 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Penance is asacrament of the New Law instituted byChrist in which forgiveness ofsins committed afterbaptism is granted through thepriest'sabsolution to those who withtrue sorrow confess theirsins and promise to satisfy for the same. It is called a "sacrament" not simply a function orceremony, because it is an outward sign instituted byChrist to impart grace to thesoul. As an outward sign it comprises the actions of the penitent in presenting himself to thepriest and accusing himself of hissins, and the actions of thepriest in pronouncingabsolution and imposing satisfaction. This whole procedure is usually called, from one of its parts, "confession", and it is said to take place in the "tribunal of penance", because it is a judicial process in which the penitent is at once the accuser, theperson accused, and thewitness, while thepriest pronounces judgment andsentence. The grace conferred is deliverance from the guilt ofsin and, in the case of mortalsin, from itseternal punishment; hence also reconciliation withGod,justification. Finally, the confession is made not in the secrecy of the penitent's heart nor to alayman as friend and advocate, nor to a representative ofhuman authority, but to a dulyordainedpriest with requisitejurisdiction and with the"power of the keys", i.e., the power to forgivesins whichChrist granted to HisChurch.
By way of further explanation it is needful to correct certainerroneous views regarding thissacrament which not only misrepresent the actual practice of theChurch but also lead to afalse interpretation oftheological statement and historical evidence. From what has been said it should be clear:
Both these accusations, of too great leniency and too great severity, proceed as a rule from those who have no experience with thesacrament and only the vaguestideas of what theChurch teaches or of the power to forgivesins which theChurch received fromChrist.
TheCouncil of Trent (1551) declares:
As a means of regaining grace andjustice, penance was at all timesnecessary for those who had defiled theirsouls with any mortalsin. . . . Before the coming ofChrist, penance was not asacrament, nor is it since His coming asacrament for those who are notbaptized. But the Lord then principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance, when, being raised from the dead, he breathed upon Hisdisciples saying: 'Receive ye theHoly Ghost. Whosesins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whosesins you shall retain, they are retained' (John 20:22-23). By which action so signal and words so clear the consent of all the Fathers has ever understood that thepower of forgiving and retaining sins was communicated to theApostles and to their lawfulsuccessors, for the reconciling of thefaithful who have fallen afterBaptism. (Sess. XIV, c. i)
Farther on the council expressly states thatChrist leftpriests, His ownvicars, as judges (praesides et judices), unto whom all the mortal crimes into which thefaithful may have fallen should be revealed in order that, in accordance with thepower of the keys, they may pronounce thesentence of forgiveness or retention ofsins" (Sess. XIV, c. v)
It is noteworthy that the fundamental objection so often urged against the Sacrament of Penance was first thought of by theScribes whenChrist said to the sick man of the palsy: "Thysins are forgiven thee." "And there were some of thescribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why doth this man speak thus? heblasphemeth. Who can forgivesins butGod only?" ButJesus seeing their thoughts, said to them: "Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thysins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you mayknow that theSon of man hath power on earth to forgivesins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Mark 2:5-11;Matthew 9:2-7).Christ wrought amiracle to show that He had power to forgivesins and that this power could be exerted not only inheaven but also on earth. This power, moreover, He transmitted to Peter and the otherApostles. To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee thekeys of thekingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also inheaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also inheaven" (Matthew 16:19). Later He says to all theApostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also inheaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also inheaven" (Matthew 18:18). As to the meaning of these texts, it should be noted:
But as theCouncil of Trent declares,Christ principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance after HisResurrection, amiracle greater than that of healing the sick. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye theHoly Ghost. Whosesins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whosesins you shall retain, they are retained' (John 20:21-23). While the sense of these words is quite obvious, the following points are to be considered:
It is therefore clear from the words ofChrist that theApostles had power to forgivesins. But this was not a personal prerogative that was to erase at their death; it was granted to them in their official capacity and hence as a permanent institution in theChurch — no less permanent than the mission to teach andbaptize all nations.Christ foresaw that even those who receivedfaith andbaptism, whether during the lifetime of theApostles or later, would fall intosin and therefore would need forgiveness in order to besaved. He must, then, have intended that the power to forgive should be transmitted from theApostles to theirsuccessors and be used as long as there would be sinners in theChurch, and that means to the end oftime. It istrue that inbaptism alsosins are forgiven, but this does not warrant the view that the power to forgive is simply the power tobaptize. In the first place, as appears from the texts cited above, the power to forgive is also the power to retain; its exercise involves a judicial action. But no such action is implied in the commission tobaptize (Matthew 28:18-20); in fact, as theCouncil of Trent affirms, theChurch does not pass judgment on those who are not yet members of theChurch, and membership is obtained throughbaptism. Furthermore,baptism, because it is a new birth, cannot be repeated, whereas the power to forgivesins (penance) is to be used as often as the sinner may need it. Hence the condemnation, by the same Council, of any one "who, confounding thesacraments, should say thatbaptism itself is the Sacrament of Penance, as though these twosacraments were not distinct and as though penance were not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck" (Sess. XIV, can. 2 de sac. poen.).
These pronouncements were directed against theProtestant teaching which held that penance was merely a sort of repeatedbaptism; and asbaptism effected no real forgiveness ofsin but only an external covering over ofsin throughfaith alone, the same, it was alleged, must be the case with penance. This, then, as asacrament is superfluous;absolution is only a declaration thatsin is forgiven throughfaith, and satisfaction is needless becauseChrist has satisfied once for allmen. This was the first sweeping and radical denial of the Sacrament of Penance. Some of the earliersects had claimed that onlypriests in the state of grace could validlyabsolve, but they had not denied theexistence of the power to forgive. During all the preceding centuries,Catholicbelief in this power had been so clear and strong that in order to set it asideProtestantism wasobliged to strike at the very constitution of theChurch and reject the whole content ofTradition.
Among themodernistic propositions condemned byPius X in theDecree "Lamentabili sane" (3 July, 1907) are the following:
According to theCouncil of Trent, the consensus of all the Fathers always understood that by the words ofChrist just cited, the power of forgiving and retainingsins was communicated to theApostles and their lawfulsuccessors (Sess. XIV, c. i). It is thereforeCatholic doctrine that theChurch from the earliest timesbelieved in the power to forgivesins as granted byChrist to theApostles. Such abelief in fact was clearly inculcated by the words with whichChrist granted the power, and it would have been inexplicable to the earlyChristians if any one who professedfaith inChrist had questioned theexistence of that power in theChurch. But if, contrariwise, we suppose that no suchbelief existed from the beginning, we encounter a still greater difficulty: the first mention of that power would have been regarded as an innovation both needless and intolerable; it would have shown little practical wisdom on the part of those who were endeavouring to drawmen toChrist; and it would have raised a protest or led to aschism which would certainly have gone on record as plainly at least as did early divisions on matters of less importance. But no such record is found; even those who sought to limit the power itself presupposed itsexistence, and their very attempt at limitation put them in opposition to the prevalentCatholicbelief.
Turning now to evidence of a positive sort, we have to note that the statements of any Father ororthodoxecclesiastical writer regarding penance present not merely his own personal view, but the commonly acceptedbelief; and furthermore that thebelief which they record was no novelty at thetime, but was thetraditionaldoctrine handed down by the regular teaching of theChurch and embodied in her practice. In other words, eachwitness speaks for a past that reaches back to the beginning, even when he does not expressly appeal totradition.
These extracts show that the Fathers recognized in penance a power and a utility quite distinct from that ofbaptism. Repeatedly they compare in figurative language the two means of obtaining pardon; or regardingbaptism as spiritual birth, they describe penance as the remedy for the ills of thesoul contracted after that birth. But a more important fact is that both in the West and in the East, the Fathers constantly appeal to the words ofChrist and given them the same interpretation that was given eleven centuries later by theCouncil of Trent. In this respect they simply echoed the teachings of the earlier Fathers who had defendedCatholic doctrine against theheretics of the third and second centuries. ThusSt. Cyprian in his"De lapsis" (A.D. 251) rebukes those who had fallen away intime ofpersecution, but he also exhorts them to penance: "Let each confess hissin while he is still in this world, while his confession can be received, while satisfaction and the forgiveness granted by thepriests is acceptable toGod" (c. xxix). (SeeLAPSI.) ThehereticNovatian, on the contrary, asserted that "it is unlawful to admitapostates to the communion of theChurch; their forgiveness must be left withGod who alone can grant it" (Socrates,Church History V.28).Novatian and his party did not at first deny the power of theChurch toabsolve fromsin; they affirmed thatapostasy placed the sinner beyond the reach of that power — anerror which was condemned by asynod atRome in 251 (SeeNOVATIANISM.)
The distinction betweensins that could be forgiven and others that could not, originated in the latter half of the second century as thedoctrine of theMontanists, and especially ofTertullian. While still aCatholic,Tertullian wrote (A.D. 200-6) his"De poenitentia" in which he distinguishes two kinds of penance, one as a preparation forbaptism, the other to obtain forgiveness of certain grievoussins committed afterbaptism, i.e.,apostasy,murder, andadultery. For these, however, he allows only one forgiveness: "Foreseeing these poisons of theEvil One,God, although the gate of forgiveness has been shut and fastened up with the bar ofbaptism, has permitted it still to stand somewhat open. In thevestibule He has stationed a second repentance for opening to such as knock; but now once for all, because now for the second time; but never more, because the last time it had been in vain. . . . However, if any do incur thedebt of a second repentance, his spirit is not to be forthwith cut down and undermined bydespair. Let it be irksome tosin again, but let it not be irksome to repent again; let it be irksome to imperil oneself again, but let no one be ashamed to be set free again. Repeated sickness must have repeated medicine" (On Penance 7).Tertullian does not deny that theChurch can forgivesins; he warns sinners against relapse, yet exhorts them to repent in case they should fall. His attitude at the time was not surprising, since in the early days thesins above mentioned were severely dealt with; this was done fordisciplinary reasons, not because theChurch lacked power to forgive.
In theminds, however, of some people theidea was developing that not only the exercise of the power but the power itself was limited. Against thisfalse notion Pope Callistus (218-22) published his "peremptory edict" in which he declares: "I forgive thesins both ofadultery and of fornication to those who have done penance." ThereuponTertullian, now become aMontanist, wrote his"De pudicitia" (A.D. 217-22). In this work he rejects without scruple what he had taught as aCatholic: "I blush not at anerror which I have cast off because I am delighted at being rid of it . . . one is not ashamed of his own improvement." The"error" which he imputes toCallistus and theCatholics was that theChurch could forgive allsins: this, therefore, was theorthodoxdoctrine whichTertullian theheretic denied. In place of it he sets up the distinction between lightersins which thebishop could forgive and more grievoussins whichGod alone could forgive. Though in an earlier treatise,"Scorpiace" (chapter 10), he had said that "the Lord left here to Peter and through him to theChurch the keys of heaven" he now denies that the power granted to Peter had been transmitted to theChurch, i.e., to thenumerus episcoporum or body ofbishops. Yet he claims this power for the "spirituals" (pneumatici), although these, for prudential reasons, do not make use of it. To the arguments of the "Psychici", as he termed theCatholics, he replies: "But theChurch, you say, has the power to forgivesin. This I, even more than you, acknowledge and adjudge. I who in the newprophets have theParaclete saying: 'TheChurch can forgivesin, but I will not do that (forgive) lest they (who are forgiven) fall into othersins" (On Pudicity 21.7). ThusTertullian, by the accusation which he makes against thepope and by the restriction which he places upon the exercise of the power of forgivingsin, bears witness to the existence of that power in theChurch which he hadabandoned.
