The obligation to perform the penance

Penance is taken in two ways, as it is a virtue and as it is a sacrament. The virtue of penance is a part of the sacrament of penance, namely the act of the penitent (sorrow for sins), which is necessary for validly receiving the sacrament; and from this part the sacrament takes its name.

The subject capable of the sacrament of penance is every and only man who after baptism has fallen into sin, whether mortal or venial. For receiving this sacrament validly and fruitfully there are required the acts of the penitent, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Now these acts, which together constitute both the matter of the sacrament and the disposition of the subject, must be treated in this chapter.

The penitent is bound to accept and to execute a reasonable penance which his confessor has imposed on him. This obligation will be grave when a grave penance has been imposed for serious sins, otherwise it will bind under pain of venial sin. As the penitent is bound to accept the penance, so he is obliged to execute it at the time prescribed, if any time was fixed, or if not, then at a reasonable time. To defer its execution so long as to be in danger of forgetting it would be equivalent to not fulfilling it. It is best to execute the penance as soon as can conveniently be done.

If the penitent forgets the penance which was enjoined, he is excused from fulfilling any penance, as he is not bound to confess the same sins a second time, and he cannot substitute some other of his own choice, as he is not the minister of the sacrament.

Is the penitent bound to accept and fulfill the imposed satisfaction, and when? - Resp. To the first: The penitent is bound to accept and fulfill a reasonable penance sacramentally enjoined, because from what has been said the confessor is bound to impose penance, and indeed one in some way proportionate to the sins.

But if a penance must be imposed and accepted, by that very fact, by reason of the obedience owed to the confessor, it must also be fulfilled. Trent, sess. 14, C. 8; L. 515-516; H. A. 55.

Resp. To the second: The penitent is bound under grave obligation to fulfill a grave penance imposed for grave sins, because grave matter of itself obliges under grave obligation. But more probably he is bound only under light obligation to a light penance imposed for light faults, because light matter is not capable of grave obligation. L. 517.

Resp. To the third: The penitent must fulfill the penance at the time designated by the confessor, or as soon as he conveniently can; and if the penance obliges under grave obligation, he will sin gravely if from grave negligence he long defers it. The reason is that of itself it is grave to delay a notable debt for a long time. But whenever a penance was not fulfilled at the appointed time, the burden of performing it always remains, because the time is intended only accessorily. - Cf. n. 742; E. M.

Note: "Nevertheless it is probable that if that penance seems to the penitent more grave than is just, or too burdensome with respect to his weakness, then if the confessor is unwilling to moderate it, he could at least depart without absolution without grave fault, and approach another confessor, as they say with Busembaum, etc. Nevertheless this must be understood if that penance is truly unreasonable, etc." L. 516. - "From the common doctrine of theologians a confessor can sometimes oblige the penitent to fulfill the penance before absolution, etc." Lugo, d. 14, nn. 170, 171. - The penitent is not bound to fulfill the penance when the Confession was invalid, because the sacramental sentence of the judge was null, and therefore there is no sacrament to be completed. Otherwise one would have to satisfy twice for the same sins. The same must be said for the same reason about a penance imposed without absolution. Except if the penitent approaches several times to complete the same Confession, and meanwhile the confessor, as often happens, imposes some penance each time, so that less remains to be imposed at the end. - E. M.

Does a penance grave in itself, but imposed for only venials or for mortals already confessed before, oblige under grave obligation? - Resp. In the negative, more probably. The reason is that then satisfaction is not necessary insofar as it is grave. Hence just as the confessor was not bound, indeed could not prescribe it under grave obligation, so neither is the penitent bound to fulfill it under grave obligation. For the confessor must impose penance only according to the quality of the crimes from Trent, sess. 14, C. 8. - L. 517; Suarez, d. 38, s. 7, n. 7.

Can the confessor impose for grave faults a penance which is indeed grave, but binds lightly? - Resp. In the affirmative, because any legislator can prescribe grave matter under light obligation; nevertheless this is generally not expedient. St. Alphonsus would prefer that at least something be enjoined under grave obligation, with which afterward something else, even graver, could be imposed under light obligation. Yet he himself does not deny that the opposite opinion is more common; and from this very fact it is argued that the argument which he himself tries to draw from Trent for his opinion is less firm. Indeed the spiritual good of the penitent must be attended to, which because of his infirmity can demand something altogether different. - L. 518; Suarez, d. 38, s. 3, n. 3.

Is the penitent bound under grave obligation to fulfill the added circumstances of the penance, e.g., that he pray on bended knees, etc.? - The solution depends on the greater or lesser affliction of the flesh which the circumstance brings, whether of itself or with respect to the penitent. This can also depend on the intention of the confessor, which either he himself has expressly manifested, or the penitent can presume. - L. 517.

Does one satisfy who fulfills the penance in mortal sin? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is that for satisfying the precept it suffices to place the work of satisfaction enjoined, although the end of the precept is not obtained. - L. 552. Hence he also satisfies if in fulfilling the penance he sins venially, e.g., because he is distracted; nor then is the fruit from the work worked of such a penance impeded because of the other sins already remitted. - L. 552.

Does one sin who fulfills the penance in mortal sin? - It is certain that he does not sin gravely. According to some he sins venially. The reason is that one who voluntarily places an obstacle to even a partial effect of the sacrament does not seem able to be excused from some fault. Nevertheless several grave theologians probably hold that he is exempt from every fault, because there is no fault in placing an obstacle only to the remission of punishments. But when the obstacle is removed, then the effect of satisfaction is obtained. - L. 523.

