Part III Chapter III §1: Sacramental Satisfaction

Chapter III: Satisfaction

§1: Sacramental Satisfaction

CHAPTER III SATISFACTION SECTION i SACRAMENTAL SATISFACTION, OR PENANCE FOR SINS CONFESSED i. State of the Question. — To give satisfaction may mean one of three things : a) To repair an injury done to another. Satisfaction in this general sense is called restitution if the injury consisted in positive damage to property or honor. b) To atone for an insult or offence (iniuria, contumelia). Satisfaction given to God, — the only kind with which we have to deal here, — is either medicinal or vindictive. Medicinal satisfaction is a preventive remedy calculated to strengthen the soul against relapse. Vindictive satisfaction is an act of justice whereby the injury done to the honor of God is repaired, so far at least as the sinner is able to make reparation. Every mortal sin involves a twofold effect : guilt (reatus culpae) and punishment (reatus poenae). 217 218 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT Whereas in Baptism both are remitted simultaneously, in the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin and the eternal punishment due to sin are remitted, whilst a certain amount of temporal punishment may remain (reotus poenae temporalis). To cancel such temporal punishments, either completely or in part, is the purpose of satisfaction. c) It is in this third and last sense that St. Thomas defines “satisfaction,” in relation to the Sacrament of Penance, “as the payment of the temporal punishment due on account of the offence committed against God by sin.” 1 That guilt and punishment are separate and distinct things is an accepted principle of Catholic theology and forms the dogmatic foundation for the doctrine of indulgences as well as of purgatory. Satisfaction, as defined by St. Thomas, is a constituent part of the Sacrament of Penance, though not exactly in the same sense as contrition and confession. According to the present discipline of the Church, satisfaction is made after absolution, and hence it does not enter into the essence but merely belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament. It is an integral part of the Sacrament because it is required for obtaining its secondary effect, — i. e. the remission of temporal punishment. In a certain sense satisfaction may even be said to appertain to the essence 1 St Thomas, Summa TheoL, debit a e ob iniuriam Deo Per peccaSuppl., qu. 12, art. 3: ” Satisf actio turn illatam.” est compensate Poenae temporalis of the Sacrament, because the will to render satisfaction must be present before absolution can take effect and, as a matter of fact, is virtually contained in every true act of contrition. 2. The Dogmatic Teaching of the Church. — The dogmatic teaching of the Church on the subject of sacramental satisfaction may be summarized as follows: (1) The temporal punishments of sin are not necessarily all remitted in the Sacrament of Penance; (2) The remaining punishments may be cancelled by good works, especially prayer, fasting, and almsgiving; (3) The confessor is bound to impose, and the penitent to accept, such penitential exercises by way of satisfaction. We shall explain these points more fully in the form of three theses. Thesis I: The Sacrament of Penance, while remitting the guilt of sin together with its eternal punishment, does not cancel the temporal punishments due to sin. This proposition is de fide. Proof. The Protestant Reformers taught that Christ, by dying for us on the Cross, blotted out not only our sins, but likewise all punishments due to them, and that in consequence the justified 3 Cfr, Dallaeui, D* Points #1 Satisfactionibus Humonis. sinner need give no further satisfaction.2 This heretical error was condemned by the Council of Trent as follows: “If anyone saith that, after the grace of justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory, … let him be anathema/’ 3 This is true in particular of the Sacrament of Penance : “If anyone saith that God always remits the whole punishment together with the guilt, and that the satisfaction of penitents is no other than the faith whereby they apprehend that Christ has satisfied for them, let him be anathema” 4 The Catholic dogma is in full conformity with Sacred Scripture.5 a) Examples in point are: Adam and Eve (Gen. Ill, 17), the Israelites in the desert (Ex. XXXII, 14, 27), Moses (Numb. XX, 12), and especially David. 