INTRODUCTION
“There is nothing more excellent or more useful for the Church of God and the welfare of souls than the office of Confessor. By his sacred ministry the sinner is lightened of the burden of sin, freed from the yoke of Satan and concupiscence, and clothed again with the robe of innocence previously lost. Weak knees are confirmed (Is. xxxv. 3); that is, men weak and idle in mind receive new vigor, and lastly the just are aroused and enkindled to persevere in goodness and to reach with freshly spurred zeal for the crown of justice laid up for them (2 Tim. iv. 8).
“How great and arduous is the office of Confessor appears clearly from the fact that by it he is made a judge in the place of Christ and that of his judgment he must some day render a strict account to the Supreme Judge. To him, therefore, apply the words with which the pious king of Israel charged the judges appointed by him, ‘Take heed what you do: for you exercise not the judgment of man, but of the Lord God; and whatever you judge, it shall redound to you’ (2 Paral. xix. 6). In this tribunal, however, the priest may not consider himself to be only a Judge to hear the culprit’s confession, to correct him, and then, having imposed sentence, to send him away. He must also act the part of the Shepherd and, following the example of the Good Shepherd, must know his sheep, bring back to the fold those that strayed away and fell among thorns, and finally lead them unto wholesome pastures and the waters of eternal refreshment. He must be a Physician giving suitable remedies to the sick, and treating and healing with anxious and skillful [vi]hand the wounds of the soul. Lastly he must be a Father, and like the father in the Gospel cheerfully receive with the kiss of peace the prodigal son returning from exile, where he had been lost and consumed by hunger and filth; he must vest the son found again with the first robe, refresh him with the fatted calf and delicious dishes, and restore him to the former place and dignity of heir and son.
“Therefore let the priest who goes to hear confession seriously ponder over these offices of judge, shepherd, physician, and father, and endeavor, as far as in him lies, to fulfill them in deed and work. Above all let him remember that he acts in the place of Christ and as an ambassador for God, as the Apostle often tells us” (Conc. Balt. Pl. II. nn. 278, 279, 280).
The present volume is a practical commentary upon these weighty words of the Fathers of the Baltimore Council. The tremendous responsibility of the Catholic priest exercising the ministry of the Sacrament of Penance must appear in a truly dazzling light to the mind of every one who but glances over the following pages. Human intelligence can never fully grasp the true significance of this divine sacrament, which works at the same time forgiveness of sin and sanctification by grace; which is for poor fallen man at once the judgment of God’s infinite hatred of sin and the manifestation of His infinite mercy for the repentant sinner; which brings humiliation and punishment while it fills the soul returning to God with unspeakable joy and comfort. Who can tell the number of souls troubled by sin and sinful temptations who have found peace and consolation, strength and holy courage in this sacrament? the number of souls kept not only for days, but for years in the bondage of evil passion and Satan who were, by the words of absolution, freed from that ignominious slavery and led again to enjoy the freedom of the children of God? the number of souls snatched from the brink of perdition by the strong hand of God extended to them through His minister in the confessional? [vii]the number of souls buried in spiritual death by grievous sin who were brought out from their tombs to supernatural life and the sunshine of heavenly grace by the power of sacramental confession? Only the book of life reveals them all.
To be the minister of such a sacrament is, indeed, a glorious calling. Most excellent in itself and most useful for the Christian people is the office of Confessor. But the Fathers of the Council tell us it is also a most arduous office. In very truth, the faithful administration of the Sacrament of Penance demands a great deal more of the personal coöperation of the minister with the recipient than any other sacrament. Not to mention the fact that in the other sacraments, marriage alone excepted, the acts of the recipient desirous to receive the sacrament have nothing directly to do with the substance and validity of the sacrament, while in confession these acts are not a mere condition, but form the materia ex qua the sacrament arises, there is not the slightest doubt whatever of the most serious and grave duty of the confessor to assist the penitent as far as possible towards a worthy and profitable confession. He is not only bound, as in all other sacraments, to insure the validity of the sacrament and to assure himself of the required disposition of the recipient, but here more than elsewhere he must himself effect and bring forth, as well as he can, the worthy and right disposition of the penitent. Nor is this all. Confession is not merely to free the sinner from sin for a few passing moments; it must so strengthen his will and direct his heart that he will avoid the coming danger and resist the future temptation. Herein lies the difficult and arduous task of the confessor. It is in the discharge of this duty that the priest needs all the love and charity, patience and meekness, of the spiritual father; all the prudence and close attention, the knowledge and experience of the spiritual physician; all the understanding of the holy law and the firmness, impartiality, and discretion of the spiritual judge; the watchful care and patient search of [viii]the spiritual shepherd; the holy knowledge and wisdom of the spiritual teacher; the fervid prayer, saintly life, and burning zeal for souls necessary to him who is to be the minister of Jesus Christ unto sinful man redeemed by His precious blood.
Even this is not all. Confession is not only a means of cleansing the sinner from the stain of sin and vice, and of giving him strength and courage in the battle against temptation; but it is also to help the just and holy man to rise continually higher on the ladder of Christian perfection. It is the sacrament for saint and sinner. The greatest saints of God in holy Church had the greatest reverence and desire for holy confession. St. Charles Borromeo went to confession every day. Hence the tender care of the flowers and fruits of Christian virtue in the heart of his penitent is another important duty of the father confessor. How is he to fulfill it in a manner profitable to the penitent and to himself, unless he is well acquainted with the principles and facts of the spiritual life by a thorough study of Christian ascetics and the earnest practice of Christian perfection? What a responsibility when a soul called by God to the higher walks of Christian life, and willing to follow the call, be it in the world or in the cloister, falls into the hands of an ignorant, neglectful, or heedless confessor! But what glory to God, what happiness of soul, what merit for heaven, when by holy zeal and skillful effort the minister of God in holy confession leads the Christian soul, panting after God as the hart panteth after the fountains of water (Ps. xlii. 2), into the sanctuary of God’s love, grace, and mercy! What a glorious ministry!
We can only hope and pray that Catholic priests will carefully read the beautiful and instructive lessons that Dr. Schieler’s book offers, and ponder over them day and night. There is no greater blessing for Church and State, society and individual, than an army of priests who are confessors according to the spirit of Christ; for they are in a fuller sense than others “good stewards of the manifold grace of God” (1 Petr. iv. 10).
✠ S. G. MESSMER.
[5]
EDITOR’S PREFACE
An English translation of Dr. Schieler’s exhaustive work on “The Sacrament of Penance,” for the use of theological students and missionary priests, had been advised by some of our bishops and professors of theology. It was felt that, under present conditions, a work in the vernacular on a subject which involved to a very large extent the practical direction of souls was an actual necessity for many to whom the Latin texts dealing with the important questions of the Confessional were for one reason or another insufficient.