What delay of penance is a grave fault? - If the penance was light, delay, however great it may be, will never be grave, since the omission of the penance itself more probably does not exceed light fault. - If the penance is grave, and imposed for grave sins, more probably a delay of two or three months is to be regarded as grave. But others extend this to six months; but this, says St. Alphonsus, seems too benign. Others extend it up to a year, and this, says the holy Doctor, is commonly rejected. Others finally say that no delay will be grave unless the penitent casts himself into danger of no longer executing the penance.

Nevertheless it is not necessary that one fulfill sacramental satisfaction before he confesses again. He can still fulfill it after another Confession, and continue it, if it is lengthy, e.g., that he hear Mass daily for a year. - Diana, tom. I, tr. 6, rr. 44, 45; Lugo, d. 25, n. 90 ff.; L. 517, 521.

If the penitent has forgotten the enjoined penance, is he bound to repeat the Confession so that he may receive another penance? - Resp. In the negative. The reason is that the fulfillment of the penance already once enjoined has been made impossible through forgetfulness, even culpable forgetfulness. But no one is bound to the impossible. Nevertheless, if the penitent prudently presumes that the confessor is still mindful of the enjoined penance, he should approach him, if he conveniently can, so that he may learn from him what it is. L. 520.

530. • QUESTION 6. What delay of penance is a grave fault?

Reply 1. If the penance was light, a delay, however great it may be, will never be grave, since from what has been said the omission of the penance itself more probably does not exceed a light fault.

Reply 2. If the penance is grave and imposed for grave sins, a delay of two or three months is more probably to be regarded as grave when it is medicinal or there is danger of forgetfulness. Besides, no general rule concerning this can be established ⁶. - St. Lig., no. 524.

⁶ No one doubts that penitents are to be counseled to fulfill satisfaction as soon as they conveniently can. But if it is asked when delay incurs guilt, especially grave guilt, it can scarcely be believed how much the Doctors disagree among themselves, so that you have as many diverse opinions as you have intermediate periods of time between eight days and a year, and indeed in such a manner that, while eight days are established by some as a limit beyond which delay can already be condemned as grave guilt (see St. Alphonsus, bk. 6, no. 521), others judge a delay of a whole year free from fault (see Diana, vol. 1, tract 6, resols. 44 and 45, coordinated ed.). Nor does the distinction of a medicinal penance press greatly. For if you suppose that the infirmity is cured by other remedies, the obligation which the medicinal character would infer ceases.

Whence, then, so great a variety of opinions? Assuredly from the fact that some solid reason for concluding anything more certain is altogether lacking. But this is most certain according to the opinion of all: nothing is to be condemned as mortal unless a manifest and evident reason advises it. Therefore, whatever may be said concerning eight days, fifteen days, a month, two months, etc., pertains to private opinions which wholly lack the force of impressing upon the conscience that there is grave sin.

** And let the VV. also bear this with an equitable mind, who (p. 938, no. 121) oppose the opinions of St. Alphonsus also to this passage of the Author. For whatever probability they may finally please to attribute to these opinions, this obedience above all must be rendered religiously to the holy Doctor: that we also most religiously preserve, both in words and deeds, the rules which he establishes with all the Doctors, and which we have more than once recalled elsewhere, concerning the assertion of the gravity of a sin.

And as regards delay, even when the Confessor has prescribed a time, behold the Salmanticenses, cited by St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), condemning of mortal sin one who defers an enjoined Communion for four days; against whom St. Alphonsus places the more common opinion, which considers a delay of six or eight days light. But others will perhaps reply that it is not to be presumed that the Confessor wished to entangle the penitent in these snares, so that for any delay whatever he might become guilty of mortal fault; nor would the Confessor act otherwise than imprudently if, recognizing from the character of the penitent that negligence of this kind would probably occur, he imposed these bonds under grave obligation. For, from those things which were said above in the note at nos. 522 and 523, injunctions of this kind would have to be called not salutary, but deadly. For otherwise, what sort of disposition, I ask, would there be in men who know not how to prescribe medicines unless they destine to eternal despair in hell the miserable sick man who perhaps does not observe the commands to the letter?

QUESTION 7. If the penitent has forgotten the penance enjoined, is he bound to repeat the confession in order to receive another penance?

Reply. More probably, negative. The reason is that fulfillment of the penance once enjoined has been rendered impossible through forgetfulness, even culpable forgetfulness. But no one is bound to the impossible. - Thus St. Lig., no. 520, and others commonly.

If, however, the penitent prudently presumes that the Confessor still remembers the penance enjoined, he ought, if he conveniently can, to approach him so that he may learn again from him what that penance is.

366. 1° Principle: Penance must be paid in that manner, in itself or in its circumstances, in which it was enjoined by the confessor. It is certain.

For penance is imposed by way of an ecclesiastical precept, and therefore, as an ecclesiastical law, it must be fulfilled both in itself and in its circumstances.

367. 2° Corollaries. (A) As to time: (a) the penance must be fulfilled at the assigned time, or, if no time was set, as soon as morally possible: for the intention of the confessor, the integrity of the sacrament itself, and the good of the penitent require this. - Yet it is not strictly required that it be fulfilled before absolution or communion.

(b) Therefore he sins gravely who, without reason, defers for a long time a grave penance imposed under grave obligation. But what time is long, theologians dispute; a delay for three or six months seems grave to many, while some think it is grave only when the penitent is thus exposed to the danger of omitting it altogether. - Even when a time has been determined by the confessor, a brief delay will not be a grave sin. - But if the penance is light, no delay, however great it may be, will be a grave sin. Yet all are to be advised to fulfill it immediately after confession has been completed, lest perhaps it fall into oblivion.

