Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum peccator statim, cum potest, teneatur confiteri.

Secundo quantum ad tempus quaeritur, utrum peccator statim, cum potest, teneatur confiteri. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Hugo de sancto Victore¹: « Si necessitas non est, quae praetendatur, contemptus non excusatur »; sed cum se offert confitendi opportunitas, nulla potest praetendi necessitas: ergo non excusatur a contemptu.

2. Item, quanto homo plus permanet in peccato, tanto est inhabilior: ergo quanto citius confitetur, tanto est habilior ad resurgendum; sed constat, quod aliquando tenetur confiteri, et non nisi quando est habilior: si ergo tanto habilior, quanto citius; ergo quam citius potest, tenetur confiteri.

3. Item, aegrotans morbo corporali et periculoso, qui approximat morti et ignorat mortem, tenetur quaerere medicum et consulere sine dilatione et statim, si offert se opportunitas: ergo cum maior sit morbus spiritualis, et maius periculum, et dies mortis ignoretur²; videtur, quod sine dilatione tenetur confiteri.

4. Item, iste qui est in gratia, tenetur nunquam cadere: ergo ab oppositis, iste qui est in culpa, non reportat de malo commodum³, tenetur nunquam in culpa esse: ergo si tenetur nunquam in culpa esse, et hoc non potest esse nisi resurgendo; antequam resurgat, tenetur semper resurgere: ergo statim, ex quo peccavit. Sed confessio est ad relevandum a peccato: ergo etc.

Contra:

1. Praeceptum affirmativum non obligat ad semper, sed ad aliquod tempus determinatum; sed quandocumque rei indeterminatae additur determinatio temporis, non tenetur ante illud tempus quis observare; sed in mandato secundo⁴ de confessione dicitur, quod debet confiteri semel in anno: ergo videtur, quod non sit transgressor, sive omittat, sive differat confiteri usque ad annum.

2. Item, si tenetur ad statim, pari ratione in alio nunc, et cum sint nunc infinita in tempore⁵; tunc infinities peccaret, si omitteret; sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc. Si tu dicas, quod tenetur statim, cum recognoscit offensam; contra: esto quod non recogitet, non tenetur; sed hoc est malum et negligentia: ergo reportat commodum de malitia.

3. Item, in eadem decretali⁶ datur mandatum de eucharistia et sub eadem poena; sed constat, quod nemo peccat omittendo, si differat sumere eu-

charistiam usque ad Pascha: ergo pari ratione de confessione.

4. Item, licitum est peccatori quaerere sacerdotem discretum et exspectare: ergo licitum est etiam quaerere tempus idoneum et exspectare ad poenitendum et satisfaciendum; sed hoc est tempus Quadragesimae ad hoc institutum: ergo videtur, quod sine peccato liceat exspectare Quadragesimam.

Conclusio

Conclusio. Hi quoque, qui non tantum ex ecclesiastica institutione, sed etiam ex gravi transgressione ad confitendum tenentur, sub gravi non obligantur ad statim actu confitendum nisi in casu secundum varias circumstantias.

Respondeo: Circa hoc notandum, quod est loqui de confessione dupliciter: vel quantum ad propositum interius, vel quantum ad verbum exterius. Si quantum ad propositum interius, sic communiter conceditur, quod tenetur proponere confiteri, quando⁷ et conteri, quia sine proposito confitendi et emendandi non dimittitur peccatum, sicut nec sine contritione. Ad hoc autem tenetur, quando recogitat culpam commissam et Dei offensam, vel quando tempus se offert, in quo recogitare debet, sicut in hora mortis, vel periculo, vel aliquo alio simili.

Sed quando teneatur progredi in actum, hic diversimode opinantur diversi. — Aliqui enim dicunt, quod cum actus confitendi non sit necessarius ad iustificationem — quia per contritionem est iustificatio⁸ — et ita confessio solum sit necessaria, quia est in praecepto, et Ecclesia non exigat ante Pascha; quod ante non tenetur, nisi periculum mortis immineat. Huius autem dilationis dicunt concessam esse licentiam ex decretali illa in generali Concilio edita⁹: « Omnis utriusque sexus » etc.

