Confession

CONFESSION. - By C. is sometimes understood the sacrament of Penance itself, which is therefore commonly also called the sacrament of C. But in the strict sense C. is the act by which one manifests to a priest endowed with jurisdiction one's own sins, committed after Baptism, in order to receive sacramental absolution from him.

I. DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

I. INSTITUTION

The history of religions shows that confession, in the most varied forms of public and private, oral and written, individual and collective confession, made directly to the divinity or before its representatives, is an almost universal fact in the religious vicissitudes of humanity (cf. R. Pettazzoni, La confession of sins, 3 vols., Bologna 1929-36). Man has always felt the need for a purification of his faults in order to intensify his relations with the divinity, to quiet the remorse of conscience and to be freed from physical or moral evils, present and future, conceived as a consequence of sin. Nor has he been satisfied with an interior repentance alone: but he has also sought to externalize his inner compunction with penitential rites, among which the one most in use is precisely confession (cf. M. Schullen, Espiazione e redenzione, Rome 1930, pp. 65-100). Such universality of the practice of confession demonstrates how consonant it is with the needs of the human soul. Taking these needs into account, Jesus instituted confession in the Church as a means of reconciling the sinner with God.

That confession in Christianity is of divine institution is a dogma of faith, defined, against the rising Protestant error, by the Council of Trent (sess. XIV, can. 6); which also indicates the Gospel texts that demonstrate this institution (ibid., cap. 5). They are the same ones that concern the granting of the power of the keys to the Apostles and the institution of the sacrament of Penance; namely, Mt. 18:18: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven"; and Jn. 20:23: "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained."

In fact these texts, speaking of the power to "loose or to bind," to "forgive or to retain," manifest that the power granted by Christ to the Apostles is a judicial power, which is to say that it has, in its exercise, a twofold act, either of condemnation or of absolution. But this supposes that the one who administers it must first know and examine the condition of the sinner, his faults, his dispositions, so that he may then decide with equity whether to issue an absolutory or a condemnatory sentence. And how can such prior knowledge be had, if the sinner does not manifest through confession the sins committed, his repentance, his dispositions for the future?

Furthermore, the right exercise of this judicial power requires that penalties be imposed on the sinner, which, as far as possible, must be proportionate both to the gravity of the crimes, and to the subjective conditions of the guilty party, and to his particular dispositions of soul, etc. But only through confession can these elements of judgment be acquired by the priest. Therefore, in conferring on the Apostles the power to forgive or to retain sins, Jesus implicitly instituted the confession of sins.

II. NECESSITY

Of divine institution, confession is, by the will of Jesus, necessary for the remission of sins. This truth too was defined by the Council of Trent (loc. cit.), which teaches that it likewise springs from the aforementioned Gospel texts: Mt. 18:18; Jn. 20:23; just as from the same texts it is deduced that confession must be integral and complete. And indeed the Roman Catechism writes: "Since the Lord has conferred on priests the power to remit or to retain sins, it is evident that they have been constituted judges in this matter. And since, according to the wise admonition of the holy Council of Trent, it is not possible to pronounce a just sentence on any matter, nor can the rule of justice be observed in assigning the penalties of crimes, unless the case has been fully set forth and weighed, it follows that penitents must in their confession manifest each and every one of their faults" (ed. Rome 1918, p. 399). By some Fathers (Origen, In Levit. hom., 2, 4; Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, 3, 6), and in general by the scholastics in their Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (l. 4, dist. 17), the text of the Epistle of St. James is adduced to demonstrate the obligation and necessity of confession: "Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another that you may be saved: for the persistent prayer of the righteous man avails much" (5:16). More truly, however, it is today denied that this text serves to demonstrate the necessity of sacramental confession. This conclusion extends also to the texts Acts 19:18 and 1 Jn. 1:9, which, especially in the polemic against the Protestants, were also brought forward by Catholic authors.

Besides by Sacred Scripture, the necessity of confession is demonstrated both practically by the use the Church has made of it since antiquity, and by the doctrine of the Fathers which illuminates and gives value to that use.

As for the practice of confession in the early Church, it is useful first of all to observe that, in the first centuries, this practice, for many reasons, was far less frequent than it is now. For there was then no custom of asking absolution for venial sins, a custom that originated later in the monasteries and then gradually spread among the simple faithful. Moreover, it does not appear that the ecclesiastical custom was then everywhere established which obliges those guilty of grave faults to abstain from the Eucharist before they have received sacramental pardon: it may therefore be that many who had committed hidden mortal sins approached Communion with only contrition of heart, postponing confession to another time. Many received Baptism in adulthood, with full awareness and a serious commitment to observe the evangelical law; these, not committing grave transgressions, did not confess. Others, influenced by the corruption of the pagan environment, had a very coarse morality; as is attested to us by St. Basil (De iudicio Dei, 7), and more frequently by St. Augustine (Enchirid., 80; De catechiz. rud., 7, 11; 25, 48; De civit. Dei, 21, 25, 4; Serm., 9, 9, 11; 10, 15-16; 82, 10, 13; 224, 3; 278, 7, 8) they considered quite grave faults venial, and therefore easily dispensed themselves from confessing them. Other faithful, finally, guilty of very grave faults, frightened by the canonical penance, or for fear of becoming recidivists and thus being excluded forever from ecclesiastical reconciliation, postponed confession to the end of life.

This premised, that the early Church had confession in use results from the following observations.

It is known that the penance was determined by the priest, who, before imposing it, had to take into account the nature and gravity of the fault, the personal conditions of the guilty party, and the circumstances in which the sin had been committed. This practice is attested, among others, by Augustine (Serm., 351, 9), by Innocent I (Ep. ad Decentium, 7), by Gregory the Great (In Evang. hom., 26). But evidently this presupposed the use of confession on the part of the penitent.

