![](https://img1.daumcdn.net/relay/cafe/original/?fname=http%3A%2F%2Fuser.chollian.net%2F%7Eutora25%2Ffloat2.gif)
2007. 성탄을을 맞이하기
위하여 St.Cecilia 성당에서
화해 성사의 은총을 받았습니다.
화해(고백)성사에 관해서는
여러가지 이론이 있을 수 있으나,
우리가 몸(육신)이 아플때는
의사를 찾아가서 치료를 받듯이
정신이 병들었을 때는 하느님
으로 부터 치료를 받는 것이 정신
건강에 좋다고 생각하면
이론의 여지가 없을 것 같습니다.
하느님을 대리해서 사제인
신부님이 성사를 주시니까 우리
평신도들은 큰 은총을 받는
것입니다. Ivan
Nienhaus 주임 신부님의 강론말씀은
하느님
과의 화해의 뜻은
New beginning 이라고 정의해 주셔서 더욱
큰
감명을 받았습니다. 개별로 신부님들에게서 고백성사를
받기
전에 Kyrie를 함께 찬양드리고
복음 말씀을 듣고 강론을 듣고
고해성사를 받은것도 너무
형식주의에 치우치는 우리나라 교구의
화해성사와 다르다하는 점을
발견하였습니다. 남이 잘하는 것은
어느 분야든지 밴치마킹하는 것이
좋을 것 같습니다. 매년
느끼는 것이지만 성사의
은총을 받으면 누구나 기쁩니다.
전 세계 카톨릭
신자는 일년에 반드시 두번(성탄과
부활전) 의무적
으로 화해(고백)
성사를 받아야 하는교회법 규정이 있습니다. 서울에
있을 때는 정신적으로,
영적으로 인생상담도 해주시고 고백성사를
주시는 인자하신 하요셉
신부님(메리놀 수도회 소속)이 늘 가까이
계셔서 늘 은총을 주셨습니다.
교황님이나
추기경님들도 고백성사를 받으십니다. 그분들도 고백 성사를 주시는 신부님이 따로 계시기에 교황님이나 추기경님들도 고백성사를 보시는 것은 마찬가지 입니다.
교황님이나 추기경님들도 겸손하게 사라는 주님의 말씀에
순응하고 요한복음에 주님께서
말씀해주시는 고백성사에 관한 말씀을 손수 겸손하게 실천하시는 것이랍니다. 혹자는 나는 새벽 미사도 한번도 거르지 않고 십게명도 잘 지키고
하느님 사랑과 이웃 사랑을 잘 실천하고 있으므로 고백(화해)성사를 받을 필요가 없다고 한다면 그것보다 더 어리석은 것은 아마 없을 것입니다.
주님께서 기도하는 방법을 예시해 주셨듯이 죄중에 있는 우리의 잘못을 하느님으로 부터 용서받는 것 보다 더 중요한 것은 없을 것입니다. 그래서
천주교 신자들은 누구나 죽음을 맞이하면 죽음에 임하여 마지막으로 고백성사를 받도록 교회에서 은총을 주신것도 바로 주님께서 우리에게 베풀어
주시는 큰 은총입니다.
근거: 요한복음 20장 22절 -
23절
|
|
|
|
|
The Sacrament of Penance
("A History of Auricular Confession",
Vol. II, p. 456) says: "No one can deny that there is truth in Cardinal
Newman's argument: 'How many souls are there in distress, anxiety and
loneliness, whose one need is to find a being to whom they can pour out their
feelings unheard by the world. They want to tell them and not to tell them, they
wish to tell them to one who is strong enough to hear them, and yet not too
strong so as to despise them'"; and then Mr. Lea adds: "It is this weakness of humanity on which the Church has speculated, the weakness of those
unable to bear their burdens . . . who find comfort in the system built up
through the experience of the ages", etc. It has been made clear that the
Church has simply carried out the
mind of Christ: "Whatever you shall loose shall be
loosed"; still we do not hesitate to accept Mr. Lea's reason, that this institution answers in large
measure to the needs of men, who morally are indeed weak and in darkness. True, Mr. Lea denies the probability of finding
men capable of exercising aright this great ministry, and he prefers to
enumerate the rare abuses which the weakness of priests has caused, rather than to listen to the millions who
have found in the tribunal of penance a remedy for their
anxieties of mind, and a peace and security of conscience the value of which is untold. The very
abuses of which he speaks at such length have been the occasion of greater care,
greater diligence, on the part of the Church. The few inconveniences arising from the
perversity of men, which the Church has met with admirable legislation, should
not blind men to the great good that
confession has brought, not only to the individual, but even to society. Thinking men even
outside the Church have acknowledged the usefulness to
society of the tribunal of
penance. Amongst these the words of Leibniz are not unknown ("Systema theologicum",
Paris, 1819, p. 270): "This whole work of sacramental penance is indeed
worthy of the Divine wisdom and if aught else in the Christian
dispensation is meritorious of praise, surely this wondrous
institution. For the necessity of confessing one's sins deters a man from committing them, and hope is given to him who may have fallen again
after expiation. The pious and prudent confessor is in very deed a great instrument in
the hands of God for man's regeneration. For the kindly advice of God's priest helps man to control his passions, to know the lurking places of sin, to avoid the occasions of evil doing, to restore ill-gotten goods, to have hope after depression and doubt, to have peace after affliction, in a word,
to remove or at least lessen all evil, and if there is no pleasure on earth like
unto a faithful friend, what must be the esteem a man must have for him, who is
in very deed a friend in the hour of his direst need?" Nor
is Leibniz alone in expressing this feeling of the
great benefits that may come from the use of confession.
Protestant theologians realize, not only the value of the
Catholic theological position, but also the need of the
confessional for the spiritual regeneration of their subjects. Dr. Martensen, in
his "Christian Dogmatics" (Edinburgh, 1890), p. 443, thus outlines his views: "Absolution in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, derived from the full power of binding and
loosing which the church has inherited from the
apostles, is not unconditional, but depends on
the same condition on which the gospel itself adjudges the forgiveness of
sins, namely, change of heart and faith. If reform is to take place here, it must
be effected either by endeavouring to revive private confession,
or, as has been proposed, by doing away with the union between
confession and the Lord's Supper, omitting, that is, the solemn absolution, because what it presupposes (personal
confession of sin) has fallen into disuse, and retaining only
the words of preparation, with the exhortation to self-examination, a testifying
of the comfortable promises of the gospel, and a wish for a blessing upon the communicants." Under the head
of "Observations" he states: "It cannot easily be denied that
confession meets a deep need of human nature. There is a great psychological truth in the saying of Pascal, that a man often attains for the first
time a true sense of sin, and a true stayedness in his
good purpose, when he confesses his sins to his fellow man, as well as to God. Catholicism has often been commended because by confession it affords an opportunity of depositing the confession of his sins in the breast of another
man where it remains kept under the
seal of the most sacred secrecy, and whence the
consolation of the forgiveness of sins is given him in the very name of the Lord."
True, he believes that this great need is met more fully
with the kind of confession practised in Lutheranism, but he does not hesitate to add: "It
is a matter of regret that private confession, as an institution,
meeting as it does this want in a regular manner, has fallen into disuse; and
that the objective point of union is wanting for the many, who desire to
unburden their souls by confessing not to God only but to a fellowman, and who feel their
need of comfort and of forgiveness, which anyone indeed may draw for himself
from the gospel, but which in many instances he may desire
to hear spoken by a man, who speaks in virtue of the authority of his holy office." Penance is a sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ in which forgiveness of sins committed after baptism is granted through the priest's absolution to those who with true sorrow confess their sins and promise to satisfy for the same. It is
called a "sacrament" not simply a function or ceremony, because it is an outward sign
instituted by Christ to impart grace to the
soul. As an outward sign it comprises the actions
of the penitent in presenting himself to the priest and accusing himself of his sins, and the actions of the priest in pronouncing absolution and imposing satisfaction. This whole
procedure is usually called, from one of its parts, "confession", and it is said
to take place in the "tribunal of penance", because it
is a judicial process in which the penitent is at once the accuser, the
person accused, and the witness, while the priest pronounces judgment and
sentence. The grace conferred is
deliverance from the guilt of sin and, in the case of mortal sin, from its eternal punishment; hence also reconciliation
with God, justification.
Finally, the confession is made not in the secrecy of the
penitent's heart nor to a layman as friend and advocate, nor to a
representative of human authority, but to a duly ordained priest with requisite jurisdiction and with the "power of
the keys", i.e., the power to forgive sins which Christ granted to His Church. By way of further
explanation it is needful to correct certain erroneous views regarding this
sacrament which not only misrepresent the actual
practice of the Church but also lead to a false interpretation of theological statement and historical evidence.
From what has been said it should be clear: that penance is not
a mere human invention devised by the Church to secure power over consciences or to relieve the emotional strain of
troubled souls; it is the ordinary means appointed by
Christ for the remission of sin. Man indeed is free to obey or
disobey, but once he has sinned, he must seek pardon not on
conditions of his own choosing but on those which
God has determined, and these for the Christian are embodied in the
Sacrament of Penance. No Catholic believes that a priest simply as an individual man, however pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone; but He can and does exercise it
through the ministration of men. Since He has seen fit to exercise it by means
of this sacrament, it cannot be said that the Church or the priest interferes between the soul and God; on the contrary, penance is
the removal of the one obstacle that keeps the soul away from God.It is not true that for the Catholic the mere "telling of one's sins" suffices to obtain their forgiveness.
Without sincere sorrow and purpose of amendment, confession
avails nothing, the pronouncement of absolution is of no effect, and the guilt of the sinner is greater than before. While this sacrament as a dispensation of Divine mercy facilitates the
pardoning of sin, it by no means renders sin less hateful or its consequences less dreadful to the
Christian mind; much less does it imply permission to
commit sin in the future. In paying ordinary debts, as e.g., by monthly settlements, the intention of contracting new debts with the same creditor is perfectly
legitimate; a similar intention on the part of him who confesses his
sins would not only be wrong in itself but would
nullify the sacrament and prevent the forgiveness of
sins then and there confessed. Strangely enough,
the opposite charge is often heard, viz., that the confession of
sin is intolerable and hard and therefore alien
to the spirit of Christianity and the loving kindness of its
Founder. But this view, in the first place, overlooks the fact that Christ, though merciful, is also just and
exacting. Furthermore, however painful or humiliating confession
may be, it is but a light penalty for the violation of God's
law. Finally, those who are in earnest about their
salvation count no hardship too great whereby
they can win back God's friendship. Both these accusations,
of too great leniency and too great severity, proceed as a rule from those who
have no experience with the sacrament and only
the vaguest ideas of what the
Church teaches
or of the power to forgive sins which the Church received
from Christ.
Teaching of the Church
The Council of Trent (1551) declares:
As a means of regaining
grace and justice, penance was
at all times necessary for those who had defiled
their souls with any mortal
sin. . . . Before the
coming of Christ,
penance was not a sacrament, nor is it since
His coming a sacrament for those who are not
baptized. But
the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance,
when, being raised from the dead, he breathed upon His
disciples saying: 'Receive ye
the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are
forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are
retained' (John 20:22-23). By which
action so signal and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever
understood that the power of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and to their lawful
successors, for the reconciling of the faithful who have fallen after Baptism. (Sess. XIV, c. i) Farther
on the council expressly states that Christ left priests, His own
vicars, as judges (praesides et
judices), unto whom all the mortal crimes into which the faithful may have
fallen should be revealed in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may
pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or
retention of sins" (Sess. XIV, c. v)
Power to Forgive Sins
It is noteworthy that the fundamental objection so often urged
against the Sacrament of Penance was first thought of by the Scribes when Christ said to the sick man of the palsy: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." "And there were some of
the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why doth
this man speak thus? he blasphemeth. Who can forgive sins but God only?" But Jesus seeing their thoughts, said to them: "Which
is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up
thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of
man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say
to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Mark
2:5-11; Matthew
9:2-7). Christ wrought a miracle to show that He had power to forgive
sins and that this power could be exerted not
only in heaven but also on earth. This power, moreover,
He transmitted to Peter and the other Apostles. To Peter He says: "And I will give to
thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it
shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth,
it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew
16:19). Later He says to all the Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you
shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon
earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matthew
18:18). As to the meaning of these texts, it should be
noted: that the "binding" and "loosing" refers not to physical but to spiritual
or moral bonds among which sin is certainly included; the more so because
the power here granted is unlimited -- "whatsoever you shall bind, . . .
whatsoever you shall loose"; the power is judicial, i.e., the
Apostles are authorized to bind and to
loose; whether they bind or loose, their action is ratified in heaven. In healing the palsied
man Christ declared that "the Son of
man has power on earth to forgive sins"; here He promises that what these men, the Apostles, bind or loose on earth, God in heaven will likewise bind or
loose. (Cf. also POWER OF THE KEYS.) But as the Council of
Trent declares, Christ principally instituted the
Sacrament of Penance after His Resurrection, a miracle greater than that of healing the sick.
