§ 2. On the Necessity of Imposing Satisfaction

394. Principle 1. The confessor not only can, but also regularly must impose satisfaction upon the penitent.

The confessor can impose a satisfaction of this kind both because he has the power not only of loosing from punishment but also of binding to punishment, and because his operation must be conformed to the operation of God, whose minister he is. But God, after remitting eternal punishment, still inflicts temporal punishments.

The confessor regularly must impose satisfaction, because otherwise he both acts against the intention of God and greatly harms the penitent, since the latter is deprived of the great goods enumerated in the preceding paragraph as effects of sacramental satisfaction. Hence the Council of Trent²⁵¹ establishes: "Therefore the priests of the Lord must impose salutary and suitable satisfactions, according as spirit and prudence shall suggest, with regard both to the character of the crimes and to the capacity of the penitents, lest, if perhaps they connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by imposing certain very light works for most grave offenses, they become participants in the sins of others." It is said, however: regularly, because per accidens the confessor is not bound to impose satisfaction, for example, if satisfaction is impossible for the penitent, as at the extreme point of death when the penitent is so weak that he can no longer perform any act. Nevertheless, even in this case it is expedient to impose a very light satisfaction which the priest himself immediately performs with the penitent, for example, to invoke the name of Jesus or to kiss an image of the Crucified. Besides this case of extreme infirmity, certain authors adduce two others: 1. when the confessor knows by divine revelation that all the temporal punishment of the penitent has already been remitted; 2. when the penitent, after absolution has already been received, again accuses himself of necessary matter and again receives absolution. It is better, however, in this second case to impose a new, although light, penance, or at least to impose anew the penance imposed because of this matter accused. St. Alphonsus,²⁵² however, does not admit this last course, because the same work cannot be imposed again under the same title.

²⁵¹ L.c. (Denz., n. 905). The same is established by the Code of Canon Law, c. 887.

²⁵² Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 513, dub. 2.

395. The gravity of this obligation certainly exists per se if there is question of satisfaction to be imposed for mortal sins not yet directly remitted. Thus all teach. Hence a confessor sins gravely who knowingly neglects to impose satisfaction upon a penitent who has confessed grave sins, unless, however, it is impossible for the penitent to fulfill any satisfaction, as if he is deprived of his senses or near death.

The controversy among theologians concerning the obligation of imposing satisfaction if the penitent accuses himself only of venial sins or of mortal sins already remitted has no practical utility, since all admit that satisfaction must always be imposed upon a penitent capable of fulfilling it. For the confessor would fail in his office, would irreverently deprive the sacrament of an integral part, and would harm the penitent if he voluntarily omitted imposing a penance.²⁵³

Satisfaction is to be imposed before absolution, as the Roman Ritual rightly prescribes. For the penitent must accept the penance to be fulfilled before he is worthy of absolution. Hence those confessors act wrongly who are accustomed to enjoin the penance after absolution. If, however, the confessor has perhaps forgotten to impose the penance before absolution, he can afterward supply this.

²⁵³ Lugo (De sacr. poenit., disp. 25, n. 49), Noldin-Schmitt (De sacr.¹⁷, n. 301), and others teach that the confessor has only a light obligation to impose satisfaction upon a penitent who has confessed light sins.

396. Principle 2. The quantity and quality of the penance must be determined both according to the character and number of the crimes and according to the capacity of the penitents. Thus the Council of Trent²⁵⁴ and the Code of Canon Law, c. 887.

Therefore for a grave sin a grave satisfaction must also per se be imposed, and a confessor who without a just cause imposed a very light satisfaction for grave offenses would without doubt sin. The more numerous and greater the offenses committed are, the greater the satisfaction to be imposed; but one must not proceed mathematically, so that, for example, one who confessed ten mortal sins would receive a penance ten times graver than if he had accused himself of one mortal sin. Hence it is better to impose upon the penitent a lighter satisfaction which will be willingly and perfectly fulfilled than to exact a greater one which will be neglected or fulfilled defectively. Hence that saying of Gerson: It is safer with a small penance which is willingly undertaken and will more probably be fulfilled to lead those who have confessed into purgatory than with a great penance which will not be fulfilled to cast them headlong into hell.²⁵⁵ In the ancient Church severe penances were customarily imposed for grave sins, as is evident from the ancient Penitential Canons. From the present practice of the Church, however, that penance is considered grave which, if it were otherwise commanded by the Church, would bind under grave obligation. Hence a grave satisfaction is, for example, to hear Mass, to fast for one day, to recite five decades of the Rosary or the Litany of All Saints with its prayers, and other similar things. But the recitation of the Litany of Loreto, three decades of the Rosary, or the Psalm Miserere is not considered a grave penance. It is evident of itself that a penance which in itself is light, such as five Our Fathers, becomes grave if the penitent must fulfill it repeatedly, for example, for a month.

²⁵⁴ Sess. 14, c. 8 (Denz., n. 905).

²⁵⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 510.

397. Satisfaction can be diminished for many causes, since attention must be given not only to the gravity of the sins but also to the capacity of the penitent. Causes of this kind are chiefly:

a) Bodily infirmity.

Hence light penances ought to be enjoined upon the sick, nor is it ordinarily expedient to impose upon them some penance which they must fulfill after health has been recovered. It is salutary, however, if the confessor counsels them patiently to endure the pains of illness in satisfaction for their sins.

b) Spiritual infirmity.

