Article I. On the Imposition of Penance

521. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound to impose penance upon every penitent who can perform it. The reason is clear: 1. because satisfaction is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; but the Confessor, as minister of the Sacrament, is bound, insofar as lies in him, to procure its integrity, even accidental integrity; otherwise he would not be a faithful dispenser; 2. because the nature of judgment ¹ and judicial power require some punishment of offenses. It is also established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 8. - See St. Lig., no. 506; Homo Apostolicus, no. 47.

¹ This reason does not seem sufficiently firm, because a judgment is completed also by a sentence in which the judge decrees that punishment is not to be imposed. Just as in a human judgment the judgment does not remain imperfect from a defect of punishment when the accused is not judged worthy of punishment, so neither does this judgment and sacrament remain imperfect from a defect of punishment and satisfaction when the penitent is not judged worthy of punishment. Thus Lugo, where he weighs the force of the argument a priori (De Poenit., disp. 25, no. 52).

II. The Confessor is bound to enjoin both vindicatory and medicinal penances that are fitting and salutary, that is, in some manner proportioned to the number and gravity of the sins, and also to the strength and dispositions of the penitent. The reason is evident from the nature of the matter, since sacramental satisfaction is ordained to the vindication of sins, which are more or less grave and likewise more or fewer, and also to guarding against new faults. It is established from Trent, sess. 14, ch. 8, where it says thus: Therefore, the priests of the Lord ought, according as the spirit and prudence shall suggest, to enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions according to the character of the crimes and the ability of the penitents; lest, if perhaps they connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by enjoining certain very light works for very grave offenses, they be made participants in the sins of others. Let them have before their eyes, however, that the satisfaction which they impose be not only for the preservation of a new life and a medicine for infirmity, but also for the vindication and chastisement of past sins.

522. Questions. - QUESTION 1. How great is the obligation of imposing penance?

Reply 1. This obligation is grave of its kind. The reason is that the obligation concerns a grave matter, although one can sin only venially against it from smallness of matter. - Lugo, disp. 25, no. 49. Hence the Confessor can also sin gravely if, without an excusing cause, he were to impose the lightest penances for grave faults ². - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., no. 506.

² The second part of this reply pertains better to Question 3 below, where the measure of the satisfaction to be imposed is treated; for the present question, as is evident from Reply 2, turns generally upon the gravity of the obligation of enjoining some satisfaction.

From this obligation, says Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 25, no. 47), it is established that certain cases are excepted. The first is when the penitent is incapable, as when he is near death, especially if he already lacks his 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 made full satisfaction for the punishment due; and although it can rarely or never be established that this is so, Peter de Soto nevertheless adds that it suffices that he probably appear to have made satisfaction. The third case, similar to this, which others add, is when, apart from satisfaction, a remedy of perfect remission is imminent, for example, if martyrdom is imminent; others extend this to the gaining of a plenary Indulgence, at least one which is morally certain. The fourth case is when, on account of his frailty, it is believed that the penitent will 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 will not accept some penance, at least a light one.

And in this sense, namely, concerning some light satisfaction, that which Scotus has (In IV Sent., dist. 15, q. 1, art. 3) is to be understood: If he is altogether unwilling to receive any penance imposed by the priest, but nevertheless says that he has displeasure concerning the sin committed and a firm purpose of not relapsing, he is to be absolved and is not to be rejected, lest he fall into despair; and the punishment which ought to be performed for the sins is to be announced to him, and he is to endeavor to fulfill it in himself or in an equivalent manner without its imposition; otherwise he will pay in full in purgatory.

Concerning this case Cardinal Cajetan says (Summa, s.v. Satisfaction): The third case in which the imposition of satisfaction can be omitted is the indisposition of the penitent, because he wishes to perform no penance here but offers himself to undergo it in purgatory. For such a one seems to be absolved and left to purgatory for making satisfaction, if the case is possible, because no one would refuse at least once to sign himself with the sign of the cross.

** The VV. (p. 938, note 1) have these things: St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 516) writes that Suarez and Bonacina, after the Council of Trent, call rash the opinion of Navarre and Cajetan, etc., who said that the penitent can refuse penance in order that he may satisfy for it in purgatory. Then they add: Hence it can seem wonderful that the distinguished Ballerini, in the note at no. 522, revives the same opinion anew.

Reply. Father Ballerini, as is evident to one reading the Note, revives no opinion; indeed, he contends to the contrary that Scotus and Cajetan are to be understood in that sense in which Cardinal De Lugo proposes the fourth case, namely, concerning him who, on account of his frailty, is believed to be willing to accept no penance, although in practice it never happens that he will not accept some penance, at least a light one.

