PENTENZA

In this context, peace with the Church is considered a reality and a sacrament of penance (cf. also L. Lercher, *Institutiones theologiae dogmaticae*, 3rd ed., IV, 2, Innsbruck 1949, pp. 67 ff., 123).

2. The Sacrament of Penance in the Early Church

The practice and penitential doctrine of the Early Church constitute one of the most delicate subjects in the history of dogma. The main issues are whether, as has been claimed, the Church in the first three centuries excluded the most grievous sins from its forgiveness, and then the precise evaluation of the penitential institution as it was in force, especially from the 4th to the 6th century, in public or canonical penance.

a) Historical-dogmatic development in the first three centuries. –
Almost all non-Catholics view the penitential doctrine and practice of this period as determined by the conception of the “Church of the Saints,” i.e., consisting only of members without sin (*Sündlosigkeitstheorie*), and by the corresponding evaluation of Baptism as the sole penance (*Tauftheorie*). The early Church would thus have definitively excluded from its fold those guilty of the most serious crimes (particularly the triad of capital sins: adultery, apostasy, murder), not merely by way of factual refusal but because it believed it had neither the right nor the power to grant forgiveness for such sins. The later, more lenient practice, introduced when the painful experience of too frequent sins no longer allowed such rigorism to be sustained, would therefore represent a disciplinary and doctrinal innovation, while the original ideal would be exemplified by the positions of Montanus and Novatian (so Rolfs, Harnack, Windisch; cf. J. F. Laun, *Busswesen*, II, in *Religion in Geschichte u. Gegenwart*, I, 2nd ed., Göttingen 1927, col. 1394). According to this view, the overcoming of primitive rigorism occurred gradually: first with regard to adulterers (in the so-called *edictum peremptorium*, attributed to Callistus, c. 220), then reconciling apostates (at the time of St. Cyprian), and finally forgiving murderers (Council of Ancyra, a. 314). Similar opinions were advanced by modernists (Denz-U, 240).

Some Catholics too have admitted that, before the 4th century, the Church de facto denied peace to the three capital sins; yet this refusal was dictated by the supposed pastoral expediency of such rigorism, and the subsequent mitigation should be regarded as a merely disciplinary, not doctrinal, innovation (so D. Petavio, *De vetere in Ecclesia poenitentiae ratione diatriba*, in *Dogmata theologica*, ed. J. B. Fournals, VIII, Paris 1867, p. 182, followed by F. X. Funk, P. Batiffol, E. Vacandard, G. Rauschen). Other Catholics have denied not only the fact but also the possibility of such a disciplinary change (cf. J. Stufler, *Die Busdisziplin der abendländischen Kirche bis Kallistus*, in *Zeitschrift für kathol. Theol.*, 31 [1907], pp. 433-73).

b) The nascent Church and the Apostolic Fathers. — In it, there was undoubtedly a high conception of the holiness required of its members (1 Cor 6:11; St. Ignatius, *Eph.* 4:2; 8:2; Ps. Barnabas, 4:1; 11:11; 2 Clem. 6:9; 7:6), and the gravest obligation was seen in preserving the purity of Baptism. Yet within its ranks, even grave sins were known to exist (1 Cor 5:1 ff.; 6:8; 2 Cor 12:20 ff.; 1 John 1:8; Rev 2:15; 2:21; 3:2; St. Ignatius, *Eph.* 10:3; *Philad.* 7:2; 8:1; *Trall.* 8:2). For all such sins, the possibility of penance and salvation is affirmed (1 Clem. 7:4; 8:1-5; St. Ignatius, *Philad.* 3:2; 8:1; *Smyrn.* 9:1). Hence the most urgent exhortations to penance in this life, where alone it is fruitful (2 Clem. 8:2); from the fact that the Apocalypse calls even the Church of Thyatira to penance for fornication and idolatry, Tertullian, still Catholic, deduced the existence of a “second” penance for all sins (*De paen.* 8:1-2). Even the testimony of the most ancient Creed, “I believe... in the forgiveness of sins” (Denz-U, 2), though primarily referring to Baptism, may at least secondarily be understood as referring to this more laborious mode of remission (cf. K. Prümm, *Der christliche Glaube u. die altchristliche Welt*, II, Leipzig 1935, pp. 260 and 464, n. 122, against K. Holl). The ecclesiastical-sacramental nature of penance is especially evident in the excommunication of one guilty of a very grave sin, already attested by St. Paul in the case of the incestuous man of Corinth (1 Cor 5:2 ff.), where the authoritative judicial character of the apostolic decision is strongly expressed (ἐκκλησία); the excommunication is conveyed by the phrase “hand him over to Satan,” since the devil can exercise his power more freely over one excluded from the communion of the Church. This is not, therefore, a matter of abandonment to actual demonic possession, as some Fathers believed, nor of merely spiritual penalties, but also of corporal “chastisement unto the destruction of the flesh” (*in interitum carnis*). This excommunication has a punitive as well as a medicinal purpose: “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (cf. 1 Tim 1:20, where Hymenaeus and Alexander were excommunicated “that they may learn not to blaspheme”). The “penance of excommunication” for the gravest sins is also attested by the *Didache* (10:6; 15:3), by St. Ignatius (*Smyrn.* 4:1; 7:2; *Eph.* 7:1), by St. Polycarp in the case of the presbyter Valens (*Phil.* 11:2), by the *Ps.-Barnabas* (19:4), and by the Second Letter of Clement (17:3-5).

The act of ecclesiastical forgiveness coincides with the readmission to the common life of the Church. The power to forgive, like the power to punish, belongs to the presbyters (“let them be compassionate,” St. Polycarp, *Phil.* 6:1). That ecclesiastical reconciliation, as reunion with the community of salvation, should also be regarded as a pledge of God’s forgiveness may be legitimately inferred from the Pauline conception of the Church, even if it is not always expressed as clearly as in St. Ignatius: “For all who belong to God and Jesus Christ are with the bishop; and all who, moved by penance, return to the unity of the Church, these too will belong to God” (*Philad.* 3:2; F. X. Funk, *Patres apost.*, 2nd ed., Tübingen 1901, p. 267).

Particular mention must be made of the only writing of the period that expressly treats of penance, the Shepherd of Hermas (v.). Much discussion has surrounded the value to be assigned to his announcement of a post-baptismal penance. Many (Harnack, Loofs, Seeberg, Windisch, M. Dibelius, H. Koch, and among Catholics F. X. Funk, P. Batiffol, K. Bihlmeyer) maintained that Hermas was the first to break with the strict “theory of Baptism” and, appealing to a supposed celestial revelation, introduced an unprecedented novelty by announcing to sinful Christians a single “extraordinary opportunity for penance in the form of a jubilee.” D’Ales and Poschmann have shown that this interpretation is due to a great misunderstanding. What Hermas preaches (Vis. II) as a new revelation is not the possibility of a post-baptismal penance—which is already presupposed as evident in Vis. I (1, 9; 3, 2)—but the setting of a limit to penance, namely that it should apply only to sins committed up to that time. Hermas therefore announces not the first, but the last opportunity for penance. Convinced of the imminent end of the world, he hoped thus to shake the sinful Christian community into mass conversion (Vis. II, 2, 4-9). Controversy has also arisen over Mand., IV, 3, 1-7, where an apparent opposition is seen between the original ideal of holiness and the new penitential practice. Indeed, the Shepherd seems here to approve both the existence of a second penance for the baptized and the doctrine of “some doctors” that there is no other penance than that of Baptism. The apparent difficulty is resolved by considering the situation of catechumens and neophytes (newly baptized). The teaching on the possibility of another penance is withheld from them because it might become an incentive to sin (Mand., IV, 3, 3). They do not have penance (μετανοια) because they have something greater: the total and gratuitous remission of all their sins (ἀφεσις). This opposition between μετανοια (post-baptismal penance, laborious) and ἀφεσις (total remission in Baptism) becomes classic in the early Church (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Strom., II, § 55, 6) and must be kept in mind when in some texts the possibility of remission (ἀφεσις) for grave sins committed after Baptism is denied. The efficacy of penance is unlimited, not excluding the gravest crimes such as apostasy and adultery (Vis., II, 2, 2-4; Mand., IV, 1, 8). No trace is found of capital sins deemed irremissible because of their objective gravity; only insofar as certain sins demonstrate by themselves a disposition of mind directly contrary to penance may they be irremissible (Sim., VIII, 6, 4; IX, 19, 1; VIII, 8, 2).

