Part III Chapter II: Confession

Chapter II: Confession

CHAPTER II CONFESSION i. Confession (confessio, ^o|*oAoyi^«) is the sorrowful declaration of sins made to a priest, with the purpose of obtaining forgiveness through the power of the keys. The term is sometimes, by synecdoche, applied to the Sacrament of Penance as a whole. Sacramental confession consists of five separate and distinct parts: (1) An accusation made by the sinner himself, inspired by genuine sorrow, and hence not a merely historical recital or boastful vaunting after the manner of Jean Jacques Rousseau. By the manifestation of sorrow, contrition, which is in itself invisible, becomes visible and thereby capable of being the quasi-matter of a Sacrament. (2) A declaration of one’s own sins, more specifically of all the mortal sins committed since Baptism or the last valid confession. By this requirement confession excludes original sin and the sins of others. (3) The penitent’s self -accusation must be made to a priest, i. e. one constituted in authority and endowed with the requisite jurisdiction. A layman, or a priest lacking the necessary faculties, cannot give absolution. (4) Confession is made in order to obtain forgiveness,

not to procure the punishment of the sinner, as in a secular court or before the Inquisition. (5) The power of the keys is expressly mentioned to show that the sacramental absolution is a genuine judicial act. 2. Confession may be either actual or virtual. It is actual if it contains a formal self -accusation on the part of the penitent. It is virtual if the penitent has at least the desire of confessing his sins if possible. Actual confession (confessio actualis) may be either general or particular. In common parlance a general confession means one in which the penitent repeats either all or some of his former confessions. Here, however, we mean simply a declaration of guilt in general terms, as e. g. in the Confiteor. Such a general accusation is sufficient only in cases of necessity, in war, at the hour of death, etc., where other external signs, such as beating one’s breast, would also suffice. A particular confession may be either complete or incomplete. It is incomplete (confessio distincta secundum quid) if it includes some but not all of the mortal sins of which the penitent is conscious. Such an incomplete confession is admissible when the penitent is either physically or morally incapacitated for making a complete declaration, or when he is justified in concealing a sin. (This subject belongs to moral theology.) In all other cases the conscious omission of even one mortal sin is sacrilegious and renders the Sacrament invalid. The ideal and most common form of confession is that called confessio distincta simpliciter sive integra, i. e. a complete, sincere, and clear avowal, made, after a careful examination of conscience, of all the mortal sins of

which one is conscious, together with their number, specific nature, and necessary circumstances. The completeness demanded is, of course, merely formal.1 Whenever possible, a complete confession is necessary for the validity of absolution. The examination of conscience that must precede confession belongs to the domain of moral theology. The division of confession into public (confessio publico) and private (confessio auricularis) is of no dog- u matic importance, as both species are sacramental when followed by the priestly absolution. Public confession, too, may be a judicial act, though in the nature of things privacy best conforms to the character of the penitential tribunal, and the penitent has a right to demand that his sins be kept secret (seal of the confessional, sigillum confessionis). It is no doubt owing to this desire for privacy that auricular confession was practiced from the earliest days of Christianity. Public confession must not be confounded with public penance (poenitentia publico), which under the ancient discipline was imposed for public — according to Morinus, Juenin, and Natalis Alexander also for secret — crimes, and with which we have dealt at some length in the first part of this treatise. 3. The Church’s dogmatic teaching on the subject of confession is fully set forth in the decrees of Trent,2 where confession is declared to be divinely instituted and necessary for salvation both as a means and by way of precept (necessitate medii et praecepti). 1 V. infra, Sect. 2, Art. x, No. 2. 2 Sess. XIV, cap. 5; can. 6-8.

Sacramental confession is nothing else than the actual submission on the part of the penitent of himself and his sins to the power of the keys, and consequently, to say that the power of the keys is divinely instituted and necessary for salvation8 is to affirm the same of confession. However, as complete confession may be dispensed with in urgent cases, confession is not necessary in the same sense as contrition, which, the Council of Trent says, ” was at all times necessary for obtaining the pardon of sins.” 4 We now proceed to demonstrate the divine institution and necessity of confession per modum unius from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. 8 V. supra, pp. 58 sqq. dam veniam peccatorum hie contri4 Sess. XIV, cap. 4: * Fuit tionis tnotus necessarms.* autem quovis tempore, ad impetran 

SECTION i THE DIVINE INSTITUTION AND NECESSITY OF CONFESSION PROVED FROM SACRED SCRIPTURE i. Doubtful Texts. — Sacramental confession is nowhere expressly mentioned in Holy Scripture, and hence none of the texts frequently quoted in this connection is strictly conclusive. There is, for instance, I John I, 9 : ” If we confess our sins,1 he [God] is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins.” In view of St. John’s account of the institution of the power of the keys, as given in the twentieth chapter of his Gospel,2 it is quite natural to conclude that the above-quoted text from his first Epistle applies to sacramental confession. It may, but need not necessarily, be so interpreted. The sacred writer may conceivably have had in mind a mere avowal of sins before God. Another text that seems to refer to sacramental confession is 1 Cor. XI, 28 : ” Let a man prove himself,8 and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.” For the unworthy to ” prove himself ” no doubt means to purify his conscience.4 But St. Paul does not expressly say that this must be done by sacramental confession. Quite a number of Fathers and theologians appeal to 1 i&p dfiokoy&fAep rhs &fiaprtas 8 doKi/m^irto faOpuvos iavrdp ilfiwv — si confiteamur peccata — probet autem seipsum homo, nostra. 4 Cf r. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIII, 2 John XX, 22 sqq. cap. 7. 185

