Confession by signs, writing, letter or telephone

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

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

¹ Decretum pro Armenis.

B. Directed to one present. The words: I absolve you, suppose the penitent to be morally present. Moreover moral presence is that within which men, speaking with a louder voice, can and customarily do speak with each other and be heard; which St. Alphonsus with many others thinks can certainly extend to about twenty paces, especially where the penitent has not yet gone out from the sight of the confessor; but if the distance is greater, or if the confessor and penitent are in diverse rooms altogether separated, absolution will be doubtful, and therefore outside a case of extreme necessity one must abstain from it, because in such a doubt that which is safer must be done. Hence in practice:

1. If a penitent goes out from the confessional before absolution has been given, he can safely be absolved if he is certainly known to be within a few paces; which can be extended to about twenty if he is still seen by the confessor; otherwise let him be kindly recalled to the confessional. But if he is now far away and cannot be found, let the matter be committed to God; afterward, however, if he returns to confession, let him be admonished to grieve over all his sins, even past ones, and let him be absolved.

2. A dying person can be absolved already from the door of the room.

3. In battle a multitude of soldiers can be absolved, although some are distant much, because they form one moral thing and by this reason all are sufficiently present.

4. In a case of necessity all those who are perceived in some sense, even confusedly, can be absolved (under condition), e.g., those falling from a roof, slipping into a river or sea, lying in a fire, even if they are only looked at from afar, provided it is in some way probable that they are morally present, because in some sensible way they are present before the confessor.

IV. Corollaries. - From this practical corollaries can be deduced:

1. Absolution is illicit and invalid if given to an absent person, whether by letter or through an intermediary, even if he is confessing in this way, both because it is not done by vocal words, and because it is not done to one present.

Several once admitted this, such as Peter Paludanus, Adrianus, Sylvester, whose opinion according to Fr. Soto can be held. John of St. Thomas besides adduces for it I. Medina, de conf. Q; and Navarrus, Summa, c. 21, n. 30. Against it stand Cajetan and Ledesma and generally more recent authors; and St. Thomas is adduced, III, q. 84, a. 3 ad 3; a. 4, ad 3; and IV Sent., d. 1, q. 1, a. 3, ad 3; d. 14, q. 1, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 2; d. 17, q. 3, a. 4, qc. 3, ad 3; St. Bonaventure and St. Albert the Great in IV Sent.; Alexander of Hales, III, q. 60, m. 1, a. 1; Richard in IV, d. 17, a. 2, q. 5; Ferrariensis, c. Gent., IV, c. 72.

Moreover the nature of the sacrament of Penance seems to demand that, from the mode in which it is ministered, of itself at least the priest can become certain of the actual state of the penitent; for this there is required present confession and absolution of one present; nor does an intermediary bear the place of the penitent as regards disposition. On account of this Clement VIII, on 20 June 1602, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, condemned at least as false, rash, and scandalous this proposition: "it is licit through letters or an intermediary sacramentally to confess sins to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent one," and commanded that it never in any case be brought into practice. From which it follows that absolution is not only illicit but also invalid, for otherwise sometimes, at least in extreme necessity, it could licitly be brought into practice.

2. Absolution given to an absent person is likewise invalid, even if confession was made to a priest present, on account of the same motives.

3. Likewise absolution given to one present is invalid, but by force of a confession made in absence and here and now in no way renewed, not even in general. For then present matter (namely confession) is lacking, and therefore absolution would not be sacramental, as not informing the matter, nor is the priest more certified concerning the actual state of the penitent.

It is also reported that Clement VIII pronounced that he had condemned and prohibited the adduced proposition not only copulatively but divisively, concerning absolution and confession separately; and most certainly Paul V, in the Congregation of the Holy Office, 14 July 1605, declared that the decree is valid in the divided sense, so that he ordered the contrary interpretation to be expunged from the writings of Suarez.

4. Hence, as an axiom, they are accustomed to say: absolution is invalid whether a) an absent person confesses and is absolved while absent, or b) a present person confesses and is absolved while absent, or c) an absent person confesses and is absolved while present.