Aliorum opinio est, quod sicut tenetur ad propositum confitendi, quando se offert opportunitas interior; sic tenetur ad opus, quando se offert exterior; aut enim propositum non est efficax, aut cadit a proposito efficaci, si, quando se offert opportunitas, in opus non exit. Et dicunt, quod se offert opportunitas, quando habet discreti sacerdotis copiam et peccati commissi memoriam. Nec obstat decretalis, quia non dat licentiam differendi, sed prohibet negligentiam et dilationem; sicut Ecclesia¹⁰ prohibet, ne quis ultra annum in excommunicatione remaneat; non tamen dat licentiam remanendi usque ad horam illam. Similiter, si imperator dat alicui personae infami privilegium, ut non agatur contra eum, sicut contra infamem; non propter hoc liberat ab infamiae nota, sed solummodo a poena, ut contra ipsum non agatur. Sic decretalis illa non liberat a tentione et offensa, sed ne Ecclesia neget alicui ingressum in ecclesiam, vel etiam sepulturam, sicut facit post. Si ergo ante conditionem decretalis tenebatur confiteri, quando se offerebat opportunitas; sic videtur, quod post eius conditionem, quia decretalis non pro negligentibus, sed contra negligentes est edita.

Quae autem istarum opinionum verior sit, dubium est et difficile iudicare. Tamen ad veritatis clariorem intelligentiam distingui potest, quando quaeritur, ad quando obligatur fidelis confiteri, secundum duplicem obligationem quae superius¹¹ tacta est, et secundum duplex mandatum diversimode respondendum est. Quidam enim ad confessionem obligantur non ex culpa commissa, sed ex institutione ecclesiastica, utpote illi qui non habent mortalia peccata. Tales differre possunt usque ad Pascha, quia mandatum illius decretalis non obligat, nisi sicut obligat ad eucharistiam, ad quam praeparat confessio sacerdoti facta. Quidam vero non tantum obligantur ex ecclesiastica institutione, sed ex propria transgressione; et hi tenentur ex Sacramenti institutione. De talibus generaliter asserere, quod possunt usque ad Pascha differre, videtur mihi periculosum; similiter, quod teneantur semper, quando offert se opportunitas, confiteri; videtur valde durum. Ideo videtur rationabiliter sentiendum medium, scilicet quod opportunitas loci, temporis et sacerdotis tripliciter potest se ante Pascha offerre: aut ita, quod timetur, ne unquam se offerat, sicut est in his qui graviter infirmantur, et tales tenentur absque dubitatione¹² ad confessionem; aut ita, quod maior opportunitas exspectatur vel quantum ad tempus, vel quantum ad sacerdotem, et sic potest differri sine aliquo peccato; aut ita, quod nunquam rationabiliter maior opportunitas exspectatur, nec quantum ad sacerdotem nec quantum ad tempus, et tunc credo sine praeiudicio, quod tenetur.

Et ideo aliter censendum est hic de religioso, aliter de laico. Nam religioso totum tempus vitae est tempus poenitentiae; et ideo, habita copia sacerdotis, si peccavit mortaliter, credo, quod tenetur sine mora confiteri et ad ipsum recurrere; et intelligatur sine mora, sicut ratio recta determinavit. — Laicus vero rationabiliter potest exspectare tem-

pus quadragesimale, quod est tempus poenitentiae. Unde cum tempus sit magis opportunum eis ad satisfaciendum et confitendum, si exspectent, rationabile est iudicare, quod non peccent, dum tamen proponant firmiter tunc temporis confiteri. — De clericis autem iudicare non audeo; consilium tamen eis credo, quod omnes qui cadunt per mortale, quam citius possunt, confiteantur. Non enim videtur vere contritus qui tam longo tempore vulnus peccati portat occultum. Si autem obiicias mihi, quod status non obligat aliquem nisi per votum; respondeo, quod statu non obligat, sed mandatum omnibus datum; ad nunc autem, vel ad tunc obligat opportunitas, quae diversimode offert se diversis. Et illud veritatem habet in omnibus affirmativis, quod ad aliquod tempus obligatur unus, ad quod quidem tempus alter non obligatur, sicut patet in honore parentum. Fatendum est igitur, quod mandatum illud nullum obligat ad statim nisi in casu, ut visum est.

Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa:

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod contemptus non excusatur; dicendum, quod ipse vocat necessitatem, non tantum inevitabilem¹³, sed necessitatem-commoditatem. — Vel dicendum, quod loquitur de illis qui de hac vita sine Sacramentis decedunt, qui non excusantur, si tunc possunt Sacramentum recipere.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod citius confitens est habilior; dicendum, quod homo potest resurgere a peccato ante confessionem, ut visum est; et ideo, cum deletum sit per contritionem, non sequitur illud.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de aegrotante morbo corporali, dicendum, quod si aliam videat viam curationis, non tenetur medicum consulere, vel etiam, si exspectat tempus magis congruum; et quia ita est in proposito: ideo etc.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tenetur nunquam cadere; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia teneri ad non cadendum est tentio praecepti negativi, quod obligat ad semper; sed teneri ad resurgendum est tentio affirmativi, quod non obligat ad semper.

