"
Reply to Objection 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents
as regards the exercise of external penance.
Reply to Objection 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents
as regards the exercise of external penance.
Summa Theologica
" Consequently there is no
need for a special revelation to be made to the priest, but the general
revelation of faith suffices, through which sins are forgiven. Hence
the revelation of faith is said to have been made to Peter.
It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, "I
absolve thee" mean: "I grant thee the sacrament of absolution. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this
sacrament?
Objection 1: It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands is
necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (Mk. 16:18): "They
shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. " Now sinners are
sick spiritually, and obtain recovery through this sacrament. Therefore
an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Ghost Whom
he had lost, wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent (Ps.
1:14): "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me
with a perfect spirit. " Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition
of hands; for we read (Acts 8:17) that the apostles "laid their hands
upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost"; and (Mat. 19:13) that
"little children were presented" to our Lord, "that He should impose
hands upon them. " Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in
this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, the priest's words are not more efficacious in
this than in the other sacraments. But in the other sacraments the
words of the minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action:
thus, in Baptism, the priest while saying: "I baptize thee," has to
perform a bodily washing. Therefore, also while saying: "I absolve
thee," the priest should perform some action in regard to the penitent,
by laying hands on him.
On the contrary, When our Lord said to Peter (Mat. 16:19): "Whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth," etc. , He made no mention of an imposition
of hands; nor did He when He said to all the apostles (Jn. 20:13):
"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. " Therefore no
imposition of hands is required for this sacrament.
I answer that, In the sacraments of the Church the imposition of hands
is made, to signify some abundant effect of grace, through those on
whom the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the ministers in
whom grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition of hands is
made in the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy
Ghost is conferred; and in the sacrament of order, wherein is bestowed
a certain excellence of power over the Divine mysteries; hence it is
written (2 Tim. 1:6): "Stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by
the imposition of my hands. "
Now the sacrament of Penance is ordained, not that man may receive some
abundance of grace, but that his sins may be taken away; and therefore
no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as neither is
there for Baptism, wherein nevertheless a fuller remission of sins is
bestowed.
Reply to Objection 1: That imposition of hands is not sacramental, but
is intended for the working of miracles, namely, that by the contact of
a sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even
as we read of our Lord (Mk. 6:5) that He cured the sick, "laying His
hands upon them," and (Mat. 8:3) that He cleansed a leper by touching
him.
Reply to Objection 2: It is not every reception of the Holy Ghost that
requires an imposition of hands, since even in Baptism man receives the
Holy Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the reception of
the fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to Confirmation that an
imposition of hands is required.
Reply to Objection 3: In those sacraments which are perfected in the
use of the matter, the minister has to perform some bodily action on
the recipient of the sacrament, e. g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and
Extreme Unction; whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use of
matter employed outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part taken
by the penitent: wherefore, just as in the Eucharist the priest
perfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the matter,
so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces over the
penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution. If, indeed, any bodily
act were necessary on the part of the priest, the sign of the cross,
which is employed in the Eucharist, would not be less becoming than the
imposition of hands, in token that sins are forgiven through the blood
of Christ crucified; and yet this is not essential to this sacrament as
neither is it to the Eucharist.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for
salvation. Because on Ps. 125:5, "They that sow in tears," etc. , the
gloss says: "Be not sorrowful, if thou hast a good will, of which peace
is the meed. " But sorrow is essential to Penance, according to 2 Cor.
7:10: "The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast
unto salvation. " Therefore a good will without Penance suffices for
salvation.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth
all sins," and further on (Prov. 15:27): "By mercy and faith sins are
purged away. " But this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging of
sins. Therefore if one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can obtain
salvation, without the sacrament of Penance.
Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin
from the institution of Christ. But according to Jn. 8 Christ absolved
the adulterous woman without Penance. Therefore it seems that Penance
is not necessary for salvation.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 13:3): "Unless you shall do
penance, you shall all likewise perish. "
I answer that, A thing is necessary for salvation in two ways: first,
absolutely; secondly, on a supposition. A thing is absolutely necessary
for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it, as, for
example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism, whereby a
man is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is necessary on a
supposition, for it is necessary, not for all, but for those who are in
sin. For it is written (2 Paral 37 [*The prayer of Manasses, among the
Apocrypha]), "Thou, Lord, God of the righteous, hast not appointed
repentance to the righteous, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor to those
who sinned not against Thee. " But "sin, when it is completed, begetteth
death" (James 1:15). Consequently it is necessary for the sinner's
salvation that sin be taken away from him; which cannot be done without
the sacrament of Penance, wherein the power of Christ's Passion
operates through the priest's absolution and the acts of the penitent,
who co-operates with grace unto the destruction of his sin. For as
Augustine says (Tract. lxxii in Joan. [*Implicitly in the passage
referred to, but explicitly Serm. xv de verb Apost. ]), "He Who created
thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee. " Therefore it is
evident that after sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for
salvation, even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous
disease.
Reply to Objection 1: This gloss should apparently be understood as
referring to the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin, for such a
man has no cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited
through sin, it cannot be restored without that sorrow whereby a man
sorrows for his past sin, and which belongs to Penance.
Reply to Objection 2: As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith,
and mercy do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity
demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his
friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his
friend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his
sins through the power of Christ's Passion which operates in the
sacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates that man
should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into which
sin has brought him, according to Prov. 14:34: "Sin maketh nations
miserable"; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 30:24): "Have pity on thy
own soul, pleasing God. "
Reply to Objection 3: It was due to His power of "excellence," which He
alone had, as stated above ([4720]Q[64], A[3]), that Christ bestowed on
the adulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of Penance, viz. the
forgiveness of sins, without the sacrament of Penance, although not
without internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance is a second plank after shipwreck?
Objection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after
shipwreck. Because on Is. 3:9, "They have proclaimed abroad their sin
as Sodom," a gloss says: "The second plank after shipwreck is to hide
one's sins. " Now Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them.
Therefore Penance is not a second plank.
Objection 2: Further, in a building the foundation takes the first, not
the second place. Now in the spiritual edifice, Penance is the
foundation, according to Heb. 6:1: "Not laying again the foundation of
Penance from dead works"; wherefore it precedes even Baptism, according
to Acts 2:38: "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you. " Therefore
Penance should not be called a second plank.
Objection 3: Further, all the sacraments are planks, i. e. helps against
sin. Now Penance holds, not the second but the fourth, place among the
sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above ([4721]Q[65],
AA[1],2). Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank after
shipwreck.
On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that "Penance is a second plank
after shipwreck. "
I answer that, That which is of itself precedes naturally that which is
accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some sacraments are, of
themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e. g. Baptism, which is the
spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the spiritual growth, the
Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas Penance is ordained to
man's salvation accidentally as it were, and on something being
supposed, viz. sin: for unless man were to sin actually, he would not
stand in need of Penance and yet he would need Baptism, Confirmation,
and the Eucharist; even as in the life of the body, man would need no
medical treatment, unless he were ill, and yet life, birth, growth, and
food are, of themselves, necessary to man.
Consequently Penance holds the second place with regard to the state of
integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the aforesaid
sacraments, so that it is called metaphorically "a second plank after
shipwreck. " For just as the first help for those who cross the sea is
to be safeguarded in a whole ship, while the second help when the ship
is wrecked, is to cling to a plank; so too the first help in this
life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity, while the second help
is, if he lose his integrity through sin, that he regain it by means of
Penance.
Reply to Objection 1: To hide one's sins may happen in two ways: first,
in the very act of sinning. Now it is worse to sin in public than in
private, both because a public sinner seems to sin more from contempt,
and because by sinning he gives scandal to others. Consequently in sin
it is a kind of remedy to sin secretly, and it is in this sense that
the gloss says that "to hide one's sins is a second plank after
shipwreck"; not that it takes away sin, as Penance does, but because it
makes the sin less grievous. Secondly, one hides one's sin previously
committed, by neglecting to confess it: this is opposed to Penance, and
to hide one's sins thus is not a second plank, but is the reverse,
since it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his sins shall not
prosper. "
Reply to Objection 2: Penance cannot be called the foundation of the
spiritual edifice simply, i. e. in the first building thereof; but it is
the foundation in the second building which is accomplished by
destroying sin, because man, on his return to God, needs Penance first.
However, the Apostle is speaking there of the foundation of spiritual
doctrine. Moreover, the penance which precedes Baptism is not the
sacrament of Penance.
Reply to Objection 3: The three sacraments which precede Penance refer
to the ship in its integrity, i. e. to man's state of integrity, with
regard to which Penance is called a second plank.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament was suitably instituted in the New Law?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament was unsuitably
instituted in the New Law. Because those things which belong to the
natural law need not to be instituted. Now it belongs to the natural
law that one should repent of the evil one has done: for it is
impossible to love good without grieving for its contrary. Therefore
Penance was unsuitably instituted in the New Law.