"As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed
on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy
Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them;
and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained'
(John 20:21-23). While the sense of these words is
quite obvious, the following points are to be considered: Christ here reiterates in the plainest terms --
"sins", "forgive", "retain" -- what He had
previously stated in figurative language, "bind" and "loose", so that this text
specifies and distinctly applies to sin the power of loosing and binding. He prefaces
this grant of power by declaring that the mission of the Apostles is similar to that which He had received
from the Father and which He had fulfilled: "As the Father hath sent me". Now it
is beyond doubt that He came into the world to destroy
sin and that on various occasions He explicitly
forgave sin (Matthew
9:2-8; Luke
5:20; 7:47; Revelation 1:5), hence the forgiving of sin is to be included in the mission of the
Apostles. Christ not only declared that sins were forgiven, but really and actually
forgave them; hence, the Apostles are empowered not merely to announce to
the sinner that his sins are forgiven but to grant him
forgiveness-"whose sins you shall forgive". If their power were
limited to the declaration "God pardons you", they would need a special revelation in each case to make the declaration
valid. The power is twofold -- to forgive or to retain, i.e., the
Apostles are not told to grant or withhold
forgiveness nondiscriminately; they must act judicially, forgiving or retaining
according as the sinner deserves. The exercise of this power in
either form (forgiving or retaining) is not restricted: no
distinction is made or even suggested between one kind of sin and another, or between one class of sinners and all the rest: Christ simply says "whose sins". The sentence pronounced by the Apostles (remission or retention) is also
God's sentence -- "they are forgiven . . . they are
retained". It is therefore clear from the words of Christ that the Apostles had power to forgive sins. But this was not a personal prerogative
that was to erase at their death; it was granted to them in their official
capacity and hence as a permanent institution in the Church -- no less permanent than the mission to
teach and baptize all nations. Christ foresaw that even those who received
faith and baptism, whether during the lifetime of the Apostles or later, would fall into sin and therefore would need forgiveness in order
to be saved. He must, then, have intended that the power to forgive should be
transmitted from the Apostles to their successors and be used as long
as there would be sinners in the Church, and that means to the end of
time. It is true that in baptism also sins are forgiven, but this does not warrant the
view that the power to forgive is simply the power to baptize. In the first place, as appears from the
texts cited above, the power to forgive is also the power to retain; its
exercise involves a judicial action. But no such action is implied in the
commission to baptize (Matthew
28:18-20); in fact, as the Council of
Trent affirms, the Church does not pass judgment on those who are
not yet members of the Church, and membership is obtained through
baptism. Furthermore, baptism, because it is a new birth, cannot be
repeated, whereas the power to forgive sins (penance) is to be used as often as the sinner may need it. Hence the condemnation, by
the same Council, of any one "who, confounding the sacraments, should say that baptism itself is the Sacrament of
Penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct and as though penance were not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck"
(Sess. XIV, can. 2 de sac. poen.). These pronouncements were directed against
the Protestant teaching which held that penance was merely a sort of repeated baptism; and as baptism effected no real forgiveness of sin but only an external covering over of
sin through faith alone, the same, it was alleged, must be
the case with penance. This, then, as a sacrament is superfluous; absolution is only a declaration that sin is forgiven through faith, and satisfaction is needless because
Christ has satisfied once for all men. This was
the first sweeping and radical denial of the Sacrament of
Penance. Some of the earlier sects had claimed that only priests in the state of grace
could validly absolve, but they had not denied the
existence of the power to forgive. During all the
preceding centuries, Catholic belief in this power had been so clear and strong
that in order to set it aside Protestantism was obliged to strike at the very constitution of the
Church and reject the whole content of Tradition. Belief and Practice of the Early
Church. Among the modernistic propositions condemned by Pius
X in the Decree "Lamentabili sane" (3 July, 1907) are the
following: "In the primitive Church there was no concept of the reconciliation
of the Christian sinner by the authority of the Church, but the Church by very slow degrees only grew accustomed
to this concept. Moreover, even after penance came to be
recognized as an institution of the Church, it was not called by the name of sacrament, because it was regarded as an odious sacrament." (46) "The Lord's words: 'Receive ye
the Holy
Ghost, whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,
and whose sins you shall retain they are retained' (John
xx, 22-23), in no way refer to the Sacrament of Penance, whatever
the Fathers of Trent may have been pleased to assert." (47)
According to the Council of
Trent, the consensus of all the Fathers always
understood that by the words of Christ just cited, the power of forgiving and
retaining sins was communicated to the Apostles and their lawful successors (Sess. XIV,
c. i). It is therefore Catholic
doctrine that the Church from the earliest times
believed in the power to forgive sins as granted by Christ to the Apostles. Such a belief in fact was clearly inculcated by the
words with which Christ granted the power, and it would have been
inexplicable to the early Christians if any one who professed faith in Christ had questioned the existence of that power in the Church. But if, contrariwise, we suppose that no
such belief existed from the beginning, we encounter a
still greater difficulty: the first mention of that power would have been
regarded as an innovation both needless and intolerable; it would have shown
little practical wisdom on the part of those who were endeavouring to draw men
to Christ; and it would have raised a protest or led
to a schism which would certainly have gone on record
as plainly at least as did early divisions on matters of less importance. But no
such record is found; even those who sought to limit the power itself
presupposed its existence, and their very attempt at limitation
put them in opposition to the prevalent Catholic belief. Turning now to evidence of a positive
sort, we have to note that the statements of any Father or orthodox ecclesiastical writer regarding
penance present not merely his own personal view, but the
commonly accepted belief; and furthermore that the belief which they record was no novelty at the time, but was the traditional doctrine handed down by the regular teaching of
the Church and embodied in her practice. In other
words, each witness speaks for a past that reaches back to
the beginning, even when he does not expressly appeal to
tradition. St. Augustine (d. 430) warns the faithful: "Let us not listen to
those who deny that the Church of
God has power to forgive all sins" (De agon.
Christ., iii). St. Ambrose (d. 397) rebukes the Novatianists who "professed to
show reverence for the Lord by reserving to Him alone the power of forgiving
sins. Greater wrong could not be done than what
they do in seeking to rescind His commands and fling back the office He
bestowed. . . . The Church obeys Him in both respects, by binding sin and by loosing it; for the Lord willed that
for both the power should be equal" (De poenit., I, ii,6). Again he teaches that
this power was to be a function of the priesthood. "It seemed impossible that sins should be forgiven through
penance; Christ granted this (power) to the
Apostles and from the Apostles it has been transmitted to the office of
priests" (op. cit., II, ii, 12). The power to
forgive extends to all sins: "God makes no distinction; He promised mercy to
all and to His priests He granted the authority to pardon
without any exception" (op. cit., I, iii, 10). Against the same heretics St. Pacian, Bishop of Barcelona (d. 390), wrote to Sympronianus, one of
their leaders: "This (forgiving sins), you say, only God can do. Quite true: but what He does through His priests is the doing of His own power" (Ep. I ad
Sympron, 6 in P.L., XIII, 1057). In the East during the same period we have the
testimony of St. Cyril
of Alexandria (d. 447): "Men filled with the spirit of
God (i.e. priests) forgive sins in two ways, either by admitting to
baptism those who are worthy or by pardoning the
penitent children of the Church" (In Joan., 1, 12 in P.G., LXXIV, 722).
St. John Chrysostom (d. 407) after declaring that
neither angels nor archangels have received such power,
and after showing that earthly rulers can bind only the bodies of men, declares
that the priest's power of forgiving sins "penetrates to the soul and reaches up to heaven". Wherefore, he concludes, "it were
manifest folly to condemn so great a power without which we can neither obtain
heaven nor come to the fulfillment of the
promises. . . . Not only when they (the priests) regenerate us (baptism), but also after our new birth, they can
forgive us our sins" (De sacred., III, 5 sq.). St. Athanasius (d. 373): "As the man whom the
priest baptizes is enlightened by the grace of the Holy
Ghost, so does he who in penance
confesses his sins, receive through the priest forgiveness in virtue of the grace of Christ" (Frag. contra Novat. in P. G., XXVI,
1315). These extracts show that the Fathers recognized in penance a power and a utility quite distinct from that of
baptism. Repeatedly they compare in figurative
language the two means of obtaining pardon; or regarding baptism as spiritual birth, they describe penance as the remedy for the ills of the soul contracted after that birth. But a more
important fact is that both in the West and in the East, the Fathers constantly appeal to the words of Christ and given them the same interpretation
that was given eleven centuries later by the Council of
Trent. In this respect they simply echoed the teachings
of the earlier Fathers who had defended Catholic
doctrine against the heretics of the third and second centuries. Thus
St. Cyprian in his "De lapsis" (A.D. 251) rebukes
those who had fallen away in time of persecution, but he also exhorts them to penance: "Let each confess his sin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the
forgiveness granted by the priests is acceptable to God" (c. xxix). (See LAPSI.) The heretic Novatian, on the contrary, asserted that "it is
unlawful to admit apostates to the communion of the Church; their forgiveness must be left with
God who alone can grant it" (Socrates, "Hist. eccl.", V, xxviii).
Novatian and his party did not at first deny the
power of the Church to absolve from sin; they affirmed that apostasy placed the sinner beyond the reach of that power -- an
error which was condemned by a
synod at Rome in 251 (See NOVATIANISM.) The distinction
between sins that could be forgiven and others that could
not, originated in the latter half of the second century as the doctrine of the Montanists, and especially of Tertullian. While still a Catholic, Tertullian wrote (A.D. 200-6) his "De
poenitentia" in which he distinguishes two kinds of penance, one
as a preparation for baptism, the other to obtain forgiveness of certain grievous sins committed after baptism, i.e., apostasy, murder, and adultery. For these, however, he allows only one
forgiveness: "Foreseeing these poisons of the Evil
One, God, although the gate of forgiveness has been
shut and fastened up with the bar of baptism, has permitted it still to stand somewhat
open. In the vestibule He has stationed a second repentance
for opening to such as knock; but now once for all, because now for the second
time; but never more, because the last time it had been in vain. . . . However, if any
do incur the debt of a second repentance, his spirit is not to be forthwith cut down and undermined
by despair. Let it be irksome to sin again, but let it not be irksome to repent
again; let it be irksome to imperil oneself again, but let no one be ashamed to
be set free again. Repeated sickness must have repeated medicine" (De poen., VII). Tertullian does not deny that the Church can forgive sins; he warns sinners against relapse, yet exhorts them to
repent in case they should fall. His attitude at the time was not surprising, since in the early days
the sins above mentioned were severely dealt with;
this was done for disciplinary reasons, not because the Church lacked power to forgive. In the minds, however, of some people the idea was developing that not only the exercise of
the power but the power itself was limited. Against this false notion Pope Callistus (218-22) published his "peremptory
edict" in which he declares: "I forgive the sins both of adultery and of fornication to those who have
done penance." Thereupon Tertullian, now become a Montanist, wrote his "De pudicitia" (A. D.
217-22). In this work he rejects without scruple what he had taught as a Catholic: "I blush not at an error which I have cast off because I am
delighted at being rid of it . . . one is not ashamed of his own improvement."
The "error" which he imputes to Callistus and the
Catholics was that the Church could forgive all sins: this, therefore, was the orthodox doctrine which Tertullian the heretic denied. In place of it he sets up the
distinction between lighter sins which the bishop could forgive and more grievous sins which God alone could forgive. Though in an earlier
treatise, "Scorpiace", he had said (c. x) that "the Lord left here to Peter and
through him to the Church the keys of heaven" he now denies that the power granted to
Peter had been transmitted to the Church, i.e., to the numerus episcoporum
or body of bishops. Yet he claims this power for the
"spirituals" (pneumatici), although these, for prudential reasons, do not
make use of it. To the arguments of the "Psychici", as he termed the Catholics, he replies: "But the Church, you say, has the power to forgive
sin. This I, even more than you, acknowledge and
adjudge. I who in the new prophets have the Paraclete saying: 'The Church can forgive sin, but I will not do that (forgive) lest they
(who are forgiven) fall into other sins" (De pud., XXI, vii). Thus Tertullian, by the accusation which he makes
against the pope and by the restriction which he places upon
the exercise of the power of forgiving sin, bears witness to the existence of that power in the Church which he had abandoned. Not content with
assailing Callistus and his doctrine, Tertullian refers to the "Shepherd"
(Pastor), a work written A.D. 140-54, and takes its author Hermas to task for favouring the pardon of adulterers. In the
days of Hermas there was evidently a school of rigorists who insisted that there was
no pardon for sin committed after baptism (Simil. VIII, vi). Against this school the author of the "Pastor" takes a
resolute stand. He teaches that by penance the
sinner may hope for reconciliation with God and with the Church. "Go and tell all to repent and they shall
live unto God. Because the Lord having had compassion,
has sent me to give repentance to all men, although some are not worthy
of it on account of their works" (Simil. VIII, ii). Hermas,
however, seems to give but one opportunity for such reconciliation, for in
Mandate IV, i, he seems to state categorically that "there is but one repentance
for the servants of God", and further on in c. iii he says the
Lord has had mercy on the work of his hands and hath set repentance for
them; "and he has entrusted to me the power of this repentance. And
therefore I say to you, if any one has sinned . . he has opportunity to repent once".
Repentance is therefore possible at least once in virtue of a power vested in
the priest of God. That Hermas here intends to
say that the sinner could be absolved only once in his whole life is by no
means a necessary conclusion. His words may well be
understood as referring to public penance (see below) and as thus
understood they imply no limitation on the sacramental power itself. The same interpretation
applies to the statement of Clement of
Alexandria (d. circa A.D. 215): "For God being very merciful has vouchsafed in the
case of those who, though in faith, have fallen into transgression, a second
repentance, so that should anyone be tempted after his calling, he may still receive a
penance not to be repented of" (Stromata, II, xiii). The existence of a regular system of
penance is also hinted at in the work of Clement, "Who is the
rich man that shall be saved?", where he tells the
story of the Apostle John and his journey after the young
bandit. John pledged his word that the youthful robber would find forgiveness
from the Saviour; but even then a long serious penance was
necessary before he could be restored to the
Church. And when Clement concludes that "he who
welcomes the angel of penance . . .
will not be ashamed when he sees the Saviour", most commentators think he
alludes to the bishop or priest who presided over the ceremony of public penance. Even
earlier, Dionysius
of Corinth (d. circa A.D. 17O), setting himself
against certain growing Marcionistic traditions,
taught not only that Christ has left to His Church the power of pardon, but that no sin is so great as to be excluded from the
exercise of that power. For this we have the authority of Eusebius, who says (Hist. eccl., IV, xxiii): "And
writing to the Church which is in Amastris, together with those in Pontus, he commands them to receive those who
come back after any fall, whether it be delinquency or heresy". The
"Didache" (q.v.) written at the close of the first century or early in the
second, in IV, xiv, and again in XIV, i, commands an individual confession in the
congregation: "In the congregation thou shalt confess thy transgressions"; or
again: "On the Lord's
Day come together and break bread . . . having confessed
your transgressions that your sacrifice may be pure." Clement
I (d. 99) in his epistle to the Corinthians not only exhorts to
repentance, but begs the seditious to "submit themselves to the presbyters and receive correction so as to
repent" (c. lvii), and Ignatius
of Antioch at the close of the first century speaks of
the mercy of God to sinners, provided they return" with one consent to the unity of Christ and the communion of the bishop". The clause "communion of the bishop" evidently means the bishop with his council of presbyters as assessors. He also says (Ad Philadel,) "that the
bishop presides over penance". The
transmission of this power is plainly expressed in the prayer used at the consecration of a bishop as recorded in the Canons
of Hippolytus: "Grant him, 0 Lord, the episcopate
and the spirit of clemency and the power to forgive
sins" (c. xvii). Still more explicit is the
formula cited in the "Apostolic Constitutions" (q.v.): "Grant him, 0 Lord
almighty, through Thy Christ, the participation of Thy
Holy
Spirit, in order that he may have the power to remit
sins according to Thy precept and Thy command,
and to loosen every bond, whatsoever it be, according to the power which Thou
hast granted to the Apostles." (Const. Apost., VIII, 5 in P. (i., 1.
1073). For the meaning of "episcopus", "sacerdos", "presbyter", as used in
ancient documents, see BISHOP; HIERARCHY.