There was one serious objection to the publication of a work in English, which, since it deals with most delicate subjects, might for this reason cause an unqualified or prejudiced reader to misunderstand or pervert its statements, so as to effect the very opposite of what is intended by the Church in her teaching of Moral and Pastoral Theology. Between the two dangers of a lack of sufficiently practical means to inform and direct the confessor and pastoral guide of souls in so difficult and broad a field as is presented by the missions in English-speaking countries, and the fear that a manual from which the priest derives his helpful material of direction may fall into the hand of the ill-advised, for whom it was not intended, the latter seems the lesser evil, albeit it may leave its deeper impression upon certain minds that see no difficulty in using the sources of information in which the Latin libraries abound.
One proof of both the necessity and the superior advantage of having a vernacular expression of this branch of theological literature, for the use of students and priests in non-Latin countries, is readily found in the fact that authorized scholarship and pastoral industry in Germany have long ago seen fit to supply this need for students in its theological faculties, and for priests on the mission, and that the benefit of such a course has shown itself far to overlap the accidental danger of an unprofessional use of the source of Moral Theology in the hands of a lay-reader, [6]or one hostile to the Catholic Church who might pervert its doctrine and arouse the zeal of the prudish.
The work was, therefore, not undertaken without serious weighing of the reasons for and against its expediency from the prudential as well as moral point of view. As a competent translator of it, the name of the Rev. Richard F. Clarke, S.J., of the English Province, whose editions of Spirago’s catechetical volumes had given him the advantage of special experience in kindred work, suggested itself to the publishers. Father Clarke actually undertook the translation, and had fairly completed it when death overtook him. The manuscript was placed in my hands with a request to prepare it for publication. After much delay, due to a multiplicity of other professional duties, I found it possible, with the coöperation of the Rev. Dr. Charles Bruehl, who kindly consented to undertake the principal work of revision, to complete the volume which is now placed at the disposal of our clergy. There is probably room for some criticism in parts wherein I have undertaken to alter the expressions of the author and of the original translator, with a view of accommodating the matter to the temperament of the English reader. In this I may have sinned at times both by excess and by deficiency; but these blemishes can, I trust, be eliminated in future editions of a work which, for the rest, contains so much of instructive material as to prove itself permanently useful to the theologian and pastor.
In some cases I would not wish to be understood as sharing the author’s views, nor should I have deemed an insistence upon the often-cited opinions of casuists quite so essential in a work of this kind as it seemed to the learned author. But in this I did not feel authorized to depart from his text, even if I had not fully appreciated the advantage of his ample references and quotations in matters of detail. Whatever we think of the author’s personal views, his citations of the masters in the science of morals give to his book certain advantages entitled to recognition.
With these restrictions borne in mind, it would be difficult to exaggerate the usefulness of a work such as this, which directs the priest in the sacramental ministry of Penance as indicated by the laws and practice of the Church.
The aim of every pastor must in the first place be to rouse the [7]consciences of the individual members of his flock to motives of pure and right living. The Gospel of Christ furnishes the model of such living, and the Church is the practical operator under whose direction and authority the principles of the Gospel are actively carried into society, from the lowest to the highest strata. The sacramental discipline of the Confessional is the directest and most powerful instrument by which the maxims and precepts of the Gospel are made operative and fruitful in the individual conscience. A prominent non-Catholic writer of our day has characterized the Catholic Church as the Empire of the Confessional. So she is, and her empire is the strongest, the most penetrating, permanent, and effective rule for the good conduct of the individual and the peace and prosperity of the community that can be conceived.
On the proper operation, therefore, of the Sacrament of Penance depends in the first place all that we can look for of satisfaction and peace upon earth. But the administration of the Sacrament of Penance is solely in the hands of the priest or confessor. If he knows what to do, if he is wisely diligent in doing what the discipline of the Confessional instructs him to do, he will rule his people with order and ease, he will gain their gratitude and their love, he will reap all the fruits of a happy ministry, and his name will be in benediction among men of good will within and without the fold.
The Confessional is a tribunal. It demands a certain knowledge of the law, exercise of discretion and prudence in the application of the law, and the wisdom of kindly counsel to greater perfection. As the lawyer, the judge, the physician, learn their rules of diagnosis and prescription in the first instance from books and then from practice, so the future confessor, for three or four years a student of theology, deems it his first and most important duty to study Moral Theology, and this with the single and almost exclusive purpose of making use of it in the Confessional. Moral Theology gives him the principles of law and right, the rules to apply them to concrete cases, and certain precedents by way of illustration, in order to render him familiar with actual and practical conditions. But the young priest learns much more during the first few months and years of his actual ministry by sitting in the Confessional and [8]dealing with the consciences of those who individually seek his direction.
There is some danger that the practical aspect, with all the distracting circumstances of sin’s work in the soul, may in time obscure the clear view of principles and make the confessor what the criminal judge is apt to become during long years of incumbency, oversevere or overindulgent, as his temper dictates. He may thus lose that fine sense of discrimination, that balanced use of fatherly indulgence and needful correction, which the position of the representative of eternal justice and mercy demands.
To obviate this result, which renders the Confessional a mere work of routine and absolution, instead of being, as it should be, a means of correction and reform, the priest, like the judge, needs to read his books of law and to refurbish his knowledge of theory and practice and his sense of discernment. But the theological texts with which he was familiar under the Seminary discipline, where nothing distracted him from the attentive use of them, are not now so readily at hand. Their Latin forms are a speech which, if not more strange and difficult than during his Seminary course, seems more distant and uninviting. The priest, even the young priest, would rather review his Moral Theology in the familiar language in which he is now to express his judgments to his penitents.
This fact alone suggests the pertinent use of the book before us. There the confessor, the director of the conscience, finds all that he was taught in his Moral Theology. He finds much more; for the author has made the subject a specialty of treatment which leads him to light up every phase of the confessor’s task. He has himself studied all the great masters in the direction of souls from the Fathers of the Church down to the Scholastics of the thirteenth century; and more especially those that follow, who have entered into the theory and art of psychical anatomy—Guilelmus Paris, Cardinal Segusio, St. Thomas, St. Bonaventure, Gerson, St. Charles Borromeo, Toletus, De Ponte, St. Francis of Sales, Lugo, Lacroix, Concina, Cajetan, and Bergamo, St. Alphonsus, Reuter, and finally those many doctors of the last century who have written upon the duties of the confessor in the light of modern necessities and special canon law.
