Part II: Penance as a Sacrament — Matter, Form, and Divine Institution

Part II: Penance as a Sacrament

Chapter I: Matter and Form

PART II PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT We have shown that the Catholic Church has the power to forgive sins. It remains to prove that in exercising this power she confers a Sacrament. Penance is a Sacrament because it was instituted by Jesus Christ as a visible sign communicating invisible grace. The visible sign is contained partly in certain acts performed by the penitent and partly in the form of Penance, which is that of a judicial tribunal pronouncing sentence on a self-accusing criminal. That this visible sign confers invisible grace follows from the efficacy of the priestly absolution, which is unconditionally valid before God and in the court of conscience. That Penance is a Sacrament has been solemnly defined by the Council of Trent : “If anyone saith that in the Catholic Church Penance is not truly and properly a Sacrament, instituted by Christ our Lord for reconciling the faithful unto 72 INTRODUCTION 73 God, as often as they fall into sin after Baptism, let him be anathema.” 1 The many intrinsic and extrinsic relations of Penance have given rise to a variety of names. Thus the Fathers often refer to it as “laborious Baptism” (baptismus laboriosus). Tertullian and St. Jerome call it “a second plank after shipwreck” (secunda post naufragium tabula).2 By synecdoche the Sacrament is frequently referred to as confession,8 penance,4 or absolution.5 From its effects it is known as reconciliation, peace, communion;6 from a ceremony anciently in use and still traceable in the motion made by the priest when he gives absolution, it was also at one time called “imposition of the hand.” 7 We shall treat ( i ) of the matter and form of the Sacrament (Ch. I, Sect, i and 2); (2) of its efficacy (Ch. II), and (3) of the persons engaged in its administration (Ch. III.) The necessity of the Sacrament of Penance coincides with the necessity of confession, — one of the three acts of the penitent to which we shall 1 Seas. XIV, can. i : “Si quis 8 Confessio, ^ofio\6yrj

devote the third and last part of this volume. In dealing with confession we shall also demonstrate the divine institution of Penance as a Sacrament. CHAPTER I MATTER AND FORM SECTION I THE MATTER As we have shown in a previous volume of this series,1 no Sacrament can exist without matter. The Tridentine Council in treating of the Sacrament of Penance, takes this truth for granted.2 The matter of a Sacrament need not be a material substance, such as water, oil, bread, or wine; it may be something intangible, though in some manner subject to sense perception, related to the form of the Sacrament in the same way in which the ablution is related to the baptismal formula in Baptism. Theologians are not agreed as to what constitutes the matter of the Sacrament of Penance. The majority, including the Thomists, hold that it consists in the three acts required of the penitent, viz.: contrition, confession, and satisfaction. The Scotists regard these three acts merely as necessary ” dispositions ” of the soul and maintain that the visible sign of the Sacrament lies in the priestly absolution, which, therefore, according to them, under different aspects, is both the matter and the form of Penance. 1 Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 59 sqq. 2 Sess. XIV, cap. 2. 75

