The nature of sacramental satisfaction

296. Definition. Satisfaction generally is compensation of an injury inflicted upon another; and satisfaction for sins is compensation of the injury inflicted upon God through sins. Hence satisfaction is made by a voluntary punishment of oneself, by which the sinner intends to repair the injury inflicted upon God through sin and to move God so that, content with this punishment, he may not punish. Satisfaction for sins is of two kinds: one sacramental, which is imposed by the confessor in the sacrament of penance; the other non-sacramental, which the penitent either assumes himself or voluntarily accepts as sent by God. Sacramental satisfaction is usually defined: a penal work imposed by the confessor in the sacrament of penance for compensating the injury inflicted upon God through sins.

Penal: by this alone can we compensate and avenge the offense and injury inflicted upon God through sin, namely that we perform some good work, indeed pleasing to God, but troublesome and afflictive to us: for sacramental satisfaction by its nature is chastisement. But every good work of fallen nature is in fact penal and laborious. Imposed by the confessor: for although other works of penance, which are assumed by one's own will or sent by God, have satisfactory merit, nevertheless they are not sacramental satisfactions, and therefore they do not produce the proper effect of these.

297. Division of sacramental satisfaction. 1. Satisfaction is distinguished into satisfaction in desire, which is the will of accepting and fulfilling the penance to be enjoined by the confessor; and satisfaction in reality, which is the actual execution of the enjoined penance.

The former is an essential part of the sacrament, or at least a necessary disposition of the penitent; it must precede absolution, and, if it were lacking, it would render the sacrament invalid. The latter is an integral part of the sacrament, is usually subsequent to absolution, and, if lacking, does not render the sacrament invalid, but only integrally imperfect and incomplete.

2. Satisfaction is divided into vindicative, which tends to punishing sins, and medicinal, which tends to preventing relapses. Sacramental satisfaction always intends both ends: it must punish sins themselves and heal them; nevertheless its proper and primary end is punishment or expiation of sins.

Because satisfaction by its nature is vindicative, it must contain at least some chastisement for sins committed; and because it is medicinal, it must contain a suitable remedy against relapse. In reality every good work which is enjoined conduces in some way to obtaining both ends: for every good work is not only penal and therefore vindicative, but also meritorious of graces and therefore medicinal.

298. Effects of satisfaction. 1. Sacramental satisfaction produces the remission of temporal punishment owed for remitted sins ex opere operato: for satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament of penance instituted by Christ, so that through the sacrament sin may be remitted fully also as to punishment. Therefore the Council of Trent teaches that it is by the institution of Christ that temporal punishment is pardoned.¹

Therefore works of sacramental penance obtain a twofold satisfactory effect: one ex opere operato, which comes to them by force of sacramental absolution; the other ex opere operantis, which they have equally with the other good works of a just man.

2. In order that sacramental satisfaction produce its effect, it must be performed by the penitent in the state of grace: for in the state of sin man is not capable of receiving remission of temporal punishment. Nevertheless the penitent who fulfills the satisfaction enjoined on him by the confessor in the state of sin satisfies the precept, because he places the whole work enjoined upon him, although he does not attain its end.

a. If the penitent who performed the penance in the state of sin afterward recovered the state of grace, it is not improbably held that, with the obstacle removed, he obtains the effect itself, because sacramental penance produces its effect not from the merits of the penitent, but ex opere operato.²

b. To fulfill penance in the state of sin is, by the agreement of all, not a grave sin; indeed most affirm that it is no sin, because to place an obstacle only to the remission of punishments without fault seems to lack fault.

c. He who in paying the penance commits venial sin, for example by voluntary distraction, does not by that very fact impede the effect of sacramental satisfaction, because venial sin does not impede the remission of temporal punishment owed on account of other sins already remitted.

¹ Cf. sess. 14, c. 8 and can. 15.

² Suarez, disp. 38, sect. 8, n. 5.

IT is part of the law of eternal justice that when we sin by following our own will instead of the will of God we must be brought back again into the right way by suffering what we would not. And so sin brings with it its penalty; when we have sinned we must suffer for it either in this world or the next. It is in keeping with this principle that by the institution of Christ one of the elements of the sacrament of Penance by which sin is forgiven is satisfaction. By satisfaction is understood some action which entails labour and pain, imposed by the priest in confession on the repentant sinner and accepted by him. We have already seen that the Council of Trent teaches that satisfaction is an element in the material part of Penance, and the same council in another place¹ adds: “‘ Therefore the priests of the Lord ought, as far as the Spirit and prudence shall suggest, to enjoin salutary and suitable satisfactions according to the quality of the crimes and the ability of the penitent.”

Confessors, then, are under the obligation of giving a penance to their penitents in satisfaction for the sins which they confess, As a general rule, they must give a grave penance for grave sins, otherwise they will sin grievously; but probably only a venial sin would be committed by neglecting to give a suitable penance for light faults, In the early Church the penances enjoined were very severe, but, according to modern discipline, that is considered a grave penance and suitable for a penitent who has confessed grave sins which would bind under a grave obligation if it were imposed by ecclesiastical law. The Church encourages her children to make up by gaining indulgences for what the justice of God may require in addition to the comparatively light penances which are imposed nowadays.

The natural sequence of judicial acts in the tribunal of Penance requires that a penance should be enjoined by the priest before giving absolution, but it will be valid if imposed after absolution.

The Ritual expresses a wish that, as far as possible, penances should be given which are contrary to the sins confessed, as almsgiving for avarice, fasting or other bodily affliction for lust, humiliations for pride, acts of devotion for sloth. For such as but seldom confess more frequent reception of the sacraments may be enjoined. The confessor should never apply to personal objects alms imposed on his penitents, nor enjoin public penance for secret sins.

¹ Sess. xiv, c. 8.

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.

Satisfaction.—The third act of the penitent is satisfaction, which is defined as “a compensation for the injury done to God by sin, appointed by God’s minister in the Sacrament of Penance and accepted and performed by the penitent.”

(a) This act is a compensation or payment made to God as an act of reparation and justice.

(b) The compensation is appointed by the confessor, for its chief purpose is restoration of friendship between God and the sinner, and hence equality is not sought, but the good will to do what God’s minister imposes.

(c) The compensation is accepted and performed. This is required for the completeness, not for the essence, of the Sacrament. He who is really contrite desires to satisfy, he who confesses offers to satisfy; and hence, if for any reason he does not actually satisfy, his satisfaction of desire suffices for the validity of the Sacrament, but his omission to perform the satisfaction makes the Sacrament incomplete.

The Effects of Actual Satisfaction.—(a) There is a remissive effect, consisting in the ex opere operato release of a portion or of all the temporal punishment due to sin forgiven.

(b) There is a medicinal effect, consisting in the appreciation of the evil of sin, the caution and vigilance against future relapse, and the removal of evil tendencies, which the penitential works inculcate and promote.

The Conditions for Effective Satisfaction.—(a) For validity (that is, for discharge of the obligation) the penitent must perform the penance as to essentials in the way prescribed by the confessor, and he must perform it personally, unless the confessor permits or enjoins fulfillment by proxy (Canon 887). A penance performed during the actual commission of or with actual affection for sin, is not a satisfaction, but a new offense.

(b) For fruitfulness it is necessary that the penitent be in the state of grace when he fulfills the penance, for the works of His enemies are not supernaturally pleasing to God. Or, more exactly, a penance done in the state of sin, but without affection for sin and under the influence of actual grace, has no strict right either of justice or of friendship to divine acceptance; but it seems fitting that such penance be accepted by the divine liberality in part satisfaction for sins forgiven.

The Obligation of Accepting and Performing a Penance.—(a) Per se, the obligation is grave, since the penance belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament, and hence its refusal or neglect is an injury to a sacred thing. (b) Per accidens, the obligation may be light, and this is held to be the case when the penance was imposed for free matter, or when the satisfaction prescribed is a light work (such as one or two Hail Marys). A penitent is not bound to accept an unreasonable penance, and he may seek a commutation if such a penance is imposed. As a rule, negligence about the circumstances of a penance (e.g., the time, or posture) is not a grave sin, but exceptionally it may be serious (e.g., if one delays a gravely obligatory penance six months, or so long as to be in danger of forgetting it; if one omits to say a prayer on bended knees when this was chiefly intended by the confessor).

Causes That Excuse from a Penance Imposed.—(a) Commutation.—If there is a just reason (e.g., the over-severity of the penance), the penitent may have his penance changed to something lighter. The confessor who imposed the penance may be asked to change it, even probably after and outside of confession, and after a long time, and though he does not remember the confession. Another confessor may lessen the penance, but only in confession and after he has heard at least a summary repetition of the sins for which the penance was given.

(b) Cessation.—There is no obligation to fulfill a penance in case of impossibility, whether physical (e.g., if the penitent is dying and can neither say the prayers ordered nor ask for a commutation), or moral (e.g., if the penitent has forgotten the penance and cannot conveniently ask the confessor about it).

“Finally, as regards satisfaction—which, of all the parts of Penance, just as it has been commended to the Christian people by our Fathers throughout all time, is also the one especially assailed in our age, under the supreme pretext of piety, by those who have an appearance of piety but have denied its power—the holy Synod declares it altogether false and foreign to the word of God that guilt is never forgiven by the Lord without the whole punishment also being remitted. For clear and illustrious examples are found in Sacred Scripture, by which, besides divine tradition, this error is most manifestly refuted. Indeed, the nature of divine justice seems to demand that those who sinned through ignorance before Baptism be received into grace by Him in one manner, but in another manner those who, once freed from sins and the servitude of the devil and having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, did not fear knowingly to violate the temple of God and grieve the Holy Spirit. And it befits the divine clemency that sins not be remitted to us without any satisfaction in such a manner that, seizing the occasion and thinking sins lighter, we should, as injurious and insulting toward the Holy Spirit, fall into graver ones, treasuring up wrath for ourselves on the day of wrath. For without doubt these satisfactory punishments greatly recall men from sin and restrain them as by a certain bridle, and make penitents more cautious and vigilant for the future. They also heal the remnants of sins and remove vicious habits acquired by living badly through contrary acts of the virtues. Nor was any way ever deemed safer in the Church of God for averting the punishment impending from the Lord than that men should frequently perform these works of Penance with true sorrow of soul. Added to these things is that, while by making satisfaction we suffer for sins, we are made conformable to Christ Jesus, who made satisfaction for our sins, from whom is all our sufficiency; and from this also we have a most certain pledge that, if we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified with Him. Nor is this satisfaction which we discharge for our sins ours in such a way that it is not through Christ Jesus; for we who of ourselves, as of ourselves, can do nothing, with Him who strengthens us cooperating, can do all things. Thus man has nothing from which to glory; but all our glorying is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we make satisfaction, bringing forth fruits worthy of Penance, which have their force from Him, are offered by Him to the Father, and through Him are accepted by the Father. Therefore the priests of the Lord, insofar as spirit and prudence shall suggest, ought to impose salutary and fitting satisfactions according to the quality of the crimes and the capacity of the penitents, lest perhaps, if they connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by imposing certain very light works for very grave offenses, they become participants in the sins of others. But they are to keep before their eyes that the satisfaction which they impose is not only for the safeguarding of a new life and as a medicine for infirmity, but also for the vindication and chastisement of past sins; for the ancient Fathers also believe and teach that the keys of the priests were granted not only for loosing, but also for binding. Nor did they on that account consider

“the Sacrament of Penance to be a tribunal of wrath or punishments, just as no Catholic ever thought that, through satisfactions of this kind on our part, the force of the merit and satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ is either obscured or in any part diminished. Since the innovators are unwilling to understand this, they teach that the best Penance is a new life in such a way that they take away all the force and use of satisfaction.

“It teaches furthermore that so great is the bounty of the divine munificence that we are able to make satisfaction before God the Father through Christ Jesus not only by punishments voluntarily undertaken by us for the vindication of sin, or imposed at the discretion of the priest according to the measure of the offense, but also—and this is the greatest proof of love—by temporal scourges inflicted by God and patiently borne by us.

“Canon 1. If anyone says that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling to God the faithful as often as they fall into sins after Baptism: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone, confounding the sacraments, says that Baptism itself is the Sacrament of Penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct, and that therefore Penance is not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone says that those words of the Lord Savior, Receive the Holy Spirit: whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained, are not to be understood of the power of forgiving and retaining sins in the Sacrament of Penance, as the Catholic Church has always understood them from the beginning, but distorts them, contrary to the institution of this sacrament, to mean the authority of preaching the Gospel: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone denies that for the complete and perfect remission of sins there are required three acts in the penitent, as it were the matter of the Sacrament of Penance—namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction—which are called the three parts of Penance; or says that there are only two parts of Penance, namely, terrors struck into the conscience after sin has been recognized, and faith conceived from the Gospel or from absolution, by which one believes that sins have been forgiven him through Christ: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone says that the contrition which is prepared by the examination, collection, and detestation of sins, whereby one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, pondering the gravity, multitude, and foulness of his sins, the loss of eternal beatitude and the incurring of eternal damnation, with a resolution of a better life, is not true and profitable sorrow, nor prepares for grace, but makes man a hypocrite and a greater sinner; and finally, that it is a coerced sorrow and not free and voluntary: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone denies that sacramental confession was either instituted or is necessary for salvation by divine law; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed and observes from the beginning, is foreign to the institution and command of Christ and is a human invention: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone says that in the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary by divine law, for the remission of sins, to confess each and all mortal sins of which memory is had after due and diligent reflection, even secret sins and those which are against the last two precepts of the Decalogue, and the circumstances which change the species of a sin; but says that this confession is useful only for instructing and “consoling the penitent, and that of old it was observed only for imposing canonical satisfaction; or says that those who strive to confess all sins wish to leave nothing to the divine mercy to pardon; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone says that the confession of all sins, such as the Church observes, is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by the pious; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex are not bound to it once a year, according to the Constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be advised not to confess during the time of Lent: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone says that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, but a bare ministry of pronouncing and declaring that sins are forgiven to the one confessing, provided only that he believes himself to be absolved; or if the priest absolves not seriously but in jest; or says that the confession of the penitent is not required in order that the priest may absolve him: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone says that priests who are in mortal sin do not have the power of binding and loosing; or that priests alone are not the ministers of absolution, but that it was said to each and all the faithful of Christ: Whatever you shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven; and: Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained; by virtue of which words anyone can absolve sins—public sins, indeed, through correction alone, if the person corrected acquiesces; but secret sins through a spontaneous confession: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone says that bishops do not have the right of reserving cases to themselves except with regard to the external polity, and that therefore the reservation of cases does not prevent a priest from truly absolving from reserved cases: let him be anathema.

“Canon 12. If anyone says that the whole punishment is always remitted by God together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing other than faith by which they apprehend that Christ made satisfaction for them: let him be anathema.

“Canon 13. If anyone says that satisfaction is by no means made to God through the merits of Christ for sins, as regards the temporal punishment, by punishments inflicted by Him and patiently borne, or imposed by a priest, nor even by those voluntarily undertaken, such as fastings, prayers, alms, or also other works of piety, and that therefore the best Penance is only a new life: let him be anathema.

“Canon 14. If anyone says that the satisfactions by which penitents redeem their sins through Christ Jesus are not worship of God, but traditions of men which obscure the doctrine of grace, the true worship of God, and the very benefit of the death of Christ: let him be anathema.