Not content with assailingCallistus and hisdoctrine,Tertullian refers to the"Shepherd" (Pastor), a work written A.D. 140-54, and takes its author Hermas to task for favouring the pardon ofadulterers. In the days of Hermas there was evidently a school of rigorists who insisted that there was no pardon forsin committed afterbaptism (Similitude VIII.6). Against thisschool the author of the"Pastor" takes a resolute stand. He teaches that by penance the sinner mayhope for reconciliation withGod and with theChurch. "Go and tell all to repent and they shall live untoGod. Because the Lord having had compassion,has sent me to giverepentance to allmen, although some are not worthy of it on account of theirworks" (Similitude VIII.2). Hermas, however, seems to give but one opportunity for such reconciliation, for inMandate IV.1, he seems to state categorically that "there is but one repentance for the servants ofGod", and further on inMandate IV.3 he says theLord has had mercy on the work of his hands and hath set repentance for them; "and he has entrustedto me the power of this repentance. And therefore I say to you, if any one hassinned . . he has opportunity to repent once". Repentance is therefore possible at least once in virtue of a power vested in thepriest ofGod. That Hermas hereintends to say that the sinner could beabsolved only once in his whole life is by no means anecessary conclusion. His words may well be understood as referring to public penance (see below) and as thus understood they imply no limitation on thesacramental power itself. The same interpretation applies to the statement ofClement of Alexandria (d.circa A.D. 215): "ForGod being very merciful has vouchsafed in the case of those who, though infaith, have fallen into transgression, a second repentance, so that should anyone betempted after his calling, he may still receive a penance not to be repented of" (Stromata II.13).
Theexistence of a regular system of penance is also hinted at in the work ofClement,"Who is the rich man that shall be saved?", where he tells the story of theApostle John and his journey after the young bandit.John pledged his word that the youthful robber would find forgiveness from theSaviour; but even then a long serious penance wasnecessary before he could be restored to theChurch. And when Clement concludes that "he who welcomes theangel of penance . . . will not be ashamed when he sees theSaviour", mostcommentators think he alludes to thebishop orpriest who presided over theceremony of public penance. Even earlier,Dionysius of Corinth (d.circa A.D. 170), setting himself against certain growingMarcionistic traditions, taught not only thatChrist has left to HisChurch the power of pardon, but that nosin is so great as to be excluded from the exercise of that power. For this we have the authority ofEusebius, who says (Church History IV.23): "And writing to theChurch which is inAmastris, together with those inPontus, he commands them to receive those who come back afterany fall, whether it be delinquency orheresy".
TheDidache written at the close of the first century or early in the second, in4.14 and again in14.1, commands an individual confession in the congregation: "In the congregation thou shalt confess thytransgressions"; or again: "On theLord's Day come together andbreak bread . . . having confessed yourtransgressions that your sacrifice may be pure."Clement I (d. 99) in hisEpistle to the Corinthians not only exhorts to repentance, but begs the seditious to "submit themselves to thepresbyters and receive correction so as to repent" (chapter 57), andIgnatius of Antioch at the close of the first century speaks of the mercy ofGod to sinners, provided they return" with one consent to the unity ofChrist and the communion of thebishop". The clause "communion of thebishop" evidently means thebishop with his council ofpresbyters asassessors. He also says (Letter to the Philadelphians) "that thebishop presides over penance".
The transmission of this power is plainly expressed in theprayer used at theconsecration of abishop as recorded in the Canons ofHippolytus: "Grant him, 0 Lord, theepiscopate and the spirit of clemency and the power to forgivesins" (c. xvii). Still more explicit is the formula cited in the"Apostolic Constitutions": "Grant him, O Lord almighty, through ThyChrist, the participation of ThyHoly Spirit, in order that he may have the power to remitsins according to Thyprecept and Thy command, and to loosen every bond, whatsoever it be, according to the power which Thou hast granted to theApostles." (Apostolic Constitutions VIII.5). For the meaning of "episcopus", "sacerdos", "presbyter", as used in ancient documents, seeBISHOP;HIERARCHY.
The granting byChrist of the power to forgivesins is the firstessential of the Sacrament of Penance; in the actual exercise of this power are included the otheressentials. Thesacrament as such and on its own account has amatter and aform and it produces certain effects; thepower of the keys is exercised by aminister (confessor) who must possess the proper qualifications, and the effects are wrought in thesoul of the recipient, i.e., the penitent who with thenecessary dispositions must perform certain actions (confession, satisfaction).
According toSt. Thomas (Summa Theologiæ III.84.2) "theacts of the penitent are the proximatematter of thissacrament". This is also the teaching ofEugenius IV in the "Decretum pro Armenis" (Council of Florence, 1439) which calls theact's "quasi materia" of penance and enumerates them ascontrition, confession, and satisfaction (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", 699). TheThomists in general and other eminenttheologians, e.g.,Bellarmine, Toletus,Francisco Suárez, andDe Lugo, hold the same opinion. According toScotus (In IV Sent., d. 16, q. 1, n. 7) "the Sacrament of Penance is theabsolution imparted with certain words" while the acts of the penitent are required for the worthy reception of thesacrament. Theabsolution as an externalceremony is thematter, and, as possessing significant force, theform. Among the advocates of this theory areSt. Bonaventure,Capreolus, Andreas Vega, andMaldonatus. TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3) declares: "the acts of the penitent, namelycontrition, confession, and satisfaction, are thequasi materia of thissacrament". TheRoman Catechism used in 1913 (II, v, 13) says: "These actions are called by the Councilquasi materia not because they have not thenature oftruematter, but because they are not the sort ofmatter which is employed externally as water inbaptism andchrism inconfirmation". For thetheological discussion seePalmieri, op. cit., p. 144 sqq.;Pesch, "Praelectiones dogmaticae", Freiburg, 1897; De San, "De poenitentia", Bruges, 1899; Pohle, "Lehrb. d. Dogmatik". Regarding theform of thesacrament, both theCouncil of Florence and theCouncil of Trent teach that it consists in the words ofabsolution. "Theform of theSacrament of penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in those words of theminister: "Iabsolve thee, etc."; to these words indeed, in accordance with the usage of Holy Church, certainprayers are laudably added, but they do not pertain to theessence of theform nor are theynecessary for the administration of thesacrament" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3). Concerning these additionalprayers, the use of theEastern andWestern Churches, and the question whether theform is deprecatory or indicative and personal, seeABSOLUTION. Cf. also the writers referred to in the preceding paragraph.
"The effect of thissacrament is deliverance fromsin" (Council of Florence). The samedefinition in somewhat different terms is given by theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 3): "So far as pertains to its force and efficacy, the effect (res et effectus) of thissacrament is reconciliation withGod, upon which there sometimes follows, inpious and devout recipients, peace and calm ofconscience with intense consolation of spirit". This reconciliation implies first of all that the guilt ofsin is remitted, and consequently also theeternal punishment due to mortalsin. As theCouncil of Trent declares, penance requires the performance of satisfaction "not indeed for theeternal penalty which is remitted together with the guilt either by thesacrament or by the desire of receiving thesacrament, but for the temporal penalty which, as theScriptures teach, is not always forgiven entirely as it is inbaptism" (Sess. VI, c. 14). In other wordsbaptism frees thesoul not only from allsin but also from allindebtedness to Divinejustice, whereas after the reception ofabsolution in penance, there may and usually does remain some temporaldebt to be discharged by works of satisfaction (see below). "Venialsins by which we are not deprived of thegrace of God and into which we very frequently fall are rightly and usefully declared in confession; but mention of them may, without any fault, be omitted and they can be expiated by many other remedies" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 3). Thus, anact ofcontrition suffices to obtain forgiveness of venialsin, and the same effect is produced by the worthy reception ofsacraments other than penance, e.g., byHoly Communion.
The reconciliation of the sinner withGod has as a further consequence the revival of thosemerits which he had obtained before committing grievoussin. Goodworks performed in the state of grace deserve a reward fromGod, but this is forfeited by mortalsin, so that if the sinner should die unforgiven his good deeds avail him nothing. So long as he remains insin, he is incapable ofmeriting: even works which are good in themselves are, in his case, worthless: they cannot revive, because they never were alive. But once hissin is cancelled by penance, he regains not only the state of grace but also the entire store ofmerit which had, before hissin, been placed to his credit. On this pointtheologians are practically unanimous: the only hindrance to obtaining reward issin, and when this is removed, the former title, so to speak, is revalidated. On the other hand, if there were no such revalidation, the loss ofmerit once acquired would be equivalent to aneternal punishment, which is incompatible with the forgiveness effected by penance. As to the further question regarding the manner and extent of the revival ofmerit, various opinions have been proposed; but that which is generally accepted holds withFrancisco Suárez (De reviviscentia meritorum) that the revival is complete, i.e., the forgiven penitent has to his credit as muchmerit as though he had neversinned. See De Augustinis, "De re sacramentaria", II, Rome, 1887;Pesch, op. cit., VII; Göttler, "Der hl. Thomas v. Aquin u. die vortridentinischen Thomisten über die Wirkungen d. Bussakramentes", Freiburg, 1904.
From the judicial character of thissacrament it follows that not every member of theChurch is qualified to forgivesins; the administration of penance is reserved to those who are invested with authority. That this power does not belong to thelaity is evident from theBull ofMartin V "Inter cunctas" (1418) which among other questions to be answered by the followers ofWyclif andHuss, has this: "whether hebelieves that theChristian . . . is bound as anecessary means ofsalvation to confess to apriest only andnot to a layman or to laymen however good and devout" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", 670).Luther's proposition, that "anyChristian, even awoman or a child" could in the absence of apriestabsolve as well aspope orbishop, was condemned (1520) byLeo X in theBull "Exurge Domine" (Enchir., 753). TheCouncil of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 6) condemns as "false and as at variance with thetruth of the Gospel all doctrines which extend theministry of thekeys to any others thanbishops andpriests, imagining that the words of the Lord (Matthew 18:18;John 20:23) were, contrary to the institution of thissacrament, addressed to all thefaithful ofChrist in such wise that each and every one has the power of remittingsin". TheCatholic doctrine, therefore, is that onlybishops andpriests can exercise the power.
Thesedecrees moreover put an end, practically, to the usage, which had sprung up and lasted for some time in theMiddle Ages, ofconfessing to a layman in case ofnecessity. Thiscustom originated in the conviction that he who hadsinned wasobliged to make known hissin to some one — to apriest if possible, otherwise to alayman. In the work "On true penance and false" (De vera et falsa poenitentia),erroneously ascribed to St. Augustine, the counsel is given: "So great is the power of confession that if apriest be not at hand, let him (theperson desiring to confess)confess to his neighbour." But in the same place the explanation is given: "although he to whom the confession is made has no power toabsolve, nevertheless he who confesses to his fellow (socio) becomes worthy of pardon through his desire of confessing to apriest" (P.L., XL, 1113). Lea, who cites (I, 220) the assertion of the Pseudo-Augustine aboutconfession to one's neighbour, passes over the explanation. He consequently sets in a wrong light a series of incidents illustrating the practice and gives but an imperfectidea of thetheological discussion which it aroused. ThoughAlbertus Magnus (In IV Sent., dist. 17, art. 58) regarded assacramental theabsolution granted by alayman whileSt. Thomas (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 3, a. 3, sol. 2) speaks of it as "quodammodo sacramentalis", other greattheologians took a quite different view.Alexander of Hales (Summa, Q. xix, De confessione memb., I, a. 1) says that it is an "imploring ofabsolution";St. Bonaventure ("Opera', VII, p. 345, Lyons, 1668) that such a confession even in cases ofnecessity is notobligatory, but merely a sign ofcontrition;Scotus (IV Sent., d. 14, q. 4) that there is nopreceptobliging one toconfess to a layman and that this practice may be very detrimental;Durandus of St. Pourcain (IV Sent., d. 17, q. 12) that in the absence of apriest, who alone canabsolve in the tribunal of penance, there is noobligation to confess; Prierias (Summa Silv., s.v.Confessor, I, 1) that ifabsolution is given by alayman, the confession must be repeated whenever possible; this in fact was the general opinion. It is not then surprising thatDominicus Soto, writing in 1564, should find it difficult tobelieve that such acustom ever existed: "since (inconfession to a layman) there was nosacrament . . . it is incredible thatmen, of their own accord and with no profit to themselves, should reveal to others the secrets of theirconscience" (IV Sent., d. 18, q. 4, a. 1). Since, therefore, the weight oftheological opinion gradually turned against the practice and since the practice never received thesanction of theChurch, it cannot be urged as aproof that the power to forgivesins belonged at anytime to thelaity. What the practice does show is that both people andtheologians realized keenly theobligation of confessing theirsins not toGod alone but to somehuman listener, even though the latter possessed no power toabsolve.
