been incurred, _ratione sui_ when there is grave danger of death and at
the time which the Church prescribes for the yearly confession; for the
annual confession is prescribed not only in order to obtain sanctifying
grace, but also to fulfill the divine law, more clearly defined by the
law of the Church. In this case the precept would be binding under grave
sin because of the presence of _materia necessaria_, for a mortal sin
omitted even without fault is _materia necessaria_.
If, however, a confession be made before that time, either of _materia
necessaria_ or _materia libera_, the confession must include the
previously omitted sin. This is so evident that no theologian ever
dreamt of disputing or doubting it. Every confession must be complete
subjectively or formally, and by the declaration of the Council of Trent
this confession is not complete unless it includes the sins previously
omitted. For this subjective integrity it is required that all mortal
sins not yet subjected to the keys which occur to the penitent should
be confessed unless some legitimate obstacle stands in the way. If
these omitted sins are kept back in the next confession following, that
confession is incomplete and sacrilegious. It cannot be argued that these
sins had been already indirectly forgiven, for, to speak of no other
objection, the same might be urged of sins already condoned by an act of
perfect contrition.[303]
27. Reasons Excusing from Complete Accusation.
In the preceding paragraph we said that sins may be omitted by the
penitent without the confession becoming sacrilegious. As there are
reasons which can justify such silence, and release the penitent from the
obligation of confessing the sins of which he is conscious, we devote
this paragraph to the consideration of these reasons.
I. No difficulty in the confession itself or internally connected with it
ever excuses from making a complete accusation; for when Christ gave the
precept that all grievous sins should be confessed to His representatives
in the tribunal of penance, He intended that we should submit to the
difficulties inherent in such an accusation and bear them as a penance
for our sins, and this discipline is very wholesome for the penitent.
A difficulty of this kind would be, for instance, the great shame felt
in confessing a sin, even if it came only from the fact of mentioning
it to this or that particular priest; the course then to be adopted
is to put off the confession, or to go to another confessor, or to be
brave and overcome the shame. This difficulty was recognized in the
Council of Trent, and hence it was declared that the difficulty of such
a (perfect and candid) confession and the shame of declaring one’s sins
might well seem great obstacles, but that they were counterbalanced by
the consolation and profit accruing to those who received the Sacrament
worthily.[304] The same may be said of the other difficulties, such
as the fear of losing the esteem of one’s confessor or of receiving a
rebuke from him. If such reasons as these could be held to justify a want
of integrity in the accusation, the faithful for the most part would
consider themselves at liberty to make incomplete confessions, and the
great object for which this Sacrament had been instituted would to a
great extent be frustrated.[305]
Likewise, a large gathering of penitents (_concursus magnus pœnitentium_)
on the occasion of a great feast or indulgence is never a reason for want
of integrity in confession, for this is not a case of necessity and it
would expose the priest to the risk of giving absolution to ill-disposed
subjects. Nor can exception be made to the rule of integrity because
people might conjecture from the time taken in the confessional that the
penitent had committed very many sins.[306]
II. Besides the case of physical impossibility, however, there are others
which justify an incomplete avowal of sin; they are in general such
external or accidental difficulties in connection with the confession
which render a complete accusation morally impossible, or involve grave
harm to the penitent or the confessor. When the impediment no longer
exists the law of God comes again into force; the moral impossibility
of making a complete confession does not altogether cancel the duty of
making it, but only suspends it, since the precept of confession is
not one that is confined to any fixed time or state, but extends over
one’s lifetime; hence mortal sins which have not been confessed must be
mentioned later when opportunity offers.
III. In order that the excuse of moral impossibility may be pleaded it
is necessary, 1, that there should be a real or probable risk of great
harm; 2, that it is impossible to find another confessor to whom a full
disclosure may be made without fear of this particular harm; 3, that only
those sins or circumstances be kept back of which the avowal would cause
harm; and finally, 4, that the confession cannot be put off.
IV. Physical impossibility might result from, 1, inculpable forgetfulness
or inculpable ignorance, or only venially culpable ignorance and
forgetfulness. A man who is ignorant _invincibiliter et inculpabiliter_
that the particular act which he calls to mind is sinful, or does
not know that his sin must be confessed with its number and species
and circumstances changing the species, is not bound to integrity
in confession; there is still less obligation on an uneducated and
weak-minded penitent.
If, again, a man in examining his conscience cannot recall a past sin,
or, having recalled it, forgets about it in the confessional, he is
physically incapable of making a complete confession. (On this point
see the preceding paragraph.) It is to be noticed, however, that in the
case of gravely culpable negligence or carelessness in examining the
conscience an imperfect confession is invalid; if, for example, a man
through his own fault is ignorant how confession ought to be made, or
was unwilling to make a careful examination of his conscience. On the
other hand, one is not obliged to go to confession sooner in order not to
forget past sins, though frequent confession is much to be recommended;
for we are bound only to accuse ourselves of the sins of which we are
conscious at the time of confession after making a diligent examination
of conscience.
2. There is, moreover, physical inability when there is imminent danger
of death (_a_) on account of the penitent’s condition being such that if
he should try to make a complete confession he may die before receiving
absolution; (_b_) in a common danger, such as shipwreck, before a battle,
during a violent epidemic or a swift conflagration. If in such a case
there is no time to hear the confession of each individual, it is enough
for all to make a general confession of their sins in order to receive
absolution, and the priest may give it, using for all the one formula:
_Ego vos absolvo_.... Finally, (_c_) when the confessor himself is near
death and no other priest is at hand.
The following instructions may be observed by confessors in actual
practice:—
(_a_) In case of extreme necessity the accusation of some specific sin
must be made so far as it is possible, but in the case of a dying man
who is still conscious the confessor should be more solicitous about
exciting contrition than about securing a complete confession; in the
case, however, of a penitent deprived of consciousness, especially if he
gave no previous sign of repentance, the confessor may give absolution
conditionally and then devote his care to the administration of Extreme
Unction, which in such a case is more certainly valid and efficacious
than the absolution itself; meanwhile, however, there would be no reason
for not giving the absolution beforehand.
(_b_) If only one confession has to be heard and there is imminent
danger, say, from an attack by an enemy, the confessor should get the
penitent to mention some one sin, to make an act of contrition, and he
should then absolve him, when under the circumstances the absolution is
a matter of necessity. If there are several who wish to make their peace
with God, as before a battle or in a shipwreck, the following points are
to be observed:—
([Greek: a]) If the danger is very pressing, the confessor must exhort
all to make acts of contrition and purpose of amendment, or, still
better, himself make along with them acts of contrition and amendment,
and get them to give some sign of their sorrow and their self-accusation,
as by raising their hands or striking their breasts; then he may give
them absolution in a body.[307]
([Greek: b]) If there is time enough for each one to approach the
confessor, though not for making a complete confession, they should be
admitted singly in order the better to secure the salvation of each one,
in such numbers as the time will permit; and in order that as many as
possible, if not all, may be heard, the accusation may be as short as
possible; thus contrition will be more genuine. Of course the penitents
will be told that in the event of their lives being spared they must make
up what was wanting to the integrity of the confession.[308]
3. Physical inability may also arise from the _defectus loquelæ_ of the
dumb who cannot make a complete confession either by writing or by signs.
For them it is sufficient if they confess one or other sin by signs.
If the defect be only a stutter, the penitent must confess as best he
can.[309]
4. The _defectus auditus_ of the deaf who cannot express themselves
nor hear the questions which the confessor must put in order that the
confession may be complete, can be reckoned as a physical inability.
They are obliged to make a perfect confession _ex sua parte_, _i.e._
to mention all that so far as they know is required for a perfect
confession, and thus they may not keep back anything. Those who are
merely hard of hearing are not on the same footing with the deaf; their
confession should be made in a place where the voice may be raised
without others overhearing what is said. If, however, the confessor
should find out only in the course of the confession that the penitent is
hard of hearing, and he cannot take him to a more retired place without
fear of causing the bystanders to suspect that some grave sin has been
confessed and so violating the seal, he may resign himself to permitting
an imperfect confession and may refrain from putting questions. With
women the confessor must be particularly on his guard not to give grounds
for evil interpretation, since many people are quick to suspect wrong.
Thus it would be imprudent for him to admit women penitents to confession
at times when the church is less frequented; since absolute security for
the seal of confession would even then not be attainable, and suspicion
would in all likelihood be easily aroused.
If the confessor is obliged to hear the confessions of deaf people in the
church and he has doubts as to the integrity of the accusation, he must
be more solicitous for the seal than for the integrity of the confession;
hence he must refrain from questions as to the number or circumstances
of the sins and must give a very slight and ordinary penance, so that
those who overhear his words may not be led to conclude that the penitent
has been confessing mortal sins.[310]
5. Finally, ignorance of the language constitutes a physical
impossibility for those unable to find a confessor understanding them;
for such people it is sufficient if they manifest their contrition and
their sins as far as they can by signs. The confessor, in default of any
other priest knowing the language, must admit them to confession and
_aliquoties_ absolve them even if he can barely make out the most general
accusation.
V. A moral impossibility exists, as before remarked, when great harm
ensuing to the penitent or to the confessor or to some third person is to
be feared from the completeness of the confession; the harm to be feared
must preponderate over the material integrity of the confession.
Therefore exception is made to the demand of integrity (completeness) in
confession:—
1. When there is risk of infamy (_periculum infamiæ_), if the penitent
is exposed to lose the esteem he is held in not only by the confessor
but also by others. This may happen in various ways, particularly if the
penitent is so placed that a perfect confession would be overheard by
others, or if the time required for a complete confession were so long
that it would give rise to unfavorable suspicions. Such a case is most
likely to happen when others know that the penitent has been in the habit
of confessing, and the latter, on account of those confessions being
invalid, is obliged to repeat them, while the time for a communion which
he cannot postpone without exciting comment, is quite close.
A sick man, for instance, has confessed and is about to receive the
viaticum; he reveals to the priest that he has made several sacrilegious
confessions. To repeat these in full would excite suspicions on the
part of the bystanders who thought that he was prepared to receive holy
communion.
Or, to use another illustration, on the occasion of some solemn and
public communion in common one of the communicants goes to the priest a
short time before communion and reveals that he has made a sacrilegious
confession; since there is no time to repeat it, it is enough if he makes
an act of sorrow, mentions the sacrilegious confession and perhaps one
or two of his other sins; he must then be absolved and later, of course,
make a full confession.
