sin in confession, whether this was done from gravely culpable negligence in the examination of conscience or from defect of sincerity in the confession itself.

b. For those who knowingly confessed without sorrow and a serious purpose of amendment.

Those who for a long time lived in an evil habit of sinning and, although they often approached the sacraments, nevertheless always relapsed into the same sins without an efficacious effort of amendment, cannot be bound strictly to making a general confession, because it is not certain that past confessions were invalid. But since it can not imprudently be doubted concerning their value, they are earnestly to be exhorted to general confession.

423. Its Utility. All theologians agree in preaching the utility of general confession; for from it the penitent, having more inwardly known the state of his conscience, conceives fear and humility, horror of sin, peace and tranquillity of soul, and hope and confidence in God. One general confession often profits more than many ordinary confessions. Therefore Benedict XIV says: "Moderators of consciences agree with one voice that much utility is perceived from the use of general confessions."¹

General confession is useful chiefly for five kinds of men:

a. For adults who have not yet made a general confession, especially if a suitable occasion offers itself for it, as in the time of a mission, spiritual exercises, a jubilee, etc.

b. For those who undertake a state of life or a new manner of living, such as those about to marry, widowers and widows, soldiers who enter barracks or return from them, students who begin higher studies, etc.

c. For those who seriously intend to be converted to God and to establish a better manner of life; for it scarcely happens that a truly Christian life is restored unless the sins of the past life have been expiated by serious penance.

d. For the sick who are in danger of death; for if they have not made a general confession either from childhood or for a long time, and their strength suffices, they are earnestly to be exhorted to making it, so that they may be able quietly and confidently to await death.

e. General confession can ordinarily be permitted also to the scrupulous; for it is not general confession itself, but its repetition, which harms them and therefore must be forbidden.

Note. Excess in this matter must be avoided. Therefore the confessor should take care not to drive penitents importunately to making general confession; for unless they make it willingly, there will be scarcely any utility from it. He should also take care not to demand general confession from every new penitent whom he obtains, under the pretext of better knowing the state of the soul; for the knowledge which can be drawn from ordinary confessions abundantly suffices for directing the conscience suitably.

¹ Apostolic Constitution, June 26, 1749, n. 17.

424. Admonitions. 1. Because of the great utility of general confessions, the confessor should willingly hear them, and should never reject a penitent who intends to make a general confession under the pretext that it is not necessary; on the contrary, unless from the circumstances he judges that it will be harmful, he should promise that he will help the penitent, so that he may approach the making of confession with greater confidence.

2. General confession should not be made incidentally and perfunctorily only under the principal heads, but ordinarily, especially if it is made on the occasion of spiritual exercises or a public mission, it should be made accurately and diligently, even if there is no question of a necessary confession; for otherwise the penitent will not obtain that peace of soul and tranquillity of conscience which is the sweetest effect of general confession.¹

3. It is not expedient that general confessions be made suddenly, as it were, and without preparation; but to obtain the fruits which by the grace of God can be hoped for from them, diligent preparation must be premised. Therefore those who are going to make a general confession must be instructed that for some days, insofar as daily business permits it, they should be occupied in examining conscience, in recalling and detesting sins, and especially in frequent prayers by which they implore true conversion.

4. If the penitent is sufficiently instructed and prepared, it is better that he himself, with the confessor assisting when there is need, state the sins which he knows. But if he is not sufficiently instructed or prepared for making confession, or if he spontaneously asks to be questioned, it is better that the confessor complete the whole confession by questioning.

¹ Cf. Directorium in exercit. spirit. (Bruges: Desclee, 1897), c. 16, n. 3.

425. Preliminary Questions. In order to render general confession easier, it helps to question the penitent beforehand, either when he asks that his general confession be heard, or immediately before confession, about the following things.

1. Why he wishes to make a general confession. From the answers given it will be clear whether the general confession is necessary or only useful.

2. But if it is established that it is necessary because of past confessions made badly, it must at once be explored when the last valid confession was made, how often in a year the penitent was accustomed to confess and communicate, and whether during this time he received another sacrament, such as confirmation, matrimony, extreme unction.

3. An unknown penitent must be questioned about his state of life, single or matrimonial, and about the profession which he exercises.

4. When the last confession was made. Ordinarily a confession of sins committed since the last confession must be premised to a general confession, so that the confessor may thus better know the state of the penitent.

426. Catalogue of Sins. a. The penitent must be questioned about sins which, considering his state and condition, were probably committed by him. Therefore from the following catalogue sometimes some questions must be omitted, and sometimes others must be added; for it sets forth the sins about which one must ordinarily question.

b. It is expedient that the order of the precepts of the Decalogue be observed; but about the sixth precept the questions are to be made either immediately at the beginning or only at the end. The precepts of the Church can be reduced to the third, and the duties of state to the fourth precept.

c. If the penitent is found to have contracted an evil habit, it must be explored when it began and how long it lasted.

d. If he confesses a grave sin, he must at once be asked about the lowest species and about the number, if this can be done without grave inconvenience.

I. a. Whether he seriously doubted some truth of faith. Whether he denied a truth of faith.

b. Whether he despaired of his salvation.

c. Whether he murmured against God and his dispositions. If he affirms this, whether he had blasphemous thoughts about God.

d. Whether he held impious conversations against religion, the Church, priests. Whether he read bad books, bad newspapers, liberal or socialist, and handed them over to others to be read. Whether he thought that on this account he incurred excommunication. If he affirms this, he must be questioned about the very books which he read. Whether he performed superstitious things, such as spiritism or hypnotism. Whether he received a sacrament unworthily.

II. Whether he gravely blasphemed; whether before children. Whether he swore falsely, in court, with harm to a neighbor. Whether he made a vow which he afterward did not fulfill.

III. a. Whether on a feast day he culpably did not hear Mass. Whether on a feast day without necessity he labored, or imposed labor on others.

b. Whether on Friday he ate meat. Whether he violated the fast. Whether he satisfied the paschal precept.

IV. a. A son or daughter of a family: Whether he was disobedient in a grave matter, e.g., by staying outside the house at night, by frequenting persons or houses against the prohibition of parents. Whether he gravely saddened them. Whether he treated them harshly, by words or by deeds. Whether he wished death upon them.

b. A servant: Whether he furnished the service owed. Whether he caused harm to his master, or defrauded him.

c. The father and mother of a family: Whether they gave scandal to children. Whether they watched over children and servants, lest they frequent bad companions or dangerous houses, or neglect Christian duties.

d. A husband: Whether he lives peaceably with his wife. Whether by quarrels, reproaches, etc., he gravely offended her. Whether he squanders the goods of the family.

e. A wife: Whether she is obedient to her husband in domestic matters and in the conjugal debt. Whether she renders life troublesome to her husband.

V. Whether he had enmity, fostered hatred, wished a great evil, rejoiced over evil, and how long it lasted. Whether he gravely offended someone, struck him, wounded him, or had a duel. Whether he gravely harmed himself. Whether he wished death upon himself or thought about inflicting death on himself. Whether he made himself drunk.

VI and IX. Concerning sins against chastity, an examination with an adult penitent who can be supposed to have committed sins of this kind is more suitably made by beginning from the graver sins almost in this way: Whether he sinned by work against chastity. If he affirms this, whether he sinned with another person. If he affirms this, whether with a person of the other sex. If he affirms this, he is to be examined about the sins which were with a person of the other sex; if he denies it, about the sins which were with a person of the same sex; and if he did not sin with another person, about sins which can be committed solitarily.

a. With a person of the other sex: Whether he did as in marriage. If he affirms this, whether offspring followed. If he denies this, whether it could have followed. If he denies this, whether they placed an impediment to conception. Whether the person was related by blood, married, or sacred. How often this was done. Whether besides these things he basely touched persons of the other sex or looked at them; whether he admitted base touches. Whether he had base conversations or willingly heard them. Whether besides this he sinned with a person of the same sex; if he affirms, he must be examined as is indicated below. Whether he also sinned solitarily; if he affirms, he must be examined as is indicated below.

b. With a person of the same sex: Whether he performed base touches; whether unto pollution. Whether he committed something worse, sodomy. Whether he had base looks, base conversations. Whether besides this he sinned solitarily.

c. Solitarily: alpha. Whether he voluntarily had base motions; whether base touches. Whether he polluted himself, whether he had a habit of polluting himself, when it began, how long it lasted, whether it happened daily. Whether at the same time, in polluting himself, he had evil thoughts or desires, and what kind they were.

beta. Whether he had base looks with lustful affection. Whether he had base desires, and what kind they were.

gamma. Whether he read bad books. Whether he was present at indecent dances and in them sinned basely by thoughts, words, or touches. Whether he attended gravely base theaters and in them was voluntarily delighted.

delta. Whether animals were an occasion of sinning. Whether he performed base touches, whether worse things.

A married penitent must be examined about the sins of spouses: Whether conscience pricks him concerning the conjugal debt or concerning the use itself of marriage. Whether he preserved conjugal fidelity. Whether he performed the conjugal act duly.

VII and X. Whether he took something by theft. Whether he restored what was taken. Whether by selling, buying, or other contracts he caused grave harm. Whether he caused grave harm to the goods of his neighbor. Whether he repaired the harm caused. As far as can be done, penitents are to be freed from making restitution; but if this cannot be done, the manner of restitution must be indicated accurately.

VIII. Whether he revealed a hidden crime of his neighbor. Whether he said something false about his neighbor. Whether he violated a secret in a grave matter.

Note. Since light sins are omitted in the catalogue of sins, to render the penitent tranquil it will help at the end to include all sins, even unknown ones, especially negligences in prayers, anger and impatience, envy and pride, lies, and injuries to the charity of neighbor.

427. After Confession. When the confession has been completed: a. Let him ask the penitent whether there is anything which pricks his conscience and about which he has not been questioned.

b. Let him raise him up to full confidence by warning him that now all sins are remitted by absolution, and that there is no need that he ever be troubled about them or accuse anything further in confession, unless he certainly remembers a grave sin never declared up to this point in confession.

c. Let him suggest the means by which he can guard against relapse and make his salvation certain: alpha. frequentation of the sacraments; beta. devotion toward the blessed Virgin Mary; gamma. flight from occasions and battle against temptations; and anything further which, from the known state of the penitent, seems necessary or opportune.

d. After motives of penance have been proposed in a brief but paternal exhortation, let him elicit contrition with him and, after imposing penance, dismiss him absolved in the Lord.

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

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

¹ D. xvi, n. 8.

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

A heartfelt sorrow is not quite the same thing as a hatred or detestation of sin. Sorrow is a pain which we feel on account of the presence of some evil or the absence of some good; hatred is an aversion for some evil which is past. Hatred of sin, consequent aversion for it, and a turning away from it is the chief element in contrition; for if we have this hatred we shall have sorrow for sin regarded as a present evil, we shall turn away from it as a past evil, and we shall propose to flee from it in the future. If, then, we have this hatred of sin, we shall have sorrow and a purpose of amendment; we shall have true contrition.

That sorrow for sin which arises from the perfect love of God is called contrition in the full and strict sense; sorrow for sin arising from less perfect motives, as from the fear of hell or the moral turpitude of vice, is called attrition, Ordinarily the word contrition is used indifferently of both kinds of sorrow.

Contrition or penitence or repentance is, as we have already seen, according to the teaching of the Council of Trent, a necessary condition for the forgiveness of sin by God. God will not forgive sin unless the sinner turn from his sin and approach him by sorrow of heart. Contrition, then, is a necessary means of salvation for all who have fallen into grievous sin. It is also matter of divine precept which must be fulfilled at least when the sinner is in danger of death, for then it becomes of supreme necessity, and also sometimes during life. The Church has determined this divine precept by commanding all who have come to the use of reason and have fallen into sin to go to confession at least once a year. Moreover, repentance for sin becomes necessary when any action has to be performed which for its due performance requires the agent to be in the state of grace. Furthermore, inasmuch as one who is deprived by sin of the grace of God cannot long resist temptation and will fall again and again before long, the sinner is obliged to rise from his sin in order to avoid repeated falls.

