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, 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]

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]

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.

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]

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 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]

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 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 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]

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.)

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 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. “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 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 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 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. 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.

(_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 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 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 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; 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]

6. Of the Remote Matter of the Sacrament of Penance in Particular.

The remote matter of this Sacrament are, as we have already seen, the sins committed after Baptism. Those committed before Baptism are forgiven entirely in Baptism, wherefore they are not, properly speaking, subject to the Sacrament of Penance. Again, a man is not under the Church’s jurisdiction till he is baptized, and this Sacrament of Penance is administered by virtue of the jurisdiction which the Church exercises over her members. The sins which are confessed are not, however, _materia ex qua_, as is water in the Sacrament of Baptism, by means of which the Sacrament is conferred, but _materia circa quam_, with regard to which the penitent performs the necessary acts and receives absolution. As, for example, in a lawsuit the matter proposed for decision and the sentence are called the matter of the case, so here the sins which form the object of the sacramental process instituted for the remission of sins are regarded as the remote matter of penance.[56] This remote matter is divided into:—

1. _Necessary_ and _free_ matter (_necessaria et libera_), _i.e._ necessary _as a consequence of the divine command_, by which definite sins (a definite _materia remota_) must be submitted to the sacramental tribunal and the power of the keys, so that the penitent who wilfully neglects this course cannot receive the Sacrament validly. By free matter we understand those sins which the penitent voluntarily confesses whilst not bound to do so by divine law.

2. _Certain_ and _doubtful_ (_certa et dubia_), _i.e._ matter which in the judgment of the confessor is a certain and valid object of absolution; or matter regarding which absolution cannot be pronounced without misgiving.

3. Finally, _sufficient_ and _insufficient_ (_sufficiens et insufficiens_), _i.e._ such matter as suffices for the administering of the Sacrament and the granting of absolution, whether the matter be necessary or free, and such over which sacramental absolution cannot be pronounced.

_Necessary matter_ comprises all grievous sins committed after Baptism and not at any former time submitted directly to the power of the keys; of all and each of them the penitent is obliged to accuse himself.

Sins are remitted _directly_ when they have been remitted _per se_ quite independently of other sins. This is the case when they have been explicitly confessed to a priest having the required jurisdiction. Sins are forgiven _indirectly_ when they are remitted in conjunction with other sins, and not _per se_. This happens when a penitent omits a sin through invincible ignorance or forgetfulness or inability; or if a confessor without proper jurisdiction, for serious reasons, gives absolution. In both cases such sins are remitted in conjunction with the other sins which have been explicitly confessed and over which the priest had jurisdiction. This must be so, for a penitent cannot at the same time experience God’s mercy by the remission of the sins which he has confessed and also be an object of God’s wrath with respect to his other sins; moreover, the inpouring grace, through the remission of the sins that have been confessed, is not compatible with the presence of mortal sin remaining in the soul.

It is in consequence of Christ’s institution that all the sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly forgiven, and also the sins only indirectly forgiven, must of necessity be revealed to the priest; for in appointing the priest to be His representative, Christ made him the judge before whom all mortal sins must be brought, that, in virtue of the power of the keys, he might pass sentence of loosing or binding.[57] Over sins which have not yet been directly remitted the confessor has pronounced no judgment, for they were unknown to him; hence, in accordance with Christ’s command, even sins indirectly forgiven must be submitted by confession to the power of the keys in order that they may obtain direct forgiveness.[58]

The following classes of sins are _sufficient_ and _free_ matter for confession:—

(_a_) The _venial sins_ committed after Baptism. These are matter sufficient because Christ gave His priests power to forgive _all_ sins, therefore also venial sin; and the Council of Trent teaches that it is good and wholesome to confess venial sins. Since, however, the recommendation of the Council imposes no obligation to confess them, as they may be remitted by other means, they are free matter.

(_b_) _Sins already directly forgiven_ are also _free_ matter. Since they have already been remitted by sacramental absolution they may be said to exist no longer. Nevertheless, though they have been forgiven, one may renew his sorrow for them, and on that account the absolution may be given again validly, even if no other sins be presented. This is proved by the general practice of the faithful and the unanimous teaching of theologians, who declare that contrite confession of a past sin is always _materia proxima_ of the Sacrament; a sin which has received forgiveness remains always a sin of the past and so can be made the object of sorrow and of sacramental accusation.[59]

Moreover the highest authority in the Church favors this view; for Benedict XI teaches[60]: “Though it be not necessary, yet we consider it very wholesome to repeat the confession of special sins on account of the humiliation which they cause.” Although, in these words, the Holy Father speaks of humiliation only as the advantage to be drawn from the confession of previously forgiven sin, it is quite evident that he does not intend to exclude the great benefits which the absolution pronounced over these sins must bring, for the confessions of which the Pope speaks are made only in order to obtain absolution.[61]

