The Obligation of Correcting Defects

401. Prenotions. 1. Defects committed by the confessor can be of three kinds: either they concern a. the value of the sacrament, as if the confessor did not absolve or absolved an indisposed person; b. the integrity of the sacrament, as if he did not question concerning the species and number of sins or did not impose penance; c. the obligations of the penitent, and indeed either to the temporal harm of the penitent himself or of a third party, as if he unduly obligated him to restitution or released him from making it, or without temporal harm to anyone, as if he did not warn him about abandoning an occasion.

2. In order that the degree of obligation in repairing defects can rightly be determined, several circumstances of the defect committed must be considered.

a. The defect committed can be culpable or inculpable; it is called culpable if it is committed with grave fault of the confessor, and inculpable if it is committed without fault of the confessor or with his slight fault. It is clear that the obligation of him who committed the defect culpably is much greater than the obligation of him who committed the defect without fault.

b. A defect can be committed either positively by doing something, or negatively by omitting something which had to be done. To determine the obligation of reparation, when the defect is committed to the temporal harm of the penitent or of a third party, one must advert whether the defect was committed positively or negatively, by omitting a due action.

c. The confessor can be bound to correct defects either from justice or only from charity. Because the obligation of justice is graver than the obligation of charity, it also obliges with grave inconvenience if the defect was committed with grave fault.

He is bound from justice to repair a defect if the defect concerns the value of the sacrament, or if by a positive action he influenced harm to the penitent or to a third party. He is bound from charity alone if the defect does not concern the value of the sacrament, and if he influenced harm to the penitent or a third party only negatively.

d. It can happen that from the defect committed the penitent undergoes no danger of soul, as if one healthy and existing in good faith is absolved invalidly; for if afterward, being attrite, he approaches holy communion, he obtains sanctifying grace, or at least by the following absolution those sins are remitted indirectly. But it can also happen that from the error committed the penitent is brought into danger of salvation, as if a dying person, who cannot receive another sacrament, is absolved invalidly.

Note. 1. In the individual following cases two things come into question: a. how great is the obligation of correcting the defect committed; b. in what way the defect is to be corrected.

2. As to the manner: a. Some defects can be corrected without the penitent knowing, as if one not absolved returns to the same confessor. b. If it is necessary to speak with the penitent himself, one must consider whether the matter to be spoken of is under the seal; for in this case it is not licit to speak unless the permission of the penitent has first been sought and obtained. c. Some defects must be repaired even outside confession; for others it is enough that they be repaired within confession. As far as can be done, reparation outside confession must be avoided, because it is troublesome both to the confessor and to the penitent. Wherefore if it is foreseen that the penitent will return to the confessor, and there is no danger in delay, it is preferable to settle the matter in the following confession. d. Finally, it can happen that the confessor does not know the penitent or the third person to whom harm was inflicted; in this case nothing remains except that the confessor repent of the fault, if he committed any, and otherwise commend the whole matter to God.

402. If There Is Question of the Value of the Sacrament. 1. A culpable defect concerning the value of the sacrament must be repaired even with grave inconvenience, if otherwise the penitent would suffer grave harm, because here there occurs an obligation of justice. But if grave spiritual harm in the penitent is not to be feared, he can be left in good faith; for in the following confession those sins will be remitted.

Therefore a confessor who, e.g., did not absolve a penitent guilty of mortal sins, either because he forgot to absolve or pronounced absolution badly, or who absolved without jurisdiction, with danger to salvation supposed in the penitent, ought to approach him even with grave inconvenience to himself. And in this case indeed, in which there is question of giving absolution, he can reveal the error even without permission having been sought, by saying that he did not absolve, because the obligation of the seal does not intervene here. But in other cases, where, e.g., he did not say or said badly those things which had to be said by reason of the obligations of the penitent, permission to speak concerning matters pertaining to confession must always first be sought, both because the sacramental judgment has already been completed, and because the warning is considered to be as it were a reproach of sin made outside confession, which would be troublesome to the penitent and would render the sacrament odious.

2. An inculpable defect concerning the value of the sacrament, even with grave harm of the penitent supposed, need not be repaired with grave inconvenience, unless the penitent is in danger of dying in the state of sin; for here there is only an obligation of charity, which does not urge with grave inconvenience except in extreme necessity, if, e.g., a dying person had been invalidly absolved.

a. If for this end (namely, to absolve him) the sick person not absolved had to be approached, he would have to be warned about the defect and induced to elicit sorrow for sins, to confess sins if any had been committed in the meantime, and to accuse again by a general formula the sins already previously declared; when this has been done, he could be absolved. But if the warning is very troublesome and it can be supposed that no mortal sin was committed in the meantime, absolution can be granted even without the penitent being warned, since the moral union between confession and absolution still endures both by reason of time (even after several days) and by reason of sorrow. Likewise if the penitent not absolved returned to the same confessor, he would not necessarily have to be warned about the error, but it would suffice to induce him to elicit sorrow for the sins accused in the last confession and to accuse them again in general; for in this way he is directly absolved also from them.

b. If a sick person of this kind, not absolved, afterward received viaticum, and especially if he received extreme unction, he would not necessarily have to be warned about the defect, because he would not suffer grave harm, since through extreme unction he can now certainly be supposed to have been justified.

403. If There Is Question of the Integrity of the Sacrament. 1. A defect, whether culpable or inculpable, positively committed concerning integrity, if the confessor, e.g., is the cause why the penitent thinks that he ought not to accuse the number and species of sins, must be repaired, with previous permission of the penitent, even outside confession, provided it can be done without grave harm or scandal: the reason for the first is that each one is bound to remove the cause of evil which he himself has put; the reason for the second is that grave harm excuses the penitent from preserving integrity, and therefore a fortiori also the confessor from procuring integrity.

2. A defect, whether culpable or inculpable, negatively committed concerning integrity, if, e.g., he did not question concerning species and number, did not impose penance, did not prescribe remedies, need not be repaired outside confession; for the obligation of procuring integrity per se and directly affects the penitent, and the confessor only indirectly; or if it affects the confessor per se, it affects him as minister of the sacrament in confession. Therefore, since in this case he himself is not the efficacious cause of the harm, it suffices that in another confession, as minister of the sacrament, he repair the defect, if he can do so without grave inconvenience.

In practice, however, where the defect concerns only the integrity of confession without harm to a third party, the confessor is ordinarily bound to nothing else except that he grieve for the fault, if he committed any; for first, even apart from warning, the penitent will be untaught the error in the following confession by another confessor, who will question concerning the species and number of sins. Then, scarcely ever will grave inconvenience be lacking, both on the part of the penitent, to whom the warning brings annoyance, and on the part of the confessor, who will not be able to warn without detriment to honor and reputation.¹

¹ Suarez, disp. 32, s. 6, n. 8.

404. If There Is Question of an Obligation of the Penitent. 1. A defect concerning the obligations of the penitent which yields to the temporal harm of the penitent himself or of a third party must be repaired from justice, even with grave inconvenience, if the confessor culpably and positively induced the penitent into error, because the confessor is the unjust and efficacious cause of the harm. And it must indeed be repaired in confession if it is hoped that the penitent will return, and (permission first having been sought) outside confession if it is not hoped that he will return to the same confessor.