Of course it is better, and the sinner is to be urged, by all means, to rise at once when he has had the misfortune to fall into sin. He should never sleep while he is conscious of being out of the friendship of God. Still he is not bound under pain of committing a new sin to repent immediately after committing sin. It will be sufficient if he repent at least when repentance becomes necessary according to the doctrine which has just been laid down.

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.

WE must distinguish the form which is required for the validity of the sacrament from the form which is commonly used according to the Ritual. ‘‘ I absolve thee from thy sins ” is sufficient for the validity of the sacrament, and probably even the mere words “I absolve thee.” The Ritual form consists of the four short prayers beginning with Misereatur, etc., of which the third is the most important, as it contains the absolution from censures and from sin. The absolution from censures is always given before the absolution from sin for the sake of greater security, because if the penitent were under censure, he could not lawfully receive a sacrament. A rubric of the Ritual expressly lays down that the other three prayers may be omitted in shorter and more frequent confessions, but it is better always to add the last prayer, as it probably gives a special satisfactory efficacy to the good works which the penitent subsequently performs.

We saw above that absolution cannot be given validly by a priest to a penitent who is not morally present at the time. This sacrament is a judicial process, and the priest, who is the judge, pronounces sentence on the culprit who is present in court. The absolution must be pronounced by word of mouth, and the penitent must be within hearing distance, not farther distant than the ordinary tone of voice carries.

The priest cannot pass sentence without having a sufficient knowledge of the sins to be absolved and the dispositions of the penitent. It is not necessary, however, nor is it possible to have a distinct knowledge of the subjective malice with which the sins of the penitent were committed. The confessor may presume that the subjective malice of the penitent corresponds with the objective malice of the sin, unless he has special reasons for concluding otherwise. With his habitual knowledge of the malice of different sins the confessor passes a sufficient judgement on them if he quietly listens to the self-accusation of the penitent.

A merely historical account of the sins which a person has committed may suffice for absolution if the penitent resumes them under some brief formula by which he expresses his desire to confess them and receive absolution for them. The priest must in this case, of course, retain at least a general and vague knowledge of the sins which he absolves.

A dying person, who through weakness or other causes is unable to make a full confession, may be absolved absolutely if he mentions what sins he can, or even if he asks for the absolution of his sins, for such a confession is formally integral.

The Ritual prescribes that a dying person who has lost the use of his senses is to be absolved even if he previously only expressed a desire himself or through others to receive absolution. In this case, also, it would seem that the absolution should be absolute.

Dying persons who have lost the use of their senses may be absolved conditionally even if they give no certain signs of a desire to confess or of sorrow for their sins. It may be that in such a state the dying person has the requisite dispositions, and is trying his best to give expression to them, and so the movements of the body or his laboured breathing may be indications of a wish to receive absolution. At any rate, in such a case of necessity we may use even a slenderly probable opinion, and it is now the common practice to absolve conditionally in such cases.

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

Preliminary II. Defect of validity can come:

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

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

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

I. The obligation of repeating confessions is had:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. Notion. General confession is that by which several confessions previously instituted are repeated. It can comprehend either one's whole life or a notable part of it.

II. How far is it to be instituted? 1. It is necessary for those who have confessed either invalidly, whether simply invalidly or at the same time sacrilegiously, or very incompletely (n. 332); likewise in the doubt about the validity of confession discussed in n. 333.

2. It must be prohibited to the scrupulous, and to those for whom the recollection of sins would become a danger of relapse or of grave temptations. If, however, the necessity of general confession were established, let it be prudently instituted. Cf. nevertheless, as regards the scrupulous, what was said in n. 327.

3. It is useful: 1. in doubt about the nullity of confessions; 2. on the occasion a) of solemn First Communion; b) of the choice of a state of life, whether conjugal, religious, or clerical through Major Orders; c) of spiritual exercises or a Mission,¹ at least from the last general confession; 3. in dangerous illness. But the choice of a new confessor commonly is not a reason for instituting a general confession. Besides, it can easily be permitted that sins of past life be repeated summarily.

¹ Postulants, before they begin the novitiate, "according to the prudent judgment of the confessor, should premise a general confession of their past life" (canon 541).

III. The manner of receiving it. 1. Things to be premised. First let the confessor inquire whether or not general confession is necessary,¹ and therefore in a friendly way ask the penitent for what reason he desires to institute a general confession. Next, let him inquire into the age and state of the penitent, especially whether he is married, whether he is being courted or seeking marriage; likewise sometimes about satisfactions fulfilled. Finally, let him ask whether the penitent would prefer to make the confession himself or to be questioned.

2. Things to be observed in confession. First let inquiry be made into sins committed after the last confession. When this has been done:

a) According to some, it is better to divide life into diverse epochs, for instance from infancy up to the choice of a state of life, etc., and to question separately about the individual epochs. According to others, it is more expedient, or equally expedient, to question about sins in one continuous course, meanwhile taking account of the diverse epochs. According to others, the questioning should be made about the sixth precept according to the diverse epochs, and about other sins in one continuous course.

b) In questioning, let a definite order be observed, for instance by successively inquiring into sins against: 1. the precepts of the Decalogue; 2. the precepts of the Church; 3. the duties of one's state. Others refer all sins to the Decalogue. If, however, it is clear that the penitent has kept back some sin, let him first be questioned about this. Besides, it is generally better at the beginning of confession to inquire into sins against the sixth precept, especially if the confessor suspects that the penitent has not led a chaste life.

For the rest, let each confessor set before himself a definite order which he will observe. The questions to be proposed can be compared in Aertnys.²

3. Things to be added. At the end let him ask the penitent whether any anxiety of conscience remains, and let him render him entirely at peace.

¹ If general confession is not necessary, the confessor can moderate the questions; but let him proceed in such a way that the penitent does not notice this; hence let him not strive to finish everything very quickly, lest he leave the penitent anxious and not content.

² Theologia pastoralis, nn. 247-256.

511. Principles. - I. Every confession of mortal sins which is certainly invalid must necessarily be repeated. For all mortal sins must of themselves be subjected to the keys.

II. But a valid confession, even if it lacks integrity, need not necessarily be repeated; only the defect must be supplied. The reason is that the sins already declared were directly remitted by virtue 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. - St. Lig., nos. 502, 504.

III. The repetition of an invalid confession must be made in its entirety if the penitent approaches a new Confessor, because otherwise he can perform here the role neither of judge nor of physician; but it is otherwise if he confesses to the same Confessor who still remembers the preceding confession in some manner. For then it suffices if he accuses himself summarily of the sins already accused, for example: I accuse myself of the sins already declared in such a confession. For this is sufficient that the sins invalidly declared be accused sacramentally, nor is it necessary for the Confessor, in order to fulfill his office, to hear the confession again. - Thus commonly. - St. Liguori, no. 502; Elbel, no. 253; Lacroix, no. 1216; Lugo, disp. 16, no. 638; Billuart, diss. 7, art. 2; and others against certain authors who require an integral repetition of the confession.

IV. A confession need not necessarily be repeated unless its invalidity is morally certain. The reason is: 1. because when an act has certainly been placed, if a doubt arises whether it was rightly placed, that rule of law obtains: One must stand for the validity of the act; 2. because the obligation of the divine law concerning making confession has already probably been satisfied. - St. Lig., no. 505; Lacroix, no. 1221; Elbel, no. 263; Mazzotta, etc.

512. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must an invalid confession be repeated in its entirety before the same Confessor if he remembers the sins accused only IN A CONFUSED MANNER, or has even entirely forgotten them?

Reply to the first. More probably, negative, even if the confession was invalid on the part of the penitent; a general repetition will suffice. The reason is that, for faults already accused, a general repetition joined with the knowledge previously possessed by the Confessor suffices for sacramental judgment, since the Confessor has already judged concerning each sin. - Thus commonly with St. Lig., no. 502.

Reply to the second. More probably, negative also, even if the Confessor in no way remembers that invalid confession; consequently it will suffice for the penitent to manifest his state so that the Confessor may have at least a confused knowledge of it. The reason follows from what has just been said. For if in the preceding case some confused memory of the state of the penitent suffices for the Confessor, it ought also to suffice in the present case, since the same reason applies in each. - St. Lig., ibid., and the others cited above, against others. Indeed, according to Suarez, it suffices that the Confessor remember that the penitent was disposed and accepted penance ¹. - Suarez, disp. 22, sect. 6; thus also Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 16, sect. 15, no. 636; V. Casus, no. 679.

¹ This last clause seems to pertain, rather than to the penitent who confessed invalidly, to him whose absolution had been deferred.

513. • QUESTION 2. Must a confession made with doubtful contrition be repeated?

Reply. Negative of itself; the reason is evident from what has been said. Nevertheless, in practice careful attention must be given to the condition of the penitent. For if the penitent is a man sufficiently prudent and grave in his ordinary actions or in his confessions, there is at least a probability, indeed also a legitimate presumption, of the validity of the confession; consequently he is not to be urged to repeat it. But if he is supposed to be a frivolous man and inconsiderate in most of his actions, counsel to repeat the confession must be given to him ². - Thus commonly. - Elbel, De Contritione, no. 74.

² The Author knowingly says counsel, from the general rule premised, namely, that there is no certain obligation of repeating the confession unless the invalidity of the preceding confession is morally certain.

** The VV. object here (p. 937, no. 116) those things which St. Alphonsus has in Homo Apostolicus (tract 15, no. 34), where the holy Doctor asks whether one who doubts whether or not he is in grace can receive Communion.

Reply. Those things do not pertain to the matter; for neither does the holy Doctor inquire there concerning a doubtful state of grace because of doubtful contrition, nor do those things which the holy Doctor has concerning this argument in bk. 6, nos. 432 and 475 require the confession necessarily to be repeated.

The things which the holy Doctor (bk. 6, no. 505) establishes thus as a general principle certainly pertain to the matter: Moreover, it must be carefully noted here that penitents are not to be compelled to repeat confessions unless it is morally certain that they were invalid, as Croix, Gobat, Holzmann, Mazzotta, and Elbel with Filliuccius and THE COMMON OPINION against Antoine rightly say.

And what the VV. (pp. 460-461) endeavor to object, that this common doctrine of St. Alphonsus and the Doctors has place where the doubt concerning the validity of the confession turns upon the ground of integrity, but not upon the ground of sufficient disposition, is exploded by St. Alphonsus himself, who in the same place discusses the use of this rule concerning recidivists. For the doubt concerning the validity of confession with regard to recidivists is derived not from doubtful integrity, but from doubtful disposition.

QUESTION 3. Are recidivists to be compelled to repeat preceding confessions?

Reply. Negative of itself. The reason is that a new fall is not of itself a certain argument that the recidivist previously lacked disposition. Sometimes, however, from the circumstances it can prudently be judged that some recidivist confessed invalidly ³. - St. Lig., no. 505.

³ Do you see the open way to exacting repetitions of confessions against the certain doctrine which had been established above in the fourth principle? From the context it is clearly inferred that the confession must be repeated if it is prudently judged that the recidivist confessed invalidly. But does a prudent judgment of this kind provide that moral certainty which was previously required for this in the fourth principle? The Author, in the first part of the reply, wished to depart from the doctrine which Louis Habert, the obstinate leader of the Jansenist faction (see the Note below at no. 633), inculcated with certain others, namely, that a confession is to be judged invalid when the penitent did not afterward produce worthy fruits of penitence; wherefore he required that these fruits precede absolution. But in the last part he thought that he was showing obedience to St. Alphonsus, in whom (loc. cit.) that passage of Habert is read. Yet this manner of tempering that opinion, while it does not avoid the inconveniences of the Jansenist principle, also overturns the principle placed fourth. Therefore, so that all things may cohere, let the mention of that prudent judgment be omitted, and let it be said that sometimes it can be sufficiently established that someone confessed invalidly; and it is manifest that this can occur both with a recidivist and with one who is not a recidivist.

** And in these things let the VV. also have their reply, who (p. 937, no. 117) object here with the same words of Habert related by St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 505).

514. • QUESTION 4. Must all the sins which were previously narrated to the Confessor merely historically, outside confession, be explicitly repeated?

