The Obligation of Accepting and Fulfilling Satisfaction

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.

I. Obligation of accepting satisfaction. The penitent is bound, considering present discipline, to accept an equitable satisfaction (canon 887). This follows from the right and obligation of the confessor to impose it. Moreover:

1. The obligation of accepting satisfaction seems grave if the satisfaction imposed is grave. Nor should it be objected that the penitent can depart without grave fault, because he is not bound under grave obligation to complete the sacrament, or because it is not grave to posit only part of the rite. For even if that is conceded, nevertheless a grave obligation of accepting seems to follow from the right and grave obligation of the confessor to impose grave satisfaction.

2. The obligation of accepting satisfaction seems only light if the satisfaction imposed is light. The reason is that in the case a grave obligation of not departing is not clear.

3. Likewise the penitent is bound under grave obligation to have the will of fulfilling the satisfaction imposed, if the matter concerns grave satisfaction. If the satisfaction is light, some require under grave obligation the will of fulfilling it, because according to them the will of fulfilling pertains to the essence of the sacrament (n. 291). Others demand the said will only under light obligation, because of the contrary reason. Because the former opinion is probable, in practice it must be said that the will of fulfilling a light satisfaction is required under grave obligation, namely lest the sacrament be exposed to danger of nullity.

4. Of itself the penitent does not sin by accepting satisfaction with the intention of asking commutation from another, because a petition for commutation of itself involves nothing evil.

Corollary I. If satisfaction manifestly greater than just is imposed, the penitent can ask for diminution and, if this is denied, depart (St. Alphonsus, VI, 516). If he does not depart and receives absolution, which is also licit for him, according to some he is bound to fulfill the satisfaction, lest the sacrament be deprived of an integral part; according to others, he is not bound to fulfill the satisfaction, and it must be imputed to the confessor that the sacrament lacks an integral part. But he seems to be bound, if the matter of penance is well divisible, to fulfill the part equal to the sins.

Corollary II. Let the confessor easily acquiesce to one asking a lesser or another satisfaction and prepared to fulfill a grave one (St. Alphonsus, VI, 516).

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

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.

“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.

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.

361. 1° Existence of this obligation: The penitent is bound to accept and fulfill the penance reasonably enjoined upon him by the confessor. It is certain.

For (a) the Fourth Lateran Council, after enunciating the law of annual confession, adds:³ "and let him strive according to his strength to fulfill the penance enjoined upon him." Moreover, according to the testimony of Trent (above, n. 336), the confessor has the right and office of imposing penance; but such a right would be useless unless the penitent were bound to accept and fulfill it. (b) Moreover, the penitent, no less than the confessor, is obliged to procure the integrity of the sacrament; but, from what has been said, sacramental penance is an integrating part of the sacrament; therefore.

³ Ap. Denzing., n. 363.

362. Corollaries. (a) Yet this obligation does not bind if the confession is invalid, or absolution was not given: for then the sacrament does not exist, and therefore no obligation arises from it.

Nevertheless, if the confessor imposes some medicinal penance as a condition of future absolution, it must be performed, not indeed as an integrating part of the sacrament, but as a preparation for absolution. The same must be said if a penance is prescribed in a confession which absolution does not follow, for the purpose that a lesser one can be enjoined at the time when the penitent is absolved, as often happens: for then it must be fulfilled by reason not of absolution received, but of absolution to be received.

(b) If the penitent thinks that the satisfaction is too burdensome, he can ask that it be changed or lessened, and regularly the confessor will acquiesce in his desire. Yet if the confessor is unwilling to moderate it, the penitent can depart without absolution and confess his sins to another priest, or accept the penance and ask from another confessor that he commute it.

363. 2° Gravity of this obligation: The penitent is bound under grave obligation to fulfill a penance which is legitimately enjoined under grave obligation. It is certain.

(A) It is proved. For the confessor, as judge, has the power of commanding under grave obligation those things which in a grave matter pertain to the integrity of the sacrament; but penance pertains to the integrity of the sacrament, and indeed in a grave matter, when it is imposed for grave offenses; therefore.