5. Nevertheless the practice is not disapproved of absolving the dying who are destitute of the senses, who manifested desire of confession, concerning which testimony is had through those standing by, as Clement VIII declared.

For then there is present confession of one present made to one present through those standing by, as if through interpreters. For as Billuart says, de Poen., diss. 7, art. 3, § II, "the penitent is present, those standing by are present, the confessor is present, and through the testimony of those standing by the confession itself is present." Namely, the penitent is present, and his confession is morally continued and expressed by the mouth of those standing by, so that the priest can be morally certain concerning the actual state of the penitent, since it is in no way likely that he, while danger of death stands, has changed his good disposition.

6. Finally, absolution by telephone, or through a long phonetic tube, is invalid, or at least very doubtful.

For according to the natural and ordinary mode of speaking together, the penitent and confessor are not present to one another, and by the common estimation of men, the conversation is judged to be made among the absent: simple communication is not yet presence. Indeed neither is the very voice of the one speaking heard, but it is only perfectly reproduced; but artificial transmission of the voice does not suffice that absolution which reaches the penitent be truly vocal. Whence, at most, in a case of extreme necessity, and only under condition, could the penitent thus be absolved, from lack of a more certain mode.

But if the Sacred Penitentiary, 1 July 1884, to a question proposed concerning this, rescripted that nothing was to be answered, it seems to have wished to signify: that the question does not pertain to it, but to the Holy Office.

St. Th., Suppl., q. 7.

514. Definition of confession. - Sacramental confession is the voluntary accusation of one's own sins committed after Baptism, made by the penitent to a legitimate priest in order to obtain pardon by the power of the keys. There is indicated:

1. the genus: accusation, not a simple narration performed in a historical manner, or a fortiori made for excuse or ostentation, but a manifestation by which someone declares his sins as a guilty person, and which is made after the manner of reprehension and vindication upon himself;

2. the quality: voluntary or spontaneous, not coerced, so that it may be distinguished from that which is made in the external forum;

3. the object or matter: one's own sins, namely actual sins committed after Baptism; for the matter is not original sin, nor the sins of another, nor mere imperfections;

4. the subject: by the penitent, i.e., with sorrow and contrition, without which it would not be an act of penance;

5. the end to which: made to a legitimate priest, as to the proper judge of this tribunal, namely to a priest legitimately designated and who legitimately has the power of order and jurisdiction; hence confession made to a layman or to a priest not having jurisdiction is not truly sacramental but only thought to be so;

6. the end which, or the effect: in order to obtain pardon. Hence if it is made only for the sake of counsel or consolation, or with the intention of mocking or of drawing the confessor into sin, it is not truly sacramental confession;

7. the cause by which the effect is obtained: by the power of the keys, i.e., of sacramental absolution; so that the general sacramental confession which is recited in the divine office or before Holy Communion is not sacramental confession (art. 1).

515. Confession is an act of virtue. - The reason is both because it is commanded, and because in its own nature it implies a condition which pertains to virtue, namely that the one confessing brings forth by mouth what he holds in mind; otherwise it would not be true confession but fiction. Therefore of itself it is an act of virtue, although it can become evil if it is not clothed with due circumstances (art. 2).

It is an act of the virtue of penance. For although confession of truth absolutely and of itself pertains to the virtue of truth, confession of truth to which there is added a special notion of good and which imports a special difficulty pertains to a special virtue; e.g., confession of faith pertains to faith, confession of God's benefits to religion, confession made in judgment to justice. But confession of sins imports a special notion of good, because it is for the recognition and amendment of fault, and a special difficulty. Therefore it is an act of a special virtue. But this is penance, to which pertains the recognition of one's own sin, which is the way to confession itself and the very shame of confession. Therefore (art. 3).

516. Observation. - Because an act of natural virtue is of natural right, confession considered in general is of natural right insofar as the penitent is naturally inclined to confession. Yet the determination of the circumstances is of divine right. Hence natural right inclines to confession, through divine right by which the circumstances are determined (art. 2, ad 1).