Thus, besides this salutary humiliation, the confession of forgiven sins and the absolution again pronounced over them cause an increase of sanctifying grace and a remission of temporal punishment, augment the hatred for sin, and dispose the penitent, who has only human shortcomings or venial sins of less moment to disclose, better toward a sincere contrition. How in this case the true notion of “absolution,” which is in fact identical with the influx of sanctifying grace, is preserved, remains for the dogmatic theologian to settle; for our purpose it is enough to indicate briefly Lugo’s explanation. “As,” says the learned Cardinal, “after making a vow I can bind myself afresh to its observance by renewing the vow in a manner which binds me independently of the former promise, so God may again waive His right of punishing sin, by a renewal of the compact with man to pardon past sins, and this repeated renunciation of the divine right is as efficacious as the first, and is made by a new infusion of sanctifying grace.”[62]

Since venial sins and mortal sins already directly remitted are _free matter_, it is not necessary to accuse one’s self of them with such accuracy and perfection regarding number and species as in the case of necessary matter, even if there be nothing else to confess. In this case we cannot urge the two reasons for which the accusation of mortal sins not yet confessed must include the details of species and number, for neither has God ordered it, nor is it required in order that the judicial power may be properly exercised with regard to them. Hence it suffices to accuse one’s self in such a way as to enable the priest to form _some_ sort of judgment. That this is possible if the sin is confessed at least _generically_ (_generice_) is seen from other cases. For instance, a man who knows that on one occasion he sinned gravely against the sixth commandment but has forgotten the exact specific nature of the sin, or that he has sinned gravely but has quite forgotten what the sin was, is obliged, as all theologians teach, to confess that he has sinned gravely against purity, or, in the latter instance, that he had committed a mortal sin. Many extend this obligation to a sin which is only doubtfully mortal, of which the penitent cannot any longer remember the species, and which moreover is the only sin weighing upon his conscience.[63]

We have viewed our subject with respect to the validity of the Sacrament. Let us see how in practice a general accusation may be made, and how far such general accusations are valid and permissible matter for absolution.

1. A penitent may accuse himself thus: “I have sinned and I accuse myself of the sins of my whole life,” and if the confessor has no other knowledge of these sins, such an accusation is general in the widest sense; to this class belongs also an accusation conveyed by an expression of sorrow without any explicit avowal of sin.

2. A more particular but still general accusation is: “I accuse myself of all the mortal sins which I have committed.”

3. Yet more precise is the accusation: “I accuse myself of all the lies I have told, or of all the sins I have committed against purity, or justice, or this or that particular virtue,” thus pointing out the virtue or the command against which he has sinned, but without giving the ultimate specific character (_infima species_) of the sin.

4. Finally, the penitent may declare the ultimate species (_infima species_) of the sin without determining the precise act and without the specific circumstances and their number; _e.g._ I accuse myself of all profanations of the name of God, of all sinful looks dangerous to purity, of all deception in my dealings with my neighbor, etc.

When there is question in the confession of _materia libera_:—

1. The last two methods of general accusation are sufficient for the valid and licit administration of the Sacrament, whether the whole confession consist of such a general accusation or whether this general accusation be added to a confession of venial sins to make sure of contrition. The second method of accusation might perhaps be allowed; but if any one wished to make the _whole_ confession by this _second_ method of general accusation, embracing in this manner sins already confessed without some sort of a special mention of venial sins lately committed, the confessor might well object and could not easily give absolution unless in case of some pressing necessity. If, however, sins not yet explicitly confessed are declared, and a general accusation is added of the second kind for the sake of security, this may be considered as sufficient both _quoad valorem_ and _quoad liceitatem_. For the accusation, “I have sinned mortally,” is not quite vague, as it expresses a certain degree of sinfulness which may very well be (and at times is all that can be obtained) the object of a judicial sentence.

2. An entirely vague accusation, although there be necessary matter, may be accepted as being sufficient in cases of extreme necessity—when a detailed accusation is impossible and absolution must be given. For instance:—

(_a_) At the time of death, when the dying man can no longer speak or is unconscious, and has already shown signs of a desire for absolution; for, according to the Roman Ritual, such a man is to be absolved (_absolvendus est_), and this official book of the Church suggests nothing about making the absolution conditional.

(_b_) In other cases of impending death, when the desire for absolution is expressed by any sort of sign; _e.g._ in a shipwreck where there is not time to make a full accusation.

(_c_) If a penitent is too ignorant or too weak-headed, even with the help of the confessor’s questions, to render an accurate account, at least absolution may at times be given to such a penitent if he has not had it for a long period.[64]

3. When it is a question of venial sins only (on the supposition that these either alone or in conjunction with other doubtful matter have been confessed), the confessor may not give absolution for an accusation which is quite vague, for such an accusation offers no _entirely certain_ matter for absolution, and from what is allowed in danger of death we may not conclude that the same will suffice for the validity of absolution in cases where there is no urgency. A confession, for instance, delivered by a messenger is permissible only in the case of imminent death where no other means can be devised; this is clear from the propositions condemned by Clement VIII and Paul V. In any other case, the unanimous voice of theologians declares such a confession invalid. Hence if valid matter can be presented, it must be done if absolution is to be given.