The same exaggerated notion appears in the practice of confessing to thedeacons in case ofnecessity. They were naturally preferred tolaymen when nopriest was accessible because in virtue of their office they administeredHoly Communion. Moreover, some of the earlier councils (Elvira, A.D. 300; Toledo, 400) and penitentials (Theodore) seemed to grant the power of penance to thedeacon (in thepriest's absence). The Council of Tribur (895) declared in regard to bandits that if, when captured or wounded they confessed to apriest or adeacon, they should not be denied communion; and this expression "presbytero vel diacono" was incorporated in theDecree of Gratian and in many later documents from the tenth century to the thirteenth. The Council of York (1195)decreed that except in the gravestnecessity thedeacon should notbaptize, give communion, or "impose penance on one who confessed". Substantially the same enactments are found in the Councils ofLondon (1200) andRouen (1231), the constitutions ofSt. Edmund of Canterbury (1236), and those of Walter of Kirkham,Bishop ofDurham (1255). All these enactments, though stringent enough as regards ordinary circumstances, make exception for urgentnecessity. No such exception is allowed in thedecree of the Synod of Poitiers (1280): "desiring to root out anerroneous abuse which has grown up in ourdiocese through dangerousignorance, we forbiddeacons to hear confessions or to giveabsolution in the tribunal of penance: for it iscertain and beyonddoubt that they cannotabsolve, since they have not thekeys which are conferred only in thepriestly order". This "abuse" probably disappeared in the fourteenth or fifteenth century; at all events no direct mention is made of it by theCouncil of Trent, though the reservation tobishops andpriests of theabsolving power shows plainly that the Council excludeddeacons.
The authorization which themedieval councils gave thedeacon in case ofnecessity did not confer the power to forgivesins. In some of thedecrees it is expressly stated that thedeacon has not thekeys —claves non habent. In other enactments he is forbidden except in cases ofnecessity to "give" or "impose penance",poenitentiam dare, imponere. His function then was limited to theforum externum; in the absence of apriest he could "reconcile" the sinner, i.e., restore him to the communion of theChurch; but he did not and could not give thesacramentalabsolution which apriest would have given (Palmieri,Pesch). Another explanation emphasizes the fact that thedeacon could faithfully administer theHoly Eucharist. Thefaithful were under a strictobligation to receive Communion at the approach of death, and on the other hand the reception of thissacrament sufficed to blot out even mortalsin provided the communicant had the requisite dispositions. Thedeacon could hear their confession simply to assure himself that they were properly disposed, but not for the purpose of giving themabsolution. If he went further and "imposed penance" in the stricter,sacramental sense, he exceeded his power, and any authorization to this effect granted by thebishop merely showed that thebishop was inerror (Laurain, "De l'intervention des laïques, des diacres et des abbesses dans l'administration de la pénitence", Paris, 1897). In any case, the prohibitory enactments which finally abolished the practice did not deprive thedeacon of a power which was his by virtue of his office; but they brought into clearer light thetraditionalbelief that onlybishops andpriests can administer the Sacrament of Penance. (See below underConfession.)
For valid administration, a twofold power isnecessary: the power of order and thepower of jurisdiction. The former is conferred byordination, the latter byecclesiastical authority (see JURISDICTION). At hisordination apriest receives the power toconsecrate theHoly Eucharist, and for validconsecration he needs nojurisdiction. As regards penance, the case is different: "because thenature andcharacter of a judgment requires thatsentence be pronounced only on those who are subjects (of the judge) theChurch of God has always held, and this Council affirms it to be mosttrue, that theabsolution which apriest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either ordinary or delegatedjurisdiction, is of no effect" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 7). Ordinaryjurisdiction is that which one has by reason of his office as involving the care ofsouls; thepope has it over the wholeChurch, thebishop within hisdiocese, thepastor within hisparish. Delegatedjurisdiction is that which is granted by anecclesiastical superior to one who does not possess it by virtue of his office. The need ofjurisdiction for administering thissacrament is usually expressed by saying that apriest must have "faculties" to hear confession (see FACULTIES). Hence it is that apriest visiting in adiocese other than his own cannot hear confession without special authorization from thebishop. Everypriest, however, canabsolve anyone who is at the point of death, because under those circumstances theChurch gives allpriestsjurisdiction. As thebishop grantsjurisdiction, he can also limit it by "reserving" certain cases (seeRESERVATION) and he can even withdraw it entirely.
The Sacrament of Penance was instituted byChrist for the remission ofsins committed afterbaptism. Hence, no unbaptizedperson, however deep and sincere his sorrow, can be validlyabsolved.Baptism, in other words, is the firstessential requisite on the part of the penitent. This does not imply that in thesins committed by an unbaptizedperson there is a special enormity or any other element that places them beyond thepower of the keys; but that one must first be a member of theChurch before he can submit himself and hissins to the judicial process ofsacramental Penance.
Without sorrow forsin there is no forgiveness. Hence theCouncil of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. 4): "Contrition, which holds the first place among the acts of the penitent, is sorrow of heart and detestation forsin committed, with the resolve tosin no more". The Council (ibid.) furthermore distinguishes perfectcontrition from imperfectcontrition, which is calledattrition, and which arises from the consideration of the turpitude ofsin or from thefear ofhell and punishment. SeeATTRITION;CONTRITION, where these two kinds of sorrow are more fully explained and an account is given of the principal discussions and opinions. See also treatises byPesch,Palmieri, Pohle. For the present purpose it need only be stated thatattrition, with the Sacrament of Penance, suffices to obtain forgiveness ofsin. TheCouncil of Trent further teaches (ibid.): "though it sometimes happens that thiscontrition is perfect and that it reconcilesman withGod before the actual reception of thissacrament, still the reconciliation is not to be ascribed to thecontrition itself apart from the desire of thesacrament which it (contrition) includes". In accordance with this teachingPius V condemned (1567) the proposition ofBaius asserting that even perfectcontrition does not, except in case ofnecessity or ofmartyrdom, remitsin without the actual reception of thesacrament (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", 1071). It should be noted, however, that thecontrition of which the Council speaks is perfect in the sense that it includes the desire (votum) to receive thesacrament. Whoever in fact repents of hissin out oflove forGod must be willing to comply with the Divine ordinance regarding penance, i.e., he would confess if a confessor were accessible, and he realizes that he isobliged to confess when he has the opportunity. But it does not follow that the penitent is at liberty to choose between two modes of obtaining forgiveness, one by anact ofcontrition independently of thesacrament, the other by confession andabsolution. This view was put forward by Peter Martinez (de Osma) in the proposition: "mortalsins as regards their guilt and their punishment in the other world, are blotted out bycontrition alone without any reference to thekeys"; and the proposition was condemned bySixtus IV in 1479 (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchir.", 724). Hence it is clear that not even heartfelt sorrow based on the highest motives, can, in the present order ofsalvation, dispense with thepower of the keys, i.e., with the Sacrament of Penance.
"For those who afterbaptism have fallen intosin, the Sacrament of Penance is asnecessary untosalvation as isbaptism itself for those who have not yet beenregenerated" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 2). Penance, therefore, is not an institution the use of which was left to the option of each sinner so that he might, if he preferred, hold aloof from theChurch and secure forgiveness by some other means, e.g., by acknowledging hissin in the privacy of his ownmind. As already stated, the power granted byChrist to theApostles is twofold, to forgive and to retain, in such a way that what they forgiveGod forgives and what they retainGod retains. But this grant would be nullified if, in case theChurch retained thesins of penitent, he could, as it were, take appeal toGod's tribunal and obtain pardon. Nor would the power to retain have any meaning if the sinner, passing over theChurch, went in the first instance toGod, since by the very terms of the grant,God retainssin once committed so long as it is not remitted by theChurch. It would indeed have been strangely inconsistent ifChrist in conferring this twofold power on theApostles had intended to provide some other means of forgiveness such as confessing "toGod alone". Not only theApostles, but any one with an elementaryknowledge ofhumannature would have perceived at once that the easier means would be chosen and that the grant of power so formally and solemnly made byChrist had no real significance (Palmieri, op. cit., thesis X). On the other hand, once it is admitted that the grant was effectual and consequently that thesacrament isnecessary in order to obtain forgiveness, it plainly follows that the penitent must in some way make known hissin to those who exercise the power. This is conceded even by those who reject the Sacrament of Penance as a Divine institution. "Such remission was manifestly impossible without the declaration of the offences to be forgiven" (Lea, "History etc.", I, p. 182). TheCouncil of Trent, after declaring thatChrist left hispriests as Hisvicars unto whom as rulers and judges thefaithful must make known theirsins, adds: "It is evident that thepriests could not have exercised this judgment withoutknowledge of thecause, nor could they have observedjustice in enjoining satisfaction if (thefaithful) had declared theirsins in a general way only and not specifically and in detail" (Sess. XIV, c. 5).
Since thepriest in the pardoning ofsin exercises a strict judicial function,Christ must will that such tremendous power be used wisely and prudently. Moreover, in virtue of the grant ofChrist thepriest can forgive allsins without distinction,quoecumque solveritis. How can a wise andprudent judgment be rendered if thepriest be inignorance of thecause on which judgment is pronounced? And how can he obtain the requisiteknowledge unless it come from the spontaneous acknowledgment of the sinner? Thisnecessity of manifestation is all the clearer if satisfaction forsin, which from the beginning has been part of thepenitentialdiscipline, is to be imposed not only wisely but alsojustly. That there is anecessary connection between theprudent judgment of the confessor and the detailed confession ofsins is evident from the nature of a judicial procedure and especially from a fullanalysis of the grant ofChrist in the light oftradition. No judge may release or condemn without fullknowledge of the case. And again thetradition of the earliesttime sees in the words ofChrist not only the office of the judge sitting in judgment, but the kindness of a father who weeps with the repentant child (Aphraates, "Ep. de Poenitentia", dem. 7) and the skill of the physician who after the manner ofChrist heals the wounds of thesoul (Origen in P.G., XII, 418; P.L., XII, 1086). Clearly, therefore, the words ofChrist imply thedoctrine of the externalmanifestation of conscience to apriest in order to obtain pardon.