Reply 1. Negative, if the Confessor still remembers them; for then it suffices if the penitent confesses them generally, saying: I accuse myself of all those things which I have already narrated to you. The reason is that through the summary confession those sins are sacramentally subjected to the Confessor as judge in relation to absolution; and the Confessor here and now judges sacramentally concerning all of them, since he remembers them.

Reply 2. Affirmative, if the Confessor does not clearly and distinctly remember all of them, even if he remembers them confusedly or in part. The reason is evident from what has been said ⁴. - Thus St. Lig., no. 502, and others commonly ⁵.

⁴ Indeed, from what was said above at no. 511, Principle III, the contrary seems to be proved. For it is there established that sins previously declared non-sacramentally are sufficiently declared sacramentally through a summary confession, even if the Confessor does not retain a distinct memory of those sins.

⁵ On the contrary, Cardinal De Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 16, nos. 637-638) presents the opposite opinion as common. And to the reason by which St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 502, doubt 1, at the end) indicates himself to be moved, namely, that since the preceding confession was not made to a judge, it does not seem that account is to be taken of it, but a distinct sacramental confession is to be made anew, since the prior one was not sacramental, he replies: To the contrary, however, is the common authority and practice. For almost all the Doctors universally say that afterward that confused memory suffices, from whatever source the defect of the prior confession proceeded.... The same usage appears when someone outside confession narrated some sins to a priest who was his friend for the sake of seeking counsel, and afterward confesses to the same priest, accusing himself briefly of all those things which he had said outside confession. In this case also there is not now in the priest so exact and distinct a knowledge as there would be if the penitent now accused himself distinctly; and indeed that prior narration had in no way been sacramental, nor an accusation made to a judge, but a narration made to a friend. It must therefore be admitted that even a prior non-sacramental narration persisting in a memory not altogether distinct can in some manner be made sacramental by a subsequent accusation, so that it can serve for the sacrament. Not that the prior narration truly becomes a sacramental accusation, but insofar as the subsequent accusation, referred to the memory which the Confessor has of those sins previously heard distinctly, is sufficient knowledge of the kind desired in the Confessor. Thus Lugo from the common opinion, who then aptly resolves the doubts of those who think otherwise.

** Through ten columns (pp. 480-484) the VV. not only censure this brief Note, but at the same time undertake to attack Cardinal De Lugo, whom they moreover represent almost as a liar, or at least as carried away by empty fantasies. Let us dispatch the matter in a few words.

Therefore, as regards the present question and Lugo's opinion, they write thus (p. 483): The opinion which Lugo defends must be called common neither before nor afterward. Not before, because he first proposed it; not afterward, because no one, so far as we know, followed it except Aversa; and if perhaps others also did, they are certainly few. These words are referred to that which is transcribed from Lugo in the Note: The same usage appears when someone outside confession narrated to a priest who was his friend, etc.

Reply. Suarez (De Poenit., disp. 22, sect. 6, no. 5) has these things: If the repetition of Confession is made to the same priest who still retains a sufficient memory of the sins, it will not be necessary to state each individually, but to subject all in one word, supplying the defect. The reason is that, the prior narration being supposed, that one word is equivalent to a distinct confession, because it sufficiently makes all the sins present to the knowledge of the confessor. JUST AS, if the priest knows all the sins outside confession, they can be stated to him in confession by one word, namely, by accusing oneself of all those things which the other knows. AND IN THESE THINGS THE AUTHORS AGREE. But Suarez preceded Lugo; therefore, Lugo did not first propose this opinion. 2. Suarez adds that the Authors agree in these things; therefore Lugo said not falsely but most truly: The same usage, that is, common usage, holds, etc.

Likewise Aegidius Coninck (disp. 4, no. 45): A confession made without sufficient sorrow... avails for this, that the Confessor receives a perfect knowledge of the state of the penitent, so that afterward the latter can sufficiently confess all his sins in a few words by saying that he is sorry for the sins already narrated and desires to be absolved from them; and these words alone then have the true character of confession which is a part of the Sacrament. JUST AS, if someone had narrated all his sins for the sake of seeking counsel and afterward, sorrowing for them, wished to confess, it would suffice for him to say that he is sorry for the sins already stated and asks to be absolved from them. Moreover, Coninck also is earlier than Lugo.

That this doctrine was common also after Lugo, we have, for example, from Illsung (De Poenit., disp. 6, no. 152), who writes these things: In the second case, namely, when the Confessor has not so forgotten the sins that he does not retain at least a confused memory, the Doctors COMMONLY deny that anything by way of repetition must be done or exacted, and add that it suffices provided the penitent in general accuses himself of the sins stated before, if the prior confession was not a judicial accusation but, for example, ONLY A REQUEST FOR COUNSEL, or if it was made to one not having due jurisdiction; for then those sins over which jurisdiction was not given would likewise have to be repeated in general. THUS THE DOCTORS COMMONLY, whom Vasquez, Palao, Tanner, and Lugo report and follow; because through a generic repetition and approval of the specific confession, the prior distinct narration of sins is made judicial and sacramental. Therefore, others besides Aversa, and indeed not a few but most of the Doctors, handed down the same doctrine as Lugo.

We have the same from Dicastillo, who likewise appeals to the common opinion (tract 8, disp. 8, no. 120). Thus he: COMMON USAGE HAS, AND MOST OF THE DOCTORS ADMIT, that afterward that confused memory suffices, from whatever source the defect of the prior confession proceeded. And after bringing forward the example of one who had confessed to a priest not having jurisdiction, he adds: So also, if someone disclosed his sins to a priest who was a friend, not for the sake of confessing but of seeking counsel, and afterward, on that or another day, desires to be absolved from them, it suffices that he accuse himself briefly of those things which he had disclosed, even though knowledge or memory not wholly distinct still persists in the priest. Therefore, in these and similar cases that prior knowledge, as newly approved and referred by the penitent to sacramental confession, is judged in some manner sacramental.

And let these things, without bringing forward more, suffice to establish that this doctrine is not vainly called common in the Note, and that Cardinal De Lugo is censured gratuitously by the VV. as though he had called common that opinion which, otherwise, as the VV. say, he himself first proposed and scarcely any few followed.

The VV. insist (pp. 482-483) that what Lugo says is excessive, namely, that the Doctors almost universally teach that a confused recollection of sins suffices when the confession was invalid because of a defect of jurisdiction on the part of the Confessor, since not only Suarez but also Coninck and other grave Doctors defended the negative opinion.

I reply that this is not the case in which Suarez and the others deny that a confused recollection of sins suffices. Indeed, the words of Suarez brought forward above refer to such a confused recollection of sins, which he says suffices. But these embrace also the case of a confession made to a priest not having jurisdiction. Therefore.

Proof of the Major. For Suarez (ibid.) premises these things there: It remains that we explain how the confession of sins is to be repeated IN THESE CASES, namely, whether it is necessary to narrate them again distinctly and expressly, or to state in one word the defect of the prior confession and that he subjects again to the keys all those things which someone confessed badly. And we saw the answer above, that a distinct confession is required if it is made to another priest; it is not required if it is made to the same priest.

Proof of the Minor, namely, that among these cases is comprehended a confession made to a priest not having jurisdiction. For, enumerating these cases (ibid., no. 4), he says: The fifth heading is from a defect of jurisdiction in the minister. Therefore, this is not the case concerning which Suarez denies that a confused recollection suffices.

The case, therefore, in which Suarez denies that a confused recollection suffices is when, as he says (ibid., no. 6), the priest is the same but the sins HAVE ALREADY FALLEN FROM MEMORY. For after bringing forward three opinions of others, he explains his own thus (ibid., no. 7): But to me... it occurs that a different distinction is to be made. For either the confession was invalid by reason of itself, namely, because on its own part it had an essential defect either of sorrow or integrity, or of jurisdiction on the part of the Confessor; and then I judge that the confession must be repeated altogether and distinctly IF IT HAS FALLEN FROM MEMORY. The reason is that the prior confession was not matter of confession nor a true sacramental accusation;... but since it cannot be made with one confused word because of the reason given, it must necessarily be made distinctly. But what is that reason given on account of which the confession cannot be made with one confused word? Because, as he has in the preceding no. 6, the prior confession can effect nothing, since it remains neither in itself nor in memory; whence no word confusedly stated can then be equivalent to a distinct confession, because it is helped in no way by the preceding confession. Therefore, Suarez in the former case affirms that one confused word suffices because he supposes that at least some confused recollection of the sins remains in the memory of the Confessor; but he denies that it suffices in the latter case because he supposes that no knowledge or memory of the sins, not even confused, remains in the Confessor. Since, therefore, the hypothesis in Suarez differs from that in Lugo, there is no reason why one should be opposed to the other.

Nevertheless, it does not seem that it must be denied that the words of Suarez brought forward, by which he exacts a distinct confession, were accepted somewhat more broadly by Lugo, as though they have force even when the Confessor retains some memory of the sins; wherefore Lugo (loc. cit., no. 633) opposes the common practice both of the penitent who concealed a sin and soon returns and confesses his defect, and of the Confessor who, lacking jurisdiction over certain reserved sins, suspends absolution until the following day. For in neither case is a distinct confession imposed again.

But the VV. cannot rightly conclude therefrom that the doctrine of Suarez is in reality one thing and that of Lugo another. For in the hypothesis of a Confessor who retains no memory of the sins, Lugo agrees in the same judgment as Suarez. For he says thus (loc. cit., no. 641): Therefore, it does not suffice that the Confessor once had distinct knowledge of the sins if that past distinct knowledge afterward in no way directs, either mediately or immediately, toward forming the judgment; but distinct knowledge is required which directs the Confessor toward judging at least through a confused memory of itself. Therefore, if that past distinct knowledge in no way directs because the Confessor has now altogether forgotten and is directed only by the confused knowledge which the penitent now gives, it is of no service whatever that distinct knowledge preceded. Whence in that case... if that prior knowledge had not been given to a judge, because either he was not yet a priest or was not a legitimate judge, and nevertheless afterward he absolves with that confused knowledge which he receives anew, that absolution must be judged in the same way as that which is given to a dying person who does not confess his sins distinctly but gives similar confused knowledge, who certainly remains bound afterward to confess his sins distinctly. Thus it will be in that case, because the Confessor truly did not receive distinct knowledge from which he might exercise his office; and therefore, although he absolves validly, a distinct confession must afterward be repeated.

From these things it is sufficiently evident that the VV. vainly sought in Suarez, with Coninck or others, adversaries whom they might oppose to Lugo's doctrine.

Finally, the VV. censure (p. 483) that in the Note it is said that the reason by which St. Alphonsus indicates himself to have been moved to follow the opposite opinion after Croix is this: that since the preceding confession was not made to a judge, it does not seem that account is to be taken of it..., since that prior confession was not sacramental. And they add: But you will seek these words in vain in the holy Doctor.

Reply. In the Note it is said that this is the reason by which the holy Doctor seems to have been moved; but it is not said that these are the words of the holy Doctor. The words of the holy Doctor are these (loc. cit.): The reason is that no sacramental confession was then present. Moreover, since the holy Doctor had indicated a little before that confession is not sacramental from a twofold cause, either because it was sacrilegious or because it was made to one who was not a judge; but now this can be understood only in the second sense, because there is question of one who by a mere narration, for example, for the sake of seeking counsel, told his sins to the Confessor; plainly, in order that the reason of St. Alphonsus might be truly reported in the Note, the matter itself required that the reason also be indicated why that prior knowledge could not of itself be judged sacramental. Is not the genuine mind of the holy Doctor thus expressed? It is, namely, the reason which the holy Doctor borrowed from that unfortunate paragraph of Lacroix, just as he took from Croix himself that historical falsehood, as is manifest from what has been said, namely, that Lugo's opinion concerning this question is singular, into which Aversa almost alone went after Lugo; which the VV. also repeat.

QUESTION 5. Must a confession be repeated if the Confessor, before absolution, forgot the sins accused?

Reply. Negative, if the Confessor remembers, at least confusedly, the state of the penitent; for he absolves upon certain and sufficiently perceived matter, and moreover he judged sacramentally concerning the individual sins while they were being explained to him. Otherwise an intolerable burden would be imposed upon both the Confessor and the penitent. - St. Lig., no. 502.