Acts XIX, 18 : ” And many of them that believed,5 came confessing6 and declaring their deeds.” Here there is question of particular confession, but we do not know whether ” they that believed ” were catechumens or fullfledged Christians; nor is there anything in the sacred text to tell us whether their confession was sacramental, though we may with probability assume that it was. The only Scriptural text that supplies some kind of argument for the existence of sacramental confession is Jas. V, 16 : ” Confess therefore your sins one to another,7 and pray for one another, that you may be saved.” Two verses farther up St. James speaks of the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, in which sins are remitted by virtue of the prayer uttered by the priest,8 and hence it is highly probable that the cfo/aoAo’yipns in Ch. V, verse 16, signifies the Sacrament of Penance. The phrase “one to another ” 9 proves nothing against this interpretation, for Sacred Scripture frequently employs this expression to denote a relation not strictly reciprocal, as, e. g., Eph. V, 21 : * Being subject one to another, in the fear of Christ.* 10 Abbot Werner (+ 1 126) aptly commentates our text as follows : ” What does the phrase * one to another ’ mean ? Not that everyone confess to anyone, but one to another, i. e. one man to another, the sheep to their shepherds, subjects to their superiors, those who have sinned to those who have the power to forgive sins.” 11 Never6 Multique credentium — voWol n ” Quid est alterutrumf Non re riav ireviarevKdrwy* uniuscuiusque unicuique, sed alter6 ConHtentes — i^OfioXoyov/xevoi- utrum, hoc est inter vos homines 7 Confitemini ergo alterutrutn hominibus, oves pastoribus, subiecti peccata vestra — ££ofxo\oyeiade oiv praelatis, hi qui peccata hub en t, his dWrjXois tAj Afiaprlas- qui peccata dimittere pot est at em 8 Jas. V, 14 sq. habent.” (Migne, P. L., CXVII, » dXXlJXots. 882). 10 ” Subiecti invicem (dXX^Xots) in timore Christ*.”

theless it must in all frankness be admitted that this interpretation of James V, 14 sq. is not absolutely certain ; if it were, the Tridentine Council would no doubt have utilized this text. Must it be admitted, then, as Duns Scotus claims, that the divine institution and necessity of confession cannot be stringently proved from Scripture? It cannot be proved directly ; but an indirect argument may be construed upon the basis of what the Bible teaches in regard to the power of the keys. 2. Indirect Argument from Sacred Scripture.— The middle term of this argument is the Biblical dogma of the necessity of the power of the keys 12 and the judicial form in which that power is exercised.13 a) We have shown in the first part of this treatise that according to Holy Scripture the power of the keys is necessary to obtain remission of sins. It follows that every penitent sinner must submit himself to the Church and that his grievous sins remain unf orgiven in the eyes of God so long as he neglects to appear before the ecclesiastical tribunal (retentio extraiudicialis) or if that tribunal refuses to absolve him {retentio iudicialis) . We have also shown that the power of the keys is exercised in judicial form. It follows that all mortal sins brought before the ecclesiastical forum are either authoritatively forgiven or authoritatively retained by virtue of a judicial sentence, in rendering which the judge is guided objectively by the law of Christ and subjectively by the 12 V, supra, Part I, Cb. II, Sect la V, Part I, Ch. II, Sect 3. a.

disposition of the penitent. On the basis of these two truths we argue as follows: b) Our Lord Jesus Christ is a wise and just lawgiver who must demand that the power of forgiving or retaining sins be exercised not arbitrarily but according to objective norms and in a just manner. Now this is impossible without an accurate knowledge, on the part of the judge, of the exact number, the nature, and the specific circumstances of the sins upon which he is asked to pronounce sentence. This information, in the nature of things, can be supplied only by the penitent, who is defendant, prosecutor, and witness all in one person. Consequently, the penitent himself must reveal to the priest all his mortal sins, together with their number, nature, and necessary circumstances, — in other words, he must “go to confession.” The major premise of this syllogism requires no proof. A judge who would proceed arbitrarily would not be applying the law but committing a wrong. The minor can be proved by a twofold argument. (i) It is of the very nature of judicial power, and especially of judicial remission, that the matter to be decided come within the official cognizance of the judge. In the tribunal of Penance the matter to be adjudged are the grievous sins .from which the penitent asks to be absolved. These must be separately adjudged and remitted. Therefore every grievous sin must be separately confessed* And as specific differences complicate a case, the judge must be informed of the exact nature of each sin, and the circumstances necessary to form a just conception of its gravity. This information can come from the penitent only, and therefore the penitent must (if possible) make a complete avowal of his sins (confessio distinct a simpliciter sive integra). To this consideration may be added another. In the existing order of salvation mortal sin can be forgiven only by the infusion of sanctifying grace. Sanctifying, grace cannot exist in the soul unless the latter is free from mortal sin. Hence, either all mortal sins are forgiven together, or none is forgiven, and whoever wishes to be absolved must confess all his mortal sins (at least in voto), as it is impossible to obtain forgiveness for one without obtaining forgiveness for all. (2) It is likewise of the very nature of judicial power that it can bind as well as loose. In the case of Penance this means that the priest can retain as well as forgive the penitent’s sins. This retaining power may be exercised both with regard to guilt and with regard to punishment. In regard to guilt, the judge must know, in the first place and above all, whether the penitent is worthy of absolution, that is to say, whether he has the required disposition (is sorry for his sins, willing to avoid proximate occasions, ready to make restitution of ill-gotten goods, etc.). While it is possible for the confessor in some cases to obtain such knowledge without confession, this is not the rule, because the confessor, not the penitent, is the competent judge of the latter’s state of conscience and without a close insight into the number and gravity of the sins submitted he cannot decide whether to give or to withhold absolution.14 Conse14 Cfr. St Jerome, In Matth., 16, varietates, scit qui ligandus sit 291 “Quum peccatorum audimt qutoe solvendus.”

igo THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT quently the confessor has the right and the duty to demand an accurate and circumstantial description of the penitent’s state of conscience, t. e. a complete confession of his sins. But the office of the penitential judge does not end here. Even if the penitent has the right disposition, the priest may not absolve him without at the same time enjoining an appropriate penance* This again cannot be justly determined without a complete knowledge of the facts, because a penance must correspond to the number and gravity of the sins for which it is imposed. “It is manifest,” says the Council of Trent, “that priests could not have exercised this judgment without knowledge of the cause; neither indeed could they have observed equity in enjoining punishments, if the faithful should have declared their sins in general only, and not rather specifically, and one by one.” 16 The necessity of confession, as just explained, is a necessity both of means and of precept, and therefore confession is a divine institution. By commissioning His Apostles and their successors to judge the sins of the faithful, our Divine Saviour eo ipso instituted confession, without which the exercise of this judicial power would be impossible. c) What we have said of the necessity of confession applies to all who are able to obey the divine command- But what about those who are either physically or morally unable to confess their sins? To these exceptional cases the li Sess. XIV, cap. 5: “Constat poenis iniungendis servare potuisse, enim, sac er dotes indicium hoc in- si in genere dumtaxat et non potius cognitd causd exercere non potuisse in specie ac sigillatim sua ipsi pec* neque aequitatem quidem illos in cata declarossent.”

