Chapter IV: Satisfaction

33. The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor.

There is no question here of satisfaction in the wider sense which includes the restitution to be made for the infliction of spiritual or temporal loss. The subject which we propose to treat of is satisfaction in its restricted meaning (_satisfactio_). It consists in the performance of those works of penance which according to the Council of Trent[381] are designed to preserve the new life acquired in the Sacrament, to repair the languor which remains as a relic of past sin, and at the same time to serve as a punishment for sin. As after the recovery from a severe illness the body is weakened, so after a spiritual cure the soul retains a weakness and an inclination to fall back into sin; moreover, as the Church teaches, the remission of guilt and eternal punishment does not always include the remission of all temporal punishment. The penance is imposed with a view of removing the last traces of weakness and of paying the debt of temporal punishment; under its first aspect it is called _pœna medicinalis_, under the second, _pœna vindicativa_.

This satisfaction is partly sacramental, partly extra-sacramental. The sacramental portion consists in the works which the confessor imposes in virtue of the power of the keys; the extra-sacramental in the works freely undertaken by the penitent, as well as in the patient submission to the sufferings and crosses of this life. We are dealing at present with sacramental satisfaction, which is an integral part of the Sacrament, as it is immediately connected with the power of the keys, and which is more efficacious as atonement in consequence of the application of the merits of Jesus Christ.[382]

Both confessor and penitent have obligations with respect to this satisfaction. We will first consider the duty of the confessor in the matter.

I. The confessor is bound to impose some penance on every penitent who receives absolution and who is capable of doing penance.

The tradition of the Fathers, the constant practice of the Church, and the express declaration of the Council of Trent agree in maintaining that the penance is an integral part of the Sacrament. The text of the Council[383] runs as follows: “It is therefore the duty of priests to impose, as reason and prudence may suggest, wholesome and appropriate penances with due regard for the nature of the sin and the strength of the penitent, lest, by being indulgent towards sin and treating the penitent too tenderly in giving the very lightest penance for grave sins they become themselves participators in the sins of others. Let them keep in view that the satisfaction which they impose is designed not only to preserve the new life and to heal infirmity but also to punish and destroy past sin; for the power of the keys was given not only to loose but also to bind.” The confessor must impose a penance not only when mortal sins, but also when venial sins, or mortal sins already absolved, are confessed. As often as absolution is given a penance must be imposed—(_a_) because the penance belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament, (_b_) that the penitent may not be deprived of the sacramental fruits of satisfaction, (_c_) that justice and right may be done.

II. This duty of imposing a penance urges _per se sub peccato mortali_ when there is question of mortal sins not yet remitted by the power of the keys; where the matter is only venial sin or _materia libera_, the obligation is binding only _sub levi_.

Hence a priest sins mortally by failing to give a penance to a penitent who confesses sins not yet directly forgiven; in the case of a penitent who presents only _materia libera_, the confessor sins venially (_probabiliter_) _ob parvitatem materiæ_.

III. At times there may be no sin in failing to give a penance. This can happen:—

(_a_) When absolution is given to a penitent _in articulo mortis_, especially if he be unconscious. St. Alphonsus, however, recommends, and laudably, that even a dying penitent should receive some light and easy penance, if there be time to do it and the penitent can perform it, _e.g._ to kiss the crucifix, to pronounce the names of Jesus and Mary, or to make at least an internal act of love in order that the Sacrament may have its due complement and the dying person gain some fruit from the sacramental satisfaction. The confessor might himself help the penitent by reciting the prayers for him, holding the crucifix to him; this will also be a means of comforting and consoling the dying man.[384]

(_b_) If a perplexed or scrupulous penitent returns frequently to confess sins that he had forgotten, and if nearly every time there is reason for giving absolution, the confessor satisfies his obligations by again imposing the previous penance without adding another or by prescribing it as sufficient for _all_ the sins mentioned in confession.[385]

IV. The confessor is bound to give a suitable and wholesome penance, punitive as well as medicinal, proportioned to the number and gravity of the sins and adapted to the individual penitent. This is the express teaching of the Council of Trent.[386]

The choice of the penance is not left to the caprice of the confessor. Special directions are laid down for him by the Church, and these he must follow _sub gravi_. The Council draws a distinction between _pœnæ vindicativæ_ and _medicinales_, and the confessor has to inflict these in his capacity of judge and healer of souls. But to avoid misunderstanding it must be borne in mind that the whole power and authority of inflicting penances or of binding the faithful is vested in the confessor as judge.

