Article — Konings, Theologia Moralis
ARTICLE II: ON THE FULFILLMENT OF PENANCE
1384. Principles. - I. The penitent is held to accept and fulfill a reasonable penance sacramentally enjoined; because from what has been said the confessor is held to impose a 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 due to the confessor, it must also be fulfilled. This is clear from Trent,1 St. Alphonsus.2
II. The penitent is held under grave obligation to fulfill a grave penance imposed for grave sins; because grave matter of itself obliges under grave obligation. - Thus all. But more probably he is obliged only under light obligation to a light penance imposed for light faults; because light matter is not capable of grave obligation. - Thus the common opinion with St. Alphonsus.3
III. 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 delays it for a long time; the reason is that per se it is grave to draw out a notable debt for a long time. But as often as the penance was not fulfilled at the established time, the burden of performing it always remains, because the time is intended only accessorily.4
Notes to n. 1384. (1) Sess. 14. c. 8. (2) L. VI. 516. (3) L. VI. 517. (4) Ib. 525. Notes to nn. 1384-1386 - note sequence 1. (1) L. VI. 520. (2) Ib. 528. 529. (3) Ib. 528. 529. (4) H. A. Tr. XVI. 61. Notes to nn. 1384-1386 - note sequence 2. (1) L. VI. 529. Dub. 1°. H. A. Tr. XVI. 61. Prax. Conf. n. 18. IV. (2) L. VI. 529. Dub. 3°. Notes to nn. 1384-1386 - note sequence 3. (1) H. A. Tr. XVI. 57.
1385. Questions. - Query 1° Does a penance, grave indeed in itself, but imposed for only venial sins, oblige under grave obligation?
Resp. Neg. probably. The reason is that then satisfaction is not necessary insofar as it is grave. Hence just as the confessor was not held, indeed could not command it under grave obligation, so neither is the penitent held to fulfill it under grave obligation. Except a) if a grave penance is to be enjoined on account of venial sins greatly disposing to mortal sin, e.g. from their frequency and their special nature, as of sensuality or dishonesty;1 b) if there is question of grave sins already confessed, for which condign penance has not yet been done, e.g. on account of very grave infirmity.
Query 2° Can the confessor, for grave faults, impose a penance which is indeed grave, but lightly obliging?
Resp. Affirm.; but see n. 1382. q. 5° at the end.
Query 3° Is the penitent held under grave obligation to fulfill the circumstances attached to the penance, e.g. that he pray on bended knees, etc.?
Resp. The solution depends on the greater or lesser affliction of the flesh which the circumstance brings, whether per se or with respect to the penitent.2 This can also depend on the intention of the confessor, which either he himself has expressly manifested, or the penitent can presume.
Query 4° Does he satisfy who fulfills the penance in mortal sin?
Resp. Affirm., with the common opinion. The reason is that in order to satisfy the precept it suffices to place the work of satisfaction enjoined, although the end of the precept is not obtained.3
Query 5° Does he sin who fulfills the penance in mortal sin?
Resp. 1° It is certain that he does not sin gravely. - Thus Theologians commonly.
Resp. 2° More probably he sins venially. The reason is that he who voluntarily places an obstacle to the effect, even partial, of the Sacrament does not seem able to be excused from some fault.
Query 6° What delay of penance is a grave fault?
Resp. Of a grave penance, and one imposed for grave sins, a delay for six months is to be judged grave, but not a delay for a month, "provided the penance is not medicinal, ... and ... can be fulfilled in the future." But the delay of a penance whose time for fulfilling it was imposed preceptively and under grave obligation will more easily, at least regularly, be grave. Nevertheless a brief, and therefore venial, delay would be, e.g. of monthly Communion for 6 or 8 days.4
Query 7° If the penitent has forgotten the penance enjoined, is he held to repeat the Confession in order to receive another penance?
Resp. Neg., with the common opinion. The reason is that the fulfillment of the penance already once enjoined has become impossible through forgetfulness, even culpable forgetfulness. But no one is held to the impossible.1
If nevertheless 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 from him what it was. (17) p. 418.
Query 8° Who can commute a penance?
Resp. 1° It can never be commuted by the penitent himself, not even for the better, although a vow can be changed by the one vowing it into a work evidently better; 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.
Resp. 2° It can be commuted, 1) by the confessor who imposed it, because the 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 the successor in the same authority can do whatever the predecessor could do. Nevertheless, according to the opinion which pleases St. Alphonsus more, it must be excepted if the penance was imposed by the Superior himself for reserved cases, because an inferior cannot change the sentence of the Superior; unless however a grave cause is present, and the Superior cannot easily be approached, and therefore his consent can be presumed.2
But 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 on account of repugnance, frailty, forgetfulness, etc.3 - But the penitent will always be able to prefer the prior penance; for the commutation is made in his favor.4
Query 9° Is the penitent held to repeat the Confession in order to obtain the commutation of the penance?
