Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17
Articulus I. Cui sit confitendum.
Quaestio I. Utrum sufficiat confiteri laico.
Circa primum quaeritur, utrum sufficiat confiteri laico. Et quod sic, videtur.
1. Iacobi ultimo1, ubi instituitur confessio: Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra; constat ergo, quod loquitur omnibus: igitur illud dictum est omnibus, ergo dictum est et laicis: Confitemini alterutrum.
2. Item, Glossa2 ibidem dicit: «Minora minoribus, maiora maioribus»; constat autem, quod maiora omnia confitenda sunt sacerdotibus: ergo si minora dicit confitenda minoribus, videtur, quod aliis quam sacerdotibus est confitendum.
3. Item, videtur ratione: quia confessio fit homini, non quia homo remittat culpam, sed ut poenitens erubescat3; sed plus erubescit aliquando aliquis de socio laico quam de sacerdote: ergo magis salvatur ibi finis sive utilitas confessionis.
4. Item, confessio ad hoc ordinatur, ut homo ab homine erudiatur et cognoscat peccati plagam; sed plerumque melius hoc noverunt multi laici quam etiam sacerdotes: ergo etc.
5. Item, confessio est ad multiplicationem adiutorum sive intercessorum; sed frequentius plus valet oratio laici quam sacerdotis: ergo utilius est confiteri plerumque laico.
6. Item, confessio est necessitatis, sicut in praecedentibus visum est4: ergo si Deus per Sacramenta non arctat viam salutis, videtur, quod omnibus dari debuit potestas audiendi confessiones, et e converso confiteri cuilibet.
Contra: 1. Augustinus, de Poenitentia, distinctione sexta5: «Qui vult confiteri peccata sua, ut inveniat gratiam, quaerat sacerdotem»: ergo videtur, quod confiteri alii non sufficiat.
2. Item, veritas debet respondere figurae; sed in Lege nullus iudicabatur mundatus a lepra nec recipiebatur in castra per alicuius iudicium, quantumcumque esset sapiens, nisi per iudicium sacerdotis6: ergo videtur pari ratione, quod nullus possit reconciliare poenitentem Ecclesiae nisi solus sacerdos. Sed confessio ordinatur ad hoc: ergo etc.
3. Item, confessio ordinata est principaliter ad absolutionem; sed potestas ligandi et solvendi data est principaliter summo Pontifici, scilicet Petro et aliis Apostolis: ergo solis sacerdotibus: ergo ab illis solis potest fieri absolutio: ergo ipsis solis debet fieri confessio.
4. Item, si aliis sufficit confiteri, ergo frustra est concessa potestas absolvendi sacerdotibus: si ergo non frustra concessa est, patet igitur etc.
Conclusio. Confessio, prout est opus sacramentale, soli sacerdoti est facienda.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod est loqui de confessione dupliciter: uno modo prout est opus virtutis directe repugnans hypocrisi, in quo quis se ipsum accusat, ne alius, quam sit, appareat, vel etiam mala sua aperit ad morbi investigandam curationem7; et hoc modo confessio cuilibet potest fieri, qui potest adiuvare instruendo, vel orando, de quo homo potest erubescere et humiliari, et illo exemplo humiliationis meliorari, non peccatorum cognitione depravari; et sic quis potest peccatum suum cuilibet confiteri, sive clerico sive laico.
Sicut enim dicit Bernardus super Cantica8: «Vir perfectus tantus est veritatis amator, quod vellet, omnes nosse sua mala, dum tamen eis non esset occasio mali, sed boni». — Alio modo confessio est opus sacramentale, prout ordinatur ad reconciliationem, quae fit per absolutionem et ligationem; et quoniam haec potestas collata est solis sacerdotibus, sicut melius patebit infra9: ideo haec nulli nisi solis sacerdotibus est facienda. — Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.
Ad argumenta: Ad 1, 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur: Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra etc.; aliqui dicunt, hoc esse dictum de venialibus, de quibus, sicut patebit, non est necesse confiteri. Aliter potest dici, quod est confessio duplex, scilicet in generali, ut quando quis dicit suum Confiteor; et in speciali, quando quis dicit peccata sua. In utraque harum confessionum est alternatio; sed in confessione speciali est alternatio quantum ad solos sacerdotes, in generali vero quantum ad omnes. Et ideo patet et auctoritas et Glossa, et innuitur hoc ex pluribus verbis, quae ponuntur in Glossa10.
