Article II. On the Power and Obligation of Imposing Satisfaction

I. Power and obligation of imposing satisfaction. The ministers of the sacrament of Penance can and of themselves must impose satisfaction. This is clear: 1. from the Council of Trent¹ and from canon 887; 2. from the universal and constant practice of the Church, which is shown in penitential books, rituals, and testimonies of Councils² and of the Holy Fathers;³ 3. from theological reasons. For the confessor must, as judge, punish the accused, and, as physician, provide medicine to him; these things are done through the imposition of vindicative and medicinal satisfaction⁴ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 506).

I said that the confessor of himself must impose satisfaction, because accidentally he is not bound when the penitent cannot perform any satisfaction; this, however, scarcely happens except in one dying, deprived of the senses, or lacking mental power. Those gravely sick commonly can fulfill at least a very slight satisfaction, so that very rarely is there a cause excusing from all satisfaction (St. Alphonsus, VI, 507).

¹ Session 14, canon 15 and chapter 8.

² Cf. Council of Laodicea (372), canon 2 (Harduin, t. 1, col. 1531); Third Council of Carthage (397), canon 31 (Harduin, t. 2, col. 1404).

³ Cf. dogmatic theologians.

⁴ Council of Trent, at the cited place.

II. How much satisfaction is to be imposed? This can be deduced from these words of the Council of Trent: "Therefore the priests of the Lord, so far as spirit and prudence shall suggest, ought, according to the quality of the crimes and the capacity of the penitents, to enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions, lest, if perhaps they connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by enjoining certain very light works for very grave offenses, they become participants in others' sins."¹ These words of canon 887 correspond to them: "According to the quality and number of sins and the condition of the penitent, let the confessor enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions." Therefore satisfaction must be in some way proportioned to sins. Hence:

1. Let a light satisfaction be imposed for free matter, that is, for venial sins and for mortal sins already declared;² a grave satisfaction for necessary matter, that is, for a mortal sin not yet declared. Thus at least generally: since, if a penitent who confessed a mortal sin omitted a grave sin because of forgetfulness, it seems that a light satisfaction can be imposed afterward on one confessing the omitted sin. Besides, for a greater number and gravity of sins let the satisfaction be increased, but not arithmetically.

A work is judged grave which, if it were commanded by the Church, would oblige under grave obligation, for example hearing Mass, a rosary of five decades, the Litany of All Saints, abstinence or fasting of one day. Some judge that grave satisfaction is already contained in a prayer which is equivalent to a Little Hour of the divine office, because sacramental satisfaction has greater dignity and force by reason of the sacrament of which it is an integral part. But that greater force and dignity does not seem to be considered, because satisfaction must primarily compensate for the injury inflicted on God, or primarily be vindicative or punitive, so that the punitive force must primarily be regarded, not the force that deletes punishment. It is added that almost all authors require heavier matter for grave satisfaction.

2. As regards the gravity of the obligation of imposing proportionate satisfaction, take these things:

a) By the consent of all, one who imposed no satisfaction, or a very slight satisfaction, for very grave sins would sin gravely. The reason is that proportion is notably lacking.

b) According to most authors, one who enjoined no satisfaction for a mortal sin would sin gravely. The reason is that also in this case proportion is notably lacking. It is added that the sacrament is deprived of an integral part, and a grave one.

c) It is more disputed whether one who enjoined a light satisfaction for a grave sin would sin gravely. Moreover, it seems this must be affirmed, because also in this case proportion is notably lacking; indeed, morally speaking, it is equally or almost equally absent as in the case in which no satisfaction is imposed for a grave sin.

Objection. The more benign opinion is more conformable to the words of Trent cited above, which indicate that one sins gravely only when a very slight satisfaction is imposed for very grave sins.

Response. The words of Trent can well be taken by way of example.

d) Besides, it is asked whether a confessor who imposes no satisfaction for light matter sins gravely. Some affirm, because he deprives the sacrament of an integral part, which seems grave. Others sufficiently probably deny this, because it does not seem grave to deprive the sacrament of a complement or light integral part.

e) Finally, of itself, one who imposes a simply grave satisfaction for very grave sins sins lightly.

¹ Session 14, chapter 8.

² It is disputed whether the confessor can sometimes impose grave satisfaction for light sins which strongly dispose to mortal sin; likewise for mortal sins already remitted, for which worthy penance has not been performed (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 517). Whatever the case may be, certainly from elsewhere there is an obligation of employing the means necessary for avoiding mortal sin.

