Dogmatic Part — Chapter II: On the Acts of the Penitent

The power of the keys, from what has been said, must be exercised in a judicial mode, and therefore supposes certain acts on the part of the penitent. Now the exomologesis described above included three principal acts: confession of sins, not only before God, but also before His ministers; contrition, or hatred and detestation of sin; satisfaction, that is, the long and laborious expiation of the offense: concerning these things we must speak separately.

92. State of the question. 1. Notion of confession. (A) In the Old Law, although the sacrament of penance had not yet been instituted and there was no sacramental confession, nevertheless a certain confession of sins was acknowledged, and indeed threefold: -

(a) Confession made to God, for obtaining the remission of sins more easily: "He who hides his crimes shall not be directed, but he who shall have confessed and forsaken them shall obtain mercy";¹ (b) a general confession by which the Supreme Pontiff publicly recited the iniquities of the people of Israel once a year: "Then let him offer the living goat; and with both hands placed upon its head, let him confess all the iniquities of the children of Israel";² (c) a more specific confession, which was made to priests when a sacrifice for sin was offered, because the victim was different according to the diversity of sins, or also when restitution had to be made.³ (d) The Jews who were baptized by John confessed their sins,⁴ so that they might thus more efficaciously manifest their purpose of doing penance; but this confession was not sacramental.⁵

¹ Prov. 28:13; cf. Eccli. 4:31.

² Levit. 16:20-21.

³ Levit. 4:3-35; 5:1-13; 6:1-7; Num. 5:6-7.

⁴ Matt. 3:6.

⁵ Cf. Vacant, in Dictionnaire de la Bible, under the word confession.

(B) But after the sacrament of penance was instituted, the confession of sins was one of the acts required for the remission of sins, and was often called exomologesis. Now the Greek word exomologesis, which is frequently found among the Fathers, signifies two things: the whole action of penance, or the long and laborious series of acts by which the remission of sins was obtained; and the first part of this penance, namely the declaration of sins, whether it is public, or private or auricular.

Understood in this latter sense, sacramental confession is the accusation of one's own sins committed after baptism, made to a legitimate priest, for obtaining pardon through the power of the keys.

93. 2. Errors concerning the necessity of confession. Protestants and their precursors denied this necessity: - (a) Wycliffe, saying: "If a man has been duly contrite, every external confession is superfluous and useless to him"; this proposition was condemned by the Council of Constance;¹ (b) Luther, who nevertheless was not consistent with himself, asserting at one time that confession is "a most bloody slaughterhouse, which tortures miserable consciences," and at another time "the best remedy for afflicted consciences";² (c) Calvin,³ who contends that auricular confession, as it exists among the Romanists, was instituted not by Christ, but by Innocent III in the Lateran Council, and that it is a thing harmful to the Church; (d) modern Protestants, even Ritualists, who, although they acknowledge its utility, nevertheless reject its necessity.⁴

¹ Denzing., n. 483.

² In Moehler, Symbolik (La Symbolique, Symbolism), § 33.

³ Cf. Instit., bk. III, ch. 4.

⁴ "Absolution in the Anglican church - for we do not have the sacrament of Penance in the sense of the Romans (Catholics) - must be considered only a privilege of the faithful. There is no obligation to open sins secretly to a presbyter, since there is no general law; and those who do so cannot boast of a higher perfection in the observance of religious duties; and those who abstain from confession cannot rightly be accused of having failed in duty." (Morgan Dix, op. cit., p. 90).

94. The arguments by which today's Protestants attack both the divine institution and the necessity of confession are taken from history and are reduced to these: (a) Certain testimonies concerning confession are indeed found among sacred authors and the Fathers; but there it is a question of confession before God, not of confession made before priests; (b) moreover, the confession which the ancient Fathers commemorate is not auricular, and therefore not sacramental, but public and for repairing the scandal given to the community; (c) from the seventh century, in the Penitentials, auricular confession is indeed described, but from the mode in which it is performed, from the many prayers recited, the fasts required for it, and other circumstances, it is clearly gathered that it was very extraordinary; (d) besides, even in the twelfth century, there is doubt concerning its necessity, and some assert that confession made to God suffices, without there being need to confess to priests. From these things it is clear that only in the thirteenth century was auricular confession held as necessary.¹

¹ Lea sets forth these arguments at length, op. cit., t. I, p. 168-273.

95. 3. Catholic doctrine. Against these errors, Trent² expounds Catholic doctrine (a) concerning the divine institution and necessity of sacramental confession: -

² Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 5.

"From the institution of the sacrament of Penance already explained, the universal Church has always understood that the complete confession of sins was also instituted by the Lord, and exists as necessary by divine right for all who have fallen after Baptism: because our Lord Jesus Christ, about to ascend from the earth to heaven, left priests as vicars of Himself, as presidents and judges, to whom all mortal crimes into which Christ's faithful shall have fallen should be brought; so that, according to the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of remission or retention of sins. For it is clear that priests could not have exercised this judgment when the cause was unknown, nor indeed could they have observed equity in imposing penalties, if they themselves had declared their sins only in general, and not rather in species and individually. From these things it is gathered that penitents must recount in confession all mortal sins of which they have consciousness after diligent examination of themselves, even if those sins are most occult."

Three things are asserted here: the divine institution of confession, its necessity, and also its object, namely all mortal sins committed after baptism, of which consciousness is had.

96. (b) But as to the mode of confessing, secret or public, the Holy Synod adds: -

"Moreover, as to the mode of confessing secretly before a priest alone, although Christ did not forbid that someone, in vengeance for his crimes and for his humiliation, both on account of the example of others and on account of the edification of the offended Church, can publicly confess his offenses, nevertheless this is not commanded by a divine precept, nor would it be sufficiently prudent for it to be prescribed by some human law that offenses, especially secret ones, should be opened by public confession.

"Hence, since by the most holy and most ancient Fathers, with great and unanimous consent, secret sacramental confession, which the holy Church has used from the beginning and also now uses, has always been commended, the vain calumny of those who do not fear to teach that it is alien from the divine command, and is a human invention, and had its beginning from the Fathers gathered in the Lateran Council, is manifestly refuted. For by the Lateran Council the Church did not establish that Christ's faithful should confess, which it understood to be necessary and instituted by divine right, but that the precept of confession should be fulfilled by all and each at least once a year, when they had reached the years of discretion."

From these things it is gathered that confession, whether secret or public, is truly sacramental; yet it is not expedient that public confession of offenses, especially occult ones, be prescribed. Moreover, it is asserted, although not defined, that secret confession was in use from the beginning of the Church.

To understand this better, it must be known that this question was diligently weighed by the theologians and bishops of the Council; some judged that secret or auricular confession was instituted by Christ; but others thought that Christ indeed instituted confession, but in no way determined whether it ought to be secret or public.¹ The Council did not wish to define the matter, but only declared that the mode of confessing secretly is not alien from the institution of Christ, that is, according to Suarez,² that it is not contrary or repugnant to the divine precept, indeed that it is consonant with it.

¹ Cf. Theiner, Acta genuina C. Trid., t. I, pp. 531, 540, 549, 557, 562, 580, 592, etc.

² Suarez, De Paenit., disp. XXI, sect. II, n. 12.

Therefore there will be a twofold thesis: the former concerning confession itself; the latter concerning the mode of confessing.

97. Thesis 1: Sacramental confession is necessary by divine right for all those who have committed grave sins after baptism, and upon them there rests the obligation of confessing all and individual mortal sins.

It is de fide from Trent:³ "If anyone shall deny that sacramental confession was either instituted or is necessary for salvation by divine right, or shall say that the mode of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and observes, is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention: let him be anathema. - If anyone shall say that in the sacrament of Penance, for the remission of sins, it is not necessary by divine right to confess all and individual mortal sins, of which memory is had with due and diligent premeditation, even occult ones... let him be anathema."

³ Sess. XIV, can. 6-7.

We said: (a) "sacramental confession," abstracting from the question whether it is public, or private or auricular; it is certain that public confession is not required, indeed is often inopportune, as Trent says; but if in fact it is sometimes employed, in order to absolution, this too will be a truly sacramental confession; (b) "necessary by divine right," and indeed strictly, under penalty of damnation, because confession is not a merely ecclesiastical precept, but a divine one, insofar as it is implicitly contained in the power of remitting sins in a judicial mode; but this necessity arises from a positive precept, and therefore admits certain exceptions, concerning which we shall speak below; (c) "grave sins," or mortal sins, since venial sins can be remitted without confession; but here it is useful to note that many sins which today are held as mortal by theologians are called venial or minute by certain Fathers: thus Caesarius of Arles, among minute sins, mentions oaths, perjuries, detractions, idle words, hatred, anger, gluttony, envy, etc.;¹ now the faithful were bound to accuse only those sins of whose gravity they were conscious. But under the name of grave sins are comprehended internal and occult sins, as Trent expressly says. (d) But all mortal sins and individual ones must be accused distinctly, insofar as this can be done.

¹ For, enumerating minute sins, he says: "Let us think, from the time when we began to have sense, what for oaths, what for perjuries, what for curses, what for detractions, what for idle words, what for hatred, what for anger, what for envy, what for evil concupiscence, what for gluttony, what for sleepiness, what for sordid thoughts, what for concupiscence of the eyes, what for voluptuous delight of the ears..." (Sermon 257, P. L., XXXIX, p. 2220).

The foundation of this doctrine is had in Scripture; the full proof is taken from Tradition; but reason shows the fittingness of this dogma.

98. 1. From the words of St. Matthew concerning the power of the keys, and from those of St. John concerning the power of remitting and retaining sins, the divine institution of confession is legitimately inferred. For Christ instituted the sacrament of Penance by way of judgment, so that the priest cannot bind or loose, remit or retain, at will, but only according to the laws of equity and prudence. But such a judgment cannot be pronounced without a prior confession of all mortal sins; for an equitable and wise judgment cannot be rendered unless the cause is known, and indeed in particular; and moreover the cause regularly cannot be known without the confession of the penitent, who alone can reveal his secret sins, or even the true malice of external sins, which depends on the internal act of the will.

² Cambier, De divina institutione confessionis (thesis), Louvain, 1884; Palmieri, Th. 33, p. 401-419; L. de San, n. 756-780; Mangenot, Dict. de Theol., t. III, word Confession.

Furthermore, the power conferred on the Apostles and their successors embraces the faculty both of remitting and of retaining sins; now such a power cannot be exercised indiscriminately. Before the spiritual judge renders sentence, he must know whether sins have been committed or not; indeed he is bound to know their number and gravity, and also the interior dispositions of the sinner, so that he may be able prudently to judge whether they should be remitted or retained, and what kind of satisfaction should be imposed. But for this there is generally required an integral and distinct confession of mortal sins: otherwise, for the most part, the judgment will be neither equitable nor prudent. Therefore Christ, by conceding to the Church the power of remitting sins by way of judgment, by that very fact instituted confession.

99. 2. From the same texts it is gathered that confession is necessary for all who have fallen into grave sin. (A) For from the words "whose sins you shall forgive..." the Lord established in His Church a tribunal for the remission or retention of sins; but when a prince establishes a tribunal in his kingdom for the knowledge of causes, he manifests clearly enough that this is the way necessary by common right for ending disputes: for, if judges could not compel the guilty to present themselves before the tribunal, their power would be vain, since it could be despised with impunity. Thus if Christ, by instituting the sacred tribunal, had not commanded sinners to have recourse to it, but had left another ordinary means by which they could be justified, the power of priests would be illusory: for who would subject himself to humble confession and laborious penance, if another less laborious means were at hand for obtaining pardon of sins? - This conclusion is surely confirmed from the parallel passage, where there is question of the power of the keys. For the power of remitting sins is nothing other than a certain special attribution or exercise of the power of the keys, as was already said, n. 24. Therefore the power of remitting sins has the same force as the power of the keys. But the power of the keys supposes the force of obliging all the faithful who have fallen into mortal sin after Baptism to have recourse to it for the loosening of such a bond: "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven..." For just as no one can enter a house which is closed unless the doorkeeper opens the door, so no one to whom the gate of heaven is closed by mortal sin can enter the kingdom of God unless the gate is opened by the doorkeeper to whom Christ handed over the keys; otherwise the power of the keys would be illusory: for what profit is there in having keys, if without them, against the will of the doorkeeper, access lies open? Therefore the power of remitting sins, like the power of the keys itself, has the force of obliging sinners to have recourse to the sacred tribunal.

(B) It is confirmed from the last part of John's text: "and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained"; whose sense is: if you retain, I also retain. Therefore sin is not remitted by God when the Apostles retain it; and therefore the sinner needs Apostolic power in order to obtain pardon; for otherwise, when the Apostles retained, God would not retain; the power of the Apostles would become vain, and Christ's words false. Therefore the power of retaining sins supposes that the apostles and their successors can oblige sinners to have recourse to the sacred tribunal, for obtaining the remission of mortal sin committed after Baptism.