As physician the great object of the confessor must be to heal the wounds of the soul and to provide against relapses, but here he can only insist on the necessary means, and that simply because he expresses what the penitent is bound to do already by natural and divine law.

The case is quite different when we regard the confessor as judge; in this capacity he has power to punish and bind the penitent. In the choice of the works of penance which he imposes in his quality of judge, he may use his knowledge as physician, and it is a course to be commended if he imposes such penances as will help to salvation, heal the spiritual maladies and safeguard the penitent against relapses.[387] In this way the confessor falls in with the prescriptions of the Council by giving penances which are in part punitive, in part medicinal; they are punitive if in any way they oppose our sensuality or our pride; and they are medicinal when they are of a kind to cut away the causes and roots of sin, to mortify our irregular inclinations, to strengthen the will, to remove occasions of sin, to save us from relapses and to confirm us in virtue. In accordance with the maxim “_contraria contrariis curantur_” those good works are generally prescribed which are directly contrary to the sins committed, hence the prescription of the Roman ritual to impose as penances almsgiving upon the avaricious, fasting or other bodily mortifications upon the sensual, humiliating works upon the proud, exercises of devotion for the tepid.[388]

All works of satisfaction or penance may be reduced to the three heads of Prayer, Fasting, Almsdeeds. Under prayer, for instance, may be grouped all works of piety and devotion, particularly everything that may be understood as related to the knowledge of God; more frequent prayer, daily examination of conscience, daily Mass, meditation (especially on the sufferings and death of Jesus Christ and the four last things), spiritual reading, more frequent confession, frequent repetition of acts of the theological virtues, thought of the presence of God, devotion to our Blessed Lady—all of which are irksome and contrary to our corrupt nature and partake in consequence of the nature of a penance. Under the head of fasting may be included not only abstention from meat and drink, but every kind of mortification, hence the denial of even lawful pleasures, early rising in the morning, the cutting down of little comforts, kneeling at prayer, etc. And under almsgiving we may comprise all works of corporal and spiritual mercy.

These three classes of good works correspond to the three roots of sin,—the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life; for fasting is directed against the concupiscence of the flesh, almsgiving against the concupiscence of the eyes, and prayer against the pride of life.[389]

Even purely interior acts (_opera mere interiora_) may be imposed: some theologians contradict this statement on the plea that human authority is not empowered to enjoin such acts, but here the question is not about human authority but of divine power given to men.[390]

The confessor may also give as a penance works to be done for the souls in purgatory, for though this satisfaction _in se_ is directed to the benefit of the holy souls it is a good work, and by its union with the Sacrament has power _ex opere operato_ to lessen the temporal debt of the penitent.[391]

Indeed the confessor may impose as penance some good work which has already been started, not precisely as a good work but so far as it expresses under the new circumstances obedience, humility, and the denial of one’s own will. It may be observed, however, what St. Alphonsus remarks, that it is rarely advisable to impose such a penance even with another good work attached.