364. (B) It is explained. Now the confessor is judged to oblige under grave obligation when he imposes a grave satisfaction for mortal sins not yet accused, unless he says the contrary; for the gravity of the obligation must be proportioned to the gravity of the matter.

Yet the confessor can, according to the more common opinion, impose for grave sins a grave penance under light obligation only, because any legislator can prescribe grave matter under light obligation. Yet this is not expedient, according to St. Alphonsus (n. 518), except when another penance has already been imposed under grave obligation; then another, graver one can be added under light obligation, in order to consult the penitent's weakness.

When the penance is light, it obliges only under light obligation. But if a satisfaction grave in itself is imposed for venial sins or for mortal sins already remitted, more probably it obliges only under light obligation, because the confessor is judged not to have wished to oblige under grave obligation; or if he did wish it, he exceeded his power, since penance must be proportioned to the gravity of the sin. Yet the case is excepted in which a grave penance is enjoined for light sins which strongly dispose toward mortal sins, so that this danger may be removed; but this is done not by way of satisfaction for sins, but for urging the natural obligation of avoiding proximate occasions.

365. Corollary. He who culpably omits either a part or a circumstance of the penance sins gravely or not, according as this part or circumstance is notable or not. But in order to judge whether it is notable or not, one must inquire whether, all things considered, in itself or in relation to the penitent, it causes grave or light trouble, according to the judgment of prudent men; for example, if someone is ordered to recite the rosary before an image of the Blessed Virgin, this circumstance is light; if he is ordered to recite it with arms extended, it seems to be grave. In practice, circumstances of this kind should be imposed only with great circumspection.

399. 1. The penitent is bound to accept the satisfaction reasonably imposed upon him by the confessor.

The reason is that, just as the confessor is bound to impose a penance, so also the penitent ought to accept it. Moreover, satisfaction is at least an integral part of the sacrament of penance. Now the penitent no less than the confessor ought to furnish an integral part of the sacrament. But it is not necessary to accept an unreasonable satisfaction, that is, one which, in view of the present discipline of the Church, does not correspond to the capacity of the penitent. Therefore a person who has confessed can either ask the confessor for another penance, or depart without absolution, or indeed accept the satisfaction here and now, yet with the intention of afterward asking another confessor for a commutation. In general, in practice it is expedient that the confessor acquiesce in a penitent asking for a penance other than that imposed, unless, however, this petition is certainly unreasonable.

400. 2. The penitent must not only accept but also fulfill the satisfaction which has been legitimately imposed.

The reason is the same as for acceptance. Moreover, one who accepted a satisfaction which he afterward voluntarily failed to fulfill without an excusing cause would, as it were, bring the sacrament into mockery. Now the confessor is considered to enjoin satisfaction under grave obligation when a) mortal sins not yet remitted have been accused, and b) the matter imposed is grave. For the gravity of the obligation ordinarily corresponds to the gravity of the matter. If a grave satisfaction has been imposed for light sins, its fulfillment binds under light obligation. According to certain authors, the confessor can for a grave fault enjoin a grave penance which nevertheless binds only under light obligation. All rightly note, however, that this manner of acting is not expedient unless another penance under grave obligation has already been imposed.²⁶⁶

Therefore three conditions are required for the penitent to be bound under grave obligation to fulfill the satisfaction:

a) That the satisfaction be imposed for a grave guilt not yet directly remitted. For a penance binding gravely cannot be imposed for venial sins or for mortal sins already remitted.

b) That the matter of the satisfaction imposed be grave in itself. For light matter does not induce a grave obligation.

c) That the confessor have intended to bind gravely, which nevertheless in practice is always to be presumed in grave matter.

If these three conditions are present, and nevertheless the penitent through his own fault omits the satisfaction or a notable part of it, he sins gravely; in all other cases the neglect of satisfaction is a venial sin.

²⁶⁶ Cf. St. Alphonsus, l.c., n. 518.

401. If anyone has forgotten the satisfaction accepted, he is bound to approach the same confessor, if this can conveniently be done, in order to learn what satisfaction he must fulfill. The reason is that the fulfillment of such satisfaction is still morally possible, and therefore it must be performed. But if the penitent cannot conveniently return, he is not bound to confess again. For in this case sacramental satisfaction has become morally impossible for him. It is expedient, however, that he then voluntarily impose some suitable satisfaction upon himself. When, after the penitent's return, the confessor no longer remembers the satisfaction imposed nor even the sins heard, he is not bound to require a new confession, at least not a complete one, but it suffices that he be able to judge in some manner concerning the state of the penitent before imposing a new sacramental satisfaction.