100. Certain other texts are brought forward which seem to regard sacramental confession; concerning these it is permitted to note a few things.

(a) In the Acts of the Apostles (19:18) one reads: "And many of those who believed came confessing and declaring their deeds." Not a few theologians, with Bellarmine, think that here there is question of the faithful and of sacramental confession; for the Greek word exomologoumenoi used here is that by which the Greeks designate sacramental confession. But many others, such as Beelen and Patrizi, hold that here there is speech of Jews and Gentiles not yet baptized, but converted by the seen prodigy and beginning to believe; and therefore not of sacramental confession, but of that general accusation of sins which preceded baptism. We hold this latter opinion as the more probable.

(b) The words of James are also alleged:¹ "Confess, therefore, your sins to one another." Many Fathers² and theologians indeed understand these words of sacramental confession; for they are brought forward after the words concerning the remission of sins through sacred anointing: the sense therefore is that the sick must confess their sins, and the word to one another designates one of the priests designated in the preceding verse. - But not a few others, such as Beelen, think that here there is question of confession made to a prudent man, in order to ask counsel from him and to obtain the help of his prayer. This interpretation likewise is truly probable.

¹ James 5:16.

² Among whom Origen, homil. 2 on Levit., P. G., t. XII, p. 419.

101. State of the question. (a) Protestants contend that confession was not instituted by divine right, since, even in the twelfth century, the question was agitated among the Doctors whether sins were to be confessed to priests or to God alone; as is clear from the words of the Decree of Gratian (1150):⁴

³ Morinus, op. cit., bk. II; Palmieri, th. 33-35, p. 401-449; Cambier, op. cit., p. 96-323; L. de San, n. 779-870; Pignataro, op. cit., p. 25-56; Pelle, op. cit., p. 279-449; Vacandard, La Confession sacramentelle dans l'Eglise primitive, Paris, Bloud, 1903; id., in Mangenot, Dict. de Theol., word Confession.

⁴ De paenitent., dist. I, ch. 90, p. 1189 ed. Friedberg.

"Some say that sins ought to be confessed to God alone, as the Greeks. But some judge that they are to be confessed to priests, as almost the whole holy Church. Both of these things are done within the holy Church not without great fruit, yet in such a way only that we confess our sins to God, who is the remitter of sins, and this belongs to the perfect... but nevertheless the institution of the Apostle must be followed by us, that we confess our sins to one another, and pray for one another that we may be saved. Therefore confession which is made to God alone, which belongs to the just, purges sins. But that which is made to a priest teaches how the sins themselves are purged."

(b) But we respond that, in the time of Gratian, some doubts concerning this matter had arisen, because confession, although most ancient, was part of the penitential discipline which at that time was gradually falling into desuetude; hence it happened that some, few in number however, doubted concerning its necessity and divine institution. But doubts of this kind did not prevail in the primitive times of the Church, as we shall soon show.

Three stages especially can be outlined in the history of confession: 1. through the first four centuries public penance prevailed, of which the confession of sins, either public or occult, was a part; 2. from the fifth to the twelfth century, penance becomes less rigorous, and private confession becomes more frequent; 3. from the twelfth century, public penance ceasing, private confession and satisfaction alone remain. It suffices to outline the first two stages.

We shall bring forward a twofold argument: the first from penitential discipline; the latter from the testimonies of the Fathers.

102. 1. It is proved by a general argument taken from penitential discipline itself. For discipline of this kind was such that it necessarily supposed some confession, whether public or occult.

(A) The facts are set forth. Penitential discipline consisted in a complex of penal works which the Church imposed on the Christian sinner, and from the character of this obligation the necessity of confession clearly appears. For: (a) this obligation was most strict, under penalty of eternal damnation: when the faithful complained about the severity of this penance, the Fathers did not hesitate to answer that no middle way was given between this penance and the punishments of hell; (b) it was imposed by the authority of God Himself: when martyrs offered to the lapsed certificates by which they might be freed from penance, St. Cyprian and other bishops reproved this, asserting that no one could dispense from a law divinely established; (c) the obligation of doing penance extended to all sins which the Church considered grave, and therefore not only to the gravest crimes, namely apostasy, fornication, and homicide, but to common offenses which kept one away from the reception of sacred communion, for example, thefts, impurities, frauds, rash judgments, violation of faith, etc., insofar as they are distinguished from lighter faults which are not subjected to the power of the keys;¹ - and not only to public and external sins, but also to occult and internal ones, as St. Pacian teaches: "I add also that not only hands are punished in homicide, but every counsel which has driven another's soul into death; and not only those who have burned incense on profane tables, but absolutely every lust wandering outside the marriage bed and lawful embraces."²

¹ Tertullian, De pudicitia, ch. 18, P. L., 1017; ch. 19, P. L., 1028; St. Cyprian, epist. IX, n. 2, P. L., IV, 251; St. Pacian, Ep. ad Sempronianum, ch. 24; P. L., XIII, 1079; Paraenesis ad paenit., ch. 4, P. L., XIII, 1083.

² Paraenesis ad paenit., ch. 5, 6, 7, P. L., XIII, 1084 ff.

(d) The mode of doing penance was not left to the choice of the sinner, but was determined by the Church itself: for obtaining the remission of sins, the sinner first had to be received among the penitents by the Bishop or by one taking his place, and had to subject himself to him as to the time and mode of doing penance.

103. (B) The conclusion is drawn. Now all these things necessarily suppose some confession of the sinner made to the bishop, whether by acknowledging the truth of sins which had been denounced to ecclesiastical authority, or by spontaneously confessing offenses committed by himself: for how could the minister of the Church have received among the penitents and afterward absolved those whose offenses had not been subjected to his judgment? Moreover, this confession was considered as necessary for salvation, and indeed by divine right; and, as we said, it extended to all grave sins. Therefore from the institution itself of penitential discipline our thesis is clear, which moreover is confirmed by many testimonies of the Fathers.

104. 2. It is proved by the testimonies of the Fathers. Before we bring forward the individual ones, we premise that there was some progress in the exposition of this dogma and in the practice of confession. (a) The divine institution and necessity of confession are contained in the alleged texts of Scripture not explicitly, but only implicitly: the matter of confession is designated only in a general and confused mode. (b) Nothing is established concerning the time when the precept of confession urges. (c) Likewise Christ defines nothing concerning the mode of confessing, secret or public. (d) Finally, the precept binds only those who are conscious of mortal sin; but, as was said above, n. 97, in these times many sins which today, because of the education of the Christian conscience, are acknowledged as mortal, were held as minute.¹ Therefore many of the faithful, who were free from graver sins, did not approach the sacrament of Penance: for then the practice of confessing venials for the sake of devotion did not prevail. (e) From another aspect, not a few sinners were deterred from confession on account of the laborious and long-lasting penance which was then customarily imposed; and, since no special time was fixed beforehand for making confession, many deferred it more than was proper.

¹ Yet it is worthy of note that St. Paul holds as excluding from the kingdom of heaven certain of the sins which St. Caesarius judges to be "minute."

Confession, therefore, was less frequent than in our times, and therefore is not often commemorated by the Fathers.

105. (A) In the second century, St. Irenaeus speaks of confession as necessary for recovering grace. For he narrates that certain women had been corrupted by Marcus, a magician and heretic, and adds: "These women, very often converted to the Church of God, confessed that according to the body they had been ruined by him as if by desire, and, being greatly inflamed, had loved him."² But that this confession is necessary is inferred from the following: "Certain women indeed even make exomologesis in public; but certain others, fearing this very thing, in silence gradually withdraw themselves, despairing of the life of God";³ for those who, on account of shame, were unwilling to confess their sins did not receive the grace of God and fell into despair.

² C. haeres., bk. I, ch. 13, n. 7, P. G., t. VII, p. 587.

³ Ibid., n. 7, p. 591.

106. (B) In the third century, we already have several testimonies, in both the Latin and Greek Church, not only concerning public confession, but also concerning private confession.

(a) St. Cyprian describes public confession: "Let each one confess, I beseech you, dearly beloved brethren, his own offense, while he who has sinned is still in the world, while his confession can be admitted, while satisfaction and remission made through priests is pleasing before the Lord."¹ In the same place² he praises those who, although they did not externally commit idolatry, "nevertheless, since they thought about this, sorrowfully and simply confess this very thing before the priests of God." Here indeed there is question of sacramental confession, which the remission of sins follows, made to priests, and in which even internal sins or thoughts are manifested.

¹ De Lapsis, ch. 29, P. L., t. IV, 489.

² Ibid., ch. 28, P. L., IV, 488.

(b) Origen, speaking of the various means by which the remission of sins can be obtained, commemorates sacramental confession thus:³ "There is also yet a seventh remission of sins, although hard and laborious, through penance, when the sinner washes his bed with his tears, and his tears become his breads day and night, and when he is not ashamed to show his sin to the priest of the Lord and to seek medicine"... He expressly asserts and illustrates the necessity of this confession by comparison:⁴ "See therefore what divine Scripture teaches us, that one ought not to conceal sin inwardly. For perhaps just as those who have within themselves enclosed undigested food, or an abundance of humor or phlegm remaining heavily and unpleasantly in the stomach, if they have vomited, are relieved; so also those who have sinned, if indeed they hide and retain sin within themselves, are inwardly pressed, and are almost suffocated by the phlegm or humor of sin. But if one becomes his own accuser, while he accuses himself and confesses, at the same time he vomits out the offense and digests the whole cause of the disease."

³ Homil. on Levit., II, 4, P. G., t. XII, p. 418.

⁴ Homil. II on Ps. 37, n. 6, P. G., XII, 1386.

(c) To these words can be added what St. Peter of Alexandria writes concerning a hidden robber:⁵ "Then, manifesting his sin to the priest through confession, striving toward the contrary, that is, doing alms, he will cure the infirmity."

⁵ In Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, t. VII, p. 465.

107. (C) In the fourth century, the Fathers discuss both kinds of confession still more frequently.

(a) Thus, among the Latins, St. Ambrose exhorts sinners to penance and confession in this way: "And therefore let us not be ashamed to confess our sins to the Lord. It is shameful that each one should disclose his crimes; but that shame plows its own field, takes away perpetual thorns...⁶ But if you wish to be justified, confess your offense. For a modest confession of sins loosens the bonds of crimes."⁷ But that there is question here of confession

⁶ De paenitent., bk. II, ch. 1, P. L., t. XVI, p. 497.

⁷ Ibid., ch. 6, p. 507.

made not to God alone, but also to His ministers, is clear from the following:¹ "Some ask for penance for this reason, that they wish communion to be restored to them immediately. These do not so much desire to loose themselves as to bind the priest: for they do not put off guilt from their own conscience, and they put it on the priest, to whom the precept has been given: Do not give what is holy to dogs"... For there it is supposed that priests are judges, and that they are bound by sin if they absolve too quickly.

¹ Ibid., ch. 9, p. 517-518.

St. Pacian, who had so explicitly asserted that the power of remitting sins is in priests, above n. 53, no less expressly urges the necessity of confession, even of occult sins: "What will you do, you who deceive the priest? Who either deceive him as ignorant, or confound him, not fully knowing, by the difficulty of proving? I therefore beg you, brethren, even for my danger, through that Lord whom hidden things do not deceive, cease to cover your wounded conscience. Prudent sick persons do not fear physicians, even those about to cut, even about to burn, not even in the hidden parts of bodies... Will the sinner fear? Will the sinner be ashamed to purchase eternal life by present shame?... But if you blush before the eyes of the brethren, do not fear those who are sharers in your falls."²

² Paraenesis ad paenitentiam, P. L., t. XIII, p. 1086.

108. (b) Among the Greeks, these things are worthy of special note.

Aphraates, called the Persian Sage, speaks thus concerning the necessity of penance and confession (about A.D. 340): "Thus, one who has been struck by Satan ought not to be ashamed to confess his offense, and to leave it, and to seek penance as a remedy. He who is ashamed to disclose his wound will be seized by gangrene, and it will infect the whole body with harm; but he who is not ashamed to manifest the wound will be healed and will descend again to the battle... Thus absolutely to him who has been overcome in our contest, this way remains for receiving health, that he should say: I have sinned... Therefore you, physicians, who are disciples of our illustrious Physician, ought not to deny medicine to those who need healing." Here indeed there is question of confession made to priests, who are designated by the name of spiritual physicians; and indeed of occult confession, for the priest ought not to manifest to others the sins accused; for he addresses priests thus: "And when he shall have revealed it (the spiritual infirmity) to you, do not publish it, lest on account of him the innocent be judged by enemies and by those who hate us to be in fault."³ - More briefly, but no less directly, St. Gregory of Nyssa says:⁴ "But he who usurps another's goods for himself by hidden taking, if afterward, by disclosure, he shall have opened his sin to the priest, with the pursuit of vice changed into the contrary, will cure the sickness."

