Chapter III — On the obligation of confessing the circumstances of sins

I. That is called a circumstance which accidentally stands about a human act, which takes its species from an object either good or evil. One circumstance is physical, as if a man kill another with a dagger, with poison, with a firearm; another moral, which in the genus of morals changes the species, or adds a new species of malice, as if a man kill his father, a religious, and so forth. For besides homicide there is added the crime of parricide, of sacrilege, and so forth. There is an obligation of confessing circumstances not physical but moral, which change the species, as all confess. Seven circumstances are enumerated, contained in this verse:

Who, what, where, by what helps, why, how, and when.

II. The circumstance who betrays the state, qualities, and profession of the penitent, as if he be a cleric, a priest, a monk, married, bound by a vow, an advocate, a judge, a father of a family, and so forth.

III. QUESTION I. What is to be said of the opinion denying the duty of confessing circumstances changing the species, when the sinner does not doubt of them? ANSWER. Fr. George Gobat, tract 7, no. 524, says: “The malice of a circumstance changing the species is not contracted, and therefore is not to be confessed, unless the penitent, when he was committing the sin, at least DOUBTED whether such a circumstance were present or not, and whether on account of it a peculiar sin were not contracted. So indeed the COMMON SENSE OF THEOLOGIANS. Use, my good man, this rule frequently, especially in receiving the confessions of the rude, and namely when the circumstance is known to the vulgar of the Doctors alone.”

IV. What vulgar of the Doctors is that? Sinners commit adultery, fornicate, or perpetrate incest, having their soul absorbed with the delight of the outrage, and think of nothing else besides the circumstance changing the species. Is no one therefore bound to confess circumstances changing the species, unless the penitent, says Fr. Gobat, at least doubted when he was committing the sin? That after the deed committed with his sister, with another's wife, with a virgin consecrated to God, he should know the duty of manifesting a circumstance specifically diverse, matters nothing. He must, when he sins, at least doubt, in order to be bound to confess. Use, my good man, this rule frequently. Beware, all confessors, I subjoin, of this false rule.

V. QUESTION II. Is a religious initiated in sacred Orders bound to explain the circumstance of the solemn vow? ANSWER. The Salmanticenses, Diana, Malfesius, Castropalao, and Antony of the Holy Ghost deny it. But other grave theologians affirm it, whose opinion is true. He who sins with a novice, male or female, in the year of probation is bound to confess this circumstance, whatever some say to the contrary. Since although they have not emitted a vow, they are nevertheless first-fruits, victims destined to be immolated to God in sacrifice. To violate these hosts and victims pleasing to God bears before the common sense an enormous deformity. A bride and bridegroom knowing one another carnally, or knowing themselves with others, ought according to the more probable opinion to manifest this circumstance.

VI. A virgin who spontaneously fornicates for the first time ought to lay open this circumstance: because this virgin inflicts a peculiar injury, as upon her parents, so upon God, from whom she received the gift of virginity, when she squanders such virginity.

VII. QUESTION III. Is a confessor who sins with a penitent bound to confess it? ANSWER. The discourse is not of a confessor soliciting, but of a confessor absolutely sinning with a penitent. Some deny it, as the Salmanticenses relate. But other grave theologians affirm it, whose opinion is true. What? A confessor is a judge, a teacher, and a physician. He becomes a wolf devouring the sheep; and is this not to be manifested in confession? Our opinion is favoured by the reservation made to themselves by bishops in various dioceses concerning an act, or an attempt, toward base things with a spiritual daughter.

VIII. If a bishop or a prelate of a Religion fornicate, commit adultery, get drunk, and so forth, he is bound to explain the circumstance, on account of the grave scandal which he brings at least to his accomplice, whatever some say to the contrary. Similarly governors of a city, judges, rectors, and the like, who by office are bound to hinder thefts and crimes of injustice, if they themselves steal, are not bound, as some say, to manifest this circumstance, although they ought to lay open the omission by which they did not hinder others' thefts. But this opinion is to me false. For they are bound to confess this circumstance. Similarly false to me is the opinion teaching that a priest striking a layman with shedding of blood is not bound in confession to manifest that he is a priest. For a priest by reason of his dignity perpetrates a malice distinct from the malice of simple striking. A eunuch, or a frigid fornicator, is bound to explain the circumstance of impotence for natural copulation, because he perpetrates a sin against nature.

IX. QUESTION IV. What is to be said of the opinion of those denying the duty of confessing a habit of sinning? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 968, answers that, speaking of itself, such a habit is not to be laid open; and for this opinion he cites Suárez, Vásquez, Reginald, and Lupus. The same opinion the Salmanticenses defend, and cite Diana and Castropalao. This is the reason which Fr. La Croix assigns: “No one, speaking of itself, is bound to confess the same sin twice. But past sins, by which the habit was caused, have been confessed heretofore, as is supposed; and the present sin is not aggravated but rather diminished BY REASON OF THE PRECEDING HABIT, which in some manner diminishes liberty. Therefore it is not necessary to make mention of past sins, or of the habit.”