2. But if the confessor induced the penitent into error inculpably, he is indeed bound from justice to repair the defect; for everyone is bound from justice to prevent harm from following to another from his own action, but not with grave inconvenience, because he inflicted the harm with slight or only material fault.

3. Finally, if the confessor behaved only negatively, he is not bound from justice but only from charity to repair the harm, and therefore not with grave inconvenience, but with greater or lesser inconvenience proportioned to the gravity of the harm and fault.

If the defect committed by the confessor concerns an obligation imposed by an ecclesiastical or natural precept, whose violation nevertheless harms no one in temporal goods, as if he had falsely said that tomorrow is not a fast, or that this book is not harmful, he himself, like anyone else, is bound to correct the error if he conveniently can, lest he be the cause on account of which the law is violated by the penitent, even if only materially.

405. Obligation of Restitution on the Part of the Confessor. From these things it is gathered when the confessor is bound to restitution, either toward the penitent or toward another in place of the penitent, if namely the penitent himself would have made restitution.

a. If with grave fault he positively released the penitent from making restitution and afterward did not retract the error.

Indeed in this case, first, under grave sin and from justice, even with grave inconvenience, he is bound to retract the false resolution, because each person is bound to guard lest harm follow to others from his own action; but if he either could not do this or omitted to do it, he is bound to repair the harm itself which followed from his error; for he himself is the efficacious, culpable, and unjust cause of the harm.

b. If without fault he positively released the penitent from making restitution and afterward, with grave fault, did not retract the error, although he could conveniently have recalled it.

Indeed in this case, first, he is bound under grave sin and from justice to retract the error if he can do so without grave inconvenience. If he cannot retract it without grave inconvenience, he is not bound to restitution: not by reason of the false resolution, because it was not culpable, nor by reason of the omitted retraction for the same reason. But if he does not retract the error although he conveniently can, he is bound to repair the harm, not indeed by reason of the error, which was inculpable, but by reason of the omitted retraction, which is gravely culpable against justice.

c. If with grave fault he positively obligated the penitent to make restitution to which he was not bound.

In the same way, in this case he is first bound under grave sin and from justice, even with grave inconvenience, to retract the error; but if he either cannot or does not wish to accomplish this, he is bound to repair the harm itself, of which he himself is the efficacious, unjust, and gravely culpable cause.

d. But if, even with grave fault, he merely did not warn the penitent concerning restitution to be made, he is not bound to make restitution himself; for in order that he who did not prevent another's harm can be obligated to restitution, it is required that he be bound from office to prevent the harm; but the confessor is not bound from justice to prevent harm which happens to another from the omitted restitution of the penitent.¹

¹ Cf. De praeceptis, n. 497.

643. Principles. - I. An error concerning the validity of the Sacrament committed with grave fault or grave negligence, supposing grave harm to the penitent ¹, must be repaired even with grave inconvenience to the Confessor. The reason is that the Confessor, from his office and from the quasi-contract entered into with the penitent, is bound to administer the Sacrament rightly to him. But if the error is inculpable or lightly culpable, the Confessor is indeed bound from justice ², but with lesser inconvenience. - St. Ligorius, no. 619.

¹ Grave harm or danger to the penitent would be present if, for example, you absolved altogether invalidly or in no manner a sick person near death who would for that reason incur danger to eternal salvation; or also, as St. Alphonsus says (no. 619), if the penitent were in grave danger of not confessing again, for example, while he undertakes a long sea journey. But this grave harm to the penitent would be absent when, even if the Confessor absolves beyond his faculties from reserved censures and sins, or imparted absolution altogether invalidly or in no manner, nevertheless, in the first case the reserved sins would also have been indirectly remitted to the penitent in good faith, as we suppose, while in the other cases a remedy would not be lacking either in the reception of the Eucharist, which per accidens, according to the common doctrine with St. Thomas, would confer first grace upon a man having attrition, or in a subsequent confession with another priest, by which even the preceding sins would be indirectly remitted, no differently than happens with sins omitted through forgetfulness.

But when that grave danger threatens the penitent, and accordingly the Confessor must admonish the penitent in order to repair the error, there are some who say generally that permission must be sought from him, because according to the common opinion the seal forbids the priest to speak, even with the penitent himself after a completed confession, about matters heard in it, etc.; and if the penitent refuses permission, nothing remains to be done by the Confessor. But St. Alphonsus (no. 622) deservedly excepts the case of absolution imparted either in no manner or invalidly. The reason is that, when the Confessor merely says, for example, that he did not absolve him, surely neither shame is cast upon the penitent nor does any reproach of sin intervene, and accordingly the reason why the penitent would be unwilling and the confession would thereby be rendered burdensome is absent. These are the causes why a priest, spontaneously mixing conversation with the penitent about things heard from him in Confession, is judged to act against the seal. For the rest, in the case the Confessor would not be bound to acknowledge that he culpably erred; it would suffice to say that an error intervened, or even more simply that it is necessary for him to absolve him again. But if the penitent, not yet admonished, returns to the same Confessor, it will not even be necessary to admonish him concerning the error; for if he is excited to sorrow for all the sins previously confessed also, the present absolution will be directly terminated also to the preceding sins.

² St. Alphonsus, whom the Author alleges in this place, prefers that a Confessor who has erred inculpably is bound only from charity, unless he is the pastor of the penitent. But, as seems truer to others, the priest indeed hears the confession from charity; nevertheless, after the confession has been heard, he is bound from justice to complete the Sacrament, because he is bound from his office, however spontaneously undertaken, and from a certain quasi-contract. This condition of the Confessor remains the same even if he has erred without fault. Therefore, according as the error was culpable or inculpable, the obligation of the Confessor will differ, not because it presses now from justice and now from charity, but only as the obligation of keeping another unharmed differs according as harm is inflicted through a formal injury or a merely material one; or also as the obligation of restoring a thing unjustly taken away differs from the obligation of seeking the owner of a thing which someone found by chance. For the latter indeed undertakes the care of the thing from charity, but after this care has been undertaken he is bound, not from charity but from justice, to guard the thing and, as the circumstances require, to seek its owner.

** The VV., about to defend the holy Doctor Alphonsus, construct nearly eight columns (pp. 621-624) against this Note. Thus, therefore, they argue (p. 623): If someone gratuitously received a deposit from mere charity, he nevertheless is bound from justice to preserve and guard the thing with that diligence with which diligent men are accustomed to preserve and guard things of this kind.... But if, after the aforesaid diligence has been employed, the thing perishes or deteriorates without any fault, he is bound to nothing at all from the title of justice. And concerning the example proposed in the Note they add: After he has received the thing found, though from mere charity, into his deposit and care, he is bound from justice not only to seek the owner, as the circumstances require, but also to guard the thing with ordinary diligence; but if the thing perishes or deteriorates without fault on his part, and afterward the owner claims it, he is bound to nothing. And from these things they conclude: Therefore, there is no obligation from the title of justice for a Confessor who has erred inculpably to repair the harm. But if the Confessor is nevertheless bound, he is bound only from charity, and indeed from that general law of charity by which we are obliged to assist our neighbor and to avert temporal and spiritual harms from him insofar as this can be done without grave inconvenience.

