|
Objection 1: It would seem that it is not lawful for anyone to
confess to another than his own priest, even in virtue of a privilege
or command given by a superior. For no privilege should be given that
wrongs a third party. Now it would be prejudicial to the subject's
own priest, if he were to confess to another. Therefore this cannot
be allowed by a superior's privilege, permission, or command.
Objection 2: Further, that which hinders the observance of a
Divine command cannot be the subject of a command or privilege given by
man. Now it is a Divine command to the rectors of churches to "know
the countenance of their own cattle" (Prov. 27:23); and this
is hindered if another than the rector hear the confession of his
subjects. Therefore this cannot be prescribed by any human privilege
or command.
Objection 3: Further, he that hears another's confession is the
latter's own judge, else he could not bind or loose him. Now one man
cannot have several priests or judges of his own, for then he would be
bound to obey several men, which would be impossible, if their
commands were contrary or incompatible. Therefore one may not confess
to another than one's own priest, even with the superior's
permission.
Objection 4: Further, it is derogatory to a sacrament, or at least
useless, to repeat a sacrament over the same matter. But he who has
confessed to another priest, is bound to confess again to his own
priest, if the latter requires him to do so, because he is not
absolved from his obedience, whereby he is bound to him in this
respect. Therefore it cannot be lawful for anyone to confess to
another than his own priest.
On the contrary, He that can perform the actions of an order can
depute the exercise thereof to anyone who has the same order. Now a
superior, such as a bishop, can hear the confession of anyone
belonging to a priest's parish, for sometimes he reserves certain
cases to himself, since he is the chief rector. Therefore he can also
depute another priest to hear that man.
Further, a superior can do whatever his subject can do. But the
priest himself can give his parishioner permission to confess to
another. Much more, therefore, can his superior do this.
Further, the power which a priest has among his people, comes to him
from the bishop. Now it is through that power that he can hear
confessions. Therefore, in like manner, another can do so, to whom
the bishop gives the same power.
I answer that, A priest may be hindered in two ways from hearing a
man's confession: first, through lack of jurisdiction; secondly,
through being prevented from exercising his order, as those who are
excommunicate, degraded, and so forth. Now whoever has
jurisdiction, can depute to another whatever comes under his
jurisdiction; so that if a priest is hindered from hearing a man's
confession through want of jurisdiction, anyone who has immediate
jurisdiction over that man, priest, bishop, or Pope, can depute
that priest to hear his confession and absolve him. If, on the other
hand, the priest cannot hear the confession, on account of an
impediment to the exercise of his order, anyone who has the power to
remove that impediment can permit him to hear confessions.
Reply to Objection 1: No wrong is done to a person unless what is
taken away from him was granted for his own benefit. Now the power of
jurisdiction is not granted a man for his own benefit, but for the good
of the people and for the glory of God. Wherefore if the higher
prelates deem it expedient for the furthering of the people's salvation
and God's glory, to commit matters of jurisdiction to others, no
wrong is done to the inferior prelates, except to those who "seek the
things that are their own; not the things that are Jesus Christ's"
(Phil. 2:21), and who rule their flock, not by feeding it,
but by feeding on it.
Reply to Objection 2: The rector of a church should "know the
countenance of his own cattle" in two ways. First, by an assiduous
attention to their external conduct, so as to watch over the flock
committed to his care: and in acquiring this knowledge he should not
believe his subject, but, as far as possible, inquire into the truth
of facts. Secondly, by the manifestation of confession; and with
regard to this knowledge, he cannot arrive at any greater certainty
than by believing his subject, because this is necessary that he may
help his subject's conscience. Consequently in the tribunal of
confession, the penitent is believed whether he speak for himself or
against himself, but not in the court of external judgment: wherefore
it suffices for this knowledge that he believe the penitent when he says
that he has confessed to one who could absolve him. It is therefore
clear that this knowledge of the flock is not hindered by a privilege
granted to another to hear confessions.
Reply to Objection 3: It would be inconvenient, if two men were
placed equally over the same people, but there is no inconvenience if
over the same people two are placed one of whom is over the other. In
this way the parish priest, the bishop, and the Pope are placed
immediately over the same people, and each of them can commit matters
of jurisdiction to some other. Now a higher superior delegates a man
in two ways: first, so that the latter takes the superior's place,
as when the Pope or a bishop appoints his penitentiaries; and then the
man thus delegated is higher than the inferior prelate, as the Pope's
penitentiary is higher than a bishop, and the bishop's penitentiary
than a parish priest, and the penitent is bound to obey the former
rather than the latter. Secondly, so that the delegate is appointed
the coadjutor of this other priest; and since a co-adjutor is
subordinate to the person he is appointed to help, he holds a lower
rank, and the penitent is not so bound to obey him as his own priest.
Reply to Objection 4: No man is bound to confess sins that he has
no longer. Consequently, if a man has confessed to the bishop's
penitentiary, or to someone else having faculties from the bishop, his
sins are forgiven both before the Church and before God, so that he
is not bound to confess them to his own priest, however much the latter
may insist: but on account of the Ecclesiastical precept (De
Poenit. et Remiss., Cap. Omnis utriusque) which prescribes
confession to be made once a year to one's own priest, he is under the
same obligation as one who has committed none but venial sins. For
such a one, according to some, is bound to confess none but venial
sins, or he must declare that he is free from mortal sin, and the
priest, in the tribunal of conscience, ought, and is bound, to
believe him. If, however, he were bound to confess again, his first
confession would not be useless, because the more priests one confesses
to, the more is the punishment remitted, both by reason of the shame
in confessing, which is reckoned as a satisfactory punishment, and by
reason of the power of the keys: so that one might confess so often as
to be delivered from all punishment. Nor is repetition derogatory to a
sacrament, except in those wherein there is some kind of
sanctification, either by the impressing of a character, or by the
consecration of the matter, neither of which applies to Penance.
Hence it would be well for him who hears confessions by the bishop's
authority, to advise the penitent to confess to his own priest, yet he
must absolve him, even if he declines to do so.
|
|