Part I Chapter II: The Church's Power to Forgive Sins is Unlimited, Necessary, and Judicial

Chapter II: The Church’s Power to Forgive Sins is Unlimited, Necessary, and Judicial

CHAPTER II THE CHURCH’S POWER TO FORGIVE SINS IS UNLIMITED, NECESSARY, AND JUDICIAL The power to forgive sins which Jesus Christ conferred upon His Church is, (i) unlimited, i. e. it comprises all sins without exception; (2) necessary, i. e. no one can obtain forgiveness of sins except through this power, and (3) judicial, i. e. those who wield it are authorized either to bind or to loose. All three of these points can be established from Sacred Scripture and Tradition. 49 SECTION i THE CHURCH’S POWER TO FORGIVE SINS IS UNLIMITED ARTICLE i MONTANISM AND NOVATIANISM VS. THE TEACHING OF THE CHURCH I. MONTANISM AND NOVATIANISM. — The Montanists and the Novatians did not deny the Church’s power to forgive sins, but they unduly limited it by alleging that there are certain sins which the Church cannot forgive. a) Towards the middle of the second century Montanus, formerly a priest of the pagan goddess Cybele, together with two women, Priscilla and Maximilla, founded the so-called Church of the Paraclete, which was to inaugurate the reign of the Holy Ghost. He delivered prophecies announcing the approaching advent of Christ, and as a preparation for the millennium enjoined a stricter life and a more rigorous system of morality. Second marriages were discountenanced and fasting was made more severe. One of Montanus’ teachings was that the Church is powso erless to forgive the three capital sins of apostasy, murder, and fornication. The Montanists were the first to make a distinction between pardonable and unpardonable sins (peccota retnissibilia, irretnissibUia) . They denied, not that God can forgive all sins, but that the power of the keys extends to all.1 The Montanist sect became a public danger when, about the year 202, Tertullian of Carthage, a learned but extremely rigoristic writer, became its foremost champion, and published books in defense of the alleged revelations and precepts of Montanus. There soon arose a new party, called Tertullianists, the remnants of which did not return to the mother Church until the fifth century.2 b) At the end of the Decian persecution (about 251 A. D.), the Roman presbyter Novatian, an exceptionally gifted man, was elected anti-pope against Cornelius, who had been chosen by the majority. When Pope Cornelius showed himself disposed to grant absolution to those who had denied the faith in the course of the persecution, Novatian refused to obey and pushed his severity so far as to deny absolution to the dying. He asserted that ” it is not permitted to readmit apostates, because no one but God has the power to forgive them their crime.” 8 Soon the Novatians extended their rigorous system and denied the Church’s power to forgive any grievous sin. Later they seem to have returned to more moderate 1 Cfr. Tertullian, D$ Pudicit., c. a J. Chapman, O.S.B., art ” Montq. taniits” in Vol. X of the Catholic 2 Cfr. Kirchner, De Montanisiis, Encyclopedia. Jena 1831; Bonwetach, Geschichte 8 See Socrates, Hist Eccles., IV, des Montanismus, Erlangen 1881; 38. principles. The sect spread especially in the Orient, where it survived till the sixth century.4 2. The Teaching of the Church. — The Catholic Church condemned the heretical teaching of both these sects and never gave up one tittle of her ancient claim that she has the power to forgive all sins, no matter how grievous, through the Sacrament of Penance. a) Though no formal definition of the faith against Montanism has come down to us, we know from Eusebius that all the churches of the world declared themselves against this sect.5 Tertullian, who had enjoyed such great esteem, was no longer regarded as a Catholic after he had joined the Montanists. b) The teaching of Novatian was condemned by Pope Cornelius at a council held in Rome.6 St. Cyprian,7 St. Epiphanius,8 and other contemporary Fathers treated him as a heretic.9 St. Augustine observes in one of his Sermons: ” There were those who said that certain sins must not be forgiven. They were excluded from the Church and became heretics. Our kind Mother the Church never 4 On Novatian and Novatianism see Dom Chapman’s article in Vol. XI of the Catholic Encyclopedia; Hefele s. v. in Vol. IX, and ed., of Herder’s Kirchenlexikon ; Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, pp. 191, 22

