Penance as a Sacrament — The Minister and The Recipient

Chapter 3: The Minister

Penance being both a Sacrament and a tribunal of justice, requires for its valid administration the twofold power of order (potestas ordinis) and jurisdiction (potestas iurisdictionis).

These faculties are logically and really distinct and therefore can exist separately.

Intimately connected with them is the right of the ecclesiastical authorities to limit jurisdiction by reserving cases (ius sibi casus reservandi).

Thesis I: Only ordained bishops and priests can administer the Sacrament of Penance validly. This proposition is de fide.

Proof. There are three divinely instituted hierarchical orders in the Church: the episcopacy, the priesthood, and the diaconate. Only the bishops and presbyters, however, are priests (sacerdotes) in the proper sense of the term. Deacons and those in minor orders are merely clerics.¹ Our thesis excludes clerics and, a fortiori, laymen. (C.I.C., can. 870.)

The medieval Waldenses, Wiclifites, and Hussites asserted that all pious laymen have the power of giving absolution, and that this power cannot be exercised by unworthy priests. Luther claimed that “any Christian, even though only a woman or a child,” can administer the Sacrament of Penance.² Against this heretical teaching the Council of Trent defined: “If anyone saith that … not priests alone are the ministers of absolution, … let him be anathema.”³ By priests the holy Synod understood bishops and presbyters.⁴

a) Our Divine Lord conferred the power of the keys exclusively upon His Apostles and their successors. Cfr. Matth. XVI, 18 sq.; XVIII, 18; John XX, 23. To them alone He addressed the words: “As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.”⁵

If laymen were empowered to give absolution, there would be superiors but no subjects, which is incompatible with the divine constitution and hierarchy of the Church. The only doubt that might arise in this connection concerns the meaning of sacerdotes. If this term includes the presbyteri, why not also the deacons? This question can be answered only in the light of ecclesiastical Tradition.⁶

b) Since the differentiation of the episcopacy and the presbyterate it has always been held that both orders have the power of absolution. Bishops and presbyters alike were formerly called sacerdotes, though of a different order. The bishops were sacerdotes primi ordinis, the presbyters, sacerdotes secundi ordinis.⁷

α) The Fathers know no other ministers of the Sacrament of Penance than bishops and priests. Not a few of them expressly exclude all who are not priests. Thus St. Ambrose says: “This right is reserved to the priests alone.”⁸ St. Basil, replying to the question whether a penitent may confess his sins to anyone, declares: “Confession of sins must be made to those who have in their keeping the mysteries of God.”⁹ St. Ephraem Syrus writes: “Without the venerable and divine institution of the priesthood men could not obtain forgiveness of their sins.”¹⁰ St. Leo the Great: “The forgiveness of God can be obtained only through the supplications of the priests.”¹¹

β) Since the power of absolution is reserved to bishops and priests, it cannot be exercised by mere deacons.

Morinus¹² holds that in the primitive Church deacons gave absolution in cases of necessity. He bases this opinion principally on a passage in St. Cyprian: “If a presbyter cannot be found and death draws near, they may make their exomologesis even to a deacon, so that, hands having been imposed on them for penance, they may come to the Lord in peace.”¹³ But “exomologesis” need not mean sacramental confession. The term was often applied to a purely devotional confession, followed by (not the sacramental but) canonical absolution, whereupon the deacon was permitted to give the Holy Eucharist to the dying man, provided he showed perfect contrition.