This is clear, too, on the merits of the case itself. One may always presume that the desire which a dying man expresses for absolution is at least a hesitating, if not definite, acknowledgement of having committed mortal sin by the fact that he considers absolution necessary and desirable; but if a man, though able, accuses himself of no definite sins to his confessor, it is tantamount to a declaration that he has committed only venial sins. Now the confession of mortal sin in general contains something definite; whereas an accusation of venial sin in general is altogether vague; hence the _causa judicialis_ in this case is quite unknown, and no sentence can be passed where the charge is unknown and undetermined.

Finally, it is quite foreign to the practice of the Church to make a confession by the formula, “I have no mortal sins; I am sorry for my venial sins, and I ask absolution.” He who evades, therefore, a fuller accusation of his venial sins, when he could make one, is unworthy of absolution, which is intended to be given by the Church only to those who make a definite accusation.[65] Though, adds Laymann,[66] no one is bound by any law to confess venial sins, yet whoever wishes to receive sacramental absolution must accuse himself at least of some venial sin, _in specie_.[67] Suarez says, and rightly, that the validity of such an accusation may be defended speculatively, but that practically it is to be condemned on account of the uncertainty of the matter. “I declare, then,” he continues, “that, though we are not strictly bound to confess the species of the venial sins, yet, supposing that we wish absolution, we are bound to offer certain and definite matter. But in case of necessity or where it is impossible to make a more definite accusation (as might happen in the case of a man who is dying) such matter would doubtlessly be sufficient.”[68]

“Since, then,” concludes Lehmkuhl, “outside the cases of necessity or impossibility a vague confession of only venial sins does not supply definite matter, it is not sufficient to add it to the particular confession in order to have a more secure ground for a valid absolution than by the accusation of the smaller sins committed since the last confession, unless the confessor from previous knowledge of the penitent can decide whether sufficiently definite matter is presented to him in this vague general assertion.”[69]

In consequence the following rules are recommended in practice:—

1. If, in order to secure unquestionably definite matter from the past life of the penitent, some sin or other is confessed in addition to those committed since the last confession, it ought to be done by mentioning the virtue or the commandment which was violated.

2. Some really grave sin ought to be mentioned.

3. It should not be mentioned out of mere routine, but with real sorrow of heart.

4. Since of late a number of writers defend the mere vague accusation on this free matter as valid and permissible[70] even outside cases of necessity, the confessor when unable to get more definite matter may acquiesce and grant absolution.

5. If one desires to derive real spiritual profit from the confession of venial sins, too great minuteness as well as too great vagueness must be avoided; some particular venial sin which causes more uneasiness than the rest might be made a subject of more especial sorrow and more careful accusation, otherwise in many cases the sorrow as well as the accusation and purpose of amendment are likely to be too vague, if not completely absent. It has been pointed out previously that gross ignorance on the part of the penitent is a reason for taking a very general accusation as valid for absolution.

In practice the confessor should attend to the following rules:—

In the case of a penitent who accuses himself of no sin in particular, let the priest inquire whether this be due to the fact that the penitent has really not committed any mortal sin, or to invincible ignorance, or to a rooted habit of sin which has produced in the penitent a darkening of the intellect and a recklessness with regard to his salvation. If the penitent accuses himself of no sin in particular because he is really quite unconscious of grave trespass, the confessor might suggest to him a few lesser sins such as are usually committed by people in the same station of life, and ask if, since the last confession or in his past life, he has ever given way to such sins—if, for instance, he has offended his neighbor, or been violent, angry, disobedient, careless in prayer, etc. If the penitent answers in the affirmative to one or other of these questions, the confessor should excite him to repentance and purpose of amendment, so far as he sees it necessary, and then absolve him. If, however, the penitent answers all questions with a No, and cannot be induced to acknowledge any sin of his past life, further questioning should be avoided, and the penitent urged to make an act of sorrow for all the sins of his whole life, especially those committed against his neighbor, or against obedience, etc. If the penitent accede to this, as often happens, in spite of his former declaration that he is not conscious of any sin even in his past life, the priest should arouse him to sorrow and a firm resolution, and absolve him conditionally if the penitent has not received absolution for a long time.

With such penitents there will be reason to suspect that their disposition comes from want of knowledge of the most necessary truths of salvation. If the priest discover this to be the case—as he may by a few judicious questions—he may not absolve him till after instruction in these necessary truths. Ordinarily it will be well to instruct him at once before leaving the confessional, for fear that he should neglect approaching the Sacraments—a consequence much to be apprehended—or take no pains to get instructed. If, however, the priest finds out that the cause of the ignorance is a rooted habit of sin, or the insensibility following on certain sins which have so fatal an effect in this matter—as, for instance, impurity or drunkenness—he must exercise great patience, putting before the penitent earnestly the awful consequences of his sinful life, instruct him, and in every possible way prepare him with true apostolic zeal to receive worthily the sacrament, either immediately or later, if the absolution be deferred, and to fulfill his resolutions of making an earnest amendment.[71]

7. The Form of the Sacrament.

The form of the Sacrament, “in which its power principally lies,”[72] consists of the words which the priest utters over the penitent: _Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen_. To these words the custom of the Church has added others which have become fixed in the ritual and are prescribed, though “they do not belong to the _essence_ of the form and are not necessary for the conferring of the Sacrament.”[73]

There is no doubt that the words _Ego te absolvo_, or _te absolvo_ simply (since the pronoun _Ego_ is contained in the verb _absolvo_), belong to the _essence_ of the form. These words are _de essentia formæ_, because, as St. Thomas says,[74] they signify the _virtus clavium et totum Sacramenti effectum_.