Indeed, such prior confession is recalled by Pope Cornelius, writing of the reconciliation he made of certain Novatianists (Ep. Cornelii ad Cyprianum: PL 3, 718-22). It is recalled by the Didascalia of the Apostles on the occasion of the different manner in which certain specific kinds of sinners were reconciled (2, 16-18; 38-41; 42-43). Cyprian, moreover, informs us that some faithful, although they had only thought of sacrificing to idols, nevertheless "confessing this with sorrow and simplicity to the priests of God, make the exomologesis of their conscience, manifest the weight of their soul, seek a salutary remedy for their wounds" (De Lapsis, 28). This demonstrates how it was also the custom to confess even sins committed only internally. For his part, Tertullian, by then a Montanist, attests to us the custom of the faithful of obtaining from the bishop the pardon of sins less grave and easier to commit (De Pud., 18, 17; 19, 23-24): evidently after the bishop had been informed of them through confession.

Nor are the recriminations of the Fathers infrequent against those faithful who, while confessing their sins to the priest, nevertheless then abstain from performing the penance imposed upon them. Thus, for example, Ambrose

(De paenit., 2, 9, 86 and 10, 91), Pacian (Paraenesis ad paenit., 8), Asterius of Amasea (Hom.: PG 40, 368).

To the practice of the faithful of confessing their sins the teaching of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers on the necessity of confession gives solid doctrinal foundation.

Explicit, indeed, is their affirmation that, for the remission of sins, confession to a priest is altogether required: cf. Cyprian: "Let each one confess his own offense, while he who sinned is still in the world, while his confession can be admitted, while the satisfaction and remission through the priests is pleasing to the Lord" (De Lapsis, 29); Origen (In Levit., hom. 3, 4); Ambrose, to whom belongs the saying: "Sin is poison, the remedy is the accusation of one's own crime; poison is iniquity, confession is the remedy of the fall" (In ps. 27, 11); Jerome, who affirms that it is the office of the priests of the New Law to bind and loose, not at their own discretion, but only "after hearing the various kinds of sins" (In Matth., 3, 16, 19); Augustine (Serm., 351, 10); Leo the Great, who writes that the norm of the Church is to grant penance only to those who confess their faults (Epist., 108, 2).

But the Fathers teach the necessity of confession in yet another way; namely, by describing the penitential process in analogy either to the resurrection of Lazarus or to the healing of bodily illnesses. As to Lazarus it was said "Come forth" (Jn. 11:43) and he was then loosed from the bands that held him bound, so it is necessary that the sinner bring forth, that is, manifest his iniquities through confession, so that he may then be loosed by the ministers of the Church: cf. Ambrose (De paenit., 2, 7, 57-58); Augustine (Enarr. in ps., 101, 2, 3; Serm., 67, 1, 2; In Ioan. tract., 22, 7). Furthermore, as to obtain healing from a physician one must first of all make the illness known to him, so to be healed of sin one must manifest it to the priest through confession: cf. Origen (In Ps. 37, hom. 2, 6), Aphrahat (Demonstr. 7; De paenitentibus, 2-3).

Some authors wonder why, in writing about penance, contrary to what happens today, mention of confession is not more frequent in the Fathers. Others, moreover, think that the confession of which the Fathers speak must be understood, not of the act by which sins are manifested to a priest, but only of the confession made exclusively and directly to God. And it is at the name of Chrysostom that such observations most frequently take aim.

In this regard, however, it should be noted that in the early Church the most serious and impressive thing that constituted the greatest difficulty for the sinner was not the accusation before the priest, but rather the penance. So true is this that, as has been seen, several confessed, asked for and obtained penance, but then did not have the courage and strength to complete it. One understands, then, why the pastors of souls insist so much on penance and little on C.: contrary to what happens today, when, since the manifestation of sins constitutes for many Christians the principal obstacle, it is on this that preaching insists, without moreover thinking that the Church no longer requires penance or contrition of heart.

That the Fathers, moreover, understand by C. the manifestation of sins to the priest is deduced from the insistence with which they, not excluding Chrysostom, inculcate that C. must be made in church, must be oral, must concern individual sins, nor must the sinner let himself be overcome by the fear of blushing in revealing his own iniquities (cf. Ambrose, De paenit., 2, 7, 57; In ps. 37, 57; Chrysostom, Hom. 2 de paenit., 1; De Lazzaro, hom., 4, 4; Hom. non esse ad gratiam concionandum, 3): admonitions which would not be understood if it were a question of C. made to God alone. The warning that is sometimes read in the Fathers, to confess one's sins to God alone, when it does not refer to the daily faults that can be expiated by prayer (cf. Augustine, De Symbolo, sermo I ad catechumenos, 7, 15; Serm., 9, 11), indicates the C. to be made in secret, as opposed to public C. (cf. Chrysostom, De Lazzaro, hom., 4, 4); and this with all the more reason inasmuch as, since the Fathers hold that in the reconciliation of the sinner the priest acts as instrument and minister of the Lord (cf. Ambrose, De paenit., 1, 8, 34-37; Pacian, Epist., 1, 6 and 3, 7; Chrysostom, In Ioan. hom., 87, 4), they could rightly, fixing their consideration on the principal agent, speak of C. as if it had to be made to God alone.