Ad 3, 4, 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de erubescentia, instructione et oratione, dicendum, quod in omnibus argumentis est consequens11, pro eo quod non accipit totam causam nec etiam principalem causam, quae est reconciliatio facienda Ecclesiae; et ideo omnes ab insufficienti procedunt de confessione, secundum quod est Sacramentum. Tamen vere concludunt, quod utile etiam est aliquando confiteri non sacerdoti; sicut etiam audivi de muliere, quae in morte confessa fuit viro ad vehementem confusionem, cuius poenitentiam per signa valde evidentia Dominus acceptavit; prius tamen fuerat confessa sacerdoti.
Ad 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod cum sit necessitatis, debuit omnibus committi; dicendum, quod non oportuit nec debuit. Non debuit, quia absolvere dicit actum alicuius personae auctoritatem habentis. Non etiam oportuit, quia nullus volens habere sacerdotem et eo carens privatur salute; sufficit enim sibi voluntas confitendi; et ut voluntas eius exterius appareat, dat Magister consilium, quod confiteatur proprio socio, non quia illa confessio Sacramentum Ecclesiae sit, sed ut talis ostendat, se perfectam habere voluntatem et facere quod in se est.
I. De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 19. m. a. 1. — Scot., de hac et seq. q. in utroque Scripto hic q. unica. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. 2. 3.; Suppl. q. 8. a. 1. 2. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 33. 39. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Durand., hic q. 11. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.
II. Quoad 2. quaestionem nunc constat, nomine proprii sacerdotis (cui saltem semel in anno confitendum esse in decreto Concilii Lateranensis IV. dicitur) intelligi omnem confessarium rite approbatum. Illa tamen aetate confessio annua ratione illius canonis proprio parocho facienda videbatur; multumque de privilegiis religiosorum litigatum est. Plura vide apud Henricum Gand. (Quodl. 7. q. 23-27), qui (q. 24.) in quaestione iuris de privilegiis Fratrum Praedicatorum et Minorum hoc votum dedit, quod poenitens, ut satisfaceret illi canoni, semel in anno peccata sua, etiam rite confessa, iterum deberet parocho suo confiteri. Richard. a Med. autem (hic a. 3. q. 1. seqq.) iam sustinuit, nomine proprii sacerdotis intelligi eum qui quamcumque legitimam iurisdictionem in poenitentem haberet, et probabilius esse iudicavit, non teneri eum qui tali confessus esset, peccata in confessione manifestata parocho suo iterum confiteri. Similiter censent Scotus et Durandus. S. Thom. (hic loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4. 3; Suppl. q. 8. a. 6.) favet opinioni, quod poenitens propter statutum Ecclesiae se praesentare teneatur sacerdoti proprio, tamen rite absolutus non nisi sua venialia confiteri debeat; bonum autem esse, quod confessarius suum poenitentem inducat, «ut confiteatur proprio sacerdoti; quod si noluerit, nihilominus eum absolvere debet». — Sapienter autem sic monet parochos (quaestiunc. 4. ad 6.): «Peccaret autem sacerdos, si non esset facilis ad praebendam licentiam confitendi alteri»; aliter «multis laqueum damnationis iniiciunt et per consequens sibi ipsis». De eadem quaestione praeter citatos: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 40-43. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 1-3. — Durand., hic q. 12. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.
III. De 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 18. m. 4. a. 3. 5 § 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 27. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6. refert de hac re aliqua verba S. Bonav. Alii auctores principia tangunt alibi, praesertim in quaestione de sigillo confessionis, infra d. 21.
---
Article I. To whom confession is to be made.
Question I. Whether it is sufficient to confess to a layman.
Concerning the first it is asked whether it is sufficient to confess to a layman. And that it is so seems to be the case.
1. In the last [chapter] of James1, where confession is instituted: Confess your sins to one another; it is settled, therefore, that he speaks to all: hence that saying was spoken to all, and so was spoken also to laymen: Confess to one another.
2. Likewise, the Gloss2 in the same place says: «Lesser things to lesser persons, greater things to greater»; but it is settled that all greater things are to be confessed to priests: therefore, if he says that lesser things are to be confessed to lesser persons, it seems that confession is to be made to others than priests.