X. Fr. Dominic Viva in his Course of Theology, Vol. II, part 6, question 5, no. 2: “Although a penitent be bound to answer a confessor questioning him concerning a habit of sin, since the opposite opinion was condemned by Innocent XI … nevertheless, speaking of itself, a habit of this kind is not to be laid open.”

XI. Speaking of itself, this doctrine is false and condemned, contained in proposition 58 condemned by Innocent XI. Speaking of itself, is a sick man not bound to lay open to his physician the state, the habit, and the length of his bodily infirmity? If crowds, if husbandmen, if plebeian men themselves and minds not learned in the academies but rude, polished by the light of nature alone, were to read doctrines of this kind, they would suffer grave scandal. What? Is sin diminished by an inveterate habit? Do obstinate, hardened, and inveterate sinners therefore sin less than those who sin once or twice? A habit, you say, diminishes liberty. What of this? This diminution is voluntary. The sinners themselves freely fabricate their own fetters. All the Fathers affirm that those who sin from habit sin from a depraved malice. Here the diminution of liberty in those who from habit perjure themselves, blaspheme, and fornicate is consequent, not antecedent, as the true theologians teach with St. Thomas, I-II, q. 78, art. 2, and question 76, article 4, reply 1. It aggravates therefore, and does not diminish, the malice of the sin.

XII. I prove that the described doctrine of Frs. La Croix, Viva, de Lugo, and others is contained in this condemned thesis 58: We are not bound to confess to a confessor questioning us a habit of some sin. A confessor can by right question only concerning those sins which a penitent is bound to manifest. Therefore if a confessor can by right question concerning a habit of sinning, a penitent is bound to manifest it. What to this? He ought to manifest it, reply the casuists, if he be questioned, but otherwise if the confessor keep silence. A vain cavil. The duty of manifesting precedes the right of questioning. For unless there were in the penitent a duty of manifesting, the confessor could not question; since he can question only concerning those things which the penitent is bound to lay open. But, reasonings being dismissed, let the common sense of all Christians be consulted, who, being sincerely contrite, first of all set forth the state, the habit, and the custom of sinning. Scarcely would the recounted doctrine have come into the mind of any Christian, had not the casuists devised it. Hence gather how true it is that which I have more often indicated, namely that by one arbitrary little distinction the theses condemned by the Church are eluded, and the most clear testimonies of holy Scripture itself.

XIII. QUESTION V. What is to be said of sins perpetrated from habit? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix proposes this question, namely whether sins which from a morally evil habit are afterwards done inadvertently are to be confessed. He answers, Book 2, part 1: “If we suppose that when those things are done there is present no advertence at all to the malice, such things will have no new malice, as is established from what is said in Book 5, question 2, no. 16 and following; and consequently, since these things are not sins of themselves, nor externally complete any internal sin, but are only effects of sin according to what is said at no. 974, there is no obligation of confessing them. … Which is true according to many with Dicastillo, although that habit be not retracted.”

XIV. When therefore Christians blaspheme, perjure themselves, and desire to commit adultery from a habit not retracted and morally evil, if there be present no advertence, are these crimes not to be confessed? Why? Because they are not new sins. Therefore the precepts of not perjuring oneself, of not blaspheming, of not desiring another's wife are impossible to those who sin from a habit not retracted. Therefore you defend Jansenism. Concerning this opinion let the wise judge.

XV. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion of Fr. Tamburini saying that the degrees of consanguinity of a sin perpetrated with a mother, or with a cousin, are not to be manifested? ANSWER. Fr. Tamburini, Book 2, Method of Confession, chapter 7, § 7, no. 48, writes these things: “I say it is probable, from St. Thomas, II-II, q. 16, art. 9, and Cajetan in the same place, that consanguinity does not differ in species from affinity, nor one degree of these from the others. So Filliucci, saying that it is the opinion of St. Thomas, Cajetan, Soto, and almost the Thomists; Gregory; Megala — both in Diana. Whence, although without doubt it be graver to offend against one degree, for example against the first with a mother, than against another, for example with a cousin, nevertheless because the species is not changed, I think that these are not specially to be manifested in confession.”

XVI. Scarcely is it possible to find any one of the rustics or idiots who, if he lay with his mother or with his sister, would not conceive a horrid malice, and would not be exceedingly ashamed to manifest so great a crime. And does Fr. Tamburini with Fr. Filliucci exempt Christians guilty of so great a crime from the obligation of laying open so enormous a circumstance? Will it be enough for these to say, I have committed incest, without declaring whether with a mother or with a sister? There is no need that I should refute this false opinion at greater length. Let the wise judge. Most injuriously is this opinion here fastened upon St. Thomas, as will presently be plain.