According to most theologians the words _a peccatis tuis_ do not belong to the essence and the validity of the Sacrament; for this view we may quote St. Thomas and the authority of the Roman catechism, which says: “The form is: _Ego te absolvo_.” The words _a peccatis tuis_ are sufficiently indicated by the accusation of the penitent and the act of the priest who gives absolution. Other theologians, however, maintain that these words are essential, arguing that since Christ in instituting the Sacrament used the words, “Whose sins you shall forgive,” the remission of sins ought to be expressly mentioned. Though the first view is the more probable, the words ought not to be omitted in practice, since in the conferring of the Sacraments the safer opinion should be followed.[75]

If the words _absolvo a peccatis tuis_ were used, omitting the word _te_, the form would still be probably valid, since _te_ is sufficiently implied in the word _tuis_; in practice, however, this view ought not to be taken, but the safer opinion followed.[76] The absolution would certainly be invalid if the priest said only _absolvo_, because the object of the absolution is not indicated and the sense is indefinite.[77]

The words _In nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, Amen_, are certainly not of the essence of the form, since Christ in instituting the Sacrament made no reference to the Blessed Trinity; they are, however, most appropriately added to express that the priest absolves from sin by the authority and power of God.[78]

In cases of necessity absolution may be given by the same priest to many persons at the same time, while he says, _Ego vos absolvo a peccatis vestris_; thus, for instance, soldiers may be absolved at the beginning of a battle. As many Sacraments are conferred as there are persons absolved, if they give any token of sorrow and in some way confess their sinfulness.[79]

The _Rituale Romanum_ prescribes how a priest should give absolution, and, as it is the official book of the Church, he is bound to follow its directions. Any unauthorized change would be a sin because it is a breach of the commands of the Church; indeed the confessor would sin grievously if he wished to introduce any change into the form of absolution.

“When the priest is about to give absolution,” is the direction of the Ritual, “after imposing a penance on the penitent and the latter having accepted it, let him say: _Misereatur tui omnipotens Deus et dimissis peccatis tuis perducat te ad vitam æternam. Amen._ Then he raises his right hand over the penitent and says: _Indulgentiam, absolutionem et remissionem peccatorum tuorum tribuat tibi omnipotens et misericors Dominus. Amen._

“_Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis_ (_suspensionis_) _et interdicti in quantum possum et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis in nomine Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen._

“If the penitent is not a cleric, the word _suspensionis_ is omitted.” Then follows the prayer: “_Passio Domini nostri Jesu Christi, merita beatæ Mariæ Virginis et omnium Sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris et mali sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratiæ et præmium vitæ æternæ. Amen._”

If there are many penitents to be heard and in urgent confessions, the _Misereatur_ and _Indulgentiam_ may be omitted and simply the _Dominus noster_, etc., said. The prayer _Passio Domini_, etc., may also be left out.[80] It is recommended, however, not to omit this last prayer, because by virtue of it (so teaches St. Thomas) the good works of the penitent acquire the character of sacramental satisfaction, and a share in the merits of Christ as well as those of our blessed Lady and of the saints.[81]

“In cases of pressing necessity, in danger of death, the priest may simply say: _Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis in nomine Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen._”

Such is the form of absolution according to the prescription of the Roman Ritual. The confessor is at liberty to make use of the above abbreviations under the circumstances mentioned. It would be very wrong to attempt to put in all the prayers, if there were danger of a man dying without receiving absolution; in this case the priest must use the shorter form given by the Ritual.[82]

The priest will be more eager to carry out the directions of the Church if he reflects on the meaning of the prayers which precede and follow the absolution; the former constitute an admirable preparation for that great act of mercy, the latter a most appropriate crowning of the same; all secure a special help for the penitent. Even the blessing which, according to some rituals, the priest is enjoined to give with the words: _Dominus sit in corde tuo et in labiis tuis ut digne et competenter_ (or _rite_) _confitearis peccata tua. In nomine Patris ✠ et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen_, is important. The accusation of so many sins is a heavy burden to the penitent; false shame and the devil will unite to deter him from a sincere accusation; and so the priest prays that the Lord with His grace may so act on the heart of the penitent that with sincerity and contrition he accuses himself of what burdens his conscience. In the _Misereatur_ the priest prays that God may grant in His mercy remission of the sins which the penitent confesses, and give him eternal life (_anticipando_ by sanctifying grace, and perfectly in the next world). The _Indulgentiam_ contains the same petition for “grace, absolution, and remission,” of sins confessed and of all others; it is not meant as a mere repetition, as a sort of compliance with Our Lord’s counsel of insisting on the first petition; but in the repetition of the synonyms the priest is no doubt intended to plead for God’s mercy and power that the penitent may have _complete_ forgiveness of sin. This perfect forgiveness includes also the remission of the temporal penalties, since these, as the _reliquiæ peccatorum_, are so intimately connected with the sin itself that in early Christian times they were briefly included under the category of _peccata_, and the Church, in the so-called general absolution given on the occasion of a plenary indulgence of temporal punishment, still uses the formula _indulgentiam plenariam et remissionem omnium peccatorum tibi concedo_.