Exercise of the Power
The granting by Christ of the power to forgive sins is the first essential of the Sacrament of Penance; in the actual exercise of this power are
included the other essentials. The sacrament as such and on its own account has a
matter and a form and it produces
certain effects; the power of
the keys is exercised by a minister (confessor) who must possess the proper
qualifications, and the effects are wrought in the soul of the recipient, i.e., the penitent who
with the necessary dispositions must perform certain actions (confession, satisfaction).
Matter and Form
According to St. Thomas (Summa, III, lxxiv, a. 2)
"the acts of the penitent are the proximate matter of
this sacrament". This is also the teaching of
Eugenius IV in the "Decretum pro Armenis"
(Council of Florence, 1439) which calls the act's
"quasi materia" of penance and enumerates them as contrition, confession, and
satisfaction (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.",
699). The Thomists in general and other eminent theologians, e.g., Bellarmine, Toletus, Francisco
Suárez, and De
Lugo, hold the same opinion. According to Scotus (In IV Sent., d. 16, q. 1, n. 7) "the Sacrament of Penance is the absolution imparted with certain words" while the acts of the penitent are
required for the worthy reception of the sacrament. The absolution as an external ceremony is the matter,
and, as possessing significant force, the form. Among the
advocates of this theory are St.
Bonaventure, Capreolus, Andreas Vega, and Maldonatus. The Council of
Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3) declares: "the acts of the
penitent, namely contrition, confession, and
satisfaction, are the quasi materia of this sacrament". The Roman
Catechism used in 1913 (II, v, 13) says: "These actions
are called by the Council quasi materia not because they have not the nature of true matter, but
because they are not the sort of matter which is
employed externally as water in baptism and chrism in confirmation". For the theological discussion see Palmieri, op. cit., p. 144 sqq.; Pesch,
"Praelectiones dogmaticae", Freiburg, 1897; De San, "De poenitentia", Bruges, 1899; Pohle, "Lehrb. d. Dogmatik".
Regarding the form of the sacrament, both the Council of
Florence and the Council of
Trent teach that it consists in the words of absolution. "The form of the Sacrament of penance, wherein its
force principally consists, is placed in those words of the minister: "I absolve thee, etc."; to these words indeed, in
accordance with the usage of Holy Church, certain
prayers are laudably added, but they do not
pertain to the essence of the form nor are they
necessary for the administration of the sacrament" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3).
Concerning these additional prayers, the use of the Eastern and Western
Churches, and the question whether the
form is deprecatory or indicative and personal, see ABSOLUTION.
Cf. also the writers referred to in the preceding paragraph.
Effect
"The effect of this sacrament is deliverance from sin" (Council of
Florence). The same definition in somewhat different
terms is given by the Council of
Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3): "So far as pertains to its
force and efficacy, the effect (res et effectus) of this
sacrament is reconciliation with God, upon which there sometimes follows, in
pious and devout recipients, peace and calm of
conscience with intense consolation of spirit". This reconciliation implies first of all that
the guilt of sin is remitted, and consequently also the eternal punishment due to mortal sin. As the Council of
Trent declares, penance requires the
performance of satisfaction "not indeed for the eternal penalty which is remitted together with
the guilt either by the sacrament or by the desire of receiving the sacrament, but for the temporal penalty which, as
the Scriptures teach, is not always forgiven entirely
as it is in baptism" (Sess. VI, c. 14). In other words
baptism frees the soul not only from all sin but also from all indebtedness to Divine justice, whereas after the reception of absolution in penance, there may
and usually does remain some temporal debt to be discharged by works of satisfaction
(see below). "Venial sins by which we are not deprived of the
grace of God and into which we very frequently
fall are rightly and usefully declared in confession; but mention
of them may, without any fault, be omitted and they can be expiated by many
other remedies" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3). Thus, an act of
contrition suffices to obtain forgiveness of
venial sin, and the same effect is produced by the
worthy reception of sacraments other than penance,
e.g., by Holy
Communion. The reconciliation of the
sinner with God has as a further consequence the revival of
those merits which he had obtained before committing
grievous sin. Good works
performed in the state of grace deserve a reward from God, but this is forfeited by mortal sin, so that if the sinner should die unforgiven his good deeds avail him nothing. So long as he remains in
sin, he is incapable of meriting: even works which are good in themselves are, in his case, worthless: they
cannot revive, because they never were alive. But once his sin is cancelled by penance, he
regains not only the state of grace but also the entire store of merit which had, before his sin, been placed to his credit. On this point
theologians are practically unanimous: the only
hindrance to obtaining reward is sin, and when this is removed, the former title,
so to speak, is revalidated. On the other hand, if there were no such
revalidation, the loss of merit once acquired would be equivalent to an eternal punishment, which is incompatible with
the forgiveness effected by penance. As to the further question
regarding the manner and extent of the revival of merit, various opinions have been proposed; but
that which is generally accepted holds with Francisco Suárez (De
reviviscentia meritorum) that the revival is complete, i.e., the forgiven
penitent has to his credit as much merit as though he had never sinned. See De Augustinis, "De re sacramentaria",
II, Rome, 1887; Pesch, op. cit., VII; Göttler, "Der hl. Thomas v. Aquin u. die
vortridentinischen Thomisten über die Wirkungen d. Bussakramentes", Freiburg,
1904.
The Minister (i.e., the Confessor)
From the judicial character of this sacrament it follows that not every member of the
Church is qualified to forgive sins; the administration of
penance is reserved to those who are invested with authority.
That this power does not belong to the laity is evident from the Bull of Martin
V "Inter cunctas" (1418) which among other questions to
be answered by the followers of Wyclif and Huss, has this: "whether he believes that the Christian . . . is bound as a necessary means of salvation to confess to a priest only and not to a layman or to laymen however good and
devout" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.",
670). Luther's proposition, that "any Christian, even a woman or a child" could in the absence of a
priest absolve as well as pope or bishop, was condemned (1520) by Leo
X in the Bull "Exurge Domine" (Enchir., 753). The
Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 6) condemns as
"false and as at variance with the truth of the Gospel all doctrines
which extend the ministry of the keys to any others than bishops and priests, imagining that the words of the Lord
(Matthew 18:18; John
20:23) were, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, addressed to all the faithful of
Christ in such wise that each and every one has
the power of remitting sin". The Catholic
doctrine, therefore, is that only bishops and priests can exercise the power. These
decrees moreover put an end, practically, to the
usage, which had sprung up and lasted for some time in the Middle
Ages, of confessing to a layman in case of necessity. This custom originated in the conviction that he who
had sinned was obliged to make known his
sin to some one -- to a priest if possible, otherwise to a layman. In the work "On true penance and false"
(De vera et falsa poenitentia), erroneously ascribed to St. Augustine, the
counsel is given: "So great is the power of confession that if a
priest be not at hand, let him (the person desiring to confess) confess to his
neighbour." But in the same place the explanation is given: "although he to whom
the confession is made has no power to absolve, nevertheless he who confesses to his
fellow (socio) becomes worthy of pardon through his desire of confessing
to a priest" (P. L., XL, 1113). Lea, who cites (I,
220) the assertion of the Pseudo-Augustine about confession to
one's neighbour, passes over the explanation. He consequently sets in a wrong
light a series of incidents illustrating the practice and gives but an imperfect
idea of the theological discussion which it aroused. Though
Albertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. 17, art. 58)
regarded as sacramental the absolution granted by a layman while St.
Thomas (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, sol. 2) speaks of
it as "quodammodo sacramentalis", other great theologians took a quite different view.
Alexander of Hales (Summa, Q. xix, De confessione
memb., I, a. 1) says that it is an "imploring of absolution"; St.
Bonaventure ("Opera', VII, p. 345, Lyons, 1668) that
such a confession even in cases of necessity is not obligatory, but merely a sign of
contrition; Scotus (IV Sent., d. 14, q. 4) that there is no
precept obliging one to confess to a layman and that this practice may be very
detrimental; Durandus of St. Pourcain (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 12)
that in the absence of a priest, who alone can absolve in the tribunal of
penance, there is no obligation to confess; Prierias (Summa Silv.,
s.v. Confessor, I, 1) that if absolution is given by a layman, the confession must be
repeated whenever possible; this in fact was the general opinion. It is not then
surprising that Dominicus Soto, writing in 1564, should find it difficult
to believe that such a custom ever existed: "since (in
confession to a layman) there was no sacrament . . . it is incredible that men, of
their own accord and with no profit to themselves, should reveal to others the
secrets of their conscience" (IV Sent., d. 18, q. 4, a. 1). Since,
therefore, the weight of theological opinion gradually turned against the
practice and since the practice never received the sanction of the Church, it cannot be urged as a proof that the power to forgive sins belonged at any time to the laity. What the practice does show is that both
people -and theologians realized keenly the obligation of confessing their sins not to God alone but to some human listener, even though
the latter possessed no power to absolve. The same exaggerated notion appears in
the practice of confessing to the deacons in case of necessity. They were naturally preferred to
laymen when no priest was accessible because in virtue of their
office they administered Holy
Communion. Moreover, some of the earlier councils
(Elvira, A. D. 300; Toledo, 400) and penitentials (Theodore)
seemed to grant the power of penance to the deacon (in the priest's absence). The Council of Tribur (895)
declared in regard to bandits that if, when captured or wounded they confessed
to a priest or a deacon, they should not be denied communion; and
this expression "presbytero vel diacono" was incorporated in the Decree of Gratian and in many
later documents from the tenth century to the thirteenth. The Council of York (1195) decreed that except in the gravest
necessity the deacon should not baptize, give communion, or "impose penance on one who confessed". Substantially the same enactments
are found in the Councils of London (1200) and Rouen (1231), the constitutions of St. Edmund
of Canterbury (1236), and those of Walter of Kirkham,
Bishop of Durham (1255). All these enactments, though
stringent enough as regards ordinary circumstances, make exception for urgent necessity. No such exception is allowed in the
decree of the Synod of Poitiers (1280): "desiring to root out an
erroneous abuse which has grown up in our diocese through dangerous ignorance, we forbid deacons to hear confessions or to
give absolution in the tribunal of
penance: for it is certain and beyond
doubt that they cannot absolve, since they have not the keys which are
conferred only in the priestly order". This "abuse" probably
disappeared in the fourteenth or fifteenth century; at all events no direct
mention is made of it by the Council of
Trent, though the reservation to bishops and priests of the absolving power shows plainly that
the Council excluded deacons. The authorization which the medieval councils gave the deacon in case of necessity did not confer the power to forgive
sins. In some of the decrees it is expressly stated that the deacon has not the keys -- claves non
habent. In other enactments he is forbidden except in cases of
necessity to "give" or "impose penance", poenitentiam dare, imponere. His
function then was limited to the forum externum; in the absence of a
priest he could "reconcile" the
sinner, i.e., restore him to the communion of the
Church; but he did not and could not give the sacramental absolution which a priest would have given (Palmieri, Pesch).
Another explanation emphasizes the fact that the deacon could faithfully administer the Holy
Eucharist. The faithful were under a strict obligation to receive Communion at the approach
of death, and on the other hand the reception of this sacrament sufficed to blot out even mortal
sin provided the communicant had the requisite
dispositions. The deacon could hear their confession
simply to assure himself that they were properly disposed, but not for the
purpose of giving them absolution. If he went further and "imposed penance" in the stricter, sacramental sense, he exceeded his power, and any
authorization to this effect granted by the bishop merely showed that the bishop was in error (Laurain, "De l'intervention des laïques,
des diacres et des abbesses dans l'administration de la pénitence", Paris,
1897). In any case, the prohibitory enactments which finally abolished the
practice did not deprive the deacon of a power which was his by virtue of his
office; but they brought into clearer light the traditional belief that only bishops and priests can administer the
Sacrament of Penance. (See below under Confession.) For
valid administration, a twofold power is necessary: the power of order and the power of
jurisdiction. The former is conferred by ordination, the latter by ecclesiastical authority (see JURISDICTION). At
his ordination a priest receives the power to consecrate the Holy
Eucharist, and for valid consecration he needs no jurisdiction. As regards penance,
the case is different: "because the nature and character of a judgment requires that
sentence be pronounced only on those who are
subjects (of the judge) the Church of
God has always held, and this Council
affirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not
either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, is of no effect" (Council of Trent,
Sess. XIV, c. 7). Ordinary jurisdiction is that which one has by reason of
his office as involving the care of souls; the pope has it over the whole Church, the bishop within his diocese, the pastor within his parish. Delegated jurisdiction is that which is granted by an
ecclesiastical superior to one who does not
possess it by virtue of his office. The need of jurisdiction for administering this
sacrament is usually expressed by saying that a
priest must have "faculties" to hear confession (see FACULTIES). Hence it is that a priest visiting in a diocese other than his own cannot hear confession without special authorization from the bishop. Every priest, however, can absolve anyone who is at the point of death,
because under those circumstances the Church gives all priests jurisdiction. As the bishop grants jurisdiction, he can also limit it by "reserving"
certain cases (see RESERVATION) and he can even
withdraw it entirely.
Recipient (i.e., the Penitent)
The Sacrament of Penance was instituted by
Christ for the remission of Penance was
instituted by Christ for the remission of sins committed after baptism. Hence, no unbaptized person, however deep and sincere his sorrow, can
be validly absolved. Baptism, in other words, is the first essential
requisite on the part of the penitent. This does not imply that in the sins committed by an unbaptized person there is a special enormity or any other
element that places them beyond the power of
the keys; but that one must first be a member of the
Church before he can submit himself and his
sins to the judicial process of
sacramental Penance.
Contrition and Attrition
Without sorrow for sin there is no forgiveness. Hence the Council of
Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 4): "Contrition, which holds the
first place among the acts of the penitent, is sorrow of heart and detestation
for sin committed, with the resolve to sin no more". The Council (ibid.)
furthermore distinguishes perfect contrition from imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, and which arises from the
consideration of the turpitude of sin or from the fear of hell and punishment. See ATTRITION; CONTRITION,
where these two kinds of sorrow are more fully explained and an account is given
of the principal discussions and opinions. See also treatises by Pesch, Palmieri, Pohle. For the present purpose it need
only be stated that attrition, with the Sacrament of
Penance, suffices to obtain forgiveness of sin. The Council of
Trent further teaches (ibid.): "though it
sometimes happens that this contrition is perfect and that it reconciles man with God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be
ascribed to the contrition itself apart from the desire of the sacrament which it (contrition) includes". In
accordance with this teaching Pius
V condemned (1567) the proposition of Baius asserting that even perfect
contrition does not, except in case of necessity or of martyrdom, remit sin without the actual reception of the sacrament (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.",
1071). It should be noted, however, that the contrition of which the Council speaks is perfect
in the sense that it includes the desire (votum) to receive the sacrament. Whoever in fact repents of his
sin out of love for God must be willing to comply with the Divine
ordinance regarding penance, i.e., he would confess if a confessor were accessible, and he realizes that
he is obliged to confess when he has the opportunity.