III. What kind of satisfaction is to be imposed? The Council of Trent¹ teaches thus: "Let them have before their eyes that the satisfaction which they impose be not only for the protection of new life and as a remedy of infirmity, but also for the vengeance and chastisement of past sins." Add canon 887 cited in n. 348. Therefore satisfaction vindicative, medicinal, and fitting for the penitent must be imposed; in other words, such as is punitive as regards committed sins, preservative as regards future ones, and congruous to the state and circumstances of the penitent. For the rest:

1. All good works can be imposed, even:

a) Internal works, since by the imposition of the confessor and the acceptance of the penitent they are sufficiently sensible so that they can be an integral part of the sacrament (St. Alphonsus, VI, 514, doubt 1). Nevertheless, meditation should not be imposed on those little accustomed to it, because it is too difficult and would give occasion to scruples.

b) Works to be applied for the dead or for others; in which case the satisfactory force which belongs to the said works ex opere operantis is granted to the dead or to others; that which belongs to them ex opere operato comes to the penitent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 514, doubt 2).

c) Works owed from elsewhere; for nothing prevents them from being elevated by absolution to sacramental satisfaction. Nevertheless, it is not expedient to impose works of this kind except because of the fragility of the penitent. Besides, an intention of imposing a voluntary work is presumed in the confessor, unless the contrary is understood from the circumstances (St. Alphonsus, VI, 513, doubt 1).

d) Abstinence from some good work, because abstinence can become an act of obedience or of another virtue (St. Alphonsus, VI, 514, doubt 3). Nevertheless, abstinence from Communion should not be imposed, both lest someone be impeded from frequent Communion, and because the fruit of the sacrament is to be preferred to the said acts of virtues.

e) Whether a work to be fulfilled if the penitent relapses can be imposed as the only satisfaction is disputed. With St. Alphonsus (VI, 524) and others, it seems this must be denied, because satisfaction must be performed certainly or absolutely. The adversaries indeed say that in the case the greater effort itself to guard against relapse is for satisfaction. But it is supposed that a work to be fulfilled if the penitent relapses is imposed; not, however, that greater effort, so that this cannot be for satisfaction. Nevertheless, St. Alphonsus grants with others that to proportionate satisfaction there can be added the precept of fulfilling some work if the penitent relapses.

f) Whether a work to be fulfilled only by counsel can be validly² imposed is likewise disputed. But with St. Alphonsus (VI, 518) we have denied it, because the act of imposing satisfaction is primarily a punitive or vindicative act. But the nature of a punitive act implies that punishment is truly imposed, not merely counseled. The adversaries object that the act of designating a punishment and elevating it to sacramental dignity is an act of jurisdiction. Let that pass; but, as follows from what has been said, it is not an act of jurisdiction such as the imposition of satisfaction requires, that is, a punitive act.

2. Certain works cannot be imposed, or at least should not be imposed, as follows:

a) A public work which suggests suspicion of a grave sin committed cannot be imposed for hidden sins; both because the Roman Ritual prohibits it,³ and because it harms the reputation of the penitent. But a public work can be imposed for public sins, as Trent⁴ and chapter 1, De poenitentiis et remissionibus, teach. Nor should it be objected that a public work could suggest suspicion of a confessed sin and therefore violation of the seal. For observance of the seal forbids only an act of the confessor which suggests suspicion of a confessed sin, not cooperation in an act of the penitent which brings with it the said suspicion and, as posited by the penitent himself, cannot be opposed to the seal (St. Thomas, in 4, distinction 14, question 1, article 5, solution 1; St. Alphonsus, VI, 511, 521). "For the rest, if public penance is not so necessary, they rightly say... that the confessor should not impose it on one resisting, since otherwise the salvation of the penitent and the repair of scandal can be obtained, namely through public frequenting of the sacraments, visitation of churches, hearing of Masses, entrance into some Congregation where works of piety are exercised, and similar things" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 512).

b) The religious state and matrimony cannot be imposed, because they require complete freedom. Besides, to impose the religious state can be dangerous for the penitent. Nevertheless, matrimony is very much to be counseled to many (St. Alphonsus, VI, 511).

c) Works to which the penitent is opposed, or which there is danger of omitting; hence, for example, it should commonly not be imposed on children that they ask pardon from their parents (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, 52-54).

d) Longer works, for example for two months, or complicated works, or uncertain and not sufficiently defined works, such as to tolerate adversities patiently (St. Alphonsus, at the cited place).

3. The following can opportunely be imposed, for example: 1. "Hearing Mass, the Rosary, the Way of the Cross, though the latter two should not be enjoined on those to whom they are unfamiliar, almsgiving, Penitential Psalms, Litanies, meditations, pious readings, etc. 2. On individual days through one or another week, or through a month, to pay certain prayers, for example, the Angelic Salutation three times morning and evening. St. Alphonsus was accustomed generally to enjoin, or at least to counsel, this penance with the invocation: 'Through thy Immaculate Conception, O Mary, make my body pure and my soul holy,' to those who were not accustomed to frequent those prayers. Besides, 3. for a fixed time every evening to elicit an act of sorrow and every morning to renew the purpose of abstaining from such a sin. 4. Besides the satisfaction imposed absolutely, to fulfill some penance as often as the penitent has relapsed into some sin, for example, the Litany of the Blessed Virgin Mary, five Our Fathers and Hail Marys, some alms; for it helps much toward restraining an evil habit. Nevertheless, this penance is to be enjoined only for a brief time, because of danger of neglect, for instance for a month, until the next confession. 5. Within a determined time to confess again, and, if it is expedient, to communicate; unless, however, danger of omission stands in the way, as will not rarely happen; then it is better to exhort urgently to frequenting the sacraments. Wherefore it must be kept before the eyes that, although of itself it would be greatly advantageous to enjoin frequenting of the sacraments and alms, experience nevertheless teaches that this becomes harmful to those who rarely exercise these good works."⁵

¹ Session 14, chapter 8.