“Canon 15. If anyone says that the keys were given to the Church only for loosing and not also for binding, and therefore that priests, when they impose punishments upon those confessing, act contrary to the purpose of the keys and contrary to the institution of Christ; and that it is a fiction that, by the power of the keys, after the eternal punishment has been removed, a temporal punishment for the most part remains to be discharged: let him be anathema.”

“59. When through alms and other works of Penance we make satisfaction to God for temporal punishments, we do not offer to God a worthy price for our sins, as certain erring persons suppose; for otherwise we would be redeemers, at least in some part. Rather, we do something in consideration of which the satisfaction of Christ is applied and communicated to us.—77. The laborious satisfactions of the justified are not able to expiate de condigno the temporal punishment remaining after guilt has been pardoned.” Propositions of Michael Baius condemned by St. Pius V.

“35. The proposition conceived in these words: If charity in the beginning is always weak, in the ordinary way, in order to obtain an increase of this “charity, the priest ought to cause those acts of humiliation and Penance which have been commended by the Church in every age to precede; to reduce these acts to a few prayers or to some fast after absolution has already been conferred appears to be a material desire to preserve for this sacrament the bare name of Penance rather than an enlightened means fitted to increase that fervor of charity which ought to precede absolution. We are indeed far from disapproving the practice of imposing penances to be fulfilled even after absolution; if all our good works always have our defects joined to them, how much more ought we to fear lest we have admitted many imperfections in the most difficult and momentous work of our reconciliation?—Insofar as it intimates that penances which are imposed to be fulfilled after absolution are to be regarded rather as a supplement for defects admitted in the work of our reconciliation than as truly sacramental and satisfactory penances for sins confessed; as though, in order that the true nature of the sacrament and not a bare name be preserved, it were necessary in the ordinary way that acts of humiliation and Penance imposed by way of sacramental satisfaction should precede absolution: False, rash, injurious to the common practice of the Church, and leading into an error branded with the note of heresy in Peter of Osma.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“87. It is a manner full of wisdom, light, and charity to give souls time to bear with humility and to feel the state of sin, to seek the spirit of Penance and contrition, and to begin at least to make satisfaction to the justice of God before they are reconciled.—88. We do not know what sin and true Penance are when we wish immediately to be restored to possession of those goods of which sin deprived us, and we refuse to bear the confusion of that separation.” Propositions of Pasquier Quesnel condemned by Clement XI.

“5. Penitents are not to be absolved unless they have first performed the penance imposed upon them.” Proposition of Master Peter of Osma condemned by Sixtus IV.

“16. The order of placing satisfaction before absolution was introduced not by the polity or institution of the Church, but by the very law and prescription of Christ, the nature of the thing itself in some manner dictating it.—17. Through that practice of absolving at once, the order of Penance is inverted.—18. The modern custom concerning the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, although the authority of very many men sustains it and the long duration of much time confirms it, is nevertheless regarded by the Church not as a use, but as an abuse.” Propositions condemned by Alexander VIII.

Is the confessor bound to impose a penance, and what kind? - Resp. To the first: In the affirmative. The reason is that satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament of penance; but the confessor, as minister of the sacrament, is bound to procure its integrity, even accidental, insofar as it lies in him; otherwise he would not be a faithful dispenser. Wherefore, if the penitent immediately after absolution confesses a forgotten sin and is absolved, a new penance is to be imposed upon him. Trent, sess. 14, C. 8, cc. 12-15; L. 506, 513, 515; St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 90.

Resp. To the second: The confessor is bound to enjoin fitting and salutary penances, both vindictive and medicinal, that is, in some way proportionate to the number and gravity of sins, and also to the faculties and dispositions of the penitent. The reason is clear from the nature of the thing, since sacramental satisfaction is ordered toward the vindication of sins, which are greater or lesser, more or fewer, and also toward preventing new faults. Trent, sess. 14, C. 8; L. 508-509; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 12, a. 13. - E. M.

Resolutions: The quantity of penance cannot be determined; but it is left to the judgment and prudence of the confessor. Roman Ritual. Nevertheless, grave penance must regularly and of itself be imposed for mortal sins. But that penance is to be judged grave which corresponds to a work that is prescribed under grave obligation by the Church, or would oblige under grave obligation if it were prescribed, e.g., hearing Mass, fasting, reciting the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Rosary, etc.; on the contrary, one Miserere, etc., is light. - Perpetual penances are not to be imposed, both because, since perhaps such penances would be imposed on the same penitent by various confessors, he would hence be bound at the same time and for his whole life by innumerable bonds.

Indeed penances for a long time are not ordinarily to be imposed, e.g., for a year or for five months. - Those satisfactions are never to be imposed which can expose the penitent to the mockery of others, e.g., that he recite five Our Fathers in the middle of the church with arms extended, etc. But all the more penances are not to be imposed which cannot be fulfilled without the revelation of Confession easily following. - Nor are too grave penances to be imposed, such as fasts on children and on workers wearied by continual labor.

Nor are pilgrimages or lengthy prayers, or generally alms, to be enjoined on women placed under the power of a husband, just as neither on the poor who obtain a living for themselves by continual labor. - Penances involved in many diverse works are not to be imposed, because they could not be held in memory; nor, at least ordinarily, penances too repugnant to nature, e.g., to make the sign of the cross with the tongue on the ground, to visit enemies, etc. It is also generally imposed imprudently on children that they ask pardon from parents or from others for disobedience, irreverence, or small thefts, because they often render Confession odious and for the most part are omitted. - L. 508, 515; H. A. 52; E. M.

How great is the obligation of imposing penance? - This obligation is grave from its genus. The reason is that the obligation regards a grave matter, namely the integrity of the sacrament; although from smallness of matter one can sin only venially against it, for example, by imposing a penance lighter than is fair. Lugo, d. 25, n. 49; L. 506. - As regards venials, however, it is disputed. Some affirm that it is grave, because the enjoining of satisfaction pertains to the rite of this sacrament; and since this rite was instituted by Christ, it must be held as a grave matter. But others say it is light, because a grave obligation of enjoining penance for only light faults cannot be proved, since in this no grave disorder appears. Indeed it does not seem that the confessor who does not impose penance can sin more than the penitent who does not execute a light penance. Moreover, the judgment can be complete even if no satisfaction is imposed, namely when the accused is judged worthy of no punishment. Each opinion is probable, as St. Alphonsus says, H. A. 47.

Note: "From this obligation," says Lugo, d. 25, n. 47, "it is established that some cases are excepted. The first is when the penitent is incapable, as if he is near death, especially if he already lacks the senses and cannot perceive the penance imposed.... The second case is when the confessor understands from the Confession and other circumstances that the penitent has satisfied integrally for the punishment due; and although this can rarely or never be established, Peter de Soto nevertheless adds... that it suffices that he seems probably to have satisfied. - The third case is similar to this, which others add, when without satisfaction there is at hand a remedy of perfect remission, e.g., if martyrdom to be undergone is at hand; which others extend to a plenary indulgence to be gained, at least one which is morally certain. - The fourth case is when the penitent, because of his frailty, is believed likely to accept no penance; for sometimes it will be necessary to condescend to his weakness in order to avoid graver evils. Nevertheless it will never happen that he is not likely to accept some penance, at least a light one." Cf. St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1.

But Benedict XIV has these things concerning the case of a plenary indulgence and Jubilee, Constitution Inter praeteritos, § 65: "One thing only remained, that we should speak about the imposition of penance not to be omitted by the confessor, since the penitent who had obtained an indulgence was said not to be bound to fulfill it. But since this reason seemed laxer to us, in the Instruction of which n. XXVI speaks, we declared our mind, establishing that a salutary penance is to be enjoined by the confessor upon the penitent, even if this one is prepared to receive the Jubilee, from which indeed arises the obligation of the penitent to fulfill the same." Cf. also Bull of the Jubilee of Leo XII, Caritate Christi; L. 519.

When is penance to be imposed? - Generally speaking, it is to be imposed before absolution. The reason is that thus the order of judgment is preserved, which requires that the accused first promise satisfaction before he is absolved. But if the confessor from forgetfulness has not enjoined penance before absolution, he must impose it after absolution. Nevertheless it is not grave to impose penance after absolution; indeed probably it is free of every fault if it is presumed that the penitent is going to accept the work enjoined upon him. - L. 514.

For what reason can a lighter penance be imposed? - 1. If the penitent is very weak and infirm in body. Roman Ritual. But if the sick person is placed in danger of death, then he can be absolved without any penance, although it is always expedient to impose some upon him. - 2. If there is prudent fear lest he not fulfill a greater penance, or lest because of a heavier penance he be turned away from Confession. - 3. If probably a greater penance will harm him more than profit him.

4. If the penitent appears very contrite. - 5. If the time is present for gaining a plenary indulgence, especially of a Jubilee. - L. 508, 510; H. A. 49; St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 35, a. 1.

To the matter St. Thomas says, Suppl., q. 18, a. 4: "Just as medicines determined in the art are not suitable for all, but are to be varied according to the judgment of the physician, who follows not his own will but the science of medicine, so satisfactory punishments... are suitable for all, but are to be varied according to the judgment of the priest regulated by divine instinct. Therefore, just as a physician sometimes prudently does not give an efficacious medicine which would suffice for curing the disease, lest a greater danger arise because of the weakness of nature, so the priest moved by divine instinct does not always enjoin the whole punishment which is due to sin, lest someone infirm despair because of the magnitude and withdraw altogether from penance." And Quodlib. 3, a. 28: "But it seems sufficiently fitting that the priest not burden the penitent with a heavy weight of satisfaction; because just as a small fire is easily extinguished by many pieces of wood placed upon it, so it could happen that a small affection of contrition recently excited in the penitent might be extinguished because of a grave burden of satisfaction, the sinner altogether despairing." - Cardinal Cajetan, Summa, v. Satisfactio: "But to penitents weakly disposed, let a very small satisfaction be given according to the weakness of their soul, and let the little fire be fostered by straw placed upon it, and not suffocated by large pieces of wood placed over it." - And St. Antoninus, 3 p., tit. 16, c. 20: "The confessor must nevertheless give a penance which he believes she will likely fulfill, lest by violating it something worse happen.... The confessor must in no way permit a despairing sinner to depart from him, but rather let him impose upon him one Our Father, or another light thing, and that the other good things which he has done and evils which he has tolerated be for him as penance."

Can a penance be imposed under the condition of relapse? - Resp. In the affirmative, provided a proportionate penance is imposed for the sins confessed. Confessed, for the confessor is neither judge nor physician of sins perhaps to be committed. In the negative, if no other penance is imposed. For this cannot be the effort not to sin. The effort to be applied for preventing sins does not seem able to have the nature of satisfaction, since it is a natural consequence of contrition and purpose. L. 524.

Can a public penance be imposed? - Resp. In the negative, if it is a question of hidden sins. Thus the Roman Ritual. Otherwise, however, for public sins. Nevertheless, if public penance is not necessary, the confessor must not impose it on one refusing it, since otherwise his salvation can be obtained and scandal repaired.

It is not necessary; it will indeed be necessary "in the sole case in which otherwise scandal could not be repaired except through that public penance, for example, by publicly restoring honor to someone publicly dishonored." But in this case, independently of sacramental penance, the penitent is bound to that reparation by the law of nature. Besides, public scandals of this kind can be repaired otherwise, short of public penance, "namely through public frequentation of the sacraments, visits to churches, hearing of Masses, entrance into some Congregation where works of piety are exercised, and similar things." L. 512. - C. Manifesta 1, de Poenit. et rem.; Trent, sess. 24, C. 8, de R.; St. Thomas, 4 d. 14, q. 1, a. 5, q. 1; Francolini, Vet. Eccl. sever., l. 1, Calumn. 7.

Can a work otherwise owed be imposed for penance? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that, since that work is satisfactory, it can well be elevated through the keys to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. "Nevertheless this should not be done unless the frailty of the penitent has been considered. But the doctors commonly say that unless the confessor expressly imposes a work otherwise prescribed, a supererogatory work is understood to have been imposed. But if the confessor imposes hearing Mass for a month, there is no obligation to hear two Masses on a feast." L. 513.

What are the works which can be imposed for satisfaction? - "Prayer as much as alms, and any other good work enjoined in the sacrament of penance, is valid as a penal and afflictive work..., even an internal work..., even a work to be applied for the dead..., even cessation from some good work, namely from Communion, fasting, etc..., because a cessation of this kind can well sometimes be an act of virtue, at least for preserving obedience to the confessor. But Lugo rightly notes that regularly it is not expedient to impose a penance of this kind." L. 514. - But it is common among the doctors that entrance into Religion and matrimony cannot be imposed as penance. For each requires complete liberty in every way. L. 511. - "A penitent fulfilling a prayer or pious work enriched with indulgences can at the same time satisfy the penance and gain the indulgences." S. Indulg. C., June 11, 1901. - St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 15, a. 3; E. M.

521. Principles. - I. The Confessor is bound to impose penance upon every penitent who can perform it. The reason is clear: 1. because satisfaction is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance; but the Confessor, as minister of the Sacrament, is bound, insofar as lies in him, to procure its integrity, even accidental integrity; otherwise he would not be a faithful dispenser; 2. because the nature of judgment ¹ and judicial power require some punishment of offenses. It is also established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 8. - See St. Lig., no. 506; Homo Apostolicus, no. 47.

¹ This reason does not seem sufficiently firm, because a judgment is completed also by a sentence in which the judge decrees that punishment is not to be imposed. Just as in a human judgment the judgment does not remain imperfect from a defect of punishment when the accused is not judged worthy of punishment, so neither does this judgment and sacrament remain imperfect from a defect of punishment and satisfaction when the penitent is not judged worthy of punishment. Thus Lugo, where he weighs the force of the argument a priori (De Poenit., disp. 25, no. 52).

II. The Confessor is bound to enjoin both vindicatory and medicinal penances that are fitting and salutary, that is, in some manner proportioned to the number and gravity of the sins, and also to the strength and dispositions of the penitent. The reason is evident from the nature of the matter, since sacramental satisfaction is ordained to the vindication of sins, which are more or less grave and likewise more or fewer, and also to guarding against new faults. It is established from Trent, sess. 14, ch. 8, where it says thus: Therefore, the priests of the Lord ought, according as the spirit and prudence shall suggest, to enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions according to the character of the crimes and the ability of the penitents; lest, if perhaps they connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by enjoining certain very light works for very grave offenses, they be made participants in the sins of others. Let them have before their eyes, however, that the satisfaction which they impose be not only for the preservation of a new life and a medicine for infirmity, but also for the vindication and chastisement of past sins.

522. Questions. - QUESTION 1. How great is the obligation of imposing penance?

Reply 1. This obligation is grave of its kind. The reason is that the obligation concerns a grave matter, although one can sin only venially against it from smallness of matter. - Lugo, disp. 25, no. 49. Hence the Confessor can also sin gravely if, without an excusing cause, he were to impose the lightest penances for grave faults ². - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., no. 506.

² The second part of this reply pertains better to Question 3 below, where the measure of the satisfaction to be imposed is treated; for the present question, as is evident from Reply 2, turns generally upon the gravity of the obligation of enjoining some satisfaction.

