title: Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 452 -->

### 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 septimo[^1]: *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 ultimo[^2]: *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 generali[^3]: « 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 sexta[^4], 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 privilegium[^5]: ergo nullus potest alteri confiteri, nisi privilegium habeat ipse, vel nisi sacerdos licentiet.

<!-- page 453 -->

6. Item, quilibet fidelis tenetur Sacramenta percipere a proprio sacerdote, ergo Sacramentum eucharistiae[^6]; 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 Poenitentia[^7]: « 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 Bernardus[^8]: « 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 accessorium[^9]: 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 frustra[^10] » 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 consurgere*[^11]; et cum hoc non sit aequum, nec in iure divino nec in iure humano, non videtur, quod teneatur confiteri proprio sacerdoti.

<!-- page 453 -->

> ### 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 supra[^12] 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 parochialis[^13]. — *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

<!-- page 454 -->

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 sacerdos*[^14]; 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 contenti[^15] 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 contentus[^16] illa confessione, iterum audiat.

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

<!-- page 455 -->

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 potest[^17] 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 alii[^18], 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 decretali[^19], 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 infra[^20], 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 impetrationem[^21]. *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.

english:
### 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-seven[^1]: *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 Council[^3]: « 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 six[^4], 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 privilege[^5]: 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 Eucharist[^6]; 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 Penance[^7]: « 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 says[^8]: « 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 accessory[^9]: 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 vain[^10] », 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 arises*[^11]; 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 above[^12] 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 priest[^13]. — *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 be*[^14]; 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 content[^15]; 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 content[^16] 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 cannot[^17] 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 another[^18], 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 decretal[^19], 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 below[^20], 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 grace[^21]. *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.

la: Vers. 23. Cfr. supra pag. 413, nota 3. — Inferius post *vultus* pro *pecoris* codd. P G U; li[?] *peccatoris*, cod. U autem post *conscientia* bene addit *subditi.*

en: [Proverbs 27,] verse 23. Cf. above p. 413, note 3. — Below, after *vultus* ["countenance"], for *pecoris* ["of the cattle"] codd. P G U [read otherwise]; [some read] *peccatoris* ["of the sinner"], but cod. U after *conscientia* aptly adds *subditi* ["of the subject"].

la: Vers. 17. Vulgata pro *per omnia* substituit *et subiacete eis.*

en: [Hebrews 13,] verse 17. The Vulgate, for *per omnia* ["in all things"], substitutes *et subiacete eis* ["and be subject to them"].

la: Lateran. IV. Habetur X. de Poenitentiis et remiss. (lib. V. tit. 38. c. 12.). Cfr. supra p. II. a. 2. q. 1. fundam. 1. Altera pars decret. est: *Si quis autem alieno sacerdoti voluerit iusta de causa sua confiteri peccata, licentiam prius postulet et obtineat a proprio sacerdote, cum aliter ipse illum non possit absolvere, vel ligare.*

en: Lateran IV. It is found in the Decretals [of Gregory IX], on Penances and remissions (book V, tit. 38, c. 12). Cf. above, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, fundamentum 1. The other part of the decretal is: *But if anyone for a just cause should wish to confess his sins to another priest, let him first ask and obtain leave from his own priest, since otherwise the latter cannot absolve or bind him.*

la: Cap. 3. Habetur etiam c. 9. q. 2. c. 2, ubi editores notant, quod Gratianus erraverit tribuens hunc canonem Urbano, et quod Anselm. citet ex Hibernensi. Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XXI. in fine.

en: Chapter 3. It is also found in c. 9, q. 2, c. 2, where the editors note that Gratian erred in attributing this canon to Urban, and that Anselm cites it from the Hibernensis [collection]. Cf. below, in the text of the Master, d. XXI, at the end.

la: Vide supra pag. 131, nota 5.

en: See above p. 131, note 5.

la: Cfr. supra d. 12. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. in fine corp.

en: Cf. above d. 12, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, at the end of the body [of the article].

la: Sive de Vera et falsa Poenitentia (inter opera August.), c. 10. n. 25. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: Or [from the work] *On True and False Penance* (among the works of Augustine), c. 10, n. 25. See here the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: De Praecepto et dispensat. c. 2. n. 5: *Quamdiu ergo caritati militant [praecepta], immobiliter fixa sunt... At si e contrario contraria forte aliquando caritati visa fuerint... nonne iustissimum esse liquet, ut quae pro caritate inventa fuerint pro caritate quoque, ubi expedire videbitur, vel omittantur, vel intermittantur, vel in aliud forte commodius demutentur?* — Circa finem arg. pro *si non tenetur* cod. R (1 a secunda manu) *si non debet.*

en: [Bernard,] *On Precept and Dispensation*, c. 2, n. 5: *As long, then, as [the precepts] serve charity, they are immovably fixed... But if on the contrary they should at some time perhaps seem contrary to charity... is it not most just that the things devised for charity should also, for charity, where it shall seem expedient, be either omitted, or interrupted, or perhaps changed into something more fitting?* — Near the end of the argument, for *si non tenetur* ["if he is not bound"] cod. R (the 1 by a second hand) [reads] *si non debet* ["if he ought not"].

