CHAPTER III

CONFESSION

ARTICLE I

ESSENCE, NECESSITY, AND PROPERTIES OF CONFESSION

19. Essence and Necessity of Confession.

Though contrition is the most important of the dispositions which a penitent must bring to the Sacrament, the confessing of the sins is the most prominent feature to ordinary observers; hence the Sacrament is often simply called confession, as in the very earliest ages of the Church it was known simply as _confessio_ (in Greek _exomologesis_).

Sacramental confession is the self-accusation of sins committed after Baptism and not yet remitted in the Sacrament, and it is made by the penitent to a priest having the necessary faculties and with the object of obtaining absolution.

Hence it is not a sacramental confession when the sins are told _enarratione mere historica_; such a recital would not be an accusation, nor would it be done with the view of acknowledging one’s self a sinner or of obtaining absolution. Moreover, it is not a sacramental confession if sins are revealed to a priest to obtain counsel or help from him, or if they are told to the priest merely in derision, for there would be no accusation in this, at least it would not be done with a view of obtaining absolution. On the contrary, a confession invalid through any defect whatever would be sacramental if it was made in order to obtain absolution.

If, however, a man began by simply relating his sins to an authorized priest without any idea of making a sacramental confession, and then in order to obtain absolution accuses himself in general terms to the same priest of those same sins, the confession would be sacramental, for then a formal accusation would be made of those sins to the priest as judge, in order that absolution might be given.

The necessity of this confession for all mortal sins committed after Baptism is a dogma of the Church, and rests on the divine institution of the Sacrament. The proof is to be sought in dogmatic treatises. In the divine institution of this Sacrament, as a necessary means for obtaining forgiveness of sin by confession to a priest, is included the divine command of confessing sin, which binds all who have committed mortal sin after Baptism. We have already spoken of this in treating of the duty of approaching the Sacrament, since confession is one of the acts required of the penitent on receiving this Sacrament.[214]

There remains yet another point which shows the necessity of confession. Perfect contrition, as we have seen above, remits sin apart even from the Sacrament, but it does not remove the obligation of mentioning the sins so remitted to a duly authorized priest. The obligation remains, because by Christ’s command every mortal sin committed after Baptism must be submitted by confession to the power of the keys. This follows from the words of Our Lord (John xx. 23); hence the Council of Trent teaches that for those who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism confession is as necessary as Baptism is to those who have not been baptized.[215]

20. The Properties of Confession.

The necessary properties of confession have their origin in its nature and object. The primary object of the confession is to put the confessor, who is bound to act in his office as a judge, not as a despot, in a position to form a judicial sentence, so that he may be able to decide whether the sinner be worthy or unworthy of absolution, and also that he may be able to impose a suitable penance. To succeed in this the confession must be such as to allow the confessor a view of the whole moral state of the penitent, hence it must be complete. This property, however, being of very great importance, will be treated in a separate division. The other necessary feature, the contrition, has been already dealt with. The remaining properties are of secondary importance and not essential; they turn partly on the integrity and partly on the contrition and have been summarized in the following verses:—

Sit simplex, humilis confessio, pura, fidelis Atque frequens, nuda et discreta, libens, verecunda, Integra, secreta et lacrimabilis, accelerata, Fortis et accusans et sit parere parata.

Though these properties are not so essential that the want of any one of them nullifies the confession, they are all useful in their several ways to instruct a penitent how to make a good confession. For this reason we will treat of them:—

1. _Simplex._ The confession should be simple, straightforward, short, and clear; the penitent will therefore avoid all unnecessary, superfluous words, all prolix narrations and remarks which have no connection with the matter; at the same time he will avoid the use of all unintelligible expressions or such as are misleading and ambiguous; let his accusation be so worded that he may take it for granted that the priest will understand both the number and species of the sins. Thus, too, he must not accuse himself in a vague and general manner, as, “I have had bad thoughts”; for the confessor cannot judge from this whether a mortal or a venial sin, or indeed any sin at all, has been incurred; let him use such words as describe clearly the sins he has committed, making use of the proper and specific terms. Finally, he should avoid unnecessary repetitions of sins which differ only in number, not recounting them separately because they were committed at different times or on different occasions; all the sins should be grouped under their specific names and the number given. It is the duty of the priest, in the case of penitents who fail in this respect, to instruct them, at the same time taking into account the peculiarities of the penitent and showing great patience. St. Antoninus gives a very useful piece of advice on this subject. Penitents, says he, who need consolation in their trials or advice in their doubts should defer their difficulties till after they have confessed and received absolution; otherwise, if they dilate on these subjects during the confession of their sins, there is danger of their contrition being weakened.

2. _Humilis._ Let the confession be humble, for a man approaches the tribunal as a penitent, as one guilty of crime, as one accusing himself to his judge and seeking grace and mercy; of such a one humility and lowliness are to be expected. Surely the knowledge of one’s sins and sinfulness revealed by an honest examination of the conscience, the remembrance of repeated unfaithfulness and ingratitude to God, are reason enough for being humble. Let this humility fill the heart, pervade the accusation, be manifested in the whole exterior; then let the penitent go into the confessional, kneeling, with head uncovered, like the publican in the Gospel, who remained by the door of the Temple and dared not to raise his eyes to heaven, but struck his breast and prayed: “God, be merciful to me a sinner.” The words used by some are very appropriate as an introduction to the confession: “I, a poor sinner, confess and acknowledge to God, and to you, reverend father, in God’s place, that I have sinned often and grievously by thought, word, deed, and omission,” etc. Others, again, use the words of the Confiteor: “I confess to almighty God, to Blessed Mary, ever a virgin, ... that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed,” etc.

3. _Pura._ The confession should be made with the object of gaining pardon of sin and the grace of the Sacrament. If it were made with any wicked and gravely sinful intention, it would be a sacrilegious and invalid confession; if the penitent had any venially sinful object in view, _e.g._ to gain esteem, the confession would be valid though the penitent would incur the guilt of venial sin by it. If the penitent’s principal intention is to be reconciled to God, though at the same time there be present other motives not altogether forbidden, the confession is unimpaired; the same may easily happen in other good works, and secondary motives do not exclude the principal one.

4. _Fidelis (seu verax)._ The confession should be truthful and candid, without lies and deceit. Hence the penitent must not conceal the sins he has committed, nor confess those which he has not committed; neither may he confess as certain what is doubtful, nor what is doubtful as certain. It is disputed whether every lie in confession is a mortal sin and renders the confession null. There are indeed theologians who maintain that every lie told in confession is a mortal sin, because of the sin being committed in the very act of receiving a Sacrament. This view, however, is wrong. It is true that any lie told in confession is more sinful than the same lie told under other circumstances would be, on account of the irreverence to the Sacrament; but mortal sin would be incurred only by a lie in confession when the lie concerns the _materia necessaria_ of confession; in such a case the confession is invalid, for the judge is deceived about the case, and that is gravely wrong. If the penitent lies to the confessor in a matter which does not pertain to the Sacrament, there is no mortal sin, for such a lie does not mislead the judge nor imply a grave irreverence to the Sacrament, since still there is real matter for the Sacrament and a sufficient disposition to obtain the grace of the Sacrament. Accordingly, if the lie told in confession has nothing to do with the confession itself, it is mortal or venial on its own merits quite apart from the circumstances of its being told in confession.

From what has been said it follows that a penitent incurs venial sin by a lie told in confession when (1) he accuses himself falsely of a venial sin or denies having committed a venial sin; except where this venial sin forms the sole matter of confession, for then he would sin mortally, not on account of the lie, but on account of the grave irreverence done to the Sacrament in offering to the priest insufficient matter, for sins falsely stated can never be matter for absolution.

(2) Moreover, it is only a venial sin if the penitent denies having committed a mortal sin which he is not bound _hic et nunc_ to disclose, either because he has already revealed it in a valid confession or because he has pressing reasons for not disclosing it _hic et nunc_. Indeed it is possible that there is no sin at all when a penitent makes use of mental reservation. The confessor has no right to put questions which have no connection with the _materia necessaria_, and the penitent is not bound to answer such questions; to avoid a lie he may use a mental reservation by choosing an ambiguous expression which contains the truth, leaving the confessor to judge for himself. If, on the contrary, the priest has a right to inquire of the penitent whether he has committed some grave sin which has been already confessed, and the penitent denies the charge, he would sin mortally.[216]

(3) If the penitent is questioned by the priest as to his home, his condition, or his relatives or friends, and answers not according to the truth, knowing that these questions have no bearing on the nature of his sins, such untruths are only venial; for if a lie told in confession with respect to venial sins, although these may be matter of confession, be only a venial sin, a lie with respect to other things which have no connection with the accusation of the sins is still less likely to be mortal.

On the other hand, a mortal sin is incurred (1) when a penitent accuses himself of having committed a mortal sin which he has never committed, or denies having fallen into a mortal sin which he has incurred and which has never been validly confessed, and which besides he has no valid reason for concealing, or if he conceals a mortal sin which he is bound to mention.

(2) When he gives the number of his mortal sins as greater than is really the case. Here, however, ignorant and untaught penitents may be excused, because they honestly think it better to give a large number in preference to a small one. Besides,—

(3) A penitent sins mortally who confesses mortal sin as doubtful which he is certain of having committed, or confesses as certain mortal sins of which he has doubts. In such cases the penitent would be unsettling the judgment of the confessor in a very grave matter.

(4) Moreover, it would be a mortal sin if the penitent confesses a recent mortal sin, either explicitly or equivalently, as an old one already confessed, for the priest is thus prevented from giving a correct sentence and imposing the proper penance. It is another case when the accusation leaves it doubtful whether the sin is an old or recent one, or whether it has been already confessed or not, even if the penitent intend that the confessor be persuaded that the sin is an old one.

(5) Finally, the penitent incurs a mortal sin if he denies the existence of a habit of sin, or of a relapse or the existence of an occasion of sin, or if he avoids any avowal on the subject so as to mislead the confessor. It would accordingly be a mortal sin for a penitent to accuse himself of a recent mortal sin at the end of his confession by using a formula of this kind: “I accuse myself of the sins of my past life, in particular of this sin ...”; for this formula by universal consent implies only past sins already confessed. On the other hand, it would not be a mortal sin in a general confession to mingle old with recent sins, as long as the confessor knows that not all the mortal sins have been already confessed; if the priest is persuaded that he ought to gain a clearer knowledge, he may ask; if he believe that he may let the matter rest there, it is his affair (and perhaps in many cases this may be the prudent course). Still less is it a mortal sin, indeed it may be counselled or obligatory in certain cases, for a penitent to say that such or such sin has not yet been confessed, making the accusation in such a way that the confessor does not suspect that the sin has been recent. Such an expedient may be necessary when a priest himself confesses sins committed in hearing confessions, not wishing to violate the seal of confession.[217]

In addition, the confessor must remember that the faithful in general are persuaded that a lie in confession is a very grave sin, so that he must judge of its gravity according to the conscience of the penitent.[218]

5. _Frequens._ Confession ought to be frequently made (see above, § 3). This includes also the repeated confession of sins already confessed and absolved (see above, § 6).

6. _Nuda._ The penitent ought not to hide his sins by ambiguous words or expressions which veil the hatefulness of the sin, in order to make them appear less in the eyes of the confessor. A penitent who thus veils his sins cannot have real contrition; there still remains in his heart that false shame which confuses the intellect, and his soul is not yet released from sin. Such conduct is in reality no less sinful than concealing the sin entirely, for what is the difference between total silence and answering so obscurely that the questioner is left in doubt? Just as a penitent makes a bad confession who conceals what he ought to tell, so does he who answers his confessor in such obscure terms that the latter does not understand or is led to take a view which the penitent knows to be wrong.

The conditional accusation is no better, as when, for example, a penitent says: “If I have given way to impure thoughts, I accuse myself of them,” etc. Such a confession is not an accusation of sins, nor is it a sign of absolute aversion from them.