A work which one is already bound to do may be imposed as a penance since it may be _ex natura sua_ satisfactory and is capable of acquiring a greater satisfactory effect; but such work can be considered as a sacramental penance only when the confessor has expressly declared so, nor is it advisable that such works should be so imposed, unless indeed there exist some urgent reason for it on the part of the penitent,—his weakness, for example. If such work (_aliunde debitum_) be imposed, its omission is a double sin.[392]

A penance may be given to be performed in case of a relapse, according to the opinion of eminent theologians such as Suarez, Laymann, and St. Alphonsus Liguori; so that if the condition be fulfilled, _i.e._ if the sinner relapse, the penance must be carried out. A confessor giving only a penance of that kind would be very far from satisfying his obligations.[393]

A public penance, _i.e._, a penance to be done before others, of such a nature that bystanders could infer that the penitent had incurred grave sin, cannot be imposed by a confessor for secret sins, for such an infliction would be an indirect violation of the seal, and besides it is expressly forbidden by the Roman Ritual. For public sins a public penance may be inflicted, and the Council of Trent insists upon it as a way of repairing scandal. Here there is no breach of the seal, for it is question of notorious sin. The confessor should only insist, however, on a public penance when he is convinced of the necessity of that step for repairing scandal. If the confessor feels called upon to impose such a penance, and the penitent declines to do it, absolution cannot be given. In general, any scandal given may be set right by an evident reform in the life of the penitent, if, for instance, he approach the Sacraments more frequently, visit the Church, hear Mass, join a sodality, etc.[394] Moreover, not everything done in the presence of others, which the penitent could easily undertake of his own free will, need be regarded as a public penance. It need be no matter of anxiety to the confessor if the penitent reveals to others that such or such a practice is a penance imposed by the priest.

Finally the confessor must carefully avoid enjoining any practices which are needlessly repugnant to the penitent and which there is reason to fear he will shirk. For instance, telling the children to beg pardon of their parents, or the penitent to pray in the Church with the arms stretched out in the form of a cross. Lehmkuhl justly remarks that such penances are a clear sign of a confessor’s want of prudence and may give occasion to many sacrileges.[395]

There is left a large choice for the confessor in the matter of penances. He is bound, however, by the prescriptions of the Council of Trent to impose works of penance _quantum spiritus et prudentia suggesserit_, but also to consider the _qualitas criminum_ and the _facultas pœnitentium_. Thus he must bear in mind the gravity of the sin and the condition of the penitent; in this way a prudent mean may be kept between too great mildness and excessive strictness. The priest should avoid being too easy, for fear, as the Council says, of participating in the guilt of others and sacrificing God’s cause to an indulgence which may be easily attributed to human respect or other unworthy causes. To avoid this danger the Roman Catechism recommends the study of the old penitential canons where each sin has its own fixed punishment. It is true that the discipline has been altered since then but its spirit remains, and the zeal of the priest for the cause of his Lord should be no less fervent than that of the first ages of the Church. On the other hand, however, undue rigor is to be avoided. The strictness should not be founded on self-love, prejudice, ostentation, nor on a naturally stern temperament, nor on want of common sense, etc., otherwise the penitent may be driven to despair, and souls lost instead of being won. The tribunal of penance should resemble as closely as possible God’s own tribunal, and as God is not only just but merciful, so the priest should never separate these two attributes. It is often a good thing to let the penitent know that he has deserved a severer penance, but that the ever gentle spirit of the Church imposes only a light one, leaving the penitent free to undertake other works of satisfaction if his zeal prompt him thereto. It is matter of experience that penances extended over too long a period do not always succeed in their object, for since they are frequently not performed they may easily prove a snare to the penitent instead of being a help. If the priest is in doubt whether to adopt a strict or a mild line of conduct in any particular case, he may recall the beautiful words of St. John Chrysostom:[396] “Is it not easier to render an account of excessive mercy than of excessive severity? Can the steward be close-handed where the master is so liberal? If, then, God is so good why should His minister be severe? If your object is to pose as a saint, be austere towards yourself and mild towards others.”[397]

V. For mortal sin a _pœnitentia simpliciter gravis_ should be given, for venial sin a _pœnitentia levis_; and a confessor would sin gravely if without sufficient reason he should impose for mortal sin a _pœnitentia in se levis_, for he would neither punish the sin nor give his penitent the means of salvation. In the case of sins doubtfully mortal, whether considered subjectively or objectively, he is not obliged to impose a severe penance.[398]

Whatever in the present discipline of the Church is imposed _sub gravi_ is considered as _materia gravis_ for a penance. The following, for instance: five decades of the Rosary, the Litany of the Saints with the accompanying prayers; while as _materia levis_ are reckoned: one psalm (of moderate length), the Litany of Loretto, five Our Fathers and five Hail Mary’s, etc. Any prayer corresponding in length to a little hour of the Breviary counts for _materia levis_, for though the omission of one of these little hours is a mortal sin, this is not in virtue of the prayer itself, but because the recitation of the Breviary is a public and official act and done in the name of the whole Church.