From this obligation, says Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 25, no. 47), it is established that certain cases are excepted. The first is when the penitent is incapable, as when he is near death, especially if he already lacks his senses and cannot perceive the penance imposed.... The second case is when the Confessor understands from the confession and other circumstances that the penitent has made full satisfaction for the punishment due; and although it can rarely or never be established that this is so, Peter de Soto nevertheless adds that it suffices that he probably appear to have made satisfaction. The third case, similar to this, which others add, is when, apart from satisfaction, a remedy of perfect remission is imminent, for example, if martyrdom is imminent; others extend this to the gaining of a plenary Indulgence, at least one which is morally certain. The fourth case is when, on account of his frailty, it is believed that the penitent will accept no penance; for sometimes it will be necessary to condescend to his weakness in order to avoid graver evils; nevertheless, it will never happen that he will not accept some penance, at least a light one.

And in this sense, namely, concerning some light satisfaction, that which Scotus has (In IV Sent., dist. 15, q. 1, art. 3) is to be understood: If he is altogether unwilling to receive any penance imposed by the priest, but nevertheless says that he has displeasure concerning the sin committed and a firm purpose of not relapsing, he is to be absolved and is not to be rejected, lest he fall into despair; and the punishment which ought to be performed for the sins is to be announced to him, and he is to endeavor to fulfill it in himself or in an equivalent manner without its imposition; otherwise he will pay in full in purgatory.

Concerning this case Cardinal Cajetan says (Summa, s.v. Satisfaction): The third case in which the imposition of satisfaction can be omitted is the indisposition of the penitent, because he wishes to perform no penance here but offers himself to undergo it in purgatory. For such a one seems to be absolved and left to purgatory for making satisfaction, if the case is possible, because no one would refuse at least once to sign himself with the sign of the cross.

** The VV. (p. 938, note 1) have these things: St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 516) writes that Suarez and Bonacina, after the Council of Trent, call rash the opinion of Navarre and Cajetan, etc., who said that the penitent can refuse penance in order that he may satisfy for it in purgatory. Then they add: Hence it can seem wonderful that the distinguished Ballerini, in the note at no. 522, revives the same opinion anew.

Reply. Father Ballerini, as is evident to one reading the Note, revives no opinion; indeed, he contends to the contrary that Scotus and Cajetan are to be understood in that sense in which Cardinal De Lugo proposes the fourth case, namely, concerning him who, on account of his frailty, is believed to be willing to accept no penance, although in practice it never happens that he will not accept some penance, at least a light one.

And indeed, in the text cited, Cajetan says that the case is scarcely possible, because no one would refuse at least once to sign himself with the sign of the cross.

Nor does Navarre hold otherwise, who writes (Manual, ch. 26, no. 20): But I consider it altogether useless to dispute concerning the truth of this limitation, since there is no penitent so stony-hearted who confesses in good faith and is unwilling to accept even the smallest penance.

The same is read in Sporer, who indicates in addition that the mind of Scotus is no other. Provided (he says, part 3, ch. 3, no. 548) that he is willing to undergo some penance, even the lightest, for example, some Our Fathers and Hail Marys, a striking of the breast, etc. For one refusing a very light penance of this kind, especially for grave sins, would deservedly be judged not rightly disposed, nor seriously sorrowful for the sins committed, and therefore simply to be repelled from the benefit of absolution, as Scotus also notes in IV Sent., dist. 19, at the question proposed.

Reply 2. As regards venial sins, there is controversy. Some affirm that the obligation is grave, because the injunction of satisfaction pertains to the rite of this sacrament; and since this rite was instituted by Christ, it is to be regarded as a grave matter. But others say that it is light, because a grave obligation of enjoining penance for light faults alone cannot be proved, since no grave disorder appears in this. Each opinion is probable, as St. Lig. says, Homo Apostolicus, no. 47 ³.

³ Since some excepted from this obligation the occasion of a Jubilee, or even of any plenary indulgence, as though this exempted one from the obligation of rendering satisfaction, Benedict XIV (Const. Inter praeteritas, sec. 65) judged that these things should be admonished: Only one thing remained, that we should speak concerning the imposition of penance which is not to be omitted by the Confessor, since the penitent who had gained an indulgence was said not to be bound to fulfill it. But since a reason of this kind seemed too lax to us, in the Instruction mentioned at no. XXVI we declared our mind, establishing that a salutary penance is to be enjoined by the Confessor upon the penitent, even if the latter is prepared to receive the jubilee, from which assuredly arises the obligation of the penitent to fulfill it.

523. • QUESTION 2. When is penance to be imposed?

Reply. Generally speaking, it is to be imposed before absolution. The reason is that the order of judgment is thus preserved, which requires that the accused promise satisfaction before he is absolved. But if the Confessor through forgetfulness did not enjoin penance before absolution, he ought to impose it after absolution. Nevertheless, it is not grave to impose penance after absolution; indeed, it is probably free from every fault if it is presumed that the penitent will accept the work enjoined upon him ⁴. - St. Lig., no. 514; the Salmanticenses, etc.

⁴ It matters nothing whether it is imposed before or after absolution; the preparation of the penitent for it suffices. Cajetan (Summa, s.v. Satisfaction).

QUESTION 3. How much penance is to be imposed upon sinners?

Reply. The quantity of penance cannot be determined universally, but is left to the prudence and judgment of the Confessor. Nevertheless, regularly and of itself, he ought to impose a grave penance for mortal sins. Thus from the Council of Trent, as above, no. 524. - St. Lig., no. 508.

524. • QUESTION 4. What penance is of itself considered grave for one or another mortal sin?

Reply. A penance is to be considered grave, at least from the present practice of the Church, which corresponds to a work that is enjoined under grave obligation by the Church, or which would of itself oblige under grave obligation if it were commanded.

Hence a grave penance, and one sufficient for an ordinary grave sin, will be to hear Mass, to fast, to recite the Rosary, even of only five decades, the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, the Litany of the Saints, and other similar things ⁵; but a penance would not be considered grave if only the Psalm Miserere were imposed. - St. Lig., no. 545.

⁵ What the Author asserts, that hearing Mass, reciting the Rosary, etc., suffices for one or another grave sin, is not to be understood such that Rosaries, etc., ought to be multiplied in arithmetical proportion to the number of grave sins.

QUESTION 5. For what cause can a lighter penance be imposed?

Reply 1. If the penitent is very weak and infirm in body; concerning which matter the Roman Ritual says thus: Let the Priest remember that a grave and laborious penance is not to be enjoined upon the sick, but only that is to be prescribed which they may perform at an opportune time if they recover. But if the sick person is placed in danger of death, he can then be absolved without any penance, although it is always expedient to impose some penance upon him. Homo Apostolicus, no. 49. 2. If there is a prudent fear that he will not fulfill a greater penance, or that because of a graver penance he will be turned away from confession ⁶. 3. If probably a greater penance would be more harmful to him than profitable. 4. If the penitent appears very contrite. 5. If there is a time for gaining a plenary indulgence, especially a Jubilee. - St. Lig., no. 508.

⁶ The constant experience of all times has plainly brought it about that Doctors of every age and school agree in this opinion with marvelous concord; even Antoine himself, who otherwise is deservedly numbered, as St. Alphonsus says (bk. 6, no. 509), among the more rigorous writers, yielded to it.

To the point, St. Thomas says (Supplement, q. 18, art. 4, corpus): Just as medicines determined in the medical art are not suited to all, but are to be varied according to the judgment of the physician, who follows not his own will but the science of medicine, so satisfactions as punishments... are suited to all, but are to be varied according to the judgment of the priest regulated by divine instinct. Therefore, just as a physician sometimes prudently does not give an efficacious medicine which would suffice for curing the disease, lest a greater danger arise on account of the weakness of nature, so a priest moved by divine instinct does not always enjoin the whole punishment which is due to the sin, lest some weak person despair because of its magnitude and wholly withdraw from penance. The holy Doctor illustrates these thoughts by another example (Quodlibet 3, q. 13, art. 28): Moreover, it seems sufficiently fitting that the priest not burden the penitent with a grave weight of satisfaction; because just as a small fire is easily extinguished by much wood placed upon it, so it could happen that a small affection of contrition recently aroused in the penitent would be extinguished because of the grave burden of satisfaction, with the sinner falling into utter despair. The disciple of St. Thomas, Cardinal Cajetan, expressed these things more briefly thus (Summa, s.v. Satisfaction): But to penitents who are weakly disposed, let a small satisfaction be given according to the weakness of their soul, and let the small fire be nourished by straw placed upon it and not suffocated by great pieces of wood placed above it. But St. John Chrysostom had preceded him (On 2 Corinthians, hom. 44): For just as, if you place upon the shoulders of a youth a bundle which he cannot carry, it is necessary that he either cast away the bundle or be crushed under the weight, so also for a man upon whom you impose a grave weight of penance, it is necessary either that he reject his penance or, undertaking it when he cannot bear it, be scandalized and sin still more.

You may see many other things in St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), who also reports this notable saying from Gerson: It is safer, with a small penance which is willingly undertaken and will probably be fulfilled, to lead those who have confessed to purgatory than, by commanding a great one which will not be fulfilled, to cast them headlong into hell. St. Alphonsus adduces two parallel sayings from St. Antoninus (ibid.): If the priest cannot rejoice in his complete purification, let him at least rejoice that he sends him, freed from hell, to purgatory. Therefore, as Hostiensis says, the Confessor ought in no way to permit a despairing sinner to depart from him, but rather let him impose upon him one Our Father and another light thing, although he speaks of one who has committed great sins, and let the other good things which he shall have done, and the evils which he shall have endured, be for him as penance.... Yet understand this sanely, namely, that if he is otherwise penitent and says that he is prepared to do what he ought, but says that he cannot bear the burden of penance, then, on account of this, however much he has sinned, he ought not to be dismissed without absolution, lest he despair.

St. Thomas suggests another expedient (Quodlibet 3, art. 18), namely, that the strength and spirit of the penitent be explored: Just as the priest can enjoin satisfaction upon the penitent according to the judgment of another, so also according to the judgment of the penitent himself; as if you say: do this if you can, and if you cannot, do this. And it seems similar when the priest says: Whatever good you shall have done, let it be for you unto the remission of sins. And here pertains the admonition of St. Charles Borromeo in his Instruction to Confessors, cited by St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.): Let him impose such a penance as he judges can be performed by the penitent. Therefore, sometimes, if he shall see that it is expedient, let him ask him whether he can perform, or doubts that he can perform, the penance enjoined upon him; otherwise he shall change or lessen it. And in this manner, as St. Alphonsus (ibid.) observes, what is suggested in the Roman Ritual will be observed, namely, that in these matters account also be taken of the dispositions of penitents: Let the Confessor, says the Ritual, enjoin a salutary and fitting satisfaction, according as the spirit and prudence shall suggest, account being taken of the state, condition, sex, and dispositions of the penitents. What satisfaction is understood here as salutary and fitting is explained thus by Lugo (De Poenit., disp. 25, no. 60): It ought to be salutary and fitting; that is, in the first place attention must be given to the spiritual utility of the penitent, lest snares be cast before him so that he commit new sins. From this heading especially the present practice, in which light penances are imposed for the gravest sins, can be excused; for this is often done on account of the spiritual infirmity of penitents, who would be scandalized by graver penances and either flee confession or certainly approach unskilled confessors who do not know how to cure them.

525. • QUESTION 6. Can a penance be imposed under the condition of relapse?

Reply. Affirmative; but it is expedient that, in addition, some other satisfaction be imposed for the sins committed ⁷. - St. Lig., no. 524.

⁷ A penance imposed under the condition of relapse, if it alone is enjoined, becomes a disjunctive penance; namely, it is enjoined that the penitent either, in place of penance, employ an effort by which he resists the temptation, or otherwise pay a certain punishment. On this argument see Diana (vol. 1, tract 6, resol. 19), who adduces Sanchez denying that penitents are bound to accept it, Suarez affirming the contrary, and finally others saying that the Confessor cannot oblige him to it, but that the penitent is bound to fulfill it if he accepts it.

QUESTION 7. Can a public penance be imposed?

Reply. Negative, if there is question of hidden sins. - Thus the Roman Ritual. But it is otherwise for public sins. Nevertheless, if public penance is not so necessary, the Confessor ought not to impose it upon one refusing it, since his salvation can otherwise be obtained and the scandal repaired ⁸. - St. Lig., no. 512.

⁸ Certainly there is no discussion here of the satisfaction which the ancient discipline of the Church exacted from the faithful on account of certain crimes; for that custom has become obsolete in the Church, nor did its imposition pertain to the minister of sacramental confession. Therefore, there remains the case of some enormous scandal which ought to be repaired; and some adduce the example of a man who ought publicly to restore the honor which he publicly injured. Nevertheless, this example seems less pertinent to the matter, because if perhaps the penitent is bound to this by the natural law itself, it will not be free for the Confessor to enjoin or not enjoin it upon him. But the same must be said whenever a scandal given requires public reparation; for the penitent will be bound to this even if it is not enjoined by the Confessor as sacramental satisfaction. Besides, public scandals of this kind can generally be repaired otherwise, for example, if someone publicly approaches the Sacraments, devoutly visits churches, hears Mass, enrolls in a pious confraternity, etc. And if public reparation of this kind is not necessary, the Doctors, according to the testimony of St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 512), commonly agree that it is not to be imposed upon one who resists.

QUESTION 8. Can a work otherwise owed be imposed as penance?

Reply. Affirmative. The reason is that, since that work is satisfactory, it can well be elevated through the keys to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. - St. Lig., no. 513, and others commonly ⁹.

⁹ The common doctrine holds that, through the imposition of a work otherwise commanded, that part can be supplied which cannot be hoped for from other works because of the frailty of the penitent. But it is readily evident that, by parity of reason, this holds for those whose condition and circumstances scarcely permit fitting satisfaction to be rendered either through fasting, alms, or prayers, however much they may be of good will; for charity can counsel the Confessor to furnish them this means suited to paying punishments in this life. Moreover, even if a sufficiently fitting satisfaction has been imposed upon the penitent, nothing prevents the Confessor, especially where the penitent signifies that he desires it, from adding this aid for making more abundant satisfaction.

526. Resolutions. - 1. Perpetual penances are never to be imposed, both because they are accustomed to induce danger of forgetfulness or excessive anxiety and because, if such penances are imposed upon the same penitent by various Confessors, he will be bound by innumerable bonds at once and for his whole life. Indeed, ordinarily not even penances for a long time, for example, for a year or for five months, are to be imposed. - St. Lig., Homo Apostolicus, no. 52; Lacroix, etc.

2. Those satisfactions which can expose the penitent to the mockery of others are never to be imposed, for example, that he recite five Our Fathers in the middle of the church with arms extended, etc. Much less are penances to be imposed which cannot be fulfilled without a revelation of the confession easily following.

3. Nor are fasts to be imposed upon children, countrymen, or workmen wearied by continual labor; nor upon sons and daughters of a household who, by fasting, would cause astonishment to their parents or even offend them. Nor are pilgrimages, prolonged prayers, or generally alms to be enjoined upon women placed under the authority of a husband, just as neither upon the poor who procure their livelihood by continual labor.

4. Penances involving many diverse works are not to be imposed, because they could not be retained in memory; nor, at least ordinarily, are penances too repugnant to nature, for example, to make the sign of the cross with the tongue upon the ground, to visit enemies, etc. It is also generally imposed imprudently ¹⁰ upon children that they ask pardon of parents, or of others, for disobedience, irreverence, or petty thefts; because these penances often render confession odious and are very often omitted, etc.

