Dist. 21, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 21
Articulus I. De confessione quoad modum.
Quaestio I. Utrum liceat aliquod peccatum in confessione omittere.
Quantum ad primum ostenditur, quod non liceat de confitendis dimittere3.
1. Primo auctoritate Augustini in libro de Poenitentia4: «Caveat, ne, verecundia ductus, dividat apud se confessionem2, ut diversa diversis velit manifestare; quod est se laudare et ad hypocrisim tendere et semper venia carere, ad quam per frusta sperat pervenire».
2. Item, ratione ostenditur sic. Confessio ordinatur ad peccati cognitionem; sed nunquam recognoscit aegritudinem sufficienter qui solum peccatum unum novit, cum homo multis aegrotet, sicut patet in medicinis: ergo non sufficienter peccatum detegit qui non dicit uni sacerdoti omnia peccata, quae commisit.
3. Item, confessio est ad peccatoris accusationem; sed cum peccator se accusat de tribus peccatis et fecit decem, hoc ipso praetendit5 sacerdoti, se non peccasse nisi ter; sed hoc est falsitas et hypocrisis manifesta: ergo etc.
4. Item, confessio fit propter absolutionem, absolutio autem sacerdotis signum est divinae absolutionis; sed Deus nunquam absolvit ab una culpa, quin absolvat ab omni culpa mortali1: ergo absolutio sacerdotis aut nulla est, aut est ab omni culpa. Sed non meretur absolvi a sacerdote peccator, qui celat ei peccatum: ergo nulla est absolutio, nisi confiteatur uni sacerdoti omnia, a quibus indiget absolvi.
Contra: 1. Omnes sacerdotes tenent locum unius, scilicet Christi: ergo idem est confiteri diversis quod confiteri uni: ergo tantum valet, si peccator divisim diversis confiteatur omnia, quantum, si omnia confiteretur2a uni.
2. Item, confessio instituta est in remedium, ergo non debet fieri in scandalum3a; sed possibile est, quod poenitens confiteatur proprio sacerdoti aliquod peccatum, quod scandalizabit eum, utpote si cognata sacerdotis fuerit eius adultera: ergo videtur, quod possit peccatum hoc reservare et alia sibi dicere, et ita confessionem dimidiare.
3. Item, aliquis confessus est uni decem et commisit duodecim, et oblitus duorum, post recordatur, non habens copiam sacerdotis; iste fuit legitime confessus de decem: ergo si non debet bis puniri pro eodem4a, sufficit nunc confiteri duo: ergo videtur, quod confessio possit dimidiari.
4. Item, sufficit, si quis confitetur sacerdoti proprio illud, a quo potest absolvere; sed possibile est, quod aliquis habeat casum, vel peccatum, a quo non potest absolvere nisi superior: ergo sufficit, quod minora confiteatur uni5a, et peccatum illud confiteatur maiori: ergo videtur, quod confessio possit dimidiari.
Conclusio.
Necesse est uni confiteri, non quidem omnia venialia, sed omnia mortalia, quorum poenitens est memor, et de quibus non fuit alias legitime confessus.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in venialibus non est vis; sicut enim non est necesse ea confiteri6a, sic non est necesse ea simul et omnia integre confiteri. Sed de mortalibus dicitur, quod necesse est omnia confiteri uni sacerdoti, omnia, inquam, quorum est memor et de quibus non fuit alias legitime confessus. Et hinc voco legitime confessum, quando nihil intervenit, quod absolutionem sacerdotis irritam faceret; quod est in quatuor casibus, et duo sunt a parte absolventis: unus, si non sciat; alter, si non possit; unus contra clavem scientiae, alter contra clavem potentiae. Duo a parte confitentis: unus, si ficte confiteatur; alter, si post confessionem satisfactionem contemnens eius obliviscatur. — Si autem legitime confessus est, non oportet iterare nisi in universali; si vero non, oportet, quod omnia dicat; pro eo quod sacerdos absolvit ab omni culpa, aut nulla est absolutio; nullus autem sacerdos intendit absolvere poenitentem ab eo quod sibi celat7a: ad hoc ergo, quod confessio sit integra, necesse est, quod omnia quae simul habet in conscientia, de quibus tenetur confiteri, uni sacerdoti dicat; alioquin, sicut expresse dicit Augustinus, probatur confessio ficta8a.
