Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 2, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17
Articulus II. Quid sit confitendum.
Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur, quid sit confitendum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur tria.
Primo quaeritur, utrum oporteat confiteri omnem venialem culpam.
Secundo, utrum oporteat confiteri omnem peccati mortalis differentiam.
Tertio, utrum oporteat confiteri omnem circumstantiam.
Quaestio I. Utrum oporteat confiteri omnem venialem culpam.
Circa primum ostenditur, quod oporteat confiteri culpam venialem.
1. Iacobi ultimo1: Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra; Glossa: «Peccata, quae ex humana ignorantia veniunt, dicit et praecipit confiteri»; et talia sunt venialia: ergo praeceptum est confiteri illa.
2. Item, Augustinus2: «Si coepisti fluctuare, confitearis motum, ne plangas ruinam»: si ergo periculum est ruere, qui non confitetur exponit se periculo; sed omnes tenentur illud fugere: ergo etc.
3. Item, de omni, de quo Dominus punire et iudicare debet in futuro, commisit in praesenti iudicium sacerdotibus, et praecipue Petro; sed Dominus in die iudicii iudicabit de venialibus, et oportebit reddere rationem, sicut dicitur Matthaei duodecimo3, de omni verbo otioso etc. Si tu dicas, quod requiret rationem, sed tamen non propter hoc condemnabit; obiicitur de eis qui cum mortali decedunt, quod pro venialibus in aeternum cruciabuntur: ergo videtur, quod impius veniens ad confessionem, cum pro utrisque esset aeternaliter puniendus, quod debet utraque confiteri.
4. Item, de aliquibus venialibus difficile est iudicare, utrum sint mortalia, vel venialia, quae tamen secundum veritatem sunt venialia; sed cum est difficultas et ambiguitas, recurrendum est ad sacerdotes, sicut dicitur Deuteronomii decimo septimo4: Si difficile et ambiguum etc.: ergo venialia talia sunt confitenda.
Contra: 1. «Poenitentia est secunda tabula post naufragium5»; sed per veniale nemo naufragatur: ergo pro venialibus nullus tenetur recurrere ad poenitentiam: ergo nec ea confiteri.
2. Item, venialia non sunt in prohibitione: ergo nec eorum remedia in praecepto: ergo non est praeceptum confiteri venialia.
3. Item, confessio fit ad reconciliandum Ecclesiae; sed per veniale nullus factus est inimicus Ecclesiae, nullus extra Ecclesiam eiectus est, in nullo damnificata Ecclesia, quia caritatem non auferunt nec minuunt6: ergo nemo tenetur illa confiteri.
4. Item, quidquid homo tenetur confiteri, tenetur amplius non iterare, quia «poenitentia vera est commissa plangere et plangenda non committere7»; sed non tenetur quis venialia non iterare: ergo non tenetur de illis poenitentiam agere, ergo nec confiteri.
Conclusio. Confiteri peccata venialia congruum est, non necessarium, nisi interdum propter dubium, vel ecclesiasticum statutum.
Respondeo: Dicendum quod confessio venialium non est in praecepto, est tamen in consilio. In praecepto non est: quia, cum sint de sui natura venialia, per se possunt veniam consequi, sive per poenitentiam internam, sive per exteriorem assumtam, sive etiam per poenam purgatoriam, sicut melius patebit infra8, sive per aliud remedium competens et idoneum. Quamvis autem de ratione sui generis non sit ea confiteri necessarium, tamen ea confiteri congruum est, maxime viris perfectis, quia utile est multum, et poena illis debita minuitur ex vi clavium. Hoc est igitur de venialibus generaliter dictum.