³ Demonstration VII, n. 3-4; Patrol. syriaca, edited by Graffin, t. I, p. 318-319.

⁴ Ep. canonica, can. 6, P. G., t. XLV, p. 234.

109. Conclusion. From the aforesaid testimonies it is lawful to infer that the Church, by imposing public penance, by that very fact affirmed the necessity of confession, not indeed by words, but in a practical mode; and not primarily, but secondarily, namely by prescribing the series of acts necessary for the remission of sins, among which was found confession, which was reputed all the more necessary because it was, as it were, the gate by which Christian sinners were able to enter again upon the way of salvation.

Already from the fifth century, we find the first traces of a certain change in penitential discipline, both in general and as regards confession: namely, the obligation of completing a long and laborious penance before the reception of absolution is gradually abrogated, notwithstanding the hesitations of a few, and therefore confession becomes more frequent.

110. 1. Change of penitential discipline. Its principal cause is taken from the fact that the faithful, terrified by the severity of penance, deferred exomologesis more and more, often until death. From this a twofold difficulty was born.

111. (A) As regards the dying: if absolution is denied to sinners before they complete penance, they will pass from this life without communion; but if it is conceded, by that very fact penance is abolished, at least as regards them. The matter having been maturely weighed, after not a few discussions, Innocent I approved the milder manner of acting: "It has been asked what ought to be observed concerning those who, after baptism, having been devoted at every time to the pleasures of incontinence, at the very end of their life ask at once for penance and for the reconciliation of communion... Therefore, with penance, final communion will be granted, so that men of this kind, at least in their last moments, by the permission of our Savior, may be vindicated from perpetual destruction."¹

¹ P. L., XX, 498; Denzing., n. 95. There another reason is also given, "and lest we seem to follow the harshness and hardness of the Novatian heretics who deny pardon."

112. (B) As regards the healthy, the difficulty likewise arose: for either absolution would be conceded only when death was imminent, or the ancient discipline had to be changed; here also the Church embraced the milder solution.

(a) For already in the fifth century, satisfaction or penance to be performed before the reception of absolution becomes milder. St. Augustine testifies that in his time there is a twofold penance, one milder for occult sins, even very grave ones such as adultery, the other stricter for public sins: but this latter also was mitigated.¹ Likewise St. Leo, distinguishing public penance from private, imposes the former for idolatry, homicide, and fornication, but declares that other grave sins, for example, to eat of foods sacrificed to idols, can be purged by fasts and imposition of the hand; elsewhere he exhorts sinners who are not numbered among public penitents to perform each year, especially before Easter, a milder penance, in which they will be helped by the supplications of priests.² St. Caesarius of Arles expounds this more clearly: "And indeed he who has received penance publicly could perform it more secretly; but, I believe, considering the multitude of his sins, he sees that he alone is not sufficient against such grave evils, and therefore he wishes to seek the help of the whole people."³ - In the Greek Church a similar mitigation is found: not rarely the penitent is absolved before he has completed satisfaction, indeed immediately after confession has been made; the satisfactory works imposed on the penitent become lighter, and they can be performed in a secret mode, unless there is question of public and graver sins, for example, fornication.⁴

¹ Sermon LXXXII, 11, P. L., XXXVIII, 511; cf. De fide et operibus, 48; Enchiridion, 80; Cont. lit. Petil., III, 44.

² Epist. CLXVII, question 19, P. L., LIV, 1209; Epist. CVIII, 2, P. L., LIV, 1011; Sermon XLIII, 2, 3; XLIV, 1; XLIX, 1, 2; L, 1, 2; P. L., LIV, 282, 285, 301, 305 ff.

³ Sermon CCLXI, 1, P. L., XXXIX, 2227.

⁴ Pseudo-Areopagite, epist. VIII, 1, P. G., III, 1088; De ecclesiast. hierar., III, 2-3, 7, P. G. III, 436, 452; St. John Climacus, Liber ad Pastorem, P. G., LXXXVIII, 1196.

(b) At the same time, absolution is conceded to penitents not only once, but often. Thus St. Chrysostom received sinners kindly, so that in the Synod at the Oak he was accused by Bishop Isaac "because he gives license to those sinning, teaching thus: if you have sinned again, repent again; and as often as you have sinned, come to me, I will heal you."⁵ St. Basil and St. John Climacus also suppose that monks are absolved rather frequently.⁶

⁵ Labbe, Concilia, t. II, p. 1328.

⁶ St. Basil, Regulae brevius tractatae, interrog. 229, 288; P. G. XXXI, 1236, 1285. St. John Climacus, Scala, grad. IV, P. G. LXXXVIII, 705.

(c) Soon the privilege once conceded to the dying, namely of receiving absolution immediately after confession had been made, is extended to all the faithful, even those not sick, because, namely, on account of the disturbances of the times, they are in fact in some way in danger of death. Thus among the statutes of St. Boniface (+755) one reads (n. XXXI): "And because by various necessity we are hindered from fully observing the statutes of the canons concerning reconciling penitents, for that reason let them not be altogether dismissed. Let each presbyter take care, immediately after receiving the confession of penitents, that each one be reconciled, a prayer having been given. But to the dying let communion and reconciliation be furnished without delay."¹

¹ P. L., LXXXIX, 823.

113. 2. Consequences as regards confession. From this change of penitential discipline, between the ninth and twelfth century, certain doubts arose in the mind of the faithful, at least in certain regions, concerning the necessity of confession made to priests: for since this was, as it were, a preparation for satisfactory works, it seemed to some that its obligation ceased once public penance had been abolished. And thus the text of Gratian alleged above is explained. Notwithstanding these doubts of a few, the necessity of confession made to priests did not cease to be preached in the Church.

114. (A) All the Doctors of that time clearly assert this necessity, as is especially clear from the works of Alcuin and the statutes of Theodulph. The former directly expounds the obligation of confessing sins to a priest, and not to God alone.² The latter asserts that public crimes are to be wept over according to the institution of the canons and the holy Fathers, but occult sins are to be expiated by private penance; this begins from confession, in which the penitent declares whatever he can remember from youth of all the ways in which he has acted; if he seems entangled by shame or forgetfulness, he must be questioned concerning the eight capital sins, namely gastrimargy (gluttony), fornication, acedia or sadness, avarice, vainglory, envy, anger, pride; afterward, if he promises that he will expiate and avoid the offenses, he is immediately absolved.

² Epist. CXII, P. L., C, 338; cf. De confessione peccatorum ad pueros S. Martini, P. L., CI, 649. Elsewhere, De psalmorum usu, I, 3, 9, P. L., CI, 470, 478, he lists sins about which confessors can question penitents.

It is indeed true that the arguments brought forward by the Doctors at that time to prove the necessity of confession, which they tried to prove directly from the words of Christ and the Apostles, were not apodictic; and therefore Abelard thought that this obligation was only ecclesiastical. But this difficulty vanished when St. Thomas brought forward a valid argument, not indeed directly from the words of the Lord, but indirectly, from the very nature of the power of the keys.

115. (B) The Church herself inculcated this necessity in various ways: (a) by establishing, already from the fifth century, that sacred communion was to be received at certain times, and moreover that the necessity rested on sinners of confessing sins before communion; and therefore by increasing the number of confessors, so that penitents might be able to have recourse to them more easily.

(b) By publishing penitential books, in which it was set forth what penalties corresponded to each sin, and formulas for questioning penitents were handed down.¹ Books of this kind, already received in Ireland and England in the sixth century, were introduced into Gaul and Italy by St. Columbanus at the beginning of the seventh century, and indeed for this end, that it might be shown that the ordinary way of obtaining pardon of sins was private confession, which absolution followed. For this reason confessions now became more frequent, first indeed in monasteries, and soon among the faithful themselves.

¹ You will find some of these books in Morinus, op. cit., Appendix; but especially in H. G. Schmitz, Die Bussbucher und die Bussdisciplin der Kirche, 1883; Die Bussbucher und das Kanonische Bussverfahren, 1898. Cf. B. Brat, Les livres penitentiaux et la penitence tarifée, Brignais, 1910; Tixeront, III, 387 ff. - It is permitted, by way of example, to excerpt a few things from the Penitential of St. Columbanus (about A.D. 600): "If therefore someone has sinned by thought, that is, has desired to kill a man, or to fornicate, or to steal, or to eat secretly and become drunk; or certainly to strike someone... let him do penance for greater things for half a year; for lesser things forty days, on bread and water... If someone has stolen, let him do penance for a year. If someone has struck his brother through a quarrel and has shed blood, let him do penance for three years, etc." (P. L., LXXX, 225).

116. (c) By issuing canonical penalties against those who died without confession of sins; thus, for example, the Council of Chalchuth (Kent) held in England, A.D. 787, explicitly speaks of confession made to a priest, and inculcates its necessity in these words: "But if anyone (which may it not happen) has departed from this light without penance or confession, prayer is by no means to be made for him."²

² Mansi, XII, p. 949.

(d) By defining times for confession to be made. According to the rule of Chrodegang, bishop of Metz, canons ought to confess twice in the year to the bishop, once at the beginning of Lent before Easter, and the other time from the middle of the month of August to the Kalends of November.³ Other councils prescribe times for laymen themselves; thus the Council of Esztergom (Gran), A.D. 1114, establishes that laymen ought to confess sins and receive communion three times in the year, on the feasts of Easter, Pentecost, and the Nativity of the Lord.⁴ Hence the Sixth Council of Paris commands priests to remain in their parishes, "lest men without confession and infants without the regeneration of baptism often die."⁵ Thus gradually the way was being prepared for the statutes of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), in which it was decreed that the faithful must confess their sins to their own priest at least once a year.

³ Mansi, XIV, p. 320.

⁴ Hefele, trans. Delarcq, t. VII, p. 128.

⁵ Can. 29, in Mansi, XIV, p. 558.

117. Conclusion. (A) Therefore the Church, by her whole manner of acting, professes from the first centuries that sacramental confession is a means divinely instituted, and indeed necessary for all those who have sinned gravely after baptism. This appears: (a) first indirectly from the fact that confession is held as a prior condition necessary for satisfaction and the absolution of sins; (b) afterward more directly when, penitential discipline having been mitigated, the Church holds confession as a necessary condition for private penance and absolution. If any doubts arose, these are explained both from the reluctance of certain faithful and from the insufficiency of the arguments by which the doctrine was defended; but the Church herself never doubted concerning this obligation.

(B) Nevertheless, a certain progress can and must be admitted in the frequency of confession and in the mode of confessing: for these things, as not having been distinctly declared by Christ, were left to the authority of the Church to be defined according to the diversity and opportuneness of times.

118. Thesis II: Secret or auricular confession, which alone prevails today, was also in use from the beginning. It is certain.

To prove the thesis, we shall use the ascending method, namely by establishing that the matter is already altogether certain from the fifth century, and by going back from this century to apostolic times.

119. 1. That in the fifth century private confession was in use is most certainly clear from the testimony of St. Leo the Great. For when the Pontiff heard that some priests had publicly read the sins of penitents written in little books, he condemns this practice as an illicit usurpation, contrary to the apostolic rule; "since it suffices that the guilt of consciences be indicated to priests alone by secret confession." For although it is lawful for penitents publicly to confess certain sins, for the sake of humility, nevertheless this is by no means prescribed, lest in this way some be kept away from confession: "For that confession suffices which is first offered to God; then also to the priest, who comes as intercessor for the offenses of penitents. For then more persons will be able to be provoked to penance, if the conscience of the one confessing is not published to the ears of the people."¹ From this it follows that already in the time of St. Leo there was a twofold sacramental confession, public, which was sometimes permitted to the faithful, and private or auricular, which was prescribed to sinners.

¹ Epist. 168 to the bishops of Campania, P. L., LIV, 1211.

120. 2. In the fourth century secret confession also prevailed, although sometimes occult sins were indirectly disclosed by the reception of public penance.

(A) That confession is secret is testified, among others, by St. Aphraates (above, n. 108), who, addressing priests, commands them not to manifest to others the sins revealed in confession: "And when he shall have revealed it (the spiritual infirmity) to you, do not publish it, lest on account of him the innocent be judged by enemies and by those who hate us to be in fault."² - St. Ambrose himself heard confessions secretly; for Paulinus, deacon, writes these things about him in the Life of this saint:³ "He was also rejoicing with those who rejoice and weeping with those who weep; since as often as anyone, for receiving penance, had confessed his falls, he wept in such a way that he compelled that man also to weep... But the causes of the crimes which they confessed to him he spoke to no one except to the Lord alone, before whom he interceded."

² Demonstration VII, n. 3-4 (Patrol. syriaca, edited by Graffin, t. I, p. 318-319).

³ P. L., XIV, 40.

The same is confirmed by the institution of penitentiaries, or priests whose special office was to hear private confessions.