Or, a priest is already at the altar, about to offer the holy sacrifice,
but remembers that he has mortal sins on his soul not yet confessed; he
makes a short act of contrition and confesses his sins to an assisting
priest who is standing close by him; the latter will then give absolution
secretly. Outside the case of necessity where a priest must celebrate
Mass or a person is to receive communion, the penitent is in nowise
excused from making a full confession on the ground that others, noticing
the length of time spent in the confessional, should suspect him of being
guilty of many grave sins.[311]
2. When there is danger of breach of the seal of confession (_periculum
læsionis sigilli_), as when, which is a very rare case, it should be
foreseen that the confessor would break the seal, or in the case where
a confessor could not reveal his own sins without at the same time
revealing the sins of his penitent and so breaking the seal.
The first case, _i.e._ where the confessor breaks the seal—without, of
course, intending to do so—might happen when the priest speaks so loud
that he can be overheard by those in the neighborhood, and in spite of
representations still fails to subdue his voice, either because he is
deaf, or because his zeal runs away with him, or because he is afflicted
with some defect of voice which prevents him talking in a lower tone.
This would be only an indirect breach of the seal, certainly not to be
sanctioned but rather to be severely blamed as wrong and sinful. If,
then, the confessor speaks too loud, and continues to do so even after
the penitent has reminded him of the fault, the latter is justified in
keeping back part of his confession so that the confessor may not in the
course of his questions reveal to the bystanders the sins confessed.
If, however, the penitent has an exaggerated dread that his confessor may
break the seal by making revelations outside the confessional, he is not
justified in withholding his confession in full, for he imagines a sin so
horrible that the suspicion of it could only be entertained in the case
of heretics. This holds true at least as far as a direct breach of the
seal is concerned. A penitent could hardly ever be dispensed from a full
confession on account of such a fear, and if he were to reveal to another
confessor that such a motive had prompted him to keep back some of his
sins, the confessor could not receive this as an excuse without further
inquiry.
On the other hand, the danger of a breach of the seal on the part of a
priest who confesses the sins he has incurred in hearing confessions is
not beyond the bounds of possibility; in this case he must pass over in
silence those sins which would involve such a risk.[312]
3. When danger of scandal (_periculum scandali_) is to be feared either
with respect to the priest or the penitent. Such a case might occur where
the penitent is afraid of sinning by taking pleasure in thoughts against
charity and especially against purity when examining his conscience; his
duty then would be to avoid dwelling upon the number and circumstances
even at the risk of making an incomplete confession, for the natural
law of avoiding the danger of grave sin prevails over the positive law
of making a complete confession. The same reason may be a motive to the
confessor to be very prudent in questioning such penitents so as not to
expose them to commit new offenses against God in the very Sacrament of
reconciliation.
If a penitent have well-grounded fears of the confessor’s weakness and
that the latter will, if he hear a _peccatum turpe_, give way to bad
thoughts or cause him to sin, he is bound to avoid such a confessor; if,
however, in a case of necessity, he requires his help and cannot find
another confessor _hic et nunc_, he may omit those sins of which the
avowal would be dangerous.
A priest who knows that his weakness exposes him to great risks in
hearing confessions must withdraw from the confessional if it be at
all possible, unless there be good reasons to suppose that the fear
arises from some unforeseen and exceptional incident; in such a case the
confessor must omit the questions which ordinarily would have to be put
to secure the completeness of the accusation.
“Dangers of this kind are not to be lightly and unreasonably supposed,
but only on solid grounds; and if it be a question of danger to the
confessor, only after very unmistakable indications.”[313]
4. When a scrupulous penitent is always tortured with the thought that
his previous confessions have not been valid and believes that his
sins have never been properly confessed.[314] Such penitents are to
be forbidden to make detailed examination of conscience even though
in consequence their confessions should fall short of the necessary
completeness.
5. When there is danger of bodily harm (_damnum corporale_ or _periculum
vitæ_). If, for instance, a long confession exposed the priest to danger
of infection, even though by other precautions he might lessen the danger
or perhaps quite reduce it, in order to avoid the risk he may allow the
penitent to state quite briefly a few sins, thus contenting himself
with an imperfect confession, and may then give absolution; moreover,
if the penitent is so weak and exhausted by the illness as to be unable
without grave harm, or great increase of suffering and weakening of
his condition, to examine his conscience carefully and so make a
perfect confession, the priest ought not to annoy him by questions, but
rather try to awaken contrition and then give absolution even after an
incomplete confession.[315]
It was observed above (n. 4) that moral inability to make a complete
confession can only be admitted when the confession cannot be put off and
is urgent _hic et nunc_.
The confession may be regarded as urgent, 1, when the penitent is in
danger of death; 2, when the precept of annual confession and communion
is instant; 3, if the reception of holy communion or the celebration of
Mass cannot be put off without confusion or scandal; and, 4, if otherwise
the penitent could not again approach confession for a long period.
Reuter[316] and Lugo consider a delay of more than three days long enough
for a man in mortal sin to regard the case as urgent; indeed one may
consider the _impotentia moralis_ as justified if a man were compelled to
remain in mortal sin one or two days.
There is a special difficulty in solving the question whether a sin can
or ought to be confessed which cannot be disclosed without damaging
the reputation of the partner of the sin in the eyes of the confessor.
Theologians do not agree in their opinions, but are all unanimous in
teaching, 1, that a penitent is obliged to seek, if possible, another
confessor to whom he can make a complete confession and to whom the
accomplice is unknown, and in this way save his neighbor’s reputation;
and, 2, that if the sin which cannot be confessed without injury to the
character of the accomplice is not necessary matter of confession, it
ought not to be revealed unless the sin of the accomplice be only slight
and the confession of that particular sin be of peculiar benefit to the
penitent.
If, nevertheless, the accomplice be revealed to the confessor, such
revelation, in accordance with a very probable opinion, is not to be
regarded as a grave sin; for according to the teaching of a number of
theologians, whom St. Alphonsus approves and with whom St. Thomas seems
to agree, it is not a gravely sinful defamation to reveal the sins
of another to one or other trustworthy and upright man. Though many
theologians declare this to be gravely sinful if done without reason, the
opposite opinion is so well founded that it may be followed in practice
as quite probable.[317] But if it is at all probable, it is much more
so when the sin of another is revealed to a priest who is bound to the
most inviolable secrecy by the highest and holiest ties. Hence it follows
that the revelation of the accomplice is certainly no sin when there is
reasonable ground for it; such would be, for instance, if the confession
made to a priest who knows the accomplice were useful or necessary to the
penitent, supposing that no other confessor, to whom the accomplice is
unknown, were available; furthermore, the penitent is not bound to seek
another confessor unacquainted with the accomplice if the search involves
great trouble or loss.
With these premises we approach the question: May a penitent, or ought
he, confess a mortal sin which cannot be revealed without at the
same time revealing the accomplice to the confessor, or may he omit
the mention of that sin and so detract from the completeness of his
confession?
The greater number of theologians and those of most weight teach
that the revelation of the _complex_ is not a reason excusing from an
entire accusation, since it is no violation of the _jus naturale_ which
safeguards the reputation of another to reveal the secret sins of one’s
neighbor for good reasons to a prudent and upright man, and the law of
charity only forbids defamation of one’s neighbor without reason; in this
case, however, there is a _causa justa_, and a very urgent reason, viz.,
the making of a perfect confession and the guidance of the conscience.
The precept of making a sincere accusation is _potioris juris_ than
the precept of not defaming the neighbor, so that such defamation in
face of the need of making a complete confession is to be regarded as
of no account. Lugo rejects, as involving a _petitio principii_, the
other argument advanced by the defenders of this view, namely, that the
penitent is simply making use of his right to confess his sin, and that
the accomplice by participating in the sin has surrendered his claim to
his reputation so far as it is affected by the confession of the sins;
he adduces another argument: that since the benefits resulting from
confession are so immense that Christ has bound the penitent to endure
the shame of revealing his own sins, it is a natural consequence that to
obtain such benefits one may be allowed to reveal another’s sin.[318] The
same is taught by St. Thomas,[319] St. Bonaventure, St. Antoninus, St.
Bernard, Gerson, Cajetan, Henriquez, Suarez,[320] Lugo,[321] Laymann,
Vasquez,[322] Toletus, Reginald Lessius, Tamburini, Salmanticenses,[323]
Reuter.[324] St. Alphonsus[325] also holds this view. At the same time
they teach that the penitent is bound, if he can manage it _commode_, to
spare the reputation of his accomplice by going to a confessor to whom
the accomplice is unknown; and St. Alphonsus expressly condemns the view
that this is matter of counsel and not of precept. Thus the penitent is
freed from the obligation of seeking out another confessor only (_a_)
when there is danger of death or when the annual confession can no longer
be put off; (_b_) when the penitent by refraining from communion or from
the celebration of Mass would be exposed to misinterpretation and shame;
(_c_) when a penitent is in a state of mortal sin, and would be obliged
to remain in that condition one or two days (_per biduum imo etiam per
diem_) till he could find another confessor; (_d_) when the _complex_
may be presumed to have given up his claim to his good reputation, as
in the case of a brother who having sinned with his sister knows that
she will not go to another confessor without her mother; (_e_) when a
priest being accustomed to celebrate every day, and a lay person being
accustomed to communicate daily, would find much difficulty in omitting
these pious acts; (_f_) when a person finds great repugnance in revealing
his or her state of soul to another confessor; (_g_) when otherwise
the penitent would be deprived of a jubilee or other indulgence; (_h_)
mothers or husbands may be excused when through a wish to have counsel
or sympathy they reveal the sins of their children, etc., to a confessor
who knows the latter, especially when they find it hard to approach
another confessor; (_i_) when the seeking of another confessor involves
a privation of consolation and peace for the penitent accustomed to a
wise and helpful spiritual director. Hence it is evident that a penitent
is rarely, if ever, obliged to seek another confessor under the given
circumstances.[326]
The other opinion, that it is not allowed to reveal the accomplice, and
in consequence that one is not bound to mention a mortal sin which cannot
be confessed without revealing the accomplice, is taught, among others,
by Canus, Petrus Soto, Ledesma, Navarrus, Valentia, Banez, etc. Busenbaum
and Mazzotta deemed the opinion probable.[327] These theologians urge
that it is a violation of the natural law to injure the good name of
another, and hence that the obligation of not inflicting such injury is
_potioris juris_ than the duty of making a complete confession, since
this is founded on a positive law.
It need not be imagined, however, that this opinion is the _benignior_,
because it releases from the duty of making a perfect confession;
considered closely the case takes on quite another aspect, for:—
1. It requires the penitent to seek out another confessor to whom the
accomplice is unknown even when this involves great trouble to the
penitent, for as all will concede, the integrity of the confession must
be preserved so far as it is possible, and only the damage and hardship
to the penitent which makes the confession morally impossible excuse from
making a complete confession. Hence this _incommodum_ must be grave and
much greater than that which in the other view allows the defamation of
the accomplice.