¹⁰ The fruit of this imprudence will not rarely be found to have been this: that children, not daring either to ask a change of penance from the Confessor or to ask pardon from parents or others, and much less afterward daring to confess the sin of omitted penance, began a series of sacrilegious confessions and prolonged it for many years with sacrilegious Communion added.

535. • 1. Vocal prayers: the Our Father, Hail Mary, Creed, Litany of the Blessed Virgin, the Rosary or its third part; morning and evening prayers.

2. Mental prayers, discreetly and according to the capacity of the penitent; for the uneducated, some thought concerning hell, death, or the Passion of Christ, in the morning or evening, for example, for the length of one Hail Mary.

3. Acts of Faith, Hope, Charity, contrition, confidence in God, conformity to the divine will, and a purpose of not sinning..., so many times ¹..., for example, morning and evening, especially in temptations or dejection of mind.

¹ These and other things of this kind seem to be matter for counsel rather than for any obligation, because they are easily delivered to forgetfulness and consequently give place to anxieties. The same is also to be said of the things which the Author proposes in the following number.

4. An offering of oneself to God first thing in the morning; the sign of the cross; various aspirations or ejaculatory prayers to Christ, to the Heart of Jesus, to the Blessed Virgin, or to the Guardian Angel. Ordinarily these are not to be multiplied.

5. The exercise of the Way of the Cross, especially when it is made in common; novena prayers in honor of the Blessed Virgin or some Saint.

6. Hearing sermons or catechism; attendance at the Offices of the Church, for example, solemn Mass, Vespers, etc.; or at spiritual exercises, the pious exercise of the Marian Month, or other things of this kind, at least several times.

7. A general examination of conscience in the evening, at least for a short time; likewise a particular examination concerning some defect or some evil habit, with a firm purpose of amendment ².

² These things are generally too difficult and exacting, unless perhaps there is question of persons already accustomed to this or that exercise.

8. A visit to any Church or Altar, or to some particular one, in order to pray for something there or to ask for the grace of sinning no more.

9. Pious reading, for example, for a quarter of an hour on Sunday, or one or another chapter, for example, of the Imitation of Christ, the Lives of the Saints, or another pious book, etc.

10. Frequenting the Sacraments on such a day, or at such a time, or so many times. Here the Confessor should act cautiously and should not impose upon those who confess rarely the obligation of approaching the tribunal of penance once or twice a month for a year; but he should not enjoin this except for one, and perhaps another, occasion, and only upon penitents who willingly accept it ³.

³ Add: and who offer a prudent hope concerning the future execution of the purpose.

1. Fasting, either complete according to the laws of the Church or partial according to the physical and moral strength of the penitent. Nevertheless, a penance of this kind is not to be imposed except rarely and only upon those who will willingly accept it.

2. Some subtraction of food which can in no way harm the health of the body or the duties or labors of the penitent, for example, half of the customary breakfast on Friday, Saturday, or the vigil of some feast, etc.

3. Abstinence from wine or intoxicating liquor on such a day or at such a time, or not exceeding a certain quantity.

4. Some subtraction of ordinary sleep, especially by rising earlier in the morning, or at a determined hour as a remedy for sloth, or even for guarding against impure temptations.

5. Praying on bended knees or with arms extended in the form of a cross ⁴; kissing the ground for the sake of humility; making brief pilgrimages.

⁴ But a prayer of this kind ought to be brief, namely, lest it harm health.

6. Sometimes offering to God illnesses, diseases, or other miseries of life that occur, by bearing them patiently ⁵.

⁵ These things also are matter rather for counsel and exhortation. The last particular, however, is enjoined altogether less prudently, because it furnishes an occasion of sinning in many ways; moreover, even setting this aside, it will remain too obscure and uncertain how far this obligation extends and what certain matter of it exists.

340. I. Principle: The confessor must enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions, according to the quality of the crimes and the ability of the penitents. It is certain from Trent, cited above (n. 336).

¹ St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 15; Suarez, disp. XXXVIII, sect. 4-6; Lugo, disp. XXV, n. 60-67; Salmant., cap. 10, n. 26-47; Lacroix, n. 1233 sq.; Billuart, l. c.; St. Alphonsus, l. c.; Lehmk., n. 355-362; Ballerini P., l. c.; Hilarius a Sexten, l. c.; Genicot, n. 312 sq.; Noldin, n. 289 sq.; Ami du Clerge, l. c., 1048 sq.; Gaume, Manuel, n. 402 sq.

1° Satisfactions of this kind must be salutary, that is, apt for promoting the salvation and spiritual good of the penitent; and therefore both vindicative, for punishing and expiating past sins, and medicinal, for guarding against future relapses. Now every supernaturally good work is penal or vindicative, since it is arduous to refer our works to God. But in order that it be medicinal, it must heal the wounds of the soul and remove vicious habits, acquired by living badly, by contrary actions of the virtues. Therefore let the confessor take care, "as far as can be done," says the Ritual, "that he enjoin penances contrary to sins: for example, alms upon the avaricious, fasts or other afflictions of the flesh upon the lustful, offices of humility upon the proud, exercises of devotion upon the slothful." Yet this is not to be understood in such a way that different satisfactions are enjoined for each sin accused by the same penitent, but that a contrary penance is imposed for the graver sin into which the penitent will relapse more frequently.

341. 2° They must be fitting, that is, proportioned to the gravity of the crimes, to the quantity of penalty which remains to be paid, and also to the ability of the penitents.

(A) Proportioned to the gravity of the crimes: for the confessor is bound to this as judge and physician. Hence a confessor sins gravely who, without just cause, enjoins a light penance for sins certainly mortal;¹ for if they are doubtfully grave, a grave satisfaction is not required, since in doubt odious things are to be restricted.

¹ According to D'Annibale (n. 347), then only does the confessor sin mortally when he enjoins the very lightest penances for the gravest sins.

Now, according to present discipline, that penance is judged grave which corresponds to a work which is imposed or can be imposed under grave obligation by the Church, for example, to hear Mass once, to fast, to recite the rosary, indeed even a third part of the rosary, or five decades, to read the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the seven Penitential Psalms, the Litany of the Saints with the prayers that follow, to make the way of the cross, to meditate or read a pious book or perform other works for a quarter of an hour. But a light penance is judged to be the psalm Miserere or one of the customary psalms, the Litany of Loreto or of the Most Holy Name of Jesus or of the Sacred Heart, acts of faith, hope, and charity, five times the Our Father and Hail Mary. Nevertheless a penance light in itself can become grave if the penitent must recite it not once, but several times.

If not one, but several mortal sins have been committed, regularly a graver penance must be enjoined, and indeed one graver in proportion as the sins are more numerous and graver; not, however, in an arithmetical proportion, so that for one hundred mortal sins it would be one hundred times greater; for if the matter were so, already it would be morally impossible to fulfill the penance.

342. (B) Proportioned to the quantity of penalty which remains to be paid: -

(a) Granted that the contrition was more vehement, by that very fact the temporal penalty to be paid is lessened, and therefore the penance can be less. From this, however, it does not follow that no satisfaction is to be enjoined when sorrow is very intense, because the confessor does not know whether it is so vehement that it deletes the whole temporal penalty. Besides, one so disposed will willingly accept a grave penance.

(b) A lighter satisfaction can also be enjoined at the time of a Jubilee, or on the occasion of gaining a plenary indulgence, because by indulgences the temporal penalty is extinguished or lessened. Indeed, formerly certain theologians contended that in these circumstances sacramental penance could be altogether omitted: yet Benedict XIV and Leo XII rejected this, warning that some penance must be imposed on those who are to gain the jubilee.¹

¹ Benedict XIV, Constitution Inter praeteritos; Leo XII, Constitution Caritate Christi.

(c) Certain saints were accustomed to enjoin a light penance, because they themselves made satisfaction for penitents by fasting, mortifications, and other arduous works; this can be done, for, by virtue of the communion of saints, the satisfactions of one can profit another.

343. (C) Proportioned to the ability of the penitents, or, as the Ritual says, "with regard had to the state, condition, sex, age, and disposition of the penitents"; in other words, according to their strength and dispositions.

(a) According to the penitent's strength; thus a light penance is to be enjoined upon the sick, because they are not capable of fulfilling a graver one; but if hope of recovering health shines forth, it is expedient that another work be enjoined to be performed conditionally (that is, if he recovers). When the sick are very weak, the confessor laudably assists them to fulfill the penance immediately; otherwise they could forget it. - Likewise, fasts are not to be imposed on children or youths who are not robust, or on workmen wearied by continual labor; nor lengthy prayers or pilgrimages on servants and maids, or even on women placed under the authority of a husband; nor alms on the poor; nor any work which conflicts with the duties of one's own state.

Nor should perpetual penances be enjoined, for example, entrance into a religious order, - or penances for a long time, for example, for a year, for five months, etc., because such penances generate anxiety, and, after some time, easily fall into oblivion; and if various confessors were to do this, penitents would be bound by innumerable bonds, to the great detriment of souls. Nor should penances be intricate; otherwise they will be given over to oblivion. - Hence, if the recitation of some prayer is prescribed for six or eight days, it is expedient to warn the penitent that, if he omits to recite it on one day, he can recite it on the following day, so that anxieties may thus be avoided. In one word, let nothing too arduous be imposed, either in itself or relatively to various penitents; for example, regularly children should not be ordered to ask pardon from their parents for disobedience or for petty thefts, lest confession be rendered odious to them.

344. (b) According to the dispositions of the penitent; namely, no satisfaction should be enjoined which the penitent probably will not accept or will not perform; for example, he should not be ordered, by way of penance, to visit enemies or to ask pardon from the one whom he offended, when it is foreseen that this is altogether repugnant to him.

Hence, with St. Charles Borromeo and St. Francis de Sales admonishing,¹ sometimes it helps to ask him whether he can perform the penance imposed on him; otherwise the confessor will lessen or change it. "It is safer," says Gerson,² "with a small penance which is willingly undertaken and will likely be fulfilled, to lead the confessed to purgatory, than with a great one not to be fulfilled to hurl them into hell." For experience shows that many are deterred from confession by fear of receiving an excessive penance.³

¹ St. Charles Borromeo, Instruct. Confess., ap. Acta Eccles. Milan., t. I, p. 655-656, Lyons edition, 1683; St. Francis de Sales, Avertissement aux Confesseurs, Oeuvres, t. VI, p. 143, Vives edition.

² Regula Mor., p. 2, c. de Poenit., ap. St. Alphonsus, n. 509.

³ To the point St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 18, a. 4: "And because satisfactory penalties to be inflicted are medicines, just as medicines determined in the art are not suited to all... so also satisfactory penalties determined in the canons are not suited to all, but must be varied according to the judgment of the priest regulated by divine instinct. Therefore, just as a physician sometimes prudently does not give a medicine so efficacious that it suffices for curing the disease, lest because of the weakness of nature a greater danger arise, so also the priest, moved by divine instinct, does not always enjoin the whole penalty which is due to one sin, lest someone weak, from the magnitude of the penalty, despair and withdraw wholly from penance." Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 510, with the authorities cited there.

345. 1° On the part of the penitent, the principal causes are: (a) bodily infirmity, or weakness of mind, from which it happens that he can fulfill a proportionate penance only with difficulty.

(b) Moral infirmity, from which it is greatly feared that the penitent, although sufficiently attrite, will not pay a grave penance; then, moreover, it is expedient that, besides a light supererogatory work enjoined, another work be added which is already prescribed from elsewhere, for example, hearing Mass on Sunday, abstinence from meat on Friday.

(c) Extraordinary contrition, by which the penalty to be paid is lessened, as above.

(d) A founded hope of enticing the sinner to more frequent use of the sacraments, if a lesser penance is enjoined, since by reception of Penance and the Eucharist the temporal penalty due to sins is lessened; or of inducing him voluntarily to inflict greater penalties upon himself.

346. 2° On the part of the confessor, the will of making satisfaction for penitents, such as there was in certain saints, for example, St. Francis Xavier, who was accustomed to expiate the offenses of penitents by bloody scourgings.

3° On the part of the Church, which on certain occasions grants a plenary indulgence either in ordinary form, or under the form of a Jubilee, through which the penalty due to sin can be paid in full, when the things to be placed have been placed.

In these various cases, however, it is expedient to warn penitents concerning the insufficiency of the work enjoined, so that they may voluntarily make satisfaction in other ways.

1. NECESSITY. —The necessity of imposing a sacramental satisfaction or penance (satisfactio vel poenitentia) arises from the nature of the Sacrament.¹ However, since satisfaction is merely an integral part of Penance, absolution would be valid even if the confessor imposed no satisfaction or if the penitent failed to perform the penance imposed. Still, for the valid and worthy reception of the Sacrament it is essential that the penitent be willing to receive and perform the sacramental satisfaction imposed by the confessor.

¹ Conc. Trident., Sess. VI, c. 14; Sess. XIV, De Poenit., c. 8, can. 12-15. —St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, Suppl., qu. 12-15.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. VI, n. 506-530 (ed. Gaudé, III, 516).

2. DUTY OF THE CONFESSOR. —As a faithful "steward of the mysteries of God/' ² the confessor is in duty bound to impose upon every penitent a sacramental penance. Since this penance is intended as a satisfaction for the sins committed, as a remedy for the wounds of the soul, and as an antidote against future sins, it should be proportioned to the penitent's guilt and adapted to age, sex, profession, disposition, etc.³

² 1 Cor. IV, 1-2. SATISFACTION

³ Conc. Trident., Sess. XIV, Dt Poenit., c. 8; Sess. XXIV, cap. 8, De Reform. —Rit. Rom., tit. 3, c. 1, n. 18-21: "Finally, let him impose a salutary and suitable satisfaction, as spirit and prudence suggest, taking account of the state, condition, sex, and age, and likewise of the disposition of the penitents. Let him see that he does not impose the lightest penances for grave sins, lest, if he should connive at sins, he become a participant in the sins of others. Let him keep this before his eyes: that satisfaction be not only a remedy for a new life and a medicine for weakness, but also a chastisement for past sins. Therefore let him take care, insofar as can be done, to impose penances contrary to the sins: alms upon the avaricious, fasts or other afflictions of the flesh upon the lustful, offices of humility upon the proud, and practices of devotion upon the slothful. It will be most useful to advise those who confess more rarely or tardily, or who readily relapse into sins, to confess frequently—for example, once a month or on certain solemn days—and, if expedient, to receive Communion. Let confessors not apply monetary penances to themselves, nor ask or accept anything from penitents as a reward for their ministry. For occult sins, however grave, let them not impose a public penance." —Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 402: "The confessor is bound to impose suitable and salutary penances, both punitive and medicinal, namely penances proportioned in some manner to the number and gravity of the sins and also to the penitent’s powers and dispositions. The reason is evident from the nature of the matter, since sacramental satisfaction is ordered to the punishment of sins, which are greater or less, more or fewer, and also to preventing new faults."

