Bonaventure

Quaestio II. Utrum contra voluntatem proprii sacerdotis liceat poenitenti confiteri alii discretiori, an teneatur confiteri proprio sacerdoti.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum contra voluntatem proprii sacerdotis liceat confiteri alii discretiori, an teneatur confiteri proprio sacerdoti. Et quod teneatur ei confiteri, ostenditur:

1. Primo auctoritate sacrae Scripturae. Proverbiorum vigesimo septimo¹: Diligenter cognosce vultum pecoris tui. Si ergo vultus pecoris est conscientia, et nullus potest scire vultum sive conscientiam nisi per confessionem: ergo si praeceptum est sacerdoti, qui habet curam animae, scire conscientiam; subditus ei tenetur confiteri.

2. Item, ad Hebraeos ultimo²: Obedite praepositis vestris per omnia; ipsi enim pervigilant, quasi rationem reddituri pro animabus vestris: ergo si sacerdos, qui habet curam, tenetur reddere rationem de anima subditi; videtur, quod subditus teneatur ei statum suum indicare.

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur auctoritate canonis. Innocentius in Concilio generali³: « Omnis utriusque sexus fidelis, ex quo ad annos discretionis pervenerit, omnia sua peccata solus confiteatur proprio sacerdoti ». Et in eadem decretali: « Si quis ex causa voluerit alii confiteri, prius licentiam petat et obtineat a proprio sacerdote »: si ergo sacerdos non dat licentiam, videtur, quod nullo modo possit confiteri alii.

4. Item, de Poenitentia, distinctione sexta⁴, Urbanus secundus: « Placuit, ut nulli deinceps sacerdotum liceat quemlibet commissum alii sacerdoti suscipere ad poenitentiam sine eius consensu, cui prius se commisit »; ergo videtur, quod non liceat confiteri nisi proprio sacerdoti.

5. Item, ratione videtur: quia confessus alii aut tenetur iterum confiteri proprio sacerdoti, aut non. Si sic: ergo nullius fuit valoris prior confessio sive absolutio; vere enim absolutus de aliquo non tenetur iterum absolvi de eodem in eodem foro. Si non tenetur: ergo videtur, quod sit exemptus a proprio sacerdote; sed nullus eximitur, nisi habeat privilegium⁵: ergo nullus potest alteri confiteri, nisi privilegium habeat ipse, vel nisi sacerdos licentiet.

6. Item, quilibet fidelis tenetur Sacramenta percipere a proprio sacerdote, ergo Sacramentum eucharistiae⁶; sed confessio est praeparatio ad illud Sacramentum: ergo illi tenetur confiteri, a quo Sacramentum illud tenetur suscipere. Sed hic est sacerdos proprius: ergo quantumcumque confiteatur alii, tenetur confiteri proprio sacerdoti.

Contra: 1. Augustinus in libro de Poenitentia⁷: « Qui vult peccata confiteri, quaerat sacerdotem scientem ligare et solvere, ne ambo in foveam cadant »: ergo si sacerdos proprius est simplex, videtur, quod possit alii confiteri pro voto.

2. Item, sicut dicit Bernardus⁸: « Quod ex caritate institutum est contra caritatem non debet militare »: ergo similiter, quod institutum est in remedium non debet militare contra remedium. Esto igitur, quod sacerdos sollicitet mulierem; si ipsa confitetur ei peccatum suum, est in periculo: ergo si non tenetur periculo se committere, non tenetur ei confiteri.

3. Item, privilegium datum est praedicantibus, quod possunt audire confessiones; sed qui concedit principale, et accessorium⁹: ergo si dominus Papa concessit potestatem absolvendi, ergo et potestatem peccatoribus tribuit eos adeundi: ergo contra voluntatem sacerdotis possunt eos adire.

4. Item, potestas iurisdictionis descendit a superioribus ad inferiores: ergo si aliquibus dat episcopus auctoritatem suam; cum inferior non possit supra superiorem, sed e converso; videtur, quod omnis fidelis, etiam nolente proprio sacerdote, possit eum adire.

5. Item, quod tali confessus non teneatur illo anno amplius confiteri, videtur: quia « natura nihil facit frustra¹⁰ » nec ars: ergo nec gratia vel regula Spiritus sancti: ergo superfluum est, duo remedia eiusdem speciei, maxime quando alterum est efficax, contra idem ordinari; sed confessus est ei qui superioris auctoritate potuit absolvere et absolvit: ergo amplius non tenetur confiteri proprio sacerdoti.

