Dist. 17, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 4
by St. Bonaventure
Source text: Public Domain Mark 1.0. English translation/apparatus/encoding: CC BY-NC 4.0, Wroot Press.
https://bonaventure.wrootpress.com/browse/4/d/17/q/bon-sent-IV-d17-p1-a2-q4
----------------------------------------
### Question IV. *Whether confession necessarily follows justification.*

Fourthly it is asked whether confession necessarily follows justification. And that it does, seems [to be shown thus]:

1. Because this sinner is bound to confess; but it is established that grace does not absolve him from the precept of confession: therefore after grace has been received he is still bound.

2. Likewise, one who is contrite and has confessed is bound to make satisfaction; but confession does not absolve from satisfaction, which is posterior to it: therefore neither does contrition [absolve] from confession. But the contrite person is justified: therefore the justified person is bound to confess.

3. Likewise, the Lord commanded that penance be done, in Matthew chapter four; but in the perfection of penance there are these three things, « namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction », as the Master says in the text above, in distinction sixteen at the beginning: therefore a man does not fulfill the precept unless he confess: therefore a man is bound to confess however much he is justified.

4. Likewise, for justification a purpose of confessing is necessary; but the purpose either ceases to be efficacious, or issues into act, when time and place present themselves. But when the purpose of confessing ceases, a person ceases to be just, and it is necessary either that the purpose not be efficacious, or that the man confess: therefore either it is necessary that after justification a man confess, or that he fall from justice.

**On the contrary:**
1. Whoever has justice has everything that is necessary for salvation: but every justified person has justice: therefore he has everything that is necessary for salvation. If, then, confession is not necessary for justification, neither is it necessary for salvation after justification: therefore the justified person is not bound to confession.

2. Likewise, if the justified person is bound to confession, then either on account of the blotting-out of guilt, or on account of the blotting-out of punishment; not of guilt, since the guilt is already blotted out; not of punishment, because the contrition can be so great that it blots out the whole punishment, and if any remainder is left, it can be blotted out by exterior satisfaction: therefore in no way is he bound.

3. Likewise, there is a twofold court, namely the court of God and the court of the Church; according to the court of God one is punished in purgatory far more severely than in this world; according to the court of the Church, in this life; but one can renounce being judged in the lesser court, so as to transfer himself to the greater court: therefore someone may licitly, after contrition, await the punishment of purgatory: therefore he is not bound to be judged in the court of the Church: therefore neither to confess.

4. Likewise, suppose that someone is contrite and thinks nothing about confession; it is established that this person has grace, and does not omit [it]: therefore he does not fall from grace, since no contempt intervenes: therefore as long as he does not think [of it], he does not sin. Suppose he die thus, it is established that he is saved even without confession: therefore etc. — And for this there are many authorities, which the Master adduces in the text.

> **Conclusion.** Confession even after justification is necessary by the necessity of precept, from which, however, impossibility excuses.

**I respond:** It must be said that confession is instituted under a precept, as will better appear below; and therefore, because one who sins against this precept is not absolved by the reception of grace, he is still bound to confess; and therefore, if he does not confess, he falls from justice. — For just as no one can be justified who despises the Sacraments, so no one perseveres in justice if, after justification, out of contempt he neglects to confess. And therefore, if he can confess and does not care to, he falls from justice, since he falls from the purpose of confessing, without which he could not be justified. — It must therefore be conceded that confession after justification is necessary by the necessity of precept, from which, however, impossibility excuses. Hence the reasons for this side too are to be conceded.

**To the arguments to the contrary:**

*To 1.* To that which is objected: whoever has justice has everything that is necessary for salvation; it must be said that this is true, if he perseveres in it; but although someone can attain justice without confession, yet he cannot long remain in it without confession, without omitting [it]. For not only are those things necessary for salvation which are necessarily required for the attainment of justice, but also those which are required for the conservation of what has been attained.

*To 2.* To that which is objected: it is either necessary on account of the blotting-out of guilt etc.; it must be said that this is not the ground, but the institution. For because confession is instituted under a precept, therefore no one is absolved [from it], but everyone is bound, however much punishment and guilt be blotted out. Yet it avails for the blotting-out of guilt as regards those who have not prepared themselves altogether sufficiently, and also for [the blotting-out] of punishment as regards others, and for many useful ends, as will better appear below, on account of which the Lord instituted it.

*To 3.* To that which is objected concerning the twofold court, it must be said that the penitent, as long as he is in this life, is subject to the court of the Church, in such a way that he cannot appeal from it. Moreover, he has done an injury to the Church, and therefore, if he can appear, he is bound, unless he be excused through impossibility. For no one is admitted to the court of purgatory who has despised the court of the Church, since no injury is done to the sinner thereby, but in both [there is] justice.

*To 4.* To that which is objected concerning the one who thinks nothing [of it], it must be said that this can be from a twofold cause: either on account of the intensity of sorrow, or on account of the occupation of superfluous anxiety. As regards the first, because the Lord has occupied his heart, if there was no superfluous delay nor any indiscretion; I believe that the Lord absolves [him] and reckons the will for the deed; and this person is reckoned among those who are excused on account of impossibility, having devotion toward the Sacrament. — But if he does not think [of it] nor care, occupied with other anxieties, especially if he had place and time of confessing by mouth; then he is not excused, but rather on account of the sin of omission he will be reckoned guilty of death, especially if he was not so prevented by death that he could not well [confess], whereas he could and ought to have reconsidered and sought the Sacrament of the Church.

---