Namely, if it is rightly feared that a graver penance would harm rather than profit the soul of the penitent. St. Thomas²⁵⁶ wisely notes to the point: "It seems sufficiently fitting that the priest not burden the penitent with a grave burden of satisfaction, because, just as a small fire is easily extinguished by many pieces of wood placed upon it, so it could happen that the small effect of contrition recently aroused in the penitent would be extinguished because of a grave burden of satisfaction, with the sinner falling altogether into despair." When the confessor fears that the penitent will not accept a graver penance, he acts prudently if he imposes a work already commanded from elsewhere, for example, the hearing of Sunday Mass.

c) Great and extraordinary contrition.

For it is thought already to have destroyed all temporal punishments. Thus Cajetan²⁵⁷ and others. Nevertheless, a penitent who has truly been struck by so great a contrition willingly accepts a suitable satisfaction, and therefore then, unless other reasons are added, it is not fitting to diminish the penance, since the penitent would thus be deprived of an efficacious spiritual good.

d) A time of jubilee or of plenary indulgence.

Certain older theologians are reported to have taught²⁵⁸ that satisfaction should not be imposed upon those penitents who intend to gain a plenary indulgence; but Benedict XIV rejected this doctrine.²⁵⁹ The reason is that no one can be certain that the indulgence was truly received, and moreover, although the penitent gains the indulgence, he must still fulfill the satisfaction lest the sacrament remain incomplete. The confessor acts excellently if he enjoins prayers enriched with indulgences as penances, or if he counsels the penitent to strive to gain indulgences. For then the penitent simultaneously performs the penance and gains the indulgence.²⁶⁰

e) Satisfaction to be rendered by the confessor himself for the penitent.

Certain confessors, led by fervent zeal and imitating the example of Christ, who made satisfaction for the sins of the whole world, have made and do make satisfactions for penitents. Although proposition 15, "that the penitent can by his own authority substitute another for himself who may fulfill the penance in his place,"²⁶¹ was proscribed by Alexander VII, nevertheless nothing prevents the confessor himself from assuming not the whole but a partial satisfaction of the penitent. For because of the communion of saints, vicarious satisfaction is given.

²⁵⁶ Quodl. 3, q. 13, a. 28.

²⁵⁷ Summula, s.v. "satisfactio."

²⁵⁸ St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 519) cites for this opinion Lugo, Suarez, Toletus, and even St. Thomas (Suppl., q. 25, a. 1 ad 3 and 4), but the mind of these authors is not so clearly established, and especially St. Thomas does not seem to teach it.

²⁵⁹ Constitution Inter praeteritos, § 65, December 3, 1749; cf. the Constitution of Leo XII, Caritate Christi.

²⁶⁰ Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, June 14, 1901; Code of Canon Law, c. 932.

²⁶¹ Denz., n. 1115.

398. The quality of satisfaction must be conformed to the condition of the penitent. In general, all good works can be enjoined as a salutary penance, but especially works of religion, charity, and mortification, or prayer, almsgiving, and fasting.²⁶²

a) Per se, nothing indeed prevents a merely internal work, such as meditation, from being enjoined as a salutary penance, since in the present state of affairs even acts of the mind are laborious. Nevertheless, in practice it is better to impose, besides a merely internal work, also some sensible work as satisfaction, because satisfaction pertains to the sensible sign of the sacrament at least as an integral part.

b) Per se, even cessation from a good work which is not necessary could be imposed, for example, to omit Mass on weekdays. For then the penance would not be the cessation itself, but the act of humility and obedience exercised through this cessation. Such a penance is rarely expedient, however, at least if it is imposed alone.²⁶³

c) Even a work to be offered for the departed can be a salutary penance, because then the impetratory effect accrues to the departed, but the satisfactory effect returns to the penitent.²⁶⁴

d) Even a work already commanded from elsewhere can, when a just cause exists, be imposed as a salutary penance, as St. Alphonsus^264a teaches with many authors against a few. For that work can be elevated through the keys to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. Therefore, just as one who on a feast day hears Mass which is also due by vow has a twofold merit, so one who fulfills as a penance a work commanded from elsewhere acquires a twofold merit. Nevertheless, ordinarily this is not to be done, and unless the confessor expressly declares that he is enjoining a work already prescribed from elsewhere, the penance is presumed to be a work of supererogation. Hence a penitent who received as a salutary penance the hearing of Mass on Sunday is bound to hear two Masses. But if the confessor expressly imposed a work due from elsewhere, and nevertheless the penitent voluntarily omitted it, there is a twofold sin, namely, transgression of the law and omission of the penance.

e) In general, it is not expedient to impose a public penance, either for occult sins, as the Roman Ritual establishes, or for public sins, because such public penances are accustomed to render the sacrament odious. If, however, the sin committed was public and truly scandalous, then it is left to the prudence of the confessor to impose a public penance for the reparation of the scandal.

f) Unsuitable penances are all those which are not proportioned to the capacity of the penitent, for example, fasts for children, country people, or laborers; lengthy prayers or pilgrimages for children of a family; penances repugnant to nature, such as making the sign of the cross upon the ground with the tongue, or visiting enemies. St. Alphonsus²⁶⁵ exclaims: "How imprudently confessors conduct themselves who impose great penances which they foresee the penitents will not fulfill!"

²⁶² Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 15, a. 3.

²⁶³ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 514.

²⁶⁴ Cf. Catech. Rom. P. 2, c. 5, at the end of q. 63.

^264a L.c., n. 513.

²⁶⁵ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 510.