391. Notion. Satisfaction, according to the force of the name, is a certain compensation; if it is made in material things taken away by theft or damaged, it is called restitution, but if it is made to compensate for an offense or injury inflicted, it is properly called satisfaction. Therefore satisfaction is compensation for an injury inflicted upon another. But since through sin the greatest injury is inflicted upon God, satisfaction, as we speak of it here, is compensation for the injury inflicted upon God through sin. Now no creature can offer sufficient compensation to God offended. Therefore the human race, liable to sins, needed Christ the Savior, who through His redemption offered condign satisfaction to God offended. By virtue of this redemption, in the sacrament of penance satisfaction is made for the guilt and eternal punishment due for sin. But even after the guilt and eternal punishment have been remitted, temporal punishment still often remains, for the destruction of which satisfaction to be performed by the sinner is principally ordained. Therefore this satisfaction can be defined: compensation for the temporal punishment due to sin through good and penal works freely performed. It is said: freely performed; for if a man pays the temporal punishment under compulsion, as happens in purgatory or through other punishments inflicted by God in this life, it is not properly satisfaction but rather satispassion. From what has been said, it is evident that satisfaction is an act both of the virtue and of the sacrament of penance. Insofar as it is an act of the virtue of penance, the definition already given belongs to it, and it is customarily called extrasacramental satisfaction; but insofar as it is a part of the sacrament of penance, it can be defined: compensation for the temporal punishment due to sins through good and penal works assessed by the confessor and voluntarily accepted by the penitent.

Satisfaction for sins committed is greatly to be commended. Hence St. John the Baptist said to the Jews approaching him for the sake of penance: "Who hath showed you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance."²⁴⁷ St. Pius V condemned proposition 77 of Baius: "The laborious satisfactions of the justified are not able to expiate condignly the temporal punishment remaining after the guilt has been forgiven."²⁴⁸ St. Augustine²⁴⁹ teaches: "It does not suffice to change one's conduct for the better and to depart from evil deeds, unless satisfaction is also made to God for those things which have been done, through the sorrow of penance, through the groaning of humility, through the sacrifice of a contrite heart, with alms cooperating." Although extrasacramental satisfaction is excellent and necessary, nevertheless it does not produce its effect except ex opere operantis; but sacramental satisfaction, as a part of the sacrament, destroys the punishments due ex opere operato, and therefore is much more efficacious.

²⁴⁷ Luke 3:7 f.

²⁴⁸ Denz., n. 1077.

²⁴⁹ Sermon 351 (otherwise 50), in Migne, Patr. lat. 39, 1549.

392. Fruits. According to the Council of Trent,²⁵⁰ the fruit of satisfaction is fourfold, since satisfaction:

1. efficaciously impresses upon the sinner that sin is a great evil worthy of dire punishment, for it is, as it were, vengeance for sins;

2. renders the sinner more cautious and vigilant lest he fall again into the same sins;

3. heals the remnants of sins and uproots acquired evil habits, for it is not only a vindicative punishment but also a medicinal and preservative punishment;

4. makes the penitent man conformable to Christ, who made satisfaction for our sins.

²⁵⁰ Sess. 14, c. 8, On Penance (Denz., n. 904).

393. Divisions. 1. Satisfaction is sacramental or extrasacramental, according as it is imposed and accepted in the sacrament of penance itself, or is undertaken outside the sacrament.

2. Sacramental satisfaction is either public, such as was in use in ancient times, or private, such as prevails today.

3. Sacramental satisfaction is performed either in voto or in re. Satisfaction in voto is the sincere will to accept and fulfill the penance enjoined by the confessor. This is an essential part of the sacrament and pertains to the three acts of the penitent which are the proximate matter of the sacrament of penance. Therefore if this satisfaction in voto is lacking, the sacrament is null. Satisfaction in re is the actual fulfillment of the penance enjoined. This is not an essential but an integral part of the sacrament, which therefore is valid even if the penance enjoined is not actually fulfilled. Hence sins remitted through absolution do not revive, nor must they be accused again, even if the penance previously accepted is afterward voluntarily omitted; but in this case a new sin arises, as will be stated below.

St. Thomas III, q. 86, a. 4; Suppl., q. 12 and 13; q. 18, a. 2.

535. Thesis I. Satisfaction is necessary for repairing the injury inflicted on God through sin and for redeeming temporal punishment, which ordinarily, after the remission of fault and of eternal punishment, remains to be paid in this age or in purgatory. - Therefore satisfaction is not instituted only for the example of others, the edification and satisfaction of the Church, and for guarding against future sins, as Protestants hold.

For Protestants, although they cannot deny the severity of penitential discipline in the first centuries of the Church, nevertheless hold it as an ecclesiastical institution (for the edification and satisfaction of the Church, and for guarding against sins), and deny its divine institution and necessity for the chastisement of sin; for, they say, sin cannot be forgiven by God without at the same time a full remission of the punishments due, eternal and temporal; besides, if our satisfactions are said to be necessary, by that very fact an injury is inflicted upon the infinite satisfaction of Christ, since it appears insufficient, whereas nevertheless he fully satisfied, not only for fault but also for every punishment. The root of this theory is the doctrine of justification by faith alone: for if faith alone fully suffices for justification, satisfactory works become useless; whence no meritorious or satisfactory force is recognized by Protestants in our works. But erroneously.

It is proved: 1. From the examples of Scripture brought forward above, and from the words by which Scripture, by exhorting, counsels and indeed commands penitential satisfaction (n. 463, 1).

2. From the ancient and constant practice of the Church (ibid., 2).

3. From theological reason, because by contrition and confession, although aversion from God is totally remitted, nevertheless sin, as to conversion toward the creature, is not always completely repaired, and therefore temporal punishment remains to be undergone (ibid., 3).

Reason further shows the fittingness of satisfaction:

A. On the part of the penitent sinner. For as the Council of Trent explains, sess. 14, c. 8, satisfactory punishments call one back from sin (past and future), 1) for a) they restrain as by a bridle, b) they make us more cautious and vigilant for the future, c) they heal the remains of sins and remove vicious habits by contrary actions of virtues (and exterior occasions of sin), in a word "they are medicine curing past sins and preserving against future ones" (St. Thomas, q. 12, a. 3); - 2) they effectively inculcate that sin is a great evil worthy of terrible punishment: if sins were dismissed without penance, they would be judged light, and by the facility of pardon itself many would fall into more grave sins.

B. On the part of God, who is offended through sin: he is not only a private friend and merciful father, but also the public legislator, ruler, and judge of the whole human society. But it befits God, as a private person, to forgive the offense inflicted on him; yet at the same time it befits him as ruler and legislator not to remit offenses without temporal punishment, both for the vengeance of the sin committed and for the restitution of due honor and violated right, so that not mercy alone is exercised by remitting fault, but also justice by exacting punishment for the restitution of violated honor, and for fostering the common good, so that in the future laws may be better observed and others deterred from evil. - Likewise in punishments there shines forth both the holiness of God and his clemency. Holiness, because from them the gravity of sin appears more, the license of sinning is restrained, the remains of sins and evil habits are taken away, and the ingratitude of one sinning after Baptism and the faith given to Christ is punished more. Clemency, because the punishments are lighter in this life and at the same time meritorious.

C. On the part of the passion of Christ, who redeemed sin. The passion of Christ is as a universal cause, which of itself is sufficient for the remission of fault and punishment, but must be applied to individuals through their own cooperation, by which they become conformed to Christ, who satisfied for our sins by suffering (Rom. VIII, 17); whence the passion of Christ works the remission of sin (of fault and punishment), according to the mode of one's own acts or the disposition of the penitent, more or less perfect. And thus the efficacy of the passion appears greater, if it not only of itself produces goodness and furnishes satisfaction, but also renders men themselves operative of good and satisfying.

536. Satisfaction is an act of virtue. - For 1) satisfaction pertains to penance and works toward the destruction of sin (Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 3); but an act pertaining to penance and working toward the destruction of sin is an act of virtue; therefore. - 2) Satisfaction preserves the mean: it places equality and gives enough, neither more nor less; but equality imports the notion of the mean, and consequently of virtue (q. 12, a. 1).

It is an act of justice: for this virtue establishes equality in things; but this is done through satisfaction, by which the equality of amends to the preceding offense is established; therefore (a. 2).

It is as it were a species of vindicative justice, which alone regards a preceding offense and establishes equality in the one who suffers what is just;¹ but satisfaction imports equality in the one acting, who punishes himself and thus suffers what is just (a. 2).

¹ According to this it pertains to commutative justice (III, q. 85, a. 3, ad 3).

Yet it is not a species of justice strictly so called, because we are not able to render to God what is equal according to quantity, as much as is due. Hence a) just as we cannot give God an equivalent for benefits received, so, a fortiori, neither can we for the debt of sin committed. Especially b) because an injury inflicted on infinite God is in some way infinite, and therefore is greater than every finite compensation of a creature. But it suffices that man render what he can, because friendship does not exact the equivalent, but what is possible, and this is also in some manner equal according to proportion. Hence, although it is not equivalent, nevertheless we can offer sufficient satisfaction (q. 13, a. 1). - And although man according to himself owes all his acts and his whole power to God, nevertheless God does not require, of necessity of salvation, that he spend his whole power on one thing, since he must be solicitous about many things; but a certain measure is required from him, namely the fulfillment of the commandments of God, and above this he can add something by which he satisfies (ibid., ad 3).

Therefore God could strictly exact our satisfactions by another title; whence by the grace of God they are satisfactory, and therefore we do not offer satisfaction to God from our own but from his (q. 13, a. 1). Therefore satisfaction pertains not to justice strictly so called, but to a potential part of justice, namely to the virtue of penance joined to it, which imitates the virtue of justice deficiently.

537. Remark. - Although from strict justice we cannot satisfy God, because we are not able from our own things to render an equivalent for that which was taken away, nevertheless, supposing the gratuitous ordination of God, who wills to accept as sufficient the satisfactions made according to our power from his grace, we now can satisfy, and indeed

a) for aversion from God and mortal fault only de congruo, because contrition, even when made from habitual grace and charity, does not furnish, for the violated friendship of God and the infinite injury of withdrawal from the Infinite Good, a compensation equivalent according to quantity, but only according to proportion;

b) also de condigno for inordinate conversion to the creature, and consequently for venial fault and for the temporal punishment due to remitted sin, because finite satisfaction can furnish an equivalent for finite punishment and is able to render as much as is due; whence such satisfaction preserves the mode of justice. And surely, if we can merit de condigno eternal life itself, which is greater, a fortiori we can satisfy de condigno for temporal punishment, which is less. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 8; prop. 77 condemned of Baius.²

² "The laborious satisfactions of the justified are not able to expiate de condigno the temporal punishment remaining for forgiven faults."

Hence 1) the Scriptures promise remission of sins to good penal works (Is. I, 16, seq.; Ezech. XVIII, XXXIII; Joel II, 13; Tob. IV, 11; I Cor. XI, 31-32; II Cor. VII, 10), indeed they command satisfaction (Joel II, 12; Job, last chapter; Dan. IV, 24; Mt. III, 2; Lk. III, 8; XI, 41); but God neither promises nor commands the impossible;

2. the tradition of the Church has also always understood this, as is evident not only from penitential discipline, but also from explicit testimonies: of Tertullian, de Poen. 7, c. 7, 8, 9, 11; Cyprian, de Lapsis, 35 and 36; ep. 11, n. 1 and 2; ep. 55, n. 20; Origen, in Ps. XXXVII, hom. II, 5; Ambrose, de Poen., l. II, c. 6, n. 48-49; in Lk. VII, 156; Augustine, ep. 153 (al. 54), n. 6; Enchiridion, LXX, 15; serm. 19, n. 2; serm. 20, n. 2; Gregory, in Ev. hom. 34, n. 16; Reg. part. III, 30; Caesarius of Arles, serm. 104, n. 4, etc.

3. and therefore Councils have defined the possibility of satisfying for the punishments of sin: Florence, in the decree of union; Trent, sess. 14, c. 8 and 9, can. 13.

Yet do not conclude from this that satisfaction is an act of strict justice, and not of the annexed virtue, Penance: a) because we do not satisfy God from our own things, but from his and from his grace, and therefore the satisfactory value supposes the voluntary acceptance of God; b) because one must judge of the nature of virtue according to the primary act; that act is contrition, which does not render the equivalent of mortal sin, and therefore Penance is not strict justice, even if the secondary act derived from the primary act can render the equivalent as to the secondary object, temporal punishment.

538. Protestants object:

1. The earlier ones contended that penitential punishments were formerly only canonical, imposed for satisfying the Church, for guarding against the fall of the faithful, and for proving the sincerity of conversion. - But the assertion is not only gratuitous, but also openly false, since the cited texts of Scripture, the Fathers, and the Councils explicitly speak of satisfaction to be furnished to God, and of remission to be obtained from him through punishments.

2. The more recent ones, with Harnack, say that the notion of furnishing satisfaction had its origin from juridical principles, and together with them was introduced into the Latin Church by Tertullian. - Yet they speak thus inconsiderately; for a) even in the Eastern Church the same doctrine was proposed, as is evident, e.g., from Origen, in Lev. hom. XI, 4, and Sozomen (H. E. VII, 16); b) before Tertullian the value of good works for obtaining from God the remission of sins was not unknown, as is clear, e.g., from Prov. XV, 17 and XVI, 6; Tob. III, 21 and XII, 9; Lk. XVI, 9; and from ps.-Clement II to the Corinthians, XVI, 4; Doctr. Ap. IV, 6; and ep. Barn. XIX, 10.³

³ Cf. Galtier, de Poenitentia, n. 480-481.

539. Thesis II. Satisfaction in purpose or vow is essential and absolutely necessary to the sacrament of penance, so that if it is lacking, the sacrament is null; satisfaction in reality is necessary only for integrity, so that if it is lacking, the sacrament is not invalid but only incomplete. - For satisfaction is not required a) on the part of justification, which is compossible with liability to temporal punishment; nor b) on the part of the sacrament, to whose essence the purpose, not the execution, of satisfaction pertains. Hence:

1. Penitents who have the vow of satisfying can be absolved before they have fulfilled satisfaction, as is evident both a) from proposition 5 of Peter de Osma, condemned in the year 1478 as contrary to the Catholic faith; and from proposition 16 condemned by Alexander VIII, and 35 of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI, against the Jansenists who, wishing to restore the rigorous penitential discipline of the primitive Church, contended that penitents were not to be absolved unless the laborious and lengthy penance enjoined upon them had first been completed;⁴ and also b) from the practice of the Church, even of the primitive Church in certain cases, e.g., in danger of death (Council of Nicaea, can. 13; Innocent I), with persecution pressing (St. Cyprian, ep. 54, n. 25), in danger lest because of the delay of absolution the penitent pass over to the heretics (St. Cyprian, ep. 52, n. 15; cf. 2nd ep. Clem. and Council of Ancyra, a. 314, can. 5), in the hope that from indulgence more would return to the Church (ep. Corn. among the Cyprian letters 46). Cf. can. 886.

⁴ Proposition 5 of Peter de Osma sounded thus: "Penitents are not to be absolved unless the penance enjoined on them has first been completed"; and the 16th condemned 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 thing in some way dictating the same." The 17th and 18th propositions condemned by the same Alexander VIII can also be compared, and the 87th and 88th among the Quesnellian propositions. Finally the doctrine of the Synod of Pistoia under n. 35, "insofar as it suggests... that in the ordinary way it is fitting that acts of humiliation and penance, which are imposed by way of sacramental satisfaction, ought to precede absolution: false, rash, injurious to the common practice of the Church, leading into the error branded with a heretical note in Peter de Osma," is declared by Pius VI.

2. Sins remitted through absolution do not return, even if satisfaction is voluntarily omitted, but in this case a new sin is committed.

