The necessity of confession

The Council of Trent’ teaches that “ This sacrament of Penance is for those who have fallen after Baptism necessary unto salvation, as Baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.” This sacrament, then, like Baptism, is a necessary means for salvation for all who have committed grave sin after Baptism. There is, consequently, for all such a divine precept which obliges them to go to confession. They must fulfil this precept at any rate before death, and the Church, using the power given her by her divine Founder, has obliged all who are conscious of being in mortal sin to go to confession at least once a year (Can. 906). If there is no opportunity of going to confession, one who has fallen into grievous sin can through the mercy of God obtain pardon for it by making an act of perfect contrition or of pure love of God. These acts implicitly contain a desire to receive the sacrament of Penance and to fulfil all other obligations imposed by God and by lawful authority. Even after sin has been forgiven by an act of perfect contrition or of pure love of God, there will always remain the obligation of confessing it, if it be mortal, when the time for the annual confession arrives or the opportunity occurs. Those who do not fall into grievous sin are under no obligation of going to confession, though, of course, they are the last to neglect the use of so powerful a means as frequent confession to attain purity of soul and to obtain great graces from God.

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

¹ Sess. xiv, c. 5.

I. Penance is a true sacrament of the New Law; this proposition is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament... instituted by Christ our Lord, let him be anathema."¹

Note. As regards the time of institution of this sacrament, the Council of Trent teaches:² "But the Lord instituted the sacrament of Penance especially³ then, when, raised from the dead, he breathed upon his disciples, saying: 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive...' By so signal a deed and by words so clear, the consensus of all the Fathers has always understood that the power of remitting and retaining sins, for reconciling the faithful fallen after Baptism, was communicated to the Apostles and to their legitimate successors."

II. Penance is a sacrament really distinct from the sacrament of Baptism; this proposition likewise is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone, confounding the sacraments, says that Baptism itself is the sacrament of Penance... let him be anathema."⁴

¹ Session 14, canon 1.

² Session 14, chapter 1.

³ It is said "especially" because Christ had already promised the sacrament earlier (Matthew 16:19 and 18:18).

⁴ Session 14, canon 2.

The necessity both of means and of precept must be examined; nevertheless only that of the divine precept, because the ecclesiastical precept has been discussed in volume I, n. 1104.

I. Necessity of means. The sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation by necessity of means for those who have sinned gravely after Baptism. This is clear: 1. from these words of the Council of Trent: "This sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation for those fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism itself is for those not yet regenerated";¹ 2. from Sacred Scripture. For Christ declared that sins are retained for those for whom they are retained by the judges constituted by him.² But sins would not truly be retained if another means of obtaining pardon were available to the sinner apart from those judges. There are added: 3. the testimonies of the Holy Fathers; and 4. the argument of prescription. These, together with other arguments, you may compare in the Dogmatic theologians.

Corollary. From what has been said it follows that perfect contrition and the act of charity do not justify the sinner except insofar as they are at the same time a recourse to the sacrament of Penance in desire, or insofar as they at the same time include the purpose of submitting oneself to the judges constituted by Christ. Hence, for one thus justified there remains the obligation afterward of having recourse to the judge.

¹ Session 14, chapter 2.

² John 20:23.

II. Necessity by force of divine precept. 1. The existence of the precept follows from the necessity of means.

2. The time for fulfilling the precept. The precept obliges:

a) Of itself: 1. in the article of death; for one who then does not fulfill the divine law rashly exposes himself to the danger of never fulfilling it; 2. it is disputed whether it obliges at some times in life, but the affirmative seems to have to be held, because it is difficult to admit that Christ instituted a tribunal by which the sinner is reconciled with God, and at the same time granted the sinner the faculty of avoiding that tribunal until the end of life (St. Alphonsus, VI, 662, 663, 665). For the rest, it is certain: 1. that the divine precept does not oblige immediately after a sin has been committed; 2. that satisfaction is made to the said precept by fulfilling the ecclesiastical precept (St. Alphonsus, VI, 663).

b) Accidentally: 1. if confession is held to be a morally necessary means of avoiding sin (St. Thomas, Supplement, q. 6, art. 5); 2. according to many, before the reception of the Eucharist, if one has sinned gravely (n. 179), in which case there is certainly an obligation, whether from divine law or from ecclesiastical law.

“From the institution of the Sacrament of Penance already explained, the universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord and that it exists by divine law as necessary for all who have fallen after Baptism; because our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests as His own vicars, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal crimes into which the faithful of Christ have fallen are to be brought, so that by the power of the keys they may pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. For it is established that priests could not have exercised this judgment without cognizance of the cause, “nor indeed could they have observed equity in imposing penalties, if penitents had declared their sins only in general and not rather in kind and individually. From these things it is gathered that all mortal sins of which penitents have consciousness after a diligent examination of themselves must be enumerated in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed only against the last two precepts of the Decalogue—sins which sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those committed openly. For venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, although they are rightly and profitably declared in confession without any presumption, as the practice of pious men demonstrates, nevertheless can be withheld without fault and expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even those of thought, render men children of wrath and enemies of God, it is necessary to seek pardon for all of them from God by an open and modest confession. Therefore, while the faithful of Christ strive to confess all sins which occur to their memory, without doubt they expose them all to be pardoned by the divine mercy; but those who act otherwise and knowingly retain some sins propose nothing to the divine goodness to be forgiven through the priest; for if the sick man is ashamed to uncover his wound to the physician, the medicine does not heal what it does not know. It is gathered furthermore that those circumstances which change the species of a sin must also be explained in confession, because without them the sins themselves are neither fully set forth by the penitents nor known to the judges, and it cannot come about that they are able rightly to judge the gravity of the crimes and impose upon the penitents the penalty that is fitting for them. Hence it is foreign to reason to teach that these circumstances were devised by idle men, or that only one circumstance is to be confessed, namely, that one has sinned against his brother. But it is also impious to say that confession, which is enjoined to be made in this manner, is impossible, or to call it a torture-house of consciences; for it is established that nothing else is required of penitents in the Church than that, after each has examined himself more diligently and explored all the folds and recesses of his conscience, he confess those sins by which he remembers having mortally offended his Lord and God; while the other sins which do not occur to one who thinks diligently are understood to be included generally in the same confession. For these we say faithfully with the prophet: From my hidden sins cleanse me, O Lord. The difficulty of confession of this kind and the shame of uncovering sins could indeed appear grave, were it not lightened by the so many and so great advantages and consolations which are most certainly conferred through absolution upon all who worthily approach this sacrament. Furthermore, as regards the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, although Christ did not forbid that anyone, for the vindication of his crimes and his own humiliation, and both as an example to others and for the edification of the offended Church, might be able to confess his offenses publicly, nevertheless this was not commanded by divine precept, nor would it be sufficiently prudent to command by any human law that offenses, especially secret ones, be disclosed by public confession. Hence, since secret sacramental confession, which holy Church has used from the beginning and now also uses, has always been commended by the holiest and most ancient Fathers with great and unanimous consent, the empty calumny of those who do not shrink from teaching that it is foreign to the divine command, is a human invention, and had its beginning from the Fathers assembled at the Lateran Council, is manifestly refuted. For through the Lateran Council “the Church did not establish that the faithful of Christ should confess, which she understood to be necessary and instituted by divine law, but that the precept of confession should be fulfilled at least once a year by each and all when they had arrived at the years of discretion. Whence throughout the universal Church, with great fruit for the souls of the faithful, that salutary custom of confessing during the sacred and most acceptable time of Lent is now observed; which custom this holy Synod greatly approves and embraces as pious and deservedly to be retained.

464. Principles. - I. Sacramental confession is necessary by divine law for all who after Baptism have fallen into mortal sin. This is evident: 1. from Sacred Scripture; for Christ says to the Apostles, John 20:22: Receive the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. - And in Matt. 16:19 Christ said to Peter: Whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven. And at 18:18 He says to all the Apostles: Whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven. Hence thus: Christ instituted the Apostles and Priests as judges and physicians, without whose sentence and cure no one gravely fallen after Baptism can be reconciled and healed; but they cannot discharge this twofold office when the cause is unknown: for how could Priests discern among sins, remitting some and retaining others, unless they could render a judgment concerning each? What reason would there be for pardoning some but denying pardon to others? To what end would that supreme power of the keys handed down by Christ to the Apostles and their successors tend? It would indeed be illusory if sinners were not bound to approach Priests and manifest their sins to them. Therefore, it is necessary that mortal sins committed after Baptism be subjected to the power of the keys or the judgment of Priests. Therefore confession is necessary by divine law.

