← Back to Distinction 21

Dist. 21, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 21

Textus Latinus
p. 567

Quaestio II. Utrum confitens possit licentiare confessarium, ut peccata revelet.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum confitens possit sacerdotem licentiare. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia ad celandam confessionem arctamur per mandatum superioris, scilicet Papae1; sed inferior a mandato superioris non potest absolvere: ergo nec ad contrarium mandato licentiare.

2. Item, sigillum confessionis institutum est non solum propter vitandum scandalum confitentis, sed etiam totius Ecclesiae unitatis: ergo quantumcumque confitens velit, si revelet, praeiudicium toti Ecclesiae facit: ergo non potest ab eo licentiari.

3. Item, sigillum istud institutum est propter scandalum vitandum; sed si quis revelat per licentiam, potest suscitari2 idem scandalum, quod sine licentia, quia confitens poenitere possit de licentiatione et imponere sacerdoti confessionis revelationem; et cum habeat iudicium pro se, idem posset scandalum concitari, quod et sine licentia.

4. Item, si licentiari possunt, ergo cum mali et impii sacerdotes possent praetendere licentiam sibi datam, videretur tunc, quod sub hoc pallio confessionem impune revelare possent; sed hoc est inconveniens: ergo etc.

Contra: 1. Celatio confessionis est in favorem confitentis; sed quilibet potest cedere iuri suo3: ergo potest confitens dare licentiam revelandi.

p. 568

2. Item, qui potest dicere peccatum per se ipsum potest per sacerdotem alii sacerdoti denudare: ergo et per ipsum alii revelare4.

3. Item, quod dicitur homini ut homini in casu utili potest et debet ab eo dici: sed confitens, qui dicit confessori ut Deo, potest dicere ut homini: ergo potest dare licentiam revelandi alii.

4. Item, constat, quod superior potest mittere ad inferiorem et auctoritatem absolvendi ab aliquo peccato enormi ei praebere; sed hoc non posset, nisi posset per voluntatem confitentis peccatum alii revelare: ergo etc.

Conclusio

Confitens potest licentiare confessarium, ut peccata revelet, in casu, in quo non timetur scandalum.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sicut tactum est5 revelare sacerdos non debet propter duo, scilicet quia novit solum ut Deus, et iterum, ne populum scandalizet, vel etiam ipsum confitentem. Et quoniam confitens potest facere, quod ipse noverit ut homo; quando facit eum nuntium, potest eum licentiare in casu, in quo non timetur periculum scandali, sicut ostendunt rationes secundo inductae. — Ubi autem periculum scandali formidatur, quantumcumque poenitens licentiet sacerdotem, non debet sacerdos assumere. Tunc autem potest timeri periculum scandali, quando probabiliter posset coniici, quod sacerdos confessionem suam revelaverit. Unde si dicat, quod alii referat peccatum, debet ipse sacerdos poenitentem suum nuntium constituere, non se internuntium6 facere; et sic vitatur scandalum, et non rumpitur sigillum confessionis. Et intelligatur hoc cum illa generali suppositione, quod peccatum alicuius nulli est manifestandum, nisi ei qui possit prodesse nec velit obesse; intelligatur etiam hoc de peccatis propriis, non de alienis. Nam aliena peccata dicere non potest nec debet poenitens alicui committere, nisi forte in casu, in quo ipse deberet dicere et melius per alium quam per se posset bonum illius procurare, semper adhibita cautela, ut ex hoc non scandalizetur Ecclesia. Et sic patent obiecta7.

---

English Translation
p. 567

Question II. Whether the one confessing can license the confessor to reveal his sins.

Secondly it is asked whether the one confessing can license the priest. And that he cannot, seems [shown]:

1. Because we are constrained to conceal confession by the mandate of a superior, namely the Pope1; but an inferior cannot absolve [anyone] from the mandate of a superior: therefore neither [can he] license [anything] contrary to the mandate.

2. Likewise, the seal of confession was instituted not only on account of avoiding scandal to the one confessing, but also [scandal] to the unity of the whole Church: therefore however much the one confessing may will it, if [the priest] reveals [it], he does prejudice to the whole Church: therefore he cannot be licensed by him.

3. Likewise, this seal was instituted on account of avoiding scandal; but if someone reveals [it] by license, the same scandal can be aroused2 as without license, because the one confessing might repent of the licensing and impose upon the priest the revelation of the confession; and since he has judgment on his own behalf, the same scandal could be stirred up as also [would be] without license.

4. Likewise, if they can be licensed, then since wicked and impious priests might pretend a license [had been] given to them, it would seem then that under this cloak they could reveal a confession with impunity; but this is unfitting: therefore etc.