This custom existed up to the thirteenth century, as we know from a passage in the writings of Regino of Prüm (d. 915)¹⁴ and from the decrees of the councils of York (1195), London (1200), and Rouen (1231). But there is no authority for assuming that where deacons in cases of necessity heard confession, this confession was sacramental and followed by the sacramental absolution. On the contrary, Odo de Soliaco, bishop of Paris (d. 1208), in his diocesan statutes expressly forbade deacons to hear confession, “because they have not the keys and cannot absolve.”¹⁵ When abuses crept in, the authorities promptly took measures to abolish them. Thus the Provincial Council of Poitiers (1280), having learned that certain deacons claimed the right to give sacramental absolution, decreed that deacons should not presume to hear confessions because they have no power to absolve.¹⁶

Such ascetical confessions without absolution should not surprise us, considering that, throughout the Middle Ages, until far into the sixteenth century, it was customary to confess to lay persons in cases of necessity when no priest could be had. Bayard, the famous “knight without fear and reproach” (d. 1524), having been fatally wounded in battle, confessed his sins to his hostler. This practice was based upon the conviction that in case of extreme necessity the desire to receive the Sacrament of Penance (votum sacramenti) ought to find external expression in a real confession to show the penitent’s willingness to do everything in his power to obtain reconciliation. The custom was encouraged by the pseudo-Augustinian treatise De Vera et Falsa Poenitentia, which says: “Although he to whom confession is made has not the power to give absolution, nevertheless one who confesses his crime to his neighbor becomes worthy of the priestly absolution through his desire.”¹⁷ This view was approved by St. Bonaventure¹⁸ and St. Thomas Aquinas.¹⁹ Scotus, on the other hand, rejected the practice as a piece of unnecessary self-humiliation.²⁰

It was never the teaching of the Church that the power of absolution can be exercised by others than priests, though Siccard of Cremona, Huguccio, and Albertus Magnus²¹ erroneously held that absolution given by lay persons in cases of urgent necessity has some sort of sacramental effect.

Having in the foregoing paragraphs adopted the common teaching of Catholic theologians, we must add that this teaching is involved in historical difficulties. In the opinion of Morinus, Klee, Rauschen, and Poschmann, St. Cyprian really believed that deacons could give the sacramental absolution in case of necessity. According to the ancient view, they claim, the essential part of the Sacrament of Penance was not confession, nor even absolution, but the actual performance of the satisfaction imposed on the penitent. It was only after long reflection that theologians perceived that the priestly absolution is really the most important thing, in fact, that it is the form of the Sacrament, whereas confession and satisfaction belong rather to its matter. This conclusion, formally drawn by St. Thomas, marked the climax of the theoretical development of the doctrine of Penance.

But how are we to explain the fact that “well into the Middle Ages deacons, in cases of necessity, administered the Sacrament of Penance”?²² It will not do to say that absolution given by deacons was invalid. We can see but one solution of the difficulty. It is to admit that our Lord allowed His Church a certain latitude in bestowing the power of absolution. For a while, owing to peculiar conditions, she extended this power to deacons, but withdrew it later. Needless to say this solution is merely tentative. At the present stage of historical research it is impossible to say with certainty whether or not the practice under consideration was general.²³

Thesis II: Besides being properly ordained, a priest, to be able to give absolution validly, must have the power of jurisdiction. This proposition may be qualified as “fidei proxima.”

Proof. The power of jurisdiction is that which assigns to a priest subjects over whom he can exercise the faculties received in ordination.

The power of jurisdiction differs from the power of order in this, that while the latter can be given only in the Sacrament of Holy Orders, the former may be conferred by a mere act of the will.

Jurisdiction may be either ordinary or delegated. It is ordinary (iurisdictio ordinaria) when acquired by reason of a benefice or office; delegated (iurisdictio delegata) when granted by the direct commission or concession of an ecclesiastical superior.

The Pope, by virtue of his office, has ordinary jurisdiction over the whole Church; the bishop, over his diocese; the parish priest, over his parish. All other priests exercise delegated jurisdiction. This they receive, since the Council of Trent,²⁴ by episcopal “approbation,” which means a judgment of the fitness of a priest to hear confessions. The Fourth Council of the Lateran ordained that every Catholic confess his sins at least once a year to his “own priest” (proprio sacerdoti) and that other priests may absolve a penitent only with the express permission of his pastor.²⁵ Pope Eugene IV (1439) draws a clear-cut distinction between “ordinary and delegated authority.”²⁶ The Council of Trent conditions the validity of absolution on jurisdiction, ordinary or delegated: “Since the nature and order of a judgment require that sentence be passed only on those subject [to that judicature], it has ever been firmly held in the Church of God, and this Synod ratifies it as a thing most true, that the absolution which a priest pronounces upon one over whom he has not either an ordinary or a delegated jurisdiction, ought to be of no weight whatever.”²⁷