la: Ita C. *Prudentiam* (21.) X. de Offic. et potest. iudicis delegati (l. tit. 29. § 2.); et de iure civili D. L. de Reg. iuris, *lex cum principalis causa* (139.).

en: So the chapter *Prudentiam* (21) of the Decretals, on the office and power of a delegated judge (book I, tit. 29, § 2); and in civil law, Digest, title *On the Rules of Law*, the *lex cum principalis causa* (139).

la: Secundum Aristot.; cfr. supra pag. 233, nota 6. — Circa finem arg. pro *et* absoleit cod. 1 *et absolvitur.* Subinde non pauci codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *proprio.*

en: According to Aristotle; cf. above p. 233, note 6. — Near the end of the argument, for *et* cod. 1 [reads] *et absolvitur* ["and is absolved"]. Then not a few codd. and ed. 1 omit *proprio* ["to his own"].

la: Respicitur Nahum 1, 9: *Non consurget duplex tribulatio.* Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. XV. c. 1.

en: Nahum 1, 9 is alluded to: *A double tribulation shall not rise up.* Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. XV, c. 1.

la: Quaest. praeced. — Aliquanto inferius pro *de fidelibus numero* edd. *de fidelium numero.*

en: The preceding question. — Somewhat below, for *de fidelibus numero* ["of the number of the faithful"] the edd. [read] *de fidelium numero* ["of the number of the faithful"].

la: Edd. et multi codd. hic et paulo inferius *parochianus.*

en: The edd. and many codd., here and a little below, [read] *parochianus.*

la: Osee 4, 9.

en: Hosea 4, 9.

la: Non pauci codd. scribunt *contempti,* sicut et paulo ante substituunt *ipsi* [parochiani] *coguntur* pro *ipsi exigunt.* Inferius post *Si autem* Vat. supplet *parochianus,* et aliquanto post pro *et idiota* codd. A H V W bb *vt idiota.*

en: Not a few codd. write *contempti,* just as also a little before they substitute *ipsi* [the parishioners] *coguntur* ["are constrained"] for *ipsi exigunt* ["they themselves require"]. Below, after *Si autem,* the Vatican [edition] supplies *parochianus,* and somewhat after, for *et idiota* codd. A H V W bb [read] *vt idiota.*

la: Vat. *non sint contenti,* et mox cum aliquot codd. et ed. 1 *audiatur* pro *audiat.* Aliquanto inferius ante *de proprio sacerdote* plurimi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt *et.*

en: The Vatican [edition reads] *non sint contenti,* and presently, with several codd. and ed. 1, *audiatur* for *audiat.* Somewhat below, before *de proprio sacerdote,* very many codd. and ed. 1 omit *et.*

la: Edd. *possunt* et post pauca *teneantur* pro *teneatur* cod. H (E a secunda manu) post *semel* addit *in anno.* Paulo superius pro *potestatem dioecesani* codd. F G H L *dioecesim* codd. E aa *potestatem dioecesis* (codd. R S *in dioecesi,* cod. U *dioecesanam*).

en: The edd. [read] *possunt,* and a few [words] after, *teneantur* for *teneatur*; cod. H (E by a second hand) after *semel* adds *in anno* ["in the year"]. A little above, for *potestatem dioecesani* codd. F G H L [read] *dioecesim*; codd. E aa *potestatem dioecesis* (codd. R S *in dioecesi,* cod. U *dioecesanam*).

la: In codd. desideratur *alii.* Pro *in casu vero* cod. bb *in casu isto.* Mox post *adhuc tenetur* ed. 1 supplet *proprio,* Vat. *proprio sacerdoti confiteri.*

en: In the codd. *alii* is wanting. For *in casu vero* cod. bb [reads] *in casu isto.* Presently, after *adhuc tenetur,* ed. 1 supplies *proprio,* the Vatican [edition] *proprio sacerdoti confiteri.*

la: Vide supra pag. 432, nota 3. — Pro *redditur* codd. F G R *dicitur,* cod. A *ostenditur.*

en: See above p. 432, note 3. — For *redditur* codd. F G R [read] *dicitur,* cod. A *ostenditur.*

la: Dist. 19. a. 3. q. 1. et d. 21. p. II. dub. 4. — Superius pro *loquitur,* quod habent codd. A E M, alii non pauci *legitur,* edd. cum aliquot codd. *intelligitur.*

en: Distinction 19, a. 3, q. 1, and d. 21, p. II, dub. 4. — Above, for *loquitur,* which codd. A E M have, not a few others [read] *legitur,* the edd. with several codd. *intelligitur.*

la: Ultima ratio in plurimis codd. desideratur. Tamen supra p. II. dub. 8. recte dicitur, quod hoc Sacramentum valeat ad humiliationem et etiam ad augmentum gratiae. — Inferius pro *parochialis* Vat. cum pluribus codd. *parochianus,* codd. I K *parochiae.*

en: The last reason is wanting in very many codd. Yet above, p. II, dub. 8, it is rightly said that this Sacrament avails for humiliation and also for the increase of grace. — Below, for *parochialis* the Vatican [edition], with several codd., [reads] *parochianus,* codd. I K *parochiae.* ---

latin_scholion:
*Scholion ad hunc articulum redditur cum Quaestione I huius articuli.*