This is evident: 2. from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, canon 7, in these words: If anyone says that in the Sacrament of Penance, for the remission of sins, it is not necessary by divine law to confess each and every mortal sin, etc., let him be anathema. - Add innumerable other decisions of Councils and Supreme Pontiffs.

This is evident: 3. from tradition and the argument of prescription. For confession has always been in use from the beginning of the Church, as is evident from innumerable testimonies of the Holy Fathers, which can be seen among authors treating Dogmatic Theology. Therefore, it was instituted as necessary by Christ and transmitted through the Apostles. This is evident according to the well-known Rule of St. Augustine, bk. 4, De Baptismo contra Donatistas, ch. 24: That which the universal Church holds, and which was not instituted by Councils but has always been retained, is most rightly believed to have been handed down by apostolic authority. Moreover, the confession of sins is a matter so arduous and difficult that it would never have been observed so perseveringly and universally for so many centuries unless it had been instituted as necessary by Christ.

465. II. Confession is also necessary by ecclesiastical law, at least once a year, for all the faithful who have sinned gravely. This is evident from the Councils, but especially from the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III, in these words: Every faithful person of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, shall alone faithfully confess all his sins at least once a year to his own Priest and endeavor, according to his own ability, to fulfill the penance enjoined upon him...; otherwise, while living, let him be barred from entrance into the Church, and when dying, let him lack Christian burial.

466. Questions. - QUESTION 1. When does the divine precept of confession bind?

Reply 1. It certainly binds of itself in danger, and all the more at the point of death, and sometimes in life. The reason for the first is that all positive precepts bind at least at the time of necessity; otherwise they would never bind and would be imposed in vain. The reason for the second is that affirmative precepts do not bind only in extreme necessity, but also when their fulfillment is reasonably judged necessary.

Reply 2. It often binds per accidens ¹, namely: 1. when the Eucharist is to be received; 2. when the precept of being reconciled with God binds, or the state of grace is required, for example, for administering Sacraments, or for receiving those which are called the Sacraments of the living, and an act of perfect contrition cannot be elicited; 3. when a grave temptation presses which otherwise cannot be overcome.

¹ The discussion, as is plain, concerns only those who are bound by the bond of mortal guilt.

QUESTION 2. Does the divine precept of confession bind immediately when a sin has been committed; or at what time does it bind?

Reply 1. It does not bind immediately after sin. The reason is that such an obligation rests upon no certain foundation. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., no. 674.

Reply 2. It cannot easily be determined how many times in life and at what precise time the divine precept binds. Whatever the case, there is no doubt that he satisfies who confesses even only once a year; because it is not established that the divine precept binds more frequently; according to many, Christ left the time of the obligation to be determined by the Church. (More concerning the necessity of confession in the Treatise on the Precepts of the Church, vol. 1, no. 476 ff.)

98. 1. From the words of St. Matthew concerning the power of the keys, and from those of St. John concerning the power of remitting and retaining sins, the divine institution of confession is legitimately inferred. For Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance by way of judgment, so that the priest cannot bind or loose, remit or retain, at will, but only according to the laws of equity and prudence. But such a judgment cannot be pronounced without a prior confession of all mortal sins; for an equitable and wise judgment cannot be rendered unless the cause is known, and indeed in particular; and moreover the cause regularly cannot be known without the confession of the penitent, who alone can reveal his secret sins, or even the true malice of external sins, which depends on the internal act of the will.

² Cambier, De divina institutione confessionis (thesis), Louvain, 1884; Palmieri, Th. 33, p. 401-419; L. de San, n. 756-780; Mangenot, Dict. de Theol., t. III, word Confession.

Furthermore, the power conferred on the Apostles and their successors embraces the faculty both of remitting and of retaining sins; now such a power cannot be exercised indiscriminately. Before the spiritual judge renders sentence, he must know whether sins have been committed or not; indeed he is bound to know their number and gravity, and also the interior dispositions of the sinner, so that he may be able prudently to judge whether they should be remitted or retained, and what kind of satisfaction should be imposed. But for this there is generally required an integral and distinct confession of mortal sins: otherwise, for the most part, the judgment will be neither equitable nor prudent. Therefore Christ, by conceding to the Church the power of remitting sins by way of judgment, by that very fact instituted confession.

99. 2. From the same texts it is gathered that confession is necessary for all who have fallen into grave sin. (A) For from the words "whose sins you shall forgive..." the Lord established in His Church a tribunal for the remission or retention of sins; but when a prince establishes a tribunal in his kingdom for the knowledge of causes, he manifests clearly enough that this is the way necessary by common right for ending disputes: for, if judges could not compel the guilty to present themselves before the tribunal, their power would be vain, since it could be despised with impunity. Thus if Christ, by instituting the sacred tribunal, had not commanded sinners to have recourse to it, but had left another ordinary means by which they could be justified, the power of priests would be illusory: for who would subject himself to humble confession and laborious penance, if another less laborious means were at hand for obtaining pardon of sins? - This conclusion is surely confirmed from the parallel passage, where there is question of the power of the keys. For the power of remitting sins is nothing other than a certain special attribution or exercise of the power of the keys, as was already said, n. 24. Therefore the power of remitting sins has the same force as the power of the keys. But the power of the keys supposes the force of obliging all the faithful who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism to have recourse to it for the loosening of such a bond: "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven..." For just as no one can enter a house which is closed unless the doorkeeper opens the door, so no one to whom the gate of heaven is closed by mortal sin can enter the kingdom of God unless the gate is opened by the doorkeeper to whom Christ handed over the keys; otherwise the power of the keys would be illusory: for what profit is there in having keys, if without them, against the will of the doorkeeper, access lies open? Therefore the power of remitting sins, like the power of the keys itself, has the force of obliging sinners to have recourse to the sacred tribunal.

(B) It is confirmed from the last part of John's text: "and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained"; whose sense is: if you retain, I also retain. Therefore sin is not remitted by God when the Apostles retain it; and therefore the sinner needs Apostolic power in order to obtain pardon; for otherwise, when the Apostles retained, God would not retain; the power of the Apostles would become vain, and Christ's words false. Therefore the power of retaining sins supposes that the apostles and their successors can oblige sinners to have recourse to the sacred tribunal, for obtaining the remission of mortal sin committed after Baptism.

100. Certain other texts are brought forward which seem to regard sacramental confession; concerning these it is permitted to note a few things.

(a) In the Acts of the Apostles (19:18) one reads: "And many of those who believed came confessing and declaring their deeds." Not a few theologians, with Bellarmine, think that here there is question of the faithful and of sacramental confession; for the Greek word exomologoumenoi used here is that by which the Greeks designate sacramental confession. But many others, such as Beelen and Patrizi, hold that here there is speech of Jews and Gentiles not yet baptized, but converted by the seen prodigy and beginning to believe; and therefore not of sacramental confession, but of that general accusation of sins which preceded baptism. We hold this latter opinion as the more probable.

(b) The words of James are also alleged:¹ "Confess, therefore, your sins to one another." Many Fathers² and theologians indeed understand these words of sacramental confession; for they are brought forward after the words concerning the remission of sins through sacred anointing: the sense therefore is that the sick must confess their sins, and the word to one another designates one of the priests designated in the preceding verse. - But not a few others, such as Beelen, think that here there is question of confession made to a prudent man, in order to ask counsel from him and to obtain the help of his prayer. This interpretation likewise is truly probable.

¹ James 5:16.

² Among whom Origen, homil. 2 on Levit., P. G., t. XII, p. 419.

124. Once the divine institution of confession has been posited, its fittingness can be shown:

¹ P. Felix, De la confession: pourquoi on se confesse et pourquoi on ne se confesse pas? Paris, 1892; Bougaud, Le Christianisme et les temps presents, 6th ed., 1902, t. V, ch. 6, p. 145-182.

