Chapter — Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis
Title I: On the Essence and Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance
— 1. Notion. The Sacrament of Penance is the sacrament instituted by Christ in which, using the power of remitting and retaining sins, a suitable minister, by a judicial sentence, remits sins committed after Baptism to a faithful person sincerely penitent and confessing his guilt.
The conferred power is read openly in the Gospel of St. John 20:22 sqq.; but the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, defined that Penance is a sacrament properly so called, instituted by Christ, distinct from Baptism, and that the words, "Receive the Holy Spirit; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them, and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained," which the Catholic Church from the beginning has always understood of the power of remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of Penance, cannot be twisted to the authority of preaching the Gospel.
A suitable minister is a priest endowed with jurisdiction, as will be explained afterward.
Use is made both by absolving, and by binding, whether to fulfilling a satisfactory work, or to a new subjection to the power of the keys.
To a faithful person sincerely penitent and accusing his own guilt. For three things are required in the penitent for the integral and perfect remission of sins: contrition, at least that which is called by the special name of attrition, confession, and satisfaction; so that contrition and confession are required for the very validity, but satisfaction for the integrity and plenary effects of the sacrament. All these things are also established by the Tridentine canons concerning this sacrament. Yet that attrition itself suffices has not been defined.
Sins committed after Baptism. For by Baptism alone both original sin and sins committed before Baptism are remitted. Wherefore only a baptized man can validly receive this sacrament of Penance.
Nor is remission obtained by another sacrament, even if at the moment of Baptism, lack of attrition concerning prior sins wholly or partly impeded the effect of Baptism at that time. Wholly, I say, if because of prior grave sins not retracted, sanctifying grace could not be infused; partly, if a persevering affection toward prior venial sins prohibited guilt and penalties from being remitted by Baptism. For when the fiction recedes, the sacrament of Baptism confers sanctifying grace; when venial sins have been retracted, these, without any remaining expiation of penalties, will be blotted out. But if new grave sins require perfect contrition or use of the sacrament of Penance with attrition, then, when the act of perfect contrition has been elicited, or when the priest gives absolution, by the force of the prior Baptism, or of the permanent character, grave sins prior to Baptism will be taken away. But if someone, not even before death, has not sufficiently retracted certain venial sins, departing from this life in the state of grace and with the habit of charity, he will immediately after death retract these perfectly; and by force of the baptismal character, he will have no penalty to be paid for these sins, insofar as they are prior to Baptism.
By a judicial sentence: for that sacramental absolution is a judicial act was defined in canon 9, sess. XIV of the Council of Trent.
He remits to the disposed penitent, because he must use his power not according to his own judgment, but according to the rules to be declared afterward.
— What concerning sins which are committed in the very reception of Baptism, and concerning the sin of fiction, or of Baptism received with an obstacle?
Sins which are committed in the very reception of Baptism are remitted by Baptism, provided they were committed before the sacramental sign was placed, or before the infusion of water under the words of the form. And the same must be said about sins which, committed before Baptism, indeed exist at the moment of Baptism but merely habitually. If after Baptism they again become actual, for example because of a renewed will, it is clear that these are now remitted only by the means of post-baptismal Penance.
But concerning fiction, as Cardinal Billot skillfully observes, De Sacramentis, th. 30, this is special: that it is properly consummated if, at the moment at which grace was to be infused, someone consciously, through mortal sin either then committed or not retracted, placed an obstacle to grace. Wherefore, since the infusion of grace, or the reality of the sacrament, is by nature posterior to the sacramental sign and the impression of the character, the sin of fiction itself is necessarily, at least by nature, posterior to the sacrament. And therefore, properly speaking, the sin of fiction, as St. Thomas says (3 p., q. 69, art. 10, ad 2), will be remitted not through Baptism, but through Penance, in reality or in desire. But if you suppose a man who, forgetful of his indisposition, received Baptism, or if in good faith, with only an estimated attrition, he approaches the sacrament of Baptism, he will have no formal sin of fiction to be accused. And also a prior will of sacrilegious reception of Baptism, which is not formally consummated in Baptism, will be remitted through Baptism. Cf. St. Thomas, art. cit.; Suarez, in 3 p., d. 28, art. 5; Lugo, Paen., d. 15, s. 1; Lehmkuhl, II, 356.
— Acts of the Penitent. Contrition, confession, and satisfaction are called by the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3, the quasi-matter of this sacrament. And this matter is proximate. But the remote matter is sins, posterior to Baptism, about which those acts are concerned; and this indeed in such a way that mortal sins are necessary matter as long as they have not been directly remitted sacramentally; but venial sins are sufficient matter and in themselves not necessary. In themselves, I say, because he who has no other matter to bring must accuse at least one venial sin with sorrow, if he wishes to use the sacrament.