ceases to be merciful, no matter what sins have been committed.” 10 The Fourth Council of the Lateran declared: “If anyone fall into sin after having received Baptism, he can always obtain pardon by a sincere repentance.,, 11 The Council of Trent says: “The Catholic Church with good reason repudiated and condemned as heretics the Novatians of old, who obstinately denied the power of forgiving [sins].“12 ARTICLE 2 PROOF FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION i. That the power of forgiving sins comprises all sins without exception, is so clearly stated in Scripture, that the two apparently conflicting texts, Matth. XII, 31 sq. and Heb. VI, 4 sqq., must be interpreted in harmony with this teaching. a) The words by which Christ conferred this power on His Apostles (John XX, 23) are quite general in tenor: “quorum (

evidently is: “Quorum hominum quaecumque peccata remiseritis (solveritis) in terris, erunt remissa (soluta) et in caelis; et quorum hominum quaecunque peccata retinueritis (ligaveritis) in terris, erunt retenta (ligata) et in caelis” The terms of both propositions are universal and admit of no exception.1 b) The Novatians were plainly in the wrong when they asserted that St Paul meant to except apostasy, and our Lord Himself the sins against the Holy Ghost, from the power of the keys. a) It is true that Christ said : ” Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven men, but the blasphemy of the Spirit shall not be forgiven ; and whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him, but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.” 2 But this text by no means proves that sins against the Holy Ghost are unpardonable. Our Lord is addressing the Pharisees, who had accused Him of casting out devils by Beelzebub. Hence there is question here of a very particular sin against the Holy Ghost. The Pharisees had hardened their hearts against the truth, which is a proof of malice, — the sin of which our Lord says that it *shall not be forgiven, neither in this 1 Cfr. Palmieri, De Poenitentia, thes. 8, Rome 1879. 2Matth. XII, 31 sq.: * Omne peccatum et blasp hernia remittetur hominibus, Spiritus ant em biasphemia non remittetur 8k rov nvevficLTos p\aa

world nor in the world to come.” Why are malice and obduracy unpardonable? Surely not because God is either unable or unwilling to forgive tjiem. His mercy is boundless, and He wills that all men be saved.8 The reason must therefore lie with the sinner, either because he is incapable of being converted or because he lacks the necessary good will. Now, no man is incapable of being converted, because, as we have seen in our treatise on Grace,4 so long as there is life, there is hope, even for the most obdurate sinner. It follows that the particular sin of which our Lord speaks is unpardonable simply and solely for the reason that the sinner refuses to be converted.5 As soon as he changes his mind and is sorry for his sins, the Church can and will forgive him.* ft) The Pauline text adduced by the Novatians (Heb. VI, 4 sqq.) reads as follows: “It is impossible for those who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, have moreover tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, and are fallen away : to be renewed again to penance, as they crucify again to themselves the Son of God, and make Him a mockery.” 7 To understand this passage correctly we must examine 3 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual gelium des Jil. Matthdus, Freiburg and Habitual, pp. 153 sqq. 1879. 4 Op cit., pp. 175 sqq. 7 Heb. VI, 4 sqq.: * Impossible s Cfr. St Pacian, Ep. ad Sym- (ddvvarov) est enim eos, qui semel pron., 3, n. 15: *In caeteris quip- sunt illummati (robs &va£ q>