And indeed, in the text cited, Cajetan says that the case is scarcely possible, because no one would refuse at least once to sign himself with the sign of the cross.

Nor does Navarre hold otherwise, who writes (Manual, ch. 26, no. 20): But I consider it altogether useless to dispute concerning the truth of this limitation, since there is no penitent so stony-hearted who confesses in good faith and is unwilling to accept even the smallest penance.

The same is read in Sporer, who indicates in addition that the mind of Scotus is no other. Provided (he says, part 3, ch. 3, no. 548) that he is willing to undergo some penance, even the lightest, for example, some Our Fathers and Hail Marys, a striking of the breast, etc. For one refusing a very light penance of this kind, especially for grave sins, would deservedly be judged not rightly disposed, nor seriously sorrowful for the sins committed, and therefore simply to be repelled from the benefit of absolution, as Scotus also notes in IV Sent., dist. 19, at the question proposed.

Reply 2. As regards venial sins, there is controversy. Some affirm that the obligation is grave, because the injunction of satisfaction pertains to the rite of this sacrament; and since this rite was instituted by Christ, it is to be regarded as a grave matter. But others say that it is light, because a grave obligation of enjoining penance for light faults alone cannot be proved, since no grave disorder appears in this. Each opinion is probable, as St. Lig. says, Homo Apostolicus, no. 47 ³.

³ Since some excepted from this obligation the occasion of a Jubilee, or even of any plenary indulgence, as though this exempted one from the obligation of rendering satisfaction, Benedict XIV (Const. Inter praeteritas, sec. 65) judged that these things should be admonished: Only one thing remained, that we should speak concerning the imposition of penance which is not to be omitted by the Confessor, since the penitent who had gained an indulgence was said not to be bound to fulfill it. But since a reason of this kind seemed too lax to us, in the Instruction mentioned at no. XXVI we declared our mind, establishing that a salutary penance is to be enjoined by the Confessor upon the penitent, even if the latter is prepared to receive the jubilee, from which assuredly arises the obligation of the penitent to fulfill it.

523. • QUESTION 2. When is penance to be imposed?

Reply. Generally speaking, it is to be imposed before absolution. The reason is that the order of judgment is thus preserved, which requires that the accused promise satisfaction before he is absolved. But if the Confessor through forgetfulness did not enjoin penance before absolution, he ought to impose it after absolution. Nevertheless, it is not grave to impose penance after absolution; indeed, it is probably free from every fault if it is presumed that the penitent will accept the work enjoined upon him ⁴. - St. Lig., no. 514; the Salmanticenses, etc.

⁴ It matters nothing whether it is imposed before or after absolution; the preparation of the penitent for it suffices. Cajetan (Summa, s.v. Satisfaction).

QUESTION 3. How much penance is to be imposed upon sinners?

Reply. The quantity of penance cannot be determined universally, but is left to the prudence and judgment of the Confessor. Nevertheless, regularly and of itself, he ought to impose a grave penance for mortal sins. Thus from the Council of Trent, as above, no. 524. - St. Lig., no. 508.

524. • QUESTION 4. What penance is of itself considered grave for one or another mortal sin?

Reply. A penance is to be considered grave, at least from the present practice of the Church, which corresponds to a work that is enjoined under grave obligation by the Church, or which would of itself oblige under grave obligation if it were commanded.

Hence a grave penance, and one sufficient for an ordinary grave sin, will be to hear Mass, to fast, to recite the Rosary, even of only five decades, the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, the Litany of the Saints, and other similar things ⁵; but a penance would not be considered grave if only the Psalm Miserere were imposed. - St. Lig., no. 545.

⁵ What the Author asserts, that hearing Mass, reciting the Rosary, etc., suffices for one or another grave sin, is not to be understood such that Rosaries, etc., ought to be multiplied in arithmetical proportion to the number of grave sins.

QUESTION 5. For what cause can a lighter penance be imposed?

Reply 1. If the penitent is very weak and infirm in body; concerning which matter the Roman Ritual says thus: Let the Priest remember that a grave and laborious penance is not to be enjoined upon the sick, but only that is to be prescribed which they may perform at an opportune time if they recover. But if the sick person is placed in danger of death, he can then be absolved without any penance, although it is always expedient to impose some penance upon him. Homo Apostolicus, no. 49. 2. If there is a prudent fear that he will not fulfill a greater penance, or that because of a graver penance he will be turned away from confession ⁶. 3. If probably a greater penance would be more harmful to him than profitable. 4. If the penitent appears very contrite. 5. If there is a time for gaining a plenary indulgence, especially a Jubilee. - St. Lig., no. 508.

⁶ The constant experience of all times has plainly brought it about that Doctors of every age and school agree in this opinion with marvelous concord; even Antoine himself, who otherwise is deservedly numbered, as St. Alphonsus says (bk. 6, no. 509), among the more rigorous writers, yielded to it.

To the point, St. Thomas says (Supplement, q. 18, art. 4, corpus): Just as medicines determined in the medical art are not suited to 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 satisfactions as punishments... are suited to 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 on account of the weakness of nature, so a priest moved by divine instinct does not always enjoin the whole punishment which is due to the sin, lest some weak person despair because of its magnitude and wholly withdraw from penance. The holy Doctor illustrates these thoughts by another example (Quodlibet 3, q. 13, art. 28): Moreover, it seems sufficiently fitting that the priest not burden the penitent with a grave weight of satisfaction; because just as a small fire is easily extinguished by much wood placed upon it, so it could happen that a small affection of contrition recently aroused in the penitent would be extinguished because of the grave burden of satisfaction, with the sinner falling into utter despair. The disciple of St. Thomas, Cardinal Cajetan, expressed these things more briefly thus (Summa, s.v. Satisfaction): But to penitents who are weakly disposed, let a small satisfaction be given according to the weakness of their soul, and let the small fire be nourished by straw placed upon it and not suffocated by great pieces of wood placed above it. But St. John Chrysostom had preceded him (On 2 Corinthians, hom. 44): For just as, if you place upon the shoulders of a youth a bundle which he cannot carry, it is necessary that he either cast away the bundle or be crushed under the weight, so also for a man upon whom you impose a grave weight of penance, it is necessary either that he reject his penance or, undertaking it when he cannot bear it, be scandalized and sin still more.

You may see many other things in St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), who also reports this notable saying from Gerson: It is safer, with a small penance which is willingly undertaken and will probably be fulfilled, to lead those who have confessed to purgatory than, by commanding a great one which will not be fulfilled, to cast them headlong into hell. St. Alphonsus adduces two parallel sayings from St. Antoninus (ibid.): If the priest cannot rejoice in his complete purification, let him at least rejoice that he sends him, freed from hell, to purgatory. Therefore, as Hostiensis says, the Confessor ought in no way to permit a despairing sinner to depart from him, but rather let him impose upon him one Our Father and another light thing, although he speaks of one who has committed great sins, and let the other good things which he shall have done, and the evils which he shall have endured, be for him as penance.... Yet understand this sanely, namely, that if he is otherwise penitent and says that he is prepared to do what he ought, but says that he cannot bear the burden of penance, then, on account of this, however much he has sinned, he ought not to be dismissed without absolution, lest he despair.

St. Thomas suggests another expedient (Quodlibet 3, art. 18), namely, that the strength and spirit of the penitent be explored: Just as the priest can enjoin satisfaction upon the penitent according to the judgment of another, so also according to the judgment of the penitent himself; as if you say: do this if you can, and if you cannot, do this. And it seems similar when the priest says: Whatever good you shall have done, let it be for you unto the remission of sins. And here pertains the admonition of St. Charles Borromeo in his Instruction to Confessors, cited by St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.): Let him impose such a penance as he judges can be performed by the penitent. Therefore, sometimes, if he shall see that it is expedient, let him ask him whether he can perform, or doubts that he can perform, the penance enjoined upon him; otherwise he shall change or lessen it. And in this manner, as St. Alphonsus (ibid.) observes, what is suggested in the Roman Ritual will be observed, namely, that in these matters account also be taken of the dispositions of penitents: Let the Confessor, says the Ritual, enjoin a salutary and fitting satisfaction, according as the spirit and prudence shall suggest, account being taken of the state, condition, sex, and dispositions of the penitents. What satisfaction is understood here as salutary and fitting is explained thus by Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 25, no. 60): It ought to be salutary and fitting; that is, in the first place attention must be given to the spiritual utility of the penitent, lest snares be cast before him so that he commit new sins. From this heading especially the present practice, in which light penances are imposed for the gravest sins, can be excused; for this is often done on account of the spiritual infirmity of penitents, who would be scandalized by graver penances and either flee confession or certainly approach unskilled confessors who do not know how to cure them.

525. • QUESTION 6. Can a penance be imposed under the condition of relapse?

