The Reception of the Sacrament of Penance

218. Definition. Penance, as it is a sacrament, is defined: the sacrament by which sins committed after baptism are remitted to a contrite and confessed man through priestly absolution.

The specific difference of this sacrament from the other sacraments is set forth by the words by which the matter is signified, namely contrition and confession; the form, namely priestly absolution; and the effect, which is the remission of sins committed after baptism.

219. Nature of the sacrament of penance. To declare the nature of this sacrament, insofar as it is needed in moral theology, these things must be repeated from dogmatic institutions.¹

1. Christ gave to the apostles and to their successors in the priesthood the true power of remitting and retaining sins committed after baptism.

a. That this power was conferred on the apostles is clear from the words of Christ: Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.²

b. That this power was handed on not only to the apostles but also to their successors in the priesthood is deduced especially from its end: for since the need of obtaining remission of sins exists perpetually in the Church, the power of remitting sins also ought to endure perpetually in the Church.

2. The power of remitting and retaining sins is a judicial power, which is exercised by way of judgment.

a. Three things are required for a judicial act or sentence: alpha. that knowledge of the cause precede it as a necessary condition; beta. that the judge, endowed with due authority, pronounce the law or sentence; gamma. that he pronounce sentence not according to whim, but according to the merits or demerits of the man whose cause is being treated.

b. Now that the power of remitting and retaining sins is not merely gracious, as is the power of baptizing, but judicial, is gathered both from the natural force of the words signifying the power of the keys and especially from the power of retaining sins joined with the power of remitting them.

3. The exercise of the power of remitting and retaining sins is the sacrament of penance, instituted by Christ in the very handing over of this power. Certainly all things are present in it which constitute a true sacrament: a. a sensible sign: namely Christ willed that by absolution pronounced by voice sins be remitted to men; b. efficacious of grace, since sins are remitted through the infusion of grace; c. stably instituted by Christ, namely as long as sinners exist who need the remission of sins.

In this this sacrament differs especially from other sacraments (except, however, matrimony, which also consists in a juridic act, namely in mutual consent): that it does not consist, like the others, in a certain consecration, but in a sacramental judgment; and that it does not remit sins by way of gift and benefit, but through a judicial act.

¹ Cf. Palmieri, De poenitentia, p. 45. Chr. Pesch, Praelect. dogm., VII, n. 58 ff. Hurter, Compend. theol. dogm., III, n. 436 ff.

² John 20:22, 23.

220. On the necessity of the sacrament of penance. 1. This sacrament, received in reality if it can be done, or, if it cannot be had, at least in desire, is necessary by necessity of means for salvation for all who after baptism have fallen into mortal sin: for the remission of mortal sin committed after baptism is simply necessary for salvation; but the means instituted by Christ for obtaining it is the sacrament of penance, received in reality if it can be done; but if it cannot be done, at least the desire of it is required.¹ Wherefore the Council of Trent says: This sacrament of penance is necessary for salvation to those fallen after baptism, as baptism itself is to those not yet regenerated.²

a. Although contrition perfected by charity reconciles a man to God before reception of the sacrament, nevertheless the reconciliation itself is not produced by contrition without the desire of the sacrament, which is included in it;³ for in the New Testament there is no remission of (mortal) sins independently of the power of the keys. Therefore the necessity of this sacrament is, like that of baptism, a hypothetical necessity of means.⁴

b. By desire of the sacrament is understood a serious will or purpose of confessing. This purpose does not necessarily have to be explicit, but an implicit one suffices, such as is contained in the act of perfect contrition: for he who truly loves God has the will of observing all things which from the will and institution of God are necessary for salvation. Nor must it be a purpose of confessing as soon as possible, but in due time, namely when either because of danger of death or because of the ecclesiastical precept the obligation of confessing presses.

2. This sacrament received in reality is necessary for all fallen after baptism by necessity of precept, both divine and ecclesiastical.

a. The divine precept: for for adults, from the institution and will of God, the sacrament of penance is a means necessary for obtaining remission of sins and eternal salvation.⁵

b. The ecclesiastical precept concerning the use of the sacrament of penance to be made every year by individual Christians was enacted in the Fourth Lateran Council, and again in the Council of Trent, and finally in the Code of Canon Law.⁶

¹ Cf. Pesch, VII, n. 353 ff.

² Sess. 14, c. 2.

³ Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3.

⁴ Cf. De Praeceptis, n. 7.

⁵ "If anyone shall deny that sacramental confession either was instituted or is necessary for salvation by divine law..." anathema sit. Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 6.

⁶ Fourth Lateran Council, c. Omnis utriusque. Council of Trent, sess. 14, can. 8. Cn. 906. Cf. De praeceptis, n. 692 ff.

221. When the divine precept obliges. The divine precept of receiving the sacrament of penance or of confessing presses both of itself and by accident.

1. And of itself indeed it presses in danger of death: for positive precepts oblige at least at that time when they are necessary; otherwise they would be imposed in vain. But, with mortal sin supposed, confession in death is plainly necessary; therefore a sinner who is found in certain or probable danger of death is bound by divine law to confess, if he can.

According to the opinion of many authors it presses also several times in life, although it cannot be determined how often and when it presses. Yet this obligation from divine precept cannot be demonstrated with certitude. But from the argument of this opinion, namely that it is not licit for a sinful man to remain long in the state of sin, but that he is bound by divine law to reconcile himself with God, it does not follow that this must be done through sacramental confession: for it can be done through perfect contrition with the desire of confession to be made in due time.