In reality, that the C. made to God did not exclude the intervention of the priest is confirmed both by the exhortations, which are read in the writings of the Fathers, addressed to the ministers of C., that they receive sinners benevolently: cf. Didascalia degli Apostoli, 2, 12; 13, 4; 14, 3 and 11; 15, 1-3 and 8; 18, 2; 20, 10-11; Asterius, Hom., 13; Aphrahat, Demonstr., 7, 7, 11, 25; Ambrose, De paenit., 2, 8, 73; and by the constant concern that the same Fathers manifest to be suitable ministers of penance, by healing the illnesses of the faithful which through C. were manifested to them, and by proportioning the penance to the different kind of sins: cf. Cyprian, Epist., 59, 15-16; Pacian, Paraenes. ad paenit., 8; Gregory of Nazianzus, Orat. 2 Apologetica, 16-33; Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, 2, 2-4.

III. MINISTER

The Council of Trent teaches that those doctrines are false and certainly foreign to the truth of the Gospel which extend the power of the keys to other persons besides bishops and simple priests; and furthermore that for the valid exercise of such power the power of jurisdiction is required (sess. XIV, chaps. 6 and 7; Denz-U, no. 902 ff.).

Historically it is evident that in the ancient Church, just as the celebration of the Eucharist and the administration of Baptism were the function of the bishop (cf. Ignatius, Ad Smyrn., 8, 1), so too in the case of Penance the bishop, that is, the "sacerdos" par excellence, was the ordinary minister (cf. Tertullian, De pud., 18, 18).

Very soon, however, according to the needs of the different Churches, in this ministry the bishop associated with himself presbyters, to whom he accordingly gave the faculty of administering Penance, of reconciling sinners, after having heard their confession (power of jurisdiction).

The work of the presbyters in the administration of Penance was in operation at Rome during the persecution of Decius, when the episcopal see was vacant and the reconciliation of the "lapsi" was urgent (Inter cyprian. epist., 39, 8). It is attested for the Church of Carthage by Cyprian (Epist., 18, 1; 19, 2); and by Dionysius of Alexandria for the Church of Alexandria (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 7, 44). In some Churches, the bishop's duties for the administration of Penance were assigned to a special presbyter, called for that reason the "penitentiary presbyter." Socrates (Hist. eccl., 5, 19) and Sozomen (Hist. eccl., 7, 16) tell us of this institution, from whom it is also known that in 391, at Constantinople, on account of a scandal, this institution was abolished. In Asia Minor, according to the testimony of Basil (Epist., 217, can. 74) and of Gregory of Nyssa (Epist., can. 4), there was an "economus" of Penance, charged with hearing confession and applying the canonical penalties to the guilty.

Granted to presbyters, the power of administering Penance, and therefore of receiving confession, was on the other hand denied to deacons. This is clearly stated both by Jerome, in that he writes that "episcopus vel presbyter" can bind or loose (In Matth., 16, 19); and by Ambrose, to whom belong the words: "To priests alone is granted the right of binding and loosing" (De paenit., 1, 2, 7).

Nevertheless, both in the first centuries of the Church (cf. Cyprian, Epist., 18, 1; Conc. Illiber., can. 32), and especially in the Middle Ages (9th-13th centuries), it is found that, in case of necessity, deacons were permitted to hear confession. The many documents concerning this practice, consisting of canons of canonical collections and statutes of particular councils, have been gathered by P. Laurain (De l'intervention des laïques, des diacres, et des abesses dans l'administration de la Pénitence, Paris 1897). In the Middle Ages, in case of necessity, even simple faithful used to confess their own sins (cf. A. Teetaert, La confession aux laïques, ibid. 1926). Indeed, after Peter Lombard (Sent., 4, dist. 17, 4) many other doctors of the 12th-13th centuries defended its obligation, whenever it had not been possible to find a priest. Such confession was supported by a text of the De vera et falsa paenitentia, a work of the 11th century attributed to Augustine, in which it is said: "So great is the value of confession that, in the absence of a priest, one must confess to one's neighbor... Although the one to whom one confesses does not have the power to loose, the desire that the sinner has to have a priest will obtain pardon for him if he confesses his crime to his neighbor" (10, 25: PL. 40, 1122).

However, such confessions were not held to be properly sacramental, since neither the deacon nor, still less, the simple faithful had the power to absolve. Indeed, in the Synodal Constitutions of Odo of Paris (1197) it is said: "It is strictly forbidden to deacons, in any manner, to hear confessions, except in the case of most grave necessity: for they do not have the keys nor can they absolve" (can. 56; Mansi, XXII, 676). Instead, they were considered as a means of expressing one's repentance and the intention to atone, and thus of directly obtaining God's forgiveness. Rather, the practice of confessing to deacons or to simple laypeople demonstrates how deeply rooted was the conviction of the necessity of confession, and how great was the value attributed to the acts of repentance with a view to divine forgiveness.

IV. MODALITIES

In the history of Penance, particular importance attaches to secret C., that is, made to the priest alone from whom absolution is sought, and to public C., in which instead the sin is manifested before the community. The Council of Trent, while noting that secret C. has been in use in the Church since the beginning, nevertheless praises the practice of sometimes confessing one's faults publicly, as useful both to the sinner and to the faithful (sess. XIV, cap. 5).

Historically it may be held as certain that for secret sins the Church has never prescribed public C. An opposite custom was attempted to be introduced in the 5th century in Campania, where certain priests wrote down the detailed list of sins heard in C. and read it publicly in the assemblies of the faithful. In this way they thought to humble the guilty salubriously and to induce others not to sin, so as not to be subjected to so much shame. Nevertheless the pontiff Leo the Great protested energetically against such an "unlawful usurpation," calling it "contrary to the apostolic rule" according to which "it is sufficient to indicate the offenses of conscience to the priests alone by means of secret C." (Epist., 168, 2). Only as an exceptional measure could it be suggested, as appears from a text of Origen (In ps. 37, hom. 2, 6), that for an occult sin the guilty party, after having made C. of it in secret, should also make public C. of it: both for the good of others and in order to expiate the fault more easily.