what the Apostle means by the phrase, ” to be renewed again to penance.” Does he speak of a renewal of Baptism or of the baptismus laboriosus, i. e. Penance? Some of the most eminent Fathers of the Church interpret the phrase as referring to Baptism, and explain it as follows : One who has fallen away from the faith cannot possibly be renewed again by a second Baptism, i. e. justified with the same full effect as the first time, because Baptism is incapable of repetition. Thus St. Chrysostom, commenting on the passage, says: “Hence there is no second Baptism. … Is there, then, no penance? There is a penance, but it is not a second Baptism.” 8 This interpretation derives additional probability from two facts. The first is that St. Paul treats of Baptism a little farther up in the text ; 9 the second, that in Biblical parlance the words 4>(otiC€lv and dvcucotve^etv are principally applied to Baptism, and sometimes to Confirmation.10 Modern exegetes are, however, unwilling to accept this Patristic interpretation because it does not do justice to the context. They argue as follows: St. Paul says it is impossible for an apostate ” to be renewed again to penance” because he has abused many supernatural graces and thereby hardened his heart and plunged himself into a state of obduracy and impenitence in which conversion has become so difficult as to be morally impossible. This interpretation of Heb. VI, 4 sqq., which was known to St. Jerome,11 was adopted by Vasquez, Cornelius a Lapide, Tirinus, Ad. Maier, Zill, and others. No matter which explanation we prefer, 8 Horn, in Ep. ad Hebr., 9, n. 4. Damascene (De Fide Orthodoxa, — The text is interpreted in the IV, 9). same sense by St Athanasius {Ep. 9 Heb. VI, 1 sqq. ad Serap., 4, n. 13), St. Epipha- 10 Cfr. Tit. Ill, 5. nius (Hoer., 49, n. 2), St. Ambrose H C. lovin., 1. II. (JDe Poenit., II, 2), and St John

AN UNLIMITED POWER there is nothing in St. Paul’s text to disprove the doctrine that the Church has the power to forgive all, even the most grievous sins.12 2. A sufficient argument from Tradition can be construed from the Patristic texts quoted supra.13 12 The text is discussed thoroughly 13 V. supra, Ch, I, Sect 2, Art. 2, by Zill, Der Brief an die Hebr’der, pp. 26 sqq. Mayencc 1879.

SECTION 2 THE CHURCHES POWER TO FORGIVE SINS IS NECESSARY i. State of the Question. — The power to forgive sins is necessary in the sense that no Christian who is guilty of mortal sin can be saved unless he submits his sins to the properly constituted authority for the purpose of obtaining pardon. In other words, it is the will of God that the Church must be reckoned with in the remission of sins. The concrete manner of submitting one’s sins to the Church, as we shall show later,1 consists in confessing them with due sorrow to a properly ordained priest who has the necessary jurisdiction. The dogma with which we are dealing in this Section of our treatise is implicitly defined by the Council of Trent when it says : ” If anyone denieth either that sacramental confession was instituted, or is necessary to salvation, by divine right, … let him be anathema.” And: ” If anyone saith that in the Sacrament of Penance it is not necessary, of divine right, for the remission of sins, to confess all and each of the mortal sins which after due and diligent previous meditation are remembered, l V. infra, Part III, Ch. II, pp. x8i tqq. 58 A NECESSARY POWER 59 even those [mortal sins] which are secret, and those which are opposed to the last two commandments of the Decalogue, as also the circumstances which change the species of a sin, but [saith] that such confession is only useful to instruct and console the penitent, and that it was of old only observed in order to impose a canonical satisfaction ; or saith that they who strive to confess all their sins wish to leave nothing to the divine mercy or pardon ; or, finally, that it is not lawful to confess venial sins ; let him be anathema/’ 2 Is the necessity of appealing to the power of the keys in order to obtain forgiveness of sins, merely of precept, or must it be regarded as a necessitas medii? This question is answered by the Tridentine Council as follows: ” This Sacrament of Penance is necessary unto salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, as Baptism itself is for those who have not as yet been regenerated.” 8 The same Council further declares that, ” although it sometimes happens that contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this Sacrament is actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition independ2 Cone. Trid., Sess. XIV, can. 6: “Si quis negaverit, confessionem vel institutam vel ad salutem necessarian* esse fare divino; … anothema sit.’ (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 916). — Can. 7: ” Si quis dixerit, in sacramento poenitentiae ad re missionem peccatorum necessarium non esse fare divino confiteri omnia et singula peccata mortalia, quorum memoria cum debita et diligenti praemeditatione habeatur, etiam occulta, et quae sunt contra duo ultima decalogi praecepta, et circumstantias, quae peccati speciem mutant; sed gam confessionem tantum esse utilem ad erudiendum et consolandum poenitentem, et olim observatam fuisse tantum ad satisfactionem car nonicam imponendam; aut dixerit, eos, qui omnia peccata confiteri student, nihil relinquere velle divinae misericordiae ignoscendum; aut demum non licere confiteri peccata venialia: anathema sit.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 917). zConc. Trid., Sess. XIV, cap. 2: ” Est autem hoc sacrament um poenitentiae lapsis post baptismum ad salutem necessarium, ut nondum regenerate baptismus.” (DenzingerBannwart, n. 895). 60 THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS ently of the desire of the Sacrament which is included therein.” 4 From these definitions it follows that recourse to the power of the keys is a necessary means of salvation for the sinner. 2. Proof from Sacred Scripture. — The doctrine just set forth can be indirectly proved from Sacred Scripture by an analysis of the power of binding and loosing which the Church has received from her Divine Founder. As already noted,5 the power of forgiving sins is twofold : — to loose (potestas solvendi s. remittendi) and to bind {potestas ligandi s. retinendi). The function of the former is to forgive (sententia absolutionis) , the function of the latter, to retain (sententia retentionis) * A mortal sin which the Church refuses to loose (i. e. forgive) on earth, remains unforgiven also in heaven. The Scriptural phrase, * et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt (iccjc/MtnyvTot, t. e. retenta manent)7 plainly signifies something stable, permanent, irrevocable. The same is true of the locution, * quaecumque alligaveritis super t err am, erunt ligata (SefcfUva) et in caelo in the Gospel of St. Matthew.8 If these Scriptural texts are not entirely meaningless, they signify that a sin which the Church retains, i. e. refuses to forgive on earth, remains unforgiven in the eyes of God. 4 Sess. XIV, cap. 4: * Docet in ilia includitur, non esse adscribenpraeterea {sancta synodus], etsi con- dam.* (Denzinger- Barm wart, n. 898). tritionem hanc aliquando caritate 5 V. supra, p. 17. perfectam esse contingat hominem- 6 Cfr. Cone. Trid., Sess. XIV, que Deo reconciliare, priusquam hoc cap. 5. sacramentum actu suscipiatur, ipsam 7 John XX, 23. nihil ominus reconciliationem ipsi 8 Matth. XVI, 19, contritioni sine sacramenti voto, quod