2. By accident, however, it obliges: alpha. when the sacrament of the Eucharist must be received; beta. when the state of grace is required, e.g., if a sacrament of the living must be confected or received and an act of perfect contrition cannot be elicited; gamma. if at any time so grave a temptation presses that it cannot be overcome by other means.

222. On the parts of this sacrament. The parts of the sacrament of penance can be assigned in diverse ways: on the part of the whole sacrament the parts of penance are two, as in all the other sacraments, namely matter (contrition, confession, and satisfaction) and form (absolution); the parts of penance on the part of the penitent alone are contrition, confession, and satisfaction, and on the part of the priest alone, absolution. The question disputed among theologians, which parts of penance are essential, must at least be touched in passing.

1. With all agreeing, absolution is the essential and principal part of the sacrament of penance; and in like manner all agree that satisfaction actually imposed and fulfilled is only an integral part of this sacrament: for the primary effect of the sacrament of penance, namely the remission of sin, is produced even if satisfaction is not imposed or, once imposed, is not actually completed.

If satisfaction is called an essential part of the sacrament of penance, this can be understood in the confessor only of the power which can and must impose satisfaction, and in the penitent only of the will of accepting and fulfilling satisfaction, which will is always virtually contained in contrition.

2. Whether contrition and confession, or sorrowful confession, is an essential part of the sacrament is disputed. And the Thomists indeed, to whom also some Scotists had acceded, commonly teach with the more recent authors that the acts of the penitent, or sorrowful confession, are an essential part of the sacrament, so that together with absolution they signify and cause the remission of sins and justifying grace. But several Scotists with a few more recent authors affirm¹ that priestly absolution alone is the properly essential part of the sacrament, since it alone signifies and causes remission of sins and sanctifying grace; but that sorrowful confession or the acts of the penitent are necessarily required by way of disposition and condition without which not.

3. Therefore to the question in what the essence of the sacrament of penance consists, the Thomists answer: in the sorrowful confession of sins and in sacramental absolution together; but the Scotists answer: in sacramental absolution alone, with contrition and confession supposed as a necessarily prerequired condition. What is true in this question cannot be defined with certainty; each opinion is probable, neither is certain.

¹ Among recent authors the Scotistic opinion is not displeasing to D'Annibale (III, n. 181, 2), Ballerini-Palmieri (V, n. 3 ff.), Berardi (Prax. confess., IV, n. 2).

223. Effects of the sacrament of penance. 1. Remission of sins through the infusion of sanctifying grace, by which sins are so remitted that afterward they no longer revive because of a subsequent sin.

2. Condonation of eternal punishment: for when mortal guilt has been destroyed, eternal punishment is also remitted, which is commuted into temporal punishment. Certainly grace, which is infused through the sacrament, grants a right to eternal glory, which cannot stand at the same time with liability to eternal punishment.

3. Condonation of temporal punishment: according to the disposition of the penitent God also remits temporal punishment according to a greater or lesser measure. Therefore, although it can happen that even the whole temporal punishment due for mortal sins remitted is destroyed, nevertheless this does not occur, as the Council of Trent says, without great weepings and labors of ours.¹

4. Revival of merits: for meritorious works mortified by sin revive again through penance, insofar as, the impediment of mortal sin having been removed, they are again worthy of the reward of eternal life.

a. From the divine promise, sins are so destroyed through penance that after conversion they do not harm the wicked man;² but they would harm very greatly if merits did not revive. Moreover, unless merits revived, God would have to be said to punish eternal punishment, already remitted, again; for punishment would then exist in the privation of merits, since by the privation of a greater degree of glory proportionate to them it would endure forever; but this cannot be admitted, both because in revelation no mention occurs of a punishment of this kind, and because the state of punishment cannot be composed with the state of most perfect friendship, such as is in the blessed.

b. Therefore, of moral works which are performed by man, five kinds can be distinguished: alpha. meritorious works or living works, which are worthy of the reward of eternal life; beta. mortified works, which render a man worthy of eternal death; gamma. dead works, which in themselves are good, but because they are done by a man in the state of mortal sin, are worthy neither of reward nor of punishment; delta. mortified works, which before were living works indeed, but with sin supervening cannot be worthy of eternal life; epsilon. revived works, which before, having been mortified, once mortal sin has been removed, again become living and worthy of eternal reward.

5. Sacramental grace or a right to the helps of grace. And since the end of this sacrament is that sins be destroyed, these helps tend to this, that man may be able to satisfy for past sins and guard against future sins.

¹ Sess. 14, c. 2.

² Ezech. 18:21 ff.

Since the acts of the penitent, placed in order to the reception of the sacrament of Penance, constitute its proximate matter, those things which regard the reception of the sacrament are already comprehended in what has been set forth above. Hence it suffices, by way of very brief repetition, to note these things:

I. In order that someone be capable of receiving the sacrament of Penance, it is required that he be baptized and have sinned after baptism. If he has not sinned after baptism, the matter concerning which the sacrament is engaged is lacking.

II. In order that someone validly receive the sacrament of Penance, besides intention it is required that he be contrite and subject his sins to the keys. For contrition and confession constitute the proximate matter of the sacrament.

III. In order that someone receive the sacrament fruitfully, contrition is required which is estimatively supreme and universal; whether such contrition is required for validity is disputed (n. 299).