2. If, however, a man cannot confess to another confessor and is
resolved to conceal the sin or its circumstances in order to save his
neighbor’s reputation, there arises a greater difficulty, the obligation
of confessing the same sin again; for in order to save his neighbor’s
good name a man may only conceal that circumstance which affects the
reputation of his neighbor, and this is the unanimous teaching of all
theologians; for example, if a man has committed incest, and has no
other means of confessing it, he must mention in his first confession
that he has fallen into a sin of impurity, passing over in silence the
circumstances which make it incest. He must, however, when opportunity is
presented of going to another confessor, mention the circumstance of the
incest, and this cannot be done without repeating his former accusation
of having fallen into a sin against purity.
3. It is also to be observed that if defamation of one’s neighbor excuses
from a complete confession, and if in consequence a particular sin _may_
not be revealed (for such is the foundation of this opinion), the
confessor is not allowed to put questions which may cause an indirect
revelation of the accomplice, especially to ill-instructed penitents who
would have no idea of how to parry the questions. Now if these questions
are to be avoided by the confessor, he may not inquire into the occasions
of sin, or he must leave to the judgment and discretion of the penitent
how far the latter is bound to answer the questions put to him. The
consequences, as any one may see, implicate the direction of penitents in
great difficulties, and on that account no one can admit either of these
methods of action.
Now the confessor, in order to be faithful to his important duty of
withdrawing his penitents from the occasions of sin, and in order not
to be deceived by a penitent who, left to his own judgment, will not
realize the danger of the occasions, must question his penitent with
perfect liberty and undeterred by the fear of obtaining any knowledge
of the accomplice in sin, if it is probable though not certain that
such defamation of the accomplice is not a reason dispensing from the
integrity of the confession. This opinion is certainly probable.
The champions of this view are far from denying that the natural law
forbids the injuring of another’s good name, but, they maintain, such
injury is forbidden only when there are no reasonable grounds for
inflicting it; it must be proved that the precept of making a complete
confession is a sufficient reason, since such defamation to a confessor
is certainly not objectively grave. That this ground is a reasonable one
is evident from many weighty considerations:—
1. Good reasons have been already offered in the difficulties which are
presented when perfect liberty is not allowed in confessing or asking the
circumstances and occasions of sins.
2. Further examples may be easily imagined in which the defamation of
another resulting from the penitent’s confession is not to be considered;
for no one would dream, for example, of releasing a son from the
obligation of making a perfect confession because it might be concluded
from the gravity and nature of his sins that his parents had brought him
up very badly; nor would a religious be excused for fear his confessor
should entertain the suspicion that his superiors were neglecting their
duty towards him. For such defamation may well be considered as of little
moment, since the confessor is bound to the most stringent silence and
can make absolutely no use of what he hears in confession.
3. Moreover, the precept of making a complete confession is so severe
that the penitent may never transgress it in order to safeguard his
own good name, and is obliged to overcome the fear of losing it. But,
according to the universal teaching, a man is justified in self-defense
to do a lawful act even if thereby he injure the character of his
neighbor if there is no other way of shielding his own or regaining it
when lost; hence it must be allowable to injure the reputation of another
if the end in view is to make a perfect confession; or the same cause
(the integrity of the confession) which binds me to injure my own good
name gives me the right of disregarding any infamy that may accrue to
others in discharging this duty.[328]
4. Finally, since it was in early days the practice of confessing to
one’s parish priest, and he was generally acquainted with all his
subjects, the precept of making a complete confession would have had no
meaning if the other opinion were tenable in respect to sins which were
difficult to confess. Is it possible that Christ should give a command
which in practice turned out so nugatory?[329]
From what has been already said on this subject it follows that the
confessor, if he thinks fit, is quite at liberty to put questions on the
circumstances or occasions of sin; moreover, that penitents ought not to
be instructed to conceal circumstances which may injure the reputation of
the accomplice with the confessor; they ought rather to be encouraged to
make a complete confession to their regular confessor if they are unable
to find another.
If, however, some one acting upon the undoubted authority of theologians
who teach the other view wishes to make his confession accordingly, he
cannot be blamed if he has formed a _dictamen conscientiæ_, and he cannot
be forced to renounce his opinion.
Again, if a confessor remarks that a penitent is familiar with his
theology and makes his accusation in accordance with the other opinion,
and if he is satisfied that said penitent is capable of forming a
judgment about his obligations, he may more easily omit certain questions
and leave the penitent free to follow his own opinion.
What has been said with respect to the accomplice’s reputation applies
equally to those who have been in any way an occasion of sin to the
penitent. There are cases in which the penitent cannot give the specific
character of his sin without at the same time disclosing the sin of
another which has been the object or occasion of his own sin. A man,
for instance, discovers his unmarried sister to be in confinement and
maltreats her so that _abortus_ follows; he cannot explain the nature
of his crime fully in the confessional without revealing his sister’s
sin and so destroying her reputation in the mind of the priest. Although
some even of those who teach that the integrity of the confession may
take precedence of the accomplice’s character are unwilling to grant it
in this particular case, yet there is at least a probability that the
obligation of integrity prevails in any case.[330]
ARTICLE III
THE MEANS TO BE EMPLOYED IN ORDER TO MAKE A PERFECT CONFESSION
28. The Examination of Conscience.
Since the penitent is obliged to make a complete confession of his mortal
sins, as far as lies in his power, there naturally devolves upon him the
duty of examining his conscience. Regarding the examination of conscience
the following points are to be noted:—
I. The penitent is bound under pain of mortal sin to prepare for
confession by a serious and careful examination of conscience, and he
must devote to this examination such diligence as a prudent man would
ordinarily devote to any important business; hence in order that the
omission of mortal sins in the accusation may not be attributed to sinful
neglect, _diligentia mediocris_, as it is called, or _diligentia moralis_
is required, not such as would make the practice of confession hateful or
unduly burdensome.
The proof for this is supplied by the Council of Trent,[331] and it is
clear that if mortal sins are to be confessed they must be recalled to
the mind. Theologians observe, however, that when a man has examined
his conscience with moral diligence, but still believes that further
examination would reveal more sins, he is not obliged to spend more time
in examining his conscience; otherwise a penitent who had neglected
confession for many years would have to examine his conscience for days
and still fail to do his duty; such a conclusion is obviously wrong.[332]
Sporer[333] even goes so far as to teach that a man who has used moral
diligence in examining his conscience and has made his confession, and
afterwards cannot recall whether he mentioned or not some particular
sin, is not bound to confess it, because the presumption is that he has
confessed it along with the other sins. If, however, he have strong
misgivings on other grounds and cannot settle his doubt as to whether he
has confessed the sin or not, he is always obliged to mention that sin,
if there is no doubt of its having been committed, in the next confession.
II. The care which ought to be employed in this examination is not
the same for all classes of penitents; it varies according to the
circumstances of the penitents: more especially according to—(1) the
state of conscience and the habitual purity of life; (2) the time elapsed
since the last valid confession; (3) the education, the knowledge (in
religious matters especially), the intelligence of the penitent; (4) the
state of health.[334]
1. One who seldom falls into mortal sin may satisfy himself with a less
strict examination of conscience, especially if he be in the habit of
making a daily examination of conscience; for if a penitent of this kind
falls into mortal sin, he will immediately recall it; and one who is
morally certain that he has not sinned mortally is, strictly speaking,
not bound to any examination of conscience, but he must be careful to
offer sufficient matter for confession. Though this is quite correct in
theory, in practice the penitent is strongly advised to make a careful
examination of conscience in order to rid himself of his smaller faults
and to reap greater fruit from the Sacrament.
2. The longer the period over which the examination is to extend the more
time and care must be expended in this preparation, but it is not to be
laid down as a principle that a man who has not confessed for a year is
bound to be twelve times as long in his preparation as the man whose last
confession was a month before.
3. Less instructed or quite uneducated people are not obliged to so
careful and searching an examination as the better instructed; they are
quite incapable of examining their conscience, _ad impossibilia nemo
tenetur_. If an educated penitent comes to the Sacrament unprepared,
the confessor should with all proper consideration send him away again
to prepare himself by a careful examination of conscience, unless there
should be solid grounds for supposing such a step inopportune; but only
grave reasons justify such toleration, for, though the sins committed
might be ascertained by questions, there is no moral certainty that such
a confession is a perfect one. A penitent who has not been to confession
for a long time and is leading a worldly life cannot without preparation
answer at once and correctly whether he has committed such or such sins.
If the penitent is uneducated, or, although educated, yet ignorant in
religion, and has taken absolutely no pains to acquire a knowledge of his
sins, he must be treated in the same way; if, however, he has taken some
pains in the matter, the confessor may supply the defect by questions;
for an uneducated man left to himself will, even after a long examination
of conscience, never succeed so well as when guided by the prudent
questioning of an experienced and skillful confessor who will do the work
in a much shorter time. If, then, the confessor sees that he can procure
by questioning a perfect confession such as the penitent left to his
own resources could hardly make after long examination, he should help
him, all the more if there is reason to fear that the penitent would be
frightened by the postponement of his confession, and might be deterred
from confession, at least for a time, by the difficulties attending a
careful examination of conscience. This method, the result of great
experience, is confirmed by the Catechismus Romanus:[335] “If a priest
remarks that such penitents are quite unprepared, he should dismiss them
with very gentle words and advise them to come again after spending
some time in thinking over their sins. If they maintain that they have
already exercised all diligence in examining their conscience, he should
hear them, since there is reason to fear that if sent away they might
not return, and he may with more reason hear their confessions if they
show any signs of wishing to reform their life; then they may be urged
to accuse themselves of their carelessness and promise for the future to
make up for their faults by a careful examination.”
Reuter[336] observes on this subject: “Besides, experience teaches,
as is well remarked by Vasquez and Lugo, that a prudent confessor can
accomplish more with most penitents and uneducated people by a few
questions than they can themselves after a long examination. Hence such
penitents when they give any signs of fervor ought not to be easily
dismissed, in order to examine themselves again, even when defects are
noticed.” Sporer[337] writes: “Uneducated and inexperienced penitents
are unable to make such an exact examination as the more educated; hence
they should be helped by the confessor.” Segneri,[338] too, warns the
priest not to send away ignorant penitents to make a fresh examination
of conscience, unless for the most urgent reasons, since, on the one
hand, they may be frightened away and never come to confession again,
and, on the other hand, the confessor himself can easily supply for their
deficiency by his zeal.