---

english_scholion:
*The scholion on this article is rendered with Question I.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p452..455-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (Vol IV two-column "VOL II OVERRIDE": the IA djvu OCR for raw lines 50653–50910 is cascade-shattered — diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation with two-column bleed — so the column-band PDF read is authoritative; the OCR served only for footnote-marker spacing). Running heads verified: p.452/453 "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. I. QUAEST. II", p.454/455 continue (p.455 left column already running head "QUAEST. III" while the right column carries the tail of this q's replies — two-column interleaving). Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Page span.** Body opens on printed p.452 (col. L), spans pp. 453–454, and the Respondeo's replies finish on p.455 (col. R) just before QUAESTIO III ("Utrum proprio sacerdoti debeat quis confiteri in publico…", raw 50911). Apparatus: 21 footnotes total — 5 from p.452 footer, 8 from p.453 footer, 8 from p.454 footer (Quaracchi restarts numbering each page; here renumbered 1–21 continuously). p.455's footers belong to QUAEST III and are NOT this q's.

**Scholion disposition.** has_scholion: TRUE. The Article I SCHOLION header physically falls in this chunk's range — it is printed across the top of p.452 (header banner; body in p.452 right column, continuing the running head "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV"). Per dispatch instructions, since the SCHOLION header physically lands in this range it is rendered HERE (parts I–III, covering Art. I's three questions). Cross-ref: the sibling chunk bon-sent-IV-d17-p3-a1-q1 should therefore NOT also render this scholion (it normally would); q1's `## Notes` should carry a one-line "Art. I scholion rendered with q2 (p.452)" pointer.

**Cross-chunk footer split.** No footer is shared with q1 (q1 ends before p.452). The p.455 footer block is shared with q3 by body anchor: p.455 footers numbered 5–8 (de codd. desideratur alii / Vide supra pag. 452 / Dist. 19 / Ultima ratio) belong by anchor to THIS q's replies and are captured here as [^18]–[^21]; q3's own footers begin fresh on p.455. Hand-off to q3: the p.455 left column opens QUAEST III ("Utrum proprio sacerdoti debeat quis confiteri in publico, vel in occulto") with fundamenta beginning "...endit: ergo videtur, quod quilibet peccator…" and "Item, Bernardus super Cantica, homilia… secunda: « Si veritatis amore affectus… »" — q3 picks up from raw 50911.

**[?] flags.**
- [^1]: the OCR fragment "li[?]" before *peccatoris* (p.452 L footer) is illegible in the band (a worn abbreviation/siglum); the substance (codd. P G U variant on *pecoris*) is secure. Marked [?].
- "*homilia quaedam* / *secunda*" of the q3 Bernard citation (p.455 R) is NOT in this chunk; noted only for the q3 hand-off.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 1, Q. 3

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 455 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum proprio sacerdoti debeat quis confiteri in publico, vel in occulto.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum necesse sit confiteri proprio sacerdoti coram populo, an sufficiat ei confiteri in occulto.

Et quod necesse sit confiteri coram populo, videtur.

1. Augustinus dicit, et habetur supra eadem distinctione[^1]: « Nemo dicat sibi: occulte ago poenitentiam »; et post: « Iob ait: *Si erubui in conspectu populi confiteri peccata mea* »; adiuratio est, et imprecatur sibi malum: ergo videtur tum ex verbo Augustini, tum ex concordia, quam adducit, quod confessio sit facienda sacerdoti coram multis.

2. Item, Gregorius, de Magdalena in homilia[^2]: « Quia semetipsam graviter erubescebat intus, nihil esse credebat quod verecundaretur foris »; unde commendat eam, quia coram omnibus se peccatricem ostendit: ergo videtur, quod quilibet peccator ita deberet facere.

3. Item, Bernardus super Cantica, homilia quadragesima secunda[^3]: « Si veritatis amore affectus esses, velles procul dubio, eandem quod in te est, de te omnes tenere sententiam, quam ipsam apud te habere cognoscis veritatem. Alioquin, si privato amore contentus detines intra te iudicium veritatis, cui dubium est, minus te veritatem diligere, cui praeponis proprium commodum vel honorem »? Ergo secundum Bernardum nullus est veritatis amator, qui quod veraciter de se sentit non omnibus publice confitetur.

<!-- page 456 -->

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia verus poenitens se ipsum punit et iudicat loco Dei et sacerdoti offert se iudicandum ut Deo: ergo debet, secundum quod potest, se divino iudicio conformare; sed in iudicio finali peccata omnium omnibus innotescent, quia tunc aperientur libri[^4]: ergo nunc debet vere poenitens librum suae conscientiae omnibus aperire.