6. Item, si teneretur, ergo frustra daretur illud privilegium sive illa auctoritas, et videretur duplex tribulatio consurgere¹¹; et cum hoc non sit aequum, nec in iure divino nec in iure humano, non videtur, quod teneatur confiteri proprio sacerdoti.

### Conclusio. Confessio sacramentalis facienda est proprio sacerdoti, sive parochiali, sive superiori, sive ei qui habet facultatem plenam per commissionem; sed si facultas non est plena, in casu adhuc tenetur confiteri proprio sacerdoti peccata, quae tunc habet.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod, sicut supra¹² tactum est de confessione non sacramentali, quae quidem fit ad peccati recognitionem et erubescentiam; cum non spectet ad aliquem determinate, sed ad omnem qui prodesse potest, sine licentia et mandato potest peccator cui vult ad libitum confiteri; dum tamen sit de fidelibus numero, sive sit laicus, sive sit sacerdos, sive saecularis, sive religiosus, ita quod non sit vel excommunicatus, vel praecisus.

De confessione autem sacramentali, quae fit ad habendam absolutionem aliter dicendum, quod non potest fieri nisi potenti absolvere; aliter enim nihil fit ab absolvente, et nihil recipitur a poenitente, et oportet iterum confiteri. — Secundum hoc intelligendum, quod proprius sacerdos dicitur tripliciter: uno modo communissime, alio modo communiter et tertio modo proprie. Communissime dicitur proprius sacerdos quicumque potest confitentem absolvere sive per propriam auctoritatem, sive per commissionem vel demandationem, utpote sunt illi qui habent privilegium, dum praedicant, audiendi confessiones. — Communiter vero dicitur proprius sacerdos omnis ille, qui ex propria auctoritate vel officio tanquam praelatus ordinarius potest absolvere, ut episcopus et sacerdos parochialis¹³. — Proprie vero dicitur proprius sacerdos ille qui administrat Sacramenta, et cui commissa est specialis cura; et iste est sacerdos parochialis.

Intellige igitur, quod cuilibet horum licitum est confiteri; et proprio sacerdoti, scilicet parochiali, confessus non tenetur iterum confiteri; similiter confessus superiori, qui curam habet, dico, quod non tenetur confiteri sacerdoti parochiali, nisi superior remittat; sed sufficit, quod sacerdoti suo innotescat; et hoc dico, si fiat ex causa.

Sed de tertio sacerdote, qui solvit per demandationem sive commissionem, non habens animae

curam, distinguendum est. Aut enim commissa est ei, et licentia data a sacerdote; et tunc sacerdos ius suum commisit alii, et tunc qui confitetur alii ex licentia sacerdotis, etiam ipso exigente, illo anno, nisi recidivet, non tenetur iterum confiteri eidem, quoniam sacerdos ius suum et potestatem pro illo tempore alteri dedit. — Aut est auctoritas commissa a superiori ordinario, et tunc aut plena, aut in casu. Si plena sit, est iudicandum sicut de ordinario, sicut patet de his qui sunt poenitentiarii domini Papae et episcoporum; aut est commissa in casu, sicut his qui praedicant datum est privilegium. Credo enim quod, talibus data sit potestas audiendi confessiones non in praeiudicium sacerdotum bonorum, sed potius in favorem fidelium et propter ignorantiam, negligentiam et malitiam quorundam sacerdotum. Et credo, hoc privilegium in extremis temporibus emanasse, quia iam verificatum est illud: Erit sicut populus, sic sacerdos¹⁴; et pro magna parte sunt venales et conductitii, et multi parochianos suos plus ad malum quam ad bonum trahunt. Unde dico, quod secundum intentionem privilegii sacerdotes parochiales iure suo non privantur, immo faciendum est semper, quod a suis parochianis debita eis reverentia exhibeatur; nec contra hoc privilegium illud facit. Ideo credendum est, quod omnes parochiani, quandocumque et quotiescumque talibus confiteantur, tenentur sacerdotibus propriis confiteri, si sint boni et idonei, et ipsi exigunt nec alias contenti¹⁵ sunt; et hoc dico saltem semel in anno de his peccatis, quae habent tunc. — Si autem habet causam legitimam, propter quam rationabiliter refugit ipsum, vel quia sollicitat ad malum, vel quia timet revelationem confessionis, vel quia simplex est et idiota; dico, quod confessus iterum non tenetur, etiam si exigat sacerdos, quia in favorem clavium expresse hoc privilegium datum est. Alioquin, si non habet excusationem, et ipso exigente, nolit confiteri vix crederem talem personam vere poenitentem. Ideo omnibus sanum consilium est, quod remittant ad proprios sacerdotes, ut, si non est contentus¹⁶ illa confessione, iterum audiat.