But whether the acts of the penitent are true matter from which, together with the form, the sacrament is made, or whether the whole essence of the sacrament consists in absolution, so that the acts themselves of the penitent are nothing except matter about which: this is controverted. The more common opinion, of St. Thomas and the Thomists, embraces the former part, yet in such a way that satisfaction itself, excepting the necessary will of satisfying which is contained in contrition, is not held as an essential element, but only an integral one. Yet the different opinion of Scotus is not improbable.
For the remaining things which pertain to the acts of the penitent, cf. the chapter On the Subject.
— The Form of the Sacrament is the words of absolution, which in the Latin Church are: "I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen," pronounced by voice upon a man present.
The word "I" is not essential; and the words "In the name of the Father," etc., now do not pertain to the form, as is demonstrated from ancient Rituals. More probably these suffice: "I absolve you"; or "I absolve from your sins." Yet because of doubt concerning this matter, under grave obligation at least these words must be said: "I absolve you from your sins"; and absolution is to be repeated under condition where anything from these has been omitted.
As is established from the proposition condemned and the usage absolutely proscribed by Clement VIII through the decree of the Holy Office, June 20, 1602, and the subsequent declaration of Paul V, July 14, 1605 (Denzinger, n. 1088), the form must be pronounced by mouth, and, on the part of the one absolving, bear the appearance of direct speech with the penitent. Wherefore absolution given in writing is invalid, or from a place so remote that the words could not be perceived, even if by some sign you manifest the absolution while it is being conferred. And Clement VIII prohibited absolving an absent person under penalty of excommunication. And although it is not necessary that the penitent truly hear the words of the confessor, or that he himself be perceived by sense by the confessor, who can be blind, nevertheless, so that there be no doubt from the side of distance concerning the value of absolution, it is necessary that the confessor and penitent not be separated by such a distance at which men, using an ordinary though somewhat louder voice, could not or would not be accustomed to hold conversations: which distance St. Alphonsus, VI, 429, thinks is contained within 20 paces. Yet at a longer distance, those are judged present who are part of a multitude whose first ranks are near. Thus an army can be present in the manner of one, provided the last ranks can perceive the voice (Noldin, III, 239). And the value remains probable as long as the penitent, the impediment being removed, could perceive the absolution in some way. Wherefore a priest will absolve under condition one whom he has seen or heard dying at a distance. But outside necessity, he will not hold as present someone who is in a room which does not communicate with the place where the confessor is, unless the walls are such that they allow the possibility of mutual conversation. But a departing penitent he will recall, if it can be done conveniently and prudently, or he will absolve until he is not farther away.
Absolution given through the telephone would be very doubtful, so that outside a case of necessity this means cannot be attempted. The question concerning the use of the telephone in extreme necessity, the Sacred Penitentiary, July 1, 1884, judged unworthy of a response. For to the proposed doubt it wrote back: Nothing is to be answered.
From the present discipline at least of the Latin Church, the form of absolution cannot be a deprecation, but must be decretory. And in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, Benedict XIV, §5, commanded that Italo-Greeks, when they absolve Latins, use the indicative form prescribed in the Council of Florence: "afterward, if they wish, let them say that deprecative prayer which they had been accustomed only to say as the form of this absolution" (Coll. P. F., n. 338). Cf. also n. 966, response of the Holy Office, June 14, 1843. Concerning the theoretical question, cf. the historical introduction and the dogmaticians.
Invalid would be an absolution given under a condition concerning the future. Cf. above, n. 185.
Therefore the form would be doubtful: "May God absolve you," or "May Christ absolve you." It is clear that it does not harm validity if instead of "you," you say: "your Majesty."
— The Complete Ritual Formula of the Sentence of the One Absolving: 1. also embraces prayers before the essential words: "May almighty God have mercy on you, and, your sins having been forgiven, lead you to eternal life. Amen." Then, with hand raised, he continues: "May the almighty and merciful Lord grant you pardon, absolution, and remission of your sins. Amen";
A conditional absolution from censures by a twofold condition: of power in the one absolving, of necessity in the penitent: "May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you, and I, by his authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, suspension, if he is a cleric, and interdict, insofar as I can and you need";
Absolution, with decretory or absolute words: "Then I absolve you from your sins, in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen." While he names the divine Persons, he makes the sign of the cross.
It is concluded with a deprecation: "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ, the merits of the Blessed Mary Virgin and of all the Saints, whatever good you have done and evil you have suffered, be for you unto remission of sins, increase of grace, and reward of eternal life. Amen." Now:
The prayers Misereatur and Indulgentiam, from Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3, are laudably added. But canon 885 warns us: "Let them not be omitted without a just cause." Both lack of time and a multitude of penitents easily furnish this cause (cf. Noldin, III, 237).
