Part 2 — CHAPTER III CONFESSION (continued 2)

Now comes the question as to what the penitent ought to do who has confessed a mortal sin as doubtful and afterwards discovers that he has certainly committed it; is he obliged to confess the sin anew or may he consider the case closed? The sin has undoubtedly been remitted directly by the power of the keys, since the conditional sentence “if thou hast really sinned” becomes absolute where the condition has been verified. St. Alphonsus⁠[288] teaches that sins confessed as doubtful should be mentioned again as certain if it turns out that they are certain; and this doctrine he affirms to be the common opinion. The defenders of this view maintain as their great argument that the sin was not confessed as it was in the conscience at the moment when it was committed; then it was a peccatum certum; moreover, they argue, the sentence passed on a doubtful sin is quite different from that passed on a sin which is certain. Yet in the case of sins which have been confessed in round numbers St. Alphonsus himself teaches that even when the penitent afterwards recalls the exact number, he is not obliged to confess again; why, then, should this obligation be imposed on the penitent who has confessed his sin as doubtful when he discovers later that it was certain? A man who has confessed that he has committed a mortal sin about ten times and later discovers that the number was twelve must either confess as certain the two or more sins which were previously confessed as doubtful, or, if this obligation is denied, he cannot be obliged to confess a sin again which he has discovered to be certain after having already confessed it as doubtful. That in the first instance the penitent is free of all obligation to confess again, is the sententia communissima, and it is borne out by the practice of the faithful; hence in the other case the same freedom must be granted, for both decisions rest on the same grounds. Nor can it be objected that the number of the sins is merely a circumstance, while the sin itself is a substantial fact, for the number belongs to the very substance, since it indicates so many substantial acts.⁠[289]

It is true that St. Alphonsus calls the affirmative opinion communis; but since Lugo (though even he gave his adhesion practically to the view of St. Alphonsus in consideration of the great number of theologians who favored it) has combated the view with strong arguments, later theologians adopted his side, so that the affirmative proposition maintaining the duty of confessing again can no longer be considered as communis. At present, as Ballerini aptly shows, the other view is the communior sententia and is established on good external and internal probability, and may be unhesitatingly considered as probabilior et communior.⁠[290]

II. If a man is certain that he has committed a grave sin but doubts upon slight grounds whether he has confessed it, he must accuse himself of it; but if he has a sufficient probability that it has been confessed, he is under no obligation.

In this case some positive reason is required to show that he has complied with the obligation of confessing the sin, for an undoubted command is not satisfied by a doubtful fulfilment; but where there is really good reason to suppose that the sin has been confessed, that is, a reason which, though open to some doubts, offers some probability, the obligation may, in accordance with the principles of probability, be regarded as not binding. “For if we are to avoid making laws and duties odious, we ought to concede something to human probability taken in a broad sense; thus presumption in a case of this kind often presents proof of sufficient probability and security.”⁠[291]

Hence a man who is accustomed to make his confessions with care, and later on is unable to remember whether he has confessed this or that sin, may presume that he has confessed it, and he is not obliged to confess it again. This is the teaching of many eminent theologians.⁠[292] Although St. Alphonsus affirms that a man is obliged to mention again a sin which has probably been already confessed, he does not condemn the contrary opinion. If, again, a man who has been converted from a habit of sin, and for a long period has been leading a good life, begins to doubt whether, in the confessions either general or particular which have been made with suitable care, some sin or circumstance has been withheld, he may be forbidden to mention that sin or circumstance, or even to think of the past at all. Finally, scrupulous people ought only to confess their past sins when they are quite certain that they have never confessed them; this is the sententia communissima.⁠[293]

On the whole it is recommended in practice to mention doubtfully confessed sins, because their confession helps much to peace of soul and allays all anxieties.

Quite distinct from the preceding question is the case in which a man fully confesses as certain some sin which he has committed, but which neither he nor the confessor considered at the time as a mortal sin; if afterwards, in consequence of better instruction or advice, he discovers that the sin was mortal ex genere suo, he is not obliged to repeat it, for it was already perfectly confessed and it is not necessary for the validity of confession that the penitent or confessor should know that the matter of a sin is grave, and it is the matter only that is involved in this case.⁠[294]

III. The sins which have been incurred after a doubtfully valid Baptism must be confessed when Baptism is given conditionally. Lehmkuhl treats very fully of this question and remarks that on this point there can be no doubt after the late decisions of the Apostolic See. Many theologians were inclined to free converts from the obligation of making a confession of their sins on the ground that, their Baptism by a heretical minister being doubtful, the sins committed after Baptism were doubtful matter for confession; hence they thought that to such converts, if they confessed matter sufficient in any way for receiving validly the Sacrament or the grace of sanctification through the Sacrament, absolution might be given conditionally; this, they maintained, was the practice to be recommended in order that converts might not be obliged in the beginning of their conversion to undergo this often very severe ordeal of a confession of a lifetime.

In answer to repeated questions the Apostolic See (in the years 1715 and 1868) explicitly declared that converts who receive conditional Baptism must after receiving this conditional Baptism confess the sins of their past life and be absolved from them sub conditione. This decision was given of course as an answer to a particular case laid before the tribunal; but the intention of the Holy Office, as is quite clear, was to pass a sentence and give a universal decision which might apply to all cases falling under this head and which might be regarded in future as the law on the matter, for this decree can be regarded only as an authentic interpretation of the divine law by the Head of the Church, and not as a local law of the Church or a part of her discipline. Nor need any one be surprised that a decree, though particular in form, has a universal application; for a command of the Church will never prescribe anything as necessary matter of confession which is not in accordance with the divine law.⁠[295] In order, then, to recognize the possibility that such a precept is contained in the decree of 1715 it must be granted that, in accordance with divine right, the sins incurred after doubtfully valid Baptism must be submitted to the keys. Such is what we learn from that positive declaration; moreover, reason confirms it, for, though one who is doubtfully baptized has not a certainty but only a probability of receiving sacramental absolution of his sins, it in no way follows that the obligation to confess them is only probable and practically to be disregarded; for the duty of confessing and performing the assigned penance is for all more certain than that probability of receiving the effects of the Sacrament. This does not go beyond a moral certainty taken in the wider sense, since it rests ultimately on the validity of the Baptism and other conditions, so that doubts can always be entertained about it. But the duty of confessing and performing the assigned penance permits no such doubt, since every obligation though it be based on grounds only morally certain is sufficiently evident; otherwise there would be an end of anything like obligation in human affairs.

Now with regard to confession and absolution of sins in the tribunal of penance Christ has handed over all power to the jurisdiction of the Church, and it is by Baptism that men come under this jurisdiction; this is the external rite by which men are admitted as members. But no one doubts that a man remains subject to the jurisdiction of a social body into which he has been admitted by the acknowledged external rites till that reception is proved to be invalid. All, therefore, who have in any way received Baptism (which they were desirous of receiving validly, though its validity admits of doubt) are as a general rule undeniably and certainly subject to the Church’s jurisdiction and laws and are bound to comply with the divine precept which ordains that their sins should be told in confession and sentence passed upon them. In other words, the doubt with regard to Baptism has this effect, that the Baptism can be regarded as invalid in the sense that it can and ought to be repeated conditionally lest the man should risk his eternal salvation, but nowise in the sense that one who is doubtfully baptized may consider himself free from the observance of these precepts and obligations which are binding on the baptized by the ordinance of God or the Church; among these duties the precept of confessing sins holds the principal place.⁠[296]

As to the ceremonies to be observed in receiving a convert into the Church, there is nothing to prevent the confession being made first, followed by the conditional Baptism, then a summary repetition of the accusation along with an act of contrition and the conditional absolution. This order is allowed by the Holy Office in a Rescript of November, 1875. The American Ritual, on the other hand, gives the following order: 1. Renunciation of heresy and profession of faith; 2. Conditional Baptism; 3. Confession with conditional absolution. This order was prescribed by the instruction of the Holy Office for North America.⁠[297]

26. Sins Omitted through Forgetfulness or other Causes not Blameworthy.

In order that the principles to be applied here may be understood, it must first be observed that all grievous sins committed after Baptism must be confessed; hence what has been said of the material and formal integrity of confession as well as upon the distinction between sins directly and indirectly remitted must be carefully borne in mind.

Since the formal or subjective integrity of confession consists in this, that all mortal sins are mentioned which the penitent can recall after a diligent examination of conscience, and of which the enumeration is possible hic et nunc, it does not suffer by inculpable forgetfulness on the part of the penitent; and the same holds true of all other legitimate reasons which at any time excuse the penitent from objective integrity.⁠[298]

Sins which are required for objective though not for subjective integrity are considered as included in the confession and are really remitted by the absolution, not directly, however, but only indirectly.

Hence are derived the following principles:—

I. Mortal sins omitted without fault are and remain materia necessaria of confession, or the objective duty of confessing them remains binding as before.

