The Qualities of Confession Generally

Confession must be made: 1. to a priest as judge; 2. to a present priest; 3. secretly; and 4. vocally. Let it be made, I say:

I. To a priest as judge, so that, for example, confession, or rather a narration of sins, made to a priest as friend does not suffice. For the word "confession," which the Council of Trent uses, considering both its obvious sense and the very matter treated there,¹ signifies the exposition of sins made in sacramental judgment. Nevertheless, it suffices for validity if someone, after a friendly narration has been made, says: "I accuse myself of the sins just narrated."

Question. Whether an accusation of this kind also suffices for liceity.

Response 1. Affirmatively, if the confessor has retained a distinct memory of the sins narrated. The reason is that then the subsequent accusation, although in appearance indistinct, is in reality distinct (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 44).

Response 2. Otherwise it is disputed. Now with St. Alphonsus (VI, 502, doubt 1) it seems it must be said that this manner of acting does not suffice for liceity. For the Council of Trent declares that confession is required,² and that, in order that judgment be exercised prudently, it is required according to species and number.³ But in the hypothesis posited there is no confession according to species and number: the prior narration is not such, since it was not confession; nor is the general accusation that follows such, since it was not confession according to species and number. It is added that the confessor, before he gives sentence, must have had distinct judicial knowledge. But this is not had in our case: neither by force of the prior narration, since it was made before the confessor could exercise the office of judge in relation to this person; nor by force of the subsequent confession, since it was not distinct and therefore did not supply distinct judicial knowledge. Some indeed judge that judicial knowledge is present if the priest, as friend receiving the narration of sins, already suspected in some degree that he could lead the man, who then was thinking nothing of confession, to sacramental confession. But a suspicion, or even persuasion, of this kind does not suffice for the confessor to be constituted here and now as the judge of this man.

¹ Session 14, on Penance, chapters 3 and 5.

² Session 14, on Penance, chapter 3.

³ Session 14, on Penance, chapter 5.

II. To a present priest. For Clement VIII¹ condemned the proposition: "that it is licit, by letters or by an intermediary, to confess sins sacramentally to an absent confessor and to obtain absolution from the same while absent"; and at the same time he prohibited that "it ever be defended as probable in any case, printed, or in any way brought into practice." Moreover, from the fact that this opinion can never be brought into practice, not even in a case of necessity, it is deservedly deduced that confession of this kind is invalid; for no other reason can be assigned for that absolute prohibition. Nor should it be said that the particle "and" in the condemned proposition is to be taken in a copulative sense, not in a disjunctive one; since the Holy Office² declared: "The Most Holy One, namely Paul V, decreed that the said interpretation does not stand and therefore must be removed from his [Suarez's] books" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 428).

Nor from the fact that one dying, deprived of the senses, who before deprivation of the senses manifested a desire of confessing while the priest was absent, can afterward be absolved by a present priest, nor, I say, from that fact should you deduce that confession made to an absent priest in the article of death is valid. For one dying in this way can be absolved either because the testimony of the said desire, brought forward by a witness, is judged to be the confession of the dying person himself; or because the confession of the dying person, made while the priest was absent, morally perseveres when the priest is present, and as such is made here and now to the present priest; or because the dying person, with the priest present, perhaps expresses by some sign the desire of absolution. This suspicion suffices so that absolution may at least be granted conditionally (St. Alphonsus, VI, 481). From these things it is clear that our case is not comprehended by the condemnation of Clement VIII, namely because there is not, or at least probably there is not, confession made to an absent priest.

¹ July 20, 1602 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1088).

² July 14, 1605; likewise June 7, 1603 and January 24, 1632 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1089).

III. Secretly, that is, let confession be made to the priest alone, considering a usage which is not destitute of force.¹ Nevertheless, those who cannot confess otherwise are not prohibited, if they wish, from confessing through an interpreter, with abuses and scandals guarded against (canon 903). For the rest, confession through an interpreter can be made in such a way that the interpreter does not know the responses given by the penitent; for instance, if the confessor questions the penitent, the interpreter repeats the questions in the language of the penitent, and the penitent responds to them by signs perceived by the confessor alone.