The penitent himself, and not his representative, must fulfill the satisfaction imposed. For just as the penitent himself, and not a representative, committed and accused the sins, so also the penitent himself, and not one acting in his place, must make satisfaction for the sins committed.²⁶⁷

Concerning the time and manner of fulfilling the penance, the following things are to be noted:

²⁶⁷ Cf. proposition 15 condemned by Alexander VII, cited above at n. 397(e).

402. 1. The penance must be fulfilled at the time assigned, and if no time was assigned, as soon as this can morally be done.

It is not required that the penance be fulfilled before absolution or before Communion, as Peter of Osma, the Jansenists, and others wished.²⁶⁸ When the penance was not discharged at the time assigned, it must be performed afterward, because the time was assigned not to terminate but to urge the obligation. Hence, for example, one who received a penance of assisting at Mass for eight consecutive days, if on one or another day he neglected this obligation, must afterward hear the Masses omitted. To defer without sufficient reason a grave penance enjoined is a sin, and indeed a grave one if inability to fulfill it afterward is foreseen or if there is danger of forgetfulness. But what delay of a penance is of itself gravely sinful cannot be determined; hence, while certain authors think a delay of eight days to be grave, others, on the contrary, for example Diana, judge that a delay is not grave unless it is of one year.²⁶⁹ In practice the confessor should earnestly exhort penitents to discharge the satisfaction imposed immediately after confession, if this is possible.

It is a difficult question whether a penitent who discharges the work enjoined in the state of mortal sin satisfies the obligation. Theologians depart into various opinions. "The doctors agree that he does not sin mortally. Some ... say that he does not sin in any way, because, as they say, there is no fault in placing an obstacle only to the remission of punishment. Others, however, more probably hold that he sins venially, because placing an obstacle to a partial effect of the sacrament cannot be excused from every fault. But Wigandt, the Salmanticenses, and Antoine say that, when the obstacle ceases, the penance then has the effect of satisfaction, contrary to Scotus, Medina, Bonacina, and Vasquez, who judge that it has the effect when it is fulfilled." Thus St. Alphonsus.²⁷⁰ Nothing certain can be said concerning this matter. There are difficulties on every side. For it is difficult to understand how a good work performed in the state of mortal sin, since it is a dead work, can obtain from God the remission of temporal punishment, and this all the more because such a man is worthy of eternal punishment. Then it is still more difficult to understand how a dead work, which never lived, can revive when the obstacle has been removed. Whatever the case, one can conclude with Billuart:²⁷¹ "It is probable that through a work in the state of mortal sin the precept of the confessor is satisfied, and that it need not be repeated, because it is satisfactory in some manner. It is at least the more common opinion and the common sense of the faithful, who are not accustomed to accuse themselves that they fulfilled satisfaction outside charity, and this seems to be the intention of confessors, especially when they impose penances to endure for a long time. Nevertheless, because it is not absolutely certain that God accepts these works for satisfaction, it is advisable that confessors always enjoin at least some part of the penance to be fulfilled immediately."

²⁶⁸ Cf. the condemned propositions in Denz., nn. 728, 1306, 1312, 1437, 1535.

²⁶⁹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 525.

²⁷⁰ Ibid., n. 523.

²⁷¹ De poenit., diss. 9, a. 7.

403. 2. The manner of discharging the penance ought to be conformed to the precept or intention of the confessor.

Hence, if the confessor commands prayers to be recited on bended knees or before a particular altar, these circumstances must be observed. Ordinarily, however, to neglect circumstances of this kind is not a grave sin, unless they render the performance of the work much more difficult. Unless the mind of the confessor is known, his intention is to be explained in the same manner as ecclesiastical laws. Hence, if the penitent must hear Mass each day as a satisfaction, he is not bound to hear two Masses on Sundays and feast days; if he must recite the Rosary, he can do this alternately with a companion or with the people; prayers to be recited as satisfaction can be said during a Mass of precept, and so forth. It is not required that the penitent, when performing the work enjoined, have an explicit intention of making satisfaction, provided, however, that he does not have a contrary intention.

