Sect. 269The RecipientThe Recipient

Penance differs from the other Sacraments chiefly in this, that the recipient must not merely have the intention of receiving it, and place no obstacle in the way of its efficacy; he must also positively contribute by his own acts to the working of the Sacrament. Some theologians, indeed, have held that these acts are only necessary conditions, and do not enter into the essence of the Sacrament; but even in this opinion the recipient must necessarily perform these acts in order that the effect may be produced. We need hardly point out that the efficacy of the Sacrament is not due to the merits of the penitent. His acts are part of the sacrament which, like the other sacraments, owes all its efficacy to the merits of Christ.

I. Contrition, which holds the first place among these acts, is defined by the Council of Trent (sess. xiv. chap. 4): “A sorrow of mind and a detestation for sin committed with the purpose of not sinning for the future” (Animi dolor ac detestatio de peccato commisso, cum proposito non peccandi de cetero).”

1. It is plain that God will not forgive a sinner without sorrow for sin. The penitent must not only cease from offending, and resolve to begin a new life; he must also have a hatred of the evil that he has done. “Cast away from you all your transgressions by which you have transgressed, and make to yourselves a new heart and a new spirit” (Ezech. 18:31). “Be converted to me with all your heart, in fasting, and in weeping, and in mourning; and rend your hearts, and not your garments, and turn to the Lord your God” (Joel 2:12, 13). “Against Thee only have I sinned, and done evil in Thy sight … I have laboured in my groaning; every night will I wash my bed; I have watered my couch with my tears.… I will recount to Thee all my years in the bitterness of my soul” (Ps. 1:6; 6:7; Isa. 38:15). “And Peter … going forth, he wept bitterly” (Matt. 26:25). “And standing behind at His feet, she began to wash His feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head” (Luke 7:38). “I will arise and go to my father, and say to him, Father, I have sinned against heaven and before thee; I am not now worthy to be called thy son” (ibid. 15:18, 19). “And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as lift up his eyes towards heaven, but struck his breast, saying, O God, be merciful to me a sinner” (ibid. 18:13; see also Acts 2:37).

2. Detestation for sin may arise from various motives: the vileness of sin itself; the fear of hell, or other punishments; the love of God, Who has been offended. Hence there has been a discussion among theologians as to which motive is necessary for forgiveness.

(a) There can be no doubt that hatred of sin, because by it we have offended the infinitely good God, reconciles us to Him at once, even before the actual reception of the sacrament; but this sorrow, which is perfect Contrition, or Contrition properly so called, includes the readiness to do all that God commands, and consequently includes the desire to receive the sacrament instituted for the remission of sin (see Council of Trent, sess. xiv. chap. 4).

(b) The difficulty is therefore about the efficacy of imperfect Contrition (attrition); that is, sorrow arising from the lower motives already mentioned. That such sorrow, if accompanied with the resolve to lead a better life, is a true and profitable sorrow, and paves the way for grace, is defined by the Council of Trent (ibid.). Is it, however, sufficient for the efficacious reception of the sacrament? Unless it is so, it is hard to see in what the faithful are benefited by the institution of the Sacrament of Penance, except it be by a certainty of forgiveness, and an additional outpouring of grace upon the soul. The question was discussed with so much acrimony in the seventeenth century, that Alexander VII. was obliged to intervene, and forbid both parties to pronounce theological censures on each other. Later on, St. Alphonsus was able to say, “It is certain, and commonly held by theologians, that perfect Contrition is not required, but that Attrition is sufficient” (Theol. Moral., lib. vi. n. 440). See also Ballerini, Opus Theol. Mor., vol. vi. p. 24; De Augustinis, De Re Sacram., De Pœnit., part ii. art. 7.

II. By Confession is meant the acknowledgment, by word of mouth or in some equivalent way, of our sins to a priest. The sacrament is by its very nature similar to a criminal trial: the penitent is at once accuser, defendant, and witness; while the priest is the judge. When the penitent has declared himself to be guilty, and appeals for mercy on the ground of repentance, it is for the priest to decide whether the case is one for forgiveness or retention of the crime, and also to determine the satisfaction to be made in case of absolution.