Of great importance, however, is another restriction found for the first time in Hermas: penance after Baptism is unique: «τοῖς γὰρ δούλοις τοῦ Θεοῦ μετανοια ἐστι μία» (Mand., IV, 1, 8, cf. ibid., 3, 6): if anyone sins after Baptism μία μετανοια ἐστι. But it is also clear from the context that this principle of μία μετανοια in Hermas is not an expression of a dogmatic impossibility, as if God denied His mercy to the recidivist, but is inspired by pastoral reasons: the recidivist, as shown by his repeated sinning, does not have the true penitential disposition, so that penance is useless. Given the great authority enjoyed by the Shepherd of Hermas at the time, the principle of a single penance was generally adopted, at least in the Western Church; it should be noted that already in Tertullian this limitation, originally disciplinary, acquires a more dogmatic and categorical tone.

1113

PENANCE

(«sed iam semel, quia iam secundo; sed amplius numquam, quia proxime frustra»: De paen., 7, 10; cf. 9, 1).

The practice inaugurated by Hermas of a single post-baptismal penance cannot be considered outright as the most ancient usage. The Church of the first half of the 3rd century (cf. Didascalia and Constitutiones Apostolicae) seems not to know the limitation expressed by Hermas and adopted by Tertullian as by the Alexandrians (cf. K. Rahner, Buslehere u. Busspraxis der Didascalia Apostolorum, in Zeitschr. f. kath. Theologie, 72 [1950], pp. 257-81).

The ecclesiastical character of penance appears in Hermas in the excommunication of those guilty of grave crimes such as adultery or idolatry (Mand., IV, 1, 8-9); thus the Church is also the end of penance: insertion into the tower, which is a symbol of the (holy) Church, guarantees the remission of sins and salvation. If for Hermas penance were not terminated by reconciliation, Tertullian’s Montanist anger against the “Pastor of adulterers” who would have opened the Church to adulterers would be hard to understand (De pud., 10, 12; 20, 2).

§) The penitential controversies of the 3rd century. — The end of the 2nd century and the first part of the 3rd are marked by the Montanist crisis (v. MONTANISM). The need to defend the traditional penitential practice against the rigorism of the new prophecy contributed not a little to making the exercise of the power of the keys, traced in its outlines in the preceding period, clearly affirmed at the beginning of the 3rd century. It seems, however, that the Montanist movement induced here and there some bishops to greater severity; note for Africa the statement of Cyprian that some among his predecessors in the province of Africa had not admitted adulterers to reconciliation (“in totum paenitentiae locum contra adulteria cluserunt”: Ep., 55, 21; ed. G. Hartel, CSEL, 3, 2, p. 638, 23-25). Cyprian, however, also makes clear that they saw this as a purely disciplinary matter: “Non tamen a coepiscoporum collegio recesserunt aut catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem ruperunt” (ibid., p. 639, nn. 1-3). This partly explains the categorical assertions of the Montanist Tertullian: “Hinc est, quod neque idolatriae neque sanguini pax ab Ecclesiis redditur” (De pud., 12, 11); this, stated in general terms, is false. It suffices to recall the letter in which Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Pope Soter (165-74), addressed to the Church of Amastris in Bithynia, requesting the reconciliation (δεξιοῦσχη) of all who returned from error and “heresy” to the Church (cf. Eusebius, Hist. eccl., IV, 23, 6) and the case of the confessor Natalis, who after falling into the heresy of Theodotus, having been miraculously induced to penance, was reconciled by Pope Zephyrinus (198-217; cf. Eusebius, ibid., V, 28, 8-12).

It is debated whether the statements of St. Irenaeus (Adv. haer., I, 13, 5; 7) concerning certain Christian women seduced by the Gnostics contain, in addition to their penance, also attestation of their reconciliation (this is affirmed by P. Galtier, Aux origines du Sacrement de la Pénitence, Rome 1951, pp. 149-52, against B. Poschmann, Paenitentia secunda, Bonn 1940, p. 222 ff.; a similar divergence appears regarding the value to be given to the repeated exomologesis of the Gnostic Cerdon: cf. Irenaeus, op. cit., III, 4, 3 and B. Poschmann, op. cit., p. 220 ff.). On the contrary, the testimony of Tertullian himself is unquestionable: still a Catholic, in the treatise De paenitentia (c. 203) he defends the second penance, unique as with Hermas (7, 10), open to all sinners (8, 2-6), consisting in a laborious probatio that requires not only interior repentance but also an external act, the ἐξουσία (9, 1-2); this includes various acts of humiliation and mortification such as the public confession of sins, imploring the intercession of priests and confessors (9, 4; 10, 6), sackcloth and ashes, fasting and prayer (9, 4). Penance, initially performed outside the church (in vestibulo 7, 10), later took place within the house of God itself (De pud., 13, 7), ending with reconciliation, which, like excommunication, pertains to the bishop.

The teaching of Tertullian in *De pudicitia*, written after his embrace of the Phrygian heresy (v. MONTANISM, III), is quite different. Here he distinguishes sins (2, 12-15) into *peccata remissionis* (modica, 1, 19; mediocris, 7, 20; leviora, 18, 18) and *irremissionis* (capitalia, 9, 20; 21, 14; mortalia, 3, 3; 19, 28; maiora, 18, 18; exitiosa, quae veniam non capiunt, 19, 25). The latter exclude forgiveness by the Church, not by God (*de venia Deo reservamus*, 19, 6). This distinction is entirely new, unknown even to Tertullian in his Catholic period; as new is the triad of capital sins, artificially deduced by him from the Decalogue and the decree of the Apostolic Council (De pud. 5 and 12).

Recent criticism has not taken into account Tertullian’s polemical artistry nor the numerous contradictions into which he falls due to some arbitrary assertions; hence some have concluded from the particular argument of *De pudicitia* that there existed three capital sins to which, according to Tertullian, the early Church would have denied forgiveness: idolatry, murder, and adultery, with adultery occupying first place among capital sins, though not the only one (De pud., 19, 25; Adv. Marc., 4, 9). Yet, given Tertullian’s great authority, even in the 4th and 5th centuries this tradition was regarded in some Churches as the sole object of ecclesiastical penance (*“Nonnulli putant tria tantum crimina esse mortifera”*, St. Augustine, *Speculum de scripturis sacris: De libro Actuum Apost.: PL 34, 994*).

Also untenable is the opinion that the bishop (*“pontifex maximus, quod est episcopus episcoporum”*), who safeguards reconciliation for adulterers with a “peremptory edict” (the proximate occasion of the treatise *De pudicitia*), is Pope Callistus (217-22); the accusations of Hippolytus (*Philosophumena*, 9, 2) against Callistus’ “lax” practice refer to a different matter. That edict, moreover, did not inaugurate the controversy, nor did it introduce a new penitential practice or a new concept of the Church, as has been claimed—one that allegedly destroyed the “baptismal rigorism” hitherto in force. Rather, the edict authoritatively confirms the existing practice (as Tertullian implicitly admits, since his polemic presupposes that forgiveness for adulterers was already a constant practice among the “psychics,” and he even admits having once shared their view, 1, 10). The term *“editio”* is probably the product of the same irony that coined the titles *“pontifex maximus”* and *“episcopus episcoporum.”* The so-called Penitential Edict of Callistus thus reduces to an energetic assertion by an African bishop (probably Agrippinus, primate of the African Church, 218-22; cf. St. Cyprian, *Ep.*, 71, 4), upholding the traditional doctrine of ecclesiastical forgiveness against the inroads of Montanist rigorism.