(B) Nevertheless, although confession in itself was occult, sometimes the sinner, by undertaking public penance, by that very fact indirectly confessed before the Christian community that he was guilty of grave offenses.⁴ Likewise the imposition of canonical penalties, for example the deposition of a cleric, likewise indirectly manifested even occult offenses. For then the internal forum was not wholly distinguished from the external forum: Christians, considering themselves mutually as members of the same body, manifested their sins less unwillingly, so that, aided by the prayers and satisfactions of the brethren, they might more easily obtain the mercy of God.

⁴ Sometimes also the sin of an accomplice was indirectly betrayed, as happened in the time of Nectarius (391) in the church of Constantinople, where, on the occasion of the confession of a certain woman, the grave offense of a certain deacon who had sinned with her became known. To forestall such abuses, Nectarius abolished the office of penitentiary, indeed, according to some, the obligation itself of confessing sins before communion. Whatever the case, this abolition was not long-lasting; for the successor of Nectarius, St. John Chrysostom, exhorted sinners to confess sins and to perform private penance for them. Cf. Batiffol, op. cit., p. 149 ff.; P. Galtier, S. Jean Chrysostome et la confession, in Recherches de Sc. Relig., 1910, pp. 209, 313.

121. 3. In the third century, the same is clear from various testimonies. Thus Origen writes concerning private confession, which precedes public penance:¹ "Only look around more diligently to whom you ought to confess your sin. First prove the physician to whom you ought to expose the cause of your sickness... If he shall have understood and foreseen that your sickness is such that it ought to be exposed and cured in the assembly of the whole Church, from which perhaps others also will be able to be edified and you yourself easily healed, this must be provided with much deliberation and with the sufficiently skilled counsel of that physician"; from which it is clear that already in the time of Origen there was a distinction between public and private confession, and that both were in use.

¹ Homil. II on Ps. 37, n. 6, P. G., XII, 1386.

Likewise St. Cyprian supposes that confession is secret when he speaks of those who, "although bound by no crime of sacrifice or certificate, nevertheless, since they even thought about this, sorrowfully and simply confess this very thing before the priests of God, making exomologesis of conscience."²

² De lapsis, 28, P. L., IV, 488; Joumet, Enchiridion, n. 553.

As regards the second century, we indeed do not find an explicit testimony, since the text of St. Irenaeus alleged above, n. 105, can equally be understood of public or secret confession. But, since already in the third century private confession was in use among the Greeks and Latins, and no trace is found of any change concerning this matter, it is rightly inferred that it ascends to apostolic times, as St. Leo in fact teaches, n. 119.

122. Conclusion. (a) Therefore private confession was always in use, although it was not absolutely secret, since sins were in some way indirectly manifested by the imposition of public penance. By this manifestation Christian humility and solidarity were fostered, namely while all the faithful helped the penitents by prayers and works. Nevertheless there were not a few inconveniences: some were deterred from confession by shame, others stirred up scandals by indiscreet confession.

(b) To remove these abuses, the Church gradually abolished public confession and afterward public penance; thus the rights of each Christian were preserved more safely, and gradually the faithful approached the sacred tribunal more frequently.

123. The whole argument is contracted. First indeed Protestants asserted that Innocent III was the inventor of confession and had promulgated its necessity in the Lateran Council (1215). But it has been historically proved that entire treatises concerning sacramental confession were published long before Innocent, that not a few Councils established statutes concerning its utility or necessity, and that in penitential books, Greek and Latin, the whole order of confession had been described, with a catalogue of sins, even occult ones, and of the penalties inflicted on them. Defeated in this matter, some contended that auricular confession was brought into the Church by Leo the Great (+461); but no less clearly it has been shown, from the Fathers both Latin and Greek, and from the very institution of penitentiaries, that secret or auricular confession was in use in the earlier centuries, namely the fourth and third. But since in the second century there is already speech of confession, nothing prevents us from admitting that this was sometimes occult. Besides, public confession itself, then certainly prevailing, was truly sacramental, since it was ordered to obtaining pardon of sins, by means of penance imposed by priests. Thus, proceeding from clearer testimonies to more obscure ones, it is historically demonstrated that sacramental confession was employed in the Church from the beginning, and that it flows from Christ, since it is indivisibly connected with the power of the keys which the Lord handed over to the Apostles.

124. Once the divine institution of confession has been posited, its fittingness can be shown:

¹ P. Felix, De la confession: pourquoi on se confesse et pourquoi on ne se confesse pas? Paris, 1892; Bougaud, Le Christianisme et les temps presents, 6th ed., 1902, t. V, ch. 6, p. 145-182.

1. On the part of God. For sin includes an act of pride and disobedience which must be repaired; but it cannot be repaired in a better mode than by sincere confession of sins. For he who had said at least equivalently: I will not serve, by confession subjects himself to God, saying: I have sinned; and, reconsidering his offenses in the bitterness of his soul, and opening them candidly and humbly to the minister of God, he tames pride and compensates, insofar as can be done, for the offense inflicted upon God: since "a contrite and humbled heart, O God, thou wilt not despise."

2. On the part of man. (a) Confession gives peace and security to souls; one of the chief goods which we can enjoy is certainly peace of soul; but the sinner can scarcely find peace and security of soul except in sacramental confession. For although he tries to conceive sorrow for sins and to satisfy for them, nevertheless he does not know whether he is worthy of love or hatred, for no one is a judge in his own cause; on the other hand, if he opens all grave sins to God's minister by humble confession, the latter can judge concerning them, and also concerning the dispositions of the penitent and the equity of satisfaction already performed or to be performed, and thus the anguish of soul and remorse of conscience vanish.² (b) Likewise confession deters from sins: for if the land is desolated with desolation because there is no one who reflects in his heart, he who frequently examines his conscience in order to confess all sins committed by himself escapes a danger of this kind; since by scrutinizing conscience, he sees and flees the occasions of sinning, and learns the means for overcoming temptations; besides, the obligation of opening all things, even the most secret, makes him more watchful, so that there is no more efficacious restraint for coercing sinners than sacramental confession. (c) Confession also greatly promotes the practice of virtues: for since we are weak and inconstant, we need a friend and guide in the spiritual life: "We fluctuate among various counsels," says Seneca (Ep. 52); "we will nothing freely, nothing absolutely, nothing always. No one by himself is strong enough to emerge; someone must stretch out a hand, someone must lead him out... There is need not only of a guide, but of a helper and, so to speak, a co-actor." But in sacramental confession we find a most faithful friend, to whom, under the inviolable seal of secrecy, we can open the offenses, infirmities, and wounds of the heart; a spiritual guide who will teach us the ways of the Lord, by showing what we ought to avoid and what to do, not in a general mode, as happens in preaching, but in a special mode, accommodated to our infirmities, according to that saying: "Arise, and enter into the city, and there it shall be told thee what thou must do";¹ a helper, who, burning with zeal for God, will, as it were, compel us to expel vices and cultivate virtues.

² Not a few Protestants candidly acknowledge this, for example E. Naville (in de Baudry, La Religion du Coeur, p. 84 ff.): "For what sinner has not turned the eyes of cupidity toward the tribunal of penance? Who has not desired, in the bitterness of his soul and the uncertainty of divine remission, to hear from the mouth of him who is a participant in Christ's authority these words: Go in peace, thy sins are forgiven thee?"

¹ Acts 9:7.

Hence Leibniz says:² "But that this whole institution is worthy of divine wisdom cannot be denied, and, if anything else, certainly this is illustrious and praiseworthy in the Christian religion, which even the Chinese and Japanese have admired; for the necessity of confessing deters many from sins, especially those who have not yet been hardened, and gives great consolation to the fallen, so that I think a pious, grave, and prudent confessor is a great instrument of God for the salvation of souls; for his counsel is useful for ruling the affections, for noticing vices, for avoiding occasions of sins, for restoring what has been taken... for removing doubts, for lifting up the afflicted mind, and finally for taking away or mitigating all evils; and since scarcely anything more excellent than a faithful friend is found in human affairs, of how great value is it when, by the inviolable religion itself of the divine sacrament, one is bound to keeping faith and bringing help?"³

² Systema theol., Paris, 1819, p. 270.

³ And not otherwise do not a few modern Anglicans speak, among whom H. P. Liddon, as is clear from his letters:

"Christ Church, Oxford, March 1883. - Dearest X., From the year 1847 I have gone to a confessor as often as I have had need, and this has never displeased me. Nothing better which may restore the soul seems able to exist: and absolution, which follows confession, is a more direct and authentic form of the power of absolving than those more universal formulas which are used in the daily office and in the administration of the Eucharist. I have also experienced, as far as I am concerned, that the doctrine of Bishop Butler with respect to following the safer way concerning the manner of conducting oneself most openly confirms this practice... The earthly minister, who imparts absolution, is undoubtedly finite and imperfect, whereas Our heavenly High Priest is infinitely understanding and good. Nevertheless this minister, by force of the mission received from Christ, comes to our aid, so that, with every effort of heart and soul, we may repent of our sins, if we wish, which by our own powers we would fulfill with difficulty."

3. On the part of society. For society can scarcely stand secure without the observance of laws; but confession is of great service for the observance of laws. For a prudent confessor urges the observance of human laws together with divine ones, rightly orders domestic society, which is the foundation of civil society, settles lawsuits and dissensions, reconciles enemies, procures restitution of goods taken away, prevents or repairs scandals; indeed confession greatly promotes that equality of which our age boasts, since the law of confessing affects all, kings or presidents as much as subjects, nobles and the rich as much as the poor, and in the sacred tribunal no distinction is made between penitents of diverse condition.¹

¹ Infidels and Protestants have acknowledged this social utility of confession; thus Voltaire, Diction. philos., art. catech. du Cure; the Protestant author of the work Letters of Atticus, letter 5.

125. The adversaries indeed object that sacramental confession provides an occasion for many abuses and is often pernicious equally to penitents and ministers. - Resp. We concede that sometimes abuses creep into this practice per accidens, but rarely; for the Church, both by punishing with grave penalties those soliciting to shameful things, and by excommunicating those absolving an accomplice in a shameful sin, and by compelling those who have been solicited to evil to denounce the confessor, has wisely provided lest such abuses be multiplied. But the few inconveniences which sometimes arise from the frailty or perversity of men cannot be a sufficient reason why an institution should be destroyed which otherwise confers so many and so great benefits both on private persons and on society itself; for if things which men abuse had to be removed immediately, what at last would remain in civil or ecclesiastical society?

126. Tridentine doctrine. For obtaining the remission of sins through the power of the keys, confession does not suffice, but contrition is required, as Trent rightly teaches:¹ -

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 4.

"Contrition, which holds the first place among the aforesaid acts of the penitent, is sorrow of soul and detestation concerning sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning henceforth. But at every time, for obtaining pardon of sins, this motion of contrition was necessary; and in a man fallen after Baptism, only then does it prepare for the remission of sins, if it is joined with confidence in divine mercy and the intention of furnishing the remaining things which are required for rightly receiving this sacrament...

"It teaches, furthermore, that although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God before this sacrament is actually received; nevertheless the reconciliation itself is not to be ascribed to that contrition without the intention of the sacrament which is included in it. But that imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, since it is commonly conceived either from consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from fear of hell and punishments, if it excludes the will of sinning, with hope of pardon, it declares not only does not make a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner, but is also a gift of God and an impulse of the Holy Spirit, not indeed as yet inhabiting, but only moving, by which the penitent, helped, prepares for himself the way to justice. And although without the sacrament of Penance it cannot by itself lead the sinner to justification, nevertheless it disposes him to obtaining the grace of God in the sacrament of Penance. For, usefully shaken by this fear, the Ninevites, at the preaching of Jonah full of terrors, did penance and obtained mercy from the Lord. Wherefore certain persons falsely calumniate Catholic Writers, as if they had handed down that the sacrament of Penance confers grace without a good motion in those receiving it, which the Church of God has never taught or thought; but they also falsely teach that contrition is extorted and coerced, not free and voluntary."

Two things especially are set forth in this Tridentine declaration: 1. the nature and necessity of contrition; 2. its efficacy for remitting sins with or without the real reception of the sacrament of Penance.

127. Notion of contrition. (A) Contrition, from the word to crush, etymologically designates the action by which a solid body is reduced to the smallest parts; but metaphorically it designates that disposition by which the heart hardened by sin is broken and softened.

¹ St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 1, a. 1; Suarez, disp. IV; Salmanticenses, disp. VII; Bellarmine, bk. II, ch. 4; Drouin, q. IV, ch. 1; Billuart, diss. IV, a. 1; de Augustinis, p. I, a. 4; Palmieri, th. 30; Billot, th. 12; L. de San, n. 473 ff.