8 Sess. VI, can. 30: ” Si quis post acceptam iustiUcationis gratiam cuilibet peccatori poenitenti ita culpam remitti et reatum aetemae Poenae deleri dixerit, ut nullus remaneat reatus poenae temporalis exsolvendae vel in hoc saeculo vel in purgatorio, … anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 840). 4 Sess. XIV, can. 12: “Si quis dixerit, tot am potnam simul cum culpa remitti semper a Deo satisfactionemque poenitentium non esse aliam quam fidem, qu& apprehendunt Christum pro eis satisfedsse, anathema sit.* Cfr. can. 15. — (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 922). B The Tridentine Council says (Sess. XIV, cap. 8) that * perspicua et Ulustria in sacris literix exempla* can be cited in support of this dogma. After David had confessed to Nathan that he had * sinned against the Lord,” e the prophet consoled him by saying: ” The Lord hath taken away thy sin, thou shalt not die.” 7 But Nathan did not promise David remission of temporal punishment. On the contrary, he continued : “Nevertheless, because thou hast given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, … the child that is born to thee shall surely die.” 8 St. Paul mentions weakness, disease, and death among the evil effects of unworthy communion. ” Therefore many among you are weak and sickly, and not a few are fallen asleep.” 9 He evidently regards sickness and death as temporal punishments for irreverence shown towards the Eucharist ; for among the afflicted Corinthians many returned to their senses in consequence of such chastisements.10 b) The teaching of Tradition on this subject may be gathered partly from the writings of the Fathers and partly from the penitential discipline of the ancient Church. a) Calvin admits that practically all the Fathers held the Catholic doctrine of satisfaction.11 In view of this admission a few select texts will suffice for our purpose. St. Basil says : ” If thy sin is great and grievous, thou « 2 Kings XII, 13. 7 Ibid. 8 2 Kings XII, 14. • x Cor. XI, 30. 10 1 Cor. XI, 32: ” We are chastised by the Lord, .that we be not condemned with this world.” — On this text see Al. Schafer, Erklarung der beiden Brief e an die Korinther, p. 239, Munster 1903, and J. MacRory, Th$ Epistles of St Paul to the Corinthians, P. I, pp. 178 sq., Dublin 1915. 11 Instit., Ill, 4, 38: “Parum me movent, quae in veterum scrip’ tis de satis f action e passim occurrunt. Video quid em eorum nonnull os, dicam simpliciter fere omnes, quorum libri extant, aut hoc in parte lapsos esse aut nimis aspere et dun locutos.” 222 THE THREE ACTS OF THE PENITENT hast need of much penance, bitter tears, fatiguing nightwatches, constant fasting. If thy sin is light and tolerable, let thy penance be accordingly/’ 12 St. Augustine writes : ” Man is forced to suffer even after his sins are forgiven, though it was sin that caused him to fall into such misery. For the punishment outlasts the guilt, lest the guilt should be accounted slight, if with its forgiveness the penalty also came to an end.” 18 St. Gregory the Great teaches: “A crime does not vanish without vengeance. For either the sinner contritely punishes it himself, or God punishes it avengingly… . Thus David, after confessing, deserved to hear the words (2 Kings XII, 13) : ’ The Lord hath taken away thy sin,’ and yet by many sufferings had to make satisfaction for the guilt of the sin which he had committed.” 14 P) The penitential discipline of the Church furnishes incontrovertible proof of her belief in the necessity of sacramental satisfaction. It is an unsettled controversy whether absolution preceded or followed public penance in the primitive Church. Morinus 15 and others maintain that as a rule the sacramental absolution was not imparted until after the entire penance had been performed. For the East this means 12 Attende Tibi Ipsi, n. 4. 18 Tract, in loo., 124, n. 5: ” Cogitur homo tolerate etiam remissis peccatis, quamvis ut in earn veniret miseriam, primum fuerit causa peccatum. Productior est enim poena quam culpa, ne parva putaretur culpa, si cum ilia Uniretur et poena/’ (Migne, P. L., XXXV, 1972). 