Reply. I deny the Supposition and accordingly the parity; and from this I deny the Consequent and the Consequence. The supposition is that through the error of the Confessor the matter has been brought into such a state that it cannot be repaired through those means to which the same Confessor is bound from his office, just as provision cannot be made through that diligence to which a depositary is bound for a thing deposited which has already perished without the fault of the depositary. But that this is manifestly false appears from the very state of the question. For if the error of the Confessor is supposed irreparable, it is wrongly disputed whether he is bound to correct it from justice or only from charity. Moreover, St. Alphonsus (book 6, no. 619) affirms that the Confessor is bound from charity to amend his error. Therefore, the question does not concern a thing reduced to such a condition that it can be compared with a deposited thing which has already perished.

In its own manner, a somewhat more fitting comparison would be with a depositary who through an inculpable error perhaps sold or gave away the thing deposited, or placed it in a place in which he afterward observed that it would perhaps perish or suffer harm. Let the question then be posed: Would this man be bound from charity alone, or rather from justice, to recover the thing perhaps sold or given away, if it can be done, or to remove the thing from the place in which it would suffer harm? And still more clearly to our matter: Would the diligence to which the depositary is bound from justice require that, in the hypothesis, he take care to recover the thing handed over to another, or remove it from a harmful place, or would we call this an office of mere charity? Let it therefore be concluded that the VV. deduced a false consequence from an incongruous parity.

Nor, indeed, was St. Alphonsus led by such a parity or argument when he asserted that in the hypothesis the Confessor is obliged from charity alone to admonish the penitent concerning an error committed by himself. The holy Doctor (loc. cit.) seems to have used this reasoning: the obligation in the case does not press under grave inconvenience; therefore the Confessor is bound from charity alone. Yet none of the Doctors whom St. Alphonsus alleges there reasons thus. For all derive the obligation of admonishing from the office of the Confessor, however much they add that in the hypothesis it does not press with great detriment or inconvenience. De Lugo explains the matter well (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 62), whom St. Alphonsus also alleges:

Everyone (De Lugo says) is bound FROM JUSTICE not only not to inflict evil directly and purposely upon his neighbor, but also to take care, insofar as he CONVENIENTLY CAN, that harm contrary to the right of his neighbor does not arise from his action; for example, if you inadvertently set fire to another's house, you are bound from justice, as soon as you notice it, to extinguish the fire if you can conveniently do so, although another who did not set the fire would be bound not from justice but from charity to extinguish it. For although the action was inculpable, it was nevertheless yours, and you are bound to take care that your neighbor suffer no detriment in his own goods from your action, if you conveniently can; for this obligation is lesser than that other obligation of not harming positively, and therefore you are not bound to this unless you can conveniently prevent it. Likewise, if in good faith you defamed someone, thinking that the crime which you had heard about him was true, you ought afterward, if you conveniently can, once the error is known, to repair his reputation and extinguish the fire of reputation which you had inculpably kindled. But the same De Lugo (loc. cit.) had excellently premised this principle, namely, when the error happens without grave fault: Then, he says, according to the rule established above it must be said that he ought, if he conveniently can, to admonish the penitent concerning the error; OTHERWISE THE IGNORANCE OF THE PENITENT WILL NOW BEGIN TO BE IMPUTED TO HIM.

II. An error concerning the accidents of the Sacrament is not to be repaired outside confession if the Confessor conducted himself in this matter only negatively, even culpably. The reason is that the Confessor is not bound to procure the integrity of the Sacrament and the utility of the penitent except in confession, as a spiritual physician and minister of the Sacrament. But an error is to be repaired even outside confession if it was committed positively and with grave fault, because by natural law everyone must remove the cause of evil which he positively and voluntarily placed ³. Nevertheless, the permission of the penitent must be sought; if the penitent denies it, the Confessor is bound to nothing further. - St. Ligorius, no. 620.

³ That the Author seems to require for the obligation of admonishing outside confession that the error was committed with grave fault appears indeed to be against the more common opinion of the Doctors. They (see De Lugo, On Penance, disputation 22, no. 63, and St. Alphonsus, book 6, no. 620) concede only that one who has erred to the harm of the penitent without fault or with light fault is excused from giving the admonition by a lighter cause than if the error proceeded from grave fault. In this matter, there are moreover to be weighed, on the one hand, the inconvenience and detriment of the Confessor in admonishing, as well as whatever burden there may be to the penitent in renewing a discourse about the matter of confession, and, on the other hand, the harm or danger to be feared from the error. This can be lighter, if, for example, the Confessor erroneously said that the penitent is not bound to fast or to hear Mass and things of this kind; or graver, if, for example, the Confessor so deceived the penitent that he remains in a proximate occasion, or does not remove a scandal, or contracts an invalid marriage, etc.

III. There will be no obligation to admonish outside confession if the defect concerns the integrity of confession, because this error can scarcely, or not even scarcely, harm the penitent or others ⁴. - Thus commonly.

⁴ Some distinction seems to be employed here. For it is one thing if the Confessor merely did not take care that the confession be integral; it is another, as De Lugo says (On Penance, disputation 22, no. 73), if he was the positive cause why the penitent did not confess integrally, saying, for example, that it was not necessary to confess the species or number of sins. In the first case, the doctrine of the Author avails; concerning this see Suarez (On Penance, disputation 32, section 6, no. 8). In the other case, those things which were said in the preceding note rather have place. Yet there are two things which seem to diminish this obligation of admonishing outside confession. One is that in the following confession another Confessor will ask both the species and the number and will instruct the penitent who perhaps hesitates on account of the error with which he had been imbued, and accordingly will correct the error; and from this the necessity of admonition ceases. The other is the fact that in the case an admonition, from the nature of the matter, which necessarily concerns grave sins, introduces a discourse about them and thereby brings great shame to the penitent; and for this reason his offense can deservedly be feared. Hence a fortiori that which St. Alphonsus (no. 619) had observed concerning the omission of an admonition in the case of invalid absolution avails: for in our case more than in that case this offense and burden to the penitent arise of themselves.

644. Questions. - QUESTION 1. To what is a Confessor bound who improperly released a penitent from making restitution, or, on the contrary, obliged him to it?

Reply 1. If from malice, vincible ignorance, or grave negligence he improperly released the penitent, he is bound to correct the error; and if he does not correct it, or if the penitent, who otherwise would have made restitution, has meanwhile become unable to make restitution, the Confessor himself is bound to make restitution in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely, by impeding the restitution owed to him.

Reply 2. Likewise, if from malice or grave ignorance or negligence he obliged the penitent to undue restitution, he is bound from justice to retract the error; and if the penitent has already made restitution, he is bound to compensate him for the harm.

Reply 3. If inculpably or from light negligence he improperly obliged the penitent or released him from the obligation, he is bound from justice to correct the error, but not with so grave an inconvenience. The reason is that, on the one hand, everyone is bound from justice to prevent his own action, even an inculpable one, from causing another a harm which he can easily prevent; and, on the other hand, an obligation with grave inconvenience does not ordinarily arise from light fault or merely material fault. - St. Ligorius, no. 621.

