Chapter III: Confession (4)

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.