515. • QUESTION 6. Is the penitent bound to unfold the whole confession again if he notices that the Confessor, because of sleep, did not perceive certain sins and he does not know which ones?

Reply. Affirmative, if the confession was brief, because he can prudently doubt concerning each sin whether it was understood by the Confessor or not. But it is otherwise if the confession was lengthy and only a few things seem not to have been perceived, because then he can prudently presume that each was understood; nor does it appear likely that Christ imposed the precept of integrity with so great a burden. Nevertheless, if the doubt concerned only one or another sin, it would have to be repeated. - St. Lig., no. 499.

516. Resolutions. - 1. A Confessor hearing the confession of a countryman who confessed badly in previous years will satisfy his office by questioning him only about the last year, if, because of the uniform manner of life, he can at the same time form a judgment concerning the preceding years. The same must be said if, having heard the confession of one year, the Confessor detects a defect in the preceding confessions and from this last confession has sufficient knowledge of the preceding sins; nevertheless, it is required that the penitent accuse himself in a general manner concerning the other years. - St. Lig., no. 504.

2. If someone confessed to a Priest lacking jurisdiction, he will be bound to repeat the confession if he afterward discovers the defect ⁶.

⁶ Understand this if he confesses to another priest; for if the confession is to be made with the same priest who, for example, had previously been suspended from hearing confessions, the principles established above will have force.

3. If the Confessor did not recognize a grave sin as grave, or judged a mortal sin to be venial, there is not for that reason an obligation of repeating it, provided the penitent explained the fact rightly and faithfully; because for the validity of the Sacrament and the direct remission of the sin it is not necessary that the Confessor judge this to be mortal; indeed, he often cannot discern it. - St. Lig., no. 500, and others commonly.

4. A penitent who fears that he confessed invalidly for a long time is bound to repeat nothing, especially if he is of a timorous conscience ⁷ and has been accustomed to employ sufficient diligence ⁸ in confessions. The reason is that the presumption stands for the validity of the confessions. It is otherwise if there stands against the penitent a presumption so grave that it is equivalent to moral certainty.

⁷ Whether the penitent is of a timorous or less timorous conscience, the rule of Principle IV must remain fixed, that no one is to be obliged to repeat confessions unless moral certainty concerning their invalidity is present. The foregoing distinction contributes in some manner to a judgment or to conjectures; but conjectures do not produce certainty.

⁸ This sufficiency is not excluded by light negligence which does not exceed a venial fault, as was said above (no. 508, resolution 1).

A general confession is a repetition of several confessions. It can be a repetition of the confessions of one's whole life, or of some period, for example, of one year or of several years. Briefly, it must be said: 1. concerning the necessity or suitability of general confession; 2. concerning the method of making it.

A general confession can be either necessary, or useful only, or useless, or even harmful. Hence the following rules must be established.

517. First Rule. A general confession is to be judged necessary whenever the preceding confessions were morally certain to have been invalid or sacrilegious, either on the part of the penitent because of a defect of contrition or integrity, or on the part of the Confessor lacking jurisdiction; but in other cases it can never be prescribed. The reason for each is evident from what was said above concerning the repetition of confession.

Second Rule. It can be counseled when, although the invalidity of the preceding confessions is not established, nevertheless a grave doubt concerning this can be had ¹.

¹ The end of this counsel is not that eternal salvation be provided for, but that anxieties which are enemies of the peace of souls, diminish vigor in the exercise of good works, and especially bring troublesome distress at the point of death, may be removed.

Third Rule. A general confession, although not necessary, is to be permitted, or even prudently counseled, when, after the circumstances have been considered, the penitent will obtain notable spiritual fruit from it, for example, 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. ²; because the Confessor ought, from charity, to promote the greater spiritual good of the penitent when he can easily do so.

² You have the principal fruits excellently expressed in the third meditation of the first week of the Exercises of St. Ignatius, namely: 1. that we may feel an intimate knowledge and detestation of our crimes; 2. that, recognizing and abhorring the perverse order of our past life, we may apply ourselves to our amendment; 3. that, having inspected the wickedness and frauds of our enemies, we may guard ourselves against them.

Fourth Rule. In other cases it is to be prohibited as useless, and even harmful, when other inconveniences besides a loss of time are prudently to be feared, namely, scruples, anxieties, disturbance of conscience, etc.; for if so great a burden for the Confessor and penitent is not to be undertaken without hope of notable fruit, much less is it to be undertaken with fear of notable harm.

518. Resolutions. - 1. A general confession is readily to be permitted, indeed counseled, at the principal epochs of the Christian life, namely, before first Communion, before the choice or assumption of a particular state of life, for example, before the Priesthood, religious Profession, or even before matrimony; likewise when someone resolves to lead a more perfect life.

2. Besides the confession made at the time of first Communion, generally speaking, another general confession of one's whole life is readily to be permitted; but a second would be conceded only with the greatest difficulty when the former was made sufficiently accurately, in good faith, and with good will, unless perhaps it was made at a youthful age, for example, before twenty years of age. Hence penitents who ask the Confessor for permission to make a general confession are to be asked for what cause they request it, whether they have already confessed generally at another time, from what time, and how often; and from the replies the Confessor will judge whether this confession is expedient or not.

3. A partial general confession, namely, of one year, or from the time of the last general confession, according to the custom observed among most religious families, is readily to be permitted to devout persons. Likewise, pious penitents can sometimes be permitted to repeat summarily, in a few words, the principal sins of their life; nevertheless, attend to the various circumstances of persons.

4. Above all, however, Confessors ought to beware lest they compel penitents too readily to a general confession; and those are greatly to be rebuked who exact this from all new penitents under the pretext of necessity, or by reason of direction, etc. ³.

³ Confessors of this kind plainly show themselves destitute of judgment when they indiscriminately enjoin a general confession upon all who, by ill fortune, approach them; nor do they understand that the consciences of penitents are thereby sometimes most gravely disturbed, and that scandal is not rarely given to them, just as though Confessors, abusing the sacred ministry, were to exact without cause, with grave burden and trouble to penitents, a narration of their whole life in order to satisfy their own curiosity.

5. A general confession is not to be permitted even when there is doubt concerning the validity of preceding confessions, where notable inconveniences are to be feared from it by reason of scruples, disturbance of conscience, etc.; because grave and certain inconveniences are not to be undergone on account of a doubtful obligation.

6. A general confession is never to be permitted to the scrupulous or fearful; because if one is permitted, as soon as this is completed, they will wish to make another, and after the second they will also ask with importunate entreaties to undertake a third, with the greatest detriment to the soul, etc. For it is established by experience that a general confession generates many more scruples than it destroys.

A general confession can be made in many ways; but, generally speaking, it will be more expedient if it is made according to the following rules.

519. • First Rule. Before confession: the Confessor ought to endeavor to know explicitly the 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 there is question of a necessary confession or not; for if it is necessary, the penitent will have to be heard, questioned, and assisted with much greater diligence and care. But if it is not necessary, the penitent must be warned expressly: 1. that diligence of this kind is not required, indeed that he is free to withhold whatever sins he wishes; 2. that he ought not afterward to be anxious because through forgetfulness he omitted more or fewer of them ⁴.

⁴ Unless the penitent has been firmly persuaded of these two things, it is better to omit the general confession, which certainly would produce no fruit and, on the contrary, would be a perpetual fountain of anxieties.

2. Let him inquire prudently concerning the condition of the penitent, his age, occupations or offices, and his family: namely, whether he still has parents, brothers, or sisters; and whether he lives with them or has lived with them for a long time, etc.

3. Let him ask from what time the penitent has confessed; whether he was absolved; whether here and now he is entangled in some evil habit or evil affection of mind; whether he has frequently approached the Sacraments; whether he confessed piously or sacrilegiously; whether he ever concealed sins; at what time; for how long; whether he afterward confessed them, or repeated the sacrilegious confessions.

These preliminary items of knowledge will be of very great service to the Confessor;

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.

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

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.

1. A very careful distinction must be made between an invalid confession and an incomplete confession. A confession is invalid if something essential is lacking, for example, if formal integrity is lacking, that is, if someone culpably omitted a grave sin in confession. A confession is incomplete if material integrity alone is lacking, that is, when some grave sin was indeed omitted, but inculpably.

386. a) An incomplete confession must be completed by the accusation of that sin which was omitted.

If someone still remaining in the confessional after receiving absolution remembers a grave sin omitted, he must immediately accuse himself of it and receive a new absolution, as was already said above, n. 192. Thus holds the common practice. For the penitent must certainly accuse himself of this sin, and there is not customarily a sufficient reason for deferring its accusation until the following confession. If, however, a sufficient reason is present, for example, because the penitent thinks that he can better declare this sin to another confessor, he can refrain from accusing himself of it until the following confession. But if the penitent, now outside the confessional, remembers a sin omitted through forgetfulness, he can indeed, but is not bound to, return before Communion to accuse himself of this sin. The reason is that this sin, as indirectly remitted, does not obstruct the worthy reception of the Most Holy Eucharist, and only the obligation of confessing it in the following confession remains.²⁴¹

If the penitent knows with certainty that some grave sin of his was not understood by the confessor because of the latter's deafness, drowsiness, distraction, ignorance of the language, and so forth, he is bound to confess that sin again in the following confession. For the former confession was incomplete.

²⁴¹ Cf. above, n. 379.

387. b) A certainly invalid confession must be repeated in its entirety, for through it no sin was remitted; indeed, if the confession was not only invalid but also sacrilegious, besides the sins already committed, the grave sin of sacrilege must additionally be submitted to the keys of the Church.

A confession is invalid whenever an essential part of the sacrament of penance is lacking, which can happen chiefly in the following ways:

a) On the part of the confessor, who lacks the power of order or jurisdiction; who omitted or substantially changed the form of absolution; who does not have the intention of absolving; who understands no sin of the penitent at all because of sleep or ignorance of the language, so that he lacks matter for absolution.

b) On the part of the penitent, who did not have sufficient contrition; or who did not wish to fulfill the due satisfaction imposed; but especially who in confession sacrilegiously omitted a grave sin or its specific circumstance.

For the most part it is not the fault of the penitent if the confession was null because of an essential defect of the confessor. Therefore it is piously believed that the penitent who is in good faith then obtains sanctifying grace through contrition, which with the assistance of divine grace or by means of Holy Communion he will elicit. Nevertheless, if the penitent notices the nullity of the confession, he must submit the sins thus accused again to the keys of the Church.

If the confession was invalid because of a defect of the penitent, for the most part it is also sacrilegious, and therefore this sacrilege together with all other mortal sins not yet remitted must be accused again, either before the same or before another confessor. If the first confessor still remembers at least in a confused manner the sins heard, the penitent confesses sufficiently by saying: I accuse myself again of the sins already manifested in the former confession, and in addition I accuse myself of these sins sacrilegiously concealed. But if the first confessor does not remember, not even in a confused manner, the state of the penitent, then, as St. Alphonsus testifies,²⁴² "Suarez and St. Antoninus, Sylvester, and Paludanus in Croix say that it suffices if he remembers having imposed a penance"; but the Holy Doctor himself says: "I do not acquiesce in this, because the priest, when he pronounces sentence, must form a judgment at least concerning the state of the penitent's conscience.... If, however, he were then to absolve after a confession made in general, he would absolve validly." Therefore absolution in this case is valid, although the confessor knows nothing else except that the penitent made a confession before him. Indeed, several authors, such as Lugo,²⁴³ Ballerini-Palmieri,²⁴⁴ Tanquerey,²⁴⁵ and Génicot,²⁴⁶ think that the confessor can then absolve not only validly but also licitly. "For it seems to suffice that the priest knows that he previously judged concerning those sins, and indeed determined that the penitent was to be absolved." Thus Génicot in the place cited. Nevertheless, in practice one must not depart from the opinion of St. Alphonsus, since scarcely ever can there be a sufficient reason for treating so benignly a penitent who confessed sacrilegiously.

But an invalid confession must be repeated completely when the penitent approaches another confessor, since the latter certainly cannot judge concerning the state of a penitent who does not accuse himself of all grave sins not yet remitted.

