Chapter IV — On the obligation of confessing circumstances mortally aggravating within the same species. The doctrine of St. Thomas is vindicated

I. With a full pen I have treated this question in Vol. IX, Book 6, part 1, dissertation 4, chapter 4. In few words I shall here touch upon it. You steal one gold piece, or a hundred, or a thousand. The sin is within the same species of theft. But a theft of a thousand gold pieces is notably graver than a theft of one gold piece. Theologians dispute on either side whether penitents are bound to confess circumstances of this kind morally aggravating within the same species.

II. First of all the doctrine of St. Thomas is to be vindicated. The Salmanticenses Scholastici, most excellent maintainers of the doctrine of St. Thomas, object the following testimony from Book 4 of the Sentences, distinction 16, question 3, article 2: For some say that all circumstances which add some notable quantity to a sin are of necessity to be confessed, if they occur to the memory. But others say that they are not of necessity to be confessed, unless they be circumstances which draw to another genus of sin. And this is more probable. Here those illustrious theologians stop, and determine that St. Thomas stands on their side. But if the whole doctrine of the Angelic Doctor be regarded, I do not see whence the Salmanticenses can glory in his patronage in this cause. For thus St. Thomas straightway goes on: But it must be added, those which draw to another species of mortal sin. … OF WHICH THE REASON IS (N.B.) that venial sins are not of necessity of confession, BUT ONLY MORTAL, which have in a certain manner an infinite quantity: because circumstances which do not give another species to a sin, or which do indeed give one, BUT NOT OF MORTAL SIN, are not of necessity of confession; and yet to confess these belongs to the perfection of confession, as has been said of VENIAL SINS.

III. A threefold malice can lie in a circumstance: first, that which changes the species; second, that which increases the malice within the confines of venial sin; third, that which mortally increases the malice. St. Thomas in the testimony adduced teaches that circumstances which either do not change the species, or do not mortally increase the malice, are not necessarily to be confessed. For if it increase only venially, within the limits of venial sin, even notably, their confession is not necessary. For one venial sin is graver than another, as is plain in the theft of one farthing and of one chicken. These circumstances are not of necessity to be confessed, says the Angelic. For what do these words betray, which govern the whole doctrine of the article? OF WHICH THE REASON IS, that venial sins are not of necessity of confession, but only mortal, which have in a certain manner an infinite quantity. Our opponents cry out that St. Thomas expressly treats of circumstances which add some notable quantity. It is true that he teaches this at the beginning of the article; but these words, which bear an ambiguity as to whether St. Thomas is speaking of a notable quantity venial or mortal, the same holy Doctor forthwith in the course of the article expounds as to be understood of a notable venial quantity. THE REASON IS, because venial sins are not of necessity of confession. Tell me: is one venial sin given notably graver than another? All affirm it. By what daring therefore do you wrench this notable quantity by main force to the mortal, when the Angelic plainly asserts that he speaks of a notable venial addition? The reason is, because venial sins, and so forth. But that the mouths of our adversaries may be utterly stopped, these other words of the Angelic are to be recalled beneath the eyes: Aggravating circumstances which do not attribute another species to a sin, or which do indeed attribute one, BUT NOT OF MORTAL SIN, are not of necessity of confession. Of which the reason is, that we are not bound necessarily to confess venial sins. So decisive, so peremptory are these things that they leave no place for arguing and cavilling. If you desire more, consult Vol. IX, in the place cited.

IV. The doctrine of St. Thomas being briefly vindicated, I say that circumstances mortally aggravating within the same species are to be manifested in confession. I prove this opinion, which the graver theologians defend, by the authority of the Tridentine Catechism, which, part 2, chapter 5, § 43, teaches these things: “The circumstances of sins are to be laid open when a man confesses. But in confession that highest care and diligence is to be employed which we are wont to put forth in the gravest matters; and all study is to be conferred upon this, that we may heal the wounds of the soul and tear out the roots of sin. Nor is it enough only to explain grave sins by narrating them, but also those things which stand about each sin, and greatly increase or diminish its depravity. For certain circumstances are so grave that from them alone the character of a deadly sin is constituted. Wherefore all these things it behoves always to weigh. For if a man kill another, it must be explained whether that man was initiated in sacred things, or profane; and likewise if he lay with a woman, he must needs lay open whether she was free by the law of matrimony, or another's wife, or a kinswoman, or consecrated to God by the promise of some vow. For these constitute diverse kinds of sins: so that the first indeed is called by the Doctors of divine things simple fornication, the second adultery, the third incest, the fourth sacrilege. Theft also is to be numbered among sins. But if a man steal a gold coin, he sins altogether more lightly than he who steals a hundred, or two hundred, or some vast quantity of gold, and especially he who has carried off sacred money. The same account pertains also to place and to time, whose examples are better known from many books than that they should be enumerated by us. These things therefore, as we have said, ARE TO BE ENUMERATED. But those which do not greatly increase the depravity of the matter can be omitted without crime.”

V. As the Fathers of Trent, so the authors of the Catechism always followed the doctrine of St. Thomas, which you see here declared and confirmed. This doctrine the most learned Salmanticenses, to be looked up to by me under many titles, ought to have meditated.

VI. The Venerable Innocent XI condemned this thesis: We are not bound to confess to a confessor questioning us a habit of some sin. These two things — the right of questioning and the duty of manifesting — are so conjoined that the one cannot subsist without the other. Nay, the duty of manifesting precedes the right of questioning, as I have said. A habit of fornicating or of perjuring oneself does not change the species, but only aggravates the malice within the same species. The doctrine denying the duty of answering has been condemned. Therefore the doctrine denying the duty of manifesting an aggravating circumstance has been condemned.

VII. Our opinion is demonstrated by reason. He who knowingly keeps silence about an accession of mortal malice does not make a formally whole confession. He who steals a hundred gold coins, of which each constitutes the matter of a mortal theft, perpetrates a theft which is equivalent to a hundred deadly thefts. Therefore he who confesses only the grave matter, namely of one gold piece, keeps silence about ninety-nine mortal sins. By a single act of the will you covet ten persons specifically diverse in the genus of morals — suppose a mother, a daughter, a nun, a married woman, a virgin, a boy, and so forth. Does he make a formally whole confession who does not confess these persons morally diverse in species coveted by a single act? You deny it. Therefore he does not make a formally whole confession who by a single act perpetrated a hundred mortal thefts numerically distinct; or who by a single act coveted several persons distinct by moral number alone. I prove the consequence. You are equally bound to confess mortal sins distinct by number and by species, as all teach. Therefore a virtual numerical multiplication is equally to be confessed as a virtual specific multiplication. See more in the place cited.