Article II: On The Acceptance And Fulfillment Of Penance

1721. Principles. I. The penitent is bound TO ACCEPT penance sacramentally enjoined. The reason is: 1. because, just as the confessor, as judge, has the right and obligation of imposing penance, so the penitent, as the accused, must revere and execute the sentence of the judge; 2. because the penitent is bound, no less than the confessor, to procure the integrity of the Sacrament.³ Yet if the penance seems to him more grave than is just, and too onerous with respect to his sin or his strength, he can, if the confessor does not wish to moderate it, depart without absolution and go to another confessor. But understand this if the penance is truly unreasonable. But if he refused to accept it from sloth, and wished to be absolved from sins with a light penance, he does not seem able to be excused from grave sin, nor is he to be absolved.⁴

1722. II. The penitent is bound, under grave obligation, TO FULFILL a grave penance imposed for grave sins. - The reason is that grave matter of itself obliges under grave obligation. Hence, if he omits it wholly or in notable part, he sins gravely. - But he is bound under light obligation to fulfill a light penance imposed for light faults. Thus commonly.

But if a grave penance has been imposed for light faults, it is sufficiently probable, against Bonacina, Roncaglia, and others, that it obliges only under light obligation; because "as the confessor was not bound, indeed could not impose it under grave obligation, so neither is the penitent bound under grave obligation to fulfill it." - Except if it was imposed as medicinal for venials which greatly dispose to mortal sin; or if mortal sins already formerly confessed are at issue, concerning which the penitent has not yet done a condign penance, for example because he was absolved in some danger of death.⁵

And here it must be noted that 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 the Sacrament to be made integral is not present. - The same must be said of a penance imposed without absolution, unless it is medicinal, or unless it is ordered to absolution through a subsequent confession in which the confessor intends to impose a lesser penance.⁶

1723. III. The penitent must fulfill the penance at the TIME assigned by the confessor, or AS SOON AS he conveniently can. Namely, he sins gravely if from grave negligence he defers for a long time a penance gravely obliging; because of itself it is grave to prolong for a long time a notable debt. But as often as the penance has not been fulfilled at the established time, there always remains the burden of performing it; because the time is intended only accessorily, that is, not for ending the obligation, but for urging it.⁷

Hence St. Alphonsus notes:⁸ 1. Although there is not an obligation of fulfilling the penance before Communion, as the 22nd proposition condemned by Alexander VIII required, nevertheless he sins gravely who defers it for a long time, for example for a year, or even for six months; but not for only one month, provided the penance is not medicinal and provided he can fulfill it in the future. 2. He does not sin gravely who transfers the fast of Friday to Saturday, or who procrastinates the Communion of individual months to six or eight other days, unless, as we have already said, the penance is medicinal, and its delay induces danger of relapse.

1724. IV. The MANNER or CIRCUMSTANCE of fulfilling penance, for example that it be done with knees bent, arms extended, OBLIGES at least under venial sin. But when the obligation is to be judged light or grave "depends on the light or grave annoyance which the circumstance brings, either of itself or respectively to the penitent, according as the confessor imposing the penance signified. Thus commonly."⁹

Let it be noted: 1. Prayers imposed as penance can be recited while Mass of precept is heard, unless something else was established by the confessor. - Prayers also can be recited alternately with companions, if from the use of the Church or the practice of the faithful they are customarily recited as in choir, for example the Rosary, etc. If the confessor has imposed as penance two Masses to be heard on the same day, they must be heard successively, not at the same time; because it must reasonably be presumed that the confessor intended this.¹⁰

2. One existing in mortal sin fulfills the penance validly, nor is he bound to repeat it. For thus teaches the common and more probable opinion; and the reason is that to fulfill the precept it suffices to place the prescribed work, although the end of the precept is not obtained. - Yet it is probable that he sins venially, because one who places an obstacle to the partial effect of the Sacrament cannot be excused from some fault.¹¹

3. No other intention of satisfying is required except that which the penitent had by accepting the penance; for it perseveres at least habitually, unless it has been retracted. Thus Lugo and others more probably. "For this reason," says St. Alphonsus,¹² "each one in any satisfactory work which he places always intends by a general will to satisfy first for the work due rather than for other works of supererogation."