A NECESSARY POWER 61 In other words, to obtain forgiveness of one’s sins it is necessary to have recourse to the Church. If this favor could be obtained directly from God, the power of the keys would be illusory; for a power of binding which does not bind is a contradiction in terms. 3. Proof from Tradition. — The Fathers teach that God does not forgive sins without the cooperation of the Church. See the Patristic texts quoted infra, Part III, Ch. II, Sect. 2, Art. 3, pp. 206 sqq. The history of the penitential discipline of the Church shows that at no time was the sinner free to perform the prescribed penances; on the contrary, it was always held that he who refused to submit to the penitential regulations of the Church was eternally lost. St. Augustine says in one of his Sermons: “Do penance, as it is done in the Church, in order that the Church may pray for you. Let no one say to himself : ‘I do [penance] secretly before God; God knows it, and He will forgive me, because I am doing penance in my heart/ Has it, therefore, been said without reason : ’ Whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’? Have the keys been given to the Church of God in vain? Do we frustrate the Gospel and the words of Christ 9 Serm., 392, c. 3, n. 3: ” Agite solveritis in terra, soluta grunt in poenitentiam, qualis agitur in Ec- caelot Ergo sing causa sunt claves clesia, ut oret pro vobis Ecclesia. datae Ecclesiae Deit Frustramus Nemo sibi dicat: Occulte ago, apud evangelium, frustramus verba Chri* Deum ago, novit Deus qui mihi sti?” — The argument from Tradiignoscat, quia in corde meo ago, tion it well developed by Palmieri, Br go sine causa dictum esti Quae D$ Poenit., the§. 10.