(c) If the penance has not been paid at the set time, the burden of performing it as soon as possible remains, since the time was prescribed not for ending the obligation, but for urging it.

368. (B) Strictly speaking, penance is validly fulfilled, according to the common opinion, by one who is in the state of mortal sin; for penance, even fulfilled in this state, is a good and penal work, and therefore suffices for satisfying the precept.

Nevertheless, according to St. Alphonsus (n. 523), he who acts thus sins venially, because he places an obstacle to one of the effects of the sacrament, namely, remission of penalty. But Lugo¹ holds very probably that this is free from all fault; it is true indeed that penance in this case is not satisfactory de condigno; but as soon as the sinner, by recovering the state of grace, removes the obstacle, satisfaction produces its effect, that is, remission of penalty.

¹ Lugo, disp. XXV, n. 40, with the authors cited there.

He who, while fulfilling penance, sins venially, for example, by distractedly reciting the prayers enjoined, is not deprived of the fruit of satisfaction ex opere operato, because venial sin does not prevent the remission of temporal penalty due to other sins.²

² Lacroix, n. 1247; Muller, § 127, n. 6.

369. (C) Regularly satisfaction is to be performed by the penitent himself, and not by another, unless with the consent of the confessor; for it is an integral part of the sacrament, and therefore must be performed by the penitent himself, just as contrition and confession; hence this proposition 15 was condemned by Alexander VII (24 Sept. 1665):³ "The penitent can by his own authority substitute another for himself, who may fulfill the penance in his place." - Yet the confessor can permit satisfaction to be performed by another when there is question of almsgiving; but it is controverted whether he can permit this with regard to other works, such as fasting, a pilgrimage, etc., when a just cause is present.⁴ Whatever the case, this is not expedient, at least generally, and if someone cannot pay the penance, it is better that another be imposed which he can perform.

³ Ap. Denzing., n. 986; cf. Viva, in Propos. XV; Vacant, Dict. de Theol., I, 738.

⁴ Suarez affirms it, disp. XXXVIII, sect. 9; Lugo denies it, disp. XXV, n. 82.

370. (D) It is controverted whether the enjoined work must be performed from the intention of fulfilling penance. (a) Not a few deny this with Lugo;⁵ for by the very fact that the work imposed by the confessor and accepted by the penitent is performed, it attains to the dignity and efficacy of sacramental penance, even if it is carried out from mere devotion and not from the intention of making satisfaction.

⁵ Lugo, disp. XXV, n. 34.

(b) Many others affirm it with Vasquez and Lacroix;⁶ for, in order that some work can be a sacramental satisfaction, it must be connected with the sacrament by the penitent, explicitly or implicitly; but it is connected with the sacrament only by force of intention; therefore.

⁶ Lacroix, n. 1286, with the authors cited there; Berardi, Praxis, n. 4547.

In our judgment, the matter can be arranged thus: if someone performs the work imposed by the confessor, not indeed thinking of paying the penance, but nevertheless not ordering that work to another end, he truly fulfills the penance by force of the intention which he had in accepting the satisfaction; but if he positively orders this work to another end, for example, to fulfilling some precept, the penance is not fulfilled, since the penitent positively intends something else; thus, for example, if the rosary is imposed on him who recites it daily, the penitent can at his own judgment choose that the first rosary be said for the sake of devotion, and the second as sacramental penance.

371. (E) If someone has forgotten the enjoined penance, even culpably, he is not bound to repeat the confession in order to receive another penance, according to the common opinion;¹ for no one is bound to repeat his sins when they have already been directly remitted: for this would be a most grave burden; and therefore the fulfillment of the penance can be regarded as morally impossible. But if someone is guilty of culpable forgetfulness, it will be enough to accuse this sin of negligence. Yet he is bound to approach the same confessor, if he conveniently can, and presumes that he is still mindful of the penance: for this is not a grave burden; but he is not strictly bound to request a commutation of the penance from another confessor, although this is laudable, useful to the penitent himself, and therefore to be recommended.

¹ Cf. Lugo, disp. XXV, n. 87; St. Alphonsus, n. 520, with the authors cited there.

3. OBLIGATION OF THE PENITENT. —The penitent is strictly obliged to perform the penance imposed, provided, of course, it be just and reasonable. ⁴ To go to confession with the express purpose of not accepting or not performing the penance imposed, would be to receive the Sacrament invalidly as well as unworthily.⁵

⁴ Cfr. Gury, op. cit., II, n. 409: "The penitent is altogether bound to accept and fulfill a reasonable penance sacramentally imposed, because acceptance of the penance pertains to the essence of the Sacrament and its fulfillment to the integrity of the Sacrament."

⁵ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 516: "It is doubted whether the penitent is bound to accept a just penance imposed by the confessor. The common and true opinion says that one sins who does not accept or does not will to fulfill the penance and wills to receive absolution. The reason is that, as Benedict XIV teaches, just as the confessor is bound to impose a just penance, so the penitent is bound to accept it."