On the contrary: 1. The concealment of confession is in favor of the one confessing; but anyone can yield his own right3: therefore the one confessing can give a license to reveal.

p. 568

2. Likewise, he who can tell the sin through his own self can, through the priest, lay it bare to another priest: therefore also through that [priest] reveal [it] to another4.

3. Likewise, what is told to a man as to a man, in a case of utility, can and ought to be told by him: but the one confessing, who tells the confessor as [he tells] God, can tell [him] as a man: therefore he can give a license of revealing to another.

4. Likewise, it is established that a superior can send to an inferior and bestow upon him the authority of absolving from some enormous sin; but he could not do this unless he could, through the will of the one confessing, reveal the sin to another: therefore etc.

Conclusion

The one confessing can license the confessor to reveal [his] sins, in a case in which no scandal is feared.

I respond: It must be said that, as was touched upon5, a priest ought not to reveal [a confession] on account of two [things], namely because he knows [it] only as God [knows it], and again, lest he scandalize the people, or even the one confessing himself. And since the one confessing can bring it about that [the priest] should know [it] as a man; when he makes him [his] messenger, he can license him in a case in which no danger of scandal is feared, as the reasons adduced in the second [series] show. — But where danger of scandal is feared, however much the penitent may license the priest, the priest ought not to take it up. Now danger of scandal can be feared when it could probably be conjectured that the priest has revealed his confession. Hence if [the penitent] says that he should report the sin to another, the priest himself ought to constitute the penitent his messenger, not to make himself a go-between6; and thus scandal is avoided, and the seal of confession is not broken. And let this be understood with that general supposition, that the sin of anyone is to be made manifest to no one, except to him who can be of profit and does not wish to do harm; let this also be understood of one's own sins, not of another's. For the penitent cannot nor ought to entrust the telling of another's sins to anyone, unless perhaps in a case in which he himself ought to tell [them] and could better procure that [person's] good through another than through himself, caution always being applied, so that from this the Church may not be scandalized. And thus the objections are answered7.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Vide quaest. praeced. fundam. 1. 2. — De minori cfr. Gratian. C. Inferior sedes (4.), seqq. d. 21. — Pro arctamur edd. arctatur.
    See the preceding question, fundamenta 1 and 2. — Concerning the minor cf. Gratian, canon Inferior sedes (4.) and following, dist. 21. — For arctamur [we are constrained] the editions [read] arctatur [it is constrained].
  2. 2
    Codd. G K V bb et ed. 1 suscitare. Circa finem arg. pro idem posset codd. A F H ideo posset.
    Codices G K V bb and the first edition [read] suscitare. Near the end of the argument, for idem posset [the same could] codices A F H [read] ideo posset [therefore could].
  3. 3
    Secundum Iustinian. D. II. de Pactis (tit. 14.), lex Pactum (47.); ibid. IV. de Minoribus (tit. 4.), lex Si iudex (42.) et C. II. de Pactis (tit. 3.), lex Si quis in conscribendo (29.).
    According to Justinian, Digest II, On Pacts (title 14), the law Pactum (47); ibid. IV, On Minors (title 4), the law Si iudex (42); and Code II, On Pacts (title 3), the law Si quis in conscribendo (29).
  4. 4
    Arg. nititur illa regula iuris in VI: « Potest quis per alium quod potest facere per se ipsum (68.) », quae cum lectione codd. V W Z magis apparet; hi enim codd. post per se ipsum prosequuntur: potest etiam per alium; ergo cum confitens possit per se ipsum alii dicere, potest per sacerdotem etc. Codd. G X bb omittunt sacerdoti.
    The argument rests on that rule of law in the [Sext]: « One can do through another what he can do through his very self (68) », which appears more clearly with the reading of codices V W Z; for these codices, after per se ipsum [through his very self], continue: he can also [do it] through another; therefore since the one confessing can tell another through his very self, he can [do it] through the priest, etc. Codices G X bb omit sacerdoti [to the priest].
  5. 5
    Quaest. praeced. — Mox post revelare, quod cum non paucis codd. omittunt, cod. aa supplet confessionem.
    The preceding question. — Soon after revelare [to reveal], which they omit along with not a few codices, codex aa supplies confessionem [the confession].
  6. 6
    Codd. I K R S T non se potest nuntium. Pro internuntium edd. nuntium, quod ipsae paulo ante omittunt.
    Codices I K R S T [read] non se potest nuntium. For internuntium [go-between] the editions [read] nuntium [messenger], which they themselves omit a little before.
  7. 7
    Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. — Ultima regula probatur supra a. 1. q. 3.
    See the scholion to the preceding question. — The last rule is proven above, art. 1, q. 3. ---
Cited by

3 further references address the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 21, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1Dist. 21, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 3→