Article — Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology
Article III. On the Obligation of Accepting and Fulfilling Satisfaction
I. Obligation of accepting satisfaction. The penitent is bound, considering present discipline, to accept an equitable satisfaction (canon 887). This follows from the right and obligation of the confessor to impose it. Moreover:
The obligation of accepting satisfaction seems grave if the satisfaction imposed is grave. Nor should it be objected that the penitent can depart without grave fault, because he is not bound under grave obligation to complete the sacrament, or because it is not grave to posit only part of the rite. For even if that is conceded, nevertheless a grave obligation of accepting seems to follow from the right and grave obligation of the confessor to impose grave satisfaction.
The obligation of accepting satisfaction seems only light if the satisfaction imposed is light. The reason is that in the case a grave obligation of not departing is not clear.
Likewise the penitent is bound under grave obligation to have the will of fulfilling the satisfaction imposed, if the matter concerns grave satisfaction. If the satisfaction is light, some require under grave obligation the will of fulfilling it, because according to them the will of fulfilling pertains to the essence of the sacrament (n. 291). Others demand the said will only under light obligation, because of the contrary reason. Because the former opinion is probable, in practice it must be said that the will of fulfilling a light satisfaction is required under grave obligation, namely lest the sacrament be exposed to danger of nullity.
Of itself the penitent does not sin by accepting satisfaction with the intention of asking commutation from another, because a petition for commutation of itself involves nothing evil.
Corollary I. If satisfaction manifestly greater than just is imposed, the penitent can ask for diminution and, if this is denied, depart (St. Alphonsus, VI, 516). If he does not depart and receives absolution, which is also licit for him, according to some he is bound to fulfill the satisfaction, lest the sacrament be deprived of an integral part; according to others, he is not bound to fulfill the satisfaction, and it must be imputed to the confessor that the sacrament lacks an integral part. But he seems to be bound, if the matter of penance is well divisible, to fulfill the part equal to the sins.
Corollary II. Let the confessor easily acquiesce to one asking a lesser or another satisfaction and prepared to fulfill a grave one (St. Alphonsus, VI, 516).
II. Obligation of fulfilling satisfaction. 1. Person obligated. The penitent, as canon 887 declares, "must fulfill satisfaction himself personally." This, however, as we noted, does not prevent the confessor from granting the penitent the faculty of substituting another for himself, who will fulfill the satisfaction (n. 350).
- Gravity of the obligation. The obligation of fulfilling satisfaction is grave if: 1. it was imposed for necessary matter; 2. it is grave; and 3. it was enjoined under grave obligation. When these conditions have been fulfilled, it is also grave to omit a grave part; nevertheless, this for the most part does not take place if the satisfaction has a successive extension, in which case, therefore, commonly it is not grave to omit once or twice what, for example, was enjoined for the individual days of some week. If one of the enumerated conditions is lacking, the obligation of fulfilling the satisfaction is light; and in the case in which the confession was invalid, the satisfaction does not oblige. I said:
a) If it was imposed for necessary matter, because for free matter grave satisfaction cannot, at least of itself, be imposed (n. 348; St. Alphonsus, VI, 517).
b) If it is grave, because light satisfaction cannot be enjoined under grave obligation.
c) If it was enjoined under grave obligation, which it is altogether expedient to do, and is presumed to have been done. Indeed there are those who judge that grave satisfaction cannot be enjoined under light obligation, because although a legislator can oblige only lightly in grave matter, nevertheless in this sacrament the confessor is not regarded as a legislator, but as a simple minister, since there he acts in the name of God. Hence he cannot impose matter of itself grave under light obligation. Others, however, admit the contrary, relying on this reason: "The confessor in this sacrament not only performs the office of Christ, but also has been constituted by Christ as true judge and legislator, who from the power handed over to him looses by remitting sins, and binds by imposing precepts concerning the obligation of fulfilling satisfaction" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 118).
A circumstance of satisfaction, for example the Way of the Cross to be performed by the penitent on bent knee, obliges under grave obligation if either in itself or with respect to the penance it is grave and - which, once the first condition has been fulfilled, is presumed - it was imposed under grave obligation (St. Alphonsus, VI, 517).
