Confession

CONFESSION

At times, the term Confession (C.) is used to refer to the sacrament of Penance itself, which is therefore commonly called the sacrament of Confession. In a strict sense, however, Confession 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.

### I. DOGMATIC THEOLOGY

SUMMARY:

I. Institution

II. Necessity

III. Minister

IV. Modalities

V. Frequency

VI. Ethical and Social Value.

I. INSTITUTION

The history of religions shows that confession, in its most varied forms—public and private, oral and written, individual and collective, made directly to the divinity or before its representatives—is an almost universal fact in the religious experiences of humanity (cf. R. Pettazzoni, La confessione dei peccati, 3 vols., Bologna 1929-36). Man has always felt the need for purification from guilt to intensify his relationship with the divinity, to quiet the remorse of conscience, and to be freed from physical or moral evils, present and future, conceived as consequences of sin. Nor has he been content with merely interior repentance: he has also sought to externalize inner compunction through penitential rites, among which the most widely practiced 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 demands of the human soul. Taking these demands into account, Jesus instituted in the Church Confession as a means to reconcile the sinner with God.

That Confession in Christianity is of divine institution is a dogma of faith, defined, against the emerging Protestant error, by the Council of Trent (sess. XIV, can. 6); which also indicates the Gospel texts demonstrating such institution (ibid., cap. 5). These are the same texts concerning the granting of the power of the keys to the Apostles and the institution of the sacrament of Penance; namely, Mt. 18:18: «Quodcumque ligaveritis super terram, erit ligatum et in caelis; et quodcumque solveritis super terram, erit solutum et in caelis»; and Io. 20:23: «Quorum remiseritis peccata, remittuntur eis; et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt».

Indeed, these texts, speaking of the power to «bind or loose», to «remit or retain», show that the power granted by Christ to the Apostles is a judicial power, that is, one which in its exercise has a twofold act, either of condemnation or of absolution. But this presupposes that the one who administers it must first know and examine the conditions of the sinner, his faults, his dispositions, so that he may then decide with equity whether to issue an absolving or condemning sentence. And how can such prior knowledge be obtained if the sinner does not manifest through Confession the sins committed, his repentance, his dispositions for the future?

Furthermore, the proper 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 offender, as well as to his particular dispositions of soul, etc. But only through Confession can these elements of judgment be acquired by the priest. Therefore, by granting the Apostles the power to remit or retain sins, Jesus implicitly instituted the confession of sins.

II. NECESSITY

By divine institution, Confession is, by the will of Jesus, necessary for the remission of sins. This truth was also defined by the Council of Trent (loc. cit.), which teaches that it likewise arises from the cited Gospel texts: Mt. 18:18; Jn. 20:23; from these same texts it is deduced that Confession must be integral and complete. Indeed, the Roman Catechism states: «Since the Lord has conferred upon priests the faculty to remit or 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 impossible to pronounce a just sentence in any matter nor can the rule of justice be observed in assigning the penalties for crimes if the case has not been fully expounded and weighed, it follows that penitents must in their Confession manifest all and each of their sins» (ed. Rome 1918, p. 399). Some Fathers (Origen, In Levit. hom., 2, 4; Chrysostom, De Sacerdotio, 3, 6), and generally the Scholastics in their Commentaries on the Sentences of Peter Lombard (bk. 4, dist. 17), adduce the text of the Epistle of St. James to demonstrate the obligation and necessity of Confession: «Confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, that you may be healed: for the unceasing prayer of a righteous man availeth much» (5:16). With greater accuracy, however, it is now denied that this text serves to demonstrate the necessity of sacramental Confession. This conclusion also extends to the texts Acts 19:18 and 1 Jn. 1:9, which, especially in polemics against Protestants, were also cited by Catholic authors.

Beyond Sacred Scripture, the necessity of Confession is demonstrated both practically by the Church’s use of it since antiquity and by the doctrine of the Fathers, which illuminates and validates such use.

Regarding the practice of Confession in the ancient Church, it is useful first to observe that, in the early centuries, such practice was far less frequent than it is today for many reasons. There was no custom then of seeking absolution for venial sins, a practice that originated later in monasteries and gradually spread among the laity. Furthermore, it does not seem that the ecclesiastical custom requiring those guilty of grave sins to abstain from the Eucharist before receiving sacramental pardon was universally established: it is therefore possible that many who had committed occult mortal sins approached Communion with only contrition of heart, postponing Confession to another time. Many received Baptism as adults, with full awareness and a serious commitment to observe the evangelical law; these, having committed no grave transgressions, did not confess. Others, influenced by the corruption of the pagan environment, had a very coarse morality; as attested by St. Basil (De iudicio Dei, 7), and more frequently by St. Augustine (Euchirid., 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 very grave faults to be venial and thus easily excused themselves from confessing them. Finally, other faithful, guilty of very grave sins, frightened by canonical penance or fearing relapse and thus being forever excluded from ecclesiastical reconciliation, postponed Confession until the end of life.