If the penitent has committed many mortal sins, the penance can hardly be increased in a strict proportion. In this case the imposition of a penance corresponding to one mortal sin is not sufficient unless special reasons exist for not giving a heavier penalty.

VI. There are many reasons for which a confessor may be justified in giving a smaller penance than is due to the number and gravity of the sins, and this diminution may be absolute as well as relative. For instance:—

1. A penitent is prostrated by a severe illness and unable to perform a longer penance. The priest should exhort him to offer up his sufferings as satisfaction for his sins, and if the sins have been very grave the priest ought to be willing to take upon himself part of the penance.[399]

2. When there is extraordinary sorrow. This _in se_ is sufficient reason for diminishing the penance, for the greater such sorrow the greater is the remission of temporal punishment. On the other hand, such a penitent is willing to accept a very severe penance; and if we read of certain holy men imposing only a slight penance, we must remember that they either made up for it in their own person or induced the penitent to practice of his own free will some austerity.

3. A confessor may see that his penitent is very weak spiritually and not willing to carry out a severe penance, although he may have no doubt as to his contrition and resolution of amendment. Such a case may call for the expedient of adding to a small penance some other practices which the penitent must fulfill on other accounts, _e.g._ to hear Mass on Sunday, etc., and the confessor would do well to choose such practices as the penitent has been in the habit of neglecting.[400]

We will now mention the occasions in which a confessor may impose a penance in accordance, indeed, with the Church’s precepts as to _materia gravis_, but less than what seems proportioned to the number and gravity of the sins:—

1. When there is great, though not quite extraordinary, contrition.

2. On the occasion of a jubilee or some other plenary indulgence; but to refrain for such a reason from giving any penance at all would be quite wrong and against the distinct declaration of Benedict XIV, Constit. “_Inter præteritos._”

3. When there is fear that the penitent, through spiritual weakness, may fail to perform the penance which would correspond to his sins.

4. When there is hope that a smaller penance will induce the penitent to receive the Sacraments oftener and with greater spiritual benefit; indeed, this seems to be the chief reason why the Church has tempered in our days the severity of her penitential discipline.

5. When the confessor intends to do the penance which he believes he dare not lay upon his penitent, as, for instance, when St. Francis Xavier disciplined himself to satisfy for the sins of his penitents. The sufficiency of this vicarious penance rests on the Catholic doctrine of the Communion of Saints. On the other hand, the proposition that a penitent can, of his own authority, appoint another to do the penance for him has been condemned by Alexander VII.

6. When there is hope of inducing the penitent by means of a smaller penance to do other good works on his own account.

7. When the penitent has already done penance and is in the habit of practicing good works.

It is, however, always recommended to tell the penitent that the penance is very much less than he deserves.[401]

VII. For venial sins or _materia libera_ the confessor may impose a heavy or a light penance but not _sub gravi_; but if he imposes a light penance for mortal sin such penance may bind only _sub levi_, but the very fact of imposing a heavy penance for mortal sin means that the obligation is _sub gravi_, unless he expressly declares his intention of not so binding.[402]

In treating the question of the obligation on the penitent of carrying out the penance and the intention of the confessor in the matter, we must keep in mind the parallel instances of the binding force of laws. The legislator cannot bind the conscience _sub gravi_ in a matter which, regarded objectively, is of small moment; while grave matter when prescribed _ex gravi causa_ induces a strict obligation _per se_, though the legislator may have the power only to enforce it under pain of venial sin. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus with the _sententia communior et valde probabilis_ as regards the obligation of laws and the lawgiver. When, then, the confessor imposes a penance, he is at the same time passing a law which must be obeyed.