Confession is the avowal of one's ownsins made to a duly authorizedpriest for the purpose of obtaining their forgiveness through thepower of the keys. Virtual confession is simply the will to confess even where, owing to circumstances, declaration ofsin is impossible; actual confession is any action by which the penitent manifests hissin. It may be made in general terms, e.g., by reciting the "Confiteor", or it may consist in a more or less detailed statement of one'ssins; when the statement is complete, the confession is distinct. Public confession, as made in the hearing of a number of people (e.g. a congregation) differs from private, or secret, confession which is made to thepriest alone and is often calledauricular, i.e., spoken into the ear of the confessor. We are here concerned mainly withactual distinct confession which is the usual practice in theChurch and which so far as the validity of thesacrament is concerned, may be either public or private. "As regards the method of confessing secretly to thepriest alone, thoughChrist did not forbid that any one, in punishment of his crimes and for his own humiliation as also to give others an example and to edify theChurch, should confess hissins publicly, still, this has not been commanded byDivine precept nor would it beprudent todecree by anyhumanlaw thatsins, especially secretsins, should be publicly confessed. Since, then, secretsacramental confession, which from the beginning has been and even now is the usage of theChurch, was always commended with great and unanimousconsent by the holiest and most ancient Fathers; thereby is plainly refuted the foolishcalumny of those who make bold to teach that it (secret confession) is something foreign to the Divine command, ahuman invention devised by the Fathers assembled in the Lateran Council" (Council of Trent, Sess. XIV, c. 5). It is thereforeCatholic doctrine, first, thatChrist did not prescribe public confession, salutary as it might be, nor did He forbid it; second, that secret confession,sacramental in character, has been the practice of theChurch from the earliest days.
How firmly rooted in theCatholicmind is thebelief in the efficacy andnecessity of confession, appears clearly from the fact that the Sacrament of Penance endures in theChurch after the countless attacks to which it has been subjected during the last four centuries. If at theReformation or since theChurch could have surrendered adoctrine or abandoned a practice for the sake of peace and to soften a "hard saying", confession would have been the first to disappear. Yet it is precisely during this period that theChurch hasdefined in the most exact terms thenature of penance and most vigorously insisted on thenecessity of confession. It will not of course be denied that at the beginning of the sixteenth century confession was generally practised throughout theChristian world. TheReformers themselves, notablyCalvin, admitted that it had been in existence for three centuries when they attributed its origin to theFourth Lateran Council (1215). At thattime, according to Lea (op. cit., I, 228), thenecessity of confession "became a newarticle of faith" and the canon,omnis utriusque sexus, "is perhaps the most important legislative act in thehistory of the Church" (ibid., 230). But, as theCouncil of Trent affirms, "theChurch did not through the Lateran Council prescribe that thefaithful of Christ should confess — a thing which itknew to be by Divine rightnecessary and established — but that theprecept of confessing at least once a year should be complied with by all and every one when they reached theage of discretion" (Sess., XIV, c. 5). The Lateran edict presupposed thenecessity of confession as an article ofCatholicbelief and laid down alaw as to the minimum frequency of confession — at least once a year.
In constructing their systems oftheology, themedievaldoctors discuss at length the various problems connected with the Sacrament of Penance. They are practically unanimous in holding that confession isobligatory; the only notable exception in the twelfth century is Gratian, who gives the arguments for and against thenecessity of confessing to apriest and leaves the question open (Decretum, p. II, De poen., d. 1, in P.L., CLXXXVII, 1519-63).Peter Lombard (d. about 1150) takes up the authorities cited by Gratian and by means of themproves that "without confession there is no pardon" . . . "no entrance intoparadise" (IV Sent., d. XVII, 4, in P.L., CXCII, 880-2). The principal debate, in whichHugh of St. Victor,Abelard,Robert Pullus, andPeter of Poitiers took the leading parts, concerned the origin andsanction of theobligation, and the value of the differentScriptural texts cited toprove the institution of penance. This question passed on to the thirteenth century and received its solution in very plain terms fromSt. Thomas Aquinas. Treating (Contra Gentes, IV, 72) of thenecessity of penance and its parts, he shows that "the institution of confession wasnecessary in order that thesin of the penitent might be revealed toChrist's minister; hence theminister to whom the confession is made must have judicial power as representingChrist, the Judge of the living and the dead. This power again requires two things: authority ofknowledge and power toabsolve or to condemn. These are called the twokeys of theChurch which the Lord entrusted to Peter (Matthew 16:19). But they were not given to Peter to be held by him alone, but to be handed on through him to others; else sufficient provision would not have been made for thesalvation of thefaithful. Thesekeys derive their efficacy from thepassion of Christ whereby He opened to us the gate of theheavenly kingdom". And he adds that as no one can besaved withoutbaptism either by actual reception or by desire, so they whosin afterbaptism cannot besaved unless they submit to thekeys of theChurch either by actually confessing or by the resolve to confess when opportunity permits. Furthermore, as the rulers of theChurch cannot dispense any one frombaptism as a means ofsalvation neither can they give adispensation whereby the sinner may be forgiven without confession andabsolution. The same explanation and reasoning is given by all theScholastics of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. They were in practical agreement as to thenecessity ofjurisdiction in the confessor. Regarding thetime at which confession had to be made, some held withWilliam of Auvergne that one wasobliged to confess as soon as possible aftersinning; others withAlbertus Magnus andSt. Thomas that it sufficed to confess within thetime limits prescribed by theChurch (Paschal Time); and this more lenient view finally prevailed. Further subjects of discussion during this period were the choice of confessor; theobligation of confessing before receiving othersacraments, especially the Eucharist; the integrity of confession; theobligation of secrecy on the part of the confessor, i.e., theseal of confession. The careful and minute treatment of these points and the frank expression of divergent opinions were characteristic of theSchoolmen but they also brought out more clearly the centraltruths regarding penance and they opened the way to theconciliar pronouncements at Florence and Trent which gave toCatholic doctrine a more precise formulation. See Vacandard and Bernard in "Dict. de theol. cath.", s.v. Confession; Turmel, "Hist. de la théologie positive", Paris, 1904; Cambier, "De divina institutione confessionis sacramentalis", Louvain, 1884.
Not only was theobligation recognized in theCatholicChurch throughout theMiddle Ages, but theschismatic Greeks held the samebelief and still hold it. They fell intoschism underPhotius in 869, but retained confession, which therefore must have been in use for some time previous to the ninth century. The practice, moreover, was regulated in detail by the Penitential Books, which prescribed the canonical penance for eachsin, and minute questions for theexamination of the penitent. The most famous of these books among the Greeks were those attributed toJohn the Faster and to John the Monk. In the West similar works were written by theIrishmonksSt. Columbanus (d. 615) and Cummian, and by theEnglishmenVen. Bede (d. 735), Egbert (d. 767), andTheodore of Canterbury (d. 690). Besides the councils mentioned above (Minister)decrees pertaining to confession were enacted at Worms (868),Paris (820),Châlons (813, 650),Tours (813),Reims (1113). The Council of Chaleuth (785) says: "if any one (whichGod forbid) should depart this life without penance or confession he is not to beprayed for". The significant feature about these enactments is that they do not introduce confession as a new practice, but take it for granted and regulate its administration. Hereby they put into practical effect what had been handed down bytradition.
St. Gregory the Great (d. 604) teaches "the affliction of penance is efficacious in blotting outsins when it is enjoined by thesentence of thepriest when the burden of it is decided by him in proportion to the offence after weighing the deeds of those who confess" (In I Reg., III, v, n. 13 in P.L., LXXIX, 207);Pope Leo the Great (440-61), who is often credited with the institution of confession, refers to it as an "Apostolic rule". Writing to thebishops of Campania he forbids as an abuse "contrary to theApostolic rule" (contra apostolicam regulam) the reading out in public of a written statement of theirsins drawn up by thefaithful, because, he declares, "it suffices that the guilt ofconscience be manifested topriests alone in secret confession" (Ep. clxviii in P.L., LIV, 1210). In another letter (Epistle 108), after declaring that by Divine ordinance the mercy ofGod can be obtained only through the supplications of thepriests, he adds: "the mediator betweenGod andmen,Christ Jesus, gave the rulers of theChurch this power that they should impose penance on those who confess and admit them when purified by salutary satisfaction to the communion of thesacraments through the gateway of reconciliation. "The earlier Fathers frequently speak ofsin as a disease which needs treatment, something drastic, at the hands of the spiritual physician or surgeon.St. Augustine (d. 450) tells the sinner: "an abscess had formed in yourconscience; it tormented you and gave you no rest. . . . confess, and in confession let the pus come out and flow away" (Enarration on Psalm 66, no. 6).St. Jerome (d. 420) comparing thepriests of the New Law with those of the Old who decided betweenleprosy andleprosy, says: "likewise in theNew Testament thebishops and thepriest bind or loose . . . in virtue of their office", having heard various sorts of sinners, theyknow who is to be bound and who is to be loosed" . . . (In Matt., xvi, 19); in his "Sermon on Penance" he says: "let no one find it irksome to show his woundvulnus confiteri) because without confession it cannot be healed."St. Ambrose (d. 397): "thisright (of loosing and binding) has been conferred onpriests only" (On Penance I.2.7);St. Basil (d. 397): "Asmen do not make known their bodily ailments to anybody and everybody, but only to those who are skilled in healing, so confession ofsin ought to be made to those who can cure it" (Reg. brevior., 229).
For those who sought to escape theobligation of confession it was natural enough to assert that repentance was the affair of thesoul alone with itsMaker, and that no intermediary was needed. It is this pretext thatSt. Augustine sweeps aside in one of hissermons: "Let no one say I do penance secretly; I perform it in the sight ofGod, and He who is to pardon me knows that in my heart I repent". Whereupon St. Augustine asks: "Was it then said to no purpose, 'What you shall loose upon earth shall be loosed inheaven?' Was it for nothing that thekeys were given to theChurch?" (Sermo cccxcii, n. 3, in P.L., XXXIX, 1711). The Fathers, of course, do not deny thatsin must be confessed toGod; at times, indeed, in exhorting thefaithful to confess, they make no mention of thepriest; but such passages must be taken in connection with the general teaching of the Fathers and with thetraditionalbelief of theChurch. Their real meaning is expressed, e.g., byAnastasius Sinaita (seventh century): "Confess yoursins toChrist through thepriest" (De sacra synaxi), and byEgbert,Archbishop ofYork (d. 766): "Let the sinner confess hisevil deeds toGod, that thepriest mayknow what penance to impose" (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XII, 232). For the passages inSt. John Chrysostom, seeHurter, "Theol. dogmat.", III, 454;Pesch, "Praelectiones", VII, 165.
The Fathers, knowing well that one great difficulty which the sinner has to overcome is shame, encourage him in spite of it to confess. "I appeal to you, my brethren", says St. Pacian (d. 391), ". . . you who are not ashamed tosin and yet are ashamed to confess . . . I beseech you, cease to hide your woundedconscience. Sick people who areprudent do not fear the physician, though he cut and burn even the secret parts of the body" (Paraenesis ad poenit., n. 6, 8).St. John Chrysostom (d. 347) pleads eloquently with the sinner: "Be not ashamed to approach (thepriest) because you havesinned, nay rather, for this very reason approach. No one says: Because I have an ulcer, I will not go near a physician or take medicine; on the contrary, it is just this that makes it needful to call in physicians and apply remedies. We (priests)know well how to pardon, because we ourselves are liable tosin. This is whyGod did not give usangels to be ourdoctors, nor send down Gabriel to rule the flock, but from the fold itself he chooses the shepherds, from among the sheep He appoints the leader, in order that he may be inclined to pardon his followers and, keeping in mind his own fault, may not set himself in hardness against the members of the flock" (Hom. "On Frequent Assembly" in P.G., LXIII, 463).