These sins are, of course, really forgiven, but, as we have already observed, only indirectly or per concomitantiam through their connection with the other mortal sins which have been confessed and directly remitted. In the Sacrament of Penance the remission of sins is effected by the absolution; but sins which have not been mentioned do not directly fall under the absolution since, properly speaking, they are unaffected by the sentence pronounced by a judge who knew nothing about them. Nevertheless the absolution pronounced rite et valide over certain sins is effectual because it is sacramental and because in God’s providence no remission of sin takes place without an influx of sanctifying grace into the soul which presents no obex. Now sanctifying grace removes the whole reatus culpæ mortalis and restores a man to perfect friendship with God and to his claim in the heavenly kingdom. Thus valid absolution produces sanctifying grace in the soul and consequently the remission of all mortal sins staining the soul, even those inculpably forgotten.

There remains now the precept of Our Lord to submit all mortal sins to the power of the keys in the Sacrament of Penance; these forgotten sins have not been confessed as yet, nor has the priest pronounced any direct sentence upon them. Though these sins have been remitted indirectly, there still remains the obligation ex jure divino of confessing them directly to the judge in the tribunal of penance when they occur to the mind again, not because these sins have been revived, but because the neglect of God’s command in the matter would involve a new sin. This holds of all mortal sins inculpably omitted, of their species, of all circumstances changing the species, as well as of mortal sins, confessed indeed, but to a priest without jurisdiction who either bona fide or for reasonable motives gave direct absolution of the sins for which he had faculties, thereby remitting the others indirectly. Hence Alexander VII condemned the proposition: “Sins which have been omitted in confession either from an imminent danger to life or for any other motive need not be mentioned in the following confession.” (Prop. XI. damn.) It is different, however, in the case of reservation or censure for a sin remitted indirectly if confession be made to a priest equipped with the necessary faculties; for in general absolution is given from reservation and censure, and the penitent is probably freed from the reservation or censure attached to the sin forgotten; so that if the sin occur again to his mind, he may be directly absolved by any confessor, even a confessarius simplex.⁠[299]

II. The obligation of confessing these forgotten sins does not urge ratione sui “as soon as possible” (quam primum), not even before receiving holy communion.

Of course many distinguished theologians⁠[300] teach that whoever remembers a grave sin, even though not committed since the last confession but forgotten, must confess that sin and receive absolution before going to communion. The only reason urged is that he is conscious of this sin; and, according to the Council of Trent, no one who is conscious of grave sin may receive communion before having confessed where there is an opportunity of making the confession. The defenders of this view maintain that the Tridentine decree⁠[301] is so expounded and understood by the whole Church; they make an exception, however, for the case where confession cannot be made without risk of scandal or infamy, as, for example, when a priest is already celebrating Mass or a layman has approached the communion-rail and cannot retire without exciting remark.

It is permissible, however, with St. Alphonsus and other theologians (in less number) to follow the other “very probable opinion” which denies the obligation of confessing; for in reality confession has preceded communion and the penitent has confessed all the sins of which he was conscious, so that neither the Council of Trent nor the divine law seems to demand more; moreover, the forgotten sin has been remitted indirectly, the penitent is in the state of grace, not merely by an act of contrition but in virtue of the valid confession. The practice of the faithful which is appealed to for the opposite side is not to be regarded as of binding force, but rather a pious and praiseworthy custom.

Though one may follow tuta conscientia the opinion which denies the obligation, it is good to recommend to the faithful to confess before communion the sins which have been forgotten, unless the extremely sensitive conscience of the penitent should require another course to be adopted; the practice should not, however, be imposed as binding.⁠[302]

The view held by some, though a very few, modern theologians, that it is quite sufficient to mention these sins without receiving absolution, is not at all in harmony with the divine institution of the Sacrament, for confession is not made with the view of acquainting the priest with the sins committed, but in order that they may be remitted by his judicial sentence. Hence a serious argument for the necessity of confession can be drawn only from the supposition that absolution is necessary. Accordingly a penitent who confesses a new mortal sin immediately after absolution must be absolved again. Of course this absolution may be put off to the next confession if the penitent comes again to the same confessor to whom he told the sin. Such delay, however, would hardly be recommended, since it would involve the penitent in the following dilemma: Either he is not free to choose his confessor on the next occasion on which he approaches the Sacrament, or if he goes to some other priest he must confess the same sin again.

III. The duty of confessing sins inculpably omitted must be fulfilled either when there is danger of death or at the next confession, whether it be a confession of duty or of choice.

Hence these omitted sins must be confessed, even if no new mortal sin has been incurred, ratione sui when there is grave danger of death and at the time which the Church prescribes for the yearly confession; for the annual confession is prescribed not only in order to obtain sanctifying grace, but also to fulfill the divine law, more clearly defined by the law of the Church. In this case the precept would be binding under grave sin because of the presence of materia necessaria, for a mortal sin omitted even without fault is materia necessaria.

If, however, a confession be made before that time, either of materia necessaria or materia libera, the confession must include the previously omitted sin. This is so evident that no theologian ever dreamt of disputing or doubting it. Every confession must be complete subjectively or formally, and by the declaration of the Council of Trent this confession is not complete unless it includes the sins previously omitted. For this subjective integrity it is required that all mortal sins not yet subjected to the keys which occur to the penitent should be confessed unless some legitimate obstacle stands in the way. If these omitted sins are kept back in the next confession following, that confession is incomplete and sacrilegious. It cannot be argued that these sins had been already indirectly forgiven, for, to speak of no other objection, the same might be urged of sins already condoned by an act of perfect contrition.⁠[303]

27. Reasons Excusing from Complete Accusation.

In the preceding paragraph we said that sins may be omitted by the penitent without the confession becoming sacrilegious. As there are reasons which can justify such silence, and release the penitent from the obligation of confessing the sins of which he is conscious, we devote this paragraph to the consideration of these reasons.

I. No difficulty in the confession itself or internally connected with it ever excuses from making a complete accusation; for when Christ gave the precept that all grievous sins should be confessed to His representatives in the tribunal of penance, He intended that we should submit to the difficulties inherent in such an accusation and bear them as a penance for our sins, and this discipline is very wholesome for the penitent.

A difficulty of this kind would be, for instance, the great shame felt in confessing a sin, even if it came only from the fact of mentioning it to this or that particular priest; the course then to be adopted is to put off the confession, or to go to another confessor, or to be brave and overcome the shame. This difficulty was recognized in the Council of Trent, and hence it was declared that the difficulty of such a (perfect and candid) confession and the shame of declaring one’s sins might well seem great obstacles, but that they were counterbalanced by the consolation and profit accruing to those who received the Sacrament worthily.⁠[304] The same may be said of the other difficulties, such as the fear of losing the esteem of one’s confessor or of receiving a rebuke from him. If such reasons as these could be held to justify a want of integrity in the accusation, the faithful for the most part would consider themselves at liberty to make incomplete confessions, and the great object for which this Sacrament had been instituted would to a great extent be frustrated.⁠[305]

Likewise, a large gathering of penitents (concursus magnus pœnitentium) on the occasion of a great feast or indulgence is never a reason for want of integrity in confession, for this is not a case of necessity and it would expose the priest to the risk of giving absolution to ill-disposed subjects. Nor can exception be made to the rule of integrity because people might conjecture from the time taken in the confessional that the penitent had committed very many sins.⁠[306]

II. Besides the case of physical impossibility, however, there are others which justify an incomplete avowal of sin; they are in general such external or accidental difficulties in connection with the confession which render a complete accusation morally impossible, or involve grave harm to the penitent or the confessor. When the impediment no longer exists the law of God comes again into force; the moral impossibility of making a complete confession does not altogether cancel the duty of making it, but only suspends it, since the precept of confession is not one that is confined to any fixed time or state, but extends over one’s lifetime; hence mortal sins which have not been confessed must be mentioned later when opportunity offers.

III. In order that the excuse of moral impossibility may be pleaded it is necessary, 1, that there should be a real or probable risk of great harm; 2, that it is impossible to find another confessor to whom a full disclosure may be made without fear of this particular harm; 3, that only those sins or circumstances be kept back of which the avowal would cause harm; and finally, 4, that the confession cannot be put off.

IV. Physical impossibility might result from, 1, inculpable forgetfulness or inculpable ignorance, or only venially culpable ignorance and forgetfulness. A man who is ignorant invincibiliter et inculpabiliter that the particular act which he calls to mind is sinful, or does not know that his sin must be confessed with its number and species and circumstances changing the species, is not bound to integrity in confession; there is still less obligation on an uneducated and weak-minded penitent.

If, again, a man in examining his conscience cannot recall a past sin, or, having recalled it, forgets about it in the confessional, he is physically incapable of making a complete confession. (On this point see the preceding paragraph.) It is to be noticed, however, that in the case of gravely culpable negligence or carelessness in examining the conscience an imperfect confession is invalid; if, for example, a man through his own fault is ignorant how confession ought to be made, or was unwilling to make a careful examination of his conscience. On the other hand, one is not obliged to go to confession sooner in order not to forget past sins, though frequent confession is much to be recommended; for we are bound only to accuse ourselves of the sins of which we are conscious at the time of confession after making a diligent examination of conscience.