For public sins, however, C. before the community was required as a rule (cf. Cyprian, Epist., 4, 4, and 59, 15-16), even if they were then expiated with private penance; which C. was probably sacramental in nature (v. PENITENZA).

From the 4th century onward secret C. went on acquiring greater importance and extension; public C. therefore became ever rarer until it almost entirely disappeared around the 8th century.

V. FREQUENCY

It has already been said how in the early Church the use of confession was much less frequent than in our own day, and the causes of this have also been touched upon. Nevertheless, even before the 13th century, that is, before the Fourth Lateran Council, the practice of periodic confession had become established among the faithful. There are many documents which attest, from the 8th century onward, the obligation and the custom on the part of the faithful to confess and to receive communion at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost. They have been collected by P. A. Kirsch (Zur Geschichte der katholischen Beichte, Würzburg 1902). Nevertheless, in various places, owing to the coarseness of the laity and the negligence of the clergy, much carelessness had been introduced in this regard. In fact Alan of Lille, after saying: "The laity are obliged to confess especially three times a year, namely at Christmas, Easter and Pentecost," must admit: "But today the bad habit has prevailed that laity and clerics confess scarcely once a year, and when they do so it is more out of custom than out of sincere repentance of heart" (Summa de arte praedicatoria, 31: PL. 210, 173).

At the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) the prescription was made for the whole Church: "Every member of the faithful of either sex who has reached the years of discretion shall faithfully confess in secret all his sins, at least once a year" (Mansi, XXII, 1007). This prescription was renewed by the Council of Trent (sess. XIV, can. 8), and is today inserted in the CIC (can. 906).

VI. ETHICAL AND SOCIAL VALUE

From a psychological point of view, confession responds to an innate sentiment of human nature, namely that of manifesting oneself, of pouring out into another one's sorrows, the remorse for evil committed (cf. L. Monsabré, Esposizione del dogma cattolico, Italian trans., XIII, Turin 1941, pp. 81-82).

More worthy of note, however, is the consideration of the value of confession from the moral point of view. The examination of one's conscience, indeed, the humiliation of accusing oneself, the reproaches, counsels and admonitions of the priest, the moral certainty of having obtained divine friendship, represent an impulse toward good, a barrier against perverse inclinations.

The influence of confession in the social order is moreover so evident as to be recognized by the very enemies of Catholicism. Let the testimony of Voltaire suffice for all, who writes: "Confession may be considered the greatest curb upon hidden crimes. It is excellent for inducing hearts ulcerated by offense to forgive, and those who have stolen to return to their neighbor what belongs to him" (Catéchisme, in Dictionn. philosophique).

Francesco Carpino

II. MORAL THEOLOGY

I. NATURE

In the strict sense indicated, confession is called accusation or sacramental confession, to distinguish it from the manifestation of one's own faults made even to a priest confessor for the sole purpose of counsel or to obtain from him forgiveness for the injuries committed against his person.

Two things therefore are required for there to be sacramental confession; namely, the manifestation of one's own sins made: a) to the legitimate minister of the Church, that is, to a priest having really or at least in the penitent's persuasion the faculty of absolving from sins; b) with the intention of receiving sacramental absolution from it.

II. NECESSITY

In order to obtain absolution for sins committed after Baptism, sacramental confession is required, as has been said. This holds in the ordinary way; for it is certain that a sinner who is unable to confess can obtain the forgiveness of his sins by perfect contrition alone, not however separated from the intention to confess. Indeed, even when there is the opportunity to confess, but the state of grace is necessary hic et nunc, this can be obtained by perfect contrition alone, for example, by one who, being in mortal sin, must receive the sacrament of Confirmation: the obligation of confession always remaining in force. Furthermore, it is lawful to absolve sacramentally one who is in danger of death and finds himself in a physical or moral impossibility of confessing.

III. QUALITIES OR GIFTS OF CONFESSION

Moral theologians, almost unanimously, enumerate six qualities or attributes of confession: a) complete; b) brief or simple; c) humble; d) sincere; e) prudent; f) vocal. Of completeness, which is the most important attribute, we shall speak after the others.

1. Confession must be brief or simple

That is, avoiding useless matters (such as, for example, the exposition of the genesis of the sin or of its unnecessary circumstances, as well as lingering in discoursing about the sins of others), manifesting one's sins with candor and simplicity, and abhorring every artifice. The defect of brevity or of simplicity does not of itself exceed venial sin; indeed it is often entirely free of it, for lack of reflection.

2. Confession must be humble

That is, with awareness of one's own unworthiness and with the attitude of spirit with which the publican, striking his breast, said: O Lord, have mercy on me a sinner (Lk. 18:13); without boasting of one's good works, without begging excuses for one's sins, without taking offense if the confessor reproves or questions, etc.

3. Confession must be sincere

Sincerity in confession requires that: a) nothing be concealed that pertains to the malice of the sin; that is, one must not knowingly and without grave reason conceal grave sins or circumstances changing the species of the sin; one must not studiously manifest mortal sins in such a way that the confessor cannot perceive their malice.