Tertullian had already used the same argument with those who, forfear of exposing theirsins, put off their confession from day to day — "mindful more of their shame than of theirsalvation, like those who hide from the physician the malady they suffer in the secret parts of the body, and thus perish through bashfulness. . . . because we withhold anything from theknowledge ofmen, do we thereby conceal it fromGod? . . . Is it better to hide and be damned than to be openlyabsolved?" (On Penance 10).St. Cyprian (d. 258) pleads for greater mildness in the treatment of sinners, "since we find that no one ought to be forbidden to do penance and that to those who implore the mercy ofGod peace can be granted through Hispriests. . . . And because inhell there is no confession, nor canexomologesis be made there, they who repent with their whole heart and ask for it, should be received into theChurch and thereinsaved unto the Lord" (Epistle 51, no. 29). Elsewhere he says that many who do not do penance or confess their guilt are filled with unclean spirits; and by contrast he praises the greaterfaith and more wholesomefear of those who, though not guilty of anyidolatrous action, "nevertheless, because they thought of [such action], confess [their thought] in sorrow and simplicity to thepriests ofGod, make theexomologesis of theirconscience, lay bare the burden of theirsoul, and seek a salutary remedy even for wounds that are slight" (De Lapsis 26 sqq.).Origen (d. 154) compares the sinner to those whose stomachs are overloaded with undigested food or with excess of humours and phlegm if they vomit, they are relieved, "so, too, those who havesinned, if they conceal and keep thesin within, they are distressed and almost choked by its humour or phlegm. But if they accuse themselves and confess, they at the same time vomit thesin and cast off every cause of disease" (Homil. on Ps. xxxvii, n. 6, in P.G., XII, 1386).St. Irenæus (130-102) relates the case of certainwomen whom theGnostic Marcus had led intosin. "Some of them", he says, "perform theirexomologesis openly also [etiam in manifesto], while others, afraid to do this, draw back in silence,despairing to regain the life ofGod" (Against Heresies I.13.7). Thisetiam in manifesto suggests at least that they had confessed privately, but could not bring themselves to make a public confession. The advantage of confession as against the concealment ofsin is shown in the words ofSt. Clement of Rome in his letter to the Corinthians: "It is better for a man to confess hissins than to harden his heart" (Epistle 1, no. 51.1).
This outline of thepatristic teaching shows:
And since the series ofwitnesses goes back to the latter part of the first century, the practice of confession must have existed from the earliest days.St. Leo had good reason for appealing to the "Apostolic rule" which made secret confession to thepriest sufficient without thenecessity of a public declaration. Nor is it surprising thatLactantius (d. c. 330) should have pointed to the practice of confession as a characteristic of thetrueChurch: "That is thetrueChurch in which there is confession and penance, which applies a wholesome remedy to thesins and wounds whereunto the weakness of the flesh is subject" (Divine Institutes IV.30).
Among the propositions condemned by theCouncil of Trent is the following: "That to obtain forgiveness ofsins in the Sacrament of Penance, it is notnecessary byDivine law to confess each and every mortalsin which is called tomind by due and carefulexamination, to confess even hiddensins and those that are against the last twoprecepts of theDecalogue, together with the circumstances that change the specific nature of thesin; such confession is only useful for the instruction and consolation of the penitent, and of old was practised merely in order to impose canonical satisfaction" (Can de poenit., vii). TheCatholic teaching consequently is: that all mortalsins must be confessed of which the penitent isconscious, for these are so related that no one of them can be remitted until all are remitted.Remission means that thesoul is restored to the friendship ofGod; and this is obviously impossible if there remain unforgiven even a single mortalsin. Hence, the penitent, who in confession willfully conceals a mortalsin, derives no benefit whatever; on the contrary, he makes void thesacrament and thereby incurs the guilt ofsacrilege. If, however, thesin be omitted, not through any fault of the penitent, but through forgetfulness, it is forgiven indirectly; but it must be declared at the next confession and thus submitted to thepower of the keys.
While mortalsin is thenecessarymatter of confession, venialsin is sufficientmatter, as are also the mortalsins already forgiven in previous confessions. This is the common teaching oftheologians, in accord with the condemnation pronounced byLeo X onLuther's assertion, 'By no means presume to confess venialsins . . . in the primitiveChurch only manifest mortalsins were confessed" (Bull, "Exurge Domine";Denzinger, "Enchir.", 748). In the constitution "Inter cunctas" (17 Feb., 1304),Benedict XI, after stating that penitents who had confessed to apriest belonging to areligious order are notobliged to reiterate the confession to their ownpriest, adds: "Though it is notnecessary to confess the samesins over again, nevertheless we regard it as salutary to repeat the confession, because of the shame it involves, which is a great part of penance; hence we strictly enjoin theBrothers (Dominicans andFranciscans] to admonish their penitents and insermons 'exhort them that they confess to their ownpriests at least once a year, assuring them that this will undoubtedly conduce to their spiritual welfare" (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 470).St. Thomas gives the same reason for this practice: the oftener one confesses the more is the (temporal) penalty reduced; hence one might confess over and over again until the whole penalty is cancelled, nor would he thereby offer any injury to thesacrament" (IV Sent., d. xvii, q. 3, sol. 5 ad 4).
As stated above, theabsolution given by thepriest to a penitent who confesses hissins with the proper dispositions remits both the guilt and theeternal punishment (of mortalsin). There remains, however, someindebtedness to Divinejustice which must be cancelled here or hereafter (seePURGATORY). In order to have it cancelled here, the penitent receives from his confessor what is usually called his "penance", usually in the form of certainprayers which he is to say, or of certain actions which he is to perform, such as visits to a church, theStations of the Cross, etc.Alms deeds,fasting, andprayer are the chief means of satisfaction, but other penitential works may also be enjoined. The quality and extent of the penance is determined by the confessor according to the nature of thesins revealed, the special circumstances of the penitent, his liability to relapse, and the need of eradicatingevil habits. Sometimes the penance is such that it may be performed at once; in other cases it may require a more or less considerable period, as, e.g., where it is prescribed for each day during a week or a month. But even then the penitent may receive anothersacrament (e.g.,Holy Communion) immediately after confession, sinceabsolution restores him to the state of grace. He is nevertheless underobligation to continue the performance of his penance until it is completed.
Intheological language, this penance is called satisfaction and is defined, in the words ofSt. Thomas: "The payment of the temporal punishment due on account of the offence committed againstGod bysin" (Summa Theologicæ Supplement.12.3). It is anact ofjustice whereby the injury done to thehonour ofGod is required, so far at least as the sinner is able to makereparation (poena vindicativa); it is also a preventive remedy, inasmuch as it is meant to hinder the further commission ofsin (poena medicinalis). Satisfaction is not, likecontrition and confession, anessential part of thesacrament, because the primary effect, i.e., remission of guilt andeternal punishment — is obtained without satisfaction; but it is an integral part, because it is requisite for obtaining the secondary effect — i.e., remission of the temporal punishment. TheCatholic doctrine on this point is set forth by theCouncil of Trent, which condemns the proposition: "That the entire punishment is always remitted byGod together with the guilt, and the satisfaction required of penitents is no other thanfaith whereby theybelieve thatChrist has satisfied for them"; and further the proposition: "That thekeys were given to theChurch for loosing only and not for binding as well; that therefore in enjoining penance on those who confess,priestsact contrary to the purpose of thekeys and the institution ofChrist; that it is a fiction [to say] that after theeternal punishment has been remitted in virtue of thekeys, there usually remains to be paid a temporal penalty" (Can. "de Sac. poenit.", 12, 15;Denzinger, "Enchir.", 922, 925).
As against theerrors contained in these statements, the Council (Sess. XIV, c. viii) cites conspicuous examples fromHoly Scripture. The most notable of these is the judgment pronounced uponDavid: "AndNathan said toDavid: the Lord also hath taken away thysin: thou shalt not die. Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord toblaspheme, for this thing, the child that is born to thee, shall surely die" (2 Samuel 12:13, 14; cf.Genesis 3:17;Numbers 20:11 sqq.).David'ssin was forgiven and yet he had to suffer punishment in the loss of his child. The sametruth is taught bySt. Paul (1 Corinthians 11:32): "But whilst we are judged, we are chastised by the Lord, that we be not condemned with this world". The chastisement here mentioned is a temporal punishment, but a punishment untoSalvation.
"Of all the parts of penance", says theCouncil of Trent (loc. cit.), "satisfaction was constantly recommended to theChristian people by our Fathers". This theReformers themselves admitted.Calvin (Instit., III, iv, 38) says he makes little account of what the ancient writings contain in regard to satisfaction because "nearly all whose books are extant went astray on this point or spoke too severely". Chemnitius ("Examen C. Trident.", 4) acknowledges thatTertullian,Cyprian,Ambrose, and Augustine extolled the value of penitential works; and Flacius Illyricus, in the "Centuries", has a long list of Fathers and early writers who, as he admits, bear witness to thedoctrine of satisfaction. Some of the texts already cited (Confession) expressly mention satisfaction as a part ofsacramental penance. To these may be addedSt. Augustine, who says that "Man is forced to suffer even after hissins are forgiven, though it wassin that brought down on him this penalty. For the punishment outlasts the guilt, lest the guilt should be thought slight if with its forgiveness the punishment also came to an end" (Tractate 124 on the Gospel of John, no. 5);St. Ambrose: "So efficacious is the medicine of penance that [in view of it]God seems torevoke Hissentence" (On Penance II.6.48);Caesarius of Arles: "If in tribulation we give not thanks toGod norredeem our faults by goodworks, we shall be detained in the fire ofpurgatory until our slightestsins are burned away like wood or straw" (Sermo civ, n. 4). Among the motives for doing penance on which the Fathers most frequently insist is this: If you punish your ownsin,God will spare you; but in any case thesin will not go unpunished. Or again they declare thatGod wants us to perform satisfaction in order that we may clear off ourindebtedness to Hisjustice. It is therefore with good reason that the earlier councils — e.g., Laodicaea (A.D. 372) and Carthage IV (397) — teach that satisfaction is to be imposed on penitents; and theCouncil of Trent but reiterates thetraditionalbelief and practice when it makes the giving of "penance"obligatory on the confessor. Hence, too, the practice of grantingindulgences, whereby theChurch comes to the penitent's assistance and places at his disposal the treasury ofChrist'smerits. Though closely connected with penance,indulgences are not a part of thesacrament; they presuppose confession andabsolution, and are properly called an extra-sacramental remission of the temporal punishment incurred bysin. (SeeINDULGENCES.)
Regarding thesins revealed to him insacramental confession, thepriest is bound toinviolable secrecy. From thisobligation he cannot be excused either to save his own life orgood name, to save the life of another, to further the ends ofhumanjustice, or to avert any public calamity. Nolaw can compel him to divulge thesins confessed to him, or anyoath which he takes — e.g., as awitness in court. He cannot reveal them either directly — i.e., by repeating them in so many words — or indirectly — i.e., by any sign or action, or by giving information based on what he knows through confession. The only possible release from the obligation of secrecy is the permission to speak of thesins given freely and formally by the penitent himself. Without such permission, the violation of theseal of confession would not only be a grievoussin, but also asacrilege. It would be contrary to thenatural law because it would be an abuse of the penitent's confidence and an injury, very serious perhaps, to hisreputation. It would also violate theDivine law, which, while imposing theobligation to confess, likewise forbids the revelation of that which is confessed. That it would infringe ecclesiastical law is evident from the strict prohibition and the severe penalties enacted in this matter by theChurch. "Let him beware of betraying the sinner by word or sign or in any other way whatsoever. . . wedecree that he who dares to reveal asin madeknown to him in the tribunal of penance shall not only bedeposed from thepriestly office, but shall moreover be subjected to close confinement in amonastery and the performance of perpetual penance" (Fourth Lateran Council, cap. xxi;Denzinger, "Enchir.", 438). Furthermore, by adecree of the Holy Office (18 Nov., 1682), confessors are forbidden, even where there would be no revelation direct or indirect, to make any use of theknowledge obtained in confession that would displease the penitent, even though the non-use would occasion him greater displeasure.
