Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

absolutionem aliquando negant, Ita Henriq. Præpos. Gran. Maldev. etc. apud Dianam p. 5. tr. 11. res. 20. Ubi ipse cum Fagund. negat id licere sine expressa licentia pœnitentis, nisi de iis, quæ is iterum confitetur, vel sal-, tem tangit. Vid. Dianam loc. citat. et p. 2. tr. 2. misc. res. 12. et p. 9. tr. 11. res. 11.'

"653.-Quæritur igitur, an intra confessionem possit confessarius loqui cum pœnitente de culpis in alia confessione auditis, sine ipsius licentia. Negat Diana cum Fag. ut supra: sed affirmat sententia communissima et verior, quam tenent Lug. d. 23. n. 127. Tamb. c. 5. n. 4. Wigandt tr. 13. num. 120. Concin. p. 740. n. 14. Ronc. p. 101. q. 3, r. 1. Antoine p. 550. v. Hinc, Sporer n. 823. Renzi p. 307. q. 5. cum Aversa, Dic, et Mald. eamque vocat certam Illsung apud Croix n. 1981. Ratio, quia sæpe pertinet ad munera judicis, et medici, quæ habet confessarius, recolere peccata prioris confessionis, ad melius pœnitentem corripiendum, vel dirigendum; ideo improbabile est quod pœnitens habeat jus sigilli in actu confessionis, cum potius verum sit quod confessarius habeat jus exquirendi omnia quorum notitia ad meliorem directionem coadjuvare valeat. Unde bene poterit confessarius loqui cum pœnitente de omnibus peccatis in præterito ab eo confessis, semper ac putat hoc fore utile pœnitenti,

permission of the penitent, unless concerning those things which he again confesses, or at least touches upon.'

"653.-Therefore it is asked, whether within confession, the confessor can speak

concerning faults

heard in another confession, without the license of the penitent. Dian. with Fag. denies it as above, but the most common, and the more true opinion affirms that he can. The reason is, because oftentimes it pertains to the offices of a judge and physician, which the confessor holds, to call to mind the sins of a former confession, for the more just chastisement and correction of the penitent, therefore it is improbable that the penitent has a right to the seal in the act of confession, since rather it may be true, that the confessor has the right of examining into all those things, the knowledge of which, may be an assistance for a better counsel; whence, a confessor can justly speak with a penitent concerning all sins confessed by him in past confessions, and he thinks that this would be always useful for a penitent, who is thought in confession to give a license that he may avail

qui censetur in confessione dare ei licentiam, ut utatur quacumque notitia necessaria ad sui meliorem directionem. "654.-3. Frangit sigillum, qui dicit se in tali monasterio audivisse grave peccatum, tametsi non nominet personam. Dian. p. 5. t. 11. res. 35. et alii 3. cum Mald. Additque graviter peccare eum qui dicit, in hoc vel isto ordine religioso, hoc vel istud peccatum fuisse admissum, quod ex sola confessione novit: imo nec de civitate, vel certo loco, in quo quis confessiones audivit, licere dicere quod gravia fiant, vel talia et talia peccata committi soleant (nisi aliunde constet), nocent Hurt. Kell. et Mald. ap. Dian. 1. c. res. 35 quia potest redundare in gravamen et infamiam ipsius communitatis, et forte etiam civium in particulari, quando civitas non est ampla, et pœnitentes suspecti, atque adeo confessio fieret aliis odiosa. Vide Dian, loc. cit. et res. 36. ubi cum Malder. docet confessarium, qui paucos habet pœnitentes sibi subditos (v. gr. moniales unius monasterii), scandalum dare, si coram illis concionetur de vitiis auditis in confessione : quia confessæ facile suffunduntur pudore. (Hoc tamen intelligendum, si confessarius loquatur de aliqua culpa particulari cujusdam monialis, vel illius monasterii: secus, si loquatur de defectibus quae communiter in omnibus monasteriis solent vel possunt

himself of whatever knowledge is necessary for his own better direction.