It is hardly necessary to explain to the priest who has passed [9]over the ground of the sacramental discipline as found in his theological text-books, how the subject is here presented in the detail of analysis and application to concrete conditions. Penance is a Virtue and it is a Sacrament. To understand the full value of the latter we must examine its constituent elements, the matter, form, conditions, the dispositions and acts of the penitent, sorrow for sin, purpose of amendment, actual accusation of faults in the tribunal—requisites which are dealt with by Professor Schieler in the traditional manner, but with clearness and attention to detail.
Of special importance are the suggestions in the third chapter, touching the integrity of the Confession: the number, circumstances certain and doubtful, of the sins, and the reasons which excuse the penitent from making a complete confession; likewise the treatment of invalid confessions, of general confessions, their purpose, necessity, or danger as the case may be; satisfaction, its acceptance or commutation.
The main object of the treatise lies, however, as might be supposed, in the exposition of the confessor’s powers and jurisdiction, and of the reservation and abuse of faculties. These matters are in the first place discussed from the theoretical standpoint. Then follows the application, which takes up the second principal part of the work. Here we have the confessor in the act of administering the Sacrament. He is told how he is to diagnose the sinner’s condition by the proposal of questions and by ascertaining his motives—how far and to what end this probing is lawful and wise. Next the qualities of the confessor, his duties and responsibilities, are set forth in so far as they must lead him to benefit his penitent both in and out of the tribunal of penance. The obligation of absolute secrecy or the sigillum is the subject of an extended chapter.
From the general viewpoint which the confessor must take of his penitent’s condition and the safeguards by which he is to protect the penitent both as accused and accuser, our author leads us into the various aspects of the judge’s duties toward penitents in particular conditions. Thus the sinner who is in the constant occasion of relapse into his former sin, the sinner who finds himself too weak to resist temptation, the penitent who aims at extraordinary sanctity, the scrupulous, the convert, form separate [10]topics of detailed discussion. The last part of the volume deals with the subjects of confessions of children, of young men and young women, of those who are engaged to be married, of persons living in mixed marriage, of men, religious women, of priests, and of the sick and dying.
Some of our readers may recall that we have protested against too implicit a reliance on an artificial code of weights and measures in the matter of sin; and to them it may seem that in seconding the translation of such a work as this we go contrary to the principles advocated, because our author presents the same application of canon law and judicial decision which has been sanctioned by the great moralists and canonists of the schools. But let the reader remember that in the text-books of the Seminary, we have as a rule the principles and precepts presented in their skeleton form so as to leave the impression of fixed maxims, which cannot be altered, although they are in many cases only the coined convictions of individual authors, to whose authority the student is taught to swear allegiance. In the present volume principles and precepts are so discussed that they admit of an all-sided view, and as a result do not hinder that freedom of judgment which is so essential a requisite in a good judge and, therefore, in a confessor. For the rest we felt it, of course, to be our duty toward the author to preserve his train of thought and reasoning, and if anything is needed to make his exposition especially applicable to our missionary conditions of time and place, it will be easily supplied by any one who shall have read and studied the present work.
H. J. Heuser.
[11]
CONTENTS
| PAGE | ||
| PART I PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT | ||
| 1. | The Virtue of Penance | 17 |
| 2. | The Sacrament of Penance | 20 |
| 3. | Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance | 22 |
| 4. | Forgiveness of Venial Sin | 29 |
| 5. | The Constituent Parts of the Sacrament of Penance in General | 37 |
| 6. | The Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance in Particular | 39 |
| 7. | The Form of the Sacrament | 50 |
| 8. | Conditional Absolution | 59 |
| PART II THE RECIPIENT OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE, OR THE ACTS OF THE PENITENT | ||
| 9. | Who can Receive the Sacrament of Penance | 70 |
| CHAPTER I Contrition | ||
| 10. | Extent and Efficacy of Contrition | 71 |
| 11. | The Essential Features of Perfect Contrition | 76 |
| 12. | The Effects of Perfect Contrition and the Obligation of Procuring it | 81 |
| 13. | Imperfect Contrition | 88 |
| 14. | The Necessary Qualities of Contrition | 98 |
| 15. | The Relation of Contrition to the Sacrament | 111 |
| CHAPTER II The Purpose of Amendment | ||
| 16. | Necessity and Nature of the Purpose of Amendment | 121 |
| 17. | Properties of the Purpose of Amendment | 126 |
| 18. | The Purpose of Amendment with regard to Venial Sin | 133[12] |
| CHAPTER III Confession | ||
| Article I. Essence, Necessity, and Properties of Confession | ||
| 19. | Essence and Necessity of Confession | 137 |
| 20. | Properties of Confession | 138 |
| Article II. The Integrity of the Confession | ||
| 21. | Necessity of the Integrity of Confession | 153 |
| 22. | Extent of the Integrity of Confession | 157 |
| 23. | The Number of Sins in Confession | 163 |
| 24. | The Confession of the Circumstances of Sins | 166 |
| 25. | The Confession of Doubtful Sins | 180 |
| 26. | Sins omitted through Forgetfulness or Other Causes not Blameworthy | 193 |
| 27. | Reasons Excusing from Complete Accusation | 198 |
| Article III. The Means to be employed in Order to make a Perfect Confession | ||
| 28. | The Examination of Conscience | 215 |
| 29. | Invalid Confessions | 222 |
| 30. | General Confession | 228 |
| 31. | The Manner of Hearing General Confession | 238 |
| 32. | Plan for making a General Confession | 245 |
| CHAPTER IV Satisfaction | ||
| 33. | The Imposition of Penance by the Confessor | 256 |
| 34. | The Acceptance and Performance of the Penance by the Penitent | 271 |
| 35. | The Commutation of the Penance | 274 |
| PART III THE MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT | ||
| Section I. The Powers of the Confessor | ||
| 36. | Orders, Jurisdiction, Approbation | 279 |
| CHAPTER I Jurisdiction | ||
| 37. | The Minister of the Sacrament with Ordinary Jurisdiction | 284 |
| 38. | The Minister of the Sacrament with Delegated Jurisdiction or Approbation | 288[13] |
| 39. | Jurisdictio Delegata Extraordinaria, or, the Supplying of Deficient Jurisdiction by the Church | 300 |
| 40. | The Administration of the Sacrament of Penance to Members of Religious Orders | 307 |
| 41. | Jurisdiction and Approbation for the Confessions of Nuns | 311 |
| CHAPTER II Limitation of Jurisdiction or Reserved Cases | ||
| 42. | Reserved Cases in General | 316 |
