Satisfaction

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.

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.

299. Obligation of imposing penance. The confessor of himself is bound under grave obligation to impose satisfaction on the penitent: for as minister of the sacrament he is bound, as far as lies in him, to procure not only those things which pertain to the essence, but also those which pertain to the integrity; but satisfaction is an integral part of this sacrament. Moreover the Council of Trent prescribes this in explicit words: Therefore the priests of the Lord must enjoin satisfactions.¹ Hence the confessor would certainly sin if, without an excusing cause, he imposed no penance at all.

a. This precept admits smallness of matter. Therefore, although the confessor is bound under grave obligation to impose penance for mortal sins, he is bound only under light obligation for venials: for he does not sin gravely who deprives a sacrament of a complement of light moment, just as a judge does not fail gravely in his office who omits imposing a light penalty.²

b. Since the obligation of completing the sacrament always urges, there is no case in which the confessor is not bound to impose some penance, unless the penitent is incapable of furnishing satisfaction, as a dying man deprived of the senses, who can perform no penance. Wherefore even to the gravely sick some very slight work is usually enjoined, as a brief ejaculatory prayer, invocation of the most holy names, kissing the crucifix, etc.

c. The confessor imposes penance by way of precept, although he can also impose it by way of mere counsel without any obligation in conscience. Hence it is not necessary that grave satisfactions for mortal sins always be imposed under grave obligation; rather, from a just cause, even grave satisfactions can be imposed under light obligation.³

¹ Sess. 14, c. 8, reads: "Therefore the priests of the Lord, as spirit and prudence shall suggest, ought to enjoin salutary and suitable satisfactions according to the quality of the crimes and the faculty of the penitents; lest, if perhaps they wink at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by enjoining certain very light works for the gravest offenses, they become participants in others' sins." Cn. 887 agrees.

² Cf. Lugo, disp. 25, n. 49.

³ Cf. Suarez, disp. 38, sect. 3; St. Alphonsus, n. 518; Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 303.

300. Quality of the penance to be imposed. 1. The confessor is also bound of himself under grave obligation to impose a penance suitable to the quantity and quality of the crimes and to the faculty of the penitent; therefore he is bound to impose grave penance for mortal sins, light penance for venials. Indeed, where the Council of Trent declares the precept of imposing penance, at the same time it declares that penance must be proportioned to the sins and to the faculty of the penitents.

Therefore the confessor who without a just cause imposes a very light penance for grave offenses undoubtedly sins. But since this sacrament was instituted more for procuring the salvation of men than for satisfying divine justice, if both ends cannot be obtained, the secondary must be neglected so that the salvation of the penitent may be obtained.

2. The quantity and quality of the penance to be imposed cannot be determined by a general rule, but is left to the prudence and judgment of the confessor, who in determining penance must attend to these things: a. for grave offenses not only must grave penance be enjoined, but the more numerous and graver the sins are, the graver the penance must be. Therefore, of itself, for several grave sins it does not suffice to enjoin a simply grave penance, e.g., a rosary. Nevertheless it is not required that the quantity of penance be mathematically commensurate with the gravity of sins, so that, for example, for one hundred grave offenses a hundredfold greater penance be enjoined, which is impossible; but it suffices that, the graver the offenses are, a morally graver penance also be imposed. b. In order that the penance may be suitable to the quality of the sins, the Ritual warns that penances contrary to the sins be enjoined: for the greedy, for example, alms; for the lustful, afflictions of the flesh; for the slothful, exercises of devotion, etc.¹ This must not be understood as if another penance must be enjoined for each single sin, but so that for the sin into which the penitent more often relapses, as far as can be done, a contrary penance may be enjoined. But since penitents usually cannot bear satisfactions congruent with the quality of their sins, in fact scarcely anything else can be enjoined than prayer. Moreover, as Ballerini notes, fervent prayer is medicine or obtains medicine for any moral evil.²

What penance is grave. From the present practice of the Church, a penance is judged grave which corresponds to a work enjoined by the Church under grave obligation, or which would oblige under grave obligation if it were prescribed. Hence it will be grave satisfaction to hear Mass, to fast, to recite five decades of the rosary, the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin, the litanies of the saints with prayers, reception of the sacraments, an alms not small according to the condition of one's state, and similar things. But a grave penance is not judged to be the psalm Miserere or only six Our Fathers and Hail Marys.

¹ Roman Ritual, tit. 3, c. 1, n. 19. Cn. 887.

² Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 322.

301. Causes of diminishing penance. The causes on account of which the confessor can impose a moderate penance for grave sins are almost the following:

a. If the penitent is sick in body or very weak in mind, so that he can fulfill a just penance for sins only with difficulty and hardship.

b. If it must be feared that the penitent will not complete a greater penance, or will be turned away from confession on account of a heavier one.

Hence, if at some time a heavier penance must be imposed, it will be advisable to ask the penitent whether he can fulfill the enjoined penance; and if he cannot, it must be changed or diminished. It is better, however, to indicate to the penitent the cause on account of which a lighter penance is imposed. Moreover, without danger of turning the penitent away from the sacraments, a heavier satisfaction can be enjoined on him if, with a light supererogatory work, there is imposed a grave work already otherwise owed, e.g., the prescribed Mass.

c. If the penitent seems very contrite: for vehement contrition is of such great power that it blots out either all temporal punishment or a great part of it; or if the penitent is otherwise intent on good works by which he satisfies for sins.

d. If there is occasion of gaining an extraordinary indulgence: for through this satisfaction is already made to the owed punishment; or if the penitent is diligent in gaining indulgences, even non-plenary ones, as happens almost in those who are enrolled in confraternities and diligently perform the prayers and prescribed works.

e. If the confessor intends to furnish satisfaction for the penitent: for it is established that one can satisfy for another, the due conditions being placed.

302. When penance is to be imposed. Penance is ordinarily to be imposed before absolution, because thus the order of judgment is better observed, which requires that the accused first pledge satisfaction before he is absolved. Yet since there is no necessity of this order, penance can be enjoined without sin even after absolution, and it absolutely must be enjoined after absolution if the confessor previously enjoined none.¹

If the penitent after absolution accuses a new sin omitted through forgetfulness, it is not necessary that the confessor impose a new penance. Others indeed hold the contrary, because a work already owed under the title of satisfaction cannot be imposed as penance. But since this absolution is not a new sacramental judgment, but only the complement of the prior one, it is not necessary that a new penance be imposed, just as it is not necessary that a new sorrow be elicited (n. 259). Namely, the confessor, granting and completing absolution, by that very fact extends the penance already imposed also to the new sin.²

¹ Cf. Suarez, disp. 38, sect. 3; Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 3, n. 576.

² Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 293.

303. Works which can be enjoined as penance. Generally, all good works can be imposed as penance, whether prayer or works of religion, or fasting or works of penance, or alms or works of charity. In species, however, let these things be noted:

1. Since for man in this state of fallen nature even an internal work is penal, mere internal acts can also be enjoined as penance, such as acts of faith, hope, and charity, meditations, examinations of conscience, acts of contrition, etc. Nevertheless external works, such as vocal prayers, visits of churches, etc., are to be preferred to them, both because they are more laborious and therefore, other things being equal, more satisfactory, and because, since they are sensible in themselves, they are more suited to the sacrament, which by its nature is a sensible sign.

2. A work already owed from another source can be enjoined: for although it is already owed, nevertheless through the keys of the Church it can be elevated to the merit of sacramental satisfaction.

a. Ordinarily indeed it is altogether fitting that supererogatory works be imposed; nevertheless sometimes on account of the fragility of the penitent it is advisable to impose a work already otherwise prescribed. For example, on a penitent who does not observe the precepts of the Church, it can usefully be enjoined that until the following confession he hear Mass on feast days, observe abstinence and fasting, etc. But if nevertheless he omits these enjoined works, he commits a twofold sin: one against the precept of the Church, the other against the precept of the confessor or against the virtue of penance.

b. If the confessor enjoins a work which is prescribed otherwise, as if he enjoins the hearing of Mass or fasting, an unprescribed work is always understood, unless from the words of the confessor or from the circumstances something else is clear.

3. The confessor can impose as satisfaction the good works of the penitent which he is going to do at a determined time (this week, this month, this Advent, this Lent), e.g., daily prayers, accustomed alms, etc. This is especially expedient in those on whom, because of fragility or other occupations, a penance worthy of the sins cannot be imposed.

4. The confessor can impose as penance prayers or works to which indulgences are attached, so that the penitent, if the confessor has imposed such a work, by the same act fulfills both the penance and the condition required for gaining the indulgence, since penance and the gaining of an indulgence do not mutually exclude each other.

Concerning this matter, formerly disputed among theologians, after the recent declaration of the S.C. of Indulgences (14 June 1901) and cn. 932, there can no longer be doubt. Nevertheless it is not fitting that in place of a grave penance there be enjoined a work light in itself, to which either a partial or plenary indulgence is attached: for according to the Council of Trent and the new Code cited, works of penance proportioned to the sins must be enjoined of themselves.

5. The confessor can enjoin good works to be offered by the penitent for the dead. If this is done, there is applied to the dead that satisfactory fruit which the enjoined work has ex opere operantis; but the fruit which the work of penance has ex opere operato remains in the penitent.

In like manner, if a work is imposed to be offered, for example, for the Church, for the conversion of sinners, for the dying, etc., the intention is that the impetratory value of the work come to another; but the whole satisfaction remains for the penitent.

6. Some penance can also be imposed, at least probably, under the condition of relapse, e.g., if you blaspheme again, you will say a brief prayer; if you become drunk again, you will fast. For in this case the penance is as it were disjunctive: either you will employ an entirely great effort to resist temptation, or you will fast. Nevertheless it is expedient that at least a moderate penance be imposed absolutely.¹

¹ Sporer-Bierbaum III, pr. 3, n. 560 ff.

304. Unsuitable penances generally are penances involved in several and various works, too long-lasting and too grave, both on account of the danger that they will be omitted and because they render confession odious. In species, the following are rejected:

a. Public penances, especially penances which cannot be fulfilled without revelation of confession following. For it is not licit to impose a public penance for occult sins; and although for public sins a public penance could absolutely be imposed, nevertheless from present practice the confessor must abstain from enjoining it if it is not necessary. But it will scarcely ever be necessary: for it could be necessary only for repairing public scandal; but public scandal can be repaired by another reason, namely by a truly Christian life and good example, which may be for edification to others.

b. Fasts for children, peasants, workers who are wearied by continual labor, for children of a household, who by fasting would stir up the wonder, perhaps even the offense, of parents. Long prayers, pilgrimages, or alms for women who are constituted under the power of a husband.

c. Penances repugnant to nature, as to sign a cross on the ground with the tongue, to visit enemies. It is also imposed imprudently on children that they seek pardon from parents or from others on account of disobedience or on account of theft, because it is to be feared that the enjoined work will be omitted and confession will be rendered odious to them.

d. Likewise unsuitable are penances consisting in merely external works, e.g., that one which the Greeks greatly love and call metanoia, which consists in fifty deep inclinations immediately succeeding one another. Indeed in the West not even then would metanoia be to be recommended, if it were joined with fitting internal acts.

305. Obligation of accepting and fulfilling penance. 1. The penitent of himself is bound under grave obligation to accept the penance imposed by the confessor, unless it is irrational. For to the obligation of the confessor of imposing penance there corresponds in the penitent the obligation of accepting it; but from Trent the confessor of himself is bound under grave obligation to enjoin penance.

a. Unless it is irrational: a penance not reasonable, i.e., one justly graver or more difficult than the discipline received today in the Church, the penitent is not bound to accept or fulfill. Therefore if the penance enjoined on the penitent by the confessor is manifestly unjust, he can ask the confessor to impose another, and there will scarcely be found a confessor who would not wish to acquiesce in the desire of the penitent. But if the confessor refuses to do this, the penitent can either depart without absolution and confess his sins to another priest, or accept the penance so that he may receive absolution; but he is not bound to fulfill the accepted penance. For the confessor does not have the power of imposing an irrational and unsuitable penance, and therefore the penitent has no obligation of accepting it.

b. From an irrational penance, such as, for example, a public penance, entrance into religion, fasting on bread and water, a penance involved in many and various works, must be distinguished a penance great and difficult but nevertheless just; this indeed the penitent cannot refuse. But if he should be unwilling to fulfill such a penance, in order to act licitly he must have the will of seeking commutation of the imposed satisfaction, and nevertheless of fulfilling it if he has not obtained commutation.

2. The penitent is bound under grave obligation to fulfill a just satisfaction imposed by the confessor, if the due conditions concur: for by the fact that an accepted penance is not paid, the sacrament remains integrally incomplete; but the obligation of completing this sacrament through real satisfaction is grave in a grave matter, light in a light matter. If for light sins a grave penance is enjoined, the penitent is bound to fulfill it only under light obligation.

a. The penitent is not bound to fulfill the penance when the absolution was invalid: for then the sacramental sentence was null, and therefore there is no sacrament to be completed; moreover he would be bound to satisfy twice for the same sins.

b. Therefore he who knowingly omits a grave penance, either wholly or in a notable part of it, sins gravely; and he who omits a light penance, whether imposed for light or for grave sins, or a non-notable part of a grave penance, sins venially. It is clear that a penitent who has become impotent is not bound to fulfill the penance.

c. He who has forgotten the imposed penance: a. is bound to approach the confessor, whom he thinks still remembers it, if he conveniently can, because fulfillment of the penance is still morally possible; b. when this cannot be done, the penitent is not bound to repeat the confession in order to receive another penance, whether he has forgotten it culpably or inculpably, because to confess again sins directly already remitted would be too grave a burden. Therefore the obligation of penance ceases, since its fulfillment has become morally impossible. c. Moreover, if the penitent, forgetful of the imposed penance, from devotion had furnished a work enjoined by the confessor, he would have satisfied the obligation (n. 308).

3. The penitent himself must fulfill the penance enjoined by the confessor: for the precept of penance requires a personal action, which cannot be fulfilled through another. And indeed the actions which are required for constituting the sacrament, whether essentially or integrally, must be performed by the very one receiving it; just as, therefore, contrition and confession cannot be performed through another, so neither can satisfaction.¹

¹ This proposition (15) was condemned by Alexander VII: The penitent by his own authority can substitute for himself another who may fulfill the penance in his place. Cf. cn. 887.

306. Three conditions are required so that the penitent is bound under grave obligation to fulfill the penance:

a. That the matter, or the penance itself, be grave: for light penance is not capable of grave obligation.

b. That it be imposed for grave sins not yet remitted: for venials and for mortal sins already remitted, a penance cannot be imposed under grave obligation, although it is notable.

c. That the confessor wished to oblige under grave obligation. Although the confessor can impose a grave penance under light obligation, nevertheless he is rightly presumed to wish to impose a grave penance under grave obligation and a light one under light obligation, unless he himself declares otherwise.

307. When it must be paid. 1. Penance can be fulfilled both before and after absolution. But if the penitent who fulfills the penance before absolution is in the state of mortal sin, the work of penance already performed obtains sacramental efficacy and produces the sacramental effect by the absolution itself by which the mortal sin is blotted out.¹

Penance is ordinarily fulfilled after absolution. Yet sometimes it happens that the confessor immediately fulfills with the dying person the small penance which he imposes on him, and afterward grants absolution. Likewise confessors sometimes enjoin certain works of piety on penitents to whom they defer absolution, by which they may be better disposed to receiving absolution; now, if they enjoin these prayers as salutary penance, afterward, when absolution is granted, it will suffice to impose only a small penance.

2. If a definite time was fixed by the confessor for fulfilling the penance, it must also be fulfilled at that time. He who does not pay the penance at the determined time is not released from obligation, because the time is not determined for ending the obligation. Nevertheless delay of the prescribed term is not a mortal sin, provided the enjoined penance is paid: for the precept of the confessor primarily regards the thing itself to be furnished, and only secondarily the circumstance of time.

3. Penance enjoined without a fixed time must be fulfilled as soon as conveniently can be done. Any delay whatever of a light penance is never a grave sin; but delay of a grave penance is a grave sin in a threefold case: if impotence of fulfilling it afterward is foreseen; if danger of forgetfulness is imminent; if the substance of the prescribed work is notably diminished.

a. They dispute much about what delay of penance is a grave sin. Some say a delay of eight days, others of six months, others of one year is grave.² But delay of penance seems grave not of itself, but only accidentally, namely where, because of delay, the very substance of the work is omitted either wholly or in a notable part.³

b. It is greatly to be recommended to all that they become accustomed to pay the penance immediately after confession has been completed, because penance is an integral part of the sacrament, which must not be deferred for too long; but it is by no means necessary that it be paid before communion,⁴ nor that it be paid when the penitent again approaches confession.

¹ Cf. Suarez, disp. 28, sect. 2, n. 5.

² Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 521.

³ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 308.

⁴ This proposition (22) was condemned by Alexander VIII: They are to be judged sacrilegious who claim the right of receiving communion before they have done a suitable penance for their offenses.

308. How it must be paid. a. Penance must be paid in the manner in which it was imposed by the confessor to be paid; if therefore certain circumstances have been added, for example that the prayer be made on bended knees or in church, these circumstances also must be fulfilled. How great a sin the omission of these circumstances is depends on their gravity.

He who is ordered to recite the rosary on bended knees before an image of the Blessed Virgin and neglects this circumstance of position and place does not seem to sin gravely; but he who is ordered to recite the rosary with arms extended and neglects this circumstance is judged to sin gravely, because the omission of this circumstance, but not of that one, notably changes and diminishes the penance.¹

b. The penitent can pay the enjoined satisfaction even while he fulfills another prescribed work; for example, while he hears Mass on a feast day, he can recite the rosary enjoined as penance, because one work does not impede the other.

c. Enjoined prayers must be paid in the manner in which the same or similar prayers are usually paid from the practice of the Church: for the confessor is judged to enjoin prayers according to that manner, unless he has declared otherwise.

Therefore prayers which are usually recited alternately, such as psalms, litanies, rosaries, can be recited with a companion. Prayers which are usually recited vocally by the faithful, such as psalms, litanies, etc., it does not suffice to run through with eyes and mind only from a book.

d. No intention of paying the penance is required except that which the penitent had in accepting the penance; hence he who fulfills the work imposed by the confessor, even if he does not think about the penance to be paid, provided he does not order it to another end, satisfies his obligation.

¹ Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 1280.

Two things must be noted beforehand: a. commutation which happens in another confession is not made by revocation of the prior sentence, but by a new sacramental judgment of either the same or another confessor. By this judgment another work is substituted for the work previously enjoined, and when this has been done the prior obligation is extinguished.¹ b. For commutation to be made licitly a just cause must be present, of which kind is any spiritual utility of the penitent. But when commutation is made from a just cause, the penance can be changed not only into another equal one, but even into a lesser one.

¹ Cf. Suarez, disp. 38, sect. 10, n. 7.

309. Who can commute it. The penitent himself cannot commute the penance imposed by the confessor, not even into one evidently better: for he cannot elevate the penance to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. But both the confessor who imposed it and any other confessor can commute it: for the penitent can freely and licitly subject again to the judgment of either the same or another confessor sins from which he has already been absolved, so that, with another penance imposed in place of the former, he may again be absolved by him.

They dispute whether a penance which had been imposed on account of reserved sins can be commuted by a confessor not having power over reserved matters. Those who deny this power to the confessor say: just as the sins are reserved, so also the punishment imposed for them is reserved, or, an inferior can do nothing against a law made by a superior. But those who concede the power to the confessor teach: once reservation has been removed by the prior absolution, any confessor can judge concerning the sin and enjoin penance for it; and since there is present a just cause of commuting the penance, the consent of the superior to the commutation to be made is rightly presumed, even if the penance had been imposed for reserved sins.

310. How it can be commuted. 1. The confessor who imposed the penance can commute it even outside the sacrament, and indeed not only immediately after absolution, before the penitent departs, but also as long as the change is morally united with the sacramental judgment and constitutes one judgment with it. And the confessor can do this even if he no longer remembers the sins: for he acquires knowledge of them, as far as is necessary, from the gravity and quality of the penance imposed.

a. But the question is asked: how long does the commutation cohere morally with the prior absolution? St. Alphonsus (n. 529) judges that only the commutation which is made immediately after absolution, before the penitent departs, constitutes morally one judgment with it. But Lugo thinks that commutation even after a long time still coheres with the prior absolution. "For the satisfaction itself fulfilled after a long time integrates one judgment with the preceding parts; therefore, as long as the satisfaction has not been placed, that judgment is still understood as incomplete and as it were suspended, and the judge still has the right of urging the execution of the sentence; therefore he will still be able, with the consent of the penitent, to change or diminish the prior sentence, so that it can better be put into execution."¹

b. But if the commutation no longer coheres morally with the prior confession, the commutation must be made in another confession. Yet a repetition of the prior confession is not required; rather, it suffices that the confessor still remembers the state of the penitent confusedly, or, if he does not remember, that he receive a confused knowledge of it, whether from a generic confession or from the penance imposed in another confession.