1. On the part of God. For sin includes an act of pride and disobedience which must be repaired; but it cannot be repaired in a better mode than by sincere confession of sins. For he who had said at least equivalently: I will not serve, by confession subjects himself to God, saying: I have sinned; and, reconsidering his offenses in the bitterness of his soul, and opening them candidly and humbly to the minister of God, he tames pride and compensates, insofar as can be done, for the offense inflicted upon God: since "a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

2. On the part of man. (a) Confession gives peace and security to souls; one of the chief goods which we can enjoy is certainly peace of soul; but the sinner can scarcely find peace and security of soul except in sacramental confession. For although he tries to conceive sorrow for sins and to satisfy for them, nevertheless he does not know whether he is worthy of love or hatred, for no one is a judge in his own cause; on the other hand, if he opens all grave sins to God's minister by humble confession, the latter can judge concerning them, and also concerning the dispositions of the penitent and the equity of satisfaction already performed or to be performed, and thus the anguish of soul and remorse of conscience vanish.² (b) Likewise confession deters from sins: for if the land is desolated with desolation because there is no one who reflects in his heart, he who frequently examines his conscience in order to confess all sins committed by himself escapes a danger of this kind; since by scrutinizing conscience, he sees and flees the occasions of sinning, and learns the means for overcoming temptations; besides, the obligation of opening all things, even the most secret, makes him more watchful, so that there is no more efficacious restraint for coercing sinners than sacramental confession. (c) Confession also greatly promotes the practice of virtues: for since we are weak and inconstant, we need a friend and guide in the spiritual life: "We fluctuate among various counsels," says Seneca (Ep. 52); "we will nothing freely, nothing absolutely, nothing always. No one by himself is strong enough to emerge; someone must stretch out a hand, someone must lead him out... There is need not only of a guide, but of a helper and, so to speak, a co-actor." But in sacramental confession we find a most faithful friend, to whom, under the inviolable seal of secrecy, we can open the offenses, infirmities, and wounds of the heart; a spiritual guide who will teach us the ways of the Lord, by showing what we ought to avoid and what to do, not in a general mode, as happens in preaching, but in a special mode, accommodated to our infirmities, according to that saying: "Arise, and enter into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do";¹ a helper, who, burning with zeal for God, will, as it were, compel us to expel vices and cultivate virtues.

² Not a few Protestants candidly acknowledge this, for example E. Naville (in de Baudry, La Religion du Coeur, p. 84 ff.): "For what sinner has not turned the eyes of cupidity toward the tribunal of penance? Who has not desired, in the bitterness of his soul and the uncertainty of divine remission, to hear from the mouth of him who is a participant in Christ's authority these words: Go in peace, thy sins are forgiven thee?"

¹ Acts 9:7.

Hence Leibniz says:² "But that this whole institution is worthy of divine wisdom cannot be denied, and, if anything else, certainly this is illustrious and praiseworthy in the Christian religion, which even the Chinese and Japanese have admired; for the necessity of confessing deters many from sins, especially those who have not yet been hardened, and gives great consolation to the fallen, so that I think a pious, grave, and prudent confessor is a great instrument of God for the salvation of souls; for his counsel is useful for ruling the affections, for noticing vices, for avoiding occasions of sins, for restoring what has been taken... for removing doubts, for lifting up the afflicted mind, and finally for taking away or mitigating all evils; and since scarcely anything more excellent than a faithful friend is found in human affairs, of how great value is it when, by the inviolable religion itself of the divine sacrament, one is bound to keeping faith and bringing help?"³

² Systema theol., Paris, 1819, p. 270.

³ And not otherwise do not a few modern Anglicans speak, among whom H. P. Liddon, as is clear from his letters:

"Christ Church, Oxford, March 1883. - Dearest X., From the year 1847 I have gone to a confessor as often as I have had need, and this has never displeased me. Nothing better which may restore the soul seems able to exist: and absolution, which follows confession, is a more direct and authentic form of the power of absolving than those more universal formulas which are used in the daily office and in the administration of the Eucharist. I have also experienced, as far as I am concerned, that the doctrine of Bishop Butler with respect to following the safer way concerning the manner of conducting oneself most openly confirms this practice... The earthly minister, who imparts absolution, is undoubtedly finite and imperfect, whereas Our heavenly High Priest is infinitely understanding and good. Nevertheless this minister, by force of the mission received from Christ, comes to our aid, so that, with every effort of heart and soul, we may repent of our sins, if we wish, which by our own powers we would fulfill with difficulty."

3. On the part of society. For society can scarcely stand secure without the observance of laws; but confession is of great service for the observance of laws. For a prudent confessor urges the observance of human laws together with divine ones, rightly orders domestic society, which is the foundation of civil society, settles lawsuits and dissensions, reconciles enemies, procures restitution of goods taken away, prevents or repairs scandals; indeed confession greatly promotes that equality of which our age boasts, since the law of confessing affects all, kings or presidents as much as subjects, nobles and the rich as much as the poor, and in the sacred tribunal no distinction is made between penitents of diverse condition.¹

¹ Infidels and Protestants have acknowledged this social utility of confession; thus Voltaire, Diction. philos., art. catech. du Cure; the Protestant author of the work Letters of Atticus, letter 5.

125. The adversaries indeed object that sacramental confession provides an occasion for many abuses and is often pernicious equally to penitents and ministers. - Resp. We concede that sometimes abuses creep into this practice per accidens, but rarely; for the Church, both by punishing with grave penalties those soliciting to shameful things, and by excommunicating those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, and by compelling those who have been solicited to evil to denounce the confessor, has wisely provided lest such abuses be multiplied. But the few inconveniences which sometimes arise from the frailty or perversity of men cannot be a sufficient reason why an institution should be destroyed which otherwise confers so many and so great benefits both on private persons and on society itself; for if things which men abuse had to be removed immediately, what at last would remain in civil or ecclesiastical society?

(cc. 870-910)

— Appendix XI belongs to this section. Historical Introduction. Cf. Appendix XI.

This will be the order of speaking: first we shall treat of the essence and necessity of the sacrament of Penance, then of its minister; then of its subject, then of its various circumstances. In the chapter on the minister, we shall examine the case of one absolving an accomplice; in the chapter on the subject, the obligation of denouncing a solicitor.

Finally, imitating the canonical Code, we shall add to the treatise a chapter on indulgences.

Utility. Not only a distinct knowledge of the essential parts of this sacrament, which pertains to the necessary learning of the confessor, insofar as he must reconcile men with God, but also the force and value of the formulae which are added to the essence, will help the physician of souls not a little in procuring spiritual health.

— 1. Notion. The Sacrament of Penance is the sacrament instituted by Christ in which, using the power of remitting and retaining sins, a suitable minister, by a judicial sentence, remits sins committed after Baptism to a faithful person sincerely penitent and confessing his guilt.

The conferred power is read openly in the Gospel of St. John 20:22 sqq.; but the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, defined that Penance is a sacrament properly so called, instituted by Christ, distinct from Baptism, and that the words, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained," which the Catholic Church from the beginning has always understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of Penance, cannot be twisted to the authority of preaching the Gospel.

A suitable minister is a priest endowed with jurisdiction, as will be explained afterward.

Use is made both by absolving, and by binding, whether to fulfilling a satisfactory work, or to a new subjection to the power of the keys.

To a faithful person sincerely penitent and accusing his own guilt. For three things are required in the penitent for the integral and perfect remission of sins: contrition, at least that which is called by the special name of attrition, confession, and satisfaction; so that contrition and confession are required for the very validity, but satisfaction for the integrity and plenary effects of the sacrament. All these things are also established by the Tridentine canons concerning this sacrament. Yet that attrition itself suffices has not been defined.

Sins committed after Baptism. For by Baptism alone both original sin and sins committed before Baptism are remitted. Wherefore only a baptized man can validly receive this sacrament of Penance.

Nor is remission obtained by another sacrament, even if at the moment of Baptism, lack of attrition concerning prior sins wholly or partly impeded the effect of Baptism at that time. Wholly, I say, if because of prior grave sins not retracted, sanctifying grace could not be infused; partly, if a persevering affection toward prior venial sins prohibited guilt and penalties from being remitted by Baptism. For when the fiction recedes, the sacrament of Baptism confers sanctifying grace; when venial sins have been retracted, these, without any remaining expiation of penalties, will be blotted out. But if new grave sins require perfect contrition or use of the sacrament of Penance with attrition, then, when the act of perfect contrition has been elicited, or when the priest gives absolution, by the force of the prior Baptism, or of the permanent character, grave sins prior to Baptism will be taken away. But if someone, not even before death, has not sufficiently retracted certain venial sins, departing from this life in the state of grace and with the habit of charity, he will immediately after death retract these perfectly; and by force of the baptismal character, he will have no penalty to be paid for these sins, insofar as they are prior to Baptism.

By a judicial sentence: for that sacramental absolution is a judicial act was defined in canon 9, sess. XIV of the Council of Trent.