7. _Discreta._ The confession should be prudent, _i.e._ so worded that the reputations of others do not suffer; hence the sins of others ought not to be revealed except in so far as is necessary for the declaration of one’s own sins. Not a few penitents prefer to tell the sins of others rather than their own: wives, for instance, tell the sins of their husbands, servants the sins of their masters. Such penitents must be seriously admonished by their confessor for the future not to reveal the sins of others lest they incur the guilt of detraction and God’s anger in the very tribunal of His mercy. The question as to the partner in sin, whether and under what circumstances he is to be revealed in confession, is relegated to a later portion of the treatise.

The penitent’s own good sense will tell him to be as discreet and decorous as possible in confessing his sins, especially those against purity, without detracting from the completeness of the confession, without being gross, and at the same time without failing in the reverence due to the Sacrament; hence he should tell only what is necessary for the integrity of the confession, and that as cautiously and becomingly as is possible, quite briefly, in clear and intelligible language; the confession must be perfect and at the same time chaste. The confessor also must exercise great discretion and prudence in this dangerous matter.[219]

Finally, a prudent penitent will choose a suitable and virtuous confessor who unites real piety and prudent zeal to solid knowledge and a wide experience.

Not only is it advisable and wholesome to have a regular confessor, but it is absolutely necessary. Of course as far as the absolution is concerned it is always valid, provided that the priest who gives it has the requisite faculties; but as for the spiritual direction of the penitent, it is by no means an indifferent matter who the confessor is; if ever there is an occasion in which there is need of a trusty, reliable friend, guide, and adviser, it is in making a confession. On this point St. Francis of Sales writes: “When Tobias was about to send his son to Rages, and the latter explained that he did not know the way, ‘Go, then,’ said his father, ‘and seek a man who knows the way, that he may guide you.’ This is my advice to you, Philothea; if you really desire to tread the way of perfection, seek out above all things a man of experience to guide you and show you the way: this is the most important lesson of all.”[220] And after treating the subject in his usual way, he quotes the remarkable words which the great St. Louis shortly before his death addressed to his son: “Confess often, and choose for your confessor a man of experience, who has not only wisdom and science, but also zeal for souls, and learn from him what you ought to do.” The priest as God’s vicar is not a judge only, he is a physician, and it is not hard to understand how one physician can differ from another. For a soul which is anxious to get rid of sin, to be established in virtue, and to make progress in Christian perfection, as all Christians are bound to do, there is required not only the application of the Sacrament, but guidance as well. The direction of souls goes much farther than a mere dispensing of the Sacrament. There are many things in which a soul eager for salvation must be anxious for further instruction; the methods of combating with success different evil inclinations, the methods of prayer, the performance of certain good works, the way of carrying out the duties of one’s state of life with more zeal and merit, and the attainment of perfection. An approved confessor and director is undoubtedly very useful, nay, necessary, and the penitent should pick out such a one. In a choice of this kind he should have no other object but his salvation and spiritual progress, and hence he should choose a well-instructed, experienced, and holy man to lead him in the way of God in the interior life, one who knows the penitent’s condition, one whose heart is full of love, one who is as far removed from a feeble indulgence as from a repelling strictness. Firmness and gentleness should be united in him, a firmness which does not crush and a gentleness which will not allow presumption; he should inspire confidence so that the penitent has no difficulty in unfolding his heart to him. To seek an ignorant and inexperienced confessor is, as theologians express it, to choose a sure guide to hell; and, according to the teaching of Suarez, etc., it is a mortal sin when done with the intention of obtaining absolution by fraud.[221] But a good confessor is a “faithful friend, a strong defense; and he that hath found him hath found a treasure; ... and they that fear the Lord shall find him.”[222] St. Francis of Sales directs Philothea to make choice of a confessor after constant prayer, and assures her that God will grant her this most important of petitions and send her a man after his own heart.

When the penitent has made choice of his confessor in accordance with those rules of common sense which great spiritual writers enjoin, his duty is then to love him as his spiritual father, to fear him as the judge of his conscience, to follow him as his guide in the path of virtue, to take his advice as his physician in the maladies, affections, and sufferings of his soul. He should follow him, as though he were an angel leading the way to heaven; give him his whole confidence; deal with him in all openness and frankness; disclose to him all the good and evil in his soul without dissembling or reserve, and at the same time entertain a respect for him which does not weaken his confidence in him.[223]

Having once chosen a good confessor, the penitent should cling to him and not change about from one to another; nothing is more harmful or more foolish than such conduct; unstable and wandering penitents of this kind give sufficient proof that all they want is to be absolved and not to be helped and guided, and there is reason to suspect that their purpose of amendment is by no means sincere. Should a penitent, however, be in such a condition that to confess to his regular confessor would be too great a difficulty and involve risk of making sacrilegious confession, it would be better to look out for some other priest and confess to him.

The penitent ought not at the same time be so dependent on his confessor as to be quite bewildered when a change becomes necessary. Discouragement or sadness on this account, or a less frequent use of the Sacraments would be a sign that this dependence was due to some undesirable cause and could not be any longer regarded as confidence in the director.

What is to be thought of those penitents who have two confessors, one to whom they are well known and whose good opinion they enjoy, and another to whom they are not well known, using the former to tell him their more frequent and smaller sins, and the latter for the confession of graver faults, in order that they may thereby keep up their good reputation with the first? Such conduct is certainly not _per se_ forbidden when there is good reason for it, as may happen when any one is unwilling or does not dare to reveal to his ordinary confessor some very shameful fall.

Still the practice is not without danger and so cannot be unconditionally recommended, for it is a sign that a penitent is more anxious about his good name than his progress in the spiritual life; indeed he might incur grievous sin if such conduct exposed him to the danger of falling into mortal sin, as would be the case if in pursuing this course he never intended seriously to give up his sin. Such is the predicament of those penitents who seek out inexperienced or easy-going confessors, or of those who habitually fall into mortal sins, confessing them only to a priest who, they know, will take the matter very quietly, while they reveal their less grievous sins to some pious and strict confessor. On the other hand, the case above quoted presents quite another aspect when a penitent has on rare occasions fallen into a grave and shameful sin and shrinks from revealing it to his ordinary confessor.[224]

8. _Libens._ The confession ought to be voluntary; the penitent should approach the sacred tribunal spontaneously, not prompted by prayers or threats, nor prevailed upon by promises, nor driven by fear of temporal losses; he should willingly acknowledge his sins to the priest as the minister of Christ Our Lord appointed to forgive sin and distribute His graces. A man might of course be influenced by those exterior motives to receive the Sacrament; and if he made an earnest act of contrition and carried out the other requisites, he would make a valid confession. There is, however, as Laymann observes, a real danger for a man who goes to the Sacrament under compulsion that he will make his confession invalid through want of contrition or through a deficient accusation of his sins. It frequently happens that such penitents, giving way to external pressure, perform their Easter confession, doing it only to keep up appearances; they make no act of contrition, they are unwilling to tell all that lies on their conscience, they are ready to make a bad confession and communion. A prudent confessor may detect their insincerity and sometimes will prevail upon them to make a good confession.

9. _Verecunda._ The penitent should make his confession with confusion at the number and greatness of his sins, his ingratitude and infidelity to God his Lord and Father; this confusion should fill his soul and reveal itself even in the self-accusation and in the whole bearing of the penitent. Between this real shame of every good penitent and the false shame which arises from pride and self-love is a great gulf; the latter, unless overcome, will cause the penitent to be dishonest in his accusation and to make a sacrilegious confession. The confessor should be very considerate of the weakness of such penitents and encourage them, helping them to make a candid avowal if he suspects false shame, and he should be careful not to frighten and shock them by hard words or untimely threats.

10. The other property of the confession, its integrity, will, on account of its great importance, be reserved for a thorough discussion in another paragraph.

11. _Secreta._ The accusation should be in secret. It should be made so as to be heard only by the priest and not by others. Christ did not institute public confession; and if in the early Church those who had committed grave public sin and given public scandal were compelled after private confession to make a public avowal of their offenses, this was only part of the then existing discipline. As a matter of fact the practice was productive of as much harm as good, and so the Church put an end to it.[225] Confession by an interpreter would, however, be valid, as well as a confession which had been overheard by others. There is no obligation to confess through an interpreter if one happens to be in a country of which he does not know the language, supposing there is no priest to whom one can make himself understood, for the Lateran Council[226] prescribes _confessio secreta_ made to a priest only (_soli sacerdoti facienda_), and to employ an interpreter for confession would be very onerous.[227] Such an obligation would exist only if a dying man had doubts as to the perfection of his contrition, for the wish to save our souls obliges us to avoid all risk. Then, however, it would be sufficient to name one or two sins and make a general accusation of the rest.[228]

Moreover, a sufficiently perfect confession may be made even through an interpreter without the latter acquiring any knowledge of the sins. The confessor, for example, in the case of the sick, may arrange through the interpreter a system of signs, such as pressure of the hand, motion of the head or eyes, by which the invalid may answer the questions put by the priest through the interpreter, who may be placed with his back to the priest and penitent; by a method of this kind even the number of sins may be ascertained. Of course in a case like this the confessor must be careful not to betray the penitent’s replies by the nature of his questions. If a male penitent express a wish to confess in this manner, he may be allowed to do so.[229]

A confession made in writing is _per se_ valid; on the other hand, as we have already seen, absolution conveyed _per literas_ is null. The custom, however, of making the confession by word of mouth must be strictly adhered to (hence many theologians add to the other properties of a good confession that it should be _vocalis_), and unless there are pressing reasons for the contrary practice the confession should not be made by writing or by any other system of signs; a sufficiently good reason for allowing it would be great shame in mentioning certain sins or a defect in speech. In such cases the priest would read the writing and the penitent make some acknowledgment by word of mouth, such as, “I accuse myself of all contained in the paper.” If the whole confession without any good reason were made by writing or by signs, it would be invalid, for the penitent would have sinned gravely by such an action unless he had acted _bona fide_.[230]

A dumb penitent who can write and has no other way of making his confession is, according to the _sententia communis et probabilior_, obliged to make his confession in writing, for this would not be burdensome to him. The opponents of this view insist on the danger of the confession being revealed and, in consequence, deny the obligation of making the confession in writing. Such a risk, as experience shows, is not usually to be feared and may easily be avoided. There are indeed not a few penitents who to secure their own peace of mind always write their confessions and read them off to the priest. If, however, in a particular case there is danger of revelation or any other serious inconvenience to the penitent in consequence of his writing, there is no obligation. So teaches St. Thomas, and with him are Suarez, Lugo, Sporer, Salmanticenses, etc.[231]

12. _Lacrimabilis._ The confession should be made with real sorrow. It is not necessary that it be accompanied by tears or sighs and other external signs of the kind, but it is required that there be a real sorrow and horror of sin. The internal sorrow should become _sensibilis_ or evident by the confession so as to form _materia sacramenti_. The sentiment of contrition can always be roused by grace, while tears are not in our power.

13. _Accelerata._ The confession should be prompt; there should be no delay in making it after mortal sin has been committed. This is not of precept, but it is a counsel which should be readily followed by any one who realizes the horror of sin and its consequences.

14. _Fortis._ The confession should be made with great courage, all hindrances to a candid avowal of one’s sins being put aside, especially false shame and the fear of losing the good esteem of the priest. It is the delight of the devil, not before, but after entrapping a soul into sin, to work upon the feeling of shame so vehemently that the penitent is tempted to conceal sins which are particularly shameful. In this case the penitent must use all his courage, and by reflecting on God’s command and the awful consequences of a bad confession get the victory over this false shame. He must put into practice Tertullian’s maxim, _Pereat pudor, ne pereat anima_.

15. _Accusans._ The confession should be an accusation and not a series of excuses. Thus the penitent ought to impute the sins to himself and not to other causes, temptations of the devil, the passions, natural weakness, etc., nor to the companions by whose advice or orders he has gone astray. There may be of course occasions where what is objectively a mortal sin may become only venial or perhaps no sin at all, through inculpable forgetfulness or absent-mindedness or inadvertence.