2. But another confessor cannot commute the penance outside the sacrament, because he has no sacramental power over the penitent except in the tribunal of penance, while he exercises the power of the keys. But he can change it in the sacrament, even if the penitent does not repeat the confession of the sins for which it was imposed, provided he acquires a confused knowledge of the matter of the sins, such as he can draw either from a generic accusation or from the quality of the penance imposed by another confessor. For he does not have to pronounce judgment concerning the individual sins, since they have already been declared and remitted before, but only concerning the difficulty of fulfilling the satisfaction and concerning a penance in some way proportioned to the sins; and for this a distinct knowledge of the sins is not required. It is clear that this change, which is instituted in another confession, can be made at any time whatever, since a new sacramental judgment independent from the former is instituted.

¹ Lugo, disp. 25, n. 112. Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri V, n. 318.

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.

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.

In order to be sure of obtaining the sacramental effect of fulfilling the penance enjoined by the confessor, the penitent must be in the state of grace when he fulfils it, for God does not remit temporal punishment due to past sins in favour of one who is at enmity with him. However, by fulfilling the penance even in the state of mortal sin, what had been enjoined would have been executed, though it would not then effect its object of remitting temporal punishment due to sin confessed. It is a disputed point among theologians whether fulfilment of penance while in a state of sin would produce its effect when the sinner repented and again recovered the state of grace. Many theologians hold that it does so, and that it revives in the same way as a sacrament revives which has been validly received, but which does not produce grace at the time of its reception on account of the presence of some obstacle in the soul.

Although it is better and safer to execute the penance while in the state of grace, and if it is executed in a state of mortal sin it does not at any rate at once obtain its effect, yet it is not certain that any fault is committed by doing one’s penance while in sin, any more than it is sinful to assist at Mass while out of the friendship of God. One who in sin hears Mass on Sunday satisfies the precept, though he does not obtain the full fruit of the sacrifice; in the same way one, who while in sin says his penance, fulfils indeed his obligation, but does not thereby obtain at the time the sacramental fruit of his action.

Although a penitent may not of his own authority substitute another penance for that which was imposed by his confessor, yet he may for good reason get this commuted either by the same or by a different confessor. The same confessor may commute the penance which he himself imposed either in or out of confession, provided that so long an interval has not elapsed that the commutation cannot be considered one moral act with the confession and the imposition of the penance which is commuted. If the penitent goes to another confessor and asks for a commutation of a penance which has been enjoined him, the commutation must be granted in confession, otherwise the new confessor will have no jurisdiction over the penitent. The former confession need not be repeated; it is probable that it will be sufficient if the new confessor knows the penance which was given and for which a commutation is asked, together with the difficulty which the penitent feels in executing it.

We shall speak first of the notion and efficacy of satisfaction, then of the power and obligation of imposing satisfaction, and then of the obligation of accepting and fulfilling satisfaction.

I. Notion. What satisfaction generically taken is has been said in t. I, n. 979. But sacramental satisfaction is compensation for temporal punishment owed because of sins, through an afflictive work. Therefore sacramental satisfaction is not a prayer which someone says in place of a penance he has forgotten. Nor does it suffice that the confessor afterward ratify that prayer, because satisfaction must be imposed before it is performed.

II. Efficacy. Sacramental satisfaction compensates for, and thus removes, temporal punishment not only ex opere operantis but also ex opere operato. The reason is that the said satisfaction is not only a salutary and meritorious act, satisfying de condigno for some remaining punishment, but also an integral part of the sacrament; in other words, satisfaction effects that the sacrament be an efficacious sign of integral, or more perfect, remission, or remission extending itself to the debt of remaining punishment. But through sacramental satisfaction so much punishment is removed as corresponds to the satisfaction performed, so that by a heavier penance more, and by a lighter penance less, of the punishment owed is remitted.

It is disputed whether actual satisfaction also increases sanctifying grace ex opere operato (cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., question 90, article 2, ad 2).

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.

I. Nature of sacramental commutation. Commutation of satisfaction is a certain retraction or correction of the judgment, insofar as it imposed punishment; and just as in other judgments, so also in sacramental judgment it can be made by a competent judge.

II. Obligation of fulfilling satisfaction. 1. Person obligated. The penitent, as canon 887 declares, "must fulfill satisfaction himself personally." This, however, as we noted, does not prevent the confessor from granting the penitent the faculty of substituting another for himself, who will fulfill the satisfaction (n. 350).

2. Gravity of the obligation. The obligation of fulfilling satisfaction is grave if: 1. it was imposed for necessary matter; 2. it is grave; and 3. it was enjoined under grave obligation. When these conditions have been fulfilled, it is also grave to omit a grave part; nevertheless, this for the most part does not take place if the satisfaction has a successive extension, in which case, therefore, commonly it is not grave to omit once or twice what, for example, was enjoined for the individual days of some week. If one of the enumerated conditions is lacking, the obligation of fulfilling the satisfaction is light; and in the case in which the confession was invalid, the satisfaction does not oblige. I said:

a) If it was imposed for necessary matter, because for free matter grave satisfaction cannot, at least of itself, be imposed (n. 348; St. Alphonsus, VI, 517).

b) If it is grave, because light satisfaction cannot be enjoined under grave obligation.

c) If it was enjoined under grave obligation, which it is altogether expedient to do, and is presumed to have been done. Indeed there are those who judge that grave satisfaction cannot be enjoined under light obligation, because although a legislator can oblige only lightly in grave matter, nevertheless in this sacrament the confessor is not regarded as a legislator, but as a simple minister, since there he acts in the name of God. Hence he cannot impose matter of itself grave under light obligation. Others, however, admit the contrary, relying on this reason: "The confessor in this sacrament not only performs the office of Christ, but also has been constituted by Christ as true judge and legislator, who from the power handed over to him looses by remitting sins, and binds by imposing precepts concerning the obligation of fulfilling satisfaction" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 118).

A circumstance of satisfaction, for example the Way of the Cross to be performed by the penitent on bent knee, obliges under grave obligation if either in itself or with respect to the penance it is grave and - which, once the first condition has been fulfilled, is presumed - it was imposed under grave obligation (St. Alphonsus, VI, 517).

3. Time of fulfilling satisfaction. First note that imposed satisfaction can be fulfilled both before and after absolution. That it can be fulfilled after absolution is clear both from the practice now commonly in force and in force through so many centuries, and from the contrary doctrine condemned.¹ Nevertheless, it can also be fulfilled before absolution. A reason for doubting could arise from the fact that the penitent before absolution is easily in the state of mortal sin, and therefore satisfaction, that is, the integral part of the sacrament, cannot yet obtain its effect, that is, remission of punishment, so that, until the state of grace is recovered, it would remain informe. But satisfaction becomes an integral part only when it is conjoined with absolution, and at that very moment obtains its effect, so that satisfaction as an integral part was not informe. For the rest, observe:

a) If a time has been set by the confessor, this must be observed. Once the time has passed, the obligation does not cease; both because the confessor principally intends the work and accessorily the time, and because it is not licit for the sacrament to be deprived of an integral part (St. Alphonsus, VI, 525). If a time has not been set, satisfaction should not be delayed longer, and, in conformity with the mind of the confessor, should be fulfilled as soon as it can conveniently be fulfilled (St. Alphonsus, VI, 521).

b) Delay of grave satisfaction is a grave sin: 1. if it brings with it grave danger of forgetfulness or of inability that will follow; 2. if it frustrates or notably lessens the end of the satisfaction, for example if a confession to be instituted after a month is delayed beyond a week. It is disputed whether delay of itself is ever a grave sin. Moreover, with St. Alphonsus (VI, 521), it seems this must be affirmed, because a lengthy delay, for instance of six months, of a grave obligation to be fulfilled of itself at the first moral opportunity seems to involve grave disorder.

4. Manner of fulfilling satisfaction. a) The intention of satisfying seems to be required, or of performing the imposed work for satisfaction. For just as the intention of receiving the sacrament is required as regards the essentials, so also it is required as regards the integral parts, so that the sacrament may be received integrally. But it suffices that the penitent had and did not retract the intention of receiving the sacrament, since this intention regards the whole sacrament. The said intention indeed probably comprehends a work enjoined by the confessor which someone, forgetful of the satisfaction owed, has posited (cf. St. Alphonsus, III, 700, question 2); but since the matter concerns the validity of an integral part, the work seems to have to be performed again (cf. St. Alphonsus, II, 2).

Objection. The intention of satisfying is not required, since it suffices to have posited the act imposed by the confessor.

Response. From what has been said it follows that this does not suffice for the act posited to be an integral part of the sacrament.

b) Satisfaction seems to have to be fulfilled in the state of grace if it is fulfilled after absolution; for it is illicit to place an obstacle to the effect, even secondary, of a sacrament (St. Alphonsus, VI, 523).

Objection 1. The end of the precept, in the case remission of remaining punishment, does not fall under the precept.

Response. Let that pass; but the end of the sacrament falls under the precept.

Objection 2. Satisfaction will afterward revive once the obstacle has been removed.

Response. Besides the fact that this opinion is doubtful, and therefore does not hold for practice because the danger remains lest the sacrament be deprived of its secondary effect, it is illicit to fulfill satisfaction informiter, just as it is illicit to receive the sacrament as regards the essentials informiter.

If satisfaction is fulfilled before absolution, it is not required that it be done in the state of grace; for then, as we have already noted, it does not become an integral part before absolution is conferred and therefore, as is supposed, before the state of grace is recovered by the penitent. This posited, the integral part does not remain informe, but immediately obtains its effect.

c) Satisfaction can be fulfilled with another if prayers were imposed which are customarily recited with others.

5. Cessation of the obligation can come either from supervening inability or from forgetfulness.

One who has forgotten the satisfaction imposed and cannot gather it from the confessor's custom of imposing this or that penance is bound to approach the confessor, if it can conveniently be done and the confessor is presumed to have retained it in memory. Otherwise the obligation ceases. Nor should you say: he is bound to return so that the confessor, if he has forgotten the penance imposed, may impose a new one. For, since the completed judicial process has been finished, the confessor cannot impose a new penance unless the penitent institutes a new confession; he is not bound to this burden (St. Alphonsus, VI, 520).

What if the confessor omitted to impose satisfaction?

Response. In the case the penitent is bound to return, if he conveniently can, lest the sacrament be deprived of an integral part; for since the judicial process remained incomplete, it seems morally to persevere, even if the penitent has left the confessional.

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, nn. 728, 1306, 1437, 1535.

Not all the afflictions that befall mankind are chastisements. In the strict sense, only those evils are punishments which are inflicted by the lawgiver against the will of the offender as a vindication of justice violated by the personal offense of the latter. Hence we must distinguish punishment from the following: (a) from satisfaction, which is compensation willingly endured for one’s own sin, or freely offered for another’s (e.g., David after his repentance performed penance for his sins; Christ on the cross offered His satisfaction for the human race); (b) from medicinal afflictions, which are intended, not as reparations to injured justice, but as remedies to preserve men against sin or relapse, or to afford them opportunities for progress (e.g., the calamities of Job, the condition of the man born blind, the dolors of the Blessed Virgin, the physical evils Which in this world sometimes happen to subjects as a punishment on their rulers, etc.); (c) from the natural defects of fallen human nature, such as hunger, thirst, disease, etc. These are only indirectly the consequences of original sin, the direct punishment, from which they follow, being the infirmity and corruption of nature produced by original sin.

Question III LAW

Does the external act add morality in some way to the internal act? "It must be said first, that the exterior act of itself does not bear an increase of goodness or malice, if the other things are equal, in the interior act. Thus D. Th. 1. 2. q. 20. a. 4.... because the exterior act does not have a goodness distinct from the interior, and necessarily follows from it if it is in our power; but if it is not in our power, it does not diminish the goodness of the will.... Second, it must be said that external action is sometimes necessary for the goodness of the will, or for such goodness.... For when it is in man's power to execute an external action, he cannot have a perfect interior will unless he executes the exterior action, because the exterior act is the term and end of the interior, and because an absolutely perfect will is one that acts when it can.... Third, it must be said that accidentally the exterior act can increase goodness or malice simply.... For 1. because of the exterior act a man often endures and perseveres more in the interior act; indeed he often multiplies interior acts, and in this way it is morally worse to kill. 2. Because the exterior action itself both kindles the affection, and thus contributes to the interior act, in the way in which vocal prayer is accustomed to contribute to interior devotion. 3. External actions are useful for moderating the passions and habituating the body, so that it may more easily serve justice.... It must also be added that good external acts are useful for the effect of satisfaction for temporal punishment due for sin, because satisfaction is taken not only from goodness, but especially from the penal character of the act; but the exterior act of itself brings its own pain and sorrow. Finally it must be added that exterior acts are necessary for certain effects of grace, which are conferred either ex opere operato, or from a special privilege; such as are the effects of the sacraments and the effects of martyrdom, and any others that are similar, because, since these effects do not depend on the mind alone of the one acting, they have been promised to one exercising such a work not only in affection, but also in effect; and in the same way on the contrary, evil external acts, or even their effects, are necessary for incurring certain punishments or censures, which are not incurred by the internal act alone." Suarez tr. 3. d. 10. s. 2. n. 2. 3. 4. 6; Wirceburg. c. 3. a. 1; L. 1. 2. n. 42; S. Th. 1. 2. q. 13. a. 5 ad 1, q. 20. a. 5, 2. D. 40. a. 3; E. M. 71. 72.

What is offense and injury? - Resp. To the 1st: Simple or pure offense is one thing, and injury is another. Simple offense is the wounding or irritation of another's will, by which someone brings trouble to another against his rational will, and as it were gives him some right to anger, indignation, or aversion against the offender, yet without injuring any right of property. If you deny to your friend asking for a book as a loan, of which he greatly needs and which you can easily do without, you undoubtedly offend your friend, and give him sufficient motive of aversion; yet you do not inflict injury on him, because you injure no right of his. Hence by justice you are not obliged to satisfaction for injury, but only to satisfaction for offense, by the virtue of charity and human reconciliation of peace, renewing friendship.

Resp. To the 2nd: Injury is voluntary lesion of another's right, when he is reasonably unwilling, by which namely someone knowingly and willingly does something not only against the will, but also against the true and strict right of another. Moreover such an injury can sometimes be done without damage to another, and then it is called mere injury, such as occurs if you commit occult adultery with no child conceived; for in such a case you injure the right of another, yet you do not cause damage. Hence you are held to satisfaction, but not to restitution; namely to satisfaction of the injury, by suffering something which brings trouble or burden, at least, e.g., by humbly asking pardon. This satisfaction is compensation for personal injury. Cf. 1319. But sometimes injury is done with damage to another and is called damaging injury. Such occurs if you commit adultery and a child is conceived. Hence you are held to restitution or to reparation of the damage. Wherefore this restitution is compensation for real injury. L. 584; C. A. 1293-1295; Inst. l. 4, t. 4.

How is injustice repaired? Injustice or injury inflicted on another is repaired through restitution. Restitution is the rendering of another's thing, or the compensation of damage unjustly inflicted. This definition, as is clear, comprehends not only restitution of mutuum, commodatum, deposit, and pledge, where no violation of another's right preceded, but also restitution from actions in which violation of another's right preceded. - Therefore restitution differs from satisfaction in this: that satisfaction is compensation of offense or personal injury through some service, or request for pardon, or some other fine or penalty; but restitution is rendering of a real right, or compensation of real injury. C. A. 1323; St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 62, aa. 1, 5; L. 547. Cf. here n. 1287.

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.

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.

Who can commute a penance and for what cause? - Resp. To the first: It can never be commuted by the penitent himself, not even into a better one, although a vow can be changed by the one vowing it into an evidently better work. 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. - It can be commuted: 1. by the confessor who imposed it, because a 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 a successor in the same authority can do whatever the predecessor could. Nevertheless an exception seems to be made, according to the more common opinion, 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. Yet others deny this, because once the reservation of sins has been removed through the absolution of the superior, the power of the superior and the inferior confessor is the same.

Resp. To the second: 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 because of repugnance, frailty, forgetfulness, etc. - L. 528, 529.

Is the penitent bound to repeat the Confession to obtain commutation of the penance? - If he approaches the same confessor, it will not be necessary to repeat the Confession when the confessor remembers the state of the penitent's conscience in some way confusedly. - If he approaches another confessor, or even the same one no longer mindful of the sins, it suffices that he confess summarily, so that the confessor may acquire a confused knowledge of that state.

But whether this summary Confession is also required if the confessor, at least confusedly, does not know the state of the penitent is disputed. The first opinion affirms it. The reason is that the confessor cannot commute the penance except by sacramental judgment; but he cannot exercise this judgment unless the penitent opens the state of his conscience to him. The second opinion probably denies this, because it is not a question of a judgment to be rendered concerning faults destroyed in a preceding Confession, where the judgment about them has already been formed, but only of commuting the penance. But for this the knowledge of the prior penance and the notion of frailty or difficulty for fulfilling it suffices, namely so that a new one in some way equivalent may be imposed. Hence the confessor, hearing the penitent say that he has not fulfilled the penance and is not going to fulfill it, believing him, will be able to commute the penance even if he does not ask. - L. 529.

Can the confessor commute a penance outside Confession? - Resp. In the negative, if the confessor is different. The reason is that the confessor has no power except in sacramental judgment. For penance must be joined with the absolution received. - If that confessor is the 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 persevere, which does not seem to have place if the penitent approaches the confessor outside the tribunal of penance. St. Alphonsus, 529, 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 within the space of one day, within two days, a week, and even a longer time, because then it still seems to be morally united with the preceding sacramental judgment. For just as a longer space does not prevent sorrow, or Confession, or even fulfillment of satisfaction from being morally united with absolution, so one can judge also about the change of penance. Lugo, d. 25, nn. 111, 112.

Note: If the penitent, after accepting a penance from one confessor, repeats the Confession before another in order to obtain a milder penance, or even for another cause, he is by no means freed from the former penance unless he mentions the preceding Confession and the penance accepted. The reason is that for commuting the penance on the part of the confessor, a positive act of the will is required by which the prior obligation is revoked.

1. Theophilus, a confessor, if at some time he absolves a penitent again because, for example, the latter immediately confesses a sin of which he had been forgetful in the preceding confession, imposes no new penance for the new absolution, but the same already imposed before.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Theophilus does not act rightly. For although a work otherwise commanded can well be imposed as penance under the title of sacramental satisfaction, nevertheless a work already commanded under this same title of sacramental satisfaction cannot be imposed. L. 513; G. 511; I. M. 733.

2. Ubaldus, after confession had been made, was ordered as salutary penance to hear Mass once. He attends the sacred rite; but, since meanwhile he was involuntarily distracted, he decides now to hear it from mere devotion, and to hear another Mass on the following day in order to fulfill the penance.

It is asked: Whether Ubaldus is truly bound to hear another Mass?

R. Fr. Gury 520 affirms it. "For," he says, "someone unmindful of the obligation satisfies, because he is considered to have the habitual intention of satisfying. Therefore, if he excludes this intention, he no longer satisfies, because he does not wish to satisfy. Besides, the satisfactory work imposed by the confessor is held as in the place of a debt. Moreover, if someone bestows a gift, unmindful of a debt, he is considered more probably to have satisfied the obligation of justice. But it is otherwise if he positively excludes the will of satisfying. Therefore, by parity, he does not satisfy who excludes the intention of fulfilling the penance." But several think the contrary, as Fr. Gury himself notes in the cited place. And indeed also for a penance imposed by the confessor, which is a certain private law, the general principle holds, that precepts do not oblige to formal obedience, that is, that the thing be done because it is commanded, but only to material obedience, that is, that what is commanded be done. That is to say, the law does not oblige except to the substance of the work enjoined. Therefore, once this is posited, it is no longer in the power of the one acting that the law be said not to be fulfilled.

"Nor does it stand in the way, 1.º that an act does not operate beyond the intention of the agent; for that proceeds only in those things which depend on the sole power of the one acting himself. Nor 2.º that he who owes another one hundred does not satisfy the obligation if by a free donation he gives two hundred. Nor 3.º that one bound by vow to recite the rosary, if he recites it with the mind of not fulfilling, does not satisfy. The reason is that these and similar obligations proceed from the will of the one promising, who, just as from the beginning he freely constituted himself a debtor, so also can freely remain in the debt. But the obligation of obeying law proceeds from the will of the legislator, and therefore is not extended beyond his intention and will, namely beyond the substance of the work commanded. Indeed even in those things which proceed from one's own power, the one acting would satisfy without the said intention, provided he has not deliberately destined his work here and now to another particular end; for anyone, from a general intention, first intends to satisfy a debt before those things which he has imposed on himself by his own free will. This holds, by parity of reason, also concerning sacramental satisfaction, if the penitent does the work imposed by the confessor, yet not intending to fulfill the penance. By this doctrine," says Roncaglia, "the confessor will often be able to meet the conscience of the scrupulous; for example, they recite the canonical hours or sacramental penance, and, since this does not seem to them to be recited as is fitting, they do not have the intention of satisfying, but intend to repeat them: let him forbid a new recitation. The same should be said of one who hears Mass on a feast day; since it does not seem to him that he hears it as he ought, he intends to hear a new Mass; this must be prohibited." Scavini ed. Mediolanensis 1874, l. 1, n. 366; Ferraris, v. Lex, art. 4, n. 1-10; I. M. vol. 1, n. 215.