CONFESSION same rule applies that we have stated in connection with Baptism. If a man is unable to make a complete confession, an incomplete one will suffice, and if he cannot make any at all, the desire (votum confessionis) may supply the act. Untoward circumstances of a transient nature, however, do not remove the obligation, and whoever finds himself subsequently able to confess the sins from which he has been absolved without a complete confession, is bound to do so as soon as he can. Thus is the necessitas medii of confession duly safeguarded. Note, however, that the Sacrament of Penance can not be administered where there is no external sign of any kind to indicate that the sinner has at least a desire to confess his sins.16 16 V. supra, Part II, Ch. I, Sect. confession is well developed by i.— The Scriptural argument for Palmier!, De Potnit, thes. 33. SECTION 2 THE DIVINE INSTITUTION AND NECESSITY OF CONFESSION PROVED FROM TRADITION

Article 1: Heretical Errors vs. the Teaching of the Church

HERETICAL ERRORS VS. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH i. Heretical Errors. — Many of our opponents are willing to admit that confession is a useful institution corresponding to a real need of human nature ; but they strenuously deny that it is of divine origin and iure divino necessary for salvation. That devout Catholics have confessed their sins to the clergy from time immemorial, they do not gainsay; but they regard the practice as purely human, though as to how and when it was first imposed on the faithful they are not agreed. a) Wiclif, a forerunner of the Protestant revolt, taught that ” if a man be duly contrite, all exterior confession is superfluous and useless.” 1 Luther’s attitude on the subject was anything but consistent At first, in his Little Catechism, he inculcated the necessity of confession. Later, in 1528, he declared that the faithful are not obliged to confess their sins. At 1 ” Si homo fuerit debite contritus, superfine, et inutilis.” (Denzingeromnis confessio exterior ett sibi Bannwart, n. 587). 192 times he extols confession, then again he denounces it as ” a bloody rack of conscience.” 2 He denies that the Bible proves the divine institution and necessity of confession and claims, in consequence, that the faithful are not bound to declare their sins with number and circumstances to the priests. b) Calvin regarded confession as a free institution established by the Church. He taught that though a general acknowledgment of guilt was sufficient to obtain forgiveness, those troubled in conscience might be advised to confess their sins privately. But he objected to the practice of auricular confession, which, he claimed, was invented by Innocent III and imposed upon the faithful through the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215). It was a pestilential abuse, he said, which ought to be swept from the face of the earth.8 2. The Teaching of the Church. — Against these heretical errors the Catholic Church consistently upheld the revealed teaching. The Council of Constance (1418) condemned the errors of Wiclif and the Council of Trent defined the truth in detail against the so-called Reformers. a) “If anyone denieth,” says the latter synod, “either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary for salvation, by divine right, or saith that the manner of confessing 2 ” CarniUcina conscientiae.” e medio cupimus.” (Inst., Ill, c. S” Nihil mirum, si auricularem 4, § 19.) — - On the teaching of the istam confessionem, rem adeo pe- Protestant Reformers concerning stilentem totque nominibus Eccle- confession see Cardinal Bellarmine, siae noxiam, damnamus ac sublatam De PoeniL, III, c. x.

secretly to a priest alone, which the Church hath ever observed from the beginning, and doth observe, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention, let him be anathema.” 4 Again: “If anyone saith that in the Sacrament of Penance it is not of divine right necessary for the remission of sins, to confess all and each of the mortal sins which after due and diligent previous meditation are remembered, even those [mortal sins] which are secret, and those which are opposed to the two last commandments of the Decalogue, as also the circumstances which change the species of a sin, but [saith] that such confession is only useful,… let him be anathema.* 5 In another place the same Council defends confession against the charge that it is * impossible ” and ” a slaughterhouse of consciences ” : ” It is also impious to assert that confession … is impossible, or to call it a slaughterhouse of consciences ; for it is certain that in the Church nothing else is required of penitents but that, … 4Seaa. XIV, can. 6: “Si quis • Seas. XIV, can. 7’ “Si quis negaverit, confessionem sacratnenta- dixerit, in sacramento poenitentiae lem vel institutam vel ad salutem ad remissionem peccatorum necesnecessariam esse iure divino, out sarium non esse iure divmo, confidixerit modum secrete conhtendi teri omnia et singula peccata motsoli sacerdoti, quern Ecclesia catho- talia . • . etiam occulta et quae sunt lica ab initio semper observavit et contra duo ultima decalogi praecepta, observat, alienum esse ab insti- et circumstantias quae peccati spetutione et mandato Ckristi et in- ciem mutant, sed earn confessionem ventum esse humanum, anathema tan turn esse utilem, … anathema sit.” sit/’ CONFESSION 195 [each] confess those sins by which he remembers that he has mortally offended his Lord and God ; whilst the other sins, which do not occur to him after diligent thought, are understood to be included as a whole in that same confession.”6 The last-quoted phrase is of great dogmatic importance, inasmuch as it demands a merely formal (not a material) integrity of confession and declares that mortal sins omitted without fault are forgiven by what is called indirect remission. The holy Synod does not, however, deny that conf ession may be difficult, but says that the difficulty is counterbalanced ” by many and great advantages and consolations.” T