¹ Cf. Council of Trent, session 14, on Penance, canon 6; response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 10, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 43); likewise Lateran Council, chapter Omnis utriusque sexus.

IV. Vocally. The precept of confessing vocally was introduced by custom beyond the law,¹ and therefore is judged to persist.² It is also more commonly taught that the precept obliges at least under grave obligation insofar as one who, without an excusing cause, does not make the whole confession vocally sins mortally. A moderate cause suffices so that it is licit to confess by nods, signs, or writing, for example if someone because of shame cannot express a sin by mouth, or because of an impediment of the tongue confesses with difficulty by mouth; if the confessor is somewhat deaf, so that confession made by mouth could be heard by others (St. Alphonsus, VI, 493). Indeed, a just cause seems to suffice so that someone, after handing over a written confession and after it has been read by the confessor, may add: "I accuse myself of the sins read by you." Nor in practice should those who confess in writing be disturbed, nor should the confessor inquire why they proceed in that way.

¹ "Unless," as in the Extravagant Inter cunctas, on privileges, "an article of necessity occurs, oral confession is to be made to a priest."

² Cf. response of the Sacred Congregation of the Council, January 10, 1920 (A.A.S. 1920, p. 43).

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

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

Vocal, sorrowful, pure, and prepared to obey.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

363. Some qualities of confession are necessary, while others are merely useful. St. Thomas¹⁷⁸ and other ancient theologians enumerated sixteen qualities of confession:

Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful,

And frequent, naked, discreet, willing, shamefaced,

Complete, secret, tearful, prompt,

Strong and accusing, and let it be prepared to obey.

Among all the qualities the most necessary is integrity, which will be treated specially below. A few things concerning the other qualities:

1. Confession should be simple and naked, and therefore free from all useless words and narratives.

The confessor should in no way permit the penitent during confession to relate certain things which do not pertain to confession. Nor should he himself make useless speeches or questions. St. Antoninus¹⁷⁹ rightly teaches: penitents who need consolation because of tribulations or counsel because of doubts should say such things after confession has been made and absolution given, and should not mingle them in confession, lest the force of contrition be diminished.

2. Confession should be humble (that is, both in words and in gestures) and prepared to obey.

During confession the penitent should kneel as a sign of humility, unless he is impeded by infirmity or in another way; he should be with head uncovered if he is a man; soldiers should put aside their arms during confession. The penitent should humbly receive the admonitions, and even the just rebukes, of the confessor, since he must obey the just commands of the confessor.

3. Pure, that is, undertaken with a right intention, namely, in order to receive sacramental grace.

Therefore one sins who, in confessing, seeks earthly ends, for example, the goodwill of the confessor, pleasant conversation, and so forth. A confessor perceiving that the penitent's intention is not so pure should admonish him, indeed in a paternal but also vigorous manner, concerning the dignity of confession and the need to have a pure intention.

4. Discreet and shamefaced, that is, the penitent should not disclose the sins of others, and especially should not reveal the name of his accomplice. Moreover, when speaking of sins against the sixth commandment, he should employ modest words, yet without thereby injuring objective truth.

5. Strong and accusing, that is, however much the penitent may be ashamed, he should nevertheless strongly accuse himself of his sins, saying to himself: If I was not ashamed to commit them, neither ought I to be ashamed to confess the sins committed.

¹⁷⁸ Suppl., q. 9, a. 4.

¹⁷⁹ S. theol. P. 3, c. 19, tit. 14, § 12.

364. 6. Faithful, that is, without any lie. Concerning a lie made in confession the following things are to be noted: if someone lies about a grave matter which must necessarily be declared, he commits grave sacrilege. But to lie about some matter which does not necessarily pertain to confession is a sin according to the quality of the matter.