St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 8, a. 7; q. 18, a. 4; q. 14, a. 3, ad 1.

549. Principle. In the sacrament of Penance, satisfactions are to be enjoined according to quantity and quality, fitting for the quality of the crime to be repaired, and for the ability of the penitents. - This is certain from the Council of Trent, sess. 14, c. 8:

"Therefore the priests of the Lord ought, as spirit and prudence shall suggest, according to the quality of the crimes and the ability 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 most grave offenses, they be made participants in the sins of others" (cf. can. 887).

Therefore the priest cannot enjoin satisfaction at will, but according to a reasonable judgment regulated by prudence and divine instinct; with attention to the various circumstances of matters and persons, i.e., to the quantity and gravity of the crimes, and to the quality and disposition of the penitent, he ought to measure and impose them. For satisfactions are ordered to paying the debt and to furnishing a remedy; and therefore they are both vindicative for punishing and expiating past sins, and medicinal, not only for healing present wounds but also for guarding against future ones. Hence they are accustomed to say that penance ought to be: vindicative for past sins, for their vengeance and chastisement; medicinal for removing the present remains of sin, as medicine of infirmity; preservative for guarding against future sins, for the keeping of new life. Now if it is considered as payment of punishment, any penal work whatever is apt for satisfying for the punishment due to any sin, not in the sense that it is equal in quantity, but that any species of punishment suffices; whence, just as one contrition destroys all things, so by the same punishment the honor of God is restored. But if it is considered as medicine preserving, healing, and expelling vices, it is fitting, and sometimes ought, that satisfaction be diverse according to diverse sins, because contrary vices ought to be expelled by contrary virtues; nevertheless prayer has a general influx and is in some way medicine for every moral evil.

It is proved: in the sacrament of Penance, instituted for the destruction of sin and the emendation of the sinner, punishments are ordered not only to paying the debt but also to furnishing a remedy. But the same remedy is not given to all the sick, but a different one according to the different infirmity; indeed, the same is not always to be furnished even to those equally sick, but according to the disposition of the sick person. Therefore neither is the same satisfaction of punishment always to be imposed, but according to the nature of the sin and according to the disposition of the sinner.

"Because satisfactory punishments to be inflicted are medicines, just as medicines determined in the art do not befit 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 determined in the canons (of the old law) do not befit 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 a medicine so efficacious that it would suffice for the cure of the disease, lest because of the weakness of nature a greater danger arise, so a priest, moved by divine instinct, does not always enjoin the whole punishment which is due to one sin, lest someone infirm despair from the magnitude of the punishment and withdraw totally from penance" St. Thomas, q. 18, a. 4; cf. q. 9, a. 2 cited above, n. 521.

It is confirmed: the same sin is sometimes more difficult to avoid in one than in another, for example in a young man than in an old man, or it is more dangerous, e.g., in a priest than in a layman. And the multitude can be more prone to a lesser sin, from which it must be deterred through punishment, than to another more grave one. Let St. Thomas be heard, q. 8, a. 7: "Punishment after the remission of fault is required for two things, namely, for paying the debt and for furnishing a remedy. Therefore the measuring of punishment can be considered as to two things: first, as to debt, and thus the quantity of punishment radically corresponds to the quantity of fault, before anything of it is remitted"; but after fault has been remitted through contrition (or also absolution), "as much as has been remitted through contrition, so much... through confession (in which the punishment of satisfaction is imposed) remains less to be remitted. Secondly, as to remedy either of him who sinned or of others; and thus sometimes a greater penance is enjoined for a lesser sin, either because the sin of one can be resisted with more difficulty than the sin of another, as a greater punishment is imposed on a young man for fornication than on an old man, although he sins less; or because in one person the sin is more dangerous, as in a priest, than in another; or because the multitude is more prone to that sin, and therefore through the punishment of one others are to be frightened away. Therefore punishment in the forum of penance is to be measured as to both. And therefore a greater punishment is not always imposed for a greater sin."