Then the priest goes on to reconcile the penitent to the Church by the removal of all censures which close the door to the Sacraments and other means of grace. This absolution from censure should always precede that of the sins as a measure of precaution even when no sins involving censure have been confessed. The Church insists on this, and many moralists teach that the confessor by omitting this _absolutio a censuris_ would commit a venial sin by his disobedience to the command of the Church. Even in cases of the most pressing urgency the priest should use the form: _Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis in nomine Patris_, etc.[83] St. Alphonsus does not regard this omission as a sin if the priest uses the formula of absolution with the intention of absolving from censure as well as sin, and he argues from the words of the Council of Trent, which says only that this clause is added _laudabiliter_.[84] If, however, a penitent has incurred a censure and the priest first absolves from the sin and afterwards from the censure, such inversion of the order would be matter of grievous sin when the censure is excommunication debarring from the reception of the Sacraments; not, however, in the case of suspension or interdict. This inversion would also be a grievous sin even if the priest intended to absolve from both sins and censures, although in this case the words _absolvo te a peccatis tuis_ can be understood of the absolution from censures on account of the intimate connection between the two.[85] Such an absolution, therefore, would be valid though given in defiance of the Church’s prescription, for the censure does not affect the validity but only the lawfulness of the absolution.[86]

The penitent must be present and the absolution pronounced over him by the confessor if it is to be valid. This is abundantly clear from the divine institution of the Sacrament, from the practice of the Church, and from a decree of the Head of the Church. Hence the absolution cannot be given in writing nor by signs. According to the teaching of the Councils of Florence and Trent the form of this Sacrament, as of all the others (except that of matrimony, where a mere sign of consent is sufficient), is in the words which the priest must pronounce and articulate over the penitent. The Sacraments owe their institution to Christ; for, though matrimony existed as a divine institution before His coming, it was sanctified by Him and raised to the dignity of a means of grace in His Church. The essential rites of the Sacraments were defined by Christ, and we learn them from Scripture or tradition. We know from a uniform tradition that the form of all the Sacraments except matrimony consists essentially in words articulated by the lips; as for the Sacrament of Penance, the evidence is clear as well from the actual use prescribed in all penitentials and from the teaching of the Fathers, as from the decree of Eugenius IV to the Armenians.

It is not, however, necessary that the words of absolution should be heard by the penitent or others; in fact it is recommended to say them in a low voice, so that, in case absolution is for some reason withheld from a penitent, others may not know of it.

The fact that the absolution should be pronounced in words requires as its complement that the penitent should be present, for the words _Ego te absolvo_ are not such as we would address to a person when absent, but thus we speak to one who is nigh. The form must certainly be applied to the matter actually present; moreover, according to the Council of Trent the sinner should present himself before the tribunal as the accused. This is quite clear, too, from the constant tradition of the Church, in which all penitentials contain a form which is pronounced over one who is present, and either explicitly require the immediate presence of the penitent before the confessor or evidently suppose it; nor do we find in the whole of antiquity any clear instance of a sacramental absolution pronounced over an absent person.

A confession, therefore, made to a priest by writing or by messenger is invalid if the absolution is given to the penitent in his absence. Moreover, the absolution is illicit and invalid if given to an absent penitent even though the confession has been made by him in person to the priest. Further, too, the absolution is illicit and invalid which is given to a present penitent who has not confessed in person to the priest—if, for instance, the confession has been by letter; exception is made for the case where the penitent presents himself to the priest and for some good reason accuses himself only in general of sins about which he has informed the confessor by letter, if the latter at the time of the confession retains a knowledge of the sins in particular.[87]

The _præsentia moralis_ of the penitent is sufficient for absolution. This condition is satisfied if the priest and the penitent are sufficiently near to hear one another when they speak in an ordinary tone of voice, though cases may occur where the voice must be exerted a little more than is usual.[88] In general greater proximity is required for valid absolution than is demanded for hearing a preacher or for satisfying the obligation of hearing Mass.[89]

St. Alphonsus declares with respect to this subject that Tamburini is justified in rejecting the view of Leander, who holds that the moral presence is secured if the priest sees the penitent or is sensibly aware of his presence.[90] A man may be seen at a distance at which it would be impossible to hold speech with him in the usual manner or even by raising the voice. If in case of necessity absolution must be given at a distance, it should be given _sub conditione_.