16. _Parere paratus._ The penitent should be disposed to obey the priest’s advice and commands; hence he should be ready to adopt the means suggested for his improvement, to follow out the advice given, to avoid the occasions of sin which are pointed out to him, and to accept the penance which is imposed on him.

ARTICLE II

THE INTEGRITY OF THE CONFESSION

21. Necessity of the Integrity of Confession.

The confession is complete when the penitent reveals all the sins which he is bound to tell. A distinction is drawn between material and formal integrity. A confession is materially complete when a penitent discloses all the mortal sins committed since Baptism which have not yet been submitted to the keys, together with their number and species. On the other hand, the confession is formally complete when he confesses all the mortal sins which he is morally able and bound to reveal _hic et nunc_.[232] From this definition it is clear that where there is material integrity there is also formal integrity; a confession, however, which is formally complete need not on this account be materially so.

With respect to the obligation of the integrity of confession we may lay down the following propositions:—

I. It is of divine precept to confess all mortal sins committed after Baptism. 1. This follows from the words by which Christ instituted the Sacrament; by them He gave the Sacrament a judicial character. So teaches the Council of Trent.[233] From the institution of the Sacrament of Penance “the universal Church has always recognized that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by Our Lord, and is necessary _jure divino_ for all who have sinned after Baptism. For Our Lord Jesus Christ when about to ascend into heaven left the priests as His vicars and judges, by whom all mortal sins into which the faithful had fallen were to be judged, that in virtue of the power of the keys they might pronounce sentence of forgiveness or retention.” The priest is therefore a judge, and as judge should pronounce the absolution. But the sentence of a judge is valid only when it turns on the facts of the case; hence a knowledge of the latter is required on the part of the judge. In consequence the confessor, in order to pronounce a valid sentence, must know intimately the facts of the case, the state of the sinner. Now the facts of the case are the mortal sins of the penitent; hence the confessor must be made acquainted with these; and as he can only learn them from the penitent himself, the latter is bound to make a complete statement of them.

2. The essential object of this Sacrament is the forgiveness of sins that have been confessed. But one mortal sin cannot be forgiven apart from the rest, since forgiveness is the result of the influx of sanctifying grace, which does not remove sin as stains might be rubbed from a metal surface, but at once raises man from a state of sin to a state of grace, from being an enemy of God to being His friend. Moreover, sanctifying grace and mortal sin cannot exist together in the soul. From this it follows that all sins must be told without exception, in order that they may all be remitted.

3. Add to this the essential connection between the judicial power of the priest in the Sacrament and his power of punishing sin or imposing a penance for it; but since the penance must be proportioned to the misdeeds, the priest cannot exercise his powers properly unless, at least, the mortal sins have been fully confessed. If, as must happen at times, it is inopportune or, in fact, quite impossible to assign a penance bearing any proportion to the number and magnitude of the sins, that is quite _per accidens_ and the decision of the question is the affair of the judge, not of the penitent. That Christ gave His Church the power of punishing sin is abundantly proved by the practice of so many centuries during which definite penances were assigned to certain sins. Since, therefore, the Church of divine right can mete out just punishment for sin, the penitent is bound by divine precept to submit himself to the Church by an entire confession of all mortal sins. From the fact that the confessor must pronounce sentence and impose a suitable penance, the Council of Trent concludes “that all mortal sins of which the penitent is conscious after diligent search must be confessed, even though they be quite secret sins and only against the last two commandments of the decalogue.”

4. Finally, the Sacrament of Penance has of its very nature another end in view, that of preventing relapse. Thus the confessor is at the same time the physician of the soul, empowered and obliged to prescribe the means of reform. This duty can be effectually carried out only when he knows intimately the penitent’s state of soul, so that the latter is obliged to submit to his healing art all the mortal wounds of the soul.

Hence the Council of Trent anathematizes all who teach “that for remission of sins in the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary _jure divino_ that all and every mortal sin be confessed of which a man is conscious after faithful and diligent search.”[234]

II. The material integrity, however, is not always necessary for the validity of confession and for obtaining its benefits. At times it is morally and even physically impossible, either through inculpable forgetfulness or for other reasons. Now God does not command impossibilities. Hence the Council of Trent teaches: “The remaining sins which escape the diligent inquiry of the penitent are considered as included in the same accusation,” and so are forgiven, as though they had been confessed. Hence it is abundantly clear that the material integrity of the confession is not always necessary.

III. The formal integrity is, on the other hand, always necessary for the validity of the Sacrament, and belongs to its essence. A penitent, for instance, who out of shame conceals a mortal sin, transgresses Christ’s command which obliges us to submit all mortal sins by a sincere confession to the power of the keys, incurring at the same time a mortal sin by his bad confession; such a confession cannot be valid nor have any good effect. This is also taught by the Council of Trent[235] in the following words: “While the faithful earnestly endeavor to confess all the sins of which they are conscious, they present them to the Divine Mercy that they may all be forgiven; those, however, who do otherwise and knowingly conceal sins, present nothing to God’s goodness to be forgiven through the priest. If the sick man is ashamed to show his wounds to the physician, the latter cannot cure what is unknown to him.”[236]

To have a perfect understanding of the preceding, we must distinguish between what is of the essence of the Sacrament and that which flows as a consequence of the divine command. When anything is wanting to the essence of the Sacrament, though the defect may be due to no fault on the part of the person, the Sacrament is invalid; if, on the contrary, there be wanting some requirement of divine precept, making the defect culpable, the Sacrament is indirectly invalid because contrition is wanting, since contrition cannot exist in any one who is in the very act of sin; if, however, the defect be inculpable, the result of forgetfulness or ignorance, the Sacrament is valid; the sins which were omitted through no fault of the penitent are indirectly forgiven by the infusion of sanctifying grace. There remains, however, the obligation of making good the defect afterwards, as we shall see later.

22. Extent of the Integrity of Confession.

For a complete confession it is necessary to state clearly and precisely not only all mortal sins, but their number and species and the circumstances which change the species. This is the doctrine of the Council of Trent when it enjoins the confession of each and every sin; to do this a man must give the number of the mortal sins committed. One who has missed Mass ten times and merely confesses, “I have missed Mass,” has not confessed each and every sin, for an indeterminate number, by the very fact of being undetermined, does not necessarily mean the number ten; it may mean ten, but that possibility does not indicate the number. With regard to the confession of the species and of the circumstances changing the species, the Council teaches expressly that the circumstances which change the kind (_species_) of sin ought to be confessed. Since those circumstances are to be expressed which change the kind of sin, nothing can be clearer than that, in accordance with the decision of the Council, the sins are to be confessed according to their species.[237]

The reasons which the Council[238] gives for insisting on the duty of confessing the species of sin are that otherwise the sins would not be perfectly revealed by the penitent or understood by the judge, and that without a knowledge of the species of the sin the judge would be unable to pronounce on the gravity of the sin and to inflict a suitable punishment for it.

Thus the reasons which hold for the completeness of the confession require also the species and number of the sins; without them the confession has not the completeness which is demanded for it. The confessor is a judge who must have the most accurate knowledge of his penitent in order to pronounce sentence and inflict the necessary penalty. Now he cannot know the state of his penitent unless he is acquainted with the number and species of his sins, for it is the species which determines the nature or essence of the sin. Besides, the sins ought to be confessed according to their malice, but this can be estimated only from the kind of sin and the number of times it has been committed. Not all sins against the sixth commandment have the same malice or belong to the same species, for to the special malice of impurity may be added that of sacrilege or adultery if the sinner be consecrated by vow to God or in the married state. And there is no doubt that one who has committed a crime ten times is more deserving of punishment than he who has fallen only once.

The penitent must confess the _species infima_, the ultimate species of his sin, for this is what is ordinarily understood by the species, and the Council of Trent insists upon this obligation. Hence it is not enough to say, “I have sinned in thought, word, and deed,” or, “I have broken the commandments of the Church”; the penitent must add the species, the particular commandment broken, the observance of Sunday, fasting, yearly confession, etc., and in addition the penitent must give the _species infima_, whether he has missed Mass or broken his fast or abstinence. Nor is the following accusation sufficient: “I have sinned against the sixth commandment,” “I have been wanting in purity,” or the like; the species must be given, defining whether the sin be incest or adultery, etc., or whether by thoughts, words, etc. So, too, when a penitent accuses himself of sin against faith, it is not sufficient; he should state the particular act by which he has sinned, whether by heresy, by unbelief, by indifference, etc.

Supposing the penitent cannot remember the _species infima_ of a sin which he has committed, he must state against what virtue he has sinned; or if he cannot remember this, but has only a recollection of having sinned mortally, he must confess this. This is the opinion of all theologians (_communis et certa doctrina_).

To indicate fully the species of the sin, one must also tell whether the sinful acts were external and whether the evil effects have been retracted.

Since the sins themselves are the particular matter of the sacramental tribunal, they must, as Lehmkuhl shows, be confessed _secundum specificam distinctionem_, _i.e._ according to their specific differences. This is not at all the same thing as the obligation of confessing the specific malice (_specifica malitia_). Sins are human acts (_actus humanus_), and so they may be classed _in specie actus_ as well as _in specie malitiæ_; to desire to steal and to steal are acts having the same specific malice, but they are not specifically the same act. Indeed no one would maintain that one might confound the two sins in confession by merely confessing the specific malice.[239] Hence the _actus externus_ which completes the internal act[240] as a sin and on that account is _in se_ opposed to right order and morality must be mentioned expressly in confession. The _actus externus_ is either _commissio_ or _omissio_ (sin of commission or omission). Thus, for example, the absence from Mass on a Sunday or a holyday of obligation must be confessed, whether it happen through indifference or love of study or idleness, because the absence from Mass is what is objectively opposed to the law and what has been voluntarily incurred. The wounding and killing of a man are external actions which _in ratione peccati_ complete the sinful act of the will, and so it is not enough to confess, “I had the desire to wound.” If he has inflicted a wound, it is enough to say, “I have dealt a wound,” for he has sufficiently indicated by that avowal the internal act. If, again, a man wounded another intending to kill, it is not enough to say, “I intended to kill,” but he must add, “and I wounded the man.”[241]

With regard to the obligation of confessing the effect[242] of a mortal sin theologians are not of one mind, since it is not always clear whether the evil effect flowing from a cause voluntarily chosen is _in sese_ a sin or not. It is certain that the _malus effectus_ of a sinful action must be confessed if such effect fall under a reservation, or under a censure, or if the question of restitution is to be settled. However, it is certain that if such effects were not at all foreseen, there is no obligation to confess them. Thus a murder committed under the influence of drink need not be confessed, supposing that such a consequence had been altogether unforeseen.

As to the other cases, those theologians who deny that the _malus effectus voluntarius in causa_ is a sin, because the effect is no longer _in se_ voluntary or, being beyond the control of the will, is desired only in its cause (_voluntarius in causa est_), maintain that such an effect need not be confessed. Other theologians, as St. Thomas, Suarez, Soto, Sanchez, etc., make a distinction, teaching that the _malus effectus_ is no sin, when the evil will has been retracted by contrition and repentance before the act has taken place whose effect cannot be hindered; if, however, the evil will lasts, the effect is a sin. Hence a priest who, to escape saying his office, would throw his breviary into the sea, but repent of his act immediately after, is not obliged to confess the omission of his office, since the omission was not a sin, but only the evil effect of a sin already repented of. So, too, a man who has given another poison and, before death takes place, confesses his crime with sorrow is not obliged, after death has taken place, to accuse himself again of murder. On the other hand, the evil effects which take place when the will did not retract must be confessed, since they are at least the completion of the external sin and share in the malice of the cause. Mazzotta makes a distinction here which is very apt. He says: if an effect follows from a sinful act, and though it may be prevented, is not so prevented, the penitent must confess the effect because it completes his neglect in so far as this is an external sin; if the effect cannot be hindered, there is no obligation _per se loquendo_ to confess the _malus effectus_, for it is neither a sin _in se_ nor does it externally complete the sin.[243]

To the preceding we add two observations:—

1. Since the duty of making a complete confession rests on a command, we are not obliged _per se_ to confess what is _probabiliter_ not enjoined by the precept, for, in accordance with sound principles of probabilism, a doubtful law has no binding force. To this we may add, that a confession is valid in which the penitent omits nothing through any grievous fault of his own, that is, knowingly or through culpable ignorance and carelessness. Now the principles of probability furnish a practically safe conscience with regard to the limits of a command; hence in this case the confession is entire, at least formally entire, and that is sufficient for the validity and grace of the Sacrament.