He remits to the disposed penitent, because he must use his power not according to his own judgment, but according to the rules to be declared afterward.

— What concerning sins which are committed in the very reception of Baptism, and concerning the sin of fiction, or of Baptism received with an obstacle?

Sins which are committed in the very reception of Baptism are remitted by Baptism, provided they were committed before the sacramental sign was placed, or before the infusion of water under the words of the form. And the same must be said about sins which, committed before Baptism, indeed exist at the moment of Baptism but merely habitually. If after Baptism they again become actual, for example because of a renewed will, it is clear that these are now remitted only by the means of post-baptismal Penance.

But concerning fiction, as Cardinal Billot skillfully observes, De Sacramentis, th. 30, this is special: that it is properly consummated if, at the moment at which grace was to be infused, someone consciously, through mortal sin either then committed or not retracted, placed an obstacle to grace. Wherefore, since the infusion of grace, or the reality of the sacrament, is by nature posterior to the sacramental sign and the impression of the character, the sin of fiction itself is necessarily, at least by nature, posterior to the sacrament. And therefore, properly speaking, the sin of fiction, as St. Thomas says (3 p., q. 69, art. 10, ad 2), will be remitted not through Baptism, but through Penance, in reality or in desire. But if you suppose a man who, forgetful of his indisposition, received Baptism, or if in good faith, with only an estimated attrition, he approaches the sacrament of Baptism, he will have no formal sin of fiction to be accused. And also a prior will of sacrilegious reception of Baptism, which is not formally consummated in Baptism, will be remitted through Baptism. Cf. St. Thomas, art. cit.; Suarez, in 3 p., d. 28, art. 5; Lugo, Paen., d. 15, s. 1; Lehmkuhl, II, 356.

— Acts of the Penitent. Contrition, confession, and satisfaction are called by the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3, the quasi-matter of this sacrament. And this matter is proximate. But the remote matter is sins, posterior to Baptism, about which those acts are concerned; and this indeed in such a way that mortal sins are necessary matter as long as they have not been directly remitted sacramentally; but venial sins are sufficient matter and in themselves not necessary. In themselves, I say, because he who has no other matter to bring must accuse at least one venial sin with sorrow, if he wishes to use the sacrament.

But whether the acts of the penitent are true matter from which, together with the form, the sacrament is made, or whether the whole essence of the sacrament consists in absolution, so that the acts themselves of the penitent are nothing except matter about which: this is controverted. The more common opinion, of St. Thomas and the Thomists, embraces the former part, yet in such a way that satisfaction itself, excepting the necessary will of satisfying which is contained in contrition, is not held as an essential element, but only an integral one. Yet the different opinion of Scotus is not improbable.

For the remaining things which pertain to the acts of the penitent, cf. the chapter On the Subject.

— The Form of the Sacrament is the words of absolution, which in the Latin Church are: "I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," pronounced by voice upon a man present.

The word "I" is not essential; and the words "In the name of the Father," etc., now do not pertain to the form, as is demonstrated from ancient Rituals. More probably these suffice: "I absolve you"; or "I absolve from your sins." Yet because of doubt concerning this matter, under grave obligation at least these words must be said: "I absolve you from your sins"; and absolution is to be repeated under condition where anything from these has been omitted.

As is established from the proposition condemned and the usage absolutely proscribed by Clement VIII through the decree of the Holy Office, June 20, 1602, and the subsequent declaration of Paul V, July 14, 1605 (Denzinger, n. 1088), the form must be pronounced by mouth, and, on the part of the one absolving, bear the appearance of direct speech with the penitent. Wherefore absolution given in writing is invalid, or from a place so remote that the words could not be perceived, even if by some sign you manifest the absolution while it is being conferred. And Clement VIII prohibited absolving an absent person under penalty of excommunication. And although it is not necessary that the penitent truly hear the words of the confessor, or that he himself be perceived by sense by the confessor, who can be blind, nevertheless, so that there be no doubt from the side of distance concerning the value of absolution, it is necessary that the confessor and penitent not be separated by such a distance at which men, using an ordinary though somewhat louder voice, could not or would not be accustomed to hold conversations: which distance St. Alphonsus, VI, 429, thinks is contained within 20 paces. Yet at a longer distance, those are judged present who are part of a multitude whose first ranks are near. Thus an army can be present in the manner of one, provided the last ranks can perceive the voice (Noldin, III, 239). And the value remains probable as long as the penitent, the impediment being removed, could perceive the absolution in some way. Wherefore a priest will absolve under condition one whom he has seen or heard dying at a distance. But outside necessity, he will not hold as present someone who is in a room which does not communicate with the place where the confessor is, unless the walls are such that they allow the possibility of mutual conversation. But a departing penitent he will recall, if it can be done conveniently and prudently, or he will absolve until he is not farther away.

Absolution given through the telephone would be very doubtful, so that outside a case of necessity this means cannot be attempted. The question concerning the use of the telephone in extreme necessity, the Sacred Penitentiary, July 1, 1884, judged unworthy of a response. For to the proposed doubt it wrote back: Nothing is to be answered.

From the present discipline at least of the Latin Church, the form of absolution cannot be a deprecation, but must be decretory. And in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, Benedict XIV, §5, commanded that Italo-Greeks, when they absolve Latins, use the indicative form prescribed in the Council of Florence: "afterward, if they wish, let them say that deprecative prayer which they had been accustomed only to say as the form of this absolution" (Coll. P. F., n. 338). Cf. also n. 966, response of the Holy Office, June 14, 1843. Concerning the theoretical question, cf. the historical introduction and the dogmaticians.

Invalid would be an absolution given under a condition concerning the future. Cf. above, n. 185.

Therefore the form would be doubtful: "May God absolve you," or "May Christ absolve you." It is clear that it does not harm validity if instead of "you," you say: "your Majesty."

— The Complete Ritual Formula of the Sentence of the One Absolving: 1. also embraces prayers before the essential words: "May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, lead you to eternal life. Amen." Then, with hand raised, he continues: "May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen";

2. A conditional absolution from censures by a twofold condition: of power in the one absolving, of necessity in the penitent: "May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I, by his authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, if he is a cleric, and interdict, insofar as I can and you need";

3. Absolution, with decretory or absolute words: "Then I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." While he names the divine Persons, he makes the sign of the cross.

It is concluded with a deprecation: "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Mary Virgin and of all the Saints, whatever good you have done and evil you have suffered, be for you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and reward of eternal life. Amen." Now:

The prayers Misereatur and Indulgentiam, from Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3, are laudably added. But canon 885 warns us: "Let them not be omitted without a just cause." Both lack of time and a multitude of penitents easily furnish this cause (cf. Noldin, III, 237).

Nor is it established that he sins who has omitted: "May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you," etc., if there is no suspicion of censure, and the form of absolution from sins, by the intention of the one absolving, is referred also to censures and bonds connected with sins, if perhaps there are any. Then, even if the penitent is bound by a certain censure, the omission will not be grave. But it would be mortal to wish to absolve first from sins rather than from a censure which takes away the legitimate use of the sacraments, such as excommunication, and sometimes interdict.

Whether the word Deinde belongs to the black or red text is not so certain. At least it is better to pronounce it. Thus usage has it, and in the latest typical edition of the Ritual it is written in black letters. In the Ritual of Paul V, the word Deinde does not pertain to the text; Benedict XIV inserted the same into the text (cf. Hanssens, Per., XII, p. [41]).

To omit the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity is thought venial.

The formula "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., is indeed not imposed as to be used under sin, but it is better to use it because of the spiritual utility of the penitent. For it joins with the good acts of the penitent a special satisfactory value, which some equate with the power of sacramental penance.

These words are thought by others merely to express the prayer by which, in the name of the Church, the priest prays God that he grant abundant actual graces by which the penitent may perform works very meritorious and satisfactory. They are then a certain useful sacramental: this interpretation agrees more with the natural signification of the words. But others attribute to the same words the power of elevating all the good works of the penitent to the dignity of sacramental satisfaction, not indeed indefinitely, but until the faults accused and remitted in the Sacrament have not been fully expiated (cf. Noldin, III, 259). Many grave authors judge this, and St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 507, thinks it more probably and more commonly affirmed. That a greater power of expiation of past fault accrues to good works from the aforesaid injunction is the opinion of St. Thomas himself, Quodlib. 3, art. 28.

Where there are many penitents to be heard, one could before the first absolution premise Misereatur and Indulgentiam, omitting the same in the following cases; but pronounce the formula "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" while the penitent is departing. The formula "May Our Lord Jesus Christ" is not regularly to be omitted.