1. The necessity of Confession is contained in the words of Christ: “Whose sins ye shall forgive,” etc. A the Council of Trent observes (sess. xiv. chap. 5), it is manifest that the Apostles and their successors could not exercise the power conferred upon them except after due knowledge of the case, nor could they observe equity in enjoining punishment unless the faithful declare their sins specifically and individually. The same may be inferred from the words relating to the power of binding and loosing (Matt. 18:18). Two other texts, though not directly enjoining confession to a priest, yet prove the necessity of confession, and have been interpreted to refer to Confession in the technical sense: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us; if we confess our sins, [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity’ (1 John 1:9); “Confess, therefore, your sins one to another (ἐξομολογεῖσθε οὖν ἀλλήλοις τὰς ἁμαρτίας), and pray for one another, that you may be saved” (James 1:16; cf. 5:14). The meaning of this latter passage, as Estius observes (in loc.), is: confess yourselves not only to God, but also men to men; that is to say, to those whom you know to be endowed by God with the power of forgiving sins.

2. We have already seen in the preceding section that the Fathers taught that Christ conferred upon the Apostles and their successors the power of forgiving sins. They also go on to show that confession is required in order that this power may be exercised.

“If we have revealed our sins not only to God, but also to those who are able to heal our wounds and sins, our sins will be blotted out by Him Who saith, ‘Behold, I will blot out thine iniquities as a cloud, and thy sins as a mist’ “ (Origen, Hom, xvii., in Lucam). “If a man become his own accuser, while he accuses himself and confesses, he at the same time ejects the sins and digests the whole cause of the disease. Only look diligently round to whom thou oughtest to confess thy sin. Prove first the physician to whom thou shouldst set forth the cause of thy sickness, who knows how to be weak with the weak, to weep with the weeping, who knows the art of condoling and sympathizing; that so, in fine, thou mayest do and follow whatever he shall have said.… If he shall have understood, and foresee that thy sickness is such as ought to be set forth and cured in the assembly of the whole Church, and thereby perhaps others be edified and thou thyself easily cured, this must be prescribed with much deliberation, and on the very experienced advice of that physician” (Id., Hom. 2, in Ps., xxxvii.; see also Hom. 2, in Levit.) This comparison of the priest with the physician, and the penitent with the patient, is insisted on by Origen and many other Fathers, to bring out the necessity of confession, since the patient must declare his symptoms or show his wounds to his physician in order to be cured.

“The confession of sins follows the same rule as the manifestation of bodily infirmities. As, therefore, men do not disclose their bodily infirmities to every one, nor to a few at random, but to such as are skilful in the cure of them, so also ought the confession of sins to be made to those who are able to apply a remedy” (St. Basil, Reg. Brev., 228).

“Put off the old man … by means of confession (διὰ τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως) that you may put on the new man.… Now is the season of confession: confess the things that thou hast done, whether in word or indeed; the things done in the night and those in the day” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech., 2–5).

“Sin is to be confessed in order that pardon may be obtained” (St. Hilary, Tract. in Ps., cxviii.).

“Lo! we have at length reached the close of holy Lent; now especially must we press forward in the career of fasting, and make more fervent prayers, and exhibit a full and accurate confession of our sins (πολλὴν καὶ ἀκριβῆ τῆς ἐξομολογήσεως) … that with these good works, having come to the day of Easter, we may enjoy the bounty of the Lord.… For as the enemy knows that we can during this time, after having treated of what holds us fettered, and having confessed our sins and shown our wounds to the physician, attain to an abundant cure, he then in an especial manner opposes us” (St. John Chrysostom, Hom. xxx., in Gen., 1, 5).

Many other similar passages may be found collected together in Faith of Catholics, iii. pp. 36–113. It should be noted that, though some of these passages may seem to refer only to confession generally, or to public confession, they really prove the necessity of private, or auricular confession, as it is called. This is clear from the duty of confessing to a priest, and also from the duty of acknowledging even the most secret sins. To be obliged to make public declaration of hidden crimes, especially of those against certain of the commandments, would be too great a burden to impose upon the faithful, and would involve most injurious consequences. “Although,” says the Council of Trent (sess. xiv. chap. 5), “Christ hath not forbidden that a person may—in punishment of his sins and for his own humiliation, as well for an example to others as for the edification of the Church that has been scandalized—confess his sins publicly, nevertheless this is not commanded by a Divine precept; neither would it be very prudent to enjoin by any human law that sins, especially such as are secret, should be made known by a public confession.”