²⁴² L.c., n. 502, dub. 3.

²⁴³ De sacr. poenit., disp. 16, n. 636.

²⁴⁴ Opus theol., De poenit., n. 472.

²⁴⁵ Synopsis Theol. mor., De poenit., n. 324.

²⁴⁶ Theol. mor. II, 306.

388. 2. General confession is the repetition of some or all the confessions of one's past life. Sometimes it is a) necessary; b) harmful; c) useful.

a) General confession is necessary whenever it is morally certain that some former confessions were invalid, for example, because of a culpable defect of contrition or of the formal integrity of confession. In a necessary general confession, those things which were stated above are to be observed. The confessor should procure equally the formal integrity and the sincere contrition of the penitent, so that when the confession has been completed it may be morally certain to the penitent that all his sins are now truly remitted.

b) General confession is harmful when new anxieties or other inconveniences arise from it. Hence general confession is to be prohibited for those who are scrupulous and have already made general confessions repeatedly without greater peace of soul having arisen from them. Likewise, general confession, or at least an accurate accusation, is often to be prohibited for those who have sinned much and gravely against chastity. For it is established by experience that a man who thinks over in detail sins of lust committed often falls into new temptations. Therefore, in these cases, when all carnal sins have already once been submitted to the power of the keys, it is not expedient to think them over again in detail and confess them. Let the accusation then be generic, but the contrition very intense.

c) General confession is useful and therefore to be counseled to all those who indeed are not bound to it but receive great fruits of soul from it. The utility of a general confession duly made is manifold: contrition is more intense and efficacious; the state of one's own soul is known more clearly; a firmer purpose is elicited; peace of soul and confidence in divine mercy are increased. Therefore general confession is to be counseled:

a) To penitents who reasonably doubt the validity of past confessions, in order to obtain greater security. The scrupulous and fearful are excepted, as was said above.

b) In dangerous illness, provided, however, that the strength of the sick person is not thereby too greatly consumed. For when death is imminent, a man must strive with all his strength that all sins and their punishment be destroyed.

c) At certain periods of life in which a greater infusion of grace is desired, for example, before First Communion, before contracting matrimony, before receiving major orders, during a mission, spiritual exercises, a jubilee, and so forth.

389. Note. In counseling or permitting a general confession, the following things are to be observed:

a) General confession, unless it is necessary, is to be forced upon no one, because a general confession not willingly accepted is customarily harmful rather than profitable. Therefore those confessors act badly who, whenever they obtain a new penitent, immediately or soon impel him to make a general confession, as though it were necessary for rightly directing him in the spiritual life. Therefore the confessor should wait until the penitent himself expresses a desire to make a general confession.

b) If the penitent expresses a desire of this kind, the confessor must beware of two opposite extremes: one is that he not immediately deny this faculty to the penitent, as though he were tormented by empty scruples; the other is that he not immediately admit an unknown penitent to general confession, because perhaps it will not merely be useful but rather harmful. Therefore the confessor should first inquire with most humane words from what motives the penitent desires a general confession; if these are sufficient, he should admit it, but otherwise deny it.

The method to be observed in general confession is different according as it is necessary or only useful. If general confession is only useful, the confessor should admonish the penitent explicitly that the integrity of the accusation is not so necessary, and indeed that sins already accused elsewhere can freely be omitted. But if general confession is necessary, then both integrity and contrition must be procured diligently. By suitable questions and exhortations the confessor should assist the penitent in this sufficiently arduous work. In every general confession, sins perpetrated since the last confession are first to be accused, so that the confessor can better judge both concerning the present state of the penitent and concerning the formal integrity of the confession.

390. Scholion. On a catalogue of sins useful for general confession. Certain authors, for example, Gury and Lehmkuhl, here append a catalogue of sins according to which the confessor may question penitents while hearing confessions. Every confessor is truly bound to know in some measure a catalogue of sins of this kind, but it is much better that he himself, with the counsel of a prudent priest, write for himself such a catalogue in the vernacular language. For it is of great importance that the confessor know not only what things are to be asked, but also how they are to be asked. But especially the manner of questioning in the matter of the sixth commandment must be learned with great prudence and differs according to diverse languages. Therefore I judge a Latin catalogue of sins less useful and accordingly omit it. He who desires a Latin catalogue should consult Gury or Lehmkuhl.

I. One defective confession is incomplete, another invalid: incomplete, that to which material integrity is lacking, when some mortal sin was omitted from a legitimate cause, or at least without grave fault, as can happen from ignorance or from forgetfulness; invalid, that to which one of the essential conditions necessary for its value is lacking, whether the penitent was not conscious of this essential defect, and then the confession is simply invalid, or whether he was conscious of it, and then the confession is also sacrilegious.¹

¹ Concerning confession to be repeated, as also concerning general confession, the following can be compared: St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, nn. 498-505; Reuter, o. c., nn. 189-191; Marc, Th. M., II, nn. 1706-1713; Aertnijs, Th. M., II, nn. 201-203; Th. P., n. 245 sq.; Gury-Ballerini, Th. M., II, nn. 511-520; Ballerini, de Poen., n. 460 sq.; Theol. Mechl., de Poen. (4), nn. 49-50; Haine, Th. M., III, qq. 57-59; Lehmkuhl, Th. M., II, nn. 451-456; Genicot, Th. M., II, nn. 305-310; Noldin, Th. M., III, nn. 290-291, 437 sq.; Prummer, Th. M., III, nn. 386-390; Berardi, Praxis Conf., n. 1131; Frassinetti, Th. M., diss. 12.

But since by the precept of Christ all mortal sins are to be subjected to the keys of the Church, that by the force of absolution they may be directly absolved, hence:

a) a confession certainly incomplete is to be completed, so that the forgotten sin may be directly remitted by a new absolution, and otherwise the subsequent confession will not be integral;

b) a confession morally certainly invalid or sacrilegious of itself is to be repeated, so that the sins may again be subjected to the power of the keys, even if meanwhile they have been otherwise remitted, e.g., by force of perfect contrition.

We say: 1) a confession certainly invalid, because in doubt the repetition of confession is of itself to be counseled, but not strictly imposed: for in doubt one must stand for the value of the act, and a doubtful law does not oblige;

2. morally certainly, because in moral matters absolute certitude is not required, but certitude broadly so called, which renders one morally certain, suffices;

3. of itself it must be repeated: for if the penitent is in good faith (as easily occurs when the confession was simply invalid) and it is foreseen that he will not easily be convinced and will not repeat the confession, although he is greatly to be invited to this, he will not be admonished concerning the invalidity, at least here and now, namely to avoid a greater evil:² for thus on the one hand formal sin is avoided, and on the other hand sins not yet validly accused will be indirectly remitted through the absolution which he receives in good faith.

² Indeed, an ingenious confessor sometimes will be able to supply by questions and to examine the penitent in such a way that the latter, even unknowingly, performs a general confession; e.g., by asking how long he was accustomed to sin, to commit the sin confessed, how often in a year, whether he confessed these things, whether he committed other graver things, etc.

II. A confession can be invalid both on the part of the confessor and on the part of the penitent:

A. On the part of the confessor: 1) if he lacks the power of order or of jurisdiction; or 2) omits or substantially changes the form of the sacrament; or 3) does not have the intention of absolving; or 4) has heard no sin, or has understood none because of deafness, sleep, drunkenness, distraction, or another reason of this kind, so that there is not matter from which he may absolve. These defects the penitent cannot and is not bound to correct except insofar as they are known to him.

B. On the part of the penitent, not only if he is merely incapable, e.g., if he is not baptized or does not have the intention of receiving the sacrament, but also if he is indisposed either 1) by defect of contrition or purpose, as in one who has approached confession from mere human respect and without any intention of changing life; to this is reduced a defect in the knowledge of truths to be known by necessity of means, which defect renders supernatural contrition impossible; or 2) by defect of examination, if in investigating mortal sins there was negligence gravely culpable on his part; or 3) by defect of sincerity, if knowingly and willingly he has concealed some grave sin, or has lied in a grave matter of confession, or, being excommunicated, approaches confession in bad faith. This defect easily arises from the shame of the penitent and from the haste or rigor of the confessor, or also from the custom of excusing penitents.

III. How confession is to be repeated. - In the manner of repeating confession a distinction must be made.

A. Either it is repeated before another confessor who knows nothing; therefore all sins are to be declared distinctly in particular and the whole confession is to be repeated from the beginning.

a) If it was sacrilegious, there come to be accused 1) the sacrilege voluntarily committed in the prior confession, 2) the mortal sins declared in that confession, and 3) all sins invalidly declared, and also the various sacrileges committed in subsequent confessions which meanwhile were instituted with memory of the preceding sacrilege, so that from this they were invalid and sacrilegious. On the contrary, if the penitent, forgetful of the sacrilege, meanwhile made confessions, these are valid. "He is bound," says Billuart, De Poenit., diss. 7, a. 2, § 5, "to repeat that first confession with accusation of his sacrilege, and also the following ones, if he made any with memory of this sin not confessed, because they were not valid from defect of integrity; other ones which he made in good faith without memory of this sin he is not bound to repeat, because they were formally integral, and as is supposed he used the other necessary things."

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

B. Or it is instituted before the same confessor, who has already heard and judged individual sins:

a) If he remembers them at least confusedly, or also the state of the penitent, and

1. the confession was sacrilegious, it suffices to accuse oneself distinctly in particular concerning the sacrilege and concerning the sins omitted (if there were any), and in a general way concerning all the other sins previously declared in such or such a confession;

2. but if the confession was simply invalid, it suffices to accuse oneself in a general way, as was said. For on the one hand the sins were subjected to the keys and the confessions were sacramental; on the other hand the confessor remembers the sins confusedly, which suffices for making judgment.

b) If the confessor does not remember the state of the penitent, a wholly distinct confession is not required, but such a one suffices by which the confessor in confession remembers the state of the penitent, or resumes a confused knowledge concerning his conscience, or can acquire that knowledge by questions. For this knowledge, as also for judgment concerning the state of the penitent, knowledge of the penance enjoined can contribute and sometimes suffice, though not always.

IV. Corollaries.

1. If someone in good faith confesses to a deaf, somewhat deaf, distracted, or sleeping confessor, the confession is valid provided that the confessor has understood at least some sins; in that case only those things are to be repeated which it is evident were not heard; and, if it is unknown which precisely those are, the whole confession will have to be repeated, at least if it is shorter, because concerning individual sins there cannot be probability, but it must prudently be doubted that they were understood. On the contrary, probably, if it is more lengthy and at the same time it can be thought that most sins were heard, because then concerning individual sins it is truly probable that they were accused, and besides the law of integrity is not judged to oblige with so much inconvenience of repeating all things one by one; whence it suffices to confess them in common, by accusing the certitude or doubt concerning certain sins not heard. But if someone confesses deliberately to such a priest, as also to an unlearned one, precisely so that he would not be able to hear or understand the sins, the confession, because of defect of sincerity, of itself is sacrilegious and to be repeated, unless however he acted through ignorance, not knowing that such a confession is evil.

2. Rustics, children, and the unlearned, who in good faith confessed sins confusedly, not sufficiently explaining the species or number, have been validly absolved (because material integrity is not of the essence of the sacrament); indeed afterward they are not bound to repeat the confession if at the moment of sin they did not have a more distinct knowledge of the species and number. On the contrary, if the insufficiency and confusion in declaration is to be attributed not to ignorance but to actual inadvertence, they must explain the species or number such as they knew at the moment at which they sinned, unless sometimes the confessor receiving the last confession of a penitent who led a uniform life and reveals and accuses the defects of preceding confessions can sufficiently understand the other sins of past life.

3. A penitent who frequently has relapsed into the same mortal sins without any amendment and without any resistance to the first temptations that occur must be presumed to have made previous confessions without sufficient sorrow and purpose; hence repetition of these is at least greatly to be urged, but not strictly imposed unless they are morally certainly invalid. On the contrary if he persevered for some time, or before relapse truly resisted the first temptations.