Reply. Affirmative; but it is expedient that, in addition, some other satisfaction be imposed for the sins committed ⁷. - St. Lig., no. 524.

⁷ A penance imposed under the condition of relapse, if it alone is enjoined, becomes a disjunctive penance; namely, it is enjoined that the penitent either, in place of penance, employ an effort by which he resists the temptation, or otherwise pay a certain punishment. On this argument see Diana (vol. 1, tract 6, resol. 19), who adduces Sanchez denying that penitents are bound to accept it, Suarez affirming the contrary, and finally others saying that the Confessor cannot oblige him to it, but that the penitent is bound to fulfill it if he accepts it.

QUESTION 7. Can a public penance be imposed?

Reply. Negative, if there is question of hidden sins. - Thus the Roman Ritual. But it is otherwise for public sins. Nevertheless, if public penance is not so necessary, the Confessor ought not to impose it upon one refusing it, since his salvation can otherwise be obtained and the scandal repaired ⁸. - St. Lig., no. 512.

⁸ Certainly there is no discussion here of the satisfaction which the ancient discipline of the Church exacted from the faithful on account of certain crimes; for that custom has become obsolete in the Church, nor did its imposition pertain to the minister of sacramental confession. Therefore, there remains the case of some enormous scandal which ought to be repaired; and some adduce the example of a man who ought publicly to restore the honor which he publicly injured. Nevertheless, this example seems less pertinent to the matter, because if perhaps the penitent is bound to this by the natural law itself, it will not be free for the Confessor to enjoin or not enjoin it upon him. But the same must be said whenever a scandal given requires public reparation; for the penitent will be bound to this even if it is not enjoined by the Confessor as sacramental satisfaction. Besides, public scandals of this kind can generally be repaired otherwise, for example, if someone publicly approaches the Sacraments, devoutly visits churches, hears Mass, enrolls in a pious confraternity, etc. And if public reparation of this kind is not necessary, the Doctors, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 512), commonly agree that it is not to be imposed upon one who resists.

QUESTION 8. Can a work otherwise owed be imposed as penance?

Reply. Affirmative. The reason is that, since that work is satisfactory, it can well be elevated through the keys to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. - St. Lig., no. 513, and others commonly ⁹.

⁹ The common doctrine holds that, through the imposition of a work otherwise commanded, that part can be supplied which cannot be hoped for from other works because of the frailty of the penitent. But it is readily evident that, by parity of reason, this holds for those whose condition and circumstances scarcely permit fitting satisfaction to be rendered either through fasting, alms, or prayers, however much they may be of good will; for charity can counsel the Confessor to furnish them this means suited to paying punishments in this life. Moreover, even if a sufficiently fitting satisfaction has been imposed upon the penitent, nothing prevents the Confessor, especially where the penitent signifies that he desires it, from adding this aid for making more abundant satisfaction.

526. Resolutions. - 1. Perpetual penances are never to be imposed, both because they are accustomed to induce danger of forgetfulness or excessive anxiety and because, if such penances are imposed upon the same penitent by various Confessors, he will be bound by innumerable bonds at once and for his whole life. Indeed, ordinarily not even penances for a long time, for example, for a year or for five months, are to be imposed. - St. Lig., Homo Apostolicus, no. 52; Lacroix, etc.

2. Those satisfactions which can expose the penitent to the mockery of others are never to be imposed, for example, that he recite five Our Fathers in the middle of the church with arms extended, etc. Much less are penances to be imposed which cannot be fulfilled without a revelation of the confession easily following.

3. Nor are fasts to be imposed upon children, countrymen, or workmen wearied by continual labor; nor upon sons and daughters of a household who, by fasting, would cause astonishment to their parents or even offend them. Nor are pilgrimages, prolonged prayers, or generally alms to be enjoined upon women placed under the authority of a husband, just as neither upon the poor who procure their livelihood by continual labor.

4. Penances involving many diverse works are not to be imposed, because they could not be retained in memory; nor, at least ordinarily, are penances too repugnant to nature, for example, to make the sign of the cross with the tongue upon the ground, to visit enemies, etc. It is also generally imposed imprudently ¹⁰ upon children that they ask pardon of parents, or of others, for disobedience, irreverence, or petty thefts; because these penances often render confession odious and are very often omitted, etc.

¹⁰ The fruit of this imprudence will not rarely be found to have been this: that children, not daring either to ask a change of penance from the Confessor or to ask pardon from parents or others, and much less afterward daring to confess the sin of omitted penance, began a series of sacrilegious confessions and prolonged it for many years with sacrilegious Communion added.