C. What has Been Articulated Further about the Precept of Confession by Precept of the Church

72. About the third article [nn.17, 21] I say that the Church has specified this precept as to some of the things aforesaid and has not specified it as to others. The chief specification of this precept is found in Gregory IX, Decretals V tit.38 ch.12 [“Let all the faithful of both sexes, when they have come to years of discretion, faithfully confess alone all their sins to their proper priest at least once a year.. .receiving reverently at least at Easter the sacrament of the Eucharist, unless perhaps on the advice of their own priest they judge that for some reasonable cause they should for a time abstain from this sort of receiving.”]

73. As to the ‘who’ the Church has specified that it is the adult sinner “after he has come to years of discretion etc.,” which is nothing other than the adult according to the understanding assigned before [n.58].

74. As to the ‘what’, sinner and adult: some say [Richard of Middleton, Sent. IV d.17 princ.2 q.4, d.16 princ.5 q.1] that if he have mortal sins he is bound to the confession precisely of them and not of venial sins; but if he have only venial sins, he is in that case, because of the precept of the Church, bound to the confession of them.

75. This I do not understand, because since in the chapter is said “all their sins,” the distribution of ‘all’ to cover venial sins is either made there or it is not. If it is, then he who has mortal sins is bound by virtue of this precept to confession of venial sins; if it is not, then he who does not have mortal sins but only venial ones is not bound to confession of them, because venial sins simply do not fall under the “all their sins” that is there stated. Hence, when positing the same understanding for the words “all their sins”, it seems a contradiction to say that this person is obliged to confess venial sins and this one not.

76. Again, suppose someone has lived without mortal sin up to the middle of Lent. If he were then to confess so as to keep the precept of the Church, he would, for you, be bound to confess venial sins, because he only has those ones. Let him on that day sin mortally. If he want to fulfill the precept of the Church about confession, he is, for you, not bound to confess the venial sins he had before; therefore by commission of a mortal sin he is absolved from that obligation, which seems irrational.

77. I say, therefore, that, as far as I grasp it from the general statutes of the Church, no one is bound to confession of venial sins in any case at all. Nor has the Church made the precept about confession specific on this point; and reasonably, because the Church uses the sacrament of penitence as the second plank after shipwreck, which there is no need of in the case of venial sins.

78. Nor is anyone bound to any contrition for venial sins; nay rather, someone dying in an actual will or act of venial sin will be saved. Nor does it seem that anyone is bound to the second part of contrition (which is confession) as to a sin as to which he is not bound to have contrition or attrition. This is plain too from something else, that (as was said above, [d.14, nn.149-150]) venial sins are sometimes deleted as to guilt and penalty without any special work, as by some fervent act of contemplation of God - just as a drop of water is at once consumed by a strong flame.

79. If you ask how then will a priest know the face of his flock if he who says he has lived innocently is not bound to confess his venial sins? - I reply: if confession were made to the priest and only venial sins were confessed, how would the priest know that the penitent had not done any sins save venial ones only? From nothing save from his confession. Hence Gregory IX Decretals I tit.31 ch.6 [actually from Henry of Ghent, Quodlibet VII q.24], “Someone confessing penitentially is to be believed in everything, because it is not likely that anyone not be mindful of their own salvation.” Therefore if in the same way the priest believe him who comes to him and says, “Sir, I give thanks to God that from when I last confessed I am not conscious of any mortal sin; give me the Eucharist,” the priest has in this penitence only as much knowledge of the face of his flock as if the penitent had narrated his venial sins for two days. Nor could the priest have any certitude about the penitent’s proper venial sins other than he has now about his innocence, namely through his proper testimony.

80. Therefore the Church does not specify the precept about the ‘what’.

81. But as to the ‘to whom’, the Church seems to specify this by saying: ‘to the proper priest’. For there do not seem, from the Church’s first institution, to have been distinct proper priests. For, when the Apostles were going here and there preaching the word of God, this Apostle was then priest of one person, now of another, and now this Apostle was and then that one was; but afterwards are dioceses and parishes and priests in parishes distinct. However, for that time, those can be said to be proper priests who have ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, or only those who having ordinary distinction in contrast to the delegated ones, or rather only those who have immediate and proximate ordinary jurisdiction.