2. There is, moreover, physical inability when there is imminent danger of death (a) on account of the penitent’s condition being such that if he should try to make a complete confession he may die before receiving absolution; (b) in a common danger, such as shipwreck, before a battle, during a violent epidemic or a swift conflagration. If in such a case there is no time to hear the confession of each individual, it is enough for all to make a general confession of their sins in order to receive absolution, and the priest may give it, using for all the one formula: Ego vos absolvo.... Finally, (c) when the confessor himself is near death and no other priest is at hand.

The following instructions may be observed by confessors in actual practice:—

(a) In case of extreme necessity the accusation of some specific sin must be made so far as it is possible, but in the case of a dying man who is still conscious the confessor should be more solicitous about exciting contrition than about securing a complete confession; in the case, however, of a penitent deprived of consciousness, especially if he gave no previous sign of repentance, the confessor may give absolution conditionally and then devote his care to the administration of Extreme Unction, which in such a case is more certainly valid and efficacious than the absolution itself; meanwhile, however, there would be no reason for not giving the absolution beforehand.

(b) If only one confession has to be heard and there is imminent danger, say, from an attack by an enemy, the confessor should get the penitent to mention some one sin, to make an act of contrition, and he should then absolve him, when under the circumstances the absolution is a matter of necessity. If there are several who wish to make their peace with God, as before a battle or in a shipwreck, the following points are to be observed:—

([Greek: a]) If the danger is very pressing, the confessor must exhort all to make acts of contrition and purpose of amendment, or, still better, himself make along with them acts of contrition and amendment, and get them to give some sign of their sorrow and their self-accusation, as by raising their hands or striking their breasts; then he may give them absolution in a body.⁠[307]

([Greek: b]) If there is time enough for each one to approach the confessor, though not for making a complete confession, they should be admitted singly in order the better to secure the salvation of each one, in such numbers as the time will permit; and in order that as many as possible, if not all, may be heard, the accusation may be as short as possible; thus contrition will be more genuine. Of course the penitents will be told that in the event of their lives being spared they must make up what was wanting to the integrity of the confession.⁠[308]

3. Physical inability may also arise from the defectus loquelæ of the dumb who cannot make a complete confession either by writing or by signs. For them it is sufficient if they confess one or other sin by signs. If the defect be only a stutter, the penitent must confess as best he can.⁠[309]

4. The defectus auditus of the deaf who cannot express themselves nor hear the questions which the confessor must put in order that the confession may be complete, can be reckoned as a physical inability. They are obliged to make a perfect confession ex sua parte, i.e. to mention all that so far as they know is required for a perfect confession, and thus they may not keep back anything. Those who are merely hard of hearing are not on the same footing with the deaf; their confession should be made in a place where the voice may be raised without others overhearing what is said. If, however, the confessor should find out only in the course of the confession that the penitent is hard of hearing, and he cannot take him to a more retired place without fear of causing the bystanders to suspect that some grave sin has been confessed and so violating the seal, he may resign himself to permitting an imperfect confession and may refrain from putting questions. With women the confessor must be particularly on his guard not to give grounds for evil interpretation, since many people are quick to suspect wrong. Thus it would be imprudent for him to admit women penitents to confession at times when the church is less frequented; since absolute security for the seal of confession would even then not be attainable, and suspicion would in all likelihood be easily aroused.

If the confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of deaf people in the church and he has doubts as to the integrity of the accusation, he must be more solicitous for the seal than for the integrity of the confession; hence he must refrain from questions as to the number or circumstances of the sins and must give a very slight and ordinary penance, so that those who overhear his words may not be led to conclude that the penitent has been confessing mortal sins.⁠[310]

5. Finally, ignorance of the language constitutes a physical impossibility for those unable to find a confessor understanding them; for such people it is sufficient if they manifest their contrition and their sins as far as they can by signs. The confessor, in default of any other priest knowing the language, must admit them to confession and aliquoties absolve them even if he can barely make out the most general accusation.

V. A moral impossibility exists, as before remarked, when great harm ensuing to the penitent or to the confessor or to some third person is to be feared from the completeness of the confession; the harm to be feared must preponderate over the material integrity of the confession.

Therefore exception is made to the demand of integrity (completeness) in confession:—

1. When there is risk of infamy (periculum infamiæ), if the penitent is exposed to lose the esteem he is held in not only by the confessor but also by others. This may happen in various ways, particularly if the penitent is so placed that a perfect confession would be overheard by others, or if the time required for a complete confession were so long that it would give rise to unfavorable suspicions. Such a case is most likely to happen when others know that the penitent has been in the habit of confessing, and the latter, on account of those confessions being invalid, is obliged to repeat them, while the time for a communion which he cannot postpone without exciting comment, is quite close.

A sick man, for instance, has confessed and is about to receive the viaticum; he reveals to the priest that he has made several sacrilegious confessions. To repeat these in full would excite suspicions on the part of the bystanders who thought that he was prepared to receive holy communion.

Or, to use another illustration, on the occasion of some solemn and public communion in common one of the communicants goes to the priest a short time before communion and reveals that he has made a sacrilegious confession; since there is no time to repeat it, it is enough if he makes an act of sorrow, mentions the sacrilegious confession and perhaps one or two of his other sins; he must then be absolved and later, of course, make a full confession.

Or, a priest is already at the altar, about to offer the holy sacrifice, but remembers that he has mortal sins on his soul not yet confessed; he makes a short act of contrition and confesses his sins to an assisting priest who is standing close by him; the latter will then give absolution secretly. Outside the case of necessity where a priest must celebrate Mass or a person is to receive communion, the penitent is in nowise excused from making a full confession on the ground that others, noticing the length of time spent in the confessional, should suspect him of being guilty of many grave sins.⁠[311]

2. When there is danger of breach of the seal of confession (periculum læsionis sigilli), as when, which is a very rare case, it should be foreseen that the confessor would break the seal, or in the case where a confessor could not reveal his own sins without at the same time revealing the sins of his penitent and so breaking the seal.

The first case, i.e. where the confessor breaks the seal—without, of course, intending to do so—might happen when the priest speaks so loud that he can be overheard by those in the neighborhood, and in spite of representations still fails to subdue his voice, either because he is deaf, or because his zeal runs away with him, or because he is afflicted with some defect of voice which prevents him talking in a lower tone. This would be only an indirect breach of the seal, certainly not to be sanctioned but rather to be severely blamed as wrong and sinful. If, then, the confessor speaks too loud, and continues to do so even after the penitent has reminded him of the fault, the latter is justified in keeping back part of his confession so that the confessor may not in the course of his questions reveal to the bystanders the sins confessed.

If, however, the penitent has an exaggerated dread that his confessor may break the seal by making revelations outside the confessional, he is not justified in withholding his confession in full, for he imagines a sin so horrible that the suspicion of it could only be entertained in the case of heretics. This holds true at least as far as a direct breach of the seal is concerned. A penitent could hardly ever be dispensed from a full confession on account of such a fear, and if he were to reveal to another confessor that such a motive had prompted him to keep back some of his sins, the confessor could not receive this as an excuse without further inquiry.

On the other hand, the danger of a breach of the seal on the part of a priest who confesses the sins he has incurred in hearing confessions is not beyond the bounds of possibility; in this case he must pass over in silence those sins which would involve such a risk.⁠[312]

3. When danger of scandal (periculum scandali) is to be feared either with respect to the priest or the penitent. Such a case might occur where the penitent is afraid of sinning by taking pleasure in thoughts against charity and especially against purity when examining his conscience; his duty then would be to avoid dwelling upon the number and circumstances even at the risk of making an incomplete confession, for the natural law of avoiding the danger of grave sin prevails over the positive law of making a complete confession. The same reason may be a motive to the confessor to be very prudent in questioning such penitents so as not to expose them to commit new offenses against God in the very Sacrament of reconciliation.

If a penitent have well-grounded fears of the confessor’s weakness and that the latter will, if he hear a peccatum turpe, give way to bad thoughts or cause him to sin, he is bound to avoid such a confessor; if, however, in a case of necessity, he requires his help and cannot find another confessor hic et nunc, he may omit those sins of which the avowal would be dangerous.

A priest who knows that his weakness exposes him to great risks in hearing confessions must withdraw from the confessional if it be at all possible, unless there be good reasons to suppose that the fear arises from some unforeseen and exceptional incident; in such a case the confessor must omit the questions which ordinarily would have to be put to secure the completeness of the accusation.