It should be noted that a confessor who noticed that the penitent was negligent in fulfilling satisfaction, or doubted concerning his legitimate disposition, as could happen in habitual sinners and relapsers, can bind him to perform satisfaction beforehand, at least in part.

540. Thesis III. The confessor can and regularly is bound to enjoin satisfaction on the penitent. - He can, both because from the institution of Christ (Mt. XVI and XVIII) he has the power not only of loosing but also of binding to punishment, and because the operation of the priest in the use of the keys is conformable to the operation of God, whose minister he is; but God can bind to punishment. That he is bound is evident, because the priest in this tribunal is the minister of God, and the judge and physician of the penitent. As minister of God, he is bound, so far as is in him, to effect that the sacrament be integral through satisfaction, which is an integral part; as judge he must preserve equity between God and the sinner by avenging his sin; as physician he must cure the wounds of the penitent and guard against future ones.

The Council of Trent defined this, sess. 14, can. 15, c. 8: "the keys were granted also for binding," not only "for the keeping of new life and as medicine of infirmity, but also for the vengeance and chastisement of past sins." This holds of the case in which the priest absolves the penitent, because if no absolution is given, it is not necessary to enjoin penance, since the sacrament is not confected; nevertheless it is very useful, so that the penitent may thus be better prepared for absolution, and a shorter satisfaction can be imposed when he is going to complete his confession.

Thus regularly; for accidentally the confessor is not bound to enjoin satisfaction: 1) if the penitent morally cannot fulfill it, e.g., if he is deprived of his senses or mentally deranged, or near death and at the same time very weak; in which latter case nevertheless it is expedient to impose a very slight penance, which the priest himself may immediately absolve with the penitent, such as to strike the breast, invoke the name of Jesus, or kiss an image of the crucified; - 2) if the confessor by divine revelation knows that all temporal punishment of the penitent has already been remitted; - 3) if the penitent immediately after absolution accuses a sin omitted from forgetfulness and receives absolution again, at least if this sin does not substantially change the state of the penitent: for there it seems that there is present only one morally sacramental judgment; in practice nevertheless it is better to impose a new penance, even if light. Similarly, if a scrupulous person repeatedly within a short interval of time returns with new faults omitted from forgetfulness and is absolved, it is not necessary to impose a new satisfaction when the confessor judges that the one already enjoined suffices for this new absolution; - but it is better not to absolve the scrupulous so frequently.

541. The obligation of imposing satisfaction of itself is grave, - For a priest, by abstaining from imposing satisfaction, acts directly against the intention of God, the author of the sacrament, and thus a grave irreverence is done to the sacrament, which remains mutilated; and grave harm is inflicted on the penitent, who from this is deprived of great goods, since he remains liable to graver temporal punishments and is deprived of a fitting remedy against future sins.

Hence 1) certainly it is a mortal sin not to impose penance for necessary matter of confession, or mortal sins not yet declared.

Indeed 2) probably also for free matter, or for venial sins, or for sins already declared, because it is grave irreverence toward the sacrament to render it mutilated and to deprive it of an integral part; and although satisfaction not imposed is of itself light, with respect to the sacrament it is always grave in the notion of irreverence. Nevertheless the contrary is held by others as probable, because it is not grave to deprive a sacrament of a merely integral part or complement in a light matter, just as a judge does not gravely fail in his office who omits to impose a light punishment or a complement of lighter moment. In practice, however, it will easily be mortal if it is omitted knowingly and without reason, because contempt can easily be present.

542. Regularly satisfaction must be enjoined before absolution. - This is evident from the Roman Ritual and from the custom of the Church, and besides the order of judgment demands that the guilty one, before he is absolved, promise satisfaction, by which he may become worthy of absolution. Nevertheless:

1. If it has been omitted, it can and must be enjoined immediately after absolution, because then it is morally united to the absolution.

2. But if the penitent notices that the confessor has forgotten to impose penance, he must demand it, lest the sacrament remain incomplete, either immediately, namely before departure, or shortly after, if he can still conveniently approach the confessor.

3. But if this defect is not noticed until after a few days, in the next confession satisfaction can be imposed, which may extend to the sins declared in both confessions; nevertheless it is not necessary, since it is uncertain whether from this the incomplete sacrament is integrated, because perhaps the moral union between the absolution given earlier and the imposition of penance now made is lacking. But penitents are not to be disturbed about this, since satisfaction in reality is not required for the validity of absolution.

St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 13, a. 2; q. 14.

1715. Principles. I. The confessor, in giving absolution, is bound TO IMPOSE a penance, or satisfaction. - This is clear from Trent, sess. 14, cap. 8, where it is said: "Therefore the priests of the Lord ought, insofar as the spirit and prudence shall suggest, according to the quality of the crimes and the faculty of the penitents, to enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions; lest, if perhaps they wink at sins and act more indulgently with penitents by enjoining certain very light works for very grave offenses, they be made participants in the sins of others."

Therefore the confessor sins if he does not impose penance; and indeed he sins GRAVELY if the confession has been made concerning mortal sins. For by force of his threefold office he must do this: as minister, consult the integrity of the Sacrament; as judge, take vengeance upon sins; and as physician, provide medicine by which the spiritual infirmity of the penitent may be driven away. But if the confession was about venials or about mortal sins already confessed, it is probable that the confessor does not sin gravely if he imposes no penance. Thus Lugo, the Salmanticenses, and others, against Suarez and others, who also probably teach the contrary. But finally, if fulfillment of the penance is impossible, for example in the article of death, there will be no sin.¹ (cf. n. 1854, 5.)

Let it be noted: 1. Penance is regularly to be imposed before absolution. The reason is that thus the order of judgment is preserved, which requires that the accused first promise satisfaction before he is absolved. Yet if it has been omitted through forgetfulness, it can be imposed immediately after absolution, both because thus it is still morally united to it, and because the aforesaid order is not essential.²

2. If the penitent, when absolution has already been given, accuses a new sin, a new penance, at least a light one, must be imposed on him. For the prior one is not judged to be valid; because, although a work already due from another precept can be imposed, nevertheless a work due from the same title of sacramental satisfaction cannot be imposed.³

3. If absolution is deferred, satisfaction can already be imposed the first time, both so that relapse may be guarded against, and so that afterward a lesser penance may be imposed.

1716. II. The QUANTITY of penance must be PROPORTIONED both to the sins and to the faculty of the penitent, according to the prudent estimation of the confessor. This is clear from Trent, loc. cit., and from the Roman Ritual, where it is read: "Finally, let the confessor enjoin a salutary and fitting satisfaction, insofar as the spirit and prudence shall suggest, account having been taken of the state, condition, sex, and age, and likewise the disposition of the penitents."

We said, 1. proportioned to the sins; hence of itself grave penance is to be imposed for mortal sins, light penance for venials or mortal sins already confessed. Moreover, that is to be judged a GRAVE PENANCE, at least according to the present custom of the Church, which corresponds to a work which is enjoined by the Church under grave obligation, or which would of itself oblige under grave obligation if it were prescribed. - Hence a grave penance, and one ordinarily sufficient for grave sin, is to hear one Mass, to fast on one day, to recite the Rosary, even only the third part, the Little Office of the B. V. M., the Litanies of the Saints, the Penitential Psalms, to perform the Way of the Cross, to meditate for a third part of an hour, and similar things. But to recite the Psalm Miserere, or five Pater and Ave only once, would not be grave.⁴

We said, 2. proportioned to the faculty of the penitent, according to the prudent estimation of the confessor. But the prudence of the confessor consists chiefly in this: that he first have before his eyes the spiritual good of the penitent, then the vindication of divine justice; for, from the nature of the Sacrament, one must intend the amendment and salvation of the penitent more than satisfaction and punishment.⁵

And hence it is why penance can be DIMINISHED for many reasons, namely: 1. If the penitent approaches very contrite, or after he has done many penal actions, because he has already made satisfaction fittingly. - 2. If he approaches in the time of Jubilee or of plenary Indulgence, because by fulfilling the required conditions he already undergoes punishment and makes satisfaction. Yet some penance must always be imposed, as Benedict XIV declared,⁶ both because no one can be secure about gaining the whole Indulgence, and because the Sacrament must always be made integral.⁷ - 3. If the penitent is infirm in body, since the Ritual says: "Let the priest remember that grave penance is not to be enjoined on the sick, but only that penance which, if they recover, they may perform at an opportune time." - 4. If he is infirm in spirit, so that it is prudently feared that he will omit a penance proportioned to the faults. For thus they commonly teach, and deservedly; because, as our Holy Doctor says:⁸ "Although, according to the reason of divine justice, satisfaction adequate to sins is required, nevertheless, from divine clemency, account must be had of the powers of penitents, both of body and of soul."

1717. You will ask whether the confessor can, for grave faults, impose a grave penance under a LIGHT obligation? The affirming opinion is more common and more probable, because the legislator, such as the priest is whom Christ established as judge, can prescribe grave matter under light obligation. - In practice, indeed, such a manner of acting ought not to be held, at least ordinarily, because from Trent a condign penance according to the quality of the crime is to be imposed. - Yet the confessor will be able to hold it thus licitly, indeed usefully, so that after first imposing a grave penance, and indeed under grave obligation, he adds another graver one under light obligation; if the penitent fulfills it, he indeed satisfies sacramentally, but if he neglects it, he is not burdened with grave fault. "But I by no means approve," says St. Alphonsus,⁹ "what Medina and others say, namely that a confessor can sometimes enjoin a penance without any obligation. This, I say, is altogether improbable; for a legislator can make and not make a law; but if he makes it, he certainly cannot make it without obligation, since law must necessarily oblige at least under light obligation."

From what has been said you will gather: 1. How imprudently confessors act who impose great penances which they foresee penitents will not fulfill. - "O how many unlearned confessors are found," St. Alphonsus exclaims,¹⁰ "who do not hesitate to absolve those who are either in a proximate occasion of sinning or indisposed recidivists, and foolishly think that they are curing them by imposing grave penances on them! From this it happens that those persons, although they accept the penance so that they may seize absolution, nevertheless, after absolution has been obtained, because no remedy is prescribed to them by which they may be preserved, shortly relapse miserably, do not fulfill the penance, and, deterred by its gravity, afterward abhor confession, and thus languish longer in sins."

2. "Outside the case of very grave infirmity or most vehement contrition, the confessor would not act well if for mortal faults he enjoined a penance light in itself, which brings a light obligation." Hence St. Thomas of Villanova wisely notes: "In my judgment you will accomplish this if you enjoin one easy penance and counsel a sharper one."¹¹

1718. III. The QUALITY of the penance must be so determined that the satisfaction is at once VINDICATIVE and MEDICINAL. - This is clear from Trent, sess. 14, cap. 8, where it is said: "But let them have before their eyes that the satisfaction which they impose is not only for the custody of new life and the medicine of infirmity, but also for the vengeance and chastisement of past sins."

Moreover: 1. VINDICATIVE OR PENAL works are reduced chiefly to these THREE: prayer, alms, and fasting, which are opposed to sins committed against God, against neighbor, and against oneself. By PRAYER is understood whatever regards the worship of God, as confession, communion, visitation of a church, etc.; by ALMS, any work of mercy; and by FASTING, any affliction of the body. - For the rest, every good work is valid for penal satisfaction, as is commonly taught; for, in the state of fallen nature, every virtuous action has the character of punishment from this, that, original justice having been lost, we are all inclined to earthly things and our own advantages.¹²

2. MEDICINAL satisfactions are those which heal the remains of sins, that is, which remove evil habits, restrain depraved desires, remove occasions of sinning, and cut away the roots or causes of sins. Such are acts of virtues, internal and external, opposed to the vices of the penitent. Wherefore the RITUAL admonishes: "Let the confessor take care, as much as can be done, to enjoin penances contrary to the sins, as alms to the avaricious, fasts or other afflictions of the flesh to the lustful, offices of humility to the proud, and exercises of devotion to the slothful." For making these things clear, the following will help.

1719. Questions. Q. 1. What works generally CAN or CANNOT be imposed?

Resp. 1. Not only external and supererogatory works can be imposed, but also: 1. Internal works, as acts of charity, contrition, mental prayer, etc., because they are of themselves meritorious and are made external or sensible through imposition and acceptance. - 2. Works already due from elsewhere, for example hearing Mass on a feast day, fasting on a vigil, because, since they are of themselves satisfactory, they can be elevated through the power of the keys to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. Yet other works are to be joined to these, unless the frailty of the penitent suggests otherwise; for it is equitable that the sinner feel the weight of sin. - But neither can a work already due under the title of sacramental satisfaction be imposed. - 3. Works to be applied to others, whether deceased or even living; for satisfaction, in this case, stands on the part of the good will by which the penitent applies his work to others. - 4. Cessation from a good work, for example from Communion, because it can be an act of virtue, for example for preserving the obedience of the Confessor. Except if the omission of the customary work provides others an opportunity for judging that such omission was enjoined by the confessor in penance for hidden sin.¹³ Some penance can also be imposed, as St. Alphonsus notes,¹⁴ under condition of relapse, for example: "if you again blaspheme, you will recite such a prayer." But it is expedient that it be imposed for a short time, or until another confession, and that another proportioned penance be added for the sins confessed.

Resp. 2. The following CANNOT be imposed: 1. Entrance into Religion, because it seems too hard. - 2. Marriage, because it requires complete liberty. Yet a penitent who needs this remedy is earnestly to be exhorted to the conjugal state. - 3. Public penance for hidden sins, because the seal of confession would be violated indirectly, and because the Roman Ritual expressly forbids this. But it can be imposed for public sins, as is drawn from these words of Trent: "It is necessary that a condign penance according to the manner of the fault be publicly enjoined upon this public sinner"; understand, if scandal cannot be repaired otherwise.¹⁵

Q. 2. What penances, for the sake of PRUDENCE, are not to be imposed?

Resp. The following are not to be imposed: 1. Perpetual penances, or those lasting for a long time; both because they would induce danger of forgetfulness or excessive anxiety, and because, since such penances perhaps would be imposed on the same penitent by various confessors, he would be bound by innumerable chains and for his whole life. 2. Unusual penances moving the wonder of the people, for example if it were imposed on someone to recite five Pater noster in the middle of the church with arms extended, etc. - 3. Afflictions of the flesh, vigils, fasts, if the penitents are youths, peasants, workers occupied in continual labor, sons in the family whose parents would be displeased by such austerities. - 4. Pilgrimages, prolonged prayers, alms, if the penitents are placed under the power of others, or are so poor that they are bound to procure a living for themselves by continual labor. - 5. Penances involved in many works, because they are easily given to forgetfulness. - 6. Also imprudently, generally, it is imposed on children that they ask pardon from parents or from others on account of disobedience, irreverence, or petty thefts; because these often render confession hateful and for the most part are omitted, etc.¹⁶ - 7. St. Charles Borromeo admonishes that Masses to be celebrated not be imposed; or at least, that the confessor not accept those which he himself has imposed; nor alms to be distributed by himself, lest he fall into suspicion of avarice.¹⁷

Q. 3. What penances OUGHT RATHER to be imposed?

St. Alphonsus responds:¹⁸ "1. As regards practice, this is the rule: that for sins of sensuality, bodily mortifications be imposed; for sins of avarice, alms; for blasphemies, prayers, etc. - Yet it must always be considered what is more expedient or will be more profitable to the penitent. For although in itself it is most useful to impose frequentation of the Sacraments, mental prayer, and alms, yet it is accustomed to happen that such works turn to harm for those who are not at all, or little, accustomed to them.