3. Felicitas, after making a general confession with a certain missionary, is ordered as salutary penance to perform three fasts. But when the missionary had gone away, she cannot perform the prescribed fasts, because of weak health and also because of the strict prohibition of the physician. Hence she goes to Geraldus the confessor for the sake of obtaining a change of penance. Geraldus commands her to repeat the general confession from the beginning, and to receive absolution again, because a sacramental sentence can be changed only in the sacrament.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Geraldus did not act rightly. For first, since the penance, from a legitimate impediment, has become impossible, it is not necessarily to be commuted into another. For the penitent is then no longer bound to the execution of a penance which has become impossible. Besides, although the penance had to be commuted in the Case, nevertheless there was no need to repeat the general confession from the beginning; but either a certain summary confession sufficed, so that the confessor might acquire only a confused knowledge of the state of the penitent, or even only the knowledge of the prior penance sufficed, so that he might impose another approximately equivalent one. Nor indeed is it necessary that the penance be commuted in the sacrament itself, or that the penitent be absolved in that confession; because confession is truly sacramental even when the sacrament is lacking, provided it is made in order to the sacrament, otherwise or soon to be received, if the confessor has judged this opportune. But it suffices that the penitent be constituted in the sacramental forum, nor is it required that he receive absolution. G. 523, 526; I. M. 745, 746.

But it must be noted here what St. Alphonsus has, l. 6, n. 529, namely: "Navarrus, Sporer, and Tamburini probably add that if the confessor notices that the penitent has not fulfilled the penance, nor will easily fulfill it, even if the penitent is not asking, he will be able to commute it for him."

4. Martha, a woman of ungrateful memory, not rarely forgets the penances enjoined upon her by the confessor, and therefore is troubled by many perplexities. Among other cases take the following:

1.º Once Martha, forgetful of the sacramental penance, returned to the confessor, who, himself also no longer remembering the work enjoined, substituted another.

2.º The same case of forgetfulness recurring, the woman resolved to recur again to the confessor, but he had gone away and now could no longer be approached by the penitent. What therefore will the poor woman do? She goes to another priest, by whom she is ordered to repeat the confession, so that a new penance can be prescribed.

3.º At another time Martha, affected with weariness and sadness because of the recurrence still of forgetfulness of this sort, herself imposes upon herself a substituted work, and, for greater safety, repeats the penance enjoined upon her in the preceding confession.

4.º At another time she is tortured by a new anxiety: for after she had withdrawn from the confessor, she notices that this time he forgot to prescribe a penance. But in order that she may be freed from the inconvenience of approaching him again, she herself chooses some work to be fulfilled.

5.º Often also Martha sends her maidservant to the confessor, asking him to be willing, through the maidservant, to indicate to her the penance imposed. The confessor in such a Case responds to the maidservant: tell your mistress that she should recite three Hail Marys in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary.

It is asked: 1.º If the penitent has forgotten the penance enjoined, is he bound to approach the confessor, that he may learn it again? - 2.º Is he bound to repeat the confession, that he may receive another? - 3.º If the confessor does not remember the penance enjoined, must he substitute another? - 4.º What is to be said of Martha in the various Cases?

R. To the 1st. Affirmatively, in a twofold Case, namely if the confessor is rightly presumed still to remember the penance imposed on such a penitent, and if the confessor can easily, or without notable inconvenience, be approached. The reason is that then ignorance of the penance is neither physically nor morally invincible; and besides, there is not a sufficient reason excusing from the obligation. But the penitent is much more easily excused from that obligation of approaching the confessor to learn the penance again if there is question of light matter. Hence pious penitents, who are not accustomed to sin gravely, are generally not bound to approach the confessor for this cause, unless, the confession just made, they still remain near the confessional seat. - Negatively, however, in other Cases, at least more probably, with the common opinion against several. The reason is that the penance which has fallen from memory has by that very fact become impossible.

To the 2nd. Negatively, at least with the common opinion. The reason is: 1.º Because where the penance is unknown both by the penitent and by the confessor, it has become impossible and cannot oblige. 2.º Because there can be no obligation that sins once accused and directly absolved be again subjected to the keys. Nor say that the confession must be repeated so that a penance may be enjoined by reason of completing the sacrament, for the precept of completing the sacrament cannot oblige with so great an inconvenience, as authors commonly note. St. Lig. 520.

To the 3rd. By no means. It follows from what has been said. For the penance in that Case has become impossible, and therefore its obligation falls. Nor is the confessor bound, more probably, to substitute a new penance for another given to oblivion, even if he sufficiently remembered the state of the penitent, because of the same reason. Yet in practice it is expedient that he impose at least some light work, to satisfy the devotion of the penitent, or to calm his anxieties.

To the 4th. In the first and second Case, Martha was not obliged to fulfill the new penance, nor, a fortiori, to repeat the confession. - In the third Case, she had to approach the confessor if she easily could, and presumed that he was mindful of the prescribed penance; otherwise in the other cases. But the work undertaken by herself can never have the force of sacramental satisfaction. Yet Martha acts altogether well if the confessor, considering her slippery memory, is accustomed always to impose the same penance on her. - In the fourth Case, Martha is not bound to approach the confessor with notable inconvenience to herself. Indeed, according to several, the obligation of returning to the confessor is not established if she absolutely withdrew from him; because then the sacramental judgment is completed, and the moral union between that judgment and the enjoined penance is lacking. - In the fifth Case the confessor acts rightly, to satisfy the devotion of the penitent and to quiet her anxiety. Nor is there had from this, as appears, any violation of the sacramental seal, nor any indiscretion, since he orders only through the maidservant that the mistress recite the angelic salutation three times in honor of the Blessed Virgin Mary. G. 527, 530; I. M. 743.

5. Titius, a wealthy merchant wholly given to business, abstained for many years from participation in the sacraments. But then, at last aided by divine grace, he approaches a confessor having faculty over reserved cases, and sincerely and sorrowfully discloses to him all the things admitted, even the reserved ones. The confessor, all things having been heard and duly weighed, tries to set forth to him in words the gravity of his crimes, and shows what punishment he had deserved on account of them; then, as sacramental satisfaction, he imposes on him that he distribute one hundred scudi coins to the needy, that on each Sabbath day for an entire year he fast in the manner in which fasting is prescribed by the Church, and finally that, the obligation of a vow having been interposed, he participate in the sacraments each month. But Titius, persuaded that he deserves such things, immediately after receiving absolution emits the vow and resolves to perform the rest. Now indeed, some days later, a merchant friend meets him who, with fortune adverse, having been reduced to poverty, manifests his misfortune to him; moved by mercy toward him, Titius gives him two hundred scudi coins, altogether unmindful of the satisfaction imposed on him by the confessor; afterward, remembering this obligation, he intends that by that largess he has satisfied sacramental penance for that part. The burden of fasting and of receiving the sacraments he carries out for two months according to the prescription of the confessor; afterward, however, he neglects to fulfill it. Finally, at Easter time he approaches Caius the confessor, who has faculty of commuting vows, but not of absolving from reserved cases, and discloses all things to him. This confessor, moreover, reckoning in his mind that Titius, because of his condition and weakness, is situated in grave danger both of transgressing the vow and of not observing the fast, at once, without any inquiry about the sins on account of which such a penalty had been given, commutes both burdens into daily recitation of the Rosary, judging that he had more than abundantly satisfied the obligation of almsgiving by the largess mentioned. But shortly afterward, doubtful about this manner of acting, he approaches a theologian and asks:

1.º How sacramental satisfaction is to be imposed, fulfilled, and commuted? - 2.º What is to be thought about the several points in the Case, and whether in the several points he conducted himself well?

R. To the 1st. Satisfaction to be imposed is indeed to be imposed by the confessor according to his judgment, but it must be fitting and salutary; namely, such as at the same time is punitive for the sins committed and medicinal for guarding against future relapses, and at the same time corresponds to the strength and dispositions of the penitent. But generally speaking, commonly satisfactions are disapproved which are complicated and various, too long-lasting, or too grave. The former and the latter because of the danger that they may not then be fulfilled; but the last also because not only does ordered charity require this, but also because this sacrament was instituted for reconciling sinners to God, not for making satisfaction to God. Cf. Suarez, De Poenit., d. 38, s. 6, n. 5.

But satisfaction to be fulfilled is to be fulfilled in the manner of laws, since in reality it is a certain particular law, or particular precept. Wherefore the satisfaction imposed by the confessor is to be fulfilled, not another at one's own pleasure. Likewise it is to be fulfilled at the time prescribed by the confessor; and, if no time has been defined, it is to be fulfilled as soon as possible, lest it be given to oblivion, and so that it may immediately obtain its effect of satisfying God and of guarding against relapse.

Likewise its various circumstances imposed also by the confessor are to be fulfilled. And although someone fulfills it in the state of mortal sin, he still satisfies, although he lacks the fruit ex opere operato, because in reality for that reason it does not cease to be a penal work. Nevertheless he sins lightly against charity toward himself by thus deferring it.

Satisfaction is to be commuted by a confessor, either by the same or by another; for each has the same power. But it can be commuted if something supervenes which renders it more grave, or no longer fitting and salutary. Yet satisfactions imposed by a superior on account of reserved cases cannot be commuted by an inferior, since the inferior cannot change his sentence. Others, however, deny this. For, the reservation having been removed, the power of the inferior and the superior confessor is of itself the same. St. Alph., l. 6, n. 529, dub. 2. Since the new satisfaction must be sacramental, it cannot be made outside the sacrament; and, of itself, there is need of a new absolution, or at least confession, unless the prior judgment still morally perseveres. Indeed there are not lacking those who hold that there is no need of repeated confession, even summary or in confused form, since the judgment to be rendered is not about faults, but about the satisfaction imposed.

To the 2nd. It does not first seem that the confessor conducted himself well. The satisfaction imposed by him not only is not ordinary, and is altogether extraordinary and contrary to common practice, especially as to the imposed alms of one hundred scudi, and as to the vow; but also it is altogether grave, and so little fitting and salutary, that it exposes the penitent, as in fact it did expose him, to the danger of transgressing it. The satisfaction imposed by the confessor in the Case gathers in itself those three things which are commonly disapproved: namely, that it is complicated and various, is too long-lasting, and is too grave. But Titius, as to the alms of one hundred scudi to be given, since he gave two hundred, satisfied the imposed obligation, although he gave unmindful of an obligation of this sort. For one always has the general will first of fulfilling one's own obligation, and then of carrying out a work of supererogation. Hence Titius could well afterward, mindful of the matter, explicitly ratify this implicit and general will. But since Titius did not fulfill the prescribed satisfaction in another notable part, and since there is in reality danger lest he again transgress the imposed satisfaction, another confessor rightly commutes it. It does not seem able to be an obstacle in the Case that he himself lacks faculty in reserved matters. For there is no question of absolution from reserved cases. But that that satisfaction was imposed on account of reserved sins also cannot be an obstacle, in the Case, to commutation. For first, there are those who hold, as has already been noted, that even an inferior confessor can commute a penance imposed by a superior on account of reserved matters. Then in reality, in the Case, the confessor who imposed that satisfaction was not a superior, but only a privileged confessor, or one having faculty in reserved matters. Hence the reason does not hold that an inferior cannot change the sentence of a superior, which indeed would hold when the Superior was truly such, who could impose a precept altogether, and imposed that satisfaction both as confessor and as superior. But because the new confessor did not require a repeated confession of the sins which already had rightly been absolved, he does not for this reason seem to be disquieted. For the cause at present is no longer about the number and gravity of those sins which have already been absolved, but about the difficulty of fulfilling the satisfaction, which is sufficiently known even without a new confession. As to the fact that the commutation of that double burden, the weekly fast for a year and monthly confession, was made into daily recitation of the Rosary, if by Rosary an entire Rosary is understood in the obvious sense, cf. Collectanea S. C. de P. F. n. 1926, a satisfaction of this sort still seems too grave. But if it is understood only of the third part of the Rosary, then it would also have to be seen whether a satisfaction of this sort could easily be fulfilled by Titius; for example, if it is recited daily in his family, as is the custom in Christian families, if Titius willingly accepts such a satisfaction, etc. Otherwise an even smaller satisfaction would still have to be imposed. One day, when I was in the church, a certain rustic asked me whether I would be willing to hear his confession. I answered that I would gladly do this. Then he said: Have patience with me, and pardon me, because now for twelve years I have no longer gone to confession. I encouraged him, so that he might then confess his sins with every confidence. But, notwithstanding every question made by me, I could find in him no other grave sin except confession omitted for twelve years. And indeed that rustic was an altogether good and honest man. Then I asked him why therefore for so many years he had omitted to frequent the sacraments of the Church; and he immediately answered: because the last time when I confessed, the confessor imposed on me that I recite twelve Rosaries. I could not recite those, and I did not wish to confess again before I recited them. And even when today I entered the church, I did not have the intention of confessing; but seeing you, the thought at the same time arose in me of making confession; and now I am content. But, returning to the proposed Case, there would indeed be difficulty in the vow emitted from the precept of the confessor, or from the imposed penance, namely if the new confessor did not have faculty of dispensing in vows or of commuting them. But in the Case it is openly said that, although the new confessor did not have power in reserved matters, nevertheless he had faculty of commuting vows. Hence, since in the Case there was question not only of an unfulfilled penance, but also of violation of a vow, there was certainly a still more urgent reason for making the commutation. But if the confessor himself had no faculty over vows, he could ask it from the Ordinary at least for the particular Case.

We must treat: 1. of the imposition of penance; 2. of the fulfillment of penance.

527. Principles. - I. 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 a penance, and indeed one proportioned in some manner to the sins. But if a penance ought to be imposed and accepted, by that very fact it must also be fulfilled by reason of the obedience owed to the Confessor. It is established from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, ch. 8. - St. Lig., no. 516; Homo Apostolicus, no. 55.

II. 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. - Thus all. More probably, however, he is bound only under light obligation to a light penance imposed for light faults, because light matter is not capable of a grave obligation. - Thus more commonly with St. Lig., no. 517, against certain authors.

III. The penitent ought to 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 through grave negligence he defers it for a long time ¹. The reason is that it is of itself grave to defer a notable debt for a long time. Whenever the penance was not fulfilled at the appointed time, the burden of performing it always remains, because the time is intended only accessorily. - St. Lig., no. 525.

¹ See what is to be said below, no. 530, Question 6.

528. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Does a penance which is indeed grave in itself, but imposed for venial sins alone, oblige under grave obligation?

Reply. More probably, negative. The reason is that then satisfaction, insofar as it is grave, is not necessary. Hence, just as the Confessor was not bound, indeed was not able, to command it under grave obligation, so neither is the penitent bound to fulfill it under grave obligation. - St. Lig., no. 517 ².

² ** The VV. (p. 397, no. 118), as though by way of supplement to this reply of Gury, adduce those things which St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 517) reports and approves from Roncaglia, namely, that if those venial sins should accidentally dispose the penitent greatly toward mortal sin, the Confessor could then impose a grave penance upon him in order to remove him from the danger of sinning mortally; and then the penitent, if he wishes to be absolved, will be bound to accept and fulfill it.

But Suarez had written much better and more accurately concerning a case of this kind thus (De Poenit., disp. 38, sect. 7, no. 7): If, for the sake of cure and medicine, the Confessor judges this expedient, he will be able to do it, and the penitent will be bound to obey; because then there is question rather of a fitting disposition for the remission of sins than of satisfaction for temporal punishment. Hence that precept laid down by the Confessor is not so much a new imposition as a declaration of some obligation which the penitent has of himself, so that there can be moral certainty concerning his disposition and purpose of avoiding sins; and at most the priest then seems to determine the manner or means. In this, if there are several sufficient means, he can accommodate himself to the will of the penitent, so that he may choose the medicine; because this suffices FOR HIS CURE, FOR WHICH ALONE the priest has right and power in that act, as was declared. Wherefore, that which St. Alphonsus adds to Roncaglia's opinion, namely, that the penitent, if he wishes to be absolved, will be bound to accept and fulfill that grave satisfaction, must indeed be maintained if this is the sole means of cure; otherwise, if several sufficient means are at hand, because, as Suarez says, the priest has right and power for the cure alone. This observation occurs all the more opportunely because St. Alphonsus also rejects the doctrine of Roncaglia, who (On the Sacrament of Penance, q. 4, ch. 2, reply 2) deduces the power of imposing a grave penance for venial sins generally from another false principle.

QUESTION 2. Can the Confessor impose for grave faults a penance which is indeed GRAVE, but obliges LIGHTLY?

Reply. Affirmative, because any legislator can command grave matter under a light obligation; nevertheless, this is generally not expedient. - Suarez with the common opinion, cited by St. Lig., no. 518 ³.

³ St. Alphonsus would prefer that at least something be enjoined under grave obligation, with which something else, even graver, could then be imposed under light obligation. But he himself does not deny that the opposite opinion is the more common; and from this very fact it is argued that the argument which he attempts to elicit from the Council of Trent for his opinion is less firm.

QUESTION 3. Is the penitent bound UNDER GRAVE OBLIGATION to fulfill the CIRCUMSTANCES added to the penance, for example, to pray ON BENDED KNEES, etc.?

Reply. The solution depends upon the greater or lesser affliction of the flesh which the circumstance brings, either of itself or in relation to the penitent. - St. Lig., no. 517. This can also depend upon the intention of the Confessor, which either he himself has expressly manifested or the penitent can presume ⁴.

⁴ A rule of this kind, which reserves to the penitent the office of presuming, etc., is perhaps too difficult, because most are incapable of judging concerning these things.

529. • QUESTION 4. Does one satisfy who fulfills penance while in mortal sin?

Reply. Affirmative, with the common opinion. The reason is that, for satisfying the precept, it suffices to place the work of satisfaction enjoined, even though the end of the precept is not obtained. - St. Lig., no. 522.

QUESTION 5. Does one sin who fulfills penance while in mortal sin?

Reply 1. It is certain that he does not sin gravely. - Thus commonly the Theologians.

Reply 2. According to some, he sins venially. The reason is that one who voluntarily places an obstacle to an effect, even a partial effect, of the Sacrament does not seem capable of being excused from some fault. Nevertheless, several grave Theologians probably hold with Lugo that he is exempt from every fault, because there is no fault in placing an obstacle solely to the remission of punishments ⁵. - St. Lig., no. 523.

⁵ This ought to hold especially when the penance must be prolonged over several days. For who would say that the penitent is bound to recover grace in order that he may fulfill the penance? Otherwise, as the Salmanticenses note (De Poenit., ch. 10, no. 70), the penitent would sin both by fulfilling the penance and by not fulfilling it: by fulfilling it, indeed, because he fulfills it in the state of sin; by not fulfilling it, because he would omit it. And this second opinion is indeed all the more probable in the opinion of those who say that the effect of satisfaction is obtained in the case when the obstacle is afterward removed.

** Here also, as often elsewhere, the VV. (p. 938, note 2) observe that in earlier editions of Father Gury it read: more probably he sins venially.

Reply. Gury seems previously to have followed St. Alphonsus, who says (bk. 6, no. 523): Others more probably hold that he sins venially. Afterward, however, he altered the opinion somewhat, perhaps moved by the reasons of the Salmanticenses, who add to the reason adduced here in the Note: Indeed, it would have to be said that one existing in mortal sin who has not yet fulfilled penance is bound first to justify himself and afterward to fulfill the penance; all of which things do not seem to have been received into common usage. But did not St. Alphonsus also alter his opinion somewhat here? For in the edition of the year 1748 (bk. 6, tract 4, doubt IV, art. 1, note E) he has merely these things: Indeed, the Salmanticenses, Lugo, and Dicastillo probably teach that it is not even venial to fulfill penance in mortal sin.

Besides, since the VV. consider it worthwhile to mention wherever Father Gury in preceding Editions preferred another opinion, as being one which pleases the VV. more, let them not therefore take it badly that others do the very same with St. Alphonsus and prefer the earlier, unchanged opinion of the same Doctor to his opinion afterward changed, as being one which they judge more plausible.

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.

531. • QUESTION 8. Who can commute a penance?

Reply 1. It can never be commuted by the penitent himself, not even into something better, although a vow can be changed by the one vowing it into a manifestly better work. The reason is that a penance cannot be elevated to the merit of sacramental satisfaction unless it was imposed by the Minister himself of the Sacrament of Penance.

Reply 2. It can be commuted: 1. by the Confessor who imposed it, because a 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 a successor in the same authority can do whatever his predecessor could.

Nevertheless, it seems that an exception must 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 readily be presumed. - St. Lig., nos. 528 and 529.

For a commutation to be made licitly, however, a just cause is required, such as: 1. if the penance seems difficult; 2. if it is foreseen that the penitent will not fulfill it because of repugnance, frailty, forgetfulness, etc. - St. Lig., no. 528.

532. • QUESTION 9. Is the penitent bound to repeat the confession in order to obtain a commutation of penance?

Reply 1. If he approaches the same Confessor, it will not be necessary to repeat it when the Confessor remembers, even in some confused manner, the state of conscience of the penitent ⁷.

⁷ In the present case this recollection is required altogether without cause. For even if no memory of the state of the penitent is retained, it is nevertheless apparent what can fittingly be substituted for the burden which had otherwise been judged fitting for the state of the penitent. Therefore, a fitting satisfaction can be enjoined even without that recollection.