An account of the “Suppression of the Penitentiary,” narrated by Socrates (Hist. Eccl., v. 19) and Sozomen (Hist. Eccl., vii. 16), will be found in Chardon, sect ii. chap. 2.

3. Though the necessity of confession is plainly contained in and inferred from Christ’s words, yet, inasmuch as He did not expressly and explicitly command it, the mediæval theologians used to discuss whether it was or was not of “Divine institution (juris divini).” As the Council of Trent has decided this question in the affirmative (sess. xiv. can. 6 and 7), the utmost that may now be said is that the Church has promulgated or declared the necessity of confession. This, indeed, was the meaning of some of the Schoolmen who denied the Divine institution. Others, again, admitted the Divine institution, but denied that it could be proved from John 20:21, taken by itself, without the help of tradition. Before the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), a small number of theologians held, with Peter Lombard (Sent., iv. dist. 17), as an “opinion,” that it was enough to confess to God, without doing so to man. They were led to this view through not understanding that perfect charity—which undoubtedly remits sin before actual confession—includes the desire (votum) and the obligation of confession.

Further information concerning confession should be sought in the writings of moral and ascetical theologians.

III. The third act required on the part of the recipient is satisfaction. When the guilt (culpa) of sin has been pardoned by God, there often remains the liability to some temporal punishment to atone for the injury done to Him, and also to serve for the reformation of the sinner. If such punishments were not inflicted, “taking occasion therefrom, thinking sins less grievous, we offering as it were an insult and outrage to the Holy Ghost, should fall into more grievous sins, treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath” (Council of Trent, sess. xiv. chap. 8). There are numbers of instances of such punishments recorded in Holy Scripture. Adam received pardon for his sin (Wisd. 10:2), yet severe temporal punishment was inflicted upon him. The Israelites were punished for their murmuring, even after the sin itself was forgiven. “And the Lord said, I have forgiven, according to thy word … but yet all the men that have seen My majesty, and the signs that I have done in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted Me now ten times, and have not obeyed My voice, shall not see the land for which I swore to their fathers, neither shall any one of them that hath detracted Me, behold it” (Num. 14:20–23). Even Moses was shut out of the promised land as a punishment for his want of confidence at the waters of strife (Deut. 32:49–52). When David repented of his adultery and murder, Nathan said to him, “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” (2 Kings 12:13, 14; cf. 18, 19). So, too, he was punished temporarily for the sin of numbering his people (2 Kings 24).

I. That the temporal punishments due to sin already forgiven may be atoned for by penitential acts, is also clearly taught in Scripture. The Israelites over and over again, by their fastings and tears and prayers, averted the chastisements due for their falling away from God (Judges, passim); the people of Ninive, by the same means, warded off the destruction of their city (Jonas 4); Manasses, after that he was in distress, he prayed to the Lord his God; and did penance exceedingly before the God of his fathers; and he entreated Him and besought Him earnestly; and He heard his prayer, and brought him again to Jerusalem into his kingdom (2 Paral. 33:12, 13); “Water quencheth fire, and alms resisteth sins” (Ecclus. 3:33); “Alms delivereth from all sin and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness” (Job 4:11). “As we have sinned greatly,” says St. Cyprian, “let us weep greatly.… Men must pray and entreat most earnestly, pass the day in grief, spend nights in vigils and tears, spend their whole time in sorrowing lamentations, lie stretched on the ground, prostrate themselves among ashes, sackcloth, and dust; after Christ’s raiment lost, wish for no other clothing; after the devil’s food, of choice must fast; apply themselves to just works (justis operibus incumbere), whereby sins are purged away; give abundant alms, whereby souls are freed from death.… He who has thus made satisfaction to God (Deo satisfecerit), who by penitence for what he has done, by shame for his sin has gained for himself an increase both of virtue and faith from the very suffering which his fall occasions, heard and helped by the Lord, will give gladness to the Church which he had lately grieved, and merit not only God’s pardon now, but a crown also” (De Lapsis, cap. 35). See also Tertullian, De Pœnitentia, cap. 3; St. Ambrose, In Luc., lib. vii. n. 156; St. Jerome, Ep., cviii.; “Whilst we thus, by making satisfaction, suffer for our sins, we are made conformable to Jesus Christ, Who satisfied for our sins, from Whom all our sufficiency is; having also a most sure pledge that if we suffer with Him we shall also be glorified with Him” (Council of Trent, l.c.).