“Dangers of this kind are not to be lightly and unreasonably supposed, but only on solid grounds; and if it be a question of danger to the confessor, only after very unmistakable indications.”⁠[313]

4. When a scrupulous penitent is always tortured with the thought that his previous confessions have not been valid and believes that his sins have never been properly confessed.⁠[314] Such penitents are to be forbidden to make detailed examination of conscience even though in consequence their confessions should fall short of the necessary completeness.

5. When there is danger of bodily harm (damnum corporale or periculum vitæ). If, for instance, a long confession exposed the priest to danger of infection, even though by other precautions he might lessen the danger or perhaps quite reduce it, in order to avoid the risk he may allow the penitent to state quite briefly a few sins, thus contenting himself with an imperfect confession, and may then give absolution; moreover, if the penitent is so weak and exhausted by the illness as to be unable without grave harm, or great increase of suffering and weakening of his condition, to examine his conscience carefully and so make a perfect confession, the priest ought not to annoy him by questions, but rather try to awaken contrition and then give absolution even after an incomplete confession.⁠[315]

It was observed above (n. 4) that moral inability to make a complete confession can only be admitted when the confession cannot be put off and is urgent hic et nunc.

The confession may be regarded as urgent, 1, when the penitent is in danger of death; 2, when the precept of annual confession and communion is instant; 3, if the reception of holy communion or the celebration of Mass cannot be put off without confusion or scandal; and, 4, if otherwise the penitent could not again approach confession for a long period. Reuter⁠[316] and Lugo consider a delay of more than three days long enough for a man in mortal sin to regard the case as urgent; indeed one may consider the impotentia moralis as justified if a man were compelled to remain in mortal sin one or two days.

There is a special difficulty in solving the question whether a sin can or ought to be confessed which cannot be disclosed without damaging the reputation of the partner of the sin in the eyes of the confessor. Theologians do not agree in their opinions, but are all unanimous in teaching, 1, that a penitent is obliged to seek, if possible, another confessor to whom he can make a complete confession and to whom the accomplice is unknown, and in this way save his neighbor’s reputation; and, 2, that if the sin which cannot be confessed without injury to the character of the accomplice is not necessary matter of confession, it ought not to be revealed unless the sin of the accomplice be only slight and the confession of that particular sin be of peculiar benefit to the penitent.

If, nevertheless, the accomplice be revealed to the confessor, such revelation, in accordance with a very probable opinion, is not to be regarded as a grave sin; for according to the teaching of a number of theologians, whom St. Alphonsus approves and with whom St. Thomas seems to agree, it is not a gravely sinful defamation to reveal the sins of another to one or other trustworthy and upright man. Though many theologians declare this to be gravely sinful if done without reason, the opposite opinion is so well founded that it may be followed in practice as quite probable.⁠[317] But if it is at all probable, it is much more so when the sin of another is revealed to a priest who is bound to the most inviolable secrecy by the highest and holiest ties. Hence it follows that the revelation of the accomplice is certainly no sin when there is reasonable ground for it; such would be, for instance, if the confession made to a priest who knows the accomplice were useful or necessary to the penitent, supposing that no other confessor, to whom the accomplice is unknown, were available; furthermore, the penitent is not bound to seek another confessor unacquainted with the accomplice if the search involves great trouble or loss.

With these premises we approach the question: May a penitent, or ought he, confess a mortal sin which cannot be revealed without at the same time revealing the accomplice to the confessor, or may he omit the mention of that sin and so detract from the completeness of his confession?

The greater number of theologians and those of most weight teach that the revelation of the complex is not a reason excusing from an entire accusation, since it is no violation of the jus naturale which safeguards the reputation of another to reveal the secret sins of one’s neighbor for good reasons to a prudent and upright man, and the law of charity only forbids defamation of one’s neighbor without reason; in this case, however, there is a causa justa, and a very urgent reason, viz., the making of a perfect confession and the guidance of the conscience. The precept of making a sincere accusation is potioris juris than the precept of not defaming the neighbor, so that such defamation in face of the need of making a complete confession is to be regarded as of no account. Lugo rejects, as involving a petitio principii, the other argument advanced by the defenders of this view, namely, that the penitent is simply making use of his right to confess his sin, and that the accomplice by participating in the sin has surrendered his claim to his reputation so far as it is affected by the confession of the sins; he adduces another argument: that since the benefits resulting from confession are so immense that Christ has bound the penitent to endure the shame of revealing his own sins, it is a natural consequence that to obtain such benefits one may be allowed to reveal another’s sin.⁠[318] The same is taught by St. Thomas,⁠[319] St. Bonaventure, St. Antoninus, St. Bernard, Gerson, Cajetan, Henriquez, Suarez,⁠[320] Lugo,⁠[321] Laymann, Vasquez,⁠[322] Toletus, Reginald Lessius, Tamburini, Salmanticenses,⁠[323] Reuter.⁠[324] St. Alphonsus⁠[325] also holds this view. At the same time they teach that the penitent is bound, if he can manage it commode, to spare the reputation of his accomplice by going to a confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown; and St. Alphonsus expressly condemns the view that this is matter of counsel and not of precept. Thus the penitent is freed from the obligation of seeking out another confessor only (a) when there is danger of death or when the annual confession can no longer be put off; (b) when the penitent by refraining from communion or from the celebration of Mass would be exposed to misinterpretation and shame; (c) when a penitent is in a state of mortal sin, and would be obliged to remain in that condition one or two days (per biduum imo etiam per diem) till he could find another confessor; (d) when the complex may be presumed to have given up his claim to his good reputation, as in the case of a brother who having sinned with his sister knows that she will not go to another confessor without her mother; (e) when a priest being accustomed to celebrate every day, and a lay person being accustomed to communicate daily, would find much difficulty in omitting these pious acts; (f) when a person finds great repugnance in revealing his or her state of soul to another confessor; (g) when otherwise the penitent would be deprived of a jubilee or other indulgence; (h) mothers or husbands may be excused when through a wish to have counsel or sympathy they reveal the sins of their children, etc., to a confessor who knows the latter, especially when they find it hard to approach another confessor; (i) when the seeking of another confessor involves a privation of consolation and peace for the penitent accustomed to a wise and helpful spiritual director. Hence it is evident that a penitent is rarely, if ever, obliged to seek another confessor under the given circumstances.⁠[326]

The other opinion, that it is not allowed to reveal the accomplice, and in consequence that one is not bound to mention a mortal sin which cannot be confessed without revealing the accomplice, is taught, among others, by Canus, Petrus Soto, Ledesma, Navarrus, Valentia, Banez, etc. Busenbaum and Mazzotta deemed the opinion probable.⁠[327] These theologians urge that it is a violation of the natural law to injure the good name of another, and hence that the obligation of not inflicting such injury is potioris juris than the duty of making a complete confession, since this is founded on a positive law.

It need not be imagined, however, that this opinion is the benignior, because it releases from the duty of making a perfect confession; considered closely the case takes on quite another aspect, for:—

1. It requires the penitent to seek out another confessor to whom the accomplice is unknown even when this involves great trouble to the penitent, for as all will concede, the integrity of the confession must be preserved so far as it is possible, and only the damage and hardship to the penitent which makes the confession morally impossible excuse from making a complete confession. Hence this incommodum must be grave and much greater than that which in the other view allows the defamation of the accomplice.

2. If, however, a man cannot confess to another confessor and is resolved to conceal the sin or its circumstances in order to save his neighbor’s reputation, there arises a greater difficulty, the obligation of confessing the same sin again; for in order to save his neighbor’s good name a man may only conceal that circumstance which affects the reputation of his neighbor, and this is the unanimous teaching of all theologians; for example, if a man has committed incest, and has no other means of confessing it, he must mention in his first confession that he has fallen into a sin of impurity, passing over in silence the circumstances which make it incest. He must, however, when opportunity is presented of going to another confessor, mention the circumstance of the incest, and this cannot be done without repeating his former accusation of having fallen into a sin against purity.

3. It is also to be observed that if defamation of one’s neighbor excuses from a complete confession, and if in consequence a particular sin may not be revealed (for such is the foundation of this opinion), the confessor is not allowed to put questions which may cause an indirect revelation of the accomplice, especially to ill-instructed penitents who would have no idea of how to parry the questions. Now if these questions are to be avoided by the confessor, he may not inquire into the occasions of sin, or he must leave to the judgment and discretion of the penitent how far the latter is bound to answer the questions put to him. The consequences, as any one may see, implicate the direction of penitents in great difficulties, and on that account no one can admit either of these methods of action.

Now the confessor, in order to be faithful to his important duty of withdrawing his penitents from the occasions of sin, and in order not to be deceived by a penitent who, left to his own judgment, will not realize the danger of the occasions, must question his penitent with perfect liberty and undeterred by the fear of obtaining any knowledge of the accomplice in sin, if it is probable though not certain that such defamation of the accomplice is not a reason dispensing from the integrity of the confession. This opinion is certainly probable.