Thus, for example, he sins gravely who in confession denies a circumstance changing the species of a grave sin, and likewise he who speaks a grave calumny concerning his neighbor; but he who denies some venial sin committed or a mortal sin already previously remitted, or lies about indifferent matters, sins venially, at least per se. Nevertheless, every lie made in confession, even one objectively light, introduces an aggravating circumstance, since it is great irreverence toward the sacrament to sin at the same time at which remission of sins is sought.¹⁸⁰ A penitent does not per se sin against fidelity if he confesses mortal sins to an unknown confessor and afterward tells venial sins to his ordinary confessor, provided that he never receives this second absolution before he has been duly absolved from the mortal sins. In practice, however, attention must be given to the motive for which this manner is chosen. If the penitent intends the deception of his ordinary confessor, his own glory, or something else inordinate, he certainly commits a more or less grave sin; but if he acts thus from the shame with which he would be suffused because he knows the confessor familiarly, he does not sin. Therefore the confessor should never inquire curiously concerning a confession made elsewhere, nor show that it displeases him if the penitent has confessed to another priest.

There are still several other ways in which fidelity is more or less injured, for example, if someone accuses a recent sin as an old one, or if the penitent makes a general confession in which he deliberately does not distinguish sins perpetrated since the last confession from those which were committed previously. Indeed, per se the circumstance of time does not gravely violate the fidelity of confession; per accidens, however, when, namely, the confessor's right judgment concerning the present state of the penitent is thereby impeded, it is a grave violation. That such a manner of acting is always blameworthy is evident of itself; but after Lugo certain authors, such as Gury, D'Annibale, Bucceroni, and especially Noldin-Schmitt,¹⁸¹ teach that the penitent neither sins gravely nor gravely injures the fidelity of confession, although he deliberately deceives the confessor by declaring that a sin which he actually committed recently and has not yet confessed was committed a long time ago. Everyone sees that by such a manner of acting the confessor is deceived so gravely that he can no longer judge rightly concerning the present state of the penitent. Therefore the reasons adduced for this opinion seem to be specious rather than solid, and it would be most dangerous if this opinion were reduced to practice. But the fidelity of confession is injured little and not gravely if the penitent disguises his voice or employs other means lest he be recognized by the confessor. When a legitimate cause exists and a right intention is had, however, such disguise is not sinful.

The penitent is also bound to respond faithfully and sincerely to a confessor legitimately questioning him; but he can decline illegitimate questions, for example, concerning his name, country, or place of residence, by refusing an answer or by employing a broad mental restriction.

¹⁸⁰ Cf. Concina, De poenit. l. 1, diss. 4, c. 3, n. 6.

¹⁸¹ De sacr.¹⁷ III, n. 283.

365. 7. Vocal, that is, expressed in words, but not by a nod, signs, or writings, unless a just cause is present.

Theologians commonly teach that he who without a just cause confesses in writing or by nods sins gravely, because he acts against the universal and most just custom of the Church. But he who physically or morally cannot confess vocally can confess in other ways whenever the precept of confession urges. The reason is that vocal accusation does not belong to the essence of confession. For Christ, in instituting confession, strictly requires nothing other than a sorrowful manifestation of sins. Therefore the confession of the mouth which is required by the Council of Florence is nothing other than any confession externally manifested. Theologians commonly teach that in a case of physical or moral impossibility of speech a man not only can but also must confess by writings or nods,¹⁸² because the inconvenience of writing sins is not customarily so great that it excuses from the grave divine precept of confession. Nor should anyone say: A man is not bound to write sins lest they fall from his memory. Therefore he is never bound to confess by writings. For the necessity of confession itself in itself is much greater than the necessity of its material integrity.¹⁸³ Thus, for example, a mute person is accustomed to confess by writings or signs; likewise, if the confessor is somewhat deaf, confession can be made by writings or signs, lest bystanders hear the accusation. Always, however, insofar as it is possible, the penitent should say vocally these or similar words: I accuse myself of the sins which I have manifested to you, and I ask for absolution,¹⁸⁴ as was already said above.