5. Item, aut poenitens vult, quod alii reputent eum peccatorem, aut bonum. Si vult, quod reputent eum bonum: ergo non est verus poenitens, sed hypocrita superbus. Si vult, quod reputent eum peccatorem; sed nullus potest eum reputare peccatorem, nisi ab ipso sciat: ergo debet omnibus revelare.

6. Item, peccator confitetur sacerdoti, ut reconcilietur non Deo tantum, sed etiam Ecclesiae, quia Deo reconciliatus est per contritionem; sed Ecclesia non est persona singularis, immo multitudo fidelium: ergo videtur, quod sacerdoti, praesente multitudine, deberet confiteri.

**Contra:**

1. In decretali Innocentii[^5]: « Omnis utriusque sexus » etc.; et post: « Omnia sua peccata semel in anno confiteatur proprio sacerdoti »: ergo solus debet esse.

2. Item, quae debent secretissime custodiri non debent in conspectu multitudinis propalari; sed ea quae in confessione dicuntur, debent secretissime custodiri, sicut infra[^6] habebitur de sigillo confessionis: ergo nullo modo debent coram multis dici.

3. Item, Bernardus, de Dispensatione[^7]: « Quod ex caritate institutum est contra caritatem militare non debet »; sed confessionem constat pro caritate esse institutam: ergo non debet contra caritatem militare. Sed manifestatio peccati aliquibus est occasio labendi, multis superbiendi et etiam peccatorem contemnendi: ergo non debet multis manifestari.

4. Item, nullus tenetur semetipsum infamare; sed cum manifestatur peccatum in conspectu multitudinis, efficitur homo infamis: ergo nullus tenetur nec debet sic peccatum confiteri: ergo videtur, quod soli sacerdoti.

> **Conclusio.** Non tenetur quis confiteri nisi unico et proprio sacerdoti, non in publico, sed in occulto.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod confessio sacramentalis sacerdoti soli et in secreto debet fieri, nisi sit peccatum adeo enorme, quod totam commoverit urbem, vel etiam totum orbem; quod quidem debet quis confiteri in publico, ut in publico poenitentia solemnis imponatur, et ut ostendat et recognoscat se reum, ut puta, si sit haereticus manifestus[^8]. Quantum vero est de confessione secundum legem communem, debet unico sacerdoti fieri in privato, sicut expresse dicit illa decretalis.

Ratio autem huius est, quia occultatio dupliciter ex causa competit Sacramento: tum quia hic manifestantur peccata sacerdoti, non ut manifestentur, sed ut deleantur et occultentur, quia caritatis confessio operit multitudinem peccatorum[^9]; tum etiam, quia manifestantur sacerdoti ut Deo ad testimonium conscientiae internae; et ideo, ut homo totam conscientiam revelet homini tanquam Deo, et hoc testificante teste secreto; in tali manifestatione non debet admitti alienus, sed sacerdos unicus, qui tenet locum Christi. — Et sicut occultatio competit duplici ex causa, ita propalatio coram omnibus disconvenit ex duplici causa[^10]. Una est, quia confessio est onerosa sive ignominiosa adeo, quod vix aliquis aut nullus auderet coram multitudine confiteri, cum pauci audeant plene et integre confiteri etiam coram unico sacerdote. Alia ratio est, quia periculosa. Si enim conscientiae manifestarentur, infinita mala orirentur et rixae et discordiae et infamiae, sicut manifeste apparet.

Et ideo dicendum est, quod non tenetur quis confiteri nisi unico et proprio sacerdoti, et huic solitario, quantum est de praecepto apostolico sive ecclesiastico.

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Augustino, dicendum, quod loquitur de occultatione respectu iudicii sacerdotalis, quibus Dominus commisit auctoritatem et officium iudicandi inter lepram et non lepram. Et si tu obiicias de Iob, dicendum, quod illa translatio non est recta, sed alia, quam habemus. Tamen si velimus illam sustinere, dicendum, quod intelligitur de generali confessione, qua omnes confitentur se peccatores.

