Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 2, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 17
Quaestio II. Utrum oporteat confiteri omnem peccati mortalis differentiam.
Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit confitenda omnis peccati mortalis differentia, scilicet peccatum cordis, oris et operis, peccatum etiam latens, vel manifestum. Et quod omnem differentiam, videtur.
1. Per decretalem1, quae dicit cuilibet fideli: « Omnia solus peccata sua », non dicit omnia quantum ad venialia: ergo dicit omnia quantum ad mortalia.
2. Item, hoc videtur ratione: quia pro quolibet horum efficitur homo inimicus Dei et separatur ab unitate Ecclesiae; sed confessio ad hoc directe instituta est, ut homo reconcilietur Ecclesiae et ostendatur reconciliatus Deo2: ergo de omnibus tenetur confiteri.
3. Item, pro omni differentia peccati mortalis punitur quis actualiter et aeternaliter et condemnabitur; sed pro omni eo, pro quo adducendus est homo in iudicium condemnationis, necessario oportet adduci ante arbitrum Iesu Christi: ergo pro omni differentia mortalis tenetur confiteri.
4. Item, peccatum gravius magis est dignum punitione; sed peccatum cordis aliquando gravius est quam peccatum operis in alio genere, ut haeresis quam fornicatio, similiter peccatum apertum gravius quam occultum: si ergo oportet confiteri peccatum operis et oris, videtur, quod peccatum cordis similiter; si peccatum latens, videtur multo fortiori ratione, quod et manifestum: ergo omnem peccati mortalis differentiam necesse est confiteri.
5. Item, per omnem peccati mortalis differentiam naufragatur homo; sed patiens naufragium necesse habet ad tabulam recurrere; et non potest ad baptismum: ergo ad Sacramentum poenitentiae3. Sed Sacramentum poenitentiae in quantum Sacramentum consistit in confessione: ergo etc.
Contra:
1. Sapientiae undecimo4: Per quae peccat quis, per haec et torquetur: ergo si aliquis solo corde peccat, in solo scilicet spiritu et non in carne nec per organum oris; ergo sola contritione est puniendus, non ergo confessione: ergo non tenetur confiteri peccatum cordis.
2. Item, Augustinus5: « Ubi peccatum oritur, ibi peccatum moriatur »: ergo peccatum, quod fuit in solo corde, ibi debet mori: ergo non oportet, quod exterius propaletur per verbum.
3. Item, in foro iudiciali ita est, quod non adducuntur aliqua ad iudicium, nisi quae aliquo modo manifesta sunt; unde Matthaei decimo octavo6: Si peccaverit in te frater tuus, corripe eum inter te et ipsum solum: ergo videtur, quod si peccatum in solo corde fuit, cum nulli sit manifestum, quod non oporteat ad iudicium sacerdotale deferre. Item, quod solum peccatum latens sit confitendum, videtur.
4. Quia Augustinus7 definiens confessionem dicit, quod « confessio est, per quam morbus latens spe veniae aperitur ».
5. Item, super illud Genesis quarto8: Vox sanguinis etc.; Glossa: « Evidentia patrati sceleris non indiget accusatore »; sed confessio est accusatio, Proverbiorum decimo octavo: Iustus in principio accusator est sui: ergo quando peccatum est evidens, non indiget confessione.
6. Item, ideo fit confessio, ut instruatur sacerdos de quantitate peccati; sed non oportet, quando est publicum et notorium: ergo de aperto nullus debet nec tenetur confiteri.
Conclusio. Confitendae sunt omnis peccati mortalis differentiae.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod omnis peccati mortalis differentiam necesse est confiteri, sive sit latens, sive manifestum, sive sit cordis, sive sit oris. — Peccatum apertum oportet confiteri duplici ex causa: una est a parte audientis, alia ex parte confitentis. Ex parte audientis: quoniam, sicut est in iudicio forensi quod iudex aliquid novit ut privata persona, quod tamen non novit ut iudex, nec procedit ad sententiam, quousque innotescat ei ut iudici; sic est in iudicio poenitentiali, quod sacerdos aliquid novit ut homo, quod tamen non novit ut Deus, quia non est per testimonium conscientiae accusatum, quae est testis divinus; et quousque sic novit, non spectat ad ipsum nec solvere nec ligare: ideo oportet, quod ei confiteatur peccator, quantumcumque sit publicum9. — Alia ratio est ex parte confitentis: quantumcumque enim aliquis ab aliquo accusetur, nunquam propter hoc iustus dicitur sive iudicatur, sed magis iniustus; sed quando homo se ipsum qui est dignus accusatione, accusat, tunc exercet opus iustitiae, et ideo dicitur Iustus in principio accusator est sui. Ut ergo quis iustificetur et iustus esse comprobetur et dignus Ecclesiae reconciliatione; necesse est, quod ipse se accuset, quantumcumque eius peccatum sit publicum10.