4. Theological Discussion of the Dogma. — To obtain a better understanding of the dogma under consideration, we must regard the relation of the power of the keys to venial sin on the one hand, and to perfect contrition on the other. a) Venial sin also falls under the power of the keys, but not in the same way. For whereas the Church can loose, i. e. forgive them, she cannot retain them, and therefore no one is bound to submit his venial sins to her tribunal, i. e. to confess the same. “Venial sins,” says the Council of Trent, ”… although they may rightly and profitably and without any presumption be declared in confession, as the custom of pious persons demonstrates, may nevertheless be omitted without guilt and be expiated by many other remedies.” 10 The reason why venial sins need not be confessed lies in their very nature. They do not destroy the supernatural life of the soul nor entail eternal damnation. Consequently they cannot in the nature of things remain permanently unforgiven. Somehow and at some time God must pardon all venial sins.11 Hence mortal sins are the only necessary subject-matter of the ecclesiastical power of the keys. b) Perfect contrition effects the immediate justification of the sinner without the Sacrament of Penance, as we shall show presently.12 How can this extra-sacramental 10 Cone. Trid., Sess. XIV, cap. que aliis remediis expiari possunt.” 5: ” Venialia . . quamquam recte (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 899). et utiliter citraque omnem praesump- 11 For a proof of this proposition tionem in confessione dicantur, quod see the treatise on Eschatology. piorum hominum usus demonstrat, 12 Infra, Part III, Ch. I, Sect, x, taceri tamen citra culpam multis- Art. 2, pp. 139 sqq.

A NECESSARY POWER 63 efficacy of perfect contrition be reconciled with the dogma that the power of the keys is necessary for the forgiveness of sins ? Why have recourse to the Church if mortal sin can be forgiven by perfect contrition? The answer is: As Baptism of desire (baptismus flaminis) justifies only when it includes a desire to receive the Sacrament (votutn baptismi),1* so perfect contrition effects justification only when accompanied by a desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance (votum sacramenti poenitentiae) .14 This limitation did not apply to the Old Testament, which lacked the power of the k£ys ; but under the New Covenant it is part of the very essence of perfect contrition that it effects justification only in relation to the Sacrament of Penance. Hence the obligation of every one who is guilty of mortal sin to have recourse to the power of the keys. 13 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacra- 14 V, supra, pp. 59 sq. menu, Vol. I, pp. 243 sqq.

SECTION 3 THE POWER OF THE CHURCH TO FORGIVE SINS IS JUDICIAL i. State of the Question. — The power to baptize includes the power to forgive sins ; but it is not exercised after the manner of a judicial sentence (per modum iudicii) ; it is bestowed as a gift (per modum beneficii) . The case is different with the power to forgive post-baptismal sins. a) The Tridentine Council says: “It is certain beyond doubt that the minister of Baptism need not be a judge, seeing that the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not entered her pale through the gate of Baptism. … It is otherwise with those who are of the household of the faith, whom Christ our Lord … wished ... to be placed as criminals before this tribunal.”1 The judicial character of Penance is based on a positive precept. Had God so pleased, He could have empowered the Church to forgive post-baptismal sins in the same manner in which she forgives sins committed bel Con c. Trid., Sess. XIV, cap. 2: … Secus est de domesticis iidei, “Constat certe, baptismi ministrum quos Christus Dominus … ante iudicem esse non oportere, quum hoc tribunal tamquam reos sisti Ecclesia in neminem indicium exer- vult.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, Enceat, qui non prius in ipsam per chiridion, n. 895). baptismi ianuam fuerit ingressus.

A JUDICIAL POWER 65 fore Baptism, — per tnodum beneficii, — though it is easy to understand why the former should be subject to severer punishment than the latter.2 In matter of fact, however, our Divine Saviour instituted Penance as a sort of trial court, with His Apostles and their successors sitting as judges. This truth is declared by one of our leading modern theologians to be “as it were the pivot around which the whole Catholic doctrine of Penance revolves.” 8 A judge is an officer clothed with public authority, who decides as to the guilt or innocence of accused persons and passes sentence upon them according to law and justice. His faculties include (1) the power to pronounce an authoritative sentence, and in this a judge differs from a mere arbiter; (2) the power to determine the extent of the guilt and to apply the law, which excludes arbitrariness and a too wide range of subjective opinion. The examination of the charge and the hearing of witnesses do not appertain to the judge, as such, because these functions can be performed by others ; but they are an indispensable requisite of the orderly administration of justice and therefore a conditio sine qua non of every judicial sentence. b) That the power to forgive sins is a true judicial power and must be exercised in judicial form, is a dogma expressly defined by the Council of Trent : “Our Lord Jesus Christ, when about to ascend from earth to Heaven, left priests, His own vicars, as presidents and judges, unto whom all the mortal crimes, into which the faithful may 2 Cfr. Heb. VI, 4 sqq. ; X, 26 sqq. 8 Atzberger in Scheeben’s Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 3, 681, Freiburg 1903.