2. If the penitent, through forgetfulness or for some lawful reason, without any blame attaching to him, omits to mention something which is necessary for the integrity of the confession, he is bound to disclose it on the next occasion; for, by the decision of the Council of Trent, each and every mortal sin of which one is conscious must be mentioned, that it may be directly remitted; hence if sins occur to the mind which have not yet been confessed, they must be submitted to the power of the keys. Thus Alexander VII condemned the proposition: Sins which have been forgotten or omitted in confession on account of instant danger to life or for any other reason, need not be mentioned in the next confession (cf. Prop. 11 damn.).

23. The Number of Sins in Confession.

The declaration of the number of sins is another feature completing the Sacrament. The penitent must give the number of his mortal sins so far as he can; if he knows exactly how often he has fallen into a mortal sin, he must state that number of times, neither increasing nor diminishing; if, despite careful examination and reflection he cannot arrive at the real number, he must give it as near as possible, adding the words “about” or “at least”; in so doing he fulfills his obligation, for he has done what he could, which is sufficient to enable a judgment to be pronounced _humano modo_. Should the penitent, after having thus confessed in all good faith, discover later on a more accurate number than that confessed, he is not obliged to make another confession to supply this number; nor should he disquiet himself, for the round numbers given in the first confession included everything; it is only when the newly discovered number is considerably greater than the vague estimate of his first confession that he is obliged to confess again, because the number, and, in consequence, the sin, was not perfectly confessed, since a far greater number cannot be considered as included in his former round estimate.[244]

The question naturally arises what the confessor is to understand by a numeral qualified by “about” or “at least.” As a general rule the greater the number expressed, the greater is the number that may be understood as implied; for instance, “about three times” would mean from two to four times; “about five times,” from four to six times; “about ten times,” from eight to twelve times; “about one hundred times,” at most from ninety to one hundred and ten times. It is clear from this general appreciation of theologians that the numbers implied by the term “about” increase in proportion to the actual number mentioned. If the penitent discovers that he has mentioned a number considerably less than the truth, he must remedy the defect; if he has erred by giving too large a number, he need not correct the mistake, because the larger number includes the less. Moreover, it is advisable, instead of using high numbers, to state how often the sin has been committed in the course of a week or a month, etc., especially with regard to frequent or interior sins. Indeed with habitual sinners it suffices to state how long they have indulged the evil habit, and that they have given willful consent more or less daily whenever occasion offered; this is enough, when the actual number of sins is so doubtful that there would always be a grave risk of a mistake in trying to determine it. “The confessor, when he knows the period over which the accusation extends, may easily and safely form his opinion in the case of a penitent whose will is habitually inclined to sin, that the penitent has sinned as often as there were necessary interruptions to his sin.”[245] This method in determining the number of sins is as well founded as the other, for in this case, too, all is done that is morally possible. Hence the confessor should never force his penitent to give a determinate number, for this is in most cases impossible. On the other hand, the confessor should help the penitent to state the number in the way we have indicated.[246]

Hence a prostitute makes a sufficient statement in confessing how often she has been accustomed to sin each day or week, at the same time telling the species, or at least the more general species, of the sins so far as possible; she would make a perfect confession by an accusation such as follows: “I have spent so many years in this state of sin, and as occasion offered I sinned with all who came, married and unmarried, and also with those who were bound by vow.” Penitents must always give at least the more general specific characters of their sins, and the number of times per day or week they have sinned.[247]

A similar difficulty is presented in the case of those who have a deeply rooted habit of sin—those, for example, who constantly entertain impure desires with regard to women whom they chance to meet; it is very difficult in such a case to give any number. Such people make a perfect confession by stating that they are given to this habit, adding whether they indulge frequently in the day or week; besides this they should mention at least the more general specific characters, whether they indulge these desires with regard to married people or relations or persons consecrated to God.[248]

The same difficulty arises with regard to uneducated and ignorant people who have to accuse themselves of impure conversations carried on at their work during the whole day, on all sorts of subjects and before all kinds of companions. They, too, may confess the number and species of their sins as we have indicated above.[249]

Lugo and Sporer would also admit the confession as valid and give absolution to a thief who accuses himself as follows: “Since I was ten years old I have been so addicted to stealing that whenever a chance was offered—and that happened very frequently—I stole what I could; besides I have stolen sacred objects of considerable value on five occasions or, if I mistake not, six.”[250]

Though the accusation of the species in confession usually offers more difficulty than that of the number, yet Lugo advises the more learned confessors in particular to refrain from being too exacting in demanding the classification from their penitents. As the less-trained confessor may fail in this respect by defect, the more learned confessor is exposed to the danger of excess. The penitent must give the species of the sin, and the confessor is bound to inquire with due regard to the penitent’s ability and the knowledge which he had at the time of sinning; for a man cannot do evil of which he is ignorant; moreover, it is sufficient to have a general consciousness of grave malice.

24. The Confession of the Circumstances of Sins.

The circumstances under which sins are committed (_conditiones quæ actus substantiam circumstant atque in ejus moralitatem influunt_) are of different kinds: 1. Some change the species of the sin (_speciem mutantes_); for example, the circumstance of a vow or of marriage adds to the sin of impurity that of sacrilege or that of adultery. 2. Other circumstances are aggravating (_aggravantes_) in greater or less degree and _gradum moralitatis mutantes_ or _moralitatem augentes_—such, for instance, as increase the malice within the limits of the same species; they are the duration of the act, its intensity, its degree, the manner of carrying it out, the particular occasion, etc. 3. Other circumstances are mitigating (_minuentes_, _moralitatem minuentes_), because they palliate the malice of the act; as, for example, want of advertence, etc.

The circumstances must be confessed:—

I. If they change the species of the sin. This is the express teaching of the Council of Trent. Hence it is not enough to confess to stealing if the property of the Church has been taken; for the stealing of a _res sacra_ is not merely a sin of injustice but a theft from God and so a new sin. If a child curses its parents, it is not enough to mention that it cursed, for, since special reverence is due to parents, the violation of that special reverence is a new sin.

The following circumstances call for particular mention:—

1. The circumstance of the person _who commits the sin_, when with regard to the matter of the sin he is consecrated to God or bound by vow, as in sins against purity, or when he sins against the chastity of the married state, or when he stands in special spiritual relations towards those with whom he sins.

If a man is consecrated to God by Holy Orders or the religious state and has to confess a sin against purity, he must mention the circumstance of his state of life, since he has committed a double sin, one of impurity and another of sacrilege. Now those who are consecrated to God by Holy Orders or the religious state incur the special sin of sacrilege when they fall into impurity; the mere circumstance of the vow being simple or solemn does not constitute a new species, nor the fact of being bound to chastity by vows of religion as well as by Orders; these added details need not be confessed. Many moralists teach also that those incur sacrilege who are bound by a private vow of chastity, and St. Alphonsus admits this opinion as probable. Hence all those who have sinned against purity make a full confession when they confess the circumstance of the vow by which they are bound, without distinguishing whether the vow be private, solemn, simple, or that of Orders (_votum solemne ordinis sacri_).

This is the doctrine of Lugo[251] and Lacroix;[252] Sanchez,[253] too, defends this view on the ground that the solemn vow is in substance or _in se_ not distinct from the simple vow. His authority seems to have won over many theologians to the same opinion. Gury also holds this view; but the Ratisbon[254] and Roman[255] editions of his valuable manual reject it in the notes. Lehmkuhl,[256] moreover, opposes it and teaches that to incur a personal sacrilege (and this is the question under discussion) the person sinning (or with whom the sin has been committed) must be consecrated to God _publica auctoritate_, _i.e._ by Holy Orders or by vows of religion. Hence by the violation of a private vow of chastity a sacrilege in its strict and proper sense is not incurred, though a sin is committed against religion by the breach of fidelity to God. Sacrilege is incurred by the abuse of a sacred object. Now that cannot be called a sacred object which is privately consecrated to God without any recognition on the part of the properly constituted authorities. A private vow cannot produce this effect, for the common teaching of all theologians, a few excepted, maintains that the breach of such a vow is a violation of fidelity, not of the reverence due to God, at least not in such a degree as to constitute a sacrilege strictly so called.[257] Thus the more correct view is that of those who hold that, in confessing sins against purity, the circumstance of Holy Orders and of the religious vow is to be given; for whoever confesses as doubtful a circumstance which certainly changes the species of the sin does not fulfill the precept of confession. Such may be the case, for instance, where a priest conceals the circumstance of Holy Orders and mentions only the violation of the vow of chastity; for the violation of this vow is certainly a sacrilege for those in whom it has been solemnized by the reception of “Holy Orders,” while that of the simple vow is only doubtfully so.[258]

Parish priests by scandalizing their flock, parents their children, teachers the scholars under their instruction, incur a special sin against charity. Such persons have in virtue of their office the strictest obligation to edify those intrusted to them and to keep them away from harm. The case of a confessor who gives scandal to a person who happens to be his penitent is different; but he is obliged to mention the circumstance of this relationship when he has given scandal in connection with the administration of the Sacrament; his office as confessor only imposes on him the strict duty of guiding the penitent safely in the Sacrament of Penance, and is only transitory, ending _per se_ with each confession, while that of the parish priest and of the others mentioned above demands a constant spiritual care of those intrusted to them. Other offices involving authority do not change the species of the scandal given to subjects, though they may increase its malice, if, for example, a master leads his servant into sin. The dignity of a person does not of itself change the species of the sin of scandal given to his subjects, though it increases the gravity of a sin. If, however, a master has taken upon himself the duties of a parent, for instance, towards his servant-girl, he most certainly incurs a new and distinct sin by scandal given to her, and must mention his special relation to the girl.

2. The circumstance of the person _with whom the sin has been committed_, if God’s honor has suffered in any way, or if the rights of a third person or the particular respect or love which is due to the said person have been violated.

If the person with whom sin has been committed or who has been led into sin is consecrated to God or bound by a vow referring to the matter of the sin, a new and special sin is incurred against the virtue of religion (_i.e._ a sin either of sacrilege or at least of a violation of the vow). If any one commit a sin of impurity with a relation, it is no longer merely a sin against purity, it is incest. It is a probable opinion that the penitent is not obliged to mention the exact degree of relationship whether by blood or marriage, since that does not change the species _ratione incestus_, except in the first degree either of blood-relationship or marriage connection; thus sin committed between father and daughter, mother and son, father-in-law and daughter-in-law, mother-in-law and son-in-law, must be mentioned along with the relationship; yet there is no doubt that _ratione superioritatis vel pietatis_ sin incurred by a father with his own daughter or his daughter-in-law, bears a different character from the sin of a son with his mother or mother-in-law.