V. General confession is the repetition of all or of several confessions; therefore it includes the whole life or a notable part (e.g., one or several years), and can be necessary, useful, or harmful.

a) It is necessary and regularly to be imposed if it is morally certain that several of the previous confessions were invalid or sacrilegious.

b) It is useful and generally to be counseled, because of notable spiritual fruit,

1. for more adult persons who have never made a general confession;

2. for those whose prior confessions are judged doubtfully valid, namely for peace and tranquility of conscience;

3. for those who seriously intend to be converted to God and to institute a better manner of life, or who need more accurate instruction for this;

4. for those who are ending or beginning a part of life of graver moment, or who receive a state of life or new manner of living, such as older children who prepare themselves for first solemn communion, those about to marry, widows, soldiers who enter barracks or leave them, students who undertake higher studies, etc.;

5. for those whom a desire of a more perfect life holds, e.g., those who enter the clerical or religious state;

6. for those who exist in danger of life or are compelled to commit themselves to such danger;

7. finally, on certain extraordinary occasions which furnish opportunity for expiating conscience, such as missions, a jubilee, a spiritual retreat, etc.; in these cases it generally suffices to urge a general confession from the last general confession made.

c) It can be harmful and regularly to be prohibited:

1. to the scrupulous and excessively fearful who have already once performed a confession of this sort, because in these persons new anxieties and scruples always arise from the fact that they fear they have not set forth some sins or have not duly set them forth;

2. to those who, furnished with a vivid imagination and greatly inclined to carnal pleasures, have sinned much and gravely against chastity: distinct and minute recollection of offenses with minute circumstances would cause new temptations and induce danger of sinning; wherefore such persons are never to be permitted to repeat anything except in a wholly general way;

3. to indisposed recidivists who wish thus to extort absolution.

VI. The manner of receiving a general confession is described among various authors; their principal warnings and counsels we here add.

A. Before confession. "When someone asks to institute a general confession," says Aertnijs, Th. Past., n. 253, "let the confessor immediately explore whether such a confession is necessary, useful, or truly harmful. To this end it is generally not expedient, at least outside the days of a mission, abruptly to ask the penitent whether he has concealed some sin, or something similar; for it will easily happen that a guilty but disturbed penitent will deny it, and afterward will not dare to retract. Wherefore it will be useful to ask from the penitent what reason impels him to make the confession, whether anything troubles him (or: whether he has already confessed generally at other times, from what time, and how often), etc. By these and similar questions let him strive sweetly and shrewdly to fish out whether perhaps sacrileges lie hidden. When the confessor asks, the penitent will often give one of the following answers:

1. Because I have concealed my sins; then let the confessor immediately give courage to him (saying, for example, that it is not a difficult work, since he himself will gladly help), promise that he will be kind toward him, and exhort him to full sincerity (and immediately explore when the last valid confession was made, how often per year he was accustomed to confess and communicate, whether in this time he received another sacrament, namely Confirmation, Extreme Unction).

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

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:

1. 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

2. 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

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.

2. 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

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).

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

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

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

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).

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

2. 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.

3. 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.

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°.

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.

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.

General Confession is the repetition of several Confessions. It can be the repetition of the Confessions of the whole life, or of some time, e.g. of one or several years. We must speak briefly: 1° concerning the necessity or opportunity of general Confession; 2° concerning the method of performing it.

General Confession can be either necessary, or only useful, or useless, or even harmful. Hence the following rules must be established.

1378. Rule I. - General Confession must be judged necessary whenever preceding Confessions were morally certainly invalid or sacrilegious, either on the part of the penitent because of defect of contrition or integrity, or on the part of a confessor lacking jurisdiction; but in the other cases it can never be prescribed. The reason of both is clear from what was said above concerning the repetition of Confession. Cf. however n. 1377. 3°.

Rule II. - General Confession is to be permitted, or even prudently advised, although not necessary, when, the circumstances having been considered, the penitent is going to perceive notable spiritual fruit from it, e.g. by reason of greater security or peace of conscience, 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 must promote the greater spiritual good of the penitent, when he can do so easily. Benedict XIV, c. Apostolica.

Rule III. - It is to be prohibited in the other cases as useless, and even harmful, when other inconveniences besides the loss of time are prudently to be feared, namely scruples, anxieties, perturbation of conscience, etc.; for if so great a burden for the confessor and the penitent is not to be undertaken without hope of notable fruit, all the more so with fear of notable harm.

1379. Resolves. - 1° General Confession is useful 1) in a doubt, not empty, concerning the value of past Confessions; 2) when a purpose of a better life more strongly impels, e.g. in the time of a Mission; 3) in the principal epochs of the Christian life, namely before First Communion; before the reception of a new state of life; when a dangerous illness is deservedly feared; when old age is approaching.

2° Besides the Confession made at the time of First Communion, another general Confession of the whole life is easily, generally speaking, to be permitted; but another would be conceded with greatest difficulty when the prior one was made sufficiently accurately, in good faith and with good will, unless perhaps it was made in youthful age, e.g. before the 26th year. Hence penitents who ask permission from the confessor to make a general Confession are to be asked for what cause they request it; whether they have already confessed generally at other times; from what time, and how often; and from the answers the confessor will judge whether this Confession is expedient or not.

3° A partial general Confession, namely of one year, or from the time of the last general Confession, is easily to be permitted to devout persons, according to the custom kept among most religious families. Likewise, at times it can be permitted to pious penitents to repeat summarily in a few words the principal sins of their life; nevertheless attend to the various circumstances of persons.

4° But confessors must especially beware lest they too easily compel penitents to general Confession; and those are greatly to be reprehended who require this from all new penitents under the pretext of necessity, or by reason of direction, etc.

5° General Confession is not to be permitted, even in doubt concerning the validity of preceding Confessions, where from it notable inconveniences are to be feared by reason of scruples, perturbation of conscience, etc.; because grave and certain inconveniences are not to be undergone on account of a doubtful obligation.

6° It happens that young women professedly devout, although already several times confessed generally, ask to confess generally more from affection toward a new and younger confessor than from true devotion. A younger confessor should hardly ever comply with these, unless this is necessary, or prudently feared to be necessary. Except in a jubilee, etc., a Confession from the last general Confession.

General Confession can be made in many ways; but generally speaking it will be more expedient if it is made according to the following rules.

1380. Rule I. - Before Confession: the confessor must take pains to know explicitly the state of the penitent, and the various circumstances by which he can be directed toward questioning prudently and fruitfully. Hence:

1° Let him examine whether the Confession is necessary; for if it is necessary, the penitent must be heard and questioned with much greater care. But if it is not necessary, the penitent must first be warned that diligence of this kind is not required, indeed that he is free to keep silent about the sins he wishes. Nevertheless what at the beginning seems only useful is often found necessary in the course of the Confession, especially in doubt concerning the value of past Confessions.

2° Let him prudently inquire concerning the state of the penitent, whether unmarried or not, concerning his age, occupations or offices, concerning his family; namely whether he still has parents, brothers or sisters; and whether he lives with them, or lived with them for a long time; if he is or was joined in Matrimony, whether he has sons or daughters, in what age they are constituted, and whether he lives with them. Let him also discreetly inquire concerning the impediments of Matrimony, especially of clandestinity, where it was contracted clandestinely, and whether perhaps before a heretical minister; of disparity of cult, and of mixed religion, and, in these last two cases, whether the children are educated Catholic.

3° Let him ask from what time the penitent has confessed; whether he was absolved; whether here and now he is entangled in some depraved custom, occasion, or depraved affection of soul; whether perhaps he is enrolled in some condemned society; whether he ever concealed sins; how long; whether he afterward confessed them, or repeated sacrilegious Confessions, and how often; what other Sacraments he received, confected, or administered sacrilegiously.

These preliminary pieces of knowledge will serve the confessor very much; but he will urge these questions more or less according to the quality of the one confessing and the nature of the answers. - The confessor will procure several of these pieces of knowledge for himself if he induces the penitent to premise before the general Confession an accusation of sins committed since the last Confession.

Rule II. - As regards the order of Confession: the accusation and questions in the Confession itself must be made in a certain order, and always the same one, lest everything be mixed up with disturbance of the confessor and of the one confessing, and with danger of defect of integrity, etc. But the shorter and easier way is if the declaration of sins is made according to the order of the commandments of God, of the Church, and of special obligations according to each one's proper state. - Nevertheless questions concerning the Sixth are more prudently made at the beginning, or, if there is question of penitents who on account of their condition or for other reasons can be presumed to bear it with difficulty if they are questioned about this matter at once from the beginning, they are instituted at the end of the general Confession.

Rule III. - As regards the mode of Confession: if the penitent is sufficiently instructed, let the confessor kindly induce him to expose his sins according to the aforesaid order, promising that he will help him and, whenever there will be need, question him, so that all things may be rightly completed. - But if the penitent is unlearned, or prefers to be questioned, let the confessor take almost the whole burden of the Confession upon himself; let him question in order concerning all things which penitents of the same condition are accustomed to commit; but if there is question of a necessary general Confession, or of those who do not belong to the class of the pious, only concerning sins truly grave. But before he begins the questions, let him carefully warn the one confessing that he should fear nothing as to the difficulty of uncovering sins: Be quiet and of good mind, he will say; I shall make your Confession; I know indeed all the sins which you could have committed; I shall uncover all these things for you; it will be yours only to respond clearly and sincerely to my questions, and to conceive true sorrow for sins.

When the examination has been finished, let the confessor inquire from the penitent whether he is now quiet, or whether he knows that something must be added.

Then, and generally not before, let him proceed to the necessary admonitions. Finally let him exhort him not to repeat this general Confession.

528. Remarks. - 1. For confessing one's sins integrally, an examination of conscience is required of itself and regularly, to be made with ordinary diligence. Concerning this, see our Questions on the Various Categories of Penitents, c. 1, q. 1.

2. The penitent ought to set forth his sins clearly and distinctly, as much as he can, with all the requisites; and if he notices that the confessor has not heard or not understood them, he is bound to repeat them, as can happen if someone confesses under the sound of the organ, or to a somewhat deaf or sleepy confessor. Indeed, if someone purposely confessed in such a way that he would not be understood, he would commit sacrilege and the confession would have to be repeated.

3. In the case in which a confession is known to be incomplete, it must be completed in the next following confession (prop. 11 condemned by Alexander VII), otherwise this would not be integral; - if it is known for whatever cause to be invalid, it must be repeated, and indeed distinctly and entirely if it is made before another confessor; but if before the same one, in a general or more or less special manner according as is necessary so that he may confusedly recall the state of the penitent or of the past confession; - if it is known to be sacrilegious, the sin of sacrilege must additionally be accused, or even several sins if there were other confessions made with memory of the preceding sacrilege.⁵

⁵ Concerning repeating confession, as also concerning general confession, more is said in the work Questions on the Various Categories of Penitents, c. 1, q. 6.

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.

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.

I say. The penitent is bound per se under grave obligation, before he approaches confession, to institute a diligent examination of mortal sins. But this diligence, although it ought to be serious, and as great as is usually employed in affairs of great moment, nevertheless is not required equal for all, nor so exact that it should be prolonged as long as there is hope of finding some new sin. The reason of the first is, both because the Council of Trent expressly requires a diligent discussion of oneself, and because the obligation of the end imports the obligation of the means: but diligent examination is a means essentially ordered to procuring integrity in confession. But the reason of the second is that, from the very nature of the matter, those who confess frequently or lead a private and tranquil life need less examination than those who rarely approach this sacrament or are wholly entangled in worldly affairs. Finally, the reason of the third is that, as Card. de Lugo wisely admonishes, a most exact examination is not required, but a human one, that is, such that the sacrament is not rendered too grave and burdensome. - Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 14, chap. 5. - Lugo, disp. 16, n. 590. - Baller. note (b) p. 392.

You Will Resolve. 1°. He certainly satisfies who calls to mind where he was on any given day, what affairs he carried on, what in those circumstances he committed by thought, affection, word, and deed or omission, and how he conducted himself at home, in church, and in conversation with his neighbor. - Cf. Baller. note (b) p. 393.

2°. No one is bound, while preparing himself for confession, to write down his sins, even if he fears lest they fall from memory. The reason is that a means of this sort is extraordinary, burdensome, and liable to the danger of revelation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 471.