a) Our thesis asserts that a priest, in order to be able to absolve validly, besides being duly ordained, must have the power of jurisdiction. This proposition is based upon the judicial character of the Sacrament.²⁸ As absolution and the imposition of satisfaction are judicial acts, they can be validly performed only by a competent judge having either ordinary or delegated jurisdiction over the penitent. Here again there is a close analogy between the confessor and a secular judge.

b) The Scholastics expressed this truth by saying that, in order to be able to give absolution, a priest must have two keys — the “key of knowledge” (clavis scientiae) to ascertain the disposition of the penitent, and the “key of power” (clavis potentiae), to forgive or retain the sins confessed.²⁹

The power of order is given to every priest at ordination. Not so the power of jurisdiction. The two are separate and distinct and pertain to different spheres. The bishop in saying, “Accipe Spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseris,” etc., manifestly intends to confer the former only. Durandus, Almain, and Armachanus held that the power of jurisdiction is conferred in Holy Orders, but its exercise without express authorization is prohibited by the Church. This view was rejected by the sententia communis. The practice of the Church plainly shows that a priest who absolves without jurisdiction absolves invalidly. The contrary teaching of the Jansenistic Council of Pistoia was condemned by Pius VI.³⁰

Whence is the power of jurisdiction derived? The pope has received his jurisdiction over the universal Church directly from Christ.³¹ The bishops receive their ordinary jurisdiction from the pope, while parish rectors and other priests in turn receive theirs from the bishop. The older Scholastics held that no faculties were required for a priest to absolve a penitent from venial sins, either because no jurisdiction is needed (Scotus), or because the necessary jurisdiction is given iure divino in the Sacrament of Holy Orders (Vasquez) or by virtue of an ancient ecclesiastical custom (Suarez). These views are obsolete, to say the least, since Innocent XI has strictly forbidden the faithful to go for confession to a priest who lacks the necessary “approbation.”³²

Thesis III: The ecclesiastical superiors (pope and bishops) have the right to limit the power of jurisdiction given to ordinary confessors by reserving certain cases to themselves. This is de fide.

Proof. The Tridentine Council declares³³ that reservations made by the pope and by bishops have “effect not merely in external polity, but also in the sight of God, but that there shall be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever.” The right of bishops to reserve cases is emphasized in a special canon of the same Council: “If anyone saith that bishops have not the right of reserving cases to themselves, except as regards external polity, and that therefore the reservation of cases does not hinder a priest from truly absolving from reserved cases, let him be anathema.”³⁴ (C.I.C., can. 893 sqq.)

The right of the pope and the bishops to reserve cases to themselves is based upon the judicial character of the Sacrament of Penance. It is of the very nature of the ecclesiastical hierarchy that there be judges of a higher and of a lower order. The highest, i.e., the pope, must have the right to limit the jurisdiction of the lower judges, i.e., the bishops, and these in turn must be empowered to exercise control over the activity of the judges subject to them, i.e., the priests. And since the power of order is not sufficient for valid absolution,³⁵ it follows that the ordinary confessor cannot absolve from reserved cases except with the permission of his superiors.

For further information on this point we must refer the reader to Moral Theology and Canon Law.

Chapter 4: The Recipient

To be able to receive the Sacrament of Penance validly, one (1) must be baptized, (2) he must be guilty of personal sin, and (3) he must be sorry for his sins, have a firm purpose of amendment, confess to a priest, and be ready to assume the satisfaction imposed. (C.I.C., can. 901.)

1. The Recipient Must Be Baptized. The Sacrament of Penance, as we have shown, was instituted for the remission of post-baptismal sins only. It follows that no unbaptized person can be validly absolved. For the remission of sins in the unbaptized Christ has instituted the Sacrament of Baptism.