The sin of hatred acquires a new species of sinfulness when the hatred is directed against those more closely connected, _e.g._ parents, children, grandparents, grandchildren, and against those connected by marriage in the first degree of the direct line, such as wife, godparents, and brothers. Hatred of those most nearly related may much more easily become a grievous sin than hatred of other people.[259]

3. The circumstance of _place_, if a sacrilege is thereby committed; thus (_a_) if a sacred object or something belonging to the property of the Church is stolen and taken out from a sacred building, a double sacrilege, real and local, is committed. The circumstance of the local sacrilege, that is, the fact that sin has been committed in the Church is not of itself gravely sinful; hence when a profane object which is merely accidentally in the Church is stolen, a sacrilege, though not a gravely sinful one, is added to the sin of theft.[260] (_b_) If the immunity of a church is violated; (_c_) if anything is done in a church by which it is polluted in the sense of the canon law; (_d_) if profane occupations gravely at variance with the holiness of the place are carried on in the church, whether those occupations be in themselves sinful or not.

4. The circumstance of _time_; if, for instance, the time at which the sin took place was the reason why the action in question has been forbidden, and if by the action done at some particular time a special offence is given to God. This circumstance might involve grave sin (_a_) if Good Friday were chosen for the performance of an obscene play; (_b_) if during the forbidden time a marriage were celebrated with great pomp; (_c_) if during the celebration of Mass or immediately after holy communion, before the sacred species had time to be altered, the communicant were to commit some outrage greatly dishonoring to the Blessed Sacrament. These are circumstances which moralists generally enumerate as constituting a new species of sinfulness. On the other hand, a sin committed on a Sunday or feast-day or on a communion-day is not _per se_ invested with the particular malice of a sacrilege; nevertheless the fact that a man relapses into his old sins on a confession or communion day gives ground for the suspicion that his last confession was devoid of real contrition and in consequence invalid and sacrilegious.[261]

5. Finally, the circumstance of _the end_ in view is to be confessed if it is _in se_ mortally sinful; for instance, a man who steals with the object of getting drunk is guilty of drunkenness as well as theft, and on that account must confess the purpose for which he stole.[262]

Now there are many penitents who cannot judge of the circumstances which change the nature of the sin; such must be taught to mention in confession whatever increases or diminishes the malice of the sin; the rest will be supplied by the confessor, for he has the duty of asking the penitent not only about the circumstances which affect the species of sin, but everything which he considers necessary to aid him in forming a correct judgment on the spiritual state of the penitent. This right implies a duty on the part of the penitent to answer the questions put to him; these questions turn for the most part on habits of sin, relapses, and proximate occasions of sinning. Hence Innocent XI condemned the proposition[263] which denies the obligation of answering when the confessor makes inquiries about habits of sin. The knowledge of a habit of sin, or of relapses, or of proximate occasions is very important in settling whether absolution should be given or deferred;[264] besides it is of supreme importance to the confessor in his office as physician that he be in a position to suggest the necessary and proper means for amendment. The penitent must, therefore, if asked, mention former sins though already confessed. No one need take offense because he is thus obliged _per accidens_ to repeat sins which have already been duly forgiven; the purpose is not to pronounce a new sentence upon them, but to enable the priest to form a correct judgment with regard to the sins just confessed by noting their relation to former sins, and thus to prescribe suitable means of correction and provide as much as possible against relapses.[265]

II. Those circumstances are also to be mentioned by which sins of their own nature venial become mortal (_C. aggravantes_). Intemperance is not always a mortal sin, but it becomes so when it deprives a man of the use of reason; to steal a cheap tool might of itself be only a venial sin, but if the loss of it deprives a poor artisan of the means of doing a day’s work, it becomes mortal. In the same way one ought to mention the mitigating circumstances which make a mortal sin only venial or even no sin at all.

Moralists give seven cases in which circumstances may change a venial into a mortal sin:—

1. _Ratione conscientiæ erroneæ_, when a man through ignorance thinks a venial sin to be mortal. 2. _Ratione scandali vel gravis damni_, when grave scandal is given to one’s neighbor, doing spiritual or temporal harm; as, for instance, if a priest were to speak lightly of sacred things—thus St. Bernard[266] says: _Nugæ inter sæculares nugæ, in ore sacerdotis blasphemiæ sunt_; or, again, if a priest behaved lightly with a woman or were seen the worse for drink; or if one were to address a person rather insultingly, foreseeing that he would break out into a great rage and blasphemy; or if a woman dress vainly and foresee that some young man at the sight of her will sin mortally by impious desires. 3. _Ratione pravi finis graviter mali_, when, for example, a small lie is told to lead a girl into sin. The evil intention may not only increase the guilt of a sinful action, but it will make an otherwise innocent action sinful. 4. _Ratione formalis contemptus legis vel superioris_, when a venial sin is committed out of formal contempt for the law or lawgiver, or superior, as when a Catholic on an abstinence day, and quite aware of the duty of abstaining, eats ostentatiously a little flesh-meat to show the slight regard in which he holds the law.[267] 5. _Ratione pravi affectus in rem alioqui leviter malam_, when a man is so attached to a venial sin that he would commit it even if it were mortal, or in consequence of this attachment would be ready to commit other mortal sins,[268] as, for instance, if a man chose rather to steal than to overcome his vanity or intemperance. 6. _Ratione periculi seu occasionis proximæ in peccatum mortale labendi_, when the venial sin is known, or can be known, as a proximate occasion of mortal sin; a man, for example, looks at a person of the other sex or entertains rather familiar relations with her though he knows that such conduct in his case is a proximate occasion of gravely sinful desires or actions. Even actions otherwise neutral or indifferent may for this reason become gravely sinful. 7. _Ratione cujuscunque circumstantiæ quæ mortalem in se malitiam contineat_; thus insults, proceeding from envy and desire of revenge, may be mortal sins.[269] Hence these circumstances must be confessed.

The following circumstances may make sins venial which are of their own nature mortal: 1. Smallness of matter; 2. Want of full advertence; 3. Want of consent; 4. A false conscience.[270]

These circumstances must be told in confession not in order to secure its integrity, but that the confessor may be able to form a correct judgment.

III. Circumstances which make but little difference in the gravity of the sin need not be confessed.

IV. Circumstances which aggravate a mortal sin within its own species to a notable degree (_circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes intra eamdem speciem_) need not _per se loquendo_ be confessed; this is the common and most approved teaching of theologians; other reasons may exist which make it expedient to mention these circumstances.

At the same time theologians are not unanimous on this subject. Three opinions are current, and each one of them has its own probability and its champions of no mean repute. We may as well observe that the probability of the negative proposition (that there is no obligation) is conceded even by its opponents; hence all grant (_ex omnium sententia_) as probable that no one is bound to confess these circumstances, so that a penitent cannot be forced to disclose them unless some exceptional case should call for their mention.[271]

Those who maintain the affirmative proposition (_i.e._ the duty of confessing the _circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_) fall back on the reasons to which the Council of Trent appeals for the necessity of confessing _circumstantias speciem mutantes_, viz. in order that the confessor may make a correct judgment, impose a suitable penance, and suggest the proper means of help; for, they add, the _circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_ exercise a great influence on the view of the case taken by the confessor, and on that account ought to be confessed. The fact of the Council defining that only the _circumstantiæ speciem mutantes_ need be disclosed might be easily explained by supposing that the Council defined only what was certain, and left theological views where they were, neither approving nor condemning them. The last conclusion, however, is not justified, for the Council prescribes that _circumstantiæ speciem mutantes_ should be confessed without determining any precept for the _aggravantes_, and if equally cogent reason had existed for confessing both classes of circumstances, there could have been no reason for restricting the doctrine to those which change the species; for, says Lugo,[272] it ought to have made the decree to embrace both classes without imposing any limiting clause.

Further demonstration is taken from the Rituale Romanum, which directs: “If a penitent has not confessed the number, species, and circumstances which ought to be given, the confessor must ask him.” By the word species should be understood the _circumstantiæ speciem mutantes_, and by the rest the _circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_. This distinction, however, is unfounded, for by species is meant _species ex parte objecti_, such as stealing, impurity, etc., and under _circumstantiæ necessariæ_ the _circumstantiæ speciem mutantes_ or the _species ex parte circumstantiarum_, as when theft becomes a sacrilege, etc.[273]

Appeal is made also to the Catechismus Romanus, which directs that those circumstances should be confessed “which greatly increase or diminish the malice.”[274] It may be objected to this, however, that the context makes it clear that there is no necessity to interpret the passage as referring to circumstances which merely increase the degree, not the kind, of the guilt; for the Catechism continues thus: Many circumstances are so serious that in them alone lies the whole gravity of the sin, so that they ought to be confessed; but the only circumstances which can make a sin grave are those that change the moral or theological species. This is confirmed by the fact that the Ritual prescribes also that circumstances very notably diminishing the gravity of the sin should be revealed; for even the opponents grant that this has force only when the mitigating circumstances change the species.[275] Moreover, the Catechism illustrates its doctrine by declaring the necessity of mentioning the circumstance of “a person consecrated to God” in a case of murder, and the circumstance of “marriage” in the case of impurity; and these belong to the circumstances which change the moral species. Finally, if the Catechism adduces the example of a theft, it is no proof that the question is not of circumstances which change the species, and when it declares that one who has stolen one gold piece is less guilty than another who has stolen a hundred pieces this may easily be understood of a circumstance which (with regard to the absolute quantity) constitutes a venial guilt and so introduces a distinct theological species.[276]

This view is held, among others, by Suarez, Sanchez, Gonet, Lacroix.

Other theologians teach that there is no necessity of confessing _circumstantias notabiliter aggravantes_, but they make an exception with regard to the circumstance of quantity in cases of theft. St. Alphonsus, along with other theologians, however, is of opinion that this exception ought not to be granted if the quantity is described as being large; for from that the confessor can _per se_ make a sufficiently accurate judgment. Ballerini remarks very justly that the exception should be worded thus: Except when some additional reason exists, _e.g._ a reservation directed against a certain kind of incest or against the theft of some given amount.

The third opinion denies absolutely the necessity of confessing _circumstantias notabiliter aggravantes_, and this is the more common and probable view, for which there are many and weighty reasons.

(_a_) The Council of Trent by positively limiting its decision to those circumstances which change the species seems to exclude positively the obligation of confessing others. It teaches that circumstances must be mentioned because without them the sins would not be properly confessed by the penitents nor properly understood by the judge, so that he would be incapable of estimating correctly the gravity of the sins and of imposing a becoming penance. From these words of the Council it is fair to conclude that the penitent has done all that is necessary when he confesses those circumstances.

(_b_) Moreover, we are bound only to declare mortal sin; now the _circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_ within the same species evidently add no new species of a mortal sin, hence they need not be confessed. To confess them is an act of perfection, good, of course, and wholesome, just as is the practice of confessing venial sins.

(_c_) Moreover, many consequences of no small importance follow from the opposite doctrine. While the present opinion is calculated to set at rest the minds of both penitent and confessor, the other has quite the opposite tendency, for who could even approximately gauge how far circumstances have a notable effect upon the sin? Imagine the difficult and often fruitless inquiries a confessor would have to make with many of his penitents in order to come to a satisfactory decision. It follows, besides, from the opposite view that the _circumstantiæ notabiliter minuentes_ would have to be confessed or else the confessor would consider some sin more serious than it actually was, and even our opponents grant that this is not necessary.

(_d_) Finally, the Church could not in the General Council deduce this obligation from the words of Christ, otherwise she would not have given that definite limit to the obligation; the law of confessing _circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_ is, therefore, at least doubtful, and a doubtful law has no binding force. Hence this opinion may be adopted _in praxi_ with a safe conscience even though its opposite be probable, and whoever follows it does not expose the Sacrament to any danger of nullity, for to secure validity a formally entire confession is sufficient, and of that there is no doubt.

This view is taught by St. Thomas (in 4 Sentent. d. 16, Q. 3, art. 2 et Opusc. 7, Q. 6), St. Antoninus, St. Bonaventura, St. Bernardine, Lugo, Vasquez, Bonacina, Salmanticenses, and the greater number of the older theologians. Among the more recent it is quite the common doctrine; compare Gury and the different editors of his text-book, among whom Ballerini is strongly in favor of this opinion, Müller, Lehmkuhl, Aertnys, Mark, Konings, Simar, Kenrick, Gousset, Pruner, Ninzatti, etc.

