Chapter IX — On the quality, quantity, and time of the satisfaction to be enjoined upon penitents

I. QUESTION I. Of how many kinds is satisfaction? ANSWER. Twofold, as is established from what has been said, and as the Council of Trent declares. One satisfaction is called medicinal, apt for the curing of the diseases of the soul; the other is called vindicative, which imposes a chastisement for the offences perpetrated.

II. QUESTION II. What did Trent prescribe concerning the quantity of the penance to be enjoined? ANSWER. The Council of Trent, session 14, chapter 8, prescribed this rule, which ought to be more deeply imprinted upon the minds of confessors. Let therefore the priests of the Lord, so far as the Spirit and prudence shall have suggested, according to the quality of the crimes and the faculty of the penitents, enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions; lest perchance they connive at sins, and deal too indulgently with penitents, by enjoining certain very light works for the gravest offences, and so become partakers of others' sins. But let them have before their eyes that the satisfaction which they impose be not only for the guarding of a new life and a medicine of infirmity, but also for the vengeance and chastisement of past sins.

III. QUESTION III. In enjoining penances ought confessors to look to the ancient canons? ANSWER. The Catechism of the Council of Trent affirms it, part 2, chapter 5, § 79, in these words: In inflicting the penalty of satisfaction, priests will reckon that nothing is to be determined at their own discretion, but that all things are to be directed by justice, prudence, and piety. And that by this rule the sins of penitents may seem to be measured, and that they may the more acknowledge the gravity of their crimes, it will be worth the labour sometimes to signify to them what penalty was appointed for certain offences by the prescript of the ancient canons which are called penitential. Therefore he will temper the manner of the whole satisfaction, according to the reason of the penitent.

IV. This Council, this Catechism, ought the ministers of the sacraments to turn over with hand by day and by night, and seriously to meditate in their soul after the holy Scriptures. There would have to be transcribed here the doctrine of St. Charles Borromeo and of very many bishops upon this matter. But consult Vol. IX, dissertation 5, chapter 7.

V. QUESTION IV. What is to be said of the practice of certain men imposing a light satisfaction for grave offences? ANSWER. Fr. Claude La Croix, Book 6, part 2, no. 1255, § 5, writes these things: “The RIGORISTS say that the cause of relaxing discipline as regards penances is the growing cold of the charity of the faithful. But on the contrary it is so; for rather among the causes was: first, lest confession, impugned by the heretics as impossible, be rendered still more odious by hard penances. Second, because with the passage of time there were more priests, among whom confessions most useful to amendment were frequented, and who in this internal forum otherwise healed sins by kindlier medicines. Third, because it was observed that kindly penances profit more than rigid ones, because by kindly ones the faithful are the more allured to the sacrament of Penance and of the Eucharist. Fourth, because on occasion of the sacred war against the Turks the use of indulgences was introduced, which is a manner of satisfying for sins MORE USEFUL and MORE CERTAIN than the observance of the penitential canons. Fifth, because with the passage of time Religious Orders were instituted, which are a most useful state of penance. See Francolino, Roman Clergy, part 2, chapter 1.” These reasons Fr. Balthasar Francolino enlarges upon more fully in the cited book, chapter 1 of the Roman Clergy.

VI. Are the Fathers of the Tridentine Synod, and of its Catechism, Rigorists? Are all the Fathers of the Church Rigorists? Are the holy Evangelists Rigorists? Is it therefore a dream of the Rigorists that the cause of relaxing discipline was the growing cold of the charity of the faithful? Assuredly, replies La Croix; but on the contrary it is so, he says. Let him therefore hear, and with him let all the kindly casuists hear, the Fathers of the Tridentine Catechism, part 2, chapter 5, § 67: But afterwards so much was remitted of the severity of the ancient discipline, and charity so grew cold, that now most of the faithful think no inward grief of soul and groaning of heart necessary for obtaining pardon of sins, but reckon it enough if they have only the appearance of one grieving.

VII. But let the reasons of Frs. La Croix and Francolino come into examination, as it were in passing. First: Discipline was relaxed, not because charity grew cold, but lest confession, impugned by the heretics as impossible, be rendered odious by hard penances. Truly an excellent reason! Did the holy Fathers of the Church therefore, who framed the sacred canons against the Novatians and the assailants of the power of the keys, render the sacrament of Penance impossible and odious? Second: Priests being multiplied, they found a secret of healing souls by kindlier medicines. And did these kindlier medicines lie hidden from the holy Fathers of the Church for thirteen centuries? Assuredly, replies Fr. La Croix. Hear his third reason: Because it was observed that kindlier penances profit more than rigid ones, because by kindly ones the faithful are the more allured to the sacrament of Penance and of the Eucharist. A happy and fortunate observation, which most clearly confirms all sacred antiquity of harshness in the government of souls! Assuredly men are allured by kindlier penances to frequent the sacraments and the churches, just as buyers are allured to frequent those shops where wares are sold at a lesser price. Do kindlier penances more efficaciously heal diseases? Do they more strongly press down pride and concupiscence? Do they make morals holier? Are the Christians of our age therefore holier, chaster, and more fervent than the Christians of the three first centuries under the discipline of the Apostles and of the holy Fathers? What of these things? Do you say yes? The whole world cries out against it. Do you deny it? Therefore the faithful are more happily sanctified by severe than by kindly penances. The narrow and strait way alone Christ designates. But, a new manner of opining being brought in, a smoother and kindlier way has been marked out.