This being established, that the ancient Church practiced Confession is evident from the following observations.

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

Indeed, such prior Confession is recalled by Pope Cornelius, writing of the reconciliation he granted to some Novatianists (Ep. Cornelii ad Cyprianum: PL 3, 718-22). It is recalled by the Didascalia Apostolorum in the context of the different ways in which certain categories of sinners were reconciled (2, 16-18; 38-41; 42-43). Cyprian, moreover, informs us that some faithful, though having 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 burden of their soul, seek a salutary remedy for their wounds» (De Lapsis, 28). This demonstrates that even sins committed only internally were customarily confessed. For his part, Tertullian, already a Montanist, attests to the custom of the faithful obtaining from the bishop pardon for less grave and more easily committed sins (De Pud., 18, 17; 19, 23-24): evidently after the bishop had been informed of them through Confession.

Nor are recriminations by the Fathers against those faithful who, while confessing their sins to the priest, nevertheless refrain from performing the penance imposed upon them infrequent. Thus, for example, Ambrose (De paenit., 2, 9, 86 and 10, 91), Pacian (Paraenesis ad paenit., 8), and Asterius of Amasea (Hom.: PG 40, 368).

The practice of the faithful confessing their sins finds solid doctrinal foundation in the teaching of the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers on the necessity of Confession.

Explicit, indeed, is their affirmation that, for the remission of sins, Confession to the priest is entirely required: cf. Cyprian: «Let each confess his own fault while he who sinned is still in this world, while his Confession may be admitted, while satisfaction and remission through the priests is pleasing to the Lord» (De Lapsis, 29); Origen (In Levit., hom. 3, 4); Ambrose, whose saying is: «Sin is poison, the remedy is the accusation of one’s own crime; iniquity is poison, Confession is the remedy for 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 arbitrarily, 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 also teach the necessity of Confession in another way: by describing the penitential process in analogy either to the resurrection of Lazarus or to the healing of bodily diseases. Just as Lazarus was told «Come forth» (Jn. 11:43) and then unbound from the wrappings that held him, so it is necessary for the sinner to bring forth, that is, to 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, just as to obtain healing from a physician one must first make the illness known, so to be healed of sin one must manifest it to the priest through Confession: cf. Origen (In Ps. 37, hom. 2, 6), Aphraates (Demonstr. 7; De paenitentibus, 2-3).

Some authors wonder why, when writing about penance, the Fathers do not mention Confession more frequently, contrary to what occurs today. Others then think that the Confession of which the Fathers speak should be understood not as the act by which sins are manifested to the priest, but only as the Confession made exclusively and directly to God. And the name of Chrysostom is most frequently the target of such observations.

BIBL.:
J. Tixeront, Histoire des dogmes, III, Parigi 1912, pp. 223-245; P. Galtier, De Paenitentia, Roma 1923, pp. 151-180; A. d'Alès, La théologie de s. Cyprien, Parigi 1922, pp. 255-275; J. Forget, Confession, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, III, coll. 859-956; H. Leclercq, Confession, in Dictionnaire d'Archéologie Chrétienne et de Liturgie, III, coll. 2647-2704; A. Vacant, Confession, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, III, coll. 859-956; G. Bareille, Confession, in Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, III, coll. 859-956; J. de Ghellinck, Pour l'histoire du mot «sacramentum», I, Lovanio 1924, pp. 233-245; A. Landgraf, Dogmengeschichte der Frühscholastik, I, Ratisbona 1952, pp. 253-268.

A. Piolanti

However, it should be noted that in the ancient Church, the most serious and daunting aspect that constituted the greatest difficulty for the sinner was not the accusation before the priest, but rather the penance. Indeed, as has been seen, many confessed, requested, and obtained penance, but then lacked the courage and strength to fulfill II. It is understandable, then, that pastors of souls insisted so much on penance and little on confession: contrary to what happens today, when the manifestation of sins constitutes the primary obstacle for many Christians, and thus preaching focuses on it, without considering that the Church no longer requires penance or heartfelt contrition.

That the Fathers understood confession as the manifestation of sins to the priest can be deduced from their insistence—including Chrysostom—that confession must be made in church, must be oral, must concern individual sins, and that the sinner must not be overcome by the fear of blushing when revealing his 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). These admonitions would be incomprehensible if confession were made only to God. The warning sometimes found in the Fathers to confess sins only to God, when it does not refer to daily faults that can be expiated through prayer (cf. Augustine, De Symbolo, sermo I ad catechumenos, 7, 15; Serm., 9, 11), indicates confession to be made in secret, in opposition to public confession (cf. Chrysostom, De Lazzaro, hom., 4, 4). This is all the more reasonable since the Fathers held that in the reconciliation of the sinner, the priest acts as an 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). By focusing on the principal agent, they could rightly speak of confession as if it were to be made only to God.