Article 2: The Teaching of the Fathers

THE ARGUMENT FROM PRESCRIPTION The most effective argument for the traditional Catholic teaching on confession is that from prescription. It may be briefly formulated as follows : From the days of primitive Christianity the Church has insisted that the faithful are by divine right obliged to confess their sins in order to obtain forgiveness. Such belief and practice indicate that confession cannot be of purely ecclesiastical origin, but must be a divine institution. • Sets. XIV, cap. 5: * Impium confession* inclusa esse intelligunest confessionem … impossibilem tut.* (Cfr. Sess. XIV, can. 8.) dicere ant carniUcmam Mat* con- 7 * Tot t ant is que commodis et scientiae appellor e; constat enim consolationibus.* — On the fitness nihil aliud in Ecclesia a poenitenti- and utility of auricular confesbus exigi, quam ut … ea peccata sion as practiced in the Catholic {quisquej confiteatur, quibus se Church, see Oswald, Die dogmaDominum et Deum suum mortaliter tische Lehre von den hi. Sakramenofiendisse meminerit; reliqua autem ten der kath. Kirche, Vol. II, 5th peccata, quae diligenter cogitanti ed., pp. 153 sqq. non occurrunt, in universum eadem 196 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT The argument from prescription is all the more compelling in this case, as it deals not with a theoretical truth, as e. g. the Divine Trinity, or with a duty easy of performance, as the hearing of Mass or receiving Communion, but imposes a burden irksome to the pride and the passions of man. Had a pope or an ecumenical council ventured to impose such a distasteful duty on the faithful, the innovation would certainly have caused a tremendous upheaval and left deep traces in the history of the Church. But the records of the past tell us nothing of such an upheaval. On the contrary, they assure us that auricular confession was practiced at all times and from the very beginning. Consequently confession is not a human invention, nor a mere ecclesiastical precept, but a divine law. In tracing the facts, we shall begin with the present time and gradually work our way through the Middle Ages back to the early days of Christianity.1 I. The Present Time. — The opponents of confession cannot and do not deny that confession is now observed as a divine law in the Catholic Church and has been so observed since the close of the Middle Ages. For four centuries, from 1500 to date, the faithful have uncomplainingly confessed their sins in the firm conviction that without this remedy they would be lost. No calumny and no attack (and God knows there have been many), has shaken their faith in confession. When the Calvinists inveighed against auricular confession, it was not the latter but the attack made upon it that was felt to be an inlCfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. II, pp. 80 sqq.