i. The Thomistic Theory. — St. Thomas teaches: “The proximate matter of this Sacrament are the acts of the penitent.” 3 He compares the matter of Penance with that of matrimony. In neither Sacrament, he says, have we a material object, but sensible actions take the place of ordinary matter.4 This view is followed by all Thomists (Gonet, Billuart, et al.) and by most of the great Jesuit theologians (Cardinals Bellarmine and Toletus, Suarez, De Lugo, Chr. Pesch, Tepe) . It has even been adopted by some Scotists, notably Mastrius and Brancatus de Laurea. The arguments adduced in its support are very strong indeed. a) Following the example of Pope Eugene IV,R whose teaching is almost literally couched in the language of St. Thomas,6 the Tridentine Council defined : ( i ) that ” the acts of the penitent himself, to wit, contrition, confession, and satisfaction, are as it were the matter {quasi materia) of this Sacrament”;7 (2) that “the form of the Sacrament of Penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in those words of the minister, ’ I absolve thee/ etc.,” 8 i. e. in the absolution. By quasi materia the Council can hardly have meant matter in a purely figurative sense, for the Roman sSumma Theol., 3a, qu. 84, art. 2: Materia proximo huius sacramenti sunt actus poenitentis. L. c, art 1, ad 1: “In Hits sacramentis quae habent effectum correspondentem humanis actibus, ipsi actus hunxani sensibiles sunt loco materiae, ut accidit in poenitentia et matrimonio.” 6 See the Decretum pro Armenis, issued A. D. 1439. QOpusc, V, De Articulis Fidei et Ecclesiae Sacramentis. 7Sess. XIV, cap. 3: ” Sunt au> tern quasi materia huius sacramenti ipsius poenitentis actus, nempe contritio, confessio, satisfaction 8 Ibid. : ”… formam sacramenti poenitentiae, in qua praecipue ipsius vis sita est, in illis ministri verbis positam esse: Ego te absolvo, etc.* MATTER AND FORM 77 Catechism, which officially interprets the teaching of Trent, says : ” Nor are these acts called by the holy Synod ’ the matter as it were ’ because they have not the nature of true matter, but because they are not matter of such sort as may be applied externally, like water in Baptism and chrism in Confirmation.,, 9 As the form of the Sacrament consists principally (praecipue) in the absolution, the sacramental efficacy of Penance must partly lie in something different from the absolution. This being the case, the absolution cannot be the sole matter of the Sacrament, as Scotus teaches. Now, outside of the absolution there is nothing in the Sacrament that could be designated as its matter except the three acts performed by the penitent, i. e. contrition, confession, and satisfaction. Consequently these three acts must be the essential matter of the Sacrament. b) The Tridentine Council not only says that the three acts of the penitent are the quasi materia of the Sacrament, but calls them ” parts of penance ” and adds that ” they are, by God’s institution, required in the penitent for the integrity of the Sacrament and for the full and perfect remission of sins.” 10 Now, if these acts of the penitent are parts of the Sacrament, required to produce its effects, they must be more than mere ” dispositions.” No one would think of calling faith the quasi9 Cat. Rom., P. II, c. 5, n. 13: ” Neque vero hi actus quasi materia a s. Synodo appellantur, quia verae materiae rationem non habeant, sed quia eius generis materia non sunt, quae extrinsecus adhibeatur, ut aqua in baptismo et chrisma in confirmations” loSess. XIV, cap. 3: ” Qui [actus}, quatenus in poenitente ad integritatem sacramenti ad plenamque et perfectam peccatorum remissionem ex Dei institutione requiruntur, hoc ratione poenitentiae partes dicuntur.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 896). — Sess. XIV, can. 4: ” Si quis negaverit, ad integrant et perfectam peccatorum remissionem requiri tres actus in poenitente quasi materiam sacramenti poenitentiae, vid. contritionem, confessionem et satis f actionem, quae tres partes poenitentiae dicuntur, anathema sit,” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 914)* 78 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT matter or an integral part of Baptism because it is a necessary disposition in the recipient. Hence the three acts of the penitent must be regarded as essential parts of the Sacrament of Penance. They are as necessary for the integrity of the Sacrament as, say, body and soul for the integrity of human nature. And since they are not the form of the Sacrament, either whole or in part, they must be its matter. c) The Sacrament of Penance is essentially a tribunal of justice and the priestly absolution has all the characteristics of a judicial sentence.11 Such a sentence presupposes a formal accusation and the hearing of witnesses, in order that the judge may have the material necessary for forming an opinion. In the tribunal of Penance, plaintiff, defendant, and witnesses are all one, and hence at least confession, as the suppositum or substratum of absolution, enters into the essence of the Sacrament. Now confession is more than a mere recital of one’s sins. It is a contrite and humble declaration of guilt, coupled with a firm purpose to sin no more. Hence contrition and the determination to make amends must as it were vivify the act of confession as the soul vivifies the body. This is what the Scholastics mean when they speak of confessio dolorosa. Contrition, confession, and the purpose of amendment are, therefore, more than mere “dispositions” for the worthy reception of Penance. They are integral parts of the Sacrament, and consequently its matter.12 2. The Scotistic Theory. — Scotus says: “These three [viz.: contrition, confession, and 11 V. supra, pp. 64 sqq. Re Sacramentaria, Vol. II, 2nd ed., 12 Cfr. Billuart, De Poenitentia, pp. 222 sqq. diss. 1, art. 2; De Augustinis, De