645. • QUESTION 2. To what is a Confessor bound who omitted to admonish a penitent concerning restitution to be made?

Reply 1. If he foresees the harm, he is bound to admonish the penitent concerning the obligation with some inconvenience, if no fault or only light fault intervened, at least by reason of charity; but with greater inconvenience if he sinned gravely in the omission. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, no. 624.

Reply 2. More probably, he is not bound to make restitution, even if he sinned gravely by omitting the admonition. The reason is that the Confessor is not bound from justice to prevent harm to the one to whom restitution is owed. Recall the things said in the Treatise on Justice and Right, where negative cooperators are discussed, no. 691. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

646. • QUESTION 3. Is one bound to restitution who from only light fault released a penitent from the obligation of making restitution, if he afterward neglects to admonish him when he can easily do so?

Reply. Yes. The reason is that, although the Confessor released the penitent from restitution without at least grave fault, nevertheless, since his counsel continues to influence the harm of the creditor, once the error is known he is bound from justice to remove the cause of the harm, if he can easily do so. - St. Ligorius, no. 622, and others commonly.

QUESTION 4. Can a Confessor, without the permission of the penitent, speak with him outside confession about a defect committed in confession?

Reply. No, if the penitent has already departed. The reason is that this admonition outside confession is burdensome to the penitent. Moreover, after absolution the judgment is complete; nor does it matter that the admonition is made to repair a defect of the same confession. - St. Ligorius, no. 622; Lacroix, no. 1776, etc. Nevertheless, if the error of the Confessor brings the penitent into danger of salvation, for example, if he had not absolved him, he could, even without permission being sought, disclose his error abruptly by saying, for example, that he had not absolved him. Surely in this way neither is the seal broken nor can a reasonable offense of the penitent be present. - St. Ligorius, no. 619.

490. A threefold defect can occur: (a) concerning the value of the sacrament, for example, if the confessor has not absolved, or has absolved without jurisdiction, or has absolved one indisposed; (b) concerning the integrity of the sacrament, for example, if the confessor has omitted necessary questions about the species and number of sins, or has imposed no penance; (c) concerning the obligations of the penitent, for example, if he has not warned concerning the removal of an occasion of sin, or has not obliged to due restitution, or, on the contrary, has obliged to undue restitution.

¹ Suarez, disp. XXXII, sect. 6; Lugo, disp. XXII, n. 50-77; Salmantic., ch. 12, n. 46-56; St. Alphonsus, n. 619-622; Billuart, diss. VI, a. 10 § 8; Ball. P., n. 836-861; Lehmk., n. 470-474; Noldin, n. 410-414.

— These principles must be held. 1. No violation of the sacramental seal is excused by the necessity of repairing a defect. But of itself he does not violate the seal who merely admonishes the penitent that an invalid absolution was conferred by him from error; or who, on account of a grave cause, simply asks from the penitent the faculty of adding something to the things said in confession.

2. Every defect which can be repaired without inconvenience must be repaired, and this under grave obligation, if grave damage is to be averted.

But if reparation brings inconvenience, the quality of the obligation must be weighed: of justice or of charity; the gravity of the inconvenience to be sustained; the damage to follow from omission, which damage can be of the sacrament, or of the penitent or of a third person. But the obligation will have to be estimated from the rules of justice or charity, while observing that the obligation varies according to the diverse fault or excuse of the confessor. But fault varies not only in gravity, but also in manner, according as it was committed by acting positively, or negatively, by omitting something owed.

— Rules to be followed. Defects are to be distinguished as damaging or non-damaging; damaging defects can be such to the penitent or to another person; they can render the confession invalid, or not remove the validity of the confession.

1. From a tacit pact with the penitent, the confessor owes it from justice to procure for one rightly disposed a valid confession and absolution. Therefore reparation of invalidly given absolution is an obligation of justice, and grave indeed if grave spiritual damage is to be feared for the penitent, as if the dying person cannot receive another sacrament. This obligation of justice itself will press more strictly or less strictly, according as the error was culpable or not culpable. For a culpable error will have to be repaired even with equal damage of the confessor, and will be removed only by a truly graver one. But reparation will also be able to be made outside confession, by supplying the absolution invalidly given. Yet if some interval of time has intervened, it will not be lawful to absolve the penitent again unless a new confession has been premised, when new grave sins are prudently to be feared. But when another confession has been made, that damage of valid absolution not received, at least as grave, has been morally certainly removed; and pious reception of a sacrament of the living probably effects the same. Therefore, if the confessor will easily be able to bring the invalidly absolved penitent to a new confession, he will repair the damage even without any admonition of the penitent. But if the damage of the penitent was only light (for deprivation of absolution is always in some way damaging), the confessor for the most part will be excused by the inconvenience itself of admonishing.

2. If the error was about the integrity of confession, reparation is owed rather to God than to the penitent, since of itself all damage of the penitent consists in the obligation not known. Yet the confessor who positively deceived the penitent (by saying what is false), according to the more common opinion, must correct the error even outside confession, after obtaining the penitent's permission, unless he is excused by grave damage or scandal. And because for the most part this will not be done without notable damage, and from elsewhere the penitent in other confessions will have a probable occasion of knowing the error committed, this obligation scarcely seems in practice to be urged. But in confession it will have to be fulfilled prudently (cf. Ball.-Palm., V, 558-561).

In confession also it will be enough that the integrity of the former confession, which was wanting because of the negative negligence of the confessor, be prudently procured.

Prudently, I say, because also, as Ball.-Palm., V, 562, notes, it will be little pleasing to the penitent to observe the tenacious memory which the confessor bears concerning sins accused to him. Therefore it will be good, if a sufficiently long time has elapsed, that the confessor explain that this memory is to be attributed to a special cause.

3. An error otherwise damaging to the penitent, as concerning the obligation of deserting an occasion of sinning, will have to be repaired from justice, if the confessor was culpable for the positively committed error; which also seems to have to be said when without fault of his own he positively deceived; but then the obligation will be excused by a lesser inconvenience. If the confessor merely neglected to admonish the penitent, the obligation will be from charity alone. This does not oblige with a relatively grave inconvenience.

4. An error damaging to another person will not be imputed to the confessor from justice unless it was committed by positive action, and that culpable, or unless the omission of diligence in correcting the error of a positively given response was culpable. For he is held by no positive office toward another person.

Those errors of which in n. 3 and 4, both outside confession, with the law of the seal preserved, and within confession, if the occasion is had, must be repaired. But as often as it can be done, it will be better to reserve the correction for a following confession.

— You ask about the connected obligation of restitution.

The confessor himself must repair damage, even by restitution: a) which he did to a penitent whom with grave fault he unduly obliged to making restitution. And even if grave fault was absent, after he has known the error, he must correct it from justice insofar as he can furnish this without grave inconvenience;

b) which he did to another, while he positively declared the penitent immune from a certain obligation of restoring: whether then he was gravely culpable, or with grave fault of his own he did not retract even an involuntary error.