2. In accordance with this doctrine, it has always been the practice of the Church that the minister of the sacrament of penance should “enjoin salutary and suitable satisfactions according to the quality of the crimes and the ability of the penitent.” If it be objected that such acts are opposed to the efficacy of Christ’s satisfaction, the Council of Trent replies, “Neither is this satisfaction which we discharge for our sins so our own as not to be through Jesus Christ. For we who can do nothing of ourselves as of ourselves, can do all things with the co-operation of Him Who strengthened us. Thus man hath not wherein to glory, but all our glorying is in Christ; in Whom we live; in Whom we merit; in Whom we satisfy; bringing forth fruits worthy of penance, which from Him have their efficacy; by Him are offered to the Father; and through Him are accepted by the Father” (l.c.; see also canons 12–15).

On the whole of this section concerning the acts of the penitent, see St. Thomas, 3, q. 90, and Suppl., q. 1 sqq.; De Augustinis, Op. cit., part ii. art. 7, 8, 9.

Scholion. It has been shown that the temporal punishment due to sin is not always remitted when the guilt of the sin has been forgiven, and that the penances imposed by the priest in confession are given for the purpose of securing this remission. But our Lord has given to His Church the power of remitting temporal punishment, even apart from the sacrament of Penance. Such a remission has been known by various names, e.g. relaxation, donatio, or condonatio, but is now generally called an Indulgence. It is not, therefore, as some imagine, a remission of sin; much less is it a permission to commit sin.

1. “Whereas the power of conferring Indulgences was granted by Christ to the Church, and she has even in the most ancient days used the said power delivered unto her of God, the sacred holy Synod [of Trent] teaches and enjoins that the use of Indulgences, for the Christian people most salutary and approved of by the authority of sacred Councils, is to be retained in the Church; and it condemns with anathema those who either assert that they are useless, or who deny that there is in the Church the power to grant them” (sess. xxv.). We are therefore bound to believe (a) that the Church has the power of granting Indulgences; and (b) that Indulgences are of benefit to the faithful.

(a) The power of binding and loosing on earth and in heaven, granted to St. Peter (Matt. 16:19) and to the Apostles (ibid. 18:18), in the widest terms and without any sort of restriction, must include the power of remitting all that is due to sin. In the case of the repentant, incestuous Corinthian, St. Paul exercised this power (2 Cor. 2:6, 7, 10) by remitting the sentence of excommunication and the remainder of the penance imposed (see Estius’s Commentary, in h.l.). In the ages of persecution, the canonical penances were frequently relaxed by the intercession of the martyrs (Tertullian, Ad Martyr., cap. i.). St. Cyprian, in particular, treats of this practice. “Since I am informed,” he says, “that some (of the lapsed) are urgent with you (the martyrs and confessors).… I beseech you with all possible earnestness, that, mindful of the Gospel, and considering what and what kind of concessions the martyrs your predecessors in times past made, how anxious they were in all cases,—you would also anxiously and cautiously weigh the requests of your petitioners; that as the Lord’s friends, and hereafter to judge with Him, you would look into the conduct and the merits of each, and examine also the kind and quality of their offences, lest, if anything should have been rashly and unworthily either promised by you or executed by us, our Church should begin to be ashamed even before the very Gentiles,” etc. (Ep. x., Ad Mart. et Conf., n. 4). These relaxations were actually granted by the bishops, and not by the martyrs themselves. “The blessed martyrs have written to me concerning some individuals, requesting that their desires may be considered. When the Lord shall have first given peace to all … then each of these cases shall be examined into, in your presence, and aided by your judgment” (Ep. xi., Ad Plebem. n. 1; see also Epp. Ad. Clerum, Ad Clerum Romæ). In the fifth canon relating to penitents, the Council of Ancyra (314) decreed that “the bishops have the power, having considered the manner of their conversion, to deal indulgently (φιλανθρωπεύεσθαι) with them, or to add a longer period. But, above all things, let their previous as well as their subsequent life be inquired into, and so let the indulgence be measured out” (οὕτεως ἡ φιλανθρωπία ἐπιμετρείσθω). And the Council of Nicæa: “For as many as, in fear and tears and patience and good works, manifest their conversion in deed, and not in appearance (only), these having completed the appointed time as hearers, may deservedly communicate in the prayers; together with authority to the bishop to determine something yet more indulgent respecting them” (can. 12). We have not space to trace the subsequent history of Indulgences. We may, however, mention the great Indulgence granted by Urban II. (1098) to Crusaders, releasing them from all canonical penances which they might have incurred.