satisfaction] are in no wise parts of the Sacrament, because the Sacrament of Penance is the absolution given in certain specified terms. But contrition is no part of the latter; … neither is confession, … nor satisfaction… . Yet these three are required for the Sacrament of Penance, either before or after, in order that it may be worthily received.” 18 According to this theory the whole Sacrament, both as to matter and form, consists in the absolution, and the three acts performed by the penitent merely prepare him for its reception. But how can the priestly absolution be both matter and form of the Sacrament? The Scotists answer: As an external rite, i. e. as words pronounced, absolution is the matter of Penance; as the bearer of an intrinsic meaning, it is the form.14 This view, defended before the Council of Trent by such eminent theologians as St. Bonaventure 15 and Capreolus, found supporters even after the Council in Andrew Vega, Maldonatus, and A. Ballerini.16 These post-Tridentine writers do not, of course, object to having the three acts of the penitent called “parts” of Penance and the quasi-matter of the 18 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 1 6, qu. i, n. 7: ” Ista tria Iscil. contritio, confessio, satis f actio] nullo modo sunt partes eius [. e. sacratnenti], quia poenitentiae sacramentum est ilia absolutio facta certis verbis. Huius autem nulla pars est contritio … neque confessio … neque satisf actio… . Haec tamen tria ad sacramentum poenitentiae ad hoc, ut digne redpiatur, requiruntur vel praevia vel sequential’ 14 Cfr. Maldonatus, De Poenitentia, P. 3, qu. 3, thes. 7: Absolutio, quatenus est externa quaedam caerimonia, est materia; quatenus habet vim significandi, est forma. 15 Comment, in Sent., IV, dist. 17, p. 2, art. i, qu. 3. 16 Opus Morale, ed. Palmieri, Vol. V, 3rd ed., pp. 2 sqq., Prati 1898. 8o PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT Sacrament ; they merely claim that these acts are unable to effect the sacramental grace ex opere operato. They defend their contention as follows : a) The very definition of a Sacrament implies that the external sign (matter and form conjointly) not only signifies grace, but actually produces it.17 Now, with regard to the Sacrament of Penance, two things are certain: first, that it is the priestly absolution alone which signifies the remission of sins; secondly, that the priest, not the penitent, is the minister of the Sacrament. If the absolution alone signifies the remission of sins, the three acts of the penitent contribute nothing to the production of the sacramental effect, but are merely a conditio sine qua non thereof. They do not signify, and therefore cannot produce the sacramental grace nor cooperate in its production. The minister of the Sacrament of Penance is the priest, not the penitent. If the penitent supplied an essential part of the matter, he would co-operate in the production of the sacramental effect, i. e. help to absolve himself, which would be manifestly absurd.18 b) But what is the meaning of such phrases as ” quasi materia’ and “partes poenitentiae/’ applied to the acts of ‘the penitent by the Tridentine Council? The Scotists say that these expressions are equivocal and do not constitute an argument against their thesis. It cannot be proved, they say, that the Council, in employing the term ” quasi materia/’ or even ” materia” meant to designate the sacramental ” materia ex qua” It must be admitted that the word “materia” is employed by Catholic theologians in a variety of meanings. 17 V. ?ohle-Preuss, The Sacra- tions see Palmieri, I, c, pp. 152 ments, Vol. I, pp. 8 sqq. sqq. 18 For an answer to these objec 

In connection with Penance it may mean either the true and proper materia ex qua, or the remote materia circa quam (sin), or, figuratively, the dispositive acts of the penitent, which fall under the category of material causes in the wider sense of that term. Moreover, the addition of the word “quasi” to “materia” would seem to show that the Council did not mean to designate the materia ex qua in the strict and proper sense of the word. Nor does the employment of the term “partes” prove anything against the Scotistic contention. The Council nowhere says that the acts of the penitent are parts of the Sacrament. It merely says they are ” parts of penance,” which the Scotists do not deny. But even if the Council had designated these acts as “partes sacramenti/’ it would not follow that they are essential parts of the Sacrament as such. Merely integral parts do not enter into the essence of a thing, and the choice of the phrase actus poenitentis ad integritatem sacramenti requiruntur shows that the Council did not wish to assert that contrition, confession, and satisfaction belong to the essence of the Sacrament in the sense of a materia ex qua. Under the present discipline absolution may be given conditionally to an unconscious person who is in immediate danger of death, even if he manifests no signs of contrition nor a desire to receive the Sacrament. The Church presumes that he has the required disposition.19 In De Lugo’s time no one was absolved unless he had asked for the priestly absolution,20 or at least shown a desire to receive it. This rule was based upon the principle 19 Cfr. St Alphonsus de’ Liguori, ferri dbsolutionem sacramentalem, Theol. Moralis, Be Poenit., n. 482 nisi ex parte poenitentis praecedat sq. saltern petitio sen desiderium con20 De Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 17* Utendu” •ect. 3, n. 19: . . non posse con 

that there can be no administration of the Sacrament if the essential matter be lacking. Where no water is available, for example, even the worthiest applicant cannot be baptized, no matter how urgent the necessity. If it were true that contrite confession forms the materia ex qua of Penance, the modern practice would be frivolous, because the priestly absolution, being merely the form, can no more constitute the Sacrament of Penance without its requisite matter, — which an unconscious penitent in articulo mortis obviously cannot supply, — than the baptismal formula could effect Baptism without water. The case appears different if viewed from the Scotistic point of view. Assuming that both the matter and the form of Penance are contained in the absolution, the Sacrament can be validly administered whenever there is an interior desire for confession on the part of the sinner. This argument was so effectively developed by Ballerini that Palmieri expressed the wish that the whole controversy might be once for all officially decided.21 3. Critical Appreciation of the Two Theories. — a) Weighing the two theories against each other we find that neither can claim theological certainty. Hence the advocates of either must be allowed to develop their arguments without interference. Even such decided antagonists of the Scotistic theory as Suarez and De Lugo admit that it has at least an extrinsic probability based upon authority. The Council of Trent purposely evaded this controversy and chose its 21 Opus Morale, Vol. V, 3rd ed., die cuilibet desiderium suboriatur p. 213: * Res eo adducta est, ut fa- alicuius authenticae declarationis.*