If a penitent deems the appointed penance too severe, or unacceptable for some other reason, he may ask to have it commuted or consult another priest.⁶

⁶ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 516: "It is probable, however, that if the penance appears to the penitent graver than is just or too burdensome in relation to his weakness, then, if the confessor were unwilling to moderate it, he could at least depart without absolution and approach another confessor without grave fault. This, however, must be understood if that penance is truly unreasonable or unequal to the penitent’s weak powers. But if, on the contrary, the penance could easily be fulfilled by him and he were unwilling to accept it from mere sloth and wished to be absolved with a light penance, he does not seem able to be excused from grave sin; because, as Lugo well says, just as a priest would sin by imposing a light penance without just cause for grave faults, so the penitent would sin by wishing without cause to receive absolution with a penance lighter than is just."

Failure to perform a reasonable penance imposed for mortal sins and accepted in the confessional, is a mortal sin, unless the matter involved is small or some weighty reason diminishes the guilt.⁷

⁷ Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 409: "A penitent is bound under grave sin to perform a grave penance imposed for grave sins, because grave matter of itself binds under grave sin. So all teach. More probably, however, the penitent is bound only under venial sin to perform a light penance imposed for light faults, because light matter is not capable of a grave obligation."

A penitent is not free to substitute some other penance for the one imposed, but he may, for good reasons, ask in a subsequent confession to have his penance commuted either by the same or by a different confessor.⁸

⁸ Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, p. 174. —Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 412: "Who can commute a penance? First, it can never be commuted by the penitent himself, not even for a better one, because a penance cannot be raised to the merit of sacramental satisfaction unless it was imposed by the minister of the Sacrament of Penance himself. Second, it can be commuted: (1) by the penitent’s own confessor, or by him who imposed it, because a legislator can change his own law; (2) by any other confessor approved to hear confessions, because any other confessor can be judge of the same cause if the penitent submits himself to his tribunal, for a successor in the same authority can do whatever his predecessor could do. But for the commutation to be made lawfully, a just cause is required, such as: (1) if the penance seems too difficult; (2) if it is foreseen that the penitent will not perform it because of excessive repugnance, frailty, forgetfulness, etc."

Besides conscientiously performing the penance imposed in confession, penitents are bound to atone for their sins by voluntary good works (prayer, fasting, almsgiving, humility, patience, resignation to the will of God, mortification, and self-denial). The duty of giving satisfaction in this wider sense implies a strenuous effort to neutralize the evil consequences of sin by making restitution of illgotten goods, repairing scandal, etc.⁹

⁹ Cfr. Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 236; Th. H. Simar, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, 3rd ed., p. 361.

1721. Principles. I. The penitent is bound TO ACCEPT penance sacramentally enjoined. The reason is: 1. because, just as the confessor, as judge, has the right and obligation of imposing penance, so the penitent, as the accused, must revere and execute the sentence of the judge; 2. because the penitent is bound, no less than the confessor, to procure the integrity of the Sacrament.³ Yet if the penance seems to him more grave than is just, and too onerous with respect to his sin or his strength, he can, if the confessor does not wish to moderate it, depart without absolution and go to another confessor. But understand this if the penance is truly unreasonable. But if he refused to accept it from sloth, and wished to be absolved from sins with a light penance, he does not seem able to be excused from grave sin, nor is he to be absolved.⁴

1722. II. The penitent is bound, under grave obligation, TO FULFILL a grave penance imposed for grave sins. - The reason is that grave matter of itself obliges under grave obligation. Hence, if he omits it wholly or in notable part, he sins gravely. - But he is bound under light obligation to fulfill a light penance imposed for light faults. Thus commonly.

But if a grave penance has been imposed for light faults, it is sufficiently probable, against Bonacina, Roncaglia, and others, that it obliges only under light obligation; because "as the confessor was not bound, indeed could not impose it under grave obligation, so neither is the penitent bound under grave obligation to fulfill it." - Except if it was imposed as medicinal for venials which greatly dispose to mortal sin; or if mortal sins already formerly confessed are at issue, concerning which the penitent has not yet done a condign penance, for example because he was absolved in some danger of death.⁵

And here it must be noted that the penitent is not bound to fulfill the penance when the confession was invalid; because the sacramental sentence of the judge was null, and therefore the Sacrament to be made integral is not present. - The same must be said of a penance imposed without absolution, unless it is medicinal, or unless it is ordered to absolution through a subsequent confession in which the confessor intends to impose a lesser penance.⁶

1723. III. The penitent must fulfill the penance at the TIME assigned by the confessor, or AS SOON AS he conveniently can. Namely, he sins gravely if from grave negligence he defers for a long time a penance gravely obliging; because of itself it is grave to prolong for a long time a notable debt. But as often as the penance has not been fulfilled at the established time, there always remains the burden of performing it; because the time is intended only accessorily, that is, not for ending the obligation, but for urging it.⁷

Hence St. Alphonsus notes:⁸ 1. Although there is not an obligation of fulfilling the penance before Communion, as the 22nd proposition condemned by Alexander VIII required, nevertheless he sins gravely who defers it for a long time, for example for a year, or even for six months; but not for only one month, provided the penance is not medicinal and provided he can fulfill it in the future. 2. He does not sin gravely who transfers the fast of Friday to Saturday, or who procrastinates the Communion of individual months to six or eight other days, unless, as we have already said, the penance is medicinal, and its delay induces danger of relapse.