8. Secret. Although in ancient times public confession was in use, nevertheless today no one is obliged to confess sins if this cannot be done except publicly.

Hence, for example, no one ignorant of the language of the confessor is bound to confess through an interpreter. The Code of Canon Law, c. 903, establishes that one who wishes to confess through an interpreter is not to be prohibited; indeed, certain theologians, for example, Faustinus Scarpazza, O.P.,¹⁸⁵ teach that at the point of death a sinner must confess through an interpreter if this can easily be done. An interpreter employed in this case is bound to preserve secrecy concerning the sins heard. By employing some shrewdness, it can be obtained that the interpreter knows almost nothing of the confession heard. For if the confessor puts questions which the interpreter repeats in the language of the penitent, and to which the penitent responds not by voice but by signs which the confessor alone sees or perceives, but not the interpreter, sufficient integrity of confession can be had without the interpreter knowing the answers given by the penitent.

The principal quality of confession is its integrity. Three points concerning it must be explained individually: I. the necessity and extent of integrity; 2. excusing causes; 3. means for obtaining integrity.

¹⁸² St. Thomas, IV Sent., dist. 17, q. 3, a. 4, sol. 3 ad 2; St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 479. The contrary is taught by Gopfert, Moraltheol. III, n. 117; Noldin-Schmitt, De sacr.¹⁷, n. 279.

¹⁸³ Cf. Billuart, De poenit., diss. 7, a. 3, § 1.

¹⁸⁴ Already Gratian (c. 88, dist. 1 De poenit.; this canon is taken from the book De vera et falsa poenitentia, which is falsely ascribed to St. Augustine) indicates the reason why confession should be vocal, namely, as a sign of true penance: "The Lord commanded those to be cleansed that they show their mouths to the priests, teaching that sins are to be confessed by bodily presence, not manifested through a messenger, not through writing.... You who have sinned through yourselves, be ashamed through yourselves. For shame itself has a part in remission. Indeed, from mercy the Lord commanded this, that no one should repent in secret. For in this, that he tells it to the priest through himself and conquers shame through fear of Him offended, the pardon of the crime is effected. He has offered much satisfaction who, mastering shame, denied nothing of those things which he committed to the messenger of God." Concerning this matter, see the decrees of Clement VIII and Paul V above, n. 330.

¹⁸⁵ Theol. mor. IX, 89.

1687. There are four conditions of confession, namely: it must be VOCAL, SECRET, TRUE, and INTEGRAL.¹³ A few things must be said about the first three conditions; but more about the fourth.

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

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

1688. II. Confession must be SECRET, or auricular, that is, made to the priest alone; not indeed from necessity of the Sacrament, but from the use of the Church. - Public confession through an interpreter is indeed licit if it is done from a reasonable cause and abuse is guarded against; but it does not seem ever to oblige of itself, by force of divine or ecclesiastical precept; hence it must never be imposed.¹⁸ - Except if a sinner placed in the article of death and not able to confess secretly doubted whether he was perfectly contrite; in this case he would be bound, from charity owed to himself, to choose what is safer; but with universal attrition it would suffice to confess one or another less infamous sin, or even only venial fault.¹⁹

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

1689. III. Confession must be TRUE, or faithful, that is, stained by no hypocrisy or falsity, so that the penitent does not fall short in rightly declaring sins committed, nor exceed in exaggerating them or in adding fictitious faults. This sincerity is required absolutely in grave and necessary matter; otherwise in free matter, or matter not necessarily pertaining to the present judgment of the confessor.

