By DON FIER
We saw last week that worthy reception of the Sacrament of Penance requires three acts on the part of the repentant sinner, which together constitute the matter of the sacrament: contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Of the three, “contrition occupies the first place” (Catechism of the Catholic Church [CCC], n. 1451) and is an indispensable condition for the forgiveness of sins.
In volume 3 of Fundamentals of Catholicism (FoC-3), Fr. Kenneth Baker, SJ, defines contrition as “sincere sorrow for having offended God, hatred for the sins we have committed, and a firm purpose of sinning no more. Thus a true act of contrition is composed of three acts of the will which form a unity: sorrow, hatred of sin, and the intention of avoiding sin in the future” (p. 284).
We also saw last week that theologians assign four qualities to true contrition: it is internal, supernatural, universal, and sovereign (supreme).
Moreover, we saw that Catholic tradition and official Church teaching identify two kinds of contrition — perfect and imperfect — which differ in motive. The object of perfect contrition is the love of God for His own sake because He is all-good and deserving of all our love. Imperfect contrition (attrition), on the other hand, includes other good but less perfect motives such as fear of eternal punishment or repugnance at the malice of sin.
Perfect contrition restores sanctifying grace to the repentant sinner even before he receives the Sacrament of Penance (provided there is a firm intent to avail oneself of the sacrament at the earliest opportunity). Imperfect contrition is sufficient to receive the Sacrament of Penance worthily and restores sanctifying grace; however, one should always strive for perfect contrition because it is more pleasing to God.
The Catechism next treats the second act required of the penitent, that of confession (or disclosure) of one’s sins to a qualified priest — it is clearly identified as “an essential part of the sacrament of Penance” (CCC, n. 1456). Referred to as auricular confession, it is the individual, personal, integral, specific accusation of oneself of the sins for which he is guilty.
“The word auricular,” explains Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ, “means ‘listening,’ from the Latin word for ear (auris); hence, it refers to oral confession to a confessor who is physically present and who listens to the confession” (Basic Catholic Catechism Course [BCCC], p. 163).
The etymology of the word confession comes from the Latin confessio which is derived from con- (thoroughly) and fateri (to acknowledge). “Through such an admission man looks squarely at the sins he is guilty of, takes responsibility for them, and thereby opens himself again to God” (CCC, n. 1455).
This aspect of being reconciled with God has been attacked by many throughout the history of the Church, most notably by the so-called Reformers of the 16th century. After all, the argument goes, “Why can’t I just confess my sins directly to God in the silence of my heart?”
As explained by Fr. Baker, even though “the divine institution of and the necessity for salvation of the individual confession of sin is not explicitly stated in the New Testament, it is a necessary condition of the judicial power to forgive sins which Our Lord conferred on St. Peter and the Apostles and their successors” (FoC-3, p. 293).
It is obvious that in order to properly exercise this divinely conferred power and judge whether to forgive or retain sins, the priest must first hear the sins directly from the penitent and accurately ascertain his disposition.
“The practice of auricular confession,” states Fr. Hardon, “has been defended by the Church as a divine precept that no earthly authority may change” (BCCC, p. 163).
According to Fr. Baker, early historical records of individual self-accusation of sins to Christ’s representatives on Earth can be traced as far back as St. Irenaeus of Lyons in the second century (cf. FoC, p. 293).
The Council of Trent is very exact in its authoritative teaching that all serious sins, even the most private and secret, must be verbally confessed: “All mortal sins of which penitents after a diligent self-examination are conscious must be recounted by them in confession, even if they are most secret and have been committed against the last two precepts of the Decalogue [Exodus 20:17; Matt. 5:28]; for these sins sometimes wound the soul more grievously and are more dangerous than those which are committed openly” (session 14, chapter 5; as cited in CCC, n. 1456).