Objection 2: Further, that which existed in the Old Law had not to be
instituted in the New. Now there was Penance in the old Law wherefore
the Lord complains (Jer. 8:6) saying: "There is none that doth penance
for his sin, saying: What have I done? " Therefore Penance should not
have been instituted in the New Law.
Objection 3: Further, Penance comes after Baptism, since it is a second
plank, as stated above [4722](A[6]). Now it seems that our Lord
instituted Penance before Baptism, because we read that at the
beginning of His preaching He said (Mat. 4:17): "Do penance, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand. " Therefore this sacrament was not
suitably instituted in the New Law.
Objection 4: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by
Christ, by Whose power they work, as stated above ([4723]Q[62],
A[5];[4724] Q[64], A[1]). But Christ does not seem to have instituted
this sacrament, since He made no use of it, as of the other sacraments
which He instituted. Therefore this sacrament was unsuitably instituted
in the New Law.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 24:46,47): "It behooved Christ to
suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day: and that penance
and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations. "
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 1, ad 2), in this sacrament
the acts of the penitent are as matter, while the part taken by the
priest, who works as Christ's minister, is the formal and completive
element of the sacrament. Now in the other sacraments the matter
pre-exists, being provided by nature, as water, or by art, as bread:
but that such and such a matter be employed for a sacrament requires to
be decided by the institution; while the sacrament derives its form and
power entirely from the institution of Christ, from Whose Passion the
power of the sacraments proceeds.
Accordingly the matter of this sacrament pre-exists, being provided by
nature; since it is by a natural principle of reason that man is moved
to repent of the evil he has done: yet it is due to Divine institution
that man does penance in this or that way. Wherefore at the outset of
His preaching, our Lord admonished men, not only to repent, but also to
"do penance," thus pointing to the particular manner of actions
required for this sacrament. As to the part to be taken by the
ministers, this was fixed by our Lord when He said to Peter (Mat.
16:19): "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc. ;
but it was after His resurrection that He made known the efficacy of
this sacrament and the source of its power, when He said (Lk. 24:47)
that "penance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto
all nations," after speaking of His Passion and resurrection. Because
it is from the power of the name of Jesus Christ suffering and rising
again that this sacrament is efficacious unto the remission of sins.
It is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted in
the New Law.
Reply to Objection 1: It is a natural law that one should repent of the
evil one has done, by grieving for having done it, and by seeking a
remedy for one's grief in some way or other, and also that one should
show some signs of grief, even as the Ninevites did, as we read in Jn.
3. And yet even in their case there was also something of faith which
they had received through Jonas' preaching, inasmuch as they did these
things in the hope that they would receive pardon from God, according
as we read (Jn. 3:9): "Who can tell if God will turn and forgive, and
will turn away from His fierce anger, and we shall not perish? " But
just as other matters which are of the natural law were fixed in detail
by the institution of the Divine law, as we have stated in the
[4725]FS, Q[91], A[4]; [4726]FS, Q[95], A[2]; FS, Q[99], so was it with
Penance.
Reply to Objection 2: Things which are of the natural law were
determined in various ways in the old and in the New Law, in keeping
with the imperfection of the old, and the perfection of the New.
Wherefore Penance was fixed in a certain way in the Old Law---with
regard to sorrow, that it should be in the heart rather than in
external signs, according to Joel 2:13: "Rend your hearts and not your
garments"; and with regard to seeking a remedy for sorrow, that they
should in some way confess their sins, at least in general, to God's
ministers. Wherefore the Lord said (Lev. 5:17,18): "If anyone sin
through ignorance . . . he shall offer of the flocks a ram without
blemish to the priest, according to the measure and estimation of the
sin, and the priest shall pray for him, because he did it ignorantly,
and it shall be forgiven him"; since by the very fact of making an
offering for his sin, a man, in a fashion, confessed his sin to the
priest. And accordingly it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth
his sins, shall not prosper: but he that shall confess, and forsake
them, shall obtain mercy. " Not yet, however, was the power of the keys
instituted, which is derived from Christ's Passion, and consequently it
was not yet ordained that a man should grieve for his sin, with the
purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to the
keys of the Church, in the hope of receiving forgiveness through the
power of Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 3: If we note carefully what our Lord said about the
necessity of Baptism (Jn. 3:3, seqq. ), we shall see that this was said
before His words about the necessity of Penance (Mat. 4:17); because He
spoke to Nicodemus about Baptism before the imprisonment of John, of
whom it is related afterwards (Jn. 3:23, 24) that he baptized, whereas
His words about Penance were said after John was cast into prison.
If, however, He had admonished men to do penance before admonishing
them to be baptized, this would be because also before Baptism some
kind of penance is required, according to the words of Peter (Acts
2:38): "Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you. "
Reply to Objection 4: Christ did not use the Baptism which He
instituted, but was baptized with the baptism of John, as stated above
([4727]Q[39], AA[1],2). Nor did He use it actively by administering it
Himself, because He "did not baptize" as a rule, "but His disciples"
did, as related in Jn. 4:2, although it is to be believed that He
baptized His disciples, as Augustine asserts (Ep. cclxv, ad Seleuc. ).
But with regard to His institution of this sacrament it was nowise
fitting that He should use it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom
there was no sin, nor by administering the sacrament to others, since,
in order to show His mercy and power, He was wont to confer the effect
of this sacrament without the sacrament itself, as stated above (A[5],
ad 3). On the other hand, He both received and gave to others the
sacrament of the Eucharist, both in order to commend the excellence of
that sacrament, and because that sacrament is a memorial of His
Passion, in which Christ is both priest and victim.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance should last till the end of life?
Objection 1: It would seem that Penance should not last till the end of
life. Because Penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin. Now the
penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to Ezech.
18:21: "If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath
committed . . . he shall live and shall not die. " Therefore there is no
need for Penance to be further prolonged.
Objection 2: Further, Penance belongs to the state of beginners. But
man ought to advance from that state to the state of the proficient,
and, from this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not
do Penance till the end of his life.
Objection 3: Further, man is bound to observe the laws of the Church in
this as in the other sacraments. But the duration of repentance is
fixed by the canons, so that, to wit, for such and such a sin one is
bound to do penance for so many years. Therefore it seems that Penance
should not be prolonged till the end of life.
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book, De Poenitentia [*De vera
et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "What
remains for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when sorrow
ceases, repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what becomes of
pardon? "
I answer that, Penance is twofold, internal and external. Internal
penance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed, and
this penance should last until the end of life. Because man should
always be displeased at having sinned, for if he were to be pleased
thereat, he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the fruit
of pardon. Now displeasure causes sorrow in one who is susceptible to
sorrow, as man is in this life; but after this life the saints are not
susceptible to sorrow, wherefore they will be displeased at, without
sorrowing for, their past sins, according to Is. 65:16. "The former
distresses are forgotten. "
External penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of sorrow,
confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves him, and makes
satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the priest. Such
penance need not last until the end of life, but only for a fixed time
according to the measure of the sin.
Reply to Objection 1: True penance not only removes past sins, but also
preserves man from future sins. Consequently, although a man receives
forgiveness of past sins in the first instant of his true penance,
nevertheless he must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again into
sin.
Reply to Objection 2: To do penance both internal and external belongs
to the state of beginners, of those, to wit, who are making a fresh
start from the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance
even in the proficient and the perfect, according to Ps. 83:7: "In his
heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps, in the vale of tears. "
Wherefore Paul says (1 Cor. 15:9): "I . . . am not worthy to be called
an apostle because I persecuted the Church of God.
"
Reply to Objection 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents
as regards the exercise of external penance.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance can be continuous?
Objection 1: It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it is
written (Jer. 31:16): "Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes
from tears. " But this would be impossible if penance were continuous,
for it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance cannot be
continuous.
Objection 2: Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work,
according to Ps. 99:1: "Serve ye the Lord with gladness. " Now to do
penance is a good work. Therefore man should rejoice at it. But man
cannot rejoice and grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares
(Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually for his
past sins, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance cannot be
continuous.
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:7): "Comfort him,"
viz. the penitent, "lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with
overmuch sorrow. " But comfort dispels grief, which is essential to
penance. Therefore penance need not be continuous.
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on Penance [*De vera et
falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "In doing
penance grief should be continual. "
I answer that, One is said to repent in two ways, actually and
habitually. It is impossible for a man continually to repent actually.
for the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent must needs be
interrupted by sleep and other things which the body needs. Secondly, a
man is said to repent habitually. and thus he should repent
continually, both by never doing anything contrary to penance, so as to
destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent, and by being resolved
that his past sins should always be displeasing to him.