However, one would not fail in the duty of sincerity, though it is not entirely praiseworthy, who approaches the confessional at night or alters his voice, in order not to be recognized by the confessor. So too one who, in order not to lose the esteem of his usual confessor, goes to others to confess any mortal sins. One who frequently changes confessor in order not to be known as a recidivist sins gravely only if, besides this, he is also induced by the bad will not to be bound to the remedies necessary to destroy the habit of sin.

b) Nothing be said to diminish or increase the malice of the sin. He sins gravely who deliberately sets forth false circumstances or narrates true ones in such a way that the confessor is led to believe light what is grave. One who knowingly confesses in such a way as to be falsely believed guilty of mortal sin, according to St. Alphonsus and others cited by him (Theologia moralis, I. VI, n. 497, ed. L. Gaudé, III, Rome 1909, p. 509), sins gravely against religion and truthfulness. It is commonly thought that the sin against religion, and therefore sacrilege, exists only when one knowingly accuses himself of a sin not committed and nothing else; because only in this case does one knowingly render the Sacrament null. The lack of truthfulness undoubtedly harms the penitent's reputation, but does not constitute a grave fault, because such is not the squandering of one's own reputation (cf. A. Ballerini - D. Palmieri, Opus theologicum morale, 3rd ed., V, Prato 1893, n. 459).

c) One answer sincerely the confessor's questions. In this regard there is grave sin only when one lacks sincerity in grave matters. There is not even light sin if the penitent, in answering the confessor, keeps silent about things that in no way pertain to confession.

The occasionarius, the habitual sinner, the recidivist, disposed to loyally fulfill his duty, in our opinion, does not sin gravely if, when questioned, he denies being such. The proposition: Non tenemur confessario interroganti fatrei peccati alicuius consuetudinem (Denz-U, 1208), is condemned because, being too general, it would excuse from grave fault even one who, so answering, did not concern himself with the duty of amending.

4. Confession must be prudent

That is, made with language suited to the reverence due to the Sacrament and without unnecessary revelation of the sins of one's neighbor or of one's accomplice.

5. Confession must be vocal

Thus declared Eugene IV in his decree for the Armenians (bull Exultate Deo, of 22 Nov. 1439. Cf. Sum. Theol., 3rd, q. 9, a. 3). To confess by signs alone is reputed by some to be a grave fault when necessity does not excuse it (cf. Salmanticenses, Cursus theologiae moralis, Venice 1714, tract. VI, cap. 7, n. 11); it is lawful when there is reasonable motive. No one, however, is bound to confess in writing or by signs when he is unable to speak; because this is an extraordinary means, which no one is bound to use.

IV. INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION

Confession is entire: a) materially, when all without distinction the sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly erased by sacramental absolution are manifested to the confessor; b) formally, when all the mortal sins committed after Baptism, not yet erased by sacramental absolution, of which, after a diligent examination of conscience, one has memory at the act of confessing and for which one has no just and reasonable motive for not manifesting them in the present confession, are manifested to the confessor.

In order validly to receive sacramental absolution, confession that is at least formally entire is required. This doctrine is of faith (Council of Trent, sess. XIV, De poenit., cap. 7).

For the integrity of confession to obtain, it is necessary to manifest: a) the lowest species of the sins, such as can be perceived by the penitent; b) the number of the sins; certain, if it is known; uncertain, if the certain number is unknown; in which case the probable number must be declared: sometimes it is sufficient to declare how many times one has fallen into sin each month, or each week or day; indeed it may be sufficient and more fitting to declare the habit and the time during which one lived in it; c) the circumstances changing the moral species (theft of a sacred thing) or the theological species (theft of grave matter).

Probably there is no obligation to manifest notably aggravating circumstances; just as there is likewise no obligation to manifest doubtful sins, except in the case of a negative doubt accompanied by reasons that argue for the existence of mortal sin or of a grave sin not yet confessed.

Without doubt there is an obligation to manifest the grave external act (cf. Council of Trent, sess. XIV, De poenit., cap. 5). The obligation to manifest the evil effect of the act which could not be prevented is not certain.

V. EXCUSING CAUSES FROM MATERIAL INTEGRITY

They are:

1. Physical inability

That is: a) involuntary forgetfulness; b) the impossibility of speaking, in which are found the mute, those who, being in danger of death, are unable to speak, those who, not knowing the language spoken by the confessor, cannot make themselves understood by him: these are not obliged to confess through an interpreter.

2. Moral inability

That is: a) deafness, whenever on account of it the inviolability of the sacramental seal is compromised; b) lack of time (infirmity or the imminence of battle or grave danger that do not permit one to confess integrally; c) the danger of grave spiritual or bodily harm for the confessor or for the penitent and for others (danger of violation of the sacramental seal, of falling into sin, danger of plague or contagious disease, etc.); d) the danger of suffering harm to one's reputation (impossibility of confessing without others hearing, etc.).

Probably he is excused from the integrity of confession who cannot manifest his own sin without his accomplice becoming known to the confessor, or without danger that the sin of one who is not an accomplice becomes known. Likewise, a wholly extraordinary modesty, morally insuperable, excuses from integrity.

VI. REITERATION OF CONFESSION

Confession must be repeated whenever it is established with certainty that it was invalid. Invalidity may depend: a) on the confessor, if he lacks jurisdiction, if he does not pronounce the formula of absolution or pronounces it substantially corrupted or else intact, but without the intention of absolving; b) on the penitent, if he had no sorrow or purpose of amendment, if he sinned gravely in his examination of conscience, if he culpably concealed some mortal sin that had to be manifested, if he lied in a grave matter, if before absolution he had a settled will not to perform the satisfaction that is gravely obligatory, if he deliberately confessed to an ignorant confessor or one too lax, in order not to be obliged to do what on the other hand he did not wish to do, if he deliberately confessed to a deaf or hard-of-hearing confessor whom he well knew to be incapable of perceiving the sins.

If the confession was invalid through the fault of the confessor, he himself is bound to repair the defects committed.

If the penitent, having received absolution, realizes that the confessor did not perceive any grave sin, he must repeat the whole confession the first time he wishes to confess.

A confession made, outside a case of necessity, to a confessor known to be ignorant or lax must be made again, because it is invalid through the lack not of jurisdiction in the confessor but of dispositions in the penitent.