1724. IV. The MANNER or CIRCUMSTANCE of fulfilling penance, for example that it be done with knees bent, arms extended, OBLIGES at least under venial sin. But when the obligation is to be judged light or grave "depends on the light or grave annoyance which the circumstance brings, either of itself or respectively to the penitent, according as the confessor imposing the penance signified. Thus commonly."⁹

Let it be noted: 1. Prayers imposed as penance can be recited while Mass of precept is heard, unless something else was established by the confessor. - Prayers also can be recited alternately with companions, if from the use of the Church or the practice of the faithful they are customarily recited as in choir, for example the Rosary, etc. If the confessor has imposed as penance two Masses to be heard on the same day, they must be heard successively, not at the same time; because it must reasonably be presumed that the confessor intended this.¹⁰

2. One existing in mortal sin fulfills the penance validly, nor is he bound to repeat it. For thus teaches the common and more probable opinion; and the reason is that to fulfill the precept it suffices to place the prescribed work, although the end of the precept is not obtained. - Yet it is probable that he sins venially, because one who places an obstacle to the partial effect of the Sacrament cannot be excused from some fault.¹¹

3. No other intention of satisfying is required except that which the penitent had by accepting the penance; for it perseveres at least habitually, unless it has been retracted. Thus Lugo and others more probably. "For this reason," says St. Alphonsus,¹² "each one in any satisfactory work which he places always intends by a general will to satisfy first for the work due rather than for other works of supererogation."

1725. Questions. Q. 1. Whether satisfaction can be fulfilled THROUGH ANOTHER?

Resp. 1. Extrasacramental vindicative satisfaction can well be fulfilled through another; for another can pay a debt for another, especially a friend, as St. Thomas proves.¹³ 2. Sacramental satisfaction cannot be fulfilled through another, because the acts of the penitent are the matter of the Sacrament, and therefore, just as I cannot be contrite or confess for another, so neither can I satisfy. This is also clear from the 15th proposition condemned by Alexander VII: "A penitent by his own authority can substitute another for himself, who fulfills the penance in his place."

Except the case in which the confessor grants this to the penitent, as Suarez says with St. Thomas; for then not now the work, but the very act of the penitent by which he asks satisfaction from another for himself, holds the place of formal satisfaction.¹⁴

Q. 2. To what is a penitent bound who HAS FORGOTTEN the penance?

Resp. Some, as Bonacina, St. Antoninus, etc., wish that he is bound to repeat the confession, so that the Sacrament may be made integral. - But Suarez, Vasquez, etc., more commonly, and perhaps more probably, deny such an obligation, even if the penitent had culpably forgotten the penance. The reason is that, on the one hand, the fulfillment of the penance has become impossible, and on the other hand the law is very doubtful whether sins already directly remitted must be confessed again, so that the Sacrament may be made integral. Yet, if the penitent thought that the confessor was still mindful of the penance enjoined, he would be bound, if he conveniently can, to go to him; because in this case fulfillment of the penance would still be morally possible.¹⁵

Q. 3. Who can COMMUTE a penance?

Resp. 1. It is certain and common among the Doctors, whatever Diana says with fewer others, that it cannot be commuted by the penitent himself, not even into a work evidently better; for just as it can be imposed by the confessor alone, so it can be changed by him alone.¹⁶

Resp. 2. He who imposed it can commute it, 1. because a legislator can change his own law. And this indeed he can do: 1. without the sins declared to him being repeated, provided he still knows the penance enjoined, or at least remembers confusedly the state of the penitent's conscience; 2. even outside confession, if it is done immediately after absolution and before the penitent departs; because the same judgment is judged still to persevere morally. Thus the more common and truer opinion.¹⁷ 2. Any other confessor can do the same, provided: 1. he does this within confession; 2. he commutes from a just cause, for example because he notices that the penitent has not fulfilled the penance and will not easily fulfill it: in this case he can probably change it even of his own accord; 3. the penance was not imposed by a Superior on account of reserved cases, as Suarez, Lugo, and others rightly say against Sanchez and others; because an inferior does not have the faculty of changing the sentence of a Superior in a judgment previously formed. This alone could be admitted if the penitent's return to the Superior would be difficult and otherwise a grave cause suggested commutation, because the connivance of the Superior is deservedly presumed in such a case.¹⁸

Q. 4. Whether a penance can be changed by another confessor, without the sins being accused AGAIN?

Resp. Castropalaus, Lugo, and others probably deny it, saying that the penitent must repeat the confession at least summarily, so that thus the new confessor may acquire confused knowledge of the state of his conscience. - But many others, also probably, affirm with Toletus, Navarrus, etc.; and the reason is that in this later confession it is not a question of making judgment concerning the sins brought forward in the prior confession, since that has already been completed, but only concerning the weakness of the penitent in satisfying the prior penance. It is objected: But penance must be medicinal, and how will one prescribe remedies who is ignorant of the wound of the sick person? - It is answered that the confessor can gather the matter of sins from the penance imposed, and therefore can also direct himself in the commutation or diminution of penance.¹⁹

Note. - 1. The penitent is by no means freed from the first penance if, by repeating confession before another confessor, he makes no mention of the prior confession and penance; both because he is bound to render the first Sacrament integral, and because for commuting a penance there is required on the part of the confessor a positive act of the will by which the prior obligation is revoked.

2. Once the commutation has been made, the penitent can always return to the first penance, as is commonly taught.²⁰

1384. Principles. - I. The penitent is held to accept and fulfill a reasonable penance sacramentally enjoined; because from what has been said the confessor is held to impose a penance, and indeed one in some way proportionate to the sins. But if a penance must be imposed and accepted, by that very fact, by reason of the obedience due to the confessor, it must also be fulfilled. This is clear from Trent,¹ St. Alphonsus.²

II. The penitent is held under grave obligation to fulfill a grave penance imposed for grave sins; because grave matter of itself obliges under grave obligation. - Thus all. But more probably he is obliged only under light obligation to a light penance imposed for light faults; because light matter is not capable of grave obligation. - Thus the common opinion with St. Alphonsus.³

III. The penitent must fulfill the penance at the time designated by the confessor, or as soon as he conveniently can; and, if the penance obliges under grave obligation, he will sin gravely if from grave negligence he delays it for a long time; the reason is that per se it is grave to draw out a notable debt for a long time. But as often as the penance was not fulfilled at the established time, the burden of performing it always remains, because the time is intended only accessorily.⁴

1385. Questions. - Query 1° Does a penance, grave indeed in itself, but imposed for only venial sins, oblige under grave obligation?