| 43. | The Papal Reserved Cases | 326 |
| 44. | Absolution of Reserved Sins | 340 |
| CHAPTER III Abuse of Power by the Minister of the Sacrament | ||
| 45. | Inquiring after the Name of the Accomplice in Sin | 351 |
| 46. | The Absolution of the Complex in Peccato Turpi | 354 |
| 47. | Sollicitatio Proprii Pœnitentis ad Turpia | 364 |
| Section II. The Office of the Confessor | ||
| CHAPTER I The Essential Duties of the Confessor in the Exercise of his Office; or, The Confessor considered in his Office of Judge | ||
| 48. | The Knowledge of the Sins | 379 |
| 49. | The Nature of the Questions to be put to the Penitent | 382 |
| 50. | The Examination of the Dispositions of the Penitent | 398 |
| 51. | The Confessor’s Duty in Disposing his Penitents | 402 |
| 52. | The Duty of the Confessor to administer, to defer, or to refuse Absolution | 407 |
| CHAPTER II The Accessory Duties of the Confessor | ||
| Article I. The Preparation | ||
| 53. | The Virtues which the Confessor must Possess | 416 |
| 54. | The Scientific Equipment of the Confessor | 424 |
| 55. | The Prudence of the Confessor | 434[14] |
| Article II. Duties of the Confessor during Confession | ||
| 56. | The Duty of instructing and exhorting the Penitent (Munus Doctoris) | 438 |
| 57. | The Duty of suggesting Remedies against Relapse (the Confessor as Physician) | 448 |
| CHAPTER III The Duties of the Confessor after the Confession | ||
| 58. | The Duty of correcting Errors occurring in the Confession | 460 |
| 59. | The Duty of preserving the Seal of Confession | 466 |
| 60. | The Subject of the Seal of Confession | 471 |
| 61. | The Object or Matter of the Seal of Confession | 473 |
| 62. | Violations of the Seal | 476 |
| Section III. The Duties of the Confessor toward Different Classes of Penitents | ||
| CHAPTER I The Treatment of Penitents in Different Spiritual Conditions | ||
| Article I. The Occasionarii | ||
| 63. | Sinful Occasions and the Duty of avoiding them | 487 |
| 64. | The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione Proxima Voluntaria | 493 |
| 65. | The Duties of the Confessor toward Penitents who are in Occasione Necessaria | 496 |
| 66. | Some Commonly Occurring Occasions of Sin | 501 |
| Article II. Habitual and Relapsing Sinners | ||
| 67. | Definition and Treatment of Habitual Sinners | 518 |
| 68. | Relapse, and the Treatment of Relapsing Sinners | 521 |
| 69. | Relapsing Sinners requiring Special Care | 530 |
| 70. | Penitents aiming at Perfection | 536 |
| 71. | Hypocritical Penitents | 543 |
| 72. | Scrupulous Penitents | 545 |
| 73. | Converts | 555 |
| CHAPTER II The Treatment of Penitents in Different External Circumstances | ||
| 74. | The Confession of Children | 561 |
| 75. | The Confession of Young Unmarried People | 575[15] |
| 76. | The Confessor as Adviser in the Choice of a State of Life | 583 |
| 77. | Betrothal and Marriage | 592 |
| 78. | The Confessor’s Attitude toward Mixed Marriages | 600 |
| 79. | How to deal with Penitents joined in “Civil” Marriage only | 607 |
| 80. | The Confessor’s Conduct toward Women | 608 |
| 81. | The Confessions of Men | 614 |
| 82. | The Confession of Nuns | 618 |
| 83. | The Confession of Priests | 624 |
| CHAPTER III Penitents in Extreme Danger | ||
| 84. | The Importance of the Priest’s Ministry at the Bedside of the Sick and the Dying | 630 |
| 85. | The Confessions of the Sick | 632 |
| 86. | Absolution of the Dying | 645 |
| Topical Index | 655 | |
[16]
[17]
THEORY AND PRACTICE OF THE CONFESSIONAL
Part I
PENANCE AS A VIRTUE AND AS A SACRAMENT
1. The Virtue of Penance.
At all times penance has been the necessary means (necessitate medii ad salutem) of obtaining pardon for those who had committed mortal sin. “If we do not do penance, we shall fall into the hands of the Lord,” is the warning of the Old Testament (Ecclus. ii. 22). And when God sent His prophets, it was to arouse men to repentance by the announcement of His wrath, and threatening punishments. The forerunner of Our Lord solemnly exhorts the assembled crowds, “Do penance; the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” Our Lord Himself insists on the same point with awful determination, “Unless you do penance you shall all likewise perish” (Luke xiii. 3). He proclaims as the task of His own public ministry and the great mission of His Church, “to call sinners to repentance” (Luke v. 32). Accordingly, the burden of the Apostles’ preaching was, “Do penance” (Acts ii. 38), for “God hath also to the gentiles given repentance unto life” (Acts xi. 18).
Thus penance is indispensable to the sinner by divine ordinance, as the Council of Trent expressly teaches (Sess. xiv. c. 1). It is not less clearly dictated by natural law. “For reason prompts man to do penance for the sins which he has committed; but divine command determines the manner according to which it is to be performed.”[1]
Taken in its widest sense, penance may be defined as a regret for some past action. Such a regret is not necessarily virtuous, [18]for a morally indifferent or even a good action may be to us a source of displeasure and grief. But even in its restricted meaning, denoting grief, on account of some bad action, penance does not yet include the idea of virtue. Grief is caused by the perception of anything we look upon as an evil. Now sin may be regarded as an evil in more than one way. Then only does our penance rise to the height of a virtue, if we feel sorry for our sins, not by reason of some temporal disadvantage we have incurred, but for God’s sake, whose holy law we have transgressed and whose majesty we have outraged. In other words, the virtue of penance requires that we detest sin as an evil of a higher, supernatural order.
Penance is not a virtue of its own and specifically distinct from other virtues. St. Thomas considers it as belonging to the virtue of justice, because by it we perform an act of justice toward God, since we restore to Him the honor of which sin has deprived Him, and make reparation for our wrongdoings.[2] Apparently, it springs from the virtue of religion, as an effect thereof; for to detest one’s sin as an injustice done to God implies an acknowledgment of His sovereign goodness and majesty. This submission to God is an act of the virtue of religion.[3] Furthermore, Lehmkuhl[4] is right in attaching the act of penance to virtues of different species. For sin, being in many ways an evil and opposed to holiness and duty, may be deplored from different reasons; and so our penance belongs to that virtue which supplies the motive of sorrow. Thus, a sinner may loathe his impurity from a love of purity, his intemperance from a love of temperance, his pride from a love of humility; he may also abhor sins because they are repugnant to more general virtues, such as the love of God and gratitude toward God.[5]
[19]
The virtue of penance, thus being a complete destruction of all affection to sin, has an intimate bearing on the Sacrament of Penance. It is the disposition required on the part of the sinner, not only for the worthy, but also for the valid reception of the Sacrament. It represents, so to speak, the matter of the Sacrament, so that without it the Sacrament is null and void. Consequently, it enters as a constituent part into the very essence of the Sacrament.