tolerable innovation.2 This proves that confession must have existed in the Church long before the dawn of the so-called Reformation. 2. The Middle Ages. — Calvin and Dallaeus testify that confession was practiced in the Catholic Church since 12 15, for it was in that year, they claim, that Innocent III introduced the practice through the Fourth Council of the Lateran. The reference is, of course, to the famous canon Omnis utriusque sexus by which all the faithful who have arrived at the age of discretion are commanded to confess their sins at least once a year to their parish priest under pain of exclusion from the Church.8 Would the faithful of the thirteenth century have acquiesced in such a radical and onerous measure if auricular confession and the duty of confessing to the priests had not previously existed in the Church? Even from the purely historical standpoint the Tridentine Council must be admitted to be right when it characterizes Calvin’s contention as a ” vain calumny,” and remarks: “The Church did not, through the Council of the Lateran, ordain that the faithful of Christ should confess, — a thing which it knew to be necessary and instituted of divine right, — but that the precept of confession should be complied with at least once a year. …” 4 2 V. supra, Art. x. 8 On the history of this precept see A. Villien, A History of the Commandments of the Church (English tr.), St. Louis 191 5, pp. ijx188. 4Sess. XIV, cap. 5: ” Neque enim per Lateranense Concilium 198 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT It is not difficult to show that auricular confession dates back to the sixth century.5 a) The schismatic Greek Church, which cut loose from Rome under Photius (A. D. 869), did not abolish auricular confession but retained it as a divine institution. The famous Confessio orthodoxa, directed against Cyril Lucar6 by Peter Mogilas (1642), which, being signed by all the schismatic patriarchs of that time, enjoys the value of an ecclesiastical symbol, contains the following passage: ” This contrition of the heart must be followed by an oral confession of each and every sin, because the confessor cannot forgive anything if he does not know what there is to be forgiven and what sort of penance he is to impose/’ 7 A schismatic Council held at Jerusalem in 1672, in enumerating the seven Sacraments, mentions * Penance, in which there is included a secret confession.* That the Latins did not get this Sacrament from the Greeks, nor the Greeks fronj the Latins, is evident from the fact that in the course of the debates that were held at Lyons and Florence for the purpose of restoring the ancient union between the two churches, both parties accepted the doctrine of Penance as an article of faith. It follows that auricular confession must have Ecclesia statuit, ut fideles confiterentur, quod iure divine necessarium esse intellexerat, ted ut praeceptum confessionis saltern semel in anno impleretur.” 6 On Calvin’s historical blunder see Bellarmine, De Poenit., Ill, c 13. 6 On Cyril Lucar see PohlePreuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 39 sq., St. Louis 1915. 7 P. I., Interrog. 113, apud Schelstrate, p. 521: ” Hanc contritionem cordis debet sequi confessio oris omnium et singulorum peccatorum, quia non potest spiritalis [». e, confessarius] absolvere quidquam, si nesciat, quaenam debeant absolvi et quam reprehensionem det pro iUis.” CONFESSION 199 its origin in a common source antedating the Greek schism.8 b) A convincing argument for the existence of auricular confession before 12 15 is furnished by the penitential canons and books which were in use both in the Eastern and the Western Church. The so-called libri poenitentiales contain practical directions for hearing confession. We will mention only two of the most important. The first is of Oriental origin. It is ascribed to John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople (died in 595), but was probably compiled in the ninth or tenth century. Morinus has embodied it in the Appendix of his Historical Commentary on the Administration of Penance.0 In this penitential the confessor is instructed to call attention to his divine mission and to admonish the penitent not to conceal his secret sins but to declare them as though God Himself were hearing his confession.10 Then he is told to examine the penitent on the ten commandments and to inquire into the number and gravity of the grievous sins he has committed.11 The most ancient penitentials that have come down to us are of Western origin. Among them is the peniten8Cfr. PerpetuitS de la Foi, Vol. V, 1. 3, c. 3 sqq. — Similar conclusions can be drawn from the practice of other Oriental sects, regarding which see Denzinger, Ritus Orientalium, Vol. I, pp. 105 sqq., Wfirzburg 1865. 0 Morinus, Comment. Hist, de Administr. Sacram. Poenitentiae, Appendix, Paris 1 65 1. 10 * Nihil me cela eorum, quae a te clam facta sunt, velutsi Deo oc* culta cordium cognoscenti confitereris.* {Ibid.) 11 Thus he asks with regard to the Sixth Commandment: ” Quomodo primum virginitas tua corrupta est? Per fornicationem vel pet legitimum matrimonium vel per mollitiemt … Dicentem sic et sic interroget, in quot mulietes incident, … num aliquae essent ancillae, quantae viduae et quant ae nuptae,” etc. (Ibid.) 200 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT tial of Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, who was sent to England by Pope Vitalian and died in 690. This collection forms the principal source of the penitential canons that were used in the eighth and ninth centuries in the Frankish kingdom and throughout the western Church.12 c) An equally strong argument for the existence of confession may be deduced from the penitential decrees of many councils held at the beginning of the Middle Ages, e. g. the Council of Worms (868), the Council of Chalons (813), the Council of Tours (813), and the Council of Rheims (813). The first plenary council of the German nation, held in 742, appointed military chaplains for the army and commissioned them to hear confessions.18 We may also mention the instructions given by Pope Gregory the Great (+ 604) to St. Augustine, when the latter went to England (596) to convert the AngloSaxons. These facts are sufficient to disprove Lea’s assertion that confession was originally nothing more than a declaration made to God, and was imposed upon the faithful l2Cfr. Vering in Herder’s Kirchenlexikon, Vol. II, v. ” Beichtbucher.” The following monographs may also be studied with profit: Wasserschleben, Die Bussordnungen der abendl&ndischen Kirche, Halle 1851; H. J. Schmitz, Die BussbUcher und die Bussdissiplin der Kir c he, Mayence 1883; Idem, Die BussbUcher und das kanonische Bussverfakren, Dusseldorf 1897; A. M. Koniger, Bur chard I. von Worms und die deutsche Kircht seiner Zeit (1000-102$) , pp. 132 sqq.v Munich 1905. 18 ” Unusquisque praefectus militum unum presbyterum tecum hob eat, qui hominibus peccaia confitentibus indicate et poenitentiam indicore possii” CONFESSION 201 in its present form by Peter Lombard (+1164) and Hugh of St. Victor (+ 1 141). 14 But we can trace the practice of auricular confession even farther back than the sixth century; we can show that it existed in the primitive Church. 3. Confession in the First Five Centuries of the Christian Era. — Impressed by the facts cited above, most Protestant scholars now admit that confession originated in the fifth century, or possibly in the third. Some say it is an invention of Pope Leo the Great (+461), while others claim it began to be practiced during the persecution of Decius (250). Both assertions can be easily refuted. a) The claim that confession was introduced by Pope Leo the Great (440-461 ) is based upon a misunderstanding. Leo the Great, in a severe letter to the bishops of Campania, says that he has been informed that penitents in that province were required to read their sins publicly to the assembled congregation. This, he declares, is ” opposed to the Apostolic rule ; ” it is a serious abuse which must be abolished at once, since auricular confession to the priest alone suffices. The text runs as follows: ” Illam etiam contra apostolicam regulam praesumptionetn, quatn nuper agnovi a quibusdam illicita usurpation committi, modis omnibus constituo submoveri: de poenitentia scil, quae a fidelibus postulatur, ne de Singula H. C. Lea, A History of Auricular Confession, Vol. I, ch. 8, Philadelphia 1896. lorum peccatorum genere libello scripta professio public e recitetur, quutn reatas conscientiarum sufficiat soiis sacerdotibus indicari confessions seer eta? 15 The Pope in this passage plainly acknowledges secret, i. e. auricular confession to be an Apostolic institution and condemns insistence on the public confession of secret sins as a violation of ” the Apostolic rule ” and ” an illicit usurpation.” Hence the document cited, far from proving the assertion of our opponents, flatly disproves it, and Leo the Great stands before the bar of history as a classic witness to the practice of auricular confession. b) In vain do our opponents seek shelter in the dark recesses of the third century. To prove that confession was made compulsory in the Decian persecution (250-251), under the influence of the Novatian schism, they cite a scandalous occurrence which happened at Constantinople under Nectarius, the immediate predecessor of St. Chrysostom. The Greek Church historian Socrates tells the story as follows : 16 ” At about this time [390 A. D.] the priests penitentiary17 were done away with for the following reason. After the Novatians had separated from the Church because of their refusal to have any intercourse with those who had apostatized during the persecution of Decius, the bishops had appointed a priest penitentiary … [In 390, under the Patriarch Nectarius] a noble lady approached the priest penitentiary and confessed in de15 Ep. ad Episc. Campan., 168, if robs M rifS fierapolas irp€