But it does not follow that the penitent is at liberty to choose between two
modes of obtaining forgiveness, one by an act of contrition independently of the
sacrament, the other by confession
and absolution. This view was put forward by Peter
Martinez (de Osma) in the proposition: "mortal sins as regards their guilt and their punishment
in the other world, are blotted out by contrition alone without any reference to the
keys"; and the proposition was condemned by Sixtus
IV in 1479 (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.",
724). Hence it is clear that not even heartfelt sorrow based on the highest
motives, can, in the present order of salvation, dispense with the power of
the keys, i.e., with the Sacrament of
Penance.
Confession (Necessity)
"For those who after baptism have fallen into sin, the Sacrament of Penance is
as necessary unto salvation as is baptism itself for those who have not yet been regenerated" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 2).
Penance, therefore, is not an institution the use of which was left to the
option of each sinner so that he might, if he preferred, hold
aloof from the Church and secure forgiveness by some other
means, e.g., by acknowledging his sin in the privacy of his own
mind. As already stated, the power granted by
Christ to the Apostles is twofold, to forgive and to retain, in
such a way that what they forgive God forgives and what they retain God retains. But this grant would be nullified
if, in case the Church retained the sins of penitent, he could, as it were, take appeal to God's tribunal and obtain pardon. Nor would the
power to retain have any meaning if the sinner, passing over the Church, went in the first instance to God, since by the very terms of the grant,
God retains sin once committed so long as it is not remitted
by the Church. It would indeed have been strangely
inconsistent if Christ in conferring this twofold power on the Apostles had intended to provide some other means
of forgiveness such as confessing "to God alone". Not only the Apostles, but any one with an elementary
knowledge of human nature would have perceived at once that the
easier means would be chosen and that the grant of power so formally and
solemnly made by Christ had no real significance (Palmieri, op.
cit., thesis X). On the other hand, once it is admitted that the grant was
effectual and consequently that the sacrament is necessary in order to obtain forgiveness, it
plainly follows that the penitent must in some way make known his
sin to those who exercise the power. This is
conceded even by those who reject the Sacrament of Penance as a
Divine institution. "Such remission was manifestly impossible without the
declaration of the offences to be forgiven" (Lea, "History etc.", I, p. 182).
The Council of Trent, after declaring that Christ left his priests as His vicars unto whom as rulers and judges the
faithful must make known their sins, adds: "It is evident that the priests could not have exercised this judgment
without knowledge of the cause, nor could
they have observed justice in enjoining satisfaction if (the
faithful) had declared their sins in a general way only and not specifically
and in detail" (Sess. XIV, c. 5).
Since the priest in the pardoning of sin exercises a strict judicial function,
Christ must will that such
tremendous power be used wisely and prudently. Moreover, in virtue of the grant
of Christ the priest can forgive all sins without distinction, quoecumque
solveritis. How can a wise and prudent judgment be rendered if the priest be in ignorance of the cause on which
judgment is pronounced? And how can he obtain the requisite knowledge unless it come from the spontaneous
acknowledgment of the sinner? This necessity of manifestation is all the clearer if
satisfaction for sin, which from the beginning has been part of
the penitential discipline, is to be imposed not only wisely but
also justly. That there is a necessary connection between the
prudent judgment of the confessor and the detailed
confession of sins is evident from the nature of a judicial procedure and especially
from a full analysis of the grant of Christ in the light of tradition. No judge may
release or condemn without full knowledge of the case. And again the tradition of
the earliest time sees in the words of Christ not only the office of the judge sitting
in judgment, but the kindness of a father who weeps with the repentant child
(Aphraates, "Ep. de Poenitentia", dem. 7) and the
skill of the physician who after the manner of Christ heals the wounds of the soul (Origen in P. G., XII, 418; P.L., Xll, 1086).
Clearly, therefore, the words of Christ imply the doctrine of the external manifestation of conscience to a priest in order to obtain pardon.
Confession (Various Kinds)
Confession is the avowal of one's own sins made to a duly authorized priest for the purpose of obtaining their
forgiveness through the power of
the keys. Virtual confession is simply
the will to confess even where, owing to circumstances,
declaration of sin is impossible; actual
confession is any action by which the penitent manifests his
sin. It may be made in general terms, e.g., by
reciting the "Confiteor", or it may consist in a more or less detailed statement
of one's sins; when the statement is complete, the confession is distinct. Public confession, as made
in the hearing of a number of people (e.g. a congregation) differs from private,
or secret, confession which is made to the priest alone and is often called
auricular, i.e., spoken into the ear of the confessor. We are here concerned mainly with
actual distinct confession which is the usual practice in the
Church and which so far as the validity of the sacrament is concerned, may be either public or
private. "As regards the method of confessing secretly to the priest alone, though Christ did not forbid that any one, in punishment
of his crimes and for his own humiliation as also to give others an example and
to edify the Church, should confess his sins publicly, still, this has not been commanded
by Divine precept nor would it be prudent to decree by any human law that sins, especially secret sins, should be publicly confessed. Since, then,
secret sacramental confession, which from
the beginning has been and even now is the usage of the Church, was always commended with great and
unanimous consent by the holiest and most ancient Fathers;
thereby is plainly refuted the foolish calumny of those who make bold to teach that it
(secret confession) is something foreign to the Divine command, a
human invention devised by the Fathers assembled in the Lateran
Council" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 5). It is therefore Catholic
doctrine, first, that Christ did not prescribe public
confession, salutary as it might be, nor did He forbid it;
second, that secret confession, sacramental in character, has been the practice of the Church from the earliest days.
Traditional Belief and Practice
How firmly rooted in the Catholic mind is the belief in the efficacy and necessity of confession, appears
clearly from the fact that the Sacrament of Penance endures in
the Church after the countless attacks to which it
has been subjected during the last four centuries. If at the Reformation or since the Church could have surrendered a doctrine or abandoned a practice for the sake of
peace and to soften a "hard saying", confession would have been
the first to disappear. Yet it is precisely during this period that the
Church has defined in the most exact terms the nature of penance and most
vigorously insisted on the necessity of confession. It will
not of course be denied that at the beginning of the sixteenth century confession was generally practised throughout the Christian
world. The Reformers themselves, notably Calvin, admitted that it had been in
existence for three centuries when they
attributed its origin to the Fourth
Lateran Council (1215). At that time, according to Lea (op. cit., I, 228), the necessity of confession "became a
new article of faith" and the canon,
omnis utriusque sexus, "is perhaps the most important legislative act in
the history of the Church" (ibid., 230). But,
as the Council of Trent affirms, "the Church did not through the Lateran
Council prescribe that the faithful
of Christ should confess -- a thing which it knew to be by Divine right necessary and established -- but that the precept
of confessing at least once a year should be complied with by all and every one
when they reached the age of discretion" (Sess., XIV, c. 5). The Lateran edict
presupposed the necessity of confession as an
article of Catholic belief and laid down a law as to the minimum frequency of confession -- at least once a year.
In the Middle Ages
In constructing their systems of theology, the medieval doctors discuss at length the various problems
connected with the Sacrament of Penance. They are practically
unanimous in holding that confession is obligatory; the only notable exception in the
twelfth century is Gratian, who gives the arguments for and
against the necessity of confessing to a priest and leaves the question open (Decretum, p.
II, De poen., d. 1, in P.L., CLXXXVII, 1519-63). Peter
Lombard (d. about 1150) takes up the authorities cited
by Gratian and by means of them proves that "without confession
there is no pardon" . . . "no entrance into paradise" (IV Sent., d. XVII, 4, in P.L., CXCII,
880-2). The principal debate, in which Hugh of
St. Victor, Abelard, Robert
Pullus, and Peter of
Poitiers took the leading parts, concerned the origin
and sanction of the obligation, and the value of the different Scriptural texts cited to prove the institution of penance.
This question passed on to the thirteenth century and received its solution in
very plain terms from St. Thomas
Aquinas. Treating (Contra Gentes, IV, 72) of the necessity of penance and its
parts, he shows that "the institution of confession was necessary in order that the sin of the penitent might be revealed to
Christ's minister; hence the minister to whom the confession is
made must have judicial power as representing Christ, the Judge of the living
and the dead. This power again requires two things: authority of knowledge and power to absolve or to condemn. These are called the two
keys of the Church which the Lord entrusted to Peter
(Matthew 16:19). But they were not given to Peter
to be held by him alone, but to be handed on through him to others; else
sufficient provision would not have been made for the salvation of the faithful. These keys derive their efficacy from
the passion of Christ whereby He opened to us the
gate of the heavenly
kingdom". And he adds that as no one can be saved
without baptism either by actual reception or by desire,
so they who sin after baptism cannot be saved unless they submit to the
keys of the Church either by actually confessing or by the
resolve to confess when opportunity permits. Furthermore, as the rulers of the
Church cannot dispense any one from baptism as a means of salvation neither can they give a dispensation whereby the sinner may be forgiven without
confession and absolution. The same explanation and reasoning is
given by all the Scholastics of the thirteenth and fourteenth
centuries. They were in practical agreement as to the necessity of jurisdiction in the confessor. Regarding the time at which confession had to be
made, some held with William of
Auvergne that one was obliged to confess as soon as possible after
sinning; others with Albertus
Magnus and St. Thomas that it sufficed to
confess within the time limits prescribed by the Church (Paschal Time); and this more lenient view finally
prevailed. Further subjects of discussion during this period were the choice of confessor; the obligation of confessing before receiving other
sacraments, especially the
Eucharist; the integrity of confession; the
obligation of secrecy on the part of the confessor, i.e., the seal of
confession. The careful and minute treatment of these
points and the frank expression of divergent opinions were characteristic of the
Schoolmen but they also brought out more clearly
the central truths regarding penance and they
opened the way to the conciliar pronouncements at Florence and Trent
which gave to Catholic
doctrine a more precise formulation. See Vacandard and
Bernard in "Dict. de theol. cath.", s.v. Confession; Turmel,
"Hist. de la theologie positive", Paris, 1904; Cambier, "De divina institutione
confessionis sacramentalis", Louvain, 1884.
Not only was the obligation recognized in the Catholic Church throughout the Middle
Ages, but the schismatic
Greeks held the same belief and still hold it. They fell into
schism under Photius in 869, but retained
confession, which therefore must have been in use for some time
previous to the ninth century. The practice, moreover, was regulated in detail
by the Penitential Books (q.v.), which prescribed the canonical penance for each sin, and minute questions for the
examination of the penitent. The most famous of
these books among the Greeks were those attributed to John the
Faster and to John the Monk. In the West similar works were written by
the Irish monks St.
Columbanus (d. 615) and Cummian, and by the Englishmen
Ven. Bede (d. 735), Egbert (d. 767),
and Theodore of Canterbury (d. 690). Besides the
councils mentioned above (Minister) decrees pertaining to confession
were enacted at Worms (868), Paris (820), Châlons (813, 650), Tours (813), Reims (1113). The Council of Chaleuth (785) says:
"if any one (which God forbid) should depart this life without penance or confession he is not to be prayed for". The significant feature about these
enactments is that they do not introduce confession as a new
practice, but take it for granted and regulate its administration. Hereby they
put into practical effect what had been handed down by tradition. St.
Gregory the Great (d. 604) teaches "the affliction of penance is efficacious in blotting out sins when it is enjoined by the
sentence of the priest when the burden of it is decided by him in
proportion to the offence after weighing the deeds of those who confess" (In I
Reg., III, v, n. 13 in P.L., LXXIX, 207); Pope Leo
the Great (440-61), who is often credited with the
institution of confession, refers to it as an "Apostolic rule".
Writing to the bishops of Campania he forbids as an abuse
"contrary to the Apostolic rule" (contra apostolicam
regulam) the reading out in public of a written statement of their sins drawn up by the faithful, because, he declares, "it suffices that
the guilt of conscience be manifested to priests alone in secret
confession" (Ep. clxviii in P.L., LIV, 1210). In another letter
(Ep. cviii in P. L., LIV, 1011), after declaring that by Divine ordinance the
mercy of God can be obtained only through the
supplications of the priests, he adds: "the mediator between and
men, Christ
Jesus, gave the rulers of the Church this power that they should impose penance on those who confess and admit them when purified by
salutary satisfaction to the communion of the sacraments through the gateway of reconciliation.
"The earlier Fathers frequently speak of sin as a disease which needs treatment, something
drastic, at the hands of the spiritual physician or surgeon. St. Augustine (d.
450) tells the sinner: "an abscess had formed in your conscience; it tormented you and gave you no
rest. . . . confess, and in confession let the pus come out and
flow away" (In ps. lxvi, n. 6). St.
Jerome (d. 420) comparing the priests of the New Law with those of the Old who
decided between leprosy and leprosy, says: "likewise in the
New
Testament the bishops and the priest bind or loose . . . in virtue of their
office", having heard various sorts of sinners, they know who is to be bound and who is to be loosed"
. . . (In Matt., xvi, 19); in his "Sermon on Penance" he says: "let no one find
it irksome to show his wound vulnus confiteri) because without confession it cannot be healed." St.