A confession null for defect of the penitent's own dispositions must be repeated if the penitent goes to another confessor. However, it is probable that, just as he need not repeat it if he goes to the same confessor, so too he need not repeat it if he goes to others; for the reason that exempts him from repeating it if he returns to the same confessor is not so exclusive to this case that it cannot also apply to another confessor (A. Piscetta - A. Gennaro, Elementa theol. moralis, V, 6th ed., Turin 1934, no. 907).

VII. GENERAL CONFESSION

By general confession is meant the renewed accusation of the sins of one's whole past life, of which one has memory after a diligent examination of conscience. Ordinarily, however, the renewed accusation of the sins committed, for example, over a decade or a five-year period, is also called general confession.

General confession can be necessary, useful, or harmful, according to the various conditions of the penitent.

General confession is necessary for one who has confessed sacrilegiously for a considerable time. However, general confession must not be imposed unless it is certain that all or many confessions of one's past life were sacrilegious.

General confession can be advised for those who prudently doubt the validity of their past confessions; likewise also for those who, though not doubting, can nevertheless derive no small benefit from it. Such are adults who have never made one and find themselves in the good opportunity of spiritual exercises, missions, or a jubilee; those who begin a life of piety and recollection; those who enter the priestly or religious state, etc.

General confession may be permitted to those for whom, though it is neither necessary nor useful, it is nevertheless not harmful. But it must be forbidden to those for whom it is prudently feared that it must prove harmful, such as especially the scrupulous.

If general confession is not necessary, the penitent may keep silent about even mortal sins already duly and directly ly canceled by sacramental absolution. It is in fact a matter of free matter - See plate X.

Andrea Gennaro

III. HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

I. THE CONFESSION OF SINS AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES

There have been and there are scholars who have such a low idea of primitive peoples as not to admit in them a true spiritual life and a true knowledge of sin. J. G. Frazer, for example, holds that among peoples of little advanced civilization sin would be conceived as a kind of morbid substance hidden in the body of the sinner, almost a deadly and tenacious vapor, which would be driven out by confession. Hence this would be nothing but a kind of emetic, a kind of physical purgation, similar to the ceremonies of ablution and fumigation, rather than a moral and spiritual purification. At a second stage, with the progress of civilization, according to the same author, peoples acquire the notion of sin as a transgression of the will of a wise and good God, whereby the confession of sins loses its ancient magical character of physical purgative, because it is by then judged superfluous and absurd, and takes on the new aspect of a purely religious rite, conceived as the only way to avert the divine wrath and the fatal consequences of sin, provided the sinner is humble and repentant. It is believed that God, angered by the offense received through sin, can, by a simple act of his sovereign will, annul the guilt and restore to the repentant sinner his former innocence.

Thanks to the numerous studies and researches made so far on the religion of primitive peoples, especially those ethnologically most ancient, such a theory is today outdated. Already among the ethnologically most ancient peoples the true knowledge of sin has been ascertained, connected with the knowledge of an ideal of moral life; an ideal imposed by the will of God, creator and legislator, before whom the individual and society feel themselves responsible. The actions, thoughts, words, the whole conduct of every rational creature and of society as a whole are judged good or bad, according as they correspond or not to this moral ideal. Precisely because primitive peoples feel the duty to live according to this ideal, they seek to put themselves in a position to know it, to realize it and to hand it down to future generations, giving the young, from their earliest years, an adequate education and imposing on them an ascesis. Among these peoples, therefore, the moral ideal, expression of the divine will, is, in the fullest sense, a morality and an ascesis, a criterion of good and evil, of virtue and vice.

Among the Andamanese of the Indian Ocean the ideal of moral life, although criticizable in certain respects, is, on the whole, truly very complex, and concerns the whole of human life, individual and social, in the various states and in the various conditions. They believe that it was once taught to Tomo, the first parent of the human race, by Puluga, the God creator of the world and of the first human couple. Puluga wants it to be observed by men, and after their death he will judge their soul according to it, which, if found guilty, will be condemned by him to torments in the jerreg-lar-mugu. Indeed, although Puluga, personification of goodness, is merciful to those who suffer, nevertheless, for certain sins, such as falsehood, murder, adultery, burning wax for magical purposes, he becomes angry and can send the flood again to destroy humanity, as he did with the descendants of Tomo who disobeyed his commandments. When it thunders, the Andamanese is wont to exclaim: "Puluga igirelke," that is, "Puluga is angry," whence it is easy to deduce that he is seized by great fear for his sin and examines himself, if he does not have immediate awareness of it, to see whether he has committed it. In this case, seized as he is by fear, does he appeal to the goodness of Puluga, asking forgiveness and promising not to sin again? The explorers tell us nothing on the matter; but the question really arises. It is, without doubt, a question that concerns the intimate feelings of man, a very delicate question, because, given the lively sense of honor ascertained among the Andamanese, one is naturally ashamed to manifest one's sins and one's spiritual miseries.

A moral ideal of life, more or less similar and sometimes higher than that of the Andamanese, is found also among the ethnologically most ancient peoples, called gatherers, of Asia, Africa, America and Australia, as well as among many ethnologically more advanced peoples.

