Article 6

The sixth article (See S.Th., I, q. 73, a. 7, c.: Utrum circumstantia aggravet peccatum.) is whether someone is bound to confess the circumstances of a sin that either draw the sin from one kind to another or notably aggravate the sin even when doing so would make the person known with whom he sinned.

It seems the best reply to this is that the man in question is bound in every way to confess the circumstances that draw the sin from one kind to another because he would not confess his sin if he were not to confess the species of the sin. The species, though, is not able to be known except through the circumstances drawing the sin from one kind to another because the sin is specified by the circumstances. However, a man is not bound to confess the aggravating circumstances that do not draw the sin from one kind to another as is the case, for instance, with venial sins even though it is praiseworthy for a man confess them. The same principle seems to apply to circumstances of this sort and venial sins. Now the circumstances are said to lead to another kind of sin are those which lead to a particular resistance to some precept of the divine law. As, for instance, theft in general implies resistance to this precept, Thou shalt not steal. (Exod 20:15.) If, however, the theft is committed in a sacred place, it has now a resistance to another precept which is about the veneration of sacred things and thus a new species of sin is added. Consequently, if the aggravating circumstances do not draw the sin from one species to another, it follows that they do not add another kind of opposition to the law of God. Accordingly, neither will there be a new deformity of mortal sin, which alone we are necessarily bound to confess. If, then, the aggravating circumstances are the kind that do not draw the sin from one kind of sin to another, I do not think anyone is bound to confess them.

Regarding the declaration of the person with whom one sinned, it seems to me that it ought not to be done in confession inasmuch as it can be avoided. First, because to reveal the fault of another and to injure the reputation of another is a sin that especially ought to be avoided in confession since it is through confession that one seeks to wipe out past sins. Secondly, because the way of declaring the sin of a neighbor is prescribed by the Lord in Matthew 18 (Matthew 18:15-17: If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.) and it is not licit to act against it. Third, because in confession the confessing sinner ought to be believed when he says something for or against himself, but he ought not to be believed in any way when he says something against another. Otherwise, an occasion would be given to many for the simulation of confession and deceitful defamation. And therefore if it is possible to confess the species of the sin by not making the person known with whom one sinned, he sins by making it known unless, perhaps, by preserving the order of correction that the Lord stated. If, however, the species of sin is not able to be made known without making the person with whom one sinned known (as, for instance, would be the case if one slept with one's father), it is necessary for making the species of the sin known that the person be made known. But if it is able to be done, the person ought to seek a confessor who is completely ignorant of the identity of the father.

Now when I said the aggravating circumstances which do not draw the sin from one kind of sin to another do not necessarily have to be confessed, this should not be applied to the number [of sins], which one is always bound to confess if he is able because there is not only one sin, but many.