2. The Recipient Must Be Guilty of Personal Sin. One who has preserved his baptismal innocence cannot confess or receive absolution validly. Except in the case of the Blessed Virgin Mary, however, such innocence is purely hypothetical, since even the greatest saints now and then commit at least a venial sin.³⁶ As venial sins can and should be submitted to the power of the keys, it follows that this second requisite is present in all baptized persons without exception. The great majority of men is, moreover, guilty of mortal sins, for which the Sacrament of Penance, either in re or at least in voto, is the only possible means of remission.

3. Contrition, Confession, and Satisfaction as the Third Requisite on the Part of the Recipient. Although the so-called three acts of the penitent — contrition, confession, and satisfaction — are primarily mere dispositions, indicating his worthiness to receive the Sacrament, they are also (both according to the Thomistic and the Scotistic view) conditions of validity, for the reason that in this Sacrament worthiness and validity coincide. These three acts are so important that we shall devote the entire third part of our treatise to them.

Readings: I. Pruner, De Iurisdictione Ecclesiae in Foro Interno ac de Casuum Reservatione, Eichstätt 1865. — F. Lorinser, Lehre von der Verwaltung des Bussakramentes, 2nd ed., Breslau 1883. — P. Rota, Enchiridion Confessarii, Turin 1884. — Aertnys, Theologia Practica Complectens Practicam Institutionem Confessarii, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1893. — P. Laurain, De l’Intervention des Laïques, des Diacres et des Abbesses dans l’Administration de la Pénitence, Paris 1899. — A. Schick, Kurze Anleitung zur Verwaltung des Bussakramentes, 4th ed., Fulda 1910. — K. Reuter, Der Beichtvater in der Verwaltung seines Amtes, 6th ed., Ratisbon 1901. — A. Devine, C.P., The Sacraments Explained, 3rd ed., pp. 341 sqq., London 1905. — E. Taunton, The Law of the Church, s.v. “Reserved Cases,” London 1906.

See also the text-books of Moral and Pastoral Theology.

Footnotes

1. See the treatise on Holy Orders, Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. IV, Part 1. ↩

2. Prop. Lutheri a Leone X. a. 1520 damn., prop. 13: ”… quilibet Christianus, etiamsi mulier aut puer esset.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 753). ↩

3. Sess. XIV, can. 10: “Si quis dixerit, … non solos sacerdotes esse ministros absolutionis, … anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 920). ↩

4. Cfr. Sess. XIV, cap. 6: ”… praeter episcopos et sacerdotes [i.e. presbyteros].” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 902). ↩

5. John XX, 21. ↩

6. Cfr. Tepe, Instit. Theol., Vol. IV, pp. 503 sqq. ↩

7. Cfr. Epiphanius, Haeres., 75. ↩

8. De Poenit., I, 2, 7: “Ius hoc solis permissum est sacerdotibus.” ↩

9. Reg. Brev. Interr., 288. ↩

10. Or. de Sacerdotio. ↩

11. Ep. 108: “Indulgentia Dei nisi supplicationibus sacerdotum nequit obtineri.” The assertion that the early martyrs were permitted not only to issue so-called libelli pacis, but to forgive sins outright, is a fable. See K. Adam, Der Kirchenbegriff Tertullians, pp. 66 sqq., Paderborn 1907; G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 204 sqq., St. Louis 1913. ↩

12. Comment. Hist. de Disciplina in Administr. Sacr. Poenitentiae XIII Primis Saeculis, XIII, 23. ↩

13. St. Cyprian, Ep. 18: “Si presbyter repertus non fuerit et urgere exitus coeperit, apud diaconum quoque exomologesim facere delicti sui possint, ut manu eis ad poenitentiam imposita veniant ad Dominum cum pace.” (Migne, P.L., IV, 258). ↩

14. De Synod. Caus. et Eccles. Discipl., I, c. 295: “Sicut sacrificium offerre non debent nisi episcopi et presbyteri, quibus claves regni caelorum traditae sunt, sic nec poenitentium iudicia alii usurpare debent. Si autem necessitas evenerit et presbyter non fuerit praesens, diaconus suscipiat poenitentem ad sanctam communionem.” (Migne, P.L., CCXII, 68). ↩