Quando ergo quaeritur, utrum teneatur confiteri proprio sacerdoti; dicendum, quod si intelligatur de confessione, in qua est absolutio; et de

proprio sacerdote largo modo sumendo, scilicet qui habet potestatem absolvendi; dico, quod tenetur, nec sufficit alii confiteri. Si autem intelligatur de parochiali; sic non est generaliter verum, ut visum est. Potest enim alii confiteri non solum ex licentia eius, verum etiam ex licentia superioris. Unde consilium dandum est omnibus quibus imminet periculum, quod recurrant ad superiores, si sacerdos non vult eis licentiam dare, vel ad eos qui habent potestatem dioecesani, vel ad poenitentiarium domini Papae. Alioquin non potest¹⁷ absolvi ab aliis, quin teneatur ipsi saltem semel confiteri.

Concedo ergo, sicut ostendunt rationes, quod in casu bene potest confiteri alii nec tenetur confiteri proprio sacerdoti; in casu vero potest confiteri alii¹⁸, et tamen adhuc tenetur, propter hoc quod ille non habet auctoritatem plenariam.

Ad argumenta pro parte affirmativa: Ad 1, 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur primo, quod debet cognoscere vultum pecoris; dicendum, quod ipse absolvitur, dum alius vicem eius supplet, et hoc, quando superior praelatus, vel habens licentiam ab ipso, vel a praelato, audit; et ideo ipse non tenetur audire, nec alius confiteri.

Ad 3, 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non possit confiteri alii sine licentia, per decretalem, etiam si causam habeat, unde dicit: « petat et obtineat »; dicendum, quod ratio redditur in eadem decretali¹⁹, quia alius non potest absolvere; unde loquitur de eo qui non habet iurisdictionem aliquam super poenitentem nisi per commissionem sacerdotis. — Similiter ad sequens decretum Urbani patet responsio, quia loquitur de illo qui non habet potestatem aliquo modo nisi per sacerdotem absolvendi; et hoc melius patebit infra²⁰, cum agetur de potestate clavium.

Ad 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aut tenetur, aut non tenetur; dicendum, quod aliquando tenetur, sed tamen non frustra alii confitetur; perutile enim est pluribus sacerdotibus integre confiteri: tum propter multiplicationem intercessorum; tum etiam, quia, si devotionem habeat, cum audit praedicationem, vix fortassis tantam recuperabit; tum quia promovet ad humiliationem et gratiae meliorem impetrationem²¹. Aliquando non tenetur, ut praedeterminatum est, non quia sit exemptus, sed quia alius ex causa supplet eius officium. — Credo tamen, quod si sacerdos parochialis sit idoneus, quod semper bonum est, ut subditus ad eum remittatur, a quocumque audiatur, in his quae ad ipsum spectant: non tamen semper est necessarium. Unde argumenta ad oppositum non valent, quia efficaciori modo curatur qui ex causa rationabili pluries confitetur. — Potest tamen dici, sicut aliqui iurisperiti senserunt, quod si teneatur iterum confiteri proprio sacerdoti in eodem anno, non tamen oportet, quod illa eadem, quia vere absolutus est peccator. Et istud videtur satis probabile, quia frequenter peccatores praedicantibus suas monstrant conscientias, quas nullo modo propriis sacerdotibus aperirent; immo illa dicunt frequenter, quae longo tempore celaverunt, licet aliqua minora dicerent, sicut expertis notum est. Et ideo credendum est etiam, summum Pontificem hoc movisse ad illud privilegium concedendum, quod non est sic eo ampliandum, ut praeiudicium fiat potestati sacerdotali, nec adeo restringendum, ut obsit fidelium pietati. Unde nec sunt poenitentes arctandi ad illa enormia iterum confitenda, cum semel praedicanti legitime sunt confessi; nec ita liberi sunt iudicandi, quin etiam semel in anno, quae alias occurrunt in conscientia, teneantur sacerdotibus propriis confiteri, si illi velint.