Resp. Neg. probably. The reason is that then satisfaction is not necessary insofar as it is grave. Hence just as the confessor was not held, indeed could not command it under grave obligation, so neither is the penitent held to fulfill it under grave obligation. Except a) if a grave penance is to be enjoined on account of venial sins greatly disposing to mortal sin, e.g. from their frequency and their special nature, as of sensuality or dishonesty;¹ b) if there is question of grave sins already confessed, for which condign penance has not yet been done, e.g. on account of very grave infirmity.

Query 2° Can the confessor, for grave faults, impose a penance which is indeed grave, but lightly obliging?

Resp. Affirm.; but see n. 1382. q. 5° at the end.

Query 3° Is the penitent held under grave obligation to fulfill the circumstances attached to the penance, e.g. that he pray on bended knees, etc.?

Resp. The solution depends on the greater or lesser affliction of the flesh which the circumstance brings, whether per se or with respect to the penitent.² This can also depend on the intention of the confessor, which either he himself has expressly manifested, or the penitent can presume.

Query 4° Does he satisfy who fulfills the penance in mortal sin?

Resp. Affirm., with the common opinion. The reason is that in order to satisfy the precept it suffices to place the work of satisfaction enjoined, although the end of the precept is not obtained.³

Query 5° Does he sin who fulfills the penance in mortal sin?

Resp. 1° It is certain that he does not sin gravely. - Thus Theologians commonly.

Resp. 2° More probably he sins venially. The reason is that he who voluntarily places an obstacle to the effect, even partial, of the Sacrament does not seem able to be excused from some fault.

Query 6° What delay of penance is a grave fault?

Resp. Of a grave penance, and one imposed for grave sins, a delay for six months is to be judged grave, but not a delay for a month, "provided the penance is not medicinal, ... and ... can be fulfilled in the future." But the delay of a penance whose time for fulfilling it was imposed preceptively and under grave obligation will more easily, at least regularly, be grave. Nevertheless a brief, and therefore venial, delay would be, e.g. of monthly Communion for 6 or 8 days.⁴

Query 7° If the penitent has forgotten the penance enjoined, is he held to repeat the Confession in order to receive another penance?

Resp. Neg., with the common opinion. The reason is that the fulfillment of the penance already once enjoined has become impossible through forgetfulness, even culpable forgetfulness. But no one is held to the impossible.¹

If nevertheless the penitent prudently presumes that the confessor still remembers the penance enjoined, he ought, if he conveniently can, to approach him, so that he may learn from him what it was. (17) p. 418.

Query 8° Who can commute a penance?

Resp. 1° It can never be commuted by the penitent himself, not even for the better, although a vow can be changed by the one vowing it into a work evidently better; the reason is that penance cannot be elevated to the merit of sacramental satisfaction unless it has been imposed by the Minister himself of the Sacrament of Penance.

Resp. 2° It can be commuted, 1) by the confessor who imposed it, because the legislator 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, according to the opinion which pleases St. Alphonsus more, it must be excepted if the penance was imposed by the Superior himself for reserved cases, because an inferior cannot change the sentence of the Superior; unless however a grave cause is present, and the Superior cannot easily be approached, and therefore his consent can be presumed.²

But for a 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 on account of repugnance, frailty, forgetfulness, etc.³ - But the penitent will always be able to prefer the prior penance; for the commutation is made in his favor.⁴

Query 9° Is the penitent held to repeat the Confession in order to obtain the commutation of the penance?

Resp. Neg., sufficiently probably; and this whether he approaches the same Confessor or another; because there is no question of a judgment to be passed concerning faults blotted out in the preceding Confession, where judgment concerning them has already been formed, but only of a penance to be commuted; but for this the knowledge of the prior penance suffices, and the knowledge of the frailty or difficulty for fulfilling it, so that, namely, either a new penance in some way equivalent may be imposed, or the given one may be lessened according to the disposition of the penitent.¹

Query 10° Can the confessor commute penance outside Confession?

Resp. 1° Neg., if the confessor is a different one. The reason is that the confessor has no power except in sacramental judgment.

Resp. 2° If the confessor is the same one who imposed the penance, he can change it immediately after absolution, before the penitent departs; but not afterward. Thus more truly and more commonly. The reason is that for this it is required and suffices that the preceding judgment of the confessor morally persevere, which does not seem to have place if the penitent approaches the confessor outside the tribunal of Penance. Therefore, etc.²

1386. Resolves. - 1° The penitent is not held to fulfill the penance when the Confession was invalid; because the sacramental sentence of the judge was null, and therefore there is no Sacrament to be integrated: otherwise he would have to satisfy twice for the same sins. The same is to be said for the same reason about 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 is often done, imposes some penance on each occasion, so that a lesser one remains to be imposed at the end.

2° He sins gravely not only who omits the penance, but also he who omits a part of it notable in comparison with the whole penance; or even a part which would be grave considered in itself.

