§ 3. On the Proximate Matter of the Sacrament of Penance

326. The proximate matter of the sacrament of penance consists of the three acts of the penitent, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Contrition must be present actually (or virtually), but confession and satisfaction at least in voto, or as implicitly included in contrition. These three acts are rightly called the proximate matter because they operate upon the remote matter, that is, sins, and prepare the sinful man so that, when the form of the sacrament, namely, the absolution of the confessor, is added, sanctifying grace may be infused into him. Thus holds the most common opinion, which rests upon the authority of St. Thomas, the Councils of Florence and Trent, the Roman Catechism, and the Roman Ritual, and moreover upon a valid theological reason.

St. Thomas⁵⁰ says: "The fourth sacrament is penance, of which the acts of the penitent are the quasi-matter." The Council of Florence as well as the Council of Trent employs these same words. The Roman Catechism, however, explains them as referring to the true matter of the sacrament.⁵¹ The Roman Ritual⁵² says: "But since three things concur to constitute it [the sacrament of penance]: matter, form, and minister, its remote matter indeed consists of sins, but its proximate matter consists of the acts of the penitent, namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; while the form is those words of absolution: I absolve thee, and so forth."

The theological reason, however, is this: Christ instituted the sacrament of penance in the form of a judgment. Now in a judgment there must be two elements: the matter of the judgment, that is, the offense accused, proved, and to be punished, and the sentence of the judge. Thus, by parity, in the sacrament of penance there must be two elements: one material, namely, the offenses of the penitent and his three acts; the other formal, namely, the absolution of the confessor. It is also evident that the three acts of the penitent, although by themselves they cannot, at least ordinarily, confer grace, nevertheless dispose one toward it.

The three acts of the penitent are the partial instrumental cause by which God causes grace in the sacrament of penance. St. Thomas⁵³ manifestly teaches this, saying: "Every sacrament produces its effect not only by the power of the form but also by the power of the matter.... Hence ... the remission of fault is the effect of penance, principally indeed from the power of the keys which the ministers possess, from whose part is taken that which is formal in this sacrament; but secondarily from the power of the acts of the penitent pertaining to the virtue of penance, yet insofar as these acts are in some manner ordered to the keys of the Church."

Moreover, in practice two things are admitted by almost all: 1. It is not lawful to give absolution to a penitent who has not elicited these three acts, although he was able to do so; 2. absolution can and must be given to dying Christians even when deprived of their senses, provided that they have at least an interpretative intention of receiving it. This interpretative intention is almost always to be presumed, and indeed even among material heretics or schismatics. Hence the more severe opinion of several older authors, for example, Concina,⁵⁴ is to be abandoned. The reason is that almost every Christian man at some time externally manifests a desire to die religiously. Now such a desire (as is already sufficiently expressed by the words, "Hail Mary ... pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen") necessarily includes the will to perform all those things which are necessary for obtaining the remission of sins, among which are contrition and confession. Therefore, since the sacraments are for men and in a case of death it is lawful to administer even doubtfully valid sacraments, a baptized man who is dying and deprived of his senses is presumed to have a sufficient intention and contrition and confession previously manifested and now virtually and even externally persevering,⁵⁵ so that he can be absolved conditionally.⁵⁶ It is otherwise if such a dying man shortly before had manifestly expressed the will not to receive the sacrament of penance; but even in that case absolution can sometimes be given under condition, because it is not certain that the dying man persisted in his perverse will. In practice it is better that a priest assisting a dying Catholic deprived of his senses proceed in this manner: Since one who appears deprived of his senses nevertheless not rarely hears well and understands the words spoken, let the priest elicit in a loud voice an act of contrition for him and then give him absolution under condition; for a salutary penance let him offer him an image of the Crucified to be kissed. Afterward, if time permits and another obstacle is absent, let him give him Extreme Unction.

⁵⁰ Op. de articulis fidei et Eccl. sacr.

⁵¹ Cf. below, n. 327, the texts cited.

⁵² Title 3, c. 1, n. 1.

⁵³ S. theol. 3, q. 86, a. 6.

⁵⁴ De poenit. l. 1, diss. 4, c. 10.

⁵⁵ Experience establishes that such men, who indeed appear deprived of their senses, have in reality perceived the words spoken and manifested contrition by a movement of the muscles and nerves.

⁵⁶ Cf. Holy Office, July 20, 1898; May 17, 1916 (Linzer Theol. Quartalschr. 1916, 693 ff.).

327. Those who think otherwise concerning the proximate matter. Certain older theologians, such as William of Auxerre and Alexander of Hales, are said to have taught that the proximate matter of this sacrament is the imposition of the hand made by the confessor. But this opinion is now obsolete, because it is certain that no imposition of the hand pertains to the essence of penance.

Several Scotists, to whom are added Melchior Cano,⁵⁷ Maldonatus,⁵⁸ and among modern authors Gury-Ballerini,⁵⁹ and more clearly Ballerini-Palmieri,⁶⁰ and Berardi,⁶¹ teach that the acts of the penitent are indeed a condition prerequired, but that the whole essence of the sacrament consists in absolution, which, insofar as it is an external ceremony, constitutes the proximate matter, but insofar as it has the power of signifying, is the form. Several arguments collected in favor of this opinion are found in Ballerini-Palmieri.⁶² The principal argument is this: The matter of a sacrament must be a sensible sign. But it is lawful to give sacramental absolution to a dying man who by no sensible sign manifests either confession or contrition or satisfaction. Therefore in this case a sacrament would be administered without matter, which is manifestly false. But it is answered to this argument that the matter of penance even in this case is truly sensible, namely, virtually. For a man deprived of his senses could not be validly absolved unless previously by words or signs he had manifested the intention of receiving the sacrament of penance in a similar case. Now, with such an intention virtually persevering, there also virtually exists the matter necessary for the sacrament of penance, namely, confession and contrition externally manifested.

The opinion of the Scotists can be reconciled only with difficulty with the Councils of Florence and Trent defining that the quasi-matter of the sacrament of penance consists of the three acts of the penitent. The Roman Catechism, however, whose authority is very great and whose authors knew the mind of the Council of Trent exceedingly well, thus teaches: "Nor indeed are these acts called quasi-matter by the Holy Synod because they do not have the character of true matter, but because they are not matter of that kind which is applied externally, as water in baptism and chrism in confirmation." From all these things it follows that the opinion of the Thomists teaching that the three acts of the penitent are the matter of the sacrament of penance is safer and truer. If, on the contrary, the opinion of the Scotists were true, corollaries of the greatest moment would follow; for if confession, contrition, and satisfaction were not the proximate matter of penance, a) this sacrament could be valid without them; b) in controversies concerning them we would not be obliged to follow the safer opinion, because this obligation exists only for the essentials of the sacrament. It would therefore be lawful to follow a truly probable opinion. These two corollaries indeed are most commonly rejected by modern theologians.

⁵⁷ Relect. de poenit. p. 6, q. 16.

⁵⁸ De poenit. p. 3, thes. 7.

⁵⁹ Comp. Theol. mor. II, n. 414 and 447, q. 7, note.

⁶⁰ De poenit. n. 5 ff.

⁶¹ Prax. confess. IV, n. 2.

⁶² Loc. cit. P. Galtier, S.J., treats abundantly of these diverse opinions in De poenitentia, n. 376 ff.