Second, it demands something impossible.
Second, it demands something impossible.
§ 105. (II) Anything which obligates the truly and earnestly repentant to do something impossible must not be imposed upon them as necessary for salvation. The specific enumeration of sins obligates the truly and earnestly repentant to do something impossible. Therefore it must not be imposed upon them as necessary for the forgiveness of sins and salvation. The truth of the major premise is clear, for the question here does not concern rebellious and secure sinners, whom God’s Law must terrify as it reproves and condemns sin. Rather, this concerns anxious and contrite consciences who earnestly acknowledge and deplore their sins and who wholeheartedly desire to be reconciled to God. From which of these two should a specific enumeration of sins be demanded? Next, the question is not whether it is useful to the truly repentant to enumerate some sins before the priest specifically, especially those which disturb the conscience, but rather whether a specific enumeration of sins should be imposed as necessary for their forgiveness and for salvation. Finally, the word “impose” pertains to the human statute which demands such an enumeration of sins from the repentant, even though there is no clear command about this from God. The minor premise is also clear, since “a righteous person falls seven times a day” (Prov. 24:16); Job “was afraid of all his works” (Job 9:28); David complained: “Who understands his errors?” (Ps. 19:[12]); the reborn must pray every day: “Forgive us our debts” (Matt. 6:12). B. Rhenanus (on Tertullian’s De poenit., p. 545): “The overly subtle Scholastics created a private confession of such a sort that the serious and holy theologian often bore witness that it was impossible according to their traditions.”
Bellarmine counters (De poenit., bk. 3, chs. 17, 21): “An enumeration of absolutely all sins is not demanded, but only of those which come up after a diligent search of the memory, such as is required in the confession that one makes to God. We ourselves do not deny that this is necessary.” The Council of Trent (session 14, c. 5) restricts this to mortal sins. “From this” (the fathers of the Council of Trent say) “it is concluded that in confession the penitent must enumerate all the mortal sins of which they have consciousness after a diligent search.”
We respond. Why, then, does he elsewhere speak generally? He says (De poenit., bk. 3, ch. 9): “Priests cannot enjoin an act which befits repentance unless they have an accurate knowledge of all sins.” Ibid.: “It is necessary that all sins, one by one, be uncovered to the priests.”
Here an examination must be made as to what sins the Romanists require to be confessed. But we are sending the darkness of earlier times in front of the rising of the light of the Gospel, in which times, it is certain, very many held to the opinion that an enumeration of all sins simply and absolutely is necessary, for from this came the common expression: “Not confessed, not forgiven” [Non confessum, non remissum]. For this reason some returned immediately after receiving absolution and again confessed sins whose memory they could [now] recall. Luther tells of a doctor who would whisper some sins into the ear of the priest right during the use of the holy Eucharist.
We shall see what the Scholastic and Papist writers argue about this matter. Bonaventure extends the statute of the pope Et omnis utriusque sexus also to venial sins. Maldonatus (Summ., q. 18, art. 4) writes that many Scholastics follow that opinion. Others claim that if one has mortal sins, he satisfies this statute by confessing his mortal sins in such a way that he is not bound to confess his venial sins. However, if he has committed no mortal sins, he is bound to confess his venial sins once each year. Thomas recites this opinion (Sent., 4, dist. 17), and Richard is quite in agreement (ibid.). The contrary is held by Scotus, Durandus, and Paludensis (Sent., 4, dist. 17, q. 2, art. 4), who claim that a person who has only venial sins is not bound to sacramental confession. Biel proves this with the following argument: No one is bound to make confession of sins if he is not bound to their contrition. But contrition over venial sins is unnecessary. The Council of Trent wanted to end these battles when it restricted this precept of confession to mortal sins alone. But Bellarmine preferred to speak generally, that a confession of those things which occur after a diligent search of the memory must be made, so that he might signify that venial sins must be confessed if mortal sins do not come to mind. Catech. Roman. (part 2, ch. 2, De sacram. poenit., qq. 40–41):
In confession, care must be taken so that the enumeration of each and every mortal sin is complete and absolute even though they may hide in very secret places and may be of the type which only the last two commandments of the Decalogue forbid. If a person omits some of these sins which must be enumerated, not only does such a person receive no advantage from the confession, but also he is binding himself by a new sin. For not only the act of the sins but also the circumstances, especially those which aggravate the sin and which draw a person into another type of mortal sin, must be stated clearly so that the satisfaction to be imposed might be commensurate with the gravity of the fault.