Reply 2. If he approaches another Confessor, or even the same one who no longer remembers the sins, it suffices that he confess summarily, so that the Confessor may acquire a confused knowledge of his state ⁸. - Thus St. Lig., no. 529, and others commonly against certain authors.

⁸ No one doubts that a summary Confession suffices; but it is not necessary if the same Confessor is approached. But if another is approached, you have from Reply 3 below what is to be established.

Reply 3. More probably, this summary confession is required if the Confessor does not know, at least in a confused manner, the state of the penitent. The reason is that the Confessor cannot commute the penance except in sacramental judgment; but he cannot exercise this judgment unless the penitent discloses to him the state of his conscience. - Lacroix, Elbel, etc.

Nevertheless, St. Lig. with others probably denies this, because there is not question of rendering judgment concerning faults remitted in the preceding confession, where judgment concerning them has already been formed, but only of commuting the penance. For this, however, knowledge of the former penance and awareness of the frailty or difficulty in fulfilling it suffices, so that a new penance in some manner equivalent may be imposed ⁹.

⁹ If the commutation ought to be made because of the infirmity or frailty of the penitent, you will not easily attain it through the substitution of an equivalent.

533. • QUESTION 10. Can the Confessor commute a penance outside confession?

Reply 1. Negative, if the Confessor is a different one. The reason is that the Confessor has no power except in sacramental judgment.

Reply 2. If the Confessor is the 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 persevere, which does not seem to have place if the penitent approaches the Confessor outside the tribunal of Penance. Therefore, etc. - Thus St. Lig., no. 529, where he says that this is the truer and more common opinion with Suarez, the Salmanticenses, etc. But others say that the commutation of penance can be made by the same Confessor outside confession within the space of one day ¹⁰, because it then still seems to be morally united with the preceding sacramental judgment. For just as a longer interval does not prevent either sorrow, confession, or even the fulfillment of satisfaction from being morally united with absolution, so also can judgment be made concerning the change of penance. - Lugo, disp., no. 112; Voit, no. 632.

¹⁰ Cardinal De Lugo, whose opinion is explained here, nowhere restricted the matter to the space of one day. And if this commutation can indeed be as distant from confession as sorrow from confession, confession from absolution, or finally satisfaction from absolution, it readily appears that this measure of one day is inserted here beside the point.

534. Resolutions. - 1. The penitent is not bound to fulfill the penance when the confession was invalid, because the sacramental sentence of the judge was null, and consequently there is no Sacrament whose integrity must be completed; otherwise satisfaction would have to be made twice for the same sins. For the same reason, the same is to be said of a penance imposed without absolution. - Collet, Reuter, and others commonly. Except: 1. if the penance is medicinal, and therefore necessary by reason of medicine ¹¹; 2. if the penitent approaches several times to complete the same confession, and meanwhile the Confessor, as is often customary, imposes some penance on each occasion, so that a lesser penance may remain to be imposed at the end.

¹¹ In this hypothesis the work enjoined will be necessary, not because it was enjoined by the Confessor, but because it was imposed by the natural law. For this, however, it is further required that the work be the sole means by which someone can avoid sin.

2. Not only does one who omits the penance sin gravely, but also one who omits a part of it notable in relation to the entire penance, or even a part which would be grave considered in itself.

3. Universally, in judging the gravity of an omission, attention must be given 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 one fulfills the substance of the precept and sins only venially if, standing or in his room, he recites the Rosary which, by command of the Confessor, ought to have been recited on bended knees or before an image of the Blessed Virgin. But it is otherwise if the penitent was commanded, for example, to pray with arms extended; for this is a notable mortification, the omission of which can be regarded as grave.

4. Prayers imposed as penance can be recited even while someone is meanwhile hearing a Mass of precept, unless, however, something else was established by the Confessor. - St. Lig., no. 525, against a few. They could also be recited alternately with companions when, from the usage of the Church or the practice of the faithful, the prayers are customarily recited as in choir, for example, the Rosary, etc.

5. The penitent cannot make satisfaction through another, unless, however, this is done with the consent of the Confessor; because satisfaction is, as it were, the matter of this sacrament and an integral part ¹². Therefore, satisfaction must necessarily be placed by the penitent himself. This is also established from proposition 15 condemned by Alexander VII, which is of this kind: A penitent can by his own authority substitute another for himself who may fulfill the penance in his place.

¹² If this is done with the consent of the Confessor, you have the work enjoined, or satisfaction, and therefore the integral part of the sacrament, in the care by which the penitent moves another to perform something. But the condemned proposition which is appended in the text strikes him who by his own authority, and not him who with the Confessor as author, substitutes another for himself.

6. If the Confessor has imposed as penance that two Masses be heard on the same day, they seem to have to be heard successively and not at the same time; for we reasonably presume that the Confessor intended this. - St. Lig., Homo Apostolicus, no. 57; Lacroix and others commonly.

“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.”

“... Another abuse lies in the excess of satisfactions which they impose: several Rosaries, namely, even up to the number of three hundred; the same number of litanies, together with fasts, hair shirts, and other afflictive works on appointed days, for weeks, months, or entire years.... “But as regards the second excess in imposing a satisfaction consisting of many Rosaries, litanies, fasts, etc., two extremes must likewise be avoided. A prudent confessor, says St. Charles Borromeo in the Institutions of Penance, in imposing a penance is neither to employ one so light that the power of the keys is thereby contemned and he himself becomes a participant in the sins of others, nor one so grave or long-lasting that penitents refuse to obey him or fail to execute it in full after accepting it. There is no reason for us to tarry over avoiding the first of these extremes; for it suffices to hear the Council of Trent, Session 14, chapter 8: The priests of the Lord ought, insofar as spirit and prudence shall suggest, 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.

“Nevertheless, to mitigate the second excess which prevails among the priests of Tonkin, we bring forward a few teachings, but solid ones full of wisdom and prudence, to which they ought diligently to attend, so that they may answer both to their office and to the benefit of the penitents. Therefore, let them attend to this doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, Quodlibet 3, distinction 13, article 1: 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 the small affection of contrition lately aroused in the penitent would be extinguished by a grave burden of satisfaction, the sinner entirely despairing. Hence it is better that the priest indicate to the penitent how great a penance ought to be imposed upon him for his sins, and nevertheless impose upon him something which the penitent can tolerably bear, from the fulfillment of which he may become accustomed to fulfill greater things; for the things which the priest would not have ventured to impose, and which he does beyond the express injunction, receive a greater power of expiation of past guilt from that general injunction when the priest says: Whatever good you shall do, may it be unto you for the remission of sins. The same Angelic Doctor repeats the same doctrine in book 5, distinction 2, chapter 1, article 2, little question 2, response to 3: A priest who imposes a penance less than commensurate does not always sin ..., because sometimes, even deliberately imposing a lesser penance, he benefits the penitent more than he harms him; for the penitent might perhaps be impeded from performing the penance by its magnitude, because of the weakness of the virtue only recently restored in him. And therefore he neglects the lesser harm in order to avoid the greater, and meanwhile the divine love strengthened in him will of its own accord rouse him to perform more works of Penance than the priest could have imposed upon him according to the gravity of the sins.

“Let them also attend to and ponder the admonition of St. Charles Borromeo in the Institutions of Penance: In imposing penance he shall employ prudence, piety, and justice, taking account of state, condition, sex, age, etc. Therefore, he is to impose such a penance as he judges can be performed by him; and accordingly sometimes, if he sees it to be expedient, he is to ask him whether he can, or whether he doubts that he can, perform the penance imposed upon him; otherwise he shall change or lessen it. He shall consider, moreover, the soul and mind of the penitent, and his weeping, groaning, and tears, indications of interior sorrow.... They are not to impose alms upon the poor, nor a fast upon those who seek their livelihood by their own labor; and this is to be observed also in other penances. “Finally, let them attend to the counsel of St. Francis de Sales in the admonitions written for the instruction of confessors, chapter 8: It is not expedient to impose intricate satisfactions composed of various kinds of works or a great number of different prayers, because that collection of different prayers or variety of pious works may induce forgetfulness of the imposed penance and thereby produce anxiety and scruples in the minds of penitents. Moreover, devotion is for the most part diminished and grows tepid while the penitent thinks more about which prayers he must recite, or what he must do, and on which day, than he attends to the very prayers which he pours forth or to the very works which he performs.

“If they diligently attend to these and the other admonitions and counsels of St. Charles Borromeo, they will certainly mitigate the excessive rigor which they have hitherto exercised and will provide for their own obligation.” Instruction of the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 3 October 1736.

“21. A parishioner can suspect mendicants who live from common alms of imposing a penance or satisfaction that is too light and unfitting, for gain under the profit of temporal assistance.” Proposition condemned by Alexander VIII.

“Can a penitent, by fulfilling a prayer or pious work enriched with indulgences, at the same time both satisfy the penance and gain the indulgences?—Response. Affirmative, after consultation with His Holiness.” Sacred Congregation of Indulgences, 14 June 1901.

“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.

“1. If penitents absolved from censures reserved to the Supreme Pontiff recover their health, does the obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church mean the same thing as the obligation of presenting themselves before the Supreme Pontiff?—2. And insofar as the response is negative, in what does the obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church consist?—3. Is the obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church under pain of reincidence?—4. Does this obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church bind also in the case of censures simply reserved to the Supreme Pontiff?—5. Does the Decree of the Holy Office of 23–30 June 1886 bind in such a way that the practice observed before this Decree is no longer to be tolerated?—6. Is absolution given in more urgent cases by virtue of the aforesaid Decree direct or indirect? “Response. To the first: The obligation of abiding by the commands of the Church imports the burden of having recourse to the Supreme Pontiff, either personally or through the confessor, and obeying his commands, or of seeking a new absolution from one who has the faculty of absolving from censures reserved in a special manner to the Supreme Pontiff.—To the second: Provided for in the preceding response.—To the third: Affirmative.—To the fourth: Negative.—To the fifth: The Decree of 23 June 1886 binds altogether, and a contrary practice is not to be tolerated.—To the sixth: Affirmative to the first part; negative to the second part.” Holy Office, 30 March 1892.

146. Satisfaction (satis facere), if the etymon is considered, is the act by which someone does as much as is enough for placating the angry person. But satisfaction, insofar as it is a part of the sacrament, is defined: the voluntary endurance of the punishment imposed by the confessor, for compensating the injury brought upon God, and redeeming the temporal punishment ordinarily due even after the remission of sin.

¹ St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 12 sq.; Suarez, disp. XXXVII-VIII; Bellarmine, l. IV, ch. 1 sq.; Morinus, l. III sq.; Salmantic., disp. X-XI; Drouin, q. XI; Billuart, disp. IX; de Augustinis, th. 21; Palmieri, th. 36-40; Hurter, n. 612 sq.; Egger, n. 584 sq.

147. Catholic doctrine concerning the necessity of satisfaction chiefly embraces two things: 1. that there is in the Church the right and office of imposing upon the Christian sinner a satisfaction proportioned to his offenses (against Protestants); 2. that the intention of satisfying suffices for granting the remission of sins (against the Jansenists).

The former is thus declared by Trent:

"Finally, as to satisfaction, which among all the parts of Penance, just as it was commended by our Fathers to the Christian people at all times, so especially in our age is attacked with the greatest pretext of piety by those who have an appearance of piety, but have denied its power: the holy Synod declares that it is wholly false and foreign to the word of God that guilt is never remitted by the Lord without the whole punishment also being pardoned. For clear and illustrious examples are found in the Sacred Letters, by which, besides divine tradition, this error is most manifestly refuted. Indeed the order of divine justice also seems to demand that he be received differently into grace who before Baptism has offended through ignorance; differently, however, those who, once freed from the servitude of sin and of the devil, and having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, have not feared knowingly to violate the temple of God and to grieve the Holy Spirit. And it befits divine clemency that sins not be remitted to us without any satisfaction in such a way that, occasion having been taken, thinking sins lighter, as injurious and insulting to the Holy Spirit, we fall into graver ones, treasuring up wrath for ourselves on the day of wrath.

"For without doubt these satisfactories punishments greatly recall from sin, and as if by a certain bridle restrain, and make penitents more cautious and watchful for the future: they also heal the remnants of sins, and remove vicious habits, acquired by living badly, by contrary actions of virtues. Nor indeed was any safer way ever judged in the Church of God for removing the punishment impending from the Lord, than that men should frequently perform these works of penance with true sorrow of soul. To these things is added that, while by satisfying we suffer for sins, we are made conformable to Christ Jesus, who satisfied for our sins, from whom is all our sufficiency, having from this also a most certain pledge, that if we suffer with Him, we shall also be glorified with Him."¹

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 8.

Therefore there are two chief motives why satisfaction is necessary: that the offense inflicted upon God may be repaired, and that penitents may be made more cautious and watchful for the future.

148. Errors of the Protestants and Jansenists. (A) The Protestants, although they cannot deny the severity of penitential discipline in the first centuries of the Church, nevertheless regard it as an ecclesiastical institution, and deny its divine institution and necessity: for, they say, sin cannot be pardoned by God unless at the same time there is full remission of the punishment due to sin; besides, if our satisfactions are said to be necessary, by that very fact injury is inflicted upon the infinite satisfaction of Christ, since it appears insufficient. The root of this error is the theory concerning justification by faith alone: for if faith alone fully suffices for justification, satisfactory works become useless.

(B) But on the opposite side the Jansenists, favoring rigorism, wished to restore the penitential discipline of earlier ages, and contended that penitents are not to be absolved unless a laborious and long-lasting penance enjoined upon them has first been completed.

Against this twofold error there will be a twofold thesis.

149. Thesis I: The punishment due to sin is not always remitted by God wholly and at the same time, but, after fault and eternal punishment have been taken away by the absolution of the priest, temporal punishment generally remains to be discharged. It is of faith against Protestants from Trent:¹ "If anyone shall say that the whole punishment is always remitted by God together with the fault, and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing other than faith, by which they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them, let him be anathema."

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, can. 12.

150. 1° By Scripture. (A) For Christ willed that the power of the keys be exercised in the manner of a judgment (above, n. 20); but this power includes not only the faculty of remitting sins, but also of imposing punishments, according to that saying: "Whatever you shall bind..."

The Protestants indeed object that sin is not pardoned unless at the same time the punishment is remitted. That this is contrary to Scripture is clearly demonstrated both by facts and by sayings. (a) Wisdom teaches us that Adam did penance and was restored to the state of grace;² yet nevertheless he had temporal punishments to discharge: "Because thou hast listened to the voice of thy wife... in labors shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life... in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, until thou return to the earth."³ Moses and Aaron obtained from God pardon of the sin of unbelief, and nevertheless, in punishment for the sin, did not enter the promised land: "And the Lord said to Moses and Aaron: Because you have not believed me... you shall not bring these peoples into the land which I will give them."⁴ David obtained pardon for adultery and homicide when he said: I have sinned against the Lord; but nevertheless he had to undergo a most grave temporal punishment: "The Lord also has transferred thy sin; thou shalt not die; nevertheless, because thou hast made the enemies of the Lord blaspheme, on account of this word the son who has been born to thee shall surely die."⁵ These punishments indeed were inflicted not only for amendment, as the Protestants will, but also for the chastisement of sin, as is clear from the context, and from the fact that not only adults but even infants die in punishment for sin. (b) Nor did God less clearly manifest His will by words: "Now therefore, says the Lord, be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping and in mourning";⁶ "Redeem thy sins by alms, and thy iniquities by mercies to the poor";⁷ "Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance."⁸ Here also belong the texts cited elsewhere (de Verbo Incarn., n. 206 or 1161), by which it is demonstrated that we cannot be saved unless we take up our cross, suffer with Christ, and fill up in our flesh those things which are lacking of the sufferings of Christ; for from these and similar testimonies it is gathered that the Lord did not satisfy for us in such a way that we are freed from the obligation of satisfying, but so that with Him we may be able to expiate sins more efficaciously.

² Wis. 10:1-2.

³ Gen. 3:17-19.

⁴ Num. 20:12.

⁵ 2 Kings 12:13-14.

⁶ Joel 2:12.

⁷ Dan. 4:24.

⁸ Luke 3:8.

151. 2° By Tradition. The Protestants themselves are compelled to confess that the Fathers with unanimous voice taught the necessity of such penance; thus Chemnitius¹ says: "Nor indeed am I ignorant that the ancients sometimes commend canonical discipline too broadly and with words too magnificent, as when Tertullian says that by those satisfactions sins are expiated; Cyprian says that by them sins are redeemed, washed away, healed, and the judge is placated; Ambrose, that the punishments of hell are compensated by them; Augustine, that God is propitiated by them concerning past sins."

¹ Exam. C. Trident., p. 4.

This surely is clear from the penitential discipline which flourished in the first centuries.

(A) In the earlier centuries, penance was more prolonged and laborious; it often lasted for many years, and sometimes through the whole of life.

(a) In the churches of Asia Minor, in the third century, three orders of penitents were distinguished: the hearers, who stood at the door of the church, or in the porch; there they heard the reading of the Scriptures and the sacred sermons, but were prohibited from being present at Mass; - the substrated, or kneelers, who were present at Mass within the enclosure of the church, from the doors up to the ambo, but prostrate: upon these the bishops and presbyters imposed the hand; - the standers, who were present at the sacred rite standing with the faithful, but were barred from holy communion.² In the fourth century, to these orders were added the weepers, who, clothed in sackcloth and ashes, stood at the threshold of the church, asking with tears and groans the Christians entering to pray for them.

² Cf. St. Gregory Thaumaturgus, ep. canonica; P. G., t. X, p. 1019-1048.

(b) In the West, there were likewise various orders of penitents, whose number, however, is not known. We have already heard Tertullian describing the exomologesis flourishing in Africa (n. 57). The one which flourished at Rome is set forth by Sozomen thus:³ "For there in open view is the place of penitents, in which they stand sorrowful and as if mourning. And when the solemnities of Masses have now been completed, excluded from the communion of sacred things, which it is the custom to offer to the initiated, with groaning and lamentations they cast themselves prone upon the earth. Then the bishop, meeting them opposite with tears, likewise himself is rolled upon the ground, and the whole multitude of the church, confessing together, is bathed in tears... But privately each one, chastising himself of his own accord, whether by fastings or by uncleanness, or by abstinence from foods or by other ways in which he has been commanded, waits for however much time has been appointed to him by the bishop."

³ Sozom., H. E., l. VII, ch. 16; P. G., t. LXVII, p. 1459-62.

Moreover, the penance imposed was very laborious; the Council of Agde (year 506), can. 15, orders penitents to lay aside their hair and to change their garments;¹ the Council of Barcelona (year 540) commands (can. 6-7) that with head shaven and using a religious habit, they pass the time of life in fastings and prayers, that they not be present at feasts nor devote themselves to business, and that they live a frugal life in their own homes.² St. Leo the Great forbids them to conduct trade, to exercise the office of advocate, to serve as soldiers;³ St. Siricius exhorts them to abstain from the use of matrimony and from second marriages.⁴ And so the state of penitents was quite similar to the state of monks.

¹ In Bruns, op. cit., t. II, p. 149.

² Ibid., p. 27.

³ St. Leo, ep. 167 to Rusticus, ch. 10-13; P. L., t. LIV, 1206.

⁴ Siricius to Himerius, ep. Tarraconens., ch. 5; P. L., t. XIII, 1137.

152. (B) From the sixth century, penance became milder and shorter, and at the same time more frequent.

Then the penitential books were published (above, n. 115), in which the punishment inflicted for each kind of sins was determined. We have already related a few examples; certain others we add here from the Penitential of Theodore:⁵ for voluntary homicide, let the sinner do penance seven years; for the truncation of feet or hands, one year; for a wound, 40 days; for voluntary perjury and inducing others into perjury, seven years; for the greatest theft, three years; for a great theft, one year, if restitution is made, and two years if it is not restored; for a moderate theft, twenty days; for adultery, seven years; for simple fornication, two years; for detraction, 40 days, etc. Yet gradually the punishments imposed were lessened, and confession became a more frequent and more minute declaration of sins.

⁵ In Morinus, op. cit., Appendix, p. 41.

153. 3° Reason shows the fittingness of satisfaction. (a) On the part of God: for God, who is offended by sin, is not only a private person, but the legislator and ruler of the whole of human society; but it indeed befits God, as a private person, to remit the offense inflicted upon Himself; yet at the same time it befits Him as legislator that He not remit offenses without temporal punishment, both so that in the future the laws may be better observed by the penitent, and so that others may be deterred from evil and thus the good of society may be promoted, and finally so that the rights not only of mercy but also of justice, so far as can be done, may be preserved.

(b) On the part of the penitent; for, as Trent says,⁶ "without doubt these satisfactory punishments greatly recall from sin, and as if by a certain bridle restrain, and make penitents more cautious and watchful for the future: they also heal the remnants of sins, and remove vicious habits, acquired by living badly, by contrary actions of virtues." But if, on the contrary, sins were remitted without any satisfaction, they would be considered light, and by the very easiness of pardon many would be provoked to sinning again.

⁶ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 8.