"654.- He breaks the seal, who says that he heard in a certain monastery a great sin, although he does not name the person. Dian. p. 5. t. 11. res. 35. and others cum Mald. And he adds that he sins grievously who says, that in this or that religious order, this or that sin was committed, because he knows it from confession alone: yea it is not lawful to say concerning a state or certain place in which any one has heard confessions, that grievous sins were committed, or that they are accustomed to commit such and such sins: because such a declaration may tend to the loss, or dishonour of the community itself, and per chance even in particular of states, when the state is not large, the penitents are suspected, and, therefore, confession would be rendered odious to them.

See Dian. loc. cit. et res. 36. where with Mald. he teaches, that the confessor, who has few penitents placed under him, (for example, the monks of one monastery) gives cause for scandal if before them he preach concerning vices heard in confession; because the confessed are very easily suffused with shame. (This however, is to be understood; if a confessor speak concerning any particular

[ocr errors]

perpetrari.')

"Dubitatur hic 1. an confessarius violet sigillum, si asserit in aliquo loco gravia crimina perpetrari, quæ ipse audierit in confessione. Prima sententia negat, et hanc tenent Nav. c. 8. n 16. Renzi p. 322. q. 11. cum Fag. Vivald. et Onuphr. Ita Henriq. Gran. Lop. etc. apud Escob. lib. 16. num. 749. qui consentit n. 750. si nullo modo in cognitionem personæ deveniri possit, quia alias (ut dicunt) ex tali revelatione nulla fit injuria pœnitenti. Secunda tamen sententia communissima et longe probabilior, quam tenent Suar. d. 33. sect. 3. num. 8. Bonac. q. 6. sect. 5. part. 4. n. 3. Filliuc. c. 11. num 322. Concina. p. 740. n. 13. Viva q. 10. art 2. n. 7. Tamb. lib. 5. c. 3. §. 5. Holzm. n. 711. cum Laym. et Pal Sporer num. 827. cum Diana, et communi, ut asserit Lugo d. 20. n. 64. cum Vasquez, Con. et Ledesm. docet, quod, si oppidum sit parvum (puta, si non constet tribus millibus hominum circiter,) tunc violetur sigillum. Ratio, quia, licet tune reveletur persona, tamen, non cum revelatio emanet in infamiam totius communitatis' redundat etiam in gravamen pœnitentis, qui illius communitatis est membrum, et ideo ex tali revelatione

fault of a certain monk or monastery; otherwise, if he speak concerning defects which are generally wont, and are capable of being committed in all monasteries.

"It is here doubted 1. Whether a confessor violates the seal, if he assert that great crimes were committed in a certain place, which he himself heard in confession. The first opinion denies it, and Nav. c. 8. n. 16. Renz. p. 322. 8. II. cum Fag. Vivald. et.

Onuphr. hold this. So Henriq. Gran. Lop. &c. apud Escob. lib. 16. num. 749. who consents, n. 750. if in no way the knowledge of the person can be acquired, because otherwise, (as they say) no injury can happen to the penitent from such disclosure. However the second most common opinion, and by far the more probable one, teaches, that if a city be small, (say if it do not consist of more than 3,000 men) then the seal is violated. The reason is, because, although in that

[blocks in formation]

redderetur ei odiosa confessio Secus vero, si oppidum sit amplum, et crimina sint publica, ut dicunt Lugo, Conc. Spor. Viva, et Tambur. 11. cc. contra Vasq. qui nimis rigide id reprobat. Hocque permittit Petrocorens. t. 4. p. 90. q, 4. etiam concionatoribus, modo non dicant se audisse in confessionibus. Idem sentit Habert t. 6. p. 261. q. 14. r. 3. dicens licitum esse confessariis in concionibus generatim invehere in vitia quæ occulte grassantur. Idque expresse permittitur in cap. Si sacerdos 2. de Offlc. Jub. Ord. ubi dicitur: Si sacerdos sciat pro certo aliquem esse reum alicujus criminis, vel si confessus fuerit....non debet eum arguere nominatim, sed indeterminate. Id est in genere, ut explicat Panormitanus in dict. cap. 2.