IV. In order that someone licitly receive the sacrament of Penance, it is required that, if he is excommunicated or personally interdicted, he first be absolved from the censure (cf. the treatise on ecclesiastical penalties). One who receives the sacrament illicitly, because of defect of contrition, also receives it invalidly, unless he proceeds in good faith.

Three are numbered, namely: 1. contrition; 2. confession; 3. satisfaction.

157. Tridentine doctrine. Against the Protestants, who commonly denied that Penance is a sacrament distinct from baptism, Trent declared two things: (a) that Penance is a sacrament instituted by Christ; (b) and indeed truly distinct from baptism: -

¹ St. Thomas, 3, q. 84, a. 1; Suarez, disp. XVII, sect. I; Bellarmine, l. I, ch. 9; Drouin, q. II, § 3; Billuart, diss. I, art. 1; Billot, th. 2; L. de San, n. 289-300.

"But the Lord then especially instituted the sacrament of Penance when, having been raised from the dead, He breathed upon His Disciples, saying: 'Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.' By so signal a deed and by words so clear, the consensus of all the Fathers has always understood that the power of remitting sins, for reconciling the faithful who have fallen after Baptism, was communicated to the Apostles and their legitimate successors; and the Catholic Church, with great reason, once rejected and condemned as heretics the Novatians, who obstinately denied the power of remitting. Wherefore this holy Synod, approving and receiving this most true sense of those words of the Lord, condemns the fictitious interpretations of those who falsely twist those words, against the institution of this sacrament, to the power of preaching the word of God and announcing the Gospel of Christ.

"Besides, this sacrament is recognized to differ from Baptism in many ways; for besides the fact that the matter and form, by which the essence of a sacrament is completed, are most widely different, it is certain that the minister of Baptism need not be a judge, since the Church exercises judgment over no one who has not first entered into her through the gate of Baptism. 'For what have I to do,' says the Apostle, 'with judging those who are outside?' The case is otherwise with the household of faith, whom Christ the Lord by the laver of Baptism once made members of His body; for these, if afterward they have contaminated themselves with some crime, He willed not that they be washed by Baptism repeated, since that is in no way lawful in the Catholic Church, but that they be placed as guilty persons before this tribunal; so that by the sentence of priests, not once, but as often as they flee to Him penitent from the sins committed, they may be able to be freed.

"Moreover, one is the fruit of Baptism, and another the fruit of Penance: for by Baptism, putting on Christ, we are made an entirely new creature in Him, obtaining the full and complete remission of all sins; but to this newness and integrity we can by no means arrive through the sacrament of Penance without our great weepings and labors, divine justice requiring this: so that Penance has deservedly been called by the holy Fathers a certain laborious Baptism. But this sacrament of Penance is necessary unto salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, as Baptism itself is for those not yet regenerated."¹

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 1-2.

We shall defend both assertions in one and the same thesis.

158. Thesis: The rite by which the power of forgiving sins is exercised is a true sacrament of the New Law, distinct from Baptism. It is of faith from Trent:² "If anyone shall say that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling to God Himself the faithful as often as they fall into sins after Baptism, let him be anathema." - "If anyone, confounding the sacraments, shall say that Baptism itself is the sacrament of Penance, as if these two sacraments were not distinct... let him be anathema." - The thesis is briefly proved, because, in the manner of a corollary, it is inferred from the things said concerning the power of the keys.

² Sess. XIV, can. 1-2.

159. 1° Scripture. For a sacrament of the New Law three things are required and suffice, as was proved in the Treatise on the Sacraments: a sensible sign, productive of grace, permanently instituted by Christ. But these three things are to be found in the rite by which sins are remitted: (A) a sensible sign; for, from the things said, sins are remitted by a judicial act, which imports at least two things, namely the sensible manifestation of sins and the external sentence of the judge absolving the penitent. Besides, a sign of this kind is distinguished from the rite of baptism; for Baptism is conferred by washing, while Penance is under the form of judgment; in Penance sins can be retained judicially, not so in Baptism.

(B) Productive of grace; for grave sins, from the things said, are truly remitted through this rite; but they cannot be blotted out without the infusion of sanctifying grace; for, from the things proved in the Treatise on Grace (n. 132), justification essentially consists in the conferral of habitual grace; therefore a rite of this kind is productive of grace. - But this grace differs from the grace of baptism, since it is properly remissive of sin and can be granted many times, while the grace conferred in Baptism is regenerative, and is conferred only once.

(C) Permanently instituted by Christ; for we have demonstrated that this power was conferred upon the Apostles by Christ Himself risen again, when He said: "Receive the Holy Spirit." But that the same power is perpetual in the Church is clear: (a) from the general principle, conceded by the Protestants themselves, that all prerogatives which are necessary not only for founding the Church, but also for preserving her, were conferred upon the Apostles not for themselves alone, but also for their successors; but the power of remitting sins is no less necessary today than in the time of Christ, since men easily fall into sin; therefore such power was permanently granted. This St. Pacian had already noticed, and from it he thus argued against the Novatians:¹ if the power of remitting sins was not transmitted to the successors of the apostles, why do you say that the power of baptizing was granted in perpetuity? (b) From history, which clearly shows that this faculty was perpetually claimed and exercised by the Church, as the testimonies already adduced prove.

¹ Ep. I to Sempron., n. 6; P. L., t. XIII, p. 1057.

