Dist. 17, Part 3, Dubia
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-p3-dubia
----------------------------------------
### DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER.

### Doubt I

In this section there are doubts concerning the text, and first about this, that the Master says: *If, however, a priest be lacking, confession is to be made to a neighbor or a companion.* For it seems to be said badly, because a layman or a companion cannot absolve: therefore neither [can he] supply the place of a priest.

**I respond:** It is not made to a companion in order that the place of a priest be supplied, or that the confession be had as a Sacrament from this; but in order that the will of the one confessing be tested and made manifest, so that he may do all that is in him. — Yet some have said that this one is in some manner absolved in this confession. For they say that the power of absolving is had in five ways, namely by *authority*, and thus it is God's; by *excellence*, and thus it is that of Christ as man; by *power or authority committed*, and thus it is the priest's; by *the merit of life*, and thus it is that of the just and holy man; and by *the virtue of ecclesiastical unity*, and thus it is that of any faithful man. And therefore they say that such a confession is in some manner a Sacrament of the Church. — Yet it is more probable to say that it is not a Sacrament of the Church, since the *formal element* is lacking there, namely the power of the key, but it is something in place of it.

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Let him who confesses to a priest confess to a better one than he is able to.* For according to this it seems that, if his own priest is not the best, he may desert him, which is against the canons.

**I respond:** It must be said that he is speaking of a man who is in his liberty, before he commits himself to some priest, that he ought to choose the best he can. — But if it be understood after the choice; this is to be understood with the leave of his own priest, or in such a way that he first make satisfaction to his own priest, so that in no way be the authority and ministry of the priest contemned.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *A wise and discreet priest is to be sought*; why this ought to be done. For since a simple priest sings as good a Mass as a wise one, and likewise baptizes as well: therefore it seems that he absolves as well. — It is also asked whether a simple priest sins in absolving, or even in hearing confessions. And that he does, seems [to follow] from that which he said before: «Such ought he to be who judges the crimes of others». Likewise, he who undertakes to do what he does not know usurps another's [office]; and every such one sins mortally or gravely: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that, whether knowledge be a key or not, nevertheless so much knowledge is necessary to a priest, that he know how to discern in common sins, both what is venial and what is mortal; and that he always know to what sins his power can extend itself; and this, because one penance is to be given for a venial [sin], another for a mortal one; and if to some kind of sin he cannot extend his hand, that is necessary for him to know, otherwise he hears confessions to the peril of his own soul and of those confessing. And if the subjects know his simplicity, they are bound to consult discreet ones, otherwise both sin gravely. And of this discretion Augustine speaks. — There is another discretion, by which he may know, through an acquired habit, how to discern among the perplexities of sins, and this is of well-being; but in such matters he ought always to choose the safer way and to consult the wise.

To that which is objected concerning the Mass, it must be said that it is not similar: because there the force is in the words appointed by the Lord, but here it is required that he consult and judge according to the conscience which is in himself. As to what is asked, whether he sins; it must be said that he who lacks the necessary discretion himself sins, and [so does] he who supports him; concerning the other [discretion] I do not believe [so].

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this, that he says: *Nor is it necessary that what we have once confessed to a priest we confess again.* For from this text it seems that the sins which a man has once confessed he ought not to confess again, or that it is not necessary. And this seems [to follow] by reason: because in the same forum one ought not to be punished twice: if therefore one has once been punished for a committed sin, it seems etc. — Likewise, it is certain that sins never return according to truth: therefore if he has once been absolved, he is never bound again: therefore he is never bound to confess the same again. — *On the contrary*, let it be supposed that one confess feignedly: it is established that such a one carries off no advantage, but rather harm from the confession. If therefore nothing remains in him from the confession, because it does not imprint a character; therefore he is bound to confess again. — Likewise, let it be supposed that someone recalls a mortal sin which he forgot to confess; it is established that he has not confessed completely for the state in which he now is; but a confession which is not complete, as will be seen below, is to be reckoned as nothing: therefore he is bound to confess the whole again, as if he had never confessed. — Likewise, let it be supposed that someone relapses; it is established that the subsequent sin is aggravated by the preceding ones, both on account of ingratitude and on account of habit: therefore the quantity of the sin and the quality of the one confessing cannot be known unless the whole is known: therefore etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that if the confession was made legitimately, and the things which pertain to it were observed; it is not necessary to confess again the things we have confessed elsewhere. But because it happens that a confession was either invalid when first made, or is afterward made invalid; therefore it is sometimes necessary to repeat [it].

Now there are four common and customary cases in which the doctors have said that confession is to be repeated. The first is on account of the *enormity of the crime*, on account of which the sinner must be remitted to a superior, who ought to hear and absolve the confession of the one remitted, unless he prefer to commit [it] to another. — The second is on account of the *ignorance of the priest*, as when the priest is unlearned; for then a priest is to be sought who knows how to bind and to loose, and to him it must be confessed again, either by leave of one's own priest, or by the authority of a superior. — The third case is on account of the *malice of feigning*, as if he knowingly retained some sin in his heart, or if he approached with the will of sinning. — The fourth is on account of the *contempt of satisfaction*, as when he neglects and contemns to do the penance enjoined on him. And let these last two cases be understood [of the situation] when he changes priest. For if he returns to the same one, then a distinction must be made: because either he confessed recently, or [the sins] have already slipped from the memory of that priest on account of the length of time. In the first case he is not bound, in the second he is bound. — In these cases all commonly agree that confession is to be repeated.

There are also two other cases in which the doctors are at variance with one another. For some say that a man is bound also to repeat his confession on account of *the recollection of a forgotten sin*, and on account of *relapse*, because otherwise the confession is not complete; and the confession must have completeness in order that it have usefulness, as will better appear below. — Others say that it suffices to say in general that one has sinned at other times and has committed this sin anew, or has recalled [it] in particular, because the prior confession was valid and good. — Others say that he is bound to relate sins of the same kind in particular, but others in general; and thus both the habit and the ingratitude are known. — But what is to be held about these things will better appear in the twenty-first distinction; for the present it suffices to have said only this much.

But if therefore you wish precisely to know what is necessary in the repetition of confession; it must be said that it is either on account of a defect on the part of the *priest*; and this is only in two ways: either because he *knows not* how to absolve, or because he is *unable*; and thus there are two. — Or on account of a defect on the part of the *penitent*, and this in two ways: either because he contemns the priest's *absolution*, or because he contemns the *binding*. — In the two other cases, I believe that to confess the same again is a counsel, and this in *particular*; unless one of the aforesaid intervene, such as the ignorance of the priest, because he did not bind rightly, or the contempt of his binding; otherwise I do not believe one is bound again, unless conscience binds. And this will better appear below, when treatment is made of the halving of confession.

From these things the objections are sufficiently plain, and will better appear below in the twenty-first distinction. For the reasons which show that confession is not to be repeated proceed concerning that confession by which one has been legitimately confessed and absolved, as is plain, because otherwise they do not conclude. But the reasons to the opposite proceed concerning a confession about which there was some defect, either on the part of the one *absolving*, or on the part of the one *absolved*, which can be of a necessary condition; and then it is necessary to confess again, either the whole, or a part, according to the quality of the defect. But if there be a defect of an expedient and congruous condition; then the repetition is of congruity, not of necessity, as when forgetfulness, or even relapse, intervenes. And so all that is plain.