In casu tamen contingit, quod homo teneatur ea confiteri, sive propter dubium, sive propter ecclesiasticum statutum. Propter dubium: quia dubitat probabiliter, utrum sit veniale, vel mortale; ideo, si non poenitet sicut de mortali, discrimini se exponit, et ideo debet confiteri, sicut iacet in conscientia, et iudicio sacerdotis relinquat, utrum sit veniale, vel mortale. — Propter ecclesiasticum statutum tenetur: quia omnis fidelis semel in anno tenetur confiteri; et ideo, si non habet nisi venialia, saltem illa semel in anno tenetur confiteri. Sed hoc non est propter venialis peccati morbum, sed propter praeceptum, quod quare omnibus sit iniunctum, superius9 tactum est.
Concedendum est igitur, quod venialia, secundum quod huiusmodi, non est necesse confiteri, est tamen expediens; nec quis tenetur nisi de bono et aequo, nisi in duobus casibus, vel quia ligatur a conscientia, vel quia ligatur a constitutione ecclesiastica.
1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod peccata, quae per ignorantiam contrahuntur, praecipit confiteri; dicendum, quod illud intelligendum est de venialibus. Sed tunc praecipere est docere, secundum illud Lucae quinto10: Praeceptor, per totam noctem etc. Verbum autem beati Iacobi, quamvis propositum sit per modum imperativum, tamen pro mortalibus tenetur imperative, pro venialibus magis excitative.
2. Ad illud quod dicit Augustinus: Si coepisti etc.; dicendum, quod consilium est, non quia non aliter possit vitari ruina nisi per confessionem, sed quia haec via est idonea et salubris; unde non dicit hoc, quod semper ruat ille qui non confitetur motum, sed quia ad ruendum esset proclivior.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Dominus puniet et iudicabit in futuro; dicendum, quod aliter iudicabit veniale sive pro veniali, aliter pro mortali. Pro mortali namque iudicabit et condemnabit; pro veniali nequaquam condemnabit, sed temporaliter cruciabit, nisi forte sit annexum mortali, et hoc non ratione sui, sed ratione mortalis11. Et ideo ex quo quis confitetur mortale, solvitur, pro quo condemnandus erat a Domino; et ideo non oportet illa confiteri, quantum est de necessitate obligationis.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de venialibus, quod dubium est, utrum sint mortalia; dicendum, quod in tali casu, nisi certificetur poenitens per aliquem virum sapientem, cui possit adhibere fidem, tenetur illud utique confiteri; si autem tollatur dubitatio, et sciatur esse veniale, tunc non obligatur; sicut si conscientia alicuius probabiliter dubitat de aliquo, utrum sit mortale, tenetur amplius illud non facere, manente dubitatione; sed amota tali conscientia, non tenetur12. Et ideo sane dictum est, quod ad confessionem venialis ligatur quis non ex institutione divina, sed ex constitutione ecclesiastica et conscientia propria. Et sic patent obiecta.
I. Tota huius articuli doctrina confirmatur a Concilio Tridentino (Sess. XIV. c. 5, et celebri can. 7.), praesertim conclusiones 1. et 2. quaestionis. Tamen quod in 1. quaestione generatim asseritur, ea peccata esse confitenda, de quibus poenitens dubitat, utrum sint venialia, an mortalia; hoc nunc non ita universaliter, sed cum quibusdam distinctionibus poenitenti imponitur, de quibus vide casuistas. — De 1. et 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 2. § 2-8. — Scot., hic q. unica n. 19. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. 2. 4, d. 16. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3; Suppl. q. 8. a. 1, q. 9. a. 2. 4. — B. Albert., hic a. 36. 28. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 1. 3. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 14. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 8.
II. Quoad 3. quaestionem in citato canone 7. Concilii Tridentini declaratur, confessionem extendendam esse ad «circumstantias, quae peccati speciem mutant». Cum Ss. Bonav. et Thom. (supra d. 16. q. 3. a. 2. quaestiunc. 5.) etiam S. Alphonsus (Theol. moral. VI. tr. 4. dub. 3. n. 468) probabilius esse censet, circumstantias etiam notabiliter aggravantes, dummodo speciem non mutant, non esse necessario in confessione manifestandas; quod intelligendum est per se, cum certum sit, easdem per accidens esse manifestandas (e. g. cum confessarius de quibusdam, ut de consuetudine, discrete interrogat). — Alex. Hal. et multi ex schola S. Thomae tenuerunt, generatim circumstantias notabiliter aggravantes in confessione necessario aperiendas esse (cfr. Gotti, III. tr. 9. q. 6. § 4.); ita etiam Guliel. Antissiod., S. p. IV. tr. 6. c. 3. q. 3. De hac (3.) quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. § 1-3. — Scot., loc. cit. n. 20. — B. Albert., supra d. 16. a. 24-27. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 5. — Durand., supra d. 16. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., supra d. 16. q. 2.