Oportet etiam peccatum cordis, sive peccatum latens confiteri duplici ex causa similiter: tum ex parte audientis, tum ex parte confitentis. Ex parte audientis: quoniam pro illo debet ligare ad poenam et absolvere11 — certum enim est, quod pro omni mortali meretur quis poenam aeternam — ideo satisfactio imponenda est secundum arbitrium sacerdotis: ideo talis habet necesse confiteri ei scelus occultum, quia aliter ipse non novit. — Alia ratio est ex parte confitentis, ut quae non erubuit intra thalamum cordis in conspectu divinae praesentiae cogitare et velle et volendo consentire, tunc coram oculis sacerdotis recitet cum rubore, ut, quae perpetravit inverecunde et verecundiam abiecit, nunc ex hoc in conspectu hominis erubescat; homo enim carnalis plus erubescit oculos hominis quam Dei. — Concedendae igitur sunt rationes, quod differentiae omnis peccati mortalis confitendae sunt.
Ad argumenta:
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Sapientiae undecimo12, dicendum, quod tam verbum illud, quam verbum Chrysostomi et Augustini super hac materia intelligendum est per appropriationem; non enim intelligendum est praecise per veritatem. Peccator enim, qui sola voluntate peccat, quae toti homini praesidet, totus punitur, ita quod interius et exterius; et ideo, si fiat emenda, totus homo debet eam facere, et per omnes actus, scilicet cordis, oris et manus.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Augustino, quod ubi oritur etc.; dicendum, quod verbum illud intelligitur quantum ad progressum peccati, ut peccatum non procedat, sed « ubi oritur, ibi moriatur » non intelligitur quantum ad emendam13. — Vel dicendum, quod illud est intelligendum de poenitentia respondente peccato publico et occulto. De peccato enim publico publice est puniendum propter scandalum exstirpandum; et de occulto occulte coram unico sacerdote; et illud videtur Magister dicere in littera.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de foro iudicii, quod adducuntur manifesta; dicendum, quod in foro iudiciali, quod procedit secundum rigorem iustitiae ad condemnationem, alius est actor, alius est reus, alius testis; et ideo oportet, quod pluribus sit notum illud, de quo quis accusatur. Sed in foro poenitentiali sacerdos tenet locum Dei, et confitens tenet locum accusantis et accusati et testis. Nam ratio accusat voluntatem, testimonium ferente conscientia14;
et quia iste est testis privatus, quem nihil latet et de omni occulto testimonium perhibet: ideo tali iudicio competit occulta iudicare.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de manifesto, quod confessio est latentis peccati, per Augustinum; dicendum, quod est peccati latentis illum cui confitetur, per modum iudicis. — Vel dicendum, quod peccatum omne in anima est quasi apostema intrinsecum; et quantumcumque homo peccet aperte, adhuc virtus peccati latet in anima; sed « in confessione rumpitur vulnus, et sanies peccati ad exteriora trahitur » ut dicit Gregorius15; et hinc est, quod omnis confessio dicitur, per quam morbus latens spe veniae aperitur.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de evidentia patrati sceleris etc.; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur in foro iudiciali, quia factum illud exterius notum est et testibus non eget, eo quod nulla possit tergiversatione celari; sed non sic in foro poenitentiae; creditur enim ibi testimonio solius conscientiae. Si enim conscientia testificetur nunc contra hominem, in iudicio16 testificabitur pro homine; alioquin semper erit testis contrarius.
6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ad sciendam quantitatem peccati; dicendum, quod ista non est tota ratio, immo rationes, quae superius assignatae sunt; et praeterea ad hoc est, ut sciat per modum iudicis.
---
Question II. Whether one ought to confess every difference of mortal sin.
Secondly it is asked whether every difference of mortal sin is to be confessed, namely the sin of heart, of mouth, and of deed, and also the sin that is hidden or manifest. And that every difference [ought to be confessed] seems to be the case.
1. By the decretal1, which says to every member of the faithful: "all his sins alone," it does not say all with respect to venial sins: therefore it says all with respect to mortal sins.
2. Likewise, this seems so by reason: for by each of these a man is made an enemy of God and is cut off from the unity of the Church; but confession was instituted directly for this, that a man be reconciled to the Church and be shown to have been reconciled to God2: therefore he is bound to confess of them all.