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

2. It is of itself VENIAL falsely to accuse oneself of a light sin which was not committed, or to deny a venial sin which was committed; likewise, to deny a mortal sin which has already been accused; or to narrate a false story which is extraneous to confession. But accidentally such lies would be mortal sins and would render the Sacrament void, if the penitent denied things which he is bound to confess for the confessor's judgment to be rightly formed, for example with respect to an evil habit, proximate occasion, if he brought fictitious matter of absolution, etc.²⁰

3. There is no sin, nor is sincerity harmed, speaking of itself, "if someone, after having fallen more gravely, first confesses this to another, and then only venials to his ordinary confessor; unless, however, on that occasion he remains in a moral occasion of sinning, or goes around for this reason, that he may sin more freely; for then he will sin gravely, and on account of the defect of attrition, the confession will be null."²¹

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

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

1690. IV. Confession must be INTEGRAL, that is, it must comprehend all things which, from the will of Christ, are to be declared in sacramental confession (cf. n. 1656).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

517. Matter to be treated. - There are many qualities or endowments required or useful for confession; indeed, besides the fact that confession must be made by mouth, sixteen are enumerated by the theologians with St. Thomas (Suppl., q. 9, a. 4), expressed in these verses:

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

Of these only three require elucidation, namely those which are required by the proper nature of confession insofar as it is confession, namely from the fact that it is a manifestation. For manifestation can be impeded more or less by imperfect expression, by subtraction, and by falsity. To avert this, confession must be vocal, integral, and faithful.

St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 6, a. 4.

529. Principle. Confession must be faithful, i.e., true and sincere, in this sense, that it be made without falsity and lying, so that the penitent confesses sins according as they are in conscience, namely certain things as certain, doubtful as doubtful, mortal as mortal, etc., and in the declaration does not fall short, as in denying or lessening sins committed, nor exceed, in exaggerating them or adding fictitious faults. Concerning this, a threefold rule can be stated:

I. To lie in confession concerning a grave thing necessarily to be declared is, from its nature, a grave pernicious lie and grave sacrilege, namely, if it is done concerning matter necessary for the integrity of confession or concerning the dispositions required for absolution, because it is in a grave matter to pervert the sacramental judgment and to deceive the judge, and thus the confession would not be integral and therefore would be void and the absolution invalid; which also would be gravely pernicious to the penitent himself.

Thus of itself he sins gravely who in confession denies a circumstance changing the species of a grave sin, - who denies a mortal sin not yet confessed, or so covers it or says it in a reduced way that it can scarcely be understood by the confessor, - who confesses a certainly mortal sin as doubtful or vice versa, - who from malice accuses himself of a grave sin not committed, - who increases the number of mortal sins unless perhaps this is done from scruple, disturbance of mind, simplicity, or ignorance, for greater security, - who expressly or equivalently confesses a recently committed sin as an old sin already previously declared (otherwise, if by the accusation this is left in doubt), - who falsely denies a habit, relapse, or occasion about which the confessor asks, or studiously avoids this declaration lest it be sought by the confessor.

II. To lie concerning a slight thing or concerning free grave matter is of itself a venial sacrilege, because this does not pervert the judgment in a grave matter, nor make the sentence void, nor render the sacrament invalid, or impede its effect. Thus he sins lightly who falsely accuses himself of a light sin which was not committed, - or denies a venial sin which was committed, - or denies a mortal sin which has already been duly accused.

Yet accidentally it could be mortal a) if the penitent falsely accused himself of a venial sin, bringing no other matter, or b) if he denied things which he is bound to say for rightly forming the judgment of the confessor or for exercising the office of physician, e.g., with respect to habit, custom, occasion, restitution to be enjoined or satisfaction, a remedy against relapse, etc., in one word, if the confessor asked about those things or about free matter as belonging to the present grave matter (cf. condemned prop. 58, by Innocent XI).¹

¹ "We are not held to confess to the confessor asking the habit of some sin."

III. To lie concerning a thing which does not pertain to confession, e.g., concerning name, age, parents, domicile, etc., or by narrating a false story, although it is said in the sacred tribunal while confessing, is not for this reason sacrilege, because it in no way perverts the sacramental judgment.