The most important act of the virtue of penance is an act of the will and is called contrition. It is contrition that gives birth to penance, vivifies and animates it. Without contrition, there is no remission of sin; for it alone leads to a sincere avowal of our guilt and a meritorious satisfaction.
The second act of penance is the confession of sin: it is penance exercised by speech. Justice exacts that the guilty should acknowledge their wickedness, and also make amends for the sins committed by words. The third act of penance is satisfaction in expiation of our misdeeds. The bad deed is compensated by some good action, which we are not bound to do, but which we perform in order to supply for our past deficiencies. This is penance in deed.
These three acts of penance are most intimately connected with the Sacrament, and this union imparts to them a special efficacy and strength; for the imperfect virtue, which of itself is unable to effect justification, by its elevation to sacramental dignity acquires the power of conferring sanctifying grace.[6]
[20]
2. The Sacrament of Penance.
The arguments for the existence of the Sacrament of Penance do not form part of our task; they come within the scope of dogmatic theology. We shall only point out some theological propositions on which our subsequent dissertations are based.
1. Jesus Christ gave to His apostles and their successors in the holy ministry the power of forgiving and retaining sins committed after Baptism.
2. This power is judicial and is exercised in the form of a judicial process. On this evident deduction from the words of the institution is based the entire Catholic teaching concerning the Sacrament of Penance.
3. The exercise of this judicial power constitutes a Sacrament, the object of which is to reconcile the sinner to his God.
4. The outward sign of the Sacrament is the exercise of the judicial functions; this comprises, on the one hand, the acts of the penitent,—contrition, confession, and satisfaction; and on the other, the priestly absolution, being the sentence delivered by the representative of God.
5. The grace conferred by the Sacrament is the remission of all sins, embracing the effacement of the guilt, the obliteration of the eternal punishment, and the condonation of, at least, a portion of the temporal punishment. This remission of sin is accomplished by the infusion of sanctifying grace, which, moreover, constitutes a title to certain actual graces, helping the penitent to bring forth worthy fruits of penance, to overcome temptation, to avoid relapse, and to amend his life.
At the same time the infused virtues are restored and the merits of former good works lost by sin are regained.
On zealous penitents, besides, special gifts are bestowed, such as peace of heart, cheerfulness of mind, and great spiritual consolation.
[21]
Though the Sacrament of Penance is administered after the fashion of a judicial trial, still its administration deviates in many points from the customs of forensic practice. The chief points of divergence are the following:—
1. The aim which the secular judge has in view is to convict the criminal, and by the infliction of a penalty, proportioned to the nature and the greatness of the crime, to restore the order of justice violated by the offense; the acquittal of the innocent is only a secondary consideration. The sacramental judge, on the contrary, reestablishes the relations between God and man, destroyed by sin, not so much by imposing a punishment, as by effecting a reconciliation. His chief preoccupation is the individual welfare of the penitent; the verdict, therefore, is a sentence of absolution and release from guilt; however, the sinner must perform a certain penance, to be determined by the confessor.
2. It follows from this that the final sentence in the tribunal of penance, by which the case is decided, is always one of acquittal. Any other sentence passed in the sacramental court is only intermediate, amounting to a temporary postponement of absolution.
3. In the ordinary session of justice, besides the judge and the accused, we find a prosecutor, witnesses, and pleaders. In the sacramental court there are only the judge and the sinner, who is his own prosecutor, pleading guilty. The proceedings are shrouded in perfect secrecy. The bench cites the criminal against his will, and holds him by force; at the confessional, the sinner presents himself of his own free will. The spiritual judge must credit the account of the penitent, be it in his favor or disfavor, since he alone can bear witness to the state of his conscience. Only when there is moral certainty of the opposite, may the priest distrust the statements of the sinner. On the contrary, the ordinary judge has the right to reject any plea advanced by the criminal.[7]
[22]
3. Necessity of the Sacrament of Penance.
The Council of Trent declared in its fourteenth session, with regard to this point: “The Sacrament of Penance is as necessary to those who have incurred mortal sin after baptism, as baptism itself is to those who are not yet regenerated.”[8] It follows from this teaching of the Council that, since Baptism is indispensable to eternal salvation, penance is equally necessary. To use the exact language of theologians, it is necessary in re vel saltem in voto. Which means that those who can actually receive the Sacrament are bound to have recourse to it in order to be freed from their sins; but that those for whom the reception of this Sacrament is for any reason impossible, will be cleansed from their sins by the desire of receiving it. This desire is always included in perfect contrition.[9]
For when Our Lord granted to His apostles the power of forgiving or retaining sins, and thereby instituted the Sacrament of Penance for the remission of grievous sin, committed after Baptism, He evidently asserted it to be His will that the sinner should be subjected to the power of the keys by the reception of this Sacrament, the latter thus becoming a necessary means of obtaining pardon for grievous sin committed after baptismal regeneration. The power of the keys vested in the apostles and their successors would be a useless gift if the faithful, without submitting to that power, could be released from their sins and gain the heavenly kingdom. The more so, as the priest possesses also the power of retaining sins; a power unfavorable to the sinner; but which the sinner could elude if the Sacrament of Penance had not been made a necessary means of forgiveness. Nor would the sinner undergo the inconveniences connected with the reception of the Sacrament of Penance, if [23]he were not persuaded of Christ’s precept, imposing the Sacrament of Penance as a means of reconciliation. Venial sins, however, are forgiven without reference to the Sacrament of Penance, as we shall show in another place.[10]
Thus, by divine precept, all who have incurred mortal sin after Baptism are bound to receive this Sacrament. The obligation is absolute (per se) in danger of death; for, in this case, the reception is necessary. Hence those are bound who are suffering of a dangerous disease; a mother before her first confinement, or before any subsequent birth, if her travails are of an especially alarming nature; a criminal sentenced to death, before his execution; and any one foreseeing the lack of another opportunity for his whole life of making a confession.
There are other times in the course of our life when the obligation of confession becomes actual and pressing; the Church, acting according to the intentions of Christ, has specified these occasions more particularly. For the Sacrament was not instituted merely to dispose man for his passage from this life, but also to heal his spiritual infirmities, to shield him against relapse into sin, and to strengthen him to lead a virtuous life. Consequently, we would frustrate the object of the Sacrament if we were to postpone its reception to the hour of death.