3. Likewise, for every difference of mortal sin a man is punished, both temporally and eternally, and will be condemned; but for everything for which a man is to be brought into the judgment of condemnation, he must necessarily be brought before the tribunal of Jesus Christ: therefore for every difference of mortal sin he is bound to confess.
4. Likewise, a graver sin is more deserving of punishment; but the sin of the heart is sometimes graver than the sin of deed in another genus, as heresy than fornication, and likewise an open sin graver than a hidden one: if therefore it is necessary to confess the sin of deed and of mouth, it seems that one ought likewise to confess the sin of the heart; if a hidden sin, it seems by a much stronger reason that a manifest one too [ought to be confessed]: therefore it is necessary to confess every difference of mortal sin.
5. Likewise, through every difference of mortal sin a man suffers shipwreck; but one suffering shipwreck must have recourse to a plank; and he cannot have recourse to baptism: therefore to the Sacrament of penance3. But the Sacrament of penance, insofar as it is a Sacrament, consists in confession: therefore etc.
On the contrary:
1. Wisdom 114: By the things by which a man sins, by these also he is tormented: therefore if anyone sins by the heart alone, namely in the spirit alone and not in the flesh nor through the organ of the mouth; therefore he is to be punished by contrition alone, not therefore by confession: therefore he is not bound to confess the sin of the heart.
2. Likewise, Augustine5: "Where sin arises, there let sin die": therefore the sin which was in the heart alone ought to die there: therefore it is not necessary that it be propagated outwardly through speech.
3. Likewise, in the judicial forum it is so, that nothing is brought to judgment except what is in some way manifest; whence Matthew 186: If your brother sins against you, rebuke him between you and him alone: therefore it seems that if a sin was in the heart alone, since it is manifest to no one, it ought not to be brought to the priestly judgment. Likewise, that only a hidden sin is to be confessed seems to be the case.
4. For Augustine7, in defining confession, says that "confession is that by which a hidden disease is opened in hope of pardon."
5. Likewise, on that passage of Genesis 48: The voice of [his] blood etc.; the Gloss: "The evidence of a crime committed does not need an accuser"; but confession is an accusation, Proverbs 18: The just man is first the accuser of himself: therefore when a sin is evident, it does not need confession.
6. Likewise, confession is made for this, that the priest be instructed concerning the magnitude of the sin; but this is not necessary when it is public and notorious: therefore of an open sin no one ought nor is bound to confess.
Conclusion. All the differences of mortal sin are to be confessed.
I respond: It must be said that it is necessary to confess every difference of mortal sin, whether it be hidden or manifest, whether of the heart or of the mouth. — An open sin ought to be confessed for a twofold cause: one is on the part of the hearer, the other on the part of the one confessing. On the part of the hearer: because, just as in the forensic court a judge knows something as a private person which nevertheless he does not know as judge, nor does he proceed to sentence until it becomes known to him as judge; so it is in the penitential court, that the priest knows something as a man which nevertheless he does not know as God, because it has not been accused by the testimony of conscience, which is the divine witness; and so long as he knows it [only] thus, it does not belong to him either to loose or to bind: therefore it is necessary that the sinner confess it to him, however public it may be9. — The other reason is on the part of the one confessing: for however much anyone be accused by another, never on that account is he called or judged just, but rather unjust; but when a man accuses himself, who is deserving of accusation, then he performs a work of justice, and therefore it is said The just man is first the accuser of himself. Therefore, in order that one be justified and be proved to be just and worthy of reconciliation to the Church; it is necessary that he accuse himself, however public his sin may be10.
The sin of the heart also, or the hidden sin, ought to be confessed for a twofold cause likewise: both on the part of the hearer and on the part of the one confessing. On the part of the hearer: because for it [the priest] ought to bind to punishment and to absolve11 — for it is certain that for every mortal [sin] one merits eternal punishment — therefore satisfaction is to be imposed according to the judgment of the priest: therefore such a one has need to confess to him the hidden crime, because otherwise he himself does not know it. — The other reason is on the part of the one confessing, so that the things which he was not ashamed to think and to will, and by willing to consent to, within the bedchamber of the heart in the sight of the divine presence, he may then recite before the eyes of the priest with blushing, so that what he committed shamelessly and casting off shame, he may now from this blush at it in the sight of a man; for the carnal man blushes more at the eyes of a man than of God. — Therefore the reasonings are to be conceded, that the differences of every mortal sin are to be confessed.