It is, however, advisable to mention these circumstances, and it is necessary:—

(_a_) When they affect the jurisdiction of the confessor, as in the case of a censure or reservation. If one has struck a cleric, for instance, it should be mentioned whether the assault was notorious or not; in the former case it would be reserved to the Pope, in the latter to the bishop; also if the person struck were a cardinal, a bishop, apostolic nuncio, or other cleric, since the excommunication is reserved in a special manner to the Pope.

(_b_) When they affect the character, in law or justice, of important acts, as espousals, various contracts, restitution, etc., in order that the penitent may receive proper instruction; this is most important in cases of theft.

(_c_) When, finally, the confessor without a knowledge of these circumstances is unable to direct his penitent as required for his salvation.

Since these circumstances must be confessed, not because they are _circumstantiæ notabiliter aggravantes_, but on the grounds alleged, the confessor has a right to question about them and the penitent is obliged to answer as we have already observed.

Moreover, the faithful usually add these circumstances in confession because it gives greater peace of heart and more abundant fruit; besides, a better and safer guidance is thus secured and an opportunity of practicing humility.

As to the utility and advisability of confessing circumstances all theologians agree in making an exception with regard to sins against the sixth commandment; for beyond what is necessary to determine the species of the sin the confessor ought not to ask the penitent any further question nor allow him to make any further statement. Even with regard to the species theologians all teach with one accord that in so dangerous a matter where scandal may so easily be given one may at times refrain from inquiring into the species.[277]

Cedreno gives useful advice for the confession of the circumstances attending sin: “If the person with whom you have sinned, the place where the sin was committed, or the manner of its accomplishment, or any other detail, gives you special remorse, then mention that point, for it will then be the confessor’s duty to decide from these indications how far they affect the species of the sin or only increase its gravity.”

25. The Confession of Doubtful Sins.

There are three points of view from which a sin may be regarded as doubtful:—

1. With regard to the existence of the sinful action, as when a man doubts whether he really committed the action.

2. With regard to the quality of the sin, as when a man knows he has sinned, but doubts whether it is a mortal or a venial sin.

3. With regard to the confession of a sin, as when a man knows he sinned grievously but doubts whether he ever confessed his sin.

The doubt may be positive or negative. A negative doubt exists when no solid reason can be given either _pro_ or _con_, but only insignificant arguments for both sides, so that no decision can be arrived at. A positive doubt exists where two contradictory propositions have each solid reasons in their support.

Armed with these premises we are now in a position to set forth the doctrine with regard to the confession of doubtful sins.

I. A sin need not be confessed when there is no positive reason to suspect its existence or gravity, or when there is positive ground against believing its existence or gravity, even where there is a solid reason on the other side. In other words, a sin negatively doubtful from both points of view, or positively doubtful from both points of view, or negatively doubtful on the side affirming guilt is not necessary matter of confession; but a sin positively doubtful on the side affirming guilt and only negatively doubtful on the side denying guilt, must be confessed.

With the exception of a few rigorists, theologians are unanimous in teaching that a sin positively doubtful from both sides need not be confessed; for if there is a _dubium facti_ which establishes the obligation of a law, liberty is in possession, _i.e._ there is no obligation. But in our case the fact of the sin is doubtful, thus we are not obliged to confess it. Moreover, when the existence of a law is doubtful we are not bound by it; but the law of confessing doubtful sins is uncertain; hence we are not bound by it.

If, however, a man in danger of death doubted whether he had committed a grievous sin, knowing that he had never been to confession since that doubtful act, he would be obliged, in order to avoid the risk of damnation, not indeed to confess that sin, but either to receive the Sacrament of Penance, in which he confesses other sins, that thus he might receive at least indirect absolution if his doubtful sins were really mortal, or he should at least make an act of perfect contrition. In such a case the act of perfect contrition _sine voto confitendi_ would be sufficient, since no obligation binds him to confess the _peccata dubia_.[278] So much for sins which are positively doubtful on both sides.

If, however, a very strong argument affirms our guilt with only very slight reason to deny it, we are obliged, according to the unanimous teaching of theologians, to confess those doubtful sins, for in such a case the conviction of our innocence does not rest on solid grounds. Of course our guilt is not conclusively proved; but in these things where evidence is often wanting we must be led by principles of sound moral certainty, even when they are unfavorable to us, since confession is not only a burden, but a Sacrament, and as such a means for greater sanctification.[279] In this case one cannot argue that _in dubio facti_ (and this undoubtedly exists) the opposing arguments cancel one another, as might two opposing witnesses; for this only takes place when the two arguments are of the same kind and quite similar, as in the case of two opposing eye-witnesses, when it is certain that one of the two is mistaken and neither can be believed since it is not known where the mistake lies. It is quite different, however, when the opposing reasons are of distinct classes and unlike, as in the case of two witnesses who do not recount what they themselves have seen, but bear witness to various conjectures _pro_ and _con_; then they both deserve reasonable attention, since the conjectures on either side rest on different motives.

If a penitent doubts positively whether he has sinned in some action, and it is probable that advertence or consent, etc., was wanting, or that full deliberation or consent was absent, he is not obliged to accuse himself of this action in confession.

On the other hand, theologians are not so clear as to the obligation of confessing sins which are doubtful _dubio negativo pro utraque parte_. The older theologians, among whom St. Thomas and other eminent doctors are to be found (Sanchez enumerates forty), insist on the duty of confessing this class of doubtful sins. This opinion is founded on the decree of the Council of Trent declaring that all grave sins _quorum conscientiam habent_ (_sc._ _pœnitentes_) must be confessed; thus the penitent must confess the sins as they are in themselves, those which are certain as certain and those which are doubtful as doubtful. This is the general and constant practice of the faithful, and by that fact we may consider it as proceeding from Christ’s institution.[280]

Other theologians, of no small weight both by their number and authority, do not impose the obligation of confessing these doubtful sins. St. Alphonsus also defended this view in a very convincing manner on internal grounds. The Council of Trent binds penitents only to reveal those sins _quorum conscientiam habent_; it says nothing about _uti sunt in conscientia_, or telling undoubted sins as certain and doubtful as doubtful, but only _quorum conscientiam habent_, which means those of which they have certain knowledge; for, according to St. Bernard, _conscientia_ is nothing more than _cordis scientia_ and _judicium practicum_ on the sins incurred. Now doubtful knowledge is neither knowledge (_scientia_) nor a judgment (_judicium_), but a _suspensio judicii_; hence no one can have a _conscientia peccati_ who has no proof that he has incurred sin. This is the answer to the arguments of the first opinion. Weight is added to this answer by the very words of the same Council: “It is well known that in the Church of God nothing more is demanded of the penitents but that each one after diligent examination ... confess those sins by which he is conscious to himself of having grievously offended his Lord and God; the remaining sins, however, which do not occur to him after diligent examination are considered as included generally in the same confession.” Since, therefore, concludes the holy Doctor, the penitent is not bound to confess his venial sins, he is not bound to confess the doubtful ones, for the Council says he is not obliged to confess any but the mortal sins of which he has knowledge; but to doubt is not “to have knowledge,” it is rather “to be wanting in knowledge.” Moreover, an _onus certum_ ought not to be inflicted for a _delictum dubium_, and in the doubt whether the law exists there is no obligation to observe the law. Finally, he who doubts without good foundation should not heed the doubt. The faithful, it is true, do confess these doubtful sins in order to gain peace and ease of conscience, but not because they are bound to do so; it is also customary and general for them to confess those which are positively dubious, and no one holds that this is of obligation, not even our opponents.

The grounds for this opinion, and the objections to the opposite view, are so convincing that it may be regarded as the more probable and be followed _tuta conscientia_.[281] The following objection has no weight. Since confession is a necessary means for salvation, and since in such a case a man must take the safer means rather than trust to a probable opinion, he is thus obliged to confess _peccata dubia_. A distinction must be made. The Sacrament of Penance, and particularly the absolution in which its efficacy for the most part consists, may certainly be called a necessary means for salvation _in re vel in voto_ with regard to those who have committed mortal sin after Baptism; besides, if a man doubt whether he has sinned grievously, either perfect contrition or absolution are necessary, and for that reason confession also in so far as this is required to obtain valid absolution or sanctifying grace through the absolution; but the integrity of confession can be regarded as necessary only in so far as it is proved to be the prescribed means of obtaining absolution _licite et valide_. The proof, however, for the necessity of confessing doubtful sins is so little substantiated that, as we have shown, the very opposite is proved from the words of the Council and the explanation of St. Alphonsus.[282]

When one considers the teaching of those older theologians who maintained the necessity of confessing _mortalia negative dubia_, it is not difficult to see that, while their mode of expression comprises more, yet, they really meant to say that a penitent is not to consider himself free from all obligation of confessing his sin for some paltry reason which is in his favor, though knowing at the same time that there are weighty reasons to be urged against him and his freedom from mortal sin.[283]

From this teaching it follows that he who has a negative doubt as to whether he sinned is not _stricte loquendo_ obliged to confess before communicating; but in order to make sure of the required dispositions he ought either to make an act of perfect contrition or receive sacramental absolution after confessing something which is included under _materia certa_.[284]

For the rest it is in practice generally recommended to the faithful, in order to secure peace of soul, to mention even their doubtful mortal sins, though there is no obligation to do so, and the confession without the accusation of these sins is complete; they must, however, be instructed to confess these sins as doubtful and not as certain. If a penitent have only sins of this sort to accuse himself of, he has a right to conditional absolution on the first accusation of them. It is better, however, to add other certain matter as the sins of one’s past life; this is required if the absolution is to be unconditional.

In practice the following rules might be profitably observed:—

1. If there be a doubt as to whether the matter of a sin be grave, ill-instructed penitents (_pœnitentes rudes_) should confess their doubts because (_a_) they cannot guide their own consciences, or they do so with great difficulty, and because (_b_) for the most part they do not know how to distinguish between mortal and venial sin. Exception, of course, is made for the scrupulous who are not in the habit of frequently committing mortal sin. Well-instructed penitents are certainly not obliged to confess doubtful mortal sins, since they are in a position to guide their own consciences; yet they are advised to do so, for then their confessor is informed of the dangers to which his penitent is exposed and can warn, instruct, and free him from them.

2. If the doubt turns on the free consent of the will or full advertence, (_a_) penitents of timorous consciences, who do not ordinarily sin mortally, are in no way obliged to confess doubtful sins, for the presumption is in their favor: _ex communiter contingentibus fit prudens præsumptio_. Since they are not in the habit of sinning mortally, it is fair to presume that their doubtful sins are not mortal; indeed they ought not infrequently to be deterred from confessing them if they are inclined to scrupulosity. “A man of approved virtue who is worried as to whether he has consented to an impure temptation may be morally certain that he has not consented; for it is morally impossible that a will so constant in good resolutions should change without giving unmistakable signs.”[285] (_b_) Penitents who, though not timorous, are not lax are certainly not obliged to confess a doubtful consent, though they may be advised to do so to secure peace of conscience and the other benefits which follow from the practice. (_c_) If, however, the penitent has a lax conscience, he is obliged to confess his doubtful sins, for the presumption is against him.[286]

If, then, a pious person who often renews his resolution never to sin mortally is not certain that he has ever revoked that resolution; if he is startled when he perceives the evil and promptly repels the temptation, and doubts whether he has given way; if he remembers that he was in an excited state of mind; if he cannot tell whether the thought or action took place in sleep or in waking moments, the presumption is that there was no full consent.

The presumption, however, is against those who are accustomed to fall easily into grave sin; had they withstood the temptation they would remember what effort they made to overcome it. Hence Lacroix[287] very justly concludes that such people never have a real negative doubt, since the presumption determines the probability of consent or resistance to the temptation.