Reply to Objection 1: Weeping and tears belong to the act of external
penance, and this act needs neither to be continuous, nor to last until
the end of life, as stated above [4728](A[8]): wherefore it is
significantly added: "For there is a reward for thy work. " Now the
reward of the penitent's work is the full remission of sin both as to
guilt and as to punishment; and after receiving this reward there is no
need for man to proceed to acts of external penance. This, however,
does not prevent penance being continual, as explained above.
Reply to Objection 2: Of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways:
first, as being passions of the sensitive appetite; and thus they can
no. wise be together, since they are altogether contrary to one
another, either on the part of the object (as when they have the same
object), or at least on the part of the movement, for joy is with
expansion [*Cf. [4729]FS, Q[33], A[1]] of the heart, whereas sorrow is
with contraction; and it is in this sense that the Philosopher speaks
in Ethic. ix. Secondly, we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple
acts of the will, to which something is pleasing or displeasing.
Accordingly, they cannot be contrary to one another, except on the part
of the object, as when they concern the same object in the same
respect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous, because
the same thing in the same respect cannot be pleasing and displeasing.
If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow, understood thus, be not of the
same object in the same respect, but either of different objects, or of
the same object in different respects, in that case joy and sorrow are
not contrary to one another, so that nothing hinders a man from being
joyful and sorrowful at the same time---for instance, if we see a good
man suffer, we both rejoice at his goodness and at the same time grieve
for his suffering. In this way a man may be displeased at having
sinned, and be pleased at his displeasure together with his hope for
pardon, so that his very sorrow is a matter of joy. Hence Augustine
says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is
unknown]: "The penitent should ever grieve and rejoice at his grief. "
If, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would
prevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but only of actual
penance.
Reply to Objection 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3,6,7,9)
it belongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions. Now the
sorrow which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from
the displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should be
moderated according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful,
because it leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches (2 Cor. 2:7),
saying: "Lest such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. "
Accordingly comfort, of which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow but
does not destroy it altogether.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacrament of Penance may be repeated?
Objection 1: It would seem that the sacrament of Penance should not be
repeated. For the Apostle says (Heb. 6:4, seqq. ): "It is impossible for
those, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift,
and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost . . . and are fallen away, to
be renewed again to penance. " Now whosoever have done penance, have
been illuminated, and have received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore whosoever sin after doing penance, cannot do penance again.
Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii): "Some are to be
found who think they ought often to do penance, who take liberties with
Christ: for if they were truly penitent, they would not think of doing
penance over again, since there is but one Penance even as there is but
one Baptism. " Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither, therefore, is
Penance to be repeated.
Objection 3: Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily
diseases, signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are
delivered from sins. Now we do not read that our Lord restored the
sight to any blind man twice, or that He cleansed any leper twice, or
twice raised any dead man to life. Therefore it seems that He does not
twice grant pardon to any sinner.
Objection 4: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang. ): "Penance
consists in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those we
have deplored": and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): "He is a mocker
and no penitent who still does what he has repented of. " If, therefore,
a man is truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore Penance
cannot be repeated.
Objection 5: Further, just as Baptism derives its efficacy from the
Passion of Christ, so does Penance. Now Baptism is not repeated, on
account of the unity of Christ's Passion and death. Therefore in like
manner Penance is not repeated.
Objection 6: Further, Ambrose says on Ps. 118:58, "I entreated Thy
face," etc. , that "facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to
sin. " If, therefore, God frequently grants pardon through Penance, it
seems that He affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to
take pleasure in sin, which is contrary to His goodness. Therefore
Penance cannot be repeated.
On the contrary, Man is induced to be merciful by the example of Divine
mercy, according to Lk. 6:36: "Be ye . . . merciful, as your Father
also is merciful. " Now our Lord commanded His disciples to be merciful
by frequently pardoning their brethren who had sinned against them;
wherefore, as related in Mat. 18:21, when Peter asked: "How often shall
my brother off end against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? "
Jesus answered: "I say not to thee, till seven times, but till seventy
times seven times. " Therefore also God over and over again, through
Penance, grants pardon to sinners, especially as He teaches us to pray
(Mat. 6:12): "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that
trespass against us. "
I answer that, As regards Penance, some have erred, saying that a man
cannot obtain pardon of his sins through Penance a second time. Some of
these, viz. the Novatians, went so far as to say that he who sins after
the first Penance which is done in Baptism, cannot be restored again
through Penance. There were also other heretics who, as Augustine
relates in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the
authorship of which is unknown], said that, after Baptism, Penance is
useful, not many times, but only once.
These errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source: first from not
knowing the nature of true Penance. For since true Penance requires
charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought that
charity once possessed could not be lost, and that, consequently,
Penance, if true, could never be removed by sin, so that it should be
necessary to repeat it. But this was refuted in the [4730]SS, Q[24],
A[11], where it was shown that on account of free-will charity, once
possessed, can be lost, and that, consequently, after true Penance, a
man can sin mortally. Secondly, they erred in their estimation of the
gravity of sin. For they deemed a sin committed by a man after he had
received pardon, to be so grave that it could not be forgiven. In this
they erred not only with regard to sin which, even after a sin has been
forgiven, can be either more or less grievous than the first, which was
forgiven, but much more did they err against the infinity of Divine
mercy, which surpasses any number and magnitude of sins, according to
Ps. 50:1,2: "Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy: and
according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my
iniquity. " Wherefore the words of Cain were reprehensible, when he said
(Gn. 4:13): "My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. "
And so God's mercy, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners without
any end, wherefore it is written (2 Paral 37 [*Prayer of Manasses,
among the Apocrypha. St. Thomas is evidently quoting from memory, and
omits the words in brackets. ]): "Thy merciful promise is unmeasurable
and unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for the evil brought upon
man. " It is therefore evident that Penance can be repeated many times.
Reply to Objection 1: Some of the Jews thought that a man could be
washed several times in the laver of Baptism, because among them the
Law prescribed certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse
themselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove
this the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that "it is impossible for those
who were once illuminated," viz. through Baptism, "to be renewed again
to penance," viz. through Baptism, which is "the laver of regeneration,
and renovation of the Holy Ghost," as stated in Titus 3:5: and he
declares the reason to be that by Baptism man dies with Christ,
wherefore he adds (Heb. 6:6): "Crucifying again to themselves the Son
of God. "
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose is speaking of solemn Penance, which is
not repeated in the Church, as we shall state further on ([4731]XP,
Q[28], A[2]).
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia
the authorship of which is unknown], "Our Lord gave sight to many blind
men at various times, and strength to many infirm, thereby showing, in
these different men, that the same sins are repeatedly forgiven, at one
time healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness. For this
reason He healed so many stricken with fever, so many feeble in body,
so many lame, blind, and withered, that the sinner might not despair;
for this reason He is not described as healing anyone but once, that
every one might fear to link himself with sin; for this reason He
declares Himself to be the physician welcomed not of the hale, but of
the unhealthy. What sort of a physician is he who knows not how to heal
a recurring disease? For if a man ail a hundred times it is for the
physician to heal him a hundred times: and if he failed where others
succeed, he would be a poor physician in comparison with them. "
Reply to Objection 4: Penance is to deplore past sins, and, "while
deploring them," not to commit again, either by act or by intention,
those which we have to deplore. Because a man is a mocker and not a
penitent, who, "while doing penance," does what he repents having done,
or intends to do again what he did before, or even commits actually the
same or another kind of sin. But if a man sin afterwards either by act
or intention, this does not destroy the fact that his former penance
was real, because the reality of a former act is never destroyed by a
subsequent contrary act: for even as he truly ran who afterwards sits,
so he truly repented who subsequently sins.
Reply to Objection 5: Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion,
as a spiritual regeneration, with a spiritual death, of a previous
life. Now "it is appointed unto man once to die" (Heb. 9:27), and to be
born once, wherefore man should be baptized but once. On the other
hand, Penance derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a spiritual
medicine, which can be repeated frequently.
Reply to Objection 6: According to Augustine (De vera et falsa
Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown), "it is evident that
sins displease God exceedingly, for He is always ready to destroy them,
lest what He created should perish, and what He loved be lost," viz. by
despair.
__________________________________________________________________
OF PENANCE AS A VIRTUE (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider penance as a virtue, under which head there are
six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether penance is a virtue?
(2) Whether it is a special virtue?
(3) To what species of virtue does it belong?
(4) Of its subject;
(5) Of its cause;
(6) Of its relation to the other virtues.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance is a virtue?