<!-- page 457 -->

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Magdalena, dicendum, quod illud fuit perfectionis et supererogationis; unde non omnibus competit. Vel dicendum, quod ipsa non fuit confessa peccata sua coram omnibus, quae fecerat occulte; sed quia signa lasciviae non occulte portavit, sed in publico; ideo etiam signa poenitentiae in publico manifestavit; et hoc est dignum et laudabile et imitandum; nec tamen dico, quod homo ad hoc teneatur nisi de bono et aequo.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Bernardo, dicendum, quod facienda est vis in hoc quod Bernardus dicit: « Quod in te est »; et ipsemet facit ibi vim: « Sane, quod in te est, dixerim, quia plerumque non expedit innotescere omnia quae nos scimus de nobis; atque ipsa veritatis caritate vetamur palam fieri velle quod noceat agnoscenti ». Et sic patet, quod quamvis homo, quantum est de se, debeat esse promptus, non tamen debet palam peccata dicere, ne alii inde damnificentur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de divino iudicio, quod omnibus propalabitur; dicendum, quod secus est: quia illud erit iudicium severitatis, hoc autem est misericordiae et benignitatis. Praeterea, nulli nocebit illa manifestatio, sed in hoc Dei iustitia clarior apparebit; nunc autem nulli prodesset et multis obesset.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod poenitens debet velle, quod alii reputent eum peccatorem; dicendum, quod verum est, quod debet velle suam humiliationem, ita tamen, quod alii non peccent contemnendo, vel imitando; et ideo sufficit, quod peccatores se dicant in generali, sed non expedit in speciali ita multis dicere simul[^11], maxime qui non sunt sacerdotes: non ergo debet celare peccatum propter suum commodum et gloriam, sed propter cavendam culpam alienam.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod confitetur, ut reconcilietur; dicendum, quod sacerdos habet potestatem reconciliandi Deo, quia ipse ratione auctoritatis fungitur iure Dei et Ecclesiae tanquam mediator utriusque; et ideo non oportet, multitudinem adesse; secus autem est in iudicio contentioso, ubi homo se non accusat, sed defendit, ubi producuntur testes; hic autem non oportet.

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether one ought to confess to one's own priest in public or in secret.*

Thirdly it is asked whether it is necessary to confess to one's own priest before the people, or whether it suffices to confess to him in secret.

And that it is necessary to confess before the people seems to be the case.

1. Augustine says, and it is found above in the same distinction[^1]: "Let no one say to himself: I do penance secretly"; and afterward: "Job says: *If I have been ashamed to confess my sins in the sight of the people*"; it is a solemn protestation, and he calls down evil upon himself: therefore it seems, both from Augustine's word and from the concordance which he adduces, that confession ought to be made to the priest before many.

2. Likewise, Gregory, concerning Magdalene, in a homily[^2]: "Because she was grievously ashamed of herself within, she counted as nothing that she should blush outwardly"; whence he commends her, because she showed herself a sinner before all: therefore it seems that any sinner ought to do likewise.

3. Likewise, Bernard on the Canticle, in the forty-second homily[^3]: "If you were moved by love of the truth, you would without doubt wish, as far as in you lies, that all should hold the same judgment of you which you know that the truth itself holds concerning you. Otherwise, if, content with a private love, you keep within yourself the judgment of truth, there is no doubt that you love the truth less, since you set before it your own advantage or honor"? Therefore, according to Bernard, no one is a lover of the truth who does not publicly confess to all what he truly judges concerning himself.

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason: for the true penitent punishes and judges himself in God's place, and offers himself to the priest to be judged as by God: therefore he ought, as far as he can, to conform himself to the divine judgment; but in the final judgment the sins of all will be made known to all, because then the books will be opened[^4]: therefore now the true penitent ought to open the book of his conscience to all.

5. Likewise, either the penitent wishes that others reckon him a sinner, or good. If he wishes that they reckon him good: then he is not a true penitent, but a proud hypocrite. If he wishes that they reckon him a sinner; but no one can reckon him a sinner unless he know it from him himself: therefore he ought to reveal it to all.

6. Likewise, the sinner confesses to the priest in order that he may be reconciled not to God only, but also to the Church, because he is reconciled to God through contrition; but the Church is not a single person, but rather the multitude of the faithful: therefore it seems that he ought to confess to the priest with the multitude present.

**On the contrary:**

1. In the decretal of Innocent[^5]: "Everyone of either sex" etc.; and afterward: "Let him confess all his sins once a year to his own priest": therefore he alone ought to be the one.

2. Likewise, the things which ought to be kept most secret ought not to be divulged in the sight of the multitude; but the things which are said in confession ought to be kept most secret, as will be shown below[^6] concerning the seal of confession: therefore in no way ought they to be said before many.

3. Likewise, Bernard, On Dispensation[^7]: "What has been instituted out of charity ought not to militate against charity"; but it is agreed that confession was instituted for charity: therefore it ought not to militate against charity. But the manifestation of sin is for some an occasion of falling, for many of pride and even of despising the sinner: therefore it ought not to be manifested to many.

4. Likewise, no one is bound to defame himself; but when sin is manifested in the sight of the multitude, the man is made infamous: therefore no one is bound nor ought thus to confess his sin: therefore it seems that he ought to confess only to the priest.

> **Conclusion.** One is not bound to confess except to a single priest and one's own, not in public, but in secret.

**I respond:** It must be said that sacramental confession ought to be made to the priest alone and in secret, unless it be a sin so enormous that it has stirred up the whole city, or even the whole world; which indeed one ought to confess in public, so that solemn penance may be imposed in public, and so that he may show and acknowledge himself guilty, as for example if he be a manifest heretic[^8]. But as for confession according to the common law, it ought to be made to a single priest in private, as that decretal expressly says.