Tertullian, who denies the hierarchical Church the power to forgive grave sins, attributing it to Peter personally or to the spiritual Church through the *spiritus homo* (De pud., 21), indirectly attests how the struggle against Montanism contributed to fostering in bishops an ever-clearer consciousness of the power granted by Christ and its defense through recourse to the primal power of binding and loosing, transmitted to the heads of the hierarchical Church through apostolic succession.

The second penitential controversy, fought in Carthage and Rome, arose during the persecution of Decius (249-51) over the issue of the *lapsi* (v.). Alongside Pope Cornelius, St. Cyprian especially defended the traditional penitential practice: against the presumption of certain confessors, he vindicates the power of reconciliation for the bishop and priests authorized by him (Ep., 61, 3); against rigorist tendencies, he admits all *lapsi* to penance; against the laxists, he includes that reconciliation will not be granted to those who have not expiated their crime, even if they have committed similar offenses (De lapsis, 16). Without foundation is the theory that the alleged rigorism of the early Church was shattered a second time (after Callistus) by Cyprian. The innovator was Novatian (v.), who excluded apostates from all ecclesiastical forgiveness. In penitential practice, St. Cyprian is the first in the Latin Church to attest the imposition of hands by the bishop and clergy in the rite of reconciliation (Ep., 16, 2; ed. G. Hartel, CSEL, 3, 2, p. 518 = Ep., 9; PL 4, 258). From a dogmatic standpoint, the great bishop reveals the characteristic difficulties and imperfections of ancient penitential theology. Strong in him is the principle that God alone forgives sin (De lapsis, 17); hence God must be placated through the sinner’s personal satisfaction: *“Dominus noster satisfactione placandus est”* (ibid.); penance, in contrast to Baptism, must laboriously obtain divine remission (Ep., 55, 22). Yet with equal force Cyprian extols the necessity of the Church’s intervention, of ecclesiastical communion; characteristic is how he justifies granting peace to the dying (Ep., 57, 1; ed. G. Hartel, CSEL, 3, 2, p. 651). The perfect synthesis of these two cardinal affirmations, lacking in Cyprian, would await the time of the great scholastics.

### Y) Penance in the Eastern Church
Clement of Alexandria and Origen are direct witnesses to the Eastern Church’s tradition, independent of Tertullian’s controversy. Clement agrees with the *Shepherd of Hermas* in affirming a second, unique penance (Strom., II, 13, 56 sqq.) for all sins (*Quis dives salvetur*, 38, 4; 39, 3; 42, 15; Strom., II, 23, 147, 2 sqq.; VII, 16, 102, 2) and in distinguishing the efficacy of Baptism (ἀποκρίνομαι by pure grace) from that of penance, which instead requires a painful purifying cure (Strom., II, 12, 55, 6; 15, 70, 3; IV, 24, 154, 3; *Quis dives salvetur*, 40, 1). The remission of sin is conceived as a slow process of healing (ibid., 40, 3-6), in which one must rely on an expert spiritual guide who accompanies penance with correction and prayer: such are the members of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, but also all perfect Christians, the friends of God, who embody the ideal of the “gnostic.” Clement’s psychological-medical conception of penance strongly influenced penitential doctrine in the Eastern Church.

Origen should never have been classified among radical rigorists (as Harnack did). The incriminated text (*De orat.*, 28, 10) contains nothing about a supposed irremissibility of capital sins; rather, it denies them ἀποκρίνομαι because there can no longer be question of their extinction through the baptismal rite; they cannot even be remitted by the immediate action of the Church’s prayer and sacrifice (as can “venial” sins); they must rather be expiated through the “chastisement” (κόλασις) that is their due. This third point is the logical consequence of the second and derives from the existence of mortal sin, inasmuch as it is a death and separates the sinner from the interior communion of grace.

The first salutary act of the Church toward the sinner is excommunication: in Origen there is no fixed technical term (he speaks of *exvelere de Ecclesia*, *foras mittere*, *a corpore Christi separare*, *ligare*); yet there is no doubt as to the theological meaning of such excommunication: it renders visible what had already taken place in the eyes of God; it has the value of perdition in the eyes of God. Separated from the homeland, from the heavenly Jerusalem, from the body of Christ, from unity, the sinner is abandoned to the darkness. The one who has the power to inflict excommunication is the bishop (*per episcopi sententiam*, *In Lev.* 14, 2); from this it clearly appears that the penitential practice at the time of Origen was such that the bishops not only exercised this power but had also formulated the theory of their right to do so: “For those who preside over the Church and have the power not only to loose but also to bind” (*In Iud.* 2, 5). Thus Origen placed on the same level the remission of sin to be granted by God and the readmission into the Church: “How can I dare approach the Lord? How can I return to the Church?” (*In Ps.* 36 hom. 4, 2; *PG* 12, 1333).

The image given of Origen is confirmed by the *Didascalia Apostolorum*, which presents a perfect picture of the penitential institution in the Eastern Church during the first half of the 3rd century. It inculcates the remissibility of all sins before God and the Church, and often polemicizes against those who deny ecclesiastical reconciliation: the conception that God can grant forgiveness to repentant sinners while the Church must deny them ecclesiastical peace is entirely unknown to the *Didascalia*. The two pardons condition and postulate one another (cf. the study by K. Rahner).

b) Public or canonical penance. — From the 4th century onward, the Church’s power to remit all sins, even the most grave, is attested by increasingly frequent testimonies and sanctioned by solemn magisterium (cf. canon 13 of the Council of Nicaea: “Whenever anyone is at the point of death and requests participation in the Eucharist, the bishop shall grant it,” *Denz-U*, 57). The exact evaluation of the concrete form in which the Sacrament of Penance appeared up to the 7th century, namely public penance—also called canonical penance because it was governed by the canons of the early councils (such as the Synods of Ancyra [314], Neocaesarea [between 314 and 325], Nicaea [325], Antioch [341], Gangra in the East, and by African, Spanish, and Frankish synods in the Western Church), by papal decrees (Siricius, Innocent I, Leo I, Felix II, Hormisdas, Gregory I), as well as by penitential epistles (which with time acquired canonical authority), composed by Gregory the Thaumaturge (d. c. 270), Peter of Alexandria (d. 311), St. Basil (Epist., 188, 199, 217), St. Gregory of Nyssa.

c) Description of public penance. — Public penance essentially required a twofold act on the part of the ecclesiastical hierarchy: excommunication from the Church and reconciliation with II. If public penance is defined as that which was performed “in ordo paenitentium” (P. Galtier), it must be borne in mind that this aggregation could have various degrees. To speak of public penance, it is not necessary that the sinner de facto (for a certain time and in a certain manner) have belonged to the class of penitents; even the mere exclusion from the Eucharist was already considered an inclusion in the order of penitents (St. Cyprian, Origen). The manner of its practice could vary considerably, yet everywhere penitents had a place (*ordo*) separate from those who could receive the Eucharist and received particular impositions of hands. Subjects of public penance were not only the so-called three “capital sins,” but in general *peccata gravia et mortifera* (St. Augustine, *Serm.*, 278, 12: *PL* 38, 1273), while lesser sins (*levia et minuta*) were remitted through “daily penance” (prayers, fasts, alms). Spontaneously, however, public penance could be accepted for such minor faults. The concept of grave sin still lacked precision. It did not matter whether the sins were public or occult. Admission to penance was a favor that had to be sought; originally it was open even to the clergy (cf. St. Cyprian, *Ep.*, 6, 1, 1 = *Ep.*, 59: *PL* 3, 1014), but from the 4th century onward universal practice excluded higher clergy from public penance (note the reason given by St. Augustine, *Contra ep. Parm.*, 2, 13: *PL* 43, 70) and punished them with deposition and degradation (considered equivalent to public penance), later admitting them to lay communion. Something similar applied to lay “converts,” who in place of penance chose the religious life, retiring to monasteries or remaining in the world. Even dying sinners were admitted to penance, but in an early period (not universally observed, it seems) the practice was to deny peace or communion to those who sought penance only in danger of death (St. Cyprian, *Ep.*, 55, 23; ed. G. Hartel, *CSEL*, 3, 2, 6: 64: 1 sg. = *Ep.*, 52: *PL* 3, 789 sg.; and canons 64 and 70 of the Council of Elvira, *Mansi*, II, 16 sg.); after Nicaea (canon 13, *Denz-U*, 57) a milder practice was followed, granting penance and communion (cf. the *Epistolae* of Innocent I to Exsuperius, *Denz-U*, 95, and of Celestine I to the bishops of Gaul, *Denz-U*, 111). Public penance consisted of three parts: the imposition of penance, after the sinner’s confession (which was secret; cf. St. Leo M., *Ep.*, 168, 2, *Denz-U*, 145) and after correction by the bishop; the *actio paenitentiae*, of which the principal act was *exomologesis*, which in St. Cyprian sometimes means the entire public penance, but more strictly signifies an explicit confession in the very acts of the penitent (“the discipline of prostrating oneself like homicides,” Tertullian, *De poenit.*, 9, 3), which often had to be repeated. Thus we understand the case of the Gnostic Cerdon, who, admitted to public penance, sometimes performed the *exomologesis* and sometimes neglected II. Moreover, *exomologesis* encompassed the entire discipline of penitential life (fasts, works of expiation, etc.); the *absolutio paenitentiae* given by the bishop and clergy through the imposition of hands (St. Cyprian, *Ep.*, 16, 2), united with the celebration of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, had an efficacious influence on eternal salvation since it restored peace with the Church, the community of salvation.