expressions so that they cannot be interpreted as a condemnation of the Scotist position.22 b) A careful examination of the arguments adduced in favor of the two theories shows that the Thomists have the stronger case. The Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Roman Ritual unequivocally endorse the teaching of St. Thomas, which is also decidedly favored by the Tridentine decisions, not to speak of the famous Decretum pro Armenis (Florence, 1439), composed by the Angelic Doctor himself . The strongest argument that can be alleged in support of the Scotistic contention is the custom, now over two hundred years old, of giving absolution conditionally to the dying when they are unable to signify a desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance. But this argument is taken from moral rather than from dogmatic theology, and must not be overrated. The value of conditional absolution in articulo mortis is as doubtful to-day as it was at the time of De Lugo, and it is always safer in cases of urgent necessity to administer Extreme Unction after giving absolution. Secondly, it is not easy to see what advantage Scotism gains over Thomism by refusing to admit that the three acts of the penitent are the matter of the Sacrament. The Scotists admit that these acts are indispensable conditions of validity. They, or at least some of them, concede that a judicial sentence without a preceding accusation would be a contradiction, and therefore insist on the necessity of a contrite confession in some form or other for the validity of absolution.28 But 22 Cfr. Pallavicini, Hist. Cone. Hiquaus, Henno, Bosco, all cited by Trid., XII, c. 10; Eusebius Amort, Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. De PoenitenHa, disp. 2, qu. 2. 412 sqq., Paris 1896. 28 Thus Scotus, Andrew Vega,

a contrite confession, in concreto, is identical with the three acts demanded by the Thomists. From which it follows that the Thomistic doctrine is more solidly established than that of the Scotists, and hence we need not wonder that the latter has gradually lost ground.24 24 On this controversy the student may profitably consult Palmieri, De Poenitentia, thes. 14.

SECTION 2 THE FORM The sacramental form of Penance is contained in the words of absolution. This was denied by Dominicus Soto, who regarded absolution merely as a “complement” of confession; but the Tridentine Council expressly defines that “the form of the Sacrament of Penance, wherein its force principally consists, is placed in those words of the minister, ‘I absolve thee/ etc.* 1 i. Meaning of the Formula of Absolution.— The formula of absolution now used in the Latin Church reads : *Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuts in nomine Pdtris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti.” This formula is ordinarily preceded by some words which aim at freeing the penitent from excommunication, suspension, and the interdict. They have nothing to do with the absolution as such. For the Tridentine Council says that the prayers laudably joined to the formula of absolution *according to the custom of holy l Cone. Trid,, Sess. XIV, cap. 3: tninistri verbis positam esse: Ego * Docet praeterea s. Synodus, sacra- te absolvo, ” etc. (Denzinger-Bannmenti poenitentiae formam, in qua wart, n. 896). praecipue ipsius vis sit a estt in Mis 85 86 PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT Church,” ” by no means regard the essence of that form, neither are they necessary for the administration of the Sacrament itself.” 2 Which are the essential words in the formula of absolution? Theologians generally hold, against Durandus,8 that the invocation of the Blessed Trinity is not essential. There is nothing in our Saviour’s words of institution, or in the custom of the Church, or in the nature of Penance, which would indicate that the Sacrament is invalid without this invocation.4 The words ” Absolvo te” on the other hand, are essential, because they embody the judicial sentence of the priest. The words “a peccatis tuts” are implicitly contained in ” absolvo te,” and therefore may be regarded as non-essential.6 Of course, we are speaking merely of the validity of the Sacrament; the arbitrary omission of any part of the prescribed formula is forbidden under pain of sin. a) What is the precise meaning of the formula of absolution? Different writers have expressed different views on this subject. Thus Peter Lombard holds that, as God alone can bind and loose, the Church, in absolving a sinner, merely declares that his sins have been forgiven in Heaven (sententia declaratoria) ,6 a) To say that the formula of absolution simply means : ” I declare (or announce) that God has forgiven thee thy 2 L. c, ”… preces quaedam 4 Cfr. St Thomas, Summa Theol., hudabiliter odiunguntur, ad ipsius 3a, qu. 84, art. 3, ad 3. tamen formae essentiam nequaquam 5 For further information on this spectant.” point cfr. De Lugo, De Poeniten3 Comment, in Sent,, IV, dist. 22, tia, disp. 13, sect x. qu. 2. « Sent., IV, dist x8.