550. Applications. - Hence satisfactions ought to be proportioned:

1. To the gravity of the crimes: for the confessor is bound to this as judge and physician. Hence:

a) He sins who, without a just excusing cause, enjoins a light penance for sins certainly mortal; and this sin is grave from its genus, because, as the Council of Trent says, by enjoining very light works for most grave offenses, he is made a participant in the sins of others and connives at sins. And therefore they gravely err who indiscriminately enjoin on all a few Our Fathers and Hail Marys, even, e.g., for many carnal sins, not thinking whether the penance is proportioned to the sins, whether it is medicinal, since thus they furnish an occasion of sinning more licentiously.

Here is a general rule, which nevertheless admits many exceptions, e.g., if someone after one mortal sin is immediately contrite, or committed only a single mortal sin over a long time, great contrition will easily be present, which can be a reason for not imposing a grave penance; similarly, if the sins are doubtfully grave, whether objectively or subjectively, a grave satisfaction is not required, since in doubt odious things are to be restricted.

b) If mortal sins are multiplied or increased, also regularly a graver penance must be enjoined, and one graver in proportion as the sins are more numerous and more grave;1 not, however, according to arithmetical proportion, which would lead to morally impossible penances.

c) Nor ought the proportion to be perfect, so that that penance is imposed which suffices for obtaining from God the whole remission of the punishment which remains to be sustained, for what this punishment is entirely escapes us. Nor today is a fixed tax of punishments determined by the Church, as formerly.

According to today's discipline, a grave penance is judged to be one which corresponds to a work which, by reason of burden or quantity, is imposed by the Church under grave obligation or can be imposed, e.g., to hear Mass once, to fast, to recite the rosary, indeed even the third part of the rosary, to read the Office of the Blessed Virgin Mary, or the seven penitential psalms, the Litany of All Saints with the following prayers, to make the way of the cross, to meditate or read a pious book for a quarter of an hour.2 But a light penance is judged to be the psalm Miserere or one of the customary psalms, the Litany of Loreto, or of the Name of Jesus, or of the Most Sacred Heart, acts of faith, hope, and charity, five Our Fathers and Hail Marys. Nevertheless a penance light in itself can become grave if the penitent must recite it not once but several times, e.g., five Our Fathers for an octave.

2. To the quantity of punishment which remains to be paid: for, supposing that contrition was more vehement, by that very fact the temporal punishment to be paid is diminished, and therefore the penance can be less; yet it cannot be concluded that because of very intense contrition no penance is to be enjoined, because it is never certain that no temporal punishment remains, nor can the minister expose himself to the danger of mutilating the sacrament. Hence:

a) A lighter satisfaction can be enjoined in time of jubilee or on occasion of a plenary indulgence to be gained, because by indulgences temporal punishment is extinguished or diminished; yet this is not a sufficient reason for omitting every imposition, because the sacrament ought not remain maimed: thus Benedict XIV, Const. Inter praeteritos, Dec. 3, 1749, and Leo XII, Const. Caritate Christi, Dec. 25, 1825.

b) Likewise if the confessor wishes to satisfy for the penitent by fasting or other penal works: for although such satisfaction is of less value than sacramental satisfaction, which operates ex opere operato, it can be of greater value on the part of the work of the one operating, because greater works are done or from greater charity.

3. To the ability of the penitents, according to the prudent estimation of the confessor, i.e., as the Roman Ritual says, tit. 3, c. 1, n. 19, "account being taken of the state, condition, sex, age, and disposition of the penitents," in other words, according to their powers and dispositions, to be measured according to the prudent estimation of the confessor. For it is better to impose a lighter satisfaction which will be gladly and perfectly fulfilled, than to impose a greater one which is paid negligently or defectively. - Therefore let it be:

a) According to the powers of the penitent. Thus a light penance is to be enjoined on the sick because they are not capable of fulfilling a heavier one;3 indeed, if they are very weak, the confessor laudably helps them to fulfill the penance immediately (by reciting it, e.g., with them); but if hope shines forth of recovering health, the Roman Ritual, n. 26, suggests that another work be enjoined conditionally, to be performed if they recover. - Likewise, as not proportioned to the powers of the penitent, incongruous penances ordinarily are not to be enjoined: whether lengthy ones, for half a year or more, or perpetually, because such penances generate anxiety and after some time easily fall into forgetfulness,4 and if they were more often imposed by various confessors, they would bind with innumerable bonds; - or manifest ones (at least for occult sins), which namely cannot be fulfilled without suspicion arising that a grave sin has been accused, and thus without indirect revelation of confession (e.g., abstinence from meats, or drink in water for children of a household, fasting for three days for a wife, the way of the cross for one who never makes it, abstinence from holy communion when all communicate, and other things which excite wonder and suspicion); - or unusual ones, moving the wonder of the people (e.g., to recite five Our Fathers and Hail Marys in the middle of the church with arms extended, or to make the way of the cross where such things are not usually done); - or ones repugnant to nature, such as to mark a cross on the ground with the tongue, to visit enemies, for boys to ask pardon from parents or from others because of disobedience, irreverence, petty thefts; - or excessively burdensome ones, such as entrance into religion, marriage, and those things which expose one to ridicule; likewise vigils or fasts or afflictions of the body for adolescents, the sick, rustics, or workers tired out by continual labor; or pilgrimages, lengthy prayers, alms, for those who are constituted under power: a wife, servants, maidservants, or the poor who obtain their sustenance for themselves by continual labor; - or intricate ones, consisting of many diverse works, because they are given over to forgetfulness. Hence, if the recitation of a prayer for several days is prescribed, it is expedient to warn that if the penitent omits it on one day, he can make it up on the following day, so that anxieties may thus be avoided.

b) According to the dispositions of the penitent, where attention must be given both to the danger of scandal or relapse, lest a lighter punishment be imposed, and to the mode in which the penitent is going to accept and fulfill the satisfaction, lest one more grave be enjoined which probably he will not accept or will not complete. Since this sacrament was instituted more for procuring the salvation of men than for satisfying divine justice, if each end cannot be obtained, the secondary is to be neglected so that the salvation of the penitent may be obtained. To this end St. Thomas, l.c. above from q. 18, a. 4; and Quodl. III, q. 13, a. 28: "It seems sufficiently fitting that the priest not burden the penitent with a grave burden of satisfaction, because just as a small fire is easily extinguished by many pieces of wood placed upon it, so it could happen that the small effect of contrition recently excited in the penitent would be extinguished because of the grave burden of satisfaction, the sinner wholly despairing."

Hence a satisfaction which is foreseen to be altogether repugnant to the penitent should never be imposed; indeed, sometimes it helps to ask him whether he can (or is willing to) perform the penance imposed on him; otherwise the confessor will diminish or change it. Thus did Sts. Francis de Sales and Charles Borromeo. For experience establishes, says St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 510 (writing in an age in which many confessors were still imposing very great penance), that many are deterred from confession by fear of receiving too great a penance.

1. "Therefore of itself it does not suffice, for several grave sins, to enjoin a penance simply grave (e.g., a rosary)." Noldin, Th. M., III, n. 300, 2.

2. We said: by reason of burden or quantity; hence a Little Hour is not a grave penance because in the office it is prescribed under grave obligation by reason of quality.

3. Nevertheless the confessor can enjoin on them alms to be given through a mandatary, if this can be done fittingly.

4. Sometimes, however, such grave and lengthy penances are to be imposed by reason of the reservation of a censure or sin, which the Church does not intend to lift unless such a grave and lengthy penance has been imposed.

551. The causes for diminishing satisfaction are:

a) On the part of the penitent: 1) Infirmity, either bodily (to which weakness of mind pertains), from which it happens that he can fulfill a proportionate penance only with difficulty, - or spiritual, from which it is prudently feared that the penitent will not accept a greater penance, or will not fulfill it once accepted, or will be deterred from confession, so that the graver penance would rather harm the soul of the penitent than profit it: then it is expedient either that a free work which he is already going to fulfill be elevated into penance, or that besides the light supererogatory work enjoined, another be added which is already prescribed from elsewhere, e.g., hearing Mass on Sunday, fasting or abstinence from meats on a vigil, or that a work be imposed to be fulfilled during a work already prescribed, e.g., a rosary to be said during the Mass at which the penitent must soon be present.