Among all these peoples a true knowledge of sin is ascertained, but only among a certain number of them (so far about a hundred according to the researches of Pettazzoni) does and has there existed the confession of sins. This is private and public, individual and collective and sometimes under both forms among the same people; it is made for all sins or only for some of them; it is an act to be performed in determined periodic or special circumstances, or else it is required only sometimes in life. Among the gatherer peoples only among the Semang of the Malay Peninsula has the existence of the confession of sins been ascertained, a public and individual confession made to Karei, the Supreme Being, to obtain forgiveness, at the same time offering him the sacrifice of one's own blood in expiation. The Semang, like the Andamanese, believe that thunder is the sign of Karei's wrath for the sins of men, who, as punishment, could even send the flood to destroy all humanity. Therefore, when the Semang sinner hears the thunder, he believes himself obliged to offer the sacrifice of his own blood, which he does by wounding himself on the leg and collecting the blood in a receptacle. Then he mixes this blood with water and throws it toward the sky, the seat of Karei, confessing his sins and asking forgiveness of him. This confession is evidently of a religious character, made directly to God, without any intermediary. A similar confession, but also in the presence of a priest, likewise existed among the ancient Mexicans. The priest prayed to God for forgiveness for the sinner and helped him to make a good confession, finally imposing on him grave and painful penances. Among the same ancient Mexicans there existed, besides this private individual confession, also the collective public one, made over the oldest woman of the place, who was finally killed by blows of stones to the head by the priest and then covered by a heap of stones thrown over her body by all those present.

Among the Wakulwe of East Africa (Lake Rukwa) a collective confession of sins of a religious character is practiced; it is collective because made by all the members of the family or of the kinship group, beginning with the head of the family; of a religious character, because made to ask forgiveness of God, called by them Nguluni. The confession must be sincere and complete; and it is made collectively, when in the family someone falls gravely ill, or a woman is in a dangerous childbirth, or when a comitive must cross a watercourse at a difficult point. The Wakulwe also practice individual confession in special circumstances, as when a head of a family must undertake a journey.

Among the Dinka of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan there exists the custom of making public confession of the sins of homicide and of theft, which have remained secret, in proximity to death. This confession too is of a religious character, because it is made to Nhalic, the Supreme Being of the Dinka, so that he may forget the sins of the sinner.

Among the Igulic Eskimos there exists the practice of private individual confession, made, for example, by the sick person, and of collective public confession by an entire group of individuals on the occasion of a public calamity. These Eskimos judge good and evil, virtue and vice, sin, reward and punishment according to an ideal of moral life imposed by the Supreme Being, called by them Sila; but in their conception of the effects of sin there also enters the conception of a universal cosmic law whose relation to Sila is not clear: a rather magical conception, according to which sin, even involuntary sin, automatically brings with it vengeance, that is, a punishment for the sinner or for the whole society; the sinner becomes bad and his bad action mortifies and disfigures a particular divinity, for example, the sea goddess Tacanacapsaluc. To annul all these consequences of sin, confession is necessary, in which the "shaman," standing beside the sick person or in the midst of a group of people, helps to make the examination of conscience, enumerating the possible sins, and the sinner, who remembers having committed them, confesses them publicly. A characteristic of this confession is precisely the role of the shaman, not only because he directs the confession, but also because he influences the people with his magical action, with his imaginary journeys to enter into communication with the spirits, for example, going to the bottom of the sea to the said sea goddess Tacanacapsaluc.

Among the Ewe of West Africa there exists the practice of confession for very different reasons, such as to have children, to obtain a healing. This confession made before the priest does not seem directed directly to the Supreme Being, Mamu-ga, but to the spirits, for example, to the spirit of the earth.

Among the Acioli there exist two kinds of confession, which are occasional and often concern sexual sins. When a woman is in difficulty in childbirth, she confesses her sexual sins, committed before and after marriage, to the women who assist her. These report the matter to the husband and then an expiatory sacrifice is made near the door of the hut of the woman in labor. The victim of the sacrifice is provided by the men with whom the woman had relations, who, if she was already married, must also pay a fine of seventeen goats or of an ox and a cow. This confession, besides a practical purpose—because only after the confession has taken place can the said women inform the husband of the sacrifice to be made and at the same time tell the adulterers to procure the due victim—also has a religious purpose, because the sacrifice is offered to the Supreme Being, who, according to the Acioli, is the author and avenger of their moral code.

Among the Acioli Payeb it is customary to make confession, through the father of the sinner, when there has been violence against a girl. He who has violated the girl must pay her father a fine of an ox and a cow; and give, moreover, a sheep for the expiatory sacrifice. While the sacrifice is being made, the father of the guilty one confesses the sin of his son and the girl is subjected to a ceremony of purification.

There is an implicit confession of the sinner in every expiatory sacrifice made for the sin or sins of a person or of a whole community, as is customary among the Negrilli of Africa and among other peoples, in order to obtain forgiveness and prevent their consequences.

These examples of confession of sins belong to different types of civilization and clearly indicate the complexity of this phenomenon in the life of the peoples in which it exists, while they show with evidence the difficulties of investigating its origin. In fact, the question of origin presupposes not only the investigation of whether confession still exists among other peoples in whom it has not so far been ascertained, but also the solution of many questions that require particular investigations. Thus among the peoples in whom private and public confession exist, as among the Mexicans, one asks: which of the two had its origin first, the private one, since sin is primarily a personal phenomenon, or the public one? Or both together? Among the peoples in whom the shaman has an important part in confession, as among the Eskimos, did this exist before shamanism? Where confession is made to the spirits, as among the Ewe, was it formerly made to the Supreme Being, God, and to him alone? Among those peoples in whom there exists a magical conception of sin and of confession, is the close connection of sin with its moral sanctions not anterior to the magical conception, since such a connection is already found, as has been seen above, in the ethnologically most ancient cultures? In any case, in the present state of studies of religious ethnology, the question of the origin of confession must be distinguished from that of the cognition and the consciousness of sin. The true notion of sin already exists among the ethnologically most ancient peoples. For these, with the exception of the Semang, the question arises not of the confession of sins, which they do not know, but of the forgiveness of sins, that is, of knowing what the sinner does to obtain from God the forgiveness of his own sins and to prevent their sad consequences.

