|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not necessary for confession
to be entire, namely, for a man to confess all his sins to one
priest. For shame conduces to the diminution of punishment. Now the
greater the number of priests to whom a man confesses, the greater his
shame. Therefore confession is more fruitful if it be divided among
several priests.
Objection 2: Further, confession is necessary in Penance in order
that punishment may be enjoined for sin according to the judgment of the
priest. Now a sufficient punishment for different sins can be imposed
by different priests. Therefore it is not necessary to confess all
one's sins to one priest.
Objection 3: Further, it may happen that a man after going to
confession and performing his penance, remembers a mortal sin, which
escaped his memory while confessing, and that his own priest to whom he
confessed first is no longer available, so that he can only confess
that sin to another priest, and thus he will confess different sins to
different priests.
Objection 4: Further, the sole reason for confessing one's sins to
a priest is in order to receive absolution. Now sometimes, the priest
who hears a confession can absolve from some of the sins, but not from
all. Therefore in such a case at all events the confession need not be
entire.
On the contrary, Hypocrisy is an obstacle to Penance. But it
savors of hypocrisy to divide one's confession, as Augustine says
[De vera et falsa Poenitentia]. Therefore confession should be
entire. Further, confession is a part of Penance. But Penance
should be entire. Therefore confession also should be entire.
I answer that, In prescribing medicine for the body, the physician
should know not only the disease for which he is prescribing, but also
the general constitution of the sick person, since one disease is
aggravated by the addition of another, and a medicine which would be
adapted to one disease, would be harmful to another. The same is to
be said in regard to sins, for one is aggravated when another is added
to it; and a remedy which would be suitable for one sin, might prove
an incentive to another, since sometimes a man is guilty of contrary
sins, as Gregory says (Pastoral. iii, 3). Hence it is
necessary for confession that man confess all the sins that he calls to
mind, and if he fails to do this, it is not a confession, but a
pretense of confession.
Reply to Objection 1: Although a man's shame is multiplied when he
makes a divided confession to different confessors, yet all his
different shames together are not so great as that with which he
confesses all his sins together: because one sin considered by itself
does not prove the evil disposition of the sinner, as when it is
considered in conjunction with several others, for a man may fall into
one sin through ignorance or weakness, but a number of sins proves the
malice of the sinner, or his great corruption.
Reply to Objection 2: The punishment imposed by different priests
would not be sufficient, because each would only consider one sin by
itself, and not the gravity which it derives from being in conjunction
with another. Moreover sometimes the punishment which would be given
for one sin would foster another. Again the priest in hearing a
confession takes the place of God, so that confession should be made
to him just as contrition is made to God: wherefore as there would be
no contrition unless one were contrite for all the sins which one calls
to mind, so is there no confession unless one confess all the sins that
one remembers committing.
Reply to Objection 3: Some say that when a man remembers a sin
which he had previously forgotten, he ought to confess again the sins
which he had confessed before, especially if he cannot go to the same
priest to whom his previous confession was made, in order that the
total quantity of his sins may be made known to one priest. But this
does not seem necessary, because sin takes its quantity both from
itself and from the conjunction of another; and as to the sins which he
confessed he had already manifested their quantity which they have of
themselves, while as to the sin which he had forgotten, in order that
the priest may know the quantity which it has under both the above
heads, it is enough that the penitent declare it explicitly, and
confess the others in general, saying that he had confessed many sins
in his previous confession, but had forgotten this particular one.
Reply to Objection 4: Although the priest may be unable to absolve
the penitent from all his sins, yet the latter is bound to confess all
to him, that he may know the total quantity of his guilt, and refer
him to the superior with regard to the sins from which he cannot absolve
him.
|
|