3. Scotus’ own Response

107. I say, therefore that, as in other cases of exchange commutative justice possesses some latitude such that it has regard not to some indivisible point in an exchange but to the mean of right reason, so punitive justice, which is a certain exchange of penalty for guilt, does not necessarily have regard to an indivisible degree of penalty corresponding to the guilt, but there is some latitude below which a lesser penalty does not suffice and beyond which a greater penalty is not to be imposed. And a key that, outside that whole latitude, binds below or beyond it, is in error; and then not undeservedly is what it looses on earth not loosed in heaven, that is, not ratified. But a key within that latitude is not in error. And therefore the judgment is ratified to the extent that, it is necessary to fulfill whatever is imposed within that latitude. And if it not be fulfilled, what is left over will be exacted in purgatory. And if less be imposed and be fulfilled, nothing more will be exacted in purgatory.

108. Now this middle within that latitude is possible for a man to know by the Law of God with the assistance of natural reason. And therefore obligation to this broad latitude is obligation to what is possible for a man without special miracle and without chance and fortune.

109. But is the penitent bound to fulfill the penalty imposed by a non-erring key?

I say that he is, if he will to submit himself to this priest both as to absolution of guilt and as to receiving or paying the corresponding temporal penalty; for he is then obligated to precept of the Church, to which he has voluntarily submitted himself.

110. But if he only wish to submit himself to this priest as to change of eternal penalty to temporal, and not as to the appraisal of the temporal penalty, but as concerns that, and the appraisal of it, he wants to submit himself to the hand of God either here or in purgatory - it would not be expedient to repulse such a one without absolution; for perhaps he would go away desperate.

111. Nor does it seem that he is in mortal sin because of this will, if he be contrite about the sin and wish to be punished for it (with a deserving penalty) by him to whom it justly belongs to inflict the penalty, though he not wish it to be inflicted on him by this priest, nor wish himself to accept it so as to make this priest the minister of the inflicting of it.

112. And it cannot be said that this penitent is disobedient to the Church, because he can submit himself to the decision of the Church as concerns the penitential judgment to which he is bound to submit himself, but he does not wish to submit himself to the judgment that follows. And it is plain that the judgment that follows is not necessarily included in the first one, because a priest, however uniform the first judgment is, considerably varies the following one. Hence frequently too, because of the will of the one confessing to undergo a great penalty, he gives him a moderate penalty telling him he must pay the rest in purgatory; and although that little penalty be manifestly disproportionate (outside the latitude) to the fault, not for this reason does such a one not receive the sacrament of penitence.

113. In the same way it seems that a priest could impose no penalty at all on him because of his resistance to receive it, telling him that he must pay the whole penalty in purgatory. And Augustine hints at this [Ps.-Augustine, On True and False Penitence ch.10 n.25], that if some displeasing penitence is imposed on someone who can scarcely be made inclined toward it, one must be afraid that he will take occasion therefrom to fall back into mortal sin, because taking occasion to throw the penitence away, wherein he will sin mortally after refusing to submit himself to the priest in the receiving of it.

114. But suppose that the key of science is in error but not the key of power, is the judgment not ratified in heaven?

I reply: the key of science errs when the things that belong to the judgment are not well inquired into or examined, as that if some empty circumstances are inquired into that neither aggravate nor alleviate the deed but are pleasing to the prurient ears of the confessor, and if no inquiry is made into the attrition of the one confessing but the priest only listens to him as if he were narrating a single story. In the first case, indeed, although something be done that was not to be done, however provided nothing be omitted that was to be done, as that, along with circumstances being required that did not need to be required, those are required that did need to be required, then a correct judgment can follow; but in the second case, with the requiring of what displeases the one confessing omitted, a right judgment cannot follow save by chance.

115. In brief, therefore, I say that if the key of science err by pursuing things not necessary to the case or that are illicit, the confessor sins; but if he dismisses nothing of what is necessary for cognizance of the case, he can judge rightly. But if the key of science err by omitting something that is necessary to the cognizance of the case, the priest both sins and cannot judge rightly save by chance, and especially about the attrition of the one confessing.

116. But if the penitent show himself sorry although however he is not, he is in pretense and is departing from true penitence, and with a new sin. And the key of science does not err, but the penitent himself is wandering into his own peril. And then the judgment of the priest is ratified in heaven, for he did what it was his to do, because, as a man, he could only see the heart through external signs. But it is not ratified as concerns the one who receives it, because he is not capable of it in the way he shows himself capable of it.

117. But suppose that, when something necessary has been omitted from the case, the confessor brings in a right sentence - I say that it will be ratified as concerns the one who receives it (provided he is not in pretense), such that it will be sufficient for him to fulfill the penalty. And in this way must distinctions be drawn, that sometimes a judgment is ratified on both sides, both that of the priest and that of the recipient; and sometimes on the part of the latter and not the former; and sometimes on the part of the former and not the latter.