St. Th., Suppl., q. 9, a. 3.

518. Principle I. Confession must be vocal, i.e., expressed by words, but not by nod, signs, or writings. - It is proved:

1. From the common usage of the Church.

2. From the bull of Benedict XI, Inter cunctas, § 1: "Unless an article of necessity occurs, confession by mouth must be made to the priest."

3. St. Thomas assigns the reason in a. 3:

"Confession... insofar as it is a part of the sacrament, has a determinate act, just as the other sacraments have determinate matter; and just as in Baptism, for signifying interior washing, that element is assumed whose use is greatest in washing, so in the act of the sacrament, for manifesting, ordinarily that act is assumed by which we are most accustomed to manifest, namely one's own word. But other modes are in supplement to this."

519. Principle II. Vocal confession is not required from the very essence of the sacrament or by divine precept, but from custom, which has obtained the force of ecclesiastical law, so that he would sin gravely who, without any cause, would wish to confess only by sign or writing, while he can easily use his voice. But when a just cause exists, confession can licitly be made by signs or in writing, e.g., 1) if the penitent is mute; or, on account of sickness, an impeded tongue, or disturbance, can speak only with great difficulty; or, on account of excessive shame, anxiety, or scruples, cannot declare his sins integrally; likewise 2) if the confessor is somewhat deaf and cannot hear the penitent without those standing nearby also hearing him.

In these cases a) the penitent, if he is not mute, should at least say: "of the sins which are written on this paper, I accuse myself"; or should indicate by nods that this writing is ordered to confession and absolution; yet this is not absolutely required for validity; b) also the penitent ought to confess in this way if the precept of confession urges, because the inconvenience of writing is not so great that it excuses from the grave precept, even divine, of confession. Nor is it an obstacle that a man is not held to write sins lest they fall from memory, for no precept is given of retaining sins in memory; and, moreover, the necessity of confession of itself is much greater than the necessity of material integrity.

520. Observation. - Let the words of St. Thomas, ad 2, be noted: "In one who does not have the use of the tongue it suffices that he confess by writing or by nod or by an interpreter, because more is not required from a man than he can do; although a man cannot or ought not receive Baptism except in water, which is altogether from without and is furnished to us by another. But the act of confession is from within and from us; and therefore when we cannot confess in one way, we ought to confess according as we can."

Case.—A certain priest, by name Paul, had brought into play all manner of artifice that might secure him an entrance into the house of a Freemason, whose wife, Mary, lay grievously ill, but all in vain. He was on the point of despairing when he discovered that the house was equipped with a telephone. Through the assistance of a servant in the house, Paul was enabled to obtain communication with the sick woman, and, having heard her confession over the "phone," gave her conditional absolution.

Now the question arises: Did Paul act prudently? Our answer is in the negative, and for the reasons we will now set forth.

Solution.—Before all else, the penitent must be truly present to the confessor, for an absent person can never be absolved. This we know, in the first place, from the condemnation made by Pope Clement VIII of the following proposition: “It is lawful sacramentally to confess sins by letter or messenger to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from that same absent confessor.” And Pope Paul V, approving of Clement's action, declared the condemnation to extend to both members of the proposition, even separately considered. Secondly, we know this from the Council of Trent, where, speaking of the nature of the Sacrament of Penance, it is said: “Christ instituted this sacrament in such a way that He willed penitents to be arraigned before this tribunal as defendants and to be freed from sins by the judgment of priests.” These words call for no more and no less than the presence of a criminal before a judge.

The penitent, then, must be present to the confessor. But how? Morally or physically? Theologians are our guides in this matter, and in this they are sure guides, seeing that they all agree in demanding a moral presence. What, then, we may inquire, is moral presence? These same theologians tell us, definitely or satisfactorily enough we do not say, that men are morally present to one another when they can speak with the ordinary voice (voce communi), though pitched in a higher key. Again we find some who extend this presence to twenty paces. The limit, however, is reached by those theologians who hold that the required moral presence is had if the confessor sees or by any one sense perceives the penitent, and this in the natural or human way. We now conclude that the presence required for valid absolution is had only when the confessor can perceive the penitent at least by one sense, and in the natural way, i. e., aided only by nature, e. g., the sun, air, etc.