What greatly differentiates public penance from current practice is its non-repeatability (cf. *Pastor Hermae*, Mand., IV, 3, 6; Tertullian, *De poenit.*, 7, 10; Origen, *In Lev. hom.*, 15, 2; St. Augustine, *Ep.*, 153, 7). Those who claim to receive penance more often “luxuriate in Christ,” “since just as there is one Baptism, so there is one penance” (St. Ambrose, *De poenit.*, II, 10: PL 16, 520). Relapsed sinners are not admitted to ecclesiastical penance; they are, however, admonished to commend themselves to divine mercy through penitential works (St. Augustine, *Ep.*, 153, 3, 7). Furthermore, whoever had once performed public penance remained, even after reconciliation, subject to a not inconsiderable post-penitential discipline: from the 4th century onward, such persons were excluded from the clerical state, from military service, from public offices, and from the use of marriage (cf. Pope Siricius I, *Ep. ad Himerium*, in Mansi, III, 657).

b) There has been vigorous debate over whether, alongside public penance, a “private” sacramental penance also existed in the early Church. The affirmative answer, already given by Morinus and Petavius, has recently been defended by A. D’Ales, S. Harent, and P. Galtier. They find this private penance in the public reconciliation of heretics and of those who, for various disciplinary reasons, had been communed without the obligation to undergo canonical penance; as well as in Communion given to the dying and in the remission of “mediate” sins (grave but not capital). According to P. Batiffol and J. Tixeront, the transition from public to private penance began to take shape around the year 400. K. Adam initially sought to demonstrate that the introduction of the private form was due precisely to St. Augustine; later he argued that an ecclesiastical penance without excommunication (innerkirchliche Busse) had always existed.

The existence of private penance has instead been denied by Fr. X. Funk, E. Vacandard, E. Göller, E. Amann, and, with particularly thorough research, by B. Poschmann, whose argumentation has won increasingly wide assent. According to this latter author, private penance was not introduced before the 7th century. Its first trace is found in canon 11 of the Third Council of Toledo (A.D. 589), which condemned this form of penance as an *exercibilis praesumptio* (Mansi, IX, 695). The Fathers expressly attest that for the baptized there are only two kinds of penance: the daily private kind (prayers, alms, etc.) for lesser sins, and canonical penance for mortal sins (cf. St. Augustine, *De symb. ad cat.*, 7, 15; 8, 16; *Serm.*, 35, 1, 2–4; 352, 2; *Ep.*, 265, 7). The *correctorii medicamenta* spoken of by St. Augustine (*De fide et operibus*, 26, 48) are nothing other than exhortations to penance; no argument proves that they should be understood as a private absolution (cf. B. Poschmann, *S. Aurelii Augustini textus selecti de poenitentia*, in *Florilegium patristicum*, fasc. XXXVIII, Bonn 1938, p. 75 and note 2). As recent research by K. Rahner has shown, even according to Origen and the *Didascalia Apostolorum*, only public penance with excommunication can be recognized as a true particular sacrament. Outside of it there are acts of ecclesiastical hierarchy directed toward the remission of sins, but which cannot be said to be sacramental in the current sense of the word. To affirm the existence of a private sacramental penance, one would instead have to demonstrate that in the early Church there existed an ordinary means of remitting grave (at least occult) sins through an exclusively internal process (in foro conscientiae) and repeatable—as indeed exists from the 7th century onward. Moreover, one would have to demonstrate that such a process, if it existed, had sacramental value; it is not possible to see a true absolution (and consequently private penance) in any priestly prayer that implores the remission of sins, nor in any correction of sins.

The practice of private penance thus appears to have been introduced in the 7th century, beginning in certain provinces of Spain and Gaul. It may be said to have been prepared for by the penance of the “converts,” who had propagated the custom of performing a secret penance accepted out of devotion. A change of form then became necessary because of the manifold difficulties of canonical penance (delay of penance until the point of death, for fear of juridical consequences; sacrilegious Communions; the painful situation of relapsed sinners; the tendency to substitute for penance the monastic life or *conversio*, regarded as a second Baptism). The proximate cause of the change seems to be traced to the activity of the Irish-Scottish missionaries, who under the guidance of St. Columbanus spread the usages of the Celtic Church onto the Continent.

c) Dogmatic evaluation of public penance. “1°) The early Church knew and exercised penance as a sacramental means of remitting sins for the baptized. As regards the external manner of administration, although the penitential practice of the early Church differs markedly from today’s usage, the same essential elements are to be found. In the early Church, too, contrition, satisfaction, and confession concurred on the part of the sinner for the remission of sins in the Sacrament of Penance, while on the part of the Church exercising the power of the keys, absolution was given. Contrition, in the sense of true conversion, was indispensable for being admitted to receive penance. The confession of sins was held to be absolutely necessary; the declaration of the Council of Trent is confirmed, namely, that secret confession before the priest alone was in force from the beginning in the Church, since the confession that initiates every penance was also then by its nature secret. Satisfaction held such primacy in the entire penitential practice that in it penance seemed almost constantly to consist. The sacramental absolution was imparted in the form of reconciliation. It is true that in the early Church it was not clearly seen what relationship existed between the effect of reconciliation and subjective penance. The testimonies regarding the penitential practice of the early Church further show how ecclesiastical (sacramental) penance was required for all ‘crimes,’ although in individual Churches and different periods there was no constant criterion as to which offenses were to be regarded as crimes. In all these respects, therefore, the penitential practice current in the early Church corresponds to what the Council of Trent requires to constitute the essence of the Sacrament of Penance; it is consequently unnecessary to suppose in the early Church any private sacramental penance whose existence, for the first six centuries, is unsupported by the testimony of the sources.

2') In penitential practice and doctrine one finds not a few difficulties and imperfections; these, however, cannot be justly evaluated unless one considers the entire state of theological understanding at the time. In the history of penitential doctrine it is clearly seen how the concept of the Sacrament was not yet circumscribed. It is therefore no wonder that ecclesiastical assessments of personal works which were to "procure forgiveness" were exalted. This exaltation of the *opus operantis* is not without connection to the tendencies of asceticism and monasticism (cf. the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian controversies. St. Augustine, as an anti-Pelagian polemicist, more strongly asserted the moment of ecclesiastical reconciliation). Although the distinction between guilt and penalty was not entirely unknown (cf. St. Cyprian, *Ep.*, 55, 29), it was not applied to penitential theology; hence it was easily held that "forgiveness" from God was obtained only when every penalty was also remitted. This explains why the value of reconciliation given by the Church was considered in some way "hypothetical." Thus justification was conceived not so much as an instantaneous act (by which guilt is immediately and totally removed) but rather as a subsequent forgiveness. The Fathers also held that grace makes man a friend of God and that, as a gift, it is something permanent. But they did not pay sufficient attention to the fact that grace is a positive quality inherent in the soul, by which the state of sin is immediately and necessarily removed. The remission of sins was for them a kind of healing process, not only in the psychological sense of the destruction of sinful tendencies, but also in the sense of the remission of guilt before God.