3° Universally, for judging concerning the gravity of an 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 his bedroom, recites the Rosary which by order of the confessor ought to have been recited on bended knees or before the image of the Blessed Virgin; but otherwise if the penitent were ordered, e.g. to pray with arms extended;¹ for this mortification is notable, and its omission can be held grave.

4° Prayers imposed as penance can be recited even while one meanwhile hears Mass of precept, unless however something else was established by the confessor. St. Alphonsus against a few. - Prayers which from the use of the Church, or the practice of the faithful, are wont to be recited as if in choir, e.g. the Rosary, etc., could also be recited alternately with companions.

5° The penitent cannot satisfy through another person, unless however this is done with the consent of the confessor, in which case the act by which he asks satisfaction from another on his behalf will be the penance; because satisfaction is an integral part of this Sacrament. Therefore it must necessarily be placed by the penitent himself. This is clear also from the 15th proposition of Alexander VII, p. XIII.

6° If the confessor imposed as penance two Masses to be heard on the same day, they must be heard successively, but not at the same time; for we reasonably presume that the confessor intended this.

7° It is lawful to refuse a penance truly unreasonable, e.g. a manifest penance for sins altogether hidden, or entrance into a religious order. Nor does he sin who does not wish to accept a penance which he sincerely thinks is greater than is just, or too burdensome for his weakness. Therefore in either case, if the confessor is unwilling to mitigate the penance, he can leave the Sacrament already begun imperfect and approach another confessor. But he who from sloth refuses to accept a penance of itself sufficiently fair and rather easy to fulfill, which the confessor when asked refuses to change, intending to approach another confessor so that by him he may be absolved with a penance absolutely light, does not seem, with good faith set aside, able to be excused from grave sin.² Thus the illustrious Van Egeren rightly interprets St. Alphonsus.

558. Principle II. The penitent is obliged to accept and fulfill the penance reasonably imposed on him by the confessor. - This is certain, because of Lateran Council IV, which declares: "Let each of the faithful strive according to his powers to fulfill the penance enjoined on him"; and because of Trent, sess. 14, c. 8, from whose doctrine it can be concluded; and because of the Code of Law, can. 887.

It is proved: 1) The confessor, as judge, has the power of binding or obliging to punishment, and the right and office of imposing penance. But to this office and right, unless it were useless, there corresponds in the penitent, as accused, an obligation of accepting and fulfilling the penance.

2. The penitent, no less than the confessor, is obliged to procure the integrity of the sacrament; but sacramental satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament.

3. Finally, each one is bound to obey a judge rightly judging and punishing. The confessor is a judge. Therefore, if he judges and punishes rightly and reasonably, the penitent must accept and fulfill the penance.

Nevertheless the obligation does not urge: a) if the confession was invalid, because, the sacrament being deficient, no obligation arises;

b) likewise if absolution was not given, unless nevertheless a medicinal penance is imposed as the condition of future absolution, or is now prescribed so that a lesser one can be enjoined when the penitent is absolved: for then it must be fulfilled by reason of the absolution to be received;

c) if the penance was not reasonably imposed, considering the present discipline of the Church, as if it were openly unjust or impossible, e.g., a fast on water and bread for an idle word, or a pilgrimage for a sick man. But if it seems too burdensome to the penitent, he can ask that it be changed or diminished, and the confessor will regularly acquiesce in this desire; and, if he refuses, the penitent can depart without absolution and confess to another, or accept the penance and ask another confessor to commute it. - But if someone were to refuse every satisfaction grave in itself, even a reasonable one, and were willing to accept only a light one, of himself he would not be excused from mortal sin, nor should he be absolved.

559. The obligation of fulfilling penance is grave from its kind, so that the penitent is held under grave obligation to fulfilling a penance which is legitimately enjoined under grave obligation. - This is certain.

For the confessor, as minister and judge, has the power of prescribing the things which pertain to the integrity of the sacramental judgment and of the sacrament, and indeed under grave obligation in a grave matter. But satisfaction pertains to the integrity of the judgment and of the sacrament; and it is an integral part of grave moment, when a notable punishment is imposed for grave offenses. Therefore the confessor can prescribe satisfaction, and indeed for grave offenses a notable punishment under grave obligation. - And therefore not to fulfill such satisfaction is to render the sacrament incomplete and mutilated in a grave matter. And it is irreverence toward the sacrament to accept a penance which someone would be unwilling to fulfill.

But that in fact there be a grave obligation, three conditions are required: 1) on the part of the penitent, a grave fault not yet rightly subjected; 2) on the part of the matter, satisfaction grave in itself; 3) on the part of the confessor, the intention of obliging under grave obligation. Hence:

a) He sins gravely who omits totally, or in notable part, a satisfaction obliging under grave obligation.

b) Nevertheless the confessor can, for grave offenses, impose a grave penance under light obligation, because the obligation depends on the intention of the one prescribing.² Yet this is generally not expedient, both because of itself it is not fitting for grave sin, to which, according to the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 8, the penance is to be proportioned, and because ordinarily the obligation ought to be proportioned to the matter; hence the confessor is judged to oblige under grave obligation when grave satisfaction is imposed for mortal sins not yet accused, unless he expressly says the contrary. - Nevertheless perhaps he could oblige under light obligation when another penance has already been imposed under grave obligation: then another, graver one can be added under light obligation, so that counsel may be taken for the infirmity of the penitent, or so that satisfaction may be greater.