In reality, that confession made to God did not exclude the priest’s intervention is confirmed both by the exhortations found in the Fathers’ writings, addressed to ministers of confession, urging them to receive sinners benevolently (cf. Didascalia Apostolorum, 2, 12; 13, 4; 14, 3 and 11; 15, 1-3 and 8; 18, 2; 20, 10-11; Asterius, Hom., 13; Aphraates, Demonstr., 7, 7, 11, 25; Ambrose, De paenit., 2, 8, 73), and by the constant concern the Fathers themselves show to be fitting ministers of penance, healing the illnesses of the faithful that were revealed to them through confession, and proportioning penance to the different kinds 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 which extend the power of the keys to persons other than bishops and simple priests are false and certainly foreign to the truth of the Gospel; moreover, for the valid exercise of this power, the power of jurisdiction is required (sess. XIV, chaps. 6 and 7; Denz-U, nn. 902 ff.).

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

However, soon thereafter, according to the needs of the various Churches, the bishop associated presbyters with him in this ministry, granting them the faculty to administer Penance and to reconcile sinners after hearing their confession (power of jurisdiction).

The work of presbyters in administering Penance is attested in 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 confirmed for the Church of Carthage by Cyprian (Epist., 18, 1; 19, 2) and for the Church of Alexandria by Dionysius of Alexandria (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., 7, 44). In some Churches, the bishop’s duties in administering Penance were assigned to a special presbyter, called for this reason the "penitentiary presbyter." This institution is mentioned by Socrates (Hist. eccl., 5, 19) and Sozomen (Hist. eccl., 7, 16), who also report that in 391, in Constantinople, this institution was abolished due to a scandal. In Asia Minor, according to the testimony of Basil (Epist., 217, can. 74) and Gregory of Nyssa (Epist., can. 4), there was an "economus" of Penance, tasked with hearing confession and applying canonical penalties to the guilty.

Once granted to presbyters, the power to administer Penance—and thus to receive confession—was denied to deacons. This is clearly stated by Jerome, who writes that only the episcopus vel presbyter can bind or loose (In Matth., 16, 19), and by Ambrose, whose words are: "The right to bind and loose is granted to priests alone" (De paenit., 1, 2, 7).

Nevertheless, both in the early 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 cases of necessity, deacons were permitted to hear confession. The many documents concerning this practice, consisting of canons from 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 cases of necessity, confession of one’s sins was also made to simple lay faithful (cf. A. Teetaert, La confession aux laïques, Paris 1926). Indeed, after Peter Lombard (Sent., 4, dist. 17, 4), many other doctors of the 12th–13th centuries defended the obligation to do so when a priest could not be found. This practice was supported by a text from the De vera et falsa paenitentia, a work of the 11th century attributed to Augustine, which states: "The value of confession is so great 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 absolve, the sinner’s desire to have a priest will obtain forgiveness if he confesses his crime to his neighbor" (10, 25: PL 40, 1122).

However, such confessions were not considered properly sacramental, since neither the deacon nor, even less, the simple layperson possessed the power to absolve. Indeed, in the Synodal Constitutions of Odo of Paris (1197), it is stated: "Deacons are strictly prohibited, in any way, from hearing confessions, except in cases of extreme necessity: for they do not have the keys nor can they absolve" (can. 56; Mansi, XXII, 676). Rather, these confessions were regarded as a means to express one’s repentance and the intention to atone, thereby directly obtaining God’s forgiveness. Nevertheless, the practice of confessing to deacons or simple laypeople demonstrates how deeply rooted was the conviction of the necessity of confession and how great a value was attributed to the acts of repentance in relation to divine forgiveness.

BIBL.:
P. Laurain, De l'intervention des laïques, des diacres, et des abesses dans l'administration de la Pénitence, Paris 1897; A. Teetaert, La confession aux laïques dans l'Église latine depuis le VIIIe jusqu'au XIVe siècle, Paris 1926; J. A. Jungmann, Die lateinischen Bußriten in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Innsbruck 1932; E. Vacandard, La pénitence publique dans l'Église primitive, Paris 1911; H. Leclercq, V. Pénitence in DACL, XIV, 725-848; P. Galtier, De Paenitentia, Rome 1950.