² That this is done illicitly follows from the fact that confessors according to Trent (session 14, chapter 8) and canon 887 must enjoin - not merely counsel - satisfaction.

³ Title III, chapter 1, n. 22.

⁴ Session 24, chapter 8, on reform.

⁵ Aertnys-Damen, II, n. 322.

IV. Causes excusing from imposing satisfaction owed of itself. Moreover:

1. The causes because of which it is licit to impose satisfaction less proportionate to the gravity or frequency of offenses, though not light satisfaction, are:

a) Vehement contrition, even if not most vehement.

b) The occasion of a jubilee or plenary indulgence which the penitent intends to gain (St. Alphonsus, VI, 510; Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 49).

c) Fear lest the penitent, because of the proportionate penance to be fulfilled, will seek laxer confessors or will omit the sufficiently proportionate satisfaction itself; nevertheless, these dangers can commonly be forestalled by adding a work or works already owed from elsewhere (St. Alphonsus, VI, 509, 513; Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 50; cf. St. Thomas, Supplement, question 18, article 4).

d) Hope of enticing the penitent to more frequent confession by a lesser satisfaction (St. Alphonsus, VI, 510).

e) The will of the confessor to take upon himself part of the satisfaction. For it is established from the doctrine on the communion of Saints that one can satisfy for another. I said part, because if he were to take upon himself the whole satisfaction, the sacramental action to be performed by the penitent himself would be lacking. Besides, note that proposition 15, "that a penitent can by his own authority substitute another for himself, who will fulfill the penance in his place," was condemned by Alexander VII.¹ Nevertheless, the confessor can grant to the penitent that another pay the enjoined satisfaction for him, in which case the satisfaction is not the work performed by another, but the procuring of this work (St. Alphonsus, VI, 526).

f) Whether the words whatever good thou hast done, etc., are a cause because of which satisfaction can be lessened is disputed. A few affirm, because, they say, by those words the confessor probably elevates all the good works of the penitent to sacramental satisfaction, at least if he explicitly or implicitly intends to do that (n. 342). But even if that opinion is admitted, it nevertheless does not seem to be a reason for lessening satisfaction; since Trent, although it knew that the aforesaid formula was used by confessors, nevertheless seriously admonishes them to impose satisfaction fitting for sins.²

2. The causes because of which it is licit to impose light satisfaction for grave faults are:

a) Most vehement contrition.

b) Great satisfaction already performed.

c) Fear lest the penitent, because of the grave penance to be fulfilled, will seek laxer confessors, or will omit the grave penance itself; nevertheless, these dangers again can commonly be avoided by imposing a work already owed from elsewhere (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 509, 513; Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 50; cf. St. Thomas, Supplement, question 18, article 4).

3. A cause because of which it is licit to absolve without satisfaction imposed scarcely occurs except in one lacking mental power or in one dying, deprived of the senses. That this is licit because of a plenary indulgence Benedict XIV reprobates in the Constitution Inter praeteritos.³ Note, however:

a) A very slight satisfaction, for example a very brief act of charity, invocation at least mentally of the names of Jesus and Mary, should be imposed in urgent danger of death (St. Alphonsus, Homo Apostolicus, tract 16, n. 49).

b) As regards the sick, the Roman Ritual⁴ admonishes that "a grave or laborious penance is not to be enjoined on them; but only that is to be indicated which, if they recover, they may perform at a suitable time. Meanwhile, according to the gravity of the illness, with some prayer or light satisfaction imposed and accepted, let them be absolved, as there will be need."

Finally, if the penitent after absolution confesses a sin omitted because of forgetfulness, the confessor indeed must impose a new satisfaction; but commonly he can satisfy this obligation by lessening the satisfaction imposed insofar as it regards the former confession, and leaving it unchanged insofar as it pertains to the later one. Some indeed judge that in the case a new satisfaction need not be imposed; but just as for a new absolution, at least practically, a new act of sorrow and a new confession are required, so also a new satisfaction must be imposed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 513). This opinion must be followed in practice, because otherwise the new absolution would be exposed to the danger of being deprived of an integral part.

Note. If satisfaction is diminished, it is sometimes useful to admonish the penitent about the smallness of the satisfaction imposed and to stir him up to supply voluntarily.

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1115.

² Session 14, chapter 8.

³ December 3, 1749.

⁴ Title 3, chapter 1, n. 25.

V. Time of imposing satisfaction. Satisfaction can be imposed validly both before and after absolution; if it is imposed after absolution, let it not be enjoined too long after it, so that the moral unity of the judgment be preserved (p. 271). But it is expedient that it be imposed before absolution, both because this is conformable to the Roman Ritual,¹ and because the order of judgment counsels that satisfaction be enjoined and accepted before the penitent is absolved (St. Alphonsus, VI, 514).

¹ Title III, chapter 2, n. 1.