Resp. Neg., sufficiently probably; and this whether he approaches the same Confessor or another; because there is no question of a judgment to be passed concerning faults blotted out in the preceding Confession, where judgment concerning them has already been formed, but only of a penance to be commuted; but for this the knowledge of the prior penance suffices, and the knowledge of the frailty or difficulty for fulfilling it, so that, namely, either a new penance in some way equivalent may be imposed, or the given one may be lessened according to the disposition of the penitent.1
Query 10° Can the confessor commute penance outside Confession?
Resp. 1° Neg., if the confessor is a different one. The reason is that the confessor has no power except in sacramental judgment.
Resp. 2° If the confessor is the same one who imposed the penance, he can change it immediately after absolution, before the penitent departs; but not afterward. Thus more truly and more commonly. 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.2
Notes to n. 1385. (1) L. VI. 517. H. A. Tr. XVI. 56. (2) L. VI. 517. (3) Ib. 522. (4) H. A. Tr. XVI. 57. Appendix annotation (17), to n. 1385. q. 7°. p. 124. col. 1. If the forgetfulness was gravely culpable, in the following Confession, as is clear, it must be accused, as Müller rightly notes, Th. Mor., V. § 127. I say: "if the penitent prudently presumes," etc.; for example, because he has just now confessed, or there were few penitents present. I say besides: "if he can conveniently," that is, without much trouble and without moving the wonder of the bystanders. Finally I say: "he would have to approach him"; not, however, outside the confessional when, for example, the confessor has already left it; for in the case there is no question of imposing or commuting a penance. What if the confessor did not impose a penance, for example from inadvertence? If the penitent notices this before he leaves the confessional, and immediately after absolution, he ought to ask the confessor to impose a penance upon him. But if he notices this only after he has left the confessional, he is not bound to this unless he can approach the confessor immediately after absolution has been given, as was established above for Resp. 2. h.
1386. Resolves. - 1° The penitent is not held 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 integrated: otherwise he would have to satisfy twice for the same sins. The same is to be said for the same reason about a penance imposed without absolution. Except, 1° if the penance is medicinal, and therefore necessary by reason of medicine; 2° if the penitent approaches several times for completing the same Confession, and meanwhile the confessor, as is often done, imposes some penance on each occasion, so that a lesser one remains to be imposed at the end.
2° He sins gravely not only who omits the penance, but also he who omits a part of it notable in comparison with the whole penance; or even a part which would be grave considered in itself.
3° Universally, for judging concerning the gravity of an omission, attention must be paid 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 he fulfills the substance of the precept, and sins only venially, who standing, or in his bedroom, recites the Rosary which by order of the confessor ought to have been recited on bended knees or before the image of the Blessed Virgin; but otherwise if the penitent were ordered, e.g. to pray with arms extended;1 for this mortification is notable, and its omission can be held grave.
4° Prayers imposed as penance can be recited even while one meanwhile hears Mass of precept, unless however something else was established by the confessor. St. Alphonsus against a few. - Prayers which from the use of the Church, or the practice of the faithful, are wont to be recited as if in choir, e.g. the Rosary, etc., could also be recited alternately with companions.
5° The penitent cannot satisfy through another person, unless however this is done with the consent of the confessor, in which case the act by which he asks satisfaction from another on his behalf will be the penance; because satisfaction is an integral part of this Sacrament. Therefore it must necessarily be placed by the penitent himself. This is clear also from the 15th proposition of Alexander VII, p. XIII.
6° If the confessor imposed as penance two Masses to be heard on the same day, they must be heard successively, but not at the same time; for we reasonably presume that the confessor intended this.
7° It is lawful to refuse a penance truly unreasonable, e.g. a manifest penance for sins altogether hidden, or entrance into a religious order. Nor does he sin who does not wish to accept a penance which he sincerely thinks is greater than is just, or too burdensome for his weakness. Therefore in either case, if the confessor is unwilling to mitigate the penance, he can leave the Sacrament already begun imperfect and approach another confessor. But he who from sloth refuses to accept a penance of itself sufficiently fair and rather easy to fulfill, which the confessor when asked refuses to change, intending to approach another confessor so that by him he may be absolved with a penance absolutely light, does not seem, with good faith set aside, able to be excused from grave sin.2 Thus the illustrious Van Egeren rightly interprets St. Alphonsus.