² Nevertheless the confessor could not enjoin satisfaction without obligation and under counsel only, because thus he would not use the power of binding nor truly prescribe, since there is no precept without obligation.

c) A light penance obliges under light obligation, because light matter is not capable of grave obligation.

d) Satisfaction grave in itself, imposed for venial sins or for mortal sins directly remitted, probably obliges under light obligation, because the confessor is judged not to have wished to oblige under grave obligation, and otherwise penance of itself ought to be proportioned to the gravity of the sin; an exception is made if grave penance is enjoined for light sins which dispose greatly to mortal sins, so that that danger may be removed, e.g., for a tepid religious, for a girl exposed to danger: for then the natural law of avoiding proximate occasions of sin urges.

e) He who omits a circumstance of the penance sins gravely or lightly according as the circumstance is grave or light, according as in itself or relatively to the penitent it causes grave or light trouble. Thus a light circumstance is: to recite the rosary before an image of the Blessed Virgin or on bended knees; but grave, on the contrary, to do this with arms extended. In practice it is not expedient to impose many circumstances; and, if they are imposed, ordinarily they are not grave, unless they render the work much more difficult.

560. Principle III. Satisfaction must be fulfilled in that manner in which it is determined by the confessor, both in itself and in its circumstances. - For the whole obligation depends upon the intention of the one prescribing. Hence:

A. Satisfaction must be fulfilled:

1. At the time assigned by the confessor; and if no time has been stated, as soon as morally possible, as the presumed intention of the confessor, the good of the penitent himself, and the integrity of the sacrament require, which remains defective and incomplete until the satisfaction is fulfilled.

But it is not required that it be fulfilled before absolution or Communion (prop. 22 condemned by Alexander VIII),1 or even, at least for validity, before the following confession; although it should be urged upon all that after confession has been completed it be fulfilled at once, lest perhaps it fall into forgetfulness. Hence:

a) he sins who, without reason, delays penance for some time, even not very long;

b) but he sins gravely if he delays a penance obliging under grave obligation: 1) if inability to fulfill it afterward is foreseen; 2) if the substance of the prescribed work is notably diminished; 3) if it is medicinal, so that delay impedes the end and induces danger of relapse; 4) if danger of forgetfulness is imminent, and therefore in practice, because of this danger, to delay for a long time is mortal;

c) he sins only lightly who, even if the time has been determined by the confessor, delays a little, unless perhaps in fixing the term the circumstance of time is equally principally intended by the confessor, e.g., fasting on the vigil of a feast in honor of it;

d) he sins only lightly who long delays a light penance or one imposed under light obligation;

e) if the penance has not been discharged at the stated time, the burden of performing it as soon as possible remains, because time is something accessory in relation to the essence of the obligation, and was prescribed not for ending but for urging the obligation: for the precept of the confessor primarily regards the thing to be rendered, secondarily the circumstance of time.

2. By the penitent himself, but not by another unless with the consent of the confessor: for satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament, whose matter is the acts of the penitent; and therefore it must be accomplished by the penitent himself, just as contrition and confession; as is clear from prop. 15 condemned by Alexander VII.2

Yet a) the confessor can, when a just cause is present, permit satisfaction to be furnished by another, e.g., fasting, pilgrimage, from the motion and petition of the penitent: then the satisfaction imposed on the penitent is to ask this from another, or the very procuring of the work through another. Yet ordinarily this is not expedient, because then the penance is not medicinal, especially if it is an act altogether personal and as such afflictive.

Also b) the penitent can fulfill the real satisfaction of alms merely ministerially through another as a mandatary, whether that person pays from the goods of the penitent, or even from his own goods, because it would be the same as if he made a donation to the penitent, who would spend it in alms; - unless nevertheless the confessor expressly prohibits this last thing.

3. From the intention of fulfilling satisfaction, which intention nevertheless is already had by the very fact that satisfaction is accepted. Hence:

a) If someone, unmindful of the penance, fulfills the prescribed work, which is due by no other title and is ordered to no other end, by that very fact he fulfills it, because he is judged to will to satisfy before he wills to do a supererogatory work.

b) On the contrary, if, mindful or unmindful, he positively orders the work to another end and explicitly or implicitly excludes the intention of fulfilling, he does not fulfill the satisfaction. Thus, for example, if a rosary is imposed on one who recites it daily, he can at his own choice choose that the first rosary be said for the sake of devotion, the second as sacramental penance; or, on the contrary, fulfill the penance by the first daily rosary.

B. On the contrary, satisfaction does not necessarily have to be fulfilled in the state of grace, because ordinarily the intention of the confessor is not to impose that it be fulfilled in the state of grace, although he desires this, unless by accident the state of grace is necessary for the substance of the prescribed work, e.g., Communion or an indulgence: for to fulfill the precept the prescribed work as to its substance suffices, although the end of the precept is not immediately obtained; the end of the precept does not fall under the precept.

1. "They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim a right to receiving Communion before they have done condign penance for their offenses."

2. "The penitent, by his own authority, can substitute another for himself, who fulfills the penance in his place."

561. The obligation of fulfilling satisfaction ceases:

1. When fulfillment becomes physically or morally impossible for someone.

2. When the penitent has forgotten it, even if from culpable negligence, and cannot conveniently approach the confessor who can be presumed to remember it: for to repeat the confession before the same confessor, or to ask commutation from another confessor, is an extraordinary means and a grave burden to which no one is strictly obliged, although it is better. Nevertheless it is expedient that the penitent, in this case, voluntarily impose a work upon himself, to supply in some way for sacramental penance.

3. When someone has legitimately obtained commutation of the penance.