Many theologians deny that the confessor can impose for mortal sin a heavy penance only _sub levi_ because he is simply God’s minister, and in consequence must act in accordance with the institution of the Sacrament without attempting to diminish its rigor.[403] On the other hand, the _sententia communior et valde probabilis_ gives the confessor the right because, though he is the vicar of God, he is appointed by Christ as actual judge and legislator who, in virtue of his powers, looses by forgiving sin and binds by imposing penance; so that the obligation of the penance is not a consequence of the Sacrament but of the precept of the confessor.[404] Still the confessor would not be justified in practically disregarding the first opinion, for, as St. Alphonsus teaches, he must obey the Council of Trent in its decision that ordinarily a _grave opus_ is to be imposed _sub gravi_ even though the penance be slight in comparison to the number and heinousness of the sins. The opinion may, however, be used in this way. The confessor, after giving a severe penance _sub gravi_, may add a still more severe penance _sub levi_; if this latter be fulfilled by the penitent, he makes full sacramental satisfaction; if he neglect it, there is at least no great responsibility. St. Alphonsus notices that this is a very good way of dealing with weak penitents, for all good works have a satisfactory power and a weak penitent is thus not exposed to occasion of grave sin; at the same time what Aertnys observes is also to be borne in mind, namely, that in our days, owing to the decay of fervor, such a method is seldom to be recommended.[405]

The confessor may give the penance immediately after the absolution, but it is more correct to give it beforehand, as that is the custom in the Church, and the proper order of justice requires that the penitent should show himself disposed to undertake his penance before absolution is given.[406]

In concluding this article we give a list of penances which may be imposed according to the principles already given:—

Attendance at holy Mass, the Rosary or the Stations of the Cross (these should not be given to people who are not accustomed to the devotions, and in regard to the Stations of the Cross, the embarrassment that many experience in performing public devotions should be taken into account), the Seven Penitential Psalms, the Litany of the Saints, the Litany of Loretto or some other litany, the Prayer to the Five Wounds, to commend one’s self to the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary morning and evening while reciting one Our Father and one Hail Mary, to say every day a certain number (not too many) of short prayers—_e.g._ to say the Hail Mary three times morning and evening (St. Alphonsus used to give his penitents this penance, adding the invocation “My Mother, preserve me from offending God this day,” and when the penitents were not accustomed to this form of devotion he used at least to recommend it), to examine the conscience daily and to excite acts of contrition, to read some short extracts from a pious book approved by the confessor, such as the Imitation of Christ, to make a meditation, or after reading carefully some subject such as the Four Last Things or the Sufferings of Christ to reflect upon it for a short while, to devote a short time every day to eliciting acts of Faith, Hope, and Charity, to hear sermons, to receive the Sacraments on certain fixed days, to renew the resolutions made at the last confession, not thoughtlessly but with all earnestness, and to hold to them steadfastly now in honor of the Sacred Heart, at another time in honor of the Blessed Virgin, and again in honor of some one among the saints with a petition for their help, to make some fervent ejaculation every time the clock strikes (when the confessor gives this or similar practices as a penance he might remind the penitents to make up the number of times missed if by chance they forget it).

Fasting (though this should be very seldom given and then only with great caution) or an occasional mortification at meal time; to refrain from some particular dish, or from wine or other intoxicating liquor, either for a fixed period or a certain number of times; still more prudence is to be exercised in imposing other bodily mortifications—indeed they should be permitted only with great reserve—praying with arms extended (unseen, of course, by others), to pray on bended knees, to rise at a fixed hour in the morning, to avoid unprofitable conversation, etc., to give alms, to visit the poor and the sick, to help them, and to do lowly offices for them, etc.[407]

Which of these penances should be imposed is a matter depending on the sins and disposition of the penitent. The choice of penance is an affair of considerable moment with regard to the well-being and reformation of the penitent, and it is a neglect of duty to impose on every occasion without distinction the recital of a prayer.