- Time of fulfilling satisfaction. First note that imposed satisfaction can be fulfilled both before and after absolution. That it can be fulfilled after absolution is clear both from the practice now commonly in force and in force through so many centuries, and from the contrary doctrine condemned.1 Nevertheless, it can also be fulfilled before absolution. A reason for doubting could arise from the fact that the penitent before absolution is easily in the state of mortal sin, and therefore satisfaction, that is, the integral part of the sacrament, cannot yet obtain its effect, that is, remission of punishment, so that, until the state of grace is recovered, it would remain informe. But satisfaction becomes an integral part only when it is conjoined with absolution, and at that very moment obtains its effect, so that satisfaction as an integral part was not informe. For the rest, observe:
a) If a time has been set by the confessor, this must be observed. Once the time has passed, the obligation does not cease; both because the confessor principally intends the work and accessorily the time, and because it is not licit for the sacrament to be deprived of an integral part (St. Alphonsus, VI, 525). If a time has not been set, satisfaction should not be delayed longer, and, in conformity with the mind of the confessor, should be fulfilled as soon as it can conveniently be fulfilled (St. Alphonsus, VI, 521).
b) Delay of grave satisfaction is a grave sin: 1. if it brings with it grave danger of forgetfulness or of inability that will follow; 2. if it frustrates or notably lessens the end of the satisfaction, for example if a confession to be instituted after a month is delayed beyond a week. It is disputed whether delay of itself is ever a grave sin. Moreover, with St. Alphonsus (VI, 521), it seems this must be affirmed, because a lengthy delay, for instance of six months, of a grave obligation to be fulfilled of itself at the first moral opportunity seems to involve grave disorder.
- Manner of fulfilling satisfaction. a) The intention of satisfying seems to be required, or of performing the imposed work for satisfaction. For just as the intention of receiving the sacrament is required as regards the essentials, so also it is required as regards the integral parts, so that the sacrament may be received integrally. But it suffices that the penitent had and did not retract the intention of receiving the sacrament, since this intention regards the whole sacrament. The said intention indeed probably comprehends a work enjoined by the confessor which someone, forgetful of the satisfaction owed, has posited (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 700, question 2); but since the matter concerns the validity of an integral part, the work seems to have to be performed again (cf. St. Alphonsus, II, 2).
Objection. The intention of satisfying is not required, since it suffices to have posited the act imposed by the confessor.
Response. From what has been said it follows that this does not suffice for the act posited to be an integral part of the sacrament.
b) Satisfaction seems to have to be fulfilled in the state of grace if it is fulfilled after absolution; for it is illicit to place an obstacle to the effect, even secondary, of a sacrament (St. Alphonsus, VI, 523).
Objection 1. The end of the precept, in the case remission of remaining punishment, does not fall under the precept.
Response. Let that pass; but the end of the sacrament falls under the precept.
Objection 2. Satisfaction will afterward revive once the obstacle has been removed.
Response. Besides the fact that this opinion is doubtful, and therefore does not hold for practice because the danger remains lest the sacrament be deprived of its secondary effect, it is illicit to fulfill satisfaction informiter, just as it is illicit to receive the sacrament as regards the essentials informiter.
If satisfaction is fulfilled before absolution, it is not required that it be done in the state of grace; for then, as we have already noted, it does not become an integral part before absolution is conferred and therefore, as is supposed, before the state of grace is recovered by the penitent. This posited, the integral part does not remain informe, but immediately obtains its effect.
c) Satisfaction can be fulfilled with another if prayers were imposed which are customarily recited with others.
- Cessation of the obligation can come either from supervening inability or from forgetfulness.
One who has forgotten the satisfaction imposed and cannot gather it from the confessor's custom of imposing this or that penance is bound to approach the confessor, if it can conveniently be done and the confessor is presumed to have retained it in memory. Otherwise the obligation ceases. Nor should you say: he is bound to return so that the confessor, if he has forgotten the penance imposed, may impose a new one. For, since the completed judicial process has been finished, the confessor cannot impose a new penance unless the penitent institutes a new confession; he is not bound to this burden (St. Alphonsus, VI, 520).
What if the confessor omitted to impose satisfaction?
Response. In the case the penitent is bound to return, if he conveniently can, lest the sacrament be deprived of an integral part; for since the judicial process remained incomplete, it seems morally to persevere, even if the penitent has left the confessional.