VI. On Satisfaction

Is the confessor bound to impose a penance, and what kind? - Resp. To the first: In the affirmative. The reason is that satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament of penance; but the confessor, as minister of the sacrament, is bound to procure its integrity, even accidental, insofar as it lies in him; otherwise he would not be a faithful dispenser. Wherefore, if the penitent immediately after absolution confesses a forgotten sin and is absolved, a new penance is to be imposed upon him. Trent, sess. 14, C. 8, cc. 12-15; L. 506, 513, 515; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 90.

Resp. To the second: The confessor is bound to enjoin fitting and salutary penances, both vindictive and medicinal, that is, in some way proportionate to the number and gravity of sins, and also to the faculties and dispositions of the penitent. The reason is clear from the nature of the thing, since sacramental satisfaction is ordered toward the vindication of sins, which are greater or lesser, more or fewer, and also toward preventing new faults. Trent, sess. 14, C. 8; L. 508-509; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 12, a. 13. - E. M.

Resolutions: The quantity of penance cannot be determined; but it is left to the judgment and prudence of the confessor. Roman Ritual. Nevertheless, grave penance must regularly and of itself be imposed for mortal sins. But that penance is to be judged grave which corresponds to a work that is prescribed under grave obligation by the Church, or would oblige under grave obligation if it were prescribed, e.g., hearing Mass, fasting, reciting the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Rosary, etc.; on the contrary, one Miserere, etc., is light. - Perpetual penances are not to be imposed, both because, since perhaps such penances would be imposed on the same penitent by various confessors, he would hence be bound at the same time and for his whole life by innumerable bonds.

Indeed penances for a long time are not ordinarily to be imposed, e.g., for a year or for five months. - Those satisfactions are never to be imposed which can expose the penitent to the mockery of others, e.g., that he recite five Our Fathers in the middle of the church with arms extended, etc. But all the more penances are not to be imposed which cannot be fulfilled without the revelation of Confession easily following. - Nor are too grave penances to be imposed, such as fasts on children and on workers wearied by continual labor.

Nor are pilgrimages or lengthy prayers, or generally alms, to be enjoined on women placed under the power of a husband, just as neither on the poor who obtain a living for themselves by continual labor. - Penances involved in many diverse works are not to be imposed, because they could not be held in memory; nor, at least ordinarily, penances too repugnant to nature, e.g., to make the sign of the cross with the tongue on the ground, to visit enemies, etc. It is also generally imposed imprudently on children that they ask pardon from parents or from others for disobedience, irreverence, or small thefts, because they often render Confession odious and for the most part are omitted. - L. 508, 515; H. A. 52; E. M.

How great is the obligation of imposing penance? - This obligation is grave from its genus. The reason is that the obligation regards a grave matter, namely the integrity of the sacrament; although from smallness of matter one can sin only venially against it, for example, by imposing a penance lighter than is fair. Lugo, d. 25, n. 49; L. 506. - As regards venials, however, it is disputed. Some affirm that it is grave, because the enjoining of satisfaction pertains to the rite of this sacrament; and since this rite was instituted by Christ, it must be held as a grave matter. But others say it is light, because a grave obligation of enjoining penance for only light faults cannot be proved, since in this no grave disorder appears. Indeed it does not seem that the confessor who does not impose penance can sin more than the penitent who does not execute a light penance. Moreover, the judgment can be complete even if no satisfaction is imposed, namely when the accused is judged worthy of no punishment. Each opinion is probable, as St. Alphonsus says, H. A. 47.

Note: "From this obligation," says Lugo, d. 25, n. 47, "it is established that some cases are excepted. The first is when the penitent is incapable, as if he is near death, especially if he already lacks the senses and cannot perceive the penance imposed.... The second case is when the confessor understands from the Confession and other circumstances that the penitent has satisfied integrally for the punishment due; and although this can rarely or never be established, Peter de Soto nevertheless adds... that it suffices that he seems probably to have satisfied. - The third case is similar to this, which others add, when without satisfaction there is at hand a remedy of perfect remission, e.g., if martyrdom to be undergone is at hand; which others extend to a plenary indulgence to be gained, at least one which is morally certain. - The fourth case is when the penitent, because of his frailty, is believed likely to accept no penance; for sometimes it will be necessary to condescend to his weakness in order to avoid graver evils. Nevertheless it will never happen that he is not likely to accept some penance, at least a light one." Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1.

But Benedict XIV has these things concerning the case of a plenary indulgence and Jubilee, Constitution Inter praeteritos, § 65: "One thing only remained, that we should speak about the imposition of penance not to be omitted by the confessor, since the penitent who had obtained an indulgence was said not to be bound to fulfill it. But since this reason seemed laxer to us, in the Instruction of which n. XXVI speaks, we declared our mind, establishing that a salutary penance is to be enjoined by the confessor upon the penitent, even if this one is prepared to receive the Jubilee, from which indeed arises the obligation of the penitent to fulfill the same." Cf. also Bull of the Jubilee of Leo XII, Caritate Christi; L. 519.