A. VACANT

IV. MODALITIES

In the history of Penance, particular importance is attached to secret Confession, that is, made solely to the priest from whom absolution is sought, and public Confession, in which the sin is instead declared before the community. The Council of Trent, while noting that secret Confession has been in use in the Church from 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 can be considered certain that for secret sins the Church never prescribed public Confession. An attempt to introduce a contrary practice was made in the 5th century in Campania, where some priests wrote down the detailed list of sins heard in Confession and read it publicly during the assemblies of the faithful. In this way, they thought to salutarily humiliate the guilty and induce others not to sin, so as not to incur such shame. However, Pope Leo the Great vigorously protested against this "illicit usurpation," calling it "contrary to the apostolic rule," according to which "it is sufficient to indicate the offenses of conscience to the priests alone through secret Confession" (Epist., 168, 2). Only as an exceptional measure could it be suggested, as appears from a text by Origen (In ps. 37, hom. 2, 6), that for an occult sin the guilty party, after having made secret Confession, should also make a public Confession: both for the good of others and to more easily expiate the fault.

For public sins, on the other hand, Confession before the community was generally required (cf. Cyprian, Epist., 4, 4, and 59, 15-16), even if they were then expiated through private penance; this Confession was probably of a sacramental nature (v. PENITENZA).

Beginning in the 4th century, secret Confession gained greater importance and extension; public Confession thus became increasingly rare until it almost entirely disappeared by the 8th century.

V. FREQUENCY

It has already been stated how, in the ancient Church, the practice of Confession was far less frequent than in our own times, and the reasons for this have also been mentioned. Nevertheless, even before the 13th century—that is, before the Fourth Lateran Council—the custom of periodic Confession had become established among the faithful. Numerous documents attest that, from the 8th century onward, the faithful were obliged and accustomed to confess and receive Communion at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost. These have been collected by P. A. Kirsch (Zur Geschichte der katholischen Beichte, Würzburg 1902). However, in various places, due to the coarseness of the laity and the negligence of the clergy, considerable laxity had crept in. Indeed, Alan of Lille, after stating: «The laity are obliged to confess especially three times a year, namely at Christmas, Easter, and Pentecost», must acknowledge: «But today the bad habit has prevailed that both laity and clerics confess scarcely once a year, and when they do, it is more out of custom than from sincere contrition of heart» (Summa de arte praedicatoria, 31: PL. 210, 173).

At the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), the following prescription was issued for the entire Church: «Every faithful of either sex who has reached the age of discretion shall faithfully confess all their sins in secret at least once a year» (Mansi, XXII, 1007). This prescription was renewed by the Council of Trent (sess. XIV, can. 8) and is now included in the CIC (can. 906).

VI. ETHICAL AND SOCIAL VALUE

From a psychological standpoint, Confession responds to an innate sentiment of human nature: the need to express oneself, to pour out one’s sorrows and the remorse for wrongdoing into another (cf. L. Monsabré, Esposizione del dogma cattolico, Italian trans., XIII, Turin 1941, pp. 81-82).

Greater significance, however, must be attributed to the consideration of Confession’s value from a moral perspective. The examination of one’s conscience, the humiliation of self-accusation, the priest’s reproaches, counsels, and admonitions, and the moral certainty of having regained divine friendship all represent an impetus toward good and a bulwark against perverse inclinations.

Moreover, the influence of Confession in the social order is so evident that even the enemies of Catholicism acknowledge II. The testimony of Voltaire suffices: « Confession may be regarded as the greatest restraint on hidden crimes. It is excellent for inducing wounded hearts to forgive and those who have stolen to restore what belongs to their neighbor » (Catéchisme, in Dictionnaire philosophique).

II. MORAL THEOLOGY

SUMMARY:

I. Nature

II. Necessity

III. Qualities or Attributes of Confession

IV. Integrity of Confession

V. Causes Excusing from Material Integrity

VI. Reiteration of Confession

VII. General Confession.

I. NATURE

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

Two things are therefore required for sacramental Confession to exist; namely, the manifestation of one's sins made: a) to the legitimate minister of the Church, that is, to the priest having real or at least, in the penitent's conviction, the faculty to absolve from sins; b) with the intention of receiving sacramental absolution.

II. NECESSITY

To obtain absolution for sins committed after Baptism, sacramental Confession is required, as has been said. This is the ordinary means; for it is certain that a sinner unable to confess may obtain forgiveness of sins through perfect contrition alone, provided it is not separated from the intention to confess. Indeed, even when confession is readily available, if the state of grace is necessary hic et nunc, it may be obtained through perfect contrition alone—for example, by someone in mortal sin who must receive the sacrament of Confirmation—always remaining firm the obligation of Confession. Furthermore, it is licit to absolve sacramentally one who is in danger of death and physically or morally unable to confess.
III. QUALITIES OR ATTRIBUTES OF CONFESSION — Moral theologians, almost unanimously, enumerate six qualities or attributes of Confession: a) integrity; b) brevity or simplicity; c) humility; d) sincerity; e) prudence; f) vocality. Integrity, being the most important attribute, will be discussed after the others.