14 Moral., IX, c. 34: “Delictum sine ultione non deserit. Aut enim ipse hoc homo in se poenitens punit aut hoc Deus cum homine vindicans percutit… . Sic David post confessionem audire meruit ’ Transtulit Dominus peccatum tuum/ et tamen multis post cruciatibus aMictus et fugiens reatum culpae, quam perpetraverat, exsolvit.” (Migne, P. L.t LXXV, 889).— Other Patristic texts apud Bellarmine, De Poenit., IV, c. 9. 16 Comment. Hist, de Discipl. in Administr. Sacram. Poenit., IX, c. 3. that a penitent had to pass through the four penitential stages or stations before he obtained forgiveness.16 A second group of theologians (Billuart, Frank, Palmieri, Hurter et al.)9 hold that sacramental absolution was usually imparted right after (secret) confession, and that the formula pronounced over the penitents in public after the close of the period of public penance was merely the canonical absolution, which had the effect of a plenary indulgence and readmitted the penitent to the Eucharist. Let this be as it may, it is an undeniable fact that in the primitive Church absolution was frequently granted before full satisfaction had been given, and this fact proves that the Church can have had no objection to the practice, at least in principle. Cases in which absolution was given before satisfaction had been rendered were: danger of death 17 or of apostasy,18 extraordinary contrition,19 and the possession of a libellus martyrum.20 c) It is not difficult to see why a penitent, even after having obtained forgiveness of his sins, may still be subject to temporal punishments. Divine justice demands that a baptized sinner be more severely treated than an adult convert ; on the other hand divine mercy shows the sinner the grievousness of his transgressions by inflicting temporal punishments and thereby preserves him from 16 Binterim and Schwane differ from the other defenders of this theory in holding that, in the East, penitents were deemed worthy of receiving sacramental absolution when they had arrived at the fourth station, vis.: that of the consistentes or avar&vTes17 Cfr. Cone. Nicaen. I, can. 13. 18 Cfr. St. Cyprian, Ep.$ 52. i» Cfr. St Gregory of Nyssa, Ep. Canon., 5. 20 Cfr. St Cyprian, Ep., 16.— For a fuller treatment of this point see Frank, Die Bussdisziplin, pp. 811 sqq., Mayence 1867; Schmitz Die Bussbucher und die Bussdisziplin der Kirche, pp. 65 sqq., Mayence 1883; Gartmeier, Die Beichtpfiicht, pp. 69 sqq., Ratisbon 1905; Poschmann, Die Sichtbarkeit der Kirche nach Cyprian, pp. 147 sqq., Paderborn 1908. relapse and eternal damnation. Moreover, it is meet and just that a penitent sinner should, by assuming penitential works for his own sins, become like unto our Divine Saviour, who undertook such works for the sins of others. Of course, we must always remember that the good works which we perform in order to give satisfaction for our sins, — whether in connection with, or outside of, the Sacrament of Penance, — owe their entire efficacy to the merits of Christ. ” The satisfaction which we make for our sins,” says the Tridentine Council, ” is not so our own as not to be through Jesus Christ… . Thus man has not wherein to glory, but all our glorying is in Christ, in whom we live, in whom we merit, in whom we satisfy, bringing forth fruits worthy of penance, which from Him have their efficacy, by Him are offered to the Father, and through him are accepted by the Father.” 21 Hence it is wrong to assert that the Catholic doctrine of satisfaction is derogatory to the atonement. The Tridentine Council solemnly condemned this charge in a special canon : ” If anyone saith that the satisfactions by which penitents redeem their sins through Jesus Christ, are not a worship of God, but traditions of men, which obscure the doctrine of grace and the true worship of God and the benefit itself of the death of Christ, let him be anathema.” 22 2iSess. XIV, cap. 8: ” Neque vero ita nostra est satis f actio haec, quam pro peccatis nostris exsolvitnus, ut non sit per Christum Iesum… . Ita non habet homo unde glorietur, sed omnis gloriatio nostra in Christo est, in quo vivimus, in quo meremur, in quo satisfaclmus facientes fructus dignos poenitentxae, qui ex illo vim habent, ab illo offeruntur Patri et per ilium acceptantur a Poire.