3°. He who is morally certain that he has not committed mortal sins since the last confession is not properly bound to examination, except insofar as it is required for supplying sufficient matter to the sacrament. In practice, however, pious penitents are to be advised to give attention to examination of conscience at least for five minutes, or for about half a quarter of an hour, namely for knowing and uprooting venial defects.

4°. In the timorous, a quite moderate diligence of examination is required, because conscience would not be silent if anything gravely culpable were hidden within; indeed in the scrupulous inquiry is to be omitted and sometimes entirely forbidden, as useless and often harmful: for if they had sinned gravely, they would always have the sin before their eyes.

5°. For the sick, an examination as accurate as for the healthy is not required; indeed sometimes none is to be demanded from them because of weakness of the head; nor is their custom easily to be indulged when they say that they are putting off 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 them to the state of grace through absolution, even when they have confessed imperfectly, than, with the sacraments of the Church delayed, to expose them to the danger of damnation. - Cf. Elbel, n. 153.

Question. What is to be done by the confessor if penitents approach without a sufficiently examined conscience?

Resp. If they are instructed, and unless circumstances counsel otherwise, they can kindly be sent away so that they may examine their conscience more accurately and return, at least if lengthy and involved confessions are in question. The reason is that it is almost impossible for someone suddenly asked to remember everything. But if they are uneducated, they are not easily to be sent away so that they may examine their conscience, because charity ought then to counsel the confessor to interpose his own labor. For by some questions he himself will obtain more than they, left to themselves, would accomplish by a long examination, although they would strive to recall all sins into memory. Besides, it is to be feared lest perhaps, terrified by the difficulty, they not return any more to confess. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 471.

General confession can be either necessary, or only useful, or useless, or even harmful. Hence the following rules must be established:

Rule I. General confession is to be considered necessary as often as the preceding confessions were morally certainly invalid or sacrilegious, either on the part of the penitent because of defect of contrition or of integrity, or on the part of the confessor lacking jurisdiction; but in other cases it can never be commanded. The reason for both is clear from what was said above concerning the repetition of confession.

Rule II. It is to be advised, but not commanded, when, although the invalidity of the preceding confessions is not established, nevertheless grave doubt is had about this. The reason of this counsel is that anxieties may thus be driven out.

Rule III. General confession is to be permitted, or even prudently advised, although not necessary, when, with the circumstances considered, the penitent is going to perceive a notable spiritual fruit from it, for example, 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, out of charity, ought to promote the greater spiritual good of the penitent when he easily can.

Rule IV. It is to be prohibited in the other cases as useless and even harmful, when other inconveniences, besides the loss of time, are prudently to be feared, namely scruples, anxieties, disturbance of conscience, etc.; for so great a burden for the confessor and penitent is not to be undertaken without hope of notable fruit; a fortiori with fear of notable harm.

You Will Resolve. 1°. General confession is easily to be permitted, indeed advised, in the principal epochs of Christian life, namely before first communion, before the election or reception of a particular state of life, for example, before priesthood, religious profession, or even before matrimony; likewise when someone resolves to lead a more perfect life.

2°. Besides the confession made at the time of first communion, generally speaking, another general confession of the whole life is easily to be permitted; but a third would be conceded only with the greatest difficulty, when the former was made accurately enough, in good faith, and with good will, unless perhaps it was made in youthful age, for example, before 20 years. Hence penitents who ask from the confessor permission to make a general confession are to be asked for what reason they request this, whether at other times they have already confessed generally, from what time and how often; and from the answers the confessor will judge whether this confession is expedient or not.

3°. Partial general confession, namely of one year, or from the time of the last general confession, is easily to be permitted to devout persons, according to the custom observed among very many religious families. Likewise, it can sometimes be permitted to pious penitents that they repeat summarily, in a few words, the principal sins of their life: attend, however, to the various circumstances of persons.

4°. But confessors ought especially to beware lest they too easily compel penitents to general confession; and those who exact this from all new penitents under pretext of necessity, or by reason of direction, etc., are most greatly to be reproved.

5°. General confession is not to be permitted even in doubt about the validity of preceding confessions, where notable inconveniences are to be feared from it by reason of scruples, disturbance of conscience, etc.; because on account of a doubtful obligation grave and certain inconveniences are not to be undergone.

6°. General confession is never to be permitted to the scrupulous or fearful; because if one is permitted, when this has been finished, they will immediately wish to make another, and after the second, they will ask with troublesome prayers to undertake even a third, with the greatest detriment to the soul, etc. For experience establishes that general confession generates far more scruples in them than it destroys.

General confession can be made in multiple ways; but, generally speaking, it will be more expedient if it is made according to the following rules:

Rule I. Before confession, the confessor ought to strive explicitly to know the state of the penitent and the various circumstances from which he can be directed toward questioning prudently and fruitfully. Hence:

1°. He should examine whether it is to be a question of a necessary confession or not; for if it is necessary, the penitent will have to be heard, questioned, and helped with much greater diligence and care. But if it is not necessary, the penitent ought certainly to be warned that diligence of this sort is not required, indeed that he is free to keep silent about the sins he wishes; nor ought he afterward to be anxious because from forgetfulness he omitted more or fewer things.

2°. He should inquire, prudently however, about the condition of the penitent, about his age, state, occupations and duties, and finally about his family.

3°. He should ask from what time the penitent has confessed? whether he was absolved? whether here and now he is entangled in some depraved custom or depraved affection of soul? whether he has frequently approached the sacraments? whether he confessed piously or sacrilegiously? whether he ever concealed sins; at what time? how long? whether he afterward confessed them or repeated sacrilegious confessions?

These preliminary notions will serve the confessor very much; but he will urge these questions more or less according to the quality of the one confessing and the character of the responses.

Rule II. As to the order of confession: the accusation and questions in the confession itself ought to be made in a certain order, lest all things be mixed together with disturbance of the one confessing and danger of defect of integrity, etc. But the shorter and easier way is if the declaration of sins is made according to the order of the commandments of God, of the Church, and of the special obligations proper to each one's state.

Rule III. As to the manner of confession: if the penitent is sufficiently instructed, the confessor should kindly induce him to set forth his sins according to the aforesaid order, promising that he will help him and, as often as there will be need, will question him, so that all things may be rightly completed.

But if the penitent is uneducated, the confessor should assume almost the whole burden of the confession upon himself, should question in order about all things which penitents of a similar condition are accustomed to commit, and after individual sins should inquire from the penitent whether he knows anything to be added. But before he begins the questions, he should carefully admonish the one confessing that he has nothing to fear for himself as to the difficulty of uncovering sins: "Be quiet and of good courage," he will say; "I will carry out your confession; I certainly know all the sins which you could have committed: I will uncover all these for you; it will be yours only to respond clearly and sincerely to my questions, and to conceive true sorrow for your sins." - Thus Salvatori, Practical Instruction for New Confessors.

First let the penitent say what he knows, unless he prefers to be questioned at once. Before all else the penitent is to be asked whether he is joined in matrimony or not? - Then:

I. Whether there has been no sacrilegious confession? Whether at some time you did not dare to say something? how often? Whether in such a state you received Holy Communion? whether in Paschal time? how often? Whether you culpably did not fulfill the penance?

II. Concerning the theological virtues: Whether at times you elicited an act of Faith, Hope, and Charity? Whether you know the principal mysteries necessary to be known, namely that God exists, and is the rewarder of good and evil; the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity, of the Incarnation and Death of Jesus Christ? Whether perhaps you denied the faith? Whether you doubted concerning some truth of Religion? or denied it? Whether you spoke against Religion? Whether you read prohibited books? sold them? lent them?

Whether perhaps you despaired? Why? (Let the Confessor inject hope: because the good God, if he had wished to damn you, would not today have ...). Whether you presumed?

Whether from human respect you neglected the precepts of God and of the Church?

Whether you gave scandal, depraved counsels, or examples to your neighbor?

Whether you sought occasions of sinning?

III. Concerning the precepts of God: 1st. Superstition? divination? vain observance? magic? idolatry? the habit of never or scarcely ever praying?

2nd. Oath? vow? blasphemy?

3rd. Working on a Sunday or feast day? Omission of Mass or bad hearing of it?

4th. Toward parents, master, Pastor: disobedience? murmurings? insults? blows? wishing death upon them?

Toward children, servants, or other subjects: education? instruction? care of salvation, proximate occasions of sin? vigilance concerning duties of religion? scandal? anger?

5th. Harms inflicted on neighbor in body or soul? hatred? desires of revenge? imprecation? quarrels? beatings? homicide? duel? abortion? abuse of matrimony? But here and concerning the following precept one must question sparingly, cautiously, chastely.

6th and 9th. Thoughts? morose delectation? desires? what kind? with what kinds of persons? Words? whether you uttered immodest words, jokes, songs ... or listened willingly? whether you read obscene books? - Works? with yourself? by touches? by pollutions? by sight? with others? with unmarried persons? with married persons? with relatives? with those bound by vow? of the same sex? Whether here and now you are still in a proximate occasion? Wives can be asked whether they were obedient to their husbands in all lawful things?

7th and 10th. Harm? theft? fraud? wages due to workers retained, or defrauded, or diminished? Restitution? small thefts?

8th. Pernicious lies? rash judgments? detraction? calumny? (reparation of reputation and of further harm perhaps inflicted).

IV. Concerning the precepts of the Church: Fast? abstinence from flesh on forbidden days? - Confession? Paschal Communion?

V. Concerning the capital sins: Drunkenness? pride? sloth? envy? anger? avarice?

VI. Concerning the duties of state: Husband; wife; master; civil magistrate; advocate; merchant (weight and measure).

N. B. At the end let him ask whether anything else still holds him anxious.

No doubt General Confession is in many cases necessary. This necessity will occur in the case of women more frequently than of men, because invalid Confessions, for lack of contrition or of sincerity, are more frequently made by the former than by the latter. When, therefore, there is need of a General Confession in the case of a female, the confessor is, of course, obliged to hear the same. But great precaution is required in this matter, as it not infrequently happens that females misuse General Confession and are prompted by discreditable motives. Such motives are, for instance: 1. Curiosity regarding the ways of a new confessor; 2. Infatuation, which causes the penitent to seek opportunity for long conversations with the confessor; 3. Jealousy, the person endeavoring to stay longer in the confessional than other penitents of her sex; 4. Now and then malicious intention, either of confusing young and inexperienced confessors, or even to lead them into temptation, by inventing sins contra sextum, etc. Hence young priests in particular should be cautious in such cases and seek in a prudent way to ascertain of what mind the penitent is, and by what motives she feels induced to make a General Confession.

For it is not merely a waste of time to hear a General Confession made only for purpose of conversation. For that reason it is well not to lose sight of the Ducite Caute. Dr. Joseph Niglutsch.

Case.—A penitent accuses himself in confession that he formerly (bona fide) passed over essential things, as for instance the number and species of mortal sins, that is to say he was careless in his confessions, because he knew no better. In another case the confessor discovered defects of this kind through the manner in which a penitent accused himself. He concluded that previous confessions, or at least a part of them, had been similarly defective.

Question.—What is the confessor’s duty in such cases?

Solution.—The first mentioned case is dealt with by St. Alphonsus in his Moral Theology, L, vi, 504, where he says: “I. Tamburini says that country people and children who have confessed in good faith while omitting to explain the kinds and number of their sins are not to be compelled to repeat their confessions; but this is altogether improbable, because although country people of this kind are not bound to repeat their past confessions in their entirety, they are nevertheless bound to explain the kinds and number omitted, so that they may at least make the present confession complete. II. Segneri says that if a country person in past confessions stated his sins confusedly, in the manner of the uneducated, the confessor ought not to oblige him to repeat the confessions, because those sins were already directly absolved; but neither is this pleasing, for although those confessions were valid, they were nevertheless deficient with respect to material integrity, which must always be supplied.’ The holy doctor, in the question of a supplementary completion of the number and species of sins already confessed bona fide, takes a stand between those who in such case require a formal general confession, and those who, like Tamburini and Segneri, in this case make no demand upon the penitent. He requires that what was lacking in previous confessions quoad numerum et speciem peccatorum should now be completed; but he does not attack the validity of those confessions. For instance, if someone had ex inadvertentia, or otherwise guilelessly, confessed sins of incest, which in committing he knew to be such, as peccata fornicationis, then he must now state them specifically because they were not directly remitted.