1. Confession must be brief or simple. — That is, avoiding useless details (such as, for example, the exposition of the genesis of the sin or unnecessary circumstances, as well as lingering over the sins of others), manifesting sins with candor and simplicity, and abhorring all artifice. The lack of brevity or simplicity in itself does not exceed venial sin; indeed, it is often entirely free from fault due to lack of reflection.

2. Confession must be humble. — That is, with the awareness of one’s own unworthiness and with the spirit of the publican, who, striking his breast, said: O Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner (Lk. 18:13); without boasting of one’s good works, without seeking 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 regarding the malice of sin; that is, grave sins or circumstances altering the species of sin are not knowingly and without grave reason omitted; mortal sins are not deliberately manifested 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 to avoid being recognized by the confessor. Likewise, one who, to avoid losing the esteem of his habitual confessor, goes to another to confess possible mortal sins. One who frequently changes confessors to avoid being known as a recidivist commits grave sin only if, in addition, he is also motivated by the ill will of not being obliged to the remedies necessary to destroy the habit of sin.

b) Nothing be said to diminish or increase the malice of sin. One commits grave sin who deliberately presents false circumstances or narrates true ones in such a way that the confessor is led to believe something light is grave. According to St. Alphonsus and others he cites (Theologia moralis, I. VI, n. 497, ed. L. Gaudé, III, Roma 1909, p. 509), one who knowingly confesses in such a way as to be falsely believed guilty of mortal sin commits a grave sin against religion and truthfulness. It is commonly held that the sin against religion, and thus sacrilege, exists only when one knowingly accuses oneself of a sin not committed and nothing else; for only in this case is the Sacrament knowingly rendered null. The lack of truthfulness undoubtedly harms the penitent’s reputation, but it does not constitute grave fault, since such is not the case in squandering one’s own reputation (cf. A. Ballerini - D. Palmieri, Opus theologicum morale, 3ª ed., V, Prato 1893, n. 459).

c) One responds sincerely to the confessor’s questions. In this regard, grave sin occurs only when sincerity is lacking in grave matters. There is not even venial sin if the penitent, in responding to the confessor, omits things that in no way pertain to Confession.

The occasional, habitual, or recidivist sinner, disposed to fulfill his duty faithfully, in our opinion, does not commit grave sin if, when questioned, he denies being such. The proposition: Non tenemur confessario interroganti fateri peccati alicuius consuetudinem (Denz-U, 1208) is condemned because, being too general, it would excuse from grave fault even one who, by so responding, does not concern himself with the duty of amendment.

4. Confession must be prudent. — That is, made with language befitting 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, 22 Nov. 1439. Cf. Sum. Theol., 3ª, q. 9, a. 3). Confessing by signs alone is considered by some a grave fault when necessity does not excuse (cf. Salmanticenses, Cursus theologiae moralis, Venezia 1714, tract. VI, cap. 7, n. 11); it is licit when there is a reasonable motive. However, no one is obliged to confess in writing or by signs when unable to speak, for this is an extraordinary means, which no one is bound to employ.
IV. INTEGRITY OF CONFESSION — Confession is integral: a) materially, when all sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly remitted by sacramental absolution are manifested to the confessor without exception; b) formally, when all mortal sins committed after Baptism, not yet remitted by sacramental absolution, of which one has memory after a diligent examination of conscience at the moment of confessing, and for which there is no just and reasonable cause to omit in the present confession, are manifested to the confessor.

To validly receive sacramental absolution, confession must be at least formally integral. This doctrine is of faith (Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, De poenit., cap. 7).

For confession to be integral, it is necessary to manifest: a) the lowest species of sins, as far as it can be perceived by the penitent; b) the number of sins; if known with certainty, the exact number; if uncertain, the number that is unknown with certainty, in which case the probable number must be declared. Sometimes it is sufficient to declare how many times one fell into sin each month, each week, or each 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 altering the moral species (theft of a sacred object) or the theological species (theft of a grave matter).

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

Without doubt, there is an obligation to manifest the grave external act (cf. Conc. Trid., sess. XIV, De poenit., cap. 5). It is not certain whether there is an obligation to manifest the evil effect of the act that could not be prevented.

V. EXCUSING CAUSES FROM MATERIAL INTEGRITY

These are:

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

2. Moral impossibility. — That is: a) deafness, whenever it compromises the inviolability of the sacramental seal; b) lack of time (illness or imminent battle or grave danger that does not allow for an integral confession); c) the danger of grave spiritual or bodily harm to the confessor or the penitent and others (danger of violation of the sacramental seal, of falling into sin, danger of plague or contagious disease, etc.); d) the danger of resulting harm to reputation (impossibility of confessing without others listening, etc.).

Probably excused from the integrity of confession is one who cannot manifest their sin without the confessor learning the identity of their accomplice, or without the danger that the sin of a non-accomplice be known. Likewise, extraordinary and morally insuperable modesty excuses from integrity.