Nor should it be said that through baptism the whole punishment is taken away at the same time as the fault: for the condition is not equal of those who are regenerated through baptism and of those who are reconciled to God through penance; the former before baptism offended through ignorance, or at least not with such great malice; the latter, who once were freed from sin and from the servitude of the devil, received grace and the gifts of the Spirit, knowingly violated the temple of God and grieved the Holy Spirit, and consequently do not deserve to receive pardon with the same ease, as Trent argues.¹

¹ That this was the mind of the ancient Fathers Morinus showed at length, op. cit., bk. III.

154. Corollaries. (A) All and only good and penal works can be satisfactory. For in order that some work be truly satisfactory, it is necessary that it repair the past offense and preserve from future faults; but such is the case with good penal works, and indeed with those alone; for (a) they compensate for the offense inflicted upon God; since, although properly nothing can be taken away from God, nevertheless the sinner, as much as lies in him, takes something from Him by offending His majesty; whence it is fitting, for repairing an injury of this kind, that something be taken away from the sinner in honor of God; and therefore the satisfactory work must be good, so that it be in honor of God, and penal, so that through this something may be taken away from the sinner; but if it were good and not penal, it would indeed be a meritorious work, but not satisfactory; (b) likewise a penal work also preserves from future fault, because a man does not easily return to sins from which he has experienced punishment.

Yet it can be added that scarcely, in the present state of fallen nature, is there any supernaturally good work which is not at the same time arduous and penal; for since we spontaneously tend to creatures and to illicit things, whenever on account of God we act supernaturally, we make the work difficult and consequently penal.

155. (B) But the chief satisfactory works are almsgiving, fasting, and prayer. For (a) satisfaction must be such that through it we subtract something from ourselves for the honor of God; but we have only three goods, namely goods of the soul, goods of the body, and goods of fortune. From the goods of fortune we subtract something through almsgiving; from the goods of the body through fasting; from the goods of the soul through prayer, by which we submit our faculties to God. (b) Besides, there are three roots of sins, namely the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life;¹ but against the concupiscence of the flesh fasting is ordered; against the concupiscence of the eyes almsgiving is ordered; against the pride of life, prayer.²

¹ 1 John 2:16.

² St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 15, a. 3.

Yet to these punishments, voluntarily undertaken, must be added, according to Trent (can. 13), punishments inflicted by God and patiently endured: for often the Lord permits us to be troubled by various adversities, hardships, pains of soul or body; when these are patiently endured, especially if we are joined to Christ suffering and dying, we have ample opportunity of satisfying; which kind of penance is more efficacious the greater the alacrity and love with which we embrace it.

156. Thesis II: Penitents who have the intention of satisfying can be absolved before they have fulfilled the sacramental satisfaction. It is certain against the Jansenists. (A) From the practice of the Church it is clear that the fulfillment of the imposed penance is not the condition for obtaining the remission of sins, but only for a more abundant remission of the temporal punishment due to sin. (a) For it is clear that already in the earliest centuries, in many cases at least, absolution was given before satisfaction was fulfilled: 1) in danger of death; for Innocent I writes to Decentius:³ "If anyone has fallen into sickness and has come even to desperation, he must be released before the time of Easter, lest he depart from the world without communion"; 2) when persecution was pressing; thus St. Cyprian writes:⁴ "Deservedly the penance of those grieving was prolonged for a longer time, so that aid might be given to the sick at their departure... But now peace is necessary not for the sick, but for the strong, nor is communion to be given by us to the dying but to the living, so that those whom we stir up and exhort to battle we may not leave unarmed and naked, but may fortify them by the protection of the body and blood of Christ"; 3) when there was danger lest, absolution being delayed, penitents pass over to heretics; hence St. Cyprian says:¹ "If we reject the penance of those who have some confidence of a tolerable conscience, immediately with wife, with children, whom they had preserved unharmed, they are carried off, at the devil's invitation, into heresy or schism." Moreover, in the Council of Ancyra (year 314) it was established (can. 5) "that Bishops, the mode of conversion having been examined, have the power either of using clemency, or of adding more time." From all these things it is gathered that, even in the case of public penance, absolution was sometimes granted before satisfaction had been completed, therefore a fortiori when there was question of hidden sins.

³ Ep. XXV, ch. 7; P. L., t. XX, p. 559.

⁴ Ep. 54 to Cornelius, n. 2.

¹ Ep. 52 to Antonianus, n. 15.

(b) It is certain, further, that long before the Jansenian heresy the practice of absolving penitents, satisfaction not yet completed, flourished in the Church. Thus, in the year 1479, this proposition of Peter of Osma had been condemned by Sixtus IV as scandalous and heretical: "Penitents are not to be absolved, unless the penance enjoined upon them has first been completed."² Deservedly, therefore, on Dec. 7, 1690, this proposition of the Jansenists was rejected 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 matter in a certain way dictating it."³

² In Denzing., n. 614.

³ Denzing., n. 1173.

(B) Reason of fittingness. For God immediately remits sins to the perfectly contrite, even when satisfaction has not yet been fully paid, as is clear from the example of David, who first obtained pardon of sin, and afterward underwent temporal punishment; and also from the words of Scripture, where it is asserted that God remits sins on the very day on which the wicked man shall have been converted from his iniquity.⁴ But the Church, in the administration of the sacrament of Penance, uses divine power and can and ought to imitate God; therefore she can absolve penitents before they have fulfilled satisfaction.

⁴ Ezek. 33:12.

202. All the duties of the penitent are reduced to three, namely contrition, confession, and satisfaction, concerning which we shall speak separately.

335. After the confession has been heard and opportune corrections and warnings have been given to the penitent, the confessor enjoins a salutary satisfaction, which is called sacramental penance. Satisfaction, insofar as it is a part of the sacrament, is defined: the voluntary endurance of a penalty, imposed by the confessor, for compensating the injury brought upon God, and for redeeming the temporal penalty ordinarily due even after sin has been remitted. - It is therefore distinguished from those penalties which are voluntarily assumed or are sent by God: for these indeed have a satisfactory force ex opere operantis, but they are not sacramental, and therefore they do not operate ex opere operato.

A twofold satisfaction is distinguished: (a) satisfaction in voto, which is nothing other than the sincere will of accepting and fulfilling the penance to be enjoined by the confessor; this is an essential part of the sacrament, according to the Thomists, or at least a necessary disposition, according to the Scotists, so that, if it were lacking, the sacrament, according to both schools, would be invalid; (b) satisfaction in re, which is the actual fulfillment itself of the penance enjoined: this is not an essential part, or a necessary disposition, but only an integral part of the sacrament, so that, if it is lacking, the sacrament is not invalid, but only incomplete; hence sins remitted by absolution do not revive, even if the penance is voluntarily omitted, but in this case a new sin is committed, as will be clear from what is to be said below.

Since the necessity of satisfaction was proved elsewhere (n. 149), four things remain to be explained: -

1° The obligation of imposing sacramental penance;

2° The qualities of this penance;

3° Its commutation;

4° Its fulfillment.

336. I. Existence of this obligation. The confessor is regularly bound to enjoin satisfaction, or penance, upon the penitent whom he absolves. It is certain.

¹ Trent, sess. XIV, ch. 8; Ritual, Order for the ministering of the Sacrament of Penance; Suarez, disp. XXXVIII, sect. 3; Lugo, disp. XXV, n. 47-58; Salmant., n. 15-25; Lacroix, n. 1229-1250; Billuart, Diss. IX, art. 2; Stoz, book II, n. 110-111; Elbel-Bierbaum, conf. IX, n. 223-224; St. Alphonsus, n. 506 sq.; Kenrick, n. 99; Marc, n. 1715-1718; Konings, n. 1391; Muller, § 126; Lehmk., n. 353-355; Baller. P., n. 478 sq.; Hilar. a Sexten, § 39; Genicot, n. 311; Ami du clerge, t. XXII (1900), p. 906-907.

1° It is proved. (A) For the Council of Trent openly teaches this (l. c.): "Therefore the priests of the Lord must enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions, according as spirit and prudence shall suggest, in view of the quality of the crimes and the ability of the penitents; lest perhaps, if 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 others' sins."

(B) The same is clear from the various offices of the confessor. (a) As minister of the sacrament, he must procure not only all things which regard its essence, but also its integrity: otherwise he would not be a faithful minister of sacred things; but satisfaction, from what has been said, is an integral part of the sacrament, since it is intended for extinguishing or lessening the temporal penalty due to sin. (b) As judge, he is bound to punish sin with a suitable penalty; otherwise equity would be harmed, since the order of divine justice requires some reparation for sin. (c) As physician, he must cure the wounds already inflicted upon the penitent and guard against future ones; but both are done by imposing salutary penalties; for penitential works, according to Trent (ch. 8), "also heal the remnants of sins, and remove vicious habits acquired by living badly, by contrary actions of virtues"; moreover they make penitents more cautious and more vigilant for the future, since they do not return so easily to sins from which they have experienced penalty.

337. 2° It is explained. Yet I said "regularly," because per accidens the confessor is not bound to enjoin satisfaction when the penitent morally cannot fulfill it, for example, if he is deprived of his senses, or near death and at the same time very weak; in this last case, however, it is better to enjoin a light penance, for example, a striking of the breast, an act of love of God, an invocation of the Most Holy Name of Jesus, at least in the heart, or only patience in bearing pains. - Likewise, if a scrupulous person returns more often within a brief interval of time with new faults omitted through forgetfulness, and is absolved, it is not necessary to impose a new penance, when the confessor judges that the one already enjoined suffices for this new absolution. But for the most part it is not expedient to impart absolution so frequently to the scrupulous. - Certain authors also say that the same penance can be imposed on a penitent who, immediately after absolution, accuses a sin omitted through forgetfulness,¹ because the confessor can judge that it suffices also for the new sin recently accused; and we think this truly probable whenever this sin does not substantially change the state of the penitent's conscience. Nevertheless St. Alphonsus (n. 513) contradicts it, because the same work, already enjoined by way of satisfaction, cannot again be imposed under the same title. Hence in practice it is better to impose at least a light penance, provided it is foreseen that the penitent will willingly accept it.

¹ Lacroix, n. 1239; Ball. P., n. 494; Genicot, n. 311.

It was also said "upon the penitent whom he absolves," because, if no absolution is given, it is not necessary to enjoin a penance, since the sacrament is not effected; yet this is very useful, so that the penitent may thus be better prepared for absolution and a shorter satisfaction may be imposed when he completes his confession.

338. II. Gravity of this obligation. (A) If there is question of mortal sins not yet declared, this obligation per se is grave; for in this case a grave injury is done to the sacrament, - and also to the penitent, who remains liable to undergo heavier temporal penalties, and is deprived of an opportune remedy against future sins.

(B) But if there is question only of venial sins, or of mortal sins already declared, for which a penance was formerly enjoined and fulfilled, it is disputed; some say that the obligation even in this case is grave, lest the sacrament remain defective; more probably, however, with Lugo,² others hold that the confessor then does not sin mortally if, contempt aside, he does not enjoin a penance; for it does not seem to be a grave disorder to absolve light sins without any satisfaction, since the sacrament in this case remains incomplete only in a light matter. - Besides, this controversy scarcely concerns practice; for a prudent confessor will not voluntarily omit imposing a light penance in this case, and, if he omits it through forgetfulness, he commits no sin.

² Lugo, disp. XXV, n. 49.

339. III. On the time at which it must be imposed. Regularly speaking, penance must be enjoined before absolution, as is clear from the Roman Ritual, according to which the imposition of satisfaction follows opportune corrections and precedes absolution. And deservedly; for the judicial order demands that the accused promise satisfaction before he is absolved. If, however, it was omitted through forgetfulness, it can be enjoined immediately after absolution, because then it is morally united to the absolution. But if this defect is noticed only after a few days, in the next confession a penance can be imposed which extends to the sins declared in both confessions; but it is not certain that the sacrament which had been incomplete because of the defect of satisfaction is thereby made integral, because the moral union between the absolution previously given and the imposition of penance is now lacking. Whatever the case, penitents are not to be disturbed about this, since satisfaction in re is not required for the validity of absolution.

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."

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.

4. INDULGENCES. —Indulgences are an effective means of making satisfaction and intensifying penitential zeal.¹⁰ An indulgence is a remission of temporal punishments due to sin.¹¹ No one is bound to gain indulgences, but it is a very salutary practice to avail oneself of this privilege. The Tridentine Council "teaches and enjoins that the use of indulgences for the Christian people, most salutary and approved by the authority of sacred councils, is to be retained in the Church." ¹² To gain an indulgence one must be in the state of sanctifying grace and have the right intention (intentio lucrandi). The good works prescribed must be conscientiously performed.¹³ When confession and communion are prescribed for the gaining of a plenary indulgence, both conditions must be complied with, even though the conscience is not burdened with mortal sins.¹⁴

¹⁰ St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, SuppL, qu. 25-27. —St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 531-534. — Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 834-853. —F. Beringer, Die Ablasse, 11th ed., Paderborn 1906. —A. M. Lepicier, Indulgences, New York 1906. —Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. III, 2nd ed., pp. 232 sqq. —Chr. Pesch, Praelect. Dogmat., Vol. VII, 2nd ed., pp. 199 sqq. —P. Mocchegiani, Collectio Indulgentiarum, Quaracchi 1897.

¹¹ "An indulgence is the remission, granted by a legitimate minister outside the Sacrament of Penance through the application of the treasury of the Church, of temporal punishment owed to God for sins remitted as to guilt." (Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., TI, n. 834).

¹² Conc. Trident., Sess. XXV, De Indulg.: "The use of indulgences is most salutary for the Christian people and approved by the authority of sacred councils."

¹³ St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., 1. VI, n. 533. —Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., II, n. 837: "Four things are required in the subject for gaining indulgences: that he be baptized, because the Church’s treasury cannot be dispensed to unbelievers, as is evident, and that he not be excommunicated, because otherwise he would be deprived of the communion of spiritual goods; that he be subject to the one granting; that he fulfill the enjoined works within the prescribed time, because indulgences are granted under this condition; and that he be in the state of grace, at least when he performs the last prescribed work, because punishment is not remitted unless guilt has been remitted."

¹⁴ See the Constitutions of Benediet XIV, "Accepimus in civitate," 1746, and "Inter praeteritos," 1749. The confession may be made within eight days, and Communion received on the vigil of the day to which the indulgence is attached. Codex lur. Can., Can. 931, § 1. See also § 2 of same canon.

The so-called jubilee indulgence (iubilaeum mains, annus sanctus) differs from an ordinary plenary indulgence chiefly in this that the confessors enjoy larger faculties.¹⁵

¹⁵ H. Thurston, S.J., The Holy Year of Jubilee, London 1900; IDEM in the Cath. Encyclopedia, s. v.; P. Bastien, De lubilaeo Anni Sancti aliisque lubilaeis, Maredsous 1901.

In view of the fact that every indulgence presupposes a more than ordinary measure of penitence, faith, and worship, and that the gaining of indulgences usually leads to greater frequentation of the Sacraments, the moral effect of the Catholic doctrine of indulgences must be rated very high.¹⁶ Gaining an indulgence always involves contrition, penitence, and a firm purpose of amendment.¹⁷

¹⁶ See Linsenmann, Lehrbuch der Moraltheologie, p. 237.

¹⁷ E. Goller (Die papstliche Ponitentiarie von ihrem Ursprung bis eu ihrer Umgestaltung unter Pius V.t Vol. I, Rome 1907, pp. 213-242) shows that the concept of indulgentia plenaria is genetically contained in the most ancient penitential letters or confessionalia. He refutes the Protestant contention that the Church by indulgences meant to forgive the guilt rather than the punishment of sin and demonstrates that the remissio peccatorum or remissio culpae always depended on valid confession.

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 3a, Suppl., qu. 12- 15. —St. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, 1. VI, n. 506-530 (ed. Gaude, Vol. III, p. 516).—Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. III, pp. 217 sqq. —Th. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. II, pp. 171 sqq., 443 sqq.—Sabetti-Barrett, S.J., Compendium Theologiae Moralis, pp. 682 sqq., 1058 sqq. —Ad. Tanquerey, S.S., Synopsis Theologiae Moralis, Vol. I, pp. 124 sqq., 277 sqq. —M. J. O'Donnell, "Penance in the New Code," in the Irish Ecclesiastical Record, No. 601 (Jan. 1918), pp. 14-24.

— The substantial obligation of the penitent. One approaching to confess mortal fault must, under mortal obligation, be prepared in soul to accept and execute the penance which will be reasonably imposed on him.

This acceptance is a laudable and meritorious act of humility.

And if a grave penance has been imposed because of grave faults, the penitent who does not fulfill it will sin mortally.

Nor is it in his power to substitute even a better work in place of the thing enjoined, since the substituted work cannot pertain to the sacramental judgment.

But he who is not content with the imposed penance as harder or more difficult has the right either of returning to the same confessor so that he may temper or perfect his sentence, or of approaching another confessor, who, briefly, with the cause known at least from the penance which the former imposed, can commute the penance. If the same confessor is approached, only the new penance remains due, because the former sentence was virtually taken away; on the contrary, the option is given to the penitent of fulfilling either penance which two confessors successively gave because of the same accusation. For neither could abrogate the sentence of the other, since in this sacrament all are judges and, as such, are to be held in equal place. But the penitent ought not to satisfy twice for the same accusation of sins.

He who has perfectly forgotten the imposed penance is relieved of every obligation.

Yet if the confessor can conveniently be approached again, and prudently is thought to remember the penance imposed by him, he seems to have to be approached again so that he may renew the memory of the penance.

— Circumstances of execution. 1. He substantially satisfies his obligation who fulfills the penance in the state of mortal sin; nor is it established that this is a venial sin, especially since several judge that the fruit of that penance is obtained after the state of grace has been recovered.

For absolution gave a right to obtaining, once the penance has been fulfilled, a certain remission of temporal punishments. Therefore, with the obstacle of mortal sin removed, that right will become efficacious, so that the work revives as satisfactory, though not as otherwise meritorious.

2. If the confessor has expressly or tacitly determined the time, a notable delay will be grave when the obligation itself of the penance is grave.

Thus fasting or abstinence prescribed for individual weeks cannot be deferred beyond a week; and the delay is judged grave, especially since it changes the very form or figure of the penance. Yet, when the time has elapsed, the obligation of penance does not therefore cease, unless a different mind of the confessor appears. Thus he who prescribed a weekly fast is not judged to wish that the fast be observed through a continuous series of days. But one obliged to fast on Friday does not sin gravely if he defers the fast by one day; or if he defers by only six or eight days the monthly Communion imposed on him.

But there is no obligation to fulfill as soon as possible, or before the next confession or Communion, a penance given without a day, provided the danger of forgetfulness is avoided.

3. Nor is an express intention of satisfying required, provided the work is done.

4. That mode can and ought of itself to be observed which is established for the same work that is prescribed by the Church. Thus fasting will admit the little supper and foods permitted in the region on a day of fasting; recitation of an enjoined psalm can be done with a companion. By the same work someone can fulfill penance and gain indulgences.

Penance is to be fulfilled by the penitent himself, unless the confessor has permitted more (cf. proposition 15 condemned by Alex. VII). And sometimes a confessor can, with fruit of edification, impose a light penance on a sinner and take on himself a greater one for the penitent, with a declaration of the matter made to the penitent. Then he, by consenting to vicarious satisfaction, effects that the work performed by the confessor is part of the sacramental penance.

— It is not mortal but venial to neglect the penance imposed for venial fault; or a light penance enjoined even because of grave faults.

We divide this article into four paragraphs: 1. on the nature and divisions of satisfaction; 2. on the necessity of imposing satisfaction; 3. on the necessity of accepting and fulfilling satisfaction; 4. on the commutation of satisfaction.

1714. Things to be noted beforehand. Satisfaction in general, according to the force of the name (I do enough), signifies the payment of any debt whatever, but especially compensation for an injury inflicted on another.¹

Taken in the stricter sense, as here, it is defined: "Voluntary toleration of punishment for compensating the injury inflicted on God through sin, and for redeeming the graver temporal punishment deserved."

We say redeeming; for when fault and eternal punishment have been remitted through the Sacrament of Penance, the whole temporal punishment, to be paid either in this life or in the other, is not always remitted. This, through the merits of Christ, must be redeemed by our laborious works, as Trent teaches (sess. 14, cap. 8).

Satisfaction is one thing sacramental, and this is now treated; another extrasacramental, which consists in pious and laborious works spontaneously undertaken, and also in the evils and hardships of this life sent by God and patiently tolerated (cf. Trent, sess. 14, cap. 9).

SACRAMENTAL satisfaction is customarily defined: Penance, or a good work, imposed on the penitent by the confessor through the power of the keys, both for the vindication of past sins, which is called vindicative satisfaction, and for the custody of new life, which is called medicinal satisfaction.

In order that our treatment may extend to all things which pertain to satisfaction, we shall treat: 1. of the imposition of penance; 2. of its fulfillment; 3. of Indulgences, which can supply for the defects of our satisfactions.

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

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

Among the various ways of satisfying God for sins already remitted as to fault, INDULGENCES hold no lowest place, especially the Indulgences of the JUBILEE. - Hence we shall discuss here: 1. Indulgences in general; 2. Indulgences of the Jubilee; 3. Indulgences to be gained in the article of death; 4. the privileged altar for the dead.