Ad 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tenetur a proprio sacerdote eucharistiae Sacramentum accipere, ergo et Sacramentum poenitentiae; dicendum, quod non est tantum periculum in susceptione illius, sicut in susceptione huius. Dico tamen, quod sufficit sacerdoti, quod alius, qui potuit et debuit, supplevit locum eius. Unde non tenetur nec debet de iure amplius exigere, maxime si parochianus non ex contemptu, sed ex rationabili causa ad alium accedat, petita licentia.

Ad argumenta pro parte negativa: Rationes vero ad oppositum verum probant.

Ad 1. Tamen illud verbum Augustini non intelligitur generaliter de omni sacerdote sciente, sed de sacerdote sciente et potente, vel si scit et non potest, cum licentia sacerdotis proprii, qui habet posse, quamvis non habeat scire.

Ad 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de periculo, dicendum, quod illud non dat posse, sed rationabilem causam dat, ut possit superiorem adire, vel ab ipso licentiam petere; quod si non potest aliquod horum facere, debet in communi loco confiteri.

Ad 3, 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de privilegiatis, credo, quod malo velle sacerdotum parochialium possint confiteri ex licentia privilegii; et sacerdos non est audiendus, si prohibet, quia manifeste male movetur.

Ad 5, 6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non debet iterum confiteri; dicendum, quod non tenetur de eisdem, tenetur tamen de aliis, propter mandatum decretalis, quia non potest sacerdotem iure suo privare.

Question II. Whether, against the will of one's own priest, it is permitted to a penitent to confess to another more discreet priest, or whether he is bound to confess to his own priest.

Secondly it is asked, whether, against the will of one's own priest, it is permitted to confess to another more discreet priest, or whether he is bound to confess to his own priest. And that he is bound to confess to him is shown:

1. First, by the authority of sacred Scripture. Proverbs twenty-seven¹: Diligently know the countenance of thy cattle. If, therefore, the countenance of the cattle is the conscience, and no one can know the countenance or the conscience except through confession: therefore if it is enjoined upon the priest, who has the care of the soul, to know the conscience; the subject is bound to confess to him.

2. Likewise, to the Hebrews, last [chapter]²: Obey your prelates in all things; for they watch, as being to render an account for your souls: therefore if the priest, who has the care, is bound to render an account for the soul of the subject; it seems that the subject is bound to disclose his state to him.

3. Likewise, this very thing is shown by the authority of canon law. Innocent, in the general Council³: « Let every faithful person of either sex, after he has reached the years of discretion, confess all his sins alone to his own priest ». And in the same decretal: « If anyone for cause wishes to confess to another, let him first ask and obtain leave from his own priest »: if therefore the priest does not give leave, it seems that he can in no way confess to another.

4. Likewise, on Penance, distinction six⁴, Urban II: « It has been resolved that henceforth it be permitted to no priest to receive for penance anyone committed to another priest without the consent of him to whom he first committed himself »; therefore it seems that it is not permitted to confess except to one's own priest.

5. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because one who has confessed to another either is bound to confess again to his own priest, or not. If so: then the prior confession or absolution was of no value; for one truly absolved of something is not bound to be absolved again of the same in the same forum. If he is not bound: then it seems that he is exempt from his own priest; but no one is exempted unless he has a privilege⁵: therefore no one can confess to another, unless he himself has a privilege, or unless the priest grants leave.

6. Likewise, every faithful person is bound to receive the Sacraments from his own priest, therefore the Sacrament of the Eucharist⁶; but confession is a preparation for that Sacrament: therefore he is bound to confess to him from whom he is bound to receive that Sacrament. But this is his own priest: therefore however much he confesses to another, he is bound to confess to his own priest.

On the contrary: 1. Augustine, in the book on Penance⁷: « Let him who wishes to confess his sins seek a priest who knows how to bind and to loose, lest both fall into the pit »: therefore if one's own priest is simple, it seems that he can confess to another at will.

2. Likewise, as Bernard says⁸: « What was instituted out of charity ought not to war against charity »: therefore likewise, what was instituted as a remedy ought not to war against the remedy. Suppose, then, that a priest solicits a woman; if she confesses her sin to him, she is in danger: therefore if she is not bound to commit herself to danger, she is not bound to confess to him.

3. Likewise, a privilege has been given to preachers, that they can hear confessions; but he who grants the principal [thing grants] also the accessory⁹: therefore if the lord Pope has granted the power of absolving, then he has also granted to sinners the power of approaching them: therefore against the will of the priest they can approach them.

4. Likewise, the power of jurisdiction descends from superiors to inferiors: therefore if the bishop gives some persons his authority; since an inferior cannot [act] above a superior, but the reverse; it seems that every faithful person, even with his own priest unwilling, can approach him.