Hence the sin remains as it was before, mortal or venial; - nevertheless to mix a light lie with confession, for another reason, is a venial irreverence toward the sacrament, namely, to sin at the same time at which remission of sins is sought; but a grave lie is mortal sacrilege because it renders one indisposed for absolution.

530. Practical corollaries. - From the foregoing it is understood:

1. That he does not of himself lie nor sin, at least gravely, who does not declare a recently committed mortal sin negatively as recent, but does not distinguish new mortal sins from old remitted ones and mixes them, yet in such a way that he does not positively affirm but leaves in doubt that they have been previously remitted; e.g., one who in a general confession does not distinguish mortal sins committed since the last confession, even if he does this purposely in order to hide the time at which they were committed. For it is not a lie but an equivocal speech.

Yet accidentally the circumstance of time would have to be declared if it were necessary for removing a proximate occasion, or because of a reserved case, or if otherwise the species of sin would not be understood and thus the confessor could not render a just judgment or impose a congruent penance, e.g., he could not know whether a base sin was committed before or after marriage, before or after a vow of chastity. Hence the confessor can ask about this and then the penitent is bound to answer.

2. On the contrary, that he of himself lies and sins gravely who positively confesses a mortal sin not yet accused, committed after the last confession, as not recent, but as an old one already previously declared, whether by saying explicitly: "I accuse myself of such a sin which I already declared before," or "which I committed last year," or equivalently by using this formula: "then I accuse myself of the sins of my whole life or of my past life, especially of this..." For it is positively to deceive the confessor in a grave matter, namely, in necessary matter of confession, concerning a thing necessary to be known.

Consequently this is grave not only if other recent mortal sins were not declared and therefore the penitent was falsely thought to be in the state of grace, or if otherwise he would escape a fitting penance, or it would be unknown that he is in a proximate occasion, but of itself and generally: both because each mortal sin is a distinct and separate cause to be subjected to the keys (n. 522), and because a lie in such a case is of itself going gravely to pervert the judgment of the confessor, in the same way as adding to committed mortal sins one not committed is a grave sin. And although the circumstance of time is not of itself to be declared, nevertheless it cannot be positively excluded with falsity in an accusation to be made by precept; because the sinner, by positively excluding it, by that very fact denies that he has sinned recently, which is false, and thus accuses a sin which he did not commit before and denies the sin which he now committed.

3. That he does not of himself sin, at least gravely, who feigns that he is making a general confession and nevertheless voluntarily omits some mortal sin previously confessed; indeed, he does not sin at all if there is a just cause of withholding it.

Unless, however, that mortal sin because of some reason had to be necessarily set forth: for then he would sin gravely.

4. That he does not of himself sin who accuses venial sins to one confessor, namely the ordinary one, but mortal sins to another, extraordinary one; not indeed if he obtains absolution from venial sins before he is absolved from mortal sins (for then he sacrilegiously receives the former absolution without the due dispositions), but if first he is absolved from mortal sins, afterward from venial sins,2 provided this is done from an honorable motive, e.g., for the sake of shame, or lest perhaps he be exposed to the danger of withholding a mortal sin; but if he intends the deception of the ordinary confessor, his own glory, or something else inordinate, it is a light sin.

Yet accidentally it is gravely sinful if a grave danger is present from this, because the state of the penitent is unknown to the ordinary confessor, e.g., if the penitent acted in this way in order to sin more freely, or thus remained in a proximate occasion, or if a young person did this so that he could be admitted to religious profession or the clerical state, while otherwise because of a habit of sinning perhaps he would be kept away.

5. That he does not of himself sin gravely who simulates voice or sex or uses other means so that he may not be recognized by the confessor, provided he opens all his mortal sins; for it is not necessary that the penitent be known by name. Indeed, if there is a legitimate cause and a right intention is had, a dissimulation of this sort is not sinful.