When is penance to be imposed? - Generally speaking, it is to be imposed before absolution. The reason is that thus the order of judgment is preserved, which requires that the accused first promise satisfaction before he is absolved. But if the confessor from forgetfulness has not enjoined penance before absolution, he must impose it after absolution. Nevertheless it is not grave to impose penance after absolution; indeed probably it is free of every fault if it is presumed that the penitent is going to accept the work enjoined upon him. - L. 514.

For what reason can a lighter penance be imposed? - 1. If the penitent is very weak and infirm in body. Roman Ritual. But if the sick person is placed in danger of death, then he can be absolved without any penance, although it is always expedient to impose some upon him. - 2. If there is prudent fear lest he not fulfill a greater penance, or lest because of a heavier penance he be turned away from Confession. - 3. If probably a greater penance will harm him more than profit him.

4. If the penitent appears very contrite. - 5. If the time is present for gaining a plenary indulgence, especially of a Jubilee. - L. 508, 510; H. A. 49; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 35, a. 1.

To the matter St. Thomas says, Suppl., q. 18, a. 4: "Just as medicines determined in the art are not suitable for all, but are to be varied according to the judgment of the physician, who follows not his own will but the science of medicine, so satisfactory punishments... are suitable for all, but are to be varied according to the judgment of the priest regulated by divine instinct. Therefore, just as a physician sometimes prudently does not give an efficacious medicine which would suffice for curing the disease, lest a greater danger arise because of the weakness of nature, so the priest moved by divine instinct does not always enjoin the whole punishment which is due to sin, lest someone infirm despair because of the magnitude and withdraw altogether from penance." And Quodlib. 3, a. 28: "But it seems sufficiently fitting that the priest not burden the penitent with a heavy weight of satisfaction; because just as a small fire is easily extinguished by many pieces of wood placed upon it, so it could happen that a small affection of contrition recently excited in the penitent might be extinguished because of a grave burden of satisfaction, the sinner altogether despairing." - Cardinal Cajetan, Summa, v. Satisfactio: "But to penitents weakly disposed, let a very small satisfaction be given according to the weakness of their soul, and let the little fire be fostered by straw placed upon it, and not suffocated by large pieces of wood placed over it." - And St. Antoninus, 3 p., tit. 16, c. 20: "The confessor must nevertheless give a penance which he believes she will likely fulfill, lest by violating it something worse happen.... The confessor must in no way permit a despairing sinner to depart from him, but rather let him impose upon him one Our Father, or another light thing, and that the other good things which he has done and evils which he has tolerated be for him as penance."

Can a penance be imposed under the condition of relapse? - Resp. In the affirmative, provided a proportionate penance is imposed for the sins confessed. Confessed, for the confessor is neither judge nor physician of sins perhaps to be committed. In the negative, if no other penance is imposed. For this cannot be the effort not to sin. The effort to be applied for preventing sins does not seem able to have the nature of satisfaction, since it is a natural consequence of contrition and purpose. L. 524.

Can a public penance be imposed? - Resp. In the negative, if it is a question of hidden sins. Thus the Roman Ritual. Otherwise, however, for public sins. Nevertheless, if public penance is not necessary, the confessor must not impose it on one refusing it, since otherwise his salvation can be obtained and scandal repaired.

It is not necessary; it will indeed be necessary "in the sole case in which otherwise scandal could not be repaired except through that public penance, for example, by publicly restoring honor to someone publicly dishonored." But in this case, independently of sacramental penance, the penitent is bound to that reparation by the law of nature. Besides, public scandals of this kind can be repaired otherwise, short of public penance, "namely through public frequentation of the sacraments, visits to churches, hearing of Masses, entrance into some Congregation where works of piety are exercised, and similar things." L. 512. - C. Manifesta 1, de Poenit. et rem.; Trent, sess. 24, C. 8, de R.; St. Thomas, 4 d. 14, q. 1, a. 5, q. 1; Francolini, Vet. Eccl. sever., l. 1, Calumn. 7.

Can a work otherwise owed be imposed for penance? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that, since that work is satisfactory, it can well be elevated through the keys to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. "Nevertheless this should not be done unless the frailty of the penitent has been considered. But the doctors commonly say that unless the confessor expressly imposes a work otherwise prescribed, a supererogatory work is understood to have been imposed. But if the confessor imposes hearing Mass for a month, there is no obligation to hear two Masses on a feast." L. 513.