1726. DEFINITION. An Indulgence is the remission of temporal punishment owed to God for sins pardoned as to fault, which the Church, outside the Sacrament, from a just cause, grants to the faithful through the application of the satisfactions of Christ and the Saints.²¹

DIVISION. An Indulgence is distinguished in many ways:

1. One is PLENARY, or total, which according to the intention of the one granting frees from all punishment; another PARTIAL, as are septenaries and quarantines, by which is understood that punishment to be taken away which would be taken away by a fast of 7 years or 40 days on bread and water, according to the Canons once customarily imposed.

2. One is PERSONAL, which is immediately granted to persons, for example to a Confraternity; another LOCAL, which is affixed to some place, for example a church, oratory, etc.; another REAL, which is attached to some portable thing, for example a Cross, Rosary, medal, etc. But a real indulgence is almost always also personal, since for the most part only the owner of the thing to which the Indulgence is annexed can gain it.

3. One is TEMPORAL, which is granted for a determined time; another PERPETUAL, which is granted in perpetuity or without any prefixed term.

1727. Principles. I. The Church has POWER of granting Indulgences, and has used this power from ancient times. - This is of faith, against Protestants, and is clear from Trent, sess. 25, Decree on Indulgences, where the Council condemns with excommunication him who should say that Indulgences are useless, or who should deny that this power exists in the Church. See the dogmatic authors.

Let the following be noted: 1. Only the Pope can grant plenary Indulgences, or Indulgences to the whole Catholic world. But he grants them either by himself or through delegates,

with this condition, however, that they then only obtain their effect when they have been recognized by the S. C. of Indulgences.¹

2. Bishops, but not Titular Bishops, can, from Lateran IV, grant to their diocesans Indulgences of 40 days; and an Indulgence of one year on the day of the dedication of a church. - These Indulgences are indeed perpetual, but they are valid for the living only, nor are they applicable to the dead.² Moreover it is forbidden that another new Indulgence of 40 days be attached to the same object or to the same act of piety by the successor of the Bishop.³

3. Cardinals can grant Indulgences of 100 days in the churches of their titles.⁴ What the faculties of Nuncios are in this matter must be recognized from Apostolic Letters.

4. Prelates, titular Bishops, and others inferior to a Bishop cannot grant any Indulgences unless from the express delegation of the Pontiff or Bishop.⁵ - The communication of merits of an Order, which Regular Superiors sometimes concede to distinguished benefactors, is not the bestowal of Indulgences, but is only, as Suarez says, an offering or donation of suffrages.⁶

5. Although Indulgences of a very excessive number of years, for example indulgences of a thousand, ten thousand years, are to be held as suspect, nevertheless some of this sort have been granted, nor can their authenticity be called into doubt. Cf., for example, the Bull of Innocent XI Nuper pro parte, of July 31, 1679, in which is contained the summary of Indulgences which were granted to the Confraternity of the Most Holy Rosary. There, among others (cap. III, n. 3), an Indulgence of sixty thousand years is approved.⁷

1728. II. Indulgences, since they are graces, are TO BE INTERPRETED BROADLY, yet the propriety of the words being preserved (cf. n. 253). Therefore they are to be judged perpetual if they have been given without restriction of time; nor do those perpetually conceded cease through cessation of the cause. Yet good faith and error, even common error, do not supply for the defect of a prescribed condition.⁸

Let it be noted: 1. Unless this is expressed in the concession itself, whether explicitly or implicitly, for example by the clause until our good pleasure, Indulgences do not expire by the death of the one granting, nor before knowledge of revocation.⁹ (cf. n. 254.)

2. Indulgences annexed to some church do not cease when a new church is built in almost the same place and under the same title. But they cease if the building is made in another place, although nearby, for example in a cemetery and not in the place of the old church.¹⁰

And this same thing must be said of an Indulgence granted to those visiting the churches of Regulars. If it was granted with regard to the regular Family by which the churches were governed, the Indulgence, when the regular Family ceases, likewise ceases.¹¹

1729. III. To gain Indulgences, all the CONDITIONS which are prescribed must be fulfilled. - Moreover, the conditions to be fulfilled on the part of the SUBJECT are usually numbered as five.¹²

1. That he be a subject of the one granting; because the concession of an Indulgence is an act of jurisdiction, which affects subjects alone. - Yet strangers are not excluded from local Indulgences which are annexed, for example, to an altar, cross, church, as the common opinion holds.

2. That he not be bound by major excommunication, because this deprives one of communion in spiritual goods (cf. n. 1292, 4).

3. That he be in the state of grace, at least when the prescribed work is completed; because punishment cannot be remitted before fault. But it is greatly to be desired that all works be done in grace, especially if the Indulgence has been granted for placating God. - Wherefore let it be noted: The clause with at least a contrite heart, or with contrite hearts, which is customarily inserted in concessions of partial Indulgences, does not indicate the work enjoined, but the necessity of the state of grace for gaining the Indulgence. Hence it is not required that those who are already found in the state of grace elicit an act of contrition (S. C. Indulg., December 17, 1870).¹³

4. That he have the due intention. But an intention at least virtual is required as often as an Indulgence is granted with a certain intention to be proposed to oneself, for example of praying for the happy state of the Church, of gaining a Jubilee with the privileges annexed to it, or if the day of the Indulgence is left to the determination of our will, for example within the month, within the year. Otherwise, an interpretative intention seems sufficient, or certainly the intention elicited in the morning of gaining all Indulgences occurring through the day suffices. Thus commonly.¹⁴

5. That he perform INTEGRALLY the works enjoined, in the PLACE, TIME, and MANNER prescribed, because Indulgences are granted under that condition. - Nor does it suffice, unless this is expressly conceded, to furnish works already due under another title, for example the Lenten fast, recitation of the Breviary, etc.¹⁵

1730. Now indeed:

I. As to PLACE, this is often a condition: that a parochial church or public oratory be visited. - Wherefore it must be carefully noted, from the S. C. of Indulgences, August 22, 1842, in Verdunen.,¹⁶ that "an oratory, whether in monasteries, seminaries, or other convents, canonically dedicated, to which the Christian people is not accustomed publicly to have access, is not to be judged public." Yet sometimes it is granted to Religious or others that these oratories can be visited (cf. n. 1733, q. 7). - But if a certain church is prescribed, the parochial or another church cannot be chosen in its place, unless this is granted by special privilege.

For the rest, "several grave authors teach that for the prescribed visitation of a church, in order to gain an Indulgence, it suffices to pray before the door or cemetery if because of the multitude of men you cannot enter it: thus Suarez, Bonacina... Indeed Mazzotta and Croix with Lugo add: if you pray before the door of the church when it is closed."¹⁷

II. As to TIME: 1. It was decided by S. C. Ind., August 29, 1864: "That an Indulgence is acquired by the Christian faithful on the fixed and rightly constituted day in their diocese; by regular Orders on the day rightly constituted in their Calendar; by men who have enrolled in a Sodality which belongs to a Regular Order, that an Indulgence is acquired on the day rightly constituted in the Calendar of the diocese, or in the Calendar of the Order, if they enjoy a privilege of this sort, but not on both days."¹⁸

2. When the solemnity of a Feast is transferred, whether in perpetuity or for a time, in a legitimate manner, the Indulgence is understood to be transferred. - "But when only the Office with the Mass is transferred, and not the solemnity and exterior celebration of the Feast, the S. Congregation of Indulgences, by mandate of Pius IX, August 9, 1852, decreed that no translation of Indulgences occurs."¹⁹

3. When an indulgence to be gained once in a month or in a year is granted to those who previously have performed certain works or certain prayers through a month or through a year, the month is not necessarily to be computed from the first day to the last, nor the year from January 1 to December 31; but 30 days can be computed from any day, and 12 months from any month.²⁰

4. If an indulgence is granted in view of the mystery or Saint to be honored on that day, the works can validly be performed from first Vespers, namely from the time at which Vespers are customarily recited in choir, that is, about the second hour after noon of the preceding day, up to sunset, that is, the evening twilight of the feast day itself.²¹ - Otherwise, from midnight to midnight, as often as something else is not expressed in the Indult (S. C. Ind., January 12, 1878).²²

III. As to MANNER: 1. It is not necessary to recite prayers with knees bent, unless this is prescribed, as, for example, it is prescribed for the prayer Sacrosanctae outside the case of infirmity. - 2. The works must be done by the one who intends to gain the indulgence, except alms, which is validly given through another. 3. A merely material act does not suffice, but a human act is required.²³

IV. As to the INTEGRITY of the works to be performed, these two things are commonly asserted: 1. He who from inability or ignorance omits either the whole work or a notable part of it, for example if a child or old man does not fast, does not gain the indulgence, unless this work, on account of grave difficulty, by legitimate concession of the Pontiff, has been commuted for him into another. - 2. It does not harm if a small part of the enjoined work is omitted, because the work is still judged to be performed as to substance. But a small part is to be taken respectively to the whole work: thus in the Rosary the omission of one Pater and Ave seems small; but otherwise, if five Pater and Ave are required for an indulgence, and one Pater and Ave is omitted.²⁴

1731. IV. The special conditions which ORDINARILY are required for a plenary indulgence are CONFESSION, COMMUNION, and VOCAL PRAYERS. Wherefore we note:

1. CONFESSION, although it is not required for certain plenary indulgences, for example for the Indulgences of the Way of the Cross, is nevertheless for the most part required by this or a similar clause which is customarily appended to various Rescripts: "to the contrite and confessed." - Therefore confession is necessary even if someone has only venials; because it is required as a condition and prescribed work, as is clear from the Decree of the S. C. of Indulgences, approved by Clement XIII, May 19, 1759.²⁵ Nor indeed is absolution required except for mortal sins.

From the Indult of December 9, 1763,²⁶ and from the Decree of the S. C. of Indulgences, December 15, 1841,²⁷ it was established that those who are accustomed to confess each week, that is, in any passing space of seven days, as the S. C. declared on November 23, 1878,²⁸ can gain all Indulgences occurring through the week, for gaining which sacramental confession would otherwise be required, provided they are conscious to themselves of no lethal fault, as is clear, and provided it is not a question of Jubilee. This privilege, in several places, was extended from particular Indults to two weeks, or even to an entire month, for example in the Eastern Missions.²⁹ Besides, from the decree of the S. C. of Indulgences approved by Pius VII on June 12, 1822,³⁰ those who are not accustomed to confess each week can make the confession necessary for gaining an indulgence on a feast day within eight days before the feast, if they live in places in which, in view of the scarcity of confessors, the Ordinary obtained a special Indult.

2. COMMUNION, as also confession, can be anticipated on the day before that day for which some Indulgence is granted, not only by reason of an occurring festivity, but also from any other cause whatever, for example reception into some Confraternity, the prayer of the Forty Hours, a pious exercise, etc.; "yet, in fulfilling the other works enjoined, the general rule concerning the manner and time prescribed in the concessions being observed" (S. C. Indulg., October 6, 1870).³¹

Paschal Communion is valid for gaining a plenary Indulgence occurring on the same day; except, however, the Indulgence of the Jubilee, for which a special Confession and Communion are required, unless the contrary is expressed in the Pontifical Letters. Thus from the Decree of May 10, 1844.³² - Likewise, one holy Communion, made at the time of Pastoral Visitation or spiritual Exercises in parishes, suffices for satisfying the paschal precept and for gaining the plenary Indulgence (cf. n. 1738).³³ - Likewise, Communion on the day of Easter can suffice for gaining the indulgence of the Papal blessing and for satisfying the precept (Declaration of Gregory XVI, March 19, 1841).³⁴

3. VOCAL PRAYERS, to be recited according to the intention of the one granting, are at the discretion of each faithful person, unless they are particularly assigned; but ordinarily they are to be poured forth in some church (cf. 1733, q. 4).

Yet Benedict XIV admonishes:³⁵ "Although a brief prayer employed with a sense of fervent piety... can satisfy, nevertheless for the most part brevity of prayer is accustomed to proceed from a small study of piety or a soul little inclined to spiritual things, or from tedium and negligence." But according to the common opinion, five Pater and Ave, or an equivalent prayer, suffice. - These prayers can also be recited alternately with a companion.³⁶ Posture while praying is generally not prescribed.³⁷ - As regards the sick, deaf-mutes, etc., for whom a commutation of works must be made, see n. 1733, q. 6 and 7.

1732. V. Indulgences, whether plenary or partial, can, from concession of the Pontiff, BE APPLIED to the dead. - This is clear from the use of the Church and from propositions condemned by Sixtus IV, Leo X, and Pius VI. But for this it is NECESSARY:

1. That they have been granted as applicable to the dead.³⁸ But this concession is given by the Roman Pontiff alone.

2. That the one gaining them have an intention, at least interpretative, of applying them to the dead; for the Superior only gives the power, but does not apply them to this or that deceased person. Yet a general application suffices, for example to all the dead, because suffrages are divisible.

3. That he who intends to gain them be in the state of grace, at least when he fulfills the last prescribed work, as seems truer to St. Alphonsus against some; for no one can apply an Indulgence to another unless he has first gained it himself.³⁹ The S. C. of Indulgences was asked about this matter, and on August 20, 1822, responded: Deferred;⁴⁰ and being asked again, responded on February 22, 1847: Let the petitioner consult approved authors.⁴¹

1733. Questions. Q. 1. Whether an indulgence granted as plenary is valid as PARTIAL, if it cannot be obtained entire; for example, because of affection toward some venial sin?

Resp. Affirmative. The reason is: 1. "because just as it is not repugnant that the fault of one venial sin be remitted without the fault of others being remitted, so also the punishment"; 2. because the S. Pontiff, "by granting a plenary Indulgence, is not presumed to wish to restrict it only to those to whom all venials are remitted (who certainly are very few), but rather to grant it according to the capacity of the subject, so that at least the punishment of those venials whose fault has been remitted may be remitted."¹

Q. 2. Whether someone can gain DIVERSE Indulgences, or the same Indulgences several times, ON THE SAME DAY?

Resp. 1. As regards diverse Indulgences, the faithful generally can gain them, at least if they are partial (concerning plenary ones, see question 4) and attached to diverse works, or to the same works which can be repeated several times in a day. Thus commonly the Theologians. 2. As regards the same Indulgences, attention must be paid to the letters of concession, whether namely they say as often as. If these determine nothing, one must stand by the interpretation and common practice of the Church.²

Q. 3. Whether someone can gain several Indulgences BY THE SAME ACT, or by the same work?

Resp. Affirmative, if the prescribed work either cannot be repeated, or is not accustomed to be repeated on the same day, as fasting, Communion, etc.; negative, if the work can be repeated, as prayers according to the intention of the S. Pontiff, visitation of a church, etc. - For to the question: "Whether, if Indulgences under various titles are annexed to the same pious work, which cannot be repeated by the faithful, all can be gained?" the S. C. of Indulgences responded on January 12, 1878:³ "Affirmative, provided the works enjoined truly cannot, or are not accustomed to, be repeated, as confession, unless it is necessary from another source."

Q. 4. In what way can SEVERAL PLENARY Indulgences be gained on the same day?

Resp. It was asked: "1. Since from diverse decrees of the S. C. of Indulgences it is now permitted to gain several plenary Indulgences ON THE SAME DAY, the conditions having of course been fulfilled, it is asked whether the said decree concerns only Indulgences occurring on one day because of a festivity, or rather also those which each person, on account of his devotion, has affixed to such a day through the week or month? 2. He who wishes to use the decree itself, whether he is bound to visit a church or public oratory (when namely such a visitation is required) as many times as there are indulgences to be gained? - And insofar as Affirmative, 3. Whether it suffices that in one and the same church so many prayers, or visitations, be repeated as there are Indulgences to be gained, without anyone going out of the church after each visitation and entering it again?" - And the S. C. of Indulgences, February 29, 1864, responded: "To the 1st: Affirmative. To the 2nd: Affirmative. To the 3rd: Negative."⁴

Q. 5. Whether, if the faculty of commuting works enjoined for gaining indulgences is granted, the commutation must necessarily be made IN CONFESSION?

Resp. It is disputed. Busenbaum, not corrected by St. Alphonsus,⁵ denies it from the declaration of Gregory XIII. - Yet it must be affirmed when it is a question of a Jubilee, from the Constitution Inter praeteritos of Benedict XIV, § 63,⁶ unless another faculty is expressly granted.

Q. 6. In what way can DEAF-MUTES gain Indulgences to which VOCAL prayers are annexed?

Resp. The S. C. of Indulgences established, and Pius IX approved on March 15, 1852,⁷ the following: 1. "But if among the works prescribed for gaining an Indulgence there is the visitation of some church, deaf-mutes are bound devoutly to visit the church itself, although they only raise the mind to God, and pious affections. - 2. But if among the works there are public prayers, deaf-mutes can gain the Indulgences annexed to them, indeed joined in body to the other faithful praying in the same place, but likewise with the mind only raised to God, and with pious affections of the heart. 3. But if finally it is a question of private prayers, the proper confessors of the mute and deaf can commute the same prayers into other pious works manifested in some way, according as they shall judge expedient in the Lord."

Q. 7. In what way can the SICK gain Indulgences for acquiring which holy Communion and visitation of some church are prescribed?

Resp. From the benign concession of Pius IX, on September 18, 1862,⁸ the sick who, "on account of chronic illness, or some permanent physical impediment, are unable to go out of the house (except, however, those who dwell in community), can acquire all and individual plenary Indulgences, provided that, truly penitent, confessed, and all other conditions having been fulfilled, if any have been enjoined, in place of holy Communion and visitation, they faithfully complete other pious works to be enjoined by the respective confessor."

Moreover, our Most Holy Lord Pope Leo XIII, on January 16, 1886, approved a decree of the S. Congregation of Indulgences by which it is granted "that the infirm or those worn out by old age, living in community and under rule, who cannot execute the churches or oratories or other things prescribed for indulgences, nevertheless can gain indulgences by fulfilling other pious works to be prescribed at the judgment of the confessor."⁹

Q. 8. Whether the faithful enrolled in CONFRATERNITIES are deprived of indulgences if they do not observe the STATUTES of the Confraternity?

Resp. Negative. For thus the S. C. of Indulgences responded to the question on January 25, 1842, in Cameracen.:¹⁰ "Provided that the Sodalities have been canonically erected, and the members fulfill the works enjoined by the Supreme Pontiffs for gaining the Indulgences annexed to their respective Confraternity, and the members themselves have been legitimately enrolled in the Confraternity: partial or general non-observance of the statutes does not hinder the acquisition of indulgences, from the fact that the statutes have been given rather for the government and right administration of the Sodality, but by no means as works enjoined for acquiring Indulgences."

For the rest, see the Canonists concerning things pertaining to CONFRATERNITIES and SODALITIES.¹¹

1734. Note. It is useful here, for the reader's convenience, to transcribe some other RESPONSES of the S. C. OF INDULGENCES which pertain to the present matter.¹²

1. Indulgences can be applied to solid things, iron, wood, lead, etc., also to a rosary made of solid glass. Only those things which can easily be broken or torn, as paper, blown glass, etc., are excepted (S. C. Indulg., February 29, 1820).¹³ - But medals must display the image of some Saint either solemnly canonized, or at least entered in the Roman Martyrology; nor does the image of some Blessed suffice, unless at the same time the image of a Saint is present (S. C. Indulg., December 22, 1710).¹⁴

2. For blessing crosses, rosaries, etc., for Indulgences, it suffices if the sign of the cross is made by the priest who has received this faculty, although in the Indult there exists the clause "in the form customary in the Church." But for rosaries of the Rosary and of the Seven Sorrows of the B. V., the prescribed formula and the sprinkling of blessed water are required (S. C. Indulg., April 11, 1840; January 7, 1843; and February 29, 1864).¹⁵

3. It was asked: "1. Whether rosaries lose Indulgences if they are given to someone? - 2. Whether after the death of the owner another acquires ownership of them, namely of the Indulgences? 3. If the string of rosaries is broken, whether voluntarily so that they may be connected by chains, or involuntarily and by chance this has happened? - 4. If four or five beads are lost? - 5. If they are lent to a friend, either for simply reciting the rosary, or for gaining Indulgences?" - And the S. C. of Indulgences on January 10, 1839,¹⁶ responded: To the 1st, affirmative, as often as they are not given immediately or mediately by a person having the faculty of distributing them. - To the 2nd, negative, because Indulgences do not pass beyond the person of the former owner. - To the 3rd, negative, because the same rosaries persevere as to moral form. - To the 4th, negative, from the reason brought forward in the preceding response. - To the 5th, negative in the first case, affirmative in the second. For in order that Indulgences affixed to rosaries and other movable things perish, the end of giving or lending for the communication of Indulgences is required."

4. When the S. Pontiff grants any Indulgence to the City and the World, so that the faithful can gain such an Indulgence in various dioceses: is it required that this Indulgence be promulgated by the Ordinaries of places, or on the contrary does it suffice that they be certain that the aforesaid Indulgence was granted by the S. Pontiff? The S. C. of Indulgences responded on July 1, 1839:¹⁷ Negative, as to the first part; Affirmative as to the second.