tail 18 all the sins she had committed since her baptism. The priest imposed upon her fasting and continuous prayers, that she might prove her penitence by deeds. After some time19 the lady confessed another grievous sin, namely that a deacon of the Church had had carnal intercourse with her. As soon as she had said this, the deacon was expelled from the church, but the people began to get violently excited. They were indignant, not only because of the crime which had been committed, but also for the reason that the Church seemed to have suffered a terrible shame and disgrace… . When, in consequence, the clergy were subjected to mockery, the Alexandrine presbyter Eudaimon advised Nectarius to abolish the office of priest penitentiary and to admit every one to participation in the Sacraments according to his own judgment and conscience; for only in this way [he said] can the Church be cleansed of disgrace.” The incident is reported in similar language by Sozomen20 and Nicephorus Callistus.21 Pointing to the story told by these early Church historians, Calvin triumphantly exclaims : ” Now let these asses prick their ears ; if auricular confession was a divine command, how could Nec- v tarius have dared to abolish it?” Calvin’s argument is that the Church introduced auricular confession during the Decian persecution (215), and abolished it under Nectarius (390), and that consequently the practice was and is of purely ecclesiastical institution. We Catholics, on the contrary, see in this incident a new proof for the Apostolic origin of confession. It is plain from Socrates’ story that to confess one’s sins “ar& fjJpos. 20 Hist. Bed, VII, 16. 1 wpopalrovaa, progressu tern- 21 Hist. EccL, XII, 28. Ports; — the meaning of this word is not entirely clear. in detail,22 — whether in public or in private, — was the recognized practice as early as 251 A. D., nay even earlier, since before the appointment of penitentiary priests confessions were personally heard by the bishops. Sozomen emphasizes the necessity of confession as strongly as he approves the abolition of public confession. He says : ” For since it is necessary to confess one’s sins in order to obtain forgiveness, it naturally seemed from the beginning an inconvenient thing and a burden that men should reveal their crimes to the priests as in a theatre, with all the members of the congregation standing around. Therefore there was chosen from among the presbyters one distinguished by his uprightness, reserve, and discretion, to whom the duty of hearing the confession of sinners was assigned.” 28 No matter how we interpret the story of the noble lady of Constantinople, whether we assume that she confessed her sin twice, first in public and then in private, or only once ; whether we understand Nectarius to have abolished the public confession of secret sins or merely the four penitential stations ; 24 — it is certain that the Patriarch did not abolish confession as such, for the practice continued in vogue after his death. One of the charges made against his successor, St. Chrysostom, at the notorious Council of the Oaks (A. D. 403), was that he was too lenient in the confessional.25 This ” fault,” we may inci22*ar& fjJpatf sigillatim. 23 Loco cit. (Migne, P. C, LXVII, M59). 24Cfr. Chr. Pesch, Proelect. Dogmat., Vol. VII, 3rd ed., pp. 188 sqq., Freiburg 1909. 25 Quoted by Photius, Cod., 59 (Migne, P.G., CIII, m): St iterum peccasti, iterum poenitentiam age, et quo ties, peccaveris, vent ad me, ego te sanabo. — On the abolition of the office of priest penitentiary in Constantinople under Nectarius, see 8. Jungmann, Dissert. Select, in Hist. EcclesiasL, Vol. II, pp. 137 sqq., Ratisbon 1881; C. Rauschen, JahrbUcher der christl. Kirche unter dem Kaiser Theodosius d. Cr., pp. 537 sqq., Freiburg 1897. dentally note, St. Chrysostom shared with St. Ambrose (+397), whose biographer says: ” Quotiescumque illi aliquis ob percipiendam poenitentiatn lapsus suos confessus esset, ita flebat, ut et ilium Here compelleret; videbatur enim sibi cum iacente iacere. Causas autem criminum quae illi confitebantur, nulli nisi Domino soli, apud quern inter cedebat, loquebatur.” 26 We have quoted this passage in the original, because it seems to us to contain decisive proof not only for the practice of confession in general, but likewise for auricular confession, and for the seal of the confessional. We have thus brought the argument for the existence of sacramental confession down to the year 250. Montanism furnishes convincing evidence that the practice is still older. The Montanists drew a sharp distinction between forgivable and unforgivable sins. This distinction would have been futile in the case of secret sins, had not the priest been enabled by confession to determine whether he could absolve the penitent or not. As this Montanistic error was taught as early as A. D. 150, confession must have existed in the Church before that time, in other words, it must have existed in the Apostolic age, and if it existed in the Apostolic age, it is undoubtedly of divine institution.27 2« Vita S. Ambrosii, n. 39. 27Cfr. supra, Part I, Ch. I, Sect 3, Art 2; Ch. II, Sect I, Art 2.

Article 3:

THE PATRISTIC ARGUMENT Having shown that confession was universally practiced in the Catholic Church since Leo the Great (+ 461), we can limit the Patristic argument to the first five centuries. Some of the texts we have cited to demonstrate the power of the keys,1 directly, or at least indirectly, prove the divine institution of confession. Nevertheless, confession is so important a part of the Sacrament of Penance, through which the Church exercises the power of the keys, that it is worth while to seek for additional confirmation of the practice in the writings of the Fathers. We begin with the later testimonies, as they throw light on the earlier ones and enable us to trace the development of the dogma in the minds of the faithful. The Patristic proof for confession is rendered difficult r by the fact that, as Professor Rauschen points out, ” the Greek word ifrpokoytiaSai has a twofold meaning, ‘to confess’ and ‘to do penance/ just as the Latin word confiteri may signify both confession before men and an outpouring of the heart to God.” 2 i. The Fathers of the Fifth Century. — Pope Leo the Great (+ 461), whom we have al1 V. supra, Part I, Ch. I, Sect fteatinus, De Sacram. Confessionis 2, Art. 2, s, Poenitentiae Historia ex SS. Pa2 Eucharist and Penance in the tribus, in Zaccaria, Thesaurus First Six Centuries of the Church, TheoL, Vol. XI, Venice 1763; Vap. 214, St Louis 19 1 3. — Collec- candard, “La Confession dans tions of Patristic texts bearing on VEglise Latine du 5. au 13. Steele/’ this topic may be found in Klee, in the Revue dn ClergS Francois, Die Beichte, Frankfort 1828; Vict 1905, pp. 339 sqq.