160. 2° By Tradition. From the Fathers, who often compare Penance with Baptism, and assert that in both sins are remitted and grace conferred, although in a different way. We already reported above the words of St. Ambrose, n. 52. Likewise St. Jerome² asserts that sins are remitted "by the blood of the Savior either in the gift of Baptism or in Penance, which imitates the grace of Baptism through the ineffable clemency of the Savior." Nor otherwise St. Augustine:¹ "If it was done by a catechumen (homicide), it is washed away by Baptism; if by one baptized, it is healed by Penance and reconciliation." From these and other testimonies which could be cited, it follows that Penance, no less than Baptism, is a true sacrament, since in both sins are blotted out and grace is infused. - Moreover, from the whole description of penitential discipline it is clear that there is the greatest difference between baptism and penance: for the latter was much more laborious than the preparation for baptism.

² Dialog. I against the Pelagians, n. 33; P. L., t. XXIII, p. 527.

¹ De conjug. adult., bk. II, ch. 16; P. L., t. XL, p. 482.

161. 3° Reason of fittingness.² Indeed it befitted divine mercy to institute a remedy not only against original sin, but also against actual sins committed after Baptism; for man, even regenerated, remains subject to many temptations and easily falls. But surely the best remedy is a sacrament, by force of which we can be more certain concerning sins pardoned, through the judicial sentence passed by the minister of God, and thus be rendered more peaceful: for if each one had to judge concerning his own penance, a broad way would lie open to doubts and anxieties. By force of it also the blood of Christ, flowing down to us, cleanses us from our iniquities, and renders us more ready to offer fuller satisfaction for sins, and also to employ the means by which new offenses can be guarded against in the future; therefore the institution of this sacrament was fitting.

² Cf. Roman Catechism, on Penance, n. 14.

221. After what has been said concerning the qualities of contrition, it can briefly be weighed whether the sacrament of Penance can be valid as a sacrament and at the same time formless, i.e., not producing grace, on account of some obstacle; and consequently whether, when the obstacle has been removed, the grace of the sacrament revives. On this matter there is controversy among theologians.

(A) Some¹ say that there is one single case in which this can occur, and they explain their opinion thus: if someone has committed two mortal sins, for example one of theft, the other of blasphemy, and afterward, forgetful of the blasphemy, accuses only the theft and grieves over it on account of the special turpitude of this sin, the sacrament is truly confected, since there are found there all the elements necessary for its validity (on the part of the penitent, a formally integral confession, contrition, and the will of making satisfaction, and on the part of the priest, absolution duly pronounced); nevertheless it does not produce its effect, because the sin of blasphemy is not retracted, and consequently is not remitted. Hence, if afterward the obstacle is removed through detestation of the blasphemy, nothing prevents the grace of the sacrament from reviving. - Some theologians,² however, hold that in this case the sacrament is not formless, but immediately produces its effect, because, while the sinner grieves over the theft, he grieves so that he may recover divine friendship and avoid eternal damnation, and therefore his sorrow implicitly extends itself also to the sin omitted through forgetfulness. And this opinion is truly probable, because it happens most rarely that a penitent so considers the special motive of attrition that he does not ascend to another more general one.

¹ Suarez, disp. XX, sect. 5; Lugo, disp. XIV, sect. 6, n. 65 sq.; Salmantic., cap. 5 n. 1-21; St. Alphonsus, n. 444.

² D'Annibale, p. III, note 19 to n. 312; Genicot, n. 275; Billot, th. 16, § I.

222. (B) But others¹ admit that the sacrament of Penance can be valid and formless whenever the penitent has attrition which is indeed true and sincere, but not appreciatively highest. According to them, namely, there are sinners who are so attrite that they grieve over all past sins, but not in an appreciatively highest degree, and yet are not conscious of such a defect; now that act of attrition, as being sincere and elicited in good faith, indeed suffices as an integral part of the sacrament, although it does not suffice as a disposition for obtaining absolution from sin: therefore the sacrament is indeed valid, since in it all essentials are found, but formless, because, on account of the defect of full disposition, grace is not produced; but when the obstacle has been removed through appreciatively highest attrition, then grace will be produced through the reviviscence of the sacrament. - That opinion does not lack probability, both because of the authority of the theologians who defend it, and because it rests upon the general principle that the sacraments confer grace, whether immediately or when the obstacle recedes, on all those who do not place a voluntary obstacle; nevertheless it does not pass beyond the limits of probability, because it remains uncertain whether that attrition, sincere but not appreciatively highest, suffices as an integral part of the sacramental sign.

¹ Cajetan, Opusc. de confessione, q. 5; Billot, th. 16, § I, with other authors cited in the same place. Some understand in this sense what St. Thomas writes, Supplement, q. 9, a. 1.

223. Besides, this controversy does not contribute much to practice, unless you say with Billot that in this way there is better understood the commonly received custom of absolving penitents as often as they sincerely confess their sins with the purpose of not sinning hereafter, without its being morally certain that their attrition is appreciatively highest; for, granted that absolution in this case is valid, sacramental grace, if it is not received here and now, will afterward be received as soon as the penitents have become better disposed.

— 1. The suitable or capable subject of the sacrament of Penance is every baptized wayfaring man who has sinned after Baptism. He licitly seeks in this sacrament absolution from venial sins, and from mortal sins even already directly remitted by the power of the keys; but he must subject to the sacramental keys mortal sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly remitted through the keys of the Church.