3. Likewise, it seems by reason: because confession is made to a man, not because a man remits the fault, but that the penitent may blush3; but sometimes one blushes more before a lay companion than before a priest: therefore the end or usefulness of confession is better preserved there.
4. Likewise, confession is ordered to this, that a man be instructed by a man and recognize the wound of sin; but oftentimes many laymen know this better than even priests: therefore etc.
5. Likewise, confession is for the multiplication of helps or intercessors; but more frequently the prayer of a layman avails more than that of a priest: therefore it is more useful oftentimes to confess to a layman.
6. Likewise, confession is of necessity, as was seen in the preceding4: therefore, if God by the Sacraments does not constrain the way of salvation, it seems that the power of hearing confessions ought to have been given to all, and conversely [the power] of confessing to anyone.
On the contrary: 1. Augustine, On Penance, distinction six5: «Whoever wishes to confess his sins, that he may find grace, let him seek a priest»: therefore it seems that to confess to another does not suffice.
2. Likewise, the truth ought to answer to the figure; but under the Law no one was judged cleansed of leprosy nor received into the camp by anyone's judgment, however wise he might be, except by the judgment of a priest6: therefore it seems by parity of reasoning that no one can reconcile a penitent to the Church except a priest alone. But confession is ordered to this: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, confession is ordered principally to absolution; but the power of binding and loosing was given principally to the supreme Pontiff, namely to Peter, and to the other Apostles: therefore to priests alone: therefore by them alone can absolution be made: therefore to them alone ought confession be made.
4. Likewise, if it suffices to confess to others, then the power of absolving was granted to priests in vain: if therefore it was not granted in vain, it is clear then etc.
Conclusion. Confession, insofar as it is a sacramental work, is to be made to a priest alone.
I respond: It must be said that confession may be spoken of in two ways: in one way, insofar as it is a work of virtue directly opposed to hypocrisy, in which a man accuses himself, lest he appear other than he is, or also lays open his evils for the investigating of the cure of the disease7; and in this way confession can be made to anyone who can help by instructing or by praying, before whom a man can blush and be humbled, and be bettered by that example of humiliation, not depraved by the knowledge of his sins; and thus one can confess his sin to anyone, whether cleric or layman.
For as Bernard says on the Canticle8: «So great a lover of the truth is the perfect man, that he would wish all to know his evils, provided, however, that it be for them an occasion not of evil, but of good». — In another way confession is a sacramental work, insofar as it is ordered to reconciliation, which is made through absolution and binding; and since this power has been conferred on priests alone, as will appear better below9: therefore this is to be made to none except priests alone. — And the reasons brought forward for this are to be granted.
To the arguments: To 1, 2. To that which is objected: Confess your sins to one another etc.; some say that this was said of venial sins, of which, as will appear, it is not necessary to confess. Otherwise it can be said that confession is twofold, namely in general, as when one says his Confiteor; and in particular, when one tells his sins. In each of these confessions there is mutuality; but in particular confession there is mutuality only with respect to priests, while in general [confession] with respect to all. And so both the authority and the Gloss are clear, and this is intimated from many words that are set down in the Gloss10.
To 3, 4, 5. To that which is objected concerning blushing, instruction, and prayer, it must be said that in all the arguments there is a consequent11, for the reason that it does not take the whole cause, nor even the principal cause, which is the reconciliation to be made to the Church; and therefore all proceed from an insufficient [ground] concerning confession, insofar as it is a Sacrament. Yet they truly conclude that it is also sometimes useful to confess to a non-priest; just as I have also heard of a woman who at death confessed to a man to her vehement shame, whose penitence the Lord accepted by very evident signs; yet she had first confessed to a priest.
To 6. To that which is objected, that since it is of necessity it ought to have been committed to all, it must be said that it was neither needful nor due. It was not due, because to absolve names the act of some person having authority. Nor was it needful, because no one who wills to have a priest and lacks one is deprived of salvation; for the will to confess suffices for him; and that his will may appear outwardly, the Master gives the counsel that he confess to his own companion, not because that confession is a Sacrament of the Church, but that such a one may show that he has a perfect will and does what is in him.
I. On this first question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 19. m. a. 1. — Scotus, on this and the following question in both Commentaries here a single question. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1, 2, 3; Suppl. q. 8. a. 1, 2, 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 33, 39. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. — Durandus, here q. 11. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 7.