VI. REITERATION OF CONFESSION

Confession must be repeated whenever it is certain that it was invalid. Invalidity may depend on: a) the confessor, if he lacks jurisdiction, if he does not pronounce the formula of absolution or pronounces it substantially corrupted or complete but without the intention of absolving; b) the penitent, if he lacked sorrow or purpose, if he gravely sinned in the examination of conscience, if he culpably concealed some mortal sin that should have been confessed, if he lied in a grave matter, if before absolution he had a firm intention not to fulfill the gravely obligatory satisfaction, if he deliberately confessed to a confessor who was ignorant or too lax so as not to be obliged to do what he otherwise did not wish to do, if he deliberately confessed to a confessor who was deaf or hard of hearing whom he knew was unable to perceive the sins.

If the confession was invalid due to the confessor, he himself is obliged 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 entire confession the first time he wishes to confess.

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

A confession nullified by a defect in the dispositions of the penitent himself must be repeated if the penitent goes to another confessor. However, it is probable that, just as he does not have to repeat it if he returns to the same confessor, so he does not have to repeat it if he goes to another; because 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, 6ª ed., Torino 1934, n. 907).
### VII. GENERAL CONFESSION

By general confession (C. generale) is meant the renewed accusation of the sins of one’s entire past life, of which one has memory after a diligent examination of conscience. Ordinarily, however, it is also called general confession when one renews the accusation of sins committed, for example, over a decade or a quinquennium.

General confession may be necessary, useful, or harmful, depending on the various conditions of the penitent.

General confession is necessary for one who has for some time confessed sacrilegiously. However, it should not be imposed unless it is certain that all or many confessions of the past life were sacrilegious.

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

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

If general confession is not necessary, the penitent may omit even mortal sins already duly and directly canceled by sacramental absolution. This is, in fact, a matter of free choice – vedi tav. X.

Andrea Gennaro

III. HISTORY OF RELIGIONS

SUMMARY:

I. Confession of sins among primitive peoples

II. Confession of sins among civilized peoples.

I. CONFESSION OF SINS AMONG PRIMITIVE PEOPLES

There have been and still are scholars who hold such a low opinion of primitive peoples that they deny them a true spiritual life and a genuine awareness of sin. J. G. Frazer, for example, believes that among peoples of little advanced civilization, sin would be conceived as a kind of morbid substance hidden within the sinner’s body, almost a deadly and tenacious vapor, which would be expelled through confession. Thus, confession would be nothing more than a kind of emetic, a form of physical purgation, similar to ablution and fumigation ceremonies, rather than a moral and spiritual purification. At a later stage, as civilization progresses, peoples, according to the same author, acquire the notion of sin as a transgression of the will of a wise and good God. Consequently, the confession of sins loses its ancient magical character as a physical purgative—now deemed superfluous and absurd—and takes on the new aspect of a purely religious rite, conceived as the only way to avert 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 the repentant sinner to his former innocence.

Thanks to the numerous studies and research conducted thus far on the religion of primitive peoples, particularly those ethnologically most ancient, this theory is now outdated. Even among the most ethnologically ancient peoples, a true awareness of sin has been observed, linked to the knowledge of an ideal of moral life—an ideal imposed by the will of God, creator and lawgiver, before whom both the individual and society feel responsible. Actions, thoughts, words, and the entire conduct of every rational creature and of society as a whole are judged good or evil according to whether they correspond to this moral ideal. Precisely because primitive peoples feel the duty to live according to this ideal, they seek to place themselves in a position to know it, realize it, and transmit it to future generations, providing youth from an early age with adequate education and imposing ascetic practices upon them. Among these peoples, therefore, the moral ideal, as an expression of the divine will, is, in the fullest sense, a morality and an asceticism, a criterion of good and evil, of virtue and vice.

Among the Andamanese of the Indian Ocean, the ideal of moral life, though open to criticism in certain respects, is, on the whole, truly very complex and concerns the entire human life, individual and social, in its various states and conditions. They believe it was once taught to Tomo, the protoparent of the human race, by Puluga, the God who created the world and the first human couple. Puluga wills that this ideal be observed by men, and after their death, he will judge their souls according to II. If found guilty, the soul will be condemned by him to torments in jerreg-lar-mugu. Indeed, though Puluga, the personification of goodness, is merciful toward those who suffer, for certain sins—such as falsehood, murder, adultery, and burning wax for magical purposes—he grows angry and may send another flood to destroy humanity, as he did with the descendants of Tomo who disobeyed his commandments. When it thunders, the Andamanese exclaim: «Puluga igirelke», meaning «Puluga is angry», from which it is easy to deduce that they are seized by great fear for their sins and examine themselves, if they are not immediately aware of them, to see whether they have committed any. In such a case, overcome by fear, they appeal to Puluga’s goodness, asking for forgiveness and promising not to sin again. Explorers tell us nothing about this; but the question truly arises. It is, without doubt, a matter concerning the intimate sentiments of man, a very delicate question, for, given the keen sense of honor observed among the Andamanese, one naturally feels ashamed to reveal one’s sins and spiritual miseries.