The question of the origin of confession has been posed thus: it has been asked whether the confession of sins arose independently, in different places and times, or had a single center of origin, from which it spread in various directions, variously modifying and transforming itself along the way, and, more precisely, whether it is possible to assign the confession of sins genetically to a determined type of civilization, to a given area and to a given cultural cycle. Pettazzoni, who has taken much interest in the question, affirms as a provisional hypothesis, since his researches are still in progress, that the confession of sins is genetically connected with a civilization of the "matriarchal" type. It is expected that more thorough investigations will indicate the right solution of the question. For now it is pointed out that the confession of sins is not a general phenomenon and often exists only for a determined species of sins; nevertheless there must have been very serious reasons for imposing it on the people. It is enough, in fact, simply to reflect that, given man's keen sense of honor, as has been noted above, it is a great humiliation, it is an act that is repugnant to man; the revelation of sins, moreover, which confession brings with it, especially of certain sins, such as those of adultery, murder and theft, brings grave social consequences. Thus among the Acioli, as has been seen, after the confession of the adulterous woman comes the payment of heavy fines, the expiatory sacrifice, the just resentments of the husband and of the wives of the adulterers with the consequent easy discord in families; grave apprehensions are also caused, because it is believed that God can send as punishment for the adultery committed not only a disease to someone in the family, but can also destroy the whole kinship. This suggests the possibility that the confession of sins was imposed, whether for religious or for moral and social reasons, precisely in order to prevent sins, especially certain graver sins, and therefore also the possibility that confession arose independently among certain peoples for very different reasons.

Luini Vannicelli

II. THE CONFESSION OF SINS AMONG PEOPLES OF CULTURE.
— In Japanese Shinto the feast of oho-harahi ("great purification") was and is a collective confession. In the course of the rite the "objects of purification" are presented, which are thrown into running water or loaded onto a boat that carries them out to sea. During the oho-harahi one of the Norito is recited, consisting of a list of sins, among which are sexual sins and involuntary ones. The sin, thus evoked, is transferred onto the "objects of purification" and thereby eliminated. In ancient China, besides the confession of the sovereign when some public calamity was raging, the practice of confession is linked to the later Ch'üan-chen (Ch'üan-chen) development (1st century A.D.) of Taoism: here the sick wrote their sins in three copies, of which one was thrown into the air from a tower, the second was buried, and the third was thrown into the sea. The Vedic texts, in their more archaic parts, preserve both the memory of an objective conception of guilt, which can therefore be eliminated, once it has been confessed, by means of material agents, and the subjective conception of transgression of the will of a God (above all of Varuna). The two ideas contaminated each other quite frequently. Brahmanic literature contains the mention of a sacrifice (Varunapraghosa) dedicated to Varuna and to the Maruts, whose evocatory and eliminatory character is very transparent. In Jainism it is above all the monks who practice confession (ulocana), followed by a penance proportionate to the gravity of the sin. Buddhism, in comparison with the earlier practices, both Brahmanic and Jainic, carries out a full revaluation of interior repentance by manifesting it in the confession of guilt. There was a confession of the monks on the occasion of the feast at the end of the rainy season (pavurana) and of the fortnightly assemblies (uposatha). A list of faults (patimokkha) was recited and a penance was performed which had the power to cancel the fault itself. According to Amidist Buddhism sins are destroyed by a truly sincere confession made by the sinner, which cancels the moral debt as the sun evaporates the dew on the grass without leaving a trace. But it makes a distinction between the enlightened person and the one who is not yet so. The latter, by confessing his sin and praying to Amida Buddha, can obtain only the suspension of the punishment due to his sin and the time to be converted, whereas the act of repentance of the enlightened person destroys the whole debt of the sin. This act must come from the depths of the heart with a firm purpose of amendment and of renunciation of past vices. Since the Amidist, especially the Chinese one, attributes to Amida Buddha all the attributes that we give to God, his confession becomes entirely religious. For ancient Egypt the confession of sins is attested by the lacerations of the necropolis of Thebes of the 13th century B.C. (19th-20th dynasty). The character of the confession appears slightly changed, in that it is the deceased who proclaims before the tribunal of Osiris that he has not committed sins (or negative confession ²), on the one hand, and, on the other, the sexual element seems to have disappeared. It is held that this declaration of innocence originally had the same value as the evocation in the positive confession. As regards Babylonia, the information consists of ritual and penitential texts. Here the theistic element appears prevalent, revealing itself in sacrifice, in penitential prayer, in days of penance, etc. The penitent, against the demons that persecute him for his sins, even those committed involuntarily, invokes the help of the divinity. Nevertheless the eliminatory practices of a magical character persist, such as burning, bathing, aspersion, etc. For Israel, v. SCAPEGOAT; ASPIADONE; KIPPUR. In Parsism, as is gathered from Sassanid and post-Sassanid literature, there is the belief that sins can be eliminated by confession and penance; whereas there are no traces of the existence of a true and proper confession made to a priest in Mandaeism. The penitential use, preceded by a kind of public confession having periodic frequency, was in force among the Manichaeans. The Hittites too, finally, according to the testimonies of the texts of Boghazköy, knew confession; in the Hellenistic era the existence of the practice of confession is found again in those very countries for which the first information goes back to about 2000 years earlier. This is attested for Egypt by certain astrological texts; for Syria, and particularly for the cult of the goddess Syria, by Plutarch; for Cappadocia by the data relating to the cult of Zeus Asbamaïos; and, finally, by certain inscriptions in barbarous Greek from Phrygia and Lydia of the 2nd-3rd centuries A.D., from which it is known that confession was practiced in the Roman imperial era in various local Anatolian cults, where the central figure was a great female divinity. To the classical Greco-Roman world confession was foreign, if one makes an exception for the information concerning the cult of the Cabiri in Samothrace, and certain cults of oriental origin, such as the Isiac and the Metroac.