Yet accidentally it would be a grave sin if it were done purposely by one habitual in sin or relapsed, for deceiving the confessor and more easily extorting absolution, or if in this way the species of sin were no longer understood, as if a woman simulating the male sex were to confess that an abortion had been procured, which she procured in herself.

1. Indeed according to some he could not only keep this silent from the ordinary confessor, but even say: I have not approached for fifteen days, understanding underneath: to you; but this does not seem to be admitted unless there is a sufficiently grave reason for acting thus.

531. Remarks. - 1. The aforesaid concealments of themselves and generally are not to be approved, but rather reproved, because they harm perfect sincerity.

2. The penitent is bound to answer sincerely a confessor who asks, whenever the latter asks legitimately, e.g., about habit, time, relapse, proximate occasion, in one word about those things without which a prudent judgment cannot be rendered.

3. But if the question is manifestly indiscreet, as easily happens if it concerns name, native land, place of dwelling, whether he has confessed elsewhere, etc., the penitent is not bound to answer, since these things do not regard sacramental confession; indeed, if there is a just cause, he can use restriction in his answers.

I. The conditions of sacramental Confession are comprehended in these words:

Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful, And frequent, naked, discreet, willing, modest; Whole and secret, tearful, and hastened; Strong, accusing, and ready to obey.

II. 1. The condition simple signifies that sins be set forth in a simple discourse, episodes being left aside. Women frequently, in order to set forth their own sins, defame the whole household. This defect is to be guarded against. 2. The condition humble in gesture, in a modest habit, without a sword, without the luxury which women are wont to carry even to the tribunal itself; therefore they are to be rejected. 3. Pure on account of the right end of justification. 4. Faithful, without paint and lying. 5. Frequent, according to the counsel of a prudent minister. 6. Naked, without equivocations and excuse. 7. Discreet, in honourable and express words. 8. Willing, or spontaneous and free. 9. Modest, with modesty and shame. 10. Whole, by explaining the number, the species, and the circumstances. 11. Secret, for the avoiding of scandal and infamy, and so forth. 12. Tearful, that is, with true grief of heart. 13. Strong in the purpose of abstaining from sins. 14. Accusing, not excusing sins. 15. Hastened, without excessive delay after the sin is perpetrated. 16. Ready to obey the confessor directing, teaching, and healing.

III. QUESTION I. Ought Confession to be formally whole? ANSWER. All affirm it against Luther; and the truth is of faith, defined in the Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 5. It ought to be of all — that is, the confession must be of all the mortal sins which a man recollects after a diligent examination of conscience.

IV. QUESTION II. What diligence is to be employed in the examination of conscience? ANSWER. Two extremes are to be guarded against in this most grave business. Excessive diligence, which brings anguish and torture to the mind and disturbs the soul, is to be avoided. For confession is not a butchery of souls, as the Calvinists blurt out, but an emptying of wounds and a remedy for future ones. The other extreme of negligence is also to be avoided. Let us seriously and maturely recall the sins committed. A few admonitions I shall add.

V. 1. Prayers are to be poured out to God, by which divine help may be implored for the routing of the mind's darkness. Let acts of faith be elicited, by which it is firmly believed that sins are remitted by this sacrament. Let hope of obtaining pardon be excited. Let charity toward the God offended be kindled, and grief from the whole heart. Contrition is the antidote of sin. If you wish to vomit forth all crimes, at the beginning of the examination kindle a fervent contrition.

VI. 2. Each man ought to regard his own state and condition, and to weigh what he has sinned against this state. 3. Let sins of the flesh be set forth more severely than they are examined. Adulteries, thefts, fornications, drunkennesses lay themselves open of themselves. But the sins of pride, of envy, of grudge, of ambition, of avarice, and that most crafty love of shining in this theatre of the world, and the rest of that kind, advance so painted and splendid that they hide their whole malice from our eyes, unless they be more inwardly inspected. 4. Each man has his own reigning and dominant passion, which advances hedged about with other sins: let this be brought under examination more severely.