These prohibitions, as well as the generalobligation of secrecy, apply only to what the confessor learns through confession made as part of thesacrament. He is not bound by theseal as regards what may be told him by aperson who, he is sure, has nointention of making asacramental confession but merely speaks to him "in confidence";prudence, however, may impose silence concerning what he learns in this way. Nor does theobligation of theseal prevent the confessor from speaking of things which he has learned outside confession, though the same things have also been told him in confession; here again, however, other reasons mayoblige him to observe secrecy. The sameobligation, with the limitations indicated, rests upon all those who in one way or another acquire aknowledge of what is said in confession, e.g., an interpreter who translates for thepriest the words of the penitent, aperson who either accidentally or intentionally overhears the confession, anecclesiastical superior (e.g., abishop) to whom the confessor applies for authorization toabsolve the penitent from areserved case. Even the penitent, according to sometheologians, is bound to secrecy; but the more general opinion leaves him free; as he can authorize the confessor to speak of what he has confessed, he can also, of his own accord, speak to others. But he isobliged to take care that what he reveals shall cast no blame or suspicion on the confessor, since the latter cannot defend himself. In a word, it is more in keeping with theintention of theChurch and with the reverence due to thesacrament that the penitent himself should refrain from speaking of his confession. Such, undoubtedly, was the motive that promptedSt. Leo to condemn the practice of letting the penitent read in public a written statement of hissins (see above); and it needs scarcely be added that theChurch, while recognizing the validity of public confession, by no means requires it; as theCouncil of Trent declares, it would be imprudent to prescribe such a confession by anyhuman enactment. (For provisions of thecivil law regarding this matter, seeSEAL OF CONFESSION.)
An undeniableproof both of the practice of confession and of thenecessity of satisfaction is found in the usage of the earlyChurch according to which severe and often prolonged penance was prescribed and performed. The elaborate system of penance exhibited in the"Penitentials" andconciliardecrees, referred to above, was of course the outcome of a long development; but it simply expressed in greater detail the principles and the general attitude towardssin and satisfaction which had prevailed from the beginning. Frequently enough the latterstatutes refer to the earlier practice either in explicit terms or by reiterating what had been enacted long before. At times, also, they allude to documents which were then extant, but which have not yet come down to us, e.g., thelibellus mentioned in theAfrican synods of 251 and 255 as containingsingula capitum placita, i.e., the details of previous legislation (St. Cyprian,Epistle 21). Or again, they point to a system of penance that was already in operation and needed only to be applied to particular cases, like that of the Corinthians to whomClement of Rome wrote hisFirst Epistle about A.D. 96, exhorting them: "Be subject in obedience to thepriests (presbyteris) and receivediscipline [correctionem) unto penance, bending the knees of your hearts" (Epistle to the Corinthians 57). At the close, therefore, of the first century, the performance of penance was required, and the nature of that penance was determined, not by the penitent himself, but byecclesiastical authority. (SeeEXCOMMUNICATION.)
Three kinds of penance are to be distinguished canonical, prescribed by councils orbishops in the form of "canons" for graver offences. This might be either private, i.e., performed secretly or public i.e., performed in the presence ofbishop,clergy and people. When accompanied by certainrites as prescribed in the Canons, it wassolemn penance. The public penance was not necessarily canonical; it might be undertaken by the penitent of his own accord. Solemn penance, the most severe of all, was inflicted for the worst offences only, notably foradultery,murder, andidolatry, the "capitalsins". The name ofpenitent was applied especially to those who performed public canonical penance. "There is a harder and more grievous penance, the doers of which are properly called in theChurchpenitents; they are excluded from participation in thesacraments of the altar, lest by unworthily receiving they eat and drink judgment unto themselves "(St. Augustine, "De utilitate agendae poenit.", ser. cccxxxii, c. iii).
Thepenitential process included a series of acts, the first of which was confession. Regarding this,Origen, after speaking ofbaptism, tells us: "There is a yet more severe and arduous pardon ofsins by penance, when the sinner washes his couch with tears, and when he blushes not to disclose hissin to thepriest of the Lord and seeks the remedy" (Homil. "In Levit.", ii, 4, in P.G., XII, 418). Again he says: "They who havesinned, if they hide and retain theirsin within their breast, are grievously tormented; but if the sinner becomes his own accuser, while he does this, he discharges thecause of all his malady. Only let him carefully consider to whom he should confess hissin; what is the character of the physician; if he be one who will be weak with the weak, who will weep with the sorrowful, and who understands thediscipline of condolence and fellow-feeling. So that when his skill shall beknown and his pity felt, you may follow what he shall advise. Should he think your disease to be such that it should be declared in the assembly of thefaithful—whereby others may be edified, and yourself easily reformed—this must be done with much deliberation and the skillful advice of the physician" (Homil. "In Ps. xxxvii", n. 6, in P.G., XII, 1386).Origen here states quite plainly the relation between confession and public penance. The sinner must first makeknown hissins to thepriest, who will decide whether any further manifestation is called for.
Public penance did not necessarily include a public avowal ofsin. AsSt. Augustine also declares, "If hissin is not only grievous in itself, but involvesscandal given to others, and if thebishop [antistes] judges that it will be useful to theChurch [to have thesin published], let not the sinner refuse to do penance in the sight of many or even of the people at large, let him not resist, nor through shame add to his mortal wound a greaterevil" (Sermo cli, n. 3). It was therefore theduty of the confessor to determine how far the process of penance should go beyondsacramental confession. It lay with him also to fix thequality and duration of the penance: "Satisfaction", saysTertullian, "is determined by confession; penance is born of confession, and by penanceGod is appeased" (On Penance 8). In the East there existed from the earliest times (Sozomen,Church History VII.16) or at least from the outbreak of theNovatianistschism (Socrates,Church History V.19) a functionary known aspresbyter penitentiarius, i.e., apriest especially appointed on account of hisprudence and reserve to hear confessions and impose public penance. If the confessor deemed itnecessary, heobliged the penitent to appear before thebishop and his council [presbyterium) and these again decided whether the crime was of such a nature that it ought to be confessed in presence of the people. Then followed, usually onAsh Wednesday, the imposition of public penance whereby the sinner was excluded for a longer or shorter period from the communion of theChurch and in addition wasobliged to perform certain penitential exercises, theexomologesis. This term, however, had various meanings: it designated sometimes the entire process of penance (Tertullian), or again the avowal ofsin at the beginning or, finally, the public avowal which was made at the end — i.e., after the performance of the penitential exercises.
The nature of these exercises varied according to thesin for which they were prescribed. According toTertullian (On Penance 9), "Exomologesis is thediscipline whichobliges a man to prostrate and humiliate himself and to adopt a manner of life that will draw down mercy. As regards dress and food, it prescribes that he shall lie insackcloth andashes, clothe his body in rags, plunge hissoul in sorrow, correct his faults by harsh treatment of himself, use the plainest meat and drink for the sake of hissoul and not of his belly: usually he shall nourishprayer byfasting, whole days and nights together he shall moan, and weep, and wail to theLord hisGod, cast himself at the feet of thepriests, fall on his knees before those who are dear toGod, and beseech them to plead in his behalf". At a very early period, theexomologesis was divided into four parts or "stations", and the penitents were grouped in as many different classes according to their progress in penance. The lower class, theflentes (weeping) remained outside the church door and besought theintercession of thefaithful as these passed into the church. Theaudientes (hearers) were stationed in thenarthex of the church behind thecatechumens and were permitted to remain during the Mass of theCatechumens, i.e., until the end of thesermon. Thesubstrati (prostrate), orgenuflectentes (kneeling), occupied the space between the door and theambo, where they received the imposition of thebishop's hands or hisblessing. Finally, theconsistentes were so called because they were allowed to hear the whole Mass without communicating, or because they remained at their place while thefaithful approached the Holy Table. This grouping into stations originated in the East, where at least the three higher groups are mentioned about A.D. 263 byGregory Thaumaturgus, and the first or lowest group bySt. Basil (Epistle 199, chapter 22 andEpistle 217, chapter 56). In the West the classification did not exist, or at any rate the different stations were not so clearly marked; the penitents were treated pretty much as thecatechumens.
Theexomologesis terminated with the reconciliation, asolemn function which took place onHoly Thursday just before Mass. Thebishop presided, assisted by hispriests anddeacons. A consultation (concilium) was held to determine which of the penitents deserved readmission; the Penitential Psalms and thelitanies were recited at the foot of thealtar; thebishop in a brief address reminded the penitents of theirobligation to lead henceforth an upright life; the penitents, lightedcandles in hand, were then led into the church;prayers,antiphons andresponses were said, and, finally, the publicabsolution was given. (See Schmitz, "Die Bussbucher u. die Bussdisciplin d. Kirche", Mainz, 1883;Funk in "Kirchenlex.", s.v. "Bussdisciplin"; Pohle in "Kirchl. Handlex.", s.v. "Bussdisciplin"; Tixeront, "Hist. des dogmes", Paris, 1905; Eng. tr., St. Louis, 1910.) Regarding thenature of thisabsolution given by thebishop, various opinions have been put forward. According to one view, it was the remission, not of guilt but of the temporal punishment; the guilt had already been remitted by theabsolution which the penitent received in confession before he entered on the public penance. This finds support in the fact that the reconciliation could be effected by adeacon in case ofnecessity and in the absence of apriest, as appears fromSt. Cyprian (Epistle 18).
Speaking of those who had receivedlibelli from themartyrs he says: "If they are overtaken by illness, they need not wait for our coming, but may make theexomologesis of theirsin before anypriest, or, if nopriest be at hand, and death is imminent, before adeacon, that thus, by the imposition of his hands unto penance, they may come to the Lord with the peace which themartyrs had besought us by letters to grant." On the other hand, thedeacon could not givesacramentalabsolution; consequently, his function in such cases was toabsolve the penitent from punishment; and, as he was authorized herein to do what thebishop did by the publicabsolution, this could not have beensacramental. There is the further consideration that thebishop did not necessarily hear the confessions of those whom heabsolved at the time of reconciliation, and moreover the ancientformularies prescribe that at thistime apriest shall hear the confession, and that thebishop, after that, shall pronounceabsolution. Butsacramentalabsolution can be given only by him who hears the confession. And again, the public penance often lasted many years; consequently, if the penitent were notabsolved at the beginning, he would have remained during all thattime in the state ofsin, incapable ofmeriting anything forheaven by his penitential exercises, and exposed to the danger of sudden death (Pesch, op. cit., p. 110 sq. Cf.Palmieri, op. cit., p. 459; Pignataro, "De disciplina poenitentiali", Rome, 1904, p. 100; Di Dario, "II sacramento della penitenza nei primi secoli del cristianesimo", Naples, 1908, p. 81).