ready quoted on a previous page,3 declares it impossible for a sinner to be saved unless he confesses his sins to a priest.4 St: Augustine compares the sinful conscience to an abscess filled with pus, the priest to a surgeon, and confession to the lancing of the abscess, whereby the pus is caused “to come out and flow off.” 5 He warns sinners not to postpone confession because it is uncertain whether at the last moment they will have an opportunity to confess their sins to a priest.6 The teaching of St. Chrysostom is deserving of special consideration because heretical writers represent him as opposed to the duty of confession. We have heard that he was accused of being too lenient with his penitents.7 How could % Supra, pp. aox tq. 4Ep. 108, c. 2: “Multiplex misericordia Dei ita lapsibus subvenit humanis, ut non solum per baptismi gratiam, sed etiam per poenitentiae medicinam spes vitae reparetur aetemae, ut qui regenerations dona violassent, proprio se iudicio condemnantes ad remissionem criminum pervenWent, sic divimae bonitatis praesidiis ordinatis, ut indulgentia Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequeat obtineri. Mediator enim Dei et hominum homo Christ us Iesus hone praepositis Ecclesiae tradidit potestatem, ut et contentions actionem poenitentiae darent et eosdem salubri satisfaction pur gat os ad communionem sacramentorum per ianuam reconciliation’s admitterenW (Migne, P. L„ LIV, 1011). 5 In Ps., 66, n. 6: “Ergo tristis es, antequam confitearis, confesses exulta, torn sanaberis. Conscientia tua saniem collegerat, aposterna tumuerat, cruciabat te, requiescere non sinebat: adhibet medicus [sacerdos; cfr. Serm., 351, c. 4] f omenta verborum et aliquando secat. Adhibet medicmale ferrum in correptione tribulationis. Tu agnosce niedici manum, confitere, exeat in confessions et defluat sanies.” 6 Serm., 393 : ” Quia si ad ultimum vitae steterit, nescit si ipsam Poenitentiam accipere ac Deo ac sacerdoti peccata sua conHteri poterit.” 7 Supra, p. 204. 2o8 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT this have been if he did not hear confessions? Listen to his own words: “Let us, therefore, also imitate this [the Samaritan] woman and let us not fear men [i. e. priests] 8 in the avowal of our sins, but let us fear God, who now sees our evil deeds and will later on punish those who refuse to do penance now. While we have no fear of Him who will judge [us], we tremble before those who cannot injure us, lest we suffer a loss of honor in their eyes… . Thou hast committed a sin and hidest it before men, but thou canst not hide it from God.* 0 In another place St. Chrysostom says : *In order that we, too, may understand His friendship for men, let us not be ashamed to confess our sins ; 10 for great is the virtue of confession, and strong its power.” 11 The nature of the Sacrament of Penance is thus described by the same Patristic writer : “What, then, is the nature of the medicine of penance, and how is it prepared? First by a perception of one’s sins 12 and [then] by confession.18 For if thou hast confessed thy sin as it ought to be confessed, the spirit becomes humble. But something must be added to humil10 i£ono\oyci

ity, … we must conduct ourselves properly towards the priests/’ 14 The question has been asked : Why does St. Chrysostom so often admonish penitents who are ashamed to declare their sins, that they need confess them only to God? — as in this passage: “I do not lead thee into a theatre filled with thy fellows, nor do I compel thee to reveal thy sins to men; open thy conscience to God and show Him thy wounds.” 15 It is probable that, as public confession had been abolished at Constantinople by his predecessor, St. Chrysostom in thus expressing himself wished to call attention to the seal of the confessional by which confession made to the priest becomes to all practical intents and purposes a confession made to God alone. However, as this explanation is not certain, and St. Chrysostom’s language is by no means as clear as it might be, we must admit that while he unmistakably attests the power of the Church to forgive sins, he is not a convincing witness in favor of auricular confession. 2. The Fathers of the Fourth Century. — Dr. Rauschen has called attention to the fact that the testimony of St. Ambrose in his treatise De Poenitentia,1* which is generally quoted in this connection, is of doubtful value because it refers not to outward confession, but to the inward acknowledgment of sins committed.17 St. Pacian of Barcelona (+391) admonishes those 14 Horn, in Hebr., n. 9, n. 4 16 De Poenit,, II, 6, 40. (Migne, P. G., LXIII, 80). 17 Rauschen, Eucharist and Pen15 Horn, de Incomprehens., 5 ance in the First Six Centuries of (Migne, P. G„ XLVIII, 746). the Church, p. 215. 2io THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT who have not been ashamed to commit grievous sins, to ” cease to hide their wounded conscience ” and to follow the prudent example of ” the sick who do not fear the physician, though he cut and burn even the secret parts of the body.” 18 Lactantius (+ about 330) says that “the true Church is that in which there is confession and penance, which applies a wholesome remedy to the sins and wounds whereunto the weakness of the flesh is subject.” 19 The so-called “Penitential Letters” of St. Basil (+ 379) contain many references to auricular confession. The question whether a sinner ” should reveal forbidden deeds to all, or merely to some men, and to whom,” he answers thus : ” In confession we must observe the same order as in revealing bodily diseases. As men do not make known their bodily ailments to anybody and everybody, but only to those who are skilled in healing, so confession of sins ought to be made to those who can cure them.” 20 Another question, vis.: ” Shall the penitent sinner confess to anyone, and to whom?” he answers as follows: ” He must confess to those to whom is entrusted the administration of the mysteries of God.” 21 St. Basil also insists on the conscientious observance of the seal. ” Our forefathers,” he says, ” have indeed forbidden the public exposure of women who are guilty of adultery and 18 Paraenes. ad Poenit., n. 6, 8: ” Vos ergo primum appello, fratres, qui criminibus admissis poenitentiam recusatis; vos, inquom, post impudentiam timidos, post peccata verecundos, qui peccare non erubescitis et erubescitis conHterL … Rogo ergo vos, fratres, etiam pro periculo meo per ilium Dominum, quern occulta non fallunt, desinite vulneratam tegere conscientiam. Prudentes aegri medicos non verentur, ne in occultis quidem corporum partibus etiam secaturos, etiam perusturos.” iQDiv. lnstit., IV, c 30: “Ilia est vera Ecclesia, in qua est confessio et poenitentia, quae peccata et vulnera, quibus est subiecta imbecillitas carnis, salubriter curat” 20 Regula Brev,, 229 (Migne, P. G„ XXXI, 123s). 21 Reg. Brev., 288 (Migne, P. C, XXXI, 1283). CONFESSION 211 piously confess their sin, in order that their lives may not be endangered ; but they have ordained that these women shall stand without communion [i. e. take their place in the fourth penitential station] until the term of penance has expired.” 22 3. The Fathers of the Third Century. — Our principal witnesses for the third century are St. Cyprian (+258) and Origen (+ 254). We have already told how St. Cyprian defended the necessity of penance and confession for those who had apostatized in the Decian persecution (250-251). 28 Against the excessive demands of certain rigorists he pleads for greater mildness in the treatment of sinners, ” since we find that no one ought to be forbidden to do penance and that to those who implore the mercy of God … peace can be granted through His priests… . And because in hell there is no confession, nor can exomologesis be made there, they who repent with their whole heart and ask for it, should be received into the Church and therein saved unto the Lord.” 24 What interests us still more is that St. Cyprian insists on the duty of confessing mere sins of thought. He says that many who do not do penance or confess their guilt, are filled with unclean spirits, and by contrast praises the greater faith and more wholesome fear of those who, though not guilty of any 22 Bp, Can. ad Amphil., 2, can. eius pacem posse concedi, admit34 (Migne, P. G., XXXII, 727). tendus est plangentium gemitus et 23 V. supra, p. 31. poenitentiae fructus dolentibus non 24 Ep. ad Antonian., 55, n. 29 negandus. Et quia apud inferos (ed. Hartcl, II, 647) : ” Quodsi confessio non est nec exotnologesis inveniamus a poenitentia agenda illic fieri potest, qui ex toto corde neminem debere prohiberi et depre- poenituerint et rogaverint, in Ecclecantibus atque exorantibus Domini siam debent interim suscipi et in misericordiam . . • per sacerdotes ipsa Domino reservari.”