5. Whether someone can use obtained indulgences, or graces, without the license and recognition of his Ordinary? Resp. Affirmative, as to use and enjoyment; but he can use the same graces only privately, provided they yield to the burden of no one, or offer an occasion of scandal, and provided the petitioner does not presume to send these faculties to print without license (December 12, 1840).¹⁸

6. Whether he who obtains diverse faculties from the Apostolic See, namely of a personal privileged altar, of erecting the stations of the Way of the Cross, of blessing crosses, medals..., must exhibit the said faculties to the Ordinary, even if no mention has been made in the Rescripts of the concessions? - Resp. Affirmative, as to the erection of the Way of the Cross; negative, relative to the other faculties, unless it has been otherwise disposed in the obtained concessions (February 6, 1844).¹⁹

7. When in Briefs of Indulgences it is said, "these presents to last for seven years," the seven years are to be computed not from the day of publication, but from the day of the date of the Brief (S. C. Indulg., May 20, 1711).²⁰

8. It is permitted to turn prayers with Indulgences into another language without the Indulgences being lost, if the translation is faithful (S. C. Indulg., September 30, 1852).²¹ But so that the fidelity of a version of prayers to which indulgences are annexed may be established, the declaration of the S. C. of Indulgences through the Most Eminent Prefect, or of one of the Ordinaries of the place where the language into which the prayer is turned is common, suffices. Thus the S. C. of Indulgences on December 29, 1864.²²

9. Whether those visiting the churches of the Order of St. Francis, on August 2, gain a plenary indulgence as often as they enter them and pray there for a little while? And whether it is required that Communion be made in the same church? - The S. C. I. responded on July 12, 1847:²³ Affirmative to the first part; Negative to the second.

NB. As regards Indulgences of the Way of the Cross and of various Scapulars, see the authentic Acts of the S. C. OF INDULGENCES, Appendix, §§ V, VI, etc.²⁴

1735. DEFINITION. A Jubilee is a solemn plenary Indulgence with annexed privileges, granted by the S. Pontiff to those performing certain works.

It differs only accidentally from another plenary indulgence, namely by reason of solemnity and of the privileges and graces which are annexed to it. - Yet the primary motive of the concession is not that the faithful gain the Indulgence, but rather in general that they be provoked to true penance, and so obtain God's mercy or liberation from public calamities. It is also sometimes proclaimed to foster reverence and obedience toward the Holy See: for the solemn Indulgence of a Jubilee greatly profits toward the attainment of this end.

DIVISION. A multiple Jubilee is distinguished.

1. The GREATER or ordinary Jubilee, which regularly occurs every twenty-fifth year, which is called the HOLY YEAR; and the LESSER or extraordinary Jubilee, which is granted by individual Supreme Pontiffs after the exaltation of each one, or in other particular circumstances. - The greater Jubilee is customarily granted to the City, or to Rome alone, for an entire year, which having elapsed, it is extended to the whole World for a shorter time: otherwise with the lesser Jubilee.

2. The GENERAL Jubilee, which is granted to the whole World (as the greater Jubilee, and often also the lesser Jubilee); and the PARTICULAR Jubilee, which is granted to some province, city, or community.

Note. In interpreting Bulls of Jubilee, the RULES handed down by Benedict XIV are to be observed, to which not even the Bull of Jubilee itself is opposed, according as, with regard to both an ordinary and an extraordinary Jubilee, Pius IX declared on March 15, 1852.²⁵

1736. As to these, the BULL by which the Jubilee is granted must primarily be consulted. - But those things which hitherto, according to the statutes of Benedict XIV²⁶ and the mind of approved authors, in the time of the extension of the greater Jubilee to the whole Catholic World, have been accustomed to be granted, are summarily the following:

A) Directly for the PENITENT: Faculty of choosing a confessor from among those approved by the Bishop of the place where the confession is made. - Hence, any Regulars, Oblates, Tertiaries, etc., for the confession required for gaining the Jubilee, without the license of Superiors, can choose any priest from among the said approved ones, even a secular priest; but Nuns strictly so called, and their novices, can choose someone from among those approved by the Ordinary of the place for hearing the confessions of Nuns, whether approved for this end generally, or for other monasteries.²⁷ - But one once approved for Nuns, whether as ordinary or as extraordinary, but whose approbation, for example because of the lapse of the prefixed term, has ceased, can also be chosen by the aforesaid Nuns for the Jubilee, "unless it is established that the same confessor was afterward positively reproved by the same Ordinary on account of demerits which concern the confessions themselves." Thus the S. Penitentiary.²⁸

B) Directly for the CONFESSOR and indirectly for the penitent.

I. Faculty of absolving, for the forum of conscience only, "from excommunication, suspension, and other ecclesiastical sentences and censures, imposed or inflicted by law or by man for any cause whatever, reserved even to the Ordinaries of places" and to the Pontiff and S. See, "although in a special form, and which otherwise in a concession, however broad, would not be understood as granted, as well as from all sins and excesses, however grave and enormous, reserved even to the same Ordinaries and Pontiff...."²⁹ - Nor does it hinder (as is taught more probably and more commonly) if someone sinned in confidence of the Jubilee.³⁰

Yet from this broad faculty there are EXCEPTED: 1. Formal heresy externalized, although occult, unless the power of absolving from it is expressly indicated³¹ (This power, with those things preserved which must be preserved by law, was granted in the last Jubilees, celebrated at the time of the Vatican Council and thereafter). 2. Cases and censures reserved in the Constitution Sacramentum Poenitentiae of Benedict XIV (see nn. 1772 and 1780). 3. Absolution of those who have been excommunicated, suspended, interdicted by name, or declared or publicly denounced to have fallen into other sentences and censures by the Holy See or by some Prelate or apostolic judge; unless within the time of the Jubilee they have made satisfaction, and have come to agreement with the parties where there was need.³²

II. Faculty of dispensing from irregularity, yet occult, incurred because of violation of censures, through the exercise of Order.

III. Faculty of commuting simple vows (not excepting a vow not to seek commutation),³³ even sworn and reserved to the Apostolic See³⁴ (cf. n. 2191, 2).

But from this faculty are excepted: 1. Vows of perpetual chastity and of entering Religion (cf. n. 645, q. 2); 2. Vows in favor of a third party, if they have already been accepted, unless the third party renounces his right (cf. n. 647). Therefore vows emitted in some religious Community are also excepted.³⁵ 3. Penal vows preservative from sin, unless the commutation is made into another work which equally or more conduces to preservation.³⁶

Let it be noted: 1. These absolutions, commutations, dispensations cannot be made, without a special concession, outside the act of sacramental confession.³⁷ - See the Response of the S. Penitentiary, March 16, 1865.³⁸

2. Each faithful person can enjoy these things only one time during the Jubilee; but it is not necessary that all things be applied to him at the same time, or by the same confessor; yet they can be applied only to those "who have sincerely and seriously determined to obtain the Jubilee, and with this intention of gaining it and of fulfilling the remaining works necessary for gaining it, approach confession."³⁹

1737. I. For the GREATER or ORDINARY Jubilee, three conditions are usually required, namely:

1. DEVOUT VISITATION OF CHURCHES, namely of those which in the City are designated by the S. Pontiff, and outside the City by the Ordinaries of places, by praying piously in them according to the intention of the Pontiff, for example by reciting five Pater and Ave, or equivalent prayers. - It does not hinder if, while you cannot enter the church to be visited because of the multitude of men, you pray in the vestibule, or before the doors, or in the cemetery, or before the locked door of the church. But if several altars are prescribed to be visited, they must be visited in such a way that by some movement at least of the body you turn yourself to each one, with the intention of visiting it, then reciting the prayers due.² If in some place only one church exists, from the general decree of the S. C. of Indulgences issued on March 15, 1852,³ the faculty is given to Ordinaries of granting that all the prescribed visitations be performed in this church. But these visitations in the same church must be distinguished from one another, so that each time it is necessary to enter it and to go out from it. Thus from the declaration of the S. Penitentiary, January 26, 1875.⁴

2. VALID CONFESSION, even if only formally integral (cf. n. 1731).

3. COMMUNION, made in the state of grace, or in which at least first sanctifying grace is conferred per accidens,⁵ namely if someone indisposed, but in good faith and attrite, approaches the Sacred Table (cf. n. 1395).

II. For the EXTRAORDINARY Jubilee, besides the three enumerated conditions, there are usually prescribed:

1. A FAST of three days, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. But a strict fast is prescribed, in which only fasting foods may be eaten, unless commutation is obtained (cf. Decision of the S. Penitentiary, March 16, 1865).⁶ - 2. ALMS, either indeterminate, that is, some alms; or determinate, according to the ability of each one. But it is not necessary to expend money; it suffices to give another thing estimable by price, for example clothing, etc.

Note. For a PARTICULAR Jubilee, attention must be paid to the tenor of the Indult granted. - Ordinarily only three things are required, namely Confession, Communion, and visitation of some church.

1738. Three things here come TO BE NOTED: 1. To gain the Indulgence of a Jubilee, works already due from another title do not suffice. Hence: 1) a fast already prescribed, for example by reason of Ember Days, does not suffice, unless the S. Pontiff has granted this, for example by determining, or permitting to be determined, the Lenten time for gaining the Jubilee. 2) Annual confession does not suffice, unless this is expressly granted. 3) Paschal Communion does not suffice, even if the Jubilee is celebrated at Eastertide. Thus the S. Penitentiary, January 26, 1875. Yet sometimes the S. Pontiff has benignly granted that it suffice.⁷ 4) Finally, the visitation of a church while someone assists at Mass on Sunday does not suffice.

2. To confessors is granted the FACULTY OF COMMUTING the works prescribed into other works, otherwise not due and of almost the same nature; not indeed to all indiscriminately, but only to those who are in physical or moral impossibility of fulfilling the common conditions. And when it is granted that the faithful can gain the indulgence of the Jubilee several times, the works enjoined can also be commuted several times (S. Penitentiary, March 18, 1886).⁸ Yet it must be adverted that this faculty can be exercised only within the act of confession (as was said above, n. 1737, note 1), and is not extended to all the works prescribed. For Confession is never commuted; Communion, however, is commuted only for children, and also, as it seems, for those laboring under chronic illness (from the general concession of Pius IX reported in n. 1733, q. 7, which does not except the Jubilee); finally prayers cannot be commuted, even if the visitations of churches are commuted. Thus Benedict XIV, Constitution Inter praeteritos, § 53.

3. The Jubilee, at least from more recent Indults, can be PROROGUED into another but proximate time, in favor of travelers, navigators, and generally of those who are impeded by some transitory obstacle from completing all the prescribed works within the very time of the Jubilee. - Hence, if on the last day someone, for example because of a broken fast or the postponement of absolution, were prohibited from communicating, he would rightly obtain a prorogation of the Jubilee from the confessor.

1739. Questions. Q. 1. What QUANTITY of alms must be expended?

Resp. "In this, the words of the Indult are especially to be attended to; for if it is said: As much as to each one according to his ability shall have seemed good, then the quantity must be proportioned to the abilities of each one; hence it will suffice for a poor man to give an obol, not for a rich man. - But if it is said simply: Whoever shall have given alms, one must distinguish: if the Pope asks it only for exercising mercy toward the poor, then it suffices to give any sum whatever; otherwise, if alms is demanded as a subsidy for some pious work."⁹

Q. 2. Whether the POOR are bound, in order to gain the Jubilee, to give alms?

Resp. Affirmative. Because no one is so poor that he cannot at least give an obol. - But for Religious, children in the household, wives, and servants it suffices if alms is expended by their Superiors with their knowledge. - But if the Superior refuses to expend it, a commutation must be sought.¹⁰

Q. 3. Whether a certain ORDER is required in executing the conditions of the Jubilee?

Resp. Negative, for this is not expressed in the Bulls. - But the last work must be placed in the state of grace. But if someone after confession falls into mortal sin, although he is not bound to repeat the visitations, etc., he is nevertheless bound to confess again, nor does it suffice to be contrite, if he wishes to gain the Jubilee.¹¹

Q. 4. Whether all works must be performed in ONE AND THE SAME place?

Resp. Negative, for the S. Penitentiary (in the year 1875) declared: "works begun in one place can be fulfilled and completed in another, where someone must spend his life by reason of office, service, or marriage." - Likewise, to the question: "whether he gains the Jubilee who fulfills the prescribed conditions in another diocese, where he does not have domicile, if he observes the ordinances of the Ordinary of the place where he is staying?" it was answered: Affirmative.¹²

Q. 5. Whether confession made on the VIGIL of the first day of the Jubilee suffices?

Resp. Negative, and the reason is that all works must be done within the interval of time established for gaining the Jubilee. - Yet confession can be begun either on the vigil or before, provided it is finished during the time of the Jubilee. And the whole confession can be performed in that part of the vigil which follows first Vespers; because the first day, according to ecclesiastical custom, is usually computed from first Vespers; and this is constantly observed in the ordinary Jubilee of the City, as is clear from the Bull Peregrinantes of Benedict XIV, May 5, 1749, § 5.¹³

Q. 6. Whether all the enjoined works must be completed in ONE week?

Resp. 1. Affirmative, as regards FASTS. This is clear from the formula usually appended, which sounds thus: "Those who have taken part in the procession, or have visited the churches, and have fasted on Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday of one of the two weeks, and likewise have confessed their sins and been refreshed with holy Communion, and have bestowed alms, etc." Therefore the three fasts must be done in the same week.¹⁴ - 2. As regards OTHER WORKS, in more recent Indults it has been expressly declared that they do not have to be completed necessarily within the same week. Thus Pius IX, November 20, 1846, and Leo XIII, March 12, 1881. - Indeed, sometimes the whole year is granted for fulfilling any conditions whatever (Encyclical, December 22, 1885).

Q. 7. Whether the Jubilee can be gained SEVERAL TIMES?

Resp. The Jubilee of the HOLY YEAR in the City, but not outside, can be gained by someone several times; and the same faculty is usually granted as to extraordinary Jubilees. But each one can enjoy the favors annexed to the Jubilee only once. Thus all,¹⁵ and the S. Penitentiary has expressly declared it concerning several particular Jubilees.

Q. 8. Whether he sins gravely who, after he has been absolved from reserved cases, afterward DOES NOT FULFILL the works enjoined?

Resp. Negative, with the common opinion. "The reason is because an obligation of this sort is not considered imposed either from the nature of the Jubilee, or from the precept of the Pontiff or confessor." But he who, with the true intention of gaining the Jubilee, has been absolved from censures, or dispensed in a vow or irregularity, does not relapse if afterward, his will having changed, he does not gain the Jubilee, even culpably.¹⁶

Q. 9. Whether he who confessed in the time of Jubilee, and FORGOT or WITH CAUSE OMITTED to confess his RESERVED sins, can then be absolved by any confessor?

Resp. 1. Affirmative, if the confessor had the express intention of absolving also from reserved sins. Thus all. - 2. The same is more commonly and more probably admitted, although the confessor did not think about this; because the penitent, by force of the Jubilee, acquired the right to the favor of the Pontiff, so that from that time he can be absolved by any confessor.¹⁷ - 3. But if someone began a confession within the Jubilee, which materially imperfect confession must be deferred longer, he will be able to be absolved from all reserved sins either then or afterward.¹⁸

Q. 10. Whether by an INVALID confession in the Jubilee reserved censures are absolved, and the reservation of sins is removed?

Resp. Negative, according to St. Alphonsus.¹⁹ The reason is that the Pontiff grants such a faculty for this end, that the faithful may gain the indulgence of the Jubilee. Therefore he is not presumed to grant it in favor of those who, because of an invalid confession, cannot gain the indulgence.

1740. Note. During the time in which the Jubilee of the HOLY YEAR is celebrated at Rome (but not during the time in which it is extended to the World): 1. Outside the City are SUSPENDED faculties or privileges both of absolving from cases reserved to the Apostolic See and of commuting vows, dispensing from irregularities, etc.; whether these faculties were conceded in view of indulgences, or for other causes. Thus Benedict XIV.¹ There are excepted (unless something else is clear from the Bull): 1) the faculties of the S. Inquisition and its ministers; 2) faculties conceded to Bishops by the Council of Trent; 3) faculties of Regular Superiors to be exercised with their subjects; 4) faculties of Missionaries whom the Holy See sends, or the S. Congregation de Propaganda Fide; 5) faculties which the S. Penitentiary gives to Missionaries for places of missions; 6) faculties which perhaps the confessor has either obtained from the S. Penitentiary, or has as subdelegated by his own Ordinary after the manner of a habit for the internal forum and only in the act of sacramental confession (S. Penitentiary, year 1875).²

2. Similarly, in the holy year there are suspended (unless otherwise established, as in the Jubilee of the year 1875) all indulgences both plenary and particular which have been conceded for the living, and which are neither real nor local; but those conceded for the dead are not suspended. Indeed, from the concession of Benedict XIV, through the whole year of Jubilee, all Indulgences can be applied to the dead, not even those excepted which otherwise were not applicable to them.

Yet among indulgences for the living, some are EXCEPTED from suspension, namely: 1. Indulgences for the dying; 2. Indulgences for the prayer Angelus Domini; 3. Indulgences for visitation of the Most Holy Sacrament solemnly exposed; 4. Indulgences for those who accompany the Most Holy Sacrament carried to the sick; 5. all Indulgences which are conceded by someone other than the Pope. These things are deduced from the Constitutions of Benedict XIV and Leo XII.³

1741. I. The dying can, by various titles, gain SEVERAL INDULGENCES, which they call latae, that is, to be obtained without the ministry of a priest, namely: 1. If they possess sacred things, for example crosses, medals, rosaries, enriched with apostolic Indulgences; - 2. if they are members of some Confraternity, for example of the Most Holy Rosary, of the Third Order of St. Francis, etc.; or if they wear some approved Scapular; 3. if they have frequently in life elicited acts of the theological virtues, etc.⁴

The conditions required for gaining these indulgences are the same as for the indulgence of the Apostolic Blessing (see below, q. 2). But if they are annexed, for example, to a cross, rosary, etc., it is required that the sick person have these things with him, or near the bed, although he does not see them, and that he invoke the Most Holy Name of Jesus as many times as there are indulgences to be gained.

II. Among the indulgences which they call ferendae (or to be granted through the ministry of a priest), which can be gained in the article of death, there especially stands forth the APOSTOLIC BLESSING for the article of death, or GENERAL ABSOLUTION, which the Roman Ritual reports.

1742. Questions. Q. 1. When can GENERAL ABSOLUTION be imparted?

Resp. In grave infirmity, namely in the imminent article of death, under which is understood not indeed the agony, but an evident and proximate danger of death, as is gathered from the Bull of Benedict XIV. The rubric of this blessing says: "It is customarily imparted after the Sacraments of Penance, Eucharist, and Extreme Unction." In which case the Confiteor must be said three times (S. C. Indulg., February 5, 1841, to the 6th).⁵

Q. 2. What is required ON THE PART OF THE PRIEST for VALIDLY imparting this Indulgence?

Resp. 1. That he be delegated. This delegation is made by the Roman Pontiff to all Bishops requesting it, together with the power of subdelegating priests, both secular and regular; and indeed in such a way that neither the Indult granted to Bishops expires by the death of the S. Pontiff, nor the subdelegation by the departure or death of the subdelegating Bishop (Thus Benedict XIV, Constitution Pia Mater, April 5, 1747).⁶

2. That he use the formula prescribed by Benedict XIV: if this is omitted, even because of the lack of a book, the indulgence is not conferred, because it is not only directive, but preceptive. S. C. Indulg., February 5, 1841, in Valentinen., to the 8th.⁷

NB. This formula, according to the Brief of our Most Holy Lord LEO XIII, Quo universi (July 7, 1882), must be used by all, even if by another title, for example from a privilege conceded to some Order or Confraternity, General Absolution is given. Wherefore, in the typical edition of the Roman Ritual (Regensburg, 1884), all other formulas which were formerly read in the appendix have been expunged.

Q. 3. What is required ON THE PART OF THE INFIRM?

Resp. 1. The intention of gaining the indulgence, at least interpretative, as is clear from the words of the Rubric. For it is said that it is to be imparted to those "who either have even requested it... or probably would have requested it, or have given signs of contrition." 2. That the sick person be "confessed and refreshed with holy Communion, or insofar as he has been unable to do this, at least contrite, and has devoutly invoked the NAME OF JESUS by mouth, if he could, but if not, in the heart." 3. An act of contrition and charity; and 4. An act by which the sick person receives death from the hand of the Lord with a calm and willing soul, as is clear from the Bull. - And these conditions indeed, as long as the sick person is in possession of his mind, are required as conditions sine qua non for gaining the indulgence, as the Authors commonly teach, and concerning the invocation of the Most Holy Name of Jesus the S. C. OF INDULGENCES expressly declared on September 23, 1775.⁸

Wherefore the RITUAL admonishes: "But if the sick person wishes to confess, let him (the Confessor) hear him and absolve him. If he does not ask for confession, let him excite him to eliciting an act of contrition; concerning the efficacy and power of this Blessing, if time allows, let him admonish him briefly; then let him instruct and exhort him, that he willingly bear the inconveniences and pains of illness in expiation of his past life, and offer himself ready to God for freely accepting whatever shall please Him, and patiently undergoing death itself in satisfaction for the punishments which he has merited by sinning." - It is a matter of prudence to moderate this exhortation (which can already be made in confession) in such a way that disturbance of the sick person, or indignation of the bystanders, is avoided.