Thus, “it is necessary to confess the exact number of mortal sins . . . [and] the circumstances and such details as substantially affect the nature of the sins” (BCCC, p. 163). In other words, it is not sufficient to say, “I have committed a sin of impurity,” for a priest cannot judge the gravity of the sin without more information. At the same time, one’s Confession “should be plain, simple, and undisguised; not artfully made, as is the case with some who seem more intent on defending themselves than on confessing their sins” (Roman Catechism [RC], II, 5, 50); it should not be cluttered with unnecessary details or rationalizing explanations.
If sacramental Confession has been neglected for a long period of time and the penitent cannot remember the exact number of mortal sins committed, he should approximate their number as accurately as possible.
What happens if a penitent, out of a sense fear or shame, intentionally conceals a serious sin? The teaching of the Council of Trent is clear: “So important is it that confession be entire that if the penitent confesses only some of his sins and willfully neglects to accuse himself of others which should be confessed, he not only does not profit by his confession, but involves himself in a new guilt” (RC, II, 5, 48).
The Confession would have to be repeated in its entirety along with the new grave sin of sacrilege. St. Jerome explains by making an analogy to one’s physical health: “If one who is ill is ashamed to make known his wound to the physician, the physician does not remedy what he does not know” (In Eccl. comm. 10, 11).
What if one confesses as completely as possible, but afterwards remembers that he forgot to mention a serious sin? If he has made a thorough examination of conscious and sincerely meant to confess all mortal sins but unintentionally forgot one or more, he is forgiven and “is not bound to repeat his confession. It will be sufficient, when he recollects the sins which he has forgotten, to confess them to a priest on a future occasion” (RC, II, 5, 49).
In other words, the forgotten sin or sins have been forgiven.
At the same time, he has an obligation to mention them at a future Confession, for as the 1983 Code of Canon Law (CIC) states: “A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all grave sins committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience” (CIC, canon 988 § 1).
Fr. Hardon elaborates further in The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism in answer to the question: “Must we confess grievous sins forgotten in a preceding confession?” The servant of God states: “We must confess grave sins forgotten in a preceding confession because, according to divine law, every known mortal sin committed after baptism must be ‘submitted to the keys’ [cf. Matt. 16:18-19; 18:15-18], that is, personally acknowledged in the sacrament of penance” (n. 1373).
In summary, one who has sincerely attempted to recall and confess all mortal sins should be at peace and confident that all his sins have been forgiven — he should not preoccupy himself in striving to remember past sins. If, however, a forgotten mortal sin comes to mind at some point in the future, he must bring it to Confession. This situation is most likely to occur when one returns to the sacrament after a long absence and has tried, to the best of his ability, to make a good and sincere General Confession.
The Duty Of Parents
The Catechism goes on to state that “children must go to the sacrament of Penance before receiving Holy Communion for the first time” (CCC, n. 1457). The code makes this manifestly clear in its section on the Most Holy Eucharist:
“It is primarily the duty of parents and those who take the place of parents, as well as the duty of pastors, to take care that children who have reached the use of reason are prepared properly and, after they have made sacramental confession, are refreshed with this divine food as soon as possible” (CIC, canon 914).
This seems logical, for if a child, even in an elementary way, is able comprehend the profound mystery of the Holy Eucharist, should he or she not be able to understand the notion of sin and repentance?
What about confession of venial sins? As stated earlier in this series, only confession of mortal sins is strictly necessary (see volume 149, n. 34; August 25, 2016). The Code of Canon Law nonetheless states: “It is recommended to the Christian faithful that they also confess venial sins” (CIC, canon 988 § 2).
The Catechism explains why this is true: “Regular confession of our venial sins helps us form our conscience, fight against evil tendencies, let ourselves be healed by Christ, and progress in the life of the Spirit” (CCC, n. 1458).
+ + +
(Don Fier serves on the board of directors for The Catholic Servant, a Minneapolis-based monthly publication. He and his wife are the parents of seven children. Fier is a 2009 graduate of Ave Maria University’s Institute for Pastoral Theology. He is doing research for writing a definitive biography of Fr. John A. Hardon, SJ.)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress