Article II. On the Fulfillment of Penance

527. Principles. - I. 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 a penance, and indeed one proportioned in some manner to the sins. But if a penance ought to be imposed and accepted, by that very fact it must also be fulfilled by reason of the obedience owed to the Confessor. It is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 8. - St. Lig., no. 516; Homo Apostolicus, no. 55.

II. 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. - Thus all. More probably, however, he is bound only under light obligation to a light penance imposed for light faults, because light matter is not capable of a grave obligation. - Thus more commonly with St. Lig., no. 517, against certain authors.

III. The penitent ought to 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 through grave negligence he defers it for a long time ¹. The reason is that it is of itself grave to defer a notable debt for a long time. Whenever the penance was not fulfilled at the appointed time, the burden of performing it always remains, because the time is intended only accessorily. - St. Lig., no. 525.

¹ See what is to be said below, no. 530, Question 6.

528. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Does a penance which is indeed grave in itself, but imposed for venial sins alone, oblige under grave obligation?

Reply. More probably, negative. The reason is that then satisfaction, insofar as it is grave, is not necessary. Hence, just as the Confessor was not bound, indeed was not able, to command it under grave obligation, so neither is the penitent bound to fulfill it under grave obligation. - St. Lig., no. 517 ².

² ** The VV. (p. 397, no. 118), as though by way of supplement to this reply of Gury, adduce those things which St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 517) reports and approves from Roncaglia, namely, that if those venial sins should accidentally dispose the penitent greatly toward mortal sin, the Confessor could then impose a grave penance upon him in order to remove him from the danger of sinning mortally; and then the penitent, if he wishes to be absolved, will be bound to accept and fulfill it.

But Suarez had written much better and more accurately concerning a case of this kind thus (De Poenit., disp. 38, sect. 7, no. 7): If, for the sake of cure and medicine, the Confessor judges this expedient, he will be able to do it, and the penitent will be bound to obey; because then there is question rather of a fitting disposition for the remission of sins than of satisfaction for temporal punishment. Hence that precept laid down by the Confessor is not so much a new imposition as a declaration of some obligation which the penitent has of himself, so that there can be moral certainty concerning his disposition and purpose of avoiding sins; and at most the priest then seems to determine the manner or means. In this, if there are several sufficient means, he can accommodate himself to the will of the penitent, so that he may choose the medicine; because this suffices FOR HIS CURE, FOR WHICH ALONE the priest has right and power in that act, as was declared. Wherefore, that which St. Alphonsus adds to Roncaglia's opinion, namely, that the penitent, if he wishes to be absolved, will be bound to accept and fulfill that grave satisfaction, must indeed be maintained if this is the sole means of cure; otherwise, if several sufficient means are at hand, because, as Suarez says, the priest has right and power for the cure alone. This observation occurs all the more opportunely because St. Alphonsus also rejects the doctrine of Roncaglia, who (On the Sacrament of Penance, q. 4, ch. 2, reply 2) deduces the power of imposing a grave penance for venial sins generally from another false principle.

QUESTION 2. Can the Confessor impose for grave faults a penance which is indeed GRAVE, but obliges LIGHTLY?

Reply. Affirmative, because any legislator can command grave matter under a light obligation; nevertheless, this is generally not expedient. - Suarez with the common opinion, cited by St. Lig., no. 518 ³.

³ St. Alphonsus would prefer that at least something be enjoined under grave obligation, with which something else, even graver, could then be imposed under light obligation. But he himself does not deny that the opposite opinion is the more common; and from this very fact it is argued that the argument which he attempts to elicit from the Council of Trent for his opinion is less firm.

QUESTION 3. Is the penitent bound UNDER GRAVE OBLIGATION to fulfill the CIRCUMSTANCES added to the penance, for example, to pray ON BENDED KNEES, etc.?

Reply. The solution depends upon the greater or lesser affliction of the flesh which the circumstance brings, either of itself or in relation to the penitent. - St. Lig., no. 517. This can also depend upon the intention of the Confessor, which either he himself has expressly manifested or the penitent can presume ⁴.

⁴ A rule of this kind, which reserves to the penitent the office of presuming, etc., is perhaps too difficult, because most are incapable of judging concerning these things.

529. • QUESTION 4. Does one satisfy who fulfills penance while in mortal sin?

Reply. Affirmative, with the common opinion. The reason is that, for satisfying the precept, it suffices to place the work of satisfaction enjoined, even though the end of the precept is not obtained. - St. Lig., no. 522.

QUESTION 5. Does one sin who fulfills penance while in mortal sin?

Reply 1. It is certain that he does not sin gravely. - Thus commonly the Theologians.

Reply 2. According to some, he sins venially. The reason is that one who voluntarily places an obstacle to an effect, even a partial effect, of the Sacrament does not seem capable of being excused from some fault. Nevertheless, several grave Theologians probably hold with Lugo that he is exempt from every fault, because there is no fault in placing an obstacle solely to the remission of punishments ⁵. - St. Lig., no. 523.

⁵ This ought to hold especially when the penance must be prolonged over several days. For who would say that the penitent is bound to recover grace in order that he may fulfill the penance? Otherwise, as the Salmanticenses note (De Poenit., ch. 10, no. 70), the penitent would sin both by fulfilling the penance and by not fulfilling it: by fulfilling it, indeed, because he fulfills it in the state of sin; by not fulfilling it, because he would omit it. And this second opinion is indeed all the more probable in the opinion of those who say that the effect of satisfaction is obtained in the case when the obstacle is afterward removed.

** Here also, as often elsewhere, the VV. (p. 938, note 2) observe that in earlier editions of Father Gury it read: more probably he sins venially.

Reply. Gury seems previously to have followed St. Alphonsus, who says (bk. 6, no. 523): Others more probably hold that he sins venially. Afterward, however, he altered the opinion somewhat, perhaps moved by the reasons of the Salmanticenses, who add to the reason adduced here in the Note: Indeed, it would have to be said that one existing in mortal sin who has not yet fulfilled penance is bound first to justify himself and afterward to fulfill the penance; all of which things do not seem to have been received into common usage. But did not St. Alphonsus also alter his opinion somewhat here? For in the edition of the year 1748 (bk. 6, tract 4, doubt IV, art. 1, note E) he has merely these things: Indeed, the Salmanticenses, Lugo, and Dicastillo probably teach that it is not even venial to fulfill penance in mortal sin.

Besides, since the VV. consider it worthwhile to mention wherever Father Gury in preceding Editions preferred another opinion, as being one which pleases the VV. more, let them not therefore take it badly that others do the very same with St. Alphonsus and prefer the earlier, unchanged opinion of the same Doctor to his opinion afterward changed, as being one which they judge more plausible.

530. • QUESTION 6. What delay of penance is a grave fault?

Reply 1. If the penance was light, a delay, however great it may be, will never be grave, since from what has been said the omission of the penance itself more probably does not exceed a light fault.

Reply 2. If the penance is grave and imposed for grave sins, a delay of two or three months is more probably to be regarded as grave when it is medicinal or there is danger of forgetfulness. Besides, no general rule concerning this can be established ⁶. - St. Lig., no. 524.

⁶ No one doubts that penitents are to be counseled to fulfill satisfaction as soon as they conveniently can. But if it is asked when delay incurs guilt, especially grave guilt, it can scarcely be believed how much the Doctors disagree among themselves, so that you have as many diverse opinions as you have intermediate periods of time between eight days and a year, and indeed in such a manner that, while eight days are established by some as a limit beyond which delay can already be condemned as grave guilt (see St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, no. 521), others judge a delay of a whole year free from fault (see Diana, vol. 1, tract 6, resols. 44 and 45, coordinated ed.). Nor does the distinction of a medicinal penance press greatly. For if you suppose that the infirmity is cured by other remedies, the obligation which the medicinal character would infer ceases.

Whence, then, so great a variety of opinions? Assuredly from the fact that some solid reason for concluding anything more certain is altogether lacking. But this is most certain according to the opinion of all: nothing is to be condemned as mortal unless a manifest and evident reason advises it. Therefore, whatever may be said concerning eight days, fifteen days, a month, two months, etc., pertains to private opinions which wholly lack the force of impressing upon the conscience that there is grave sin.

** And let the VV. also bear this with an equitable mind, who (p. 938, no. 121) oppose the opinions of St. Alphonsus also to this passage of the Author. For whatever probability they may finally please to attribute to these opinions, this obedience above all must be rendered religiously to the holy Doctor: that we also most religiously preserve, both in words and deeds, the rules which he establishes with all the Doctors, and which we have more than once recalled elsewhere, concerning the assertion of the gravity of a sin.

And as regards delay, even when the Confessor has prescribed a time, behold the Salmanticenses, cited by St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), condemning of mortal sin one who defers an enjoined Communion for four days; against whom St. Alphonsus places the more common opinion, which considers a delay of six or eight days light. But others will perhaps reply that it is not to be presumed that the Confessor wished to entangle the penitent in these snares, so that for any delay whatever he might become guilty of mortal fault; nor would the Confessor act otherwise than imprudently if, recognizing from the character of the penitent that negligence of this kind would probably occur, he imposed these bonds under grave obligation. For, from those things which were said above in the note at nos. 522 and 523, injunctions of this kind would have to be called not salutary, but deadly. For otherwise, what sort of disposition, I ask, would there be in men who know not how to prescribe medicines unless they destine to eternal despair in hell the miserable sick man who perhaps does not observe the commands to the letter?

QUESTION 7. If the penitent has forgotten the penance enjoined, is he bound to repeat the confession in order to receive another penance?

Reply. More probably, negative. The reason is that fulfillment of the penance once enjoined has been rendered impossible through forgetfulness, even culpable forgetfulness. But no one is bound to the impossible. - Thus St. Lig., no. 520, and others commonly.

If, however, the penitent prudently presumes that the Confessor still remembers the penance enjoined, he ought, if he conveniently can, to approach him so that he may learn again from him what that penance is.

531. • QUESTION 8. Who can commute a penance?

Reply 1. It can never be commuted by the penitent himself, not even into something better, although a vow can be changed by the one vowing it into a manifestly better work. The reason is that a penance cannot be elevated to the merit of sacramental satisfaction unless it was imposed by the Minister himself of the Sacrament of Penance.

Reply 2. 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 his predecessor could.

Nevertheless, it seems that an exception must be made 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 readily be presumed. - St. Lig., nos. 528 and 529.

For a commutation to be made licitly, however, a just cause is required, such as: 1. if the penance seems difficult; 2. if it is foreseen that the penitent will not fulfill it because of repugnance, frailty, forgetfulness, etc. - St. Lig., no. 528.

532. • QUESTION 9. Is the penitent bound to repeat the confession in order to obtain a commutation of penance?

Reply 1. If he approaches the same Confessor, it will not be necessary to repeat it when the Confessor remembers, even in some confused manner, the state of conscience of the penitent ⁷.

⁷ In the present case this recollection is required altogether without cause. For even if no memory of the state of the penitent is retained, it is nevertheless apparent what can fittingly be substituted for the burden which had otherwise been judged fitting for the state of the penitent. Therefore, a fitting satisfaction can be enjoined even without that recollection.

Reply 2. If he approaches another Confessor, or even the same one who no longer remembers the sins, it suffices that he confess summarily, so that the Confessor may acquire a confused knowledge of his state ⁸. - Thus St. Lig., no. 529, and others commonly against certain authors.

⁸ No one doubts that a summary Confession suffices; but it is not necessary if the same Confessor is approached. But if another is approached, you have from Reply 3 below what is to be established.

Reply 3. More probably, this summary confession is required if the Confessor does not know, at least in a confused manner, the state of the penitent. The reason is that the Confessor cannot commute the penance except in sacramental judgment; but he cannot exercise this judgment unless the penitent discloses to him the state of his conscience. - Lacroix, Elbel, etc.

Nevertheless, St. Lig. with others probably denies this, because there is not question of rendering judgment concerning faults remitted in the preceding confession, where judgment concerning them has already been formed, but only of commuting the penance. For this, however, knowledge of the former penance and awareness of the frailty or difficulty in fulfilling it suffices, so that a new penance in some manner equivalent may be imposed ⁹.

⁹ If the commutation ought to be made because of the infirmity or frailty of the penitent, you will not easily attain it through the substitution of an equivalent.

533. • QUESTION 10. Can the Confessor commute a penance outside confession?

Reply 1. Negative, if the Confessor is a different one. The reason is that the Confessor has no power except in sacramental judgment.