In addition, the confessor should observe the wholesome advice which has been given by men distinguished alike for sanctity and learning.

St. Antoninus writes:[408] “The priest should give such a penance as he thinks the penitent will perform. If a man, after accusing himself of grave sin, declares that he cannot do a severe penance, the confessor must reason with him, pointing out the gravity of his offenses and the severe punishments he has deserved, and after that give him some penance such as he can be persuaded to undertake; and if the priest does not obtain perfect success, he may rejoice, at least, that he has rescued a soul from hell if not from purgatory; hence, on no account, should he send a penitent away in despair or discouragement. It is better to give him a _Pater Noster_ or some other slight penance and make the good works which he does or his sufferings supply for the rest. A man who shows real sorrow and is ready to do all that he ought, but declares that a heavy penance is beyond him should never, no matter how he may have sinned, be sent away without absolution lest he fall into despair.”

St. Charles Borromeo recommends the confessor to impose such penance as he thinks the man will do; hence he may occasionally ask the penitent if he can perform the penance given; and if the latter expresses his doubts about fulfilling it, the confessor may change the penance or make it easier.[409] The saint also appeals to St. Thomas Aquinas, who warns the confessor not to burden his penitents with heavy penances,[410] for as a smouldering fire may be put out by heaping too much fuel upon it, so the feeble contrition which has only just been excited in the heart of the penitent may be crushed out by a severe penance, and despair may be the consequence. Hence it is better to point out to the penitent what a big penance he deserves and to give him a smaller one such as he will be ready to fulfill, by which he will accustom himself to the bigger one which the confessor would not have ventured to impose.

Finally St. Alphonsus[411] may be heard on this subject: “How imprudent is the conduct of those priests who give penances which they foresee will never be done. Oh, how many ignorant confessors there are who thoughtlessly absolve penitents living in the proximate occasion of sin or in bad dispositions; and yet such confessors are persuaded for some incomprehensible reason that they are ministering to the health of souls by imposing heavy penances. The result is that the penitents, having agreed to the penance for fear of being refused absolution, relapse again, after a short time, because they were never taught to adopt any safeguards against sin, omit the penance, and, terrified by its severity, keep away from the Sacrament so as to spend a great portion of their lives in sin.”

34. The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent.

I. The penitent is obliged to accept willingly the penance imposed and to perform it exactly; for as the duty devolves on the priest of securing the integrity of the Sacrament by giving the penance, the penitent is, in turn, bound to accept it and carry it out.

The duty is of strict obligation _ex genere suo_, so that the penitent would sin gravely by omitting a grave penance imposed _sub gravi_, or a considerable portion of it. We have already seen what is to be considered grave in this matter.[412]

II. The penitent is obliged to perform the penance enjoined by the confessor, but no limit of time is determined within which it must be done. An unreasonably long delay, however, might easily become a grave matter.

To determine how far delay may involve grave sin we must take into consideration whether time is a substantial element in the penance. For example: (1) whether the confessor has fixed a day and of set purpose, for the appointing of a day does not always imply a fixed intention on the confessor’s part; indeed, generally speaking, it is not a mortal sin to postpone a fast appointed for Friday to the following Saturday.[413] (2) If some work has been prescribed to be done within a given time after the confession, and it is the intention of the confessor that there should be no interruption, its omission, even for one day if it amount to a _materia gravis_, may be a mortal sin, unless the confessor has given leave to substitute one day for another or where his consent to a change may be fairly presumed. (3) If the postponement of the work imposed reduced the penance to little or nothing, as, for example, if the confessor enjoined on the penitent to approach the Sacraments in a week and the penitent put it off for a month; to delay the weekly communion for a day or two or the monthly communion to a period not longer than a week would, apart from other considerations, amount only to a venial sin.[414]

There is no mortal sin in putting off the penance even for a considerable time as long as the time fixed for its performance is not a substantial part of the work imposed. A delay of six months would, according to St. Alphonsus, certainly constitute a mortal sin; the great factor in determining the gravity of the offense will be the danger of forgetting the penance or of being unable to carry it out.[415]

