Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/688

 PENANCE

624

PENANCE

therefore, the weight of theological opinion gradually- turned agamst the practice and since the practice never received the sanction of the Church, it cannot be urged as a proof that the power to forgive sins be- longed at any time to the laity. What the practice does show is that both people and theologians realized keenly the obligation of confessing their sins not to God alone but to some human listener, even though the latter possessed no power to absolve.

The same exaggerated notion appears in the prac- tice of confessing to the deacons in case of necessity. They were naturally preferred to laymen when no priest was accessible because in virtue of their office they administered Holy Communion. Moreover, some of the earlier councils (Elvira, a. d. 300; Toledo, 400) and penitent ials (Theodore) seemed to grant the power of penance to the deacon (in the priest's ab- sence). The Council of Tribur (895) declared in regard to bandits that if, when captured or wounded, they confessed to a priest or a deacon, they should not be denied communion; and this expression "pres- bytero vel diacono" was incorporated in the Decree of Gratian and in many later documents from the tenth century to the thirteenth. The Council of York (1195) decreed that except in the gravest necessity the deacon should not baptize, give communion, or "impose penance on one who confessed". Substan- tially the same enactments are found in the Councils of London (1200) and Rouen (1231), the constitutions of St. Edmund of Canterbury (1236), and those of Walter of Kirkham, Bishop of Durham (1255). All these enactments, though stringent enough as regards ordinary circumstances, make exception for urgent necessity. No such exception is allowed in the decree of the Synod of Poitiers (1280) : "desiring to root out an erroneous abuse which has grown up in our diocese through dangerous ignorance, we forbid deacons to hear confessions or to give absolution in the tribunal of penance: for it is certain and beyond doubt that they cannot absolve, since they have not the keys which are conferred only in the priestly order". This "abuse" probably disappeared in the fourteenth or fifteenth century; at all events no direct mention is made of it by the Council of Trent, though the reser- vation to bishops and priests of the absolving power shows plainly that the Council excluded deacons.

The authorization which the medieval councils gave the deacon in case of necessity did not confer the power to forgive sins. In some of the decrees it is expressly stated that the deacon has not the keys — claves non habenl. In other enactments he is forbidden except in cases of necessity to "give" or "impose penance", fxenileniiam dare, imponere. His function then was limited to the forum externum; in the ab.sence of a priest he could "reconcile" the sinner, i. e., restore him to the communion of the Church; but he did not and could not give the sacramental absolution which a priest would have given (Palmieri, Pesch). Another explanation emphasizes the fact that the deacon could lawfully administer the Holy Eucharist. The faithful were under a strict obligation to receive Communion at the approach of death, and on the other hand the reception of this sacrament sufficed to blot out even mortal sin provided the com- municant had the requisite dispositions. The deacon could hear their confession .simplv to assure himself that they were properly disposed, but not for the pur- pose of gi\'ing them absolution. If he went further and "imposed penance" in the stricter, sacramental sense, he exceeded his power, and any authorization to this effect granted by the bishop merely showed that the bishop was in error (Laurain, "De I'intervention des laiques. des diacres et des abbesses dans I'administra- tion de la pi5nitence", Paris, 1897). In any case, the prohibitory enactments which finally abolished the practice did not deprive the deacon of a power which was his by virtue of his office; but they brought

into clearer light the traditional belief that only bishops and priests can administer the Sacrament of Penance. (See below under Confession.)

For valid administration, a twofold power is neces- sary; the power of order and the power of jurisdic- tion. The former is conferred by ordination, the latter by ecclesiastical authority (see Jurisdiction). At his ordination a priest receives the power to con- secrate the Holy Eucharist, and for valid consecration he needs no jurisdiction. As regards penance, the case is different: "because the nature and character of a judgment requires that sentence be pronounced only on those who are subjects (of the judge) the Church of God has always held, and this Council affirms it to be most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction, is of no effect" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c.7). Ordinary jurisdiction is that which one has by reason of his office as involving the care of souls; the pope has it over the whole Church, the bishop within his diocese, the pastor within his parish. Delegated jurisdiction is that which is granted by an ecclesiastical superior to one who does not possess it by virtue of his office. The need of jurisdiction for administering this sacra- ment is usually expressed by saying that a priest must have "faculties" to hear confession (.see Faculties). Hence it is that a priest visiting in a diocese other than his own cannot hear confession without special authorization from the bishop. E^ery priest, how- ever, can absolve any one who is at the point of death, because under those circumstances the Church gives all priests jurisdiction. As the bishop grants jurisdiction, he can also limit it by "reserving" certain cases (see Reservation) and he can even withtlraw it entirely.

Recipient, i. e., the penitent. — The Sacrament .of Penance was instituted by Christ Tor the remission of sins committed after baptism. Hence, no unbaptized ^/ person, however deep and sincere his sorrow, can be '/'t validly absolved. Baptism, in other words, is the first essential requisite on the part, of the penitent. This does not imply that in the sins committed by an un- baptized person there is a special enormity or any- other element that places them beyond the power of the keys; but that one must first be a member of the Church before he can submit himself and his sins to the judicial process of sacramental Penance.

Contrition; Attrition. — Without sorrow for sin there is no forgiveness. iTehce the Council of Trent\ (Sess. XIV, c. 4): "Contrition, which holds the first V place among the acts of the penitent, is sorrow of heart / and detestation for sin committed, with the resolve/ to sin no more". The Council (ibid.) furthermore dis- tinguishes perfect contrition from imperfect contrition, which is called attrition, and which arises from the consideration of the turpitude of sin or from the fear of hell and punishment. See Attrition; Contri- tion, where these two kinds of sorrow are more fully explained and an account is given of the principal dis- cussions and opinions. See also treatises by Pesch, Palmieri, Pohle. For the present purpose it need only be stated that attrition, with the Sacrament of Pen- ance, suffices to obtain forgiveness of sin. The Coun- cil of Trent further teaches (ibid.): "though it some- times happens that this contrition is perfect and that it reconciles man with God before the actual reception of this sacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to the contrition itself apart from the desire of the sacrament which it (contrition) includes". In accordance with this teaching Pius V condemned (1.567) the proposition of Baius a,sserting that even perfect contrition does not, except in case of necessity or of martyrdom, remit sin without the actual recep- tion of the sacrament (Denzinger-Bannwart, "En- chir.", 1071). It should be noted, however, that the contrition of which the Council speaks is perfect in the sense that it includes the desire (volum) to receive the