Hence the Roman Catechism (De Paenit., n. 33): "Rightly, however, the name contrition was imposed on detestation of sin... to signify the force of sorrow, the likeness being drawn from corporeal things which are broken little by little by a stone or some harder material: so that by this word it might be declared that our hearts, which have been hardened by pride, are bruised and crushed by the force of penance." It is also called compunction of heart, because just as swollen ulcers are cut by iron, so hearts, as if a scalpel of contrition has been applied, are incised, so that they may be able to draw out the deadly poison of sin; wherefore it has also been called a rending of the heart by the prophet Joel: "Be converted to me with all your heart... and rend your hearts."²

² Joel 2:12.

(B) As to the thing, contrition is defined by Trent:³ "sorrow of soul and detestation concerning sin committed, with the purpose of not sinning henceforth." It is said (a) sorrow of soul, or affliction, sadness, inwardly distressing and crucifying the soul; for since sin is the highest moral evil, the sinner sincerely returning to God cannot but be sad concerning the offenses committed by himself. This sadness indeed, although primarily internal, is commonly manifested outwardly; yet tears or other signs of grief of this kind are not required, since the will can sincerely grieve without such signs being exhibited.

³ Sess. XIV, ch. 4.

(b) Detestation concerning sin committed, that is, hatred of sin, proceeding from knowledge of its malice and evil effects, joined with retraction of the depraved will, so that the sinner sincerely says: if I could act anew, I would wish not to have sinned. Sorrow and detestation are so connected that one who detests his sin grieves over it, and one who grieves over it necessarily detests it; namely, according to the common opinion, sorrow is the consequence of detestation, just as delight follows love; first indeed we detest sin, because we apprehend it as evil; then, conceiving that evil to be present, whether in itself or in its consequences, we grieve over it. Hence in the Blessed hatred of sin exists without sorrow; for they do not apprehend sin as truly present, since they are now immune from sin and its consequences.

(c) With the purpose of not sinning; for true penance regards not only past faults as to be abolished, but also future faults as to be forestalled; for no one truly detests sins unless by that very fact he wills to avoid them in the future: if he should be unwilling to avoid them, he deserves not pardon, but indignation.

128. Thesis: True contrition, such as was defined above, is necessary for obtaining pardon of sins, whether within or outside the sacrament.

1. Scripture. This is clear from all the texts brought forward above, where we treated of the necessity of penance, n. 9-10. For the penance which is there required as a necessary condition for justification is nothing other than conversion to God, aversion from the way of iniquity, change of heart and life, a contrite and humbled heart. All these things indeed suppose sorrow of soul and detestation of sin, with the purpose of amendment.

This disposition indeed, even after the sacraments have been instituted, remains necessary; for when Jews or Gentiles are converted to the Christian faith, the first disposition required from them after faith is penance or contrition: "Do penance, and let every one of you be baptized... Do penance therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out... Do penance therefore from this thy wickedness; and pray to God, if perhaps this thought of thy heart may be remitted to thee... Therefore God has also given to the Gentiles penance unto life."¹ - Wherefore the Apostle rejoices that the Corinthians were made sorrowful unto penance: "Now I rejoice, not because you were made sorrowful, but because you were made sorrowful unto penance... For the sorrow which is according to God works penance unto stable salvation."²

¹ Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:22; 11:18.

² 2 Cor. 7:9-10.

129. 2. By Tradition. For the whole penitential discipline which we explained above (n. 57 ff.) had been instituted for this end, that by frequent reconsideration of sins and laborious expiation of them, and also by the prayers of the Church, sorrow of soul and detestation of sin and the desire of amending life might be vividly stirred up in penitents. This indeed is clear both from the testimonies already brought forward (n. 57 ff.) and from the following.

St. Justin indeed asserts that God concedes pardon to penitents from mercy; but at the same time he teaches that those are deceived who say that, even if they are sinners, God will nevertheless not impute sin to them, provided they know Him. He proves this by the example of David, who was justified only by contrition. "But if," he says, "remission was not granted before penance was done to such a man, but only then when that great king and anointed one and prophet so wept and so conducted himself, how can impure and utterly lamentable men, unless they lament and mourn, have hope that the Lord will not impute sin to them?"¹

¹ Dialogus cum Tryphone, n. 141; P. G., t. VI, p. 798-799.

130. Thus also Tertullian, by the example of the prodigal, shows that God spares the sinner, "but if he repents from the soul, if he compares his hunger with the plenty of his father's hired servants, if he leaves the unclean herd of swine, if he seeks again the father, even offended."² Likewise St. Cyprian promises pardon to penitents, "penance having been done and detestation of their deeds having often been professed, if by tears, if by groans, if by weeping, they shall have shown signs of a sorrowing and truly penitent soul."³ Nor otherwise does St. Ambrose: "And if you weep most bitterly, Christ will look upon you, guilt will depart. For the practice of sorrow abolishes the luxury of crime, the delights of error. Thus, while we grieve over the things admitted, we exclude things to be admitted, and there comes to be from the condemnation of fault a certain discipline of innocence."⁴ Elsewhere he teaches the necessity of this penance thus: "For penitence is necessary for the fallen, just as medicines are necessary for the wounded. But how great, do you think, and what kind of penance is necessary? One that either equals the crimes, or certainly exceeds them... When with firm faith you have conceived in your soul that this is certain, as it is, that it is necessary for a prevaricating soul to be handed over to Tartarean punishments and to the fires of Gehenna, and that no other remedy has been established after one baptism than the solace of penance, be content to undergo however great affliction, however great labor, provided you are freed from eternal punishments."⁵

² Tertullian, De Paenit., ch. 8, P. L., t. I, p. 1243.

³ Ep. XXXI, P. L., t. IV, p. 313.

⁴ De Paenitent., bk. II, ch. 10; P. L., t. XVI, p. 519.

⁵ De lapsu virginis, n. 33-34, P. L., t. XVI, p. 376-377.

St. Chrysostom published an entire treatise on Compunction, where, among other things, he has these words: "For what need is there, tell me, of bodily strength, when we must crush the heart, when we must pray watchfully, when we must reconsider sins, put down arrogance and swelling, depress the mind? These indeed are the things which placate God toward us, nor do they need much labor." Afterward he declares the necessity of this penance; for this becomes possible, indeed easy, if we think, he says, that impenitent sinners are damned to Gehenna; "if we always have Gehenna before our eyes, and also the angels then running everywhere through places, and gathering from the whole world those who are to be led away into Gehenna; if we also think how great an evil it is, Gehenna being set aside, to be excluded from the kingdom of heaven."¹

¹ St. Chrysostom, De Compunctione, bk. I, n. 10; P. G., t. XLVII, p. 410.

Therefore the Fathers teach two things, namely that contrition is situated in the retraction of sin and amendment of life; and that this is necessary for salvation.

131. Historical exposition. From the things said up to this point it is certainly clear that a Christian guilty of mortal fault cannot be justified unless he fulfills two conditions: that he have contrition and that he subject himself to the power of the keys. But, already from the fifth century, the question was agitated: what are the parts of contrition, and what are the parts of absolution, in the remission of sins?

(A) St. Augustine asserts the efficacy of contrition and of absolution together, but declares the parts of each only by comparison: just as, he says, Lazarus, raised from the dead, remains entangled in bonds until Christ commands him to be loosed, so the sinner, cleansed from sins through contrition, remains bound in some way by bonds until the Church looses him by absolution.²

² Sermon 67, P. L., XXXVIII, 434.

(B) The Scholastics tried to refine this explanation, too obscure and vague, by distinguishing between perfect and imperfect contrition, absolution in reality and in desire, yet in different ways.³

³ See their opinions set forth in Dict. de Theol. (Absolution), I, 171-182.

(a) Hugh of St. Victor declares that sins are not remitted by contrition unless the intention of receiving absolution is added; but by absolution remission of eternal punishment is conceded.⁴ Yet this is false, since mortal sin cannot be remitted unless eternal punishment annexed to it is simultaneously remitted.

⁴ "The impiety of sin is most rightly taken as hardness of heart, which first is loosed in compunction, so that afterward in confession the sin itself, that is, the debt of damnation, may be absolved." (De Sacramentis, bk. II, p. XIV, ch. 8, P. L., CLXXVI, 564-570).

(b) Peter Lombard taught that by perfect contrition sin is remitted as to guilt and punishment, but that by absolution the sins authentically remitted are shown.¹ This opinion indeed was preparing the way for the error of Protestants, by asserting that the force of absolution is declaratory only.

¹ "They [priests] forgive or retain sins, when they judge and show that they have been forgiven by God or retained." (Bk. IV Sent., dist. XVIII, P. L., CXCII, 885-889).

(c) William of Paris came nearer to the truth: he asserts that a certain attrition, or unformed contrition, that is, not informed by charity, does not suffice by itself for justification, but is a prior disposition which is easily converted into contrition informed by charity, and thus induces the remission of sins; but absolution breaks the bonds of sins in those who once enjoy gratuitous grace.²

² William, De sacram. paenitentiae, ch. 5-8, among Opera, Paris, 1676, t. I, p. 462-473.

(d) St. Thomas distinctly sets forth the difference between contrition perfected by charity and attrition, and also that the latter suffices for the remission of sins when absolution is added: "When someone approaches confession attrite, not fully contrite, if he does not place an obstacle, in this very confession and absolution grace and remission of sins are given to him."³ He adds however (which is rejected today) that attrition does not suffice of itself, but by reason of good faith, so that if someone is conscious of this defect, he ought to accuse it as pretense. Moreover, he teaches that grace is increased by absolution, if this is already had.

³ St. Thomas, in IV Sent., dist. 22, q. 2, a. 1; cf. Supplementum, q. 10, a. 1; q. 18, a. 1.

(e) Scotus proceeded further, teaching that even a small attrition, namely that which is conceived from fear of hell, suffices for the remission of sin when absolution is added, provided that the penitent actually does not adhere to sin: "Small attrition, even one which does not have the character of merit for the remission of sin, willing nevertheless to receive the sacrament of penance, as it is dispensed in the Church, and without an obstacle in the will of mortal sin... receives the effect of the sacrament, namely penitential grace, not indeed from merit... but from the covenant of God assisting His sacrament."⁴

⁴ Scotus, IV Sent., dist. 14, q. 4, n. 7.

Conclusion. Gradually scholastic doctrine was refined by the theologians of a subsequent age; today it is commonly admitted that by perfect contrition, with the intention of receiving the sacrament, the sinner is immediately justified, and nevertheless absolution is not useless, since this increases grace in those justified; moreover, attrition suffices with the real reception of absolution. Thus are reconciled the things which the primitive Church had already implicitly inculcated by her practice, namely the necessity and efficacy both of contrition and of absolution. Thus also it appears better how the Sacrament of Penance is at once a remedy for sinners, and for the fervent an efficacious means of spiritual progress.

132. Doctrine commonly received today. A twofold contrition is distinguished, perfect and imperfect: the former, which is perfected from the motive of charity, and suffices for justification even without the real reception of the sacrament; the latter, which is conceived from a motive different from charity, for example, from the turpitude of sin or fear of punishments, and does not suffice for justification unless at the same time the Sacrament of Penance is received. - A few things therefore must be recalled to memory concerning charity, or concerning the love of God: for perfect contrition corresponds to perfect charity, and imperfect contrition corresponds to imperfect charity or to fear.

(A) A twofold love of God can be distinguished: (a) imperfect love, or mercenary love, which theologians call the love of hope or of concupiscence, by which, namely, God is loved above all desirable things, not on account of Himself, but on account of the goods which He bestows, not because He is good in Himself, but because He is good to us, indeed the highest good, by the fruition of whom we shall someday be blessed; (b) perfect love, or gratuitous love, by which God is loved on account of Himself and above all things; this likewise is twofold: the love of benevolence, by which we love God as infinitely perfect, rejoice together in His perfections, and wish good to Him, namely by desiring Him to be known and loved by all; and the love of friendship, which, besides benevolence, imports mutual love, or a return of love, insofar, namely, as he who loves is loved by God. It must be noted, however, that the motive of the love of friendship is the infinite goodness of God in Himself, and not His goodness toward us; or in other words, by the love of friendship we love God on account of Himself, knowing nevertheless that God loves those who love Him; hence the mutual return of love is not the motive of friendship, but only one of its conditions.

(B) Now, since it belongs to the same virtue to pursue one of two opposites and to flee the other, so it belongs to charity to love God and to detest sin, insofar as it is opposed to God: therefore there are as many species of contrition as there are species of love. These things being posited, it is certain that the contrition which is conceived from perfect love, whether of benevolence,¹ provided it is supernatural and above all things, or of friendship, is perfect, and immediately remits sins; thus, for example, he who grieves over sin insofar as it is an offense of God, the Highest Good and loved above all things, has perfect contrition.² But it is controverted whether contrition conceived from the love of hope and of gratitude, or from the virtues of penance, obedience, or religion, suffices for contrition, as will be explained below.

¹ A few theologians have said that the love of benevolence does not suffice for perfect contrition, but they are deceived, thinking that love of this kind either is not supernatural, or, if it is supernatural, is not above all things.