1725. Questions. Q. 1. Whether satisfaction can be fulfilled THROUGH ANOTHER?

Resp. 1. Extrasacramental vindicative satisfaction can well be fulfilled through another; for another can pay a debt for another, especially a friend, as St. Thomas proves.¹³ 2. Sacramental satisfaction cannot be fulfilled through another, because the acts of the penitent are the matter of the Sacrament, and therefore, just as I cannot be contrite or confess for another, so neither can I satisfy. This is also clear from the 15th proposition condemned by Alexander VII: "A penitent by his own authority can substitute another for himself, who fulfills the penance in his place."

Except the case in which the confessor grants this to the penitent, as Suarez says with St. Thomas; for then not now the work, but the very act of the penitent by which he asks satisfaction from another for himself, holds the place of formal satisfaction.¹⁴

Q. 2. To what is a penitent bound who HAS FORGOTTEN the penance?

Resp. Some, as Bonacina, St. Antoninus, etc., wish that he is bound to repeat the confession, so that the Sacrament may be made integral. - But Suarez, Vasquez, etc., more commonly, and perhaps more probably, deny such an obligation, even if the penitent had culpably forgotten the penance. The reason is that, on the one hand, the fulfillment of the penance has become impossible, and on the other hand the law is very doubtful whether sins already directly remitted must be confessed again, so that the Sacrament may be made integral. Yet, if the penitent thought that the confessor was still mindful of the penance enjoined, he would be bound, if he conveniently can, to go to him; because in this case fulfillment of the penance would still be morally possible.¹⁵

Q. 3. Who can COMMUTE a penance?

Resp. 1. It is certain and common among the Doctors, whatever Diana says with fewer others, that it cannot be commuted by the penitent himself, not even into a work evidently better; for just as it can be imposed by the confessor alone, so it can be changed by him alone.¹⁶

Resp. 2. He who imposed it can commute it, 1. because a legislator can change his own law. And this indeed he can do: 1. without the sins declared to him being repeated, provided he still knows the penance enjoined, or at least remembers confusedly the state of the penitent's conscience; 2. even outside confession, if it is done immediately after absolution and before the penitent departs; because the same judgment is judged still to persevere morally. Thus the more common and truer opinion.¹⁷ 2. Any other confessor can do the same, provided: 1. he does this within confession; 2. he commutes from a just cause, for example because he notices that the penitent has not fulfilled the penance and will not easily fulfill it: in this case he can probably change it even of his own accord; 3. the penance was not imposed by a Superior on account of reserved cases, as Suarez, Lugo, and others rightly say against Sanchez and others; because an inferior does not have the faculty of changing the sentence of a Superior in a judgment previously formed. This alone could be admitted if the penitent's return to the Superior would be difficult and otherwise a grave cause suggested commutation, because the connivance of the Superior is deservedly presumed in such a case.¹⁸

Q. 4. Whether a penance can be changed by another confessor, without the sins being accused AGAIN?

Resp. Castropalaus, Lugo, and others probably deny it, saying that the penitent must repeat the confession at least summarily, so that thus the new confessor may acquire confused knowledge of the state of his conscience. - But many others, also probably, affirm with Toletus, Navarrus, etc.; and the reason is that in this later confession it is not a question of making judgment concerning the sins brought forward in the prior confession, since that has already been completed, but only concerning the weakness of the penitent in satisfying the prior penance. It is objected: But penance must be medicinal, and how will one prescribe remedies who is ignorant of the wound of the sick person? - It is answered that the confessor can gather the matter of sins from the penance imposed, and therefore can also direct himself in the commutation or diminution of penance.¹⁹

Note. - 1. The penitent is by no means freed from the first penance if, by repeating confession before another confessor, he makes no mention of the prior confession and penance; both because he is bound to render the first Sacrament integral, and because for commuting a penance there is required on the part of the confessor a positive act of the will by which the prior obligation is revoked.

2. Once the commutation has been made, the penitent can always return to the first penance, as is commonly taught.²⁰