Although a penitent knows that he will be questioned by his confessor,
he is none the less bound to examine his conscience, since otherwise he
would be exposed to the danger of giving wrong and insufficient answers
or of omitting a great deal; he may, however, permit himself a little
less care, especially with regard to the sins common to people in his
state of life.[339]
No one is bound to write his sins even if he should be afraid of
forgetting them; nor, if sin has been committed with another, is there
any obligation to consult with the accomplice in sin to determine
the number of sins; so, too, one who has missed Mass the whole year
is not bound to count up the feasts in the calendar, for this would
be _diligentia extraordinaria_ such as the Council of Trent does not
demand.[340]
4. Those who are prostrated by illness and through weakness or pain
cannot review their past life are not obliged to make an exact
examination of conscience; indeed the confessor should only put to them
a few questions according to their condition. If, however, they regain
their health, they must supply what was wanting in their accusation;
if, after receiving absolution, other mortal sins occur to their mind,
they should confess them and get absolution. In general the sick are not
required to make so careful an examination as others; hence the priest
should not yield when they wish to put off confession from one day to
another on the plea of examining their conscience better; usually this
is only a pretext for putting off the confession, and does not arise
from anxiety or eagerness to prepare well, but from fear; such persons
must be prepared by the priest himself for absolution and the other
Sacraments.[341]
III. A penitent who is guilty of gross neglect in the examination of
conscience makes _per se_ an invalid and sacrilegious confession; he
must, of course, be sufficiently conscious of such neglect in order
to incur this sin. The malice of the offense consists in the risk of
omitting some mortal sin, and so, though none may have been actually left
out, the penitent has sinned gravely by consciously exposing himself to
the danger.
IV. In order to make a good examination of conscience the penitent
should adopt some system; the simplest and easiest method is to go
through the commandments of God and of the Church, the various kinds
of sins (especially the Seven Capital Sins), and the nine ways of
participating in sin; it is also recommended to call to mind particular
hours and days. Theologians give many other methods besides for this
examination. Reuter recommends the penitent to recall where he was each
day, what was done, and what sins were committed by thoughts, wishes,
and desires, words, and works; how he has conducted himself at home,
in church, with his neighbors; the author considers that by this means
repetition will be avoided. To examine the conscience according to this
method would be to exercise not only _diligentia sufficiens but magna
omnino diligentia_.[342] Sporer, approving the method recommended by
Gobat, offers a compendious system for penitents who lead a fairly
uniform existence and for whom the examination of conscience extends
over a longer time, some months or half a year. The penitent should
consider three periods: (1) an ordinary working-day; (2) a Sunday; (3) an
exceptional day in which he has traveled, done some particular business,
been present at a wedding or a dinner, etc.[343] One who has only to
examine a short interval may call to mind how he has sinned against God,
his neighbor, and himself, by thoughts, words, and deeds.
V. The following directions are given by approved moralists to determine
whether any carelessness in the examination of conscience is a mortal or
venial sin and whether in consequence the confession has been valid or
not.
1. Those may rest in perfect security who, being neither too strict nor
too lax, experience no misgiving or anxiety on the care which they have
devoted to the examination of their conscience.
2. If a man doubts whether he has been guilty of more or less
carelessness and discovers after confession that he has omitted more
sins than he has confessed, he must acknowledge himself guilty of
gravely sinful neglect; if, however, he has confessed more sins than
he has omitted, it may be assumed that he has not been guilty of great
carelessness.
3. If a penitent’s last confession was made one or two weeks before and
he accuses himself of mortal sins, giving the number of times in quite a
vague and doubtful fashion, _e.g._, I have committed sins against holy
purity three or four times, there is a strong suspicion that he has been
gravely careless in the examination of his conscience.[344]
It should be noticed that if a penitent, from experience of his own
weakness, is afraid that by a prolonged examination of his sins he will
again consent to them, he may confine himself to a rapid glance at
them, though he knows that for want of further examination many will be
omitted, since in any case the risk of committing sin must be avoided. A
confessor must observe the same guardedness in putting questions on sins
against the angelic virtue, as we shall see later.
If the penitent is troubled with scruples, it is better for him not to go
so thoroughly into his examination of conscience, otherwise confession
would become too burdensome, and experience shows that such penitents
become only more confused, the more they examine themselves; indeed they
should be forbidden any long and anxious attention to themselves.
Let the confessor impress upon worrying souls that the great thing
for them is to have the wish to confess all, that God recognizes the
good will, and that this is shown by praying for grace to make a good
examination of conscience, and that even if a sin be forgotten without
any fault it is remitted, and that the time between confession and
communion should not be occupied with the recalling of one’s past sins,
but that the mind should be fixed on the future.[345]
29. Invalid Confessions.
Confessions may be either invalid or merely defective. If only defective
but not invalid, the defect should be supplied, but there is no need
to repeat the confession; if, however, they are invalid, they must be
repeated. This repetition need not always be made in the same manner.
A confession may be invalid through the fault of the penitent or through
that of the confessor.
A confession may be invalid through the penitent’s fault:—
1. By a gravely sinful defect in the examination of conscience.
2. By culpable and deliberate concealment of anything which ought to be
confessed, or by a gravely sinful lie in confession.
3. By the want of contrition and purpose of amendment; and this defect is
to be found among _recidivi_ as well as those who refuse restitution or
reconciliation with their enemies.
4. By want of good will to carry out the penance imposed, and to
undertake other duties which bind under pain of grievous sin, if the good
will is wanting at the time of receiving absolution.
5. By ignorance of those truths which must be known _necessitate medii_
in order to gain salvation.
6. By receiving absolution while still under a sentence of
excommunication. Among the principal effects of such a sentence must
be counted _privatio sacramentorum_, so that any one receiving the
Sacraments in this condition incurs a mortal sin by breaking the law of
the Church. One may be saved, however, from grievous sin in this matter
by inculpable ignorance, fear of death or mutilation, great disgrace or
serious loss of fortune, etc., as well as by the necessity of obeying
the law of yearly confession and communion when there is no priest with
faculties for absolving from censures, for the law of the Church is not
so severe as to bind its subjects to suffer grievous damage.
It is illicit and even sacrilegious for an excommunicated person to
receive the Sacraments, though the reception is valid except in the
case of the Sacrament of Penance. But when the excommunicated person
is in good faith and thinks he may receive absolution, such absolution
is valid, it being presumed of course that he goes to confession with
the necessary dispositions. Such a case might occur when, through
invincible ignorance or forgetfulness, he omits to mention the censure of
excommunication, or when the priest does not know of it or forgets for
the moment that such a censure is attached to certain sins, or, again,
even where the priest knowingly absolves the penitent, though unprovided
with faculties for the case, because the penitent is in one of the cases
of necessity mentioned above and the priest feels it his duty to give
absolution, or even if _ex malitia_ he absolves a penitent who believes
him to have faculties.[346]
On the part of the confessor the confession may be made invalid if
he has not the necessary jurisdiction or intention, or if he omits
something essential in the formula of absolution, or if through deafness
or inattention or the indistinctness of the penitent’s utterance he has
not understood any sin. If, however, through no fault of the penitent
the priest missed some sins, even mortal sins, the confession would,
according to the probable opinion, be valid if he heard part of the
accusation; those sins, however, which had not been understood ought to
be repeated. If in the course of confession the penitent observes that
the confessor does not understand because he is asleep or distracted, the
penitent must repeat what the priest has failed to hear; if, in spite
of this, the penitent were to continue the confession (_mala fide_), it
would be sinful and invalid and ought to be repeated. If at the end of
the confession the penitent sees that the confessor has been sleepy or
distracted and so has missed some of the sins, though he does not know
which have been missed, he must begin again unless the accusation has
been a long one, in which case it is enough if the penitent repeat what
he thinks the confessor may have missed, for it may be presumed that
Christ never intended to prescribe perfect confession when attended with
such inconvenience.[347]
With respect to repeating confessions the following principles are
accepted:—
I. If a confession is invalid, the sins mentioned in it must be repeated;
otherwise, the ensuing confession is invalid, for those sins were never
remitted by the power of the keys, and in consequence they must be again
submitted to the tribunal.
II. The duty of repeating a confession urges as soon as there is a moral
certainty that said confession was null; if, however, the confession
has certainly been made and there is doubt only as to its validity, the
presumption is in favor of its validity. It is, however, advisable to
repeat a doubtfully valid confession.
There is no difficulty where the penitent has willfully concealed or
never intended to give up a mortal sin or never avoided a voluntary
occasion of sin, and in other such cases, for the confession was
unquestionably invalid and sacrilegious. It is more difficult, however,
to determine at times on the validity of a confession when the penitent
has frequently relapsed without being voluntarily and continually in
the occasion of sin. If a penitent shortly after confession falls
frequently into sin on the first occasion that offers, without making any
resistance, the presumption is that the confession was deficient in the
required contrition and purpose of amendment, and that in consequence it
was invalid. If, however, after confession he usually makes some effort,
the nullity of the confession is not certain, and the confessor may not
force him to repeat the confession, but he will do well to counsel him to
do so when his dispositions improve and he is earnest in his contrition
and in his efforts to make a permanent reform.[348]
III. Invalid confessions must be repeated in their entirety when new
confession is made to another priest who has no knowledge of the sins
contained in the preceding invalid confessions, for this knowledge is
necessary in order to pronounce judgment; hence it is not enough for a
penitent to accuse himself merely of having made one or more invalid
confessions.
IV. If the confession is made to a priest who has heard the invalid
confessions, and in consequence has already passed sentence on the
individual sins and has at least a knowledge _in confuso_ of the
penitent’s state, it is sufficient to summarize the accusation of
previously confessed sins in the form, “I accuse myself of the sins
already mentioned in ... confession,” mentioning if the previous
confessions were invalid through want of integrity, and supplying
this want by a distinct and separate accusation of the sin or sins
omitted.[349] The previous confessions were sacramental, since they
were made with a view to obtain absolution, though deprived of their
sacramental efficacy through the fault of the penitent; hence a general
repetition of them in connection with the knowledge which the confessor
had of the individual sins may be considered as sufficient to form
a judgment. If a penitent wishes to make a general confession, the
distinction between the usual confessor and any other is not of so great
moment, except where the confessor or the penitent is intent upon the
_minimum necessarium_; the usual confessor of the penitent may, however,
be satisfied with less care, since he knows already the previous sins
of his penitent. In this case, however, he must have _notitiam saltem
confusam status pœnitentis_; for this it is not necessary that he should
be able to recall the number and circumstances of the sins in question:
a remembrance of the different species and their number in general
suffices.
The confessor will have acquired this _notitia confusa_ from previous
confessions and from the questions which he puts to the penitent. Such
knowledge is sufficient in so far as it is connected with a knowledge of
previous sins, and that will be the case where the general confession is
made to the same priest.