Tambur. Vasq. say, who too rigidly reprobate the opinion. And this, Petrocorens per mits, t. 4. p. 90. q. 4.; also to preachers, provided they do not say that they heard them in confession. The same Habert thinks, t. 6. p. 261. q. 14. r. 3. saying that it is lawful for confessors in assemblies to inveigh in general terms against vices which develop themselves in secret. And that he expressly permits in cap. Si Sacerdos 2. de offic. Jub. Ord. where it is said, 'If a priest know for certainty, that any one was accused of any crime, or if he have confessed it, he ought not to impeach by name, but indeterminately, that is, in general terms, as Panormitanus explains, in dict. cap. 2.

It is doubted 2. Whether a confessor breaks the seal, who says that a religious of a certain convent, confessed a great sin. Escobar lib. 16. n.

"Dubitatur 2. an frangat sigillum confessarius, qui dicit religiosum ex tali conventu sibi confessum esse grave peccatum. Negat Escobar lib. 16. n. 713. cum 713. cum Henriq. Nugno. Henriq: Nugno, Fagn, et Candido, modo non ingerat notitiam persomæ particularis. Verius tamen affirmant Busemb. et Suar. d. 33. sect. 3. Concin. p. 743. n. 8. Bon. p. 4. n. 3. Diana. p. 5. tr. 11. r. 23. Pal. p. 5. §. 3. n. 11. cum Nav. Laym. et Henr. item S. Anton. Vill. et Gran. apud Escobar n. 751. Ratio, quia tunc singuli illius con. ventus detrimentum patiuntur. Et sic pariter confessa

Fogn. et Candido deny that he does, provided that he do not convey a knowledge of the particular person. But more truly Busemb. and Suar. &c. affirm that he does. The reason is, because each member of that convent suffers loss, and thus the confessor violates the seal if he say that such sins were committed in that convent. But not (as P. Concin. contra Dian. apud Bus. as

rius violabit sigillum, si dicat, in conventu illo talia peccata committi. Non vero (ut rationabiliter ait P. Conc. contra Dian. ap. Bus. ut supra) si tantum diceret se audisse peccatum religiosi cujusdam ordinis: quia hæc neque est revelatio sigilli, neque redundat in gravamen pœnitentis, cum in quolibet ordine aliqui mali sint: unde neque oritur scandalum, neque infamatur religio, nisi (rete limitat) religio illa esset arctioris observantiæ.

"655.-4. Notitia in sola confessione accepta nullo casu uti licet, si periculum sit revelationis, saltem indirectæ. Verum, si nullum sit periculum, ut vel pœnitens, vel usus scientiæ innotescat, etsi probabile sit, licere uti ad alterius gubernationem, v. gr. negando suffragium ei quem ex sola confessione scit indignum esse, vel claudendo ostium, per quod quis noctu ingredi. tur ad peccandum: item, cognita proditione futura, monendo de diligenti custodia, impediendo clam matrimonium, quando scitur impedimentum, uti docent Vasq. Henr. Navarr. etc. contrarium tamen verius videtur, quod docent Fumus, Sanch. Con. Laym. Dian. p. 3. tr. 4. r. 76. et p. 5. tract. 11. r. 3. et alii;

quia hæc doctrina posset

pœnitentem absterrere a confessione. Et quidem superioribus religionum talis gubernandi modus prohibitus est anno 1594. cum in soc. Jesu jam ante idem statutum

S

above rationally says) if only he should say that he heard the sin of such a religions order; because this is neither a disclosure of the seal, nor does it redound to the loss of the penitent, since in every order some are bad; whence neither can scandal arise, nor is religion defamed, unless, (he rightly limits) that religious order be of a more strict character.

case

for

"655. It is in no lawful to use knowledge received from confession alone, if there be danger of disclosure at least indirect. But if there be no peril that either the penitent, or use of knowledge may prove hurtful, although it be probable, it is lawful to use it for the direction of another; instance, by denying a vote to him whom he knows from confession alone, to be unworthy, or by shutting the door, by which one is in the habit of going out at night to commit sin; also a future treachery being known, by giving warning concerning a diligent guard, by secretly impeding a marriage when an impediment is known, as Vasq. Henr. Navarr. &c. teach; however, the contrary appears the more true, which Fumus. Sanch. Con. Laym. Dian. p. 3. tr. 4. r. 76. and p. 5. tract. 11. r. 3. and others teach, because this doctrine might perhaps drive away

« ÖncekiDevam »