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 904). 22 Sess. XIV, can. 14: ” Si quis dixerit, satisfactions, quibus poenitentes per Christum Iesum peccata redimunt, non esse cultus Dei, sed traditiones hominum doctrinam de gratia et verum Del cultum atque ipsum beneHctum mortis Christi obscurant es, anathema sit.” (Dcnzinger-Bannwart, n. 924).— On the SATISFACTION 225 Thesis II: The converted sinner is able to cancel by various penitential works the temporal punishments remaining after absolution* This is likewise de fide. Before proceeding to demonstrate this dogma, we must explain the precise state of the question. There is a distinction between extraordinary and ordinary punishments due to sin. Extraordinary punishments are imposed by an absolute decree of God and their place cannot possibly be supplied by human satisfaction. Ordinary punishments owe their infliction to a conditional decree by which they may be blotted out through works of satisfaction. Extraordinary punishments were those inflicted upon Adam, Moses, David,28 and Saul;2* ordinary punishments, those imposed upon the inhabitants of Ninive 25 and upon Achab.26 We are here dealing with ordinary punishments, — of which the Council of Trent says that they may be blotted out by means of good works performed ” through Jesus Christ,” ” have their efficacy from Him,” and ” by Him are offered to the Father, and through Him accepted by the Father.” 27 The ordinary temporal punishments due to sin may be blotted out in two ways: either actively by performing penitential works in this life (satisf actio) , or passively by suffering in purgatory (satispassio) .28 It is an article of faith that satisfaction may be made for them in this life by performing penitential works, either at nature of temporal punishment for 24 i Kings XVI, i. sin as a commutation of eternal 25 Jonas III, 10. into certain definite temporal pen- 26 Cfr. 3 Kings XXII, 27 sqq. alties, see Oswald, Die dogmat. Lehre 27 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. XIV, von den hi. Sakramenten, Vol. II, cap. 8. 5th ed., pp. 9 sqq. 28 Cfr. Cone. Trid., Sess. VI, can. 28 V. supra, Thesis I. 30.

the bidding of one’s confessor, or voluntarily, and by patiently accepting trials and sufferings. This is the express teaching of the Tridentine Council : ” If anyone saith that satisfaction for sins, as to their temporal punishment, is nowise made to God through the merits of Jesus Christ, by the punishments inflicted by Him and patiently borne, or by those enjoined by the priest, nor even by those voluntarily undertaken, as by fastings, prayers, almsdeeds, or by other works of piety ; … let him be anathema.” 29 It is likewise an article of faith that the penitential works just described in some manner actually blot out the temporal punishments due to sin. That this effect is produced not merely per satisf actionem de congruo, but likewise, and in particular, per satisf actionem de condigno, may be deduced from the condemnation of a certain proposition espoused by Baius.80 However, this is not de fide dogmatica. Proof, a) The just man can acquire supernatural merits de condigno by performing good works.81 Now between merit and satisfaction there is no formal but only a material distinction, based on their respective effects. Merit increases sanctifying grace and effects eternal beatitude; 29 Seas. XIV, can. 13: “Si quis 80 This proposition is the 77th in dixerit, pro peccatis quoad poenam the series condemned by Pius V, and temp oral em minime Deo per Christi reads as follows: ” Satisf actiones merita satisHeri, poenis ab eo inHictis laboriosae iustificatorum non valent et patenter toleratis vel a sac er dote expiare de condigno poenam terniniunctis, sed neque sponte susceptis, poralem restantem post culpam conut ieiuniis, orationibus, elemosynis donatam,* (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. vel aliis etiam pietatis operibus, … 1077). anathema sit.* * (Denzinger-Bann- si See Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Acwart, n. 923). tual and Habitual, pp. 399 sqq.