2. Extraordinary contrition, by which the punishment to be paid is diminished, or great satisfaction already fulfilled before confession (in the state of grace), or also the custom of devoting oneself to many good works by which satisfaction may be made for sins; - unless nevertheless penance as medicine is necessary.

3. A founded hope of some special greater good or special utility, e.g., of alluring the penitent to confess often or to the frequent use of the sacraments.

b) On the part of the confessor: 4) The will of satisfying for the penitent, or penance heroically undertaken for him.

c) On the part of the Church: 5) A jubilee or another plenary indulgence now to be gained by the penitent, through which the punishment due to sin can be paid wholly; likewise indulgences, even not plenary, if the penitent is diligent in gaining them, as happens with those who, enrolled in confraternities, faithfully fulfill the prescribed works.

In these various cases it is expedient to warn the penitent about the insufficiency of the prescribed work (or also about the cause for which a lighter work is enjoined), so that he may voluntarily satisfy in other ways and not think his sins lighter. "The priest," St. Thomas warns, Quodl. III, q. 13, a. 28, "should indicate to the penitent how much penance would have to be enjoined on him for his sins."

552. A work to be enjoined by way of satisfaction can be any good and supernatural work. - Therefore of itself there can be imposed:

a) A work either external or merely internal (e.g., meditation, internal acts of faith, hope, charity, examination of conscience), which, although it cannot be prescribed by human authority in the government of society or in the external forum, nevertheless can well be prescribed in the internal forum of conscience, where the priest exercises ministerially not human but divine authority.

Besides, a merely internal work is made sensible through the imposition of the priest and the acceptance of the penitent; - nevertheless it is less fitting for the rude and unlearned, for whom internal acts are more difficult; indeed, generally external works are to be preferred because they are more laborious and therefore, other things equal, more satisfactory, and because they are more fitting for a sacrament which by its nature is a sensible sign.

b) A work either private or public, although this latter is not to be imposed for occult sins if from it danger arises of manifesting that a grave sin was accused, as was said in n. 550.

Hence the Ritual says, tit. III, c. 1, n. 22: "for occult sins, however grave, they should not impose a manifest penance." For public sins, however, sometimes public reparation is to be prescribed if scandal cannot otherwise be repaired; but it need not necessarily be imposed as sacramental satisfaction.

c) A work either supererogatory or free, or otherwise already due and prescribed: for a prescribed work can be satisfactory from its nature, and can be elevated by the power of the keys to the efficacy of sacramental satisfaction. Hence just as a prescribed work and one due from vow has a twofold merit, so also a work prescribed and enjoined for penance; and therefore if such a work is enjoined, e.g., hearing Mass on Sunday, its omission will be a twofold sin in species, namely, of transgression of law and of omission of penance, because a twofold precept is violated: one general, imposed by way of law, and the other particular, by way of command.

Thus there can be imposed as satisfaction the obligation of restoring, repairing, remitting, etc.; thus, if someone is negligent in fulfilling the precepts of the Church, fulfillment on one day can be imposed (e.g., fasting on a vigil), or for a time, as for a month or until the next confession (e.g., hearing Mass, abstinence from meats); if he is negligent in paying penances, supplying them can be imposed; likewise for pious penitents, works prescribed from a confraternity, or works they are accustomed to do, so that daily prayers may be performed faithfully or more exactly. Indeed, cessation from a good work can be prescribed, not as if cessation were good in itself, but insofar as it furnishes an occasion of exercising virtue, and is a test of obedience or humility; - unless nevertheless the abstinence would indirectly manifest confession.

Ordinarily, however, it is not expedient to enjoin works already prescribed, unless because of the singular frailty or occupation of the penitent, in which case generally a light free work should be added, e.g., hearing Mass is imposed with a sermon or with a prayer. But free works are to be enjoined, both so that an occasion may be furnished to the penitent of doing more good, and because more ought to be required from him than from an innocent person, and so that he may feel the weight and vindication of sin; whence a work imposed by way of satisfaction is not judged to be the same as that which is already prescribed by law, unless this is expressly declared by the confessor; e.g., if hearing Mass is enjoined, the penitent is bound to hear a Mass not prescribed.