2. As to the time of executing this obligation, it is urgent both in danger of death, in which case he would sin gravely who voluntarily exposes himself to grave danger of dying before confession has been completely made and absolution received; and, from the law of the Church, at least once in the year, for all who have come to the years of discretion.

3. From c. 901, which for the general obligation requires mortal sins committed after Baptism, compared with c. 906, which defines the time of fulfilling that obligation, it is now established, concerning what used to come into controversy, that only those are bound by the precept of annual confession who have committed mortal sins.

4. The year can be computed either as civil or from Easter to Easter, as was said concerning the precept of annual Communion, n. 403. Yet per accidens he will have to confess again who, having already confessed before the Paschal time, has committed some new mortal sin from which he is to be absolved so that he may be able to satisfy the precept of Paschal Communion.

5. Per accidens also he will be bound to make confession to whom use of the sacrament is a necessary means of avoiding grave sins. But the necessity itself either will not be demonstrated or will not be apprehended by the faithful person, so that the constant use of this remedy cannot prudently be declared by the confessor to be strictly necessary. Most opportunely, however, the confessor will exhort the sinful penitent to frequent confession. And that a custom may be generated, it will be best that, according to the gravity of the faults, as sacramental penance, he enjoin a new use of the sacrament, for example after a month, and that once or twice or three times, according to the good will of the penitent.

6. Finally, by c. 907 we are taught that the precept of confession is not satisfied by him "who makes a sacrilegious or voluntarily null confession."

A voluntarily null confession will for the most part at the same time be sacrilegious. Yet a case can be imagined of a man who, unjustly compelled to approach a definite priest, then does not wish seriously to receive the sacrament. The fault of the frustrated sacrament seems in that case to have to be imputed to the unjust compeller.

— Must mortal sins committed before Baptism be subjected to the keys of the Church by one whose Baptism is repeated under condition?

The matter is not free from controversy. Most say that these sins are necessary matter of confession. For, so they say, the conditional repetition of Baptism, which is permitted for the sake of security, does not prevent that common rule, "In doubt one must stand for the value of the act," from holding for participating in the obligations of Christian society. Wherefore he who probably is a citizen of the society is bound by all its obligations (cf. D'Ann., III, 252 [13]; Lehmk., II, 424). They confirm the response, both from the declaration of the Holy Office made in the case of Charles Wippermann, in Germany, June 14, 1715, and from the response of the Holy Office of December 17, 1868 (A. S. S., IV, 320), by which the neoconverts of England were commanded to confess integrally.

Wherefore Lehmk., II, 424, judges that the more benign opinion of Lacroix, l. 6, p. 1, n. 324, and of others, who contend that after doubtful Baptism there remains only a doubtful and therefore practically null obligation of accusing sins committed before the repeated Baptism, must now be altogether abandoned. Yet in his learned investigation, Ill. D. Mannaioli⁽¹⁾ confesses that the controversy has not yet been authentically removed, not even by way of discipline. He himself also thinks the arguments of Reuter and Lehmkuhl weak: for Baptism doubtfully valid certainly lacks a possessor, nor is that certain subjection to the laws of the Church demonstrated by which Lehmk. burdens him who certainly does not participate in the rights or benefits of the Church. Add that the internal forum is not governed by presumptions which are necessary in the external forum. Nevertheless, the learned writer judges that the obligation of observing all the precepts of Christians, and therefore of confessing all sins, is demanded by the public good of Christian society, and consequently is sanctioned by divine law, by the very force, I say, of "the divine law by which ecclesiastical society is constituted and governed." But it is demanded by the public good on account of the very grave disturbances which the contrary liberty would bring. For the neoconverts themselves would go on considering themselves immune from all laws of the Church, and Catholics themselves would be inclined to doubt about their Baptism so that they might escape the positive obligations of Christians. But what if, relying on doubt about the value of his Baptism, a bishop were to reject the law of celibacy? Yet these things do not seem so greatly to be feared. Neoconverts, shortly after conversion, are accustomed to receive certain Baptism, so that they would not enjoy any long-lasting immunity; that doubts about Baptism would frequently arise among Catholics from hope of declining obligations is not at all likely, since a simpler way of declining the yoke of the Church is open to badly disposed men; and the extraordinary scandal which a putative bishop would give by marrying a wife can be met otherwise through secret departure into a distant region. Nor would the difficulty be less if the bishop should discover that he had certainly been invalidly baptized, or if the very conferral of Baptism were doubtful: yet then the illustrious author abstains from imposing any obligation.

⁽¹⁾ On the Proper Obligations of Christians by Which, in General, the Doubtfully Baptized Are Bound, and in Particular on the Integral Sacramental Confession to Be Made by Divine Law by Heretical Neoconverts and by Catholic Adults Who Are Rebaptized under Condition. A Theological-Moral Investigation. Rome, 1913.

Thus the matter seems to us to have to be stated briefly.

1. In England, for which the decree of the Holy Office was issued, and in the United States of North America, to which it was extended by the Council of Baltimore, the discipline of integral confession is to be observed (insofar as these decrees bind after the Code), but as ecclesiastical, so that it is to be prudently urged as other ecclesiastical laws. Nor say with Lehmk., II, 424, that there is had there an authentic interpretation of divine law, since the Church cannot make some matter necessarily to be accused. For it is not so established that a reasonable condition of this kind, of a confession probably necessary, cannot be imposed by the Church as a law by which she reconciles heretics to herself; and those responses could have been given on account of the moral certitude of the value of Baptism in the concrete case. For in the petition concerning converted Anglicans, the bishops as petitioners alleged that the younger Anglican clergy consult the validity of Baptism with great diligence. And thus we approach the intrinsic response.