Replies to the arguments:
1. To that, then, which is objected from Wisdom 1112, it must be said that both that word, and the word of Chrysostom and Augustine on this matter, are to be understood by appropriation; for it is not to be understood precisely by truth. For the sinner, who sins by the will alone, which presides over the whole man, is punished wholly, so that inwardly and outwardly; and therefore, if amendment be made, the whole man ought to make it, and through all the acts, namely of heart, of mouth, and of hand.
2. To that which is objected from Augustine, that where it arises etc.; it must be said that that word is to be understood with respect to the progress of sin, that the sin not go forward, but "where it arises, there let it die"; it is not understood with respect to amendment13. — Or it must be said that it is to be understood of the penance corresponding to public and hidden sin. For of a public sin punishment is to be made publicly, for the sake of rooting out scandal; and of a hidden one, in secret before a single priest; and this the Master seems to say in the text.
3. To that which is objected concerning the forum of judgment, that manifest things are brought forward; it must be said that in the judicial forum, which proceeds according to the rigor of justice unto condemnation, one is the plaintiff, another the defendant, another the witness; and therefore it is necessary that that of which one is accused be known to many. But in the penitential forum the priest holds the place of God, and the one confessing holds the place of accuser and accused and witness. For the reason accuses the will, conscience bearing testimony14;
and because this witness is a private one, from whom nothing is hidden and who bears testimony concerning everything hidden: therefore it belongs to such a judgment to judge hidden things.
4. To that which is objected concerning the manifest [sin], that confession is of a hidden sin, according to Augustine; it must be said that it is of a sin hidden from him to whom one confesses, after the manner of a judge. — Or it must be said that every sin in the soul is like an inward abscess; and however openly a man sin, still the force of the sin lies hidden in the soul; but "in confession the wound is broken open, and the corruption of sin is drawn outward," as Gregory says15; and hence it is that all is called confession by which a hidden disease is opened in hope of pardon.
5. To that which is objected concerning the evidence of a crime committed etc.; it must be said that that is to be understood in the judicial forum, because that deed, being outward, is known and does not need witnesses, in that it cannot be concealed by any evasion; but it is not so in the forum of penance; for there credence is given to the testimony of conscience alone. For if conscience now testifies against the man, in the judgment16 it will testify for the man; otherwise it will always be a contrary witness.
6. To that which is objected, that it is for knowing the magnitude of the sin; it must be said that this is not the whole reason, but rather the reasons which have been assigned above; and besides, it is for this, that he may know after the manner of a judge.
---
- 1Scil. Omnis utriusque sexus; cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. arg. 3. pro parte affirm.Namely Everyone of either sex [the decretal of the Fourth Lateran Council]; cf. above, a. 1, q. 2, argument 3 for the affirmative side.
- 2Vide supra p. II. a. 1. q. 2. in corp.See above, pars II, a. 1, q. 2, in the body.
- 3Cfr. supra d. 14. p. 1. dub. 1.Cf. above, d. 14, pars I, dubium 1.
- 4Vers. 17.Verse 17. [Wisdom 11:17 (Vulg.).]
- 5Serm. 82. (alias 16. de Verbis Domini) c. 8. n. 11: Ubi contigit malum, ibi moriatur malum. Cfr. Epist. 17. Pelagii ad Demetriadem (in append. Epist. August.), c. 26, de qua agit August., I. de Gratia Christi etc. c. 22. n. 23.Sermon 82 (alias 16, On the Words of the Lord), c. 8, n. 11: Where evil has happened, there let evil die. Cf. Letter 17 of Pelagius to Demetrias (in the appendix to Augustine's Letters), c. 26, which Augustine treats in book I, On the Grace of Christ etc., c. 22, n. 23.
- 6Vers. 15, ubi Vulgata verbo corripe praemittit vade et.Verse 15, where the Vulgate prefixes go and to the word rebuke.
- 7Haec definitio colligi potest ex Enarrat. in Ps. 31. enarrat. 2. n. 13. seqq.; in Ps. 66. n. 7; in Ps. 101. enarrat. 1. n. 10; in Ps. 105. n. 2; Serm. 20. (alias 3. ex Sirmond.) et serm. 67. (alias 8. de Verbis Domini).This definition can be gathered from the Enarrations on the Psalms: on Ps. 31, enarration 2, n. 13 and following; on Ps. 66, n. 7; on Ps. 101, enarration 1, n. 10; on Ps. 105, n. 2; Sermon 20 (alias 3, from Sirmond) and sermon 67 (alias 8, On the Words of the Lord).