1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod omnes sacerdotes tenent locum unius, scilicet Christi; dicendum, quod verum est; sed ita tenent locum unius, quod non simul omnes, sed quilibet per se; et ideo, qui vult confiteri sacerdoti tanquam Christo, si recte confitetur, necesse est, quod omnia dicat uni; quod si aliquid celat uni, quamvis dicat alii, quantum est in se, mediatori celavit, et ita Christo.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de scandalo sacerdotis, dicendum, quod ubi timetur scandalum, non est confessio dimidianda, sed licentia petenda; et si non datur, superior est adeundus, vel alius, qui habeat eius auctoritatem. Nam in tali casu licentiam petere est obtinere.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de eo qui commisit duodecim, sed oblitus confessus est decem; dicendum, quod sanum consilium esset, quod totum diceret, sicut in praecedentibus9a tactum est; tamen credo, quod non teneatur dicere nisi in generali, nisi forte aliquis praedictorum casuum intervenisset. Nam aliud dicere est viam confessionis et salutis multis auferre, cum multi confiteantur aliquando aliquod peccatum enorme, quod deinceps vix alii sacerdoti dicerent. Nec auctoritates Sanctorum hoc compellunt dicere, quia hoc non est confessionem10a
dividere. Prima enim fuit integra, et secunda similiter, quia non oportet, hunc de aliis habere remorsum novum nec novam absolutionem. — Similiter iudicandum est de recidivo.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de recursu ad superiorem, dicendum, quod aut recurrit propter absolutionem a culpa, aut a poena1b propter excommunicationem, vel irregularitatem. Si propter absolutionem a poena vel poenali vinculo; sufficit, quod confiteatur illud solum. Si propter absolutionem a culpa; si superior non remittit ad proprium confessorem, sanum consilium est — si non habet causam excusantem nisi solum erubescentiam vel opinionem falsam — quod omnia, de quibus habet remorsum, ipsi dicat et pro omnibus illis generalem absolutionem et poenitentiam suscipiat. Si autem aliquam excusationem habet probabilem, ratione cuius magis vult confiteri alteri; tenetur totum inferiori revelare2b, et peccatum illud, quod superiori est confessus, et cetera alia; et sic non erit confessio divisa, et ille ex tunc poterit ab omnibus absolvere: quoniam, si aliqua peccata absolutioni superiorum reservantur, in quibus minores sacerdotes cum eis non communicant; hoc magis factum est propter taxationem poenae3b, quam tali peccato superior debet sapienter infligere sive iniungere pro culpa, quam pro alio; et ideo, si talem culpam confessus est et poenam pro ea a superiore suscepit; potest illam cum aliis inferiori integre confiteri, et ille absolvere eum ab omni culpa, ita dumtaxat, ut ille faciat poenitentiam a superiore sibi iniunctam. — Et si tu obiicias, quod iste qui adit superiorem et unicum tantum vel duo, aliis tacitis, confitetur, videtur esse hypocrita et se laudare; dicendum, quod verum est, si innueret, se sibi generaliter confiteri; tunc enim videretur, ipsum alia crimina non habere. Sed dum ostendit, se specialiter pro illo unico advenisse et alium confessorem pro minoribus habere, et hoc acceptat superior; nulla est ibi deceptio, quamvis totum dicere sit maior perfectio.
I. Haec quaestio plene soluta est a Concilio Tridentino (Sess. XIV. c. 5. can. 7. 8.). Quoad peccata, «quae diligenter cogitanti non occurrunt», ibi docetur, quod «in universum eadem confessione inclusa esse intelliguntur»; unde rite disposito simul condonantur. Etiam S. Thom. (loc. infra cit. ad 3.) non approbat opinionem eorum qui docuerunt, quod quando quis recordatur peccatorum, quae oblitus erat, teneatur iterum confiteri iam manifestata. — De 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. §1. 2. 6, a. 2. §6. — Scot., supra d. 17. n. 19. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; Suppl. q. 9. a. 2. — B. Albert., supra d. 16. a. 36. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 3. — Durand., supra d. 17. q. 15. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et 2 seqq. qq. hic q. 2.
II. De seq. (2.) quaestione explicite tractant: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. §5. — S. Thom., loc. cit. a. 3. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., loc. cit. q. 4.
III. Pauci explicite tractant de 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 2. §4. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. — Alii rem tangunt exponentes 16 conditiones sive proprietates bonae confessionis, de quibus loquitur S. Bonav. hic dub. 3; S. Thom., supra d. 17. q. 3. a. 4. quaestiunc. 4; Suppl. q. 9. a. 4; B. Albert., supra d. 17. a. 36; Richard. a Med., supra d. 17. a. 3. q. 9.