have fallen, should be carried, in order that, in accordance with the power of the keys, they may pronounce the sentence of forgiveness or retention of sins.,, 4 Against the self-styled Protestant Reformers the Council particularly emphasized the judicial character of absolution: “But although the absolution of the priest is the dispensation of another’s bounty, yet it is not a bare ministry only, whether of announcing the Gospel or of declaring that sins are forgiven, but is after the manner of a judicial act, whereby sentence is pronounced by the priest as by a judge.”5 This dogma is so important that the Council pronounces anathema against all who deny it: “If anyone saith that the sacramental absolution of the priest is not a judicial act, … let him be anathema.* 6 The reason why absolution is a judicial act is intimated in such phrases as *in accordance with the power of the keys,” 7 “the ministry of the keys,” 8 etc. 4 Cone. Trid., Sess. XIV, cap. 5: ” Dominus nosier Iesus Christus e terris -ascensurus ad caelos sacerdotes sui ipsius vicarios reliquit tamquam praesides et indices, ad qnos omnia mortalia crimina deferantnr, in quae ChristiUdeles ceciderint, quo pro potestate clavium remissionis aut retentionis peccatorum sententiam pronuntient.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 899). fi Sess. XIV, cap. 6: ” Quamvis autem absolutio sacerdotis alieni beneficii sit dispensation tamen non est solum nudum ministerium vel annuntiandi evangelium vel declarandi remissa esse peccata, sed ad instar actus iudicialis, quo ab ipso velut a iudice sententia pronuntiatur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 902). e Sess. XIV, can. 9: ” & quis dixerit, absolutionem sacramentalem sacerdotis non esse actum indicialem, … anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 919). 7 Cone. Trid., Sess. XIV, cap. 5: ” Pro potestate clavium.” 8 Ibid., cap, 6: ” clavium ministerium.” A JUDICIAL POWER 67 2. Proof from Holy Scripture. — A Biblical argument for our dogma may be evolved by philosophic reasoning from the texts already quoted. As we have seen, the power of the keys is twofold — it can bind as well as loose. The power of binding may be exercised either by denying absolution or imposing a penance. a) That the imposition of a penance is a true ” binding” may be inferred from the general tenor of our Saviour’s words, ” Quaecunque alligaveritis” etc. The fact that the Church is able not only to ” loose,” i. e. give absolution, but also to bind, in the twofold manner just explained, proves that the power of the keys is of the nature of a judicial tribunal {tribunal s. forum poenitentiae) and that the duly authorized confessor is a true judge (iudex, praeses, praetor). This logical connection can be shown by means of a syllogism. The power of a judge comprises three distinct elements: (1) legitimate institution; (2) the power to compel accused persons to appear before him; and (3) the power to sentence guilty criminals according to law. Now these three elements are present in the exercise of the power of the keys. Consequently, this power is judicial and its sentences are binding upon those concerned. b) The major premise of this syllogism requires no proof. In regard to the minor we may observe : 68 THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS (1) The power of the keys is divinely instituted because it comes from Christ.9 (2) The tribunal of Penance is not a mere court of arbitration, to which the faithful may or may not appeal, as they think fit, but a tribunal with power to compel sinners to appear before it. It follows that all who are guilty of mortal sin must appear before this tribunal.10 (3) When the sinner appears in the tribunal of Penance, the priest acts precisely as a judge in court. If, after hearing the evidence, he finds that the sinner is penitent, he looses him from his sins and at the same time also binds him, after a fashion, by imposing a certain satisfaction. This satisfaction is partly calculated to propitiate divine justice (poena vindicativa) and partly intended to prevent a relapse (poena tnedicinolis) . If, on the contrary, the confessor finds the sinner unworthy of absolution, he ” retains ” his sins and obliges him to return to the tribunal of Penance as often as necessary until he is properly disposed. The entire procedure is not arbitrary, dictated by personal whims, but is governed by divine law, which provides that the contrite and humble should be absolved, whereas the unrepentant sinner should be sent away until he shows true sorrow for his sins, because without true sorrow there can be no forgiveness and the exercise of the power of ” loosing ” would be null and void.11 3. Proof from Tradition. — The ancient penitential discipline of the Church, as we have seen in a previous chapter, was exercised in strictly judicial form. This is one part of the argument 9 V. supra, Ch. 1. 11; Chr. Peach, Praelect. Dogmat., 10 V. supra, Section 2. Vol. VII, 3rd ed., pp. 44 sqq., Frei11 Cfr. Palmicri, De Poenit., thei. burg 1909.