If, however, the priest can only vaguely call to mind his past treatment
of the penitent, he should put some questions to him in order to form
an idea of the state of his conscience; but he may absolve without this
precaution, if from the penances which he has been in the habit of giving
to his penitent he can form a judgment as to the state of his soul.[350]
The same plan may be adopted in the case in which a man after making his
confession is sent away without absolution, and afterwards returns to
receive it, the confessor in the meantime retaining no recollection of
the sins. Undoubtedly in such a case a _notitia confusa_ is sufficient,
and on the strength of it absolution may be given. Nay, more: if the
penitent’s absolution had been delayed for some reason not connected with
want of necessary dispositions, the confessor might be satisfied with the
remembrance that the penitent was in right dispositions for absolution
and had received a penance in proportion to the sin. Of course it is
always understood that no fresh mortal sin has been committed in the
interval between the confessions; otherwise it must be confessed and a
new act of sorrow and resolution of amendment must be made.[351]
On the same principles we may answer the question already discussed as
to whether a man who recounts his sins (_mere historice_) to a priest
(_qua amico_)—to obtain advice, for instance—is bound to retail them
explicitly if in consequence of the priest’s advice he desires to
receive absolution; or the question might be put thus: What knowledge or
recollection of the sins must the priest have so that on the strength of
a perfunctory accusation couched in general terms he may give absolution?
Many theologians, among them Lacroix and St. Alphonsus, require a
_distincta memoria_ of all the sins, because the preceding confession
was not made to the priest as a judge in the Sacrament, and so cannot
be a sacramental confession; but a sacramental confession is made only
when the confessor has a _distincta memoria_ of the sins narrated at the
time when the summary of the accusation is made; if the priest remembers
them only _in confuso_ or _ex parte_, the penitent must once more make a
distinct accusation of his sins _in ordine ad absolutionem_. The opposite
view is taught by Lugo, who maintains that it is _communis_, for almost
all theologians teach that the _memoria confusa_ is sufficient whatever
may have caused the defect in the previous confession. He grants that the
mere narration of the sins is in no way sacramental, that no judicial
accusation has been made, that it is merely a friendly confidence; this
previous, though not sacramental, narration which still remains _memoria
non omnino distincta_, may become in a certain manner sacramental by the
ensuing (_summarized_) accusation, sufficient for the purposes of the
Sacrament; not because the previous narration was sacramental in itself,
for it was not so, but in so far as the later accusation, joined with the
recollection which the confessor has of the sins previously mentioned,
supplies the priest with the knowledge necessary for the Sacrament.[352]
Thus Lugo combats successfully the objections and reasons of his
opponents.
Still in Lugo’s proof and that of his supporters the difficulty must
not be overlooked that the narration has no sort of relation to the
Sacrament of Penance, either in the mind of the narrator or that of
the priest, and that in consequence the reasons brought forward in the
case above mentioned are not quite convincing. Aertnys consents to
Lugo’s decision—that is, he considers the repetition of the accusation
as unnecessary only when the confessor at the time when the summary of
the sins is made has a _distincta memoria eorum_, since the general
accusation of the penitent along with the _notitia distincta_ of
the confessor is equivalent to a _distincta confessio_.[353] And
Lehmkuhl regards Lugo’s view as quite probable only when the priest is
entertaining hopes as he listens to the narration of getting the man to
make a sacramental confession, though such a thought may be very far from
the man’s mind at the time. The accusation of the penitent may not be
intentionally sacramental, while the attention of the priest has already
begun to assume a judicial and sacramental form and is _inchoative_, at
least, a distinctly judicial investigation such as would seem sufficient
when the penitent on his part gives his consent to carry out the distinct
judicial act. If, however, the penitent in the course of his narration
never hinted at the idea of a sacramental accusation and the priest never
adverted to it, the teaching of St. Alphonsus would seem to prevail, for
in such a case a _distincta notitia judicialis_ never existed, unless
a _distincta memoria_ were retained by the priest; but the sacramental
sentence which has to be pronounced over every mortal sin is based solely
on a judicial knowledge of them.[354]
30. General Confession.
The repetition of former confessions, whether of all the confessions of
a lifetime or of those last made, is called a general confession. It is
necessary for many penitents, useful to others; to a few only it may be
said to be harmful.
1. General confession is necessary for all who have made invalid
confessions. St. Alphonsus remarks on this subject that it is a frequent
experience in missions that bad confessions have to be set right; hence
he advises missioners that since the good of missions consists mainly in
setting right bad confessions, they should in all their discourses be
urgent in explaining the heinousness of sacrilege and how many souls are
lost by concealing mortal sins in confession. Experience teaches that
many people are overcome by false shame so as to conceal their sins even
in the confessions which they make to the fathers giving the mission. If
at so solemn a time as a mission such people fail to set right their bad
confessions, what hope is there of their salvation? If in the confession
which they make to the missioner they cannot overcome their shame, how
will they do it when they confess to the local priest? There is indeed
good reason for ever and again insisting on the general confession.[355]
Hence it is very desirable that the local priests at the time of a
mission should refrain from hearing confessions, and surrender their
confessionals to the fathers who give the mission (or to some strange
priests called in for the special work of hearing the confessions), for
some of the faithful, if they see their usual confessor in attendance,
may be deterred from going to a strange priest and continue to make
sacrilegious confessions. It not unfrequently happens that people whom we
would never suspect have most need of freedom in this respect.[356]
It frequently happens that a confessor thinks a general confession
necessary when the penitent is not at all convinced of its necessity.
Whether the penitent is to be advised in such a case to make a general
confession will be determined by the rules which are given as to the duty
of instructing the penitent or leaving him to himself (§ 55); for if the
penitent suspects nothing of the nullity of his previous confessions,
the confession which he now makes in good faith and proper dispositions
is valid, and by virtue of it the sins mentioned in former invalid
confessions are indirectly remitted and need only be repeated when the
conscience awakes to the fact. Moreover, a prudent confessor, if he fails
to persuade a penitent of the necessity of a general confession, may
succeed by a few questions in making the confession practically a general
one. Indeed, unless the penitent takes it in bad part the priest may by
a little adroitness elicit a general confession; then he must, before
giving absolution, let the penitent know that he has made a general
confession. The case may also occur where the penitent has made one or
more sacrilegious confessions and, quite forgetful of this circumstance,
has begun to make valid confessions without ever setting right the bad
ones; this not unfrequently happens to children. In this case the general
confession need only extend over the sacrilegious confessions.[357]
2. Of the great usefulness of general confession, popes, saintly bishops,
founders of orders, and the great doctors of the Church all speak in most
unmistakable terms. The learned Benedict XIV, in his instructions on the
preparation of the faithful for a fruitful celebration of the Jubilee,
directs priests who give the missions to impress on the people again
and again the great profit of general confession. They are to urge them
to penance, and to instruct them how to receive the Sacrament validly
and profitably; they are to proclaim that it is absolutely necessary to
repeat former bad confessions, and they should take all possible pains to
excite to a general confession even those who do not feel any necessity
for repeating their sins again. “For if it is not necessary to mention
again our former sins, we regard such repetition as very profitable
on account of the confusion connected with such avowal, which is an
important part of penance, as our predecessor, Benedict XI, teaches in
this Decretal _Inter Cunctas_.” He also appeals to St. Charles Borromeo,
who in his _Monita ad Confessarios_ proclaims the usefulness of general
confession and recommends it. “Confessors,” says the saint, “ought, with
due regard to persons, times, and places, urge their penitents to make a
general confession, that thus by a thorough examination of their lives
they may turn to God with greater peace of mind and repair all faults
which have been committed in former confessions.” As another witness
for the usefulness of this practice, Benedict XIV adduces St. Francis
of Sales who, in many places in his works, insists strongly on the
practice. Thus he writes to a widow concerning her father: The counsels
which I give him I reduce to two points: the first one is that he should
institute a careful examination of his whole life with a view to making
a general confession and performing a corresponding penance,—this is a
means which no sensible man will despise in presence of death; the other
is that he should continually endeavor to wean his mind from the vanities
of the world.[358] Benedict then refers to the rules which St. Vincent de
Paul gave to his mission-priests, in which he exhorts them to encourage
general confessions. In the life of the holy founder it is recorded what
great fruits were reaped from the general confessions which were made
during the missions held by those priests.[359]
The advantages of general confession are thus briefly enumerated
by St. Ignatius in his Book of the Exercises: (1) We gain greater
fruit and merit on account of the deeper contrition with which we
approach the Sacrament; (2) we are better able to realize the malice
of sins committed; (3) we are in better dispositions for receiving
holy communion, and we are more disposed to shun sin. Moreover, the
Directorium of the Exercises, a work composed by a member of the Society
of Jesus and edited by the General Claudius Aquaviva, adds the following
observation: If the general confession offered no other advantage, the
following fact would sufficiently recommend it; experience proves that
men for the most part go to confession either without proper examination,
or without the required contrition, or with but a weak purpose of
amendment; the general confession comes in most opportunely to give peace
of mind, to remove scruples, which sooner or later, or at least at the
hour of death, come to torture the soul and expose it to the danger of
losing eternal salvation.
Segneri also very earnestly recommends general confession. It is a very
safe and useful plan to examine one’s life thoroughly at least once, and
to set it right by a general confession, and to keep up the practice
at fixed intervals of a year, or even oftener, of making a general
confession beginning from the last. The advantage of this practice is
that, seeing all our faults and sins at a glance, we are filled with
greater confusion and sorrow and are impelled to be more humble; besides
the fear of God’s justice will grow in us when we see our sins, past and
present, hanging like a great mountain over us, so that we are compelled
to cry out with Esdras—“Our sins are grown up even unto heaven.”
(Esdr. ix. 6.) And who does not see how difficult it is without such a
confession to obtain that most priceless of blessings, peace of mind, at
least if the frequent relapses into sin are due to a want of preparation?
Oh, how many confessions are thought to be valid and are not so in
reality![360]
Finally, the words of St. Alphonsus deserve a place here: “I advise
every one who has not yet done so to confess all the sins which he has
ever committed in his life, and I advise not only those who have made
sacrilegious confessions by concealing mortal sins, or whose confessions
have been invalid through want of previous examination of conscience or
of true contrition, but those also who are anxious to begin a new life;
for this purpose a general confession is very useful.”[361]
Hence, general confession is useful: (1) for adults who have not already
made one; (2) especially for such as have reasonable misgivings about the
validity of past confessions; (3) for those who wish to start a new and
better life; (4) before entering on a new state of life, hence before
marriage, before receiving Orders or making the profession in a religious
community; (5) at the time of a jubilee or mission, or of the spiritual
exercises, for these are special occasions of grace and penance; (6) for
persons who are in danger of death, while their strength permits, and for
those who have to expose their lives to any danger.