Ad oppositum:

Ad illud quod obiicitur ad oppositum, dicendum, quod quantum est de mandato illius decretalis, non obligantur ante Pascha, sicut probant illae rationes; obligantur tamen aliqui ex necessitate institutionis Sacramenti¹⁴.

---

Question II. Whether the sinner is bound to confess at once, when he can.

Secondly, as to the time it is asked whether the sinner is bound to confess at once, when he can. And that he is, it seems.

1. Hugh of Saint Victor¹: « If there is no necessity that can be alleged, contempt is not excused »; but when the opportunity of confessing presents itself, no necessity can be alleged: therefore he is not excused from contempt.

2. Likewise, the longer a man remains in sin, the more unfit he is: therefore the sooner he confesses, the more fit he is for rising again; but it is established that one is at some time bound to confess, and only when he is more fit: if therefore he is the more fit, the sooner [he confesses]; therefore as soon as he can, he is bound to confess.

3. Likewise, one sick with a bodily and dangerous illness, who is approaching death and does not know [the hour of] death, is bound to seek a physician and consult [him] without delay and at once, if opportunity presents itself: therefore since the spiritual illness is greater, and the danger greater, and the day of death unknown²; it seems that he is bound to confess without delay.

4. Likewise, he who is in grace is bound never to fall: therefore conversely, he who is in fault — that he may not draw advantage from evil³ — is bound never to be in fault: therefore if he is bound never to be in fault, and this cannot be except by rising again; before he rises again, he is bound always to rise again: therefore at once, from the moment he sinned. But confession is for relieving from sin: therefore etc.

On the contrary:

1. An affirmative precept does not bind for all time, but for some determinate time; but whenever a determination of time is added to an indeterminate thing, no one is bound to observe it before that time; but in the second commandment⁴ concerning confession it is said that one ought to confess once a year: therefore it seems that he is not a transgressor, whether he omits or whether he defers to confess up to a year.

2. Likewise, if he is bound to [confess] at once, by parity of reasoning [he is bound] in another moment, and since there are now infinite [moments] in time⁵; he would then sin infinitely, if he were to omit [it]; but this is unfitting: therefore etc. If you say that he is bound at once, when he recognizes the offense; on the contrary: suppose he does not bethink himself, he is not bound; but this is an evil and a negligence: therefore he draws advantage from malice.

3. Likewise, in the same decretal⁶ the command is given concerning the Eucharist and under the same penalty; but it is established that no one sins by omitting [it], if he defers to receive the Eucharist up to Easter: therefore by parity of reasoning concerning confession.

4. Likewise, it is lawful for the sinner to seek a discreet priest and wait: therefore it is also lawful to seek a suitable time and wait for doing penance and making satisfaction; but this is the time of Lent instituted for this: therefore it seems that it is lawful without sin to wait for Lent.

Conclusion

Conclusion. These too, who are bound to confess not only from ecclesiastical institution but also from grave transgression, are not bound under [pain of] grave [sin] to confess actually at once, except in a case according to the various circumstances.

I respond: Concerning this it must be noted that confession may be spoken of in two ways: either as to the inward purpose, or as to the outward word. If as to the inward purpose, then it is commonly granted that one is bound to purpose to confess, when⁷ and to be contrite, because without the purpose of confessing and amending sin is not remitted, just as not without contrition. To this, moreover, one is bound, when he calls to mind the fault committed and the offense against God, or when a time presents itself in which he ought to recall [it], as in the hour of death, or in danger, or in some other similar [circumstance].

But as to when one is bound to proceed to the act, here different [men] hold differently. — For some say that, since the act of confessing is not necessary for justification — because justification is through contrition⁸ — and so confession is necessary only because it is in the precept, and the Church does not require [it] before Easter; that he is not bound beforehand, unless the danger of death is imminent. And of this delay they say that license has been granted by that decretal issued in the general Council⁹: « Everyone of either sex » etc.