What are the works which can be imposed for satisfaction? - "Prayer as much as alms, and any other good work enjoined in the sacrament of penance, is valid as a penal and afflictive work..., even an internal work..., even a work to be applied for the dead..., even cessation from some good work, namely from Communion, fasting, etc..., because a cessation of this kind can well sometimes be an act of virtue, at least for preserving obedience to the confessor. But Lugo rightly notes that regularly it is not expedient to impose a penance of this kind." L. 514. - But it is common among the doctors that entrance into Religion and matrimony cannot be imposed as penance. For each requires complete liberty in every way. L. 511. - "A penitent fulfilling a prayer or pious work enriched with indulgences can at the same time satisfy the penance and gain the indulgences." S. Indulg. C., June 11, 1901. - St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 15, a. 3; E. M.

Is the penitent bound to accept and fulfill the imposed satisfaction, and when? - Resp. To the first: The penitent is bound to accept and fulfill a reasonable penance sacramentally enjoined, because from what has been said the confessor is bound to impose penance, and indeed one in some way proportionate to the sins.

But if a penance must be imposed and accepted, by that very fact, by reason of the obedience owed to the confessor, it must also be fulfilled. Trent, sess. 14, C. 8; L. 515-516; H. A. 55.

Resp. To the second: The penitent is bound under grave obligation to fulfill a grave penance imposed for grave sins, because grave matter of itself obliges under grave obligation. But more probably he is bound only under light obligation to a light penance imposed for light faults, because light matter is not capable of grave obligation. L. 517.

Resp. To the third: The penitent must fulfill the penance at the time designated by the confessor, or as soon as he conveniently can; and if the penance obliges under grave obligation, he will sin gravely if from grave negligence he long defers it. The reason is that of itself it is grave to delay a notable debt for a long time. But whenever a penance was not fulfilled at the appointed time, the burden of performing it always remains, because the time is intended only accessorily. - Cf. n. 742; E. M.

Note: "Nevertheless it is probable that if that penance seems to the penitent more grave than is just, or too burdensome with respect to his weakness, then if the confessor is unwilling to moderate it, he could at least depart without absolution without grave fault, and approach another confessor, as they say with Busembaum, etc. Nevertheless this must be understood if that penance is truly unreasonable, etc." L. 516. - "From the common doctrine of theologians a confessor can sometimes oblige the penitent to fulfill the penance before absolution, etc." Lugo, d. 14, nn. 170, 171. - The penitent is not bound to fulfill the penance when the Confession was invalid, because the sacramental sentence of the judge was null, and therefore there is no sacrament to be completed. Otherwise one would have to satisfy twice for the same sins. The same must be said for the same reason about a penance imposed without absolution. Except if the penitent approaches several times to complete the same Confession, and meanwhile the confessor, as often happens, imposes some penance each time, so that less remains to be imposed at the end. - E. M.

Does a penance grave in itself, but imposed for only venials or for mortals already confessed before, oblige under grave obligation? - Resp. In the negative, more probably. The reason is that then satisfaction is not necessary insofar as it is grave. Hence just as the confessor was not bound, indeed could not prescribe it under grave obligation, so neither is the penitent bound to fulfill it under grave obligation. For the confessor must impose penance only according to the quality of the crimes from Trent, sess. 14, C. 8. - L. 517; Suarez, d. 38, s. 7, n. 7.

Can the confessor impose for grave faults a penance which is indeed grave, but binds lightly? - Resp. In the affirmative, because any legislator can prescribe grave matter under light obligation; nevertheless this is generally not expedient. St. Alphonsus would prefer that at least something be enjoined under grave obligation, with which afterward something else, even graver, could be imposed under light obligation. Yet he himself does not deny that the opposite opinion is more common; and from this very fact it is argued that the argument which he himself tries to draw from Trent for his opinion is less firm. Indeed the spiritual good of the penitent must be attended to, which because of his infirmity can demand something altogether different. - L. 518; Suarez, d. 38, s. 3, n. 3.

Is the penitent bound under grave obligation to fulfill the added circumstances of the penance, e.g., that he pray on bended knees, etc.? - The solution depends on the greater or lesser affliction of the flesh which the circumstance brings, whether of itself or with respect to the penitent. This can also depend on the intention of the confessor, which either he himself has expressly manifested, or the penitent can presume. - L. 517.

Does one satisfy who fulfills the penance in mortal sin? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that for satisfying the precept it suffices to place the work of satisfaction enjoined, although the end of the precept is not obtained. - L. 552. Hence he also satisfies if in fulfilling the penance he sins venially, e.g., because he is distracted; nor then is the fruit from the work worked of such a penance impeded because of the other sins already remitted. - L. 552.

Does one sin who fulfills the penance in mortal sin? - It is certain that he does not sin gravely. According to some he sins venially. The reason is that one who voluntarily places an obstacle to even a partial effect of the sacrament does not seem able to be excused from some fault. Nevertheless several grave theologians probably hold that he is exempt from every fault, because there is no fault in placing an obstacle only to the remission of punishments. But when the obstacle is removed, then the effect of satisfaction is obtained. - L. 523.