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

Among all these peoples, a true awareness of sin is observed, but only among a certain number of them (about a hundred, according to Pettazzoni’s research) does the confession of sins exist and has existed. This confession is private and public, individual and collective, and sometimes both forms are present among the same people. It is made for all sins or only for some of them; it is an act to be performed in certain periodic or special circumstances, or it is required only occasionally in life. Among gathering peoples, the existence of the confession of sins has been observed only among the Semang of the Malay Peninsula—a public and individual confession made to Karei, the Supreme Being, to obtain forgiveness, while at the same time offering the sacrifice of one’s own blood in expiation. Like the Andamanese, the Semang believe that thunder is the sign of Karei’s wrath for the sins of men, who, as punishment, could send a flood to destroy all humanity. Therefore, when a Semang sinner hears thunder, he feels obliged to offer the sacrifice of his own blood, which he does by wounding his leg and collecting the blood in a vessel. He then mixes this blood with water and throws it toward the sky, the abode of Karei, confessing his sins and asking for forgiveness. This confession is clearly of a religious nature, made directly to God without any intermediary. A similar confession, but in the presence of a priest, also existed among the ancient Mexicans. The priest prayed to God for the sinner’s forgiveness and helped him make a good confession, finally imposing severe and painful penances upon him. Among the same ancient Mexicans, in addition to this private individual confession, there was also a public collective one, performed upon the oldest woman of the place, who was finally killed by the priest with blows to the head and then covered with a pile of stones thrown upon her body by all those present.

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

Among the Dinka of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, there is the custom of making a public confession of secret murders and thefts when death is near. This confession is also of a religious nature, as 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, and that of public collective 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, whom they call Sila; but in the conception of the effects of sin, there also intervenes the notion of a universal cosmic law, whose relation to Sila is not clear: a rather magical conception, whereby sin, even involuntary, automatically brings vengeance, that is, a penalty for the sinner or for the entire society; the sinner becomes evil, and his evil action mortifies and defiles a specific deity, for example, the sea goddess Tacanacapsaluc. To annul all these consequences of sin, confession is necessary, in which the "shaman," standing near the sick person or in the midst of a group of people, helps to conduct an examination of conscience by enumerating 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 actions, with his imaginary journeys to communicate with spirits, for example, going to the bottom of the sea to the aforementioned sea goddess Tacanacapsaluc.

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

Among the Acioli, there are two types of confession, which are occasional and often concern sexual sins. When a woman is in difficult labor, she confesses her sexual sins, committed before and after marriage, to the women assisting her. These women report the matter to the husband, and then an expiatory sacrifice is made near the door of the parturient's hut. 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 one ox and one cow. This confession, alongside a practical purpose—because only after the confession can the aforementioned 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 Payeb Acioli, confession is made 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 one ox and one cow and also provide a sheep for the expiatory sacrifice. While the sacrifice is being made, the father of the guilty party confesses his son's sin, and the girl undergoes a purification ceremony.

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

These examples of confession of sins belong to different types of civilizations and clearly indicate the complexity of this phenomenon in the life of the peoples among whom it exists, while also showing the difficulties in tracing its origin. Indeed, the question of origin presupposes not only the investigation of whether confession still exists among other peoples where it has not yet been observed but also the resolution of many issues that require particular inquiries. Thus, among peoples where private and public confession exist, such as the Mexicans, one asks: which of the two originated first, the private one, given that sin is primarily a personal phenomenon, or the public one? Or both together? Among peoples where the shaman plays an important role in confession, as among the Eskimos, did this exist before shamanism? Where confession is made to spirits, as among the Ewe, was it first made to the Supreme Being, God, and only to Him? Among those peoples in whom there exists a magical conception of sin and confession, is the close connection between sin and its moral sanctions not prior to the magical conception, given that such a connection is already observed, as seen above, in the ethnologically oldest cultures? In any case, at the current state of religious ethnology studies, one must distinguish the question of the origin of confession from that of the knowledge and consciousness of sin. The true notion of sin already exists among the ethnologically oldest peoples. For these, with the exception of the Semang, the question is 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 sins and prevent their sad consequences.