VII. QUESTION III. What is to be said of the rule of examination which Fr. Viva proposes? ANSWER. Fr. Viva, question 5, article 1, no. 5, inquires when a confession is to be reputed invalid on account of a defect of examination. And he answers: “If a man, examining his conscience more diligently, finds that there are more sins which he had forgotten than those which he confessed, he can persuade himself that he did not send before the due examination.”

VIII. If therefore he has found that he had forgotten a third or a fourth part of his sins, he can then persuade himself that he did send before the due examination. False therefore and vain is the aforesaid rule. The quantity of time to be spent in the examination of conscience cannot be prescribed. The more a conscience is wounded with graver outrages, the more diligently is it to be inspected.

IX. A most grave admonition concerning the examining of sins of injustice, and of delay in paying debts and the wages of workmen and craftsmen. All these things are most severely to be discussed: the masks of preserving one's estate, of clothing a wife, and so forth, being torn away. See more, Vol. IX, Book 1, dissertation 4, chapter 4.

X. QUESTION IV. Is the number of sins to be expressed? ANSWER. All affirm it. And when a certain number is not established, let the more likely be expressed. Confession is not, as I have said, a torture of consciences. Let the chief study be directed to this, that the heart be softened with a vehement contrition, and then crimes come out of themselves, as poison is vomited forth when an efficacious antidote has been drunk. Let the penitent sincerely set forth the state of his conscience, and the number of sins which occur to his mind after a serious examination. The rule of Trent, session 14, chapter 5, is excellent: The remaining sins which do not occur to one diligently thinking are understood to be included as a whole in the same confession, for which we faithfully say with the Prophet: From my secret sins cleanse me, O Lord. If the contrition be true, never will the examination be defective. Most frequently negligence occurs in the examination, because the contrition is feigned, conceived from certain temporal things, or even from eternal punishments, and void of any charity.

XI. QUESTION V. He who has sinned by a long habit, is it enough for him to set forth the time of his vicious state without explaining the number of sins? ANSWER. A penitent ought to represent his own state in the best manner he can. Let him set forth the frequency of sinning, if he cannot the number — suppose so many times in a day, in a week, in a month — and the time in which he tarried in the vice. If she be a harlot, let her declare the diverse species and the time of her harlotry. He who has had a concubine at home as a wife, let him say the time of the concubinage and the number of fornications, if he can. He who unknowingly increased the number of sins, if afterwards he detect that he did not so often sin, is not bound to manifest this decrease, unless some circumstance demand it. He who by one act detracted from several persons, since he perpetrated several sins, is bound so to express them. He who detracted from a community ought to manifest the community.

XII. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion denying the duty of confessing the effects of sin? ANSWER. In sin there is considered the will of sinning, or the internal act, the exterior action, and the consequent effect. The will of burning a house is completed by the application of fire; the will of killing by a mortal wound: the death and the burning of the house are effects of the sin. Fr. La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 944, says: “It seems MORE PROBABLE that there is no obligation, speaking of itself, of confessing the effect. So Vásquez, Salas, Granado, de Lugo, Bonacina, and so forth. And consequently such a man will satisfy by saying: I threw away the Breviary, foreseeing that for so long a time I would not be able to pray; I held out poison to my neighbour, intending his death — keeping silence whether he prayed the hours or not, and whether the death followed or not.”

XIII. This opinion seems to me false: and the reasons which are adduced by Fr. La Croix and the others cited by him are vain. For although the death and the burning of the house be not in themselves sins, they are nevertheless effects of the sin; and the knowledge of these effects varies the state of the cause. La Croix subjoins in the same place: By accident such effects that followed ought often to be added; nay, he says, penitents commonly add such effects that followed, in which they are not to be hindered, but rather sweetly helped. This alone was wanting, that they should also be hindered. Tell me: why do penitents commonly confess effects of this kind? Because they follow the inmost sense of nature, that light signed upon their foreheads, and are ignorant of these new speculations of certain casuists.