II. As to the second question, it now stands that by the name of one's own priest (to whom it is said in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council that confession is to be made at least once a year) is understood every duly approved confessor. In that age, however, annual confession by reason of that canon seemed to be made to one's own parish priest; and there was much litigation concerning the privileges of religious. See more in Henry of Ghent (Quodl. 7. q. 23-27), who (q. 24.) in the question of law concerning the privileges of the Friars Preachers and Minors gave this opinion, that the penitent, to satisfy that canon, ought once a year to confess again to his parish priest his sins, even those duly confessed. Richard of Middleton, however (here a. 3. q. 1. seqq.), already maintained that by the name of one's own priest is understood him who has any legitimate jurisdiction over the penitent, and judged it more probable that one who had confessed to such a one is not bound to confess again to his parish priest the sins manifested in [that] confession. Scotus and Durandus hold likewise. St. Thomas (here loc. cit. quaestiunc. 4. 3; Suppl. q. 8. a. 6.) favors the opinion that the penitent, on account of the statute of the Church, is bound to present himself to his own priest, yet, once duly absolved, ought to confess only his venial sins; and that it is good that the confessor induce his penitent «to confess to his own priest; but if he is unwilling, [the confessor] ought nonetheless to absolve him». — Wisely, moreover, he thus admonishes parish priests (quaestiunc. 4. ad 6.): «A priest would sin if he were not ready to grant leave to confess to another»; otherwise «they cast on many a snare of damnation, and consequently on themselves». On the same question, besides those cited: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2. 3. — Bl. Albert, here a. 40-43. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard of Middleton, loc. cit. q. 1-3. — Durandus, here q. 12. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 7.
III. On the third question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. q. 18. m. 4. a. 3. 5 § 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 27. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 6. reports on this matter some words of St. Bonaventure. Other authors touch on the principles elsewhere, especially in the question on the seal of confession, below d. 21.
---
- 1Vers. 16. — Codd. I K testificationem.Verse 16. — Codices I K read testificationem.
- 2Scilicet interlinearis, quae est sumpta ex Beda. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.Namely the interlinear [Gloss], which is taken from Bede. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4.
- 3Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. et 3, ubi etiam maior duorum seqq. argg. insinuatur; sed cfr. infra d. 18. p. I. a. 2. q. 1.See here the text of the Master, c. 5 and 3, where also the major [premise] of the two following arguments is intimated; but cf. below d. 18, p. I, a. 2, q. 1.
- 4Cap. 1. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.Chapter 1. See here the text of the Master, c. 1.
- 5Hic c. 4. et 5.Here c. 4 and 5.
- 6Vide Levit. 13. et 14. Cfr. Deuter. 17, 8. seqq.See Leviticus 13 and 14. Cf. Deuteronomy 17, 8 ff.
- 7Matth. 16, 19. et Ioan. 20, 22. seq.Matthew 16, 19, and John 20, 22 f.
- 8Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 6. circa finem. — Paulo superius pro quis, quod in multis codd. desideratur, codd. F G homo. Inferius pro orando codd. N Y hortando, cod. Z ordinando, et subinde pro humiliationis cod. H humilitatis.See here the text of the Master, c. 6, near the end. — A little above, for quis, which is lacking in many codices, codices F G [read] homo. Below, for orando codices N Y [read] hortando, codex Z ordinando, and thereupon for humiliationis codex H [reads] humilitatis.
- 9Serm. 42. n. 6, ubi haec sententia aliis verbis (quae habentur infra q. 3. arg. 3. et in solut.) exprimitur.Sermon 42, n. 6, where this opinion is expressed in other words (which are found below in q. 3, arg. 3, and in the solution).
- 10Dist. 19. a. 1. et 2.Distinction 19, a. 1 and 2.
- 11Infra a. 2. q. 1. — De confessione generali plura profert Magister, infra d. XXI. c. 7. — Partis II. q. 1. — Inferius post confiteri [confitendi?] Vat. cum pluribus codd. repetit debuit. — Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Cfr. supra pag. 44, nota 10. — Hic in lit. c. 4. — Verbo dat cod. Y praemittit in casu.Below a. 2, q. 1. — On general confession the Master sets forth more, below d. XXI, c. 7. — Of Part II, q. 1. — Below, after confiteri [confitendi?] the Vatican edition with several codices repeats debuit. — See here the text of the Master, c. 4. — Cf. above p. 44, note 10. — Here in the text, c. 4. — To the word dat codex Y prefixes in casu. ---