Chapter III: Confession (1)

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]