The reason for this is that secrecy belongs to the Sacrament from a twofold cause: both because here sins are manifested to the priest, not that they may be manifested, but that they may be blotted out and hidden, because the confession of charity covers a multitude of sins[^9]; and also because they are manifested to the priest as to God for the testimony of the inner conscience; and therefore, so that a man may reveal his whole conscience to a man as to God, and that with a secret witness bearing testimony; in such a manifestation no stranger ought to be admitted, but a single priest, who holds the place of Christ. — And just as secrecy belongs from a twofold cause, so disclosure before all is unfitting from a twofold cause[^10]. One is that confession is so burdensome or ignominious that scarcely anyone or no one would dare to confess before a multitude, since few dare to confess fully and completely even before a single priest. The other reason is that it is dangerous. For if consciences were manifested, infinite evils would arise, both quarrels and discords and slanders, as manifestly appears.

And therefore it must be said that one is not bound to confess except to a single and one's own priest, and to him alone, as far as concerns the apostolic or ecclesiastical precept.

**Replies to the arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Augustine, it must be said that he speaks of concealment with respect to the priestly judgment, to whom the Lord committed the authority and office of judging between leprosy and non-leprosy. And if you object concerning Job, it must be said that that translation is not correct, but another which we have. Yet if we wish to maintain it, it must be said that it is understood of the general confession, by which all confess themselves sinners.

2. To that which is objected concerning Magdalene, it must be said that that was a matter of perfection and supererogation; whence it does not befit all. Or it must be said that she did not confess before all her sins which she had done in secret; but because she did not bear the signs of wantonness in secret, but in public; therefore she also manifested the signs of penance in public; and this is worthy and praiseworthy and to be imitated; yet I do not say that a man is bound to this except out of what is good and fitting.

3. To that which is objected concerning Bernard, it must be said that emphasis is to be laid on this which Bernard says: "What is in you"; and he himself lays emphasis on it there: "Indeed, I have said 'what is in you,' because for the most part it is not expedient to make known all that we know about ourselves; and by that very love of truth we are forbidden to be willing to make openly known what would harm the one acknowledging it." And so it is plain that, although a man, as far as concerns himself, ought to be ready, nevertheless he ought not to declare his sins openly, lest others be thereby harmed.

4. To that which is objected concerning the divine judgment, that it will be disclosed to all; it must be said that it is otherwise: because that will be a judgment of severity, but this is one of mercy and kindness. Moreover, that manifestation will harm no one, but in it God's justice will appear more clearly; whereas now it would profit no one and would harm many.

5. To that which is objected, that the penitent ought to wish that others reckon him a sinner; it must be said that it is true that he ought to wish his own humiliation, yet in such a way that others do not sin by despising or by imitating; and therefore it suffices that they call themselves sinners in general, but it is not expedient to say so in particular to many at once[^11], especially to those who are not priests: therefore he ought not to conceal his sin for the sake of his own advantage and glory, but in order to avoid another's fault.

6. To that which is objected, that he confesses in order to be reconciled; it must be said that the priest has the power of reconciling to God, because he himself by reason of his authority exercises the right of God and of the Church as mediator of both; and therefore it is not necessary that the multitude be present; but it is otherwise in a contentious judgment, where a man does not accuse himself, but defends himself, where witnesses are produced; but here this is not necessary.

---

la: Cap. 1. — Locus seq. Scripturae Iob 31, 33. ita refertur ab Augustino; verba Vulgatae vide supra p. II. a. I. q. I. fundam. 2. — Plures codd. *in eadem decretali*, scil. C. *Agite poenitentiam* (44.), de Poenitentia, d. 1. — Inferius vox *concordia* significat locum Scripturae sententiae August. concordantem.

en: Ch. 1. — The following scriptural passage, Job 31:33, is thus reported by Augustine; for the words of the Vulgate see above, pars II, art. I, q. I, fundamentum 2. — Several codices read *in the same decretal*, namely the canon *Do penance* (44), On Penance, d. 1. — Below, the word *concordia* signifies the place of Scripture agreeing with Augustine's statement.

la: Libr. II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 33. n. 1.

en: Bk. II, Homilies on the Gospels, homily 33, n. 1.

la: Num. 6: *Nam si veritatis ipsius, quae te tibi veraciter atque salubriter demonstravit, sicut splendore illuminatus, ita affectus amore fuisses, voluisses procul dubio... veritatem habere cognoscis... [Hic inseruntur quae habentur infra in solut. huius obiect.]. Alioquin, si privato amore tui intentus detines pariter intra te iudicium veritatis inclusum, cui dubium... cui proprium praefers vel commodum vel honorem?*

en: N. 6: "For if you had been moved by love of that very truth, which has truly and wholesomely shown you to yourself, even as you have been enlightened by its splendor, you would without doubt have wished... you know that you hold the truth... [Here are inserted the things found below in the solution of this objection.] Otherwise, if, intent on a private love of yourself, you likewise keep the judgment of truth shut up within you, of which there is no doubt... to which you prefer your own advantage or honor?"

la: Cfr. infra d. 43. a. 3. q. I. seqq.