If a penance is enjoined which has to be performed daily for a considerable period, and which is also a work prescribed by the commandments of the Church, it may be presumed that the confessor never intended a double performance of the work unless he expressly declared such an intention. On the other hand, if it is enjoined once or twice or even oftener without indicating any special day, the penitent cannot satisfy the double obligation by the one act; for example, a man who is told to hear Mass three times cannot satisfy by making one of the Masses the Sunday Mass of obligation, unless this be expressly granted by his confessor, nor would he fulfill his duty by hearing three Masses simultaneously, because such would never be the intention of the confessor. If, however, a man is enjoined to hear Mass daily, he is not obliged to hear two Masses on Sundays.[416] If the penitent has certain prayers to say for his penance, they may be recited during a Mass of obligation, for the two duties may be fulfilled at the same time unless the confessor rule it otherwise. It is a useful and excellent practice to remind the penitent that he may say his penance during the time of Mass, especially if his circumstances be such that he can hardly command other available time.[417]

If the penitent fails to perform his penance within the prescribed time, he is not on that account freed from the obligation of accomplishing it; for the confessor intends first the penance, then the time-limit, and the latter is fixed _non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam obligationem_.

Even when the penitent has fallen into mortal sin, he may still perform his penance and so satisfy his obligation in that matter, but he does not obtain the fruits of satisfaction. When the penitent does what he has been told he fulfills substantially his duty; the manner or mode of fulfilling it (namely, in the state of grace) does not come under the command. By the fact, however, of not being in the state of grace his works cannot be _de condigno_ satisfactory, and so cannot merit for him the release from temporal punishment. It is certain that no new mortal sin is contracted by a penitent who performs his penance in a state of mortal sin, though, according to a probable opinion supported by St. Alphonsus,[418] there is a venial sin in consequence of the hindrance offered to the effects of the Sacrament. Some theologians[419] also teach that when such a penitent regains the state of grace (_obice remoto_) the penance effects satisfaction and remission of temporal punishment _ex opere operato_, and this doctrine is _valde probabilis_.

In addition to the sacramental satisfaction the penitent should undertake some penance on his own initiative, especially where that enjoined by the priest is small with regard to the gravity of the sin. This extra-sacramental satisfaction will be supplemented by the prayer in which the Church, in virtue of the merits of Christ and His saints, confers on extra-sacramental works the power of reducing the debt of temporal punishment.

35. The Commutation of the Penance.

If, for some good reason, the penitent discovers that the penance is too severe, he should mention the circumstance to his confessor that he may change it; and if the penitent has undertaken a penance which later on presents great difficulties in its fulfilment, he should consult some priest equipped with the necessary powers for a commutation.

But there should be a good reason, and not mere weakness, sensuality, or laziness, which usually counsel avoidance of all severity and self-conquest or sacrifice for God and the good of one’s soul. Self-love and self-indulgence easily persuade us that what is difficult is impossible, and we have seen that the very aim of penance is to punish in the strict sense of the word; it ought to be both a chastisement and a means of salvation. If the penitent shrinks from the penance and asks for a mitigation, the confessor should in all kindness consider the motive and act accordingly. If he can find no sufficient reason but only a pretext of self-love and self-indulgence, he must tell the penitent so and endeavor to persuade him to undertake the penance, otherwise absolution cannot be given. When the petition is reasonable the penance may be changed.

A reasonable penance cannot be declined by the penitent without his incurring thereby grave sin, for when once he has submitted his case to the confessor he ought to abide by the latter’s decision, since the law of God requires that the confessor should inflict a suitable penance and that the penitent should accept it.[420] There is, however, a great difference between refusing a penance and asking for its mitigation. Under no circumstances may the penitent himself change the penance, even for a work objectively more perfect, for the sacramental satisfaction must be imposed by the minister of the Sacrament, and the penitent has no right to annul or commute on his own authority the sentence pronounced by the judge.