5. Likewise, it seems that one who has confessed to such a one is not bound to confess again that year: because « nature does nothing in vain¹⁰ », nor does art: therefore neither does grace or the rule of the Holy Spirit: therefore it is superfluous that two remedies of the same kind, especially when one is efficacious, be ordained against the same thing; but he has confessed to one who by a superior's authority could absolve and did absolve: therefore he is no longer bound to confess to his own priest.

6. Likewise, if he were bound, then that privilege or that authority would be given in vain, and it would seem that a twofold tribulation arises¹¹; and since this is not equitable, neither in divine law nor in human law, it does not seem that he is bound to confess to his own priest.

### Conclusion. Sacramental confession must be made to one's own priest, whether parochial, or superior, or to him who has full faculty by commission; but if the faculty is not full, in [that] case he is still bound to confess to his own priest the sins which he then has.

I respond: It must be said that, as was touched on above¹² concerning non-sacramental confession, which indeed is made for the recognition of sin and for [the sake of] shame; since it does not pertain to anyone determinately, but to everyone who can be of help, without leave and mandate the sinner can confess at will to whom he wishes; provided, however, that he be of the number of the faithful, whether he be a layman, or whether he be a priest, whether secular, or whether religious, so that he be not either excommunicate or cut off.

But concerning sacramental confession, which is made for obtaining absolution, it must be said otherwise, namely that it cannot be made except to one able to absolve; for otherwise nothing is done by the absolver, and nothing is received by the penitent, and one must confess again. — In accordance with this it must be understood that "one's own priest" is said in three ways: in one way most commonly, in another way commonly, and in a third way properly. Most commonly anyone is called one's own priest who can absolve the one confessing, whether by his own authority, or by commission or delegation, such as are those who have the privilege, while they preach, of hearing confessions. — Commonly, however, everyone is called one's own priest who from his own authority or office, as an ordinary prelate, can absolve, as the bishop and the parochial priest¹³. — Properly, however, that one is called one's own priest who administers the Sacraments, and to whom the special care has been committed; and this is the parochial priest.

Understand therefore that it is permitted to confess to any of these; and one who has confessed to his own priest, namely the parochial one, is not bound to confess again; likewise one who has confessed to a superior, who has the care, I say, is not bound to confess to the parochial priest, unless the superior refers [him back]; but it suffices that it become known to his own priest; and this I say, if it be done for cause.

But concerning the third priest, who looses by delegation or commission, not having the care of the soul,

it must be distinguished. For either it has been committed to him, and leave given by the priest; and then the priest has committed his right to another, and then one who confesses to another by leave of the priest, even with him requiring it, that year, unless he relapses, is not bound to confess again to the same [priest], since the priest gave his right and power for that time to another. — Or the authority has been committed by a superior ordinary, and then either full, or in [a particular] case. If it be full, it must be judged as concerning the ordinary, as is plain concerning those who are penitentiaries of the lord Pope and of the bishops; or it has been committed in [a particular] case, as a privilege has been given to those who preach. For I believe that to such persons the power of hearing confessions has been given not to the prejudice of good priests, but rather in favor of the faithful and on account of the ignorance, negligence, and malice of certain priests. And I believe that this privilege issued in the last times, because that [word] has now been verified: As the people, so shall the priest be¹⁴; and for the most part they are venal and hireling, and many drag their parishioners more to evil than to good. Whence I say that, according to the intention of the privilege, parochial priests are not deprived of their right; nay, it must always be done that the due reverence be shown to them by their parishioners; nor does that [privilege] act against this. Therefore it must be believed that all parishioners, whenever and as often as they confess to such persons, are bound to confess to their own priests, if they are good and fit and themselves require it and are not otherwise content¹⁵; and this I say at least once a year regarding those sins which they then have. — But if he has a legitimate cause, on account of which he reasonably shuns him, either because he solicits to evil, or because he fears the revelation of the confession, or because he is simple and unlettered; I say that one who has confessed is not bound again, even if the priest require it, because this privilege was given expressly in favor of the keys. Otherwise, if he has no excuse, and, with [the priest] requiring it, he refuses to confess, I would scarcely believe such a person truly penitent. Therefore for all the sound counsel is that they refer [people] to their own priests, so that, if [the priest] is not content¹⁶ with that confession, he may hear it again.