---
Article II. What is to be confessed.
Next, with respect to the second article, it is asked what is to be confessed. And concerning this, three things are asked.
First it is asked whether one must confess every venial fault.
Second, whether one must confess every difference of mortal sin.
Third, whether one must confess every circumstance.
Question I. Whether one must confess every venial fault.
Concerning the first, it is shown that one must confess a venial fault.
1. James, last chapter1: Confess your sins one to another; the Gloss: «Sins which come from human ignorance, he says and commands to be confessed»; and such are venial: therefore it is commanded to confess them.
2. Likewise, Augustine2: «If you have begun to waver, confess the motion, lest you bewail the ruin»: if therefore it is dangerous to fall, he who does not confess exposes himself to danger; but all are bound to flee that: therefore etc.
3. Likewise, concerning everything which the Lord must punish and judge in the future, He has committed the judgment in the present to priests, and especially to Peter; but the Lord on the day of judgment will judge concerning venial things, and it will be necessary to render an account, as is said in Matthew twelve3, of every idle word etc. If you say that He will require an account, but yet will not on that account condemn; an objection is raised concerning those who depart with mortal sin, that for venial things they will be tormented eternally: therefore it seems that the impious man coming to confession, since he would be eternally punished for both, ought to confess both.
4. Likewise, concerning certain venial things it is difficult to judge whether they are mortal or venial, which nevertheless according to the truth are venial; but when there is difficulty and ambiguity, recourse must be had to the priests, as is said in Deuteronomy seventeen4: If a thing be difficult and ambiguous etc.: therefore such venial things are to be confessed.
On the contrary: 1. «Penance is the second plank after shipwreck5»; but by a venial sin no one is shipwrecked: therefore for venial sins no one is bound to have recourse to penance: therefore neither to confess them.
2. Likewise, venial sins are not under a prohibition: therefore neither are their remedies under a precept: therefore there is no precept to confess venial sins.
3. Likewise, confession is made for being reconciled to the Church; but by a venial sin no one has been made an enemy of the Church, no one has been cast out of the Church, in no way is the Church harmed, because they do not take away or diminish charity6: therefore no one is bound to confess them.
4. Likewise, whatever a man is bound to confess, he is further bound not to repeat, because «true penance is to lament what has been committed and not to commit what is to be lamented7»; but one is not bound not to repeat venial sins: therefore he is not bound to do penance for them, therefore neither to confess them.
Conclusion. To confess venial sins is fitting, not necessary, except sometimes on account of doubt, or an ecclesiastical statute.
I respond: It must be said that the confession of venial sins is not under a precept, but is under a counsel. It is not under a precept: because, since they are by their nature venial, they can of themselves obtain pardon, whether through interior penance, or through exterior penance undertaken, or even through the punishment of purgatory, as will appear better below8, or through another fitting and suitable remedy. But although by the nature of their kind it is not necessary to confess them, nevertheless to confess them is fitting, especially for perfect men, because it is very useful, and the punishment due to them is diminished by virtue of the keys. This, then, is said of venial sins in general.