15. “Item prohibetur districte, ne diaconi ullo modo audiant confessiones, nisi in arctissima necessitate; claves enim non habent nec possunt absolvere.” ↩

16. “Abusum erroneum, qui in nostra dioecesi ex perniciosa ignorantia inolevit, eradicare volentes inhibemus, ne diaconi confessiones excipiant et ne in foro poenitentiali absolvant, quum certum et indubitatum sit, ipsos absolvere non posse, quum claves non habeant, quae in solo sacerdotali ordine conferuntur.” (Mansi, Coll. Conc., XXIV, p. 383). ↩

17. De Vera et Falsa Poen., c. 10, n. 25: “Etsi ille, cui confitebitur, potestatem non habet solvendi, fit tamen dignus veniā sacerdotis desiderio qui crimen confitetur socio.” (Migne, P.L., XL, 1122). ↩

18. Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 17, P. 1, art. 1, qu. 1. ↩

19. S. Theol., Suppl., qu. 8, art. 2. ↩

20. Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 14, qu. 4. ↩

21. Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 17, art. 30: “Licet ergo non tantum effectum consequatur, sicut si confiteretur sacerdoti, tamen consequitur absolutionem in communi.” Cfr. P. Laurain, De l’Intervention des Laïques, des Diacres et des Abbesses dans l’Administministration de la Pénitence, Paris 1890; J. N. Seidl, Der Diakonat in der kath. Kirche, pp. 141 sqq., Ratisbon 1884. Against Laurain see Königer, Die Beichte nach Cäsarius von Heisterbach, pp. 66 sqq., Munich 1906. ↩

22. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. IV, 2nd ed., p. 1009. ↩

23. Cfr. Königer, Die Beichte nach Cäsarius von Heisterbach, Munich 1906. ↩

24. Sess. XXIII, De Reform., c. 15. ↩

25. Conc. Lat. IV, cap. 21: “Si quis autem alieno sacerdoti voluerit iusta de causa confiteri peccata, licentiam prius postulet et obtineat a proprio sacerdote, quum aliter ille ipsum non possit absolvere vel ligare.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 437). ↩

26. Decretum pro Armenis: “auctoritas absolvendi vel ordinaria vel ex commissione superioris.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 699). ↩

27. Sess. XIV, cap. 7: “Quoniam igitur natura et ratio iudicii illud exposcit, ut sententia in subditos dumtaxat feratur, persuasum semper in Ecclesia Dei fuit, … nullius momenti absolutionem eam esse debere, quam sacerdos in eum profert, in quem ordinariam aut subdelegatam non habet iurisdictionem.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 903). ↩

28. See the discussion of the judicial character of the power to forgive sins, above. ↩

29. Cfr. St. Thomas, S. Theol., Suppl., qu. 17, art. 3. ↩

30. Cfr. Suarez, De Poenit., disp. 16, sect. 3. Constitutio “Auctorem fidei”: ”… tamquam ad validum usum huius potestatis non sit necessaria ordinaria vel subdelegata iurisdictio — falsa, temeraria, perniciosa, Tridentino contraria et iniuriosa, erronea.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1387). Cfr. C.I.C., can. 872. ↩

31. Conc. Vatic., Sess. III, cap. 3. ↩

32. Decree of Feb. 12, 1679. ↩

33. Sess. XIV, cap. 7. ↩

34. Sess. XIV, can. 11: “Si quis dixerit, episcopos non habere ius reservandi sibi casus nisi quoad externam politiam atque ideo casuum reservationem non prohibere, quominus sacerdos a reservatis vere absolvat, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 921). Cfr. Prop. 44 and 45 of the Council of Pistoia, condemned by Pius VI (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1544 sq.). ↩

35. V. supra, Thesis II. ↩

36. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Grace, Actual and Habitual, pp. 114 sqq. ↩