2. Since Baptism is repeated under condition even for a slight cause, we judge that the causes must be distinguished. If there was a grave reason for doubting about the value of the prior Baptism, there exists only a probable obligation of confessing sins, which certainly cannot be urged unless, in danger of death, confession alone gives security. If truly Baptism is repeated because of a slight doubt, the other obligations of the baptized cannot therefore be shaken. Therefore the obligation of making integral confession will then be morally certain.

— Free choice of a legitimately approved confessor is permitted to any faithful person, even if the confessor belongs to another rite (c. 905).

This reason seems to us to be grounds for interpreting rather strictly the laws which restrict the liberty of religious and Sisters, since they derogate from a faculty commonly granted.

How absolution can be direct or indirect we saw above, n. 510, 3. And it will be indirect on account of a twofold cause: on account of defect of jurisdiction over certain sins; the case will not occur unless an accomplice in a shameful sin is to be absolved outside danger of death; on account of an incomplete accusation excused by forgetfulness or just cause.

Since no infusion of grace formally accompanies absolution from censure, absolution from censure can only be direct.

— But the penitent, at least one who is sane, in order to receive the sacrament of Penance fruitfully, must make a sorrowful accusation of his sins. Hence now the acts of the penitent must be treated distinctly.

— I. The suitable subject of Penance is every baptized wayfaring man who, after Baptism, has sinned. He can subject venial sins to the keys, which he will do usefully, on account of sacramental grace and the remission of punishments; and mortal sins already remitted by force of the keys. But he must subject mortal sins not yet directly remitted, either in danger of death, in which it would be mortal to expose oneself to grave danger of dying without absolution, or, from the precept of the Church, once in the year. The year is computed as civil, or from Easter to Easter. By sacrilegious confession the precept is not satisfied. Per accidens he is obliged at Paschal time who then must be absolved so that he may be able to make Paschal Communion; and also at another time, he to whom use of the sacrament would be a necessary means of avoiding grave sins. And repeated use of the sacrament is to be counted among the best sacramental penances. Defect of jurisdiction over certain sins or incomplete confession are causes why, in a good confession, certain sins are remitted only indirectly.

If at any time, on account of a doubt that is not slight, Baptism must be repeated conditionally, it is not established that there is a general law which obliges to integral confession of sins which were committed before Baptism repeated under condition.

But choice of a confessor, even of another rite, is permitted to any faithful person.

Preliminary note. After in the preceding chapter we treated of the essence both of the virtue and of the sacrament of penance, now the duties which the penitent must perform in receiving the sacrament of penance are to be treated specially. These duties are the three acts to be performed by him, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. St. Raymond of Peñafort⁹⁹ beautifully says: "In true and perfect penance three things are necessary: contrition of heart, confession of the mouth, and satisfaction of work," concerning which we shall speak separately. The subject capable of the sacrament of penance is every baptized man who can elicit these three acts, or at least contrition.

⁹⁹ Summa, De poenit. l. 3, § 7.

1664. That every and only baptized man, fallen into at least venial fault, is the SUBJECT of the Sacrament of Penance, is already sufficiently known from the things disputed above. But this is proper and peculiar to this Sacrament, that its subject must contribute something, not only to its licit and fruitful reception, but to its very confection, namely by placing the proximate matter, which consists in the acts of the penitent himself, namely in CONTRITION, CONFESSION, and SATISFACTION. Therefore we must treat accurately of these acts, which are at once the proximate matter of the Sacrament and dispositions of the subject for receiving it.

Three are numbered, namely 1° Contrition; 2° Confession; 3° Satisfaction.

647. The subject of Penance is every and only wayfaring man, baptized, a sinner, truly contrite, and confessing in some way. He must be:

1. a wayfaring man, because for him alone were the sacraments instituted;

2. baptized, because Baptism renders men capable of receiving the other sacraments, which otherwise would be received invalidly;

3. a sinner, i.e., one who after Baptism has committed at least a venial sin, because the virtue of penance is only concerning actual personal sin, and the sacrament of penance was instituted for the remission of sins committed after Baptism; but if he were not a sinner, the words of absolution would not be verified and the absolution would be invalid;

4. contrite, at least with imperfect contrition; otherwise he would not be truly penitent, since contrition is the principal and essential act of penance, without which it is impossible to obtain remission of actual sin (n. 412 and 483);

5. confessing in some way, or externally accusing himself of being a sinner. For without external accusation the sins and dispositions of the penitent would be unknown to the minister, who would not be able to exercise judgment; but any external accusation whatever, even the smallest, suffices for this, in circumstances in which greater integrity of confession is impossible (n. 525).