The writers who hold that the finalabsolution wassacramental, insist that there is no documentary evidence of a secret confession; that if this had been inexistence, the harder way of the public penance would have been abandoned; that the argument from prescription loses its force if thesacramental character of public penance be denied; and that this penance contained all that is required in asacrament. (Boudinhon, "Sur l'histoire de la pénitence" in "Revue d'histoire et de litterature religieuses", II, 1897, p. 306 sq. Cf.Hogan in "Am. Cath. Q. Rev.", July, 1900; Batiffol, "Etudes d'histoire et de théologie positive", Paris, 1902, p. 195 sq.; Vacandard in "Dict. de theol.", s.v. "Absolution", 156-61; O'Donnell, "Penance in the Early Church", Dublin 1907, p. 95 sq.) While this discussion concerns the practice under ordinary circumstances, it is commonly admitted thatsacramentalabsolution was granted at the time of confession to those who were in danger of death. TheChurch, in fact, did not, in her universal practice, refuseabsolution at the last moment even in the case of those who had committed grievoussin.St. Leo, writing in 442 to Theodore,Bishop ofFréjus, says: "Neither satisfaction is to be forbidden nor reconciliation denied to those who in time of need and imminent danger implore the aid of penance and then of reconciliation." After pointing out that penance should not be deferred from day to day until the moment "when there is hardly space either for the confession of the penitent or his reconciliation by thepriest"; he adds that even in these circumstances "the action of penance and the grace of communion should not be denied if asked for by the penitent" (Ep. cviii, c. iv, in P.L., LIV, 1011).St. Leo states expressly that he was applying theecclesiastical rule (ecclesiastica regula).
Shortly before, St. Celestine (428) had expressed his horror at learning that "penance was refused the dying and that the desire of those was not granted who in the hour of death sought this remedy for theirsoul"; this, he says, is "adding death to death and killing with cruelty thesoul that is notabsolved" (Letter to thebishops of theprovinces ofVienne and Narbonne, c. ii). That such a refusal was not in accordance with the earlier practice is evident from the words of theCouncil of Nicaea (325): "With respect to the dying, the ancient canonical law shall now also be observed, namely, that if any one depart from this life, he shall by no means be deprived of the last and mostnecessaryviaticum" (canon 13). If the dyingperson could receive the Eucharist,absolution certainly could not be denied. If at times greater severity seems to be shown, this consisted in the refusal, not ofabsolution but of communion; such was the penalty prescribed by theCouncil of Elvira (306) for those who afterbaptism had fallen intoidolatry. The same istrue of the canon (22) of theCouncil of Arles (314) which enacts that communion shall not be given to "those whoapostatize, but never appear before theChurch, nor even seek to do penance, and yet afterwards, when attacked by illness, request communion". The council lays stress on the lack of proper disposition in such sinners, as does alsoSt. Cyprian when he forbids that they who "do no penance nor manifest heartfelt sorrow" be admitted to communion and peace if in illness and danger they ask for it; for what prompts them to seek (communion) is, not repentance for theirsin, but thefear of approaching death" (Epistle 51, no. 23).
A further evidence of the severity with which public penance, and especially itssolemn form, was administered is the fact that it could be performed only once. This is evident from some of the texts quoted above (Tertullian, Hermas).Origen also says: "For the graver crimes, there is only one opportunity of penance" (Hom. xv, "In Levit.", c. ii); andSt. Ambrose: "As there is onebaptism so there is one penance, which, however, is performed publicly" (On Penance II.10.95). St. Augustine gives the reason: "Although, by a wise and salutary provision, opportunity for performing that humblest kind of penance is granted but once in theChurch, lest the remedy, become common, should be less efficacious for the sick . . . yet who will dare to say toGod: Wherefore dost thou once more spare this man who after a first penance has again bound himself in the fetters ofsin?" (Ep. cliii, "Ad Macedonium"). It may well be admitted that thediscipline of the earliest days was rigorous, and that in some Churches or byindividualbishops it was carried to extremes. This is plainly stated byPope St. Innocent (405) in his letter (Ep. vi, c. ii) toExuperius,Bishop ofToulouse. The question had been raised as to what should be done with those who, after a lifetime of licentious indulgence, begged at the end for penance and communion. "Regarding these", writes thepope, "the earlier practice was more severe, the later more tempered with mercy. The formercustom was that penance should be granted, but communion denied; for in those timespersecutions were frequent, hence, lest the easy admission to communion should fail to bring back from theirevil ways men who were sure of reconciliation, very rightly communion was refused, while penance was granted in order that the refusal might not be total. . . . But afterOur Lord had restored peace to his Churches, and terror had ceased, it was judged well that communion be given the dying lest we should seem to follow the harshness and sternness of thehereticNovatian in denying pardon. Communion, therefore, shall be given at the last along with penance, that these men, if only in the supreme moment of death, may, with the permission ofOur Saviour, be rescued from eternal destruction."
The mitigation of public penance which this passage indicates continued throughout the subsequent period, especially theMiddle Ages. The office ofpoenitentiarius had already (390) been abolished in the East byNestorius,Patriarch of Constantinople, in consequence of ascandal that grew out of public confession. Soon afterwards, the four "stations" disappeared, and public penance fell into disuse. ln the West it underwent a more gradual transformation.Excommunication continued in use, and theinterdict was frequently resorted to. The performance of penance was left in large measure to thezeal and good will of the penitent; increasing clemency was shown by allowing the reconciliation to take place somewhat before the prescribedtime was completed; and the practice was introduced of commuting the enjoined penance into other exercises or works ofpiety, such asprayer andalmsgiving. According to adecree of the Council of Clermont (1095), those who joined acrusade were freed from allobligation in the matter of penance. Finally it became customary to let the reconciliation follow immediately after confession. With these modifications the ancient usage had practically disappeared by the middle of the sixteenth century. Some attempts were made to revive it after theCouncil of Trent, but these were isolated and of short duration. (SeeINDULGENCES.)
The penitential system in these countries was established simultaneously with the introduction ofChristianity, was rapidly developed by episcopaldecrees and synodal enactments, and was reduced to definite form in thePenitentials. These books exerted such an influence on the practice in ContinentalEurope that, according to one opinion, they "first brought order and unity intoecclesiastical discipline in these matters" (Wasserschleben, "Bussordnungen d. abendlandischen Kirche", Halle, 1851, p. 4. — For a different view see Schmitz, "Die Bussbucher u. die Bussdisciplin d. Kirche", Mainz, 1888, p. 187). In any case, it is beyond question that in theirbelief and practice the Churches ofIreland,England, andScotland were at one withRome. The so-calledSynod ofSt. Patrickdecrees that aChristian who commits any of the capitalsins shall perform a year's penance for each offence and at the end shall "come withwitnesses and beabsolved by thepriest" (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, p. 3). Anothersynod ofSt. Patrick ordains that "theAbbot shall decide to whom the power of binding and loosing be committed, but forgiveness is more in keeping with the examples ofScripture; let penance be short, with weeping and lamentation, and a mournful garb, rather than long and tempered with relaxations "(Wilkins, ibid., p. 4). For various opinions regarding thedate and origin of thesynods, see Haddan and Stubbs, "Councils", II, 331; Bury, "Life of St. Patrick", London, 1905. The confessor was calledanmchara(animae carus), i.e., "soul's friend".St. Columba wasanmchara to Aidan, Lord of Dalraida, A.D. 574 (Adamnan's "Life of St. Columba", ed. Reeves, p. lxxvi); andAdamnan was "soul's friend" to Finnsnechta, Monarch ofIreland, A.D. 675 (ibid., p. xliii). The "Life of St. Columba" relates the coming of Feachnaus toIona, where, with weeping and lamentation, he fell at Columba's feet and "before all who were present confessed hissins. Then theSaint weeping with him, said to him: 'Arise, my son and be comforted; thysins which thou hast committed are forgiven; because, as it is written, acontrite andhumble heartGod doth not despise,'" (ibid., I, 30). The need and effects of confession are explained in the Leabhar Breac: "Penance frees from all thesins committed afterbaptism. Every one desirous of a cure for hissoul andhappiness with the Lord must make anhumble and sorrowful confession; and the confession with theprayers of theChurch are asbaptisms to him. As sickness injures the body, sosin injures thesoul; and as there is a cure for the disease of the body, so there is balm for that of thesoul. And as the wounds of the body are shown to a physician, so, too, the sores of thesoul must be exposed. As he who takes poison is saved by a vomit, so, too, thesoul is healed by confession and declaration of hissins with sorrow, and by theprayers of theChurch, and a determination henceforth to observe thelaws of theChurch of God. . . . BecauseChrist left to HisApostles andChurch, to theend of the world, the power of loosing and binding."
That confession was required before Communion is evident from thepenitential ascribed toSt. Columbanus, which orders (can. xxx) "that confessions be given with all diligence, especially concerning commotions of themind, before going to Mass, lest perchance any one approach thealtar unworthily, that is, if he have not a clean heart. For it is better to wait till the heart be sound and free fromscandal andenvy, than daringly to approach the judgment of the tribunal; for thealtar is the tribunal ofChrist, and His Body, even there with His Blood, judges those who approach unworthily. As, therefore, we must beware of capitalsins before communicating, so, also, from the more uncertain defects and diseases of a languidsoul, it isnecessary for us to abstain and to be cleansed before going to that which is a conjunction withtrue peace and a joining witheternalsalvation". In the "Life of St. Maedoc of Ferns" it is said of themurdered King Brandubh: "And so he departed without confession and the communication of the Eucharist." But thesaint restored him to life for a while, and then, "having made his confession and receivedabsolution and theviaticum of theBody of Christ, King Brandubh went toheaven, and wasinterred in the city ofSt. Maedoc which is calledFerns, where the kings of that land areburied" (Acta SS. Hib., col. 482). The metrical "Rule of St. Carthach", translated byEugene O'Curry, gives this direction to thepriest: "If you go to give communion at the awful point of death, you must receive confession without shame, without reserve." In theprayer for giving communion to the sick (Corpus ChristiMissal) we read: "OGod, who hast willed thatsins should be forgiven by theimposition of the hands of thepriest . . ." and then follows theabsolution: "Weabsolve thee as representatives ofblessed Peter, Prince of theApostles, to whom the Lord gave the power of binding and loosing." That confession was regularly a part of thepreparation for death is attested by the Council of Cashel (1172) which commands thefaithful in case of illness to make their will "in the presence of their confessor and neighbours", and prescribes that to those who die "with a good confession" due tribute shall be paid in the form of Masses andburial (can. vi, vii).
The practice of public penance was regulated in great detail by thePenitentials. That of St. Cummian prescribes that "if anypriest refuses penance to the dying, he is guilty of the loss of theirsouls . . . for there can betrueconversion at the last moment, sinceGod has regard not oftime alone, but of the heart also, and the thief gainedParadise in the last hour of his confession" (C. xiv, 2). OtherPenitentials bear the names of St. Finnian, Sts.David andGildas,St. Columbanus,Adamnan. The collection of canons known as the "Hibernensis" is especially important, as it cites, under the head of "Penance" (bk. XLVII), the teaching ofSt. Augustine,St. Jerome, and other Fathers, thus showing the continuity of theIrishfaith and observance with that of the earlyChurch. (SeeLanigan, "Eccl. Hist. of Ireland", Dublin, 1829; Moran, "Essays on the Early Irish Church", Dublin, 1864; Malone, "Church Hist. of Ireland", Dublin, 1880; Warren, "The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church", Oxford, 1881; Salmon, "The Ancient Irish Church", Dublin, 1897.)