In a particular case, however, it happens that a man is bound to confess them, whether on account of doubt, or on account of an ecclesiastical statute. On account of doubt: because he doubts probably whether it is venial or mortal; therefore, if he does not repent as for a mortal sin, he exposes himself to danger, and therefore he ought to confess, as it lies in his conscience, and leave it to the judgment of the priest whether it be venial or mortal. — On account of an ecclesiastical statute he is bound: because every member of the faithful is bound to confess once a year; and therefore, if he has only venial sins, at least those he is bound to confess once a year. But this is not on account of the disease of venial sin, but on account of the precept, the reason why it is enjoined on all having been touched on above9.
It must be granted, therefore, that venial sins, as such, need not be confessed, yet it is expedient; nor is anyone bound except by what is good and equitable, except in two cases, either because he is bound by conscience, or because he is bound by an ecclesiastical constitution.
1. To that which is objected, that He commands to confess the sins which are contracted through ignorance; it must be said that this is to be understood of venial sins. But then to command is to teach, according to that text of Luke five10: Master, all the night etc. But the word of blessed James, although it is put forward in the manner of an imperative, nevertheless for mortal sins it holds imperatively, for venial sins rather by way of incitement.
2. To that which Augustine says: If you have begun etc.; it must be said that it is a counsel, not because ruin cannot otherwise be avoided except through confession, but because this way is suitable and salutary; hence he does not say this, that he who does not confess the motion always falls, but that he would be more prone to falling.
3. To that which is objected, that the Lord will punish and judge in the future; it must be said that He will judge venial sin, or for a venial sin, otherwise than for a mortal sin. For for a mortal sin He will judge and condemn; for a venial sin He will by no means condemn, but will torment temporally, unless perhaps it is annexed to a mortal sin, and this not by reason of itself, but by reason of the mortal sin11. And therefore, since one confesses the mortal sin, he is absolved, for which he was to be condemned by the Lord; and therefore it is not necessary to confess those venial sins, as far as concerns the necessity of obligation.
4. To that which is objected concerning venial sins, that it is doubtful whether they are mortal; it must be said that in such a case, unless the penitent is assured by some wise man in whom he can place trust, he is certainly bound to confess it; but if the doubt is removed, and it is known to be venial, then he is not obligated; just as if someone's conscience probably doubts about something, whether it is mortal, he is further bound not to do it, while the doubt remains; but once such a conscience is removed, he is not bound12. And therefore it has been rightly said that one is bound to the confession of a venial sin not by divine institution, but by ecclesiastical constitution and one's own conscience. And thus the objections are clear.
I. The whole doctrine of this article is confirmed by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. c. 5, and the celebrated can. 7.), especially conclusions 1 and 2 of the question. Yet, what is asserted generally in the first question, that those sins are to be confessed about which the penitent doubts whether they are venial or mortal; this is now imposed on the penitent not so universally, but with certain distinctions, about which see the casuists. — On the 1st and 2nd question: Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 2. § 2-8. — Scotus, here, q. unica n. 19. — St. Thomas, here, q. 3. a. 1. 2. 4, d. 16. q. 2. a. 2. subq. 3; Suppl. q. 8. a. 1, q. 9. a. 2. 4. — B. Albert, here, a. 36. 28. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 1. a. 4. subq. 1. 3. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 3. q. 4. — Durandus, here, q. 14. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 8.
II. As to the 3rd question, in the cited canon 7 of the Council of Trent it is declared that confession is to be extended to «circumstances which change the species of the sin». With Ss. Bonaventure and Thomas (above, d. 16. q. 3. a. 2. subq. 5.) St. Alphonsus also (Moral Theology VI. tr. 4. dub. 3. n. 468) holds it more probable that circumstances which notably aggravate, provided they do not change the species, need not necessarily be manifested in confession; which is to be understood per se, since it is certain that the same are per accidens to be manifested (e. g. when the confessor discreetly questions about certain things, as about habit). — Alex. of Hales and many of the school of St. Thomas held that, in general, circumstances notably aggravating must necessarily be disclosed in confession (cf. Gotti, III. tr. 9. q. 6. § 4.); so also William of Auxerre, S. p. IV. tr. 6. c. 3. q. 3. On this (3rd) question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 3. § 1-3. — Scotus, loc. cit. n. 20. — B. Albert, above, d. 16. a. 24-27. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2. a. 4. subq. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 3. q. 5. — Durandus, above, d. 16. q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, above, d. 16. q. 2.
