Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum confessio liberet aliquo modo a poena Whether confession delivers from punishment in some way? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod confessio non liberet aliquo modo a poena. Quia peccato non debetur nisi poena aeterna, vel temporalis. Sed poena aeterna per contritionem dimittitur, poena autem temporalis per satisfactionem. Ergo per confessionem nihil dimittitur de poena. Objection 1: It would seem that confession in no way delivers from punishment. For sin deserves no punishment but what is either eternal or temporal. Now eternal punishment is remitted by contrition, and temporal punishment by satisfaction. Therefore, nothing of the punishment is remitted by confession. Praeterea, voluntas pro facto reputatur: ut in littera dicitur. Sed ille qui contritus est, habuit propositum confitendi. Ergo tantum valuit sibi sicut si fuisset confessus. Et ita per confessionem quam postea facit, nihil de poena dimittitur. Obj. 2: Further, the will is taken for the deed (Cf. Decretals), as stated in the text (Sentences IV, D. 17). Now he that is contrite has the intention to confess. Hence his intention avails him as though he had already confessed, and so the confession which he makes afterwards remits no part of the punishment. Sed contra, confessio poenam habet. Sed per omnia opera poenalia expiatur poena peccato debita. Ergo et per confessionem. On the contrary, Confession is a penal work. But all penal works expiate the punishment due to sin. Therefore, confession does also. Respondeo dicendum quod confessio, simul cum absolutione, habet vim liberandi a poena dupliciter. Uno modo, ex ipsa vi absolutionis. Et sic quidem liberat, in voto existens, a poena aeterna, sicut etiam a culpa: quae quidem poena est condemnans et ex toto exterminans. A qua homo liberatus, adhuc manet obligatus ad poenam temporalem, secundum quod poena est medicina purgans et promovens. Et haec poena restat in purgatorio patienda etiam his qui a poena inferni liberati sunt. Quae quidem poena est improportionata viribus poenitentis in hoc mundo viventis: sed per vim clavium in tantum minuitur quod proportionata viribus poenitentis remanet, ita quod satisfaciendo se in hac vita purgare potest. I answer that, Confession together with absolution has the power to deliver from punishment for two reasons. First, from the power of absolution itself: and thus the very desire of absolution delivers a man from eternal punishment, as also from the guilt. Now this punishment is one of condemnation and total banishment, and when a man is delivered from that he still remains bound to a temporal punishment, insofar as punishment is a cleansing and perfecting remedy; and so this punishment remains to be suffered in purgatory even by those who have been delivered from the punishment of hell. Which temporal punishment is beyond the powers of the penitent dwelling in this world, but is so far diminished by the power of the keys that it is within the ability of the penitent, and he is able, by making satisfaction, to cleanse himself in this life. Alio modo diminuit poenam ex ipsa natura actus confitentis, qui habet poenam erubescentiae annexam. Et ideo quanto aliquis pluries de eisdem peccatis confitetur, tanto magis poena minuitur. Second, confession diminishes the punishment in virtue of the very nature of the act of the one who confesses, for this act has the punishment of shame attached to it, so that the more often one confesses the same sins, the more is the punishment diminished. Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum. This suffices for the reply to the first objection. Ad secundum dicendum quod voluntas pro facto non reputatur in his quae sunt ab alio, sicut est de baptismo: non enim tantum valet voluntas suscipiendi baptismum sicut ipsius susceptio. Sed reputatur voluntas pro facto in his quae sunt omnino ab homine. Et iterum quantum ad praemium essentiale: non autem quantum ad poenae remotionem et huiusmodi, respectu quorum attenditur meritum accidentaliter et secundario. Et ideo confessus et absolutus minus in purgatorio punietur quam contritus tantum. Reply Obj. 2: The will is not taken for the deed, if this is done by another, as in the case of baptism: for the will to receive baptism is not worth as much as the reception of baptism. But a man’s will is taken for the deed when the latter is something done by him entirely. Again, this is true of the essential reward, but not of the removal of punishment and the like, which come under the head of accidental and secondary reward. Consequently, one who has confessed and received absolution will be less punished in purgatory than one who has gone no further than contrition. Articulus 3 Article 3 Utrum confessio aperiat paradisum Whether confession opens paradise? Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod confessio non aperiat paradisum. Quia diversorum diversi sunt effectus. Sed apertio paradisi effectus est baptismi. Ergo non est effectus confessionis. Objection 1: It would seem that confession does not open paradise. For different sacraments have different effects. But it is the effect of baptism to open paradise. Therefore, it is not the effect of confession. Praeterea, in id quod clausum est, ante apertionem intrari non potest. Sed ante confessionem moriens paradisum intrare potest. Ergo confessio non aperit paradisum. Obj. 2: Further, it is impossible to enter by a closed door before it be opened. But a dying man can enter heaven before making his confession. Therefore, confession does not open paradise. Sed contra, confessio facit hominem subiici Clavibus Ecclesiae. Sed per eas aperitur paradisus. Ergo et per confessionem. On the contrary, Confession makes a man submit to the keys of the Church. But paradise is opened by those keys. Therefore, it is opened by confession. Respondeo dicendum quod a paradisi introitu prohibetur aliquis per culpam et reatum poenae. Et quia haec impedimenta confessio amovet, ut ex dictis patet, ideo dicitur paradisum aperire. I answer that, Guilt and the debt of punishment prevent a man from entering into paradise: and since confession removes these obstacles, as shown above (A. 1–2), it is said to open paradise. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, quamvis baptismus et poenitentia sint diversa sacramenta, tamen agunt in vi unius passionis Christi, per quam aditus paradisi est apertus. Reply Obj. 1: Although baptism and penance are different sacraments, they act in virtue of Christ’s one Passion, whereby a way was opened unto paradise. Ad secundum dicendum quod ante votum confessionis paradisus clausus erat peccanti mortaliter, quamvis postea per contritionem, votum confessionis importantem, apertus sit etiam ante confessionem actualiter factam. Non tamen obstaculum reatus est totaliter amotum ante confessionem et satisfactionem. Reply Obj. 2: If the dying man was in mortal sin, paradise was closed to him before he conceived the desire to confess his sin, although afterwards it was opened by contrition implying a desire for confession, even before he actually confessed. Nevertheless, the obstacle of the debt of punishment was not entirely removed before confession and satisfaction. Articulus 4 Article 4 Utrum effectus confessionis poni debeat quod tribuit spem salutis Whether confession gives hope of salvation? Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod effectus confessionis poni non debeat quod tribuit spem salutis. Quia spes ex omnibus meritoriis actibus provenit. Et sic non videtur esse proprius effectus confessionis. Objection 1: It would seem that hope of salvation should not be reckoned an effect of confession. For hope arises from all meritorious acts. Therefore, seemingly, it is not the proper effect of confession. Praeterea, per tribulationem ad spem pervenimus: ut patet Rom. 5. Sed tribulationem homo praecipue in satisfactione sustinet. Ergo tribuere spem salutis magis est satisfactionis quam confessionis. Obj. 2: Further, we arrive at hope through tribulation, as appears from Romans 5:3–4. Now man suffers tribulation chiefly in satisfaction. Therefore, satisfaction rather than confession gives hope of salvation. Sed contra, per confessionem homo fit humilior et mitior: sicut in littera Magister dicit. Sed per hoc homo accipit spem salutis. Ergo confessionis effectus est tribuere spem salutis. On the contrary, Confession makes a man more humble and more wary, as the Master states in the text (Sentences IV, D. 17). But the result of this is that man conceives a hope of salvation. Therefore, it is the effect of confession to give hope of salvation. Respondeo dicendum quod spes remissionis peccatorum non est nobis nisi per Christum. Et quia homo per confessionem se subiicit clavibus Ecclesiae ex passione Christi virtutem habentibus, ideo dicitur quod confessio spem salutis tribuit. I answer that, We can have no hope for the forgiveness of our sins except through Christ: and since by confession a man submits to the keys of the Church, which derive their power from Christ’s Passion, therefore do we say that confession gives hope of salvation. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex actibus non potest esse spes salutis principaliter, sed ex gratia Redemptoris. Et quia confessio gratiae Redemptoris innititur, ideo spem salutis tribuit, non solum ut actus meritorius, sed ut pars sacramenti. Reply Obj. 1: It is not our actions, but the grace of our Redeemer, that is the principal cause of the hope of salvation: and since confession relies upon the grace of our Redeemer, it gives hope of salvation not only as a meritorious act, but also as part of a sacrament. Ad secundum dicendum quod tribulatio spem salutis tribuit per experimentum propriae virtutis, et purgationem a poena: sed confessio etiam modo praedicto. Reply Obj. 2: Tribulation gives hope of salvation by making us exercise our own virtue, and by paying off the debt of punishment: while confession does so also in the way mentioned above. Articulus 5 Article 5 Utrum confessio generalis sufficiat ad delendum peccata mortalia oblita Whether a general confession suffices to blot out forgotten mortal sins? Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod confessio generalis non sufficiat ad delendum peccata mortalia oblita. Peccatum enim per confessionem deletum non est necesse iterum confiteri; si ergo peccata oblita per confessionem generalem dimitterentur, non esset necessarium quod, cum ad notitiam redeunt, aliquis ea confiteretur. Objection 1: It would seem that a general confession does not suffice to blot out forgotten mortal sins. For there is no necessity to confess again a sin which has been blotted out by confession. If, therefore, forgotten sins were forgiven by a general confession, there would be no need to confess them when they are called to mind. Praeterea, quicumque non est conscius alicuius peccati, vel non habet peccatum, vel est oblitus sui peccati. Si ergo per generalem confessionem peccata mortalia oblita dimittuntur, quicumque non est sibi conscius de aliquo peccato mortali, per generalem confessionem potest esse certus quod sit immunis a peccato mortali. Quod est contra Apostolum, I Cor. 4: nihil mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum. Obj. 2: Further, whoever is not conscious of sin either is not guilty of sin, or has forgotten his sin. If, therefore, mortal sins are forgiven by a general confession, whoever is not conscious of a mortal sin can be certain that he is free from mortal sin whenever he makes a general confession: which is contrary to what the Apostle says, I am not conscious to myself of anything, yet am I not hereby justified (1 Cor 4:4). Praeterea, nullus ex negligentia reportat commodum. Sed non potest esse sine negligentia quod aliquis peccatum mortale obliviscatur antequam ei dimittatur. Ergo non reportat ex hoc tale commodum quod sine speciali confessione de peccato ei dimittatur. Obj. 3: Further, no man profits by neglect. Now a man cannot forget a mortal sin before it is forgiven him without neglect. Therefore, he does not profit by his forgetfulness so that the sin is forgiven him without special mention of it in confession. Praeterea, magis est elongatum a cognitione confitentis illud quod est omnino ignoratum, quam illud cuius est oblitus. Sed peccata per ignorantiam commissa generalis confessio non delet: quia tunc haeretici, qui nesciunt aliqua peccata, in quibus sunt, esse peccata, aut etiam aliqui simplices per generalem confessionem absolverentur; quod falsum est. Ergo generalis confessio non tollit peccata oblita. Obj. 4: Further, that which the penitent knows nothing about is further from his knowledge than that which he has forgotten. Now a general confession does not blot out sins committed through ignorance, else heretics, who are not aware that certain things they have done are sinful, and certain simple people would be absolved by a general confession, which is false. Therefore, a general confession does not take away forgotten sins. Sed contra: Psalmus: accedite