Hence to secure the validity of the absolution it is required (1) that the confessor and the penitent should not be in rooms which are in no way connected; and if (2) they are in the same room, they should not be too far apart, certainly not more than twenty paces; if the distance is notably less, there need be no misgiving about the validity of the absolution; finally (3) the required proximity is secured if the priest knows that the penitent is present.

(_a_) If the penitent has already left the confessional but is still close by the confessor, he may and ought to be absolved, even, according to Lugo, Tamburini, and others, if he be so merged in the crowd that he cannot be seen; the confessor must, however, be certain that he is not or cannot be far off; for the penitent is still morally present and has the desire of receiving absolution. The penitent ought, however, to be recalled if this can be done without causing disturbance or remark.

(_b_) If, through fear of infection or for other reasons, the priest cannot enter a sick-room, he may validly absolve the penitent from the window or the door.[91]

(_c_) If at a distance a priest sees some one falling from a height or into the water, or if he knows that some one is buried under the ruins of a building, etc., he should give absolution conditionally.[92]

Absolution must, under ordinary circumstances, be given absolutely; for weighty reasons it may and ought to be given conditionally (_conditione_).

8. Conditional Absolution.

It is the unanimous teaching of all theologians that in certain cases, for weighty reasons, the Sacraments may be administered conditionally, and, what is more, must be so administered. With regard to Baptism and Extreme Unction this is prescribed by the Roman Ritual, with regard to Confirmation by Benedict XIV, with regard to the Holy Eucharist, where a doubt exists as to the validity of the consecration, by the Rubrics of the Mass, and with regard to Orders by the S. Congregatio Concilii.[93]

The question now under consideration is whether the Sacrament of Penance given conditionally is valid.

Many theologians were of opinion that a conditional absolution was opposed to the judicial character of this Sacrament. They argued that the conditional form was not judicial, and in particular would not admit a _condition with regard to law_ (_conditio juris_), on which the confessor was bound to pronounce judgment (_e.g._ if thou art prepared, disposed, etc.), whereas they permitted a _condition with regard to the fact_ (_conditio facti_) (_e.g._ if thou art alive). This distinction is, however, irrelevant; for even though the question of the penitent’s disposition be left undecided, still the priest judges (1) of the sins which have been confessed, and (2) gives his sentence on the apparent worthiness and preparation of the penitent and the penance to be imposed; and (3) judges on the advisability of conferring conditional absolution or not, according to the effect it will have on the penitent. In any case, the argument from the difference which a conditional sentence would create between a human court and the sacramental tribunal proves nothing, since the two courts differ in many points.[94] It is to be particularly noted that the sentence of an earthly court is always carried out; while the effect of the sentence which the priest pronounces in the divine tribunal always depends on conditions known only to God, so that the priest’s sentence is always conditional even when it is pronounced in an absolute form. A conditional sentence is in no way inconsistent with the nature of a judicial judgment either in general or in the Sacrament of Penance.

Lehmkuhl enlarges on this point:[95] “It is not repugnant in a civil tribunal for a judge to give sentence with a condition like the following, for instance: ‘If payment be not made by a certain date,’ or to grant a hearing to a plaintiff ‘provided that such or such document be found among his papers,’ which document, of course, he will order to be searched for by trustworthy men. Indeed, every sentence of a human tribunal, whether in civil or in criminal causes, is seldom pronounced without the implicit condition ‘if the evidence of the witnesses be true’; for unless it rested upon this supposition and condition, the sentence would be unjust and consequently null, more especially if pronounced by any but the supreme authority.”

Thus the sacramental sentence always presupposes that the penitent is telling the truth and has real sorrow; under such circumstances the confessor may be mistaking even when he thinks he is certain, all the more so as the sacramental sentence is pronounced always ministerially, and, in order to be efficacious, must be in accordance with the sentence of God. This, however, is no impediment to the absolution being for the most part pronounced absolutely both as to form and intention. This the confessor must observe as long as he has no solid ground for thinking that his judgment is not in accordance with God’s; for a condition which rests only on a possibility or on a groundless suspicion is practically not worth considering and ought not to be acted upon; in reality it is quite sufficiently implied in the nature of the case.

If, however, for some good reason it is to be feared that the judgment of the confessor is different from that of God, while the pressing necessity of the case, or the good of the penitent requires that absolution be given even though doubtful, reverence for the Sacrament demands that the condition be added _explicitly_ in word, or at least in the mind, so that it amounts to a protest on the part of the priest that where the condition is in default he withdraws his intention of pronouncing the sacred words of absolution in the person of Christ.