Objection 1: It would seem that penance is not a virtue. For penance is
a sacrament numbered among the other sacraments, as was shown above
([4732]Q[84], A[1];[4733] Q[65], A[1]). Now no other sacrament is a
virtue. Therefore neither is penance a virtue.
Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9),
"shame is not a virtue," both because it is a passion accompanied by a
bodily alteration, and because it is not the disposition of a perfect
thing, since it is about an evil act, so that it has no place in a
virtuous man. Now, in like manner, penance is a passion accompanied by
a bodily alteration, viz. tears, according to Gregory, who says (Hom.
xxxiv in Evang. ) that "penance consists in deploring past sins":
moreover it is about evil deeds, viz. sins, which have no place in a
virtuous man. Therefore penance is not a virtue.
Objection 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), "no
virtuous man is foolish. " But it seems foolish to deplore what has been
done in the past, since it cannot be otherwise, and yet this is what we
understand by penance. Therefore penance is not a virtue.
On the contrary, The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue,
because "a lawgiver intends to make the citizens virtuous" (Ethic. ii,
1). But there is a precept about penance in the Divine law, according
to Mat. 4:17: "Do penance," etc. Therefore penance is a virtue.
I answer that, As stated above (OBJ[2];[4734] Q[84], A[10], ad 4), to
repent is to deplore something one has done. Now it has been stated
above ([4735]Q[84] , A[9]) that sorrow or sadness is twofold. First, it
denotes a passion of the sensitive appetite, and in this sense penance
is not a virtue, but a passion. Secondly, it denotes an act of the
will, and in this way it implies choice, and if this be right, it must,
of necessity, be an act of virtue. For it is stated in Ethic. ii, 6
that virtue is a habit of choosing according to right reason. Now it
belongs to right reason than one should grieve for a proper object of
grief as one ought to grieve, and for an end for which one ought to
grieve. And this is observed in the penance of which we are speaking
now; since the penitent assumes a moderated grief for his past sins,
with the intention of removing them. Hence it is evident that the
penance of which we are speaking now, is either a virtue or the act of
a virtue.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Q[84], A[1], ad 1;
[4736]AA[2],3), in the sacrament of Penance, human acts take the place
of matter, which is not the case in Baptism and Confirmation.
Wherefore, since virtue is a principle of an act, penance is either a
virtue or accompanies a virtue, rather than Baptism or Confirmation.
Reply to Objection 2: Penance, considered as a passion, is not a
virtue, as stated above, and it is thus that it is accompanied by a
bodily alteration. On the other hand, it is a virtue, according as it
includes a right choice on the part of the will; which, however,
applies to penance rather than to shame. Because shame regards the evil
deed as present, whereas penance regards the evil deed as past. Now it
is contrary to the perfection of virtue that one should have an evil
deed actually present, of which one ought to be ashamed; whereas it is
not contrary to the perfection of virtue that we should have previously
committed evil deeds, of which it behooves us to repent, since a man
from being wicked becomes virtuous.
Reply to Objection 3: It would indeed be foolish to grieve for what has
already been done, with the intention of trying to make it not done.
But the penitent does not intend this: for his sorrow is displeasure or
disapproval with regard to the past deed, with the intention of
removing its result, viz. the anger of God and the debt of punishment:
and this is not foolish.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance is a special virtue?
Objection 1: It would seem that penance is not a special virtue. For it
seems that to rejoice at the good one has done, and to grieve for the
evil one has done are acts of the same nature. But joy for the good one
has done is not a special virtue, but is a praiseworthy emotion
proceeding from charity, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,8,9):
wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:6) that charity "rejoiceth not at
iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth. " Therefore, in like manner,
neither is penance, which is sorrow for past sins, a special virtue,
but an emotion resulting from charity.
Objection 2: Further, every special virtue has its special matter,
because habits are distinguished by their acts, and acts by their
objects. But penance has no special matter, because its matter is past
sins in any matter whatever. Therefore penance is not a special virtue.
Objection 3: Further, nothing is removed except by its contrary. But
penance removes all sins. Therefore it is contrary to all sins, and
consequently is not a special virtue.
On the contrary, The Law has a special precept about penance, as stated
above ([4737]Q[84], AA[5],7).
I answer that, As stated in the [4738]FS, Q[54], A[1], ad 1, A[2],
habits are specifically distinguished according to the species of their
acts, so that whenever an act has a special reason for being
praiseworthy, there must needs be a special habit. Now it is evident
that there is a special reason for praising the act of penance, because
it aims at the destruction of past sin, considered as an offense
against God, which does not apply to any other virtue. We must
therefore conclude that penance is a special virtue.
Reply to Objection 1: An act springs from charity in two ways: first as
being elicited by charity, and a like virtuous act requires no other
virtue than charity, e. g. to love the good, to rejoice therein, and to
grieve for what is opposed to it. Secondly, an act springs from
charity, being, so to speak, commanded by charity; and thus, since
charity commands all the virtues, inasmuch as it directs them to its
own end, an act springing from charity may belong even to another
special virtue. Accordingly, if in the act of the penitent we consider
the mere displeasure in the past sin, it belongs to charity
immediately, in the same way as joy for past good acts; but the
intention to aim at the destruction of past sin requires a special
virtue subordinate to charity.
Reply to Objection 2: In point of fact, penance has indeed a general
matter, inasmuch as it regards all sins; but it does so under a special
aspect, inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in
co-operating with God for his justification.
Reply to Objection 3: Every special virtue removes formally the habit
of the opposite vice, just as whiteness removes blackness from the same
subject: but penance removes every sin effectively, inasmuch as it
works for the destruction of sins, according as they are pardonable
through the grace of God if man co-operate therewith. Wherefore it does
not follow that it is a general virtue.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the virtue of penance is a species of justice?
Objection 1: It would seem that the virtue of penance is not a species
of justice. For justice is not a theological but a moral virtue, as was
shown in the [4739]SS, Q[62], A[3]. But penance seems to be a
theological virtue, since God is its object, for it makes satisfaction
to God, to Whom, moreover, it reconciles the sinner. Therefore it seems
that penance is not a species of justice.
Objection 2: Further, since justice is a moral virtue it observes the
mean. Now penance does not observe the mean, but rather goes to the
extreme, according to Jer.
need for a special revelation to be made to the priest, but the general
revelation of faith suffices, through which sins are forgiven. Hence
the revelation of faith is said to have been made to Peter.
It would be a more complete explanation to say that the words, "I
absolve thee" mean: "I grant thee the sacrament of absolution. "
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the imposition of the priest's hands is necessary for this
sacrament?
Objection 1: It would seem that the imposition of the priest's hands is
necessary for this sacrament. For it is written (Mk. 16:18): "They
shall lay hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. " Now sinners are
sick spiritually, and obtain recovery through this sacrament. Therefore
an imposition of hands should be made in this sacrament.
Objection 2: Further, in this sacrament man regains the Holy Ghost Whom
he had lost, wherefore it is said in the person of the penitent (Ps.
1:14): "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation, and strengthen me
with a perfect spirit. " Now the Holy Ghost is given by the imposition
of hands; for we read (Acts 8:17) that the apostles "laid their hands
upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost"; and (Mat. 19:13) that
"little children were presented" to our Lord, "that He should impose
hands upon them. " Therefore an imposition of hands should be made in
this sacrament.
Objection 3: Further, the priest's words are not more efficacious in
this than in the other sacraments. But in the other sacraments the
words of the minister do not suffice, unless he perform some action:
thus, in Baptism, the priest while saying: "I baptize thee," has to
perform a bodily washing. Therefore, also while saying: "I absolve
thee," the priest should perform some action in regard to the penitent,
by laying hands on him.
On the contrary, When our Lord said to Peter (Mat. 16:19): "Whatsoever
thou shalt loose on earth," etc. , He made no mention of an imposition
of hands; nor did He when He said to all the apostles (Jn. 20:13):
"Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them. " Therefore no
imposition of hands is required for this sacrament.
I answer that, In the sacraments of the Church the imposition of hands
is made, to signify some abundant effect of grace, through those on
whom the hands are laid being, as it were, united to the ministers in
whom grace should be plentiful. Wherefore an imposition of hands is
made in the sacrament of Confirmation, wherein the fulness of the Holy
Ghost is conferred; and in the sacrament of order, wherein is bestowed
a certain excellence of power over the Divine mysteries; hence it is
written (2 Tim. 1:6): "Stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by
the imposition of my hands. "
Now the sacrament of Penance is ordained, not that man may receive some
abundance of grace, but that his sins may be taken away; and therefore
no imposition of hands is required for this sacrament, as neither is
there for Baptism, wherein nevertheless a fuller remission of sins is
bestowed.