When necessity urges, the Ritual teaches this very brief formula: "I absolve you from all censures and sins, in the name of the Father," etc.

What in the sacrament of Penance is the reality and sacrament, there is little agreement. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, art. 1, ad 3, in passing places it in interior contrition. Cardinal Billot (De Sacramentis, th. VI) says it is the right to remission at least of guilt and eternal penalty; Rev. Fr. de la Taille (Mysterium Fidei, p. 581, note, and Xiberta, Clavis Ecclesiae) says it is "the extinction of debt toward the Church."

But the reality of the sacrament, as always, is sanctifying grace restored or increased, with actual helps for amending life, which constitute sacramental grace.

— Necessity of the Sacrament. For those fallen after Baptism into mortal sin, the sacrament of Penance is "necessary for salvation as Baptism itself is for those not yet regenerated" (Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 2). Therefore there is necessity of means, at least in desire.

— I. 1. By the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, we are taught that Penance is a sacrament properly so called, in which, through a truly judicial sentence, sins committed after Baptism are subjected to the keys by which the Church can remit and retain sins.

2. Matter. The acts of the penitent, contrition, confession, satisfaction, are called by Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3, the quasi-matter of the sacrament; the more common opinion of St. Thomas and the Thomists holds them as proximate matter and sins as remote matter; yet the opinion of Scotus, which places the whole essence in absolution, is not improbable.

3. Form. In the Latin Church these are the words, pronounced by voice upon a man present: "I absolve you from your sins." Certainly the words suffice: "I absolve you from your sins"; more probably it is enough to say: "I absolve you"; "I absolve from your sins."

Written absolution would be invalid, or one pronounced upon an absent person; but the appearance of direct speech with the penitent is required. This seems to be lacking in the telephone, since those speaking in this way perceive a merely electric imitation of the voice.

Certainly present is he who is not more than 25 paces distant, or is part of a multitude whose first ranks are near.

From the present discipline at least, the form must be pronounced indicative, not deprecative.

The complete form of the Ritual embraces, before the essential words: a) the prayers "Misereatur... Indulgentiam..." which do not oblige under sin, yet are not to be omitted without a just cause; "May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you": nor is it established that these must be said under sin; b) conditional general absolution from censures, which is a vestige of reconciliation with the Church, necessary from the primitive discipline of the Church. They think this can today be omitted without sin if there is no suspicion of censure; and certainly it is omitted without grave sin, provided you do not wish to absolve from sins before absolving from a censure which takes away the legitimate use of the sacraments, such as excommunication, and sometimes interdict.

There follows the word Deinde, which is better pronounced than kept silent, since in the typical edition of the Ritual it pertains to the black text.

After the essential words, under venial obligation the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are to be named. The formula is closed by the word Amen.

Through the added deprecation "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., a special satisfactory value is added to the good acts of the penitent. Wherefore, because of the spiritual utility of the penitent, it is better not to omit it.

When necessity urges, the Ritual teaches this brief form: "I absolve you from all censures and sins, in the name of the Father," etc.

358. Definition. Sacramental confession is the accusation of one's own sins committed after baptism, made to a competent priest in order to obtain absolution from them. Therefore three things pertain to the essence of sacramental confession: a) The accusation of one's own sins. Hence confession is not a mere historical narration, but properly an accusation made to a spiritual judge; the object of this accusation is one's own sins committed after baptism, and therefore neither original sin, nor another's sin, nor mere imperfections which do not have the character of sin. b) Confession must be made to a competent priest. Therefore a confession knowingly made to a layman, as was customary in the Middle Ages, or to a priest who manifestly does not have the necessary jurisdiction, is not sacramental confession. c) Confession must be undertaken in order to obtain sacramental absolution. Therefore, if a penitent confesses his sins, for example, to test the confessor or for the sake of counsel, sacramental confession is not present. All these things are indeed to be noted when there is question of the seal of confession, because the obligation of the seal arises from sacramental confession alone and not from another confession.

The necessity of sacramental confession was denied by Wycliffe, who said: "If a man has been duly contrite, every exterior confession is superfluous and useless to him";¹⁵⁹ by Peter of Osma;¹⁶⁰ by Luther, who called confession "a most bloody torture chamber which torments wretched consciences"; by Calvin, who contended that auricular confession was introduced by Innocent III in the thirteenth century; and by modern Protestants, all of whom deny its necessity, although some acknowledge the utility of confession. Against all these it is established:

¹⁵⁹ Cf. Denz., n. 587.

¹⁶⁰ Ibid., n. 724 ff.

359. Thesis. Sacramental confession is necessary both a) by divine precept and b) by ecclesiastical precept.

a) Necessity by divine law. The Council of Trent¹⁶¹ sets forth Catholic doctrine thus: "The universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins was instituted by the Lord and is necessary by divine law for all who have fallen after baptism, because Our Lord Jesus Christ, being about to ascend from earth to heaven, left priests, His own vicars, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal crimes into which Christ's faithful have fallen are to be brought, so that, by the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. For it is evident that priests could not have exercised this judgment without the cause being known, nor indeed could they have observed equity in enjoining punishments, if the faithful had declared their sins only in general and not rather in species and individually. From these things it is gathered that penitents must recount in confession all mortal sins of which they are conscious after a diligent examination of themselves, even if those sins are most hidden." From this text two things can be elicited: the necessity of confession introduced by divine law and the object of confession, namely, all mortal sins.

Proof 1. From Sacred Scripture. Although Christ said nothing directly concerning confession, nevertheless He certainly instituted it. For Christ instituted the sacrament of penance in the form of a judgment. But the form of a judgment cannot be observed without confession. Therefore Christ instituted confession. It has already often been said that the sacrament of penance was instituted in the form of a judgment, and this manifestly follows from the words of institution: Whose sins you shall forgive ... they are forgiven ...; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained. For if the apostles and their successors can remit certain sins but not remit others, they must first institute a judgment which is not arbitrary but diligent. Now they cannot institute such a judgment unless they know the sins themselves in particular. Moreover, they cannot know them in the ordinary manner unless the penitent himself has manifested them fully. Therefore confession is indirectly included in the judicial form of the sacrament of penance, and consequently is necessary by divine law, so that without it the sacrament of penance is administered invalidly. Nevertheless, the integrity of confession is not necessarily absolute, but is to be measured according to the strength of each man, since God demands nothing impossible. Therefore, if someone is unable to confess sins because of forgetfulness, or because he is deprived of his senses, he is capable of sacramental absolution.

To prove from Sacred Scripture the divine institution of confession, two further texts are adduced by certain authors, namely, in Acts 19:18 it is read: "Many of them that believed came, confessing and declaring their deeds," and in the Epistle of St. James 5:16 we are admonished: "Confess therefore your sins one to another." These texts can indeed be understood of sacramental confession, as several exegetes teach, though others contradict them.

Proof 2. From tradition. Already in the second century mention is made of confession in the text of the Didache cited above: "But on the Lord's Day, coming together, break bread and give thanks after you have confessed your offenses, so that your sacrifice may be clean."¹⁶² In the third century St. Cyprian¹⁶³ says: "Let each one confess his offense, I beseech you, dearest brethren, while he who has offended is still in this world, while his confession can be admitted, while satisfaction and remission made through the priests is pleasing before the Lord." From the writings of Origen it is possible to see that both public and private confession were in use at that time and were employed according to the discreet judgment of the priest. "There is also a seventh remission of sins, although hard and laborious, through penance, when the sinner washes his bed with his tears and his tears become bread for him day and night, and when he is not ashamed to show his sin to the priest of the Lord and to seek medicine."¹⁶⁴ From the fourth century texts of the Holy Fathers abound which speak of sacramental confession, for example, St. Ambrose,¹⁶⁵ who himself heard the confessions of the faithful with great fervor. For Paulinus the deacon¹⁶⁶ relates concerning him: "He was also rejoicing with those who rejoiced and weeping with those who wept, since, whenever anyone confessed his falls to him in order to receive penance, he so wept that he compelled him also to weep.... But the causes of the crimes which they confessed to him he spoke to no one except the Lord alone, with whom he interceded." For many other texts of ancient writers, see Billuart¹⁶⁷ or Tanquerey¹⁶⁸ or Paul Galtier.¹⁶⁹

Proof 3 is commended from the manifold utility and fittingness of confession. For confession is: a) An excellent exercise of humility, by which the ruinous pride of the sinner is subdued. Therefore even the prodigal son in the Gospel had to say: "Father, I have sinned." b) A cause of interior peace and security. For although the sinner endeavors to destroy sin by sincere contrition and satisfaction, nevertheless he often remains doubtful whether he is worthy of the love or hatred of God, since no one is a judge in his own cause; but when he has candidly confessed all his sins to a pious and wise priest and has received absolution and salutary admonitions from him, he obtains peace of soul. Moreover, the confessor, knowing the interior state of the penitent's soul, can counsel him efficacious means for acquiring virtues. c) A safeguard of social order. For a prudent confessor urges the observance of divine and human laws, rightly orders the peace of domestic society and the republic, settles quarrels and dissensions, reconciles enemies, requires restitution for violated justice, and repairs or forestalls many scandals.

b) By ecclesiastical law sacramental confession is likewise necessary. For the Code of Canon Law, can. 906, establishes: "Every member of the faithful of either sex, after he has arrived at the years of discretion, that is, at the use of reason, is bound faithfully to confess all his sins at least once a year." The Fourth Lateran Council already established similar things in the year 1215.¹⁷⁰

¹⁶¹ Session 14, c. 5, On Penance (Denz., n. 899).

