Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/692

 PENANCE

628

PENANCE

This outline of the paliislic teaching shows: (1) that the Katliers insisted on a manifestation of sin as the necessary means of iinbuniening the soul and re- gaining the frii-ndsliip of God; 1,2) tiiat the confession was to be made not to a laj-man but to priests; (3) that priests exercise the power of absolving in virtue of a Divine commission, i. e., as representatives of Christ; (4) that the sinner, if he would be saved, must overcome his shame and repugnance to confession. And since the series of witnesses goes back to the latter part of the first century, the practice of confession must have existed from the earliest days. St. Leo had good reason for appealing to the "Apostolic rule" which made secret confession to the priest sufficient without the necessity of a public declaration. Nor is it surprising that Lactantius (d. c. 330) should have pointed to the practice of confession as a characteris- tic of the true Church: "That is the true Church in which there is confession and penance, which applies a wholesome remedy to the sins and wounds whereunto the weakness of the flesh is subject" ("Div. Inst.", IV, 30).

Wh.\t Sixs .\re to be Confessed. — Among the propositions condemned by the Council of Trent is the following: "That to obtain forgiveness of sins in the Sacrament of Penance, it is not necessary by Divine law to confess each and every mortal sin which is called to mind by due and careful examination, to confess even hidden sins and those that are against the last two precepts of the Decalogue, together with the circumstances that change the specific nature of the sin; such confession is only useful for the instruc- tion and consolation of the penitent, and of old was practised merely in order to impose canonical satis- faction" (Can. de poenit., vii). The Catholic teaching consequently is: that all mortal sins must be con- fessed of which the penitent is conscious, for these are so related that no one of them can be remitted unless all are remitted. Remission means that the soul is restored to the friendship of God; and this is obvi- ously impossible if there remain unforgiven even a single mortal sin. Hence, the penitent, who in con- fession wilfully conceals a mortal sin, derives ro benefit whatever; on the contrary, he makes void the sacrament and thereby incurs the guilt of sacrilege. If, however, the sin be omitted, not through any fault of the penitent, but through forgetfulness, it is for- given indirectly; but it must be declared at the next confession and thus submitted to the power of the keys.

While mortal sin is the necessary matter of con- fession, venial sin is sufficient matter, as are also the mortal sins already forgiven in previous confessions. This is the common teaching of theologians, in accord with the condemnation pronounced by Leo X on Luther's assertion, "By no means presume to confess venial sins ... in the primitive Church, only mani- fest mortal sins were confessed" (Bull, "Exurge Domine"; Denzinger, "Enchir.", 748). In the con- stitution "Inter cunctas" (17 Feb., 1304), Benedict XI, after stating that penitents who had confessed to a priest belonging to a religious order are not obliged to reiterate the confession to their own priest, adds: "Though it is not necessary to confess the same sins over again, nevertheless we regard it as salutary to repeat the confession, because of the shame it in- volves, which is a great part of penance; hence we strictly enjoin the Brothers [Dominicans and Fran- ciscans) to admonish their penitents and in sermons exhort them that they confess to their own priests at least once a year, aissuring them that this will un- doubtedly conduce to their spiritual welfare" (Den- zinger, "Enchir.", 470). St. Thomas gives the same reason for this practice: the oftener one confesses the more is the (temporal) penalty reduced; hence one might confess over and over again until the whole penalty ia cancelled, nor would he thereby offer any

injury to the sacrament" (IV Sent., d. xvii, q. 3, sol. 5 ad 4).

Satisfaction. — As stated above, the absolution given by the priest to a penitent who confesses his sins with the proper dispositions remits both the guilt and the eternal punishment (of mortal sin). There re- mains, however, some indebtedness to Divine justice" which must be cancelled here or hereafter (see Pukoa- TORl'). In order to have it cancelled here, the peni- tent receives from his confessor what is usually called his "penance", usually in the form of certain prayers which he is to say, or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits to a church, the Stations of the Cross, etc. Almsdeeds, fasting, and prayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is determined by the confessor accord- ing to the nature of the sins revealed, the special cir- cumstances of the penitent, his liability to relapse, and the need of eradicating evil habits. Sometimes the penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it may require a more or less considerable period, as, e. g., where it is prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the penitent may receive another sacrament (e. g.. Holy Com- munion) immediately after confession, since absolu-_ tion restores him to the state of grace. He is never- theless under obligation to continue the performance of his penance until it is completed.

In theological language, this penance is called satis- faction and is defined, in the words of St. Thomas: "The payment of the temporal punishment due on account of the offence committed against God by sin " (Supi)l. to Summa, Q. xii, a. 3). It is an act of justice whereby the injury done to the honour of God is re- quired, so far at least as the sinner is able to make reparation (pcena vindicaliva); it is also a preventive remedy, inasmuch as it is meant to hinder the further commission of sin (poena raedicinalis) . Satisfaction is not, like contrition and confession, an essential part of the sacrament, because the primary effect — i. e., remission of guilt and temporal punishment — is ob- tained without satisfaction; but it is an integral part, because it is requisite for obtaining the secondary effect— i. e., remission of the temporal punishment. The Catholic doctrine on this point is set forth by the Council of Trent, which condemns the proposition: "That the entire punishment is always remitted by God together with the guilt, and the satisfaction re- quired of penitents is no other than faith whereby they believe that Christ has satisfied for them"; and further the proposition: "That the keys were given to the Church for loosing only and not for binding as well; that therefore in enjoining penance on those who confess, priests act contrary to the purpose of the keys and the institution of Christ; that it is a fiction [to say) that after the eternal punishment has been remitted in virtue of the keys, there usually remains to be paid a temporal penalty" (Can. "de Sac. poenit.", 12, 15; Denzinger, "Enchir.", 922, 92.5).

As against the errors contained in these statements, the Council (Sess. XIV, c. viii) cites conspicuous exam- ples from Holy Scripture. The most notable of these is the judgment pronounced upon David: "And Nathan said to David: the Lord also hath taken away thy sin: thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die" (II Kings, xii, 13, 14; cf. Gen., iii, 17; Num., xx, 11 sqq.). David's sin was for- given and yet he had to suffer punishment in the loss of his child. The same truth is taught by St. Paul (I Cor., xi, 32): "But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world". The chastisement here mentioned is a temporal punishment, but a punishment unto salvation.