Ambrose (d. 397): "this right (of loosing and binding) has been conferred
on priests only" (De pen., I, ii, n. 7); St. Basil
(d. 397): "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 sin ought to be made to those who can cure it"
(Reg. brevior., 229). For those who sought to escape the obligation of confession it was
natural enough to assert that repentance was the affair of the soul alone with its Maker, and that no
intermediary was needed. It is this pretext that St. Augustine sweeps aside in
one of his sermons: "Let no one say I do
penance secretly; I perform it in the sight of God, and He who is to pardon me
knows that in my heart I repent". Whereupon St. Augustine asks:
"Was it then said to no purpose, 'What you shall loose upon earth shall be
loosed in heaven?' Was it for nothing that the keys were
given to the Church?" (Sermo cccxcii, n. 3, in P.L., XXXIX,
1711). The Fathers, of course, do not deny that sin must be confessed to God; at times, indeed, in exhorting the faithful
to confess, they make no mention of the priest; but such passages must be taken in
connection with the general teaching of the Fathers and with the traditional
belief of the Church. Their real meaning is expressed, e.g., by
Anastasius Sinaita (seventh century): "Confess your sins to Christ through the priest" (De sacra synaxi), and by
Egbert, Archbishop of York (d. 766): "Let the sinner confess his evil deeds to God, that the priest may know what penance to impose"
(Mansi, Coll. Conc., XII, 232). For the passages
in St. John Chrysostom, see Hurter, "Theol. dogmat.", III, 454; Pesch,
"Praelectiones", VII, 165. The Fathers, knowing well that one great difficulty
which the sinner has to overcome is shame, encourage him in
spite of it to confess. "I appeal to you, my
brethren", says St. Pacian (d. 391), ". . . you who are not
ashamed to sin and yet are ashamed to confess . . . I
beseech you, cease to hide your wounded conscience. Sick people who are
prudent do not fear the physician, though he cut and burn even
the secret parts of the body" (Paraenesis ad poenit., n. 6, 8). St. John
Chrysostom (d. 347) pleads eloquently with the sinner: "Be not ashamed to approach (the
priest) because you have sinned, nay rather, for this very
reason approach. No one says: Because I have an
ulcer, I will not go near a physician or take medicine; on the contrary, it is just this that
makes it needful to call in physicians and apply remedies. We (priests)
know well how to pardon, because we ourselves are
liable to sin. This is why God did not give us angels to be our doctors, nor send down Gabriel to rule the flock,
but from the fold itself he chooses the shepherds, from among the sheep He
appoints the leader, in order that he may be inclined to pardon his followers
and, keeping in mind his own fault, may not set himself in
hardness against the members of the flock" (Hom. "On Frequent Assembly" in P.G.,
LXIII, 463). Tertullian had already used the same argument
with those who, for fear of exposing their sins, put off their confession
from day to day -- "mindful more of their shame than of their salvation, like those who hide from the physician
the malady they suffer in the secret parts of the body, and thus perish through
bashfulness. . . . because we withhold anything from the knowledge of men, do we thereby conceal it from
God? . . . Is it better to hide and be damned
than to be openly absolved?" ("De poenit.", x). St.
Cyprian (d. 258) 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" (Ep. lv,
"Ad Antonian.", n. 29). Elsewhere he says that many who do not do penance or confess their guilt are filled with
unclean spirits; and by contrast he praises the greater
faith and more wholesome fear of those who, though not guilty of any
idolatrous action, "nevertheless, because they
thought of [such action], 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 wounds
that are slight" ("De lapsis", xxvi sqq.). Origen (d. 154) compares the sinner to those whose stomachs are overloaded
with undigested food or with excess of humours and phlegm if they vomit, they
are relieved, "so, too, those who have sinned, if they conceal and keep the sin within, they are distressed and almost choked
by its humour or phlegm. But if they accuse themselves and confess, they at the
same time vomit the sin and cast off every cause of
disease" (Homil. on Ps. xxxvii, n. 6, in P.G., XII, 1386). St.
Irenæus (130-102) relates the case of certain women whom the Gnostic
Marcus had led into sin. "Some of them", he says, "perform their
exomologesis openly also [etiam in manifesto], while others, afraid to do this, draw back in
silence, despairing to regain the life of God" ("Adv. haer.", I, xiii, 7, in P.G., VII,
591). This etiam in manifesto suggests at least that they had confessed
privately, but could not bring themselves to make a public
confession. The advantage of confession as against
the concealment of sin is shown in the words of St.
Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians: "It is
better for a man to confess his sins than to harden his heart" (Ep. I, "Ad Cor.",
li, 1).
This outline of the patristic teaching shows: that the Fathers
insisted on a manifestation of sin as the necessary means of unburdening the soul and regaining the friendship of God; that the confession was to be
made not to a layman but to priests; that priests exercise the power of absolving in virtue
of a Divine commission, i.e., as representatives of Christ; that the sinner, if he would be saved, must overcome his
shame and repugnance to confession. And since the series of witnesses goes back to the latter part of the
first century, the practice of confession must have existed from
the earliest days. St.
Leo had good reason for appealing to the "Apostolic
rule" which made secret confession to the priest sufficient without the
necessity of a public declaration. Nor is it
surprising that Lactantius (d. c. 330) should have pointed to the
practice of confession as a characteristic of the true Church: "That is the true Church 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" ("Div. lnst.", IV, 30).
WHAT SINS ARE TO BE CONFESSED
Among the propositions condemned by the Council of
Trent is the following: "That to obtain forgiveness of
sins in the Sacrament of Penance,
it is not necessary by Divine
law to confess each and every mortal sin which is called to mind by due and careful examination, to confess even hidden sins and those that are against the last two
precepts of the Decalogue, together with the circumstances that
change the specific nature of the sin; such confession is only
useful for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, and of old was
practised merely in order to impose canonical satisfaction" (Can
de poenit., vii). The Catholic
teaching consequently is: that all mortal sins must be confessed of which the penitent is conscious, for these are so related that noone of
them can be remitted until all are remitted. Remission means that the soul is restored to the friendship of God; and this is obviously impossible if there
remain unforgiven even a single mortal sin. Hence, the penitent, who in
confession willfully conceals a mortal sin, derives no benefit whatever; on the
contrary, he makes void the sacrament and thereby incurs the guilt of sacrilege. If, however, the sin be omitted, not through any fault of the
penitent, but through forgetfulness, it is forgiven indirectly; but it must be
declared at the next confession and thus submitted to the
power of the keys. While mortal sin is the necessary matter of confession, venial sin is sufficient
matter, as are also the mortal sins already forgiven in previous confessions.
This is the common teaching of theologians, in accord with the condemnation
pronounced by Leo
X on Luther's assertion, 'By no means presume to
confess venial sins . . . in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed" (Bull, "Exurge Domine"; Denzinger, "Enchir.", 748). In the constitution
"Inter cunctas" (17 Feb., 1304), Benedict
XI, after stating that penitents who had confessed to a
priest belonging to a religious order are not obliged to reiterate the
confession to their own priest, adds: "Though it is not necessary to confess the same sins over again, nevertheless we regard it as
salutary to repeat the confession, because of the shame it
involves, which is a great part of penance; hence we strictly
enjoin the Brothers (Dominicans and Franciscans] to admonish their penitents and in sermons 'exhort them that they confess to their
own priests at least once a year, assuring them that
this will undoubtedly conduce to their spiritual welfare" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 470). St.
Thomas gives the same reason for this practice: the oftener one confesses the
more is the (temporal) penalty reduced; hence one might confess over and over
again until the whole penalty is cancelled, nor would he thereby offer any
injury to the sacrament" (IV Sent., d. xvii, q. 3, sol. 5 ad
4).
SATISFACTION
As stated above, the absolution given by the priest to a penitent who confesses his sins with the proper dispositions remits both the
guilt and the eternal punishment (of mortal sin). There remains, however, some indebtedness to Divine justice which must be cancelled here or hereafter
(see PURGATORY). In order to have it cancelled here,
the penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his "penance",
usually in the form of certain
prayers which he is to say, or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits
to a church, the Stations
of the Cross, etc. Alms, deeds, fasting, and prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but
other penitential works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance
is determined by the confessor according to the nature of the sins revealed, the special circumstances of the
penitent, his liability to relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases
it may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is
prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the penitent may
receive another sacrament (e.g., Holy
Communion) immediately after confession,
since absolution restores him to the state of grace. He is nevertheless under obligation to continue the performance of his penance until it is completed. In theological language, this penance
is called satisfaction and is defined, in the words of St.
Thomas: "The payment of the temporal punishment due on account of the offence
committed against God by sin" (Suppl. to Summa, Q. xii, a. 3). It is an
act of justice whereby the injury done to the honour of God is required, so far at least as the sinner is able to make reparation (poena vindicativa) ; it is
also a preventive remedy, inasmuch as it is meant to hinder the further
commission of sin (poena medicinalis). Satisfaction is
not, like contrition and confession, an
essential part of the sacrament, because the primary effect, i.e.,
remission of guilt and eternal punishment -- is obtained without
satisfaction; but it is an integral part, because it is requisite for obtaining
the secondary effect -- i.e., remission of the temporal punishment. The
Catholic doctrine on this point is set forth by
the Council of Trent, which condemns the proposition:
"That the entire punishment is always remitted by God together with the guilt, and the satisfaction
required of penitents is no other than faith whereby they believe that Christ has satisfied for them"; and further the
proposition: "That the keys were given to the Church for loosing only and not for binding as
well; that therefore in enjoining penance on those who confess,
priests act contrary to the purpose of the keys
and the institution of Christ; that it is a fiction [to say] that after
the eternal punishment has been remitted in virtue of
the keys, there usually remains to be paid a temporal penalty" (Can. "de Sac.
poenit.", 12, 15; Denzinger, "Enchir.", 922, 925).
As against the errors contained in these statements, the Council
(Sess. XIV, c. viii) cites conspicuous examples from Holy
Scripture. The most notable of these is the judgment
pronounced upon David: "And Nathan said to
David: the Lord also hath taken away thy
sin: thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because
thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born
to thee, shall surely die" (2 Samuel
12:13, 14; cf. Genesis
3:17; Numbers
20:11 sqq.). David's sin was forgiven and yet he had to suffer
punishment in the loss of his child. The same truth is taught by St.
Paul (1
Corinthians 11:32): "But whilst we are judged, we are
chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world". The
chastisement here mentioned is a temporal punishment, but a punishment unto Salvation. "Of all the parts of penance", says the Council of
Trent (loc. cit.), "satisfaction was constantly
recommended to the Christian people by our Fathers". This the
Reformers themselves admitted. Calvin (Instit., III, iv, 38) says he makes
little account of what the ancient writings contain in regard to satisfaction
because "nearly all whose books are extant went astray on this point or spoke
too severely". Chemnitius ("Examen C. Trident.", 4) acknowledges that Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine extolled the
value of penitential works; and Flacius Illyricus, in the "Centuries", has a
long list of Fathers and early writers who, as he admits, bear
witness to the doctrine of satisfaction. Some of the texts
already cited (Confession) expressly mention satisfaction as a part of sacramental penance. To these may
be added St. Augustine, who says that "Man is forced to suffer even after his
sins are forgiven, though it was sin that brought down on him this penalty. For
the punishment outlasts the guilt, lest the guilt should be thought slight if
with its forgiveness the punishment also came to an end" (Tract. cxxiv, "In
Joann.", n. 5, in P.L., XXXV, 1972); St.
Ambrose: "So efficacious is the medicine of penance that [in view
of it] God seems to revoke His sentence" ("De poenit.", 1, 2, c. vi, n. 48, in
P.L., XVI, 509); Caesarius
of Arles: "If in tribulation we give not thanks to
God nor redeem our faults by
good works, we shall be detained in the fire of
purgatory until our slightest sins are burned away like wood or straw" (Sermo
civ, n. 4). Among the motives for doing penance on which the
Fathers most frequently insist is this: If you punish your own sin, God will spare you; but in any
case the sin will not go unpunished. Or again they declare
that God wants us to perform satisfaction in order
that we may clear off our indebtedness to His justice. It is therefore with good reason that
the earlier councils -- e.g., Laodicaea (A. D. 372) and Carthage
IV (397) -- teach that satisfaction is to be imposed on penitents; and the
Council of Trent but reiterates the traditional
belief and practice when it makes the giving of
"penance" obligatory on the confessor. Hence, too, the practice of granting
indulgences, whereby the Church comes to the penitent's assistance and
places at his disposal the treasury of Christ's merits. Though closely connected with penance, indulgences are not a part of the
sacrament; they presuppose
confession and absolution, and are properly called an
extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment incurred by sin.
SEAL OF CONFESSION
Regarding the sins revealed to him in sacramental confession, the
priest is bound to inviolable secrecy. From this
obligation he cannot be excused either to save
his own life or good name,
to save the life of another, to further the ends of
human justice, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him, or any oath which he takes -- e.g., as a
witness in court. He cannot reveal them either
directly -- i.e., by repeating them in so many words -- or indirectly -- i.e.,
by any sign or action, or by giving information based on what he
knows through confession. The only possible
release from the obligation of secrecy is the permission to speak
of the sins given freely and formally by the penitent
himself. Without such permission, the violation of the seal of
confession would not only be a grievous sin, but also a sacrilege. It would be contrary to the natural
law because it would be an abuse of the penitent's
confidence and an injury, very serious perhaps, to his reputation. It would also violate the Divine
law, which, while imposing the obligation to confess, likewise forbids the revelation of that which is confessed. That it
would infringe ecclesiastical law is evident from the strict
prohibition and the severe penalties enacted in this matter by the Church. "Let him beware of betraying the sinner by word or sign or in any other way
whatsoever. . . we decree that he who dares to reveal a sin made known to him in the
tribunal of penance shall not only be deposed from the priestly office, but shall moreover be subjected
to close confinement in a monastery and the performance of perpetual penance" (Fourth Lateran Council, cap. xxi;
Denzinger, "Enchir.", 438). Furthermore, by a
decree of the Holy Office (18 Nov., 1682), confessors are forbidden, even where there would
be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of
the knowledge obtained in confession
that would displease the penitent, even though the non-use would occasion him
greater displeasure. These prohibitions, as well as the general obligation of secrecy, apply only to what the confessor learns through
confession made as part of the sacrament. He is not bound by the
seal as regards what may be told him by a
person who, he is sure, has no
intention of making a sacramental confession but merely
speaks to him "in confidence"; prudence, however, may impose
silence concerning what he learns in this way.
Nor does the obligation of the seal prevent the confessor from speaking of things which he has
learned outside confession, though the same things have also been
told him in confession; here again, however, other reasons may
oblige him to observe secrecy. The same obligation, with the limitations indicated, rests
upon all those who in one way or another acquire a knowledge of what is said in
confession, e.g., an interpreter who translates for the priest the words of the penitent, a person who either accidentally or intentionally
overhears the confession, an ecclesiastical superior (e.g., a bishop) to whom the confessor applies for authorization to absolve the penitent from a reserved
case. Even the penitent, according to some theologians, is bound to secrecy; but the more
general opinion leaves him free; as he can authorize the confessor to speak of what he has confessed, he
can also, of his own accord, speak to others. But he is obliged to take care that what he reveals shall
cast no blame or suspicion on the confessor, since the latter cannot defend
himself. In a word, it is more in keeping with the intention of the Church and with the reverence due to the sacrament that the penitent himself should
refrain from speaking of his confession. Such, undoubtedly, was
the motive that prompted St.
Leo to condemn the practice of letting the penitent read
in public a written statement of his sins (see above); and it needs scarcely be added
that the Church, while recognizing the validity of public confession, by no means requires it; as the Council of
Trent declares, it would be imprudent to prescribe such
a confession by any human enactment. (For provisions of the
civil law regarding this matter, see SEAL OF CONFESSION.)