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]

The practice of many confessors is to be deprecated, who, after hearing one or two confessions of a penitent, urge him to make a general confession, moved by imprudent zeal or in order to obtain better knowledge for the guidance of the penitent. Equally reprehensible is the conduct of many priests who give way to their penitents, allowing them to make often a general confession, or, at least, whenever they choose a new confessor. Such general confessions are quite useless and are a mere waste of time.[368]

31. The Manner of Hearing General Confession.

As to the method of hearing general confessions, the following rules, the outcome of the long experience of learned confessors, should be observed:—

1. In order to be fit for this office a confessor should be well instructed and already experienced in hearing confessions; he must have great patience and zeal for souls, and during the whole course of the confession be very sympathetic and encouraging towards the penitent.

2. If a penitent expresses his desire to make a general confession, the priest should first inquire whether it be necessary or useful. In order to discover this it is not recommended to ask the penitent bluntly if he has ever concealed a sin in his former confessions, or any question of the kind, for it is quite possible that the penitent, though guilty of the sin, may in his bewilderment deny it and never again dare to confess it; it is much better if the confessor ask the penitent why he wishes to make a general confession, whether he feels uneasy, etc. By such questions or the like he may try to discover if there have been sacrilegious confessions. He will often receive one or other of the following answers: (_a_) “Because I have kept sins back;” he will then encourage his penitent, showing himself very kind towards him and urging him to be perfectly sincere. (_b_) “I have never yet made a general confession;” he may then find out if it be necessary or only useful. (_c_) “I have made a general confession before, but it was not a good one.” He may then ask why the last general confession was not a good one; if the penitent can give no other reason, except his own fears, there is a fair presumption that he has to deal with an overanxious or scrupulous penitent. (_d_) “I heard in a sermon that my confessions were bad;” here again the reason must be asked. (_e_) The following reason may also be given especially during a mission: “I want to begin a better life;” in such a case the general confession will be at least very useful.

3. If the general confession is necessary in consequence of former confessions having been sacrilegious or invalid, it must be made with great accuracy and the number and species must be given, so far as possible, just as though the sins had never been confessed before. It may easily happen, however, that the confessor, though convinced of the necessity of a general confession, cannot at once hear it for want of time or on account of the great number of penitents kept waiting; while the penitent frequently cannot return again and is quite uninstructed or of weak intellect, or is really anxious to receive absolution or must receive it in order to fulfill the obligation of going to communion. In such a case, and especially when the penitent discloses at once to his confessor that his previous confessions have been bad by reason of not giving the number of the sins, and when the confessor can, from the account of sins committed in the past year, form a fair estimate of the past life of the sinner, St. Alphonsus recommends that absolution should be given without any repetition of previous confessions. He assumes that the confessor is able to form a gross estimate as to the whole life from what he hears concerning one year, and that he further inquires whether the penitent, besides his ordinary sins, is conscious of any special ones in the course of his life. The detailed general confession may be put off to some more opportune occasion which can be arranged at once with the penitent. The holy Doctor adds another instance to those just mentioned—when the confessor after hearing the confession discovers that the penitent has failed in former confessions to give the number of his sins and when, at the same time, he has a _distincta notitia_ of the sins and can form upon them a _distinctum judicium_ on the past career of the penitent; if, however, he have only a _notitia confusa_ of the sins confessed, he is obliged to form a _notitia distincta_ of the former mortal sins imperfectly confessed. With only a _notitia confusa_ of the penitent’s previous condition he may not give absolution, for the penitent is obliged to confess each single sin once, and the confessor is obliged to pronounce once a distinct judgment on the sins.[369] In the case, however, where the general confession is not of necessity, these precautions in putting questions need not be adopted; if the concourse of penitents is very large, and if, as frequently occurs, in missions or on similar occasions the general confession cannot be put off to a more convenient time, the confessor may at least make a summary examination, asking only for the species of the sins and the time of duration of the habits of sin without laying stress on the exact number and circumstances of each particular sin. The priest must, of course, give the penitent sufficient time to unburden his conscience and to say all he wants to accuse himself of, even though such accusation be not necessary in this voluntary general confession, so that the penitent may leave the confessional with his mind quite at ease; thus he may ask him in general: “Do you accuse yourself of all sinful thoughts, words, etc.?” On this account it is recommended to impress upon the penitent that in a voluntary general confession he is not bound to accuse himself of each particular sin; indeed this instruction is very useful, for a penitent may, in the course of his confession, incur sacrilege through false shame and an erroneous conscience by keeping back a sin which he imagines he is obliged to tell in general confession. It is an invariable rule to avoid too great haste or abruptness, otherwise the penitent is not put at his ease; hence it not infrequently happens that a penitent accuses himself of not having said all he wanted to say because the priest had been too quick.

“The greatest difficulty in general confessions,” says Blessed Leonard of Port Maurice, “is the accusation of the number of sins.” To meet this the following rules will be of service:—

(_a_) If the confessor can get at the precise number of sins, he is obliged to do so.

(_b_) If the penitent cannot give the exact number, he must be asked to give about the number, as near as possible. For this purpose the priest will suggest numbers, and if the penitent choose the largest number, a still larger one may be suggested to see if the penitent will accuse himself also of that.

(_c_) In the case of frequently recurring sins or habits of sin it is necessary to find out whether they have been of daily, weekly, or monthly occurrence. As to which of these periods will apply to the penitent depends on his state as learnt from his last confession, and on the nature of the sin itself. In mentioning the period the confessor should always add a number, _e.g._ how often each week, three, four, or five times? and as we said under (_b_), the whole time during which the sin or habit of sin lasted must be found out. Finally it is useful in order to ascertain the state of the penitent’s soul to find out whether there has at any time been improvement and how long it lasted.

(_d_) It is the _sententia communis_ and the teaching of St. Alphonsus that by one and the same internal and external act a number of sins may be committed, when, for instance, the object aimed at in the sin includes several ends. A man, for instance, spreads a calumny about a community,—by so doing he incurs as many sins as there are persons in the community; this occurs usually in cases of enmity, scandal, etc. When, therefore, there is a _diversitas objectorum totalium_, questions must be put concerning the number of these objects.

(_e_) In putting questions as to the number and species of the sin, care must be taken not to bewilder the penitent with questions; if two or three questions do not effect the desired result, no more need be put; for St. Alphonsus teaches: The priest, who, after two or three questions, fails to obtain any definite result, need not worry even if he cannot come to any clear decision, _nam ex conscientiis implicatis et confusis moraliter impossibile est majorem claritatem sperare_.[370]

In conclusion, St. Leonard[371] remarks: If the confessor cannot get at the exact or probable number, or even the more frequent repetitions, it is in my opinion sufficient to find out the evil habit and the time of its duration. By this means the confessor, so far as is possible, will gain an idea of the state of his penitent and be able to form a judgment about him. The greater or less frequency of repetition must not, however, involve other consequences, as in the case of stealing. Here great care must be used to find out the number of the sins and, in particular, the value of the sum stolen.

4. If the general confession is a voluntary one and the penitent unprepared, it is not advisable to receive it, but to give the penitent some days to prepare by examining his conscience, making acts of contrition, and praying with more than usual fervor,—a method which will insure greater fruit in the general confession. At the same time the confessor might show the penitent that a general confession is not such a difficult matter once it is undertaken courageously. If, however, the penitent will be prevented from returning to the priest to whom he wishes to make his general confession, the confession may be made at once. If the general confession is one of necessity, there is all the more reason for a good preparation. If, however, as frequently happens, there is reason to fear that the penitent will not return, the confessor should not send him away to make his preparation, but receive the confession at once.

As to the preparation required on the part of the penitent, especially with regard to the examination of conscience, the confessor will be careful not to exact a written accusation; such a process, as a rule, only causes confusion and adds to the burdens of the confessor. If the penitent is afraid of not being able to retain in his memory the results of his examination of conscience, he may confine himself to a quiet examination according to his powers, and the confessor will help him. It may be permitted to the penitent to make notes of the more necessary points. If the confession is voluntary, the confessor may take the notes and read them for himself; if it be a general confession of necessity, the penitent himself should read them.

5. It is not _per se_ required that a penitent declare first the sins committed since the last confession before repeating his former confessions, nor is he obliged to make a distinction between the sins committed since the last confession and those told in former confessions, since the sin is the same whether confessed or not, and it makes no difference that the former sins have been remitted because the sin is not the object of confession in so far as it is habitual or leaves enduring stain, but in so far as it has been actually committed.[372] Still it is recommended to make the general confession precede the particular confession of the sins committed since the last time, in order that the priest may better ascertain the state of his penitent and assure himself that there is no obstacle to his giving absolution.

6. If the penitent is a well-instructed person and prepared, and is really desirous of confessing, the priest may allow him first to make his confession, and then he can put any questions that may be necessary, for many persons feel the need to reveal what is on their mind and have no peace until they do it. If, however, the penitent is persuaded that confession consists in the priest putting questions and the penitent answering, or if he wishes to make his confession in this manner, the confessor may adopt this mode. With ignorant penitents it is recommended and is indeed preferable. The confessor must then give the penitent time and opportunity to mention anything that disturbs his peace of mind.

7. If the confessor receives a general confession by way of question and answer, he must adopt some method, going through the Ten Commandments, the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and the duties of the state of life.

For the sake of greater clearness and to avoid repetitions he might indeed bring all sins under the Ten Commandments, those even which are against the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and other varieties of sins, for the Decalogue, as the Roman Catechism teaches, is the sum of all the Commandments.

It is not, however, recommended to divide the confession into parts answering to the different periods of one’s life, for such a practice protracts the confession and involves many burdensome repetitions; still in the case of the sixth Commandment it has its advantages, and questions might be put as to sins committed before marriage, during the married state, and after the death of the other party. Finally penitents who can be questioned as to the _actus consummati_ should be asked according to the different species of the act as well as on the _actus imperfecti_, internal and external, with regard to the species.

8. The priest should not omit to exhort the penitent to acknowledge honestly his sins, and not to conceal from false shame anything which he is obliged to tell.[373] The confessor should never give any sign of astonishment or anger, no matter how numerous or atrocious the sins may be. Let him show rather that he would not be surprised at hearing even worse sins; let him come to the help of the penitent and even praise him for having succeeded in confessing some one or other of the more difficult sins. He may congratulate the penitent on winning a victory over himself and the devil, and encourage him again to complete candor and to make the confession as perfect as though it were to be the last of his life.

32. Plan for making a General Confession.

In this paragraph we present a plan of questions suitable for a general confession and offer it especially for the guidance of younger confessors. A few preliminary remarks, however, are necessary to secure clearness.

This plan need not contain all the sins which are treated of in moral theology, but only such as may or do actually occur. Nevertheless, if a confessor adhere to this schedule in his questions he may be quite satisfied as to the integrity of the confession.

Such a schedule should be as short as possible so that the confessor may easily retain it in his head; hence the subdivisions, which he should know from his moral theology, may be omitted.

Since in a general confession venial sins ought not to be lost sight of on account of their close connection with mortal sins and because they are of great moment in determining the state of the penitent’s soul, some of the more serious venial sins will find a place in the catalogue. The confessor should know, in addition, how a sin in itself and objectively venial may become mortal _per accidens_, and, on the other hand, how a sin _grave ex genere suo_ may _per accidens_ become venial.[374]

Moreover, the priest should be careful not to examine all penitents on every sin; a single question to which a negative answer is given will show that a whole series of other questions may be omitted, and thus he will only inquire after those sins which are likely to have been committed. In putting his questions he should pay due regard both to the physical and the spiritual condition of the penitent. From sins already confessed an indication may easily be drawn as to the further inquiries to be made, and while he omits many questions in the catalogue he may deem it advisable to add others. If he discovers in the penitent a habit of sin, he must inquire how long it lasted, when it began, and when it was broken off.

