|
Objection 1: It would seem that a general confession does not
suffice to blot out forgotten mortal sins. For there is no necessity
to confess again a sin which has been blotted out by confession. If,
therefore, forgotten sins were forgiven by a general confession, there
would be no need to confess them when they are called to mind.
Objection 2: Further, whoever is not conscious of sin, either is
not guilty of sin, or has forgotten his sin. If, therefore, mortal
sins are forgiven by a general confession, whoever is not conscious of
a mortal sin, can be certain that he is free from mortal sin, whenever
he makes a general confession: which is contrary to what the Apostle
says (1 Cor. 4:4), "I am not conscious to myself of
anything, yet am I not hereby justified."
Objection 3: Further, no man profits by neglect. Now a man cannot
forget a mortal sin without neglect, before it is forgiven him.
Therefore he does not profit by his forgetfulness so that the sin is
forgiven him without special mention thereof in confession.
Objection 4: Further, that which the penitent knows nothing about
is further from his knowledge than that which he has forgotten. Now a
general confession does not blot out sins committed through ignorance,
else heretics, who are not aware that certain things they have done are
sinful, and certain simple people, would be absolved by a general
confession, which is false. Therefore a general confession does not
take away forgotten sins.
On the contrary, It is written (Ps. 33:6): "Come ye to
Him and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded."
Now he who confesses all the sins of which he is conscious, approaches
to God as much as he can: nor can more be required for him.
Therefore he will not be confounded by being repelled, but will be
forgiven.
Further, he that confesses is pardoned unless he be insincere. But
he who confesses all the sins that he calls to mind, is not insincere
through forgetting some, because he suffers from ignorance of fact,
which excuses from sin. Therefore he receives forgiveness, and then
the sins which he has forgotten, are loosened, since it is wicked to
hope for half a pardon.
I answer that, Confession produces its effect, on the presupposition
that there is contrition which blots out guilt: so that confession is
directly ordained to the remission of punishment, which it causes in
virtue of the shame which it includes, and by the power of the keys to
which a man submits by confessing. Now it happens sometimes that by
previous contrition a sin has been blotted out as to the guilt, either
in a general way (if it was not remembered at the time) or in
particular (and yet is forgotten before confession): and then general
sacramental confession works for the remission of the punishment in
virtue of the keys, to which man submits by confessing, provided he
offers no obstacle so far as he is concerned: but so far as the shame
of confessing a sin diminishes its punishment, the punishment for the
sin for which a man does not express his shame, through failing to
confess it to the priest, is not diminished.
Reply to Objection 1: In sacramental confession, not only is
absolution required, but also the judgment of the priest who imposes
satisfaction is awaited. Wherefore although the latter has given
absolution, nevertheless the penitent is bound to confess in order to
supply what was wanting to the sacramental confession.
Reply to Objection 2: As stated above, confession does not produce
its effect, unless contrition be presupposed; concerning which no man
can know whether it be true contrition, even as neither can one know
for certain if he has grace. Consequently a man cannot know for
certain whether a forgotten sin has been forgiven him in a general
confession, although he may think so on account of certain conjectural
signs.
Reply to Objection 3: He does not profit by his neglect, since he
does not receive such full pardon, as he would otherwise have
received, nor is his merit so great. Moreover he is bound to confess
the sin when he calls it to mind.
Reply to Objection 4: Ignorance of the law does not excuse,
because it is a sin by itself: but ignorance of fact does excuse.
Therefore if a man omits to confess a sin, because he does not know it
to be a sin, through ignorance of the Divine law, he is not excused
from insincerity. on the other hand, he would be excused, if he did
not know it to be a sin, through being unaware of some particular
circumstance, for instance, if he had knowledge of another's wife,
thinking her his own. Now forgetfulness of an act of sin comes under
the head of ignorance of fact, wherefore it excuses from the sin of
insincerity in confession, which is an obstacle to the fruit of
absolution and confession.
|
|