PUBLIC PENANCE
An undeniable proof both of the practice of
confession and of the necessity of satisfaction is found in the usage
of the early Church according to which severe and often
prolonged penance was prescribed and performed. The elaborate
system of penance exhibited in the "Penitentials" and conciliar decrees, referred to above, was of course the
outcome of a long development; but it simply expressed in greater detail the
principles and the general attitude towards sin and satisfaction which had prevailed from the
beginning. Frequently enough the latter statutes refer to the earlier practice either in
explicit terms or by reiterating what had been enacted long before. At times,
also, they allude to documents which were then extant, but which have not yet
come down to us, e.g., the libellus mentioned in the African synods of 251 and 255 as containing singula
capitum placita, i.e., the details of previous legislation (St.
Cyprian, Ep. xxi). Or again, they point to a system of penance that was already in operation and needed only to be
applied to particular cases, like that of the Corinthians to whom Clement of
Rome wrote his First Epistle about A. D. 96, exhorting
them: "Be subject in obedience to the priests (presbyteris) and receive discipline [correctionem) unto penance, bending the knees of your hearts" (Ep. I "Ad Cor.",
lvii). At the close, therefore, of the first century, the performance of penance was required, and the nature of that penance was
determined, not by the penitent himself, but by ecclesiastical authority. (See EXCOMMUNICATION.) Three kinds of
penance are to be distinguished canonical,
prescribed by councils or bishops in the form of "canons"
for graver offences. This might be either private, i.e., performed secretly or
public i.e., performed in the presence of bishop, clergy and people. When accompanied by certain rites as prescribed in the Canons,
it was solemn penance. The public
penance was not necessarily canonical; it might be
undertaken by the penitent of his own accord. Solemn penance, the
most severe of all, was inflicted for the worst offences only, notably for
adultery, murder, and idolatry, the "capital sins". The name of penitent was applied
especially to those who performed public canonical penance. "There is a harder and more grievous
penance, the doers of which are properly called in the Church penitents; they are excluded from
participation in the sacraments of the altar, lest by unworthily receiving they eat and
drink judgment unto themselves "(St. Augustine, "De utilitate agendae poenit.",
ser. cccxxxii, c. iii). The penitential process included a series of acts, the
first of which was confession. Regarding this, Origen, after speaking of baptism, tells us: "There is a yet more severe
and arduous pardon of sins by penance, when the sinner washes his couch with tears, and when he
blushes not to disclose his sin to the priest of the Lord and seeks the remedy" (Homil.
"In Levit.", ii, 4, in P. G., XII, 418). Again he says: "They who have sinned, if they hide and retain their sin within their breast, are grievously
tormented; but if the sinner becomes his own accuser, while he does
this, he discharges the cause of all his malady. Only let him
carefully consider to whom he should confess his sin; what is the character of the physician; if he be one who will
be weak with the weak, who will weep with the sorrowful, and who
understands the discipline of condolence and fellow-feeling. So
that when his skill shall be known and his pity felt, you may
follow what he shall advise. Should he think your disease to be such that it
should be declared in the assembly of the faithful-whereby others may be
edified, and yourself easily reformed-this must be done with much deliberation
and the skillful advice of the physician" (Homil. "In Ps. xxxvii", n. 6, in P.
G., XII, 1386). Origen here states quite plainly the relation
between confession and public penance. The sinner must first make known his
sins to the priest, who will decide whether
any further manifestation is called for. Public penance did not
necessarily include a public avowal of sin. As St. Augustine also declares, "If his
sin is not only grievous in itself, but involves
scandal given to others, and if the bishop [antistes] judges that it will be
useful to the Church [to have the sin published], let not the sinner refuse to do penance in the
sight of many or even of the people at large, let him not resist, nor through
shame add to his mortal wound a greater evil" (Sermo cli, n. 3). It was therefore the
duty of the confessor to determine how far the process of penance should go beyond sacramental confession. It lay
with him also to fix the quality and duration of the
penance: "Satisfaction", says Tertullian, "is determined by
confession; penance is born of
confession, and by penance God is appeased" (De poenit., viii). In the East
there existed from the earliest times (Sozomen, H. E., VII, xvi) or at least from the
outbreak of the Novatianist schism (Socrates, H. E., V, xix) a functionary known as
presbyter penitentiarius, i, e, a priest especially appointed on account of his
prudence and reserve to hear
confessions and impose public penance. If the confessor deemed it necessary, he obliged the penitent to appear before the
bishop and his council [presbyterium) and
these again decided whether the crime was of such a nature that it ought to be confessed in presence
of the people. Then followed, usually on Ash
Wednesday, the imposition of public
penance whereby the sinner was excluded for a longer or shorter
period from the communion of the Church and in addition was obliged to perform
certain penitential exercises, the
exomologesis. This term, however, had various meanings: it designated
sometimes the entire process of penance (Tertullian), or again the avowal of sin at the beginning or, finally, the public
avowal which was made at the end -- i.e., after the performance of the
penitential exercises. The nature of these exercises varied according to the
sin for which they were prescribed. According to Tertullian (De poenit., IX), "Exomologesis
is the discipline which obliges a man to prostrate and humiliate himself
and to adopt a manner of life that will draw down mercy. As regards dress and
food, it prescribes that he shall lie in sackcloth and ashes, clothe his body in rags, plunge his
soul in sorrow, correct his faults by harsh
treatment of himself, use the plainest meat and drink for the sake of his
soul and not of his belly: usually he shall
nourish prayer by fasting, whole days and nights together he shall
moan, and weep, and wail to the Lord his God, cast himself at the feet of the priests, fall on his knees before those who are
dear to God, and beseech them to plead in his behalf". At
a very early period, the exomologesis was divided into four parts or
"stations", and the penitents were grouped in as many different classes
according to their progress in penance. The lower class, the
flentes (weeping) remained outside the church door and
besought the intercession of the faithful as these passed into
the church. The audientes (hearers) were stationed in the
narthex of the church behind the
catechumens and were permitted to remain during
the Mass of the Catechumens, i.e., until the end of the sermon. The substrati (prostrate), or
genuflectentes (kneeling), occupied the space between the door and the ambo, where they received the imposition of the
bishop's hands or his blessing. Finally, the consistentes were
so called because they were allowed to hear the whole Mass without
communicating, or because they remained at their place while the faithful
approached the Holy Table. This grouping into stations originated in the East,
where at least the three higher groups are mentioned about A. D. 263 by
Gregory Thaumaturgus, and the first or lowest
group by St. Basil (Ep. cxcix, e. xxii; ccxvii, c. lvi). In the West the
classification did not exist, or at any rate the different stations were not so
clearly marked; the penitents were treated pretty much as the catechumens.
The exomologesis terminated with the reconciliation, a solemn function which took place on Holy
Thursday just before Mass. The bishop presided, assisted by his priests and deacons. A consultation (concilium) was
held to determine which of the penitents deserved readmission; the Penitential
Psalms and the litanies were recited at the foot of the altar; the bishop in a brief
address reminded the penitents of their obligation to lead henceforth an upright life; the penitents, lighted candles in hand, were then led into the church; prayers, antiphons and responses
were said, and, finally, the public absolution was given. (See Schmitz, "Die
Bussbucher u. die Bussdisciplin d. Kirche", Mainz, 1883; Funk in "Kirchenlex.", s. v. "Bussdisciplin";
Pohle in "Kirchl. Handlex.", s. v. "Bussdisciplin"; Tixeront, "Hist. des
dogmes", Paris, 1905; Eng. tr., St. Louis, 1910.) Regarding the nature of this absolution given by the bishop, various opinions have been put forward.
According to one view, it was the remission, not of guilt but of the temporal
punishment; the guilt had already been remitted by the absolution which the penitent received in confession before he entered on the public
penance. This finds support in the fact that the reconciliation
could be effected by a deacon in case of necessity and in the absence of a priest, as appears from St.
Cyprian (Ep. xviii). Speaking of those who had received
libelli from the martyrs he says: "If they are overtaken by
illness, they need not wait for our coming, but may make the exomologesis
of their sin before any priest, or, if no priest be at hand, and death is imminent, before
a deacon, that thus, by the imposition of his hands
unto penance, they may come to the Lord with the peace which the
martyrs had besought us by letters to grant." On
the other hand, the deacon could not give sacramental absolution; consequently, his function in such
cases was to absolve the penitent from punishment; and, as he
was authorized herein to do what the bishop did by the public absolution, this could not have been
sacramental. There is the further consideration
that the bishop did not necessarily hear the confessions
of those whom he absolved at the time of reconciliation, and
moreover the ancient formularies prescribe that at this
time a priest shall hear the confession,
and that the bishop, after that, shall pronounce absolution. But sacramental absolution can be given only by him who hears the
confession. And again, the public penance often
lasted many years; consequently, if the penitent were not absolved at the beginning, he would have remained
during all that time in the state of sin, incapable of meriting anything for heaven by his penitential exercises, and exposed
to the danger of sudden death (Pesch, op. cit., p. 110 sq. Cf.
Palmieri, op. cit., p. 459; Pignataro, "De
disciplina poenitentiali", Rome, 1904, p. 100; Di Dario, "II sacramento della
penitenza nei primi secoli del cristianesimo", Naples, 1908, p. 81). The writers who hold that
the final absolution was sacramental, insist that there is no documentary
evidence of a secret confession; that if this had been in existence, the harder way of the public penance would have been abandoned; that the argument from prescription loses its force if the sacramental character of public
penance be denied; and that this penance contained
all that is required in a sacrament. (Boudinhon, "Sur l'histoire de la
pénitence" in "Revue d'histoire et de litterature religieuses", II, 1897, p. 306
sq. Cf. Hogan in "Am. Cath. Q. Rev.", July, 1900; Batiffol, "Etudes d'histoire
et de theologie positive", Paris, 1902, p. 195 sq.; Vacandard in "Dict. de
theol.", s. v. "Absolution", 156-61; O'Donnell, "Penance in the
Early Church", Dublin 1907, p. 95 sq.) While this discussion
concerns the practice under ordinary circumstances, it is commonly admitted that
sacramental absolution was granted at the time of confession to those who were in danger of death. The Church, in fact, did not, in her universal
practice, refuse absolution at the last moment even in the case of
those who had committed grievous sin. St.
Leo, writing in 442 to Theodore, Bishop of Fréjus, says: "Neither satisfaction is to be
forbidden nor reconciliation denied to those who in time of need and imminent danger implore the aid
of penance and then of reconciliation." After pointing out that penance should not be deferred from day to day until the moment
"when there is hardly space either for the confession of
the penitent or his reconciliation by the priest"; he adds that even in these circumstances
"the action of penance and the grace of communion
should not be denied if asked for by the penitent" (Ep. cviii, c. iv,in P.L.,
LIV, 1011). St.
Leo states expressly that he was applying the ecclesiastical rule (ecclesiastica
regula). Shortly before, St. Celestine (428) had expressed his horror at
learning that "penance was refused the dying and that the desire of those was
not granted who in the hour of death sought this remedy for their soul"; this, he says, is "adding death to death
and killing with cruelty the soul that is not absolved" (Letter to the bishops of the provinces of Vienne and Narbonne, c. ii). That such a refusal was not in accordance with
the earlier practice is evident from the words of the Council of
Nicaea (325): "With respect to the dying, the ancient canonical law shall now also be observed, namely, that if
any one depart from this life, he shall by no means be deprived of the last and
most necessary viaticum" (can. xiii). If the dying person could receive the
Eucharist, absolution certainly could not be denied. If at
times greater severity seems to be shown, this consisted in the refusal, not of
absolution but of communion; such was the penalty
prescribed by the Council of
Elvira (306) for those who after baptism had fallen into idolatry. The same is true of the canon (22) of the
Council of Arles (314) which enacts that
communion shall not be given to "those who apostatize, but never appear before the Church, nor even seek to do
penance, and yet afterwards, when attacked by illness, request
communion". The council lays stress on the lack of proper disposition in such sinners, as does also St.
Cyprian when he forbids that they who "do no penance nor manifest heartfelt sorrow" be admitted to communion
and peace if in illness and danger they ask for it; for what prompts them to
seek (communion] is, not repentance for their sin, but the fear of approaching death" (Ep. ad Antonianum, n.
23). A further evidence of the severity with which public
penance, and especially its solemn
form, was administered is the fact that it could be performed
only once. This is evident from some of the texts quoted above (Tertullian, Hermas). Origen also says: "For the graver crimes, there
is only one opportunity of penance" (Hom. xv, "In Levit.", c.
ii); and St.
Ambrose: "As there is one baptism so there is one penance,
which, however, is performed publicly" (De poenit., II, c. x, n. 95). St.
Augustine gives the reason: "Although, by a wise and salutary provision,
opportunity for performing that humblest kind of penance is
granted but once in the Church, lest the remedy, become common, should be
less efficacious for the sick . . . yet who will dare to say to
God: Wherefore dost thou once more spare this man who after a first penance has
again bound himself in the fetters of sin?" (Ep. cliii, "Ad Macedonium"). It may well
be admitted that the discipline of the earliest days was rigorous, and
that in some Churches or by individual bishops it was carried to extremes. This is
plainly stated by Pope St.
Innocent (405) in his letter (Ep. vi, c. ii) to Exuperius, Bishop of Toulouse. The question had been raised as to what
should be done with those who, after a lifetime of licentious indulgence, begged
at the end for penance and communion. "Regarding these", writes
the pope, "the earlier practice was more severe, the
later more tempered with mercy. The former custom was that penance should be
granted, but communion denied; for in those times persecutions were frequent, hence, lest the easy
admission to communion should fail to bring back from their evil ways men who were sure of reconciliation,
very rightly communion was refused, while penance was granted in
order that the refusal might not be total. . . . But after Our
Lord had restored peace to his Churches, and terror had
ceased, it was judged well that communion be given the dying lest we should seem
to follow the harshness and sternness of the heretic Novatian in denying pardon. Communion, therefore,
shall be given at the last along with penance, that these men, if
only in the supreme moment of death, may, with the permission of Our
Saviour, be rescued from eternal destruction." The mitigation of public penance which this passage indicates continued throughout the
subsequent period, especially the Middle
Ages. The office of poenitentiarius had already
(390) been abolished in the East by Nestorius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in
consequence of a scandal that grew out of public
confession. Soon afterwards, the four "stations" disappeared, and
public penance fell into disuse. ln the West it underwent a more
gradual transformation. Excommunication continued in use, and the
interdict was frequently resorted to. The
performance of penance was left in large measure to the zeal and good will of the penitent; increasing clemency was shown by allowing
the reconciliation to take place somewhat before the prescribed
time was completed; and the practice was
introduced of commuting the enjoined penance into other exercises
or works of piety, such as prayer and almsgiving. According to a decree of the Council of Clermont (1095), those who joined a crusade were freed from all obligation in the
matter of penance. Finally it became
customary to let the reconciliation follow immediately after
confession. With these modifications the ancient usage had
practically disappeared by the middle of the sixteenth century. Some attempts
were made to revive it after the Council of
Trent, but these were isolated and of short duration.