---
Article I. On confession as to its manner.
Question I. Whether it is licit to omit any sin in confession.
As to the first, it is shown that it is not licit to leave out [anything] of the things to be confessed3.
1. First, by the authority of Augustine in the book On Penance4: «Let him beware, lest, led by shame, he divide his confession within himself2, so as to wish to manifest different things to different [confessors]; which is to praise oneself and to tend toward hypocrisy and to be always without pardon, to which he hopes to arrive piecemeal».
2. Likewise, it is shown thus by reason. Confession is ordered to the knowledge of sin; but he never recognizes the sickness sufficiently who knows only one sin, since a man is sick with many [sins], as is clear in [the case of] medicines: therefore he does not sufficiently uncover the sin who does not tell to one priest all the sins which he has committed.
3. Likewise, confession is for the accusation of the sinner; but when the sinner accuses himself of three sins and has done ten, by this very fact he pretends5 to the priest that he has sinned only thrice; but this is manifest falsehood and hypocrisy: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, confession is made for the sake of absolution, and the absolution of the priest is a sign of divine absolution; but God never absolves from one fault without absolving from every mortal fault1: therefore the absolution of the priest is either nothing, or is from every fault. But a sinner does not merit to be absolved by the priest who conceals a sin from him: therefore there is no absolution, unless he confess to one priest all the [sins] from which he needs to be absolved.
On the contrary: 1. All priests hold the place of one, namely Christ: therefore it is the same to confess to several as to confess to one: therefore it is worth as much, if the sinner confesses all things separately to several, as if he confessed2a all to one.
2. Likewise, confession was instituted as a remedy, therefore it ought not to be done unto scandal3a; but it is possible that a penitent confess to his own priest some sin which will scandalize him, as, for instance, if a kinswoman of the priest were his adulteress: therefore it seems that he can reserve this sin and tell the others, and thus halve his confession.
3. Likewise, someone confessed ten to one [priest] and committed twelve, and having forgotten two, afterward recalls [them], not having access to a priest; this man was legitimately confessed of the ten: therefore, if he ought not to be punished twice for the same thing4a, it now suffices to confess the two: therefore it seems that confession can be halved.
4. Likewise, it suffices if one confesses to his own priest that from which he can absolve; but it is possible that someone has a case, or a sin, from which none but a superior can absolve: therefore it suffices that he confess the lesser [sins] to one5a, and confess that [reserved] sin to the greater: therefore it seems that confession can be halved.
Conclusion.
It is necessary to confess to one [priest], not indeed all venial [sins], but all mortal [sins], of which the penitent is mindful, and of which he has not been otherwise legitimately confessed.
I respond: It must be said that in venial [sins] there is no force [of obligation]; for just as it is not necessary to confess them6a, so it is not necessary to confess them at once and all together entirely. But concerning mortal [sins] it is said that it is necessary to confess all to one priest, all, I say, of which he is mindful and of which he has not been otherwise legitimately confessed. And hence I call [a man] legitimately confessed, when nothing has intervened which would render the priest's absolution void; which [can happen] in four cases, and two are on the part of the absolver: one, if he does not know; the other, if he cannot; the one against the key of knowledge, the other against the key of power. Two on the part of the one confessing: one, if he confesses feignedly; the other, if after confession, despising the satisfaction, he forgets it. — But if he has been legitimately confessed, he need not repeat [it] except in general; but if not, it is necessary that he tell all; for the reason that the priest absolves from every fault, or there is no absolution; but no priest intends to absolve a penitent from that which he conceals from him7a: to this end therefore, that the confession be entire, it is necessary that he tell to one priest all the things which he has at once in his conscience, of which he is bound to confess; otherwise, as Augustine expressly says, the confession is proved feigned8a.
1. To that, then, which is objected, that all priests hold the place of one, namely Christ; it must be said that it is true; but they hold the place of one in such a way that not all at once, but each by himself; and therefore, he who wishes to confess to a priest as to Christ, if he confesses rightly, it is necessary that he tell all to one; for if he conceals anything from one, although he tell it to another, as far as in him lies, he has concealed it from the Mediator, and so from Christ.
2. To that which is objected concerning the scandal of the priest, it must be said that where scandal is feared, the confession is not to be halved, but leave is to be sought; and if it is not given, the superior is to be approached, or another who has his authority. For in such a case to seek leave is to obtain [it].