What delay of penance is a grave fault? - If the penance was light, delay, however great it may be, will never be grave, since the omission of the penance itself more probably does not exceed light fault. - If the penance is grave, and imposed for grave sins, more probably a delay of two or three months is to be regarded as grave. But others extend this to six months; but this, says St. Alphonsus, seems too benign. Others extend it up to a year, and this, says the holy Doctor, is commonly rejected. Others finally say that no delay will be grave unless the penitent casts himself into danger of no longer executing the penance.

Nevertheless it is not necessary that one fulfill sacramental satisfaction before he confesses again. He can still fulfill it after another Confession, and continue it, if it is lengthy, e.g., that he hear Mass daily for a year. - Diana, tom. I, tr. 6, rr. 44, 45; Lugo, d. 25, n. 90 ff.; L. 517, 521.

If the penitent has forgotten the enjoined penance, is he bound to repeat the Confession so that he may receive another penance? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that the fulfillment of the penance already once enjoined has been made impossible through forgetfulness, even culpable forgetfulness. But no one is bound to the impossible. Nevertheless, if the penitent prudently presumes that the confessor is still mindful of the enjoined penance, he should approach him, if he conveniently can, so that he may learn from him what it is. L. 520.

Who can commute a penance and for what cause? - Resp. To the first: It can never be commuted by the penitent himself, not even into a better one, although a vow can be changed by the one vowing it into an evidently better work. The reason is that penance cannot be elevated to the merit of sacramental satisfaction unless it has been imposed by the minister himself of the sacrament of penance. - It can be commuted: 1. by the confessor who imposed it, because a legislator can change his own law; 2. by any other confessor, because any other confessor can be judge of the same cause if the penitent submits himself to his tribunal; for a successor in the same authority can do whatever the predecessor could. Nevertheless an exception seems to be made, according to the more common opinion, if the penance was imposed by the superior himself for reserved cases, because an inferior cannot change the sentence of a superior; unless, however, a grave cause is present, or the consent of the superior can easily be presumed. Yet others deny this, because once the reservation of sins has been removed through the absolution of the superior, the power of the superior and the inferior confessor is the same.

Resp. To the second: For a commutation to be made licitly, a just cause is required, such as: 1. if the penance seems difficult; 2. if it is foreseen that the penitent is not going to satisfy it because of repugnance, frailty, forgetfulness, etc. - L. 528, 529.

Is the penitent bound to repeat the Confession to obtain commutation of the penance? - If he approaches the same confessor, it will not be necessary to repeat the Confession when the confessor remembers the state of the penitent's conscience in some way confusedly. - If he approaches another confessor, or even the same one no longer mindful of the sins, it suffices that he confess summarily, so that the confessor may acquire a confused knowledge of that state.

But whether this summary Confession is also required if the confessor, at least confusedly, does not know the state of the penitent is disputed. The first opinion affirms it. The reason is that the confessor cannot commute the penance except by sacramental judgment; but he cannot exercise this judgment unless the penitent opens the state of his conscience to him. The second opinion probably denies this, because it is not a question of a judgment to be rendered concerning faults destroyed in a preceding Confession, where the judgment about them has already been formed, but only of commuting the penance. But for this the knowledge of the prior penance and the notion of frailty or difficulty for fulfilling it suffices, namely so that a new one in some way equivalent may be imposed. Hence the confessor, hearing the penitent say that he has not fulfilled the penance and is not going to fulfill it, believing him, will be able to commute the penance even if he does not ask. - L. 529.

Can the confessor commute a penance outside Confession? - Resp. In the negative, if the confessor is different. The reason is that the confessor has no power except in sacramental judgment. For penance must be joined with the absolution received. - If that confessor is the one who imposed the penance, he can change it immediately after absolution, before the penitent departs; but not afterward, at least more probably. The reason is that for this it is required and suffices that the preceding judgment of the confessor morally persevere, which does not seem to have place if the penitent approaches the confessor outside the tribunal of penance. St. Alphonsus, 529, says that this is the truer and more common opinion. Nevertheless others say that commutation of penance can be made by the same confessor outside Confession within the space of one day, within two days, a week, and even a longer time, because then it still seems to be morally united with the preceding sacramental judgment. For just as a longer space does not prevent sorrow, or Confession, or even fulfillment of satisfaction from being morally united with absolution, so one can judge also about the change of penance. Lugo, d. 25, nn. 111, 112.

Note: If the penitent, after accepting a penance from one confessor, repeats the Confession before another in order to obtain a milder penance, or even for another cause, he is by no means freed from the former penance unless he mentions the preceding Confession and the penance accepted. The reason is that for commuting the penance on the part of the confessor, a positive act of the will is required by which the prior obligation is revoked.