(See INDULGENCES.) The penitential
system in these countries was established simultaneously with the introduction
of Christianity, was rapidly developed by episcopal decrees and synodal enactments, and was reduced
to definite form in the Penitentials. These books exerted such an
influence on the practice in Continental Europe that, according to one opinion, they
"first brought order and unity into ecclesiastical discipline in these matters"
(Wasserschleben, "Bussordnungen d. abendlandischen Kirche", Halle, 1851, p. 4.
-- For a different view see Schmitz, "Die Bussbucher u. die Bussdisciplin d.
Kirche", Mainz, 1888, p. 187). In any case, it is beyond question that in their
belief and practice the Churches of Ireland, England, and Scotland were at one with Rome. The so-called Synod of St.
Patrick decrees that a Christian who commits any of the capital
sins shall perform a year's
penance for each offence and at the end shall "come with witnesses and be absolved by the priest" (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, p. 3). Another synod of St.
Patrick ordains that "the Abbot shall decide to whom the power of binding
and loosing be committed, but forgiveness is more in keeping with the examples
of Scripture; let penance be short,
with weeping and lamentation, and a mournful garb, rather than long and tempered
with relaxations "(Wilkins, ibid., p. 4). For various opinions regarding the date and origin of the synods, see Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", II,
331; Bury, "Life of St. Patrick", London, 1905. The confessor was called anmchara (animae
carus), i.e., "soul's friend". St. Columba was
anmchara to Aidan, Lord of Dalraida, A. D. 574 (Adamnan's "Life of St.
Columba", ed. Reeves, p. lxxvi); and Adamnan was "soul's friend" to Finnsnechta, Monarch of
Ireland, A. D. 675 (ibid., p. xliii). The "Life
of St. Columba" relates the coming of Feachnaus to Iona, where, with weeping and lamentation, he
fell at Columba's feet and "before all who were present confessed
his sins. Then the Saint weeping with him, said to
him: 'Arise, my son and be comforted; thy sins which thou hast committed are forgiven;
because, as it is written, a contrite and humble heart God doth not despise,'" (ibid., I, 30). The need
and effects of confession are explained in the Leabhar Breac:
"Penance frees from all the sins committed after baptism. Every one desirous of a cure for his
soul and happiness with the Lord must make an humble and sorrowful confession;
and the confession with the prayers of the Church are as baptisms to him. As sickness injures the body, so
sin injures the soul; and as there is a cure for the disease of
the body, so there is balm for that of the soul. And as the wounds of the body are shown to
a physician, so, too, the sores of the soul must be exposed. As he who takes poison is
saved by a vomit, so, too, the soul is healed by confession and
declaration of his sins with sorrow, and by the prayers of the Church, and a determination henceforth to observe
the laws of the Church of
God. . . . Because Christ left to His Apostles and Church, to the end of the world, the power of
loosing and binding." That confession was required before
Communion is evident from the penitential ascribed to St.
Columbanus, which orders (can. xxx) "that confessions be
given with all diligence, especially concerning commotions of the
mind, before going to Mass, lest perchance any
one approach the altar unworthily, that is, if he have not a clean
heart. For it is better to wait till the heart be sound and free from scandal and envy, than daringly to approach the judgment of
the tribunal; for the altar is the tribunal of Christ, and His Body, even there with His Blood,
judges those who approach unworthily. As, therefore, we must beware of capital
sins before communicating, so, also, from the
more uncertain defects and diseases of a languid soul, it is necessary for us to abstain and to be cleansed before going to that
which is a conjunction with true peace and a joining with eternal salvation". In the "Life of St.
Maedoc of Ferns" it is said of the murdered King Brandubh: "And so he departed
without confession and the communication of the
Eucharist." But the saint restored him to
life for a while, and then, "having made his confession and received absolution and the viaticum of the Body of
Christ, King Brandubh went to heaven, and was interred in the city of St.
Maedoc which is called Ferns, where the kings of that land are buried" (Acta SS. Hib., col. 482). The metrical
"Rule of St. Carthach", translated by Eugene
O'Curry, gives this direction to the priest: "If you go to give communion at the awful
point of death, you must receive confession without shame,
without reserve." In the prayer for giving communion to the sick
(Corpus Christi Missal) we read: "O God, who hast willed that sins should be forgiven by the imposition
of the hands of the priest . . ." and then follows the absolution: "We absolve thee as representatives of
blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles, to whom the Lord gave the power of
binding and loosing." That confession was regularly a part of the
preparation for death is attested by the Council
of Cashel (1172) which commands the faithful in case
of illness to make their will "in the presence of their confessor and neighbours", and prescribes that to
those who die "with a good confession"
due tribute shall be paid in the form of Masses and
burial (can. vi, vii). The practice of public penance was regulated in great detail by the Penitenitials. That
of St. Cummian prescribes that "if any priest refuses penance to the
dying, he is guilty of the loss of their souls . . . for there can be true conversion at the last moment, since God has regard not of time alone, but of the heart also, and the thief gained Paradise in the last hour of his
confession" (C. xiv, 2). Other Penitentials bear the names of St.
Finnian, Sts. David and Gildas,
St.
Columbanus, Adamnan. The collection of canons
known as the "Hibernensis" is especially important, as it cites, under the head
of "Penance" (bk. XLVII), the teaching of St. Augustine, St.
Jerome, and other Fathers, thus showing the continuity
of the Irish faith and observance with that of the early Church. (See Lanigan, "Eccl. Hist. of Ireland", Dublin, 1829; Moran, "Essays on the
Early Irish Church", Dublin, 1864; Malone, "Church Hist. of Ireland", Dublin, 1880; Warren, "The Liturgy and
Ritual of the Celtic Church", Oxford, 1881; Salmon, "The Ancient
Irish Church", Dublin, 1897.) In
the Anglo-Saxon Church penance was
called behreowsung, from the verb hreowan, whence our word "to
rue". The confessor was the scrift;
confession, scrift spraec; and the parish itself was the scriftscir, i.e.,
"confession district" -- a term which shows plainly the close relation between confession and the work of religion in general.
The practice in England can be traced back to the times
immediately following the country's conversion. Ven. Bede (H. E., IV, 23 [25]) gives the story of
Adamnan, an Irish monk of the seventh century, who belonged to the
monastery of Coldingham, England. In his youth, having committed some
sin, he went to a priest, confessed, and was given a penance to be performed until the priest should return. But the priest went to Ireland and died there, and Adamnan continued his penance to
the end of his days. When St.
Cuthbert (635-87) on his missionary tours preached to
the people, "they all confessed openly what they had done, . . . and what they
confessed they expiated; as he commanded them, by worthy fruits of penance" (Bede, op. cit., IV, 25). Alcuin (735-804) declares that "without confession there is no pardon" (P.L., C, 337); that "he who
accuses himself of his sins will not have the devil for an accuser in the day of judgment"
(P.L., CI, 621); that "he who conceals his sins and is ashamed to make wholesome confession, has God as witness now and will have him again as avenger"
(ibid., 622). Lanfranc (1005-89) has a treatise, "De celunda
confessione", i.e., on keeping confession secret, in which he
rebukes those who give the slightest intimation of what they have heard in confession (P.L., CL, 626).
The penitentials were known as scrift bocs. The one
attributed to Archbishop
Theodore (602-90) says: "The deacon is not allowed to impose
penance on a layman; this should be done by the bishop or priests" (bk. II, 2):
and further; "According to the canons, penitents should not
receive communion until their penance is completed; but we, for
mercy's sake, allow them to receive at the end of a year or six months" (I, 12).
An important statement is that "public reconciliation is not established in this
province, for the reason that there is no public penance"- which
shows that the minute prescriptions contained in the penitential were
meant for the guidance of the priest in giving penance
privately, i.e., in confession. Among the excerptiones, or
extracts, from the canons which bear the name of Archbishop
Egbert of York (d. 766), canon
xlvi says that the bishop shall hear no cause without
the presence of his clergy, except in case of
confession (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, 104). His Penitential
prescribes (IX) that "a bishop or priest shall not refuse confession
to those who desire it, though they be guilty of many sins" (ibid., 126). The Council of Chalcuth (A.
D. 787): "If any one depart this life without penance or confession, he shall not be prayed for" (can. xx). The canons
published under King Edgar (960) have a special section "On
Confession which begins: "When one wishes to
confess his sins, let him act manfully, and not be ashamed to
confess his misdeeds and crimes, accusing himself; because hence comes pardon,
and because without confession there is no pardon; confession heals; confession justifies" (ibid.,
229). The Council of Eanham (1009): "Let every Christian do as behooves him, strictly keep his
Christianity, accustom himself to frequent confession, fearlessly confess his sins, and carefully make amends according as he
is directed" (can. xvii, Wilkins, ibid., 289). Among the
ecclesiastical laws enacted (1033) by King
Canute, we find this exhortation: "Let us with all
diligence turn back from our sins, and let us each confess our sins to our confessor, and ever [after] refrain from
evil-doing and mend our ways" (XVIII, Wilkins, ibid., 303). The Council of Durham (c. 1220): "How necessary is the sacrament of penance, those words
of the Gospel prove: Whose sins, etc. . . . But since we obtain the pardon
of our sins by true confession, we prescribe in
accordance with the canonical statutes that the priest in giving penance shall
carefully consider the amount of the penance, the
quality of the sin, the place, time, cause, duration and other
circumstances of the sin; and especially the devotion of the penitent
and the signs of contrition." Similar directions are given by the
Council of Oxford (1222), which adds after various admonitions:
"Let no priest dare, either out of anger or even through fear of death, to reveal the
confession of anyone by word or sign . . . and should he be
convicted of doing this he ought deservedly to be degraded without hope of relaxation" (Wilkins, ibid., 595). The Scottish Council (c. 1227) repeats these
injunctions and prescribes "that once a year the faithful shall confess all
their sins either to their own [parish] priest or, with his permission, to some other
priest" (can. lvii). Explicit instructions for
the confessor are found in the statutes of Alexander, Bishop of Coventry (1237), especially in regard
to the manner of questioning the penitent and enjoining penance.
The Council of Lambeth (1261) declares: "Since the sacrament of confession and penance, the second plank after shipwreck, the last part of man's seafaring, the final refuge, is for every sinner most necessary unto salvation, we strictly forbid, under pain of
excommunication, that anyone should presume to
hinder the free administration of this sacrament to each who asks for it" (Wilkins,
ibid., 754). To give some idea of the ancient discipline, the penalties attached to graver
crimes are cited here from the English and Irish Penitentials. For stealing, Cummian
prescribes that a layman shall do one year of
penance; a cleric, two; a subdeacon three; a deacon, four; a priest, five; a bishop, six. For murder or perjury, the penance lasted three,
five, six, seven, ten or twelve years according to the criminal's rank. Theodore
commands that if any one leave the Catholic Church, join the heretics, and induce others to do the same, he
shall, in case he repent, do penance for twelve years. For the
perjurer who swears by the Church, the Gospel, or the
relics of the saints, Egbert prescribes seven or
eleven years of penance. Usury entailed three years; infanticide, fifteen; idolatry or demon-worship, ten. Violations of the
sixth commandment were punished with great severity; the penance
varied, according to the nature of the sin, from three to fifteen years, the extreme
penalty being prescribed for incest, i.e., fifteen to twenty-five years.
Whatever its duration, the penance included fasting on bread and water, either for the whole
period or for a specified portion. Those who could not fast were obliged instead to recite daily a certain number
of psalms, to give alms, take the discipline (scourging) or perform some other
penitential exercise as determined by the confessor. (See Lingard, "Hist. and Antiq. of the
Anglo-Saxon Church", London, 1845; Thurston,
"Confession in England before the Conquest" in "The Tablet",
February and March, 1905.) In the Anglican
Church, according to the rule laid down in the
"Prayer Book", there is a general
confession prescribed for morning and evening Service, also for
Holy Communion; this confession is
followed by a general absolution like the one in use in the Catholic Church. Also in the "Prayer Book" confession is
counselled for the quieting of conscience and for the
good that comes from absolution and the peace that arises from the
fatherly direction of the minister of God. There is also mention of private confession in the office for the sick: "Here shall the sick
person be moved to make a special
confession of his sins if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it)
after this sort: 'Our Lord
Jesus Christ, who has left the power to his
Church' etc." Since the beginning of the
Oxford Movement confession after
the manner practised in the Catholic Church has become more frequent among those of
the High Church party. In 1873 a petition was sent to the
Convocation of the Archdiocese of Canterbury asking provision for
the education and authorization of priests for the work of the confessional. In the
joint letter of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York disapprobation
of such course was markedly expressed and the determination not to encourage the
practice of private confession openly avowed. The Puseyites replied citing the authority of the
"Prayer Book" as given above. In our
time among the High Church folk one notices confessionals in the churches and one hears of discourses made to the people enjoining
confession as a necessity to pardon. Those who hear confessions make use generally of the rules and directions laid
down in Catholic "Manuals", and especially popular is the
"Manual" of the Abbé
Gaume (A.G. Mortimer "Confession and
Absolution", London, 1906).
This article is about the
practice of confession in the Christian faith. In criminal proceedings, a confession is a document in which a
suspect admits having committed a crime.Confession of sins is part of the Christian
faith and practice. The meaning is essentially the same as the criminal one – to
admit one's guilt. Confession of one's sins, or at least of one's sinfulness, is
seen by most churches as a pre-requisite for becoming a Christian. In
Catholic teaching, the Catholic sacrament of
Penance (commonly called confession or Reconciliation) is the method given by
Christ to the Catholic Church by which individual men and women may confess sins
committed after baptism and have them absolved by a priest. This
sacrament is known by many names, including penance, reconciliation and
confession (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sections 1423-1442). While
official Church publications always refer to the sacrament as "Penance",
"Reconciliation" or "Penance and Reconciliation", many lay Catholics continue to
use the term "confession" in reference to the sacrament. Catholics believe that no priest, as an individual man, however
pious or learned, has power to forgive sins. This power belongs to God alone;
however, God can and does exercise it through the Catholic priesthood. Catholics
believe God exercises the power of forgiveness by means of the sacrament of
Penance. The basic form of confession has not changed
for centuries, although at one time confessions were made publicly. Colloquially
speaking, the role of the priest is of a judge and jury; in theological terms,
he acts in persona Christi and receives from the Church the power of
jurisdiction over the penitent. The penitent must confess mortal sins in order
to restore his/her connection to God's grace and not to merit Hell. The sinner may confess
venial
sins. The intent of this sacrament is to
provide healing for the soul as well as to regain the grace of God, lost by sin.