² But theologians dispute whether it is necessary that that contrition proceed from the motive of infinite goodness, insofar as it is the aggregate of all perfections, or whether it suffices that it be elicited from the motive of any divine attribute offended, for instance mercy, wisdom. In our judgment, the question is more speculative than practical; for of themselves all the divine attributes are connected with His infinite goodness, and moreover he who detests sins as injuring one of the divine attributes does not exclude the other attributes, and consequently has truly perfect contrition.

Moreover, for justification there is not required an intense, or vehement, act of contrition, whatever certain ancient theologians said to the contrary; for provided that contrition is appreciatively highest, that is, provided that someone grieves over sin as the highest evil, it suffices for the remission of sins, although it is not very intense: "however small the sorrow may be," says St. Thomas,³ "provided it suffices for the character of contrition, it blots out every fault."

³ Suppl., q. 5, a. 3.

Division. These things having been noted beforehand, we shall prove three things: 1. that perfect contrition justifies the sinner without the real reception of the sacrament; 2. that attrition suffices with absolution for justification; 3. that attrition consequently is truly useful, and not a hypocrisy to be condemned.

133. Thesis I: Perfect contrition remits grave sins, without the real reception of the Sacrament of Penance, yet not without the intention of it. It is certain.

(A) For Trent expressly proposes this:¹ "It teaches, furthermore, that although it sometimes happens that this contrition is perfected by charity, and reconciles man to God... nevertheless the reconciliation itself is not to be ascribed to that contrition without the intention of the sacrament which is included in it."

¹ Sess. XIV, ch. 4.

(B) Scripture teaches in many ways that those who are converted to God with their whole heart, and truly love Him, are immediately justified, or obtain the remission of sins: (a) "I love those who love me";² "The impiety of the wicked will not harm him, on whatever day he shall have been converted from his impiety."³ Hence thus: in the Old Testament adult sinners were able to obtain the remission of offenses without the Sacrament of Penance, which did not yet exist; otherwise they could not have been saved. But if they could obtain this, certainly it was through the noblest act, such as penance perfected by charity is; for the texts adduced demonstrate that God loves, and consequently adorns with sanctifying grace, those who love Him, and remits the impiety of those who are converted to Him; therefore. (b) Nor does the matter stand otherwise in the New Law, after the Sacrament of Penance was instituted; for Christ, without any restriction, said to His disciples: "If anyone loves me, he will keep my word: and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him";⁴ from which it is clearly gathered that he who loves Christ immediately enjoys the divine indwelling, which is not had without habitual grace. The words of John prove the same: "God is charity; and he who remains in charity remains in God, and God in him."⁵ This is confirmed by the words of Christ to the sinful woman:⁶ "Many sins are forgiven her, because she has loved much."

² Prov. 8:17.

³ Ezek. 33:12.

⁴ John 14:23; cf. John 14:21.

⁵ 1 John 4:16.

⁶ Luke 7:47.

In vain the adversaries object that the sins had not been remitted before Christ said: sins are forgiven her, and consequently that charity does not justify of itself, but only when the words of the Lord are added. For such words merely declared that the woman's sins had already been remitted, as is clearly gathered from the Greek word apheontai, which is of the past tense and signifies they have been remitted; therefore it remains that her offenses were pardoned from the fact that she had loved much.¹

¹ The thesis could be confirmed from the Fathers, namely from texts where they affirm the efficacy of penance for obtaining the remission of sins. Cf. Tertullian, De paenit., ch. 4, P. L., t. I, p. 1233; St. Cyprian, De Lapsis, ch. 36, P. L., t. IV, p. 493; St. Pacian, ep. 3 to Sympronian, n. 8, P. L., t. XIII, 108; St. Chrysostom, In II Timoth., homil. 7, n. 3, P. G., t. LXII, p. 640, etc.

(C) Reason itself shows the fittingness of this matter. For although perfect contrition of itself cannot adequately compensate for the offense inflicted on God by mortal sin, nor merit the remission of mortal sin, nevertheless it befits God to grant indulgence to the contrite of heart; for such a disposition is the most perfect that can be had by sinners, and since it imports pure love of God, it very well disposes them to divine friendship; hence, in the Old Law, from the mercy of God, it sufficed for justification; but the institution of the Sacrament of Penance did not lessen the force and efficacy of charity, nor make the way of salvation narrower, but rather rendered it easier; therefore it is reasonably asserted that perfect contrition immediately justifies.

134. We said, however, not without the intention of the sacrament, because, from the things said, since sacramental confession is necessary in the New Law, the sinner cannot truly be contrite unless he wills to subject his offenses to the power of the keys. Yet it is not required that such an intention be explicit; an implicit one suffices, such as is found in the general will to fulfill all things that are necessary for salvation. From this likewise it follows that a man thus justified is bound to accuse to the priest, at a suitable time, his mortal sins already remitted through contrition, yet not as soon as possible; otherwise the intention would not be sincere. But the absolution of the priest in this case must not be called useless; namely, it will produce grace ex opere operato, which indeed will not remit sins, nor make the penitent from unjust to just, but from just more just. Besides, by accusing such sins, the penitent humbles himself before God and the Church, becomes more secure concerning the remission of sins, offers satisfaction for his sins, receives counsels, and, by completing sacramental penance, is at least partially freed from the punishment perhaps still due. Nor are examples of Scripture lacking, in which a similar recourse is commended. Christ sent to the priests the ten whom He had already healed of leprosy,¹ and commanded Paul, already justified by perfect contrition, to go to Ananias.²

¹ Luke 17:14.

² Acts 9:7.

135. Disputed question. But it is doubted whether other motives, besides perfect charity, suffice for perfect contrition, and for the remission of sins outside the sacrament. Commonly theologians deny it. Yet Scotists say that the motive of perfect contrition is every motive which looks to God, for example, one which is taken from the virtues of penance, religion, or obedience: for by these virtues we detest sin as an offense against God, and as opposed to His rights and will. But this suffices for perfect contrition. - Suarez and Card. de Lugo hold this opinion as probable, although they do not embrace it.³ Certain more recent authors also favor this opinion, Hurter, Palmieri, Egger, according to whom the love of hope and of gratitude can suffice for perfect contrition.⁴ Indeed this love, as most noble, is commended by Sacred Scripture; indeed scarcely is found, either in the Sacred Letters or among the Fathers, an expression of charity toward God which is not informed by this motive; thus the Psalmist said: "As the hart longs for the fountains of waters, so my soul longs for thee, O God";⁵ where love of God is shown as He is good for us; likewise St. Paul:⁶ "having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ"; which words are referred to the love of hope. Moreover that love is very perfect, and gives the greatest glory to God: for if we love Him as our beatitude, by that very fact we testify that He alone is so perfect that He is able to beatify us.

³ Suarez, disp. IV, sect. 2, n. 13; Lugo, disp. V, sect. I, n. 3.

⁴ Hurter, n. 570; Palmieri, th. 22; Genicot, n. 269.

⁵ Ps. 41:2.

⁶ Phil. 1:23.

Whence we judge this opinion to be very consonant with divine mercy; and, if admitted, it is far better understood how Jews, who were of stiff neck, could have been justified without a sacrament, and in like manner how non-Catholics, who are in good faith, can obtain pardon of their sins: for an act of love is much more easily elicited from gratitude and hope than from the divine goodness considered in itself. Nevertheless this opinion is not common,⁷ and in practice effort must be made to ascend from the love of hope and gratitude to the love of charity. This, moreover, is not so difficult; for contrition perfected by charity can stand together with sorrow over sins conceived from other less perfect motives, namely hope, gratitude, fear of punishments; indeed commonly the soul, almost step by step, from lower to higher motives. This can be inferred from Trent (sess. XIV, ch. 4), where concerning fear of punishments it is said: "For, usefully shaken by this fear, the Ninevites, at the preaching of Jonah full of terrors, did penance and obtained mercy from the Lord."

⁷ Cf. Lugo, disp. V, sect. I, n. 3, and Billot, th. 13.

136. Thesis II: For obtaining the remission of sins by the power of the Sacrament of Penance, perfect contrition is not required, but attrition suffices. It is certain against certain older theologians (above, n. 131).

1° The thesis is explained. Imperfect contrition is called attrition; for, as St. Thomas says,¹ in corporeal things those things are called attrite which have been diminished in some way, but not yet perfectly broken into pieces, while those things are called contrite which by division are reduced to the smallest parts; and therefore attrition, in spiritual things, signifies a certain displeasure concerning sins committed, but not perfect; contrition, however, signifies perfect displeasure. - It can be defined as sorrow and detestation of sin proceeding from a supernatural motive, distinct from charity.

¹ St. Thomas, Supplementum, q. 1, a. 1.

According to Trent,² supernatural attrition can be conceived especially from a twofold motive, "either from consideration of the turpitude of sin, or from fear of hell and punishments"; moreover, fear of hell also involves fear of losing eternal beatitude, as the same Council teaches elsewhere.³ The first motive is nobler, since it considers sin as opposed to the rectitude of the moral order; but that consideration must be supernatural, namely founded upon motives known by faith, for example, from the fact that mortal sin is injustice against God, disobedience, ingratitude, something unworthy of a Christian man, defiling the soul, etc. - Yet the latter motive, namely fear of hell or of supernatural punishments, although less noble, is nevertheless good and useful. To understand this, a twofold fear of God can be distinguished: filial, or chaste, fear, by which someone fears to offend God from love and reverence; and servile fear, by which God is feared on account of the punishments which He threatens. This latter is likewise subdivided: one is simply servile, by force of which someone not only abstains from the evil deed but also lays aside affection for sin; the other is servilely servile, when someone avoids the evil work, yet retains the affection for sin. Now filial fear is certainly good and honorable, while on the contrary servilely servile fear is evil, since it retains affection for sin.

² Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 4.

³ Ibid., can. 5.

137. 2° The thesis is proved. (A) It is clear from Trent: (a) from the text cited above, n. 126; for there it is declared that contrition is twofold: perfect, which reconciles the sinner to God before the sacrament is actually received; imperfect, or attrition, which "disposes him to obtaining the grace of God in the sacrament of Penance."

We do not deny that certain rigid authors understood the word disposes of a remote disposition, and not of a proximate disposition to justification. But the parallelism between contrition (which certainly is a proximate disposition) and attrition forbids this. Moreover, if the Council used the word disposes, and not suffices, this was done lest the already antiquated opinion of Peter Lombard be condemned; but the mind of the Council is sufficiently evident from the disputations held among the Tridentine Fathers.¹

¹ Cf. Theiner, Acta genuina, t. I, p. 531-600.

(b) It is confirmed by other decrees of the same Council; for Trent teaches that through the sacrament of penance sins are truly remitted.² Moreover this proposition of Baius has been condemned: "The penitent sinner is not vivified by the ministry of the absolving Priest, but by God alone."³ But if perfect contrition were prerequired for absolution, sinners would never be vivified by the ministry of the priest, since they would already have been justified by contrition.

² Sess. XIV, can. 3.

³ See Denzing., n. 938.

(c) Finally no one can say that the way of salvation is narrower and more difficult under the New Law than under the Old Law; but if perfect contrition together with confession were said to be necessary for the remission of sins, the condition of Christians would be worse than that of the Jews, since the latter were justified by contrition alone, without confession.

138. (B) The same is inferred from the universal practice of the Church in carefully absolving the dying. It has already been said, n. 65-67, that the practice of denying absolution to sinners placed in danger of death was severely rebuked, even when they had offended most gravely; and, according to the discipline received today, absolution is denied to no dying person, provided that he is probably attrite. Now this practice, ancient and universal at once, cannot be explained unless it is admitted that attrition suffices with the absolution of the priest. For if perfect contrition is required, why is the absolution of the priest preached as so necessary? For all concede that by perfect contrition alone, with the intention of the sacrament, without its real reception, sinners are justified. Therefore, if the dying have contrition, they do not need absolution; if they are only attrite, absolution is useless. But once our thesis has been admitted, the matter is easily explained: for attrition alone, which does not justify without the sacrament, remits sins when the absolution of the priest is added; this, therefore, is necessary for all who are only attrite.

139. 3° The controversy concerning the necessity of some love with attrition is set forth. All indeed concede that attrition, necessary for obtaining the remission of sins in the sacrament of penance, must be joined with faith; otherwise it would not be supernatural; and with hope of pardon; otherwise there would be no purpose of a better life. But the question is whether attrition conceived from fear of hell alone suffices, without love of God, for obtaining justification in the Sacrament of Penance. The reason for doubting is that Trent, describing the conditions required for justification in a general way, requires some love:¹ "But they are disposed to that justice, while, stirred by divine grace,... they are freely moved toward God... they are raised into hope,... and they begin to love God as the fountain of all justice..." Other opinions being omitted,² two systems on this matter still stand today.

¹ Sess. VI, ch. 6.