Reply to Objection 1: That imposition of hands is not sacramental, but
is intended for the working of miracles, namely, that by the contact of
a sanctified man's hand, even bodily infirmity might be removed; even
as we read of our Lord (Mk. 6:5) that He cured the sick, "laying His
hands upon them," and (Mat. 8:3) that He cleansed a leper by touching
him.
Reply to Objection 2: It is not every reception of the Holy Ghost that
requires an imposition of hands, since even in Baptism man receives the
Holy Ghost, without any imposition of hands: it is at the reception of
the fulness of the Holy Ghost which belongs to Confirmation that an
imposition of hands is required.
Reply to Objection 3: In those sacraments which are perfected in the
use of the matter, the minister has to perform some bodily action on
the recipient of the sacrament, e. g. in Baptism, Confirmation, and
Extreme Unction; whereas this sacrament does not consist in the use of
matter employed outwardly, the matter being supplied by the part taken
by the penitent: wherefore, just as in the Eucharist the priest
perfects the sacrament by merely pronouncing the words over the matter,
so the mere words which the priest while absolving pronounces over the
penitent perfect the sacrament of absolution. If, indeed, any bodily
act were necessary on the part of the priest, the sign of the cross,
which is employed in the Eucharist, would not be less becoming than the
imposition of hands, in token that sins are forgiven through the blood
of Christ crucified; and yet this is not essential to this sacrament as
neither is it to the Eucharist.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament is necessary for salvation?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament is not necessary for
salvation. Because on Ps. 125:5, "They that sow in tears," etc. , the
gloss says: "Be not sorrowful, if thou hast a good will, of which peace
is the meed. " But sorrow is essential to Penance, according to 2 Cor.
7:10: "The sorrow that is according to God worketh penance steadfast
unto salvation. " Therefore a good will without Penance suffices for
salvation.
Objection 2: Further, it is written (Prov. 10:12): "Charity covereth
all sins," and further on (Prov. 15:27): "By mercy and faith sins are
purged away. " But this sacrament is for nothing else but the purging of
sins. Therefore if one has charity, faith, and mercy, one can obtain
salvation, without the sacrament of Penance.
Objection 3: Further, the sacraments of the Church take their origin
from the institution of Christ. But according to Jn. 8 Christ absolved
the adulterous woman without Penance. Therefore it seems that Penance
is not necessary for salvation.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 13:3): "Unless you shall do
penance, you shall all likewise perish. "
I answer that, A thing is necessary for salvation in two ways: first,
absolutely; secondly, on a supposition. A thing is absolutely necessary
for salvation, if no one can obtain salvation without it, as, for
example, the grace of Christ, and the sacrament of Baptism, whereby a
man is born again in Christ. The sacrament of Penance is necessary on a
supposition, for it is necessary, not for all, but for those who are in
sin. For it is written (2 Paral 37 [*The prayer of Manasses, among the
Apocrypha]), "Thou, Lord, God of the righteous, hast not appointed
repentance to the righteous, to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, nor to those
who sinned not against Thee. " But "sin, when it is completed, begetteth
death" (James 1:15). Consequently it is necessary for the sinner's
salvation that sin be taken away from him; which cannot be done without
the sacrament of Penance, wherein the power of Christ's Passion
operates through the priest's absolution and the acts of the penitent,
who co-operates with grace unto the destruction of his sin. For as
Augustine says (Tract. lxxii in Joan. [*Implicitly in the passage
referred to, but explicitly Serm. xv de verb Apost. ]), "He Who created
thee without thee, will not justify thee without thee. " Therefore it is
evident that after sin the sacrament of Penance is necessary for
salvation, even as bodily medicine after man has contracted a dangerous
disease.
Reply to Objection 1: This gloss should apparently be understood as
referring to the man who has a good will unimpaired by sin, for such a
man has no cause for sorrow: but as soon as the good will is forfeited
through sin, it cannot be restored without that sorrow whereby a man
sorrows for his past sin, and which belongs to Penance.
Reply to Objection 2: As soon as a man falls into sin, charity, faith,
and mercy do not deliver him from sin, without Penance. Because charity
demands that a man should grieve for the offense committed against his
friend, and that he should be anxious to make satisfaction to his
friend; faith requires that he should seek to be justified from his
sins through the power of Christ's Passion which operates in the
sacraments of the Church; and well-ordered pity necessitates that man
should succor himself by repenting of the pitiful condition into which
sin has brought him, according to Prov. 14:34: "Sin maketh nations
miserable"; wherefore it is written (Ecclus. 30:24): "Have pity on thy
own soul, pleasing God. "
Reply to Objection 3: It was due to His power of "excellence," which He
alone had, as stated above ([4720]Q[64], A[3]), that Christ bestowed on
the adulterous woman the effect of the sacrament of Penance, viz. the
forgiveness of sins, without the sacrament of Penance, although not
without internal repentance, which He operated in her by grace.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance is a second plank after shipwreck?
Objection 1: It would seem that Penance is not a second plank after
shipwreck. Because on Is. 3:9, "They have proclaimed abroad their sin
as Sodom," a gloss says: "The second plank after shipwreck is to hide
one's sins. " Now Penance does not hide sins, but reveals them.
Therefore Penance is not a second plank.
Objection 2: Further, in a building the foundation takes the first, not
the second place. Now in the spiritual edifice, Penance is the
foundation, according to Heb. 6:1: "Not laying again the foundation of
Penance from dead works"; wherefore it precedes even Baptism, according
to Acts 2:38: "Do penance, and be baptized every one of you. " Therefore
Penance should not be called a second plank.
Objection 3: Further, all the sacraments are planks, i. e. helps against
sin. Now Penance holds, not the second but the fourth, place among the
sacraments, as is clear from what has been said above ([4721]Q[65],
AA[1],2). Therefore Penance should not be called a second plank after
shipwreck.
On the contrary, Jerome says (Ep. cxxx) that "Penance is a second plank
after shipwreck. "
I answer that, That which is of itself precedes naturally that which is
accidental, as substance precedes accident. Now some sacraments are, of
themselves, ordained to man's salvation, e. g. Baptism, which is the
spiritual birth, Confirmation which is the spiritual growth, the
Eucharist which is the spiritual food; whereas Penance is ordained to
man's salvation accidentally as it were, and on something being
supposed, viz. sin: for unless man were to sin actually, he would not
stand in need of Penance and yet he would need Baptism, Confirmation,
and the Eucharist; even as in the life of the body, man would need no
medical treatment, unless he were ill, and yet life, birth, growth, and
food are, of themselves, necessary to man.
Consequently Penance holds the second place with regard to the state of
integrity which is bestowed and safeguarded by the aforesaid
sacraments, so that it is called metaphorically "a second plank after
shipwreck. " For just as the first help for those who cross the sea is
to be safeguarded in a whole ship, while the second help when the ship
is wrecked, is to cling to a plank; so too the first help in this
life's ocean is that man safeguard his integrity, while the second help
is, if he lose his integrity through sin, that he regain it by means of
Penance.
Reply to Objection 1: To hide one's sins may happen in two ways: first,
in the very act of sinning. Now it is worse to sin in public than in
private, both because a public sinner seems to sin more from contempt,
and because by sinning he gives scandal to others. Consequently in sin
it is a kind of remedy to sin secretly, and it is in this sense that
the gloss says that "to hide one's sins is a second plank after
shipwreck"; not that it takes away sin, as Penance does, but because it
makes the sin less grievous. Secondly, one hides one's sin previously
committed, by neglecting to confess it: this is opposed to Penance, and
to hide one's sins thus is not a second plank, but is the reverse,
since it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth his sins shall not
prosper. "
Reply to Objection 2: Penance cannot be called the foundation of the
spiritual edifice simply, i. e. in the first building thereof; but it is
the foundation in the second building which is accomplished by
destroying sin, because man, on his return to God, needs Penance first.
However, the Apostle is speaking there of the foundation of spiritual
doctrine. Moreover, the penance which precedes Baptism is not the
sacrament of Penance.
Reply to Objection 3: The three sacraments which precede Penance refer
to the ship in its integrity, i. e. to man's state of integrity, with
regard to which Penance is called a second plank.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether this sacrament was suitably instituted in the New Law?
Objection 1: It would seem that this sacrament was unsuitably
instituted in the New Law. Because those things which belong to the
natural law need not to be instituted. Now it belongs to the natural
law that one should repent of the evil one has done: for it is
impossible to love good without grieving for its contrary. Therefore
Penance was unsuitably instituted in the New Law.
Objection 2: Further, that which existed in the Old Law had not to be
instituted in the New. Now there was Penance in the old Law wherefore
the Lord complains (Jer. 8:6) saying: "There is none that doth penance
for his sin, saying: What have I done? " Therefore Penance should not
have been instituted in the New Law.