ad eum et illuminamini, et facies vestrae non confundentur. Sed iste qui confitetur omnia quae scit, accedit ad Deum quantum potest. Plus autem ab eo requiri non potest. Ergo non confunditur, ut repulsam patiatur, sed veniam consequitur. On the contrary, It is written: come to him and be enlightened, and your faces shall not be confounded (Ps 33:6). Now he who confesses all the sins of which he is conscious approaches to God as much as he can: nor can more be required of him. Therefore, he will not be confounded by being repelled, but will be forgiven. Praeterea, ille qui confitetur veniam consequitur nisi sit fictus. Sed ille qui confitetur omnia peccata quae in memoria habet, aliquorum oblitus, non ex hoc est fictus: quia ignorantiam facti patitur, quae a peccato excusat. Ergo veniam consequitur. Et sic peccata quae oblita sunt relaxantur: cum impium sit dimidiam sperare veniam. Further, He that confesses is pardoned unless he be insincere. But he who confesses all the sins that he calls to mind is not insincere through forgetting some, because he suffers from ignorance of fact, which excuses from sin. Therefore, he receives forgiveness, and then the sins which he has forgotten, are loosened, since it is wicked to hope for half a pardon (Sentences IV, Dist. 15). Respondeo dicendum quod confessio operatur praesupposita contritione, quae culpam delet. Et sic confessio directe ordinatur ad dimissionem poenae: quod quidem facit et ex erubescentia quam habet; et ex vi clavium, quibus se confitens subiicit. Contingit autem quandoque quod per contritionem praecedentem peccatum aliquod deletum est quoad culpam, sive in generali, si eius memoria tunc non habebatur, sive in speciali, et tamen ante confessionem aliquis illius peccati oblitus est. Et tunc confessio generalis sacramentalis operatur ad dimissionem poenae ex vi clavium, quibus se confitens subiicit nullum obstaculum, quantum in ipso est, ponens. Sed ex illa parte qua erubescentia confessionis peccati poenam minuebat, poena ipsius de quo quis specialiter coram sacerdote non erubuit, non est diminuta. I answer that, Confession produces its effect on the presupposition that there is contrition which blots out guilt: so that confession is directly ordained to the remission of punishment, which it causes in virtue of the shame which it includes, and by the power of the keys, to which a man submits by confessing. Now it happens sometimes that by previous contrition a sin has been blotted out as to the guilt, either in a general way (if it was not remembered at the time) or in particular (and yet is forgotten before confession), and then general sacramental confession works for the remission of the punishment in virtue of the keys, to which man submits by confessing, provided he offers no obstacle so far as he is concerned. Yet so far as the shame of confessing a sin diminishes its punishment, the punishment is not diminished for that man who does not express his shame for a sin before the priest. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in confessione sacramentali non solum requiritur absolutio, sed iudicium sacerdotis satisfactionem imponentis. Et ideo, quamvis iste absolutione sit functus, tamen tenetur confiteri ut suppleatur quod defuit sacramentali confessioni. Reply Obj. 1: In sacramental confession, not only is absolution required, but also the judgment of the priest who imposes satisfaction is awaited. Therefore, although the latter has given absolution, nevertheless the penitent is bound to confess in order to supply what was wanting to the sacramental confession. Ad secundum dicendum quod confessio non operatur, ut dictum est, nisi contritione praesupposita. De qua quando vera fuerit, non potest aliquis scire: sicut nec scire potest an gratiam habeat per certitudinem. Et ideo non potest scire utrum per confessionem generalem sit sibi peccatum oblitum dimissum per certitudinem: quamvis possit per coniecturas aliquas aestimare. Reply Obj. 2: As stated above, confession does not produce its effect, unless contrition be presupposed; concerning which no man can know whether it be true contrition, even as neither can one know for certain if he has grace. Consequently, a man cannot know for certain whether a forgotten sin has been forgiven him in a general confession, although he may think so on account of certain conjectural signs.