² We pass over the opinion which Juenin (De Paenit., q. III, ch. 4, a. 2) and Habert (Theol. dogm. et mor., De paenit., ch. 8, a. 4) defend, according to whom contrition from intense charity justifies without the sacrament, and contrition from remiss charity justifies with the sacrament; and also the opinion of Billuart (diss. IV, a. 7), who contends that the love of friendship justifies without the sacrament, and the love of benevolence is required for justification with the sacrament. For these opinions are now antiquated, and deservedly: for from them it would follow that perfect contrition is necessary even with the absolution of the priest; for remiss charity and the love of benevolence belong to perfect contrition, from the things said above, n. 132.

(A) Some, after Pallavicini and Bossuet,¹ hold that together with attrition there is required an initial love of God loved on account of Himself, not indeed a predominant love, by which God is loved on account of Himself above all things, but an incipient love, such as is had by him who strives to elicit contrition from the motive of charity, and truly begins to love God, yet not so that on that account he wills to flee every grave sin; but when fear or hope is added, the will sincerely detests grave offenses and wills to flee them, so that detestation of this kind arises partly from love, partly from fear.

¹ Cf. Pallavicini, de Paenitent. ch. 12; Bossuet, De doctrina C. Trid. concerning the required love in the sacrament of Penance.

140. (B) But others hold that no other love is required except the love of hope or of concupiscence; but, according to some, this love must be elicited explicitly;² according to others, it suffices that it be elicited implicitly;³ now it is always implicitly contained in sincere attrition which excludes the will of sinning.

² Thus Tournely, De sacram. paenit., q. V, a. 3; Wirceburgenses, De sacram. paenit., disp. II, ch. 3, art. 3-4.

³ Suarez, disp. XX, sect. 2; Lugo, disp. V, n. 133; St. Alphonsus, l. VI, n. 442; Palmieri, th. 32, Coroll.; Tepe, n. 557; Kenrick, tr. XVII, n. 23.

For no one can truly detest sin, with hope of pardon and desire of grace, without by that very fact beginning in some way to love God as good to himself. But they argue thus: if it were proved that some species of nobler love is required, this would be clear either by reason or by authority. But (a) not by reason; for love stands relative to justification as a means to an end; and therefore provided that it is a means apt for obtaining the end, it suffices. Now any love included in attrition that is appreciatively highest is a means apt for obtaining the end, namely for receiving the sacrament with fruit; for by the help of love of this kind, attrition excludes the will of sinning, includes hope of pardon, and becomes a proximate disposition for receiving justification in the sacrament. Therefore it is not proved by reason that a nobler love is required besides the love included in attrition that is appreciatively highest. (b) Nor by authority; for the Tridentine text cited above, "they begin to love God as the fountain of all justice," can be understood of the love of hope, for God loved as the author of our justification is God insofar as He is good to us. Moreover not all the acts described here by Trent are absolutely necessary for justification with the sacrament: some are necessary either within or outside the sacrament, others only outside the sacrament, as Suarez had already noted: for there the Council discusses dispositions for justification in general; but where it treats specifically of the sacrament of Penance, it declares that attrition from fear of hell, which does not suffice without the sacrament, disposes the sinner to obtaining grace in the sacrament. - Therefore we embrace this opinion as much more probable.

141. But when bitter dissensions had arisen between the contritionists and the attritionists, Alexander VII, earnestly desiring to preserve the bond of peace among the faithful, on May 5, 1667, under penalty of excommunication,¹ commanded that: "If hereafter they write concerning the aforesaid matter of attrition... let them not dare to mark either opinion with the note of some theological censure or other injury or insult, whether the opinion denying the necessity of some love of God in the aforesaid attrition conceived from fear of hell, which today seems more common among the scholastics, or the opinion asserting the necessity of the said love, until something shall have been defined in this matter by this Holy See." Now nothing has yet been defined, and each one can adhere to his own opinion. Yet the opinion which requires nothing besides attrition itself has become common, and morally certain.

¹ Which excommunication, however, was not renewed in the Bull Apostolicae Sedis, and therefore is no longer in force.

In practice, however, there is no difficulty; as soon as it is clear that the penitent is truly attrite, and detests sins above all things, he can be absolved. For, Scripture bearing witness, "the fear of God is the beginning of His love";² and he who hopes for pardon from God already loves Him as the fountain of justice. Yet it is expedient that the motives of perfect contrition be proposed to him, both because they are more perfect, and for the sake of greater security.

² Ecclus. 25:16.

142. Corollary. The penitent, by receiving the sacrament, becomes from attrite contrite, not indeed in the sense that attrition can become contrition, since these are two acts distinct in species, but (a) because attrition together with the sacrament is equivalent to contrition with respect to the effect produced, namely the remission of sin; (b) and further because the attrite man, by receiving absolution, at the same time receives habitual grace and the virtue of charity, by which he becomes contrite in habit, able to elicit an act of perfect contrition.

143. Thesis III: Attrition conceived from the foulness of sin, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the incurring of eternal damnation, is true and useful sorrow preparing for grace. It is of faith from Trent against the Lutherans, who contended that servile fear (above, n. 136) is not true and honorable, but makes a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner:¹ "If anyone shall say that the contrition which is prepared by the discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one recollects his years in the bitterness of his soul, pondering the gravity, multitude, foulness of his sins, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the incurring of eternal damnation, with the purpose of a better life, is not a true and useful sorrow, nor prepares for grace, but makes a man a hypocrite and a greater sinner... let him be anathema."²

¹ The proposition of Luther, condemned by Leo X, you have in Denzinger, n. 630. The Synod of Pistoia renewed the same error, in Denz., n. 1388.

² Sess. XIV, can. 5.

(A) By Scripture. That fear is good and useful which is commended and commanded in the sacred letters; but such is fear that is simply servile: "Holy and terrible is His name: the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom";³ "The fear of the Lord drives out sin: for he who is without fear will not be able to be justified";⁴ "Do not fear those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."⁵ The Fathers frequently use these words to show that fear of hell is truly salutary.

³ Ps. 110:10.

⁴ Ecclus. 1:27.

⁵ Matt. 10:28; cf. Luke 12:4.

144. (B) By Tradition. The Fathers often propose fear of judgment and of hell as a motive for detesting and fleeing sin. Thus Chrysostom, who also notes that fear is good from the very discourses of Christ: "If fear were not good, Christ would not have spent many and long discourses speaking of the punishment and torment to come there. Fear is nothing other than a wall and a fortification and an impregnable tower."⁶ Augustine speaks no less eloquently: "Therefore you fear punishment; you do not yet love chastity, you do not yet have charity: you fear servilely; there is dread of evil, not yet love of good. But fear nevertheless, so that this dread may guard you, so that it may lead you to love. For that fear by which you fear hell, and therefore do not do evils, holds you back; and thus it does not permit the inner soul, wishing to sin."¹ And elsewhere he adds: "Fear prepares, as it were, a place for charity... But if there is no fear, there is not by which charity may enter."²

⁶ Homily XV to the people of Antioch, n. 2, P. G., t. XLIX, p. 156.

¹ St. Augustine, sermon CLXI, ch. 8, P. L., t. XXXVIII, p. 882.

² In Epist. I John, tract. 9, ch. 4, P. L., t. XXXV, p. 2047.

145. (C) Theological reason. Attrition from fear of hell imports three things: the will of fleeing punishment, which stands in the manner of an end; the detestation of sin, which is the means to the end; the ordination of this means to obtaining the end. But these three things are good and useful: (a) it is honorable to flee the punishments of hell, since they are something evil and worthy of hatred; (b) likewise there is no one who denies that the detestation of sin is good; (c) but to order the flight from sin to the avoidance of punishment as to an end is not evil, since God Himself uses the threatening of punishments to deter us from sin; moreover, the sinner who flees sin in order to avoid punishment does not exclude a higher motive; for if he excluded it, the fear would be servilely servile. Indeed, this disposition, imperfect in itself, spontaneously tends toward perfection and virtually contains it. For he who, from efficacious fear of hell, hates sin, detests it as the cause of hell, and consequently is disposed to doing whatever is necessary so that, by avoiding sin, he may also avoid hell. But for doing this it is required that he firmly propose to himself to keep all the precepts, of which the first and chief is the precept of loving God above all things; therefore by fear of hell he is induced to loving God Himself.

Nor should it be said that in this case the penitent detests punishment more than fault; for he who flees sin because it causes hell detests sin more than hell, not in this sense, that he ought to be disposed rather to incur damnation than to sin, since it cannot happen that he be damned without sin; but in this different sense, that in practice he ought to be more attentive to avoiding sin, since by avoiding sin he avoids hell, and hell is in no way to be feared if sin is avoided. - The matter is clarified by an example: the prodigal son, who had left his father and had squandered his substance by living luxuriously, was led to penance by hunger, or fear of pains and death, and approached his father again. Now if he had acted from servilely servile fear, preserving affection for the luxurious life, his manner of acting indeed would not have been worthy of praise; but, because, struck by fear, he truly also hated sin as the cause of his misery, he obtained pardon and was restored to his former rights. Thus the sinner who, from fear of hell, truly detests sin as the cause of hell, and, so that he may flee it, sincerely wills to serve God, acts laudably, and, absolution being added, obtains pardon of sins.

146. Satisfaction (satis facere), if the etymon is considered, is the act by which someone does as much as is enough for placating the angry person. But satisfaction, insofar as it is a part of the sacrament, is defined: the voluntary endurance of the punishment imposed by the confessor, for compensating the injury brought upon God, and redeeming the temporal punishment ordinarily due even after the remission of sin.

¹ St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 12 sq.; Suarez, disp. XXXVII-VIII; Bellarmine, l. IV, ch. 1 sq.; Morinus, l. III sq.; Salmantic., disp. X-XI; Drouin, q. XI; Billuart, disp. IX; de Augustinis, th. 21; Palmieri, th. 36-40; Hurter, n. 612 sq.; Egger, n. 584 sq.

147. Catholic doctrine concerning the necessity of satisfaction chiefly embraces two things: 1. that there is in the Church the right and office of imposing upon the Christian sinner a satisfaction proportioned to his offenses (against Protestants); 2. that the intention of satisfying suffices for granting the remission of sins (against the Jansenists).

The former is thus declared by Trent:

"Finally, as to satisfaction, which among all the parts of Penance, just as it was commended by our Fathers to the Christian people at all times, so especially in our age is attacked with the greatest pretext of piety by those who have an appearance of piety, but have denied its power: the holy Synod declares that it is wholly false and foreign to the word of God that guilt is never remitted by the Lord without the whole punishment also being pardoned. For clear and illustrious examples are found in the Sacred Letters, by which, besides divine tradition, this error is most manifestly refuted. Indeed the order of divine justice also seems to demand that he be received differently into grace who before Baptism has offended through ignorance; differently, however, those who, once freed from the servitude of sin and of the devil, and having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, have not feared knowingly to violate the temple of God and to grieve the Holy Spirit. And it befits divine clemency that sins not be remitted to us without any satisfaction in such a way that, occasion having been taken, thinking sins lighter, as injurious and insulting to the Holy Spirit, we fall into graver ones, treasuring up wrath for ourselves on the day of wrath.

"For without doubt these satisfactories punishments greatly recall from sin, and as if by a certain bridle restrain, and make penitents more cautious and watchful for the future: they also heal the remnants of sins, and remove vicious habits, acquired by living badly, by contrary actions of virtues. Nor indeed was any safer way ever judged in the Church of God for removing the punishment impending from the Lord, than that men should frequently perform these works of penance with true sorrow of soul. To these things is added that, while by satisfying we suffer for sins, we are made conformable to Christ Jesus, who satisfied for our sins, from whom is all our sufficiency, having from this also a most certain pledge, that if we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified with Him."¹

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 8.

Therefore there are two chief motives why satisfaction is necessary: that the offense inflicted upon God may be repaired, and that penitents may be made more cautious and watchful for the future.

148. Errors of the Protestants and Jansenists. (A) The Protestants, although they cannot deny the severity of penitential discipline in the first centuries of the Church, nevertheless regard it as an ecclesiastical institution, and deny its divine institution and necessity: for, they say, sin cannot be pardoned by God unless at the same time there is full remission of the punishment due to sin; besides, if our satisfactions are said to be necessary, by that very fact injury is inflicted upon the infinite satisfaction of Christ, since it appears insufficient. The root of this error is the theory concerning justification by faith alone: for if faith alone fully suffices for justification, satisfactory works become useless.

(B) But on the opposite side the Jansenists, favoring rigorism, wished to restore the penitential discipline of earlier ages, and contended that penitents are not to be absolved unless a laborious and long-lasting penance enjoined upon them has first been completed.

Against this twofold error there will be a twofold thesis.