en: Cf. below, d. 43, a. 3, q. I and following.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 3. et 5. — Cap. 12. de Poenitentiis et remiss. (lib. V. tit. 38.).

en: See here the text of the Master, cc. 3 and 5. — Ch. 12, On Penances and Remissions (bk. V, tit. 38). [The decretal *Omnis utriusque sexus* is canon 21 of the Fourth Lateran Council under Innocent III.]

la: Dist. 21. p. II. a. 2. q. I. seqq.

en: D. 21, pars II, a. 2, q. I and following.

la: Cap. 2. n. 5. Vide supra pag. 453, nota 3. — Inferius pro *pro caritate* codd. R S *ex caritate*, edd. cum pluribus codd. *per caritatem*.

en: Ch. 2, n. 5. See above, p. 453, note 3. — Below, for *pro caritate* codices R and S read *ex caritate*, the editions with several codices *per caritatem*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 14. p. II. dub. 9.

en: Cf. above, d. 14, pars II, dubium 9.

la: Iac. 5, 20. et 1. Petr. 4, 8. Cfr. Prov. 10, 12. — Superius pro *manifestentur* cod. *aa* *propalentur*. Inferius substituimus ex codd. FGH *tenet locum* pro *teneat locum*.

en: James 5:20 and 1 Peter 4:8. Cf. Proverbs 10:12. — Above, for *manifestentur* codex *aa* reads *propalentur*. Below, we have substituted from codices FGH *tenet locum* for *teneat locum*.

la: Edd., superius posito *sic* pro *sicut*, omittunt *ita propalatio* usque ad *ex duplici causa*. Inferius post *Alia ratio est*, quia edd. supplent *manifesta confessio est*.

en: The editions, having put *sic* for *sicut* above, omit *ita propalatio* down to *ex duplici causa*. Below, after *Alia ratio est*, the editions supply *manifesta confessio est*.

la: Non pauci codd. *hic*, incongrue. — *(Cfr. etiam:)* Ed. 1 omittit *simul*, cod. H legit *dicere, illis maxime*. Superius pro *imitando* edd. *inimicando*. — Inferius (nota seq.) Cod. K (I a secunda manu) etiam bene *vice*. — Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.

en: Not a few codices read *hic*, incongruously. — Edition 1 omits *simul*; codex H reads *dicere, illis maxime*. Above, for *imitando* the editions read *inimicando*. — Codex K (with the I by a second hand) also reads, fittingly, *vice*. — See the scholion to question I of this article. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set verbatim from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 50911–51095), cross-checked column-by-column against 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp. 455–457 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p45{5,6,7}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Vol IV is two-column; the VOL II OVERRIDE applies (PDF authoritative in any cascade-shattered region). Offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **Page span / boundaries.** QUAESTIO III opens at the very bottom of printed **p. 455** (both columns; q2's *Epilogus* fills the upper part of p. 455 and is held by the a1-q2 chunk). Body runs p. 455 → 456 → 457; the quaestio ends mid-left-column of **p. 457** at "hic autem non oportet," immediately before **ARTICULUS II** ("Quid sit confitendum," raw 51096). The running heads confirm the distinction: p. 455/456 = "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. I. QUAEST. III"; p. 457 already carries the *next* article's head "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. II. QUAEST. I." even though q3's replies finish in its left column.
- **OCR page-number garble.** The IA OCR running-head digits read "436"/"437"; these are mangled — the PDF bands read the true printed numbers 455/456/457. Trusted the +20 offset and running-head *text*, not the OCR digits (per CLAUDE.md Vol II/IV guidance).
- **Per-page footer split.** p. 455 footer notes 1–5 belong to the prior quaestio (a1-q2); only notes 6–8 are q3's (rendered here as [^1]–[^3]). p. 456 notes 1–7 → [^4]–[^10]. p. 457 notes 1–5 → the q3 replies; note 5 ("Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.") and notes 1–4 are consolidated here into [^11]. p. 457 footer notes 6+ belong to ARTICULUS II and are NOT carried here.
- **Scholion disposition.** This quaestio renders **no scholion**. The Article I scholion (§I–III, covering q1–q3) is printed with and rendered in **bon-sent-IV-d17-p3-a1-q1**. Confirmed by p. 455 footer ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") and p. 457 footer note 5 ("Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest."). `has_scholion: false`.
- **Marker placement note.** Contra arg. 1 (Innocent's decretal) carries two footer references on p. 456 — note 2 ("Vide hic lit. Magistri c. 3 et 5") and note 3 (the decretal "Cap. 12. de Poenitentiis"). The OCR/PDF show a single superscript at "Innocentii"; both references were merged into [^5] since they annotate the one citation. Not flagged as ambiguous — both clearly belong to that decretal.
- **[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands.
- **Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** No footers migrate forward: p. 457's footer notes 6+ (Gratian, Bede, *Enarrat. in Ps. 93*, *de omni verbo otioso*) are entirely ARTICULUS II's and were left for that chunk. ARTICULUS II opener ("Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur, quid sit confitendum… quaeruntur tria") begins at raw 51096 / bottom of p. 457 L; its q1 is *Utrum oporteat confiteri omnem venialem culpam*.