Indefinite as this notion of moral presence may be, we will now apply it to the case in hand. At the very outset, we can say that if this presence is had, it is only by means of the telephone. Through no other medium can Mary, lying ill in her home, be said to be present, either physically or morally, to Paul, who is now in the telephone station. Our question, then, concerns itself only with this circumstance of communication. Assuredly, this communication does not take away the distance, nor does it render those present to each other who are, de facto, at a distance, for at most it is but an efficacious medium of communication between absent persons. This is no new doctrine, for if we ask the general opinion of prudent men on this matter we will receive the same verdict—that the telephone does not create presence, but is only a means of communicating with an absent person. From the mere fact, then, of two persons being in communication it does not follow that they are present to each other, as can easily be seen in the case of communication had through a messenger, or again, by means of a letter.

For fear this notion of moral presence may be, as yet, too indefinite or abstract, we will now take a concrete example of it—to be had, we think, in the case of hearing Mass. To fulfil our obligation of hearing Mass we must at least be morally present, so that we would ' '€ reckoned among the number of those assisting at the offering of the Holy Sacrifice. Could this be had through the telephone? Is it likely that any one would admit that a person could hear Mass over the "phone"? Assuredly not. And why? Because the telephone does not supply moral presence. Still St. Alphonsus says: "Praesentia pro absolutione majorem propinquitatem requirit quam pro audienda missa." With this saying before us we can reasonably hold that the moral presence, required by the theologians, demands, if we may be permitted the expression, a local nearness, and we likewise contend that one would change the meaning of the words in affirming that Paul and Mary were truly present to each other.

Our next endeavor will be to discover the mind of Jesus Christ anent this matter—the presence required for a valid absolution. Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ instituted seven Means of Grace, called sacraments. These seven sacraments, we might do well to note here, are separate entities instituted, each and every one of them, for a different purpose. A sacrament is a sign—an efficacious sign of grace. A sign is made up of two elements—the thing to be signified or symbolized, i. e., the idea of Christ, and the symbol or rite, which in turn is composed of two elements—one real or sensible, called matter, and the other verbal, called the form. Of the seven sacraments two were instituted in specie, i. e., Christ not ony gave the Church the idea to be symbolized, but also the matter and form which constitute the symbol. The other five Christ instituted in genere, i. e., He gave the Church the idea to be symbolized, and left her free to choose apt instruments to signify the idea. The Sacrament of Penance was instituted in genere.

The Council of Trent tells us that the Church can not change, in fact, can do nothing regarding the substance of the sacraments, i. e., the idea Christ had in instituting them. If, then, our notion of moral presence is included in the idea of Christ, which is the substance of the sacrament, the Church can not change it one jot or tittle. If, on the other hand, it is contained in the symbol, the Church can, at her discretion and according to the needs of the time, change it. But, de facto, she has, up to this, in no way modified it. What we must do, then, is to discover the mind of Christ—His idea in this matter.

We find nothing concerning it in the teaching of Christ, and, moreover, the Church, in her teaching, has not a word. We must go to the theologians and the practice of the Church for a solution. All theologians teach that Christ instituted penance for the remission of all sins committed after baptism—that this was His idea. But what we are especially concerned about is the symbol or rite regarding the determination of which the Church, we admit, was allowed a certain amount of latitude—an apt symbol, one that would clearly represent Christ's idea, made up of two elements, which theologians for convenience's sake have analogically called matter and form. As we have already stated, each of the sacraments has a symbol or rite in which these two elements may be distinguished. That same connection must be had between the matter and form of each symbol, all will admit, and that this connection may be different for different sacraments, is demanded by the fact that the sacraments, notwithstanding a certain more or less artificial uniformity, belong to disparate categories of things. What connection, then, does the Sacrament of Penance require between its matter and form? What presence is demanded to exist between the penitent supplying the matter and the confessor pronouncing the words of the form? In a word, according to the mind or idea of our Saviour, what presence must exist between Mary, confessing her sins, and Paul, giving her absolution? For an answer to this question we must betake ourselves to the theologians and the practice of the Church.