The opinion of others is that, just as one is bound to the purpose of confessing, when the inward opportunity presents itself; so one is bound to the work, when the outward [opportunity] presents itself; for either the purpose is not efficacious, or one falls away from an efficacious purpose, if, when the opportunity presents itself, it does not issue into the work. And they say that the opportunity presents itself, when one has an abundance of a discreet priest and the memory of the sin committed. Nor does the decretal stand in the way, because it does not give license for deferring, but forbids negligence and delay; just as the Church¹⁰ forbids that anyone remain in excommunication beyond a year; yet it does not give license for remaining up to that hour. Likewise, if an emperor gives to some infamous person the privilege that there be no proceeding against him, as against an infamous [person]; he does not on this account free [him] from the mark of infamy, but only from the penalty, that there be no proceeding against him. So that decretal does not free from the holding [to confess] and the offense, but [provides] that the Church not deny to anyone entrance into the church, or even burial, as it does afterward. If therefore before the framing of the decretal he was bound to confess, when the opportunity offered itself; so it seems that [he is bound likewise] after its framing, because the decretal was issued not for the negligent, but against the negligent.

But which of these opinions is the truer is doubtful and difficult to judge. Nevertheless, for the clearer understanding of the truth, a distinction can be made, when it is asked to when the faithful one is obliged to confess, [namely] that according to the twofold obligation which was touched on above¹¹, and according to the twofold command, the answer is to be given in different ways. For some are obliged to confession not from a fault committed, but from ecclesiastical institution, as those who do not have mortal sins. Such [persons] can defer up to Easter, because the command of that decretal does not bind, except as it binds to the Eucharist, for which confession made to a priest prepares. But some are obliged not only from ecclesiastical institution, but from their own transgression; and these are bound from the institution of the Sacrament. To assert generally of such [persons] that they can defer up to Easter seems to me dangerous; likewise, that they are bound always to confess, when opportunity presents itself; seems very hard. Therefore it seems that one should reasonably hold the mean, namely that the opportunity of place, time, and priest can present itself before Easter in three ways: either so that it is feared lest it ever present itself, as is the case in those who are gravely ill, and such are bound without doubt¹² to confession; or so that a greater opportunity is awaited, whether as to time or as to priest, and thus [confession] can be deferred without any sin; or so that a greater opportunity is never reasonably awaited, neither as to priest nor as to time, and then I believe, without prejudice, that he is bound.

And therefore one thing must be judged here of a religious, another of a layman. For to a religious the whole time of life is a time of penitence; and therefore, an abundance of a priest being had, if he has sinned mortally, I believe that he is bound to confess without delay and to have recourse to him; and let "without delay" be understood as right reason has determined. — But a layman can reasonably wait for the Lenten time, which is a time of penitence. Hence since the time is more opportune for them for making satisfaction and confessing, if they wait, it is reasonable to judge that they do not sin, provided they firmly purpose to confess at that time. — But of clerics I do not dare to judge; yet I believe [it] my counsel to them that all who fall through mortal [sin] should confess as soon as they can. For he does not seem truly contrite who for so long a time carries the wound of sin hidden. But if you object to me that the state does not bind anyone except by vow; I respond that the state does not bind, but the command given to all; and to this [moment] or to that the opportunity binds, which presents itself in different ways to different [persons]. And that holds true in all affirmative [precepts], that one [person] is bound for some time, to which time indeed another is not bound, as is clear in the honor of parents. It must therefore be confessed that that command binds no one to [confess] at once except in a case, as has been seen.

To the arguments for the affirmative side:

1. To that, then, which is objected, that contempt is not excused; it must be said that he calls "necessity" not only the unavoidable¹³, but a necessity-of-convenience. — Or it must be said that he speaks of those who depart from this life without the Sacraments, who are not excused, if they can then receive the Sacrament.

2. To that which is objected, that one confessing sooner is more fit; it must be said that a man can rise again from sin before confession, as has been seen; and therefore, since it has been wiped away through contrition, that does not follow.

3. To that which is objected concerning one sick with a bodily illness, it must be said that if he sees another way of cure, he is not bound to consult a physician, or even, if he awaits a more fitting time; and because it is so in the matter at hand: therefore etc.

4. To that which is objected, that he is bound never to fall; it must be said that it is not alike: because to be bound to not falling is the holding of a negative precept, which binds for all time; but to be bound to rising again is the holding of an affirmative [precept], which does not bind for all time.

To the contrary:

To that which is objected for the contrary, it must be said that, as far as concerns the command of that decretal, they are not obliged before Easter, as those reasons prove; yet some are obliged from the necessity of the institution of the Sacrament¹⁴.

---