satisfaction blots out the temporal punishments due to sin. Consequently the just man must be able to merit de condigno forgiveness of the temporal punishments remaining after absolution. Like all good works, those whereby satisfaction is made for sins are reducible to three classes: prayer, fasting, and almsgiving. This is the express teaching of Trent.82 Scripture tells us that these three kinds of good works blot out sin and are accepted by God in satisfaction of both guilt and punishment.88 This teaching is confirmed by Tradition. St. Augustine says : ” By almsgiving God must be propitiated for past sins/‘84 St. Cyprian expresses himself in a similar manner.85 That prayer, fasting, and almsgiving are means not only of acquiring supernatural merits but likewise of rendering satisfaction for sin, is owing to the fact that they involve a relinquishment of temporal goods, and therefore partake of the character of punishment. Man has three kinds of goods: (1) goods of the soul, which he offers to God by prayer and spiritual works of mercy; (2) goods of the body, which he sacrifices by fasting and other bodily mortifications; and (3) material goods, such as money and other valuable objects, which he surrenders to God by giving alms and performing works of corporal mercy. Another remedial and atoning feature of these three 82 Sess. VI, cap. 14: … satisfactionem per ieiunia, elemosynas, orationes et alia pia spiritualis vitae txercitia.— Cfr. Sess. XIV, can. 18 Cfr. Job XLII, 8; Tob. IV, 11; XII, 9; Prov. XV, 27; XVI, 6; Luke XI, 41, etc. MEnchir., c. 70: Per elemosynas de peccatis praeteritis est propitiandus Deus. 85 De Lapsis, c. 35. species of good works is that they are diametrically opposed to the three cardinal sins : prayer to pride ; fasting to concupiscence of the flesh; almsgiving to concupiscence of the eyes.86 b) Meritorious and satisfactory works, being materially identical, are subject to the same conditions. These conditions are mainly five, to wit : the works in question must be morally good; they must be performed voluntarily ; with supernatural help ; in the state of sanctifying grace ; and they must be acceptable to God.37 There is but one point in which merit (meritum) and satisfaction (satisfactio) differ, and that is that satisfaction partakes of the character of punishment (opus* poenale, laboriosum) . However, as all good and meritorious works are performed with difficulty, Catholic theologians generally teach that in the present state of human nature there is de facto not a single good work that may not at the same time partake of the nature of satisfaction. Hence the two notions are practically convertible.88 Thesis III: The confessor has both the right and the duty of enjoining a salutary satisfaction (penance). This proposition is de fide so far as the right of the confessor is concerned. Proof, a) The Tridentine Council declares: “If anyone saith that the keys are given to the Church only to loose and not also to bind, and that, therefore, priests act contrary to the purse Cfr. St Thomas, Summa tual and Habitual, pp. 4x0 sqq. Theol., Suppl., qu. 15, art. 3. 88 Cfr. De Lugo, De Poenit., disp. 87 Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Ac- 24, sect 3.

