Fourth, it is a torment to consciences.
Fourth, it is a torment to consciences.
§ 107. (IV) “Papist confession not only leads to constant doubt, but it is also a wretched torment to consciences.” B. Rhenanus (preface to Tertullian’s book De poenit., p. 545) writes:
Johann Geiler was a serious and revered theologian, a man endowed with great experience in matters. As a young man, I attended the funeral rites for his parents when he was already old. He was familiarly involved with quite holy monks, with the Carthusians, whom he used to visit very frequently, with the Franciscans of the stricter institution, by whom he was frequently visited from abroad. From these monks he learned of the torments with which the devout minds of some people were afflicted due to the confession which they were unable to satisfy, as it seemed to them. Members of religious orders used to bring similar complaints to him, and so he was moved to publish a booklet in German called Von dem Beichtweh, that is, On the Grief of Confession. Those who are bound by this grief deny that there is anything sadder. There was a Carthusian who thought his confession was always incomplete because of an inexplicable power of circumstances. He used to argue [with this Carthusian] in vain that it was completely perfect, and [the fellow] had come to such a point of wretchedness that he was despairing of all salvation and was considering voluntary starvation. It pleased him that people of this type were comforted by the booklet. Jean Gerson, a devout and sincere theologian, had done something of this sort now and again in his writings, etc. Thus confession did not displease Geiler, but rather the anxiety and unhappiness of some people, which some of the more recent theologians teach in their little Summaries [Summulae]. These have a place more justly elsewhere than in libraries. There is too much art in handing on a method concerning some subject on which you yourself are not properly experienced, etc.
Those are the words of Rhenanus.
Tauler also wanted to resist the same evil (Concio 68, fol. 169):
I counsel you, I admonish you, I beg you, that you learn to confess all your transgressions to God inwardly and purely and that you learn to admit your guilt to Him completely; that with great sorrow you consider your transgressions before Him as great; that you not put your hope in long-winded outward confession nor chatter a great deal about your daily faults where no great progress is involved. Learn not to use up the father confessor’s time nor to cause him distress and disgust. You do not diminish your offenses by so much speaking. As I noted more fully above, the confessors have no power over your transgressions. So turn to yourself with your own confessing, because this external recitation without what is internal produces little improvement, etc.
Here should be placed the various controversies over confession which throw the mind of both the confessing person and the priest into difficulties that cannot be solved and into constant doubts. They list sixteen conditions of legitimate confession, which Richard (Sent., 4, dist. 17, art. 3, final question) includes in these verses:
Let confession be simple, humble, pure, faithful,
And frequent, bare, discreet, willing, truthful,
Complete, secret, tearful, soon,
Strong and accusing, ready to obey.
Various questions arise from this. Are the aforementioned conditions all about the necessity of confession? Is the naming of a person with whom one has sinned necessary for the confession of the sin?
** (Georgius Cassander, Consult. August. confess., p. 109: “If a sick person is unable to speak because of weakness, let him give some sign of true confession by which to signify that he has sinned and seeks absolution. Soto, Ledisma, Canus, and Navarrus contend tenaciously that he cannot be absolved. In this way unskilled and unfit physicians infect and contaminate the salutary medicine of confession with many useless traditions. They set snares for and torment as if with tortures the very consciences which they ought to be freeing and uplifting.”) **
Is it required for confession that one make it on bended knee, with head uncovered, and things of that sort? Are those who confess due to vainglory or some other evil purpose sinning mortally? Is he who confesses a sin he has not committed sinning mortally?
Is it necessary to repeat a confession once it has been made? Here they assign several cases in which the confessing person is bound to confess the same sins again: (1) When he confesses to a person who cannot absolve him. (2) When he confesses knowingly to one who can neither bind nor loose. (3) When someone does not fully confess all mortal sins about which he has not confessed legitimately to one confessor, even if he confesses to different confessors, but knowingly keeps silent either about some mortal sin, doubting whether it is a mortal sin, or about something else which is necessary for confession, as, for instance, the circumstance which changes the species of a sin of this type either in its truthfulness or in some other respect. (4) When someone forgets the penance enjoined or disdains doing it. (5) When someone confesses without the due contrition or sorrow that is sufficient to receive grace along with the sacrament, such as in the will to sin, or he confesses out of an evil intent, or he does not want to make the satisfaction to which he is obligated, or anything of this sort. (6) When someone goes back to the same sin. (7) When someone confesses a sin of which his confessor could not absolve him. (8) On account of the recollection of a forgotten sin. (9) When someone commits a mortal sin before completing his penance. (10) When someone confesses that he has been excommunicated.
They also ask: Should confession be made in obscure words? What should be decided about a person who confesses to a priest who is asleep or who does not understand him? What circumstances of sins must be expressed of necessity? What should be said about the person who confesses only so that it may not become known to the public? Does one who divides his confession satisfy the requirements? Should manifest sins be confessed? Are venial sins to be confessed?
Is a person to confess immediately after committing a mortal sin? Scotus says that this is doubtful. Bonaventure draws a distinction between religious11 and laity. Others require the opportunity of time and of the confessor.
Can someone confess through the mediation of a person or in writing? Does the person who answers make satisfaction to the confessor for what he has been asked? Is the person confessing bound to accept every penance which the confessor wants to impose upon him? Are the unbelieving bound to confession? Are children? Is a person who has not committed a mortal sin bound by the precept of the church to confess at least once a year? Is the pope also bound to confess? Can someone receive a dispensation so that he is not obligated to confess?
If a priest is not present, is a person bound to confess to a layman in an emergency? Lombard and Thomas say yes; Scotus and Richardus deny it.