Those who have once made a good general confession, especially if they
are of mature age, may set their minds at ease on that portion of their
existence, and such people should not be easily allowed to repeat their
general confession unless for very weighty and exceptional reasons. These
frequent repetitions do more harm than good. The desire of repeating
the general confession is usually a sign of a certain want of trust in
God and of scrupulosity. If a penitent of this kind, after his general
confession, is uneasy about some important point in his former life,
because he thinks he has not confessed something or failed to confess
it properly, he may be allowed to mention it in one of his ordinary
confessions.
A repetition of the confession of his whole life may be allowed to a
penitent who is free from scruples and is full of zeal to enter on
a perfect life. On the other hand, it is well to advise and even to
urge as a very useful means the practice of general confession at
fixed intervals, say of a year, or a half year, or when the occasions
mentioned above afford an opportunity. If the confessor has to deal with
a penitent who has already once or oftener made a general confession,
he should ask when the last confession was made and why the penitent
is anxious to make it again. The answer will suggest the course to be
pursued by the confessor: (_a_) If the penitent can give no definite
reason, but speaks of a general feeling of unrest, the confessor may ask
what the cause of this unrest is, and whether in the preceding general
confession the penitent has honestly said all he knew and as he knew it,
whether he answered the questions put by the priest in all truth, whether
he was sorry for his sins, and whether there was a real improvement in
his way of living, or, on the other hand, whether he fell again into sin,
and when. If a defect is discovered in the preceding general confession
it must be repeated; otherwise the penitent must be shown how groundless
his fears are and encouraged to trust in God. The repetition of the
general confession must be strictly forbidden, especially in the case of
those troubled with scruples. At the most, the accusation of one or other
sin which gives most uneasiness may be permitted, and the penitent must
be engaged to think no more about the matter, but only to make acts of
sorrow when these sins occur to his mind. (_b_) If, however, the penitent
wishes to make a general confession because the last one was made a long
time ago, and many mortal sins have been committed in the interval,
he should be permitted to make it. The period which has been already
comprised in a general confession may be treated with less detail, or
quite omitted. A short repetition is, however, as a rule, recommended
since the earlier life of the penitent throws light on his present
condition, and he is always more content if the confessor has, at least,
some general perception of the former state of his soul. (_c_) If the
penitent wishes to make a general confession for ascetic reasons, _e.g._
for the sake of humility, of greater purity of heart, etc., the question
is to be settled as follows: If the penitent is a stranger, he must be
referred to his usual confessor; if he has none, he must be recommended
to choose one. If the penitent asks the confessor to undertake his
direction, and on the strength of this to receive his general confession,
the request is not to be granted at once. A simple confession may be made
so that the priest may decide whether a general confession be necessary
to gain the knowledge required for guiding the penitent, or at least
useful, or on the contrary harmful where there exists a tendency to
scruple. With one’s ordinary penitents, this procedure is not required in
order to find out whether a general confession is or is not advantageous;
the ascetical object may be obtained by mentioning some of the more
humiliating sins or by well-prepared annual general confessions.
In the special case of penitents who have been living in impurity the
confessor should allow them only one general confession on that period
of their lives lest by reflecting on those sins in their examination
of conscience sinful promptings should arise in their imagination, the
conscience thus incurring fresh stains where the object was to purify it;
after one perfect confession of these sins the penitent should not be
allowed, or rather he should be forbidden, to make any further accusation
of them; a general accusation may, however, be made in subsequent
confessions in these or other words of similar form: “I accuse myself of
all sins committed against the sixth commandment.” Moreover, it is not
recommended to advise such penitents to make a general confession till
they have combated that vice with success, unless some other pressing
need exist for making a general confession.[362]
On the other hand, the confessor should not omit to advise those who are
dangerously ill to make a general confession, or at least a summary of
one; he may do this by asking whether anything in their past life gives
uneasiness, whether they have always made good confessions and made good
acts of contrition, whether they have been living in proximate occasions
of sin, etc.; he will thus have many opportunities of righting at the
last moment sacrilegious confessions and communions and rescuing souls
from hell.
Since general confession is so profitable, the confessor may, according
to the advice of St. Alphonsus,[363] with the exception of the above
case, receive penitents who wish to make a general confession of their
whole life or of part of it and that at once if they are prepared; he
should be most willing to help them in it unless some obstacle, as, for
instance, the number of penitents still waiting, or shortness of time,
should prevent him from devoting more time to one penitent. He will
sometimes find that a general confession which seemed to be only useful
turns out to have been necessary. On the other hand, the confessor should
refrain from forcing on a penitent a general confession which is not
dictated by necessity.[364]
3. General confession is harmful to scrupulous and even to overanxious
people; to such it brings not peace of mind but only more scruples; hence
they should be dissuaded from making a general confession; it can only
be allowed when there is complete certainty of the invalidity of past
confessions. “Scrupulous penitents,” says St. Alphonsus, “would go on
making and repeating general confessions forever in the hope of laying
aside their anxiety, but the evil only grows, for after every general
confession they fall again into new anxieties and scruples, thinking they
have omitted some sin or failed to confess it properly, so that their
uneasiness increases the oftener they repeat their confessions.”[365]
The confessor, in consequence, must be on his guard against such people
and not allow himself to be deceived by them; he may permit them only
to mention some sin which causes them very great trouble, and he
must instruct them to atone for their defects by an act of sorrow.
If, however, the priest is convinced of the invalidity of the former
confessions of such people, he should help them through their general
confession and after that forbid any further examination. Moreover, only
an experienced, prudent, and skillful confessor should undertake the
direction of such persons, and a young confessor should recommend them
to some holy man of greater age. Moreover, the general confession, as
we have already mentioned, is a danger to all those for whom reflection
on their past sins is a source of new temptations. It is dangerous for
those who live in the voluntary and unnecessary occasion of sin and are
always relapsing, who are not really in good dispositions, and who make a
general confession merely with a view of getting absolution more easily;
they may be recognized by the sins committed since their last confession,
and they may be admitted to a general confession after being exhorted
to give up the occasions of sin and to combat their sinful habits.[366]
St. Leonard of Port Maurice says on this subject: “If the penitent is
living in the proximate occasion of sin without making a firm resolution
to reform, or without giving signs of contrition, you must give him no
encouragement to make a general confession, for the proximate occasion
must first be removed and the habit overcome at least for a time. It
would else be but labor lost, for general confession is not merely an
institution for setting right past confessions, but also for reforming
one’s life. If no purpose of the sort is in the mind of the penitent,
there cannot even be a reasonable certainty that he will persevere in
his reform, and there is no foundation upon which to build up virtue.
Exhort him, and suggest means for avoiding the occasions of evil and
for overcoming sin; show him the utter impossibility of reform unless
the occasions are given up, or, if this cannot be, unless they are made
remote; urge him to pray and put off the general confession to another
time. Only on quite special occasions, _e.g._ missions, or where there
are extraordinary signs of penitence may any fruit be expected from the
general confessions of those who live in occasions of sin and show no
signs of improvement.”[367]
The practice of many confessors is to be deprecated, who, after hearing
one or two confessions of a penitent, urge him to make a general
confession, moved by imprudent zeal or in order to obtain better
knowledge for the guidance of the penitent. Equally reprehensible is the
conduct of many priests who give way to their penitents, allowing them
to make often a general confession, or, at least, whenever they choose a
new confessor. Such general confessions are quite useless and are a mere
waste of time.[368]
31. The Manner of Hearing General Confession.
As to the method of hearing general confessions, the following rules, the
outcome of the long experience of learned confessors, should be observed:—
1. In order to be fit for this office a confessor should be well
instructed and already experienced in hearing confessions; he must have
great patience and zeal for souls, and during the whole course of the
confession be very sympathetic and encouraging towards the penitent.
2. If a penitent expresses his desire to make a general confession, the
priest should first inquire whether it be necessary or useful. In order
to discover this it is not recommended to ask the penitent bluntly if
he has ever concealed a sin in his former confessions, or any question
of the kind, for it is quite possible that the penitent, though guilty
of the sin, may in his bewilderment deny it and never again dare to
confess it; it is much better if the confessor ask the penitent why he
wishes to make a general confession, whether he feels uneasy, etc. By
such questions or the like he may try to discover if there have been
sacrilegious confessions. He will often receive one or other of the
following answers: (_a_) “Because I have kept sins back;” he will then
encourage his penitent, showing himself very kind towards him and urging
him to be perfectly sincere. (_b_) “I have never yet made a general
confession;” he may then find out if it be necessary or only useful.
(_c_) “I have made a general confession before, but it was not a good
one.” He may then ask why the last general confession was not a good one;
if the penitent can give no other reason, except his own fears, there is
a fair presumption that he has to deal with an overanxious or scrupulous
penitent. (_d_) “I heard in a sermon that my confessions were bad;” here
again the reason must be asked. (_e_) The following reason may also be
given especially during a mission: “I want to begin a better life;” in
such a case the general confession will be at least very useful.
3. If the general confession is necessary in consequence of former
confessions having been sacrilegious or invalid, it must be made with
great accuracy and the number and species must be given, so far as
possible, just as though the sins had never been confessed before. It
may easily happen, however, that the confessor, though convinced of the
necessity of a general confession, cannot at once hear it for want of
time or on account of the great number of penitents kept waiting; while
the penitent frequently cannot return again and is quite uninstructed or
of weak intellect, or is really anxious to receive absolution or must
receive it in order to fulfill the obligation of going to communion.
In such a case, and especially when the penitent discloses at once to
his confessor that his previous confessions have been bad by reason of
not giving the number of the sins, and when the confessor can, from the
account of sins committed in the past year, form a fair estimate of the
past life of the sinner, St. Alphonsus recommends that absolution should
be given without any repetition of previous confessions. He assumes that
the confessor is able to form a gross estimate as to the whole life from
what he hears concerning one year, and that he further inquires whether
the penitent, besides his ordinary sins, is conscious of any special
ones in the course of his life. The detailed general confession may be
put off to some more opportune occasion which can be arranged at once
with the penitent. The holy Doctor adds another instance to those just
mentioned—when the confessor after hearing the confession discovers
that the penitent has failed in former confessions to give the number
of his sins and when, at the same time, he has a _distincta notitia_
of the sins and can form upon them a _distinctum judicium_ on the past
career of the penitent; if, however, he have only a _notitia confusa_ of
the sins confessed, he is obliged to form a _notitia distincta_ of the
former mortal sins imperfectly confessed. With only a _notitia confusa_
of the penitent’s previous condition he may not give absolution, for the
penitent is obliged to confess each single sin once, and the confessor
is obliged to pronounce once a distinct judgment on the sins.[369] In
the case, however, where the general confession is not of necessity,
these precautions in putting questions need not be adopted; if the
concourse of penitents is very large, and if, as frequently occurs, in
missions or on similar occasions the general confession cannot be put
off to a more convenient time, the confessor may at least make a summary
examination, asking only for the species of the sins and the time of
duration of the habits of sin without laying stress on the exact number
and circumstances of each particular sin. The priest must, of course,
give the penitent sufficient time to unburden his conscience and to say
all he wants to accuse himself of, even though such accusation be not
necessary in this voluntary general confession, so that the penitent may
leave the confessional with his mind quite at ease; thus he may ask him
in general: “Do you accuse yourself of all sinful thoughts, words, etc.?”