Finally, since reconciliation—inasmuch as the name itself indicates—was understood as readmission into the community of the Church, its efficacy is recognized all the more clearly the deeper the doctrine of the Church as the Body of Christ, in which charity, the Spirit, and—through the Spirit—the remission of sin by God are given (St. Paul, St. Cyprian, St. Augustine). In the administration of the Sacrament of Penance, there also appears a certain greater participation of the whole community, which, through its intercession, aids the penitential work of the sinner; gradually, however, it became more explicitly clear who were the proper subjects of the power of the keys.

3. The progress of penitential doctrine in scholastic theology

Its factors are to be sought in the powerful revival of interest in theological speculation as well as in the practical necessity of defending ecclesiastical doctrine on the power of the keys against heresies that shook its very foundations (v. CATHARI; VALDESI). The use of dialectic in theology and the application of Aristotelian concepts—highly useful for the great work of clarification and systematization undertaken by the scholastics—also created a host of new problems for penitential doctrine and produced a veritable tangle of theories (cf. the application of the doctrine of "habits" to penance and V. the extensive researches of Anciaux).

Two questions occupied scholastic theologians especially:

a) The internal connection between the various factors of penance. — This principal problem, unresolved by the Fathers or by the theologians of the Carolingian era, was now cast in a rather new light, since in the personal element the emphasis was no longer placed on penitential works (*satisfactio*) but on contrition. This change was caused by the altered penitential practice: once reconciliation was granted immediately after confession, the *satisfactio*, which still remained to be performed, could no longer be considered the cause of the remission of sins. The only disposition that could be considered as the cause of this remission was the internal penitential disposition or contrition (v.), which from then on stood at the center of penitential doctrine. For the same reason, the concept of remission was further refined: if satisfaction was still to be rendered, contrition and absolution could not produce a "remission" in the sense of the condoning of all penalties (as the early Church had conceived remission), but by distinguishing eternal and temporal punishment, the effect of satisfaction was seen in the forgiveness of temporal penalties for sin, while prior contrition and confession grant remission in the sense that they remove the merited eternal punishment or change it into a temporal one, as the pseudo-Augustinian treatise *De vera et falsa paenitentia* (PL 40, 1113-50; composed around the mid-11th century) affirms.

Noteworthy is the conception—albeit highly imperfect—of Abelard, condemned at the Synod of Sens (a. 1140), since it practically denied the power of the keys by attributing the remission of sin exclusively to the subjective work of contrition. His theory on the merely declaratory value of absolution strongly influenced canonists (cf. the decree of Gratian) and Peter Lombard (*Sent.* IV, d. 18, c. 4 and 5); the priest cannot remit sins but can only show that they are forgiven, in analogy to the task of the priests of the Old Testament regarding the healing of lepers. Already St. Anselm of Canterbury had written: *"Qui iam coram Deo sunt mundati, sacerdotum iudicio etiam hominibus ostenduntur mundi"* (*Hom.*, 13). Hugh of St. Victor, seeking to safeguard the efficacy of the keys, attributed to contrition the liberation from the "inner bond" (*impietas vel obduratio cordis*), and to absolution the destruction of the "outer bond" (*debitum futurum damnationis*; cf. *De Sacramentis*, II, 14, 8). Thus the fundamental distinction between guilt and penalty had been introduced into the penitential problem, though not in a felicitous manner, since Peter Lombard easily demonstrated that the remission of eternal punishment could not be separated from the forgiveness of guilt. Given the universal conviction that the remission of sin was indissolubly granted with contrition, an effective intervention of priestly absolution in the remission of sins seemed possible only if absolution could produce contrition (i.e., turn an *attitus* into a *contritus*). The problem was addressed by means of the POLITEISMO (v.) had distinguished four elements in the process of justification: the infusion of grace, the movement of the free will, contrition, and the remission of sins.

b) The arrangement of all traditional material within the concept of the Sacrament of Penance. — This was the particular achievement of St. Thomas, already completed in his Commentary on the Sentences. The personal factor, the *pars ut virtus* (consisting of the three “parts”: contrition, confession, and satisfaction), is the matter; absolution is the form of the Sacrament. Matter and form do not operate separately, but together as a single cause, so that the penitent’s personal acts and the exercise of the power of the keys are the (instrumental) cause of the remission of sins (In Sent., IV, d. 22, q. 2, a. 1, ad 1; Summa Theol., IIIa, q. 86, a. 6). They differ in that efficacy comes principally from the form, that is, from absolution; signification, however, comes principally from the side of the matter. By placing, in accordance with earlier tradition, the *res et Sacramentum* in interior penance (which coincides with contrition), St. Thomas also attributed to absolution an influence over the movements of the free will (In Sent., IV, d. 22, q. 2, a. 1, ad 2; Summa Theol., IIIa, q. 84, a. 1, ad 3). Yet the characteristic difficulty of the Thomistic doctrine also appears in this dual function of contrition, which is an indispensable disposition for grace and, on the other hand, already presupposes that same grace. The Angelic Doctor sought to resolve this difficulty by appealing to the different forms of mutual causality (v. CONTRIAZIONE; GIUSTIFICAZIONE).

In opposition to St. Thomas, who had included contrition as an essential element within the Sacrament itself, Duns Scotus taught two distinct ways of justification, independent of one another: the extrasacramental way (in which the *attitio* merits *de congruo* justification) and the sacramental way, which justifies *ex opere operato* and is easier because it does not require contrition operating as a *meritum de congruo* (Ord., IV, Sent., d. 14, q. 4, nn. 6 ff.). Scotus consequently abandoned the Thomistic conception of personal penance as matter and of absolution as form, placing the essence of the Sacrament solely in absolution: “Paenitentia est absolutio, id est, quaedam sententia definitiva absolvens reum” (ibid., 3). Contrition, confession, and satisfaction are necessary as dispositions for the Sacrament, but they are not its parts. Consequently, Scotus and his followers insisted even more strongly than St. Thomas on the efficacy of the *opus operatum*.

4. The Reformers and the Council of Trent

The thesis, fairly widespread in the 11th and 12th centuries, that God alone could forgive sin, leaving to the minister of the Sacrament only the task of declaring the forgiveness already granted or of remitting (in whole or in part) the penalty, seems in full contrast with the doctrine of the Church as later defined at Trent. Yet it admits of a benign interpretation, given also the fluctuating use of the word “remission,” sometimes understood not in the sense of the term of the justification process, but of the first active disposition of the penitent toward it (cf. Z. Alszeghy, art. cit., pp. 282 ff.). Wycliffe (v.), in denying every external ecclesiastical order, rejected absolution as an abuse and confession as useless (Denz.-U., 587).

Similar opinions were attributed also to Hus (ibid., 670 ff.), and Sixtus IV condemned in 1478 certain theses of Peter of Osma (ibid., 724-33). The innovators of the 16th century, from the internal logic of their own system (doctrine on the corruption of human nature and on justification by faith alone, rejection of every priestly power), were led to deny penance both as a virtue (personal element) and as a Sacrament (ecclesiastical factor). Since it was no longer a matter of school opinions but the substance of the penitential doctrine itself that was at issue, the Council of Trent addressed the question thoroughly in its fourteenth session (Oct.-Nov. 1551), issuing nine chapters and fifteen canons (Denz.-U., 894-906; 911-25). Above all, the Council vindicated for penance the dignity of a true Sacrament, distinct from Baptism (on contrition, chap. 4; on confession, chap. 5; on the minister, chaps. 6 and 7; and on satisfaction, chaps. 8 and 9; V. respective entries). It should be noted that in treating in chap. 3 the structure of penance, the Council avoided pronouncing on the disputed question among Catholic theologians whether the acts of the penitent are merely integral parts of the Sacrament (*accidentia*) or whether they should be considered the matter *ex qua* (the Thomistic position, now common). The principal effect of the Sacrament is the remission of grave sins with regard to the fault (*reatus culpae*), through the infusion of sanctifying grace; consequently, the total remission of eternal punishment (sess. VI, chap. 14; Denz.-U., 807) and the partial remission of temporal punishment (sess. VI, can. 30; Denz.-U., 840; sess. XIV, chap. 8 and can. 12; Denz.-U., 904, 922). The remission of fault and of punishment in the Sacrament of Penance is irrevocable; one can speak of their return for a subsequent sin only improperly (inasmuch as the privation of grace returns and inasmuch as the gravity of the new fault becomes greater because of the forgiveness already granted previously). The secondary effects of the Sacrament are the reviviscence of merits (v.), the conferral of a “right” to actual graces, by which the penitent can expiate remaining temporal punishments and avoid sin in the future; finally, peace and serenity of conscience, an accidental effect not always obtained (sess. XIV, chap. 3; Denz.-U., 896). It is defined that even venial sins can be accused in the Sacrament of Penance (sess. XIV, chap. 3 and can. 7; Denz.-U., 899, 917), and it is theologically certain that venial sins can be remitted “by the Sacrament itself” (*vi ipsius Sacramenti*) (ibid., 899).