sins,” is to deny that the Church possesses the power of absolution. This inevitable deduction is not modified by the admission that the Church can remit temporal punishments. Hugh of St. Victor (+1141) is an exception among the writers of this school, in as much as he holds that, while the priestly absolution is a mere declaration, it nevertheless has power to free the penitent at least from the eternal punishments due to sin. No matter how we may interpret the teaching of the ” Magister Sententiarum,” it is certainly opposed to the true nature of the power of the keys, and we need not wonder, therefore, that Richard of St. Victor (+ about 11 73) combated it as frivolous and foolish.7 P) It is not at all difficult to prove that the power of the keys is not limited to the punishments due to sin. If a priest in giving absolution merely remits the punishments due to sin, he remits either the eternal punishment of hell or temporal punishments. If the former, than he eo ipso remits the mortal sins themselves, for the punishment cannot be remitted while the guilt remains. In that case the formula of absolution would mean more than ” Absolvo te a poena aeterna.” Indeed, God Himself could forgive mortal sin only on condition of a simultaneous forgiveness of the eternal punishment due to the same. In that case, however, the subsequent sentence of the confessor would not be an effective absolution, but a simple declaration or announcement of a 7 De Potest Ligandi et Solvendi, Numquid Dominus dicit: Quodcunc. 12: ” Exstat quorundam de po- que ligatum ostenderis erit ligatum, testate ligandi at que solvendi senten- et quodcunque solutum ostenderis tia tarn frwola, ut ridenda potius erit solutum t ” (Migne, P. L.t videatur quam refellenda… . CXCVI, 1168).

judgment passed in Heaven. This conclusion negatives the assumption with which we started out. We come to the second assumption, viz.: that the priestly absolution merely affects the temporal punishments due to sin. The power of the keys is twofold, — the Church can loose, but she can also bind, and, under certain conditions, she can bind forever. Temporal punishments are not of this kind. To assume that a temporal punishment could become eternal is repugnant, for the moment it became eternal it would cease to be temporal. Hence the formula of absolution means exactly what it says, viz.: I absolve thee from thy sins. y) Some of the older Scholastic theologians 8 explained the formula of absolution thus: “Ego te absolvo ab obligatione subiciendi peccata clavibus.” This is a onesided and defective interpretation. To release one from an obligation is not to forgive his sins. A penitent guilty of a sin reserved to the bishop or the pope can be (indirectly) absolved therefrom without being released from the obligation of confessing the same sin to another confessor, equipped with larger faculties. Conversely, a penitent who re-submits to the power of the keys a mortal sin from which he has already been absolved, certainly does not seek absolution for the purpose of being released from an obligation which no longer exists for him. Baius taught that a penitent sinner who seeks absolu- * tion in the tribunal of Penance receives new spiritual life not through the ministry of the absolving priest, but directly from God, who vivifies and resuscitates his soul by inspiring him to do penance, — the ministry of the priest merely lifting the obligation to undergo punish8 See Suarez, De Poenitentia, disp. 19, sect. 2.

ment. This proposition was condemned by Pius V.9 It can be refuted with the same arguments which we have adduced against the teaching of Peter Lombard and his school, and is, moreover, open to the objection that it places the efficacy of absolution in the external rite as such and underrates the office of the minister. In matter of fact it is the priest who forgives sins through the absolution. If this were not so, the formula of absolution might be enunciated with equal effect by a parrot or a phonograph. b) After refuting these erroneous opinions, which, be it noted in passing, must not be confused with the views of the Protestant Reformers, we have to answer the question, in what way the formula of absolution expresses the infusion of sanctifying grace, without which there can be no true forgiveness of sins. a) The priestly absolution, being an external sign of internal grace, must effect that which it signifies. In the present economy there is no other way in which sin can be forgiven than by the infusion of sanctifying grace.10 Therefore, the absolution must first effect grace and, through grace, the remission of sins. In order to express both these functions St. Thomas suggests the formula: ’ S act amentum absolutions tibi impendo.11 9 Prop. Baii damn, a Pio V. a. cfr. Prop. 56] tollitur. (Denzin1567, prop. 58: ” Peccator poeni- ger-Bannwart, n. 1058). tens non vivificatur ministerio sacer- 10 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Acdotis absolventis, sed a solo Deo, tual and Habitual, pp. 322 aqq. qui poenitentiam suggerens et »«- 11 Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 84, art. spirans vivificat eum et resuscitat: 3» ad s« — Cfr. De Augustinis, De Re ministerio autem sacerdotis solum Sacrament., Vol. II, p. 287. r eat us [sett, obligatio ad poenam;

Suarez expresses the meaning still more clearly by saying: Ego tibi gratiam sanctificantem confer o rernissivam peccati, quantum est ex se. 12 De Lugo rejects both these interpretations for the reason that they have no immediate reference to the absolution of the penitent from sin, and substitutes the following: Ego tibi (a&solvendo) remitto peccata per infusionem gratiae 18 As explained by Suarez, the accepted formula of absolution could with equal propriety be used in administering Baptism because it does not sufficiently express the judicial character of the act. De Lugo’s formula, on the other hand, enunciating as it does both the remission of sins (direct effect) and the infusion of grace (indirect effect), correctly interprets the mind of the Church. fi) It may be asked: What about sins that are confessed more than once? Are they also forgiven more than once? Or does the formula of absolution lose its true meaning in the so-called devotional confessions now so popular among the faithful ? How can a priest forgive sins which no longer exist in the moral order? How can a criminal be released from chains that no longer bind him ? Oswald 14 finds it hard to solve this difficulty. Yet the custom of confessing the same sin repeatedly can be justified. A man can obligate himself repeatedly to the performance of a duty to which he is bound anyhow, a creditor can again release a debtor from an obligation from which he has already been freed. If you have been insulted, there is nothing to prevent you from forgiving the offense twice, three times, nay a hundred times, if you like. The example of the chained criminal proves 12 De Poenitentia, disp. 19, sect l* Die dogmatische Lehre von den 2, n. 20. hi. Sakramenten, Vol. II, 5th ed., p. is De Lugo, De Poenitentia, disp. 208. 13, sect. 3, n. 72.