The theologians have always taught that the penitent should present himself before the confessor as does the criminal before the judge. They have always demanded, for the validity of the absolution, that the penitent be present to the confessor so that the words of the form, pronounced in the ordinary way, should fall upon the penitent in like manner. This the Church also has always demanded, and as we see from her practice, has always obtained. This, then, is the idea of Christ which demands this presence for the validity of the absolution. But this presence is certainly not had through the telephone, as all theologians admit, and no necessity, no matter how great, can supply it, though some theologians, by a queer process of reasoning, come to this conclusion.

The case of these latter theologians would not be altogether hopeless, but would have some probability in its favor, if the human voice was heard through the telephone, for, then, there would be a slight probability of the telephone creating moral presence. In this matter we must have recourse to science. What does she say? Her verdict is that we do not hear the human voice, but only a physical reproduction, or rather, a physical effect of the voice. After along struggle we may get her to admit that perhaps the human voice is heard, but more than this is required to produce a slight probability of moral presence, for a slight probability is a true probability, and, consequently, demands one good, solid motive. A slight probability is so called not because it has for its foundation a slight motive, but because it is of a lower grade of a true probability. We hold, then, that a slight probability is not had in this case, and still a slight probability is necessary, even in a case of extreme necessity, for the licit administration of the sacraments.

Because of these reasons we conclude that the presence, necessary for the validity of the absolution, is not obtained through the means of communication called the telephone, and consequently that Paul. in this case, acted imprudently.

With considerable anxiety Father Cajus enters for the first time the confessional. His first penitent is an aged lady, who, amongst other things, accuses herself of not having kept the prescribed fast days. After listening to her Confession, Cajus, as in duty bound, puts some necessary questions, but he receives either a wrong answer or no answer at all. It becomes evident to the young priest that he has before him a person hard of hearing. Father Cajus is perplexed, but after some hesitation, he decides to unconditionally absolve the penitent, who, it appears to him, is well disposed; furthermore, he imposes a very trifling penance, because he cannot speak to the penitent without being heard and understood by others. The question is, Did Cajus act rightly or not?

Cajus acted quite correctly, as he only became aware of the penitent’s deafness after the confession of sins, and for this reason was unable to take his penitent to another place, or bid her to return at a later hour, without causing others to suspect a grievous matter about which they would think the confessor wanted to inquire more thoroughly. For this reason also Cajus very properly imposed merely a small penance. The justification of this procedure is found in the solicitous concern not to violate the seal of Confession. The material completeness of the Confession must here give way to the regard for the seal of Confession. Formal completeness of the Confession suffices here because material completeness is morally impossible.

The confessor would have been obliged to proceed differently had he noticed the defect before her confession of sins, or had he known from experience that he had before him a deaf person. In such a case he would either appoint another time for her to come to Confession, or seek an appropriate place, where he could ask the necessary questions, unless, indeed, in the case of females, prudence and regard for good repute made it advisable to be satisfied even in this case with the formal completeness of the confession of sins (Cf. S. Alphonsus, Praxis Confessarii, 104; Lehmkuhl, Theologia Moralis, edit. VI., tom. 2, 328). Dr. John Döller.

Titus is priest in a large industrial town where there are workmen of various nationalities, who often know nothing of the language of the country. With the help of several priests who understand the various languages spoken in that town, he has compiled a scheme of confession in several languages, so as to be able, in case of necessity, to hear the confessions of people speaking a language unknown to him. His confrater Commodus asks him: " Why give yourself so much trouble? When they are in danger of death, I can validly absolve such people if they only give some sign of contrition; but otherwise I cannot hear confessions in a language that I do not properly understand."

