II. To the Initial Arguments

90. To the first one [n.3] it can be said that the sacrament of penitence was not instituted at the time of Peter’s denial, but after the resurrection when Christ said to his disciples, “Receive the Holy Spirit etc.” [John 20.22]. And so Peter was at that time not bound to confession. Nor was he bound to it after the institution of the sacrament, because his sin was destroyed already before the resurrection by another remedy.

91. And reply can in a similar way be made about the unfaithfulness of all the disciples during the passion of Christ, that they were themselves not bound to confession because they repented after the resurrection before the institution of the sacrament of penitence. This well confirms that confession was not in the law of nature nor in the Mosaic Law.

92. But as to the words of Ambrose, “Tears wash away etc.” [n.3], these are not to be so understood that without confession in act or habit transgression is washed away; but contrition can be so great that in it even before confession is the transgression washed away, which transgression, however, is so grave because subsequent confession of it is shameful.

93. To the authorities from Cassiodorus and Augustine on the verse of the Psalm, “I said, I will confess” [nn.4-5; 6-7], I say that this confession has purpose or promise of confession to follow, and thus sin is not deleted without purpose of confessing. This is plain from the end of the authority from Cassiodorus, where he adds, “the wish is judged for the deed,” as if he were to say that the intention, that is, the will to make confession, is judged as the future confession. Nor does it follow from this that the sin is deleted as to due penalty without future confession, because this confession is one penalty and if it is not paid here, though yet there be a will to pay it, it will be paid elsewhere. But if there is no will to pay it, one is already turning back from true penitence and is sinning mortally, as was said above [Ord. IV d.4 nn.128-129] about someone baptized with the baptism of desire who afterwards disdains baptism of water.

94. To the first argument [n.8] I say that all the ceremonies both of the Old Law and of the New are reduced to some precept of the Decalogue, and can be reduced to the precept “Here, O Israel, the Lord your God is one God” [Deuteronomy 6.4, Mark 12.29], or to the verse, “Remember the Sabbath Day to keep it holy” [Exodus 20.8]. For whether we say it is through the first or through the second commandment that God has commanded that he is to be honored as God, it follows that these ceremonies, by which he wishes to be worshipped, fall under the relevant precept as a conclusion under premises.

95. If you argue against this that then these ceremonies would belong to the law of nature because the precept under which they are said to fall belongs to the law of nature -I say that from the major about the law of nature and the minor about the positive law there follows only a conclusion of positive law. The major is this, ‘God is to be worshipped,’ and this belongs to the law of nature, or is at any rate very consonant with the law of nature. The minor is ‘thus to worship him belongs merely to positive law’, for it varies for different times. The conclusion, ‘therefore God is to be thus worshipped’, belongs merely to the positive law, because a conclusion always follows the condition of the more imperfect premise.

96. To the next [n.9], it is said [Aquinas, Sent. IV d.17 q.3 a.4 ad 2] that such a person should confess through an interpreter, or through some signs, other than words, which can be known to a priest.

97. The second [‘through some signs, other than words’] is to be conceded well enough, if any such signs be common to the dumb or barbarian penitent and to the priest. But the first [‘through an interpreter’] does not seem necessary, because this forum [of confession] by its nature is very secret; therefore no one is bound to this forum that is in any way public. But although the interpreter wish and be bound as the priest is, yet he and the priest, if they want to be malicious, can be witnesses against the accused, and thus the accusation, from the nature of the accusation,Sc. the accusation any penitent makes against himself in confession which, in this case, is communicated though a third party, the interpreter, who can now function as joint witness with the priest against the accused. ⁵⁶ can come to public notice, and so it is not penitential.

98. From this it is plain that confession is necessarily not to be made to several priests together so that they may make a better judgment; because if this be done it is not a sacramental confession. But most of all does it seem that confession should not be made through an interpreter when there is fear that no secret place is suitable. And in such a case this [penitent] has no possibility of confessing to a suitable man. Let him therefore confess to God, with purpose of confessing to a man when opportunity is offered.

99. As to the next [n.10], it seems that sometimes confession is to be made in writing, as is read of [Theodore] the Bishop of Canterbury who, for absolution, sent it to the Curia [Poenitentiale I chs.4 n.5].

100. But this seems to be against the idea of confession, because all writing is naturally of the sort to be public by its very nature. For however much someone may keep secretly with himself what he has written, yet from when he sends it, whether by messenger or by him to whom it is sent, it can be made public, and it is of its nature always wide open, saying what is contained in it to any reader of it.

101. Anyone, then, who writes something does, in this respect, what is contrary to the nature of a sign suitable in confession. And in a piece of writing shame is taken way, which is a great penalty, and this unless the one confessing is present at the same time that the confession through writing is made. And therefore what is said in Gratian, Decretum, with Glosses, p.2 cause 30 q.5 ch.4, that someone can confess through writing, is given the exposition ‘when the one who confesses is present, because he cannot do it licitly when absent’, by Jerome [actually Ps.-Augustine, On True and False Penitence ch.10 n.26; in Lombard, Sent. IV d.17 ch.3 n.4]. Therefore, let him who is absent wait until he is present (having the intention to confess when there is opportunity).

102. To the final one [n.11] I say that someone innocent of mortal and venial sin is simply bound not to confess; hence if the Blessed Virgin had confessed to Blessed Peter after the Ascension, she, by confessing, would have sinned. But if one is innocent only of mortal sin and not of venial, one can confess venial sins, and not confess them, as was said in the third article about ‘what’ [nn.71-80]. Nor is it incredible that there are many in the Church of this sort who for a whole year live without mortal sin; indeed, by the grace of God, many keep themselves without mortal sin for a long time and perform many works of perfection, of whose merits the treasury of the Church is composed.