In all his questions he will observe the rules which hold on this subject in every confession;[375] in particular he should bear in mind the words of St. Leonard of Port Maurice: “Treat your penitent,” he says, “as you would like to be treated yourself if you were in the same painful situation; receive him in a friendly manner and with affectionate kindness; encourage him to have confidence in you and to open his heart to you. Refrain from harsh and blunt forms of address which serve rather to irritate and embitter the penitent than to make him docile, obedient, and pliant; and even when he is gross and ignorant, rebellious to all advice and unwilling to fulfill his duties, do not, on that account, treat him harshly or frighten him by a display of overbearing rigor. Remember that in the confessional you must be a martyr of patience, seeking always to win the penitent by the gentleness of your manners, and that your duty is to incline rather to mildness than strictness. If your words are to have the power of gentle persuasiveness, you must deal with him in the spirit of our holy faith, and he will become humble and convinced of the truth of your words.”[376]

If the penitent is not already well known to the confessor, the latter must by a few questions at the beginning of the confession inform himself as to the age, position, calling, and other circumstances of his penitent since such knowledge is necessary for the choice and arrangement of the questions to be put.

If in the course of the confession some question must be asked on some rarely occurring and horrible sin, it should be pleaded by way of excuse that a special advantage of a general confession is to secure a thorough examination of conscience; and that this explains the unusual questions.

If during the confession the discovery is made that the penitent lies under some special obligation to avoid occasions of sin, to make restitution or some such burden, he should be told of it and disposed for it at once without waiting for the end of the confession for fear of forgetting it or of giving a wrong judgment. All other directions, however, in the way of advice or instruction should only be given at the end for fear of annoying and repelling the penitent, and also in order to avoid prolixity and repetition. If on general principles the absolution ought to be put off and the penitent fails to show necessary dispositions by signs of extraordinary sorrow and penitence, the confession should be interrupted and not resumed till a decided improvement is seen. If the penitent is judged to be in good dispositions, the confession may go on after the promise of performing the necessary obligations has been exacted, and the penitent should be reminded that if he is not sincerely determined to stand by his promises, his trouble is all in vain and his confession invalid, and that he is putting a seal on his condemnation by a new offense against God. In longer confessions it is a good practice even during the accusation (especially if some particularly grave sin be mentioned) to remind the penitent of the greatness of his crimes, of God’s goodness and grace by which he has been freed from all these great sins, and then to encourage him to make a thoroughly good confession. The penitent should also be reminded of all his bad confessions and communions, of his neglect of his Easter duties, etc.

If it be observed that the penitent is unusually disturbed, the cause of it should be found out; if it be the avowal of some one sin, the confessor should seek to obtain some hint about it and then push the questions so that the penitent has only to answer yes or no; thus a penitent may be consoled who is troubled because he has not sufficiently examined himself, or cannot express his meaning correctly or has forgotten what he wished to say. If no definite cause can be assigned, the confessor should encourage him in a general way, telling him that the confession is made to God, reminding him of the sacredness of the seal, recalling to him that the priest is also but a man, subject to faults and weaknesses; impressing upon him that the priest is ordained in order to sympathize with others, to help them by his kindness and patience, etc. Furthermore the way of beginning a general confession depends on the circumstances of the penitent, and these must be inquired into at once.[377]

Having laid down these principles we enter into details:—

I. _Preliminary Questions._

1. The penitent should be asked his age, his condition of life, and his calling.

2. Then he may be asked if his previous confessions have been valid (the uninstructed should be assisted to form a correct judgment in the matter), whether he has ever intentionally concealed a grave sin or a notable circumstance in confession—given intentionally the wrong number of his sins—examined his conscience carefully—tried to be really contrite at least for all graver sins. Then he may be asked if he has always faithfully performed the penance imposed. If the confessor discovers any sacrilegious confessions, he must at once ascertain their number as closely as possible, asking when the first bad confession was made, how long the habit lasted, whether any of them were set right, how often the penitent in this condition was accustomed to confess or communicate, whether the Easter duties were neglected by reason of such confessions and communions, whether in making such confessions and communions the penitent was conscious of committing sacrilege; whether during that period other Sacraments were received such as Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction. If the penitent is persuaded that his confessions were not sacrilegious, but some grounds of suspicion remain, the confessor might on occasion of some accusation against the sixth Commandment, make inquiry if the sin has been confessed before; or he might even ask plainly, “You have never yet confessed this sin?” or, “You have never had the courage to confess this sin?”

II. _Sins against the Sixth and Ninth and the Other Commandments._[378]

The confessor may next, in order to learn the general state of the penitent, ask quite generally: “Were you ever led astray when young? at what age? Did you indulge in any impure habits?” If the priest discovers that the penitent is quite innocent of such sins, he should go on at once to the other Commandments. He might perhaps ask further: “Were you troubled with temptations against holy purity? Had you to listen to bad conversation? Has any one ever taken liberties with you?”

Sins of _luxuria consummata_ may be reduced to four species, _pollutio_, _fornicatio_, _sodomia_, and _bestialitas_. These species have their _actus imperfectos_, external, for instance _tactus_, and internal, namely, _delectatio morosa_ and _desideria_, and in addition may have three circumstances which change the nature of the sin, _adulterium_, _incestus_, _sacrilegium_. The questions may be modeled on these four species, and in the case of each sin the circumstances inquired into which affect the species of the sin. Any compendium of Moral Theology will suggest the necessary detail.[379]

He may add: “Have you confessed all the sins you have committed against holy purity? Does anything else disturb your mind with regard to the sixth Commandment? Perhaps you can manage now to make a general confession and to set in order your past life.”

_Against the First Commandment._

1. _Against Faith._ The confessor may ask whether the penitent has been troubled by doubts against faith, or really doubted of the truths of faith and suggested such doubts to others; whether he has denied any truth of faith; whether he has acted or spoken against faith and before how many persons; whether he has induced others to jeer or mock at faith; has he spoken against religion and priests? has he listened to speeches of others directed against faith and applauded or encouraged them? has he read, sold, given or recommended to others the reading of books and articles against faith? has he himself written for such publications? has he frequented the society of men who mocked at religion or were enemies of the faith? has he taken part in the religious services of non-Catholics? has he joined any society which is hostile to religion?

2. _Against Hope._ Has he doubted of his salvation or of God’s mercy? or of the possibility of reforming? has he presumed on God’s mercy and put off his conversion?

3. _Against Charity._ Has he under stress of suffering hated God? indulged feelings of indifference or resentment against God and holy things? has he murmured against God in his sufferings and crosses? has he banished God from his mind for long periods, neglected prayer?

4. _Against the Reverence due to God._ Has he believed in superstitious practices and employed them? has he used sacred objects without reverence or for wrong purposes? has he received any of the Sacraments (Penance, Holy Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction) unworthily? has he desecrated holy places? has he injured persons consecrated to God?

_Against the Second Commandment._

Has he blasphemed? before children? Has he a habit of swearing? Has he ever sworn to what was false, or to anything of which he was doubtful? in a court of justice? to the injury of others? Has he been accustomed to use rash oaths?

_Against the Third Commandment and the Commandments of the Church._

Has he by his own fault missed Mass on Sundays and holidays of obligation? has he absented himself by his own fault from a considerable portion of the services? Has his behavior during the services been irreverent and scandalous? Has he done servile work without necessity on Sundays or holidays of obligation? for how long? before others? or has he required such work from others? Has he broken the law of fasting without cause, or eaten meat on forbidden days without a dispensation? Has he neglected his Easter duties?

_Against the Fourth Commandment._

Are the parents still living? Has he deliberately offended them by frequent disobedience in matters of moment (_e.g._ frequenting certain company against their will, staying late in public houses, by not giving up bad companions, by neglecting religious duties or important business at home)? Has he despised them in his heart? treated them with contempt or given them great trouble? used harsh and contemptuous language to them? wished them harm seriously? in the presence of others? Has he been ashamed of them? neglected them in their necessities, treated them badly, not carried out their last wishes?

Servants, etc., should be asked whether they are faithful to their master’s services: have they offended him by contempt or rudeness? damaged his reputation with his neighbors? obeyed him in things forbidden? Have they given scandal to others in the house, particularly children?

Masters, etc., should be asked whether they take due care of those under them. Have they treated them unjustly? permitted evil practices? have they kept their servants to the practice of their religious duties and given them time for it? have they given their servants bad example or led them into sin?

Parents and Superiors should be asked if they take proper care of their charges, or have squandered the family property. Do they correct and punish the children with prudence and without anger? have they ever wished evil to befall them? Do they watch over their children, keeping them from bad companions, from sinful connections? Have they instructed the children in their religious duties? have they sent their children to irreligious schools? Have they given their children bad example? Have they said or done anything sinful in presence of the children?

Married people should be asked if they live together in peace? have their quarrels given scandal to the children?

_Against the Fifth Commandment._

Has the penitent let himself be carried away by anger? broken out into curses or wished grave damage to betide his neighbor? Has he rejoiced in his neighbor’s misfortunes, entertained hatred, and inflicted harm or intended to inflict it? Has he fostered enmities or refused to make satisfaction to those whom he has injured? Has he lived in enmity with others, with how many and for how long? Has he promised to make peace and kept his promise? Has he ever seriously damaged his health or attempted his life, or seriously thought of doing so? Has he been in the habit of drinking, and been quite overcome by drink? Has this been the occasion of quarrels or other sins? Is it a habit? Has he neglected his duties to his wife and children in consequence, or ill treated them and destroyed the peace of the family? (The confessor must not forget his studies on _occasio_ and _consuetudo_ when dealing with cases of this sort.)

It might also be well to ask if the penitent has been hard in dealing with the poor in their grave needs and refused assistance.

_Against the Seventh and Tenth Commandments._

Has he entertained desires of stealing or of cheating his neighbor? Has he actually committed theft, or cheated his neighbor in doing business? Has he inflicted losses on any one? Has he paid his debts or put off for a long time the paying of them? Has he made restitution and repaired the losses inflicted? Is he at least willing to make reparation? If not, why not?

_Against the Eighth Commandment._

Has he told lies to the grave injury of his neighbor? Has he ever given false witness in a court of justice? Has he ever betrayed an important secret? Has he ever injured the reputation of his neighbor by revealing his faults without sufficient reason? to how many people was this communication made? Has he ever falsely accused his neighbor of a fault? to how many people? Did he restore the good name of the injured person? and did he make good to him the losses resulting from the calumny? Has he made rash judgments in things of great moment, and has he communicated them to others?

With respect to the Seven Capital Sins the confessor may ask:—

Has the penitent behaved in a proud, overbearing manner towards others? Has he devoted himself to inordinate amassing of wealth and coveted the same? Has he omitted to give the alms which he ought? Has he helped his neighbor when he ought? Has he indulged in envy of his neighbor on account of his fortune, his wealth, his graces, his virtues, etc.? Has he rejoiced in his neighbor’s misfortune, caused it or wished it? Has he neglected his work and duties through idleness, and injured his neighbor thereby?

With regard to the nine ways of participating in the sin of another the confessor might ask: Has he boasted of his sins? which? Has he advised others to commit sin, or praised the sin of others, or commanded others to sin? Has he failed to prevent the sins of others when he could do so easily?

After the priest has put all the questions which he thinks necessary he should proceed to advise the penitent to reflect if there is anything else disturbing his conscience about which no questions have been put; and he should also remind him that this confession may be his last. He may then try to move the penitent to contrition and to a firm purpose of amendment by the consideration of some effectual motives presented in a kind and fatherly manner. He might conclude with some words to this purpose:—

“Now thank God with all your heart for the great mercy He has shown you; if death had overtaken you while you were burdened with so many grave sins, you would certainly be at the present moment in hell, but now make your mind quite easy and don’t worry any more about these sins; I am now going to absolve you in God’s name from them all and your soul will be as pure as when it came from the baptismal font; but beware of sinning again and do not return God’s mercy with ingratitude.” The confessor will then give the penitent some directions how to reform his life; he must point out one or other of his sins that should be especially combated; and if at the same time he shows an interest in the penitent and promises to pray for him, the latter will go away consoled and encouraged to begin a new life in the Lord.[380]