Reply 2. If the 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. Therefore, etc. - Thus St. Lig., no. 529, where he says that this is the truer and more common opinion with Suarez, the Salmanticenses, etc. But others say that the commutation of penance can be made by the same Confessor outside confession within the space of one day ¹⁰, because it then still seems to be morally united with the preceding sacramental judgment. For just as a longer interval does not prevent either sorrow, confession, or even the fulfillment of satisfaction from being morally united with absolution, so also can judgment be made concerning the change of penance. - Lugo, disp., no. 112; Voit, no. 632.

¹⁰ Cardinal De Lugo, whose opinion is explained here, nowhere restricted the matter to the space of one day. And if this commutation can indeed be as distant from confession as sorrow from confession, confession from absolution, or finally satisfaction from absolution, it readily appears that this measure of one day is inserted here beside the point.

534. Resolutions. - 1. The penitent is not bound to fulfill the penance when the confession was invalid, because the sacramental sentence of the judge was null, and consequently there is no Sacrament whose integrity must be completed; otherwise satisfaction would have to be made twice for the same sins. For the same reason, the same is to be said of a penance imposed without absolution. - Collet, Reuter, and others commonly. Except: 1. if the penance is medicinal, and therefore necessary by reason of medicine ¹¹; 2. if the penitent approaches several times to complete the same confession, and meanwhile the Confessor, as is often customary, imposes some penance on each occasion, so that a lesser penance may remain to be imposed at the end.

¹¹ In this hypothesis the work enjoined will be necessary, not because it was enjoined by the Confessor, but because it was imposed by the natural law. For this, however, it is further required that the work be the sole means by which someone can avoid sin.

2. Not only does one who omits the penance sin gravely, but also one who omits a part of it notable in relation to the entire penance, or even a part which would be grave considered in itself.

3. Universally, in judging the gravity of an omission, attention must be given to whether the matter or circumstance omitted contributes much or little to the end of the precept, whether the substance of the precept has been fulfilled, etc. Thus one fulfills the substance of the precept and sins only venially if, standing or in his room, he recites the Rosary which, by command of the Confessor, ought to have been recited on bended knees or before an image of the Blessed Virgin. But it is otherwise if the penitent was commanded, for example, to pray with arms extended; for this is a notable mortification, the omission of which can be regarded as grave.

4. Prayers imposed as penance can be recited even while someone is meanwhile hearing a Mass of precept, unless, however, something else was established by the Confessor. - St. Lig., no. 525, against a few. They could also be recited alternately with companions when, from the usage of the Church or the practice of the faithful, the prayers are customarily recited as in choir, for example, the Rosary, etc.

5. The penitent cannot make satisfaction through another, unless, however, this is done with the consent of the Confessor; because satisfaction is, as it were, the matter of this sacrament and an integral part ¹². Therefore, satisfaction must necessarily be placed by the penitent himself. This is also established from proposition 15 condemned by Alexander VII, which is of this kind: A penitent can by his own authority substitute another for himself who may fulfill the penance in his place.

¹² If this is done with the consent of the Confessor, you have the work enjoined, or satisfaction, and therefore the integral part of the sacrament, in the care by which the penitent moves another to perform something. But the condemned proposition which is appended in the text strikes him who by his own authority, and not him who with the Confessor as author, substitutes another for himself.

6. If the Confessor has imposed as penance that two Masses be heard on the same day, they seem to have to be heard successively and not at the same time; for we reasonably presume that the Confessor intended this. - St. Lig., Homo Apostolicus, no. 57; Lacroix and others commonly.

7. A penitent upon whom a more difficult penance is enjoined ought to warn the Confessor concerning the impossibility or excessive difficulty of fulfilling it; and if the Confessor does not acquiesce, he can approach another. But if the penance does not appear so grave, the penitent is bound to accept it and cannot withdraw without some fault ¹³.

¹³ There will namely be present at least the vice of sloth.

8. If a penitent, having accepted a penance from one Confessor, repeats the confession before another in order that he may obtain a milder penance, or even for another cause, he is by no means freed from the former penance unless he makes mention of the preceding confession and the penance accepted. The reason is that, on the part of the Confessor, a positive act of the will by which the prior obligation is revoked is required for commuting a penance. - Thus commonly Lugo, Lacroix, etc.