The champions of this view are far from denying that the natural law forbids the injuring of another’s good name, but, they maintain, such injury is forbidden only when there are no reasonable grounds for inflicting it; it must be proved that the precept of making a complete confession is a sufficient reason, since such defamation to a confessor is certainly not objectively grave. That this ground is a reasonable one is evident from many weighty considerations:—

1. Good reasons have been already offered in the difficulties which are presented when perfect liberty is not allowed in confessing or asking the circumstances and occasions of sins.

2. Further examples may be easily imagined in which the defamation of another resulting from the penitent’s confession is not to be considered; for no one would dream, for example, of releasing a son from the obligation of making a perfect confession because it might be concluded from the gravity and nature of his sins that his parents had brought him up very badly; nor would a religious be excused for fear his confessor should entertain the suspicion that his superiors were neglecting their duty towards him. For such defamation may well be considered as of little moment, since the confessor is bound to the most stringent silence and can make absolutely no use of what he hears in confession.

3. Moreover, the precept of making a complete confession is so severe that the penitent may never transgress it in order to safeguard his own good name, and is obliged to overcome the fear of losing it. But, according to the universal teaching, a man is justified in self-defense to do a lawful act even if thereby he injure the character of his neighbor if there is no other way of shielding his own or regaining it when lost; hence it must be allowable to injure the reputation of another if the end in view is to make a perfect confession; or the same cause (the integrity of the confession) which binds me to injure my own good name gives me the right of disregarding any infamy that may accrue to others in discharging this duty.⁠[328]

4. Finally, since it was in early days the practice of confessing to one’s parish priest, and he was generally acquainted with all his subjects, the precept of making a complete confession would have had no meaning if the other opinion were tenable in respect to sins which were difficult to confess. Is it possible that Christ should give a command which in practice turned out so nugatory?⁠[329]

From what has been already said on this subject it follows that the confessor, if he thinks fit, is quite at liberty to put questions on the circumstances or occasions of sin; moreover, that penitents ought not to be instructed to conceal circumstances which may injure the reputation of the accomplice with the confessor; they ought rather to be encouraged to make a complete confession to their regular confessor if they are unable to find another.

If, however, some one acting upon the undoubted authority of theologians who teach the other view wishes to make his confession accordingly, he cannot be blamed if he has formed a dictamen conscientiæ, and he cannot be forced to renounce his opinion.

Again, if a confessor remarks that a penitent is familiar with his theology and makes his accusation in accordance with the other opinion, and if he is satisfied that said penitent is capable of forming a judgment about his obligations, he may more easily omit certain questions and leave the penitent free to follow his own opinion.

What has been said with respect to the accomplice’s reputation applies equally to those who have been in any way an occasion of sin to the penitent. There are cases in which the penitent cannot give the specific character of his sin without at the same time disclosing the sin of another which has been the object or occasion of his own sin. A man, for instance, discovers his unmarried sister to be in confinement and maltreats her so that abortus follows; he cannot explain the nature of his crime fully in the confessional without revealing his sister’s sin and so destroying her reputation in the mind of the priest. Although some even of those who teach that the integrity of the confession may take precedence of the accomplice’s character are unwilling to grant it in this particular case, yet there is at least a probability that the obligation of integrity prevails in any case.⁠[330]

Article III THE MEANS TO BE EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT CONFESSION

28. The Examination of Conscience.

Since the penitent is obliged to make a complete confession of his mortal sins, as far as lies in his power, there naturally devolves upon him the duty of examining his conscience. Regarding the examination of conscience the following points are to be noted:—

I. The penitent is bound under pain of mortal sin to prepare for confession by a serious and careful examination of conscience, and he must devote to this examination such diligence as a prudent man would ordinarily devote to any important business; hence in order that the omission of mortal sins in the accusation may not be attributed to sinful neglect, diligentia mediocris, as it is called, or diligentia moralis is required, not such as would make the practice of confession hateful or unduly burdensome.

The proof for this is supplied by the Council of Trent,⁠[331] and it is clear that if mortal sins are to be confessed they must be recalled to the mind. Theologians observe, however, that when a man has examined his conscience with moral diligence, but still believes that further examination would reveal more sins, he is not obliged to spend more time in examining his conscience; otherwise a penitent who had neglected confession for many years would have to examine his conscience for days and still fail to do his duty; such a conclusion is obviously wrong.⁠[332]

Sporer⁠[333] even goes so far as to teach that a man who has used moral diligence in examining his conscience and has made his confession, and afterwards cannot recall whether he mentioned or not some particular sin, is not bound to confess it, because the presumption is that he has confessed it along with the other sins. If, however, he have strong misgivings on other grounds and cannot settle his doubt as to whether he has confessed the sin or not, he is always obliged to mention that sin, if there is no doubt of its having been committed, in the next confession.

II. The care which ought to be employed in this examination is not the same for all classes of penitents; it varies according to the circumstances of the penitents: more especially according to—(1) the state of conscience and the habitual purity of life; (2) the time elapsed since the last valid confession; (3) the education, the knowledge (in religious matters especially), the intelligence of the penitent; (4) the state of health.⁠[334]

1. One who seldom falls into mortal sin may satisfy himself with a less strict examination of conscience, especially if he be in the habit of making a daily examination of conscience; for if a penitent of this kind falls into mortal sin, he will immediately recall it; and one who is morally certain that he has not sinned mortally is, strictly speaking, not bound to any examination of conscience, but he must be careful to offer sufficient matter for confession. Though this is quite correct in theory, in practice the penitent is strongly advised to make a careful examination of conscience in order to rid himself of his smaller faults and to reap greater fruit from the Sacrament.

2. The longer the period over which the examination is to extend the more time and care must be expended in this preparation, but it is not to be laid down as a principle that a man who has not confessed for a year is bound to be twelve times as long in his preparation as the man whose last confession was a month before.

3. Less instructed or quite uneducated people are not obliged to so careful and searching an examination as the better instructed; they are quite incapable of examining their conscience, ad impossibilia nemo tenetur. If an educated penitent comes to the Sacrament unprepared, the confessor should with all proper consideration send him away again to prepare himself by a careful examination of conscience, unless there should be solid grounds for supposing such a step inopportune; but only grave reasons justify such toleration, for, though the sins committed might be ascertained by questions, there is no moral certainty that such a confession is a perfect one. A penitent who has not been to confession for a long time and is leading a worldly life cannot without preparation answer at once and correctly whether he has committed such or such sins. If the penitent is uneducated, or, although educated, yet ignorant in religion, and has taken absolutely no pains to acquire a knowledge of his sins, he must be treated in the same way; if, however, he has taken some pains in the matter, the confessor may supply the defect by questions; for an uneducated man left to himself will, even after a long examination of conscience, never succeed so well as when guided by the prudent questioning of an experienced and skillful confessor who will do the work in a much shorter time. If, then, the confessor sees that he can procure by questioning a perfect confession such as the penitent left to his own resources could hardly make after long examination, he should help him, all the more if there is reason to fear that the penitent would be frightened by the postponement of his confession, and might be deterred from confession, at least for a time, by the difficulties attending a careful examination of conscience. This method, the result of great experience, is confirmed by the Catechismus Romanus:⁠[335] “If a priest remarks that such penitents are quite unprepared, he should dismiss them with very gentle words and advise them to come again after spending some time in thinking over their sins. If they maintain that they have already exercised all diligence in examining their conscience, he should hear them, since there is reason to fear that if sent away they might not return, and he may with more reason hear their confessions if they show any signs of wishing to reform their life; then they may be urged to accuse themselves of their carelessness and promise for the future to make up for their faults by a careful examination.”

Reuter⁠[336] observes on this subject: “Besides, experience teaches, as is well remarked by Vasquez and Lugo, that a prudent confessor can accomplish more with most penitents and uneducated people by a few questions than they can themselves after a long examination. Hence such penitents when they give any signs of fervor ought not to be easily dismissed, in order to examine themselves again, even when defects are noticed.” Sporer⁠[337] writes: “Uneducated and inexperienced penitents are unable to make such an exact examination as the more educated; hence they should be helped by the confessor.” Segneri,⁠[338] too, warns the priest not to send away ignorant penitents to make a fresh examination of conscience, unless for the most urgent reasons, since, on the one hand, they may be frightened away and never come to confession again, and, on the other hand, the confessor himself can easily supply for their deficiency by his zeal.