All the aforesaid things are necessary for the validity of the sacrament, as is sufficiently clear from what has been said before; and yet among them certain things are directly required for the capacity of validly receiving the sacrament, while others are rather required for the disposition of good and fruitful reception, although nevertheless they can also be required for validity because of the special character of the sacrament of Penance.1

648. The use of reason and intention are required for the capacity of receiving the sacrament of Penance. - In order that a man be capable of validly receiving this sacrament, it is not sufficient that he be a wayfarer, and that he has been baptized and is a sinner, but in addition there is required the intention of receiving the sacrament, and therefore the use of reason. Moreover a habitual and implicit intention does not suffice, but an actual or virtual intention is also required at the moment at which the penitent places his part of the sacramental sign, i.e., elicits contrition and makes accusation; and since these are human actions, they cannot be done without the use of reason and due intention (n. 93). Therefore the use of reason is required in the penitent at the moment at which he forms the intention, elicits contrition, and makes accusation.

These things are indeed clear, but in practice they can present difficulty in certain penitents, for example in children, the insane, deaf-mutes, or the dying. Concerning these we shall speak individually.

656. Contrition with purpose is the disposition required for the fruitful reception of the sacrament of Penance. - For it is a sacrament of the dead, instituted for remitting sins committed after Baptism; but for the remission of these there is required contrition, at least imperfect, with the purpose of not sinning for the future and with the other due qualities. These qualities, generally, like contrition itself, are also required for the validity of the sacrament of which contrition is the matter; perhaps, however, it is to be excepted that it be appreciatively supreme, because according to several authors this is not demanded as a condition of validity, although as a disposition for the fruit of the sacrament and for justification it is altogether required.

All these things have been sufficiently explained where we treated of contrition; nor do they present a special difficulty, except sometimes in practice, with certain categories of penitents, concerning whom there can easily be doubt whether they bring due contrition or a firm purpose; as especially concerning customary sinners and relapsers, and concerning those in occasions of sin.1

The subject, in the sacrament of Penance, is essential, not only because some wayfaring man is required who receives the sanctifying rite, as in Baptism, for example, or in Confirmation, but also for another reason, insofar namely as the supplying of the proximate matter depends upon him; for it was said above that the proximate matter of this sacrament consists in the acts of the penitent. These acts are enumerated as three, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction; therefore concerning each one something must be said here for practice.

If school children have been well prepared for their first confession by the catechist, and if a brief instruction preceding subsequent confessions is not neglected, the tender conscientiousness peculiar to childish years grows and is strengthened, and the children, as a rule, will be anxious to realize all their sins and to confess them. It happens indeed that children, a few moments after having received absolution, or just before Holy Communion, if this takes place the day after, come to the confessional again, to mention some sin or other they had forgotten.

Catechists sometimes try to come to the relief of a too great conscientiousness or anxiety in children, by giving them a printed form of examination of conscience, and advising them to mark in this form the sins of which their conscience accuses them. Other catechists, at least during instructions for first confession, dictate to the children a schedule following the Ten Commandments, the capital sins, etc., bidding the children to make use of it in their examination of conscience. Other catechists again advise candidates for first confession to write their sins on a piece of paper and read them off in the confessional. It becomes frequently the practise of children to confess their sins from such written notes. There are then confessors who take away these notes and require the child to confess from memory, others again take the notes, read them through hurriedly, put some questions and then proceed with exhortation and absolution.

What is to be said of these practises?

As regards printed examination of conscience, I must admit that their use by school children appears to me as not advisable. The forms of examination of conscience, at least those with which I have become acquainted, are too detailed, entering into minute details (in one such form for children I counted one hundred and fifty sins) and are thus calculated to burden the children’s memory, and, as they do not always sufficiently understand the details, lead them to confess sins which they have not committed. These printed forms sometimes cause children, who are inclined either to fear or to indolence, to memorize all the sins there enumerated; the former do it so as to be quite safe, the latter to save themselves the trouble of examining their conscience. A schedule for the examination of conscience should not be put in a prayerbook intended for the young, nor in a catechism; for children will underscore with pencil certain sins and read them off in each confession. It certainly is a lesser evil if the child in the examination of conscience, which the catechist goes through with the whole class, does not realize some committed sin, than if he, following the printed form, would trouble himself with a long list of possible sins and either get an aversion to confession, or fall into one of the faults above mentioned.

A printed examination of conscience leads some children to only mention in confession the sins found therein, and not others which they may really know to have committed, not making therefore a complete confession at all.

Even with proper use of the printed form, the catechist worries himself and the children with the enumeration of all possible kinds of sins, the attention is anxiously directed toward every possible failing, and over the solicitude for the material completeness of the confession the most essential part, perfect contrition and earnest resolution of amendment, are either entirely neglected or not properly considered.

Writing on a blackboard the chief classifications of sins is to be preferred to the use of printed examinations of conscience; those preparing for first confession should be made to take down for themselves these classifications, as a help in the examination of conscience to be made in private, and as an effectual incentive to methodical reflection.

; Under each classification the catechist will mention the different kinds of sins which fall under that head, and bid the children to reflect upon them now, and more so in their examination of conscience, and to commit to memory those transgressions of which they find themselves guilty. The treatment, in this manner, of the Second Commandment may here serve as an example:

“What is the Second Commandment? How is the name of God profaned? Use of the Holy Name irreverently, or in vain. Now reflect: Have I uttered the name of God irreverently? Have I cursed? How often? Have I taken God’s name in vain? How is the name of God desecrated? I will write down: Cursing, blaspheming. Reflect: Have I cursed? How often? Have I blasphemed against the good God? Have I spoken irreverently of God? Of the saints? In what further way is the name of God misused? I will write down: Swearing. Reflect: Have I taken an oath? Have I called God to witness a lie? Would you mention in Confession all the sins I have mentioned? Which only? Who must mention them all?

