Dist. 21, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1
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/21/q/bon-sent-IV-d21-p2-a1-q1
----------------------------------------
### Article I. *On confession as to its manner.*
### Question I. *Whether it is licit to omit any sin in confession.*

As to the first, it is shown that it is not licit to leave out [anything] of the things to be confessed.

1. *First,* by the authority of Augustine in the book *On Penance*: «Let him beware, lest, led by shame, he divide his confession within himself, so as to wish to manifest different things to different [confessors]; which is to praise oneself and to tend toward hypocrisy and to be always without pardon, to which he hopes to arrive piecemeal».

2. Likewise, it is shown thus *by reason.* Confession is ordered to the knowledge of sin; but he never recognizes the sickness sufficiently who knows only one sin, since a man is sick with many [sins], as is clear in [the case of] medicines: therefore he does not sufficiently uncover the sin who does not tell to one priest all the sins which he has committed.

3. Likewise, confession is for the accusation of the sinner; but when the sinner accuses himself of three sins and has done ten, by this very fact he pretends to the priest that he has sinned only thrice; but this is manifest falsehood and hypocrisy: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, confession is made for the sake of absolution, and the absolution of the priest is a sign of divine absolution; but God never absolves from one fault without absolving from every mortal fault: therefore the absolution of the priest is either nothing, or is from every fault. But a sinner does not merit to be absolved by the priest who conceals a sin from him: therefore there is no absolution, unless he confess to one priest all the [sins] from which he needs to be absolved.

**On the contrary:** 1. All priests hold the place of one, namely Christ: therefore it is the same to confess to several as to confess to one: therefore it is worth as much, if the sinner confesses all things separately to several, as if he confessed all to one.

2. Likewise, confession was instituted as a remedy, therefore it ought not to be done unto scandal; but it is possible that a penitent confess to his own priest some sin which will scandalize him, as, for instance, if a kinswoman of the priest were his adulteress: therefore it seems that he can reserve this sin and tell the others, and thus halve his confession.

3. Likewise, someone confessed ten to one [priest] and committed twelve, and having forgotten two, afterward recalls [them], not having access to a priest; this man was legitimately confessed of the ten: therefore, if he ought not to be punished twice for the same thing, it now suffices to confess the two: therefore it seems that confession can be halved.

4. Likewise, it suffices if one confesses to his own priest that from which he can absolve; but it is possible that someone has a case, or a sin, from which none but a superior can absolve: therefore it suffices that he confess the lesser [sins] to one, and confess that [reserved] sin to the greater: therefore it seems that confession can be halved.

### Conclusion.

> It is necessary to confess to one [priest], not indeed all venial [sins], but all mortal [sins], of which the penitent is mindful, and of which he has not been otherwise legitimately confessed.

**I respond:** It must be said that in venial [sins] there is no force [of obligation]; for just as it is not necessary to confess them, so it is not necessary to confess them at once and all together entirely. But concerning mortal [sins] it is said that it is necessary to confess all to one priest, all, I say, of which he is mindful and of which he has not been otherwise legitimately confessed. And hence I call [a man] *legitimately confessed,* when nothing has intervened which would render the priest's absolution void; which [can happen] in four cases, and two are on the part of the absolver: one, if he does not know; the other, if he cannot; the one against the key of knowledge, the other against the key of power. Two on the part of the one confessing: one, if he confesses feignedly; the other, if after confession, despising the satisfaction, he forgets it. — But if he has been legitimately confessed, he need not repeat [it] except in general; but if not, it is necessary that he tell all; for the reason that the priest absolves from every fault, or there is no absolution; but no priest intends to absolve a penitent from that which he conceals from him: to this end therefore, that the confession be entire, it is necessary that he tell to one priest all the things which he has at once in his conscience, of which he is bound to confess; otherwise, as Augustine expressly says, the confession is proved feigned.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that all priests hold the place of one, namely Christ; it must be said that it is true; but they hold the place of one in such a way that not all at once, but each by himself; and therefore, he who wishes to confess to a priest as to Christ, if he confesses rightly, it is necessary that he tell all to one; for if he conceals anything from one, although he tell it to another, as far as in him lies, he has concealed it from the Mediator, and so from Christ.

2. To that which is objected concerning the scandal of the priest, it must be said that where scandal is feared, the confession is not to be halved, but leave is to be sought; and if it is not given, the superior is to be approached, or another who has his authority. For in such a case to seek leave is to obtain [it].

3. To that which is objected concerning the one who committed twelve, but having forgotten was confessed of ten; it must be said that it would be sound counsel that he tell the whole, as was touched on in the foregoing; nevertheless I believe that he is not bound to tell [it] except in general, unless perchance one of the aforesaid cases had intervened. For to say otherwise is to take away from many the way of confession and salvation, since many sometimes confess some enormous sin which thereafter they would scarcely tell to another priest. Nor do the authorities of the Saints compel [one] to say this, since this is not

to divide the confession. For the first was entire, and the second likewise, since it is not necessary that this man have a new remorse nor a new absolution concerning the others. — Similarly it is to be judged concerning the relapsed [sinner].

4. To that which is objected concerning recourse to a superior, it must be said that either he has recourse for the sake of absolution from *guilt,* or from *penalty* on account of excommunication, or irregularity. If for the sake of absolution from *penalty* or a penal bond; it suffices that he confess that alone. If for the sake of absolution from *guilt;* if the superior does not remit [him] to his own confessor, it is sound counsel — if he has no excusing cause except only shamefacedness or a false opinion — that he tell him all the things of which he has remorse and receive for all those a general absolution and penance. But if he has some probable excuse, by reason of which he prefers to confess to another; he is bound to reveal the whole to the inferior [priest], both that sin which he confessed to the superior, and all the rest; and thus the confession will not be divided, and that one [priest] will thereafter be able to absolve from all: since, if some sins are reserved to the absolution of superiors, in which the lesser priests do not share with them; this was done rather on account of the assessing of the penalty, which the superior ought wisely to inflict or enjoin for such a sin rather than for another; and therefore, if he has confessed such a fault and undertaken the penalty for it from the superior; he can confess it entirely with the others to an inferior, and that one [can] absolve him from every fault, in such wise only, that he perform the penance enjoined on him by the superior. — And if you object that this man who approaches the superior and confesses only one [sin] or two, the others being kept silent, seems to be a hypocrite and to praise himself; it must be said that it is true, if he were to imply that he was confessing to him in general; for then it would seem that he had no other crimes. But while he shows that he came specially for that one [sin] and has another confessor for the lesser [sins], and the superior accepts this; there is no deception there, although to tell the whole is a greater perfection.