"2. The penances which are usefully imposed on all, generally, are the following: - To join oneself to some Congregation; - to elicit every evening, at least for some time, an act of sorrow; to renew every morning the good purpose, and to say with St. Philip Neri: 'Lord, do not remove Thy hand from me today, lest I be made a traitor to Thee'; - to visit daily the Most Holy Sacrament of the Altar and some Image of the Virgin Mother of God, and during this visitation to ask earnestly for holy perseverance; - to recite the Rosary; - and both morning and evening to say three Ave Maria to the Blessed Virgin, with this little prayer: My Mother, help me today, lest I sin against God; this slight penance, namely to recite the Angelic Salutation three times with the aforesaid little prayer, I am accustomed to impose on all those who do not yet do it; - when going to bed, to say: 'At present I ought to be in the fire of hell'; or these other words: 'The day will come when I must die in this very bed'; - to read daily, especially if they are ecclesiastics, some spiritual book."

1720. Admonitions. 1. It will not be beside the point to add here the things which St. Charles Borromeo wisely admonishes thus: "Let the confessor impose such a penance as he judges can be fulfilled by the penitent. Hence sometimes, if he sees it expedient, let him ask whether he can, or whether he doubts that he can, perform the penance imposed on him; otherwise he will change or diminish it."¹⁹

2. As regards the dying, if someone is destitute of the senses, he can be absolved without any penance; but excepting this case, some penance, at least light,

is to be imposed, such as to kiss the crucifix, to invoke the names of Jesus and Mary, at least in the heart, etc. - But it is not expedient to impose on the sick person as penance that he patiently suffer the inconveniences of infirmity; for this could become for him the occasion of many scruples. "On the contrary, the Salmanticenses rightly notice that if the sick person can satisfy through alms, these are certainly to be enjoined by the confessor, since everyone is bound to do that penance which he can."¹ (Cf. n. 1716, and hence 3.)

3. It is also useful to know the rigor of the penances which were once prescribed in the PENITENTIAL CANONS. Moreover this knowledge is useful both because from them the confessor learns to estimate the gravity of sins which the Church once was accustomed to punish so rigidly, and especially because from this rigor of the canons he will be able to instill in penitents greater horror of sins, so that they may receive a milder penance with a readier soul.²

1381. Principles. - I. The confessor is held to impose a penance on every penitent who can perform it. The reason is clear, 1° because satisfaction is an integral part of the Sacrament of Penance, having an effect ex opere operato, and a greater effect by force of the Sacrament than without it. But the confessor, as Minister of the Sacrament, is held to procure its integrity as far as lies in him; otherwise he would not be a faithful dispenser; 2° because the confessor is held both to vindicate and to heal. This is clear also from Trent. See St. Alphonsus.

II. The confessor is held to enjoin penances both vindicative and medicinal, suitable and salutary, i.e. in some way proportionate to the number and gravity of the sins, and also to the strength and dispositions of the penitent. The reason is clear from the nature of the matter, since sacramental satisfaction is ordered to the vindication of sins, which are more or less grave, and likewise more or fewer, and also to preventing new faults. This is clear from Trent.

1382. Questions. - Query 1° How great is the obligation of imposing penance?

Resp. 1° This obligation is grave from its genus. The reason is that the obligation regards a grave matter, although from smallness of matter one can sin against it only venially. - Hence the confessor can also sin gravely if, for grave faults, he should impose very light penances without an excusing cause. - Thus commonly.

Resp. 2° As regards venial sins, it is controverted. Some affirm that it is grave, because the enjoining of satisfaction pertains to the rite of this Sacrament; and since this rite was instituted by Christ, it must be held as a grave matter. - But others say that it is light, because a grave obligation of enjoining penance for light faults only cannot be proved, since in this no grave disorder appears; which opinion is probable, as St. Alphonsus says.

Query 2° When must penance be imposed?

Resp. Generally speaking it is to be imposed before absolution: the reason is that thus the order of judgment is observed, which requires that the guilty person first promise satisfaction before he is absolved. But if the confessor from forgetfulness did not enjoin the penance before absolution, he must impose it after absolution. Nevertheless it is not grave to impose penance immediately after absolution; indeed probably it is free from all fault if it is presumed that the penitent will accept the work enjoined upon him.

Query 3° How much penance must be imposed on sinners?

Resp. The quantity of penance cannot be determined universally; but it is left to the prudence and judgment of the confessor. Nevertheless, regularly and per se, he must impose grave penance for mortal sins. Thus from Trent.

Query 4° What penance is judged grave per se for one or another mortal sin?

Resp. A penance is to be judged grave, at least from the present practice of the Church, which corresponds to a work which is enjoined under grave obligation by the Church, or which would oblige of itself under grave obligation if it were prescribed.

Hence a grave penance, and one sufficient for an ordinary grave sin, will be to hear Mass, to fast, to recite the Rosary, even if only of five decades, the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, the Litany of the Saints, and other similar things; but it would not be judged a grave penance if only the Psalm Miserere were imposed.

Query 5° For what cause can a lighter penance be imposed?

Resp. 1° If the penitent is very weak and infirm in body; concerning this matter the Roman Ritual speaks thus: "Let the Priest remember that a grave and laborious penance is not to be enjoined on the sick, but only that which, if they recover, they may perform at a suitable time." But if the sick person is constituted in danger of death, then he can be absolved without any penance, although it is always expedient to impose some penance on him; 2° if there is a prudent fear lest he not fulfill a greater penance, or lest on account of a heavier penance he be turned away from Confession; 3° if a greater penance would probably be more harmful to him than profitable; 4° if the penitent appears very contrite; 5° if there is present a time for gaining a plenary indulgence, especially of Jubilee. For the rest, with grave infirmity, or very vehement contrition, or some other very rare case excepted, the confessor would not act well if for mortal faults he enjoined a penance light per se, which carries a light obligation. For although, if it is expedient, a work may be imposed which, respectively to the sins, is light, nevertheless regularly some grave penance under grave obligation is always to be enjoined, with a heavier one added under light obligation, if it so seems.

Query 6° Can penance be imposed under the condition of relapse?

Resp. Affirm., "provided that," besides, "a proportionate penance for the sins confessed be imposed," because otherwise there would in fact be no penance, if perchance the penitent did not relapse into sin. "But it is not expedient to impose it" beyond a month or another Confession, "because afterward it is easily neglected and sins are multiplied."

Query 7° Can a public penance be imposed?

Resp. Neg., if there is question of hidden sins. - Thus the Roman Ritual. But otherwise for public sins. Nevertheless, if public penance is not so necessary, the confessor ought not to impose it on one refusing it, since otherwise his salvation can be obtained and scandal repaired.

Query 8° Can a work otherwise due be imposed for penance?

Resp. Affirm. The reason is that since that work is satisfactory, it can well be elevated through the keys to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. Nevertheless, in practice this should not be done except on account of the frailty of the penitent. Nor is it to be presumed that the confessor has chosen a work already due, unless either this is established concerning it, or there is a founded presumption. Cf. n. 134. R. ad a).

1383. Resolves. - 1° Perpetual penances are never to be imposed, both because they are wont to induce danger of forgetfulness or excessive anxiety, and because, if such penances are imposed by various confessors on the same penitent, he will be bound at the same time and for his whole life by innumerable bonds. Indeed penances are not ordinarily to be imposed for a long time, e.g. for a year, or for five months.

2° Those satisfactions are never to be imposed which can expose the penitent to the mockery of others, e.g. that he recite in the middle of the Church five Paters with arms extended, etc. - But a fortiori penances are not to be imposed which cannot be fulfilled without the revelation of Confession easily following.

3° Nor are fasts to be imposed on boys, country people, artisans wearied by continual labor; nor on children of a family who by fasting would cast astonishment on their parents, or even offend them. Nor are pilgrimages or lengthy prayers to be enjoined, or generally alms, on women constituted under the power of a husband, just as neither on the poor procuring their living by constant labor.

4° Penances involved in many diverse works are not to be imposed, because they could not be retained by memory; nor, ordinarily at least, penances too repugnant to nature, e.g. to sign the cross with the tongue on the ground, to visit enemies, etc. It is also generally imposed imprudently on boys that they ask pardon of parents or of others, on account of disobedience, irreverence, or little thefts; because they often render Confession odious, and for the most part are omitted, etc. (I) p. 406.

1387. - 1° Vocal prayers, Pater, Ave, Credo, the Litany of the Blessed Virgin, the Rosary, or its third part; morning and evening prayers.²

2° Mental prayers, discreetly, according to the capacity of the penitent; for the unlearned, some thought concerning hell, death, or the passion of Christ, morning or evening, e.g. for the time of one Ave.

3° Acts of Faith, Hope, Charity, contrition, trust in God, conformity to the divine will, purpose of not sinning, ... so many times, ... e.g. morning, evening, especially in temptations or dejection of mind.

4° The offering of oneself to God very early in the morning, the Sign of the Cross, various aspirations or ejaculatory prayers to Christ, to the Heart of Jesus, to the Blessed Virgin, to the Guardian Angel. (Ordinarily they are not to be multiplied.)

5° The exercise of the Way of the Cross, especially when it is made in common; nine-day prayers in honor of the Blessed Virgin or of some Saint.

6° The hearing of sermons, assistance at Offices of the Church, e.g. at solemn Mass, Vespers, etc., or at spiritual exercises, or the pious exercise of the Marian Month, or other things of this kind, at least several times.

7° General examination of conscience in the evening, at least for a brief time; likewise particular examination concerning such a defect, or such a depraved custom, from a firm purpose of amendment.

8° Visit to any Church or Altar, or to some one in particular, to pray something there, or to ask the grace of sinning no more.

9° Pious reading, e.g. for a quarter of an hour on Sunday, or one or another chapter, e.g. of the Imitation of Christ, of the Lives of the Saints, or of another pious book, etc.

10° Frequenting of the Sacraments, on such a day, or at such a time, or so many times. Here the confessor should act cautiously, and should not impose the obligation on those who confess rarely, that they approach the tribunal of penance once or twice in a month for a year; but let him not enjoin this except once, and perhaps another time, and only on penitents accepting it willingly.

1388. - 1° Fasting, either entire according to the laws of the Church, or partial according to the physical and moral strength of the penitent. Nevertheless a penance of this kind is not to be imposed except rarely, and only on those who will accept it willingly.

2° Some subtraction of food, which can in no way harm the health of the body, or the offices or labors of the penitent, e.g. half of the usual breakfast on Friday or Saturday, or on the vigil of some feast, etc.

3° Abstinence from wine or intoxicating liquor, on such a day, at such a time, or not to exceed a certain quantity.

4° Some subtraction of ordinary sleep, especially by rising earlier in the morning, or at a determined hour, as a remedy for sloth, or also for preventing impure temptations.

5° To pray on bended knees, or with arms extended in the form of a cross, to kiss the ground for the sake of humility, to undertake brief pilgrimages.

6° To offer to God several times illnesses, sicknesses, or other hardships of life that occur, by bearing them patiently.

7° Sometimes to be deprived of recreation, even honest recreation, e.g. walking; to repress excessive curiosity in hearing, in sight; not to remain so long at the door or windows of the house. This especially suits young women addicted beyond measure to vanity.

8° To chastise the body with moderate discreet mortification, with some scourging, with an uncomfortable posture. - But these are to be enjoined very rarely; indeed they are to be permitted with great discretion.

1389. - Since, generally speaking, contraries are cured by contraries, the following penances can be enjoined, or only advised, with discretion, however, with special attention to the quality and greater good of penitents.

1° Brief prayers are to be imposed on penitents who pray rarely and badly, to be performed morning or evening, for about a week. - For the tepid, pious readings, or ejaculatory prayers to be made several times in the day, yet few, and for few days, lest from forgetfulness they be omitted, or trouble the penitent. - For those tempted against Faith or Hope, acts of Faith, Hope, trust, or the recitation of the Apostles' Creed, etc.

2° For blasphemers, external reverence toward God, toward the Cross, ... e.g. to kiss reverently the Crucifix, or sacred images, or to say devoutly: Blessed be the name of the Lord. Praised be Jesus Christ.

3° For lovers of the world and its pomps, some meditation concerning the vanity of worldly things, e.g. when they rise in the morning or seek their bed, or the renewal of the promises made in Baptism.

4° For those who often omit Mass, some supererogatory Mass to be heard, e.g. a double one on Sunday, or one on a weekday, or some visit to the Most Holy Sacrament to be made several times, etc.

5° For those harboring hatred, some works of charity toward the neighbor, e.g. to greet or speak to an enemy, prudently however; prayer and an act of charity for the neighbor in general, and also specially for enemies; the recitation of the Lord's Prayer for the same, especially these words: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.

6° For the lustful, some mortification, or subtraction of conveniences, especially flight of occasions, prayer, frequenting of the Sacraments, frequent renewal of firm purpose, memory of the last things, etc.

7° For thieves and the avaricious, some alms according to their faculties, even if only one coin had to be spent several times on the poor or on the Church. But grave alms are never to be imposed, unless they are accepted willingly.

8° For the proud, certain offices of humility, e.g. to kiss the ground, to visit the poor, or kindly assist them, to treat them humanely, or to elicit various acts of humility, e.g. to say with the publican: Lord, be propitious to me a sinner.

9° For gluttons and drunkards, some subtraction of foods, abstinence from food and drink outside the customary meals, or abstinence from wine on such a day, or a prohibition not to exceed a certain quantity of wine at meals, etc.

Add also the works of mortification which are indicated in n. 1388.

I say. The penitent is bound to accept a reasonable penance sacramentally enjoined, and to fulfill it at the time designated by the confessor, or as soon as he conveniently can, so that if the penance obliges under grave obligation, he will sin gravely if he delays it for a long time. The reason of the first is that to the obligation of the confessor imposing penance there must necessarily correspond the obligation of the penitent accepting and fulfilling it. But the reason of the second is that per se it is grave to prolong for a long time the payment of a notable debt. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 516; and Hom. Ap., n. 55.

Question 1. How great is the obligation of fulfilling penance?

Resp. If the penance is grave in itself and at the same time was imposed for grave sins, the obligation will certainly be grave, with all agreeing; unless, however, the confessor either expressly or tacitly has manifested that he wishes to oblige only lightly, which indeed he certainly can do, although generally it is not expedient. But if the penance was imposed for light sins, the obligation will always be light, whether the work enjoined is in itself light or grave; for if the first, the obligation will certainly be light by reason of the matter; if the second, then just as the confessor was not bound, indeed properly could not command it, so neither is the penitent bound under grave obligation to fulfill it. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 517 and 518.

Question 2. What delay of penance is grave fault?

Resp. If the penance was light in itself, delay, however great it may be, will never be grave, since from what has been said the omission itself of the penance does not exceed light fault. But if the penance is grave and imposed for grave sins, according to the more probable and more common opinion only a delay of two or three months is to be reckoned grave, unless the penance is medicinal or danger of forgetfulness is present. For the rest, no general and absolute rule can be established about this, and no one is easily to be condemned of mortal sin. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 521. - Baller. note (b) p. 416.

Question 3. Whether, if the penitent has forgotten the enjoined penance, he is bound to repeat the confession, so that he may receive another penance?

