Confession — The Patristic Argument

Article 3: The Patristic Argument

Having shown that confession was universally practiced in the Catholic Church since Leo the Great (d. 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 by the fact that, as Professor Rauschen points out, “the Greek word for ‘confess’ 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

1. The Fathers of the Fifth Century. Pope Leo the Great (d. 461), whom we have already quoted,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 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] 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.”⁸ In another place St. Chrysostom says: “In order that we, too, may understand His friendship, let us not be ashamed to confess our sins; for great is the virtue of confession, and strong its power.”⁹ 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 disavowal of one’s own sins and [then] by confession. For if thou hast confessed thy sin as it ought to be confessed, the spirit becomes humble. But something must be added to humility … we must conduct ourselves properly towards the priests.”¹⁰

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.”¹¹ 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,¹² 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.¹³

St. Pacian of Barcelona (d. 391) admonishes those 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.”¹⁴

Lactantius (d. c. 330) says that “the true Church is that in which there is confession and penance, by which wholesome remedy is applied to the sins and wounds whereunto the weakness of the flesh is subject.”¹⁵

The so-called “Penitential Letters” of St. Basil (d. 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.”¹⁶ Another question, viz., “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.”¹⁷ 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 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.”¹⁸

3. The Third Century. Our principal witnesses for the third century are St. Cyprian (d. 258) and Origen (d. 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). 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.”¹⁹ 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 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 secret.”²⁰

Origen writes in his second Homily 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 whom²¹ 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 be done with due deliberation and according to the prudent advice of the doctor.”²² 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 Origen’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 Second Century. Among the Fathers and ecclesiastical writers 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.”²³ This “even in public” (etiam in manifesto) suggests that they had first confessed in private. If this interpretation is correct, the incident may be briefly described as follows: the guilty women first confessed their sins privately; but as the crime had been notorious, the confessor obliged them to make a public confession, which was to serve at the same time as a penance and a reparation of the scandal given. This 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.²⁴ 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?”²⁵

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.”²⁶ As the latter 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,”²⁷ it is fair to conclude that confession was made to the priests.

A similar interpretation may be put upon a passage in the Didache (about A.D. 96), which reads: “In the church [hence not before God alone] thou shalt confess thy transgressions, and thou shalt not betake thyself to prayer with an evil conscience.”²⁸ This text does not, however, prove the sacramental character of confession, because it is silent regarding absolution.

Readings: Denys de Sainte-Marthe, Traité de la Confession, Paris 1865. — H. Klee, Die Beichte, Frankfort 1828. — Siemers, Die sakramentale Beichte, Münster 1884. — Jenkins, The Doctrine and Practice of Auricular Confession, London 1783. — St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori, Homo Apostolicus Instructus in sua Vocatione ad Audiendas Confessiones, ed. Ratisb. 1862. — J.J.A. Kinkel, Die Beichte in den ersten christlichen Jahrhunderten, Mayence 1879. — O. Fr. Cambier, De Divina Institutione Confessionis Sacramentalis, Louvain 1884. — A. Egger, Die Beichte in der hl. Schrift und in der kath. Kirche, St. Gallen 1901. — P.A. Kirsch, Zur Geschichte der kath. Beichte, Würzburg 1902. — J. Gartmeier, Die Beichtpflicht, Ratisbon 1905. — A.M. Königer, Die Beichte nach Cäsarius von Heisterbach, Munich 1906. — E.J. Hanna in the Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, pp. 625–628. — R. Melia, A Treatise on Auricular Confession: Dogmatical, Historical, and Practical, Dublin, n.d. — Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 184 sqq., St. Louis 1913. — E. Vacandard, “Les Origines de la Confession Sacramentelle,” in that writer’s Études de Critique et d’Histoire Religieuse, 2e série, pp. 51–125, Paris 1910. — B.J. Otten, S.J., A Manual of the History of Dogmas, Vol. I, St. Louis 1917, pp. 93, 179, 184, 206, 352, 473. — Fr. Hünermann, Die Busslehre des hl. Augustinus, Paderborn 1914. — H. Keane, S.J., “The Sacrament of Penance in St. John Chrysostom,” Irish Theol. Quarterly, Vol. XIV (1919), No. 56, pp. 305–317.

The leading non-Catholic writers on the history of auricular confession are: G.E. Steitz, Das römische Bussakrament, Frankfort 1854. — Th. Kliefoth, Die Beichte und die Absolution, Schwerin 1856. — Henry Charles Lea, A History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church, 3 vols., Philadelphia 1896.

Against Lea, P.M. Baumgarten, Die Werke von Henry Charles Lea und verwandte Bücher, Münster i. W. 1908 (English tr., Henry Charles Lea’s Historical Writings: A Critical Inquiry into Their Method and Merit, New York 1909); 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.

On the seal of confession see B. Kurtscheid, O.F.M., Das Beichtsiegel in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Freiburg 1912; R.S. Nolan in the Cath. Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, pp. 649–665.