pose of the keys, and contrary to the institution of Christ, when they impose punishments on those who confess, and that it is a fiction that, after the eternal punishment has, by virtue of the keys, been removed, there remains for the most part a temporal punishment to be discharged; let him be anathema.” 89 The right of the confessor to impose a penance is deducible from the character of his office. He is a judge who, can not only grant or withhold absolution, but grant it conditionally.40 That the Catholic Church has always conceived the office of confessor thus, appears from her penitential discipline throughout the ages, especially in ancient times. b) The duty of the confessor to enjoin a penance is likewise distinctly affirmed by the Council of Trent. “The priests of the Lord,” it says, “ought … to enjoin salutary and suitable satisfactions, according to the quality of the crimes and the ability of the penitent ; … but let them keep in view that the satisfaction which they impose, be not only for the preservation of a new life and a medicine of infirmity [poena medici89 Sess. XIV, can. 15: “Si quis esse quod virtute clavium sublata dixerit, cloves Ecclesiae esse datas poena ae tern ft poena temporalis tantum ad solvendum, non etiam plerumque exsolvenda re mane at, ad ligandum et propterea sacerdotes, anathema sit.*’ (Denzinger-Banndum imponunt poenas confitentibus, wart, n. 925)agere contra Unern clavium et con- 40 V. supra, Part I, Ch. II, Sect. tra institutionem Christi et actionem 3. nalis], but also for the avenging and punishing of past sins [poena vindicativa].” 41 a) The reasons for this command are evident. In the first place, the confessor, as dispenser of the Sacrament, has to watch over its integrity; and, secondly, in his capacity of judge, he must properly exercise his judicial functions, among which is that of imposing a punishment. Third, the confessor is also a physician and as such bound to prescribe salutary remedies (prayers, fasting, almsgiving) for healing the soul and strengthening it against relapse. P) The satisfaction imposed by the confessor is gauged on the one hand by the grievousness and specific nature of the sins confessed, and on the other by the ability of the penitent. This is the express teaching of Trent. The Council warns confessors not to “connive at sins and deal too indulgently with penitents by enjoining certain very light works for very grievous crimes.”*2 The present practice seems to be at variance with this injunction. But it must be regarded not so much from the first of the two points of view mentioned above (the grievousness and specific character of the sins committed), as from the second, i. e. the ability of the penitent. At the present time too great severity would repel rather than benefit the faithful. The Sacrament of Penance 41 Seas. XIV, cap. 8: ” Debent Ho, quam imponuni, non sit iantum ergo sacerdotes Domini … pro ad novae vitoe custodian et infirmiqualitate criminum et poeniteniium tatis medicomentum, sed etiom ad facultate salutares et convenientes praeteritorum peccatorum vindicsatisfactions iniungere, … Ha- tain et castigationem.” leant autem prae oculis, ut satis foe- 42 Sess. XIV, cap. 8.

has been instituted for the salvation of souls, and the temporal punishments which it does not remit are sure to be redeemed in purgatory if they are not redeemed on earth. May the confessor advise rather than enjoin a penance? Suarez 43 thinks he may. But this opinion is hardly tenable. A penance that is merely a matter of counsel is not a satisf actio imposita in the sense of the Tridentine decree. It should be noted, also, that the performance of the penance imposed is an essential part of the Sacrament, and consequently, in the opinion of most theologians,44 effects the remission of the punishments due to sin not merely ex op ere operantis but likewise ex opere operato. This may be qualified as an opionio certa in the technical meaning of that term. It is not quite so certain that the performance of the satisfaction imposed by the confessor increases sanctifying grace in the penitent ex opere operato, as Suarez holds.45 St. Thomas seems to favor this opinion,46 but other eminent theologians, e. g. Vasquez and De Lugo, combat it on the ground that, as satisfaction does not signify, neither can it effect, sanctifying grace. Readings: — St Thomas, S. Theol, Suppl, qu. 12 sqq., and the commentators. — Bellarmine, De Poenitentia, L IV, c. 1 sqq. — C. Weiss, S. Thomae de Satis j actione et Indulgentia Doctrina, Graz 1896. — A. Bukowski, S. J., Die Genugtuung fur die Siinde nach der Auffassung der russischen Orthodoxen, pp. 82 sqq., Paderborn 191 1.— R. Melia, A Treatise on Auricular Confession, P. II, Ch. s, pp. 264-281, Dublin s. a. 48 De Poenit,, disp. 28, sect 3, n. 4S De Poenit., disp. 38, sect 2, n. 2, 3. 44 With but a few dissenting 46 Cfr. Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 90, voices, among them Dom. Soto (Com- art 2, ad 2: ” Satisf actio confert tnent. in Sent, IV, dist. 19, qu. x, gratiam, prout est in proposito et art 5) and Oswald (Lehre von den auget earn, prout est in executione.” hi, Sakramenten, Vol. II, p. 184).