- 8Vers. 10. — Glossa interlinearis apud Lyranum pro accusatore substituit clamore accusatoris, quod etiam codd. FG exhibent. — Seq. locus est Prov. 18, 17; Iustus prior est accusator sui.Verse 10. — The interlinear Gloss in Lyra substitutes for accusatore the words clamore accusatoris ("by the cry of the accuser"), which codices FG also present. — The following passage is Proverbs 18:17; The just man is first the accuser of himself.
- 9Vat. supplet ut audiat. — Cfr. Gratian. C. 2. q. I, et Bonav. III. Sent. d. 39. dub. 5.The Vatican edition supplies that he may hear. — Cf. Gratian, C. 2, q. I, and Bonaventure, III Sent., d. 39, dubium 5.
- 10Cod. U minus bene publicus. Pro peccator Vat. cum nonnullis codd. peccatum. Eadem Vat. mox post confitentis addit ut iustificetur.Codex U reads, less well, publicus. For peccator the Vatican edition, with several codices, reads peccatum. The same Vatican edition, just after confitentis, adds that he may be justified.
- 11Edd. quoniam per illum debet ligari ad poenam, aut absolvi.The editions read because for it he ought to be bound to punishment, or absolved.
- 12Vers. 17. — Verba Chrysostomi et Augustini habentur supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. I. dub. 2, ubi dicitur, quod ipsa per appropriationem intelligenda sint.Verse 17. — The words of Chrysostom and Augustine are found above in the text of the Master, d. XVI, c. 1. Cf. ibid. the Commentary, pars I, dubium 2, where it is said that they are to be understood by appropriation.
- 13Sub quo respectu Hieron., Epist. 22. n. 6: « Nolo sinas cogitationes crescere... Dum parvus est hostis, interfice; nequitia, ne zizania crescant, elidatur in semine ». Ovid., Remedia amoris, v. 91: Principiis obsta, sero medicina paratur, cum mala per longas invaluere moras. Cfr. etiam praenotata epist. Pelagii. Secunda solut. magis respondet serm. 82. superius allegato, in quo agitur de modo fraternae correptionis, atque cur secreto fiat. — Sententiam Magistri vide hic in lit. c. 4. seq. — Inferius pro puniendum codd. H K puniendus, ed. 1 confitendum, Vat. glossando confitendum seu puniendum.In which respect Jerome, Letter 22, n. 6: "I would not have you let thoughts grow... While the enemy is small, slay him; that wickedness may not grow into tares, let it be crushed in the seed." Ovid, Remedies of Love, v. 91: Resist the beginnings; too late is the medicine prepared, when the evils have grown strong through long delays. Cf. also the aforementioned letter of Pelagius. The second solution corresponds rather to Sermon 82 cited above, in which there is treated the manner of fraternal correction, and why it should be done in secret. — For the statement of the Master see here in the text, c. 4 following. — Below, for puniendum codices H and K read puniendus, edition 1 confitendum, the Vatican edition by way of gloss confitendum or puniendum.
- 14Cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 6.Cf. above, d. 14, pars II, dubium 6.
- 15Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 40. n. 2, ubi agens de Lazaro mendico, ulceribus pleno [Luc. 16, 19. seqq.] dicit: Quid est ergo peccatorum confessio, nisi quaedam vulnerum ruptio? Quia peccati virus salubriter aperitur in confessione, quod pestifere latebat in mente. Vulnera etenim cutis in superficiem trahunt humorem putredinis. Et confitendo peccata quid aliud agimus nisi malum, quod in nobis latebat, aperimus? Cfr. August., Enarrat. in Ps. 66. n. 7: Conscientia tua saniem collegerat, apostema tumuerat... adhibet medicus fomenta verborum et aliquando secat... confitere, exeat in confessione et defluat omnis sanies etc. — Mox post et hinc est ex codd. substituimus quod omnis [codd. K et I a secunda manu quod vera] confessio; edd. quod Augustinus dicit, quod confessio.Bk. II, Homilies on the Gospels, homily 40, n. 2, where, treating of the beggar Lazarus, full of sores [Luke 16:19 and following], he says: What then is the confession of sins, but a certain breaking open of wounds? Because the poison of sin, which lay hidden perilously in the mind, is healthfully opened in confession. For wounds draw the humor of putrefaction to the surface of the skin. And in confessing sins what else do we do but open the evil which lay hidden in us? Cf. Augustine, Enarration on Ps. 66, n. 7: Your conscience had gathered corruption, the abscess had swollen... the physician applies the fomentations of words and sometimes cuts... confess, let it come out in confession and let all the corruption flow away etc. — Just after et hinc est we have substituted from the codices quod omnis [codices K and I by a second hand read quod vera] confessio; the editions read quod Augustinus dicit, quod confessio.
- 16Post mortem.After death. ---