3. To that which is objected concerning the one who committed twelve, but having forgotten was confessed of ten; it must be said that it would be sound counsel that he tell the whole, as was touched on in the foregoing9a; nevertheless I believe that he is not bound to tell [it] except in general, unless perchance one of the aforesaid cases had intervened. For to say otherwise is to take away from many the way of confession and salvation, since many sometimes confess some enormous sin which thereafter they would scarcely tell to another priest. Nor do the authorities of the Saints compel [one] to say this, since this is not10a
to divide the confession. For the first was entire, and the second likewise, since it is not necessary that this man have a new remorse nor a new absolution concerning the others. — Similarly it is to be judged concerning the relapsed [sinner].
4. To that which is objected concerning recourse to a superior, it must be said that either he has recourse for the sake of absolution from guilt, or from penalty1b on account of excommunication, or irregularity. If for the sake of absolution from penalty or a penal bond; it suffices that he confess that alone. If for the sake of absolution from guilt; if the superior does not remit [him] to his own confessor, it is sound counsel — if he has no excusing cause except only shamefacedness or a false opinion — that he tell him all the things of which he has remorse and receive for all those a general absolution and penance. But if he has some probable excuse, by reason of which he prefers to confess to another; he is bound to reveal2b the whole to the inferior [priest], both that sin which he confessed to the superior, and all the rest; and thus the confession will not be divided, and that one [priest] will thereafter be able to absolve from all: since, if some sins are reserved to the absolution of superiors, in which the lesser priests do not share with them; this was done rather on account of the assessing of the penalty3b, which the superior ought wisely to inflict or enjoin for such a sin rather than for another; and therefore, if he has confessed such a fault and undertaken the penalty for it from the superior; he can confess it entirely with the others to an inferior, and that one [can] absolve him from every fault, in such wise only, that he perform the penance enjoined on him by the superior. — And if you object that this man who approaches the superior and confesses only one [sin] or two, the others being kept silent, seems to be a hypocrite and to praise himself; it must be said that it is true, if he were to imply that he was confessing to him in general; for then it would seem that he had no other crimes. But while he shows that he came specially for that one [sin] and has another confessor for the lesser [sins], and the superior accepts this; there is no deception there, although to tell the whole is a greater perfection.
I. This question has been fully resolved by the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV. c. 5. can. 7. 8.). As to the sins «which do not occur to one thinking diligently», it is taught there that «they are understood to be included in the same confession as a whole»; whence to one rightly disposed they are remitted at the same time. St. Thomas too (in the place cited below, ad 3) does not approve the opinion of those who taught that, when someone recalls sins which he had forgotten, he is bound to confess again [those] already manifested. — On the 1st question: Alex. of Hales, Summa p. IV. q. 18. m. 4. a. 5. §1. 2. 6, a. 2. §6. — Scotus, above d. 17. n. 19. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2; Suppl. q. 9. a. 2. — B. Albert, above d. 16. a. 36. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 3. — Durandus, above d. 17. q. 15. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the 2 following questions, here q. 2.
II. Of the following (2nd) question treat explicitly: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. §5. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. a. 3. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. a. 2. quaestiuncula 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, loc. cit. q. 4.
III. Few treat explicitly of the 3rd question: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. a. 2. §4. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 2. — Others touch on the matter in expounding the 16 conditions or properties of a good confession, of which St. Bonaventure speaks here in dub. 3; St. Thomas, above d. 17. q. 3. a. 4. quaestiuncula 4; Suppl. q. 9. a. 4; B. Albert, above d. 17. a. 36; Richard of Mediavilla, above d. 17. a. 3. q. 9.
---
- 3Edd. hic et infra in ipsa quaestione omittere.The editions here and below, in the question itself, [read] omittere (to omit).
- 4Scilicet de Vera et falsa Poenitentia (inter opera August.), c. 13. n. 31: Cautus sit poenitens, ne etc. (textus originalis post manifestare plura addit; cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XVI. c. 2. in fine).Namely On True and False Penance (among the works of Augustine), c. 13, n. 31: Let the penitent be cautious, lest etc. (the original text after manifestare adds more; cf. above the text of the Master, d. XVI, c. 2, at the end).
- 2Edd. ut confessa teneat secrete. Inferius pro secundum quod (codd. omittunt ibi confessio) edd. cum uno alteroque cod. scilicet quod.The editions [read] ut confessa teneat secrete (that he keep secret the things confessed). Below, for secundum quod (the codices there omit confessio) the editions, with one or another codex, [read] namely quod.
- 5Cod. aa ostendit.Codex aa [reads] ostendit (he shows).