Per accidens it is obligatory to receive this Sacrament: (1) for a person who desires or is bound to receive holy Communion, and who happens to be in a state of mortal sin; (2) when the Sacrament of Penance is the only means for overcoming a temptation or avoiding grievous sin; (3) when any one feels himself incapable of making an act of perfect contrition, and yet is by his duties required to be in a state of grace; for instance, if one has to administer a Sacrament, or simply because one realizes that it is wrong to remain in a state of enmity with God for any considerable period.[11]
[24]
The divine precept of approaching the Sacrament of Penance does not urge immediately that a mortal sin has been committed, for it is an affirmative command, and affirmative precepts do not press of their own accord, but only at certain times and under given circumstances. Besides, the Church’s precept of an annual confession for all the faithful, who have fallen into mortal sin, proves sufficiently that divine law does not enforce confession immediately after committing mortal sin.
The precept of the Church concerning the Sacrament of Penance binds only those who have sinned mortally. For the Church’s intention is merely to define more clearly the extent of the divine command; so the ecclesiastical precept does not exceed the limits of the divine precept, and Christ commanded only that mortal sin should be confessed. Hence one who has committed no mortal sin is not subject to the law of the Church prescribing yearly confession. In practice, however, the question has no import; for which of the faithful, guilty only of venial sin, would omit to go to confession at least once a year, or would think of receiving holy Communion without previously having confessed?[12]
He who has committed a mortal sin, but, forgetting all about it, confesses only venial sins, and some days later remembers again the mortal sin, is, according to a probable opinion, no longer subject to the precept of yearly confession; for, since [25]the confession was valid, the mortal sin omitted by sheer forgetfulness is forgiven; and there only remains the obligation of submitting the forgotten sin to the power of the keys in the next confession.[13]
For the same reason alleged above, the law of the Church extends only to those who have reached the age of discernment, and whose minds are sufficiently developed to render them capable of sin. It is impossible[14] to fix any definite limit of age in this matter. Much depends on the child’s personal gifts, its training and education. In each individual case the moral maturity of the child must be gauged by its general accomplishments and its ways of acting. During the ordinary course of religious instruction, the pastor will find ample material on which to base a decision; in case of doubt, the testimony of the parents and the teachers may be taken into account.[15] Seven years is usually assigned as the age at which children of average ability and proper training have arrived at the period of discretion which enables them to understand the malice of mortal sin.
Hence it becomes a duty to instruct the children for confession when they have reached about the seventh or eighth year, or, according to circumstances, even earlier. But even children of an inferior age, if they seem to have sufficient understanding, should not be allowed to die without absolution, though it be pronounced only conditionally. Of course, the priest will help them to elicit the necessary acts of contrition and purpose of amendment. This should be done though it be doubtful that the child has committed a sin or if it has forgotten the sin committed.
It is not a good practice, therefore, to defer the instruction of children on this Sacrament to their ninth year or later; since it [26]does an injustice to the more intelligent children. Moreover, in the case of those children who are sick, this lack of early preparation is apt to deprive them of both the Sacrament of Penance and Extreme Unction, which is a serious matter, if they have been capable of committing mortal sin.[16]
The precept of the Church imposes annual confession, saltem semel in anno. Beyond this, time and season are not specified. Theologians interpret the law in general as follows: all who are conscious of mortal sin are bound to confess within the period between January 1 and December 31, or, what practically amounts to the same, within the time comprised between the Easter of one year and the Easter of the following year. For, whoever makes his confession with a view to his Easter Communion, certainly does confess within the limits of a civil year, though the earlier or later date of Easter may make the interval elapsing between the confessions more than a year.
Since the precept of yearly confession refers only to mortal sins, the common teaching of theologians is that, whosoever has accused himself at Easter time of venial sin only, but falls into mortal sin before the year has expired, must go to confession again before the end of the year, in order to fulfill the ecclesiastical precept.[17]
The faithful, however, adds Lehmkuhl, should be exhorted never to put off the reception of the Sacrament, or at least the eliciting of an act of perfect contrition, when they have had the misfortune of offending God grievously; for a soul in the state of mortal sin is in a most deplorable and dangerous condition. Still we are not authorized to insist on this as being an obligation imposed by the Church, since some distinguished theologians maintain the contrary.[18]
[27]
He who one year, whether by his own fault or not, fails to make his confession, but during the next confesses all his sins, satisfies thereby the obligations with respect to both years, in the case, at least, when, during the current year, he has committed a mortal sin which he includes in his confession; for he has fulfilled the precept which enjoins reconciliation with God. If, on the contrary, the penitent has committed only venial sins in the current year, and confessed them along with the mortal sins of the previous year, and later on falls into grievous sin, he is obliged to make another confession in order to comply with the law of the Church.[19]
He who has not confessed for a whole year, must, according to the more common and probable opinion, confess as soon as possible; because the Church has defined the period for fulfilling the precept, not for the purpose of limiting the obligation to a determinate date, but to incite men to perform their duty in proper time (non ad finiendam sed ad urgendam obligationem). Hence, a man would sin against the precept as often as he shirked an opportunity of making the neglected confession, thereby renewing the intention not to obey the law.[20]
He who has sinned grievously, and foresees that in the course of the year he shall be prevented from going to confession, must avail himself of the presently occurring opportunity, for in these circumstances the duty of confessing is actually pressing.
The precept of the Church prescribes, moreover, that the faithful confess their sins sincerely (fideliter). By a bad confession we cannot discharge our duty. This was distinctly confirmed by Alexander VII, condemning a proposition to the contrary. (Prop. 14.)
[28]
A further provision of the Lateran decree, to confess proprio sacerdoti, which formerly obliged the faithful to make their annual confession to their own parish priest, bishop, vicar-general, or the Pope, has long been abrogated by a recognized universal contrary practice. Confession may, therefore, be made to any priest duly authorized by the bishop.[21]
The excommunication for the violation of the Church’s precept of annual confession, as of Paschal Communion, is not a pœna latæ, but a pœna ferendæ sententiæ.
The ardent wish of the Church is that her children should confess frequently during the year. This is apparent from the wording of the law. Frequent confession is of the greatest usefulness to all without exception, to the sinner as well as the just. It destroys the evil inclinations born by sin and averts its terrible consequences.
1. Although, absolutely considered, a single confession made worthily and with due preparation is able to arrest us in the downward career of vice, to extinguish the long-nourished flame of passion, to correct our evil inclinations and habits, to confirm us in grace, and to insure us against relapse; yet this is not the ordinary course of things. When we are cleansed from our sins by the Sacrament, we have yet to face a long struggle with the remains of sin; for the wounds inflicted by sin, though closed by the grace of absolution, leave us in a weakened condition, and may easily reopen. To effect a perfect cure of the soul, and to purify its inclinations and habits, there exists no more [29]efficacious means than frequent confession. It leads us to greater watchfulness over ourselves, constitutes an act of humility, forces us to renew our good resolutions; it equips us with many special graces, intended to assist us in our spiritual warfare, and to enable us to persevere in the paths of virtue in spite of the manifold difficulties which we encounter.