nothing because the physical does not resemble the moral order in all respects. There is no doubt whatever that one and the same sin can be forgiven more than once and that in each case the formula of absolution has the same meaning: vis.: I forgive thee thy sins by the infusion (which in this case means an increase) of sanctifying grace.16 2. Changes in the Formula of Absolution. — The indicative formula of absolution now used in the Latin Church is prescribed by Eugene IV (1439), by the Council of Trent,16 and by the Roman Ritual. Hence probably no other is now valid, though, of course, the Church could permit or even command the use of a different formula, such as the one formerly employed: Sis a me absolutus per ministerium meum. While the Church is not authorized to alter the form of Penance in any essential respect, there is no doubt whatever that she can withdraw jurisdiction from any priest who refuses to employ the prescribed formula of absolution, thereby making the administration of the Sacrament impossible. Hence we must reject Dominicus Soto’s assertion that if a confessor employed the formula ” Absolvit (or dbsolvat) te Christus,” the absolution would be valid, though he himself would commit a sin.17 It is rather more difficult to decide the question whether 15 Cfr. Palmieri, De Poenit., pp. cramento poenitentiae licet quis di124 sq. ceret : Absolvit te vel absolvat te i« V. supra, No. x. Christus, vere absolveret, quamvis 17 Soto, Comment, in Snt, IV, peccqret.” diit, 3, qu, unlca, art. 5: 11 In to PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT absolution is invalid if pronounced in any other than the indicative form. Theologians differ on this point. a) Many maintain with St. Thomas 18 and his school that absolution is invalid if clothed in the form of a deprecatory prayer. This view is held by Billuart,1* Simmonet, Antoine, Munier, and has found a contemporary defender in De Augustinis.20 The subjunctive mood employed in a formula does not necessarily prove that it is deprecative. In the deprecative form the confessor simply prays God to forgive the penitent, without mentioning the power of the keys. When this power is expressly mentioned, even though it be only in the form of a prayer or wish, the formula, whatever its grammatical construction, is logically and theologically indicative, and consequently valid. Such apparently deprecatory but in reality indicative formulas are: Sis a me absolutus per ministerium meum * Deus te absolvat per ministerium meum* etc. As long as absolution takes the form of a judicial sentence, it is valid, regardless of its grammatical structure. The case is different with such purely and essentially deprecative formulas as, “Deus, r&mitte peccata huic servo tuo.” Here the question may be rightly raised: Can a mere wish or prayer have the effect of a judicial sentence? This is vigorously denied by the Thomists, who maintain that even Almighty God Himself could not forgive sins in the tribunal of Penance by a purely deprecative formula. 18 Opusc, 18 (in some editions 20 De Re Sacrament aria, Vol. II, 22), De Forma Absolutions. pp. 294 sqq. is De Poenitentia, diss. 1, art 3,