82. According to these understandings, there can be disputes today between delegates and ordinaries about the understanding of this chapter [n.72], if indeed proximate and inferior ordinaries do not dispute against superiors in order to be themselves alone, and no others, the proper ones (for curates do not dare to resist bishops as easily as to resist the privileged poor).

But if the force of the word ‘proper priest’ is considered, namely he alone and no other, or proper to this person and not to another - in neither way is anyone obliged to confess to his proper priest, because if many are equally in charge of some parishioner, each absolves equally; also the same priest absolves equally many parishioners; therefore the word is understood of someone having jurisdiction for immediate absolution of him.

83. And the precept on this point is not made specific because it was about ‘to whom’ in general, namely to a priest having jurisdiction. And if anyone could delegate to one person the immediate jurisdiction that another ordinarily has (which they themselves do not deny the Pope can do), then according to this understanding a delegate can become proper. Therefore the ‘to the proper priest’ does not specify the ‘to whom’ as this is included in the first precept, unless it be said that in the primitive Church any priest had jurisdiction over any penitent, and that now individual penitents are made determinate as subjects to individual priests. And at that time any priest was proper to anyone at all, in this way namely, because possessing ordinary jurisdiction over anyone; but not proper as proper is now, that is as determinate to him or his parish. But this properness bestows no special power on a proper priest that this priest would not have had but only limits some (people) to some (pirests).

84. If, however, you ask whether, by the force of the first precept and the explication of it, that it is licit, as far as this article ‘to whom’ is concerned, to confess to a layman (the Master seems to say yes to this in the text, and he sets down authorities on his side [Lombard, Sent. IV d.17 ch.4 nn.3-8; also Gratian, Decretum p.2 cause 33 q.3, d.6 ch.1; see n.35 supra ]) - I reply: such a confession can be a matter for shame, which is one penalty due to sin, and when confessing in this way he does pay a penalty that he would be paying if here were to confess to a priest. But if accusation is made by precept for this purpose, and not for any purpose other than that a sentence may follow (and a layman has no authority for passing sentence in that forum), it follows that there is no precept about accusing oneself to a layman. And perhaps it would be more useful not to accuse oneself before him, if one could have equal shame before oneself thinking over the same sins, and thus be equally punished.

85. Someone might say that it is necessary not to confess to a layman, because no one should defame himself nor betray his secret sin, especially when he to whom he betrays it is not presumed to be a keeper of a secret; nor can he better advise him than he can advise himself. For perhaps for getting advice it would be licit for someone to reveal his sin to a more discreet layman.

86. But this is not clear, because advice could be sought by positing the case about someone universally, without revelation of his own sin.

87. What then about condemned malefactors confessing to laymen?

I reply: their simplicity excuses them, nor in this do they sin; and their humility is meritorious for them to the extent they want to supply, as they can, that which belongs to the sacrament of penitence. But for a discreet man, who would well know what confession was instituted for, it would neither perhaps be useful nor, without chance??, necessary to make such a confession.

88. The Church has as to ‘when’ determined the precept, namely ‘once in a year’; and this ‘once’ seems to be at least around Easter, at which time, according to the chapter [n.72], every Christian ought to receive communion, “unless^”

89. If you say that this specification is a relaxation, because they were bound before [sc. the time of the Apostles, n.81] to confess as soon as they had the opportunity for a confessor, but now [sc. since Gregory IX, n.72] they are not bound until Lent - I reply: both points are a source of doubt for some people; certain of them [William of Auvergne, William of Auxerre] saying that both then and now, as soon as one has opportunity of a confessor, one has obligation to confess; certain of them [Richard of Middleton, Bonaventure] saying that neither at that time [was their obligation] but only to intend to confess at some time before death, nor now, but to have in one’s intention to confess, save once in a year [sc. when one must have more than intention and actually confess]. The second [sc. the situation now] seems of greater weight, because ‘penal precepts are not to be amplified but restricted’ [Boniface VIII, Decretals book Six, V tit. 42, reg.15]. And when the affirmative precept binds or obligates is not found save as to ‘sometime’, and the ‘when’, before the specification of the Church, was indeterminate to any ‘when’ before death; after the specification it was indeterminate as to any single ‘when’ in a year. However, it is necessary to have the will to confess at the time when the precept obligates [sc. before death then and during Lent now] - I mean this simply in this way, that one is never unwilling.