Suarez (vol. 1, Disp. 22, § 2): “Some actions change the species. We must confess actions of this type as mortal by the same divine precept. Some do not change the species. Among these, some increase and aggravate sin; others diminish it. In confession it is necessary to state those which significantly aggravate sin, and there are seven of those: first, who; second, what; third, why; fourth, how; fifth, with what help; sixth, where; seventh, when.”
In addition they demand a due and lawful diligence in this examination of the conscience. If you ask what diligence is required, Scotus answers: “As much as someone would devote to seek out something very difficult which was in his heart.” From all this it is clear that they are claiming that a specific enumeration of all mortal sins which occur after a diligent search of the conscience, along with all the circumstances, must be made before a priest. In regard to this opinion we wish the following [to be noted]. (1) It proceeds from the false hypothesis that some sins are venial by their very nature, even though all sins, even the tiniest, are of themselves and by their nature mortal, just as we have shown in its own place [On Actual Sins (Commonplace XIII), §§ 90–101].
(2) No precept of this universality can be cited determinately from the writings of the prophets and apostles. Rather, it is quite clear that Christ and the apostles were content with a general enumeration of sins.
(3) The confession which Bellarmine requires is a torment of consciences. On account of it they are indeed always forced to be in doubt as to whether they have applied due and worthy care in examining their conscience, whether they have searched out the recesses of their heart diligently enough, whether they could have known and enumerated more sins, whether they omitted some circumstances which changed the species of their sin or aggravated it.
(4) If some sins, unknown and not enumerated, are forgiven to the repentant (for instance, those which do not occur to the memory after a careful search of it), the consequence is that a specific enumeration of sins is not simply and absolutely necessary, because before God there is an equal reckoning of those which are known and enumerated and those which are unknown and not enumerated. Both are done contrary to God’s Law, both offend God, both have earned temporal and eternal punishments. Maldonatus (Summ., q. 18, art. 8): “It must be confessed that one purpose [of confession] is to bind people, lest they themselves become judges as to whether they have sinned and whether it is mortal or venial, since they are often ignorant. Therefore they must learn to set out whatever they have done before the priest so that he may judge whether or not they have sinned. More properly, the purpose of confession is so that sinners may obtain the forgiveness of sins by the power of the Keys.” (From this we conclude that if one must expose his sins to the priest in such a way that the priest can judge which are mortal and which are venial sins, then he will have to expose all actions and all thoughts which are able to put on the nature of a mortal sin. Thus if sins must be exposed to be forgiven, he also will have to expose venial sins; either that, or these do not need forgiveness.)
(5) This “determinate” (so to speak) universality of confession is not demanded nor undertaken for a due purpose—namely, so that the penitent receive consolation against the sins which particularly disturb and oppress the conscience—but rather so that they may merit, just by working the work [ex opere operato], the forgiveness of sins and “by this temporal and very brief confession may gain freedom from enormous consternation on Judgment Day,” as Bellarmine says (De poenit., 3, ch. 12).
(6) The nature of the confession which is made to God and that which is made to the priest are quite disparate. The former has an express mandate and promise, but the latter lacks both. God is a knower and searcher of hearts and reins [1 Chron. 28:9; Ps. 139:23; Jer. 17:10]. His eyes are brighter than the sun; from them nothing is hidden. He once brought all secret things out into the light. Thus a daily confession of sins must be made to Him earnestly and sincerely. Nevertheless the free promise of the forgiveness of sins from God for Christ’s sake does not depend on some merit of our confession, nor does it demand a specific enumeration of all sins such that the promise can have no place without it. Rather, this comes to those who are truly contrite and believe in Christ from grace alone. Nevertheless it is useful to investigate the individual precepts of divine Law and the sins committed against them specifically so that true contrition of the heart and humbling may increase in us and that the evangelical promise may become sweeter.