b) Nevertheless Morinus 21 and most modern Church historians hold that the Greek Church has always employed a purely deprecative formula, and that in the Latin Church, too, up to the ninth or possibly the tenth century, absolution invariably took the form of a prayer.22 a) Henry Charles Lea, in his History of Auricular Confession and Indulgences in the Latin Church,2* asserts that the change took place some time between the eleventh and the thirteenth centuries and that the indicative formula became the only valid one through the powerful influence of the Sorbonne, about the year 1240. Lea’s contention that the Roman Church revolutionized the ancient penitential discipline and prevaricated the teaching of Christ has been refuted by Msgr. P. M. Baumgarten,24 Father P. H. Casey, SJ.,25 and a Protestant writer, Dr. K. Miiller.26 But it seems undeniable that an important change took place in the external form of absolution at about the time indicated. The fact that the most ancient rituals, sacramentaries, pontificals, penitentials, etc., all without exception give the deprecative formula only, proves that their authors knew no other. This is confirmed by certain utterances of the Fathers. It will not do to ascribe the absence of the indicative formula from the ancient documents to the Discipline of the Secret or 21 Comment. Hist, de A dministr. Sacr. Poenit., 1. VIII, c. 8 sqq. 22 For the proofs of this assertion see Morinus, op. cit., Append., c. 19; Martene, De Antiq. Eccles. Ritibus, 1. I, c. 6, art. 5, 7 ; Binterim, DenkwUrdigkeiten der christkath. Kirche, Vol. Ill, 3, 244 sqq. 23 Vol. I, pp. 129 sqq., Philadelphia 1897. 24 Die Werke von Henry Charles Lea und verwandte Bucher, Miinster i. W. 1908 (English tr. New York 1909). 25 Notes on a History of Auricular Confession: H. C. Lea’s Account of the Power of the Keys in the Early Church, Philadelphia 1899. 26 In the Theol. Literaturseitung, X897. PP- 463 sqq. PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT to intentional omission. The discipline arcani had been abandonee! for centuries when the deprecatory formula was still in general use, and the liturgical records in question are very full and complete. As late as the beginning of the thirteenth century William of Paris27 says that priests do not pronounce sentence after the manner of secular judges, ” Absolvimus te” but pray, €i Dimittat tibi Deus pec cat a, quae confessus es mihi” The anonymous writer whom St. Thomas combats in the eighteenth of his Opuscula,28 asserts that the deprecatory formula was in general use up to thirty years before the time of his writing.29 This statement may not be strictly accurate, yet to say that it is without foundation would be unwarranted. Such eminent Catholic theologians as Cardinal Gotti, Tournely, Duhamel, Hurter, Oswald,’ Palmieri, Frank, and Pesch freely admit that the deprecatory formula was in exclusive use up to the end of the twelfth century.80 /?) The ancient euchologia of the Greek Church bear no trace of the indicative formula of absolution,81 and even to-day all Oriental churches employ the deprecatory formula. The Armenian Church is a solitary exception to this rule.82 Arcadius with much trouble succeeded in finding one indicative formula,88 but it undoubtedly originated in the West.84 That the Latin Church does not 27 De Sacramento Poenit., c. 19, 81 Cfr. Goar, Eucholog., pp. 673 28 In some editions this treatise is sqq. printed as No. 22 of the Opuscula* 82 Cfr. Denzinger, Rit. Orient, 29 * Vix triginta anni sunt, quod Vol. I, p. 101 : * Forma absolutionis omnes hac sold formd deprecative apud Orientates catholicos et non utebantur* catholicos, si solos Armenos excipias, 80 Cfr. Palmieri, De Poenitentia, deprecativa est.* pp. 127 sqq.; Koniger, Bur chard 88 “Exe&

object to the Greek practice on this point is evident fr.om the famous decree (A. D. 1595) in which Clement VIII allows the pastors of the Greek Uniates in southern Italy to absolve members of the Latin Church on condition that they employ the indicative formula prescribed by Eugene IV, but immediately adds: ” Et postea, si voluerint, dicant orationem Mam deprecativam, qmm pro forma huius absolutionis dicer e tantum consueverunt.” 86 This pontifical decision proves (1) that the United Greeks ordinarily employed the deprecative formula, and (2) that the Holy See did not object to this practice so long as it was not extended to the Latin rite. c) Since there is no reason to doubt that the ancient Church employed the deprecative formula in absolving sinners in the tribunal of Penance, we can do no more than attempt to square the dogmatic teaching of the Church, as set forth above, with the historical fact mentioned. All Catholic theologians, including the Thomists, admit that if the formula employed in giving absolution contains some reference to the ministerial agency of the absolving priest, there is no difficulty, because then the deprecatory formula (deprecatio potestativa, as Palmieri calls it), is equivalent to the indicative.86 The difficulty begins when we have to deal with a formula which is manifestly nothing more than a prayer, pure and simple, e. g. ” Dens, remitte peccata huic servo Armenians; cfr. Mansi, Supplem. 86 Cfr. De Lugo, De Poenitentia, Cone., Vol. Ill, p. 488. disp. 13, sect 4. 85 BuUarium Romanum, ed, Taurin., Vol. X, p. a 12.

tuo.” These words obviously do not embody a judicial sentence. Are they perhaps equivalent to such a sentence? We must interpret them by the circumstances of the case and as they were understood by the people. If a secular judge were to say to a prisoner: “Let the warden release you,” he would be uttering what is substantially a judicial sentence. The case is similar with a confessor who absolves a penitent by praying that God may absolve him. There can be no reasonable doubt as to the meaning. The priest is sitting as a judge in the tribunal of Penance ; he has the power of the keys, which the penitent begs him to employ in his behalf. Consequently, no matter in what words he clothes the formula of absolution, it is a judicial sentence, and was universally so regarded when the priest was wont to say, * Absolvat te Deus per ministerium nieum* just as it is to-day, when he says, ” Ego te absolvo.” 3. Absolution Pronounced in the Absence of the Penitent is Invalid. — This proposition cannot be demonstrated from the definition of a Sacrament, for matrimony can be validly administered by proxy ; nor does it follow from the judicial character of absolution, for a judicial sentence can be issued in writing; but it can be abundantly proved from Tradition. a) Every Sacrament consists of matter and form. The form, as a rule, is made up of words. Exceptions, as in the case of matrimony, must be proved as such. Of Penance the dogmatic Deer etum pro Armenis says: *The form of this