II. MORAL THEOLOGY AND CANON LAW

Summary:

I. Necessity

II. Matter

III. Form

IV. Conditional Absolution

V. Effects

VI. Obligation to Receive the Sacrament

VII. Minister

VIII. Eastern Rites

IX. Penal Remedy.

I. NECESSITY

The Sacrament of Penance is “necessary by necessity of means,” that is, as a means in itself indispensable for one who, after Baptism, has sinned mortally (Council of Trent, sess. XIV, De Poenit., cap. 2; Summa Theologiae, 3, q. 84, a. 5). At times, however, forgiveness of sins can be obtained by perfect contrition alone, joined with the desire or intention to confess; namely, when sacramental absolution cannot be received (Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. 4).

II. MATTER OF PENANCE

1. Remote matter. Remote matter, or rather what is to be removed, consists of sins committed after Baptism. It is distinguished into necessary and non-necessary.

a) Necessary matter are mortal sins committed after Baptism and not yet directly remitted through sacramental absolution.
b) Non-necessary (but sufficient) matter are: a) venial sins committed after Baptism, even though already remitted by sacramental absolution; b) mortal sins committed after Baptism and already directly remitted by sacramental absolution (can. 902; Council of Trent, loc. cit., cap. 5). Voluntary imperfections cannot be maintained for themselves unless accompanied by circumstances of contempt, scandal, or sloth, etc. (cf. A. Lehmkuhl, Theologia moralis, II, 11th ed., Innsbruck 1910, n. 360). A completely generic accusation of sins (such as, for example: “I accuse myself of the sins I have committed”) is sufficient in cases of urgent necessity (imminent danger of death) when there is no time to specify the sins distinctly (cf. I. D’Annibale, op. cit., III, n. 302).

5. Proximate matter

As seen in the respective entries, all admit the necessity of contrition, confession, and satisfaction in one who receives the Sacrament of Penance, albeit in differing degrees. For the qualities required in each act, and especially regarding integrity, V. Confession; Contrition; Satisfaction; and also Purpose.

III. FORM OF PENANCE

1. Rubrical form. The rubrical form of the Sacrament of Penance is as follows:

Misereatur, etc.; Indulgentiam, etc. Dominus noster Iesus Christus te absolvat: et ego auctoritate ipsius te absolvo ab omni vinculo excommunicationis, suspensionis (this word is omitted for the laity) et interdicti, in quantum possum, et tu indiges. Deinde ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

Passio Domini nostri Iesu Christi, merita beatae Mariae Virginis et omnium sanctorum, quidquid boni feceris, et mali sustinueris, sint tibi in remissionem peccatorum, augmentum gratiae, et praemium vitae aeternae. Amen.

In case of imminent danger of death, this brief formula is sufficient:

Ego te absolvo ab omnibus censuris et peccatis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

The rubrics prescribing that the right hand be raised from the “Indulgentiam” to the absolution of sins and that the sign of the cross be made in imparting sacramental absolution are purely directive. It is, however, not advisable to omit them. The prayers preceding and following the absolution cannot be omitted without just cause (cf. can. 88). A just cause for omitting them exists especially when there is a notable influx of penitents.

6. Essential form

The essential form of sacramental absolution is:

Ego te absolvo a peccatis tuis, in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen.

This formula must be pronounced in full, even though strictly essential are only the two words “te absolvo,” which have a complete sense.

7. How absolution must be pronounced

Absolution must be pronounced: a) orally; given in writing, by signs, or in another manner, it is commonly held invalid; b) over a person present. The following proposition was indeed condemned: “It is licit to confer sacramental confession and obtain absolution from an absent confessor by letters or internal acts” (Denz.-U., 1088).

For the validity of absolution, moral presence suffices; that is, the presence of persons who, though at a distance, can converse with one another in a natural voice (it has not yet been established whether absolution by telephone or radio is valid). It is, however, licit to absolve conditionally one who is seen from afar in imminent danger of death (e.g., shipwreck) when there is no time to approach him.

IV. CONDITIONAL ABSOLUTION

Absolution given under a present or past condition is valid if the condition exists; it is invalid if the condition does not exist. Given under a necessary future condition, it is in itself valid; given under a contingent future condition, it is invalid.

Absolution given under a future condition is illicit; given under a present or past condition, it is licit if there is just cause for imposing such a condition. A just cause exists when the confessor prudently doubts whether he has already absolved the penitent or whether the penitent is properly disposed, and cannot conveniently defer absolution.

V. EFFECTS OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

8. Remission of sins

The first and most important effect of the Sacrament of Penance is the remission of sins through the infusion of sanctifying grace. Regarding this remission, it must be observed that: a) it is not possible to remit a mortal sin without remitting other mortal sins (cf. Summa Theologiae, 3, q. 86, a. 3); b) mortal sins can be remitted without the remission of venial sins; c) no venial sin can be remitted without the remission of all mortal sins (cf. ibid., 3, q. 87, a. 4); d) one who is in the state of grace can be absolved from some venial sins without the remission of other venial sins; e) sins blotted out in the Sacrament of Penance do not revive on account of a subsequent sin (cf. Is. 1:18; 43:25; Ezek. 33:12–16; Council of Trent, sess. VI, De iustificatione, can. 17).

9. Remission of eternal and temporal punishment due to sins

With the Sacrament of Penance, together with the mortal sin, all the eternal punishment due to it is remitted. This is a certain doctrine and proximate to faith. With the Sacrament of Penance, however, not all temporal punishment due to sins is remitted. This is a matter of faith (Council of Trent, sess. VI, De iustificatione, can. 30; sess. XIV, De Poenit., can. 12). The remnants or traces of sin (propensities to sin of the will and sensitive appetite) are removed, but not immediately (cf. Summa Theologiae, 3, q. 86, a. 5, ad 1°).

10. Revival of merits and sacramental grace

With the Sacrament of Penance, the merits of those acts that were once salutary but were mortified by mortal sin revive (cf. Summa Theologiae, 3, q. 89, a. 5). In the Sacrament of Penance, along with sanctifying grace, the right to particular helps is also granted, by which man can make satisfaction for sins and avoid future falls.

VI. OBLIGATION TO RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

1. By divine precept, confession, at least in desire, is necessary by necessity of means for all who, after Baptism, have sinned mortally. This is a matter of faith (cf. Council of Trent, sess. XIV, De Poenit., can. 6).

The divine precept directly obliges in danger of death and, according to some, also at times during life. Indirectly, it obliges whenever: a) one must consecrate or receive the Eucharist (can. 807, 856); b) one must perform some act that requires the state of grace and one is persuaded that one cannot recover it by an act of perfect contrition alone; c) a grave temptation arises that cannot be overcome without sacramental confession.

It is presumed to be attained at the age of seven (cf. S. Congr. of the Sacraments, 8 Aug. 1910). The precept of annual confession does not bind one who has committed only venial sins, nor, probably, one who, after having confessed, for example, at Easter, of only venial sins, falls into mortal sin in the same year. The useful time for annual confession may be reckoned from January to January, or from one confession to another, or from Easter to Easter.