What ought we to think of the theory and practise of these two priests respectively?

Commodus is wrong in fancying that danger of death is the only case in which a penitent, whose language the confessor does not understand, can validly receive absolution from him. He may receive it (1) whenever confession is necessary, and (2) whenever a confessor cannot be found who understands his language.

Confession is necessary especially in the following cases: (1) At the time for making the annual confession; (2) when it is essential to a worthy reception of Holy Communion, and this cannot be omitted or postponed without neglecting the Easter precept, or incurring a danger of scandal or suspicion. If the communicant in this case were sure of being truly contrite, he might communicate without confession. St. Alphonsus expressly says that a confessor speaking only a foreign language is equivalent to one who is absent (Homo Apost., XV. sect. n. 26, 3). (3) When the penitent wishes or requires to receive another Sacrament of the living, viz., Extreme Unction, or matrimony, and is not sure that he is in the necessary state of grace or of perfect contrition; (4) When the penitent, if deprived of the grace of the Sacrament of penance, is in danger of falling into grievous sin, or of losing the great benefits conferred by this Sacrament; (5) If he, being unable to make his confession at once, would be obliged to remain two or three days in the state of mortal sin (as St. Alphonsus says, 1. VI. n. 487), or even only one day, according to Marc, n. 1698. This would be still more true in a case where immediate confession was necessary because of some special danger or trouble of conscience.

The other condition required, in cases of necessity, to justify a priest in giving absolution without a full confession, is the circumstance "in which no confessor is available by whom the penitent can be understood" (Marca, n. 1697, 4). Copia confessarii ought probably to be understood here in the same way as in the rule that any one who has committed mortal sin must go to confession before receiving Holy Communion. In both cases a commandment has to be observed that binds de jure divino. In this sense the following rule may hold good: " Copia confessarii does not exist when there is no confessor at hand who knows the penitent's language, and when none can be found without great exertion, because the nearest is perhaps two or three hours' journey distant, or even less, if there are other difficulties besides distance, such as want of time, bad health, unfavorable weather, etc. (Cf. S. Alph., L VI. n. 264, and others.) This is the general rule. If circumstances permit, however, it is advisable to send ignorant and spiritually neglected penitents to a confessor who understands their language, and even to do so, if possible, also in cases where confession is necessary, since the assistance of such a priest is often essential not only to the completeness, but also to the validity, of their confession and to the amendment of their lives.

As to the plan devised by Titus in his zeal for souls, it is sanctioned and approved by several authors, for instance by Gury, Casus consc, II. n. 480, who discusses the right course to be adopted by a Catholic missionary who is the only priest in a large district where a language is spoken of which he is totally ignorant. In order that he may be able to some extent to hear confessions, Gury proposes to him to learn the words that denote the sins most frequently committed, and to repeat them interrogatively to his penitents, so that they, nutu capitis, or by some other sign, may answer affirmatively or negatively. In this way Gury thinks a confessor can form some general idea of the sins committed by each penitent. The method invented by Titus is in exact accordance with this advice, and he deserves all possible praise rather than the blame given him by Commodus. In order to make his method still more fruitful of results, Titus will do well to notice the following points:

(1) He must secure the validity of the confession by trying in the penitent's language to induce him to make an act of contrition, mentioning the chief grounds for imperfect as well as for perfect contrition. For still greater security he may require a short act of faith to be made before the act of contrition, especially in the necessaria fidei de necessitate medii, i. e., in the most holy Trinity, also in the Incarnation and death of our Lord Jesus Christ. The penitent is sufficiently reminded of Deus remunerator in the act of contrition.

(2) With regard to the completeness of the confession, Titus may follow Gury's method. As a rule no one can be bound to make a confession through an interpreter (S. Alph., 1. VI. n. 479, 3). Although it is generally not possible for a confessor, using questions and forms learnt by heart in a foreign language, to arrive at a completely satisfactory confession, which, according to the Council of Trent (Sess. 14. can. 7) is required de jure divino, still a confession of sins (although not complete) is advantageous to the penitent and quiets his conscience far more than would be the case if he received absolution after giving merely some sign of contrition.