If the children are aided in this manner to examine their consciences, they will be enabled to comprehend the scope of the individual commandments, and accustom themselves to confess without notes. But even with an instruction of this kind, there will be many children who feel the need of writing down their sins, and of making their confession from written notes. What are we to think of this manner of confessing sins? Is it to be rejected entirely, to be forbidden?

This will hardly be maintained by any catechist or confessor. As regards those who make their first confession, nearly all catechists agree that they should not only be allowed to make notes, but should even be so advised. The children are thus impressed that the examination of conscience, and the confession of all sins committed is of great importance when receiving the Sacrament of Penance, and that this part should for this reason be done with great care and diligence.

The children will also be protected against anxiety, by the consciousness that they have told everything and not forgotten anything that appeared to them as necessary to be confessed. And this is not to be undervalued. Every catechist and confessor knows from experience that children can not well distinguish between forgetting and purposely concealing, and those who are disposed to be anxious, easily doubt the validity of their confession if they have forgotten to mention something which they had been prepared to tell.

This erroneous perception may even lead to sacrilegious Communions ex conscientiae erronea, if, namely, the child considers himself bound to repeat the confession but does not do so from shame or fear, or for lack of opportunity.

But even in subsequent confessions one should not forbid children to write their sins down and to confess them from notes. It may be true that such confession lessens the humiliation of the accusation; that it induces scruples; that the reading interferes with contrition; that the confession is deprived of that spontaneousness whereby it becomes a frank disclosure of the heart; that it leaves the soul cold.

But the experienced catechist and confessor will not consider these results as certain and general. On the contrary, the child confessing from notes is before and during confession more at ease, and can, with a good preparation by the catechist, direct his thoughts and feelings more freely and intensely to contrition and resolution. When children leave school they desist of their own accord from writing down their sins. The prohibition to confess from written notes may lead not only to anxiety, and to sacrilegious Communions ex conscientia erronea, but also to fickleness and frivolity at confession, for children may come to the conclusion that without notes it is not possible to make a thorough confession, and that for this reason it does not much matter whether they forget more or less sins. Children must be treated as children. Give the children encouragement, strive to inspire them with the confidence to confess either entirely without notes, or at most to make use only of general classifications; but do not prohibit the writing down of sins and their reading off at confession.

Many confessors are so opposed to children confessing from notes that they do not wait patiently till the child has read to the end. They either take the paper out of the child’s hand and read it hurriedly, or order the child to put the notes aside and confess from memory. Either of these ways shows want of patience; yet, without patience, and a great deal of patience, one is not well equipped to hear children’s confessions. Taking the notes from the child to read them over I can only approve in the case of the child speaking so low and indistinctly that he can not be understood. Taking away the notes and bidding the child to confess from memory is decidedly to be condemned, for it is equivalent to the command: Just mention whatever and how much you can remember; it is immaterial whether you confess all your sins or only a few! The child had relied on his notes, probably the fruit of great pains, he is deprived of this by his confessor who requires him to confess from memory. Confused at this unexpected obstacle to his plans, he is unable to confess fully from memory; his confession will seem to him incomplete and invalid, and he will probably approach Holy Communion with a trembling heart, if, from fear, shame, or lack of opportunity, he can not go to confession again. And if not worried, because prevented from making a thorough confession, he will think the thoroughness of the confession is not so essential as he imagined, since the confessor himself attached so little importance to it.

Experienced catechists and confessors hold therefore that be-ginners should be allowed to write their sins down, and should even be assisted in doing this; the tender and sacred fear will not be destroyed thereby but rather nourished. Nor should older children be forbidden by the catechist to write their sins, even per extensum, and it should be considered a step toward confession from memory if they do not take complete notes with them into the confessional; in time they will learn to confess without any notes at all.

Encouraging children to confess without notes finds its proper place in school, not in the confessional; there it is always ill advised and may either at the moment, or even for the future, result in evil consequences. Juventuti magna debetur reverentia (here consideration) QUINTILIAN very properly remarks, and these memorable words should not be lost sight of by confessors, in order that they may not render themselves culpable of the scandalum pusillorum. Children instructed by a worthy catechist have a sacred awe for the Sacraments of Penance and the Holy Eucharist; sad indeed it is if this precious treasure of the childish heart suffers by the application of a pet theory, or by lack of patience, on part of the confessor. The Holy Sacrament of Penance is so admirable a means of education that Protestant ministers have been known to deplore their lack of it. By frequent confession the child accustoms himself early to the proper conception of sin, guilt and atonement, which has so important an influence upon the moral life, and which the sensuality, vanity and frailty of the irreligious world would so gladly confound. It is proper to child nature that the conscientiousness of guilt weighs upon its tender conscience, and that after a sincere confession the child feels greatly relieved. Hardly anyone else can make so profound and lasting an impression upon the heart of a child, as a prudent, kindly confessor in the confessional. If the Sacrament of Penance is to bear its proper fruit the confessor should not let anything interfere that might destroy or lessen in any way the reverence and sacred awe which the children have for it. This is true in regard to all the five things necessary for the worthy reception of this Sacrament, but most particularly of the confession, because the children consider this, as a rule, as a very important, if not the most important part of the Sacrament, and because it is just this that puts to test the patience, charity, conscientiousness, and prudence of the confessor.

Canon Anthony Skocdopole, D.D.