But what if the penitent, by denying the faculty of speaking about confession, impeded retraction?

Then the confessor himself is dispensed from retracting an error that was not culpable; but he will continue to bear the damages of a positive and culpable error. I say damages. For if the penitent, admonished, does not seem to have been going to make restitution, the error now will not be damaging to another person.

— The action of the confessor. I. With regard to the three parts of the sacrament.

1. With regard to the accusation of the penitent. As minister, solicitous for the integrity of the sacrament; as physician, for complete healing; as neighbor, as giver of spiritual alms, the confessor must take care that the penitent make a complete accusation. Yet he himself is held to this accidentally and secondarily. The examination must be supplied such as the penitent, according to his quality and instruction, can make without excessive inconvenience, attending to the fragility of the penitent, for whom confession is not to be rendered odious, abstaining from curious or useless questions, especially about chastity, and taking care lest the ignorance of younger persons be imprudently dissipated.

Let the penitent be allowed, for the most part, first to set forth his state in his own manner, with interruption which disturbs memory avoided.

If a general confession is made from devotion, let the penitent be admonished about his faculty of keeping silent what he wishes, with the counsel added of saying in few words the things which may beget the fruit of greater humility. In a necessary general confession, let the sin, if perhaps the only one on account of which it is commanded, be declared, with the frequency of sacraments added which perhaps were received sacrilegiously. If many sins must be accused, it will be better to divide life into various epochs. Let the confessor make effort that as soon as possible there be indicated by the penitent what he would declare with more difficulty, by giving him courage, or even by conjecturing concerning what kind of cause there is question. At the end let him strengthen peace of soul, by admonishing that those things which have slipped from memory have now been remitted, that examinations are no longer to be repeated, that the presumption of completed confession favors the penitent. He who has confessed generally twice or three times should be prohibited from a new discussion of conscience, lest, contrary to Christ's institution, peace of soul be removed by the very remedy of peace.

2. With regard to absolution: a) that absolution is called conditional whose condition, on account of reverence toward the sacrament, is expressly, at least mentally, conceived; b) just as by absolution granted, so by absolution denied, the cause is finished, while by absolution delayed it is suspended: then the right remains to the penitent of approaching the confessor, who is held from justice to hear him through to the end; c) in direct absolution, sins are remitted by force of the keys. They are indirectly remitted through grace owed to the disposed penitent, which cannot be infused unless all mortal sins are taken away. But then the obligation remains of submitting to the keys, in the next confession, the sins thus remitted; d) to the disposed penitent absolution is to be given, and of itself immediately. For the spiritual utility of the penitent it can be deferred.

Absolution under a condition concerning the present or the past (never concerning the future): "if I have the faculty, if there is present to the penitent the disposition necessary for validity," can be given on account of great utility or necessity, for example to him who is placed in danger of dying without absolution, or who would remain long in mortal sin, or who is pressed by necessity of receiving a sacrament of the living; or who, if absolution were deferred, seems about to desert the sacraments. Thus, besides several penitents of little piety, children and the half-witted in doubt about sufficient discretion will have to be absolved conditionally; penitents who do not bring certain matter about which they are sorry, when they bring matter probably grave, or sometimes during the year.

3. With regard to sacramental penance, a) the confessor, as judge, must impose penance either immediately after absolution or, and this better, before. And he can create only the obligation of penance; b) regularly he must impose a grave penance for grave fault, and have that account of the quality of faults which our times permit. That is judged grave which corresponds to reciting the third part of the Rosary. To enjoin a very slight penance for grave sins would be grave, an excusing cause excluded; c) every work, even one already commanded, can be imposed; not, however, one by which the things accused are in some way revealed; d) the same one who gave it can always commute the penance, as if perfecting his judgment; another must first know the sacramental cause, and therefore absolve. Not even into a better work can the penitent commute the penance; e) the highest account of the penance to be imposed is that it be salutary; therefore, lest the confessor lessen the consciousness of grave sin, nor leave too great a debt to the penitent; and that it be medicinal, insofar as it either breaks the force of occasion or temptation, or weakens the force of passion, or increases spiritual strength. Care must also be taken that the penitent truly accept the penance.

Finally, the confessor cannot be approved who always indiscreetly imposes the same small penance on all.

II. With regard to the persons of penitents.

1. Different action for different persons. The confessor must adapt his action to individual persons. These things can be stated generically: a) theologically uneducated persons, such as several are even cultivated in other matters, are not to be dismissed unprepared, but are to be helped so that, questioned, they may furnish, according to their capacity, sufficient confession and sorrow. This is much more valid concerning the half-witted; b) it must be procured that children confess sincerely and sorrowfully, and form for themselves a right conscience; that they confess without danger; that they be taught simple modesty, not scrupulous or suspicious modesty. And occasions of sin must be removed from them; c) pious penitents are to be brought to more perfect things and apostolic zeal; d) observance and solid virtues are to be inculcated in religious; e) the sick are to be visited in time, so that the dying can be comforted and well helped; f) those of little piety are to be treated dexterously, so that in a few moments they may sufficiently accuse themselves and, fortified by paternal counsels, depart more pacified, instructed, and content. These, unless they are certainly indisposed, should be absolved under condition rather than dismissed; g) those in occasions who must and can desert a permanent occasion, and have a sufficiently convenient faculty of returning, are regularly to be gently induced to dismiss the occasion before they demand absolution. If they have several times deceived trust, they are to be deferred until they have executed the obligation, unless it is a case of absolving them conditionally; h) concerning recidivists these things are to be observed.

They are called recidivists who, after confession, although admonished, relapse into the same sins in the same morally equivalent manner.

A recidivist from intrinsic fragility is to be treated benignly, and regularly absolved, if, in the present, he demonstrates himself sufficiently disposed. The remedy of delayed absolution can be tried, at least in some regions, if a greater horror of sin, a greater effort against temptation, greater constancy of purpose can prudently be hoped for from it. The confessor could also use a threatened denial. Yet let us have greater hope in the sacraments and in more frequent confession or Communion, which can be imposed on him.

A recidivist from a voluntary occasion is to be treated as we were just saying about those in occasions.

A recidivist from a necessary occasion, if he has made some progress, is to be absolved, with exhortation and congratulation added, by which he may come out more upright for the fight. If there is no amendment, opinions vary. The safer parts, or flight from the occasion, which is possible in some way, should altogether be advised; indeed, unless a most grave inconvenience stands in the way, of themselves they should be imposed. With most grave inconvenience, they do not seem able to be strictly imposed.

2. General rules. Let the confessor carefully procure for himself, in this ministry, the purest intention, empty of every human consideration; let him strive to render confession easier for all; let him question so circumspectly that he promotes sincerity, yet disturbs no good faith, renders no soul anxious. If he judges that absolution is to be deferred, let the delay be very brief, for hours, for a day, not beyond fourteen days, since of itself it is grave to remain in the state of sin. Not content with absolution, let him arouse penitents to more perfect things; let him cultivate the seeds of a more sublime vocation and have the spiritual utility of the penitent for his supreme rule.

After confessions have been heard, after examination has been made, it will help to study progress in his art.