Although a penitent knows that he will be questioned by his confessor, he is none the less bound to examine his conscience, since otherwise he would be exposed to the danger of giving wrong and insufficient answers or of omitting a great deal; he may, however, permit himself a little less care, especially with regard to the sins common to people in his state of life.⁠[339]

No one is bound to write his sins even if he should be afraid of forgetting them; nor, if sin has been committed with another, is there any obligation to consult with the accomplice in sin to determine the number of sins; so, too, one who has missed Mass the whole year is not bound to count up the feasts in the calendar, for this would be diligentia extraordinaria such as the Council of Trent does not demand.⁠[340]

4. Those who are prostrated by illness and through weakness or pain cannot review their past life are not obliged to make an exact examination of conscience; indeed the confessor should only put to them a few questions according to their condition. If, however, they regain their health, they must supply what was wanting in their accusation; if, after receiving absolution, other mortal sins occur to their mind, they should confess them and get absolution. In general the sick are not required to make so careful an examination as others; hence the priest should not yield when they wish to put off confession from one day to another on the plea of examining their conscience better; usually this is only a pretext for putting off the confession, and does not arise from anxiety or eagerness to prepare well, but from fear; such persons must be prepared by the priest himself for absolution and the other Sacraments.⁠[341]

III. A penitent who is guilty of gross neglect in the examination of conscience makes per se an invalid and sacrilegious confession; he must, of course, be sufficiently conscious of such neglect in order to incur this sin. The malice of the offense consists in the risk of omitting some mortal sin, and so, though none may have been actually left out, the penitent has sinned gravely by consciously exposing himself to the danger.

IV. In order to make a good examination of conscience the penitent should adopt some system; the simplest and easiest method is to go through the commandments of God and of the Church, the various kinds of sins (especially the Seven Capital Sins), and the nine ways of participating in sin; it is also recommended to call to mind particular hours and days. Theologians give many other methods besides for this examination. Reuter recommends the penitent to recall where he was each day, what was done, and what sins were committed by thoughts, wishes, and desires, words, and works; how he has conducted himself at home, in church, with his neighbors; the author considers that by this means repetition will be avoided. To examine the conscience according to this method would be to exercise not only diligentia sufficiens but magna omnino diligentia.⁠[342] Sporer, approving the method recommended by Gobat, offers a compendious system for penitents who lead a fairly uniform existence and for whom the examination of conscience extends over a longer time, some months or half a year. The penitent should consider three periods: (1) an ordinary working-day; (2) a Sunday; (3) an exceptional day in which he has traveled, done some particular business, been present at a wedding or a dinner, etc.⁠[343] One who has only to examine a short interval may call to mind how he has sinned against God, his neighbor, and himself, by thoughts, words, and deeds.

V. The following directions are given by approved moralists to determine whether any carelessness in the examination of conscience is a mortal or venial sin and whether in consequence the confession has been valid or not.

1. Those may rest in perfect security who, being neither too strict nor too lax, experience no misgiving or anxiety on the care which they have devoted to the examination of their conscience.

2. If a man doubts whether he has been guilty of more or less carelessness and discovers after confession that he has omitted more sins than he has confessed, he must acknowledge himself guilty of gravely sinful neglect; if, however, he has confessed more sins than he has omitted, it may be assumed that he has not been guilty of great carelessness.

3. If a penitent’s last confession was made one or two weeks before and he accuses himself of mortal sins, giving the number of times in quite a vague and doubtful fashion, e.g., I have committed sins against holy purity three or four times, there is a strong suspicion that he has been gravely careless in the examination of his conscience.⁠[344]

It should be noticed that if a penitent, from experience of his own weakness, is afraid that by a prolonged examination of his sins he will again consent to them, he may confine himself to a rapid glance at them, though he knows that for want of further examination many will be omitted, since in any case the risk of committing sin must be avoided. A confessor must observe the same guardedness in putting questions on sins against the angelic virtue, as we shall see later.

If the penitent is troubled with scruples, it is better for him not to go so thoroughly into his examination of conscience, otherwise confession would become too burdensome, and experience shows that such penitents become only more confused, the more they examine themselves; indeed they should be forbidden any long and anxious attention to themselves.

Let the confessor impress upon worrying souls that the great thing for them is to have the wish to confess all, that God recognizes the good will, and that this is shown by praying for grace to make a good examination of conscience, and that even if a sin be forgotten without any fault it is remitted, and that the time between confession and communion should not be occupied with the recalling of one’s past sins, but that the mind should be fixed on the future.⁠[345]

29. Invalid Confessions.

Confessions may be either invalid or merely defective. If only defective but not invalid, the defect should be supplied, but there is no need to repeat the confession; if, however, they are invalid, they must be repeated. This repetition need not always be made in the same manner.

A confession may be invalid through the fault of the penitent or through that of the confessor.

A confession may be invalid through the penitent’s fault:—

1. By a gravely sinful defect in the examination of conscience.

2. By culpable and deliberate concealment of anything which ought to be confessed, or by a gravely sinful lie in confession.

3. By the want of contrition and purpose of amendment; and this defect is to be found among recidivi as well as those who refuse restitution or reconciliation with their enemies.

4. By want of good will to carry out the penance imposed, and to undertake other duties which bind under pain of grievous sin, if the good will is wanting at the time of receiving absolution.

5. By ignorance of those truths which must be known necessitate medii in order to gain salvation.

6. By receiving absolution while still under a sentence of excommunication. Among the principal effects of such a sentence must be counted privatio sacramentorum, so that any one receiving the Sacraments in this condition incurs a mortal sin by breaking the law of the Church. One may be saved, however, from grievous sin in this matter by inculpable ignorance, fear of death or mutilation, great disgrace or serious loss of fortune, etc., as well as by the necessity of obeying the law of yearly confession and communion when there is no priest with faculties for absolving from censures, for the law of the Church is not so severe as to bind its subjects to suffer grievous damage.

It is illicit and even sacrilegious for an excommunicated person to receive the Sacraments, though the reception is valid except in the case of the Sacrament of Penance. But when the excommunicated person is in good faith and thinks he may receive absolution, such absolution is valid, it being presumed of course that he goes to confession with the necessary dispositions. Such a case might occur when, through invincible ignorance or forgetfulness, he omits to mention the censure of excommunication, or when the priest does not know of it or forgets for the moment that such a censure is attached to certain sins, or, again, even where the priest knowingly absolves the penitent, though unprovided with faculties for the case, because the penitent is in one of the cases of necessity mentioned above and the priest feels it his duty to give absolution, or even if ex malitia he absolves a penitent who believes him to have faculties.⁠[346]

On the part of the confessor the confession may be made invalid if he has not the necessary jurisdiction or intention, or if he omits something essential in the formula of absolution, or if through deafness or inattention or the indistinctness of the penitent’s utterance he has not understood any sin. If, however, through no fault of the penitent the priest missed some sins, even mortal sins, the confession would, according to the probable opinion, be valid if he heard part of the accusation; those sins, however, which had not been understood ought to be repeated. If in the course of confession the penitent observes that the confessor does not understand because he is asleep or distracted, the penitent must repeat what the priest has failed to hear; if, in spite of this, the penitent were to continue the confession (mala fide), it would be sinful and invalid and ought to be repeated. If at the end of the confession the penitent sees that the confessor has been sleepy or distracted and so has missed some of the sins, though he does not know which have been missed, he must begin again unless the accusation has been a long one, in which case it is enough if the penitent repeat what he thinks the confessor may have missed, for it may be presumed that Christ never intended to prescribe perfect confession when attended with such inconvenience.⁠[347]

With respect to repeating confessions the following principles are accepted:—

I. If a confession is invalid, the sins mentioned in it must be repeated; otherwise, the ensuing confession is invalid, for those sins were never remitted by the power of the keys, and in consequence they must be again submitted to the tribunal.

II. The duty of repeating a confession urges as soon as there is a moral certainty that said confession was null; if, however, the confession has certainly been made and there is doubt only as to its validity, the presumption is in favor of its validity. It is, however, advisable to repeat a doubtfully valid confession.

There is no difficulty where the penitent has willfully concealed or never intended to give up a mortal sin or never avoided a voluntary occasion of sin, and in other such cases, for the confession was unquestionably invalid and sacrilegious. It is more difficult, however, to determine at times on the validity of a confession when the penitent has frequently relapsed without being voluntarily and continually in the occasion of sin. If a penitent shortly after confession falls frequently into sin on the first occasion that offers, without making any resistance, the presumption is that the confession was deficient in the required contrition and purpose of amendment, and that in consequence it was invalid. If, however, after confession he usually makes some effort, the nullity of the confession is not certain, and the confessor may not force him to repeat the confession, but he will do well to counsel him to do so when his dispositions improve and he is earnest in his contrition and in his efforts to make a permanent reform.⁠[348]

III. Invalid confessions must be repeated in their entirety when new confession is made to another priest who has no knowledge of the sins contained in the preceding invalid confessions, for this knowledge is necessary in order to pronounce judgment; hence it is not enough for a penitent to accuse himself merely of having made one or more invalid confessions.