The opponents of conditional absolution urge in favor of their view the proposition that in doubt about the validity of the Sacraments the safer opinion must be followed. With regard to the validity of conditional absolution there is no doubt, since the views of its opponents have no probability either intrinsic or extrinsic. Moreover, it is not true that the safer opinion with regard to the validity of the Sacraments is always to be followed; for, since the Sacraments were instituted for man’s benefit, cases occur in which the Sacraments must be exposed to the danger of nullity, in order to help one who is in extreme spiritual necessity. An instance in point would be the case of a dying man whose dispositions are doubtful. To let him die without absolution would surely expose him to the certain danger of damnation. Supposing he were in good dispositions, whatever misgivings I might have on the subject, should I not be responsible for his damnation? I might have opened the gates of heaven to him and I have not done it! Am I then to absolve him without any condition? But supposing he is not disposed; even if the Sacrament were not nullified, I should be guilty of having exposed it to the danger of invalidity. From such a dilemma the only escape is the use of conditional absolution; by it I can help the dying man if he is in good dispositions, and I insure the Sacrament against nullity when I have the intention of not conferring it unless the man be disposed.[96]

Hence theologians teach that absolution given _sub conditione_ is valid if the condition be fulfilled; the condition, however, must be _de præsenti_ or _de præterito_; absolution given under a _conditio de futuro_ would be invalid, for in a _conditio de futuro_ the minister of the Sacrament has no intention of conferring the Sacrament _hic et nunc_; his intention would rather be to confer the Sacrament when the condition will have been fulfilled; by that time, however, the matter is no longer present which for the validity of the Sacrament must be joined to the form. On the other hand, the Sacrament may be validly given under a condition _de præsenti_ or _de præterito_, because the intention is absolute if the condition is fulfilled; if not fulfilled, the intention of administering the Sacrament is wanting, so that the Sacrament is not exposed to irreverence. In this case the conditional intention passes into an unconditional one, _i.e._ becomes absolute. But the conditional intention is efficacious for validity only if the condition is completed or satisfied at the moment when the matter and form of the Sacrament are brought together. The absolution would also be valid if it were given with the condition: “if you are alive, if you are baptized, if you are present, if you really intend to make restitution”; while an absolution would be invalid if given under conditions such as, “if you are predestined, if it be in the mind of God that you will make restitution this year,” since such knowledge is withheld from men. Finally, an absolution given with the condition, “if you are going to improve,” would also be invalid.[97]

It is also _allowed_ to give absolution _sub conditione_ when there is just reason for so doing; and in case of necessity the priest is bound under mortal sin to give conditional absolution.[98]

The view of some theologians is to be condemned who hold that one may impart conditional absolution for _any insignificant reason_, or without urgent need, or in _any doubt of the requisite dispositions_ even in a penitent burdened with mortal sin. This is a doctrine which bears too openly the stamp of laxity, and it is pernicious to souls. What a number of sacrileges would follow from such a practice! The confessor would be no longer a faithful and prudent minister of the Sacrament, he would be casting pearls before swine, and by his too easy compliance in giving absolution he would imperil the souls of his penitents.[99]

On the other hand, we cannot admit the teaching of those theologians[100] who hold that absolution _sub conditione_ is permitted only in extreme necessity or in great danger.

A sufficient reason for imparting absolution under condition would be in the case where unconditional absolution would expose the Sacrament to danger of nullity on account of a reasonable doubt of the existence of some one or other of the requisites for the validity of the Sacrament, and where at the same time by putting off the absolution the penitent would be exposed to danger of real spiritual harm.

From what has been said we gather that in the following cases absolution may be given _sub conditione_:—

1. If the priest doubt whether he has absolved a penitent who has confessed a mortal sin.

2. In doubt whether the penitent in question is morally present.

3. In doubt whether the penitent is alive or already dead.

4. If the priest doubt (_dubio facti_) whether he has jurisdiction, and the confession must be made; in such a case the confessor must tell the penitent that he has given absolution only _sub conditione_, so that if proof be forthcoming later on that jurisdiction was wanting, the penitent will know that he has not been absolved and must accuse himself again of the mortal sins mentioned in that confession. If the doubt turn on the question of law (_dubium juris_), _i.e._ on a point where theologians do not agree whether absolution can be given in such a case, the absolution may be pronounced without any condition.[101]

5. In doubt whether the matter be sufficient: this may happen (_a_) when an adult is baptized _sub conditione_ and is to be absolved at the same time; and (_b_) when a penitent declares only some imperfections, and there is doubt whether they are really venial sins, and when the same penitent can offer no certain sins of his past life. To such a penitent absolution may, according to a probable view, be given at intervals, so that he may not be deprived for long of the benefits of the Sacrament of Penance; absolution in such cases ought not to be given more than once a month. For the same reason absolution can be given _sub conditione_ when the penitent, unable to present certain matter from his past life, has only sins of less moment to confess and there is doubt as to the existence of sorrow for such sins.[102] Moreover, if the penitent offer no certain matter, the confessor is not _bound_ to inquire for it in order to give absolution, and after making vain inquiry he is not obliged to give absolution _sub conditione_, since the penitent in such case has no sure claim to it.

If, however, any doubt exists as to the presence of necessary matter, or whether a sin confessed along with the imperfections be mortal or not, for which, however, the penitent is certainly contrite, then absolution under condition must be given.

6. In doubt whether the necessary dispositions with regard to mortal sin are present conditional absolution may sometimes, though not always, be given; it must be given when urgent reasons counsel such a step. For instance:—

(_a_) To those who are in danger of death, from whatever cause.