In theAnglo-Saxon Church penance was calledbehreowsung, from the verbhreowan, whence our word "to rue". The confessor was thescrift; confession,scrift spraec; and theparish itself was thescriftscir, i.e., "confession district" — a term which shows plainly the close relation between confession and the work of religion in general. The practice inEngland can be traced back to the times immediately following the country's conversion.Ven. Bede (H.E., IV, 23 [25]) gives the story ofAdamnan, anIrishmonk of the seventh century, who belonged to themonastery of Coldingham,England. In his youth, having committed somesin, he went to apriest, confessed, and was given a penance to be performed until thepriest should return. But thepriest went toIreland and died there, andAdamnan continued his penance to the end of his days. WhenSt. Cuthbert (635-87) on his missionary tours preached to the people, "they all confessed openly what they had done, . . . and what they confessed they expiated; as he commanded them, by worthy fruits of penance" (Bede, op. cit., IV, 25).Alcuin (735-804) declares that "without confession there is no pardon" (P.L., C, 337); that "he who accuses himself of hissins will not have thedevil for an accuser in theday of judgment" (P.L., CI, 621); that "he who conceals hissins and is ashamed to make wholesome confession, hasGod aswitness now and will have him again as avenger" (ibid., 622).Lanfranc (1005-89) has a treatise, "De celunda confessione", i.e., on keeping confession secret, in which he rebukes those who give the slightest intimation of what they have heard in confession (P.L., CL, 626).
The penitentials were known asscrift bocs. The one attributed toArchbishop Theodore (602-90) says: "Thedeacon is not allowed to impose penance on alayman; this should be done by thebishop or priests" (bk. II, 2): and further; "According to the canons, penitents should not receive communion until their penance is completed; but we, for mercy's sake, allow them to receive at the end of a year or six months" (I, 12). An important statement is that "public reconciliation is not established in this province, for the reason that there is no public penance"—which shows that the minute prescriptions contained in thepenitential were meant for the guidance of thepriest in giving penance privately, i.e., in confession. Among theexcerptiones, or extracts, from the canons which bear the name ofArchbishop Egbert of York (d. 766), canon xlvi says that thebishop shall hear no cause without the presence of hisclergy, except in case of confession (Wilkins, "Concilia", I, 104). His Penitential prescribes (IX) that "abishop orpriest shall not refuse confession to those who desire it, though they be guilty of manysins" (ibid., 126). The Council of Chalcuth (A.D. 787): "If any one depart this life without penance or confession, he shall not beprayed for" (can. xx). The canons published under King Edgar (960) have a special section "On Confession" which begins: "When one wishes to confess hissins, let himact manfully, and not be ashamed to confess hismisdeeds and crimes, accusing himself; because hence comes pardon, and because without confession there is no pardon; confession heals; confession justifies" (ibid., 229). The Council of Eanham (1009): "Let everyChristian do as behooves him, strictly keep hisChristianity, accustom himself to frequent confession, fearlessly confess hissins, and carefully make amends according as he is directed" (can. xvii, Wilkins, ibid., 289). Among the ecclesiastical laws enacted (1033) byKing Canute, we find this exhortation: "Let us with all diligence turn back from oursins, and let us each confess oursins to our confessor, and ever [after] refrain from evil-doing and mend our ways" (XVIII, Wilkins, ibid., 303).
The Council ofDurham (c. 1220): "Hownecessary is thesacrament of penance, those words of the Gospelprove: Whosesins, etc. . . . But since we obtain the pardon of oursins bytrue confession, we prescribe in accordance with thecanonical statutes that thepriest in giving penance shall carefully consider the amount of the penance, thequality of thesin, the place,time,cause, duration and other circumstances of thesin; and especially the devotion of the penitent and the signs ofcontrition." Similar directions are given by the Council of Oxford (1222), which adds after various admonitions: "Let nopriest dare, either out ofanger or even throughfear of death, to reveal the confession of anyone by word or sign . . . and should he be convicted of doing this he ought deservedly to bedegraded without hope of relaxation" (Wilkins, ibid., 595). The Scottish Council (c. 1227) repeats these injunctions and prescribes "that once a year thefaithful shall confess all theirsins either to their own [parish]priest or, with his permission, to some otherpriest" (can. lvii). Explicit instructions for the confessor are found in thestatutes of Alexander,Bishop of Coventry (1237), especially in regard to the manner of questioning the penitent and enjoining penance. The Council of Lambeth (1261) declares: "Since thesacrament of confession and penance, the second plank after shipwreck, the last part ofman's seafaring, the final refuge, is for every sinner mostnecessary untosalvation, we strictly forbid, under pain ofexcommunication, that anyone should presume to hinder the free administration of thissacrament to each who asks for it" (Wilkins, ibid., 754).
To give someidea of the ancientdiscipline, the penalties attached to graver crimes are cited here from the English andIrishPenitentials. For stealing, Cummian prescribes that alayman shall do one year of penance; acleric, two; asubdeacon three; adeacon, four; apriest, five; abishop, six. Formurder orperjury, the penance lasted three, five, six, seven, ten or twelve years according to the criminal's rank.Theodore commands that if any one leave theCatholicChurch, join theheretics, and induce others to do the same, he shall, in case he repent, do penance for twelve years. For theperjurer who swears by theChurch, the Gospel, or therelics of thesaints, Egbert prescribes seven or eleven years of penance.Usury entailed three years;infanticide, fifteen;idolatry ordemon-worship, ten. Violations of the sixthcommandment were punished with great severity; the penance varied, according to the nature of thesin, from three to fifteen years, the extreme penalty being prescribed forincest, i.e., fifteen to twenty-five years. Whatever its duration, the penance includedfasting on bread and water, either for the whole period or for a specified portion. Those who could notfast wereobliged instead to recite daily a certain number ofpsalms, to givealms, take the discipline (scourging) or perform some other penitential exercise as determined by the confessor. (SeeLingard, "Hist. and Antiq. of the Anglo-Saxon Church", London, 1845; Thurston, "Confession in England before the Conquest" in "The Tablet", February and March, 1905.)
In theAnglican Church, according to the rule laid down in the"Prayer Book", there is a general confession prescribed for morning and evening Service, also forHoly Communion; this confession is followed by a generalabsolution like the one in use in theCatholicChurch. Also in the"Prayer Book" confession is counselled for the quieting ofconscience and for the good that comes fromabsolution and the peace that arises from the fatherly direction of theminister ofGod. There is also mention of private confession in the office for the sick: "Here shall the sickperson be moved to make a special confession of hissins if he feel hisconscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which thepriest shallabsolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort: 'Our Lord Jesus Christ, who has left the power to hisChurch' etc." Since the beginning of theOxford Movement confession after the manner practised in theCatholicChurch has become more frequent among those of the High Church party. In 1873 a petition was sent to theConvocation of theArchdiocese of Canterbury asking provision for theeducation and authorization ofpriests for the work of the confessional. In the joint letter of theArchbishops ofCanterbury and York disapprobation of such course was markedly expressed and the determination not to encourage the practice of private confession openly avowed. ThePuseyites replied citing the authority of the"Prayer Book" as given above. In our time among the High Church folk one notices confessionals in the churches and one hears of discourses made to the people enjoining confession as anecessity to pardon. Those who hear confessions make use generally of the rules and directions laid down inCatholic "Manuals", and especially popular is the "Manual" of theAbbé Gaume (A.G. Mortimer "Confession and Absolution", London, 1906).
Mr. Lea ("A History of Auricular Confession", Vol. II, p. 456) says: "No one can deny that there istruth inCardinal Newman's argument: 'How manysouls are there in distress, anxiety and loneliness, whose one need is to find a being to whom they can pour out their feelings unheard by the world. They want to tell them and not to tell them, they wish to tell them to one who is strong enough to hear them, and yet not too strong so as to despise them'"; and then Mr. Lea adds: "It is this weakness ofhumanity on which theChurch has speculated, the weakness of those unable to bear their burdens . . . who find comfort in the system built up through the experience of the ages", etc. It has been made clear that theChurch has simply carried out the mind ofChrist: "Whatever you shall loose shall be loosed"; still we do not hesitate to accept Mr. Lea's reason, that this institution answers in large measure to the needs ofmen, whomorally are indeed weak and in darkness. True, Mr. Lea denies the probability of findingmen capable of exercising aright this great ministry, and he prefers to enumerate the rare abuses which the weakness ofpriests hascaused, rather than to listen to the millions who have found in the tribunal of penance a remedy for their anxieties ofmind, and a peace and security ofconscience the value of which is untold. The very abuses of which he speaks at such length have been the occasion of greater care, greater diligence, on the part of theChurch. The few inconveniences arising from the perversity ofmen, which theChurch has met with admirable legislation, should not blindmen to the great good that confession has brought, not only to theindividual, but even tosociety.
Thinking men even outside theChurch have acknowledged the usefulness tosociety of the tribunal of penance. Amongst these the words ofLeibniz are not unknown ("Systema theologicum", Paris, 1819, p. 270): "This whole work ofsacramental penance is indeed worthy of the Divine wisdom and if aught else in theChristian dispensation is meritorious of praise, surely this wondrous institution. For thenecessity of confessing one'ssins deters a man from committing them, andhope is given to him who may have fallen again after expiation. Thepious andprudent confessor is in very deed a great instrument in the hands ofGod forman'sregeneration. For the kindly advice ofGod'spriest helpsman to control hispassions, toknow the lurking places ofsin, to avoid theoccasions of evil doing, to restore ill-gotten goods, to havehope after depression anddoubt, to have peace after affliction, in a word, to remove or at least lessen allevil, and if there is no pleasure on earth like unto a faithful friend, what must be the esteem a man must have for him, who is in very deed a friend in the hour of his direst need?"
Nor isLeibniz alone in expressing this feeling of the great benefits that may come from the use of confession.Protestanttheologians realize, not only the value of theCatholictheological position, but also the need of the confessional for the spiritualregeneration of their subjects. Dr. Martensen, in his "Christian Dogmatics" (Edinburgh, 1890), p. 443, thus outlines his views: "Absolution in the name of the Father and of theSon and of theHoly Ghost, derived from the full power of binding and loosing which the church has inherited from theapostles, is not unconditional, but depends on the samecondition on which thegospel itself adjudges the forgiveness ofsins, namely, change of heart andfaith. If reform is to take place here, it must be effected either by endeavouring to revive private confession, or, as has been proposed, by doing away with the union between confession and the Lord's Supper, omitting, that is, thesolemnabsolution, because what it presupposes (personal confession ofsin) has fallen into disuse, and retaining only the words of preparation, with the exhortation to self-examination, a testifying of the comfortable promises of thegospel, and a wish for ablessing upon the communicants." Under the head of "Observations" he states: "It cannot easily be denied that confession meets a deep need ofhumannature. There is a greatpsychologicaltruth in the saying ofPascal, that a man often attains for the first time atrue sense ofsin, and atrue stayedness in his good purpose, when he confesses hissins to his fellowman, as well as toGod.Catholicism has often been commended because by confession it affords an opportunity of depositing the confession of hissins in the breast of anotherman where it remains kept under theseal of the most sacred secrecy, and whence the consolation of the forgiveness ofsins is given him in the very name of the Lord."
True, he believes that this great need is met more fully with the kind of confession practised inLutheranism, but he does not hesitate to add: "It is a matter of regret that private confession, as an institution, meeting as it does this want in a regular manner, has fallen into disuse; and that the objective point of union is wanting for the many, who desire to unburden theirsouls by confessing not toGod only but to a fellowman, and who feel their need of comfort and of forgiveness, which anyone indeed may draw for himself from thegospel, but which in many instances he may desire to hear spoken by a man, who speaks in virtue of the authority of his holy office."
APA citation.Hanna, E.(1911).The Sacrament of Penance. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm
MLA citation.Hanna, Edward."The Sacrament of Penance."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 11.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1911.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618c.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Donald J. Boon.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.