|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is nol necessary to confess to
one's own priest. For Gregory [Can. Ex auctoritate xvi,
Question 1] says: "By our apostolic authority and in discharge of
our solicitude we have decreed that priests, who as monks imitate the
ex. ample of the apostles, may preach, baptize, give communion,
pray for sinners, impose penances, and absolve from sins." Now
monks are not the proper priests of anyone, since they have not the
care of souls. Since, therefore confession is made for the sake of
absolution it suffices for it to be made to any priest.
Objection 2: Further, the minister of this sacrament is a priest,
as also of the Eucharist. But any priest can perform the Eucharist.
Therefore any priest can administer the sacrament of Penance.
Therefore there is no need to confess to one's own priest.
Objection 3: Further, when we are bound to one thing in particular
it is not left to our choice. But the choice of a discreet priest is
left to us as appears from the authority of Augustine quoted in the
text (Sent. ix, D, 17): for he says in De vera et falsa
Poenitentia: "He who wishes to confess his sins, in order to find
grace, must seek a priest who knows how to loose and to bind."
Therefore it seems unnecessary to confess to one's own priest.
Objection 4: Further, there are some, such as prelates, who seem
to have no priest of their own, since they have no superior: yet they
are bound to confession. Therefore a man is not always bound to
confess to his own priest.
Objection 5: Further, "That which is instituted for the sake of
charity, does not militate against charity," as Bernard observes
(De Praecept. et Dispens. ii). Now confession, which was
instituted for the sake of charity, would militate against charity, if
a man were bound to confess to any particular priest: e.g. if the
sinner know that his own priest is a heretic, or a man of evil
influence, or weak and prone to the very sin that he wishes to confess
to him, or reasonably suspected of breaking the seal of confession, or
if the penitent has to confess a sin committed against his confessor.
Therefore it seems that one need not always confess to one's own
priest.
Objection 6: Further, men should not be straitened in matters
necessary for salvation, lest they be hindered in the way of
salvation. But it seems a great inconvenience to be bound of necessity
to confess to one particular man, and many might be hindered from going
to confession, through either fear, shame, or something else of the
kind. Therefore, since confession is necessary for salvation, men
should not be straitened, as apparently they would be, by having to
confess to their own priest.
On the contrary, stands a decree of Pope Innocent III in the
Fourth Lateran Council (Can. 21), who appointed "all of
either sex to confess once a year to their own priest."
Further, as a bishop is to his diocese, so is a priest to his
parish. Now it is unlawful, according to canon law (Can. Nullus
primas ix, Question 2; Can. Si quis episcoporum xvi, Question
5), for a bishop to exercise the episcopal office in another
diocese. Therefore it is not lawful for one priest to hear the
confession of another's parishioner.
I answer that, The other sacraments do not consist in an action of
the recipient, but only in his receiving something, as is evident with
regard to Baptism and so forth. though the action of the recipient is
required as removing an obstacle, i.e. insincerity, in order that he
may receive the benefit of the sacrament, if he has come to the use of
his free-will. On the other hand, the action of the man who
approaches the sacrament of Penance is essential to the sacrament,
since contrition, confession, and satisfaction, which are acts of the
penitent, are parts of Penance. Now our actions, since they have
their origin in us, cannot be dispensed by others, except through
their command. Hence whoever is appointed a dispenser of this
sacrament, must be such as to be able to command something to be done.
Now a man is not competent to command another unless he have
jurisdiction over him. Consequently it is essential to this
sacrament, not only for the minister to be in orders, as in the case
of the other sacraments, but also for him to have jurisdiction:
wherefore he that has no jurisdiction cannot administer this sacrament
any more than one who is not a priest. Therefore confession should be
made not only to a priest, but to one's own priest; for since a
priest does not absolve a man except by binding him to do something, he
alone can absolve, who, by his command, can bind the penitent to do
something.
Reply to Objection 1: Gregory is speaking of those monks who have
jurisdiction, through having charge of a parish; about whom some had
maintained that from the very fact that they were monks, they could not
absolve or impose penance, which is false.
Reply to Objection 2: The sacrament of the Eucharist does not
require the power of command over a man, whereas this sacrament does,
as stated above: and so the argument proves nothing. Nevertheless it
is not lawful to receive the Eucharist from another than one's own
priest, although it is a real sacrament that one receives from
another.
Reply to Objection 3: The choice of a discreet priest is not left
to us in such a way that we can do just as we like; but it is left to
the permission of a higher authority, if perchance one's own priest
happens to be less suitable for applying a salutary remedy to our sins.
Reply to Objection 4: Since it is the duty of prelates to dispense
the sacraments, which the clean alone should handle, they are allowed
by law (De Poenit. et Remiss., Cap. Ne pro dilatione) to
choose a priest for their confessor; who in this respect is the
prelate's superior; even as one physician is cured by another, not as
a physician but as a patient.
Reply to Objection 5: In those cases wherein the penitent has
reason to fear some harm to himself or to the priest by reason of his
confessing to him, he should have recourse to the higher authority, or
ask permission of the priest himself to confess to another; and if he
fails to obtain permission, the case is to be decided as for a man who
has no priest at hand; so that he should rather choose a layman and
confess to him. Nor does he disobey the law of the Church by so
doing, because the precepts of positive law do not extend beyond the
intention of the lawgiver, which is the end of the precept, and in
this case, is charity, according to the Apostle (1 Tim.
1:5). Nor is any slur cast on the priest, for he deserves to
forfeit his privilege, for abusing the power intrusted to him.
Reply to Objection 6: The necessity of confessing to one's own
priest does not straiten the way of salvation, but determines it
sufficiently. A priest, however, would sin if he were not easy in
giving permission to confess to another, because many are so weak that
they would rather die without confession than confess to such a priest.
Wherefore those priests who are too anxious to probe the consciences of
their subjects by means of confession, lay a snare of damnation for
many, and consequently for themselves.
|
|