(_b_) When the penitent honestly thinks he is well disposed, and when the confessor fears that if absolution be refused or put off, the penitent may fall into worse ways or be frightened away from the Sacraments, or that he will certainly receive some other Sacrament, as, for instance, Marriage or Confirmation, in an _unworthy_ state.

Finally, conditional absolution may be given to children and others of whom it is doubtful whether they possess sufficient use of reason or the necessary knowledge of the truths of faith. These may receive conditional absolution not only when in danger of death, but also when they have to fulfill the law of the Church, and especially if they have confessed a sin which is doubtfully or probably mortal; they must be so absolved even if they are relapsing sinners, for while in doubtfully disposed penitents who have the full use of reason absolution must be delayed, since hopes may be entertained that they will return better disposed later, in the case of children or feeble minded no such hope can be well entertained. Indeed, according to a probable view such penitents may receive conditional absolution at intervals of two or three months, when they confess only venial sins, that they may not go for any considerable time without the grace of the Sacrament. The confessor is, however, obliged to instruct children and feeble-minded persons and to dispose them for absolution.[103]

We answer some objections urged against the doctrine that in the cases mentioned absolution may be given conditionally.

1. This practice is full of danger and is the cause of many sins.

The practice is full of danger, it is true, if absolution is given indiscriminately without necessity or some special reason; if, however, the rules given above are observed, it is no longer dangerous or harmful.

2. It is further objected that a penitent conditionally absolved will approach the altar and make a sacrilegious communion, a risk not to be incurred lightly.

The confession of such a penitent is not sacrilegious, hence the communion is not; for, by supposition, the penitent is in good faith. At the worst the communion would be without fruit or profit; nor can we say that the communion is quite useless, for its reception is an occasion for eliciting different acts of virtue. Indeed, according to the common teaching on this subject, the communicant who receives in mortal sin and with imperfect contrition, yet in good faith, is placed thereby in a state of grace. To make an act of imperfect contrition should not be a great difficulty, since holy communion usually arouses pious emotions of love and sorrow in those who approach in good faith.

3. It is likewise objected that a conditionally absolved penitent will never confess his sins again, and if he is not rightly disposed will die in his sins.

It may be replied that doubtfully absolved sins are remitted (_a_) by the reception of holy communion, as we have already shown; (_b_) indirectly in the following confession along with the other sins which he confesses, even if he were never again to submit them to the keys. If it be urged here that the penitent might never come to confession again, we should reply that such a case is extremely rare and to be treated as quite improbable. On the contrary, the penitent would be exposed to much graver risk of his salvation if, in a situation of such necessity as we postulate for the giving of conditional absolution, he were to be dismissed without it.

4. Another objection is drawn from the first of the propositions condemned by Innocent XI, whence it appears that no one may presume to follow a probable opinion in dispensing the Sacraments. The conclusion drawn is that no one may give an absolution which is doubtfully valid.

This practice is absolutely forbidden where the validity of the Sacrament and the welfare of the individual are endangered by such administration of the Sacrament; if, however, necessity or solid reasons demand such practice, it is allowed.[104] Moreover, the proposition condemned by Innocent is concerned only with the essential portions of the Sacrament, the validity of matter and form in so far as these depend on the minister of the Sacrament. In our case the matter is presented by the penitent and is outside the control of the minister. Otherwise, indeed, penitents might often enough be dismissed without absolution, for frequently no certainty can be had as to their dispositions, but at most a greater or lesser probability.

5. Finally some would limit the use of conditional absolution to cases of the greatest rarity and of most pressing necessity—when, for instance, a dying man is quite unconscious or already in his agony; for in any other case it is entirely his own fault if he be doubtfully disposed. This is the view of the anonymous author of the Letters against the distinguished work of Cardinal Gousset: _Justification de la doctrine de Saint Liguori_.[105]

This objection is based on several false premises:—

1. It is untrue that one who is doubtfully disposed is certainly indisposed; it is at least _per se_ untrue, for it is a contradiction in terms.

2. It is untrue that the penitent is always responsible for not seeming certainly disposed; for he can be quite prepared without the confessor knowing about it; again, as long as he is not certainly unprepared, he may be actually in the proper dispositions.

3. Many considerations respecting the penitent’s salvation may, as we have seen, urge the confessor to decide on giving rather than refusing absolution. At times the priest would be guilty of the gravest imprudence by putting off the absolution till extreme need should arise, when the penitent might be unable to avail himself of the Sacrament. “Do you wish to put off the reconciliation of the dying man to his God till the moment when he can no longer express his wishes? Will you, in order to make the absolution certain, wait till the penitent is at the last gasp, so that it is doubtful if he is capable of receiving the Sacrament?... I repeat, the Sacraments are made for men, not men for the Sacraments. By pursuing such a course you would act in opposition to Him who out of His mercy gave us the Sacrament; you would depart from the spirit of the Church which, like a tender mother, administers the Sacraments, when you maintain that we can only apply the principle of _sacramenta propter homines_ in cases where the dying sinner cannot even by signs express what is going on in the recesses of his soul.”[106]