III. With regard to repairing defects. 1. Principles. With the seal uninjured, every defect must be repaired, an excusing inconvenience excluded, and this under grave obligation, if grave damage is to be averted. If reparation has inconvenience, the quality of the obligation, the origin, the inconvenience of repairing, the damages of omitted reparation will have to be weighed.

Reparation is better made in confession, if the occasion is had. This lacking, let it be made outside confession, after asking, where there is need, permission to speak about confession. If this has been denied, the confessor is dispensed from retracting an error which was not culpable; but he will continue to bear the damages of a positive and culpable error. For he must repair, even by restitution, damage which with grave fault he inflicted on a penitent whom he unduly obliged to restitution, or on another, if he badly declared the penitent immune from the obligation. The same is valid if, with grave fault, he omitted to retract even a non-voluntary error.

2. Applications. Absolution invalidly given is to be supplied from justice, with confession premised, if after the confession new mortal sins are to be feared. Yet the damage of the penitent has already probably been removed after a sacrament of the living has been received, and morally certainly after a new confession. An error about integrity will rarely have to be repaired outside confession. In a new confession this will have to be done prudently, especially if the penitent has been positively deceived by the confessor.

An error otherwise damaging to the penitent or to another will have to be repaired from justice if the confessor positively deceived the penitent; and it will urge more gravely the confessor who is culpable. Mere omission of admonition will have to be repaired from charity. But the obligation will be stronger toward the penitent than toward an outsider, to whom the confessor owed nothing from office.

An error or defect can occur: a) concerning the validity of the sacrament, for example, if the confessor omitted the essential words of absolution; b) concerning the integrity of the sacrament, for example, if the confessor omitted to question concerning the species and specific circumstances of sins; c) concerning the obligations of the penitent, for example, if the confessor omitted to admonish him concerning restitution to be made.

440. a) Concerning the validity of the sacrament, if the confessor erred in such a way that the sacrament administered was null, he is obliged to correct the error. But the gravity of this obligation must be measured: alpha) from the gravity of the harm which otherwise will befall the penitent; beta) from the gravity of the fault or negligence which the confessor committed by frustrating the sacrament.

Not only the pastor and other curators of souls are bound from justice validly to administer the sacrament to one who has rightly confessed, but also any confessor whatsoever, although not in the same degree. For a confessor who is not a curator of souls indeed hears a confession from charity; but once the confession has been heard, by reason of an onerous quasi-contract, and therefore from justice, he is bound validly to administer the sacrament. Accordingly, if he does not do this, he is an unjust damager, and a material one if he did this without any fault (which rarely occurs in practice). But if grave harm thereby befalls the penitent, he must prevent it, although not with great harm to himself. When, however, through his own grave fault he frustrated the sacrament and inflicted grave harm, he is a formal unjust damager and is bound to repair the evil which arose even with grave harm to himself.

The matter becomes clear from examples. 1. A confessor hearing the grave sins of a dying person in confession forgets to give absolution. If the confessor does not correct this error, great harm befalls the dying person, since he has not been absolved and it is not certain that his sins are removed by the reception of Viaticum. The penitent, therefore, will perhaps be damned in hell unless the confessor corrects the error. Moreover, the confessor can scarcely be excused from grave negligence if in such a case he forgets to give absolution. Therefore he is bound under grave sin to correct the error if he can. 2. A confessor forgets to give absolution to a penitent burdened only with light sins. The harm to the penitent is not so grave, and consequently the confessor is not bound under grave sin to correct the error. 3. A confessor forgets to give absolution to a penitent burdened with grave sins; but since alpha) it is piously believed that such a penitent, being attrite, becomes contrite in Communion and receives the remission of sins; and since beta) it is certain that in the following confession these sins will be absolved indirectly, harm not so great befalls the penitent, and consequently the confessor is not obliged to correct the error committed with grave inconvenience. Nevertheless, let every confessor be exceedingly diligent in practice lest he ever commit an error concerning the validity of the sacrament.

441. b) Concerning the integrity of confession, if the confessor committed a defect, a distinction is necessary. Either he conducted himself negatively (that is, he omitted to question concerning the species, number, and specific circumstances, or to impose a penance), and then he is indeed bound to repair the defect within this confession or the following one, but he is bound to nothing outside confession. The reason is that a defect of this kind is easily repaired within confession, but not outside confession. On the other hand, no great harm befalls the penitent from such an omission, since he was validly absolved if he was in good faith. Or he conducted himself positively (that is, he expressly said: this is not a grave sin, or it is not necessary to accuse all mortal sins), and then he is bound to correct this error both within confession and also outside it, although in this latter case the permission of the penitent to speak concerning matters heard in confession must first be obtained. The reason is that the confessor culpably induced the penitent into a pernicious error.

442. c) Concerning the obligations of the penitent, if the confessor committed a defect, the same distinction must be employed. Either he omitted to admonish the penitent concerning some obligation, for example, concerning restitution to be made, the proximate occasion to be avoided, and so forth; and then from charity (and not under grave sin) he is bound to correct the error, because the sacrament was validly administered and no great harm arose which the confessor was strictly bound to prevent. Hence, a fortiori, a confessor who was silent concerning the obligation of making restitution is not bound personally to make restitution to the third person, because he is not bound from justice to take care that the harm to the third person be repaired.³⁸⁸ Or he positively and culpably induced the penitent into error, for example, by saying that he was not bound to restitution; and then from justice he is bound to repair the harm caused. For he is an unjust damager as one counseling the harm. Therefore, when with grave fault he falsely induced the penitent to make restitution or falsely drew him away from it, he is bound to retract the error; and if he does not do this, he himself must make restitution either to the penitent or to the third person.

But if the confessor erred through light negligence, or if he caused only a small harm, the obligation of retracting the error and preventing or repairing the harm is not so great. Nevertheless, in practice that confessor can scarcely be free from grave fault who positively induced someone falsely to make or omit restitution. For then he either has an altogether insufficient knowledge of moral theology or acted very precipitately and imprudently. And there is no reason why such a confessor should merit excessive indulgence.

³⁸⁸ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 621.

1487. Principles. - I. An error gravely culpable and gravely harmful to the penitent himself, by the confessor, from justice, and therefore also with damage relatively grave to himself, speaking per se, must be repaired.

I say: 1° gravely culpable, because an inculpable or lightly culpable error must be repaired from charity alone, and therefore per se with only light inconvenience.

I say: 2° from justice, as is clear from what was said n. 746. For the error, as in the principle is supposed, was an efficacious and theologically gravely culpable cause of damage; it was moreover an unjust cause, even in him who heard the penitent's Confession from charity alone, because to the obligation of charity there was added the obligation of justice, namely by force of the quasi-contract concerning the Sacrament to be administered rightly, by which contract the confessor is bound by the very fact that he undertakes the Confession of anyone.

I say: 3° speaking per se: for the case is to be excepted in which he could not repair the error without injuring the seal, for example because he would gravely offend the penitent by renewing discourse about the Confession; likewise the case of a penitent invalidly absolved who afterward either had confessed to another or had received the Most Holy Eucharist, because in either case he is presumed with moral certainty to have been justified (n. 1208. q. 2°), and the damage was repaired.