On this account it is recommended to impress upon the penitent that in a
voluntary general confession he is not bound to accuse himself of each
particular sin; indeed this instruction is very useful, for a penitent
may, in the course of his confession, incur sacrilege through false shame
and an erroneous conscience by keeping back a sin which he imagines he is
obliged to tell in general confession. It is an invariable rule to avoid
too great haste or abruptness, otherwise the penitent is not put at his
ease; hence it not infrequently happens that a penitent accuses himself
of not having said all he wanted to say because the priest had been too
quick.
“The greatest difficulty in general confessions,” says Blessed Leonard of
Port Maurice, “is the accusation of the number of sins.” To meet this the
following rules will be of service:—
(_a_) If the confessor can get at the precise number of sins, he is
obliged to do so.
(_b_) If the penitent cannot give the exact number, he must be asked to
give about the number, as near as possible. For this purpose the priest
will suggest numbers, and if the penitent choose the largest number, a
still larger one may be suggested to see if the penitent will accuse
himself also of that.
(_c_) In the case of frequently recurring sins or habits of sin it is
necessary to find out whether they have been of daily, weekly, or monthly
occurrence. As to which of these periods will apply to the penitent
depends on his state as learnt from his last confession, and on the
nature of the sin itself. In mentioning the period the confessor should
always add a number, _e.g._ how often each week, three, four, or five
times? and as we said under (_b_), the whole time during which the sin or
habit of sin lasted must be found out. Finally it is useful in order to
ascertain the state of the penitent’s soul to find out whether there has
at any time been improvement and how long it lasted.
(_d_) It is the _sententia communis_ and the teaching of St. Alphonsus
that by one and the same internal and external act a number of sins
may be committed, when, for instance, the object aimed at in the sin
includes several ends. A man, for instance, spreads a calumny about a
community,—by so doing he incurs as many sins as there are persons in the
community; this occurs usually in cases of enmity, scandal, etc. When,
therefore, there is a _diversitas objectorum totalium_, questions must be
put concerning the number of these objects.
(_e_) In putting questions as to the number and species of the sin, care
must be taken not to bewilder the penitent with questions; if two or
three questions do not effect the desired result, no more need be put;
for St. Alphonsus teaches: The priest, who, after two or three questions,
fails to obtain any definite result, need not worry even if he cannot
come to any clear decision, _nam ex conscientiis implicatis et confusis
moraliter impossibile est majorem claritatem sperare_.[370]
In conclusion, St. Leonard[371] remarks: If the confessor cannot get at
the exact or probable number, or even the more frequent repetitions, it
is in my opinion sufficient to find out the evil habit and the time of
its duration. By this means the confessor, so far as is possible, will
gain an idea of the state of his penitent and be able to form a judgment
about him. The greater or less frequency of repetition must not, however,
involve other consequences, as in the case of stealing. Here great care
must be used to find out the number of the sins and, in particular, the
value of the sum stolen.
4. If the general confession is a voluntary one and the penitent
unprepared, it is not advisable to receive it, but to give the penitent
some days to prepare by examining his conscience, making acts of
contrition, and praying with more than usual fervor,—a method which will
insure greater fruit in the general confession. At the same time the
confessor might show the penitent that a general confession is not such
a difficult matter once it is undertaken courageously. If, however, the
penitent will be prevented from returning to the priest to whom he wishes
to make his general confession, the confession may be made at once. If
the general confession is one of necessity, there is all the more reason
for a good preparation. If, however, as frequently happens, there is
reason to fear that the penitent will not return, the confessor should
not send him away to make his preparation, but receive the confession at
once.
As to the preparation required on the part of the penitent, especially
with regard to the examination of conscience, the confessor will be
careful not to exact a written accusation; such a process, as a rule,
only causes confusion and adds to the burdens of the confessor. If the
penitent is afraid of not being able to retain in his memory the results
of his examination of conscience, he may confine himself to a quiet
examination according to his powers, and the confessor will help him.
It may be permitted to the penitent to make notes of the more necessary
points. If the confession is voluntary, the confessor may take the notes
and read them for himself; if it be a general confession of necessity,
the penitent himself should read them.
5. It is not _per se_ required that a penitent declare first the
sins committed since the last confession before repeating his former
confessions, nor is he obliged to make a distinction between the sins
committed since the last confession and those told in former confessions,
since the sin is the same whether confessed or not, and it makes no
difference that the former sins have been remitted because the sin is not
the object of confession in so far as it is habitual or leaves enduring
stain, but in so far as it has been actually committed.[372] Still it
is recommended to make the general confession precede the particular
confession of the sins committed since the last time, in order that the
priest may better ascertain the state of his penitent and assure himself
that there is no obstacle to his giving absolution.
6. If the penitent is a well-instructed person and prepared, and is
really desirous of confessing, the priest may allow him first to make
his confession, and then he can put any questions that may be necessary,
for many persons feel the need to reveal what is on their mind and have
no peace until they do it. If, however, the penitent is persuaded that
confession consists in the priest putting questions and the penitent
answering, or if he wishes to make his confession in this manner, the
confessor may adopt this mode. With ignorant penitents it is recommended
and is indeed preferable. The confessor must then give the penitent time
and opportunity to mention anything that disturbs his peace of mind.
7. If the confessor receives a general confession by way of question and
answer, he must adopt some method, going through the Ten Commandments,
the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and the duties of
the state of life.
For the sake of greater clearness and to avoid repetitions he might
indeed bring all sins under the Ten Commandments, those even which are
against the Commandments of the Church, the Seven Capital Sins, and other
varieties of sins, for the Decalogue, as the Roman Catechism teaches, is
the sum of all the Commandments.
It is not, however, recommended to divide the confession into parts
answering to the different periods of one’s life, for such a practice
protracts the confession and involves many burdensome repetitions; still
in the case of the sixth Commandment it has its advantages, and questions
might be put as to sins committed before marriage, during the married
state, and after the death of the other party. Finally penitents who can
be questioned as to the _actus consummati_ should be asked according to
the different species of the act as well as on the _actus imperfecti_,
internal and external, with regard to the species.
8. The priest should not omit to exhort the penitent to acknowledge
honestly his sins, and not to conceal from false shame anything which
he is obliged to tell.[373] The confessor should never give any sign of
astonishment or anger, no matter how numerous or atrocious the sins may
be. Let him show rather that he would not be surprised at hearing even
worse sins; let him come to the help of the penitent and even praise
him for having succeeded in confessing some one or other of the more
difficult sins. He may congratulate the penitent on winning a victory
over himself and the devil, and encourage him again to complete candor
and to make the confession as perfect as though it were to be the last of
his life.
32. Plan for making a General Confession.
In this paragraph we present a plan of questions suitable for a
general confession and offer it especially for the guidance of younger
confessors. A few preliminary remarks, however, are necessary to secure
clearness.
This plan need not contain all the sins which are treated of in moral
theology, but only such as may or do actually occur. Nevertheless, if
a confessor adhere to this schedule in his questions he may be quite
satisfied as to the integrity of the confession.
Such a schedule should be as short as possible so that the confessor may
easily retain it in his head; hence the subdivisions, which he should
know from his moral theology, may be omitted.
Since in a general confession venial sins ought not to be lost sight
of on account of their close connection with mortal sins and because
they are of great moment in determining the state of the penitent’s
soul, some of the more serious venial sins will find a place in the
catalogue. The confessor should know, in addition, how a sin in itself
and objectively venial may become mortal _per accidens_, and, on the
other hand, how a sin _grave ex genere suo_ may _per accidens_ become
venial.[374]
Moreover, the priest should be careful not to examine all penitents on
every sin; a single question to which a negative answer is given will
show that a whole series of other questions may be omitted, and thus
he will only inquire after those sins which are likely to have been
committed. In putting his questions he should pay due regard both to the
physical and the spiritual condition of the penitent. From sins already
confessed an indication may easily be drawn as to the further inquiries
to be made, and while he omits many questions in the catalogue he may
deem it advisable to add others. If he discovers in the penitent a habit
of sin, he must inquire how long it lasted, when it began, and when it
was broken off.
In all his questions he will observe the rules which hold on this
subject in every confession;[375] in particular he should bear in mind
the words of St. Leonard of Port Maurice: “Treat your penitent,” he
says, “as you would like to be treated yourself if you were in the same
painful situation; receive him in a friendly manner and with affectionate
kindness; encourage him to have confidence in you and to open his heart
to you. Refrain from harsh and blunt forms of address which serve rather
to irritate and embitter the penitent than to make him docile, obedient,
and pliant; and even when he is gross and ignorant, rebellious to all
advice and unwilling to fulfill his duties, do not, on that account,
treat him harshly or frighten him by a display of overbearing rigor.
Remember that in the confessional you must be a martyr of patience,
seeking always to win the penitent by the gentleness of your manners,
and that your duty is to incline rather to mildness than strictness. If
your words are to have the power of gentle persuasiveness, you must deal
with him in the spirit of our holy faith, and he will become humble and
convinced of the truth of your words.”[376]
If the penitent is not already well known to the confessor, the latter
must by a few questions at the beginning of the confession inform himself
as to the age, position, calling, and other circumstances of his penitent
since such knowledge is necessary for the choice and arrangement of the
questions to be put.
If in the course of the confession some question must be asked on some
rarely occurring and horrible sin, it should be pleaded by way of excuse
that a special advantage of a general confession is to secure a thorough
examination of conscience; and that this explains the unusual questions.
If during the confession the discovery is made that the penitent lies
under some special obligation to avoid occasions of sin, to make
restitution or some such burden, he should be told of it and disposed
for it at once without waiting for the end of the confession for fear
of forgetting it or of giving a wrong judgment. All other directions,
however, in the way of advice or instruction should only be given at the
end for fear of annoying and repelling the penitent, and also in order to
avoid prolixity and repetition. If on general principles the absolution
ought to be put off and the penitent fails to show necessary dispositions
by signs of extraordinary sorrow and penitence, the confession should
be interrupted and not resumed till a decided improvement is seen. If
the penitent is judged to be in good dispositions, the confession may go
on after the promise of performing the necessary obligations has been
exacted, and the penitent should be reminded that if he is not sincerely
determined to stand by his promises, his trouble is all in vain and his
confession invalid, and that he is putting a seal on his condemnation by
a new offense against God. In longer confessions it is a good practice
even during the accusation (especially if some particularly grave sin
be mentioned) to remind the penitent of the greatness of his crimes, of
God’s goodness and grace by which he has been freed from all these great
sins, and then to encourage him to make a thoroughly good confession.