Resp. Negatively, more probably, and the reason is that the fulfillment of the penance once already enjoined, through forgetfulness even culpable, has been made impossible. But no one is bound to the impossible. If, however, the penitent prudently presumes that the confessor is still mindful of the enjoined penance, he ought, if he conveniently could, to approach him, so that he may learn again from him what that penance is. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 520.

Question 4. By whom can penance be commuted?

Resp. As far as validity is concerned, certainly it can never be commuted by the penitent himself, not even into something better, although a vow can be changed by the one vowing into a work evidently better; because penance cannot be elevated to the merit of sacramental satisfaction unless it was imposed by the minister himself of the sacrament of Penance. - Nevertheless it can be commuted 1°. by the confessor who imposed it, because he is after the manner of a legislator who can change his own law; 2°. by any other confessor, because any other confessor can be judge of the same cause, if the penitent submits himself to his tribunal; for the successor in the same authority can do whatever the predecessor could do. Nevertheless exception seems to be made if the penance was imposed by the superior himself for reserved cases, because an inferior cannot change the sentence of a superior: unless, however, a grave cause is present or the consent of the superior can easily be presumed. - But for commutation to be made licitly a just cause is required, such as: 1°. if the penance seems difficult; 2°. if it is foreseen that the penitent is not going to satisfy it because of repugnance, frailty, forgetfulness, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 528.

Question 5. Whether the penitent is bound to repeat the confession in order to obtain commutation of the penance?

Resp. Negatively, at least probably, whether he approaches the same confessor, in whatever way mindful or unmindful of the state of the penitent's conscience, or a different confessor. The reason is that it is not a question of bearing judgment concerning faults declared in the preceding confession, where judgment concerning them has already been formed, but only of commuting the penance; but for this the knowledge of the former penance and the notion of frailty or difficulty in fulfilling it suffices. Nor should it be said that the new penance cannot have the character of vindication or medicine, since the cause is not known; for the confessor can easily preserve that character if he attends to the nature of the former penance. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 529.

Question 6. Whether the confessor can commute penance outside confession?

Resp. Negatively, if the confessor is different. The reason is that the confessor has no power except in the sacramental judgment. But if he is the same one who imposed the penance, he can change it immediately after absolution, before the penitent departs; but not afterward, at least more probably. The reason is that for this it is required and suffices that the preceding judgment of the confessor morally perseveres, which does not seem to have place if the penitent approaches the confessor outside the tribunal of Penance. Therefore. ...

Thus St. Alphonsus, who says that this is the truer and more common opinion. Nevertheless others say that commutation of penance can be made by the same confessor outside confession even after several days, indeed as long as the confessor retains memory, at least confused, of the sins; because then it still seems to be morally united with the preceding sacramental judgment. For the parts of this sacrament, they say, though distant in time, can be morally united to integrate one sacrament; and just as a longer interval does not prevent either sorrow or confession or the fulfillment of satisfaction from being morally united with absolution, so also one can judge concerning the change of penance. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 529. - Lugo, disp. 25, n. 112. - Voit, n. 632.

You Will Resolve. 1°. The penitent is not bound to fulfill penance when the confession was invalid; because the sacramental sentence of the judge was null, and consequently there is no sacrament to be integrated: otherwise, indeed, satisfaction would have to be made twice for the same sins. The same must be said for the same reason concerning a penance imposed without absolution. Except 1°. if the penance is medicinal, and therefore necessary by reason of medicine; 2°. if the penitent approaches several times for completing the same confession, and meanwhile the confessor, as often happens, imposes some penance on individual occasions, so that less remains to be imposed at the end.

2°. Not only does he who omits the penance sin gravely, but also he who omits a part of it notable before the whole penance; or even one which would be grave considered in itself.

3°. Universally, for judging about the gravity of omission, attention must be paid to whether the matter or circumstance omitted contributes much or little to the end of the precept, whether the substance of the precept has been fulfilled, etc. Thus he fulfills the substance of the precept and sins only venially who, standing or in a room, recites the Rosary which by command of the confessor ought to have been recited on bent knees or before an image of the Blessed Virgin; but it is otherwise if the penitent had been commanded, for example, to pray with arms outstretched; for this mortification is notable, and its omission can be held grave.

4°. Prayers imposed as penance can be recited even while someone meanwhile hears Mass of precept, unless however something else was established by the confessor. Prayers which, from the use of the Church or the practice of the faithful, are customarily recited as in choir, for example the Rosary, etc., could also be recited alternately with companions.

5°. The penitent cannot satisfy through another, unless perhaps, as many have thought, this is done with the consent of the confessor; because satisfaction is defined by the Tridentine Council as being quasi-matter and an integral part of this sacrament, insofar as it is the act of the penitent fulfilling the penance imposed upon him by the confessor. Therefore per se it is to be placed by the penitent himself. It is established also from proposition 15 condemned by Alexander VII, which is of this sort: "The penitent by his own authority can substitute another for himself, who may fulfill the penance in place of him." - Cf. Suarez, disp. 38, sect. 9, n. 2.

6°. If the confessor has imposed as penance that two Masses are to be heard on the same day, they seem to have to be heard successively, but not at the same time; for we reasonably presume that the confessor intended this. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 58.

7°. He satisfies, according to the common opinion, who fulfills the penance in mortal sin, because to satisfy some precept it suffices to place the work enjoined, although the end of the precept is not obtained. But whether he sins, there is not one opinion of theologians; but it can be held that he is exempt from every fault, because, with contempt excluded, there is no fault in placing an obstacle only to the remission of punishments. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 522 and 523. - Baller. note (a) p. 416.

8°. The penitent upon whom a more difficult penance is enjoined ought to warn the confessor about the impossibility or excessive difficulty of fulfilling it; and if the confessor does not acquiesce, he can approach another. But if the penance does not appear so grave, the penitent is bound to accept it, nor can he depart without some fault.

9°. If a penitent, after accepting a penance from one confessor, repeats the confession before another, so that he may obtain a milder penance, or even for another cause, he is by no means freed from the prior penance, unless he makes mention of the preceding confession and of the accepted penance; the reason is that for commuting the penance on the part of the confessor there is required a positive act of the will by which the prior obligation is revoked.

1°. Vocal prayers, Our Father, Hail Mary, Creed, Litany of the Blessed Virgin, Rosary, or its third part; morning and evening prayers.

2°. Mental prayers, discreetly, according to the capacity of the penitent; for the uneducated, some thought about hell, about death, about the passion of Christ, morning and evening, for example, for the time of one Hail Mary.

3°. Acts of Faith, Hope, Charity, contrition, confidence in God, conformity to the divine will, purpose of not sinning ... so many times ..., for example, morning, evening, especially in temptations or dejection of soul.

4°. Offering of oneself to God very early in the morning, the sign of the cross, various aspirations or ejaculatory prayers to Christ, to the Heart of Jesus, to the Blessed Virgin, to the Guardian Angel. (Ordinarily they are not to be multiplied.)

5°. Exercise of the Way of the Cross, especially when it is done in common: prayers for nine days in honor of the Blessed Virgin or of some Saint.

6°. Hearing of sermons, of catechism, attendance at the Offices of the Church, for example, at solemn Mass, Vespers, etc., or at spiritual exercises, or at the pious exercise of the Marian Month, or at other things of this sort, at least several times.

7°. General examination of conscience in the evening, at least for a brief time; likewise particular examination concerning such a defect, or such a depraved custom, from a firm purpose of amendment.

8°. Visitation of a church or of any altar, or of one in particular, for praying something there, or for asking the grace of sinning no more.

9°. Pious reading, for example, for a quarter of an hour on Sunday, or one or another chapter, for example, of the Imitation of Christ, of the Lives of the Saints, or of another pious book, etc.

10°. Frequentation of the Sacraments, on such a day, or at such a time, or so many times. Here the confessor should act cautiously, and should not impose an obligation upon those who rarely confess that they approach the tribunal of penance once or twice in a month for a year; but he should not enjoin this except once, and perhaps another time, and only upon penitents willingly accepting it.

1°. Fasting, either entire according to the laws of the Church, or partial according to the physical and moral strength of the penitent. Nevertheless a penance of this sort is not to be imposed except rarely, and only upon those who will accept it willingly.

2°. Some subtraction of food, which can in no way harm the health of the body, or the duties or labors of the penitent, for example, half the part of the customary breakfast on Friday or Saturday or on the vigil of some feast, etc.

3°. Abstinence from wine or intoxicating liquor, on such a day, at such a time, or not to exceed a certain quantity.

4°. Some subtraction of ordinary sleep, especially by rising earlier in the morning, or at a determined hour as a remedy for laziness, or even for forestalling impure temptations.

5°. To pray on bent knees, or with arms extended in the manner of a cross, to kiss the ground for the sake of humility, to make brief pilgrimages.

6°. To offer to God sometimes illnesses, diseases, or other hardships of life occurring, by bearing them patiently.

7°. Sometimes to be deprived of recreation, even honest recreation, for example, a walk; to repress excessive curiosity in hearing, in sight; not to stand so long at the door of the house or at the windows. This especially befits girls addicted beyond measure to vanity.

8°. To chastise the body moderately, by discreet mortification, some flagellation, an uncomfortable position. - (But these things are to be enjoined very rarely; indeed to be permitted with great discretion.)

Since, generally speaking, contraries are cured by contraries, the following penances can be enjoined, or only advised, yet with discretion, with attention paid especially to the quality and greater good of the penitents.

1°. Upon penitents rarely and badly praying, brief prayers should be imposed, to be performed morning or evening, for about a week. - Upon the tepid, pious readings, or ejaculatory prayers to be made several times in the day, but few, and for a few days, lest they be omitted through forgetfulness or torment the penitent. - Upon those tempted against Faith and Hope, acts of Faith, Hope, confidence, or the recitation of the Apostles' Creed, etc.

2°. Upon blasphemers, external reverence toward God, toward the Cross ..., for example, to kiss the Crucifix reverently, or sacred images, or to say devoutly: Blessed be the name of the Lord. Praise be Jesus Christ.

3°. Upon lovers of the world and of its pomps, some meditation about the vanity of worldly things, for example, when they rise in the morning or seek their bed, or renewal of the promises made in Baptism.

4°. Upon those who often omit Mass, some supererogatory Mass to be heard, for example, a second on Sunday, or one on a weekday, or some visitation of the most holy Sacrament to be made several times, etc.

5°. Upon those keeping hatred, some works of charity toward neighbor, for example, to greet an enemy or speak to him, prudently however; prayer and an act of charity for neighbor in general, and also especially for enemies; recitation of the Lord's Prayer for the same, especially of these words: Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.

6°. Upon the lustful, some mortification or subtraction of comforts, especially flight from occasions, prayer, frequentation of the Sacraments, frequent renewal of firm purpose, memory of the last things, etc.

7°. Upon thieves and the avaricious, some alms according to their faculties, even if a single as were sometimes to be distributed to the poor or to the Church. But grave alms are never to be imposed unless they are willingly accepted.

8°. Upon the proud, certain offices of humility, for example, to kiss the ground, to visit the poor, or kindly to assist them, to treat them humanely, or to elicit various acts of humility, for example, to say with the publican: Lord, be propitious to me a sinner.

9°. Upon the gluttonous and the drunken, some subtraction of foods, abstinence from food and drink outside the customary meals, or abstinence from wine on such a day, or a prohibition lest such a quantity of wine be exceeded at meals, etc.

Add also the works of mortification which were indicated in the preceding section.

16. The order of promising satisfaction before absolution was introduced not by the polity or institution of the Church, but by the very law of Christ and the prescription of nature, the thing itself in a manner requiring the same.

17. By that practice of absolving at once the order of penance has been inverted.

18. The modern custom as regards the administration of the sacrament of Penance, although the authority of very many men uphold it, and a long duration of time confirm it, is nevertheless held by the Church not for a use but for an abuse.

XVII. Fr. Dominic Viva, question 3, article 4, no. 17: “Whence Pérez, Leander, de Lugo, and others infer that adolescents can be absolved who are engaged with women labouring in the same house, or conversing with those who do not dwell in the same house: because although sometimes on such an occasion they sin mortally by consent, and even by intercourse, that occasion nevertheless is reckoned remote. Since indeed men are not wont on such an occasion to sin ALWAYS, OR ALMOST ALWAYS, MORTALLY.”

XVIII. Fr. Gobat, tract 6, no. 261: “I say sixthly: although by deferring confession up to the article of death, or up to Easter, you be certain that on account of this delay you will forget many crimes, there does not nevertheless hence arise for you an obligation of confessing sooner. So indeed the common sense holds, as I reckon, both of penitents and of confessors.”

XVI. Francolino, page 125: “He adds the reason which I was saying, namely the natural and divine precept of satisfying God by a punishment corresponding to the fault. What straits for wretched penitents, who will doubt of this very thing, whether they truly lack this certainty; and who, that they may prudently judge that they themselves observe this divine precept, will be bound to search out what is the practice of the Church concerning this. And here again straits.”

XVII. Merbesius. It behoves every priest desiring rightly to moderate and rule souls in the tribunal of penance to be imbued and instructed with the knowledge of the canons, or rules, which the holy Fathers and the Councils established and promulgated for the punishing of mortal offences; otherwise he will break through the most holy decree of Pope Celestine inserted into the body of law, granted in these words: Let it not be lawful for any priest to change his own, or to do anything which may be contrary to the rules of the Fathers. Page 182, column 2.

XVIII. Francolino, page 125: “It is useful, and assuredly it is, to learn these canons thoroughly, and therefore confessors are admonished to take care to know them; but that this is necessary and commanded by law is not proved by that mandate of Celestine, which either does not now bind, since the penitential canons are not now in use, or speaks of those, since the knowledge of them was not necessary to all the priests whom Celestine there addresses, and perhaps not to all confessors.”

VI. Juvenin: By divine law satisfaction is necessary for those fallen after Baptism. Page 676, column 2.

I. QUESTION I. What is sacramental satisfaction? ANSWER. It is the acceptation of a penalty and the voluntary endurance of it, enjoined by the confessor, for the reintegrating of friendship with God violated by sin, and for compensating the injury inflicted upon him. This satisfaction has the name of penalty, whence it is called penance. Fasts, alms, prayers, vigils, and disciplines are penalties, because they are contrary to the body. A short prayer scarcely obtains the name of a penalty. Wherefore let confessors remember that satisfaction is a penalty. It is called voluntary acceptation, and so forth, because unwilling and forced it would not be accepted by God. Enjoined by the confessor — by this particle sacramental satisfaction is distinguished from penances which are undertaken of one's own accord.

IV. The execution of satisfaction is not necessary to the essence of the sacrament, which precedes the satisfaction itself. Therefore it is called an integral part. Theologians dispute on either side whether a satisfaction made in mortal sin be valid. But each opinion is easily reconciled, if we distinguish a meritorious satisfaction from the precept of fulfilling the satisfaction. Penitents who in the state of mortal sin fulfil the precept of satisfaction are not bound again to perform the same satisfactory works in order to fulfil the precept. But here the satisfaction is not meritorious, as being made in mortal sin.

V. One satisfaction is medicinal, destined for the curing of the infirmities of the soul; this one cannot perform for another. The other is of penalty, by which the punishment owed to sin is paid; in this sense one can satisfy for another, as all Catholics teach, excepting that which is enjoined in the sacrament to be done by the penitent himself.