149. Thesis I: The punishment due to sin is not always remitted by God wholly and at the same time, but, after fault and eternal punishment have been taken away by the absolution of the priest, temporal punishment generally remains to be discharged. It is of faith against Protestants from Trent:¹ "If anyone shall say that the whole punishment is always remitted by God together with the fault, and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing other than faith, by which they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them, let him be anathema."

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, can. 12.

150. 1° By Scripture. (A) For Christ willed that the power of the keys be exercised in the manner of a judgment (above, n. 20); but this power includes not only the faculty of remitting sins, but also of imposing punishments, according to that saying: "Whatever you shall bind..."

The Protestants indeed object that sin is not pardoned unless at the same time the punishment is remitted. That this is contrary to Scripture is clearly demonstrated both by facts and by sayings. (a) Wisdom teaches us that Adam did penance and was restored to the state of grace;² yet nevertheless he had temporal punishments to discharge: "Because thou hast listened to the voice of thy wife... in labors shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life... in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou return to the earth."³ Moses and Aaron obtained from God pardon of the sin of unbelief, and nevertheless, in punishment for the sin, did not enter the promised land: "And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: Because you have not believed me... you shall not bring these peoples into the land which I will give them."⁴ David obtained pardon for adultery and homicide when he said: I have sinned against the Lord; but nevertheless he had to undergo a most grave temporal punishment: "The Lord also has transferred thy sin; thou shalt not die; nevertheless, because thou hast made the enemies of the Lord blaspheme, on account of this word the son who has been born to thee shall surely die."⁵ These punishments indeed were inflicted not only for amendment, as the Protestants will, but also for the chastisement of sin, as is clear from the context, and from the fact that not only adults but even infants die in punishment for sin. (b) Nor did God less clearly manifest His will by words: "Now therefore, says the Lord, be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping and in mourning";⁶ "Redeem thy sins by alms, and thy iniquities by mercies to the poor";⁷ "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance."⁸ Here also belong the texts cited elsewhere (de Verbo Incarn., n. 206 or 1161), by which it is demonstrated that we cannot be saved unless we take up our cross, suffer with Christ, and fill up in our flesh those things which are lacking of the sufferings of Christ; for from these and similar testimonies it is gathered that the Lord did not satisfy for us in such a way that we are freed from the obligation of satisfying, but so that with Him we may be able to expiate sins more efficaciously.

² Wis. 10:1-2.

³ Gen. 3:17-19.

⁴ Num. 20:12.

⁵ 2 Kings 12:13-14.

⁶ Joel 2:12.

⁷ Dan. 4:24.

⁸ Luke 3:8.

151. 2° By Tradition. The Protestants themselves are compelled to confess that the Fathers with unanimous voice taught the necessity of such penance; thus Chemnitius¹ says: "Nor indeed am I ignorant that the ancients sometimes commend canonical discipline too broadly and with words too magnificent, as when Tertullian says that by those satisfactions sins are expiated; Cyprian says that by them sins are redeemed, washed away, healed, and the judge is placated; Ambrose, that the punishments of hell are compensated by them; Augustine, that God is propitiated by them concerning past sins."

¹ Exam. C. Trident., p. 4.

This surely is clear from the penitential discipline which flourished in the first centuries.

(A) In the earlier centuries, penance was more prolonged and laborious; it often lasted for many years, and sometimes through the whole of life.

(a) In the churches of Asia Minor, in the third century, three orders of penitents were distinguished: the hearers, who stood at the door of the church, or in the porch; there they heard the reading of the Scriptures and the sacred sermons, but were prohibited from being present at Mass; - the substrated, or kneelers, who were present at Mass within the enclosure of the church, from the doors up to the ambo, but prostrate: upon these the bishops and presbyters imposed the hand; - the standers, who were present at the sacred rite standing with the faithful, but were barred from holy communion.² In the fourth century, to these orders were added the weepers, who, clothed in sackcloth and ashes, stood at the threshold of the church, asking with tears and groans the Christians entering to pray for them.

² Cf. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, ep. canonica; P. G., t. X, p. 1019-1048.

(b) In the West, there were likewise various orders of penitents, whose number, however, is not known. We have already heard Tertullian describing the exomologesis flourishing in Africa (n. 57). The one which flourished at Rome is set forth by Sozomen thus:³ "For there in open view is the place of penitents, in which they stand sorrowful and as if mourning. And when the solemnities of Masses have now been completed, excluded from the communion of sacred things, which it is the custom to offer to the initiated, with groaning and lamentations they cast themselves prone upon the earth. Then the bishop, meeting them opposite with tears, likewise himself is rolled upon the ground, and the whole multitude of the church, confessing together, is bathed in tears... But privately each one, chastising himself of his own accord, whether by fastings or by uncleanness, or by abstinence from foods or by other ways in which he has been commanded, waits for however much time has been appointed to him by the bishop."

³ Sozom., H. E., l. VII, ch. 16; P. G., t. LXVII, p. 1459-62.

Moreover, the penance imposed was very laborious; the Council of Agde (year 506), can. 15, orders penitents to lay aside their hair and to change their garments;¹ the Council of Barcelona (year 540) commands (can. 6-7) that with head shaven and using a religious habit, they pass the time of life in fastings and prayers, that they not be present at feasts nor devote themselves to business, and that they live a frugal life in their own homes.² St. Leo the Great forbids them to conduct trade, to exercise the office of advocate, to serve as soldiers;³ St. Siricius exhorts them to abstain from the use of matrimony and from second marriages.⁴ And so the state of penitents was quite similar to the state of monks.

¹ In Bruns, op. cit., t. II, p. 149.

² Ibid., p. 27.

³ St. Leo, ep. 167 to Rusticus, ch. 10-13; P. L., t. LIV, 1206.

⁴ Siricius to Himerius, ep. Tarraconens., ch. 5; P. L., t. XIII, 1137.

152. (B) From the sixth century, penance became milder and shorter, and at the same time more frequent.

Then the penitential books were published (above, n. 115), in which the punishment inflicted for each kind of sins was determined. We have already related a few examples; certain others we add here from the Penitential of Theodore:⁵ for voluntary homicide, let the sinner do penance seven years; for the truncation of feet or hands, one year; for a wound, 40 days; for voluntary perjury and inducing others into perjury, seven years; for the greatest theft, three years; for a great theft, one year, if restitution is made, and two years if it is not restored; for a moderate theft, twenty days; for adultery, seven years; for simple fornication, two years; for detraction, 40 days, etc. Yet gradually the punishments imposed were lessened, and confession became a more frequent and more minute declaration of sins.

⁵ In Morinus, op. cit., Appendix, p. 41.

153. 3° Reason shows the fittingness of satisfaction. (a) On the part of God: for God, who is offended by sin, is not only a private person, but the legislator and ruler of the whole of human society; but it indeed befits God, as a private person, to remit the offense inflicted upon Himself; yet at the same time it befits Him as legislator that He not remit offenses without temporal punishment, both so that in the future the laws may be better observed by the penitent, and so that others may be deterred from evil and thus the good of society may be promoted, and finally so that the rights not only of mercy but also of justice, so far as can be done, may be preserved.

(b) On the part of the penitent; for, as Trent says,⁶ "without doubt these satisfactory punishments greatly recall from sin, and as if by a certain bridle restrain, and make penitents more cautious and watchful for the future: they also heal the remnants of sins, and remove vicious habits, acquired by living badly, by contrary actions of virtues." But if, on the contrary, sins were remitted without any satisfaction, they would be considered light, and by the very easiness of pardon many would be provoked to sinning again.

⁶ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 8.

Nor should it be said that through baptism the whole punishment is taken away at the same time as the fault: for the condition is not equal of those who are regenerated through baptism and of those who are reconciled to God through penance; the former before baptism offended through ignorance, or at least not with such great malice; the latter, who once were freed from sin and from the servitude of the devil, received grace and the gifts of the Spirit, knowingly violated the temple of God and grieved the Holy Spirit, and consequently do not deserve to receive pardon with the same ease, as Trent argues.¹

¹ That this was the mind of the ancient Fathers Morinus showed at length, op. cit., bk. III.

154. Corollaries. (A) All and only good and penal works can be satisfactory. For in order that some work be truly satisfactory, it is necessary that it repair the past offense and preserve from future faults; but such is the case with good penal works, and indeed with those alone; for (a) they compensate for the offense inflicted upon God; since, although properly nothing can be taken away from God, nevertheless the sinner, as much as lies in him, takes something from Him by offending His majesty; whence it is fitting, for repairing an injury of this kind, that something be taken away from the sinner in honor of God; and therefore the satisfactory work must be good, so that it be in honor of God, and penal, so that through this something may be taken away from the sinner; but if it were good and not penal, it would indeed be a meritorious work, but not satisfactory; (b) likewise a penal work also preserves from future fault, because a man does not easily return to sins from which he has experienced punishment.

Yet it can be added that scarcely, in the present state of fallen nature, is there any supernaturally good work which is not at the same time arduous and penal; for since we spontaneously tend to creatures and to illicit things, whenever on account of God we act supernaturally, we make the work difficult and consequently penal.

155. (B) But the chief satisfactory works are almsgiving, fasting, and prayer. For (a) satisfaction must be such that through it we subtract something from ourselves for the honor of God; but we have only three goods, namely goods of the soul, goods of the body, and goods of fortune. From the goods of fortune we subtract something through almsgiving; from the goods of the body through fasting; from the goods of the soul through prayer, by which we submit our faculties to God. (b) Besides, there are three roots of sins, namely the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life;¹ but against the concupiscence of the flesh fasting is ordered; against the concupiscence of the eyes almsgiving is ordered; against the pride of life, prayer.²

¹ 1 John 2:16.

² St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 15, a. 3.

Yet to these punishments, voluntarily undertaken, must be added, according to Trent (can. 13), punishments inflicted by God and patiently endured: for often the Lord permits us to be troubled by various adversities, hardships, pains of soul or body; when these are patiently endured, especially if we are joined to Christ suffering and dying, we have ample opportunity of satisfying; which kind of penance is more efficacious the greater the alacrity and love with which we embrace it.

156. Thesis II: Penitents who have the intention of satisfying can be absolved before they have fulfilled the sacramental satisfaction. It is certain against the Jansenists. (A) From the practice of the Church it is clear that the fulfillment of the imposed penance is not the condition for obtaining the remission of sins, but only for a more abundant remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. (a) For it is clear that already in the earliest centuries, in many cases at least, absolution was given before satisfaction was fulfilled: 1) in danger of death; for Innocent I writes to Decentius:³ "If anyone has fallen into sickness and has come even to desperation, he must be released before the time of Easter, lest he depart from the world without communion"; 2) when persecution was pressing; thus St. Cyprian writes:⁴ "Deservedly the penance of those grieving was prolonged for a longer time, so that aid might be given to the sick at their departure... But now peace is necessary not for the sick, but for the strong, nor is communion to be given by us to the dying but to the living, so that those whom we stir up and exhort to battle we may not leave unarmed and naked, but may fortify them by the protection of the body and blood of Christ"; 3) when there was danger lest, absolution being delayed, penitents pass over to heretics; hence St. Cyprian says:¹ "If we reject the penance of those who have some confidence of a tolerable conscience, immediately with wife, with children, whom they had preserved unharmed, they are carried off, at the devil's invitation, into heresy or schism." Moreover, in the Council of Ancyra (year 314) it was established (can. 5) "that Bishops, the mode of conversion having been examined, have the power either of using clemency, or of adding more time." From all these things it is gathered that, even in the case of public penance, absolution was sometimes granted before satisfaction had been completed, therefore a fortiori when there was question of hidden sins.

³ Ep. XXV, ch. 7; P. L., t. XX, p. 559.

⁴ Ep. 54 to Cornelius, n. 2.

¹ Ep. 52 to Antonianus, n. 15.

(b) It is certain, further, that long before the Jansenian heresy the practice of absolving penitents, satisfaction not yet completed, flourished in the Church. Thus, in the year 1479, this proposition of Peter of Osma had been condemned by Sixtus IV as scandalous and heretical: "Penitents are not to be absolved, unless the penance enjoined upon them has first been completed."² Deservedly, therefore, on Dec. 7, 1690, this proposition of the Jansenists was rejected by Alexander VIII: "The order of placing satisfaction before absolution was introduced not by the polity or institution of the Church, but by the law and prescription of Christ itself, the nature of the matter in a certain way dictating it."³

² In Denzing., n. 614.

³ Denzing., n. 1173.

(B) Reason of fittingness. For God immediately remits sins to the perfectly contrite, even when satisfaction has not yet been fully paid, as is clear from the example of David, who first obtained pardon of sin, and afterward underwent temporal punishment; and also from the words of Scripture, where it is asserted that God remits sins on the very day on which the wicked man shall have been converted from his iniquity.⁴ But the Church, in the administration of the sacrament of Penance, uses divine power and can and ought to imitate God; therefore she can absolve penitents before they have fulfilled satisfaction.

⁴ Ezek. 33:12.