(3) Finally, Titus should do his best to make his penitent understand that this confession is quite sufficient for the present to obtain pardon from God for all his sins, but that he is bound later on, when he finds a priest who understands his language, to make a fuller and more exact confession of sins that he has now been unable to confess properly. All theologians agree in recognizing this obligation on the part of the penitent, and the contrary opinion was expressly condemned by Pope Alexander VII, as sent, damnata. This obligation cannot be imposed in certain cases: (a) on the dying, when there is no probability of their ever again seeing a priest who knows their language; (b) on penitents who have only venial sins, and therefore no materia necessaria, to confess; (c) on such as had only one or two grievous sins on their conscience, and have succeeded in making a full confession of these sins by the method described above; and (d) on those who are bona fide unaware of this duty, and of whom there is good reason to fear that they would not accept the admonition, or would later neglect, by their own fault, to follow it, so that it would do them more harm than good, and might possibly render their confession altogether invalid.—Johann Schwienbacher, C.SS.R.

Case.—Columbanus, a priest in good standing, passing along the street, is accosted by a layman, who after a few minutes’ conversation requests the priest to hear his confession then and there. After some hesitation, the priest does so, and finding no reserved case, he imparts absolution.

Question.—Did Father Columbanus act correctly under these circumstances?

Solution.—The sacred character of the Sacrament of Penance demands that the graces of the Sacrament should be imparted in a solemn and sacred way. Hence the Church has determined that all confessions are ordinarily to be heard in a church; by the name church are not to be understood private oratories; hence confessions are not to be heard in private oratories, unless special permission be granted by the Bishop of the Diocese for such a practice. The Councils of Baltimore are explicit enough on this point, and they authoritatively declare that confessionals are to be erected in all churches in suitable and convenient places, where the faithful may reverently receive the holy Sacrament of Penance. Strictly speaking, then, confessions are not to be heard outside of a church unless circumstances are otherwise than ordinary. On the other hand, all authorities concede that in the presence of extraordinary conditions confessions may be heard anywhere, provided the place be in keeping with the dignity of the Sacrament; this demands, as the minimum, that the place be “decent.” Of course, in cases of urgent necessity, as in the presence of danger of death, the spiritual welfare of the soul will call for the administration of the Sacrament anywhere. As to the present case, it must be said that the practice of hearing confessions on the street, when there is no question of danger of death, is not to be countenanced. It can easily be seen that, were such a procedure admitted as a general thing, the way would be opened to extreme carelessness, and no proper safeguard could then be provided whereby the reverence due to the Sacrament, as a grace-giving institution of Christ, could be maintained. Hence the Church has wisely legislated against such a custom. However, it cannot be denied that there may betimes, not speaking of the needs of the moribund, when it would not be illicit to hear confessions outside of a church, and even on the street. Where there is a sufficiently grave reason, the Church would not be against the imparting of absolution (per modum actionis) even on the street. If, for instance, a man found himself in mortal sin, and to remain in that condition for any length of time grievously disturbed him; or if he had to go on a journey of duty, exposing himself to danger on the way, and if in neither case he could go to a church to make his confession, assuredly he would be justified in confessing even on the street. He might be a sea-voyager, about to take ship for a distant land, and by reason of lack of time unable to go to a church. He would be compelled to sail the ocean with his soul burdened by sin, unless he could confess to a priest whom he fortunately meets on the dock. To take advantage of his opportunity to remove his grave spiritual danger would undoubtedly be justifiable. The action of Columbanus would have to be judged in the light of the principles just set forth. If grave and weighty reasons were present, his action was licit, but it was illicit in the absence of sufficient reason. Indiscriminate hearing of confessions on the street cannot be defended against the positive legislation of the Church determining the proper place for the reverential administration on this Sacrament.