¹⁶² Chapter 14, 1; cf. c. 4, 14. Rauschen (Euchar. u. Bußsakr. § 10) confidently, but without solid proof, asserts that this confession was not sacramental.

¹⁶³ De lapsis c. 29 (Migne, Patr. lat. 4, 489).

¹⁶⁴ Hom. in Lev. 2, 4 (Migne, Patr. graec. 12, 418).

¹⁶⁵ De poenit. l. 2, c. 1 (Migne, Patr. lat. 16, 497).

¹⁶⁶ In Migne, loc. cit. 14, 440.

¹⁶⁷ De poenit., diss. 5, a. 1.

¹⁶⁸ Synopsis Theol. mor., De poenit. c. 2.

¹⁶⁹ De poenitentia, tractatus dogmatico-historicus, n. 421 ff.

¹⁷⁰ Denz., n. 437.

360. Time of the obligation. 1. The divine precept of sacramental confession obliges both per se and per accidens.

Per se it obliges the sinner: a) at the point of death or in imminent danger of death, because the sinner must then altogether recover sanctifying grace, which in the present economy of salvation by the will of Christ is not restored to him who is able and neglects to confess mortal sins; hence he sins gravely who, conscious of a mortal sin not yet directly remitted, neglects confession at the point of death or in imminent danger of death. Hence, for example, a gravely ill person who through inculpable forgetfulness omitted a grave sin in confession, and who afterward worthily received Viaticum and Extreme Unction, is nevertheless bound, if he can, to confess the omitted sin before death, although it has already been indirectly remitted; b) several times in life. A sinner confessing at least once each year seems sufficiently to fulfill both the divine and the ecclesiastical precept.

Per accidens the divine precept obliges: a) if the sinner wishes to receive the Most Holy Eucharist; for then elicited contrition does not suffice, as was stated above in nn. 192 ff.; b) when the state of grace is required and the sinner is unable with moral certainty to elicit an act of perfect contrition; c) when a grave temptation and especially an evil habit cannot be overcome without the aid of confession.¹⁷¹

¹⁷¹ Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 6, a. 5.

361. 2. The ecclesiastical precept of confession establishes the following:

The subject of this ecclesiastical precept is all men capable of the use of reason who are conscious of mortal sin. Therefore neither the completely insane, nor children before the use of reason, nor those who are not conscious of mortal sin are bound to confession.

Before completing the first seven years of age, a person is very rarely obliged to confession. In our regions children are judged to have sufficient use of reason for making confession in the seventh or eighth year of their age.

Since the ecclesiastical precept seems to be nothing other than the determination of the divine precept, which indeed does not prescribe the confession of venial sins, hence he who has not committed mortal sins, either never or at least since his last confession, is not strictly bound to annual confession. Therefore in strict law he could approach Easter Communion without previous confession. Thus the precept of annual confession obliges only sinners, while the precept of Easter Communion obliges absolutely all the faithful capable of the use of reason. Thus the truer and more common opinion.¹⁷² It is evident of itself, however, that it is unbecoming and harmful if someone should refuse to confess even once a year. For 1. he deprives himself of many graces and notably of the grace conferred in the sacrament of penance; 2. he easily errs in judging something to be a venial sin which is in truth mortal; 3. it is unbecoming that someone burdened even only with venial sins should approach the Eucharist. Now it is not likely that one who refuses annual confession cleanses himself from venial sins by other remedies.

¹⁷² Cf. Code of Canon Law, can. 901; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 667. St. Thomas (loc. cit., a. 3 ad 3 and q. 8, a. 5 ad 4) thinks that even one who has not committed mortal sin ought once a year to present himself to the priest, not indeed to make confession, but so that the subjects may become known to the ruler of the church, lest a wolf lie hidden within the flock. In the time of the Angelic Doctor there still existed a law that the faithful had to make annual confession to their own pastor. Today, however, this law has been abolished, and therefore the faithful who have committed only venial sins are not bound even once a year to present themselves to the pastor.

362. The object of this ecclesiastical precept is the determination 1. of the time, namely, the space of one year, and 2. of the matter, namely, mortal sin.

As regards 1, the Council says: "at least once a year." Theologians do not agree as to how this year is to be computed. Some compute it according to the civil year, that is, from January to the following January; others from Easter to Easter; others think that the year begins from the time when the first mortal sin was committed. Today there exists the universal custom of computing the year from Easter to Easter, so that the faithful who confess during each Easter season do not transgress the precept of annual confession. But if someone guilty of mortal sin has not confessed during the Easter season, he must confess as soon as possible when an opportunity is given, because the ecclesiastical law of annual confession was imposed not to terminate the obligation, but to urge it. But one who did not confess his mortal sins in the preceding year satisfies by a confession made in the present year, nor is he bound to confess again in order to satisfy the obligation of the present year.¹⁷³

As regards 2, only the confession of mortal sins is required. When someone had only venial sins in confession during the Easter season, but shortly afterward commits a mortal sin, according to certain authors he must confess again before the end of the year, for by accusing himself of venial sins he did not fulfill the precept of annual confession; nevertheless, other authors, for example, Ballerini-Palmieri¹⁷⁴ and Génicot,¹⁷⁵ probably teach that such an obligation is not established. Therefore the faithful who have confessed once in the year commonly think that they have satisfied the precept of annual confession.

The ecclesiastical precept is not satisfied through a sacrilegious confession, as is evident from proposition 14 condemned by Alexander VII: "He who makes a confession voluntarily null satisfies the precept of the Church."¹⁷⁶ Before the Council of Trent it was sometimes required that annual confession be made before one's own priest, that is, the pastor, or at least before another priest with his express permission. Today the faithful can confess before any legitimately approved confessor, even one of another rite.¹⁷⁷

A twofold penalty was inflicted upon those transgressing this precept of annual confession, namely, interdict from entrance into the church and deprivation of ecclesiastical burial. But each of these penalties was ferendae sententiae, that is, it was not incurred except after the sentence of the bishop, and today it is not customarily applied.

¹⁷³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 668.

¹⁷⁴ Opus theol., De poenit., n. 1061.

¹⁷⁵ Theol. mor. II, 323.

¹⁷⁶ Denz., n. 1114; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 907.

¹⁷⁷ Code of Canon Law, c. 905.

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

1683. Principles. I. Sacramental confession, by DIVINE law, is NECESSARY for salvation for all who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism. For it is of faith that confession is of divine institution (n. 1650).

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

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

1684. This precept: 1. Obligates of itself in danger, and so much more in the article, of death; likewise, in foresight of some probable case which can afterwards take away the faculty of confessing, lest it happen that this precept is never fulfilled, and lest those things which by divine precept are necessary for salvation be neglected, among which sacramental confession is numbered. Thus he is bound to confess who is "entering a dangerous voyage or conflict; a delicate woman about to give birth for the first time, or one who is accustomed to have difficult births; one condemned to death; a sick person who has signs of natural death"; likewise a sinner, if he probably believes that he will no longer have the availability of a confessor through his whole life. But otherwise, if he fears only forgetfulness of sin.¹⁴

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

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

1685. II. The ECCLESIASTICAL precept, issued by the Fourth Lateran Council, sounds thus: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has come to the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his sins at least once a year to his own priest, and shall strive according to his own strength to fulfill the penance enjoined on him." This precept was afterward confirmed by Trent in sess. 14, cap. 5.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1686. Questions. Q. 1. Who are EXCUSED from the precept of confession?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

S. Th. III, q. 84, a. 5-10.

448. Thesis I. Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance after the resurrection, and indeed fittingly. - The first part is of faith, from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 1.