The penitent should also be reminded of all his bad confessions and
communions, of his neglect of his Easter duties, etc.
If it be observed that the penitent is unusually disturbed, the cause
of it should be found out; if it be the avowal of some one sin, the
confessor should seek to obtain some hint about it and then push the
questions so that the penitent has only to answer yes or no; thus a
penitent may be consoled who is troubled because he has not sufficiently
examined himself, or cannot express his meaning correctly or has
forgotten what he wished to say. If no definite cause can be assigned,
the confessor should encourage him in a general way, telling him that the
confession is made to God, reminding him of the sacredness of the seal,
recalling to him that the priest is also but a man, subject to faults
and weaknesses; impressing upon him that the priest is ordained in order
to sympathize with others, to help them by his kindness and patience,
etc. Furthermore the way of beginning a general confession depends on
the circumstances of the penitent, and these must be inquired into at
once.[377]
Having laid down these principles we enter into details:—
I. _Preliminary Questions._
1. The penitent should be asked his age, his condition of life, and his
calling.
2. Then he may be asked if his previous confessions have been valid
(the uninstructed should be assisted to form a correct judgment in the
matter), whether he has ever intentionally concealed a grave sin or a
notable circumstance in confession—given intentionally the wrong number
of his sins—examined his conscience carefully—tried to be really contrite
at least for all graver sins. Then he may be asked if he has always
faithfully performed the penance imposed. If the confessor discovers
any sacrilegious confessions, he must at once ascertain their number as
closely as possible, asking when the first bad confession was made, how
long the habit lasted, whether any of them were set right, how often the
penitent in this condition was accustomed to confess or communicate,
whether the Easter duties were neglected by reason of such confessions
and communions, whether in making such confessions and communions the
penitent was conscious of committing sacrilege; whether during that
period other Sacraments were received such as Confirmation, Matrimony,
Extreme Unction. If the penitent is persuaded that his confessions were
not sacrilegious, but some grounds of suspicion remain, the confessor
might on occasion of some accusation against the sixth Commandment,
make inquiry if the sin has been confessed before; or he might even ask
plainly, “You have never yet confessed this sin?” or, “You have never had
the courage to confess this sin?”
II. _Sins against the Sixth and Ninth and the Other Commandments._[378]
The confessor may next, in order to learn the general state of the
penitent, ask quite generally: “Were you ever led astray when young? at
what age? Did you indulge in any impure habits?” If the priest discovers
that the penitent is quite innocent of such sins, he should go on at
once to the other Commandments. He might perhaps ask further: “Were you
troubled with temptations against holy purity? Had you to listen to bad
conversation? Has any one ever taken liberties with you?”
Sins of _luxuria consummata_ may be reduced to four species, _pollutio_,
_fornicatio_, _sodomia_, and _bestialitas_. These species have their
_actus imperfectos_, external, for instance _tactus_, and internal,
namely, _delectatio morosa_ and _desideria_, and in addition may have
three circumstances which change the nature of the sin, _adulterium_,
_incestus_, _sacrilegium_. The questions may be modeled on these four
species, and in the case of each sin the circumstances inquired into
which affect the species of the sin. Any compendium of Moral Theology
will suggest the necessary detail.[379]
He may add: “Have you confessed all the sins you have committed against
holy purity? Does anything else disturb your mind with regard to
the sixth Commandment? Perhaps you can manage now to make a general
confession and to set in order your past life.”
_Against the First Commandment._
1. _Against Faith._ The confessor may ask whether the penitent has been
troubled by doubts against faith, or really doubted of the truths of
faith and suggested such doubts to others; whether he has denied any
truth of faith; whether he has acted or spoken against faith and before
how many persons; whether he has induced others to jeer or mock at faith;
has he spoken against religion and priests? has he listened to speeches
of others directed against faith and applauded or encouraged them? has
he read, sold, given or recommended to others the reading of books and
articles against faith? has he himself written for such publications?
has he frequented the society of men who mocked at religion or were
enemies of the faith? has he taken part in the religious services of
non-Catholics? has he joined any society which is hostile to religion?
2. _Against Hope._ Has he doubted of his salvation or of God’s mercy? or
of the possibility of reforming? has he presumed on God’s mercy and put
off his conversion?
3. _Against Charity._ Has he under stress of suffering hated God?
indulged feelings of indifference or resentment against God and holy
things? has he murmured against God in his sufferings and crosses? has he
banished God from his mind for long periods, neglected prayer?
4. _Against the Reverence due to God._ Has he believed in superstitious
practices and employed them? has he used sacred objects without reverence
or for wrong purposes? has he received any of the Sacraments (Penance,
Holy Communion, Confirmation, Matrimony, Extreme Unction) unworthily? has
he desecrated holy places? has he injured persons consecrated to God?
_Against the Second Commandment._
Has he blasphemed? before children? Has he a habit of swearing? Has he
ever sworn to what was false, or to anything of which he was doubtful? in
a court of justice? to the injury of others? Has he been accustomed to
use rash oaths?
_Against the Third Commandment and the Commandments of the Church._
Has he by his own fault missed Mass on Sundays and holidays of
obligation? has he absented himself by his own fault from a considerable
portion of the services? Has his behavior during the services been
irreverent and scandalous? Has he done servile work without necessity
on Sundays or holidays of obligation? for how long? before others? or
has he required such work from others? Has he broken the law of fasting
without cause, or eaten meat on forbidden days without a dispensation?
Has he neglected his Easter duties?
_Against the Fourth Commandment._
Are the parents still living? Has he deliberately offended them by
frequent disobedience in matters of moment (_e.g._ frequenting certain
company against their will, staying late in public houses, by not giving
up bad companions, by neglecting religious duties or important business
at home)? Has he despised them in his heart? treated them with contempt
or given them great trouble? used harsh and contemptuous language to
them? wished them harm seriously? in the presence of others? Has he been
ashamed of them? neglected them in their necessities, treated them badly,
not carried out their last wishes?
Servants, etc., should be asked whether they are faithful to their
master’s services: have they offended him by contempt or rudeness?
damaged his reputation with his neighbors? obeyed him in things
forbidden? Have they given scandal to others in the house, particularly
children?
Masters, etc., should be asked whether they take due care of those under
them. Have they treated them unjustly? permitted evil practices? have
they kept their servants to the practice of their religious duties and
given them time for it? have they given their servants bad example or led
them into sin?
Parents and Superiors should be asked if they take proper care of their
charges, or have squandered the family property. Do they correct and
punish the children with prudence and without anger? have they ever
wished evil to befall them? Do they watch over their children, keeping
them from bad companions, from sinful connections? Have they instructed
the children in their religious duties? have they sent their children
to irreligious schools? Have they given their children bad example? Have
they said or done anything sinful in presence of the children?
Married people should be asked if they live together in peace? have their
quarrels given scandal to the children?
_Against the Fifth Commandment._
Has the penitent let himself be carried away by anger? broken out into
curses or wished grave damage to betide his neighbor? Has he rejoiced
in his neighbor’s misfortunes, entertained hatred, and inflicted harm
or intended to inflict it? Has he fostered enmities or refused to make
satisfaction to those whom he has injured? Has he lived in enmity with
others, with how many and for how long? Has he promised to make peace and
kept his promise? Has he ever seriously damaged his health or attempted
his life, or seriously thought of doing so? Has he been in the habit of
drinking, and been quite overcome by drink? Has this been the occasion
of quarrels or other sins? Is it a habit? Has he neglected his duties to
his wife and children in consequence, or ill treated them and destroyed
the peace of the family? (The confessor must not forget his studies on
_occasio_ and _consuetudo_ when dealing with cases of this sort.)
It might also be well to ask if the penitent has been hard in dealing
with the poor in their grave needs and refused assistance.
_Against the Seventh and Tenth Commandments._
Has he entertained desires of stealing or of cheating his neighbor? Has
he actually committed theft, or cheated his neighbor in doing business?
Has he inflicted losses on any one? Has he paid his debts or put off for
a long time the paying of them? Has he made restitution and repaired the
losses inflicted? Is he at least willing to make reparation? If not, why
not?
_Against the Eighth Commandment._
Has he told lies to the grave injury of his neighbor? Has he ever given
false witness in a court of justice? Has he ever betrayed an important
secret? Has he ever injured the reputation of his neighbor by revealing
his faults without sufficient reason? to how many people was this
communication made? Has he ever falsely accused his neighbor of a fault?
to how many people? Did he restore the good name of the injured person?
and did he make good to him the losses resulting from the calumny? Has he
made rash judgments in things of great moment, and has he communicated
them to others?
With respect to the Seven Capital Sins the confessor may ask:—
Has the penitent behaved in a proud, overbearing manner towards others?
Has he devoted himself to inordinate amassing of wealth and coveted the
same? Has he omitted to give the alms which he ought? Has he helped
his neighbor when he ought? Has he indulged in envy of his neighbor on
account of his fortune, his wealth, his graces, his virtues, etc.? Has
he rejoiced in his neighbor’s misfortune, caused it or wished it? Has he
neglected his work and duties through idleness, and injured his neighbor
thereby?
With regard to the nine ways of participating in the sin of another the
confessor might ask: Has he boasted of his sins? which? Has he advised
others to commit sin, or praised the sin of others, or commanded others
to sin? Has he failed to prevent the sins of others when he could do so
easily?
After the priest has put all the questions which he thinks necessary he
should proceed to advise the penitent to reflect if there is anything
else disturbing his conscience about which no questions have been put;
and he should also remind him that this confession may be his last. He
may then try to move the penitent to contrition and to a firm purpose of
amendment by the consideration of some effectual motives presented in
a kind and fatherly manner. He might conclude with some words to this
purpose:—
“Now thank God with all your heart for the great mercy He has shown you;
if death had overtaken you while you were burdened with so many grave
sins, you would certainly be at the present moment in hell, but now make
your mind quite easy and don’t worry any more about these sins; I am now
going to absolve you in God’s name from them all and your soul will be as
pure as when it came from the baptismal font; but beware of sinning again
and do not return God’s mercy with ingratitude.” The confessor will then
give the penitent some directions how to reform his life; he must point
out one or other of his sins that should be especially combated; and if
at the same time he shows an interest in the penitent and promises to
pray for him, the latter will go away consoled and encouraged to begin a
new life in the Lord.[380]