Nor is it established that he sins who has omitted: "May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you," etc., if there is no suspicion of censure, and the form of absolution from sins, by the intention of the one absolving, is referred also to censures and bonds connected with sins, if perhaps there are any. Then, even if the penitent is bound by a certain censure, the omission will not be grave. But it would be mortal to wish to absolve first from sins rather than from a censure which takes away the legitimate use of the sacraments, such as excommunication, and sometimes interdict.
Whether the word Deinde belongs to the black or red text is not so certain. At least it is better to pronounce it. Thus usage has it, and in the latest typical edition of the Ritual it is written in black letters. In the Ritual of Paul V, the word Deinde does not pertain to the text; Benedict XIV inserted the same into the text (cf. Hanssens, Per., XII, p. [41]).
To omit the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity is thought venial.
The formula "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., is indeed not imposed as to be used under sin, but it is better to use it because of the spiritual utility of the penitent. For it joins with the good acts of the penitent a special satisfactory value, which some equate with the power of sacramental penance.
These words are thought by others merely to express the prayer by which, in the name of the Church, the priest prays God that he grant abundant actual graces by which the penitent may perform works very meritorious and satisfactory. They are then a certain useful sacramental: this interpretation agrees more with the natural signification of the words. But others attribute to the same words the power of elevating all the good works of the penitent to the dignity of sacramental satisfaction, not indeed indefinitely, but until the faults accused and remitted in the Sacrament have not been fully expiated (cf. Noldin, III, 259). Many grave authors judge this, and St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 507, thinks it more probably and more commonly affirmed. That a greater power of expiation of past fault accrues to good works from the aforesaid injunction is the opinion of St. Thomas himself, Quodlib. 3, art. 28.
Where there are many penitents to be heard, one could before the first absolution premise Misereatur and Indulgentiam, omitting the same in the following cases; but pronounce the formula "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ" while the penitent is departing. The formula "May Our Lord Jesus Christ" is not regularly to be omitted.
When necessity urges, the Ritual teaches this very brief formula: "I absolve you from all censures and sins, in the name of the Father," etc.
What in the sacrament of Penance is the reality and sacrament, there is little agreement. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 84, art. 1, ad 3, in passing places it in interior contrition. Cardinal Billot (De Sacramentis, th. VI) says it is the right to remission at least of guilt and eternal penalty; Rev. Fr. de la Taille (Mysterium Fidei, p. 581, note, and Xiberta, Clavis Ecclesiae) says it is "the extinction of debt toward the Church."
But the reality of the sacrament, as always, is sanctifying grace restored or increased, with actual helps for amending life, which constitute sacramental grace.
Summary
— I. 1. By the Council of Trent, sess. XIV, we are taught that Penance is a sacrament properly so called, in which, through a truly judicial sentence, sins committed after Baptism are subjected to the keys by which the Church can remit and retain sins.
Matter. The acts of the penitent, contrition, confession, satisfaction, are called by Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 3, the quasi-matter of the sacrament; the more common opinion of St. Thomas and the Thomists holds them as proximate matter and sins as remote matter; yet the opinion of Scotus, which places the whole essence in absolution, is not improbable.
Form. In the Latin Church these are the words, pronounced by voice upon a man present: "I absolve you from your sins." Certainly the words suffice: "I absolve you from your sins"; more probably it is enough to say: "I absolve you"; "I absolve from your sins."
Written absolution would be invalid, or one pronounced upon an absent person; but the appearance of direct speech with the penitent is required. This seems to be lacking in the telephone, since those speaking in this way perceive a merely electric imitation of the voice.
Certainly present is he who is not more than 25 paces distant, or is part of a multitude whose first ranks are near.
From the present discipline at least, the form must be pronounced indicative, not deprecative.
The complete form of the Ritual embraces, before the essential words: a) the prayers "Misereatur... Indulgentiam..." which do not oblige under sin, yet are not to be omitted without a just cause; "May Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you": nor is it established that these must be said under sin; b) conditional general absolution from censures, which is a vestige of reconciliation with the Church, necessary from the primitive discipline of the Church. They think this can today be omitted without sin if there is no suspicion of censure; and certainly it is omitted without grave sin, provided you do not wish to absolve from sins before absolving from a censure which takes away the legitimate use of the sacraments, such as excommunication, and sometimes interdict.
There follows the word Deinde, which is better pronounced than kept silent, since in the typical edition of the Ritual it pertains to the black text.
After the essential words, under venial obligation the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are to be named. The formula is closed by the word Amen.
Through the added deprecation "May the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ," etc., a special satisfactory value is added to the good acts of the penitent. Wherefore, because of the spiritual utility of the penitent, it is better not to omit it.
When necessity urges, the Ritual teaches this brief form: "I absolve you from all censures and sins, in the name of the Father," etc.