|
Objection 1: It would seem that one is bound to confess at once.
For Hugh of St. Victor says (De Sacram. ii): "The contempt
of confession is inexcusable, unless there be an urgent reason for
delay." But everyone is bound to avoid contempt. Therefore everyone
is bound to confess as soon as possible.
Objection 2: Further, everyone is bound to do more to avoid
spiritual disease than to avoid bodily disease. Now if a man who is
sick in body were to delay sending for the physician, it would be
detrimental to his health. Therefore it seems that it must needs be
detrimental to a man's health if he omits to confess immediately to a
priest if there be one at hand.
Objection 3: Further, that which is due always, is due at once.
But man owes confession to God always. Therefore he is bound to
confess at once.
On the contrary, A fixed time both for confession and for receiving
the Eucharist is determined by the Decretals (Cap. Omnis utriusque
sexus: De Poenit. et Remiss.). Now a man does not sin by
failing to receive the Eucharist before the fixed time. Therefore he
does not sin if he does not confess before that time.
Further, it is a mortal sin to omit doing what a commandment bids us
to do. If therefore a man is bound to confess at once, and omits to
do so, with a priest at hand, he would commit a mortal sin; and in
like manner at any other time, and so on, so that he would fall into
many mortal sins for the delay in confessing one, which seems
unreasonable.
I answer that, As the purpose of confessing is united to contrition,
a man is bound to have this purpose when he is bound to have
contrition, viz. when he calls his sins to mind, and chiefly when he
is in danger of death, or when he is so circumstanced that unless his
sin be forgiven, he must fall into another sin: for instance, if a
priest be bound to say Mass, and a confessor is at hand, he is bound
to confess or, if there be no confessor, he is bound at least to
contrition and to have the purpose of confessing.
But to actual confession a man is bound in two ways. First,
accidentally, viz. when he is bound to do something which he cannot do
without committing a mortal sin, unless he go to confession first: for
then he is bound to confess; for instance, if he has to receive the
Eucharist, to which no one can approach, after committing a mortal
sin, without confessing first, if a priest be at hand, and there be
no urgent necessity. Hence it is that the Church obliges all to
confess once a year; because she commands all to receive Holy
Communion once a year, viz. at Easter, wherefore all must go to
confession before that time.
Secondly, a man is bound absolutely to go to confession; and here the
same reason applies to delay of confession as to delay of Baptism,
because both are necessary sacraments. Now a man is not bound to
receive Baptism as soon as he makes up his mind to be baptized; and so
he would not sin mortally, if he were not baptized at once: nor is
there any fixed time beyond which, if he defer Baptism, he would
incur a mortal sin. Nevertheless the delay of Baptism may amount to a
mortal sin, or it may not, and this depends on the cause of the
delay, since, as the Philosopher says (Phys. viii, text.
15), the will does not defer doing what it wills to do, except for
a reasonable cause. Wherefore if the cause of the delay of Baptism
has a mortal sin connected with it, e.g. if a man put off being
baptized through contempt, or some like motive, the delay will be a
mortal sin, but otherwise not: and the same seems to apply to
confession which is not more necessary than Baptism. Moreover, since
man is bound to fulfill in this life those things that are necessary for
salvation, therefore, if he be in danger of death, he is bound, even
absolutely, then and there to make his confession or to receive
Baptism. For this reason too, James proclaimed at the same time the
commandment about making confession and that about receiving Extreme
Unction (James 5:14,16). Therefore the opinion seems
probable of those who say that a man is not bound to confess at once,
though it is dangerous to delay.
Others, however, say that a contrite man is bound to confess at
once, as soon as he has a reasonable and proper opportunity. Nor does
it matter that the Decretal fixes the time limit to an annual
confession, because the Church does not favor delay, but forbids the
neglect involved in a further delay. Wherefore by this Decretal the
man who delays is excused, not from sin in the tribunal of conscience;
but from punishment in the tribunal of the Church; so that such a
person would not be deprived of proper burial if he were to die before
that time. But this seems too severe, because affirmative precepts
bind, not at once, but at a fixed time; and this, not because it is
most convenient to fulfill them then (for in that case if a man were
not to give alms of his superfluous goods, whenever he met with a man
in need, he would commit a mortal sin, which is false), but because
the time involves urgency. Consequently, if he does not confess at
the very first opportunity, it does not follow that he commits a mortal
sin, even though he does not await a better opportunity. unless it
becomes urgent for him to confess through being in danger of death.
Nor is it on account of the Church's indulgence that he is not bound
to confess at once, but on account of the nature of an affirmative
precept, so that before the commandment was made, there was still less
obligation.
Others again say that secular persons are not bound to confess before
Lent, which is the time of penance for them; but that religious are
bound to confess at once, because, for them, all time is a time for
penance. But this is not to the point; for religious have no
obligations besides those of other men, with the exception of such as
they are bound to by vow.
Reply to Objection 1: Hugh is speaking of those who die without
this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 2: It is not necessary for bodily health that
the physician be sent for at once, except when there is necessity for
being healed: and the same applies to spiritual disease.
Reply to Objection 3: The retaining of another's property against
the owner's will is contrary to a negative precept, which binds always
and for always, and therefore one is always bound to make immediate
restitution. It is not the same with the fulfillment of an affirmative
precept, which binds always, but not for always, wherefore one is not
bound to fulfill it at once.
|
|