2. Frequent confession is also the most powerful means to counteract the disastrous consequences of sin. The most fatal of these are: blindness of the soul, hardening of the heart and final impenitence. As often as we go to confession, the great salutary truths of our religion are recalled to our mind. We reflect on God and our last end, on Jesus Christ and His love and mercy, on the wickedness and the dreadful punishments of sin, on our august duties, and on God’s holy law. Frequent confession is an antidote against the hardening of the heart, since it arouses in us a profound hatred of sin, love for God, fear of His wrath, and the desire of accomplishing His will. Finally, as at every confession we again banish sin from our hearts, frequent confession is the best preparation for a penitent life and a happy death.
Also the just derives great benefits from frequent confession; he is more and more cleansed from the lesser faults, committed daily; the grace and love of God are increased in his heart, and special helps to overcome his failings and weakness are granted to him. The oftener the just man approaches this holy Sacrament, the more fully does he partake of its peculiar graces.[22]
4. Forgiveness of Venial Sin.
By divine and ecclesiastical precept we are bound only to confess mortal sins; there is no obligation to confess venial sins; these may be forgiven without receiving the Sacrament of Penance. [30]“Venial sins, by which we are not shut out from the grace of God and into which we fall more frequently, though they be rightly and profitably declared in confession, as the practice of pious people demonstrates, may be omitted without guilt, and be expiated by many other methods.” Such is the teaching of the Council of Trent.[23]
Before enumerating the methods by which venial sins can be remitted we wish to observe:—
1. The most necessary condition for the remission of any sin, and therefore also of venial sin, is contrition. So long as a man is attached to sin and does not detest it, God cannot forgive it, for He is infinitely holy and just. It is not, however, absolutely necessary to specify the sins and make a formal act of sorrow for them, otherwise David’s prayer Ab occultis meis munda me (Ps. xviii. 13) would be useless and the remission of forgotten sins impossible. Virtual contrition is sufficient, i.e. the sinner must be actually contrite for all his sins, and from universal motives which apply even to those sins of which he is unconscious or which he has forgotten. He must also have the intention of including in that contrition all the sins by which he has offended God. Although venial sin is more easily forgiven than mortal, yet this forgiveness is impossible without at least a virtual contrition for it. For when a man falls into venial sin he turns inordinately to creatures, not, however, as in mortal sin, by entirely abandoning God, his last end, and unreservedly giving himself up to creatures. This attachment to creatures, however, makes it necessary that he should, if not formally and explicitly, at least virtually and implicitly, turn away from them and combat this guilty affection for creatures by a contrary act of the will. A work done to please God, or a mere act of love without abhorrence of sin, does not remit that sin. As venial sin may coexist with the general habit of the love of God, so it may coexist with a particular act of that love; for a man can make [31]an act of perfect love or even an act of perfect contrition and still retain a leaning toward some particular venial sin.[24]
2. Since the presence of venial sin is compatible with that of sanctifying grace, and since a man can be sorry for one venial sin without being necessarily sorry for another, it follows that one venial sin may be forgiven and others left unforgiven.
3. A penitent who is burdened with both mortal and venial sins may by perfect contrition or the Sacrament of Penance be freed from his mortal sins and yet be left with his venial sins still upon him because he is not sorry for these.
4. Hence, if a man is in the state of mortal sin, his venial sins cannot be remitted without the mortal sin being at the same time forgiven; for God cannot forgive one who will not acknowledge and love Him as Lord and God; and, according to [32]the doctrine of St. Thomas, just as mortal sin is forgiven by the influx of sanctifying grace, so the remission of venial sin is dependent on a movement of grace or love, which therefore must be actually present.[25]
Venial sins are forgiven:—
1. By the Sacrament of Penance, and that directly and ex opere operato, when they are submitted in confession to the power of the keys with formal contrition and purpose of amendment.
2. “By many other means,”[26] such as:—
(a) All the Sacraments; they remit sins ex opere operato, and especially those sins which are opposed to the particular end of the Sacrament. For the object of every Sacrament is the sanctification of souls, and hence the removal of all that hinders this sanctification. Now venial sins in particular, by hindering the conferring of richer graces, are an obstacle in the way of attaining sanctity. Cardinal Lugo, in treating this subject, illustrates it by the attitude of two friends: “Even where, in the strict nature of things, we cannot expect that the influx of grace should cause the remission of sins, yet it is in accordance with good feeling that where fresh and closer ties of friendship have been formed, little offences should be condoned. If, then, the influx or increase of grace is a new bond of friendship between God and the just man, uniting him more intimately with God, an embrace of love, so to speak, and a kiss of peace, it is probable and reasonable to suppose that there is granted also a remission of the smaller sins which have been retracted.”[27]
It is always, however, necessary and sufficient to elicit at least a virtual or implicit contrition, contained in a pious and supernatural affection toward God, which is opposed to venial [33]sins, and is consequently a virtual horror and retraction of the same.[28]
Not all the Sacraments, however, effect this forgiveness in the same manner. Next to the Sacrament of Penance, Baptism and Extreme Unction have a peculiar power, because they were instituted by Christ for the very purpose of forgiving sins. If an adult who had been purified of original sin and of his mortal sins by perfect love and contrition (the Baptism of desire), but, on account of his attachment to venial sins, was not yet freed of these, were to receive Baptism, all his venial sins for which he had at least virtual contrition would be forgiven through this Sacrament. For, according to the teaching of the Council of Trent, Baptism effects a new birth, and in consequence the remission of sins, with the exception, of course, of those venial sins which the newly baptized person has not yet renounced.[29]
Of Extreme Unction the Council of Trent, referring to James v. 15, teaches that it forgives the sins which defile the soul, and removes the remains of sin.[30]
With respect to the Holy Eucharist the same Council[31] declares that although the forgiveness of sin is certainly not the principal fruit of this Sacrament, yet, in accordance with our Lord’s commands, we should receive it in order thereby to be freed from our daily trespasses and strengthened against mortal sin.