- 1Dist. XXII. — Codd. ibi.Dist. XXII. — The codices [read] ibi (there).
- 2aIta meliores codd., alii et edd. confiteatur.So the better codices; others and the editions [read] confiteatur (let him confess).
- 3aVide supra pag. 453, nota 3. — Inferius Vat. omittit eius. Subinde pro sibi cod. U ei, et pro dimidiare codd. G aa diminuere, cod. R dividere.See above, p. 453, note 3. — Below the Vatican edition omits eius. Thereupon for sibi codex U [reads] ei, and for dimidiare (to halve) codices G, aa [read] diminuere (to diminish), codex R dividere (to divide).
- 4aRespicitur Nahum 1, 9. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1. allegatum. — Superius post Item cod. F addit si, et post sacerdotis in cod. X secunda manus addidit illius. In fine huius et seq. arg. pro dimidiari codd. K dividi (in solut. quaestionis plures codd. hoc verbo utuntur).Reference is made to Nahum 1, 9, cited above in the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1. — Above, after Item codex F adds si, and after sacerdotis in codex X a second hand has added illius. At the end of this and the following argument, for dimidiari (to be halved) codices K [read] dividi (to be divided) — in the solution of the question several codices use this word.
- 5aCod. G inferiori.Codex G [reads] inferiori (to the inferior).
- 6aCfr. supra d. 17. p. III. a. 2. q. 1.Cf. above, d. 17, p. III, a. 2, q. 1.
- 7aVide supra d. 17. p. III. dub. 4.See above, d. 17, p. III, dub. 4.
- 8aAllegantur pro hac re a Scholasticis communiter verba ex Meditationibus piissimis de cognitione humanae conditionis (olim Bernardo attributis), c. 9. n. 25: Confessionem etiam meam divisi, ut diversis sacerdotibus diversa manifestarem; et ita venia carui, ad quam per partes pervenire putavi. Exsecranda namque fictio est, peccatum dividere et superficie tenus radere, non intrinsecus eradicare etc.There are cited for this matter, by the Scholastics commonly, the words from the Most Pious Meditations on the Knowledge of the Human Condition (formerly attributed to Bernard), c. 9, n. 25: I also divided my confession, so as to manifest different things to different priests; and thus I lacked the pardon to which I thought to attain piecemeal. For it is a thing to be execrated, to divide one's sin and to scrape it off superficially, [and] not to root it out from within etc.
- 9aSupra d. 17. p. III. dub. 1. — Superius pro sed oblitus confessus est decem (ita codd. IK) codd. F G et per oblivionem confiteri aliquot, cod. bb et confessus est decem, edd. corrigentes corruptam lectionem aliorum codd. de eo qui per oblivionem commisit decem confiteri aliquot legunt de eo qui per oblivionem omisit duo confiteri.Above, d. 17, p. III, dub. 1. — Above, for sed oblitus confessus est decem (so codices IK) codices F G [read] et per oblivionem confiteri aliquot, codex bb et confessus est decem; the editions, correcting the corrupt reading of the other codices de eo qui per oblivionem commisit decem confiteri aliquot, read de eo qui per oblivionem omisit duo confiteri.
- 1bCodd. P Q addunt sicut. Aliquanto inferius pro erubescentiam codd. E L et ed. 1. solam erubescentiam.Codices P Q add sicut. Somewhat below, for erubescentiam (shamefacedness) codices E L and edition 1 [read] solam erubescentiam (only shamefacedness).
- 2bIn codd. N aa additur: illud scilicet, quod sibi dixit; verbi gratia, si confessus esset, et in ultimo casu retur, de quo non posset absolvere nisi superior, et ad superiorem, et [ipse eum] remitteret, non est necesse iterum quae confessus est, sed casum illum et habere, revelare.In codices N aa there is added: namely that which he told him; for example, if he had confessed, and in the last case [it should be reckoned], concerning that from which none but a superior could absolve, and [if he went] to the superior, and [the superior] should remit him [to his own confessor], it is not necessary [to confess] again the things which he confessed, but [it is necessary] to reveal that case and to have [it] [the codex reading is itself corrupt here].
- 3bCod. aa subiungit: quoniam, quantum est de [etc.].Codex aa subjoins: quoniam, quantum est de (since, as regards) [etc.].
- 10a[Marker spans the p. 561→562 page break; no separate footer entry — the apparatus note for this clause is `9a` above; the running clause continues «confessionem dividere» on p. 562.][Continuation marker across the p. 561→562 break; carries no distinct Quaracchi footer.] ---