The question of the origin of confession has been posed as follows: 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, being variously modified and transformed along the way, and, more precisely, whether it is possible to genetically assign the confession of sins to a specific type of civilization, to a given area, and to a given cultural cycle. Pettazzoni, who has taken great interest in the question, asserts as a provisional hypothesis, since his research is still ongoing, that the confession of sins is genetically connected with a civilization of the "matriarchal" type. He awaits further investigations to indicate the correct solution to the question. For now, it is noted that the confession of sins is not a universal phenomenon and often exists only for a specific type of sin; nevertheless, there must have been very serious reasons for imposing it on the people. Indeed, it is sufficient to reflect simply that, given the strong sense of honor in man, as noted above, confession is a great humiliation, an act that repels man; the revelation of sins, moreover, which accompanies confession, especially of certain sins such as adultery, murder, and theft, brings serious social consequences. Thus, among the Acioli, as seen, after the confession of the adulterous woman comes the payment of heavy fines, the expiatory sacrifice, the rightful resentments of the husband and the wives of the adulterers with the consequent easy discord in families; grave apprehensions are also caused, because it is believed that God may send as punishment for the committed adultery not only an illness to someone in the family but may also destroy the entire kinship. This suggests the possibility that the confession of sins was imposed, both for religious and moral-social reasons, precisely to prevent sins, especially certain more serious sins, and thus also the possibility that confession arose independently among certain peoples for very different reasons.

II. CONFESSION OF SINS AMONG CULTURED PEOPLES.
— In Japanese Shintoism, the festival oho-harahi ("great purification") was and remains a collective confession. During the rite, "purification objects" are presented and then cast into running water or loaded onto a boat that carries them out to sea. During oho-harahi, one of the Norito is recited, consisting of a list of sins, including sexual transgressions and involuntary faults. The sin, thus evoked, is transferred onto the "purification objects" and thereby eliminated. In ancient China, beyond the sovereign’s confession when a public calamity occurred, the confessional practice is linked to the later theistic development (1st century A.D.) of Taoism: here, the sick would write their sins in three copies, one of which was thrown into the air from a tower, the second buried, and the third cast into the sea. The Vedic texts, in their most archaic sections, preserve both the memory of an objective conception of guilt, which could thus be eliminated—after being confessed—through material agents, and the subjective conception of transgression against the will of a god (especially Varuna). The two ideas frequently intermingled. Brahmanical literature mentions a sacrifice (Varunapraghasa) dedicated to Varuna and the Maruts, whose evocative and eliminatory character is quite transparent. In Jainism, it is primarily monks who practice confession (ulocana), followed by penance proportionate to the gravity of the sin. Buddhism, compared to earlier Brahmanical and Jain practices, fully revalues interior repentance, manifesting it in the confession of guilt. There was a confession of monks during the festival at the end of the rainy season (pavurana) and during fortnightly gatherings (uposatha). A list of faults (patimokkha) was recited, and penance was performed, which had the power to erase the guilt 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 dew on the grass without leaving a trace. However, it distinguishes between the enlightened person and one who is not yet enlightened. The latter, by confessing their sin and praying to Amida Buddha, can only obtain a suspension of the punishment due to their sin and time to convert, whereas the act of repentance of the enlightened person destroys the entire debt of sin. This act must come from the depths of the heart with a firm resolve for amendment and renunciation of past vices. Since the Amidist, especially the Chinese, attributes to Amida Buddha all the attributes we ascribe to God, their confession becomes entirely religious. For ancient Egypt, the confession of sins is attested by the lamentations of the necropolis of Thebes from the 13th century B.C. (XIX-XX dynasties). The character of confession appears slightly altered, as it is the deceased who proclaims before the tribunal of Osiris that they have not committed sins (or negative confession ²), on the one hand, while, on the other, the sexual element seems to have disappeared. It is believed that this declaration of innocence originally had the same value as the evocation in positive confession. Regarding Babylon, the evidence consists of ritual and penitential texts. Here, the theistic element prevails, revealed in sacrifice, penitential prayer, days of penance, etc. The penitent, against the demons that pursue them for their sins—even those committed involuntarily—invokes the help of the deity. Nevertheless, eliminatory practices of a magical character persist, such as burning, bathing, sprinkling, etc. For Israel, V. CAPRO EMISSARIO; ASPIAZIONE; KIPPÜR. In Zoroastrianism, as derived from Sassanid and post-Sassanid literature, there is the belief that sins can be eliminated through confession and penance; whereas traces of a true confession made to a priest are lacking in Mandaeism. The penitential practice, preceded by a kind of public confession held periodically, was in use among the Manichaeans. The Hittites, finally, according to the testimonies of the texts from Boğazköy, also knew confession. In the Hellenistic era, the existence of the confessional practice is found in the same countries for which the earliest records date back approximately 2000 years earlier. Evidence for this includes, for Egypt, certain astrological texts; for Syria, and particularly for the cult of the Syrian goddess, Plutarch; for Cappadocia, data related to the cult of Zeus Asbamaïos; and, lastly, some inscriptions in barbaric Greek from Phrygia and Lydia (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 deity. The Greco-Roman classical world was foreign to confession, with the exception of reports concerning the cult of the Kabiri in Samothrace and certain cults of Eastern origin, such as the Isiac and Metroac cults.