Objection 3: Further, Penance comes after Baptism, since it is a second
plank, as stated above [4722](A[6]). Now it seems that our Lord
instituted Penance before Baptism, because we read that at the
beginning of His preaching He said (Mat. 4:17): "Do penance, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand. " Therefore this sacrament was not
suitably instituted in the New Law.
Objection 4: Further, the sacraments of the New Law were instituted by
Christ, by Whose power they work, as stated above ([4723]Q[62],
A[5];[4724] Q[64], A[1]). But Christ does not seem to have instituted
this sacrament, since He made no use of it, as of the other sacraments
which He instituted. Therefore this sacrament was unsuitably instituted
in the New Law.
On the contrary, our Lord said (Lk. 24:46,47): "It behooved Christ to
suffer, and to rise again from the dead the third day: and that penance
and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto all nations. "
I answer that, As stated above (A[1], ad 1, ad 2), in this sacrament
the acts of the penitent are as matter, while the part taken by the
priest, who works as Christ's minister, is the formal and completive
element of the sacrament. Now in the other sacraments the matter
pre-exists, being provided by nature, as water, or by art, as bread:
but that such and such a matter be employed for a sacrament requires to
be decided by the institution; while the sacrament derives its form and
power entirely from the institution of Christ, from Whose Passion the
power of the sacraments proceeds.
Accordingly the matter of this sacrament pre-exists, being provided by
nature; since it is by a natural principle of reason that man is moved
to repent of the evil he has done: yet it is due to Divine institution
that man does penance in this or that way. Wherefore at the outset of
His preaching, our Lord admonished men, not only to repent, but also to
"do penance," thus pointing to the particular manner of actions
required for this sacrament. As to the part to be taken by the
ministers, this was fixed by our Lord when He said to Peter (Mat.
16:19): "To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven," etc. ;
but it was after His resurrection that He made known the efficacy of
this sacrament and the source of its power, when He said (Lk. 24:47)
that "penance and remission of sins should be preached in His name unto
all nations," after speaking of His Passion and resurrection. Because
it is from the power of the name of Jesus Christ suffering and rising
again that this sacrament is efficacious unto the remission of sins.
It is therefore evident that this sacrament was suitably instituted in
the New Law.
Reply to Objection 1: It is a natural law that one should repent of the
evil one has done, by grieving for having done it, and by seeking a
remedy for one's grief in some way or other, and also that one should
show some signs of grief, even as the Ninevites did, as we read in Jn.
3. And yet even in their case there was also something of faith which
they had received through Jonas' preaching, inasmuch as they did these
things in the hope that they would receive pardon from God, according
as we read (Jn. 3:9): "Who can tell if God will turn and forgive, and
will turn away from His fierce anger, and we shall not perish? " But
just as other matters which are of the natural law were fixed in detail
by the institution of the Divine law, as we have stated in the
[4725]FS, Q[91], A[4]; [4726]FS, Q[95], A[2]; FS, Q[99], so was it with
Penance.
Reply to Objection 2: Things which are of the natural law were
determined in various ways in the old and in the New Law, in keeping
with the imperfection of the old, and the perfection of the New.
Wherefore Penance was fixed in a certain way in the Old Law---with
regard to sorrow, that it should be in the heart rather than in
external signs, according to Joel 2:13: "Rend your hearts and not your
garments"; and with regard to seeking a remedy for sorrow, that they
should in some way confess their sins, at least in general, to God's
ministers. Wherefore the Lord said (Lev. 5:17,18): "If anyone sin
through ignorance . . . he shall offer of the flocks a ram without
blemish to the priest, according to the measure and estimation of the
sin, and the priest shall pray for him, because he did it ignorantly,
and it shall be forgiven him"; since by the very fact of making an
offering for his sin, a man, in a fashion, confessed his sin to the
priest. And accordingly it is written (Prov. 28:13): "He that hideth
his sins, shall not prosper: but he that shall confess, and forsake
them, shall obtain mercy. " Not yet, however, was the power of the keys
instituted, which is derived from Christ's Passion, and consequently it
was not yet ordained that a man should grieve for his sin, with the
purpose of submitting himself by confession and satisfaction to the
keys of the Church, in the hope of receiving forgiveness through the
power of Christ's Passion.
Reply to Objection 3: If we note carefully what our Lord said about the
necessity of Baptism (Jn. 3:3, seqq. ), we shall see that this was said
before His words about the necessity of Penance (Mat. 4:17); because He
spoke to Nicodemus about Baptism before the imprisonment of John, of
whom it is related afterwards (Jn. 3:23, 24) that he baptized, whereas
His words about Penance were said after John was cast into prison.
If, however, He had admonished men to do penance before admonishing
them to be baptized, this would be because also before Baptism some
kind of penance is required, according to the words of Peter (Acts
2:38): "Do penance, and be baptized, every one of you. "
Reply to Objection 4: Christ did not use the Baptism which He
instituted, but was baptized with the baptism of John, as stated above
([4727]Q[39], AA[1],2). Nor did He use it actively by administering it
Himself, because He "did not baptize" as a rule, "but His disciples"
did, as related in Jn. 4:2, although it is to be believed that He
baptized His disciples, as Augustine asserts (Ep. cclxv, ad Seleuc. ).
But with regard to His institution of this sacrament it was nowise
fitting that He should use it, neither by repenting Himself, in Whom
there was no sin, nor by administering the sacrament to others, since,
in order to show His mercy and power, He was wont to confer the effect
of this sacrament without the sacrament itself, as stated above (A[5],
ad 3). On the other hand, He both received and gave to others the
sacrament of the Eucharist, both in order to commend the excellence of
that sacrament, and because that sacrament is a memorial of His
Passion, in which Christ is both priest and victim.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance should last till the end of life?
Objection 1: It would seem that Penance should not last till the end of
life. Because Penance is ordained for the blotting out of sin. Now the
penitent receives forgiveness of his sins at once, according to Ezech.
18:21: "If the wicked do penance for all his sins which he hath
committed . . . he shall live and shall not die. " Therefore there is no
need for Penance to be further prolonged.
Objection 2: Further, Penance belongs to the state of beginners. But
man ought to advance from that state to the state of the proficient,
and, from this, on to the state of the perfect. Therefore man need not
do Penance till the end of his life.
Objection 3: Further, man is bound to observe the laws of the Church in
this as in the other sacraments. But the duration of repentance is
fixed by the canons, so that, to wit, for such and such a sin one is
bound to do penance for so many years. Therefore it seems that Penance
should not be prolonged till the end of life.
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book, De Poenitentia [*De vera
et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "What
remains for us to do, save to sorrow ever in this life? For when sorrow
ceases, repentance fails; and if repentance fails, what becomes of
pardon? "
I answer that, Penance is twofold, internal and external. Internal
penance is that whereby one grieves for a sin one has committed, and
this penance should last until the end of life. Because man should
always be displeased at having sinned, for if he were to be pleased
thereat, he would for this very reason fall into sin and lose the fruit
of pardon. Now displeasure causes sorrow in one who is susceptible to
sorrow, as man is in this life; but after this life the saints are not
susceptible to sorrow, wherefore they will be displeased at, without
sorrowing for, their past sins, according to Is. 65:16. "The former
distresses are forgotten. "
External penance is that whereby a man shows external signs of sorrow,
confesses his sins verbally to the priest who absolves him, and makes
satisfaction for his sins according to the judgment of the priest. Such
penance need not last until the end of life, but only for a fixed time
according to the measure of the sin.
Reply to Objection 1: True penance not only removes past sins, but also
preserves man from future sins. Consequently, although a man receives
forgiveness of past sins in the first instant of his true penance,
nevertheless he must persevere in his penance, lest he fall again into
sin.
Reply to Objection 2: To do penance both internal and external belongs
to the state of beginners, of those, to wit, who are making a fresh
start from the state of sin. But there is room for internal penance
even in the proficient and the perfect, according to Ps. 83:7: "In his
heart he hath disposed to ascend by steps, in the vale of tears. "
Wherefore Paul says (1 Cor. 15:9): "I . . . am not worthy to be called
an apostle because I persecuted the Church of God.
"
Reply to Objection 3: These durations of time are fixed for penitents
as regards the exercise of external penance.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance can be continuous?
Objection 1: It would seem that penance cannot be continuous. For it is
written (Jer. 31:16): "Let thy voice cease from weeping, and thy eyes
from tears. " But this would be impossible if penance were continuous,
for it consists in weeping and tears. Therefore penance cannot be
continuous.
Objection 2: Further, man ought to rejoice at every good work,
according to Ps. 99:1: "Serve ye the Lord with gladness. " Now to do
penance is a good work. Therefore man should rejoice at it. But man
cannot rejoice and grieve at the same time, as the Philosopher declares
(Ethic. ix, 4). Therefore a penitent cannot grieve continually for his
past sins, which is essential to penance. Therefore penance cannot be
continuous.