The usefulness of confession, which at one time was described as a butchery of consciences, is today not contested by any man who has practical experience of life. The imitations, often exaggerated (psychoanalysis, narcoanalysis), which have been made for therapeutic purposes, demonstrate that the Divine Institution was thoroughly acquainted with our poor human nature. Apart from its supernatural effects, it is sufficient to consider the social value of the Sacrament of Penance, which explores, heals, and prevents a field of real and possible crimes to which no legislator or judge could attain.

VII. MINISTER OF THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE

The minister is only the priest to whom, in addition to the power of Order, the power of jurisdiction has been granted (can. 871, §2).

11. Jurisdiction granted by the Church:
a) In danger of death. — In danger of death any priest, even though not approved for confessions, validly absolves from any penance and from any censure, even those specially reserved to the Pope (can. 882; cf. also can. 884, 2252). The absolution of one’s own accomplice in a shameful sin is illicit if another priest, even though not approved for confessions, can and wishes to receive the dying person’s confession without grave danger of infamy or scandal, and the dying person wishes to confess to him (can. 884; cf. also can. 2367). One who, in danger of death, was absolved by a priest lacking special faculty from a censure imposed personally (ab homine) or from a censure specially reserved to the Holy See, is bound, upon recovery, to have recourse, under pain of reincidence, to the one who imposed the censure if it is a censure ab homine, or to the Apostolic Penitentiary or to the bishop or to others possessing the faculty, if it is a censure latae sententiae, and to abide by their prescriptions (can. 2252; cf. also can. 2254).

b) During a sea voyage. — Priests who travel by sea, provided they have received the faculty to hear confessions from their own Ordinary (under which term are not included the major superiors of clerical exempt religious institutes; Pontifical Commission, 30 July 1934: AAS, 26 [1934], p. 494) or from the Ordinary of the port of embarkation or of another port touched by the ship, may receive the confessions of all passengers throughout the voyage (and probably also at the place of departure or arrival of the voyage; likewise during the time when the ship, having left the sea, begins and continues a river journey) and validly and licitly absolve them even from cases reserved to the local Ordinary (can. 883; cf. S. Office, 9 Apr. 1900; 23 Aug. 1905; 13 Dec. 1906). Whenever the ship stops during the voyage, the same priests may receive the confessions both of the faithful who for any reason come aboard the ship and of those who wish to confess to them, even if only briefly on land, and absolve them validly and licitly even from cases reserved to the local Ordinary. If the ship is to remain in port for several weeks, the priest may exercise his jurisdiction, but not beyond three days if it is possible to have recourse to the local Ordinary (Pontifical Commission, 13 Dec. 1923: AAS, 16 [1924], p. 114). What can. 883 establishes for sea travel is applicable also to air travel (motu proprio of Pius XII, 16 Dec. 1947: AAS, 40 [1948], p. 17). It is disputed whether it may be applied to travel on a long railway journey, e.g., the Trans-Siberian (cf. F. M. Cappello, De Sacramentis, II, Turin-Rome 1944, n. 300).

12. Jurisdiction supplied by the Church:
a) In common error. — Common error exists when in a community all or nearly all, or even many, positively judge that the priest is furnished with jurisdiction. This is common error of fact, distinct from common error of law, which occurs when a priest places himself in circumstances such that he must be believed to possess jurisdiction, even though the positive judgment on the existence of jurisdiction is perhaps formed only by one or two, and all the others, even if present, take no notice. In common error, whether of law or of fact, the Church supplies jurisdiction so that the faithful may not suffer harm. This holds not only when the error is conjoined with a title, even if only putative, but also when there is no title at all, of which indeed the Code makes no mention (can. 209). According to the more accredited opinion, one who is aware of the lack of jurisdiction is validly absolved by the priest who is believed to possess it by reason of common error.
b) In probable jurisdiction. — In negative doubt regarding the existence of jurisdiction, it is not lawful to absolve unless at the same time there is common error and necessity to absolve; for in negative doubt the Church does not supply (can. 209). In positive and probable doubt, whether of law or of fact, it is lawful, even without grave reason, to absolve from sins; the Church supplies jurisdiction.

13. Jurisdiction over religious

Here are included not only religious with solemn or simple vows, but also those who, without vows, live in the manner of religious (can. 675); indeed, with regard to the validity of absolution, what is said of religious applies also to novices and to all who live day and night in a religious house by reason of service, education, or hospitality, or for health (can. 514, §1).

They exercise ordinary (delegable) jurisdiction:
a) over religious of clerical exempt institutes, both the superiors of each institute according to its Constitutions and the Ordinary of the place;
b) over religious of lay exempt institutes and of any other non-exempt institute, the Ordinary of the place (can. 873, §1, 2; 874, 875).

Over all religious they also have ordinary (non-delegable) jurisdiction: cardinals for the entire Church; the canon penitentiary of a cathedral or collegiate church within the entire diocese; and, if the religious are non-exempt, also the parish priest in whose territory the religious house is located and which has not been withdrawn from his care (can. 873, §1; cf. also can. 464, §2).

14. Jurisdiction over religious women

Here are included only religious women with solemn or simple vows and their novices.

To receive the confessions of religious women and their novices validly and licitly, a special jurisdiction is required, granted only by the Ordinary of the place in which the religious house is situated (can. 876). Cardinals, however, may receive the confessions of religious of both sexes anywhere (can. 239, 1, n. §1; cf. also can. 876, §1). Moreover, religious women and their novices may confess to the so‑called occasional confessor. The confessors of religious women, for whom special jurisdiction is required, are ordinary, extraordinary, designated, or special; to these must be added the so‑called occasional confessors.

a) An ordinary confessor is one who is appointed to hear the sacramental confessions of the entire community on a habitual basis (can. 520, § 1). He holds office for three years and may be re-elected for a second and third three-year term; he may not be appointed as an extraordinary confessor immediately after the expiration of his term (can. 524, § 2).

b) An extraordinary confessor is one to whom, by delegation of the local Ordinary, all religious women must present themselves four times a year to receive at least a blessing (can. 521, § 1). He is not bound by the three-year term and may be appointed as an ordinary confessor immediately after the expiration of his term (can. 524, § 2).

c) Designated confessors are those whom the local Ordinary is empowered to hear the confessions of religious women who, in particular cases, request their ministry (can. 521, § 2).

d) A special confessor is one who is appointed by the local Ordinary to hear the confessions of a religious woman who has obtained him as her confessor or spiritual director (can. 520, § 2).

e) An occasional confessor is any priest who, even if approved only for hearing the confessions of women, validly and licitly absolves religious women who request his ministry. Therefore:
a) If a religious woman, for the tranquility of her conscience, approaches a confessor approved by the local Ordinary for hearing the confessions of women, or requests confession in any church or oratory—even a semi-public one (existing within the territory of the delegating authority)—it is valid and licit. The superioress may not prohibit this nor even indirectly investigate it, and the religious women are not bound to account for their actions to the superioress (can. 522). Indeed, the confession is valid and licit even if made outside the aforementioned sacred places, in a confessional legally designated for the confessions of women (Pontifical Commission, 24 Nov. 1920: AAS, 12 [1920], p. 575) or of religious women (cf. Pontifical Commission, 28 Dec. 1927: AAS, 20 [1928], p. 62); or even designated merely *modum actus* or by choice in accordance with can. 910 (Pontifical Commission, 12 Feb. 1935: AAS, 27 [1935], p. 92).

f) Seriously ill religious women, even if not in danger of death, may request any priest approved for hearing the confessions of women, even if not appointed for religious women, and during the period of serious illness, they may confess to him as often as they wish. The superioress may not oppose this, either directly or indirectly (can. 523).

For the requisite qualities and obligations of the minister, V. CONFESSORE. For the specific obligation of sacramental seal, V. SIGILLO SACRAMENTALE. For the habit to be worn by the minister in the act of the sacrament, V. CONFESSORE. For the crime of which he may be guilty and the false accusation that may be brought against him in matters of solicitation, V. SOLLECITAZIONE.

