AURICULAR CONFESSION

(See Confe ion , Absolution .) The confe ion of sins at the ear of the priest. The following is the chapter on confe ion in the Council of Trent which is obligatory on the Romish Church. “From the institution of the sacrament of repentance already set forth, the Church has always understood, that an entire confe ion of sins was also appointed by the Lord ; and that it is of Divine right nece ary to all who have lapsed after baptism. Because our Lord Jesus Christ , when about to ascend from earth to heaven, left his priests, his vicars, to be, as it were, the presidents and judges, to whom all mortal sins, into which Christ’s faithful people should fall, should be brought; in order that by the power of the keys they might pronounce sentence of remi ion or retention. For it is plain that the priests cannot exercise this judgment, without knowledge of the cause, nor can they observe equity in enjoining penalties, if men declare their sins only generally, and not rather particularly and separately. From this it is inferred that it is right that the penitents should recount in confe ion all the deadly sins of which, upon examination, their conscience accuses them, even though they be most secret and only against the two last commandments, which not unfrequently grievously wound the soul, and are more dangerous than those which are openly practised; for as to venial sins, by which we are not excluded from the grace of God , and into which we more frequently fall, although they may be declared in confe ion, rightly, usefully, and without any presumption, as the usage of pious men declares, yet they may be pa ed over in silence without offence, and can be expiated by many other remedies. But since all mortal sins, even thoughts, make men the children of wrath and the enemies of God , it is nece ary to seek from God the pardon of all, with open and modest confe ion. When, therefore, Christ’s faithful people desire to confe all the sins which occur to their memory, they expose them all beyond all doubt to the mercy of God to be pardoned. But they who do otherwise, and knowingly keep back any, propose nothing to the Divine mercy to be pardoned by the priest; for if a sick man is ashamed to uncover his wound to the physician, he cannot with medicine cure that of which he has no knowledge. It is, moreover, inferred that those circumstances should be explained in confe ion, which change the kind of the sin; because, without these, neither can the sins themselves be entirely disclosed by the penitents, nor known to the judges; nor can they rightly judge of the grievousne of the sin, nor impose upon the penitents the fitting punishments. Whence it is unreasonable to teach that these circumstances were sought out by idle men, or that only one circumstance should be confe ed, namely, to have sinned against a brother. But it is impious to call this confe ion impo ible, which is appointed to be performed in this manner, or to style it the torture of consciences: for it appears that nothing else is required of penitents in the Church, than that, after a man has diligently examined himself, and explored the rece es and hiding-places of his conscience, he should confe those sins by which he remembers that he has mortally offended his Lord and God . But the other sins which do not occur to him when taking diligent thought, are understood to be included altogether in the same confe ion; and for these we faithfully say with the prophet, ‘Cleanse thou me, O Lord , from my secret faults.’ But the difficulty of this sort of confe ion, and the shame of uncovering sins, would, indeed, appear grievous, if it were not lightened by the so many and great conveniences and consolations which are most a uredly conferred by absolution upon all who rightly approach this sacrament. But as regards the manner of secretly confe ing to the priest alone, although Christ has not forbidden any man from publicly confe ing his faults, in revenge for his sins, and humiliation of himself, both by way of example to others, and for the edification of the Church which he has offended; this is not, however, a Divine command, nor may it be advisedly enjoined by any human law, that sins, especially secret ones, should be disclosed by open confe ion. Wherefore, since that secret sacramental confe ion which the holy Church has used from the beginning, and still uses, has always been approved of by the holiest and most ancient fathers, with great consent and unanimity, the empty calumny is plainly refuted of those who are not ashamed to teach that it is contrary to the Divine command, and a human invention, which had its origin with the fathers who were a embled in the Later an Council. For the Church did not order by the Later an Council that Christ’s faithful people should confe , which she always had understood to be nece ary, and appointed by Divine right, but that the command of confe ion should be complied with at least once in the year, by all and each who have come to years of discretion; whence now, in the universal Church, that wholesome custom of confe ing in the sacred, and especially acceptable, time of Lent, is observed with great benefit to the souls of the faithful; which custom this holy synod highly approves, and receives as pious and worthy to be retained.” Here an attempt is made to invest the Christian priesthood with the prerogative of the Most High, who is a searcher of the hearts, and a discerner of the thoughts; in forgetfulne of the very distinction which God drew between himself and all men—“man looketh to the outward part, the Lord trieth the heart.” As Christ has invested his ministers with no power to do this of themselves, the Tri dentine