When therefore it is asked whether he is bound to confess to his own priest; it must be said that, if it be understood of confession in which there is absolution; and of "one's own priest" taken in the broad sense, namely one who has the power of absolving; I say that he is bound, nor does it suffice to confess to another. But if it be understood of the parochial [priest]; then it is not generally true, as has been seen. For he can confess to another not only by the leave of him, but also by the leave of a superior. Whence counsel must be given to all to whom danger is imminent, that they have recourse to superiors, if the priest will not give them leave, or to those who have the power of diocesans, or to the penitentiary of the lord Pope. Otherwise he cannot¹⁷ be absolved by others, without his being bound to confess to that one at least once.

I grant therefore, as the arguments [for the negative] show, that in [such a] case one can well confess to another and is not bound to confess to his own priest; but in [the other] case he can confess to another¹⁸, and yet is still bound, on account of this, that the other does not have plenary authority.

To the arguments for the affirmative: To 1, 2. To that which is objected first, that he ought to know the countenance of the cattle; it must be said that he [the priest] is acquitted, while another fills his place, and this, when a superior prelate, or one having leave from him, or from a prelate, hears [the confession]; and therefore he himself is not bound to hear, nor the other to confess [to him].

To 3, 4. To that which is objected, that he cannot confess to another without leave, by the decretal, even if he has cause, whence it says: « let him ask and obtain »; it must be said that the reason is given in the same decretal¹⁹, because the other cannot absolve; whence it speaks of him who has no jurisdiction over the penitent except by commission of the priest. — Likewise to the following decree of Urban the answer is plain, because it speaks of him who has no power of absolving in any way except through the priest; and this will appear better below²⁰, when the power of the keys is treated.

To 5. To that which is objected, that either he is bound or he is not bound; it must be said that sometimes he is bound, yet he does not confess to another in vain; for it is very useful to confess fully to several priests: both on account of the multiplication of intercessors; and also because, if he has devotion, when he hears the preaching, he will scarcely perhaps recover as great [a devotion]; and because it furthers humiliation and the better obtaining of grace²¹. Sometimes he is not bound, as has been predetermined, not because he is exempt, but because another for cause supplies his office. — Yet I believe that, if the parochial priest is fit, which is always good, it is [good] that the subject be referred to him, by whomever he be heard, in those things which pertain to him: yet it is not always necessary. Whence the arguments to the opposite are not valid, because he is more efficaciously healed who for reasonable cause confesses several times. — Yet it can be said, as some jurists have held, that if he is bound to confess again to his own priest in the same year, it is nevertheless not necessary that [he confess] the very same things, because the sinner is truly absolved. And this seems sufficiently probable, because frequently sinners show to preachers their consciences, which they would in no way open to their own priests; nay, they frequently tell those things which they have long concealed, though they might tell some lesser things, as is known to the experienced. And therefore it must also be believed that the supreme Pontiff was moved by this to grant that privilege, which is not so to be extended that prejudice be done to the priestly power, nor so to be restricted that it be a hindrance to the piety of the faithful. Whence penitents are not to be constrained to confess again those enormous [sins], when they have once lawfully confessed them to a preacher; nor are they to be judged so free as not to be bound, at least once a year, to confess to their own priests those things which otherwise occur in conscience, if they [the priests] are willing.

To 6. To that which is objected, that he is bound to receive the Sacrament of the Eucharist from his own priest, therefore also the Sacrament of penance; it must be said that there is not so great a danger in the reception of the former as in the reception of the latter. Yet I say that it suffices for the priest that another, who could and ought, has supplied his place. Whence he is not bound nor ought by law to require more, especially if the parishioner approaches another not out of contempt, but from a reasonable cause, leave having been asked.

To the arguments for the negative: The reasons to the opposite, however, prove the truth.

To 1. Yet that word of Augustine is not to be understood generally of every knowing priest, but of a priest who knows and is able, or, if he knows and is not able, with the leave of his own priest, who has the power, although he does not have the knowledge.

To 2. To that which is objected concerning danger, it must be said that that does not give the power, but gives reasonable cause, that he may approach a superior, or ask leave from him; and if he cannot do any of these, he ought to confess in a common place.

To 3, 4. To that which is objected concerning the privileged, I believe that, against the evil will of the parochial priests, they can confess by the leave of the privilege; and the priest is not to be heeded, if he forbids, because he is manifestly moved wrongly.

To 5, 6. To that which is objected, that he ought not to confess again; it must be said that he is not bound [to confess] concerning the same things, yet he is bound concerning others, on account of the mandate of the decretal, because he cannot deprive the priest of his right.