Hence there is no doubt that the Holy Eucharist removes venial sins. But theologians do not agree how it produces this effect—whether, as in the case of the three preceding Sacraments, immediately, ex opere operato, or only mediately, ex opere operantis. The champions of both views appeal to St. [34]Thomas, who on the one hand teaches that the Holy Eucharist acts after the manner of bodily food, repairing what in the heat of concupiscence we have lost by venial sin, and on the other hand declares the peculiar grace (res sacramenti) of this Sacrament to be caritas, and that not only quantum ad habitum sed etiam quantum ad actum; in other words charity is elicited in this Sacrament, and through its operation venial sins are forgiven.[32]
Suarez interprets St. Thomas as teaching that the Holy Eucharist effects the remission of venial sins ex opere operato, and this interpretation would seem to have the preference over that of theologians who, with St. Alphonsus, insisting on the words just quoted, hold that the Sacrament of the Eucharist works ex opere operantis.[33]
The three remaining Sacraments, of Confirmation, Orders, and Marriage, do not so directly imply forgiveness of venial sin; still they pour into the soul of the recipient a new grace, and so they, too, must be considered as remitting venial sins when no obstacle is put in the way.[34] The range of this power varies according as the grace conferred in the Sacrament is more or less opposed to some particular sin or kind of sins. The most efficacious of the last-named Sacraments in eliminating venial sin is that of Confirmation, because its influence extends to the whole life of faith and grace, strengthening and bringing it to perfection.[35] Holy Orders give grace to the recipient, so that he may attain the holiness and perfection that befit his state, and in consequence they also purify from sin.[36] Finally, Matrimony remits venial sins because it confers the grace by which concupiscence is curbed and restrained, and by which the recipients are enabled to fulfil their duties of mutual sanctification.
[35]
(b) Venial sins are likewise removed by the holy sacrifice of the Mass, which of its own nature is a sacrifice of atonement, a sacrificium vere propitiatorium.[37] It works this forgiveness, as theologians teach, per modum impetrationis, therefore mediately, by obtaining for the sinner from God the grace of contrition or other virtues, excluding affection for sin.[38]
(c) The sacramentals also destroy venial sins. “By the use of the sacramentals the faithful confess and awaken their faith, hope, reverence for God, a longing for interior holiness and sinlessness, or a horror of sin, and sorrow for past offences. The symbols blessed or used by the Church confer a grace which produces or strengthens desires and acts of different virtues, which in turn destroy venial sin and atone for it.”[39] Hence a sacramental possesses power of remitting sin in proportion as its character and the blessing of the Church cause it to excite or strengthen acts of virtue in the faithful. The Church has a sacramental especially designed for the remission of venial sins, and makes use of it on those occasions when the faithful need greatest purity of heart. It consists of the two prayers: Misereatur vestri, etc., and Indulgentiam, absolutionem, etc.[40] To these we may add the use of holy water, which, in accordance with the intention and prayers of the Church when she blesses it, is designed to ward off the devil’s influence from animate and inanimate creatures and to protect them from impurity, sickness, and harm.[41] The effect of the other sacramentals in procuring remission of venial sins is not so direct. The more they are of their own nature suited to awaken contrition, and the more directly the intention in the use of them is directed to [36]the cleansing from sin, so much the more effectual are they in this respect.[42]
(d) Contrition by itself also procures the remission of venial sins, and more especially when it is perfect (contritio), since, then, it destroys mortal sin and is, therefore, still more efficacious in the case of venial. Perfect contrition removes all venial sins if it is universal, that is to say if it extends to all venial sins, or if a man is disposed never more to commit venial sin and would be sorry for all his past sins, if they were present to his mind. On the other hand, an act of perfect contrition does not remit all venial sins, if it extends only to this or that particular venial sin, or if a person is disposed to avoid only one or other of his venial sins.[43]
According to the teaching of the more numerous and distinguished theologians, even imperfect contrition remits venial sins; this imperfect contrition (attritio) must spring from some supernatural motive referring to God—such for instance as the thought that venial sin is a violation of the obedience or reverence due to God.[44] By attritio the affection toward sin is entirely uprooted and the will is withdrawn from the sin, man turns again to God as his last end, and expiates his fault by his sorrow.[45]
(e) Moreover, the “love of God above all things” remits venial sins if it is actual and formally or virtually opposed to venial sin.[46]
(f) Lastly, venial sins are forgiven by good works done from [37]a motive of penance (ex affectu pœnitentiæ), especially those to which Holy Scripture assigns the virtue of destroying venial sin. Such are: prayer[47] (John xiv. 13 s.; xvi. 23), almsgiving and fasting, especially the works of mercy and mortification (Ecclus. iii. 33; iv. 1-11; Tob. iv. 11; Dan. iv. 24; Matt. v. 7; John iii. 5-10; 1 Reg. vii. 5, etc.; 1 Esdras viii. 21, etc.). Cf. S. Thom. II. II. Q. 147, art. 1 et 3.[48]
5. The Constituent Parts of the Sacrament of Penance in General.
As in the other Sacraments a distinction is made between the matter and the form, so too in the Sacrament of Penance; but with a certain difference, which appears from the fact that the Council of Trent speaks of the matter of this Sacrament as a quasi-materia. The Catechismus Romanus[49] states this more fully when it says: This Sacrament is distinguished from the other Sacraments especially in this, that the matter of the other Sacraments is a substance produced by nature or art, while in the Sacrament of Penance it is the acts of the penitent, especially the contrition, confession, and satisfaction; yet it is not because these acts are not to be considered as truly matter of the Sacrament that the Holy Council calls them quasi-materia (“as it were the matter”), but because they are not materially or externally applied, like water in Baptism and chrism in Confirmation. These three acts of the penitent are styled by the Council of Trent the parts (partes) of the Sacrament of Penance “in so far [38]as they are required by God’s ordinance in the penitent for the completeness of the Sacrament and for the entire and perfect remission of sin.”[50] To these must be added the absolution of the priest, which constitutes the form. Hence we have to consider as parts of the Sacrament: (1) contrition, (2) confession, (3) satisfaction, and (4) absolution.[51]
The three acts of the penitent have not all, however, the same importance. The satisfaction belongs to the Sacrament only in so far as its integrity and its complete efficacy are concerned; hence it is not an essential, but only an integral part of the Sacrament. It is true that the power of imposing on the penitent a suitable satisfaction belongs essentially to the administration of this Sacrament; hence also the penitent is obliged to accept this penance and to declare himself willing to perform it. The actual performance of the penance, however, is not necessary in order that the Sacrament should produce its effect.[52]
The confession or self-accusation of the penitent in presence of the priest is the principal matter of this Sacrament, for this is necessary in se and per se, in order that the confessor may form a judgment and administer the Sacrament.
Contrition is a necessary constituent of the Sacrament but merely in se not per se ipsum, and only as contained in the accusation, which is an outward manifestation of the contrition; [39]for contrition is not per se subject to the senses, but must be outwardly shown in some way in order to become manifest.[53] “The contrite accusation, therefore, realizes all the conditions of the matter in the Sacraments.”[54]
Theologians draw a further distinction in this Sacrament between the proximate and the remote matter (materia proxima et remota). Proxima materia consists of the acts which the penitent has to perform, and remota materia of the sins committed after Baptism which the penitent has repented of and confessed and for which he must do satisfaction.[55]