idolatrous deeds, ” nevertheless, because they entertained the thought [of such deeds] confess [their thought] in sorrow and simplicity to the priests of God, make the exomologesis of their conscience, lay bare the burden of their soul, and seek a salutary remedy even for those wounds that are slight.* 25 Origen writes in the second of his Homilies on the Psalms: *Consider, therefore, that Scripture teaches we must not inwardly conceal sin. For as those who, having undigested food or an ulcer in the stomach, find relief in vomiting, so those who have sinned are distressed and almost choked by the slime or phlegm of sin if they conceal and keep it within themselves. But if a man accuses himself and confesses, he vomits up his crime and casts out every cause of disease. Now take care to whom 26 thou shouldst confess thy sins. First prove the physician to whom thou art obliged to explain the cause of thy weakness, who knows how to be sick with the infirm and weep with the sorrowing, who is familiar with the practice of sympathy and compassion, in order that, following the word of him who has proved himself to be an experienced physician, thou comply with his advice and follow it. When he perceives and counsels that thy illness is such that thou must confess it before the face of the whole congregation, whereby perhaps the others are edified and thou thyself canst be easily healed, this should 2i De Lapsis, c 26 sqq.: ” Quam tamen de hoc cogitaverunt, hoc ipmulti quotidie poenitentiam non sum apud sacerdotes Dei dole titer agentes nec delicti sui conscientiam et simpliciter conHtentes exomologeconHtentes immundis spiritibus adim- sim conscientiae faciunt, animi sui plentur, … Nec evasisse se ere- pondus exponunt, salutarem mededat, si eum interim poena distulerit, lam parvis licet et mo diets vulneriquum timere plus deb eat quam sibi bus exquirunt, scientes scriptum Dei iudicis ira servavit … Quanto esse {.Gal. IV, 7): Deus non deet fide maiores et timore meliores ridetur.” sunt, qui quamvis nullo sacrificii aut 26 That is, to what priest, cfr. Itbelli facinore constricti, quoniam supra, pp. 31 sq. be done with due deliberation and according to the prudent advice of the doctor.” 27 From this interesting passage we might almost conclude that, in the Orient, public confession developed from auricular confession, rather than vice versa. This much is certain, at any rate, that in Qrigen’s time public confession (except in case of the three capital crimes of apostasy, murder, and fornication) was not a matter of duty but merely of counsel in the Eastern Church. 4. The Fathers of the Second Century. — Among the Fathers of the second century St. Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202) and Tertullian of Carthage (b. 160) can be cited in support of auricular confession. Irenaeus, in relating the story of the women seduced by Marcus the Gnostic, seems to distinguish between public and secret (or auricular) confession. ” Some of them/’ he says, “perform their exomologesis openly, while others, afraid to do this, draw back in silence/’ The crucial passage reads as follows: M phr *al efc avtpbv i£ofwKoyovvT

some of the women did, while others could not be prevailed upon to make a public confession. Tertullian emphasizes the necessity of doing penance for sinful thoughts as well as deeds.29 He condemns the false shame which prevents many from making a public confession of their sins and thus causes them to be lost. ” Is it better to hide and be damned,,, he asks, ” than to be openly absolved? ” 80 The few Patristic fragments that have come down from the first century do not permit us to say for certain whether the confession of which the early Fathers speak was merely an outpouring of the heart before God or a declaration made to a priest. Clement of Rome exhorts the rebellious Corinthians : ” Let us then pray, that for our transgressions, and for what we have done, … forgiveness may be granted to us… . For it is better for man to confess his transgressions than to harden his heart.” 81 As the later must have been a continuation of the earlier practice, and as St. Clement in the same epistle admonishes the Corinthians to “submit to the presbyters,” 82 it is fair to conclude that confession was made to the priests. 20 De Poenit., c. 4: “Omnibus delicti* seu came sen spiritu, sett facto seu voluntate commissi*, qui poenam per iudicium destinavit, idem et veniam per poenitentiam spopondit.* 80 De Poenit., cap. 10: * Plerosque tamen hoc opus {confessionis] ut publicationem sui aut suffugere aut de die in diem differre praesumo, pudoris magis memores quam salutis: velut Mi qui in partibus verecundioribus corporis contracta vexatione conscientiam medentium vitant et ita cum erubescentia sua pereunt… . Grande plane emolumentum verecundiae occultatio delicti pollicetur: videl. si quid humanae notitiae subduxerimus, proinde et Deum celabimusf adeone existimatio hominum et Dei conscientia comparanturf An melius est damnatum latere quam palam absolvif * 31 Ep. ad Corinth., I, 51, 1 (ed. Funk, I, 125) : * Quaecumque deliquimus et fecimus … eorum remissionem imploremus… . Melius est homini peccata sua conHteri quam indurare cor suum.” Z2Ep. ad Corinth., I, 57. A similar interpretation may be put upon a passage in the DidachS (about A. D. 96), which reads: “In the church [hence not before God alone] thou shalt confess thy transgressions (i$ofio\oyij

Henry Charles Lea’s Historical Writings: A Critical Inquiry into Their Method and Merit, New York 1009) ; P. H. Casey, S. J., Notes on a History of Auricular Confession: H. C. Lea’s Account of the Power of the Keys in the Early Church, Philadelphia 1899.