ULY 94 LAY
the penitent 'was admitted to receive communion purity to the priest, and according to hto Judgment among the laity. The Council of Elvira (c. 300) carefully purify ourselves in the manner and time he which reveals to us in many ways the rehgious life shall fix' (In Ep. Jacob, c. v; P. L., XCIII, 39). G^ an entire ecclesiastical province, in canon Ixxvi, Clearly Bede did not consider such mutual avowal a ^ropos of a deacon, mentions the same discipline, saccamental confession; he had in mind the monas- 'Diis is the most ancient canonical text that speaks tic confession of faultis. In the eleventh century of the custom of lay communion. We do not cite Laofranc sets forth the same theory, but distinguishes the Council of Cologne (346) since its authenticity between pubUc sins and hidden faults; the first he re- may yet be questioned. But from that time for- serves "to priests, by whom the Church binds and ward we find, in a series of councils, declarations looses, and authorizes the avowal of the second to all which show conclusively that, when lay communion is members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and in their mentioned, there is Question of the reception of the absence to an upright man (vir mundus), and in the Blessed Eucharist. Besides the Council of Sardica, absence of an upright man, to God alone ('^Decelanda those of Hippo (393), canon xli; Toledo (400), canon confess.", P. L., CL. 629). So also Raoul I'Ardent, iv; Rome (487) canon ii, are too explicit to admit of after having declared that the confession of grievous any doubt that we have here an established discipline, faults (criminalium) should be made to a priest, de- We may also cite the Councils of Agde (506), canon clares that 'Hhe confession of venial sins may be made 1; Lerida (524), canon v; Orleans (538), canon ii; to any person, even to an inferior" (cuUibet, etiam etc. minor!) , but he adds this explanation : ' ' We make this
Speaking generally, the expression 'May com- confession, not that the layman ma^ absolve us; but munion" does not necessarily imply the idea of the because, by reason of our own humiliation and accusar Eucharist, but only the condition of a layman in tion of our sins and the prayer of our brethren, we may communion with the Church. But as the Eucharist be purified of our sins" (Hom. Ixiv, P. L., CLV, 1900). was granted onlv to those in communion with the Confession to laymen made in this way has, therefore. Church, to say tnat a cleric was admitted to the lay no claim to a sacramental character and provokes no communion is equivalent to saying that he received theological objection. The passage from Bede is fre- the Holy Eucharist. The person who passed from quently quoted by the Scholastics, the condition of a penitent to the la}r communion, The otner text on which is based the second form of had necessarily to be received by the bishop into the confession to laymen, is taken from a work widely read bosom o( the Church, before being admitted to com- in the Middle Ages, the " De vera et falsa pcBuitentia", munion. There are no groimds for supposing that imtil the sixteenth century imanimously attributed to this transition implied an intermediate stage in which St. Augustine and quoted as such (P. L., XL, 1122). lie who was admitted to the communion was deprived To-day it is universally regarded as apocryphal, though of the Blessed Eucharist. This discipline applied not it would be difficult to aetermine its author. After only to those who were guilty of a secret sin, but saying that "he who wishes to confess his sins should also to those who had for some time belonged to an seek a priest who can bind and loose", he adds these heretical sect. But there was no absolute rule, since words often repeated as an axiom: "So great is the the Council of Nicsea (325) received back the Nova- power of confession that if a priest be wanting, one tian clergy without imposing this penalty on them, may confess to his neighbour' (tanta vis est confes- while we see it enforced in the case of the Donatists. sionis ut, si deest sacerdos, confiteatur proximo). In modern times "lay communipn" is sometimes He goes on to explain clearly the value of this con- imposed, but only in exceptional cases, which need fession made to a layman in case of necessity: " Al- not be treated of here. though the confession be made to one who has no ScuDAuoEE in Diet. Christ. Antiq., ■• v* „ power to loose, nevertheless he who confesses his
H. Leclercq. crime to his companion becomes worthy of pardon
through his desire for a priest." Briefly, to obtain
Lay OonfesBion. — ^This article does not deal with pardon, the sinner performs his duty to the best of his
confession by la}anen but with that made to laymen, ability, i. e. he is contrite and confesses with the desire
for the purpose of obtainin|g the remission of sms by of addressing himself to a priest; he hopes that the
God. it has no practical importance, and is treated mercy of God will supply what in this point is lacking,
merely from an historical point of view. It is found The confession is not sacramental, if we may so spe^,
under two forms: first, confession without relation to except on the part of the penitent; a layman cannot be
the sacrament, second, confession intended to supply the minister of absolution and he is not regarded as
for the sacrament in case of necessity. In the first such. Thus understood confession to laymen is im-
instance, it consists of confession of vernal sins or daily posed as obligatory, later only counselled or simply
faults which need not necessarily be submitted to the permitted, by the greater number of theologians from
power of the keys; in the second, it has to do with the Gratian and Peter Lombard to the sixteenth century
confession of even grievous sins which should be de- and the Reformation. Though Gratian is not so ez-
clared to a priest, but which are confessed to a layman plicit (can. 78, Dist. I, De Poenit.; can. 36, Dist. IV,
because there is no priest at hand and the case is ur- De Cons.), the Master of the Sentences (IV, dist. xvii)
sent. In both cases the end sought is the merit of makes a real obligation of confession to a layman iir
humiliation which is inseparable from freely performed case of necessity. After having demonstrated that
confession; but in the first no administration of the the avowal of sins (confessio oris) is necessary in order
sacrament, in any degree, is sought; in the second, on to obtain pardon, he declares that this avowal should
the contrary, sacramental confession is made to a lay- be made nrst to God, then to a priest, and in the ab-
man for want of a priest. Theologians and canonists sence of a priest, to one's neighbour (socio). This
in dealing with this subject usually have two historical doctrine of Peter Lombard is foimd, with some differ-
texts as a basis. The optional and meritorious con- ences, in many of his conmientators, among them,
fession of slight faults to any Christian is set forth in Raymond of Pef&afort, who authorizes this confession
Venerable Bede's ' Commentary on the Epistle of St. without making it an obligation (Summa, III, xxxiv,
James": "Confess your sins one to another" (Con- 84); Albertus Magnus (in IV, dist. xvii, aa. 58, 59^,
fitemini alterutTum peccata vestra). "It should be who. arguing from baptism conferred by a layman m
done", says the holy Doctor, " with discernment; we case of necessity, ascribes a certain sacramental value
should confess our daily and slight faults mutually to to absolution by a la>^man. St. Thomas (in IV, dist.
our equals, and believe that we are saved by their xvii, q. 3, art. 3, sol. 2) obliges the penitent to do what
daily prayer. As for more grievous leprosy (mortal he can, and sees something sacramental (guodam'
Bin), we shcndd according to the law, diacover its imr modo sacramerUalis) in his confession; he adds, aad