If, now, the penitent is convinced on sufficient grounds that the penance is exorbitant and he cannot persuade the confessor to make it easier, he is at liberty to go away without absolution and present his case to another priest, repeating, of course, his confession.[421] If, however, his grounds are defective, he may easily incur a venial sin by such procedure.[422] A really well-disposed penitent, therefore, will hardly incur grave sin if, conscious of his weakness, he objects to a penance as too hard and seeks absolution from another confessor, so long, of course, as he does not seek out one who is known for his criminal laxity.

If a man after absolution finds the penance too difficult of performance, he may get it changed either by the same priest or by another.

This commutation can be made only in confession, in virtue of the absolution which has been already given or is to be given, for it is only the absolution by which an effect _ex opere operato_ can be produced in the penitent, and it is the absolution which gives the satisfactory efficacy _ex opere operato_ to the penance which has been or is to be imposed.[423]

Hence the confessor immediately after the absolution can certainly change the penance because, morally speaking, the judicial action is still in progress. Though some theologians extend this power (of changing the penance in virtue of the absolution imparted) over two or three days, the preference is to be given to the opinion of St. Alphonsus,[424] who restricts the period to the time immediately after the absolution, for, as a matter of fact, the _judicium sacramentale_ is then completed. If, however, the penitent and confessor are of the other opinion, which is not devoid of extrinsic probability, they may act upon it, since it is not a question of an essential part of the Sacrament; if there were question of the essence of the Sacrament, an injury would be done both to the Sacrament and its recipient by following a doubtful opinion.[425]

Any other priest can commute the penance only in virtue of a new absolution which he himself gives.

The question now arises whether the penitent ought to repeat his confession with a view to obtain another penance. If he applies to the same confessor, he is certainly not obliged if the latter retain some notion _in confuso_ of the penitent’s conscience; if the penitent goes to another priest, according to an opinion considered as probable by Laymann, Lugo, Sporer, he is exempt from the obligation of repeating his confession, because it is not upon the sins that judgment is to be passed, but upon the reasons for changing the penance, whether, for instance, the penitent is unable to perform it or whether the penance itself is too severe. Moreover, the confessor may follow this method with a safe conscience, though it is more advisable for him to adopt the practice advocated by other theologians, notably Suarez, Lugo, Laymann, Sporer, and Lacroix, of getting the penitent to give at least an outline of the previous confession in order to have an approximate knowledge of the state of his soul.[426]

The view held by many theologians is also probable, that when a confessor sees that a penance has not been performed by a penitent, and that no likelihood exists of its performance, he may commute it for something else, though unasked by the penitent.

When, however, a penance has been inflicted for some reserved sin by a constitutional Superior, no inferior may commute it, for authority in such cases is withdrawn from the inferior tribunal. Exception is made where the penitent would have great difficulty in approaching the Superior and when urgent reasons call for a commutation. This is the teaching of St. Alphonsus and some other theologians against the supporters of the stricter doctrine.[427]

There still remains the question what the penitent is to do when he has forgotten the penance. According to the common, and perhaps also the more probable, opinion, he is not obliged to repeat the confession of even the graver sins, and the duty of performing the penance simply lapses (_ad impossibile enim nemo tenetur_); nor is there any obligation to confess again sins already directly remitted with a view of securing the integrity of the Sacrament, for that would be a grievous burden. If, however, the penitent thinks that the confessor remembers the penance, and he can reach him without difficulty, he is, as theologians rightly affirm, obliged to ask his confessor to give him his penance, for there is no grave impediment in this case to the performance of the penance.[428]

In this connection we must note that: 1. When a man forgets the penance enjoined, and has a conviction that the penance was a certain work, he is bound to do that work, for whoever is certain about his obligation is obliged to do what is probably of obligation if he cannot fulfill what is certainly of obligation.[429]

2. When a penitent confesses that he has not performed the penance but has said the prayers prescribed out of devotion without thinking of the penance, he has satisfied his obligation, and the confessor cannot insist on the performance of another penance; for a man is supposed to do first that to which he is bound.[430]