Fathers have sought to supply what they must needs consider a grievous omi ion on his part, by enjoining all men to unlock the secrets of their hearts at the command of their priest, and persons of all ages and sexes to submit not only to general questions as to a state of sin or repentance, but to the most minute and searching questions as to their most inmost thoughts. The extent to which the confe ors have thought it right to carry these examinations on subjects concerning which the apostle recommends that they be not once named among Christians, and which may be seen either in “Dens’ Theology,” or “Burchard’s Decrees,” c. 19, Paris, 1549, affords a melancholy, painful, and sickening subject for contemplation; especially when it is considered that they were Christian clergy who did this, and that it was done in aid, as they supposed, of the Christian religion. The fearful effects of these examinations upon the priests themselves, we will do no more than allude to; he who may think it nece ary to satisfy himself upon the point, may consult the cases contemplated and provided for (among others) by Cardinal Cajetan, in his Opuscula, Lugd. 1562, p. 114. In the Bull of Pius IV., Contra solicit antes in confe i one , dated Ap. 16, 1561, ( Bullarium Magn. Luxemb. 1727, ii. p. 48,) and in a similar one of Gregory XV., dated Aug. 30, 1622, ( Gregory XV. Const it. Rom. 1622, p. 114,) there is laid open another fearful scene of danger to female conf i tents from wicked priests, “mulieres pœnitentes ad act us inhonestos dum earum audiunt confe i ones alliciendo et provocando.” Against which flagrant dangers, and the preparatory steps of sapping and undermining the mental modesty of a young person by examinations of particular kinds, it is vain to think that the feeble bulls of the bishops of Rome can afford any security. These observations apply to the system of the Roman Church, peculiar to itself, of compelling the disclosure of the most minute details of the most secret thoughts and actions. As to encouraging persons whose minds are burthened with the remembrance of fearful sins, to ease themselves of the burthen by revealing it to one at whose hands they may seek guidance, and consolation, and prayer, it is a totally distinct question, and nothing but wilful art will attempt to confound them. On this point we see no reason to withdraw a regret which we have before expre ed as to its disuse in the Church of England; for we cannot but believe that, were it more frequently had recourse to, many a mind would depart the world at peace with itself and with God , which now sinks to the grave under a bond of doubt and fear, through want of confidence to make use of ghostly remedies.— Perceval. In the sixth canon of the Council of Trent it runs thus:—“If any shall deny that sacramental confe ion was instituted and is nece ary for salvation by Divine right, or shall say that the custom of confe ing secretly to the priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning, and continues to observe, is foreign to the institution and command of Christ , and is of human invention, let him be accursed.” Here sacramental confe ion is affirmed to be of Divine institution, and auricular confe ion likewise, and he is accursed who shall deny it. This is bravely said; yet the Tri dentine Fathers might have recollected that, in the Latin Church as late as 813, it was matter of dispute whether there was need to confe to a priest at all, as appears from the thirty-third canon of the Council of Cabaillon, which is as follows: “Quidam Deo solummodo confiteri debere dicunt peccata, quidam vero sacerdotibus confit end a e e percen sent: quod utrumque non sine mag no fructu intra sanctam fit Ecclesiam. Ita dumtaxat ut et Deo, qui Remi or est peccatorum, confiteamur peccata nostra, et cum David dicamus, Delictum meum cognitum tibi feci , ., et secundum institutionem apostoli, confiteamur alterutrum peccata nostra, et oremus pro invicem ut salvemur. Confe io itaque quæ Deo fit, purgat peccata , ea vero quæ sacerdoti fit, docet qualiter ips a purgentur peccata,” . ( Conc. vii. 1279.) Was Leo the Third asleep, that he could suffer such heresy to be broached and not denounced? But all the world knows, that, till 1215, no decree of pope or council can be adduced enjoining the nece ary observance of such a custom. Then, at the Council of Later an, Innocent III. commanded it. As the Latin Church affords no sanction to the a ertion of the Tri dentine Fathers, so is it in vain to look for it among the Greeks, for there, as So crates ( Hist. Eccles. v. 19) and Sozomen ( Hist. Eccles. vii. 16) inform us, the whole confe ional was abolished by Nectar i us, the archbishop of Constantinople, in the 4th century, by reason of an indecency which was committed on a female penitent, when pursuing her penance; which, sure, he would not have ventured to have done had he deemed it a Divine institution. Sozomen, in his account of the confe ional, says, that the public confe ion in the presence of all the people, which formerly obtained, having been found grievous, φορτικὸν ὡς εἰκὸς , a well bred, silent , and prudent presbyter was set in charge of it; thus plainly denoting the change from public to auricular confe ions. It was this penitential presbyter whose office was abolished by Nectar i us, who acted by the advice of Eudæmon, συγχωρῆσαι δὲ ἕκαστον, τῷ ἰδίῳ συνειδότι τῶν μυστηρίων μετέχειν . And the reason he a igned is one which the Church of Rome would have done well to bear in mind; οὕτω γὰρ μόνως ἔχειν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τὸ ἀβλασφήμετον . (See Perceval on Roman Schism, Hooker, Eccl. Pol. book vi. Bp. Taylor, Ductor Dubit. part ii. sect. 11.)