It is proved: Christ principally instituted the sacrament of Penance when He conferred the judicial power of absolving and retaining: for the sacrament of Penance was instituted by way of judgment. But Christ did this after the resurrection, as is clear from John XX, 21-23. Therefore.

It is said: principally, because previously the power had been promised implicitly (Matt. XVI and XVIII), although not granted explicitly.

The other part, the fittingness, is proved thus by St. Thomas, a. 7:

"In this sacrament the act of the penitent is related as matter; but that which is on the part of the priest, who works as minister of Christ, is related as the formal and completive element of the sacrament.

"Now a) matter, even in the other sacraments, preexists from nature, as water, or from art, as bread; but that such matter be assumed for a sacrament needs institution determining this. But b) the form of the sacrament and c) its power are wholly from the institution of Christ, from whose Passion the power of the sacraments proceeds.

"Thus therefore 1) the matter of this sacrament preexists from nature: for by natural reason man is moved to repent of the evils which he has done; but that man do penance in this or that way is from divine institution. Whence also the Lord at the beginning of His preaching enjoined men not only to repent, but also to do penance, signifying the determinate modes of acts which are required for the sacrament.

"2) But that which is formal and pertains to the office of ministers, He determined when He said to Peter (Matt. XVI, 19): To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven...

"3) But the efficacy of this sacrament and the origin of its power He manifested after the resurrection (Luke XXIV, 47), where He said that penance and remission of sins ought to be preached in His name unto all nations, after mention had first been made of His Passion and resurrection. For from the power of the name of Jesus Christ suffering and rising again this sacrament has efficacy unto the remission of sins.

"And thus it is plain that this sacrament was fittingly instituted in this New Law."

449. Thesis II. The sacrament of Penance is not absolutely necessary unto salvation for all, because without it the baptized can be saved, whether children or adults, who have not sinned; but for some, on the supposition of sin, namely for sinners fallen after Baptism, it is necessary, and indeed in reality, or at least in desire, at least implicit. - It is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 6, can. 29, and sess. 14, c. 2, can. 1, against the Protestants, who all deny this necessity, even if they admit the sacrament or acknowledge its usefulness.

It is said: a) in reality or in desire, because perfect contrition outside the sacrament, since it is the final disposition to grace, always brings justification before the sacrament is received in reality, yet not without the desire of the sacrament included in it, as the Council of Trent says, sess. 14, c. 4. And therefore, although the sin has been remitted, there remains the obligation of receiving absolution;

b) in desire at least implicit, insofar as it is in some way included in every perfect contrition, even if someone does not think about the reception of the sacrament, whether from inadvertence, or from forgetfulness, or from invincible ignorance: for he who loves God above all things and sincerely grieves over sin implicitly wills to use the means instituted by God as necessary for obtaining remission. But the sacrament of Penance is a necessary means. Therefore the will of receiving it is in some way included in perfect contrition.

It is proved: It is necessary for the salvation of the sinner that sin be removed from him. But this is impossible without the means instituted by Christ in which the power of His Passion operates unto the remission of sin; but Christ applies the power of the Passion through the sacraments, and among the sacraments no other is found for the remission of sins committed after Baptism except Penance. Therefore the sacrament of Penance is necessary for the salvation of the sinner.

It is confirmed: To the ministers of the Church there has been given the power of the keys as regards the kingdom of heaven, i.e., not only of opening the kingdom but also of closing it, not only of loosing sins but also of binding them, not only of remitting but also of retaining sins. But this power would be vain if remission of sin could be obtained otherwise. Therefore (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5).

Hence in tradition Penance is accustomed to be called the second plank after shipwreck1 (Council of Trent, can. 2).

450. Thesis III. The sacrament of Penance is repeatable many times. It is of faith from the universal preaching of the Church, against those who in the first times of the Church affirmed that penance could be done only once after Baptism, at least for graver sins; likewise against the Montanists and Novatians, who denied all pardon to those who had relapsed after Baptism into graver crimes. It is also clear from Lateran IV, and from Trent, sess. 14, c. 2, can. 1.

It is proved: 1° From the words of Christ: a) directly from the words of institution (John XX, 23), by which Christ gave priests the power of remitting sins without any restriction or limitation, and therefore as often as rightly disposed sinners should approach them;

b) indirectly from the precept of mercifully pardoning (Matt. XVIII, 21); from which St. Thomas argues thus, a. 10:

"Man is induced to mercy by the example of divine mercy, according to that saying of Luke VI, 36: Be ye merciful, as also your Father is merciful. But the Lord imposes this mercy upon His disciples, that they should often remit to their brethren sinning against them; whence, as is said, Matt. XVIII, 21, when Peter asked: How often shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? until seven times?, Jesus answered: I say not to thee until seven times, but until seventy times seven (i.e., always). Therefore God also often gives pardon through penance to sinners, especially since He teaches us to ask, Matt. VI, 12: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive."

2° From the practice of the Church, which now for many centuries has been constant and universal, of absolving even those relapsed into the same sins as often as they truly come as penitents.

3° By reason: Some denied that penance can be repeated, because they "thought that the sin which someone commits after pardon has been obtained is so grave that it is not possible for it to be remitted; in which indeed they erred, both on the part of sin, which even after remission has been obtained can be either graver or lighter than the first sin remitted had been; and much more against the infinity of divine mercy, which surpasses every number and magnitude of sins, according to Ps. L, 1... And therefore the mercy of God gives pardon without any limit to those sinning after penance. Whence it is manifest that penance is repeatable many times" (a. 10).

451. Corollaries. - 1. There is a manifold reason why Penance, while Baptism cannot be repeated, can nevertheless itself be repeated. For a) Penance does not imprint, as Baptism does, an indelible character; b) Baptism is principally against original sin, which is not repeatable; Penance against actual sin, which is repeated; c) Baptism has its whole efficacy from the Passion of Christ without our act, and therefore, just as the Passion is one, so also is Baptism; Penance also requires our act and therefore admits repetition; d) Baptism is regeneration, Penance a certain healing; but someone is generated once, while he can be healed many times, as long as he will be in this life.

2. Interior penance, by which someone grieves over the sin committed, ought to endure until the end of life: for it ought always to displease a man that he has sinned, which displeasure causes sorrow in him who is receptive of sorrow, such as man is in this life; - but exterior penance, by which someone shows exterior signs of sorrow and verbally confesses his sins to the priest absolving and satisfies according to his judgment, ought not always to endure, but until a determinate time according to the measure of the sin (a. 8).

3. Nevertheless penance ought not to be continuous according to act, which is impossible, because it is necessary that the act of any virtue be interrupted at least by sleep and by other things which pertain to the necessity of the body; - but according to habit, insofar as man never does anything contrary to penance, and has the purpose that past sins should always displease him (a. 9).

St. Th., Suppl., q. 6, a. 1, 2, 6.

508. Errors. - Concerning the institution or necessity of confession many have erred:

a) Wycliffe in the fourteenth century held confession not as instituted by God, but as useless, saying: "if a man has been duly contrite, every external confession is superfluous and useless for him"; this proposition is the seventh among those condemned by the Council of Constance.

b) Peter de Osma taught that mortal sins are blotted out by contrition alone without order to the keys, prop. 1; that confession of sins in species is from the statute of the universal Church, not from divine right, prop. 2; and that confession is not to be made of manifest sins, but only of secret sins, prop. 4. These propositions were condemned by Sixtus IV on August 9, 1478, as false and contrary to the Catholic faith, and were retracted by the author.

c) Luther at first indeed retained confession of grave and manifest sins as most salutary (prop. 8 condemned by Leo X, June 15, 1520); afterward he not only denied that it had been instituted by Christ, but also attacked the ecclesiastical precept; indeed, he said that the manner in which it is done in the Church was a "most bloody slaughterhouse."

d) Calvin (Institutes III, 4) contended that auricular and distinct confession was instituted not by Christ, but by Innocent III in the Fourth Lateran Council, and that it is harmful to the Church.

e) Erasmus also denied that such confession has a foundation in antiquity.

f) Eybel contended that penance was instituted in antiquity for the remission of sin as it is an offense against the Church; that secret confession did not exist except as a remedy by which works of penance were counseled, by which remission was obtained before God; and that the present custom of the Church is an abuse contrary to the institution of Christ. These things Pius VI condemned as false or even heretical, Constitution Mediator, November 11, 1784.

g) Rationalists and liberal Protestants teach that confession is an ecclesiastical institution from the slow evolution of primitive penitential discipline: to that discipline at the beginning there belonged some public confession; then, because of the usurpation by priests of the power of remitting sins, distinct confession was required; afterward it was made secret; and finally it was held as obligatory, which, after dispute, the Fourth Lateran Council sanctioned.

h) For the rest, all Protestants, even the most orthodox, such as the Ritualists, although they recognize the utility of confession, nevertheless deny its necessity.