VIII. The fourth reason is worthy of meditation. Because, he says, on occasion of the sacred war against the Turks the use of indulgences was introduced, which according to what is to be said at no. 514 is a manner of satisfying for sins MORE USEFUL and MORE CERTAIN than the observance of the penitential canons. Can these things be read without the soul being moved? He who with servile attrition has confessed adulteries, fornications, and blasphemies — if he enter some temple on a solemn feast, visit the altars, and pray for a quarter of an hour, intending to gain indulgences, does he satisfy God more securely and more certainly than those Christians who for seven, for ten, for twenty years, or through a whole life, by fasts, hair-shirts, and disciplines, clothed in ashes and sackcloth, busied themselves to appease the avenging God? Is the use of indulgences a manner of satisfying for sins more useful and more certain than the observance of the penitential canons? I will not refute at greater length this doctrine consonant with the new manner of opining. Let the wise judge how festive it is.

IX. The fifth reason is prettier. Because with the passage of time Religious Orders were instituted, which are a most useful state of penance. See Francolino, Roman Clergy. In the centuries in which the observance of the penitential canons flourished, did not innumerable phalanxes of holier monks and anchorites shine forth? Are our cloistered men now holier? Is their poverty severer? Are their fasts severer, their buildings humbler? But however these things stand, do the penances, hair-shirts, and fasts of Regulars press down the concupiscence, pride, and ambition of lovers and mistresses?

X. QUESTION V. What is to be said of the opinion of those teaching that no penance, or a moderate one, is to be enjoined when penitents confess for the gaining of an indulgence? ANSWER. Fr. Sporer here, part 3, chapter 4, question 1, § 3, no. 45, page 137, writes: “A confessor is excused for enjoining no penance, or a very light one. … When a man gains a plenary indulgence, he can be dismissed without any other little penance, since by that indulgence he satisfies the debt of punishment. And although this rarely happens for certain, it suffices that it be probably believed.”

XI. Similar and kindlier things de Lugo teaches, as Fr. Dominic Viva himself testifies, question 6 On Penance, article 2, no. 1, in these words: “Nay, de Lugo, disputation 27, section 3, no. 24, thinks that he who gains a plenary indulgence is not obliged to a penance, even if it be given as a medicine: because a physician does not command but persuades a remedy, and a judge alone commands a penalty. Wherefore if a penitent by reason of an indulgence is not bound to the penalty which is commanded, neither will he be bound to the medicine which is only persuaded; unless perchance he be sometimes obliged to it by natural law, lest he easily fall.”

XII. The words of de Lugo in the place cited are these: “They say that a penance is imposed not only for satisfying, but also as a medicine, and so forth. … It is answered that it is indeed frequently imposed as a medicine. The confessor nevertheless cannot oblige, save inasmuch as he imposes it as a penalty for sin. Just as, although a judge ought to procure that the penalty of the offender be such that it be at the same time a medicine for the future, yet he could not impose that penalty, nor beat the accused, if the penalty were condoned by the Prince. So a priest, who is at once physician and judge, can punish sins by imposing a penalty for them, which, because he is a physician, he ought at the same time to take care that it be such as to be also a remedy and a medicine for the future. But for the rest, if the penalty be totally condoned, he cannot oblige to the medicine: because a physician as physician does not oblige but counsels. Which is always to be understood of a medicine not simply necessary for avoiding future evils.”

XIII. They are utterly ignorant of the force and nature of the sacred indulgences, which are a supplement for that which our infirmity cannot render to God. The reason adduced is acute beyond what can be said. A confessor as physician does not command but counsels. A confessor as judge imposes or remits a satisfactory penalty. But medicinal penances he imposes as a physician, and as a physician he can counsel, not command. But a penitent is not bound to fulfil the counsels of a confessor. Let readers bring forth their judgment upon this doctrine, which I judge false and adverse to the divine Scriptures, to the Council of Trent, and to the tradition of the whole Church.

XIV. QUESTION VI. What is to be said of the opinion of those saying that light penances are to be imposed for the gravest offences? ANSWER. The casuists cry out: If we impose fasts, if lyings on the ground, if hair-shirts, penitents flee, and our churches remain deserted. De Lugo answers, disputation 25 On Penance, section 5, no. 60, in these words: “In the first place regard must be had to the spiritual utility of the penitent, lest namely snares be cast upon him, so that he commit new sins. From this head above all can the PRESENT-DAY PRACTICE be excused, by which LIGHT PENANCES ARE IMPOSED FOR THE GRAVEST SINS: for this is often done on account of the spiritual infirmity of penitents, because they will be scandalized by graver penances, or will flee confession, or certainly will approach unfit confessors who know not how to cure them.” These other words of de Lugo Fr. Tamburini transcribes, Book 4, Method of Confession, chapter 1, no. 12, where he thus concludes: These things prudently de Lugo.

XV. Nay, an imprudent counsel do all those enter upon who, setting aside the admonitions of the Fathers of the Church and of the Council of Trent, flatter sinners with an excessive kindliness of sacramental satisfactions, and take away the horror of sins, whence it comes about that they more easily relapse into crimes. If the zeal of souls be at heart to anyone, he will assuredly give to the sick a medicine apt for driving away diseases, though hateful to flesh and blood; nor will he catch at the favour of penitents, or gape after a multitude to be conciliated to himself, but will strive solely to reconcile sinners to God. He who shall do otherwise treasures up for himself wrath in the day of wrath.