Objection 3: Further, the Apostle says (2 Cor. 2:7): "Comfort him,"
viz. the penitent, "lest perhaps such an one be swallowed up with
overmuch sorrow. " But comfort dispels grief, which is essential to
penance. Therefore penance need not be continuous.
On the contrary, Augustine says in his book on Penance [*De vera et
falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown]: "In doing
penance grief should be continual. "
I answer that, One is said to repent in two ways, actually and
habitually. It is impossible for a man continually to repent actually.
for the acts, whether internal or external, of a penitent must needs be
interrupted by sleep and other things which the body needs. Secondly, a
man is said to repent habitually. and thus he should repent
continually, both by never doing anything contrary to penance, so as to
destroy the habitual disposition of the penitent, and by being resolved
that his past sins should always be displeasing to him.
Reply to Objection 1: Weeping and tears belong to the act of external
penance, and this act needs neither to be continuous, nor to last until
the end of life, as stated above [4728](A[8]): wherefore it is
significantly added: "For there is a reward for thy work. " Now the
reward of the penitent's work is the full remission of sin both as to
guilt and as to punishment; and after receiving this reward there is no
need for man to proceed to acts of external penance. This, however,
does not prevent penance being continual, as explained above.
Reply to Objection 2: Of sorrow and joy we may speak in two ways:
first, as being passions of the sensitive appetite; and thus they can
no. wise be together, since they are altogether contrary to one
another, either on the part of the object (as when they have the same
object), or at least on the part of the movement, for joy is with
expansion [*Cf. [4729]FS, Q[33], A[1]] of the heart, whereas sorrow is
with contraction; and it is in this sense that the Philosopher speaks
in Ethic. ix. Secondly, we may speak of joy and sorrow as being simple
acts of the will, to which something is pleasing or displeasing.
Accordingly, they cannot be contrary to one another, except on the part
of the object, as when they concern the same object in the same
respect, in which way joy and sorrow cannot be simultaneous, because
the same thing in the same respect cannot be pleasing and displeasing.
If, on the other hand, joy and sorrow, understood thus, be not of the
same object in the same respect, but either of different objects, or of
the same object in different respects, in that case joy and sorrow are
not contrary to one another, so that nothing hinders a man from being
joyful and sorrowful at the same time---for instance, if we see a good
man suffer, we both rejoice at his goodness and at the same time grieve
for his suffering. In this way a man may be displeased at having
sinned, and be pleased at his displeasure together with his hope for
pardon, so that his very sorrow is a matter of joy. Hence Augustine
says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the authorship of which is
unknown]: "The penitent should ever grieve and rejoice at his grief. "
If, however, sorrow were altogether incompatible with joy, this would
prevent the continuance, not of habitual penance, but only of actual
penance.
Reply to Objection 3: According to the Philosopher (Ethic. ii, 3,6,7,9)
it belongs to virtue to establish the mean in the passions. Now the
sorrow which, in the sensitive appetite of the penitent, arises from
the displeasure of his will, is a passion; wherefore it should be
moderated according to virtue, and if it be excessive it is sinful,
because it leads to despair, as the Apostle teaches (2 Cor. 2:7),
saying: "Lest such an one be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. "
Accordingly comfort, of which the Apostle speaks, moderates sorrow but
does not destroy it altogether.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the sacrament of Penance may be repeated?
Objection 1: It would seem that the sacrament of Penance should not be
repeated. For the Apostle says (Heb. 6:4, seqq. ): "It is impossible for
those, who were once illuminated, have tasted also the heavenly gift,
and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost . . . and are fallen away, to
be renewed again to penance. " Now whosoever have done penance, have
been illuminated, and have received the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Therefore whosoever sin after doing penance, cannot do penance again.
Objection 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Poenit. ii): "Some are to be
found who think they ought often to do penance, who take liberties with
Christ: for if they were truly penitent, they would not think of doing
penance over again, since there is but one Penance even as there is but
one Baptism. " Now Baptism is not repeated. Neither, therefore, is
Penance to be repeated.
Objection 3: Further, the miracles whereby our Lord healed bodily
diseases, signify the healing of spiritual diseases, whereby men are
delivered from sins. Now we do not read that our Lord restored the
sight to any blind man twice, or that He cleansed any leper twice, or
twice raised any dead man to life. Therefore it seems that He does not
twice grant pardon to any sinner.
Objection 4: Further, Gregory says (Hom. xxxiv in Evang. ): "Penance
consists in deploring past sins, and in not committing again those we
have deplored": and Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii): "He is a mocker
and no penitent who still does what he has repented of. " If, therefore,
a man is truly penitent, he will not sin again. Therefore Penance
cannot be repeated.
Objection 5: Further, just as Baptism derives its efficacy from the
Passion of Christ, so does Penance. Now Baptism is not repeated, on
account of the unity of Christ's Passion and death. Therefore in like
manner Penance is not repeated.
Objection 6: Further, Ambrose says on Ps. 118:58, "I entreated Thy
face," etc. , that "facility of obtaining pardon is an incentive to
sin. " If, therefore, God frequently grants pardon through Penance, it
seems that He affords man an incentive to sin, and thus He seems to
take pleasure in sin, which is contrary to His goodness. Therefore
Penance cannot be repeated.
On the contrary, Man is induced to be merciful by the example of Divine
mercy, according to Lk. 6:36: "Be ye . . . merciful, as your Father
also is merciful. " Now our Lord commanded His disciples to be merciful
by frequently pardoning their brethren who had sinned against them;
wherefore, as related in Mat. 18:21, when Peter asked: "How often shall
my brother off end against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? "
Jesus answered: "I say not to thee, till seven times, but till seventy
times seven times. " Therefore also God over and over again, through
Penance, grants pardon to sinners, especially as He teaches us to pray
(Mat. 6:12): "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that
trespass against us. "
I answer that, As regards Penance, some have erred, saying that a man
cannot obtain pardon of his sins through Penance a second time. Some of
these, viz. the Novatians, went so far as to say that he who sins after
the first Penance which is done in Baptism, cannot be restored again
through Penance. There were also other heretics who, as Augustine
relates in De Poenitentia [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia, the
authorship of which is unknown], said that, after Baptism, Penance is
useful, not many times, but only once.
These errors seem to have arisen from a twofold source: first from not
knowing the nature of true Penance. For since true Penance requires
charity, without which sins are not taken away, they thought that
charity once possessed could not be lost, and that, consequently,
Penance, if true, could never be removed by sin, so that it should be
necessary to repeat it. But this was refuted in the [4730]SS, Q[24],
A[11], where it was shown that on account of free-will charity, once
possessed, can be lost, and that, consequently, after true Penance, a
man can sin mortally. Secondly, they erred in their estimation of the
gravity of sin. For they deemed a sin committed by a man after he had
received pardon, to be so grave that it could not be forgiven. In this
they erred not only with regard to sin which, even after a sin has been
forgiven, can be either more or less grievous than the first, which was
forgiven, but much more did they err against the infinity of Divine
mercy, which surpasses any number and magnitude of sins, according to
Ps. 50:1,2: "Have mercy on me, O God, according to Thy great mercy: and
according to the multitude of Thy tender mercies, blot out my
iniquity. " Wherefore the words of Cain were reprehensible, when he said
(Gn. 4:13): "My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. "
And so God's mercy, through Penance, grants pardon to sinners without
any end, wherefore it is written (2 Paral 37 [*Prayer of Manasses,
among the Apocrypha. St. Thomas is evidently quoting from memory, and
omits the words in brackets. ]): "Thy merciful promise is unmeasurable
and unsearchable . . . (and Thou repentest) for the evil brought upon
man. " It is therefore evident that Penance can be repeated many times.
Reply to Objection 1: Some of the Jews thought that a man could be
washed several times in the laver of Baptism, because among them the
Law prescribed certain washing-places where they were wont to cleanse
themselves repeatedly from their uncleannesses. In order to disprove
this the Apostle wrote to the Hebrews that "it is impossible for those
who were once illuminated," viz. through Baptism, "to be renewed again
to penance," viz. through Baptism, which is "the laver of regeneration,
and renovation of the Holy Ghost," as stated in Titus 3:5: and he
declares the reason to be that by Baptism man dies with Christ,
wherefore he adds (Heb. 6:6): "Crucifying again to themselves the Son
of God. "
Reply to Objection 2: Ambrose is speaking of solemn Penance, which is
not repeated in the Church, as we shall state further on ([4731]XP,
Q[28], A[2]).