509. Thesis. In the New Law, by divine right, for all those who have sinned gravely after Baptism, sacramental confession is necessary for the remission of sins and for salvation, and indeed confession of all and each mortal sin. - It is of faith from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 5, can. 6 and 7, which defined three things:

1. the divine institution of confession;

2. its necessity for salvation, namely for the remission of sins; and therefore this is a necessity of means to the end, and since it concerns a human act to be posited, consequently there is also a necessity of precept;

3. its object, namely all and each mortal sin.

I say. Confession, or the manifestation of sins made to a priest in order to obtain absolution of them, is altogether necessary for all who after Baptism have fallen into some mortal sin, both by divine law and by ecclesiastical law. The first is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 6, where it is read thus: "If anyone shall deny that sacramental confession is necessary unto salvation by divine law; or shall say that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed and observes from the beginning, is foreign to the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention, let him be anathema." But the other is clear from many Councils, but especially from the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III, in these words: "Every faithful person of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, shall faithfully confess all his own sins alone at least once in the year to his own priest, and shall strive to fulfill with his own strength the penance enjoined upon him ...; otherwise while living let him be barred from entrance into the Church, and when dying let him lack Christian burial."

Question 1. How and when does the divine precept of confession press? Resp. Always supposing some mortal sin, the precept of confession obliges both per se and per accidens; per se indeed in danger, and still more in the article of death, and sometimes in life. The reason for the first is that all positive precepts oblige at least in time of necessity, for otherwise they would be imposed in vain; and the reason for the second is that, if Christ had obligated only the dying to confession, it could no longer be said, as is commonly taught and must certainly be held, that the Church, by obligating the faithful to annual confession, more explicitly determined the divine precept itself. - But per accidens it obliges 1°. when the Eucharist is to be received; 2°. when the precept of reconciling oneself with God presses, or the state of grace is required, for example, for administering sacraments or for receiving those which are called of the living, and an act of perfect contrition cannot be elicited; 3°. when grave temptation presses, which otherwise cannot be overcome. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 663. - Lacroix, lib. 6, part. 2, n. 2020.

Question 2. Whether confession can ever be made by writing, or by nods or signs? Resp. It is certain that confession can be made validly by nods or signs; and with a just cause intervening, even licitly. But as regards writing, three cases must be carefully distinguished. The first is when confession and absolution are both made by writing. The second case is when either confession or absolution is made separately through a letter. Finally, the third is when the penitent, having written the confession, gives or sends it to the confessor so that he may read it, and afterward, kneeling before him, says: I accuse myself of all the sins which you have read. - Moreover, in the first and second case the sacrament would be not only illicit but also invalid, both because, at least in the first case, no form would be had, and because this is clear from the Decree of Clement VIII given 20 June 1602, which has itself thus: "Our Most Holy Lord ... condemned and prohibited, at least as false, rash, and scandalous, this proposition, namely, that it is lawful by letters or by an intermediary to confess sins sacramentally to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same absent confessor, and he commanded that henceforth that proposition not be taught in public or private lectures, sermons, and meetings, nor ever be defended, printed, or in any way brought into practice as probable in some case." That this Decree must be understood not only copulatively but also disjunctively, namely when either absolution or confession alone is made by writing, is clear from the authentic declaration made by Paul V in the Congregation of the Holy Office, on 14 July 1605. But that the Supreme Pontiff willed to declare the sacrament to be not only illicit, but also invalid, is clear from the tenor of the words and from the common interpretation of theologians. - But in the third case the sacrament would be valid and, given a just cause, for example, a most vehement repugnance, even licit. The reason is that then confession would properly be made by words to a priest present through that formula: I accuse myself of all the sins which you have read. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 428 and 429. Viva, vol. 3, p. 577. De Augustinis, part. 2, Thes. 21, p. 266. - Lehmkuhl, n. 271, note 1.

I. Of the precept of annual Confession it has been disputed above. That the confession of sins was instituted by Christ the Lord the Catholic Church has always taught, these words of Christ Jesus being adduced: I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind, and so forth. Matthew 16. That this power is judiciary is evident. Moreover, that a judge may be able to bring forth a right sentence, by which he may loose those to be loosed and bind those to be bound, it is necessary that he have the offences thoroughly known. But a judge cannot know offences unless the accused lay them open. Therefore from Christ's institution the confession of sins is necessary. And this truth Trent defined, session 14, chapter 5, against the Protestants. Nor is it now permitted me to illustrate this dogma at greater length.

II. QUESTION I. At what time does this divine precept oblige of itself? ANSWER. That in the probable article of death this precept obliges of itself all commonly affirm. For if it presses at some time — and it is certain that it presses — assuredly it obliges in the article of death; since above all at that time each man is bound to consult his own eternal salvation. That this precept obliges outside the article of death also, the common and true opinion affirms. Since indeed affirmative precepts oblige not only in extreme necessity, but also when their observance is prudently judged necessary. A certain rule of the obligation for this or that time, besides what the Church prescribes, cannot absolutely be designated; but each man ought by the counsel of a prudent confessor to apply this remedy to himself.

III. QUESTION II. When there is present a danger of forgetting some, or many, mortal sins, is a man bound to confess before the year? ANSWER. Fr. Leander, tract 5, disputation 3, question 5, defends the negative opinion as the more probable, and cites for the same Valentia, Vásquez, Sylvester, Soto, de Lugo, and others: because, he says, almost all of us sin so often in the course of a year that in Lent we do not remember the true number: and because we are obliged to it by no law, and without a law an obligation is not to be asserted.

IV. This opinion, as my least judgment bears, is false. Do we all sin mortally so often? Is the penance of all therefore unstable? Is there therefore no true penitent in the Church? But that all men sin mortally so often in a year that in Lent they do not remember the certain number, is an assertion which seems to defame the Catholic Church, in which there are very many elect who either never or most rarely sin knowingly and mortally. If we wrote such things, what rumours would the probabilists not stir up? The very law of nature obliges us to guard beforehand against the danger of forgetting mortal sins.

V. QUESTION III. What is to be said of the following opinion of Fr. Gobat? ANSWER. Fr. George Gobat writes these things, tract 6, no. 261: “Although, by deferring confession until the article of death, or until Easter, you be certain that on account of this delay you will forget many crimes, yet there does not thence arise for you an obligation of confessing sooner. So assuredly holds the common sense, as I reckon, both of those confessing and of confessors.”

VI. Common sense illuminated by the natural and evangelical light, and not obscured by the prejudices of Probabilism, abhors from an opinion so false and lax.

VII. QUESTION IV. What is to be said of the opinion of Leander denying the duty of confessing for those who wish to receive other sacraments besides the Eucharist? ANSWER. Fr. Leander of the Most Holy Sacrament, tract 5, disputation 5, question 19, answers these things to the proposed question: “But MOST CERTAINLY I answer that they are not bound, because no precept exists imposed concerning this, as is clearly gathered from Trent. So Victoria, Sylvester, Angelus, Soto, whom Suárez cites and follows, and Fagundez, de Lugo, Villalobos, and all commonly.”

VIII. Do the casuists therefore commonly defend that the faithful need not send confession before, when they must receive other sacraments besides the Eucharist? Let all hear the Catechism of the Council of Trent, part 2, chapter 5, § 43, where it lays down these things: Again, if we consider what the account of our salvation demands, assuredly whenever a danger of death threatens, or we set about treating some matter whose handling is not fitting for a man defiled with sin — as when we administer or receive the sacraments — then confession is not to be omitted. And the same ALTOGETHER, when we fear lest the forgetfulness of some fault which we have committed take hold of us: for neither can we confess sins which we do not remember; nor do we obtain pardon of sins from the Lord, unless the sacrament of Penance blot them out through confession.