15. Limitation of jurisdiction

V. CENSURA; COMPLICE IN PECCATO TURPE; RISERVA.

16. Place and time

For the place, V. CONFESSIONALE. With regard to time, the Sacrament of Penance may be administered on any day and at any hour (Authentic Decree 3383). However, care should be taken to avoid hearing the confessions of women at very late hours or before dawn (Collectanea S. Congr. de Prop. Fide, 12 Jan. 1869, n. 1339), except in cases of necessity. In this matter, one should rather follow local customs or any diocesan prescriptions.

17. Various categories of penitents

V. CONSUETUDINARI; OCCASIONE DI PECCATO; RECIDIVITÀ.

VIII. EASTERN RITES

Among Catholic Easterners, due to the frequency of confessions, the ritual part of the sacrament is so abbreviated that it is no longer very dissimilar from the rite in use among Latins; yet the formula of absolution, though not universally nor exclusively indicative, is proper to each rite, though sometimes inspired by the Latin formula.

The practices of the dissidents vary widely. Some Byzantine priests, vested in the *epitrachelion*, stand at the church door on feast days as the faithful enter for the Divine Liturgy; whoever wishes to receive communion approaches him, saying, “I have sinned,” and he gives absolution. Other priests, however, rejecting this abusive practice, observe the prescribed ritual, requiring a detailed confession of sins, imposing penance before or after giving absolution. Good faithful, accustomed to confess once or four times a year, prepare with dignity, prayer, and examination to receive the sacrament; these spiritual exercises are called *goveny* by the Russians.

If one examines the formulary, many traces of past times are noted: a) a considerable development of the exhoratory part, sometimes an entire Office; b) a questionnaire by which the priest interrogates the penitent or a general formula of accusation containing a list of every kind of sin to be recited by the penitent; c) one, and more often several, formulas of absolution of an exhoratory nature (whether deprecative, indicative, or optative) or of a declarative nature; d) a penance generally very severe and the obligation to return to the priest after having performed II.
In the most ancient Greek ecclesiastical writers (8th–9th centuries), no true penitential rite is found, but only two prayers preserved to this day: Εὐχὴ ἐπὶ μετανοούντων ὁ Θεός ὁ Σωτήρ ἡμῶν. Ο δέω τοῦ προφήτου σου Νάδαν... Εὐχὴ ἐπὶ ἐξομολογουμένων. Κύριε ὁ Θεός ἡμῶν ὁ τῷ Πέτρῳ καὶ τῇ πόρνῃ... Only conjectures can be made about their use. The Office or Acoluthia, however, is to be sought in the Nomocanon; it is a book written for the confessor, listing the canons, i.e., the penances to be imposed for each kind of sin, together with explanations on the nature of the various penances and on the manner of dealing with penitents, and providing the ritual to be followed. Chronologically, three ritual types can be distinguished among the Greeks: the first, from the 10th century, fairly concise, is found in a Didascalia Patrum, in the Rules of the monk Basil (ed. N. Suvorov, Verojatni sostav drevnijeslago ispoviednago i pokajanago ustavu v vostčnoi tserkvi, in Vizantiskii Vremenik, 8 (1901), pp. 357–434; the most probable form of the earliest regulation of confession and penance, taken up again in two ecologies of the 15th century (Bibl. Mosca 455 and Athos, monast. Pantel. 153); the second, from the 13th century, preserving the same arrangement as the first, but adding more exhortations, interrogations, and absolution prayers, is the famous Nomocanon falsely attributed to the patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster (end of the 6th century), published in various recensions by G. Morinus and Migne (PG 85, 1889–1932); the third, with the penitential part still more developed, was first published by J. Goar (Euchologion, Paris 1647, p. 679) and from there passed into the official ecologion: first in that of Venice 1629. The ecologion of Benedict XIV also adopted this rite (Rome 1743, pp. 452–454) but added a new “synoptic” formula of absolution, in fact indicative. In recent times, great influence was exerted by the Exomologetarion of Nicodemus the Hagiorite (late 18th century); he obliges the penitent to return to the confessor after fulfilling the imposed penance to receive absolution given with this formula.

Among the Slavs, the ritual development of the Nomocanon followed different paths from those taken among the Greeks. Notable is the Trebnik of P. Moghila, metropolitan of Kiev (1646), which translates the indicative formula of absolution from the Polish ritual of Piotrków; that attributed to Suprasl (1736), which Latinizes everything; then in Great Russia that of Nikon (1658), which chooses a much briefer rite than those found in earlier Trebniks, and that of Moscow 1671, which introduces into the rite the formula of absolution of Moghila, still in use among the Russians today.

Armenian manuscripts from the 10th to the 17th centuries, and the Constantinople edition of the Mashtots (1807), present a rite for making a penitent and a rite of reconciliation for Holy Thursday; here comparison may be made with the rite of reconciliation of penitents, preserved, though unused, in the Roman Pontifical. According to the present rite of the Armenians, the penitent first recites a long accusation; then the priest imposes the penance and pronounces an indicative formula of absolution. In his book he finds a series of prayers to be recited according to the case: blasphemy, perjury, etc. Moreover, among the dissidents there is the practice of having the faithful recite at the beginning of Sunday Mass the general accusation, after which the priest gives absolution to all.

The Penitential of the Syrians, attributed to Dionysius bar Salibi (12th century), is the rite of reconciliation of an apostate, extended to all sinners. At the door of the church the penitent confesses his sins, and the priest says to him: “I absolve you here and God in heaven”; then they enter, and a long Office begins with chants, readings, and prayers. When this is finished, the priest imposes the penance, and when the penitent has fulfilled it, the priest blows three times on his face while pronouncing a threefold formula of absolution; this second rite ends with chants. The Syrians also have a series of prayers to be recited according to the case.

The penitential rite of the Nestorians, attributed to ‘Išo‘-jahb III (7th century), supposes that the penitent has confessed his sins and fulfilled the imposed penance. They go into the church and recite an Office of reconciliation, originally composed primarily for an apostate but later extended to all sinners. At the end, the priest makes the sign of the cross with oilless chrism on the forehead of the penitent while reciting the formula: “Signatur, sanctificatur et innovatur N. in nomine Patris...”

According to the books of the dissident Copts, a penitential part precedes and another follows the confession of sins; then the priest imposes the penance. When this is finished, the penitent returns to the priest, who recites over him the long formula of absolution, which is also said during Mass. On the obligation of confession, long doubted by the Copts, V. Graf, Ein Reformversuch innerhalb der koptischen Kirche im zwölften Jahrhundert, Paderborn 1923, pp. 38–71.

Among the dissident Ethiopians, alongside the Coptic formula of absolution, this very brief optative formula is in use: “Absolvat te Deus.”

Alfonso Raes

IX. PENAL REMEDY

It is a burden or obligation imposed by the competent Superior in the external forum upon the delinquent, who must accept it voluntarily if he wishes to escape the penalty he would otherwise have deserved. The imposition in the external forum distinguishes the penal remedy from sacramental penance, which is usually imposed by the confessor.

The execution of the burden or obligation imposed must be either public or occult; hence the distinction of penance into public and occult. Generally, a public penance is imposed when there is a scandal to be repaired. The Code of Canon Law prescribes that a public penance not be imposed when the offense committed is occult, so as not unnecessarily to harm the delinquent’s reputation (can. 2312 § 2). Moreover, the burden imposed need not necessarily correspond in quantity and gravity to the offense committed, but rather to the good dispositions of repentance shown by the delinquent, unless other motives lead the Superior to impose a sufficiently grave burden (can. 2312 § 3). It is clear that the specific purpose of the penal remedy is to induce repentance.

Canon 2313 of the Code of Canon Law lists the principal penal remedies that may be imposed by the Superior: reciting certain prayers, such as the penitential psalms, the litanies of the saints, etc.; performing a particularly burdensome work of piety, such as a pilgrimage; a special fast; almsgiving; making the spiritual exercises for several days in some religious house. The Code leaves it to the Superior’s discretion to add to the penal remedy, if he sees fit, some other remedy such as admonition or correction.