Reply to Objection 3: As Augustine says [*De vera et falsa Poenitentia
the authorship of which is unknown], "Our Lord gave sight to many blind
men at various times, and strength to many infirm, thereby showing, in
these different men, that the same sins are repeatedly forgiven, at one
time healing a man from leprosy and afterwards from blindness. For this
reason He healed so many stricken with fever, so many feeble in body,
so many lame, blind, and withered, that the sinner might not despair;
for this reason He is not described as healing anyone but once, that
every one might fear to link himself with sin; for this reason He
declares Himself to be the physician welcomed not of the hale, but of
the unhealthy. What sort of a physician is he who knows not how to heal
a recurring disease? For if a man ail a hundred times it is for the
physician to heal him a hundred times: and if he failed where others
succeed, he would be a poor physician in comparison with them. "
Reply to Objection 4: Penance is to deplore past sins, and, "while
deploring them," not to commit again, either by act or by intention,
those which we have to deplore. Because a man is a mocker and not a
penitent, who, "while doing penance," does what he repents having done,
or intends to do again what he did before, or even commits actually the
same or another kind of sin. But if a man sin afterwards either by act
or intention, this does not destroy the fact that his former penance
was real, because the reality of a former act is never destroyed by a
subsequent contrary act: for even as he truly ran who afterwards sits,
so he truly repented who subsequently sins.
Reply to Objection 5: Baptism derives its power from Christ's Passion,
as a spiritual regeneration, with a spiritual death, of a previous
life. Now "it is appointed unto man once to die" (Heb. 9:27), and to be
born once, wherefore man should be baptized but once. On the other
hand, Penance derives its power from Christ's Passion, as a spiritual
medicine, which can be repeated frequently.
Reply to Objection 6: According to Augustine (De vera et falsa
Poenitentia, the authorship of which is unknown), "it is evident that
sins displease God exceedingly, for He is always ready to destroy them,
lest what He created should perish, and what He loved be lost," viz. by
despair.
__________________________________________________________________
OF PENANCE AS A VIRTUE (SIX ARTICLES)
We must now consider penance as a virtue, under which head there are
six points of inquiry:
(1) Whether penance is a virtue?
(2) Whether it is a special virtue?
(3) To what species of virtue does it belong?
(4) Of its subject;
(5) Of its cause;
(6) Of its relation to the other virtues.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance is a virtue?
Objection 1: It would seem that penance is not a virtue. For penance is
a sacrament numbered among the other sacraments, as was shown above
([4732]Q[84], A[1];[4733] Q[65], A[1]). Now no other sacrament is a
virtue. Therefore neither is penance a virtue.
Objection 2: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 9),
"shame is not a virtue," both because it is a passion accompanied by a
bodily alteration, and because it is not the disposition of a perfect
thing, since it is about an evil act, so that it has no place in a
virtuous man. Now, in like manner, penance is a passion accompanied by
a bodily alteration, viz. tears, according to Gregory, who says (Hom.
xxxiv in Evang. ) that "penance consists in deploring past sins":
moreover it is about evil deeds, viz. sins, which have no place in a
virtuous man. Therefore penance is not a virtue.
Objection 3: Further, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. iv, 3), "no
virtuous man is foolish. " But it seems foolish to deplore what has been
done in the past, since it cannot be otherwise, and yet this is what we
understand by penance. Therefore penance is not a virtue.
On the contrary, The precepts of the Law are about acts of virtue,
because "a lawgiver intends to make the citizens virtuous" (Ethic. ii,
1). But there is a precept about penance in the Divine law, according
to Mat. 4:17: "Do penance," etc. Therefore penance is a virtue.
I answer that, As stated above (OBJ[2];[4734] Q[84], A[10], ad 4), to
repent is to deplore something one has done. Now it has been stated
above ([4735]Q[84] , A[9]) that sorrow or sadness is twofold. First, it
denotes a passion of the sensitive appetite, and in this sense penance
is not a virtue, but a passion. Secondly, it denotes an act of the
will, and in this way it implies choice, and if this be right, it must,
of necessity, be an act of virtue. For it is stated in Ethic. ii, 6
that virtue is a habit of choosing according to right reason. Now it
belongs to right reason than one should grieve for a proper object of
grief as one ought to grieve, and for an end for which one ought to
grieve. And this is observed in the penance of which we are speaking
now; since the penitent assumes a moderated grief for his past sins,
with the intention of removing them. Hence it is evident that the
penance of which we are speaking now, is either a virtue or the act of
a virtue.
Reply to Objection 1: As stated above (Q[84], A[1], ad 1;
[4736]AA[2],3), in the sacrament of Penance, human acts take the place
of matter, which is not the case in Baptism and Confirmation.
Wherefore, since virtue is a principle of an act, penance is either a
virtue or accompanies a virtue, rather than Baptism or Confirmation.
Reply to Objection 2: Penance, considered as a passion, is not a
virtue, as stated above, and it is thus that it is accompanied by a
bodily alteration. On the other hand, it is a virtue, according as it
includes a right choice on the part of the will; which, however,
applies to penance rather than to shame. Because shame regards the evil
deed as present, whereas penance regards the evil deed as past. Now it
is contrary to the perfection of virtue that one should have an evil
deed actually present, of which one ought to be ashamed; whereas it is
not contrary to the perfection of virtue that we should have previously
committed evil deeds, of which it behooves us to repent, since a man
from being wicked becomes virtuous.
Reply to Objection 3: It would indeed be foolish to grieve for what has
already been done, with the intention of trying to make it not done.
But the penitent does not intend this: for his sorrow is displeasure or
disapproval with regard to the past deed, with the intention of
removing its result, viz. the anger of God and the debt of punishment:
and this is not foolish.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether Penance is a special virtue?
Objection 1: It would seem that penance is not a special virtue. For it
seems that to rejoice at the good one has done, and to grieve for the
evil one has done are acts of the same nature. But joy for the good one
has done is not a special virtue, but is a praiseworthy emotion
proceeding from charity, as Augustine states (De Civ. Dei xiv, 7,8,9):
wherefore the Apostle says (1 Cor. 13:6) that charity "rejoiceth not at
iniquity, but rejoiceth with the truth. " Therefore, in like manner,
neither is penance, which is sorrow for past sins, a special virtue,
but an emotion resulting from charity.
Objection 2: Further, every special virtue has its special matter,
because habits are distinguished by their acts, and acts by their
objects. But penance has no special matter, because its matter is past
sins in any matter whatever. Therefore penance is not a special virtue.
Objection 3: Further, nothing is removed except by its contrary. But
penance removes all sins. Therefore it is contrary to all sins, and
consequently is not a special virtue.
On the contrary, The Law has a special precept about penance, as stated
above ([4737]Q[84], AA[5],7).
I answer that, As stated in the [4738]FS, Q[54], A[1], ad 1, A[2],
habits are specifically distinguished according to the species of their
acts, so that whenever an act has a special reason for being
praiseworthy, there must needs be a special habit. Now it is evident
that there is a special reason for praising the act of penance, because
it aims at the destruction of past sin, considered as an offense
against God, which does not apply to any other virtue. We must
therefore conclude that penance is a special virtue.
Reply to Objection 1: An act springs from charity in two ways: first as
being elicited by charity, and a like virtuous act requires no other
virtue than charity, e. g. to love the good, to rejoice therein, and to
grieve for what is opposed to it. Secondly, an act springs from
charity, being, so to speak, commanded by charity; and thus, since
charity commands all the virtues, inasmuch as it directs them to its
own end, an act springing from charity may belong even to another
special virtue. Accordingly, if in the act of the penitent we consider
the mere displeasure in the past sin, it belongs to charity
immediately, in the same way as joy for past good acts; but the
intention to aim at the destruction of past sin requires a special
virtue subordinate to charity.
Reply to Objection 2: In point of fact, penance has indeed a general
matter, inasmuch as it regards all sins; but it does so under a special
aspect, inasmuch as they can be remedied by an act of man in
co-operating with God for his justification.
Reply to Objection 3: Every special virtue removes formally the habit
of the opposite vice, just as whiteness removes blackness from the same
subject: but penance removes every sin effectively, inasmuch as it
works for the destruction of sins, according as they are pardonable
through the grace of God if man co-operate therewith. Wherefore it does
not follow that it is a general virtue.
__________________________________________________________________
Whether the virtue of penance is a species of justice?
Objection 1: It would seem that the virtue of penance is not a species
of justice. For justice is not a theological but a moral virtue, as was
shown in the [4739]SS, Q[62], A[3]. But penance seems to be a
theological virtue, since God is its object, for it makes satisfaction
to God, to Whom, moreover, it reconciles the sinner. Therefore it seems
that penance is not a species of justice.
Objection 2: Further, since justice is a moral virtue it observes the
mean. Now penance does not observe the mean, but rather goes to the
extreme, according to Jer.