A JUDICIAL POWER 69 from Tradition. The other is furnished by such Patristic utterances as the following. St. Hilary of Poitiers says : ” The immutable judgment of Apostolic severity ordained that those whom they bind on earth … and those whom they loose … by the terms of this Apostolic sentence are loosed or bound also in heaven.,, 12 St. Chrysostom: “The chair of the priest standeth in heaven, and he has the prerogative to administer heavenly things. Who has said this? The King of Heaven Himself: ‘Whatever you shall bind upon earth/ etc. What is there that can be compared with this honor? Heaven derives the principal power of judgment from earth. For the judge sits upon earth, the Lord follows His servant, and whatever the latter has judged here below, He ratifies in heaven.” 18 St. Jerome says that the clergy ” have the keys of the kingdom of Heaven and, after a fashion, exercise the office of judges before the day of judgment.” 14 In the Pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions, which reflect the views of the fifth century, the bishop is apostrophized as follows : ” Sit thou, O Bishop, preaching in the church, as thou hast the power to judge sinners. For to you bishops was it said : ’ Whatsoever you shall bind/ etc. Judge, therefore, O Bishop, by virtue of thy power, as God Himself [judgeth].” 15 St. Gregory the Great (+ 604) says: ” The Apostles 12 In Matth., c. 18, n. 8: “Immobile severitatis apostolicae indicium praemisit, ut quos in terris ligaverint … et quos solverint, … hi apostolicae conditione sententiae in caelis quoque aut soluti sint aut ligati,* is Horn, de Verb. Is., 5, n. 1. i*Ep. 14 ad Heliod., n. 8: *… qui claves regni caelorum habentes quodammodo ante diem iudicii iudicant.” is Const. Apost., 1. II, cap. 1 (Migne, P. G., I, 614). 70 THE POWER TO FORGIVE SINS obtained the prerogative of supernal judgment, by which, as the representatives of God, they retain sins in some and loose them in others… . Behold how those who dread the strict judgment of God are made the judges of souls.,, 16 4. Differences Between a Criminal Court and the Tribunal of Penance. — The analogy which we have pointed out between the sacred tribunal of Penance and a secular court of criminal correction is not complete. But this fact, far from furnishing an argument against the tribunal of Penance, rather demonstrates its superiority to secular courts. The first and chief difference between the two tribunals is based upon their objects. Penance was instituted, primarily, not to find the sinner guilty and condemn him to condign punishment, but rather to absolve, him from his crimes. A criminal court, on the contrary, exists for the purpose of punishing. If it occasionally discharges a defendant, this is pure accident. The expiatory element is not entirely lacking in the tribunal of Penance, however, for the confessor is bound to impose a penance in proportion to the sins committed. A second difference between the two courts is that Penance is essentially a forum internum, whereas a secular court is limited to the forum externum. A third difference consists in this that no secular judge is able to restore a contrite criminal to innocence, as does 16 Horn, in Bvang., 26, 1. 2 dam peccata retineant, quibusdam (Migne, P. L., LXXVI, 11 97): relaxent… . Ecce qui districtum ” Apostoli principatum superni iudi- Dei iudicium metuunt, animarum cii sortiuntur, ut vice Dei quibus- indices Hunt.”

A JUDICIAL POWER 7i the confessor when he pronounces the sacramental absolution. If the accused is guilty, the judge has to condemn him in accordance with the law and may at most mitigate his punishment by giving him the benefit of extenuating circumstances. If he pronounces a defendant not guilty, this sentence does not effect innocence, but presupposes it.