IV. If the confession is made to a priest who has heard the invalid confessions, and in consequence has already passed sentence on the individual sins and has at least a knowledge in confuso of the penitent’s state, it is sufficient to summarize the accusation of previously confessed sins in the form, “I accuse myself of the sins already mentioned in ... confession,” mentioning if the previous confessions were invalid through want of integrity, and supplying this want by a distinct and separate accusation of the sin or sins omitted.⁠[349] The previous confessions were sacramental, since they were made with a view to obtain absolution, though deprived of their sacramental efficacy through the fault of the penitent; hence a general repetition of them in connection with the knowledge which the confessor had of the individual sins may be considered as sufficient to form a judgment. If a penitent wishes to make a general confession, the distinction between the usual confessor and any other is not of so great moment, except where the confessor or the penitent is intent upon the minimum necessarium; the usual confessor of the penitent may, however, be satisfied with less care, since he knows already the previous sins of his penitent. In this case, however, he must have notitiam saltem confusam status pœnitentis; for this it is not necessary that he should be able to recall the number and circumstances of the sins in question: a remembrance of the different species and their number in general suffices.

The confessor will have acquired this notitia confusa from previous confessions and from the questions which he puts to the penitent. Such knowledge is sufficient in so far as it is connected with a knowledge of previous sins, and that will be the case where the general confession is made to the same priest.

If, however, the priest can only vaguely call to mind his past treatment of the penitent, he should put some questions to him in order to form an idea of the state of his conscience; but he may absolve without this precaution, if from the penances which he has been in the habit of giving to his penitent he can form a judgment as to the state of his soul.⁠[350]

The same plan may be adopted in the case in which a man after making his confession is sent away without absolution, and afterwards returns to receive it, the confessor in the meantime retaining no recollection of the sins. Undoubtedly in such a case a notitia confusa is sufficient, and on the strength of it absolution may be given. Nay, more: if the penitent’s absolution had been delayed for some reason not connected with want of necessary dispositions, the confessor might be satisfied with the remembrance that the penitent was in right dispositions for absolution and had received a penance in proportion to the sin. Of course it is always understood that no fresh mortal sin has been committed in the interval between the confessions; otherwise it must be confessed and a new act of sorrow and resolution of amendment must be made.⁠[351]

On the same principles we may answer the question already discussed as to whether a man who recounts his sins (mere historice) to a priest (qua amico)—to obtain advice, for instance—is bound to retail them explicitly if in consequence of the priest’s advice he desires to receive absolution; or the question might be put thus: What knowledge or recollection of the sins must the priest have so that on the strength of a perfunctory accusation couched in general terms he may give absolution? Many theologians, among them Lacroix and St. Alphonsus, require a distincta memoria of all the sins, because the preceding confession was not made to the priest as a judge in the Sacrament, and so cannot be a sacramental confession; but a sacramental confession is made only when the confessor has a distincta memoria of the sins narrated at the time when the summary of the accusation is made; if the priest remembers them only in confuso or ex parte, the penitent must once more make a distinct accusation of his sins in ordine ad absolutionem. The opposite view is taught by Lugo, who maintains that it is communis, for almost all theologians teach that the memoria confusa is sufficient whatever may have caused the defect in the previous confession. He grants that the mere narration of the sins is in no way sacramental, that no judicial accusation has been made, that it is merely a friendly confidence; this previous, though not sacramental, narration which still remains memoria non omnino distincta, may become in a certain manner sacramental by the ensuing (summarized) accusation, sufficient for the purposes of the Sacrament; not because the previous narration was sacramental in itself, for it was not so, but in so far as the later accusation, joined with the recollection which the confessor has of the sins previously mentioned, supplies the priest with the knowledge necessary for the Sacrament.⁠[352] Thus Lugo combats successfully the objections and reasons of his opponents.

Still in Lugo’s proof and that of his supporters the difficulty must not be overlooked that the narration has no sort of relation to the Sacrament of Penance, either in the mind of the narrator or that of the priest, and that in consequence the reasons brought forward in the case above mentioned are not quite convincing. Aertnys consents to Lugo’s decision—that is, he considers the repetition of the accusation as unnecessary only when the confessor at the time when the summary of the sins is made has a distincta memoria eorum, since the general accusation of the penitent along with the notitia distincta of the confessor is equivalent to a distincta confessio.⁠[353] And Lehmkuhl regards Lugo’s view as quite probable only when the priest is entertaining hopes as he listens to the narration of getting the man to make a sacramental confession, though such a thought may be very far from the man’s mind at the time. The accusation of the penitent may not be intentionally sacramental, while the attention of the priest has already begun to assume a judicial and sacramental form and is inchoative, at least, a distinctly judicial investigation such as would seem sufficient when the penitent on his part gives his consent to carry out the distinct judicial act. If, however, the penitent in the course of his narration never hinted at the idea of a sacramental accusation and the priest never adverted to it, the teaching of St. Alphonsus would seem to prevail, for in such a case a distincta notitia judicialis never existed, unless a distincta memoria were retained by the priest; but the sacramental sentence which has to be pronounced over every mortal sin is based solely on a judicial knowledge of them.⁠[354]

30. General Confession.

The repetition of former confessions, whether of all the confessions of a lifetime or of those last made, is called a general confession. It is necessary for many penitents, useful to others; to a few only it may be said to be harmful.

1. General confession is necessary for all who have made invalid confessions. St. Alphonsus remarks on this subject that it is a frequent experience in missions that bad confessions have to be set right; hence he advises missioners that since the good of missions consists mainly in setting right bad confessions, they should in all their discourses be urgent in explaining the heinousness of sacrilege and how many souls are lost by concealing mortal sins in confession. Experience teaches that many people are overcome by false shame so as to conceal their sins even in the confessions which they make to the fathers giving the mission. If at so solemn a time as a mission such people fail to set right their bad confessions, what hope is there of their salvation? If in the confession which they make to the missioner they cannot overcome their shame, how will they do it when they confess to the local priest? There is indeed good reason for ever and again insisting on the general confession.⁠[355] Hence it is very desirable that the local priests at the time of a mission should refrain from hearing confessions, and surrender their confessionals to the fathers who give the mission (or to some strange priests called in for the special work of hearing the confessions), for some of the faithful, if they see their usual confessor in attendance, may be deterred from going to a strange priest and continue to make sacrilegious confessions. It not unfrequently happens that people whom we would never suspect have most need of freedom in this respect.⁠[356]

It frequently happens that a confessor thinks a general confession necessary when the penitent is not at all convinced of its necessity. Whether the penitent is to be advised in such a case to make a general confession will be determined by the rules which are given as to the duty of instructing the penitent or leaving him to himself (§ 55); for if the penitent suspects nothing of the nullity of his previous confessions, the confession which he now makes in good faith and proper dispositions is valid, and by virtue of it the sins mentioned in former invalid confessions are indirectly remitted and need only be repeated when the conscience awakes to the fact. Moreover, a prudent confessor, if he fails to persuade a penitent of the necessity of a general confession, may succeed by a few questions in making the confession practically a general one. Indeed, unless the penitent takes it in bad part the priest may by a little adroitness elicit a general confession; then he must, before giving absolution, let the penitent know that he has made a general confession. The case may also occur where the penitent has made one or more sacrilegious confessions and, quite forgetful of this circumstance, has begun to make valid confessions without ever setting right the bad ones; this not unfrequently happens to children. In this case the general confession need only extend over the sacrilegious confessions.⁠[357]

2. Of the great usefulness of general confession, popes, saintly bishops, founders of orders, and the great doctors of the Church all speak in most unmistakable terms. The learned Benedict XIV, in his instructions on the preparation of the faithful for a fruitful celebration of the Jubilee, directs priests who give the missions to impress on the people again and again the great profit of general confession. They are to urge them to penance, and to instruct them how to receive the Sacrament validly and profitably; they are to proclaim that it is absolutely necessary to repeat former bad confessions, and they should take all possible pains to excite to a general confession even those who do not feel any necessity for repeating their sins again. “For if it is not necessary to mention again our former sins, we regard such repetition as very profitable on account of the confusion connected with such avowal, which is an important part of penance, as our predecessor, Benedict XI, teaches in this Decretal Inter Cunctas.” He also appeals to St. Charles Borromeo, who in his Monita ad Confessarios proclaims the usefulness of general confession and recommends it. “Confessors,” says the saint, “ought, with due regard to persons, times, and places, urge their penitents to make a general confession, that thus by a thorough examination of their lives they may turn to God with greater peace of mind and repair all faults which have been committed in former confessions.” As another witness for the usefulness of this practice, Benedict XIV adduces St. Francis of Sales who, in many places in his works, insists strongly on the practice. Thus he writes to a widow concerning her father: The counsels which I give him I reduce to two points: the first one is that he should institute a careful examination of his whole life with a view to making a general confession and performing a corresponding penance,—this is a means which no sensible man will despise in presence of death; the other is that he should continually endeavor to wean his mind from the vanities of the world.⁠[358] Benedict then refers to the rules which St. Vincent de Paul gave to his mission-priests, in which he exhorts them to encourage general confessions. In the life of the holy founder it is recorded what great fruits were reaped from the general confessions which were made during the missions held by those priests.⁠[359]

The advantages of general confession are thus briefly enumerated by St. Ignatius in his Book of the Exercises: (1) We gain greater fruit and merit on account of the deeper contrition with which we approach the Sacrament; (2) we are better able to realize the malice of sins committed; (3) we are in better dispositions for receiving holy communion, and we are more disposed to shun sin. Moreover, the Directorium of the Exercises, a work composed by a member of the Society of Jesus and edited by the General Claudius Aquaviva, adds the following observation: If the general confession offered no other advantage, the following fact would sufficiently recommend it; experience proves that men for the most part go to confession either without proper examination, or without the required contrition, or with but a weak purpose of amendment; the general confession comes in most opportunely to give peace of mind, to remove scruples, which sooner or later, or at least at the hour of death, come to torture the soul and expose it to the danger of losing eternal salvation.