Berardi in his work: “De recidivis et occasionariis’ (Vol. 1, pag. 209) takes a mild view of the duty to correct the number in a subsequent confession. He holds that if one bona fide understates merely the number of the mortal sins, he needs not correct his statement, for the confessor has at least in confuso apprehended the frequency of the sins confessed, and has absolved directly from the sins as many as there were. He refers to the authority of De Lugo, who writes (De Poen. S. 14, n. 579): “In the case in which a country person, because of greater knowledge which he later acquired, or a child now grown older, could now explain better the number which he had stated generally and in a rough manner in confessions already made in good faith, whether he must now do so and supply the defect then committed concerning the fuller declaration of integrity?... It seems harsh to impose this burden.... There is no obligation to bring again before this sacramental judgment that sin from which the penitent was already directly absolved in the same judgment by a lawful judge.”

This view regarding the number is certainly correct in those cases where the penitent declared the number only generally and approximately, and the confessor understood the frequency in confuso and in general, and gave absolution. It would be different if the penitent had declared a fixed number and later discovered a greater frequency. Here without doubt he would have to declare the larger number.

It is to be further remarked, with Lugo, that if a penitent reveals the state of his conscience to the best of his knowledge and ability, he is not obliged later to repeat individual sins which had been included in general statements, if later the same come to his memory in concreto, because they are included in the former accusations. Indeed, such repetition is not even advisable, nor must the confessor permit it, if the penitent is at all of a scrupulous nature. A person of this kind might, by repetition of sins not confessed, become a victim of uneasiness and doubt, all the more as the laity ordinarily cannot distinguish between actus principales and subordinati, and believe they must confess the latter also in detail, although it is known to be unnecessary if the former, of which they are part, are confessed.

From the above-mentioned we gather the following: If it is a question of former confessions that are not really invalid, but only incomplete, because of defects that happened bona fide, then the confessor has merely to demand that the penitent state the circumstances that must be stated, and that were previously omitted, of his grievous sins; further that he correct according to his present knowledge a fixed number that he stated too low; finally, that he mention those newly discovered sins, that are not part of any species of sins already confessed. But the penitent need not confess sins which he recalls now for the first time in concreto, if he has already confessed their genus and frequency. He need not repeat them if their number, mentioned in confuso to the best of his knowledge, now appears to him as much larger, and still less is he to be obliged to make a general confession to amend this incompleteness, as such obligation exists only when there is a moral certainty that his past confessions were really invalid (Lehmkuhl, Theol. Mor., vol. II., 345), which is here not the case.

2. The case of merely suspected incompleteness of former confessions.—The supplementing of previous bona fide confessions is obligatory only when their incompleteness is manifest. The severe view of St. Alphonsus that the material integrity is always to be supplied (“quae semper supplenda est”) refers to the case when incompleteness is known without doubt, but not to the case in which it is merely suspected. Here is more applicable another direction of the holy doctor: “Those who have confessed in good faith are not to be questioned too much about past confessions, unless it is understood that something necessary was lacking” (L. VI.,n. 471). Therefore, if the confessor has weighty reasons to suspect that the penitent has not properly stated the number and circumstances in previous confessions, he should ascertain whether the penitent is at ease in regard to his previous confessions. If the answer is affirmative he will inquire no further, nisi intelligat aliquid necessarium defuisse; for if the confessor would have to put questions to most penitents about former confessions for fear of insufficient accusation, this would be quite a burden for the confessor, and also for the penitent. The latter probably would dislike to be subjected to such examination, especially when they go to confession so seldom that one must be glad to see them in the confessional at all.

This burden would be greater for the confessor; for while the penitent would only bear the burden for his person, the task would be imposed upon the confessor in regard to all who come to confess. There applies here the maxim, “It is not well to insist upon material integrity at any price.” The rules of prudence must here guide, according to the other universally accepted principle: “Care must be taken lest the Sacrament of Penance be made too burdensome or hateful.”

We are confirmed in this view by another consideration. Berardi teaches op. cit. p. 210 that a habitual sinner who has taken little or no pains to amend during a long life of sin is obviously obliged to repeat his confessions, because they are to be regarded as invalid. Whether there does exist in such a case a positive obligation to make a general confession is somewhat doubtful. There prevails on this point another, milder, view. Noldin says: “Those who have lived for a long time in an evil habit of sinning and, although they have approached the sacraments rather often, have nevertheless always relapsed into the same sins without a serious effort at amendment, cannot be strictly obliged to make a general confession, because it is not certainly established that their past confessions were invalid; nevertheless, since their validity may be doubted not imprudently, they are earnestly to be exhorted to a general confession” (Summa Theol. Mor., ed. V. P. III. n. 437). However, if the penitent is in good faith, the confessor should be careful in mentioning an obligation of a more complete confession. First of all he must ascertain whether it be opportune to make the obligation known to him. “Indeed, in order that a penitent ought to be compelled to a general confession, it is not enough that he himself be bound to it, but it is also required that the same obligation can prudently be disclosed to him.” Frassinetti and Gousset are quoted by Berardi in support of this view.

To conclude, if according to these authorities a general confession, even though necessary to revalidate previous confessions, must not under certain circumstances be demanded, so much the less should the administrator of the Sacrament of Penance, merely for the material completeness of the confession, insist on a proceeding which is calculated to make the Sacrament of Penance odious. Should, therefore, the confessor have reason to fear that in previous confessions not everything had been satisfactorily told quoad numerum et speciem, he must not question the penitent about his past life if he must fear that it would be distasteful to the penitent, which is often the case. It were best here, too, to take the golden mean. If the confessor for good reasons considers that he ought not ask his penitent to make a general confession, he may at least cause him to accuse himself summatim et generaliter of the sins which he fears are not confessed, and consequently not directly remitted. The confessor will inquire, then, how often the penitent used to confess during the period in which he fears that the confessions have been incomplete or invalid, and will help him to arouse a sincere contrition.

This procedure can certainly not prove irksome or hard for a penitent, and it will serve to put the confessor at ease, in as much as it will help to supply the defects of previous confessions in case a general confession is not to be insisted on,

Such confessions happen perhaps much more frequently than many confessors suppose. Missionaries can best tell about this, because they often have to validate unworthy confessions. “If Missions,” says St. Alphonsus, “were of no other benefit, than that they make good many sacrilegious confessions, wherein grievous sins have been concealed, especially by females, from motives of false shame, then this would be reason enough to let them be held. Unworthy confessions happen particularly in small communities, either because there are few confessors there, or because one sees them every day, as children see their parents, as friend sees friend, and therefore one is ashamed to reveal certain actions, the result being that the sinner is afraid to confess the faults committed and hence passes his whole life in a sacrilege, many indeed not even breaking this silence of shame upon their death-beds. Now the essential fruits of a Mission consist in making good the many invalid confessions; for sinners well know that the Missioners are strangers, and in a few days will take their departure without ever seeing them again. And thus, moved by their sermons, they hurry to the confessionals in order to purify themselves of all their concealed sins, by a sincere repentance.”

However, Missions cannot always be held, while sacrilegious confessions may be committed at any time. Therefore, the priest should not fail to preach often about this kind of confessions. “Father,” thus wrote Saint Theresa to a preacher, “preach very often against unworthy confessions; for the devil has no net in which he catches as many souls as in this.” A certain priest, upon reading this, resolved that in every parish in which he would be stationed he would at the first opportunity preach about unworthy confessions, and, after the example of St. Vincent of Paul, urge the people to make general confessions, since in his quite correct opinion it is just these unworthy confessions that are the greatest obstacle to successful pastoral work. ‘True to his resolution, he preached in every parish, where he worked after that, several sermons on the “dumb devil in the confessional,” and it became apparent everywhere, even where it had seemed superfluous, that the great St. Theresa was right. Simply to mention unworthy confessions in a sermon would not help much if it is not made the special theme of the sermon. Of course, the preacher should not be content to give to this important theme just one sermon, he must return to it again and again, so that the remorse of conscience, which with

_ God’s grace is awakened in the penitent at the first sermon, be not allowed to vanish, but is made persistent until the soul in this lamentable state discloses to the spiritual physician its burden in the Sacrament of Penance. Saint Leonard of Port Maurice, as experienced a confessor as he was a zealous Missioner, was accustomed to ask at the conclusion of a confession, if he considered it expedient, the simple question: “Did you ever conceal a sin because you were ashamed to tell it? In your childhood, or youth perhaps? Tell me, I beg of you, I will help you!” and he was wont to say that through this question he had saved more souls than he had hairs on his head.

Case.—At a recent mission in our church a very zealous missionary, in his talk on Confession, advised the congregation to make a general Confession as a preparation for death, which might be imminent, and as a means of making sure of the mission indulgences. After hearing Confessions for many hours, I, a parish priest, concluded that a general Confession was an unnecessary tax upon priest and penitent. Thereafter I allowed only an ordinary Confession.

Question.—Was I justified in my action?

Solution.—Theologians teach that there are times when a general Confession is necessary; times when it is useful; and again times when it is neither necessary nor useful. When it is necessary by reason of some defect in past Confessions, it becomes the duty of the confessor as the minister of the Sacrament to see that it is made —made integrally and validly. Hence, in such circumstances he must insist on a general Confession. Where there is a well-founded doubt as to the validity of former Confessions, he may advise general Confession, but cannot impose it, as no one is obliged to repeat Confessions, unless he is morally sure of the worthlessness of prior ones. Even in cases where there is not even the shadow of a doubt about the validity of former absolutions, it may be very advisable to recommend a general Confession for various reasons. The ultimate object of such advice would of course be the betterment of the penitent’s spiritual condition. In these days when men are taken up more and more with the things of the world, to the detriment of the things of the soul, when the service of mammon has been substituted for the service of God, it is clearly the duty of the followers of Christ to protect themselves from the dangers surrounding them by leading a more spiritual life. This can be accomplished by means of Confession, even by making from time to time general Confessions. Reviews (general in a sense) have ever been used by religious communities as a means of attaining greater perfection. Such Confessions beget greater humility, greater contrition, greater purity of heart, and hence a greater desire for the more perfect service of God. Particularly is this the case when they are preceded by meditations on sin, death, eternity, etc., as happens in time of retreat or of missions, jubilees, etc. This is spoken of by Benedict XIV. in his Apostolic Constitution of 1749. “Thus the whole course of life is reviewed in the mind; from this arise fear and humility in the person and a greater horror of sin: strength is increased, so that whatever provokes to evil may be repelled; a most delightful peace and tranquility enter the soul; and the injuries inflicted by past confessions are repaired.” It is evident the Supreme Pontiff was strongly in favor of general Confession at such times as those of mission and jubilee, as this constitution was issued in preparation for the jubilee of 1750.

It follows that it is a good plan to advise general Confessions at such seasons of grace as a means to an end. Where general Confessions are neither necessary nor useful, they are not to be permitted. This is the case when penitents wish to make a general Confession for some outside motive; from vanity or pseudo-humility, or because the confessor is new to them and they foolishly think that such a Confession is necessary that their true spiritual condition may be known to him; or more frequently where the penitent is given to scrupulosity; in such instances this kind of Confession only begets greater difficulties. From what has been said above, the solution of the case is obvious. The missionary was giving evidence of his zeal for souls and of his wholesome practical judgment. He did well in preaching general Confession during the mission; his advice would be more practical if he encouraged a general Confession not of the whole life, but of the sins committed since the last general Confession. This simplifies matters by removing occasion of confusion, worry, doubt, anxiety, etc., the natural concomitants of all drastic search into one’s past life, thus leading to more certain and more beneficial results. With this modification, the holy man’s action is extremely commendable. The parish priest did not look at the facts from the proper angle. His judgment was obscured by the personal element he introduced. His consideration for the penitent was fraught with spiritual disadvantages to the penitent, and led him into a violation of the virtue, if not of justice, at least of charity.