I. QUESTION I. Are penitents bound under mortal sin to accept the penance imposed by the confessor? ANSWER. The Salmanticenses Morales, tract 6, chapter 10, point 4, advert out of others that they are not bound to accept it when it should be established to be unjust, but that they are bound when the excess should not be established. Shall penitents therefore be judges of the measure of the penance to be enjoined? Are litigants bound to accept the sentence of a supreme judge when they themselves judge it just, but otherwise when they reckon it unjust? What if the penances were unjust because too light and soft? For injustice can happen by defect as well as by excess. Are penitents skilled in the sacred canons and the discipline of the Church, so that they can bring forth a right judgment in their own cause? What of this, that very many casuists — as Rutz, Villalobos, and Zerola, cited by the Salmanticenses — deny that penitents are bound to accept even a just penance? This opinion is false, and contrary to the tradition of the whole Church. Wherefore the common opinion of theologians is affirmative, and the opposite opinion enjoys no probability, whether extrinsic or intrinsic. Hence it is that penitents who should omit the penance imposed for mortal sins first confessed would sin mortally, as the common opinion teaches, whether the penance imposed be grave or light. For a penalty for deadly sins first confessed is by its own nature grave. And although a confessor through unskilfulness should impose only the Psalm Miserere for the said faults, he who should deliberately omit this penalty would sin gravely, because this penalty, as it is satisfactory, is an integral part of the sacrament, and imposed for deadly sins; and although it be materially light, it is nevertheless formally, so to speak, grave.

II. Similarly a penance imposed for venial sins, or for mortal sins otherwise confessed, is to be accepted by the penitent; and if he should deliberately omit it, he would sin gravely, whatever some say to the contrary. Since although the said sins be not necessary matter, yet, granted that the penitent subjects them to the keys as the matter of the sacrament, he ought to fulfil the parts of the sacrament. But satisfaction is an integral part of the sacrament.

III. They dispute at what time the penance is to be fulfilled. Some teach that it can be deferred for a year, when the confessor has not defined the time. This opinion is false. For in this case the penitent ought to pay the debt as soon as he can. If the confessor determines a time — the day of some feast, a week, a month, and so forth — the penance ought to be fulfilled within the prescribed time, unless a lawful impediment excuse.

IV. A penitent cannot commute for himself the penance imposed, or fulfil it through another, as some contend, whose opinion Alexander VII condemned, no. 15: A penitent can by his own authority substitute another who may fulfil the penance in his stead. Any confessor can commute penances, the confession nevertheless having been heard of the sins for which it was imposed. Wherefore he cannot commute this penance outside confession. Similarly he cannot commute a penance imposed by a superior for reserved sins, because, as the sins, so also the penance is reserved to him.

V. What is to be said of a crafty sinner who, on account of a grave penance, approaches another confessor, the former confession being concealed, and confesses again, that he may receive a lighter satisfaction? Fr. La Croix writes these things: “Dicastillo nevertheless, no. 119, thinks it not improbable that one confessing the same sins CAN KEEP SILENCE, and afterwards perform the penance which he shall have willed, the first or the second.” In this fashion buyers are wont to act. They explore several shops, and where it is sold at a lesser price, there they buy the wares. And those who sell in this fashion have a greater concourse, says St. Bernardine of Siena: It happens in confessions as in trade: as merchants who give at a lesser price have a greater concourse, and so forth. This opinion, which out of Dicastillo Fr. La Croix proposes without after his manner confuting it as false and favouring the craftiness of penitents and not the holy Scriptures, I reject with the common consent of theologians.

VI. QUESTION II. Are penances therefore suspect because they are enjoined by mendicants? ANSWER. That this calumny was formerly laid upon the mendicants is established from the following thesis 21 condemned by Alexander VIII: A parishioner can suspect concerning mendicants who live on common alms that they impose a too light and incongruous penance or satisfaction for the sake of gain or of temporal profit. Ancient is this calumny, which first of all Guilielmus de Sancto Amore laid upon the mendicants. As it is of extreme rashness and malice to form such a judgment concerning mendicants, so must it in the highest degree be watched and guarded against that occasion be afforded to none of forming so iniquitous a suspicion.