Segneri also very earnestly recommends general confession. It is a very safe and useful plan to examine one’s life thoroughly at least once, and to set it right by a general confession, and to keep up the practice at fixed intervals of a year, or even oftener, of making a general confession beginning from the last. The advantage of this practice is that, seeing all our faults and sins at a glance, we are filled with greater confusion and sorrow and are impelled to be more humble; besides the fear of God’s justice will grow in us when we see our sins, past and present, hanging like a great mountain over us, so that we are compelled to cry out with Esdras—“Our sins are grown up even unto heaven.” (Esdr. ix. 6.) And who does not see how difficult it is without such a confession to obtain that most priceless of blessings, peace of mind, at least if the frequent relapses into sin are due to a want of preparation? Oh, how many confessions are thought to be valid and are not so in reality!⁠[360]

Finally, the words of St. Alphonsus deserve a place here: “I advise every one who has not yet done so to confess all the sins which he has ever committed in his life, and I advise not only those who have made sacrilegious confessions by concealing mortal sins, or whose confessions have been invalid through want of previous examination of conscience or of true contrition, but those also who are anxious to begin a new life; for this purpose a general confession is very useful.”⁠[361]

Hence, general confession is useful: (1) for adults who have not already made one; (2) especially for such as have reasonable misgivings about the validity of past confessions; (3) for those who wish to start a new and better life; (4) before entering on a new state of life, hence before marriage, before receiving Orders or making the profession in a religious community; (5) at the time of a jubilee or mission, or of the spiritual exercises, for these are special occasions of grace and penance; (6) for persons who are in danger of death, while their strength permits, and for those who have to expose their lives to any danger.

Those who have once made a good general confession, especially if they are of mature age, may set their minds at ease on that portion of their existence, and such people should not be easily allowed to repeat their general confession unless for very weighty and exceptional reasons. These frequent repetitions do more harm than good. The desire of repeating the general confession is usually a sign of a certain want of trust in God and of scrupulosity. If a penitent of this kind, after his general confession, is uneasy about some important point in his former life, because he thinks he has not confessed something or failed to confess it properly, he may be allowed to mention it in one of his ordinary confessions.

A repetition of the confession of his whole life may be allowed to a penitent who is free from scruples and is full of zeal to enter on a perfect life. On the other hand, it is well to advise and even to urge as a very useful means the practice of general confession at fixed intervals, say of a year, or a half year, or when the occasions mentioned above afford an opportunity. If the confessor has to deal with a penitent who has already once or oftener made a general confession, he should ask when the last confession was made and why the penitent is anxious to make it again. The answer will suggest the course to be pursued by the confessor: (a) If the penitent can give no definite reason, but speaks of a general feeling of unrest, the confessor may ask what the cause of this unrest is, and whether in the preceding general confession the penitent has honestly said all he knew and as he knew it, whether he answered the questions put by the priest in all truth, whether he was sorry for his sins, and whether there was a real improvement in his way of living, or, on the other hand, whether he fell again into sin, and when. If a defect is discovered in the preceding general confession it must be repeated; otherwise the penitent must be shown how groundless his fears are and encouraged to trust in God. The repetition of the general confession must be strictly forbidden, especially in the case of those troubled with scruples. At the most, the accusation of one or other sin which gives most uneasiness may be permitted, and the penitent must be engaged to think no more about the matter, but only to make acts of sorrow when these sins occur to his mind. (b) If, however, the penitent wishes to make a general confession because the last one was made a long time ago, and many mortal sins have been committed in the interval, he should be permitted to make it. The period which has been already comprised in a general confession may be treated with less detail, or quite omitted. A short repetition is, however, as a rule, recommended since the earlier life of the penitent throws light on his present condition, and he is always more content if the confessor has, at least, some general perception of the former state of his soul. (c) If the penitent wishes to make a general confession for ascetic reasons, e.g. for the sake of humility, of greater purity of heart, etc., the question is to be settled as follows: If the penitent is a stranger, he must be referred to his usual confessor; if he has none, he must be recommended to choose one. If the penitent asks the confessor to undertake his direction, and on the strength of this to receive his general confession, the request is not to be granted at once. A simple confession may be made so that the priest may decide whether a general confession be necessary to gain the knowledge required for guiding the penitent, or at least useful, or on the contrary harmful where there exists a tendency to scruple. With one’s ordinary penitents, this procedure is not required in order to find out whether a general confession is or is not advantageous; the ascetical object may be obtained by mentioning some of the more humiliating sins or by well-prepared annual general confessions.

In the special case of penitents who have been living in impurity the confessor should allow them only one general confession on that period of their lives lest by reflecting on those sins in their examination of conscience sinful promptings should arise in their imagination, the conscience thus incurring fresh stains where the object was to purify it; after one perfect confession of these sins the penitent should not be allowed, or rather he should be forbidden, to make any further accusation of them; a general accusation may, however, be made in subsequent confessions in these or other words of similar form: “I accuse myself of all sins committed against the sixth commandment.” Moreover, it is not recommended to advise such penitents to make a general confession till they have combated that vice with success, unless some other pressing need exist for making a general confession.⁠[362]

On the other hand, the confessor should not omit to advise those who are dangerously ill to make a general confession, or at least a summary of one; he may do this by asking whether anything in their past life gives uneasiness, whether they have always made good confessions and made good acts of contrition, whether they have been living in proximate occasions of sin, etc.; he will thus have many opportunities of righting at the last moment sacrilegious confessions and communions and rescuing souls from hell.

Since general confession is so profitable, the confessor may, according to the advice of St. Alphonsus,⁠[363] with the exception of the above case, receive penitents who wish to make a general confession of their whole life or of part of it and that at once if they are prepared; he should be most willing to help them in it unless some obstacle, as, for instance, the number of penitents still waiting, or shortness of time, should prevent him from devoting more time to one penitent. He will sometimes find that a general confession which seemed to be only useful turns out to have been necessary. On the other hand, the confessor should refrain from forcing on a penitent a general confession which is not dictated by necessity.⁠[364]

3. General confession is harmful to scrupulous and even to overanxious people; to such it brings not peace of mind but only more scruples; hence they should be dissuaded from making a general confession; it can only be allowed when there is complete certainty of the invalidity of past confessions. “Scrupulous penitents,” says St. Alphonsus, “would go on making and repeating general confessions forever in the hope of laying aside their anxiety, but the evil only grows, for after every general confession they fall again into new anxieties and scruples, thinking they have omitted some sin or failed to confess it properly, so that their uneasiness increases the oftener they repeat their confessions.”⁠[365] The confessor, in consequence, must be on his guard against such people and not allow himself to be deceived by them; he may permit them only to mention some sin which causes them very great trouble, and he must instruct them to atone for their defects by an act of sorrow. If, however, the priest is convinced of the invalidity of the former confessions of such people, he should help them through their general confession and after that forbid any further examination. Moreover, only an experienced, prudent, and skillful confessor should undertake the direction of such persons, and a young confessor should recommend them to some holy man of greater age. Moreover, the general confession, as we have already mentioned, is a danger to all those for whom reflection on their past sins is a source of new temptations. It is dangerous for those who live in the voluntary and unnecessary occasion of sin and are always relapsing, who are not really in good dispositions, and who make a general confession merely with a view of getting absolution more easily; they may be recognized by the sins committed since their last confession, and they may be admitted to a general confession after being exhorted to give up the occasions of sin and to combat their sinful habits.⁠[366] St. Leonard of Port Maurice says on this subject: “If the penitent is living in the proximate occasion of sin without making a firm resolution to reform, or without giving signs of contrition, you must give him no encouragement to make a general confession, for the proximate occasion must first be removed and the habit overcome at least for a time. It would else be but labor lost, for general confession is not merely an institution for setting right past confessions, but also for reforming one’s life. If no purpose of the sort is in the mind of the penitent, there cannot even be a reasonable certainty that he will persevere in his reform, and there is no foundation upon which to build up virtue. Exhort him, and suggest means for avoiding the occasions of evil and for overcoming sin; show him the utter impossibility of reform unless the occasions are given up, or, if this cannot be, unless they are made remote; urge him to pray and put off the general confession to another time. Only on quite special occasions, e.g. missions, or where there are extraordinary signs of penitence may any fruit be expected from the general confessions of those who live in occasions of sin and show no signs of improvement.”⁠[367]