The Council of Trent (Session
Fourteen, Chapter I) quoted John 20:22-23 as the
primary Scriptural proof for the doctrine concerning this sacrament, but
Catholics also consider Matthew 9:2-8 and 1 Corinthians
11:27 to be among the Scriptural bases for the sacrament. Absolution in the Roman rite takes this form: God the Father of mercies, through the death and resurrection of
his Son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us
for the forgiveness of sins; through the ministry of the Church may God give you
pardon and peace, and I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.The essential
words, however, are " "ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et
Filii et Spiritus Sancti" or "I absolve you from your sins in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." Before the Second Vatican Council, and still
practiced in traditionalist parishes, the priest would always absolve the
penitent in Latin, using
the following words, followed by an additional prayer. Absolution: "Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat; et ego
auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis (suspensionis)
et interdicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. [making the Sign of the Cross:]
Deinde, ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus
Sancti. Amen."Translation: "May our Lord Jesus Christ
absolve you; and by His authority I absolve you from every bond of
excommunication and interdict, so far as my power allows and your needs require.
[making the Sign of the Cross:] Thereupon, I absolve you of your sins in the
name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen."Post-absolution prayer: "Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita
Beatae Mariae Virginis et omnium sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris vel mali
sustinueris sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratiae et praemium
vitae aeternae."Translation: "May the Passion of Our
Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Virgin Mary and of all the saints
obtain for you that whatever good you do or whatever evil you bear might merit
for you the remission of your sins, the increase of grace and the reward of
everlasting life."The penitent must make an
act of contrition, a prayer
acknowledging his/her faults before God. It typically commences: O my God, I
am heartily sorry... The reception of sacramental absolution is considered
necessary before receiving the Eucharist if one has guilt for a mortal sin. The
Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Sacrament of Reconciliation is the only
ordinary way in which a person can receive forgiveness for mortal sins committed
after baptism. However, perfect contrition (a sorrow
motivated by love of God rather than of fear of punishment) is an extraordinary
way of removing the guilt of mortal sin before or without confession (if there
is no opportunity of confessing to a priest). Such contrition would include the
intention of confessing and receiving sacramental absolution. For the absolution
to be valid, contrition must be had, even imperfect contrition (sorrow
arising from a less pure motive, such as fear of Hell), which is not, by
itself, sufficient to remove the guilt of sin. A
mortal sin must be about a serious matter, have been committed with full
consent, and be known to be wrong. Other sins would be classed as venial;
confession of venial sins is strongly recommended but not obligatory, and is
said to strengthen the penitent against temptation to mortal sin. Serious
matters for a mortal sin, according to Roman Catholic teaching, include for
example: murder, blasphemy, fornication, the use of artificial contraception,
and missing Mass without a good reason on a Sunday or a holy day of obligation.
It is a widely held belief of the faith that if a person guilty of mortal sin
dies without either receiving the sacrament or experiencing perfect contrition
with the intention of confessing to a priest, he/she will receive eternal
damnation.In order for the sacrament to be valid the
penitent must do more than simply confess his known mortal sins to a priest. He
must a) be truly sorry for each of the mortal sins he committed, b) have a firm
intention never to commit them again, and c) perform the penance imposed by the
priest. Also, in addition to confessing the types of mortal sins committed, the
penitent must disclose how many times each sin was committed, to the best of
his/her ability.The Code of Canon Law requires
all Roman Catholics to confess mortal sins at least once a year, although
frequent reception of the sacrament is recommended such as reception weekly or
monthly. In reality many Catholics confess far less or more than is required; of
all practices of the faith it is perhaps among the most common to be neglected.
For Catholic priests, the confidentiality of all
statements made by penitents during the course of confession is absolute. This
strict confidentiality is known as the Seal of the Confessional. According
to the Code of Canon Law, 983 §1, "The sacramental seal is inviolable; therefore
it is absolutely forbidden for a confessor to betray in any way a penitent in
words or in any manner and for any reason." Priests may not reveal what they
have learned during confession to anyone, even under the threat of their own
death or that of others. (This is unique to the Seal of the Confessional. Many
other forms of confidentiality, including in most
states attorney-client privilege, allow ethical breaches of the confidence to save the life of another.)
For a priest to break that confidentiality would lead to a latae
sententiae (automatic) excommunication reserved to the
Holy See (Code
of Canon Law, 1388 §1). In a criminal matter, a priest may encourage the
penitent to surrender to authorities. However, this is the extent of the
leverage he wields; he may not directly or indirectly disclose the matter to
civil authorities himself. There are limited cases
where portions of a confession may be revealed to others, but always with the
penitent's permission and always without actually revealing the penitent's
identity. This is the case, for example, with unusually serious offenses, as
some excommunicable offenses are reserved to the bishop or even to the Holy See, and
their permission to grant absolution would first have to be
obtained.Civil authorities in the United States are
usually respectful of this confidentiality. However, several years ago an
attorney in Portland, Oregon, secretly recorded
a confession without the knowledge of the priest or the penitent involved. This
led to official protests by then local Archbishop Francis George and the Vatican. The tape has
since been sealed, and the Federal Court has since ruled that the taping was in
violation of the 4th Amendment, and
ordered an injunction against any further tapings.
Manuals of
confession in the Middle Ages; In the Middle
Ages the manuals of confession constituted a literary genre. These manuals were
guidebooks on how to obtain the maximum benefits from the sacrament. There were
two kinds of manuals: those addressed to the faithful, so that they could
prepare a good confession, and those addressed to the priests, who had to make
sure that no sins were left unmentioned and the confession was as thorough as
possible. The priest had to ask questions, being careful not to suggest sins
that perhaps the faithful had not thought of and give them ideas. Manuals were
written in Latin and in the vernacular.
Eastern Orthodoxy
and Eastern Catholicism
Within the Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches, it is understood that the Mystery of confession and repentance has more to do
with the spiritual development of the individual and much less to do with
purification. Sin is not seen as a stain on the soul, but rather a mistake that
needs correction.In general, the Orthodox Christian
chooses an individual to trust as his or her spiritual guide. In most cases this
is the parish priest but may, in fact, be any individual, male or female, who
has received permission from a bishop to hear confessions. This person is often
referred to as one's spiritual father or mother. Once chosen, the individual
turns to his spiritual guide for advice on his or her spiritual development,
confessing sins, and asking advice. Orthodox Christians tend to confess only to
this individual and the intimacy created by this bond makes the spiritual guide
the most qualified in dealing with the person, so much so, that no one can
override what a spiritual guide tells his or her charges. What is confessed to
one's spiritual guide is protected by the same seal as would be any priest
hearing a confession.In general practice, after one
confesses to one's spiritual guide, the parish priest (Who may or may not have
heard the confession but canonically should have) covers the head of the person
with his Epitrachelion (Stole) and reads the prayers of repentance, asking God to
forgive the transgression of the individual. It is highly possible that the
person confesses his sins to his spiritual guide on a regular basis but only
seeks out the priest to read the prayer before communing.In some Eastern Catholic Churches, clergy make their confession in the
sanctuary,
in public view but quietly.
Protestantism:
Protestant churches believe that no intermediary is necessary between the
Christian and God in order to be absolved from sins. Protestants, however,
confess their sins in private prayer before God, believing this suffices to gain
God's pardon. However confession to another is often encouraged when a wrong has
been done to a person as well as to God. Confession is then made to the person
wronged, and is part of the reconciliation process. In cases where sin has
resulted in the exclusion of a person from church membership due to
unrepentance, public confession is often a pre-requisite to readmission. The
sinner confesses to the church his or her repentance and is received back into
fellowship. In neither case is there any required format to the confessions,
except for the steps taken in Matthew 18:15-20.
Lutheranism:Lutheran churches practice
"confession and absolution" with the emphasis on the absolution, which is God's
word of forgiveness. Confession and absolution may be either private to the
pastor, called the "confessor" with the person confessing known as the
"penitent," or corporate with the assembled congregation making a general
confession to the pastor in the Divine Service. In the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries private confession and absolution largely
fell into disuse; and, even at the present time, it is generally only used when
specifically requested by the penitent or suggested by the
confessor.In his 1529 catechisms, Martin Luther praised
private confession (before a pastor or a fellow Christian) "for the sake of
absolution," the
forgiveness of sins bestowed in an audible, concrete way. The Lutheran reformers
held that a complete enumeration of sins is impossible (Augsburg Confession XI with
reference to Psalm 19:12) and that one's confidence of forgiveness is not to be
based on the sincerity of one's contrition nor on one's doing works of
satisfaction imposed by the confessor. The medieval church held confession to be
composed of three parts: contritio cordis ("contrition of the heart"),
confessio oris ("confession of the mouth"), and satisfactio operis
("satisfaction of deeds"). The Lutheran reformers abolished the "satisfaction of
deeds," holding that confession and absolution consist of only two parts
(Large Catechism VI,
15): the confession of the penitent and the absolution spoken by the confessor.
Faith or trust in Jesus' complete active and
passive satisfaction is what receives the forgiveness and salvation won by him
and imparted to the penitent by the word of absolution.The Church of Sweden (Lutheran)
emphasizes the teaching of the Book of Concord that "confession
and absolution" is a sacrament (Apology of the Augsburg Confession XIII, 4): sacramental confession to a Lutheran
priest is contained in the Swedish massbook. The Anglican sacrament of confession
and absolution is usually a component part of corporate worship, particularly at
services of the Holy Eucharist. The form involves
an exhortation to repentance by the priest, a period of silent prayer during
which believers may inwardly confess their sins, a form of general confession
said together by all present, and the pronouncement of absolution by the priest,
often accompanied by the sign of the cross.Private or
auricular confession is also practiced by Anglicans, either through the venue of
the traditional confessional, or more frequently in
a private meeting with the priest. This practice permits a period of counselling
and suggestions of acts of penance. Following the confession of sins and the
discussion of remedies, the priest makes the pronouncement of absolution. The
seal of the confessional, as with Roman Catholicism, is absolute and any
confessor who divulges information revealed in confession is subject to
deposition and removal from office. Historically, the practice of auricular
confession has been a highly controversial one within Anglicanism, but is
explicitly sanctioned in The Order for the Visitation of the Sick in the
Book of Common Prayer, which
contains the following direction: Here shall the sick
person be moved to make a special Confession of his sins, if he feel his
conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which Confession, the Priest
shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) […]Private confession is also envisaged by the Canon Law of the
Church of England, which
contains the following, intended to safeguard the Seal of the
Confessional:[…] if any man confess his secret and
hidden sins to the minister, for the unburdening of his conscience, and to
receive spiritual consolation and ease of mind from him; we [...] do straitly
charge and admonish him, that he do not at any time reveal and make known to any
person whatsoever any crime or offence so committed to his trust and secrecy […]
(Proviso to Canon 113 of the Code of 1603, retained in the Supplement to the
present Code)There is no requirement for private
confession, but a common understanding that it may be desirable depending on
individual circumstances. The classic Anglican aphorism regarding the practice
is "All may; none must; some should."Confession is also used by
many churches in the sense of a statement of faith. The word is used in many
Bible translations to mean admit one's faith publicly (e.g.
Epistle to the Romans,
chapter 10 verse 9).The Confession of a church
may therefore be used to mean its public statement of faith or doctrine. A
church or group that belongs to a Confessing Movement strives
to adhere to its public confessions strictly.The term
confessio (from Latin) is sometimes used to
describe a public defense of one's faith or life, e.g. the
Confessio of St. Patrick, written
around 450. The Latin
confessio was originally used to designate the burial-place of a Saint
-confessor or
martyr- (known also
as a memoria or martyrion), this term gradually came to have a
variety of applications: the altar erected over the grave; the underground
cubiculum which contained the tomb; the high
altar of the basilica erected over the
confession; later on in the Middle Ages the basilica itself (Joan. Bar., De
invent. s. Sabini); and finally the new resting-place to which the remains of a
martyr had been transferred (Thierry Ruinart, II,
35).In case of translation the
relics of a martyr
were deposited in a crypt below the high altar, or in a
hollow space beneath the altar, behind a transenna or pierced marble
screen such as were used in the catacombs. Thus the tomb was left accessible to
the faithful who wished to touch the shrine with cloths brandea) to be venerated
in their turn as "relics". In the Roman church of St. Clemente the urn
containing the remains of St. Clement and St. Ignatius of Antioch is visible
behind such a transenna. Later still the term confession was adopted for the
hollow reliquary in an altar (Ordo
Rom. de dedic. altaris). The oil from the numerous lamps kept lighted in a
confession was considered as a relic.Among the most
famous subterranean confessions of Rome are those in the churches of S. Martino
al Monti; S. Lorenzo fuori le Mure, containing the bodies of St. Laurence and
St. Stephen; S. Prassede containing the bodies of the two sisters Saints
Praxedes and Pudentiana. The most celebrated confession is that of St. Peter.
Over the tomb of the Apostle Pope St. Anacletus built a memoria, which
Constantine when building his basilica replaced with the Confession of St.
Peter. Behind the brass statues of Sts. Peter and Paul is the niche over the
grated floor which covers the tomb. In this niche is the gold coffer, the work
of Benvenuto Cellini, which contains
the palliums, generally
to be sent to Metropolitan archbishops. All through the Middle Ages the palliums
after being blessed were let down through the grating on to the tomb of the
Apostle, where they remained for a whole night (Phillips, Kirchenrecht, V, 624,
n. 61). During the restoration of the present basilica in 1594 the floor gave
way, revealing the tomb of St. Peter and on it the golden cross weighing 150
pounds placed there by Emperor Constantine I, and
inscribed with his own and his mother St.Helen's names. In Buddhism confessing your
faults to a superior is an important part of Buddhist practice. In the various
sutras various followers of the Buddha confessed their wrongdoing to Buddha.
This is discussed here as well as in other places. In Judaism, confession is an important part of
attaining forgiveness for both sins against God and another man. Augsburg Confession, the central
document describing the religious convictions of the Lutheran reformation.
See Confessions for a list
of books and albums of that title, most notably Confessions
by St. Augustine of Hippo. A Confession by
Leo
Tolstoy in which he describes his
conversion to Christianity. The Catholic Encyclopedia's entries on the sacrament of
reconciliation & on the Burial place of a martyr.
Confession - Catholic Sacrament of
Reconciliation - Penance Novus Ordo.
Anglicanism and Confession
|