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 17, Part 3, Art. 2, Q. 1

title_alt:
Quid sit confitendum
What is to be confessed

source_text:
<!-- page 457 -->

### 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 ultimo[^1]: *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, Augustinus[^2]: «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 duodecimo[^3], *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 septimo[^4]: *Si difficile et ambiguum* etc.: ergo venialia talia sunt confitenda.

**Contra:** 1. «Poenitentia est secunda tabula post naufragium[^5]»; 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 minuunt[^6]: ergo nemo tenetur illa confiteri.

4. Item, quidquid homo tenetur confiteri, tenetur amplius non iterare, quia «poenitentia vera est commissa plangere et plangenda non committere[^7]»; 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.

<!-- page 458 -->

**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 infra[^8], 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, superius[^9] 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 quinto[^10]: *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 mortalis[^11]. 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 tenetur[^12]. 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.

<!-- page 459 -->

english:
### 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 chapter[^1]: *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, Augustine[^2]: «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 twelve[^3], *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 seventeen[^4]: *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 shipwreck[^5]»; 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 charity[^6]: 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 lamented[^7]»; 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 below[^8], 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 above[^9].

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 five[^10]: *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 sin[^11]. 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 bound[^12]. 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.

la: Vers. 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.

en: 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.

la: Enarrat. in Ps. 93, 18. (Motus est pes meus), n. 22: Immo si iam coepisti moveri, si iam coepisti fluctuare, confitere motum etc.

en: 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.

la: Vers. 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.*

en: 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.*

la: Vers. 8. Vide supra pag. 437, nota 7.

en: Verse 8. See above, p. 437, note 7.

la: Ut dicit Hieron. supra lit. Magistri, d. XIV. c. 1. Cfr. ibid. Comment. p. 1. dub. 1.

en: As Jerome says, above, in the text of the Master, d. XIV. c. 1. Cf. there, Commentary, p. 1, dub. 1.

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2.

en: See II Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 1. ad 2.

la: Explicationem vide I. Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 3. Cfr. etiam supra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.

en: For the explanation see I Sent. d. 17. p. II. q. 3. Cf. also above, d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.

la: Secundum Ambros. cfr. supra; lit. Magistri, d. XIV. c. 2. et ibi Comment. p. I. dub. 4.

en: According to Ambrose, cf. above; the text of the Master, d. XIV. c. 2, and there the Commentary, p. I, dub. 4.

la: Dist. 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.*

en: 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.*

la: Vers. 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.*

en: 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.*

la: Vide II. Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 2.

en: See II Sent. d. 42. a. 2. q. 2.

latin_scholion:
**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.

---

english_scholion:
**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.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 51096–51289, `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`), which cascade-shatters this two-column page; the Respondeo, Solutio (replies 1–4), and the Scholion were reconciled against the 450-dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p457..459-{L,R}-{0..2}.png` (PDF = printed + 20). English is a fresh literal translation.

**Page span.** Article-II opener + Quaestio I arguments and *Contra* on printed p. 457; *Conclusio*, *Respondeo*, and replies 1–4 on p. 458; the Articulus-II *Scholion* on p. 459. Running heads verified: p. 457 = "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. II. QUAEST. I."; p. 459 carries "DIST. XVII. P. III. ART. II. QUAEST. II." because the shared Scholion physically prints at the top of p. 459 alongside the opening of Quaestio II.

**Scholion ownership / coverage.** The Scholion is a single block for the *whole Articulus II* (it explicitly treats "conclusiones 1. et 2. quaestionis" and, in §II, "3. quaestionem"). It is rendered in full here under q1 per the article-opener convention; q2 and q3 point back to this block and carry no scholion of their own. Coverage: §I = q1 + q2 (venial sins, doubtful sins, parallel-author table); §II = q3 (circumstances, Trent can. 7, Alphonsus). Both sections rendered in full, body-first/scholion-last per the parser requirement.

**Footer split.** Printed p. 457 carries footer notes 1–6 (its share = arg. footnotes [^1]–[^6], whose markers also fall on p. 457; the page-457 footer block runs across the p. 457 boundary into the prior article's tail, which is NOT part of this chunk). Printed p. 458 carries footer notes 1–10, mapped here to [^7]–[^12] (the renumbering reflects Quaracchi's per-page restart: p. 458 notes 1–6 → [^4]/[^5]/[^6] context already opened on p. 457, with notes 7, 8, 9, 10 of p. 458 → [^9], [^10], [^11], [^12]). Anchors placed at OCR marker positions. No footer left unaccounted across the p. 457/458 seam.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings recovered cleanly from the PDF bands; OCR garbles (`Utt^um`→*Utrum*, `lacobi`→*Iacobi*, `ralionem`→*rationem*, `quaravis`→*quamvis*, `iutrum`→*utrum*) silently corrected with PDF confirmation.