(b) The benefit derived from an Indulgence does not mean that the person who receives it is simply let off his canonical penance here on earth. Unless his liability to temporal punishment was remitted by Almighty God, an Indulgence would really be of no benefit at all. But our Lord’s words, “Whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven,” and the words of St. Paul, “I have done it in the person of Christ” (2 Cor. 2:10), abundantly prove that the relaxation is ratified by God. Although open to abuse, Indulgences are an encouragement to repentance: “You should rather pardon and comfort (the sinner) lest perhaps such a one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow” (2 Cor. 2:7).

2. The Church grants these relaxations out of the superabundant merits of Christ and His saints, which constitute, as it were, a treasure at her disposal for distribution. “The reason why they are valid is the unity of the Mystical Body (the Church), in which many in their works of penance have paid more than their debt, and many have patiently borne unjust tribulations by which their punishments (pænæ) could be expiated, if any were due to them; whose merits are so great as to exceed the punishments due to all who are now alive; and, above all, on account of Christ’s merit which, although it works in the sacraments, is not restricted thereto, but by its infinity exceeds (excedit, ‘goes beyond’) the efficacy of the sacraments.… One can make satisfaction for another. Now the saints, in whom the superabundance of satisfactory works is found, have not performed these works for the benefit of any particular individual … but for the whole Church at large; as the Apostle says (Col. 1:24) that he ‘fills up those things that are wanting of the sufferings of Christ, in my flesh for His body which is the Church,’ to which he writes. And so the forementioned are common to the whole Church” (St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 1).

3. Indulgences may be applied, by way of suffrage, to the souls in purgatory. As “the souls of the devout dead are not cut off from the Church” (St. August., De Civ. Dei, lib. xx. cap. 9, n. 2), they can still benefit (if they need it) by the prayers and good works of their brethren on earth; and in their behalf the Church can unlock the treasure of merit which she possesses. But she cannot directly apply this merit to them; she can only offer it to God, and beg Him to apply it to them as He may think fit.

4. Among the good works to which Indulgences are attached, are almsgiving and contributions for various ecclesiastical purposes. In the Middle Ages it was common to grant Indulgences to those who, unable to take the Cross themselves, gave sums of money towards the equipment of Crusaders. Such practices no doubt sometimes gave rise to abuses, and to the erroneous belief in the “sale” of Indulgences. The Council of Trent, “being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which the excellent (insigne) name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, ordains … that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof—whence a most prolific cause of abuses among the Christian people has been derived—be wholly abolished,” etc. (sess. xxv.). See also St. Thomas, Suppl., q. 25, a. 3.

5. Indulgences are either plenary—remitting the whole of the temporal punishment; or partial—remitting only a portion. The expression, “an Indulgence of seven years,” does not mean a remission of seven years’ purgatory, but merely a remission of so much punishment as could be obtained by seven years’ canonical penance on earth. See St. Thomas, Suppl., qq. 25–27; De Augustinis, De Re Sacr., p. ii., Appendix.