Q. 4. Whether this Apostolic Blessing can be REPEATED?

Resp. 1. Affirmative, in a different danger of death; 2. negative, in the same article of death. - For, from the Decree of the S. C. of Indulgences, March 12, 1855,⁹ it is prohibited "to impart several times to a sick person, remaining in the same danger of death, by the same or by several priests having this faculty, the plenary Indulgence in the article of death which is commonly called the papal blessing." - Likewise, there it is prohibited "to impart several times to a sick person, in the same circumstances, a plenary Indulgence from another reason, for example aggregation to the Confraternity of the Most Holy Rosary, of the Holy Scapular, etc." Nor is it permitted to repeat it because the sick person received it in the state of mortal sin, or relapsed into sin, or received Extreme Unction or absolution again. The reason is because the sick person gains the indulgence in the true article of death, if then he is in the state of grace and has already fulfilled the other conditions.

In these words the S. C. OF INDULGENCES, July 28, 1840,¹⁰ declares the efficacy of this privilege:

1743. "By the Indulgence annexed to a PRIVILEGED ALTAR, if the mind of the one granting and the use of the power of the keys are considered, there is to be understood a plenary indulgence, which immediately frees the soul from all punishments of Purgatory; but if the effect of the application is considered, there is to be understood an indulgence whose measure corresponds to the good pleasure and acceptance of the divine mercy." - But if celebration is made for several deceased persons, the indulgence of the altar is limited to one of them, except on the day of the Commemoration of All the Dead, from the decision of the S. C. of Indulgences, June 19, 1880, in Romana, to the 2nd,¹¹ and February 29, 1864, in Andegaven.¹²

The Privilege can be LOCAL or real, when namely it is attached to the altar itself; or PERSONAL, when it is granted to the priest himself, wherever he is going to celebrate.

I. The LOCAL Privilege is generally subject to these rules:

1. The altar must be fixed, unless a portable one is permitted in the Indult. But fixed is here understood not in the liturgical sense, but as that which is stable and immovable, although not consecrated, and in the middle of which a consecrated stone, even removable, has been placed. Thus the S. C. of Indulgences, March 20, 1846, in Mechlinien.¹³

2. The privilege inheres in the altar erected in honor of some Saint or Mystery, but not in the stone. - Hence, the privilege remains: if, in a fixed altar, another likewise consecrated stone is substituted for the consecrated stone (S. C. Indulg., December 15, 1841, in Mechlinien., to the 3rd);¹⁴ likewise, if the privileged altar under the same title is built again in another place of the church, or in a destroyed church, but rebuilt in the same place (S. C. Indulg., September 16, 1723, in Murana).¹⁵

3. Perpetual burdens and foundations cannot be received for privileged altars. S. C. Indulg., November 16, 1711, in Panormitana.¹⁶

Note. On the day of the Commemoration of all the dead, all altars are privileged (S. C. Indulg., May 19, 1761).¹⁷ The same must be said of the day of exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament for the Forty Hours (Thus Pius VII, through a special Rescript given on May 12, 1807).¹⁸ Yet this must be understood of the prayer of the Forty Hours properly so called, and instituted in all things according to the Instruction of Clement XI, January 21, 1705, and according to the Constitution Accepimus of Benedict XIV, April 16, 1746.

II. The PERSONAL Privilege is granted for a time, or in perpetuity; for all days, or for some days in the week. - Such an Indult does not necessarily have to be exhibited to the Ordinary, unless otherwise disposed in the concession (S. C. Ind., February 5, 1851).¹⁹

But the time of the Privilege begins to run, not from the day of publication or use, but from the day of concession (May 18, 1711).²⁰ "The time (however) set for confirmation of the privilege, in remote regions, is to be computed not from the day of the Date, but from the day of presentation of the Brief to the Ordinary" (February 4, 1736).²¹ - A priest who enjoys the personal privilege of an altar, if he has been aggregated to some Congregation which also enjoys the said privilege, can use this other privilege, provided that in the Indult it is not expressly disposed otherwise.²² It must also be noted that a priest who has made the heroic act, that is, the cession of all satisfactions for the dead, daily enjoys a personal privilege (Pius IX, September 3, 1852).²³

IT IS ASKED. What things must be OBSERVED in the celebration of Mass, so that someone may enjoy the privilege, whether LOCAL or PERSONAL?

Resp. 1. The Mass of Requiem must be said (and indeed in black vestments, or for a reasonable cause violet), as often as it is permitted by the Rubrics; otherwise, the indulgence is not conceded. - Except if another Mass, for example of the Feria, of a semidouble Feast, or even a votive Mass, is celebrated by reason of the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, the Station of the church, or some solemnity. Thus the S. C. of Indulgences, April 11, 1864.²⁴ But on impeded days, it suffices to celebrate the Mass of the current Feast.

2. He who has a PERSONAL privilege for three or four Masses in individual weeks must celebrate on non-impeded days, or defer to non-impeded days, insofar as they occur in the same week (S. C. Indulg., April 11, 1840, and February 22, 1847).²⁵

3. A Mass celebrated at a PRIVILEGED ALTAR is privileged, even if neither the one offering the alms nor the priest celebrating intended to apply the privilege. S. C. Indulg., March 12, 1855, in Veronen.²⁶ Nor does the state of grace seem to be required in the celebrant, because the efficacy of the privilege does not rest on the personal dispositions of the priest, but arises from the suffrage of the Church.²⁷

4. He who, on permitted days, did not celebrate in vestments of black color, at a privileged altar, for acquiring the plenary Indulgence, and did this in good faith, to what is he bound? - Resp. "If he was bound by agreement to celebrate Mass at a privileged altar, he must gain the plenary indulgence for those deceased persons to whom he applied the fruit of the Mass, as often as on non-impeded days he did not use vestments of black color."²⁸ S. C. OF INDULGENCES, February 22, 1847 (cf. n. 1616).

Note. The Sacrifice and the indulgence of the privileged altar cannot be DIVIDED, but each must be applied for the same deceased person: 1. when in the Indult it is read: "he who shall have said Mass for a deceased person at such an altar, frees his soul" (or for deceased persons); 2. when the founder, or one expending the stipend, imposes the burden of celebrating at a privileged altar. - Otherwise, in other cases.²⁹

We must treat 1° concerning the imposition; 2° concerning the fulfillment of penance.

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.

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.

534. Satisfaction (satis-facere) is an act by which someone does as much as he ought, an act by which he pays a debt, or compensation for placing equality in things; but in the strict sense it is compensation for an injury inflicted on another.

In theology it is so called as a voluntary recompense, according to a certain equality of justice, for the injury inflicted on God through sin.

One kind is ordered to repairing fault itself and to reconciliation with God, and this is contrition itself; another to destroying the temporal punishment which often remains to be undergone after the remission of fault. This can be considered in purpose or vow and acceptance, according as it is a sincere will of fulfilling penance, or in execution, according as it is the actual fulfillment of the penance enjoined. Considered in purpose it is not distinguished from contrition, which includes the purpose of confessing and satisfying, as also of sinning no more (III, q. 90, a. 2, ad 1): for he is not truly contrite who does not wish to repair sin. But regarded in reality it is a distinct special act, and a twofold kind is distinguished: one is extrasacramental, which is voluntarily taken up by the penitent and has satisfactory force ex opere operantis; another is sacramental, which is imposed by the minister and operates ex opere operato. This is defined: the voluntary toleration of punishment, imposed by the judicial power of the minister, for compensating the injury inflicted on God and redeeming the temporal punishment due for the injury, even after sin has been remitted; or compensation for the temporal punishment due to sins through good and penal works, measured by the confessor and voluntarily accepted by the penitent (Suppl., q. 12, a. 3).

I say. The confessor is bound to impose satisfaction upon any penitent who is able to fulfill satisfaction; but he ought to enjoin not just any satisfaction whatsoever and at his own pleasure, but one both vindicatory and medicinal, fitting and salutary, namely one which is proportioned to the number and gravity of sins, and also to the penitent's strength and dispositions. The reason for both is, both because the confessor as minister of the sacrament is bound, insofar as he can, to procure its integrity, even accidental integrity, in the due manner and according to prudence, and because the Council of Trent thus requires, sess. 14, chap. 8, where it reads thus: "Therefore the priests of the Lord ought, as much as spirit and prudence shall suggest, 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 more indulgently with penitents, by enjoining certain very light works for very grave offenses, they be made participants in the sins of others. But let them have before their eyes that the satisfaction which they impose is not only for the protection of the new life and a medicine of infirmity, but also for the vindication and chastisement of past sins."

More briefly the Code: According to the quality and number of sins and the condition of the penitent, let the confessor enjoin salutary and fitting satisfactions; which the penitent ought to receive with willing soul and fulfill personally by himself (Can. 887).

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

Resp. This obligation, if mortal sins have been accused in confession, is grave from its kind, although many exceptions can be given, as will be said below. The reason is that the precept by which, in such a hypothesis, the confessor is bound would be grave per se, both by reason of the matter and by reason of the end. But if only venial sins have been accused, it is disputed among theologians; but probable is the opinion of those who hold that it is light, because Christ instituted this sacrament by way of judgment, of which satisfaction would be only an integral part or complement; but a judge who omits some complement of slight moment in rendering judgment does not fail gravely in his office. Besides, the penitent who does not fulfill a light satisfaction imposed upon him for light sins does not sin gravely; therefore neither does the confessor sin gravely who does not impose it; for the fulfillment of satisfaction is as much required for the integrity of the sacrament as its imposition. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 47. - Lugo, disp. 25, nn. 47 and seq. - Salmant., chap. 10, nn. 15 and seq. - Baller. note (a) p. 409.

Question 2. How great a satisfaction is to be imposed upon penitents?

Resp. This quantity cannot be determined universally; but it is left to the prudence and judgment of the confessor. Nevertheless it is certain, regularly speaking, that a grave satisfaction must be imposed for mortal sins, and a light one for venial sins. But a satisfaction is 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 of itself would oblige under grave obligation if it were commanded. Hence a grave satisfaction, 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; but it would not be considered grave if only the Psalm Miserere were imposed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 508 and 515.

Question 3. When is satisfaction or sacramental penance to be imposed?

Resp. 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 pledge satisfaction before he is absolved. But if the confessor from forgetfulness has not enjoined 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 the penitent is presumed to be going to accept the work enjoined upon him. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 514.

Question 4. For what cause can a lighter penance be imposed?

Resp. If the penitent 1°. 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 indicated which, if they grow well, they may perform at a suitable time:" indeed 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 upon him; 2°. if there is prudent fear lest he not fulfill a greater penance, or lest on account of a more grave penance he be turned away from confession; 3°. if probably a greater penance would do him more harm than good; 4°. if the penitent appears very contrite; 5°. if the time is present for gaining a plenary indulgence, especially of a jubilee. Nevertheless "Confessors should not omit to impose his own salutary penance upon each penitent in the sacrament, not even under pretext of the jubilee to be obtained by the same penitent": Warnings, for the Holy Year, 1900. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 507; and Hom. Ap., n. 49. - Baller. note (a) p. 411.

You Will Resolve. 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 the whole of life. Indeed penances are not to be imposed for a lengthy time, for example, for a year or for five months, nor even for one month, at least ordinarily. Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 52.

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

3°. Nor are fasts to be imposed upon boys, peasants, craftsmen worn out by continual labor, nor upon sons living in the family, who by fasting would bring wonderment upon parents or even offend them. Pilgrimages or lengthy prayers are not to be enjoined, nor, generally, alms upon women constituted under the power of a husband, just as neither upon the poor procuring a livelihood for themselves by constant labor.

4°. Penances involved with many diverse works are not to be imposed, because they cannot be held in memory; nor, at least ordinarily, penances too repugnant to nature, for example, to sign the cross with the tongue on the ground, to visit enemies, etc. Also, it is generally imposed imprudently upon children that they ask pardon from parents or from others because of disobedience, irreverence, or petty thefts; because these things often render confession odious and for the most part are omitted, etc.

5°. Certainly there can be imposed, and often more usefully there is imposed, some work already owed from another source. The reason is that, since that work is satisfactory, it can well be elevated by the keys to the merit of sacramental satisfaction. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 513.

6°. There can also be imposed, at least probably, some penance under the condition of relapse, for example, if you again become drunk, you will fast. For in this case the penance would be as though disjunctive: either you will apply an entirely great effort toward resisting temptation, or you will fast. Nevertheless, it is expedient that some other satisfaction be imposed absolutely. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 524. - Baller. note (a) p. 412.

7°. The penitent, fulfilling prayers or pious works to which indulgences are attached, can at the same time both satisfy the penance and gain the indulgences. S. C. Indulg., 14 June 1901.

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.

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.

II. This satisfaction must necessarily be offered to God in vengeance for offences, as all Catholics teach against the innovators. Obvious are the testimonies of the Scriptures. Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning. Joel 2. Bring forth fruits worthy of penance. Matthew 3.

III. QUESTION II. What are the works by which a man can satisfy God for sins? ANSWER. Three: prayer, fasting, almsgiving. To these three the rest are reduced. Prayer includes all things which regard divine worship. Fasting comprehends all chastisements of the body, hair-shirts, lying on the ground, disciplines, and vigils. Almsgiving restrains avarice, cupidity, and the concupiscence of the eyes. To these three works are reduced also the scourges and calamities which are inflicted upon us by God.

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.

VI. QUESTION III. What are the effects of satisfaction? ANSWER. Several. 1. Satisfaction tears out the relics of sins. 2. It restrains the appetitions and concupiscence. 3. It offers an argument of a sincere conversion, when it is in fact true. 4. It turns away the wrath of God. 5. It renders penitents in a certain manner like to Christ their Head. 6. It restores the rights of the Church injured. 7. It pays the debt for the temporal guilt which remains after the fault is remitted.

VII. QUESTION IV. What was the ancient discipline of the Church in imposing satisfactions? ANSWER. More things would have to be said, which the brevity set before me forbids. At the beginning of the Church a most severe penance was performed, with no prescribed manner or measure. On occasion of the Novatian schism four states of penitents were instituted. 1. Of the weepers, who, clothed in sackcloth and mournful garb, before the doors of the church, their outrages being laid open, commended themselves to the prayers of the faithful entering. 2. Of the hearers, who in the vestibule of the church heard the lessons of sacred Scripture and the sermons of the priests. 3. Of the prostrate, who were received within the compass of the temple as far as the ambo. In this station they remained at the bishop's discretion, and expiating their offences by the reading of the Scriptures, by tears, by fasts and prayers, they received absolution. 4. Of the consistent, who sat in the church, partakers of all the prayers.

VIII. This discipline of penance flourished in the Latin Church down to the seventh century. About this time there came forth, against the severity of the ancient canons, certain penitential books, which under the paint of kindliness dared to temper the ancient penitential canons. The Second Council of Chalon abrogated these books: of which, it says, the errors are certain, the authors uncertain.

IX. All inculcate upon confessors the knowledge of the ancient canons, as Benedict XIV adverts, Book 7 On the Synod, chapter 41, that from them they may gather by what reason they can temper, increase, or diminish the penances to be imposed. For although the exterior penalties be diminished, the spirit of penance nevertheless is unchangeable, and always perseveres the same in the Church. If a milder exterior penance is now imposed for the gravest outrages, the internal fervour of spirit ought to supply.

X. St. Charles Borromeo collected together the ancient penitential canons, and distributed them through the ten precepts of the Decalogue: which collection I have given entire in Vol. IX, dissertation 5, for the convenience of confessors.

XI. The spirit of penance always perseveres the same in the Church, unchangeable, as I have said. The exterior discipline of penance flourishes in our age most mildly. Individuals diminish it according to their own bent, since the canons of that unchangeable spirit do not now obtain. A rule nevertheless Trent prescribed, which I shall presently give.

XII. But what ought more deeply to move and to break our soul is that not only the exterior discipline of penalties has been changed, but the very interior spirit of penance is utterly extinct among the greatest part of Christians. When a severer exterior penance flourished, the charity of Christ burned in men's hearts, a true contrition glowed. Upon the ancient external discipline, tempered and as it were grown obsolete, there has succeeded a servile attrition conceived from fear of punishments not only eternal but, according to certain casuists, even temporal. There succeeds an inconstant and implicit purpose. Finally the precepts of charity and of contrition have gone into desuetude among certain kindlier casuists. Christ would have aggravated, say Viva, Sporer, and the rest like them, and not lightened the yoke of Christians, if together with confession he required a grief formed by charity even inchoate. More things would have to be said by me, if I wished to set forth worthily the laxities that have been brought in. You, ministers of Christ, consult the ancient canons, and touch with your own hands to what a state our sacramental matters have been reduced.

XIII. An admonition to confessors. Consider, ministers of Christ, that in our age pride, concupiscence, luxury, avarice, display, ambition, and effeminacy rage more shamelessly than in the first centuries of the Church. No less now do adultery, fornication, perjury, and so forth inflict injury upon God than of old. Therefore the same payment will discharge them. They will pay, say some, in Purgatory. Be it so. But in the meanwhile medicinal penances curing diseases and restraining concupiscence and the other unbridled appetitions, unless they be strong and severe, do not heal the sick. But has a new and gentler medicine been found, hitherto unknown to the Church, by which pride may be pressed down, the flesh sweetly and kindly crucified, and concupiscence restrained? Awake, ministers of God, and according to the Gospel of Christ institute your reckonings.

In imposing a penance a confessor ought to be careful not to tell children to do anything which motives of shame or shyness would easily prevent their doing, such as to beg pardon of parents or others. The infidel poet Alfieri in his Memorie autobiografiche says that, when he was seven or eight years old, he made his first confession to a Carmelite, who told him to throw himself down at his mother’s feet just before dinner and publicly ask her to forgive him his faults. When the time came and all had assembled, he could not make up his mind to perform his penance or to utter a word, and so, as he says: “I conceived a violent hatred for that monk, and thenceforth had very little inclination to receive this Sacrament.” This was the beginning of his godless life. Father Ballerini remarks regarding the imposition of such a penance: “Not rarely will you find that the fruit of that imprudence has been this: that children, daring neither to ask the confessor for a change of penance nor to ask pardon from parents or others, and much less afterward daring to confess the sin of the omitted penance, began a series of sacrilegious confessions and prolonged it for many years with sacrilegious Communion added.”

Case.—Emerentianus, a saintly confessor, has many penitents, some of whom he is preparing to enter the ecclesiastical state. In the course of his preparation, he has laid down certain rules for their daily government; that is, he has marked out certain rules, a sort of novitiate, to be followed by these special penitents. When he finds they have not lived up to these rules, he orders them to abstain from Holy Communion on specific days, either as a stimulus, or as penance. He even follows this plan in dealing with some of his other penitents, who are to remain in the world.

Question.—Is such a plan advisable?

Solution.—Holiness, no doubt, is very desirable in the life of a confessor; but it is not the only requisite. God, whose place the confessor takes, expects his representative to have the necessary knowledge for his work, and a certain amount of practical prudence. Now it is evident from the decree of Pius X. (Dec. 20th, 1905), that confessors should urge their penitents to receive Holy Communion frequently, even daily. The confessor is obliged to be familiar with this decree, and to desire to execute it. According to this decree, only two things are required for daily Communion, freedom from mortal sin, and a right intention. The law reads: “Nevertheless, confessors are to take care not to turn away from frequent or daily Communion anyone who is found in the state of grace and approaches with a right intention.” Freedom from mortal sin and a desire to please God, coupled with a wish to run to the Divine Physician with our infirmities and defects, entitle a penitent to receive the Holy Eucharist daily. It is evident that the penitents in question are of this class and fulfil all the conditions demanded by the late Holy Father. Therefore they should be permitted to receive the Body and Blood of their Lord as often as they desire. It seems to us that the method of action pursued by the confessor in question is very unwise, and imprudent, and at the same time very unjust. His penitents are endeavoring to come closer to God, as is evident from their acceptance of the rule of life, and the confessor should therefore encourage them to the use of every means at his disposal that will help them to realize their desire. Now theology, reason, and common sense tell us that daily Communion is the most sure means of obtaining strength for all who are bent upon the acquisition of purity of life, and who are determined to advance in holiness. The confessor’s ruling deprives these penitents of this powerful, God-given means to a successful issue with the infirmities and temptations of weak human nature, and is consequently detrimental to the very end he has in view. It should, therefore, not be countenanced. It is true that the Holy Father declares that the confessor should be consulted, on so important a spiritual matter; but in doing so, he lays down the laws that are to govern the confessor in forming his judgment. In the present case, we must notice that there is no question of sin, either mortal or venial, but of the breaking of regulations merely arbitrary in their nature. Now, no such regulations fall under the laws specified by the Supreme Pontiff. It is evident, likewise, that the infraction of these arbitrary rules does not show a lack of the necessary intention. It is clear that the injunctions of the Vicar of Christ are by no means lived up to in the case before us. Emerentianus should find some less damaging and more fruitful plan to accomplish his excellent and holy object. Let us add here that abstinence from Holy Communion not being a salutary penance, should not be made a Sacramental penance. It is subversive of the very object of Sacramental penance, and is therefore unjustifiable. Penance by its nature is intended to do good: this one does harm. It is intended to heal: this one removes the most salutary of all remedies. Emerentianus is pursuing a wrong course, one that is in no way to be praised.