II. An error harming some third party is to be repaired according to the rules concerning cooperation in damage: namely from justice, if the confessor positively, by command or counsel, cooperated in the damage of the third party (n. 1438. q. 1°. R. 1°. 3°); but from charity alone, if negatively, by not admonishing concerning restitution to be made, since, as confessor, he is bound toward that third party by no bond of office or quasi-contract (n. 774. q. 1°).

III. An error, even gravely culpable, concerning the integrity of Confession is committed either negatively (when the penitent was not questioned concerning species or number, though he ought to have been questioned concerning them), or positively (by inducing him not to explain them).

In the former case it is not to be corrected outside Confession: for the obligation of confessing integrally directly affects not the confessor, but the penitent; hence, although the former is held to question the latter within Confession concerning species and number, nevertheless when the judgment has been finished this obligation ceases in the confessor.

In the latter case a gravely culpable error must be corrected even outside Confession: for by natural law everyone is held to remove the cause why another violates a grave precept, namely of integral Confession. Except if the error cannot be repaired without scandal or grave damage to the confessor; for these things excuse the penitent from integrity, and therefore also the confessor. "But if the error shall not have been gravely culpable, a much slighter cause will excuse from correcting it outside Confession, and this cause will never not be present, since the confessor can never admonish the penitent concerning the error admitted without inconvenience and shame."

1488. Questions. - Quaer. 1° To what is a confessor held who unduly released a penitent from making restitution, or on the contrary obliged him to it?

Resp. 1° If with grave fault he unduly released the penitent, he is held to correct the error; but if he does not correct it, or the penitent, who otherwise would have made restitution, meanwhile has become unable to make restitution, the confessor himself is held to restore in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely by impeding the restitution due to him. I said: who otherwise would have made restitution. For if, although admonished, he would not have made restitution before the inability, neither will the confessor be bound.

Resp. 2° If with grave fault he obliged the penitent to undue restitution, he is held from justice to retract the error; and, if the penitent has already restored, he is held to make good the damage to him.

Resp. 3° If inculpably or from light negligence he unduly obliged or released the penitent from the obligation, he is held from justice to correct the error, not however with so grave an inconvenience. The reason is that on the one hand everyone is held from justice to impede lest by his action, even inculpable, he cause damage to another which he can easily forestall; but on the other hand from light or only material fault ordinarily there does not arise an obligation with grave inconvenience.

Quaer. 2° To what is a confessor held who omitted to admonish the penitent concerning restitution to be made?

Resp. 1° He is held to admonish the penitent within Confession concerning the obligation, with some inconvenience, if no or only light fault intervened, at least by reason of charity; but with greater inconvenience if in the omission he sinned gravely, or perhaps also if he to whom restitution is to be made would suffer very grave damage thence, although the confessor sinned in no way or only lightly in the omission.

Resp. 2° Whether in that case the confessor is held to restore, see n. 774. q. 1°. and what was said n. 1487. under II.

Quaer. 3° Whether he is held to restitution who from only light fault released the penitent from the obligation of restoring, if afterward he neglects to admonish him, when he easily can?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is that, although the confessor without fault, at least grave, exempted the penitent from restitution, nevertheless, since his counsel continues to influence the damage of the creditor, he himself, the error being known, is held from justice to remove the cause of the damage, if he easily can (n. 749. q. 3°).

Quaer. 4° Whether a confessor, without the license of the penitent, can speak with him outside Confession concerning a defect committed?

Resp. Negatively, according to the more probable opinion, to which St. Alphonsus subscribes and which Lugo calls common, if the penitent has already departed; the reason is that that admonition outside Confession is burdensome to the penitent. Besides, since after absolution the judgment has been completed, that admonition would be separated from Confession. Nevertheless, if the confessor had not absolved the penitent, or had not absolved him rightly, i.e. with the form badly pronounced, even without license asked he could, and speaking per se ought, to disclose his error, saying, for example, that he did not absolve; by which manner indeed neither is the seal broken, nor can there be a reasonable offense of the penitent.

629. The third obligation is to supply defects and to correct errors. - A threefold defect or error can occur: 1) either the error vitiates the very value of the sacrament, e.g., forgetfulness of absolution, an invalid form, indisposition of the penitent, lack of jurisdiction; - 2) or the error offends the mere integrity of confession or of the sacrament, e.g., a due question omitted concerning the species or number of sins, satisfaction not enjoined; - 3) or the error regards the obligations of the penitent and brings harm to the penitent or to a third party, e.g., a proximate occasion which is not removed, undue restitution imposed, due restitution not imposed.

A. An error invalidating the sacrament and gravely harmful to the penitent, of itself and regularly, must be corrected, and indeed under grave obligation and from justice; - indeed even with grave inconvenience, if it was committed from grave fault of the confessor (II, n. 296, A). For the confessor, from a quasi-contract with the penitent and therefore from justice, is bound to impart absolution to one rightly disposed: from charity indeed he hears the confession, but once it has been heard, he is already obliged from justice to provide the other necessary things (n. 614). Therefore if he erred as to the value of the sacrament, he is bound from justice to correct it, if he can; and if he erred from grave fault, even with great inconvenience; - otherwise without grave inconvenience, unless, however, the penitent were in grave danger of dying in the state of sin, as if he were in the article of death or in probable danger of not confessing any more, in which case the confessor would be obliged even with grave inconvenience, but from charity.

Therefore justice does not always oblige in an equal manner, but justice injured from fault obliges more strictly than justice injured without fault, as appears in the case of one detaining the thing of another in good or bad faith as to restitution. Hence the gravity of the obligation, as also of the inconvenience to be undergone, must be measured both from the gravity of the harm and from the gravity of culpability or negligence.

The principle supposes 1) that the error is still gravely harmful to the penitent; for if the harm is light, e.g., because the penitent had not accused mortal sins, or if the harm does not persevere, because the penitent approached another confessor by whom he was validly absolved, or because in another way he was certainly justified (namely, by Extreme Unction or perfect contrition), the obligation no longer urges;

2. that the error comes from the part of the confessor; for if the error comes from the fault of the penitent, because, e.g., he was knowingly indisposed, the confessor is indeed bound to repair the harm as a cooperator, but not so strictly - except in the case of extreme necessity - because the penitent could provide for himself otherwise, by making a new confession.

The apt manner of repairing the defect is different:

1. If because of defect of jurisdiction the sacrament is invalid, let the confessor induce the penitent to confess again, and, if this is necessary for that, let him admonish him about the invalidity of the absolution, even without permission to speak about the confession having been obtained beforehand from the penitent: for since the reason of nullity is exclusively on the part of the confessor, not from a defect of the penitent, there is no use there of things heard in confession.

2. If because of omission or defect of absolution, and a) this is detected immediately or shortly after confession and the penitent is still morally present, he can be absolved again, even without previous admonition, provided it is clear that he is duly disposed; b) and if he is too far away, let him be recalled to the sacred tribunal, so long as this can be done without inconvenience; otherwise let the confessor himself approach the penitent and absolve him; c) but if the error was not repaired immediately or after a short time, let the confessor induce the penitent to confess again; let him exhort him to grieve not only for those things accused in the present confession, but also for past things, especially those accused in the last confession; and let him duly absolve him.

