Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/693

 PENANCE

629

PENANCE

"Of all the parts of penance", says the Council of Trent (loc. cit.), "satisfaction was constantly recom- mended to the Christian people by our Fathers". This the Reformers themselves admitted. Calvin (Instit., Ill, iv, 38) says he makes little account of what the ancient writings contain in regard to satis- faction because "nearly all whose books are e.xtant went astray on this point or .spoke too severely". Chemnitius ("Examen C. Trident.", 4) acknowledges that TertuUian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine extolled the value of penitential works; and Flacius Illyricus, in the "Centuries", has a long list of Fathers and early writers who, as he admits, bear witness to the doctrine of .satisfaction. Some of the texts already cited (Confession) expressly mention satisfaction as a part of sacramental penance. To these may be added St. Augustine, who says that "Man is forced to suffer even after his sins are forgiven, though it was sin that brought down on him this penalty. For the punishment outlasts the guilt, lest the guilt should be thought slight if with its forgiveness the punishment also came to an end" (Tract, cxxiv, "In Joann.", n. 5,in P.L.,XXXV, 1972); St. Ambrose: "So effica- cious is the medicine of penance that [in view of it] God seems to revoke His sentence" ("De pcenit.", 1, 2, c.vi,n.4S, in P. L., XVI, 509); Coesarius of Aries: "If in tribulation we give not thanks to God nor re- deem our faults by good works, we shall be detained in the fire of purgatory until our slightest sins are burned away hke wood or straw" (Sermo civ, n. 4).

Among the motives for doing penance on which the Fathers most frequently insist is this: If you punish your own sin, God will spare you; but in any case the sin will not go unpunished. Or again they declare that God wants us to perform satisfaction in order that we may clear off our indebtedness to His justice. It is therefore with good reason that the earlier councils — • 6. g., Laodica?a (a. d. .372) and Carthage IV (397) — teach that satisfaction is to be imposed on penitents; and the Council of Trent but reiterates the traditional belief and practice when it makes the giving of "pen- ance" obligatory on the confessor. Hence, too, the practice of granting indulgences, whereby the Church comes to the penitent's assistance and places at his disposal the treasury of Christ's merits. Though closely connected with penance, indulgences are not a part of the sacrament; they presujipose confession and absolution, and are properly called an extra- sacramental remission of the temporal punishment incurred by sin. (See iNDnLGENCES.)

Se.^l of C0NFES.S10N.— ^Regarding the sins revealed. to him in sacramental confession, the priest is bound to inviolable secrecy. From this obhgation he cannot be excused either to save his own life or good name, to save the life of another, to further the ends of human justice, or to avert any public calamity. No law can compel him to divulge the sins confessed to him, or any oath which he takes — e. g., as a witness in court. He cannot reveal them either directly — i. e., by re- peating them in so many words — or indirectly — i. e., by any sign or action, or by giving information based on what he knows through confession. The only pos- sible release from the obligation of secrecy is the per- mission to speak of the sins given freely and formally by the penitent himself. Without such permission, the violation of the seal of confession would not only be a grievous sin, but also a sacrilege. It would be contrary to the natural law because it would be an abuse of the penitent's confidence and an injury, very serious perhaps, to his reputation. It would also violate the Divine law, which, while imposing th« ob- ligation to confess, likewise forbids the revelation of that which is confessed. That it would infringe ecclesiastical law is evident from the strict prohibi- tion and the severe penalties enacted in this matter by the Church. "Let him beware of betraying the sinner by word or sign or in any other way whatsoever. . ..

we decree that he who dares to reveal a sin made known to him in the tribunal of penance shall not only be deposed from the priestly office, but shall moreover be subjected to close confinement in a mon- astery and the performance of perpetual penance" (Fourth Lateran Council, cap. xxi; Denzinger, "Enchir.", 438). Furthermore, by a decree of the Holy Office (18 Nov., 1682), confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of the knowledge obtained in confession that w'ould displease the penitent, even though the non-use would occasion him greater dis- pleasure.

These prohibitions, as well as the general obligation of secrecy, apply only to what the confessor learns through confession made as part of the sacrament. He is not bound by the seal as regards what may be told him by a person who, he is sure, has no intention of making a sacramental confession but merely speaks to him "in confidence"; prudence, however, may im- pose silence concerning what he learns in this way. Nor does the obligation of the seal prevent the con- fessor from speaking of things which he has learned outside confession, though the same things have also been told him in confession; here again, however, other reasons may oblige him to observe secrecy. The same obligation, with the limitations indicated, rests upon all those who in one way or another acquire a knowledge of what is said in confession — e. g., an interpreter who translates for the priest the words of the penitent, a person who either accidentally or intentionally overhears the confession, an ecclesias- tical superior (e. g., a bishop) to whom the confessor applies for authorization to absolve the penitent from a reserved case. Even the penitent, according to some theologians, is bound to secrecy; but the more general opinion leaves him free; as he can authorize the con- fessor to speak of what he has confessed, he can also, of his own accord, speak to others. But he is obliged to take care that what he reveals shall cast no blame or suspicion on the confessor, since the latter cannot defend himself. In a word, it is more in keeping with the intention of the Church and with the reverence due to the sacrament that the penitent himself should refrain from speaking of his confession. Such, un- doubtedly, was the motive that prompted St. Leo to condemn the practice of letting the penitent read in public a written statement of his sins (see above); and it needs scarcely be added that the Church, while recognizing the validity of public confession, by no means requires it; as the Council of Trent declares, it would be imprudent to prescribe such a confession by any human enactment. (For provisions of the civil law regarding this matter, see Seal of Con- fession.)

Public Penance. — .\n undeniable proof both of the practice of confession and of the necessity of satis- faction is found in the usage of the early Church according to which severe and often prolonged penance was prescribed and performed. The elaborate system of penance exhibited in the "Penitentials" and con- ciliar decrees, referred to above, was of course the out- come of a long development; but it simply expressed in greater detail the principles and the general atti- tude towards sin and satisfaction which had prevailed from the beginning. Frequently enough the latter statutes refer to the earlier practice either in explicit terms or by reiterating what had been enacted long before. At times, also, they allude to documents which were then extant, but which have not yet come down to us, e. g., the libellus mentioned in the African synods of 251 and 255 as containing singula capitum placita, i. e., the details of previous legislation (St. Cyprian, Ep. xxi). Or again, they point to a system of penance that was already in operation and needed only to be apphed to particular cases, hke that of the Corinthians to whom Clement of Rome wrote his