Sacrament is in the words of absolution, which the priest utters when he says: I absolve thee, etc.* 87 As the words must be actually uttered to make the Sacrament valid, it follows that the penitent must be physically present, for else the words would be uttered in vain, i. e. affect nobody as a judicial sentence. When the confessor says, “I absolve thee,” he means the person kneeling before him. It is absurd to suppose that his sentence would be valid if shouted across the ocean. Moreover, absolution must in all cases be preceded by auricular confession. This means confession by word of mouth, which, as a rule, can take place only from person to person. In exceptional cases, it is true, the accusation may be made in writing, but the priest is never allowed to give absolution in. writing, precisely for the reason that absolution is the form of the Sacrament and must be uttered in words ; much less could he transmit it by letter or messenger. b) History records no case where absolution was conveyed to an absent penitent by messenger or letter. Oral utterance has ever been regarded as essential for the validity of the Sacrament. Morinus cites a few cases which seem to prove the contrary,88 but the ” absolution ” conveyed to the absentee was in every instance merely a remission of canonical punish37 * Forma huius sacramenti sunt etc.* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 699). verba absolutionis, quae sacerdos 38 Comment. Hist, de Administr. profert quum dicit: Ego te absolvo, Sacr. Poenit., 1. VIII, c. 25. ments or a grant of indulgences. The ancient penitential books either expressly state, or presuppose as a matter of course, the necessity of the personal presence of the penitent. This explains the principle governing the once popular practice of confessing to laymen, vis.: * In case of urgent necessity it is better to confess one’s sins to a layman who is present, than to an absent priest.* 89 In order to arrive at a fair judicial sentence, the confessor is bound to inform himself regarding the penitent’s state of conscience and disposition. This cannot be done unless the penitent is personally present. If absolution could be given by letter, it might happen that a penitent would experience a change of heart while the absolution was on the way, and consequently be no longer worthy of receiving it when it arrived. A few Spanish theologians 40 taught that absolution conveyed to an absent penitent by letter is’ valid in case of extreme necessity ; but their teaching, far from finding acceptance, was officially condemned. c) Pope Clement VIII, after a hearing granted to both parties, declared it “false, foolhardy, and scandalous” to teach that sins can be confessed and absolution given absente confessore, by letter or messenger.41 He strictly forbade theologians to defend this opinion or to put it into practice, 89 S. Thomas, Comment, in Sent., J 40 Paludanus, Peter Soto, and IV, dist 17, qu. 3, art. 4: In John Medina. extrema necessitate utilius est con- 41 * Sanctissimus [». e. Papa] proUteri laico praesenti quant sacerdoti positionem, scil. ’ licere per literas absenti.’ — On the practice of con- sen intemuntium confessario absenti fessing to lay persons see G. Gromer, peccata sacramentaliter conHteri et Die Laienbeicht im Mittelalter, ein ab eodem absente absolutionem obBeitrag zu ihrer Geschichte, Munich tinere’ ad minus ut falsam, teme1909. rariam et scandalosam damnavit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1088).

MATTER AND FORM thereby implicitly declaring that confession and absolution by letter or messenger are both illicit and invalid. a) Suarez42 limited this condemnation to absolution and said that it did not apply to confession. His arbitrary interpretation led Paul V to declare, by a decree of the Holy Office, dated July 14, 1605, that the Clementine decree applied in sensu diviso as well as in sensu copulativo. Hence it is invalid and forbidden for a penitent to confess his sins by letter or messenger to an absent priest, as well as for the priest to send him sacramental absolution. Suarez in reality had not meant to attack the papal decree. He merely expressed himself incautiously. The case he had in mind was that of a dying penitent, already unconscious, who had expressed a desire to receive the Sacrament. Of such a confession in voto (which is really not a ” confession ” at all in the strict sense of the term) Suarez maintained that it was sufficient for valid absolution.43 This proposition was never censured and is held by all moral theologians. Suarez’s hypothetical case is affected neither by the decree of Clement VIII nor by the authentic interpretation of Paul V. P) Can sins be validly confessed and absolution given by telephone ? Two persons conversing over the telephone cannot strictly be said to be absent from each other. As far as verbal intercourse goes, the telephone brings them so closely together as if there were no space between them. The question as to the validity of confession by telephone has been submitted to the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, without however eliciting a reply. If 42 De Poenitentio, disp. 21, sect cula Sex Inedita, ed. I. 8. Malou, 4. Bruxellcs 1859. 4a See Suarez’s posthumous Opus 

ioo PENANCE AS A SACRAMENT we consider that the telephone does not convey the voice by the natural medium of air waves but reproduces it artificially, and that, on the other hand, sacramental absolution and the judicial character of the confessor require a “presence” which enables him to communicate naturally with the penitent, we shall hardly go wrong if we declare against the validity of confession and absolution by telephone.44 . 44 On the notion of * physical St. Alphonsus de’ Liguori, Theol. . presence * see the moralists, e. g. Moral., VI, n. 429.