3. If because of the indisposition of the penitent, let the confessor approach the penitent and induce him to confess again, as was said; but if this cannot effectively be done, after the confessor has first obtained the permission of the penitent to speak with him about a matter pertaining to confession, let him admonish him about the invalidity, so that the error can be repaired.

B. In the case of an error touching only the integrity of the sacrament:

1. If the confessor negatively impeded integrity by omission (whether from forgetfulness or from culpable negligence), he is not bound to repair the harm or to admonish the penitent outside confession, because the obligation of procuring integrity affects the confessor as minister of the sacrament, i.e., within confession, and on the other hand an admonition outside confession of itself and generally is troublesome to the penitent; - yet in another confession, where the confessor is spiritual physician and minister of the sacrament, the error must be corrected if it can be done without great inconvenience.

2. If he positively impeded integrity, the confessor is bound to admonish even outside confession, after the permission of the penitent has first been obtained; provided he can do this without scandal and grave inconvenience, and more strictly if he erred culpably than if inculpably.

The reason is that each one is bound to repair the harm which he has positively inflicted, and to remove the cause of it which he placed; namely, he is bound lest from his positive action others incur harm, even from material sin. Nevertheless not with grave inconvenience, because if grave harm excuses the penitent from preserving integrity, a fortiori it excuses the confessor from procuring it; hence a somewhat lesser cause will excuse one erring inculpably. And in fact the confessor is rarely bound to correct.

C. In the case of an error which brings harm to the penitent or to a third party, a similar principle holds as in the preceding case:

1. If he has erred negatively by omission, from office the confessor is bound toward the penitent, even outside confession, to admonish and correct, if from that omission the penitent is moved to believe licit and to do what is illicit or to the harm of a third party; more strictly or less strictly, with greater or lesser inconvenience, according to the gravity of the harm and culpability. But he is not bound from justice to repair the harm of the third party, because the confessor is not bound from office to procure the good of the third party.

2. But if he has positively led the penitent into error, e.g., if the confessor, when asked, pronounced that restitution must be made where no obligation of making restitution existed, or conversely; and

a) the error was culpable (e.g., from malice, vincible ignorance, grave negligence), the confessor is bound from justice, even outside confession, and in grave matter under grave obligation, to repair and make restitution either to the penitent or to the third party: for he was positively cooperating in the harm of another by counsel;

b) if the error was inculpable, likewise the confessor is bound, if he can without grave inconvenience, to repair; - but if he does not do this, he will have to make restitution.

The reason is that each one is bound from justice not only not to inflict harm on his neighbor directly and deliberately, but also to procure that harm not come to his neighbor from his action; but if he does not correct an error when he can, he is bound to make restitution by reason of the omitted retraction, which is truly the unjust and efficacious cause of the harm, by which that harm becomes voluntary and culpable. But he is bound only without grave inconvenience, because the harm does not arise from an unjust injury, since the action was inculpable.

I say 1°. An error concerning the value of the sacrament committed with grave fault or grave negligence, supposing grave harm of the penitent from the fact that, for example, he is about to die or about to undertake a dangerous journey, must be repaired even with grave inconvenience of the confessor. The reason is because the confessor, from office and from the quasi-contract entered upon with the penitent, is held to administer the sacrament rightly to him; therefore, if from his own fault he does not administer it rightly, he is an unjust damager and is held to reparation, even with his own grave inconvenience. But if the error is inculpable or lightly culpable, the confessor is not obligated by reason of harm inflicted or of confession heard, but by reason of the necessity alone of the neighbor, whom indeed each person must assist from charity, but not with his own grave inconvenience. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 619. - Baller. note (a), p. 624.

I say 2°. An error concerning the accidents of the sacrament, for example, concerning the integrity of confession, is not to be repaired outside confession if the confessor in this has conducted himself only negatively, although culpably. The reason is because the confessor is not held to procure the integrity of the sacrament and the utility of the penitent except in confession, as spiritual physician and minister of the sacrament. - But it must be repaired even outside confession if it was committed positively and with grave fault, provided this can be done without scandal and grave inconvenience of the confessor himself; because by natural law each person must remove a cause of violating a precept, even materially, which he positively and voluntarily placed for another, unless an inconvenience is present which of itself would suffice for excusing from the observance itself of the precept. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 620.

You Will Resolve. 1°. If the confessor from malice or vincible ignorance or grave negligence unduly released the penitent from making restitution, he is held to correct the error; but if he does not correct it, or if the penitent, who otherwise would have made restitution, has meanwhile become unable for restitution, the confessor himself is held to restore in his place, because he violated the right of the creditor, namely by impeding the restitution due to him. - Likewise, if from malice or ignorance or grave negligence he obligated the penitent to undue restitution, he is held from justice to retract the error; and if the penitent has already restored, he himself is held to repair the harm of the penitent.

2°. But if inculpably or only from light negligence he unduly obligated the penitent or released him from obligation, he is indeed held from justice to correct the error, yet not with grave inconvenience. The reason is because, on the one hand, each person is held from justice to impede lest by his own action, even inculpable, he bring forth harm to another which he can easily forestall; and, on the other hand, from light fault or only material fault an obligation ordinarily does not arise with grave inconvenience. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 621.

3°. But if in the aforesaid case the confessor neglects to correct the error by admonishing the penitent, when he easily can, he himself is held to making restitution. The reason is because, although he acted without fault, at least grave fault, when he gave the first decision, nevertheless he would sin gravely against justice if, since the matter is grave, he did not correct that first decision when he could easily perform this. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 622.

4°. The confessor who did not properly and positively release the penitent, but merely omitted to warn him concerning restitution to be made, is held to correct his error within confession with some inconvenience, if no fault or only light fault intervened; but with greater inconvenience if in the omission he sinned gravely. - But he is not held to restitution, at least according to the more probable opinion, even if by omitting the warning he sinned gravely. The reason is because the confessor could not even be called a negative cooperator with relation to him to whom restitution is owed; for in order that someone be a negative cooperator, it is required that from justice he be held to impede harm; and the confessor certainly is not held to this, because he enters upon a quasi-contract with penitents alone. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 621.

Question. Whether the confessor can speak outside confession with the penitent concerning a defect committed in confession without the penitent's permission?

Resp. Negatively, according to St. Alphonsus and Cardinal de Lugo, who says that the contrary is repugnant to the common sense of theologians. The reason is because that warning, made after the judgment has already been completed, now cannot be joined with it; therefore it will necessarily be a certain extrajudicial reproach of sin, very burdensome, and by its nature it would tend toward rendering confession odious. Nevertheless, if the confessor has not absolved, either because he forgot to give absolution or because he pronounced it badly, he certainly will be able, even without permission sought, to open his error, saying, for example, that he did not absolve; both because by this reason no reasonable offense of the penitent can be present, and because the preceding judgment, absolution being lacking, could not be completed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 622. - Lacroix, n. 1776.