---
- 1Vers. 16. — In hunc versum non exhibetur (apud Strabum et Lyranum) Glossa ordinaria, sed tantum interlinearis (apud Lyranum), quae est secundum Bedam, cuius sententia hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4, allegatur. Sed verba Glossae hic posita leguntur apud Gratian. in C. Unum orarium (3.), § 4. d. 25, qui ea tribuit Bedae.Verse 16. — On this verse the ordinary Gloss is not given (in Strabo and Lyranus), but only the interlinear one (in Lyranus), which is according to Bede, whose opinion is here alleged in the text of the Master, c. 4. But the words of the Gloss placed here are read in Gratian, in the canon Unum orarium (3.), § 4, d. 25, who attributes them to Bede.
- 2Enarrat. in Ps. 93, 18. (Motus est pes meus), n. 22: Immo si iam coepisti moveri, si iam coepisti fluctuare, confitere motum etc.Commentary on Psalm 93, 18 (My foot was moved), n. 22: Rather, if you have already begun to be moved, if you have already begun to waver, confess the motion etc.
- 3Vers. 36: Dico autem vobis, quoniam omne verbum otiosum, quod locuti fuerint homines, reddent rationem de eo in die iudicii. — In maiori pro de quo ed. 1 cum pluribus codd. et de quo, Vat. et de quocumque. Inferius pro requiret et condemnabit cod. aa reddet et condemnabitur. Subinde pro mortali cod. V mortalibus, et pro cruciabuntur, quod praebent codd. FGH, alii et edd. cremabuntur. In fine arg. ed. 1 cum aliquot codd. utrumque pro utraque.Verse 36: But I say unto you, that of every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account of it in the day of judgment. — In the major premise, for de quo ed. 1 with several codices reads also de quo; the Vatican edition et de quocumque. Below, for requiret et condemnabit codex aa reads reddet et condemnabitur. Then for mortali codex V reads mortalibus, and for cruciabuntur, which codices FGH, others, and editions give, cremabuntur. At the end of the argument ed. 1 with some codices reads utrumque for utraque.
- 4Vers. 8. Vide supra pag. 437, nota 7.Verse 8. See above, p. 437, note 7.
- 5Ut dicit Hieron. supra lit. Magistri, d. XIV. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. 1. dub. 1.As Jerome says, above, in the text of the Master, d. XIV. c. 1. Cf. there, Commentary, p. 1, dub. 1.
- 6Vide II. Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2.See II Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2.
- 7Explicationem vide I. Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 3. Cfr. etiam supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.For the explanation see I Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 3. Cf. also above, d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.
- 8Secundum Ambros. cfr. supra; lit. Magistri, d. XIV. c. 2. et ibi Comment. p. I. dub. 4.According to Ambrose, cf. above; the text of the Master, d. XIV. c. 2, and there the Commentary, p. I, dub. 4.
- 9Dist. 21. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 6, et Comment. p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Inferius voci perfectis cod. U praemittit religiosis et.Dist. 21. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XVI. c. 6, and the Commentary, p. II. a. 3. q. 2. — Below, before the word perfectis codex U prefixes religiosis et.
- 10Vers. 5. Quem locum S. Bonav. exponens ait: Non solum doctorem, sed etiam praeceptorem vocat, credens, non solum eum habere scientiam ad docendum, sed etiam potentiam ad faciendum. — In fine solut. Vat. addit vel exhortative.Verse 5. Expounding this passage, St. Bonaventure says: He calls Him not only teacher, but also master, believing that He has not only knowledge to teach, but also power to do. — At the end of the solution the Vatican edition adds vel exhortative.
- 11Vide II. Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 2.See II Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 2.
- 12Cfr. II. Sent. d. 39. a. 1. q. 3.Cf. II Sent. d. 39. a. 1. q. 3. ---